Network Sites: FPSguru.com RTSguru.com UnboundGamer.com
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Games:611  Guilds:3,078
Members:1,590,710  Online:0
Guests:0  Posts:4,843,656

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed

Guernication

My thoughts on games and the issues around them.

Author: Guernica

I think, therefore I am Unhappy

Posted by Guernica Saturday July 26 2008 at 9:09AM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

How many Einstein's have their been? How many Mozarts? Or Oppenheimers, Newtons, Pythagoruses (Pythagori?), or Socrateses?

I watched an interesting film the other night that many of you might be familiar with - The King of Kong. For those that have not seen it, it is the story of the battle for the world's highest recognised score at seminal arcade title 'Donkey Kong'. Essentially it is the story of two men, Billy Mitchell and Steve Wiebe, both of whom lay claim to being the GOAT. Mitchell had set the record decades ago at around 874k points and had been pretty much untouchable since then. His challenger, Wiebe, had come out of nowhere, practising on an arcade case in his garage for years until he was ready to lay claim to the title with a score of over a million. Suffice it to say his ascendency to the throne did not go unchallenged and the furore continues to this day.

Steve Wiebe, as talented as he is, is likely to only ever be the Greatest in the World at Donkey Kong. Even though he he is a competent drummer, having taught himself to play the kit he bought for his son, and artist and teaches science at a high school, he will probably never build a rocket, design a plane or bridge or building, or make the next breakthrough in quantum theory. If it wasn't for DK, his talents - his ability to recognise and work with complex patterns and timing, superb muscle coordination, and immense concentration span - would probably not even be known. If it wasn't for videogames then, it is quite possible Steve Wiebe would just be a good teacher who was known among his friends as a being pretty good with his hands, at being dedicated to whatever he was doing at the time and perhaps a little withdrawn sometimes.

The idea that there are hidden talents amongst the world's population is not new. There are people who make a career out of inventing ways to uncover the capabilities of our children, usually through their schooling. But videogames are, at least relative to human history. I believe videogames have the capacity to uncover talent and genius in a way we have never had access to before.

Think about it. There are six billion people on the planet today. This is believed to be more than the total number of people who have ever lived before, giving us a maximum number of humans to have existed at around the ten billion mark. Is it really likely that out of all these millions and millions, only one person ever had the intellectual capacity of Albert Einstein? Or Steven Hawking? Or Michelangelo? Of course not. But these particular men happened to be born at a time and in a place that enabled them to have the education and opportunities that developed their genius to a point where they could be recognised. All the others lived out their lives quietly. Some died as children. Others were peasants, farm labourers, or just worked in jobs that never presented them with kind of challenges that would allow their intellects to develop.

But the electronic games awe play today are becoming more varied in their content and more demanding of their players. Hand-eye coordination is no longer enough. To be good at Guitar Hero, to master songs at the hardest level, you need the kind of skills that would actually make you a pretty good guitar player (should you ever decide to actually pick one up!). End-game content for MMO's demand good teamwork at the least, and leaders must have the ability to coordinate, to lead, delegate, encourage and so on. New ways of controlling games such as those introduced by Nintendo are changing what we actually do when playing games, bringing more physical and spatial awareness into the picture. Games are no longer just about recreation - we do not relax when we play nowadays. For many of us, gaming is the most demanding part of our lives.

Take my guild-leader for example – let's call him French. By day French is a forklift operator. I'm not trying to be down on manual labourers. If that's what you do for a living, more power to you. Man's got to eat. But this cannot be the most stimulating job in the world. You get in the cab, start the engine, go pick up a palette, move it, put it down. And repeat. Limited variety, limited challenge. But by night (or whenever he's off-shift) French is responsible for a guild with two dozen members. He controls the guildbank, monitors member's progress, figures out what gear people need and where to get it, coordinates raids and groups, and so on. He built our website and runs the vent server. This weekend we're doing Karazhan – a ten-man raid. This requires recruitment skills, direction, resource management, diplomacy, and more. A range of emotions, challenges, rewards and setbacks await our leader. Is it likely French will ever have this level of responsibility in his work? Leadership over dozens? Charged with helping them all achieve success? Probably not.

I'd guess we're all familiar with the sentient AI scenario. Its been in a lot of films. Someone somewhere builds a computer to do a menial or repetitive task, the computer gets smarter and smarter until one day it achieves self-awareness and – pow! - the grey goo hits the fan. Think Terminator or 2001. But what if this self-awareness, this understanding of one's capabilities and the disparity between them and one's daily life expectations, actually happens to us, the meat-bags, before the computers? What would happen if all the thousands of keyboards wizards, Guild CEO's, and Guitar Hero prodigies, all suddenly realised one day that they are capable of taking over the world? That they have the same skills and brain-power as the leaders of industry and science? And what if they then also found that they never will work at that level because they did not go the right school, have the right parents, or just speak the wrong language? Will the uncovering of nascent genius and earth-shattering possibilities result in a new generation of bedroom Einsteins and Mozarts that bring forth art, culture, and technology that seems like magic to the rest of us? Or increasing dissatisfaction, ennui, and depression when these same genii realise they in fact trapped in their ordinary lives?

grimfall writes:

Interesting read.  I think you've got some bad assumptions and examples there, though.  For one thing, intelligence is hereditary.  Odds of two people with an IQ of 90 having a child with a supra-genius IQ are probably around your one in 10 billion.  Also many of those geniuses weren't really thrust into the 'academic community', they were self propelled.  Einstein, for example had difficulty finishing high school, and his father was a failed businessmen.  De Vinci was the son of a peasant woman.  When you have that type of genius, the cream tends to rise to the top, as they say.

I've often thought that everyone has a special ability, or is particuarly good at something.  I would disagree that these two guys are the most naturally gifted Donkey Kong players in the world, though.  If there was a world tournament, in which each of the 6 billion inhabitants participated to win, I am sure someone would probably trounce their scores.  Playing Donkey Kong repeatedly without dying is a skill more akin to autism than pure genius.

Forklift drivers need supervisors, and Forklift supervisors need Warehouse or Yard managers.  Don't despair too much for French's professional career.

Sat Jul 26 2008 9:56AM Report
Guernica writes:

Thanks for your comment. You might be missing my point though. I want to go over a couple of the points you make. Please don't take this as an atttack on you personally - I am grateful for your input and see what you're saying as a chance to develop and explain my own ideas.

You mention intelligence being hereditary. This may be true, but so then are circumstances.  The child of a middle-ages parent will most likely be a middle-ages peasant. The child of educated and well-off parents in today's West will also be most likely well-off and educated. But being the child of a peasant does not preclude intelligence and riches do not guarantee it. What I am suggesting is that many people with the potential to create great things simply never have or had the chance because of when and where they lived. Your example of Einstein's father being a failure proves my point rather than disproves it. If average parent's have such a low chance of producing high-IQ offspring, how can you explain this? Unless perhaps Einstein's father was also capable of greatness in some field, just not that which he tried.

You may well be right that on this planet there is at least one person capable of beating Mitchell and Wiebe at Donkey Kong. But that is precisely my point - being good at Donkey Kong takes great skill and someone somewhere has that skill but it will never be uncovered. What I am suggesting is that games have the capacity to uncover the people that are capable of things they would otherwise never be aware of.

Imagine if there were no sports in the world. No football, rugby, cricket, or swimming. Then someone came up with an idea - a game. Their local group takes up this new 'sport'. One of them is the greatest at it. Until the next community along also starts playing. Then one of the second group's players trounces the first leader. And so on. I think this is what is happening with videogames.

Going back to the example I gave of my guild leader. He is demonstrating on a daily basis the ability to lead, recruit, manage, and organise dozens of people. As the world stands the people who tend to be good at this often demand high salaries - they run companies. Maybe French could lead a company too. Maybe he should drop his job driving a forklift and apply for a senior position. If IBM see GM-ship as a desirbale job skill, maybe others would too. But there are only so many positions of this type in the world. Sooner or later someone doing a boring normal job is going to realise they could run a corporation - but they will not be able to as there are only so many corporate positions around.

This could go two ways. Those people could find a way to create something of their own - hire less skilled people, stat a business, make a fortune. There could be millions of Richard Bransons out there waiting to be awakened to their capabilities. Or these people could realise the depth of the hole they are in - the shear odds stacked against them ever making the most of their capabilities.

Sat Jul 26 2008 11:16AM Report
Sepulcher writes:

Ignorance is bliss.

Sat Jul 26 2008 4:27PM Report
zymurgeist writes:

The difference between the two ways it could go is drive. The technical ability to do something isn't enough. You need a variety of skills, the desire to use them and the ability to recognize the path to success.

Sat Jul 26 2008 6:10PM Report
Guernica writes:

You're absolutely right, zymurgeist. What I'm saying is in the past people wouldn't even know they had skills. Through gaming people are discovering skills and abilities that are potentially valuable. Through information technology they are discovering their skills have cash-value. The question is will these skills we uncover be used to our benefit (and I mean mankind's, as well as personally) or be a source of discontent.

Sun Jul 27 2008 6:37AM Report
Lasair writes:

Thanks, Guernica! Very interesting article. 

Mon Aug 18 2008 5:20PM Report
Guernica writes:

thanks very much :)

Tue Aug 19 2008 4:01PM Report

MMORPG.com writes:
Login or Register to post a comment