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
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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
Guess that depends on how many digits the user id is.
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
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.
Fortunately, you're in the even larger group that can't distinguish between "its" and "it's" reliably. HINT: "it's" is a contraction of "it is", "its" is a possessive.
My I'm in a pissy mood today. I guess that whole post-pancreas thing is getting me down again.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"