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.
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.
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
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.
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.
And posting as AC?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Not by it's cover, by it's title. Which is not unreasonable.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
Not by it's cover, by it's title. Which is not unreasonable.
And apparently, you can reasonably accurately judge the book by it's title. Thanks slashdot, indeed.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
In fact, not judging a book by its title is just stupid. If you see a book titled, Python for Data Analysis, you can reasonably (and accurately) assume that it is not a mystery novel. And if you see a book titled, Missing Men of Saturn, you can judge reasonably (and accurately) that it's not going to teach you how to adjust a carburetor on a 1960's MGB-GT.
Anyone who has been to a library (I realize that might limit the test population somewhat) knows that yes, you judge a book by its title.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
... 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
They might be if they can help your guild/team/whatever win matches.
A dangerous game. I picked up a copy of Learn fad language in 24 hours the other day. It turned out to be a touching story about a boy and his dog dealing with the illness and subsequent death of his sister-in-law.
Required reading for internet skeptics
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
I'm sometimes asleep. Does that say anything about me?
Hmm... I'm going to guess you had a shitty American car from the early 1990s and that it impressed you enough to use it as a username. Which means, you probably got more life out of it than you could have hoped for, have some sort of affinity towards it, and it was not just a bargain but enabled you to be where you are today.
Also, I'd guess that it was a 93 Escort Wagon. Hmm... I'll say, LX version and red or blue but I'm going to guess red. I'd also hazard that you no longer own it and that you no longer own a Ford product, at least not as a daily driver.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
That or a bus full of prostitutes.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
http://bash.org/?14207
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.
Yeah well, I AM a prankster angel who can read in the Book of Destiny.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
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.
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.
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.
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
When someone (Francis Bacon, I think) said something like "it's the exception that proves the rule", by "proves" he meant "tests".
Alternatively, it just means that for something to be recognised as an exception, there logically must be something it is the exception to.
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".