Grumble.

Yehuda
http://www.come2play.com

… the latter could hardly be comparable …

Yehuda
http://www.come2play.com

Interestingly the report didn’t look at simple online multiplayer gaming such as Bridge or Chess, only MMOGs vs single-player.

Yehuda
http://www.come2play.com

Sure thing. I’ve been collecting data on U.S. biotechnology companies over the last 16 years. I’ll send you a copy, a transparent description of where it came from [as we always have to do when sending something off to to a journal] and even some raw data to get a feel for it. Then I’ll ask you to use the data to show that a relationship exists there. Of course you have to provide a transparent description of what you did. We’ll send the results to Morgan & Ola ok? If you believe you can use the data to show anything I ask for, I’ll post my email address so you can get in touch.

Well, I’d rather say that the more models we have for interpreting the world, the more likely we are to consider alternative and useful viewpoints/angles.

I don’t think there’s a direct correlation between more models and likelihood of considering more models. That’s akin to the argument that the more choices available, the better. Barry Schwartz, in The Paradox of Choice, makes a strong case that too many choices (or abstractly speaking, models of possible futures) can be debilitating, even paralyzing. The more choices, the less we investigate each unique choice, and the more we rely on the processes that practices, such as branding, manage to help people make decisions.

If research can provide decision makers with 3-4 perspectives rather than 1-2 perspectives then it might be for the better, if research makes decision makers trust only 1 perspective then it is bad.

There are situations where alternate approaches, and the mere availability of alternate approaches, to problems can be disastrous…

“Trusting” research is about recognizing that the more information we gather, the less risk of prejudicial determination, and the larger our context for making an informed decision.

Oh, ok. Well, I’d rather say that the more models we have for interpreting the world, the more likely we are to consider alternative and useful viewpoints/angles. “Hard facts” are usually not all that useful, our social reality is often too complex and personal to be grasped properly by simple theories. If research can provide decision makers with 3-4 perspectives rather than 1-2 perspectives then it might be for the better, if research makes decision makers trust only 1 perspective then it is bad.

Really? I don’t sense this need in me …

Debating the merits of the scientific method is a discussion worth having in only the right circles. For the most part, this level of critical thought is esoteric and best left to scientists. With that, I shall quote an unnamed scientist:

Gödelian incompleteness and Popperian falsifiability together necessitate that outside of a formal system of limited application, a “truth”, to have any measure of rational support, must by necessity, always be provisional, incomplete and falsifiable, in other words, there must always, at least hypothetically, exist some evidence which would permit that supposed truth to be rejected. This implies that outside of formal systems, the truth of a thing is not an absolute, but encompasses a range of probabilities which will have varying truth values (i.e. from “false” through “insufficient evidence to adduce a truth value” to “true”) depending on the evidence for or against such a thing.

All belief is essentially irrational, as belief can only occur where acceptance is not compelled, for if acceptance is compelled, then belief is not required to accept that thing. Belief is thus the acceptance of some thing as being provisionally true where: contradictory evidence exists which throws doubt upon or compels the rejection of the thing being accepted as truth; or where insufficient evidence exists to compel or suggest acceptance of the thing as truth.

All “truths” are incomplete, provisional and falsifiable. Anything that is provisionally true is at least theoretically falsifiable. The scientific method is the only effective means to establish provisional truths. Irrational belief is not a component of the scientific method. Rejection of evidence is not a rational action. Fabrication of evidence is not a rational action.

…and that is why all properly conducted scientific research is more trustworthy than instinct and untrained observation, why criminal investigators are not immediately persuaded by testimony, and why most civilized people in this world do not still burn witches at the stake. Smart people need—no, they require—research to affirm or negate their assertions before they commit to a decision.

Quite simply, “trusting” research is not about blindly accepting the results of any and every scientific experiment or market study. “Trusting” research is about recognizing that the more information we gather, the less risk of prejudicial determination, and the larger our context for making an informed decision. Granted, in-depth research cannot be conducted all the time, especially in time-limited situations; however, I think you’ll find Sutton’s Hard Facts at least somewhat interesting.

Note: all (useful) research of complex social phenomena have a strong subjective component. It’s a peculiar perspective, which might be useful, but not The Truth. Research does not provide the truth, at best a (limited) possible truth and hopefully a plausible explanation expressed in terms of causality. Though, this is difficult to establish in the social realm, and thus it becomes a interpretative (highly subjective) layer.

Okay…this is what I wish I had said. Here here!

Really? I don’t sense this need in me, I might need new perspectives, that might be useful… And what makes my (and your) research “suspicions” and this researchers findings not “suspicions”? Anyone who studies virtual worlds over a long period of time (even in their leisure) gather data and analyze their findings continuously. The difference between this and a so-called formal study isn’t earth-shattering. When are you willing to elevate something from “suspicion” to useful? When it is turned into countable units? There is more to describing reality than positivism.

And, how can you trust the findings from a limited laboratory experiment to apply to NEW games? That would be quite unscientific, wouldn’t it? “All swans are white” and so on, except in Australia. The (positivistic) scientific method would only hold under the assumptions that what is being studied is stable and easily measurable. Games aren’t, gamers aren’t, culture isn’t.

Note: all (useful) research of complex social phenomena have a strong subjective component. It’s a peculiar perspective, which might be useful, but not The Truth. Research does not provide the truth, at best a (limited) possible truth and hopefully a plausible explanation expressed in terms of causality. Though, this is difficult to establish in the social realm, and thus it becomes a interpretative (highly subjective) layer.

A critique of a study is one thing, a blanket dismissal of of scientific research is quite another

As he pointed out in his defense, he only said “any study or survey can be [framed]“.

I also agree with the following:

I agree that a blanket dismissal of scientific research isn’t called for, but neither is a blind adherence to every study conducted, with open arms and a welcoming attitude.

Scientists are investigators. Everything is suspect.

Do we really need research to figure out that social games are engaging and time-consuming?

No, but we need research to confirm our suspicions.