Slashdot Mirror
Usernames Reveal the Age and Psychology of Game Players (sciencedirect.com)
limbicsystem writes: Your online name can reveal a lot about you. Researchers from the University of York and Riot Games have shown that information harvested from the usernames of players who signed up to 'League of Legends' can sometime reveal both their ages and how they behave online. And the short story is that both younger players and players with obnoxious names are more likely to exhibit toxic online behavior.
And "the short story is that both younger players and players with obnoxious names are more likely to exhibit toxic online behavior" is news? The opposite finding might be ... but not this.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
My username reveals nothing about me. :-( So I can be obnoxious online in anonymity.
Hang on, so you're saying XxX420xXxBlazeKrewN0SC0P3PHAGGOT is not a nice person?
What's with sociology and weasel words?
Toxic is meaningless. In high enough doses, water is toxic (and can lead to water poisoning). It's just a slightly stronger way of saying "problematic", which is another weasel word (everything has pros and cons - so everything is problematic).
Words like "toxic" and "problematic" just mean "I don't like it, and I think it's a bad thing on balance but I can't prove it". If you can't prove it's a bad thing for some squeaker to tell me to fuck my mother, maybe you should figure that out before researching its association with user names? Otherwise you're just finding ways to promote your own quirks, biases, and bigotry.
Knock me over with a feather.
#DeleteChrome
Only shocking thing is they think these results are something we weren't already aware of. When I used to play online MMO's we used to put both age restrictions as well as discriminate by names and various others items for clan/guild membership simply because everyone was well aware players under the age of about 20 and those that already think it is funny to insult or attack people in the names are simply people you don't want to be around.
In my experience, sometimes you need to research the 'obvious' because sometimes what seems clear-cut turns out to not be. It's part of the reason that people say things like 'data is not the plural of anecdote'.
And once you've done the research you have to write the paper to justify the expenditure of resources and time to verify the results.
I don't read AC A human right
The only thing that they will be able to find out about me through my nickname is that I may be not human :-)
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
"Toxic" has a rather specific meaning though --- it carries the notion of poisoning a discussion, so the word may be appropriate if this is the case.
"Problematic" is a general term that doesn't say anything about the nature of the alleged problem at all, only that it is one.
The only thing I learned from this article is that I'm too old to even be included in their analysis- ouch (1985 is the oldest birth-year they analyze).
Should cut the funding of the captain obvious department...
http://bash.org/?14207
What age are the original names? And do they use the age when I CREATED the name? (25 years ago, offline) or do they use the age when I first used it online (20 years ago)? Or do they use one of the many years in between then and now? I mean WTF. I have handles from when I was 10 years old BBS'ing. And the name is even on the list of legal names in Iceland. (did you know you have to have your name approved by the gov't in Iceland? But I digress.)
This whole concept is officially stupid. Only people who want to be known as assholes will pick asshole names. No News Here. NNH.
Have gnu, will travel.
"It is possible that players choose user names that reflect a personality that they choose to adopt within the game rather than one that matches their own real-world personality. We find this plausible to some extent (video gamers are, after all, playful) but the extreme nature of some of the obscene usernames makes it unlikely that they are chosen by pro-social individuals even as a form of escapism. "
Yah, that some good reasoni..err, speculation there, Ed. This study is kinda useless since in the Appendix, the researchers admit their findings don't conclusively say anything about the psychology of the users with "antisocial" (in quotes because researchers don't include examples of names they define as antisocial) usersnames. About the only thing they feel they nailed down was that gamers that had "antisocial" usernames and were likely to have negative team ratings are more likely to be younger players. (no duh).
"Finally, we have assumed here that real-world personality attributes are the cause of the online behaviour patterns we observe."
Yah, you know what they say about assuming, Ed.
So how do I skew the evidence? I chose my nickname in 1986 when I was young, and I still use it today. Since it hasn't changed at all I wonder how they presume to associate any "age" data with that.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
They are born to live online and be milked by social media marketing. Somewhat naturally dehumanized. Just include them in your business plans.
This just in! It can be tempting to judge a book by a cover!
Wow, thanks Slashdot. I wasn't sure, since it seemed like TOO obvious of a common fallacy.
ssj4gotenks69 doesn't reveal that i'm a 12 year old
Sounds like someone wanted to use research grant money to play League of Legends.
subjects over the age of 20 were not included in our analysis......The distribution of birth years from all servers between the 1985 and 2002 (inclusive) are shown in Fig. 2a.
1985 = 30 years of age.
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
"In my experience, sometimes you need to research the 'obvious' because sometimes what seems clear-cut turns out to not be."
Except when you have years gaming online that counts as research, if someone has played multiplayer games for years, that would be the equivalent of research fron a statistical standpoint (aka enough datapoints to draw a valid conclusion).
So, then what do the usernames of slashdot posters tell about the age and psychology of slashdotters?
I don't think that actually applies in this case. People who play games frequently have played with hundreds or thousands of people online, and heard their voices. There is no shortage of data. And if you thought you might have a personal bias, you could just ask someone with similar experiences, as they'll have essentially performed the same observations independently. While there is some value to doing things "formally", that value is probably very low in this case.
Back when AOL was still in it's heyday, I was dismayed to discover that not only did one of my real life friends apparently not know how to spell "awesome", but he was somewhere in the mid 600s of people to spell it wrong in the particular manner that he misspelled it.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
While there is some value to doing things "formally", that value is probably very low in this case.
On the other hand, you have 'lots' of graduate students who need to write a paper for their doctorate...
I don't read AC A human right
Mike Hunt.
... so it's part of being a douchebag and regurgitating trite sayings in an effort to sound intelligent instead of actually contributing to the discussion by putting forth one's own well developed views?
Well, it's certainly part of being an asshole to concentrate on something like 1/6th of what I wrote to, in a round about way, call me a douchebag.
Hell, I didn't even say it. I said it's part of the reason people say things like that. Meanwhile you ignored the parts of my post where I did offer my own 'well developed views', even if they're extremely abbreviated in the post.
To restate: You still have to check out what seems obvious because it turns out to not always be the case. Even if you simply confirm the expected results, you still have to document that for reasons that include funding.
I don't read AC A human right
Except when you have years gaming online that counts as research, if someone has played multiplayer games for years, that would be the equivalent of research fron a statistical standpoint (aka enough datapoints to draw a valid conclusion).
No.
Required reading for internet skeptics
You may be right 50% of the time but what does that mean?
For sure you can not tell. Video games are where people joke around. If you aren't joking around why are you playing a video game? Go cure cancer or whatever.
What you can tell is if the name is something trying to impress everybody... is that person is probably the type who tries to impress everybody. Other than that... somebody just wanted to submit an article using the word "toxic".
I've played video games since before the Atari 2600. I know this to be a fact.
I am not an alcoholic.
-DrunkenMaster1984
I'm sometimes asleep. Does that say anything about me?
That pretty much sums it up.
Considering that this is social studies it is fairly innovative. They didn't focus on misogyny in gaming communities for once.
That or a bus full of prostitutes.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
http://bash.org/?14207
the most toxic behaviour you can have in a online game is using cheats, and everybody knows cheaters use any kind of name, so that study has to be SHIT
Pussycat1 is older than Pussycat2736415 !
Who would have thought.
Except when you have years gaming online that counts as research, if someone has played multiplayer games for years, that would be the equivalent of research fron a statistical standpoint (aka enough datapoints to draw a valid conclusion).
Not unless you actually collect and collate the data and do the statistics. Otherwise, people are extremely prone to various biases in their perceptions, chief among them confirmation bias, where you unwittingly overvalue data points that support your belief and undervalue those that don't. To reach trustworthy, bias-free conclusions you must use a trustworthy, bias-free (as far as you can make it) process.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I presume it is known that younger people exhibit the more obnoxious behaviors online, simply because when you are a gamer, you observe this behavior, and it doesn't take an academic study to figure it out.
Now, I say "obnoxious" because it puts the behaviors contextually in the realm that they belong.
When someone says "toxic", they semantically put a greater weight on it. They give it a word that's supposed to be scary and instill paranoia, and the strong feeling that people are "problematic" and need "re-education" (okay, they don't use that last one, but guaranteed, it's coming).
That's how you know the person(s) who published this study aren't gamers. Because real gamers have been dealing with obnoxious behavior since they picked up their first controller (me: original NES in 1985; we had Atari and Colecovision, but I was way too young to use them back then), and they don't try to create a stigmatizing label over it. They keep playing. They return the smack-talk or they proceed to shut the mouthy bastard up by annihilating him.
Seems to me the only reason studies like this one exist is so some preening pseduo-intellectual can jerk him/herself off by reinforcing stereotypes about gamers being beneath them. (And yes, I'm aware that the study says that the obnoxious behaviors come from younger people, but since the word "toxic" was invoked, you can be sure that someone, somewhere will use that as evidence that gaming instills "toxic" behavior in gamers.)
-LaurenC
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
Sure, research the obvious, not disagreeing there. But when you find that what everyone thought was obvious really is that obvious, it's hardly newsworthy.
Yup, I admit it. The username I chose says a lot about me. Maybe too much.
Someone should devise a filter for various game servers that preemptively prevents them from joining and poisoning a community. Better yet, pen them up with their own and watch the chaos from a safe distance.
Well, you're obviously not a scientist.
Humans interact with other humans all day long, yet psychologists regularly discover surprising things about those interactions.
You clearly underestimate humans' ability to delude themselves and elevate their misconceptions above the facts that they observe with their own eyes.
Well, it's certainly part of being an asshole to concentrate on something like 1/6th of what I wrote to, in a round about way, call me a douchebag.
Actually if I ever desire to resort to calling you names, I'll do it openly and unambiguously. You won't have to figure out any implications or read between any lines to invent it. That you insist on taking it this way and refuse to consider that you may have misunderstood me is beyond my control. My point was that the practice you mentioned, while not inherently illegitimate, is so often mis-used by people (other than yourself) who act like douchebags that perhaps it wasn't the best example you could have chosen. It's the difference between a denotation and a connotation, and in this case the connotation has become negative, as though it's in the early stages of what happened to terms like "hacker".
Nah. You come off as a dick, he doesn't. You acted the prick in your post for no reason and got called on it. Don't be such a spaz next time. ;)
That pretty much sums it up.
Considering that this is social studies it is fairly innovative. They didn't focus on misogyny in gaming communities for once.
'Ethics in game journalism'..?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
For people who are accustomed to surprising outcomes, it's newsworthy.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
A geek site reported on something other than an article on misogyny in gaming communities for once.
FTFY.
http://bash.org/?14207
HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU TELL THAT I'M 13 BY LOOKING AT WHAT I'M WRITEING???
* Excess questions marks stripped to defeat lameness filter. Seriously Slashdot I'm trying to post it precisely because it is lame.
In my experience, sometimes you need to research the 'obvious' because sometimes what seems clear-cut turns out to not be. It's part of the reason that people say things like 'data is not the plural of anecdote'.
And once you've done the research you have to write the paper to justify the expenditure of resources and time to verify the results.
That still doesn't make it news.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It's probably just my old eyes, but the spacing between words in TFA made it really difficult to read...
In my experience, sometimes you need to research the 'obvious' because sometimes what seems clear-cut turns out to not be.
But I see no reason to report on it unless the results are counter intuitive.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
And people like to say "don't judge a book by it's cover". Nothing more disingenuous than that. We all self-label, present ourselves the way we want to be seen.
Username: MyAlternateID
Predicted age: 14
Expected behavior: smarmy, self-important cunt, tries to make self sound more intelligent than he really is by using far more words than he needs to.
Yep, looks like the research is valid!
But I see no reason to report on it unless the results are counter intuitive.
Well, as I said, in order to justify the resources, it does need to be 'reported' in the professional journals and such. Hell, just to prevent too much duplication of effort(verification is still good). But yeah, the general reporting on this indicates that somebody must of been bored.
I don't read AC A human right
But yeah, the general reporting on this indicates that somebody must of been bored.
Nice of them not to hoard that boredom.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
people who use the word toxic in such a sense are guaranteed bullshit.
Toxic behaviour is like "i cannot say its bad, then i would have to prove it".
I don't have any illusions about hiding my age or personality ;-)