Star Wars Fans and Video Game Geeks 'More Likely To Be Narcissists,' Study Finds (independent.co.uk)

schwit1 writes: Those who take part in "geeky events" are more likely to have an "elevated grandiose" level of narcissism, according to a study conducted by the University of Georgia. Psychologists examined the personality traits of those who turn to "geek culture," developing a Geek Culture Engagement Scale and a Geek Identity Scale to help quantify the figures. It was found that those who scored highly on both scales were more likely to narcissists. Subjects are scored on a scale of one to five, depending on how often they take part in activities such as live action role playing games, Dungeons and Dragons, cosplaying, puppetry, robotics — and enjoying things such as video games and Star Wars.

Comments

It's obvious

[gueryjones]

They're just mad that Georgia Tech students are smarter than them and this is their way of undermining them. I'm surprised that a UGA researcher can even spell "geek."

Re:It's obvious

[phantomfive]

Given that 70% of psychology experiments are unreproducible, it's most likely that they have not even found a correlation.

Re:It's obvious

[TWX]

well, it's just easier to coerce it out of geeks that they feel superior - even if they're fat losers and they know they're fat losers you can get them to give answers that would mark them as feeling grandiose. especially at a geek event(well why the fuck not, they're having fun there).

neo-nazis beat them at that score though.

Every counter-culture is a culture of its own. Counter-cultures, with a large enough sample size, tend to reflect the mainstream cultures from which they spawn. They're fractals. There are bullies, know-it-alls, wannabes, the self-righteous, followers, the artsy, and even nerds within every subculture. I've seen it through four major subcultures. Stereotypes like the Comic Book Collector on The Simpsons exist because someone is just about always going to fill that role with a large enough sample size. It just happens with that particular character that there are a lot of men that resemble that character both physically and in temperament, so it tends to lead to a bit of confirmation bias.

People also don't act the same way around separate distinct groups. Someone might be meek or quiet in a more mainstream setting but be very outgoing or as the article discusses, narcissistic when they're within the subculture that they are comfortable in. Conversely, someone in a mainstream group might be the expert, and be narcissistic or at least very confident, but when they're put into a subculture suddenly they're quiet or subservient because within that particular group their skills or interests or knowledge is among the least, putting them at the bottom of the pecking order. The latter is why MIT has alumni interview applicants, to make sure that they can handle the fact that they'll likely go from being at the pinnacle of scholastic achievement in high school to close to the bottom when measured against all of the other students in college.

Re:It's obvious

[Aighearach]

Yeah, inferiority expressing as apparent superiority makes it all a bit funny with these sorts of studies.

Also, opinions towards the value of humbleness screw up the results considerably. I've met people with extreme narcissism whose value system holds up being humble as being good, so they're incredible smug dicks who won't even descend their mountain for a conversation that they started, because they see themselves as being too humble to admit knowing anything about the stuff they're smugly knowing more than anybody about. You can talk to a person like that for a few minutes and figure out what is happening, but in a study like this it is hard to tease much that is correct out of the things they are explicitly willing to say.

I'm not sure if it is realistic to do this sort of study at all. It may be that better data is acquired observationally, and that "objective" data is of too low quality to be clinically useful. I think it is questionable to assign labels like "narcissism" that have extremely negative connotations based on anything but actual dysfunction, because it invariably requires subjective value judgments about personality ideals. If there is no dysfunction, they might simply be getting "called names" by researchers with conflicting personal values.

Delusions of grandeur

[JoeyRox]

Were C-3PO and Hans Solo talking to the audience when they said that in the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi?

Shocking

[rumpsummoner]

You mean geeks think they're better than everyone? I can't believe it. This figuratively blows my mind.

Re:Shocking

[Austerity Empowers]

No, just people who partake in "geek culture", which as far as I'm concerned is a new thing itself and frequently not representative of greater geekdom.

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed the exact same thing. I'm a rocket scientist IRL, over educated in the technical fields, strong interests in traditional nerd culture etc, but not so interested in the new geek stuff like comic book movies. I haven't even seen the new star wars.

There are a lot of people like me who feel coopted out of the culture they grew up with. I feel like I'm living n a cargo cult culture. It' difficult to discuss ideas because the broad and deep technical background is no longer there.

Re:Shocking

[ravenshrike]

Sooo, Neil deGrasse Tyson would be a prime example. Yep, it fits.

Re:Shocking

[Dogtanian]

I've noticed the exact same thing. I'm a rocket scientist IRL, over educated in the technical fields, strong interests in traditional nerd culture etc, but not so interested in the new geek stuff like comic book movies. I haven't even seen the new star wars.

There are a lot of people like me who feel coopted out of the culture they grew up with. I feel like I'm living n a cargo cult culture. It' difficult to discuss ideas because the broad and deep technical background is no longer there.

Shame I don't have mod points to help the person who already voted you up, as this is bloody perceptive stuff. Everyone's a bloody "geek" nowadays.

There's actually nothing wrong with being interested in some of that stuff, but just because you know how to install apps on your Android phone and know who Alan Turing is- without having any real interest in any of his actual work- doesn't make you a geek in the same sense as him.

I commented just yesterday that although people nowadays are generally *much* more tech-savvy in general than they were- say- ten or fifteen years ago, most people don't seem to know or care what a basic term like "digital" actually means. That's a synonym for online, or high-tech, or something, isn't it...?

There's a guy I know at work who ticks way, *way* more of the stereotypical "geek" boxes than I do- something I've actually joked to him about. He spends lots of time playing World of Warcraft (I haven't been into computer games for the better part of 20 years), was (genuinely) excited to see the new Star Wars film (never cared about Star Wars that much myself) and apparently collected overpriced plastic anime figures at one point. (Don't think he still does as much, but then he's in his mid-thirties and in a steady relationship now). He's also pretty outgoing and far more socially skilled than I am, (#) especially in the "one of the lads" context. (He also has tendencies bordering on the neddish when drunk). He hasn't shown any signs of being interested in science or any of the "hard" traditional geek interests- as opposed to technology- itself.

But he's not fake- he genuinely is into all that stuff. It's just that a lot of those "geeky" interests, as they've become adopted by more people, have ceased to be the signifiers that they used to be, either of deeper interests, or of personality type.

To be fair, even in the past, I doubt it was ever as clear cut as the stereotypes imply (even in the early 90s I knew a guy at school more skilled with computers than myself who was also sociable, outgoing and into the rave scene in a way that I wasn't). But it's probably even less so today.

Then again, I've come to realise that I'm not remotely a "true" geek in either the old "true" sense nor in the modern superficial sense and have probably been guilty of self-stereotyping and thinking I knew myself more than I did. So maybe I'm not the person I should be comparing others to, regardless. But that's another kettle of fish.

(#) It could be argued that the social skills- or lack of- aspect is somewhat more to do with "nerd"-ism rather than geekism. But there's nothing more geeky *or* nerdy than getting obsessed with the difference between those terms, so who gives a toss? ;-)

What is a geek now a days?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Subjects are scored on a scale of one to five, depending on how often they take part in activities such as live action role playing games, Dungeons and Dragons, cosplaying, puppetry, robotics — and enjoying things such as video games and Star Wars."

All of which sounds totally nuts to me. In my day "geeks" were loaners. They did not have a big social circle. Not because they were basically unsociable. Mostly because they were interested in technical things, electronics, programming, maths, that most people around them had no idea or interest in.

When did "geek" become a word to describe game playing fantasy obsessed weirdos.

 

Re:We already know that Millennials are narcissist

[__aaclcg7560]

Extreme narcissism and self-importance are defining traits of the Baby Boomer generation!

FTFY - Signed, Gen Xer

Inflammatory article, study taken out-of-context

[MobyDisk]

This article is horrible.

Narcisissm was but one of the many things the study correlated with geekdom. Yet the article by "The Independent" talked about only that one aspect. The study actually doesn't include Star Wars as an example of geekdom since Star Wars is mainstream. The study does consider someone a geek if they mix "Star Wars" with zombies. Yet The Independent started their headline with that "Star Wars" - probably because it is so popular in the news right now and people will have knee jerk emotional reactions to it.

I am sad that Slashdot chose to link to this article, rather than to the study itself which is completely free, reasonably short, and paints a different and more interesting picture. It talks about geek involvement with family, the political process, civic organizations, and long-term life goals. It even explains how the term "narcissism" is used differently in the clinical context and might be misinterpreted when used without the relevant context. Yet that is exactly what The Independent did.

Newsflash: Subjects willing to take tests are...

[RyanFenton]

Newsflash: Folks willing to be interviewed on being 'geeky' tend to be gregarious and be quite optimistic about their own potential. Shy/anti-social 'geeks' not measured.

Everyone's got a mixed bag of ignorance and hangups - and folks who self-label as 'geeky' in public are folks who project a willingness to focus and specialize on a small range of subjects that they admire. Many others are going to be shy or antisocial, or unwilling to put up with a 'geeky' label.

BREAKING NEWS: DJs and Rap Artists also found to be frequently narcisistic! 'Fronting' found to be a very helpful form of marketing, and method of promoting causes in a comedic and exaggerated manner.

FURTHER BREAKING NEWS: 'Profesional'-style wrestlers and independent entertainment wrestling groups also found to be overwhelmingly narcissistic, in a fascinating dual dynamic! When in 'face' mode, these entertainers will be narcissistic in a friendly way, and in 'heel' mode, they will be narcissistic in an overly flamboyant and violent way. These modes can change at seemingly random patterns, but usually near the start/beginning of a season.

OMG BREAKING NEWS GUYS: Actors and many others found to be narcissistic! In a similar dynamic to 'entertainment' wrestling, this same form of narcissism seems to be almost everywhere, in most professions with a public facing component. The dynamic of trying to gather a crowd with comedy and drama seems to be steeped with various kinds of narcissism, and reactions to self-overestimation.

It's almost as if people overestimate their own potential in order to motivate themselves to try difficult things, even if it means failure, because they might learn something or motivate others in the process!

We must stop this plague of overestimation before it grows too large! The only logical conclusion to this process will be everyone jumping off buildings because they believe they can fly. Yes. Geeks must not believe in themselves, or our world is doomed!

In other news, journalists frequently post articles they know has misleading information, or false or incomplete versions on of the science they're reporting on, because it builds drama and readership. Oh no - the narcissism is spreading!

And a recent paper showed the majority...

[Fragnet]

A recent paper shows the majority of psychological studies aren't replicable. So you know, jog on.

Re:Yet people say particle physics research is was

[thinkwaitfast]

Because it's the people in the social sciences who are criticizing money in the physical sciences.

*sniff* that I would live to see the day...

[Opportunist]

It's heartwarming that geeks are finally considered human beings.

kernel of truth

[AngelFrog]

i can see a kernel of truth in this. Many geeks, nerds and other various "outside the norm" kids will get rejected as youngsters. They get attacked because they are different. Nothing new here. Now if you get rejected by the main stream, you will take refuge in your own world/subculture where you are accepted. You can be as much of a big shot in the puppetry world as you are not in the general population. What looks to an insider like confidence acquired from knowledge and experience might look like "damn that dude is full of him self and for what? cause he knows all the squadrons involved in the attack on the first death star? Get over your self nerd!" to an outsider. When you have been rejected most of your life and you finally have people that recognize your worth, it is normal to look at your self a little more and like your self a little more. Then again, there are self centered assholes in all walks of life, geeks included.

Re: Yet people say particle physics research is wa

[BouncingBob]

Actually, social scientists are constantly told their research is useless - maybe you haven't noticed because it's not your ox being gored.

"Video Game Geeks"?

[schitso]

So, gamers?

Another BS pyche study, Here Is Why

[johncandale]

Note they didn't even say how much more, just that they were "more likely to be narcissist".

Also note, from the paper "Separate from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), narcissism is a normal personality trait characterized by a grandiose sense of self as well as efforts to maintain that sense of self in the face of reality "

----- "narcissism is a normal personality trait ", -study

That is the problem with psyche studies, loose inter-definable terms like narcissism. They didn't find people with a NPD (even if they did, that diagnosis tool is highly suspect). You could rename the study "people with higher self esteem go to geek events" if you just use a few different words with different connotation but same measurably.

Another problem with psyche studies is they relay on self reported feelings, which are highly suspect (people don't say truth, they say what they think they should say or what they think of themselves)

It's like when shyness is renamed "anxiety" so they can sale you pills.

I could go on, one of their data points is "Real Life." Apparently DnD with friends is not real life. But is watching sports on TV real life?

From Study "(the great fantasy migration hypothesis), to fulfill belongingness needs (the belongingness hypothesis), and to satisfy needs for creative expression (the need for engagement hypothesis)."

So the study found people do normal things to fill normal needs and the people that do them correlate with a sightly higher scale of something also normal (narcissism) within normal ranges that has a negative Connotation outside of psych research.

Do you get my point yet about the problems with psych research?

Re:#1 Fan

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a study. It is a meta-study of seven other studies, written by experts in finding narcissism everywhere.