My philosophy teacher said something interesting, that in Germany and France, Hegel and Sartre, respectively, were like rock stars of their times and had the fame of someone like Justin Bieber for their day.
It got me thinking, why in the US, don't we give rock star status to intellectuals such as Terry Tao, Noam Chomsky, Alvin Plantinga, among many others?
I am mostly a lurker here, First time posting here.
I recently Graduated from College, (UC Berkeley Philosophy) I was studying abroad the last semester and went to southern California after the fact. The thing is I have no idea what to do. I found a field I might like from my college work (being a counselor/adviser). I liked working with students, but I have some doubt that might just because that is what i did for the last 6 year (6 years of undergrad...).
I do not have much direction other than I am taking computer Classes at a local Community College, but the thing is this feels like stagnation. I did this before as I had no idea then transferred to a great school. However this feels like I am doing the same thing. Distracting my self with school, get degree then not having a plan. While that might be okay the first time doing it again seems like a step backward of getting a degree.
To be honest I am not sure this make sense or if I lack motivation. However when I applied to "real" jobs I never got replies backs and going to school was easier (and to delay loans), so I ended up going back. I am not sure how this sounds and i have the annoyance that I am not moving forward.
What is the best way to re think this? I mean I have a degree in something I like, but when the people in the field are telling undergrads don't peruse it is kind of annoying. I know why after looking , but still after all this time I feel like I am not doing anything with my life. Any advice *_*.
In Short: I am panicking because I feel like I regressed, and in some ways getting a degree did nothing for job prospects or luck in this econ, I even moved back in with my parents :/
Have you considered a career which can be pursued with any degree, including yours in philosophy?
For instance, anyone can be an actuary, as long as he passes the actuarial exam.
Anyone can also become a software developer.
Considering you graduated from Berkeley, a top 3 school, you are clearly a highly intelligent and motivated individual, to the point where I'd think you'd be able to teach yourself computer programming or actuarial science.
Both are listed in the top 3 jobs out of 200, ranked by the WSJ
Learn a programming language. But one does not simply make video games. You need a programmer, an artist, a modeler, a sound designer, a story writer, and more.
As someone pointed out, it would take years to be proficient enough with computer programming to develop one's own game.
Your best bet is
1. Be a prodigy and teach yourself everything on your own. This could take years.
2. Go to school for computer science and try to work your way into the industry
3. Use pre-made tools without having to know programming (RPG maker?) but the quality of game you could make is limited.
A key statement in this preface is that he is seeking to draw a limit to thought. That does not mean to create restrictions for thinking. Instead Wittgenstein is setting out to show that that by mapping the possibilities and impossibilities of thought, we can describe the limits of reality. After all, if we cannot think it then it cannot be -- in our world at least. That is, for something to exist in the world (in actuality or imagination), it must be potentially thinkable by us, otherwise it could never register on our minds at all.
Now, someone might reply; "Well but what if there are things in existence that are beyond our human ability to imagine or conceive?" That seems like a fair objection, though now we must ask the obvious question; "What do you have in mind? Can you give an example?" The answer to that must be "No." If it is not thinkable, then no one can describe it or exemplify it in anyway. So, while the objection seems as if it refers to something, it really has no referent at all. This is what Wittgenstein calls nonsense. No because it is silly, but because a sentence has a sense just in so far as it refers to some possible state of affairs in the world. Even if it is false or ridiculous, a sentence has sense if it refers to a possible combination of elements. This is part of Wittgenstein's explanation of what meaning is. As already noted, the words;
there are things in existence that are beyond our human ability to imagine or conceive.
seem like an ordinary sentence, so we are likely to take it seriously (i.e. grant that it could be true). Yet, Wittgenstein's analysis shows that such a string of words has no referent (does not refer to anything) and so is without a sense -- is senseless -- is nonsense -- is meaningless. Such a sentence is neither true not false. Because only sentences with a sense can be true or false (the sense is what truth and falsity is based on).
My objection is this. There are things in existence that are beyond a dog's ability to imagine or conceive.
There are things in existence that are beyond a dolphin's ability to imagine or conceive.
Continuing with this reasoning, could it not be the case that there are lifeforms in the universe vastly more intelligent than humans are, which CAN imagine or conceive things in existence, which are above our human ability to imagine or conceive?
Basically, it seems like Wittgenstein is assuming humans are currently and will always be the most intellect lifeforms. There could be a more intelligent life form that could imagine or conceive of things we can't.
The advice we were given - this is before declaring as a philosophy major - was that you were better off getting a degree in one of a handful of other majors over getting a specifically pre-law degree. I declared as a philosophy major with the full intent of going straight into law school.
And that is sage and sound advice. Pre-law is one of the worst degrees to get if your end goal is going to law school. But, that does not change my (admittedly) anecdotal experience.
The reason pre-law is bad is because literally every pre-law major is applying to law school. Law Schools have to reach out to other majors (like engineering or other STEM degrees) to get people from there to go to law school. Basically if you go "pre-law" you are automatically making it harder to get in to most schools.
I acknowledge that there are people like you, who know that philosophy degrees (by themselves) are largely useless on the job market at large. But, there are a fair number of people who do not, and who realize it either during their last year in school or after graduating.
I have never watched "The Big Bang Theory" before in my life. I thought I would check out some clips. I now think I could be a writer for the show because I'm about as funny as they are, which is to say not funny at all. Here are some of my idea for jokes:
"Hey Sheldon, how do I speed up my computer?"
"Delete your system32 folder Penny."
"BAZOPPLE!"
"Hey Penny, do you know what schrodinger's cat is?"
"No Shelden, what is it?"
"BOJANGLES!"
The formula is basically:
1. Sheldon says something only someone with highly functioning autism would say.
2. Another character replies to him.
3. ???
4. "ZIMBABWE!"
Because after 20+ years of gaming, it APPEARS to me that video game quality is roughly normally distributed. It APPEARS to me that just as many bad games as good games come out, and just as many terrible games as excellent games come out, and that most games are clustered around average quality.
Because no one perceives 5/10 to be average. Much like the school grading system, they perceive it as a failing grade. The grade for average is a C, or a 70%. At least that's how it is in US school systems.
That would be perfectly fine if game review websites actually defined 7/10 to be "an average game." Instead, 7/10 is defined usually as at least "a good game." But the average game score is 7/10, which implies the average game is not in fact average. Do you see what I am driving at?
Or at least something similar? Approximately a mean score of 5.0/10 and normally distributed?
But they aren't.
By that, I mean the average game it seems should be around a 5.0/10, and most games (say 68%) of games fall between 3.0/10 and 7.0/10, and around 28% are either between 1.0 and 3.0 OR 7.0 and 9.0, and the final %4 falling between EITHER 0.0/10 and 1.0/10, OR 9.0/10 and 10.0/10.
I know I didn't articulate that well, but basically it seems like game reviews should follow this distribution
But most game reviewers do not use the lower numbers very often and far, far too frequently give out 8, 9's and 10's.
In fact, given sufficient hype, a game is almost guaranteed to score at least a 7/10 even if there are significant number of complaints about its quality.
For instance, Mass Effect 3, which granted I have not played, I know was universally criticized by gamers upon release....yet magically has a 92% rating on gamerankings.This isn't a thread about ME 3, but the general problem of not-so-outstanding games receiving outstanding scores all too frequently. Why does this happen all of the time?
It seems like games should be reviewed something similar to this where:
1 - horrendous
2 - terrible
3 - bad
4- below average
5 - exactly average
6 - above average
7 - good
8 - great
9 - excellent
10 - outstanding
Given this, we'd expect most games to fall between 3/10 and 7/10....but they just don't. They are skewed towards higher, inflated scores.
TL; DR Why aren't game review scores distributed as we would expect - normally distributed with mean of 5.0.....and instead distributed with a strong skew towards high scores?
In games in which the player chooses the player character's profession, he usually cannot choose to be a female dominated profession such as a teacher, nurse, or homemaker.
Yep, you nailed it. That's exactly what the feminist movement was all about: people being denied the opportunity to be homemakers.
Now you are committing the straw-man fallacy. At no point did I ever bring up feminism and feminism does not even make sense in this context.
Males in role play games should be allowed the opportunity to role play non-stereotypical gender roles, such as a homemaker (if it would make sense within the game's universe)
Professions that are stereotypically female such as a fashion designer, educator, nurse, or homemaker should be presented as viable profession options for male and female player characters.
That's what you claim to be against. Then you say this:
So I ask again: What is the "right" message to young people of what it means to be a man?
Evidently, your problem is not a gender role of what it means to be a man, because that is exactly what you are advocating above. Rather, it is that video games teach something contrary to your gender role.
There is nothing wrong with having a player character in a male dominated profession, such as being an infantryman. There IS something wrong with female dominated professions not being presented in an equally viable, positive light.
The game should show display service men and women in a variety of crucial roles that don't reinforce gender stereotypes.
If a game glorifies the infantry man, it should also glorify the flight surgeon who stitches up the infantry for his next battle.
In games such as Call of Duty, vital military roles typically deemed as "feminine" such as being a nurse, flight surgeon, or secretary, should be presented in a positive light, as much as the infantry role. No, playing as a nurse in Call of Duty probably would not make for the most engaging gameplay experience. I'm not suggesting Call of Duty become a surgery simulator. But the profession such as the surgeon should at least be shown to be a positive, essential role in the military.
The player character in Call of Duty should at the very least fight along side female combatants. The US military plans to have females in combat roles by 2016, but there's no reason why Infinity Ward cannot start with the next Call of Duty.
Games like Call of Duty unfortunately tell our youth that the only way to answer one's personal call of duty to serve one's country is to be a stereotypically male infantry man.
I want male player characters to be able to role play in female dominant professions.You never considered the idea that most role playing games are not set in a world like the Sims, but instead in a world where such professions either don't exist, would be wildly out of place, or would be entirely unappealing? Would you want to be a homemaker in Azeroth?
It's not necessarily essential to be able to play per se as a homemaker in World of Warcraft, because I'm not even sure how that would work, but professions stereotypically relegated to women should be presented as commendable societal roles. I don't know much about WoW lore, but a possible remedy for a game such as WoW could perhaps show in a cutscene how it is critical for male or female homemakers to raise the next generation of warrior youth.
Who's to say he doesn't? Have you ever seen his face?
There is nothing to suggest that Master Chief doesn't cry, but there is nothing to suggest that he does either. If that is impractical (since he does wear a mask), then perhaps Bungie could present player characters such as the Master Chief demonstrating characteristics that stereotypically only females display. I would love to see the Master Chief act nurturing, compassionate, empathetic, or remorseful, just to name a few emotions not represented in male characters.
1. In movies or comic books, the viewer is not necessarily asked to take on the role of the protagonist. Except that's exactly how comics, books, and other media work. We imagine ourselves as the protagonist. That's how protagonists function: we see the world through their perspective. The fact that we are not directly controlling them does not change this.
Let's use Batman for sake of argument. When reading a Batman comic book or viewing a Batman movie, the audience never has to make a choice for Batman and then face the consequence for it.
In a Batman video game, the player must make choices for Batman as if he were Batman. The player is asked to role play Batman for the duration of the game. (Not that Batman is an RPG, but the character plays the role of Batman)
In a movie, a viewer might project Batman's character onto himself, but he is not ever obligated to role play Batman, as in a Batman video game.
Define "stereotypically, idealized male manner." Are you implying that being strong, heroic, overcoming obstacles, and risking one's life to protect one's fellow comrades/homeland are exclusively male traits? If not, what is "stereotypically male" about Master Chief, aside from the fact that he has large muscles and is really good at fighting, both of which are traits shared by female SPARTANs?
I already defined the "stereotypically, idealized male manner" in the OP. "Unreasonably brave in the face of peril..." and the like.
In none of the Halo games does the Master Chief display any society-deemed "feminine" characteristics, presumably because that would imply weakness to the male audience.
Is Master Chief ever shown nurturing his comrades or being compassionate or emotional? No, because nurturing and compassionate and emoitional seem reserved for those darned female characters, and nobody wants that!
And it is disappointing that most of the time, this means immersing ourselves in the role of a white, cisgender, heterosexual, male I have no problem with promoting greater diversity in games. However, I find it difficult to accept your claim that somehow the majority of characters being either cisgender or heterosexual is a great shock, as though the human race were otherwise.
I don't know the percentages of which humans are cis-hetero, but I know the percentage is not so high that is would be unreasonable to include transgender or homosexual or bisexual characters in the narrative. And some games like Bioware do promote this, which is definitely a step in the right direction.
Frankly, I have a lot more difficulty thinking of a Jewish or Hindu video game protagonist than I do a homosexual video game protagonist. Which leads me to the point: unless the story specifically deals with religion/gender/sexuality in a way that requires the character to be a certain demographic, why does it really matter what demographic the character is?
But sexuality and gender is ever so pervasive in gaming.
Maybe not religion, but I never mentioned religion, and so once again you are using a straw-man argument. Attacking points I never made does not win you the argument.
Rarely does a narrative driven game not contain a romantic love interest for the player character. Our games shout, "This character is unquestionably a manly man's man and here is his unquestionably female romantic love interest!"
Do you think people would rather play a character who is handsome, brave, large, and violent, or a character who is unsightly, cowardly, small, and ineffective?
A false dichotomy, once again you resort to logical fallacies in your arguments.
There is not a binary as you present - handsome vs. unsightly, brave vs. cowardly, large vs. small, etc.
Humans fall along a large spectrum of packages, and you are only considering the two extremes....I suggest that player characters be presented along the full spectrum of shapes and builds.
At the very least on a subconscious level, modern games are devastating to the self-esteem of young men (young women as well, of course, but this brief essay specifically addresses young men). Why?
The male protagonist in today's video games is typically:
-Unrealistically muscular, tall, and large in stature
-Unrealistically brave in the face of danger and certain death
-Unrealistically handsome, attractive, and sexy
-Portrayed in a stereotypical male dominated profession such as a soldier or knight
-If the character is in the military, it is typically a combat role and not an equally vital nonviolent role such as say a nurse or flight surgeon
-Usually always heterosexual, white, and cisgender and he never checks his privilege or acknowledges his heterosexual, white, male, cisgender privilege
-To my knowledge, no mainstream game (or even non-mainstream game) has ever featured a love interest that is transgender
-In games in which the player chooses the player character's profession, he usually cannot choose to be a female dominated profession such as a teacher, nurse, or homemaker.
There are a handful of counterexamples in which one or two of the above tropes are not present, but the typical mainstream game unfortunately features all of them, and hopefully you can concede that.
Worst yet, players are nearly always encouraged to solve interpersonal conflicts using violence.
In the post-modern world, a player who solves in-game problems using violence (or at the very least gratuitous violence) should be heavily penalized and players who solve problems through mediation, negotiation, creative peacebuilding, and diplomacy should be rewarded extensively.
To my knowledge, there is no character-driven game on the market today which allows the player to peacefully resolve all conflicts. Some strategy games afford the player with some diplomacy options, among other peaceful resolutions, but these games are not character driven and typically don't even have a protagonist.
Tropes such as these send the wrong message to young people of what it means to be a man and what is expected of men in today's society. Playing games which features these tropes could be traumatic for a still developing young man.
Imagine a gay, transgender young man of below average physical appearance, who is probably already struggling enough with his body image and self-esteem. Popular games played by young men such as Call of Duty, Mass Effect, Gears of War, or Halo tells him that to be a "real man" and "bad-ass" he must:
1. Join the military and become an infantryman
2. Solve his problems through violence and physical altercations
3. Look like he can bench-press about 350 pounds
4. Use profanity among other vulgarity to prove how tough he is
5. Never cry or display stereotypically "feminine" emotions in perilous situations or when a comrade falls in battle
Worst is that gay players are subjected to exclusively heterosexual relationships. This is incredibly damaging to his psyche, to be forced to role play as a heterosexual player character, and it is unacceptable. And yet it is accepted, unfortunately. Role-playing games should represent all healthy orientations, sexualities, and genders as to not alienate their audience (Don't grasp for straws, I'm not suggesting immoral or unethical orientations such as bestiality, pedophilia, or incest should be represented in games).
Now some progressive developers such as Bioware DO attempt to remedy this by featuring homosexual love interests. This is a step in the right direction, but this is just one developer in the minority, and even Bioware does not adequately, if at all, represent transgender individuals in its games. Furthermore, a player character cannot identify as genderqueer, such as being bigender, the third gender, or agender.
A character-driven game which resolves a couple, but not all, of these complaints is Planescape: Torment. As far as I remember, (I played this game a decade ago) the game can be completed through diplomacy without any violent confrontations. Additionally, the character, despite being unreasonably muscular, is at least average or below average in his facial aesthetics. Alas, this game is an outlier which came out nearly 15 years ago.
I think in the coming years we will see the tragic effects of these insidious games in our culture. Worst case scenario, I expect that suicide rates will rise as young men realize they can't live up to the expectations of being a "real man" as presented to them by male protagonists in today's games.
No offense to you, because I am sure you are a great person, but putting this kind of label on something as trivial as a video game is quite asinine. It is like if you were to go through literature and claim these things about famous characters through time. Video games typically tell a story, and are thus, works of art. Master Chief doesn't cry because that isn't his character, not because it is focusing on setting a gender standard. He doesn't acknowledge his "privilege" because he had a horrible life leading up to the Halo story (Cloned, butchered, and forced to fight endlessly) and literally has no time for that kind of, sorry no offense, trivial ideology, it is simply about survival.
For every Master Chief, you have a Heart Surgeon, a Lawyer, a Pet Owner, and a Vampire who feeds on sardines and not blood. Should we read into all those video games characters too?
But have you asked why crying "isn't part of [Master Chief's] character," or any mainstream male video game protagonist's character for that matter? Don't you think it's questionable that characters like Solid Snake, Marcus Fenix, Master Chief, or Adam Jensen could go through these harrowing, tragic experiences without shedding a tear?
I think the answer is because developers do not feel that men could relate, because clearly crying is not manly or tough enough....despite Master Chief having his planet ravished and nearly all of his fellow spartans killed off, who he grew up with and had a camaraderie and brotherhood with (which at the very least would result in PTSD). Is that not grounds for a "bad ass" like Master Chief to cry?
So now you're in favor of strict gender roles defining what a man should be, you're just against video games because their depictions of men don't accord with yours?
Huh? How did you interpret that from my post? That makes no sense and I never said any such thing. Did you misread?
I am AGAINST all strict gender roles and stereotypes of what it means to be a "real man". I want male player characters to be able to role play in female dominant professions. I want male player characters to have non gender-binary romance options. I want male player characters to be able to display emotions that have traditionally been labeled as "feminine" without guilt, shame, or recrimination. It's sad that, in order to be a "bad ass real dude bro man" Master Chief is not allowed to cry tears and weep for his fallen Spartans. That wouldn't be manly enough.
These games have been around for 30 years. Further, depictions of larger-than-life, macho heroes predate video games in the form of comics, magazines, paintings, all the way back to oral storytelling traditions. Where are the suicides?
1. In movies or comic books, the viewer is not necessarily asked to take on the role of the protagonist. When reading the Batman comic, for instance, a young man is not required to play the role of Batman and make choices for him (even if that is a popular fantasy). That is the difference. In video games, for 15 or so hours, the player must take on the role of Master Chief, Commander Sheppard, or Marcus Fenix and role play that character to an extent. For the duration of the game, we become the Master Chief, but developers force us to play that role and make choices in a stereotypically, idealized male manner. That is the conflict.
2. Video games, especially video games of the past couple years, are far more interactive and immersive than any story telling medium before. With the advent of virtual reality technology, such as the Oculus Rift, the level of immersion reaches an unprecedented scope. And it is disappointing that most of the time, this means immersing ourselves in the role of a white, cisgender, heterosexual, male who is unrealistically handsome, brave, large, and violent.
At the very least on a subconscious level, modern games are devastating to the self-esteem of young men (young women as well, of course, but this brief essay specifically addresses young men). Why?
The male protagonist in today's video games is typically:
-Unrealistically muscular, tall, and large in stature
-Unrealistically brave in the face of danger and certain death
-Unrealistically handsome, attractive, and sexy
-Portrayed in a stereotypical male dominated profession such as a soldier or knight
-If the character is in the military, it is typically a combat role and not an equally vital nonviolent role such as say a nurse or flight surgeon
-Usually always heterosexual, white, and cisgender and he never checks his privilege or acknowledges his heterosexual, white, male, cisgender privilege
-To my knowledge, no mainstream game (or even non-mainstream game) has ever featured a love interest that is transgender
-In games in which the player chooses the player character's profession, he usually cannot choose to be a female dominated profession such as a teacher, nurse, or homemaker.
There are a handful of counterexamples in which one or two of the above tropes are not present, but the typical mainstream game unfortunately features all of them, and hopefully you can concede that.
Worst yet, players are nearly always encouraged to solve interpersonal conflicts using violence.
In the post-modern world, a player who solves in-game problems using violence (or at the very least gratuitous violence) should be heavily penalized and players who solve problems through mediation, negotiation, creative peacebuilding, and diplomacy should be rewarded extensively.
To my knowledge, there is no character-driven game on the market today which allows the player to peacefully resolve all conflicts. Some strategy games afford the player with some diplomacy options, among other peaceful resolutions, but these games are not character driven and typically don't even have a protagonist.
Tropes such as these send the wrong message to young people of what it means to be a man and what is expected of men in today's society. Playing games which features these tropes could be traumatic for a still developing young man.
Imagine a gay, transgender young man of below average physical appearance, who is probably already struggling enough with his body image and self-esteem. Popular games played by young men such as Call of Duty, Mass Effect, Gears of War, or Halo tells him that to be a "real man" and "bad-ass" he must:
1. Join the military and become an infantryman
2. Solve his problems through violence and physical altercations
3. Look like he can bench-press about 350 pounds
4. Use profanity among other vulgarity to prove how tough he is
5. Never cry or display stereotypically "feminine" emotions in perilous situations or when a comrade falls in battle
Worst is that gay players are subjected to exclusively heterosexual relationships. This is incredibly damaging to his psyche, to be forced to role play as a heterosexual player character, and it is unacceptable. And yet it is accepted, unfortunately. Role-playing games should represent all healthy orientations, sexualities, and genders as to not alienate their audience (Don't grasp for straws, I'm not suggesting immoral or unethical orientations such as bestiality, pedophilia, or incest should be represented in games).
Now some progressive developers such as Bioware DO attempt to remedy this by featuring homosexual love interests. This is a step in the right direction, but this is just one developer in the minority, and even Bioware does not adequately, if at all, represent transgender individuals in its games. Furthermore, a player character cannot identify as genderqueer, such as being bigender, the third gender, or agender.
A character-driven game which resolves a couple, but not all, of these complaints is Planescape: Torment. As far as I remember, (I played this game a decade ago) the game can be completed through diplomacy without any violent confrontations. Additionally, the character, despite being unreasonably muscular, is at least average or below average in his facial aesthetics. Alas, this game is an outlier which came out nearly 15 years ago.
I think in the coming years we will see the tragic effects of these insidious games in our culture. Worst case scenario, I expect that suicide rates will rise as young men realize they can't live up to the expectations of being a "real man" as presented to them by male protagonists in today's games.
It got me thinking, why in the US, don't we give rock star status to intellectuals such as Terry Tao, Noam Chomsky, Alvin Plantinga, among many others?
Are we just in an anti-intellectual society?
Thanks for all of the feedback! I am elated! I never guessed I could score that highly!
Have you considered a career which can be pursued with any degree, including yours in philosophy?
For instance, anyone can be an actuary, as long as he passes the actuarial exam.
Anyone can also become a software developer.
Considering you graduated from Berkeley, a top 3 school, you are clearly a highly intelligent and motivated individual, to the point where I'd think you'd be able to teach yourself computer programming or actuarial science.
Both are listed in the top 3 jobs out of 200, ranked by the WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578439154095008558.html
I'm sure just the name Berkeley will get your foot in the door for plenty of things.
As someone pointed out, it would take years to be proficient enough with computer programming to develop one's own game.
Your best bet is
1. Be a prodigy and teach yourself everything on your own. This could take years.
2. Go to school for computer science and try to work your way into the industry
3. Use pre-made tools without having to know programming (RPG maker?) but the quality of game you could make is limited.
Watch the documentary "Indie Game the movie"
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Wittgenstein/wittgenstein.html
My objection is this. There are things in existence that are beyond a dog's ability to imagine or conceive.
There are things in existence that are beyond a dolphin's ability to imagine or conceive.
Continuing with this reasoning, could it not be the case that there are lifeforms in the universe vastly more intelligent than humans are, which CAN imagine or conceive things in existence, which are above our human ability to imagine or conceive?
Basically, it seems like Wittgenstein is assuming humans are currently and will always be the most intellect lifeforms. There could be a more intelligent life form that could imagine or conceive of things we can't.
It's not really that, but if you look up "LSAT scores by major," the "Pre-Law" majors score VERY low compared to many other majors.
But that's exactly my point. What I posted is as funny as Big Bang Theory. It's not funny, and neither is BBT.
"Hey Sheldon, how do I speed up my computer?"
"Delete your system32 folder Penny."
"BAZOPPLE!"
"Hey Penny, do you know what schrodinger's cat is?"
"No Shelden, what is it?"
"BOJANGLES!"
The formula is basically:
1. Sheldon says something only someone with highly functioning autism would say.
2. Another character replies to him.
3. ???
4. "ZIMBABWE!"
It's hysterical.
Because after 20+ years of gaming, it APPEARS to me that video game quality is roughly normally distributed. It APPEARS to me that just as many bad games as good games come out, and just as many terrible games as excellent games come out, and that most games are clustered around average quality.
That would be perfectly fine if game review websites actually defined 7/10 to be "an average game." Instead, 7/10 is defined usually as at least "a good game." But the average game score is 7/10, which implies the average game is not in fact average. Do you see what I am driving at?
So game review scores are inflated.
But they aren't.
By that, I mean the average game it seems should be around a 5.0/10, and most games (say 68%) of games fall between 3.0/10 and 7.0/10, and around 28% are either between 1.0 and 3.0 OR 7.0 and 9.0, and the final %4 falling between EITHER 0.0/10 and 1.0/10, OR 9.0/10 and 10.0/10.
I know I didn't articulate that well, but basically it seems like game reviews should follow this distribution
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg
But most game reviewers do not use the lower numbers very often and far, far too frequently give out 8, 9's and 10's.
In fact, given sufficient hype, a game is almost guaranteed to score at least a 7/10 even if there are significant number of complaints about its quality.
For instance, Mass Effect 3, which granted I have not played, I know was universally criticized by gamers upon release....yet magically has a 92% rating on gamerankings. This isn't a thread about ME 3, but the general problem of not-so-outstanding games receiving outstanding scores all too frequently. Why does this happen all of the time?
It seems like games should be reviewed something similar to this where:
1 - horrendous
2 - terrible
3 - bad
4- below average
5 - exactly average
6 - above average
7 - good
8 - great
9 - excellent
10 - outstanding
Given this, we'd expect most games to fall between 3/10 and 7/10....but they just don't. They are skewed towards higher, inflated scores.
TL; DR Why aren't game review scores distributed as we would expect - normally distributed with mean of 5.0.....and instead distributed with a strong skew towards high scores?
--
And you don't see anything wrong with that?
Now you are committing the straw-man fallacy. At no point did I ever bring up feminism and feminism does not even make sense in this context.
Males in role play games should be allowed the opportunity to role play non-stereotypical gender roles, such as a homemaker (if it would make sense within the game's universe)
Professions that are stereotypically female such as a fashion designer, educator, nurse, or homemaker should be presented as viable profession options for male and female player characters.
There is nothing wrong with having a player character in a male dominated profession, such as being an infantryman. There IS something wrong with female dominated professions not being presented in an equally viable, positive light.
The game should show display service men and women in a variety of crucial roles that don't reinforce gender stereotypes.
If a game glorifies the infantry man, it should also glorify the flight surgeon who stitches up the infantry for his next battle.
In games such as Call of Duty, vital military roles typically deemed as "feminine" such as being a nurse, flight surgeon, or secretary, should be presented in a positive light, as much as the infantry role. No, playing as a nurse in Call of Duty probably would not make for the most engaging gameplay experience. I'm not suggesting Call of Duty become a surgery simulator. But the profession such as the surgeon should at least be shown to be a positive, essential role in the military.
The player character in Call of Duty should at the very least fight along side female combatants. The US military plans to have females in combat roles by 2016, but there's no reason why Infinity Ward cannot start with the next Call of Duty.
Games like Call of Duty unfortunately tell our youth that the only way to answer one's personal call of duty to serve one's country is to be a stereotypically male infantry man.
It's not necessarily essential to be able to play per se as a homemaker in World of Warcraft, because I'm not even sure how that would work, but professions stereotypically relegated to women should be presented as commendable societal roles. I don't know much about WoW lore, but a possible remedy for a game such as WoW could perhaps show in a cutscene how it is critical for male or female homemakers to raise the next generation of warrior youth.
There is nothing to suggest that Master Chief doesn't cry, but there is nothing to suggest that he does either. If that is impractical (since he does wear a mask), then perhaps Bungie could present player characters such as the Master Chief demonstrating characteristics that stereotypically only females display. I would love to see the Master Chief act nurturing, compassionate, empathetic, or remorseful, just to name a few emotions not represented in male characters.
Let's use Batman for sake of argument. When reading a Batman comic book or viewing a Batman movie, the audience never has to make a choice for Batman and then face the consequence for it.
In a Batman video game, the player must make choices for Batman as if he were Batman. The player is asked to role play Batman for the duration of the game. (Not that Batman is an RPG, but the character plays the role of Batman)
In a movie, a viewer might project Batman's character onto himself, but he is not ever obligated to role play Batman, as in a Batman video game.
I already defined the "stereotypically, idealized male manner" in the OP. "Unreasonably brave in the face of peril..." and the like.
In none of the Halo games does the Master Chief display any society-deemed "feminine" characteristics, presumably because that would imply weakness to the male audience.
Is Master Chief ever shown nurturing his comrades or being compassionate or emotional? No, because nurturing and compassionate and emoitional seem reserved for those darned female characters, and nobody wants that!
I don't know the percentages of which humans are cis-hetero, but I know the percentage is not so high that is would be unreasonable to include transgender or homosexual or bisexual characters in the narrative. And some games like Bioware do promote this, which is definitely a step in the right direction.
But sexuality and gender is ever so pervasive in gaming.
Maybe not religion, but I never mentioned religion, and so once again you are using a straw-man argument. Attacking points I never made does not win you the argument.
Rarely does a narrative driven game not contain a romantic love interest for the player character. Our games shout, "This character is unquestionably a manly man's man and here is his unquestionably female romantic love interest!"
A false dichotomy, once again you resort to logical fallacies in your arguments.
There is not a binary as you present - handsome vs. unsightly, brave vs. cowardly, large vs. small, etc.
Humans fall along a large spectrum of packages, and you are only considering the two extremes....I suggest that player characters be presented along the full spectrum of shapes and builds.
But have you asked why crying "isn't part of [Master Chief's] character," or any mainstream male video game protagonist's character for that matter? Don't you think it's questionable that characters like Solid Snake, Marcus Fenix, Master Chief, or Adam Jensen could go through these harrowing, tragic experiences without shedding a tear?
I think the answer is because developers do not feel that men could relate, because clearly crying is not manly or tough enough....despite Master Chief having his planet ravished and nearly all of his fellow spartans killed off, who he grew up with and had a camaraderie and brotherhood with (which at the very least would result in PTSD). Is that not grounds for a "bad ass" like Master Chief to cry?
I am AGAINST all strict gender roles and stereotypes of what it means to be a "real man". I want male player characters to be able to role play in female dominant professions. I want male player characters to have non gender-binary romance options. I want male player characters to be able to display emotions that have traditionally been labeled as "feminine" without guilt, shame, or recrimination. It's sad that, in order to be a "bad ass real dude bro man" Master Chief is not allowed to cry tears and weep for his fallen Spartans. That wouldn't be manly enough.
1. In movies or comic books, the viewer is not necessarily asked to take on the role of the protagonist. When reading the Batman comic, for instance, a young man is not required to play the role of Batman and make choices for him (even if that is a popular fantasy). That is the difference. In video games, for 15 or so hours, the player must take on the role of Master Chief, Commander Sheppard, or Marcus Fenix and role play that character to an extent. For the duration of the game, we become the Master Chief, but developers force us to play that role and make choices in a stereotypically, idealized male manner. That is the conflict.
2. Video games, especially video games of the past couple years, are far more interactive and immersive than any story telling medium before. With the advent of virtual reality technology, such as the Oculus Rift, the level of immersion reaches an unprecedented scope. And it is disappointing that most of the time, this means immersing ourselves in the role of a white, cisgender, heterosexual, male who is unrealistically handsome, brave, large, and violent.
The male protagonist in today's video games is typically:
-Unrealistically muscular, tall, and large in stature
-Unrealistically brave in the face of danger and certain death
-Unrealistically handsome, attractive, and sexy
-Portrayed in a stereotypical male dominated profession such as a soldier or knight
-If the character is in the military, it is typically a combat role and not an equally vital nonviolent role such as say a nurse or flight surgeon
-Usually always heterosexual, white, and cisgender and he never checks his privilege or acknowledges his heterosexual, white, male, cisgender privilege
-To my knowledge, no mainstream game (or even non-mainstream game) has ever featured a love interest that is transgender
-In games in which the player chooses the player character's profession, he usually cannot choose to be a female dominated profession such as a teacher, nurse, or homemaker.
There are a handful of counterexamples in which one or two of the above tropes are not present, but the typical mainstream game unfortunately features all of them, and hopefully you can concede that.
Worst yet, players are nearly always encouraged to solve interpersonal conflicts using violence.
In the post-modern world, a player who solves in-game problems using violence (or at the very least gratuitous violence) should be heavily penalized and players who solve problems through mediation, negotiation, creative peacebuilding, and diplomacy should be rewarded extensively.
To my knowledge, there is no character-driven game on the market today which allows the player to peacefully resolve all conflicts. Some strategy games afford the player with some diplomacy options, among other peaceful resolutions, but these games are not character driven and typically don't even have a protagonist.
Tropes such as these send the wrong message to young people of what it means to be a man and what is expected of men in today's society. Playing games which features these tropes could be traumatic for a still developing young man.
Imagine a gay, transgender young man of below average physical appearance, who is probably already struggling enough with his body image and self-esteem. Popular games played by young men such as Call of Duty, Mass Effect, Gears of War, or Halo tells him that to be a "real man" and "bad-ass" he must:
1. Join the military and become an infantryman
2. Solve his problems through violence and physical altercations
3. Look like he can bench-press about 350 pounds
4. Use profanity among other vulgarity to prove how tough he is
5. Never cry or display stereotypically "feminine" emotions in perilous situations or when a comrade falls in battle
Worst is that gay players are subjected to exclusively heterosexual relationships. This is incredibly damaging to his psyche, to be forced to role play as a heterosexual player character, and it is unacceptable. And yet it is accepted, unfortunately. Role-playing games should represent all healthy orientations, sexualities, and genders as to not alienate their audience (Don't grasp for straws, I'm not suggesting immoral or unethical orientations such as bestiality, pedophilia, or incest should be represented in games).
Now some progressive developers such as Bioware DO attempt to remedy this by featuring homosexual love interests. This is a step in the right direction, but this is just one developer in the minority, and even Bioware does not adequately, if at all, represent transgender individuals in its games. Furthermore, a player character cannot identify as genderqueer, such as being bigender, the third gender, or agender.
A character-driven game which resolves a couple, but not all, of these complaints is Planescape: Torment. As far as I remember, (I played this game a decade ago) the game can be completed through diplomacy without any violent confrontations. Additionally, the character, despite being unreasonably muscular, is at least average or below average in his facial aesthetics. Alas, this game is an outlier which came out nearly 15 years ago.
I think in the coming years we will see the tragic effects of these insidious games in our culture. Worst case scenario, I expect that suicide rates will rise as young men realize they can't live up to the expectations of being a "real man" as presented to them by male protagonists in today's games.