I ran into this just a little while back. What are your thoughts?
In Monte's post, he states:
"It’s easier to be negative than positive. If I say something sucks, it’s much easier to defend that position than if I say something is good. This is of course, an extension of that ages-old sentiment that it is easier to destroy than to create."
And then goes on to add:
"Geeks, as much as I love them, seem particularly susceptible. Not just because we want to prove we’re smart (and discerning) but because we are smart. We do see the flaws, and ultimately everything is flawed. (This makes us very difficult to please.)"
What do you think? What are your thoughts?
Obviously his statement is not 100% true across the boards, almost nothing ever is. That disclaimer should not even need to be stated.
On average though the people I have met online an in person that play D&D are smarter than average. Of course I have met quiet a few exceptions also.
With that aside I don't agree that being able to find a flaw gives someone the appearance of being more intelligent. Being able to take something that appears to be useless, and making it work takes more effort.
Obviously his statement is not 100% true across the boards, almost nothing ever is. That disclaimer should not even need to be stated.
On average though the people I have met online an in person that play D&D are smarter than average. Of course I have met quiet a few exceptions also.
With that aside I don't agree that being able to find a flaw gives someone the appearance of being more intelligent. Being able to take something that appears to be useless, and making it work takes more effort.
My own thoughts on the matter are that it's more an attempt to encourage us to look within our own criticisms and examine them for personal balance between the positive and the negative. If that balance is not found, this challenge is an attempt to adjust it...or to try a more positive shift and see what it does to us, personally.
And being geeks, we will naturally re-evaluate that experience...based on our experience.
Does that make sense?
I think you have good points. I may also be taking some liberties with my interpretation, though, too!
My own experience is that the spectrum of intellect in RPG players is reflective of the spectrum of intellect in the community as a whole. We are no more or less intelligent than others, as a group.
Just my experience.
I should probably go back and edit my first post...one of his reasons for the challenge is that he's suggesting that there's a tendency to focus on "what's wrong" and then focus mainly on those things.
He's arguing that geeks can sometimes, though not always, have a greater tendency to do so.
Hence, he isn't challenging us to be Pollyanas; he's encouraging us to strike a better balance, and tossing out a challenge to do so.
On the rest, kind of agree with you. There's all sorts of intelligence out there.
We're already doing it. "Someone posted something they apparently like that Monte Cook wrote. I will quickly find something wrong with it, proving I am smarter then the person who liked it."
|
We're already doing it. "Someone posted something they apparently like that Monte Cook wrote. I will quickly find something wrong with it, proving I am smarter then the person who liked it."
Absurd and redundant.
Debate is based on argument and counter-argument, thesis and antithesis.
It is more likely a consequence of the format (online forum), rather than the character of the participants.
Correlation is not causation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thesis: It's easy to say what you don't like about something, but rewarding to find something positive in it. There will always be details that have flaws, so let's not get stuck on those.
Replies: He is wrong. I have caught the following flaws in the details of his article.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like what Cook is trying to do. Regardless of whether someone disagrees with how he came to his decision, one cannot deny that if the majority of the internet were to take this idea and run with it (and succeed), the internet would be more enjoyable for all of us.
But I predict that the rainbows and kittens would draw out the trolls like blood in the water draws out sharks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the full Monte (Cook article).
The simple idea of introspection presented is refreshing. I would say the idea is less about the negativity/positivity thing (though this is very important), but rather more about the idea of how we interact with others and how we interact with ourselves. What is the value of critical commentary? What is the value of complimentary commentary? What is the boundary between usefulness and harm? Should we be more selective in our commentary?
If nothing else, I find it philosophically intriguing.