The culture where play is shameful (2012)(psychologytoday.com)
psychologytoday.com
The culture where play is shameful (2012)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201207/all-work-and-no-play-make-the-baining-the-dullest-culture-earth
13 comments
> Jared Diamond speculates various reasons for why the people there didn't develop into a post-hunter-gatherer civilization (or much beyond that). While much of his work has been disputed
So it would be a waste of time to read Guns Germs and Steel, since it is mostly disputed? What would be a good alternative then?
So it would be a waste of time to read Guns Germs and Steel, since it is mostly disputed? What would be a good alternative then?
He makes some interesting observations, but stretches some of the conclusions quite a bit. Basically suffers from a lot of confirmation bias. Tends to ignore or overlook contradictory evidence.
Definitely agree with that. Especially about the domestication large fauna in North America. How can you completely ignore the buffalo?
He answers some questions here, also about bison domestication: http://jareddiamond.org/Jared_Diamond/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel...
(according to this link I just googled, American buffalos are actually bisons http://www.diffen.com/difference/Bison_vs_Buffalo )
(according to this link I just googled, American buffalos are actually bisons http://www.diffen.com/difference/Bison_vs_Buffalo )
I read it, and it seems like crap.
"When I ask American readers and animal handlers familiar with bison the possible reasons for bison non-domestication, they mention two factors: unpredictable dangerous disposition, such that bison ranchers remain wary of them; and ability to jump fences, such they could not be penned until modern strong high fences became available."
First off, Bulls can definitely have nasty dispositions, and secondly they can definitely jump fences. I've personally seen a bull clear a 8 foot fence.
thanks for providing that though!
First off, Bulls can definitely have nasty dispositions, and secondly they can definitely jump fences. I've personally seen a bull clear a 8 foot fence.
thanks for providing that though!
I don't know anything about bisons. Are they domesticated these days?
So you would say they would have been eligible for domestication and native Americans failed to do so for some unknown reason?
So you would say they would have been eligible for domestication and native Americans failed to do so for some unknown reason?
I think you're making much the same mistake Diamond does, assuming that domestication is inevitable, and that if it doesn't happen, somebody "failed".
Well they failed by becoming subjugated by the European settlers, dying from diseases by the millions. That's what the book is about. I don't see a way to paint that in lovely colors? What about that isn't "failure"?
The argument here was that Diamond's theory is wrong because the native Americans could have domesticated the bisons after all. The claim that they are too difficult to tame is dismissed as "crap". Then it seems to me why they were not being domesticated needs another explanation (if the one from Diamond is not good enough). Just random chance?
The argument here was that Diamond's theory is wrong because the native Americans could have domesticated the bisons after all. The claim that they are too difficult to tame is dismissed as "crap". Then it seems to me why they were not being domesticated needs another explanation (if the one from Diamond is not good enough). Just random chance?
They are farmed. You can buy bison meat at any grocery store here (it's delicious!). So yes.'
There are about 200 thousand bison on 2000 farms in Canada alone.
No, I think it's still worth reading. It's just widely disputed.
/r/AskHistorians has an entire section devoted to the book, so it's had an impact
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views...
/r/AskHistorians has an entire section devoted to the book, so it's had an impact
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views...
Hm, I followed the first few links on that page and I remain unconvinced. It's been a long time since I read the book, but I remember points being addressed that the comments there claim are not being addressed. And I think sometimes they missed the point completely.
Anyway - best everybody make up their own mind, and remember that EVERYBODY has an agenda. Even the good people on reddit. Specifically, perhaps historians don't like it if somebody advances on their territory with a different approach (combining different disciplines). Their agenda is to push their methodology so that they get more funding for their research.
Anyway - best everybody make up their own mind, and remember that EVERYBODY has an agenda. Even the good people on reddit. Specifically, perhaps historians don't like it if somebody advances on their territory with a different approach (combining different disciplines). Their agenda is to push their methodology so that they get more funding for their research.
I usually hear it compared to 1491, which I think is much better regarded. (I loved it. I haven't read Guns Germs and Steel.)
It's also really important to remember you're reading a book and not having Truth distilled into your brain. 1421 was another fun read, but the author wrote a third book saying that, while he still thinks China traveled to the New World in 1421, he now thinks the Atlanteans made an earlier journey.
Do you have a citation for "much of Jared Diamond's work is disputed"? Apart from anything a proponent of evolution theory say being disputed, because creationists exist?
I am only aware of controversy about the Easter Islands which he described in "Collapse". One paper claimed the extinction of trees was actually because of rats, not because of their excessive consumption by the people for building their statues. Then I think I heard the rats theory to be disproved and replaced by something else.
I don't think that necessarily disproves the gist of his argument.
I am only aware of controversy about the Easter Islands which he described in "Collapse". One paper claimed the extinction of trees was actually because of rats, not because of their excessive consumption by the people for building their statues. Then I think I heard the rats theory to be disproved and replaced by something else.
I don't think that necessarily disproves the gist of his argument.
Ugh, that culture sounds like hell on earth. I am amazed by the unique capability of humans to take our most ingrained needs and desires and turn them into shame. Whether it be sex, or food, or "wasting time", or even just displays of emotion, we have somehow managed to turn these most central of human feelings into something bad. I'm not arguing that we should completely give ourselves over to our base urges, but acknowledging they exist, that everyone has them, and that they can be a wonderful thing would be a great start.
A friend of mine said "people feel uncomfortable when they see others doing things they they themselves want to do." While like you, I don't endorse abuse of any of the good things in life, since they lose value, I think the saying "to each his own" is apt. Until the day comes, if it ever does, when people don't "shame" others for their desires, do what makes you happy.
Shame is a tool we humans use to control one another. If we can trick someone into feeling ashamed of their own very existence, we can turn them into a slave.
Vices are obviously destructive when over-indulged. It's not astounding that we developed cultural mores that err on the more conservative side.
> I'm not arguing that we should completely give ourselves over to our base urges, but acknowledging they exist, that everyone has them, and that they can be a wonderful thing would be a great start.
As soon as you say something like this, you concede the argument.
You are equating human happiness with "giving in to base urges," which couldn't be further from the truth.
As soon as you say something like this, you concede the argument.
You are equating human happiness with "giving in to base urges," which couldn't be further from the truth.
By "base urges", I mean that quite literally, and not with a negative connotation. I mean the most fundamental of human needs: food, sex, emotional expression. I mean that we should take delight in a great meal, but not to the point that we overdose on food to the point where it's harmful and no longer pleasurable. Same thing goes for sex and emotional expression.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is useful to point at in this sort of conversation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
People find happiness in very different things. And be more careful while using the term "truth" for something that only applies to you and other people similar to you.
I meant what I said.
Nobody can experience happiness by giving in to whims and random urges without considering the long term.
However, the good for a human being does consist in enjoying life and experiencing good emotion.
So, this was a false dichotomy:
> I'm not arguing that we should completely give ourselves over to our base urges, but acknowledging they exist, that everyone has them, and that they can be a wonderful thing would be a great start.
To be specific, the options are not: deny pleasure on the one hand, or give in to short-term base urges on the other hand with no thought to the consequences.
That is a false dichotomy.
Nobody can experience happiness by giving in to whims and random urges without considering the long term.
However, the good for a human being does consist in enjoying life and experiencing good emotion.
So, this was a false dichotomy:
> I'm not arguing that we should completely give ourselves over to our base urges, but acknowledging they exist, that everyone has them, and that they can be a wonderful thing would be a great start.
To be specific, the options are not: deny pleasure on the one hand, or give in to short-term base urges on the other hand with no thought to the consequences.
That is a false dichotomy.
Ugh, that culture sounds like hell on earth.
To you, yes. However I am sure there are currently X number of capitalists who are seeing this as an opportunity. I mean who is a better person to hire than someone whose entire self worth is based on having no fun and being productive all their waking hours.
To you, yes. However I am sure there are currently X number of capitalists who are seeing this as an opportunity. I mean who is a better person to hire than someone whose entire self worth is based on having no fun and being productive all their waking hours.
It's funny that you make that point because from the descriptions they sound like they could possibly be the only working communist society. Communism only works if you have zero imagination and zero ambition and just accept your lot in life.
It's long been observed that large firms are like communism "on the inside".
Okay, even buying into your caricature of capitalism, there are too many people making money selling entertainment for it to lead to this.
the comment thread is excellent, and a lot more insightful than the article (which was interesting, but seemed a bit simplified and superficial to me). note especially the comments from actual baining people.
The thread was very interesting, but I didn't see any posts by Baining people, which would be very interesting to me. Can you provide a link or the usernames they were using so I can search?
I looked through and saw only one, "Ngorana".
Thanks. I'm reposing here because I found it hard to find:
You think you understand??
Submitted by Ngorana of Sinivit, South Coast Baining, Papua New Guinea on August 7, 2012 - 7:49pm
I agree that some cultures and child rearing and discipline can be restrictive, but brought up in a similar manner does not mean that we do not value our upbringing - and i do not see it as 'dull' or 'boring' or 'wrong'! From what I think, in the western society, perception of play and the correct form of discipline to be practiced on children is very different from the most cultures in the east.
I must say, that in the previous works stated in the essay, of the Baining people saying little or nothing in interviews is due to the fact, that if you are not a member (specifically foreigner) of the concerned society amongst the Bainings, than you do not necessarily need to acquire knowledge of their cultural or philosophical way of life - except if you are 'married' into the society, adopted or asked to be part of the society. Baining people are very careful with what they say, and to who, especially about cultural practices - it is a taboo to inform foreigners about this. We are people of little talk. We believe more in actions, and that people must read and interpret them correctly. Something of which our children are taught.
For Baining's of Sinivit of the south coast for example, play is accepted and taken as time-out. However, adults instill in children that working such as chopping fire wood, diving for fish, gardening, building houses, hunting and gathering is crucial in sustaining your self and your land - especially for males at a later age. Children are taught to be independent and self sufficient and less dependent on their parents or elders at a very young age. This whole concept of not allowing play in our daily lives to me is WRONG. The notion of them becoming young women or men one day is embedded into our thoughts by our elders, and that how we are brought up by them will determine what type of adults we will become. In return, the very existence and state of our land (our heritage) and its affairs depend greatly on our actions. We are taught to become hard workers and very private about our cultural affairs.
You see, before the colonial era, we the Baining's inhabited the whole of the land of East New Britain. Invasion by a neighboring cultural group - the 'Tolai' people, forced us into the jungles and coastal area due south of the province. Our forefathers lost most of our valuable land, and people to cannibalism, practiced amongst these invaders. Then during the colonial area, the Germans enslaved them, forcing them into mining our alluvial gold and carrying them hundreds of kilometers inland and storing them away, in what was considered as sacred land - biding us against our cultural beliefs. Stories of these past events have further created a sense of secrecy in protecting our cultural ways (specifically the fire dance), and our land especially.
Baining people do not depend on other related societies to survive out in the natural environment, and land and sea is seen as a commodity of which is treasured and priceless. 'You reap what you sow', is highly emphasized in our cultural society - something of which may be deemed archaic in biblical times....
And so, in my opinion the essay composed by Dr Grey based on some the works of Fajan's is quite biased if you ask me. People do not have the right to be 'frustrated' when studying foreign cultures - you simply have to endure it, or stop wasting your time. Culture is not just something you record, observe and interpret over time, its how well you integrate yourself into the traditions, beliefs and practices of the people of that particular heritage and understand it and its people. Most importantly, you must respect these aspects, as not one culture no matter how much you see it as perfect, is seen as perfect or the correct practice for different cultural societies.
You think you understand??
Submitted by Ngorana of Sinivit, South Coast Baining, Papua New Guinea on August 7, 2012 - 7:49pm
I agree that some cultures and child rearing and discipline can be restrictive, but brought up in a similar manner does not mean that we do not value our upbringing - and i do not see it as 'dull' or 'boring' or 'wrong'! From what I think, in the western society, perception of play and the correct form of discipline to be practiced on children is very different from the most cultures in the east.
I must say, that in the previous works stated in the essay, of the Baining people saying little or nothing in interviews is due to the fact, that if you are not a member (specifically foreigner) of the concerned society amongst the Bainings, than you do not necessarily need to acquire knowledge of their cultural or philosophical way of life - except if you are 'married' into the society, adopted or asked to be part of the society. Baining people are very careful with what they say, and to who, especially about cultural practices - it is a taboo to inform foreigners about this. We are people of little talk. We believe more in actions, and that people must read and interpret them correctly. Something of which our children are taught.
For Baining's of Sinivit of the south coast for example, play is accepted and taken as time-out. However, adults instill in children that working such as chopping fire wood, diving for fish, gardening, building houses, hunting and gathering is crucial in sustaining your self and your land - especially for males at a later age. Children are taught to be independent and self sufficient and less dependent on their parents or elders at a very young age. This whole concept of not allowing play in our daily lives to me is WRONG. The notion of them becoming young women or men one day is embedded into our thoughts by our elders, and that how we are brought up by them will determine what type of adults we will become. In return, the very existence and state of our land (our heritage) and its affairs depend greatly on our actions. We are taught to become hard workers and very private about our cultural affairs.
You see, before the colonial era, we the Baining's inhabited the whole of the land of East New Britain. Invasion by a neighboring cultural group - the 'Tolai' people, forced us into the jungles and coastal area due south of the province. Our forefathers lost most of our valuable land, and people to cannibalism, practiced amongst these invaders. Then during the colonial area, the Germans enslaved them, forcing them into mining our alluvial gold and carrying them hundreds of kilometers inland and storing them away, in what was considered as sacred land - biding us against our cultural beliefs. Stories of these past events have further created a sense of secrecy in protecting our cultural ways (specifically the fire dance), and our land especially.
Baining people do not depend on other related societies to survive out in the natural environment, and land and sea is seen as a commodity of which is treasured and priceless. 'You reap what you sow', is highly emphasized in our cultural society - something of which may be deemed archaic in biblical times....
And so, in my opinion the essay composed by Dr Grey based on some the works of Fajan's is quite biased if you ask me. People do not have the right to be 'frustrated' when studying foreign cultures - you simply have to endure it, or stop wasting your time. Culture is not just something you record, observe and interpret over time, its how well you integrate yourself into the traditions, beliefs and practices of the people of that particular heritage and understand it and its people. Most importantly, you must respect these aspects, as not one culture no matter how much you see it as perfect, is seen as perfect or the correct practice for different cultural societies.
Incredible comment. Maybe link to the source?
too late to edit my comment, but here it is
https://www.psychologytoday.com/comment/246571#comment-24657...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/comment/246571#comment-24657...
my mistake, there was one other commenter i thought was baining, but on rereading it turned out i was mistaken. ngorana is indeed the only one.
It's like an alien culture out of a Star Trek episode.
Play is not an anomaly, but the essence of personal and technological development. The fuel of progress is play and Learning by example is no substitute for trial and error. On top of that, a play-less culture is not resilient at all, and therefore prone to extinction.
Play is not an anomaly, but the essence of personal and technological development. The fuel of progress is play and Learning by example is no substitute for trial and error. On top of that, a play-less culture is not resilient at all, and therefore prone to extinction.
I believe one of the most difficult aspects of anthropology is to extract ones own cultural biases from observations.
>> Play is not an anomaly, but the essence of personal and technological development
It's not that I disagree with you per se. Rather that you just stated baldly as fact, what are clearly just your own (and my own) biases.
>> a play-less culture is not resilient at all, and therefore prone to extinction.
Perhaps, but against that, it seems the Baining people have been this way for at least a hundred years. Perhaps considerably longer.
>> Play is not an anomaly, but the essence of personal and technological development
It's not that I disagree with you per se. Rather that you just stated baldly as fact, what are clearly just your own (and my own) biases.
>> a play-less culture is not resilient at all, and therefore prone to extinction.
Perhaps, but against that, it seems the Baining people have been this way for at least a hundred years. Perhaps considerably longer.
well they aren't exactly thriving using a modern understanding of the word. in a sense, they avoided extinction narrowly by not being found by a white dude with an evangelical streak at the wrong point in history
>It's like an alien culture out of a Star Trek episode.
Agree, it reminded me of the "Planet of Hats"[1] trope.
[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats
Agree, it reminded me of the "Planet of Hats"[1] trope.
[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats
The article reminded me of the "Country of Adults" from Kino no Tabi.
There must be some confusion, at least with too abstract concepts. Every evolutionary psychologist will tell you that "play" is how humans and animals learn - by imitating and "practising". It is related to social and especially matting "skills", or, a more correct world - "habits". Play is evolutionary way to develop useful habits. So-called "mirror neurons" meme explains social aspect of "play".
If this society isn't extinguished yet, it means that observed phenomena is rather a product if imagination and wishful thinking.
But nowadays everything written without obscene words and spelling errors could be considered " scientific".
But nowadays everything written without obscene words and spelling errors could be considered " scientific".
"She found, however, that she could study them by following them around and observing their daily activities and interactions."
Are you f$%"£ kidding me? This sounds like such a revelation but is so bleeding obvious.
Of course you have to observe people in their natural habitat, WATCHING them, not just sending them a SurveyMonkey survey or asking a buncha questions. C'mon people. Get real!
The author was contrasting Fajans approach with that adopted by two previous anthropologists, who had abandoned the tribe as "boring" or "unstudiable".
[deleted]
While reading this article, I mentally replaced "Baining" with "British". And sadly, it rang true.
If that were really true nobody would be trying to figure out why the UK is so unproductive, either that or we are working very hard doing very little (Said he on HN at work).
I wonder how this culture would transform if it were subjected to facebook.
Sounds like Asian parents, especially 'Tiger Moms'.
Reminds me of my in-laws who get this puzzled look on their face when I (rarely) mention my music.
I don't see how the early anthropologists would be so bored with this tribe. They sound so different than anything else and fascinating.
This shows how important play is to develop imaginary things like gods, rituals, etc. however, I do wish American adults played a little less. Whenever I'm in the u.s. or when American friends visit me they're constantly futzing around on their phone playing games. I mean constantly and nearly everyone.
Imagine how much you could accomplish if you used that time to for example learn a new language. And before you say that people need to take a break every now and then the people playing these games don't seem to be taking it easy - they're working really hard it!
So there probably is some value in shaming play, at least in adults.
This shows how important play is to develop imaginary things like gods, rituals, etc. however, I do wish American adults played a little less. Whenever I'm in the u.s. or when American friends visit me they're constantly futzing around on their phone playing games. I mean constantly and nearly everyone.
Imagine how much you could accomplish if you used that time to for example learn a new language. And before you say that people need to take a break every now and then the people playing these games don't seem to be taking it easy - they're working really hard it!
So there probably is some value in shaming play, at least in adults.
Those "casual" (not really) games are addictive without really being "fun" per se. People aren't playing at them, any more than they're playing a slot machine. They're just hooked on them, with social reinforcement by the same mechanisms as prime-time television (the water-cooler "did you get to see/do X last night" sort of conversation.) They're like viruses spreading through the population.
There are probably a few reasons why America has the problem especially badly—maybe an higher-than-average prevalence of ADHD makes this sort of addiction easier to fall into; maybe being the origin of these games and their first launch-market means we get saturated in them (and especially in their coordinated "viral PR" launch campaigns) in a way few other countries do. Really, I think it's just that the social pressure factor is stronger—we really like having shared private experiences to talk about at water-coolers. See also: soap operas.
There are probably a few reasons why America has the problem especially badly—maybe an higher-than-average prevalence of ADHD makes this sort of addiction easier to fall into; maybe being the origin of these games and their first launch-market means we get saturated in them (and especially in their coordinated "viral PR" launch campaigns) in a way few other countries do. Really, I think it's just that the social pressure factor is stronger—we really like having shared private experiences to talk about at water-coolers. See also: soap operas.
As a person with ADHD I actually think that it makes this type of addiction less likely, almost impossible. People with ADHD crave novelty and these free to play games are anything but novel. For example I spent several consecutive hours playing 2048 when it first came out. But after a beat it twice I never played it again it was boring. However I know one person who I know dosent have ADHD who still players it all the time on his phone. The very idea of doing that seams so dull to me even though I know he enjoys it.
I do actually have ADHD myself as well (clinically diagnosed and everything), and you are indeed right—ADHD makes it harder to get entrapped by such addictions. I was using the idea as a shorthand (which I guess by the downvotes is a Very Bad Thing I should never do?) America doesn't have an ADHD problem—it has a dopaminergic imbalance problem, but in the other direction which people don't talk about nearly ever. America has a hypomania problem.
The "Protestant work ethic" is what you get when social mores are mostly decided by people who are unable to get bored. Given that America was founded by such people, the gene pool experienced a heavy selection effect toward hypomanic tendencies and hasn't recovered since. (America's immigration policies only accepting what amount to extremely hard workers continue this trend.)
The "Protestant work ethic" is what you get when social mores are mostly decided by people who are unable to get bored. Given that America was founded by such people, the gene pool experienced a heavy selection effect toward hypomanic tendencies and hasn't recovered since. (America's immigration policies only accepting what amount to extremely hard workers continue this trend.)
It's more like the games are playing the adults. It's "Core Wars" on a cloud based scale. The goal is to write a program that can virally consume timeshare amongst the 'cores' (people) that comprise our world wide mainframe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_%28Star_Trek:_The_Next...
I've never played phone-games much, but enough that I wondered if I could find a better use for the time. I found one:
Chess
Chess works pretty well as a phone-game. You can blitz against the computer and work through endlessly non-repeating permutations of mid and late game play that you'd rarely see against human opponents. Playing against your cell phone does not adequately prepare you for human opponents on its own, but it does help you improve your game.
While being good at chess if of questionable utility, at least it's somewhat respected and can be used in social settings. It's viewed as a skill, unlike being good at flappy bird.
Chess
Chess works pretty well as a phone-game. You can blitz against the computer and work through endlessly non-repeating permutations of mid and late game play that you'd rarely see against human opponents. Playing against your cell phone does not adequately prepare you for human opponents on its own, but it does help you improve your game.
While being good at chess if of questionable utility, at least it's somewhat respected and can be used in social settings. It's viewed as a skill, unlike being good at flappy bird.
It's interesting to consider why it is that some games are respected and viewed as a skill.
I think what sets games like chess, and to a greater extent go, apart from trivial addictive games, is that they teach concentration, executive function, pattern recognition, and in some cases jumping up and down abstraction hierarchies, in a way that probably extends beyond the game's domain into life.
I don't know what to do about the morass of addictive games that are taking over human mindshare. There have always been some; even crossword puzzles are arguably the pre-computer version. They strengthen recall and concept association but how useful is that, since most of what's required is trivia? Scrabble at least is social (with the benefits that entails) in addition to strengthening recall of uncommon words.
I think what sets games like chess, and to a greater extent go, apart from trivial addictive games, is that they teach concentration, executive function, pattern recognition, and in some cases jumping up and down abstraction hierarchies, in a way that probably extends beyond the game's domain into life.
I don't know what to do about the morass of addictive games that are taking over human mindshare. There have always been some; even crossword puzzles are arguably the pre-computer version. They strengthen recall and concept association but how useful is that, since most of what's required is trivia? Scrabble at least is social (with the benefits that entails) in addition to strengthening recall of uncommon words.
Some time ago there was an article here about Croatia(I think?) making chess playing mandatory for all school children. The comments section was full of people saying that it's stupid because there is no correlation between playing chess and any skill useful in life. There are no studies that prove that playing chess improves anything, apart from....being good at chess. I don't know if that is true personally, but that was the vibe HN was giving.
My grandfather used crossword puzzles to help himself learn English, so while I'm personally frustrated by the Trivial Pursuit-like nature of modern puzzles, I wouldn't regard them with the same disdain I give the average Zygna or EA title.
I should note that you're taking this a step further than I was: it's not all "phone games" that are bad (is there anything that "phone games" as a genre have in common?)—it's just what are commonly referred to as "free-to-play casual social games" that are insidious.
You can have great game experiences on a phone! You can build good, fun games, either in-depth or casual, for mobile, just like you can build them for consoles. In fact, just because a game is "casual" doesn't make it bad! Some of my favorite games have been casual few-minutes-at-a-time pick-up-and-put-down things; non-time-based puzzle games (e.g. KAMI[1]) work especially well for this—they're functionally equivalent to doing a crossword puzzle—but even action games like Tiny Wings[2] can work if they're self-contained.
Then, of course, you can also have things like RPGs and action-adventure games, of just the same quality you'd see from a console.
The most important difference, I think, is that people don't tend to play the good games in the middle of a conversation. The good games are actually engrossing, and therefore can only be played as an exclusive action—you might see someone playing them on the bus, but never just fiddling with them while hanging out with friends. It's only the games with no fun-value at all that are capable of the "empty addiction" you see on people stuck pulling a slot-machine arm all day.
[1] http://www.stateofplaygames.com/work/kami/
[2] http://www.andreasilliger.com/
You can have great game experiences on a phone! You can build good, fun games, either in-depth or casual, for mobile, just like you can build them for consoles. In fact, just because a game is "casual" doesn't make it bad! Some of my favorite games have been casual few-minutes-at-a-time pick-up-and-put-down things; non-time-based puzzle games (e.g. KAMI[1]) work especially well for this—they're functionally equivalent to doing a crossword puzzle—but even action games like Tiny Wings[2] can work if they're self-contained.
Then, of course, you can also have things like RPGs and action-adventure games, of just the same quality you'd see from a console.
The most important difference, I think, is that people don't tend to play the good games in the middle of a conversation. The good games are actually engrossing, and therefore can only be played as an exclusive action—you might see someone playing them on the bus, but never just fiddling with them while hanging out with friends. It's only the games with no fun-value at all that are capable of the "empty addiction" you see on people stuck pulling a slot-machine arm all day.
[1] http://www.stateofplaygames.com/work/kami/
[2] http://www.andreasilliger.com/
When playing a game, you're just a mouse running around in a maze.
On the other hand, writing a game is creating the maze. This is far, far more engaging. It's like playing god.
On the other hand, writing a game is creating the maze. This is far, far more engaging. It's like playing god.
Imagine how much you could accomplish if you used that time to for example learn a new language.
I disagree. The best way to learn a language is by playing. Reading compelling stories, making puns and jokes, flirting with the natives, having some fun!
And I hold the same opinion with mathematics. You can learn to attack some classes of solved problems without having fun, but to be a mathematician you have to follow your sense of aesthetics. Now this is highly sophisticated fun, the kind that takes years to develop. But once you achieve it, it is bottomless, requires nothing but a little free time and it is so useful that our entire civilization runs on it!
I disagree. The best way to learn a language is by playing. Reading compelling stories, making puns and jokes, flirting with the natives, having some fun!
And I hold the same opinion with mathematics. You can learn to attack some classes of solved problems without having fun, but to be a mathematician you have to follow your sense of aesthetics. Now this is highly sophisticated fun, the kind that takes years to develop. But once you achieve it, it is bottomless, requires nothing but a little free time and it is so useful that our entire civilization runs on it!
> I don't see how the early anthropologists would be so bored with this tribe.
The stereotypical anthropologist studies foreign tribes by interviewing their members and observing their rituals. Rituals are particularly important because they yield a lot of data about a tribe's traditions and belief systems.
But if the subjects refuse to chat and don't seem to hold any rituals over the course of a year, I can imagine why the anthropologist might get bored. He's not bored because his subjects are uninteresting. He's bored (or rather, frustrated) because he's unable to do the work that he came here to do.
The stereotypical anthropologist studies foreign tribes by interviewing their members and observing their rituals. Rituals are particularly important because they yield a lot of data about a tribe's traditions and belief systems.
But if the subjects refuse to chat and don't seem to hold any rituals over the course of a year, I can imagine why the anthropologist might get bored. He's not bored because his subjects are uninteresting. He's bored (or rather, frustrated) because he's unable to do the work that he came here to do.
> I don't see how the early anthropologists would be so bored with this tribe.
Once you document day-to-day living, which is probably not too unlike most of their neighbors. The only thing left is to document differences. In this case "doesn't do anything interesting" pretty much closes the book on them and it's time to move on.
Other groups will have interesting myths, or variations of myths, games, dances, music, etc. These guys basically just do nothing, and there's not a whole terrible lot that you can write about that.
Once you document day-to-day living, which is probably not too unlike most of their neighbors. The only thing left is to document differences. In this case "doesn't do anything interesting" pretty much closes the book on them and it's time to move on.
Other groups will have interesting myths, or variations of myths, games, dances, music, etc. These guys basically just do nothing, and there's not a whole terrible lot that you can write about that.
What you're describing regarding phones seems more like an addictive compulsion than play to me.
I'm guessing they are boring because every day is the same as the day before. They have no religion, no beliefs, no customs. None of the things antropologists get excited about.
> Imagine how much you could accomplish if you used that time to for example learn a new language.
If they "play" Duolingo, they'd be doing both: having fun and learning a language.
If they "play" Duolingo, they'd be doing both: having fun and learning a language.
Playing game on your smartphone and learning a (new) language are not necessarily incompatible: I'm addicted to memrise, which is very much like a game in its mechanics, but is teaching me an awful lot of useful Japanese words...
thanks just signed up for this for French. Let's see how it compares to the excellent anki.
Url changed from http://io9.com/5929918/so-called-dullest-culture-on-earth-fr..., which points to this.
I can't help sometimes when reading anthropological studies or videos of a pre-modern civilization that a terrible amount of time is spent on rituals and dances and other things and perhaps the key is that other, faster developing groups of people simply found a different balance between work and these non-productive activities.
However, the Baining seem to represent the opposite end, doing nothing but productive work, and yet they aren't exactly the unusually advanced Atlanteans of PNG either.
So I was struck by this "and exhibited little curiosity or enthusiasm" and it kind of hits me how important imagination and enthusiasm are in the process of advancing things. Toil gets stuff done, but you're just running in place. Imagination is a kind of play, and it's necessary to move you forward as well.