Originally posted by rwmiller

To be honest I am more interested in the cognitive functionality of the NPCs and MOBs in a game than the players.

 

Seriously. You kill a guard. His best buddy comes around the corner stands on his corpse, shrugs and walks off leaving a trail of blood as if nothing happened. He should be going OMG they killed Kenny! Sound the alarms! But, no its oh I don't see that group of heavily armed players standing 15 feet away giggling and pointing at my dead friend so I will turn my back and go on my way.

 

 Oh, no need to go into the complete misrepresentation you have created with cognitive development as that is fairly obvious to everyone.

Chuckle! 

Let me guess, taking a developmental psychology course?

I think that you should really re-read your textbook/Wikipedia. Poor Piaget is spinning in his grave.

"Seriously. You kill a guard. His best buddy comes around the corner stands on his corpse, shrugs and walks off leaving a trail of blood as if nothing happened. He should be going OMG they killed Kenny! Sound the alarms! But, no its oh I don't see that group of heavily armed players standing 15 feet away giggling and pointing at my dead friend so I will turn my back and go on my way."

Oh I don't know I think this shows that the guard has excellent reasoning, I think I would just pretend I didn't see anything either, especially if the well armed players are still so close.

On another note, just because someone is antisocial or dislikes roleplay doesn't make them any less able to process information and enjoy cognitive thought. haven't many of the most intelligent people who have ever graced us with their genius pretty much been hermits? Besides I find that most of the time I am grouped in MMOs I am surrounded by idgits that start decaying my IQ, so may be grouping isn't so great. Plus I really like the being alone in a crowd kinda thing, I don't have to group to appreciate a large populace mmo.

Why haven't I ever seen that article before? Thanks, Imhotepp. That's a nice summary of the resource and an interesting way of applying it to the social sciences of MMORPG development.

There's one thing, though, and I think another poster addressed it. You mentioned the ability to role-play being attributed to the formal stage, while it is in fact categorized in the concrete stage. Empathy and multiple perspectives (essential for role playing) seem to be developed in that stage. The formal stage is where scientists and artists capable of abstract thinking are categorized, but that is irrelevant.

This doesn't mean that individuals at the concrete stage would be instantly comfortable with role-playing, per-se. It takes an open-minded individual to be comfortable with experimentation / failure and handling more than a handful of perspectives. "Open mindedness" and confidence are a result of environmental factors (aka "not part of natural progression") and are not addressed in the article.

More or less, your argument may be better supported if you used other examples. Using the reality TV and sci-fi / fantasy television example to differentiate between stages of development doesn't make much sense, in my opinion. A better argument may be that an individual in the concrete stage would be happier just watching television than producing a television show.

To me, the step from concrete to formal seems to be a clear jump from "consumer" to "creator." Note that a consumer can be open minded or closed minded, and so can a creator. The founders of the Creationist Museum, for example, are formal thinkers and are yet closed-minded. They think logically in abstracts and are very intelligent, but they believe that only the Bible can be correct. The mental acrobatics they jump through to justify the truth of their favorite literature are staggering and impressive, even for how flawed the foundations of their arguments happen to be.

I think the ability to experiment and "play" (especially role-play) is a built-in feature. As the environment influences us, we either reinforce that ability to satisfy curiosity and gain new perspectives through various experiments, or we lose that ability over time due to continued failure, misunderstandings, misconceptions, and shattered confidence.

You take your first risk and it goes badly, you are taught that experimentation in that area is bad (it burns, don't touch it). Your environment (parents / media) tells you that homosexuals are bad, and so you never experiment in that area. You fall into a pool at a young age and you can't swim / almost drown, perhaps you develop a phobia of water (experimenting with water is bad). So on and so forth.

We are taught throughout our lives to become "adults" and to cease play and experimentation as there is no room for that in the corporate world. Failure can cause loss and death, and so experimentation is a risk as it includes a possibility to yield very negative results. Needless to say, role-playing is a form of experimentation, so very few closed-minded individuals would enjoy it.

Originally posted by heartless

Let me guess, taking a developmental psychology course?

I think that you should really re-read your textbook/Wikipedia. Poor Piaget is spinning in his grave.

I noted in the OP that I am not taking a Psychology course, nor did I study Psychology in college.

I didn't major or get a degree in it, but I did take far too much pyschology and related blather over various times.

The universal constant of all "cognitive theories" is that they are all long-winded oversimplifications of why whatever theorist wrote them is more advanced/evolved/devoped than you are.

PS Want to really honk off a "social scientist"? Ask them to prove even one problem or vice of the human condition that their "science" has eliminated from world society....

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Why haven't I ever seen that article before? Thanks, Imhotepp. That's a nice summary of the resource and an interesting way of applying it to the social sciences of MMORPG development.

There's one thing, though, and I think another poster addressed it. You mentioned the ability to role-play being attributed to the formal stage, while it is in fact categorized in the concrete stage. Empathy and multiple perspectives (essential for role playing) seem to be developed in that stage. The formal stage is where scientists and artists capable of abstract thinking are categorized, but that is irrelevant.

This doesn't mean that individuals at the concrete stage would be instantly comfortable with role-playing, per-se. It takes an open-minded individual to be comfortable with experimentation / failure and handling more than a handful of perspectives. "Open mindedness" and confidence are a result of environmental factors (aka "not part of natural progression") and are not addressed in the article.

More or less, your argument may be better supported if you used other examples. Using the reality TV and sci-fi / fantasy television example to differentiate between stages of development doesn't make much sense, in my opinion. A better argument may be that an individual in the concrete stage would be happier just watching television than producing a television show.

To me, the step from concrete to formal seems to be a clear jump from "consumer" to "creator." Note that a consumer can be open minded or closed minded, and so can a creator. The founders of the Creationist Museum, for example, are formal thinkers and are yet closed-minded. They think logically in abstracts and are very intelligent, but they believe that only the Bible can be correct. The mental acrobatics they jump through to justify the truth of their favorite literature are staggering and impressive, even for how flawed the foundations of their arguments happen to be.

I think the ability to experiment and "play" (especially role-play) is a built-in feature. As the environment influences us, we either reinforce that ability to satisfy curiosity and gain new perspectives through various experiments, or we lose that ability over time due to continued failure, misunderstandings, misconceptions, and shattered confidence.

You take your first risk and it goes badly, you are taught that experimentation in that area is bad (it burns, don't touch it). Your environment (parents / media) tells you that homosexuals are bad, and so you never experiment in that area. You fall into a pool at a young age and you can't swim / almost drown, perhaps you develop a phobia of water (experimenting with water is bad). So on and so forth.

We are taught throughout our lives to become "adults" and to cease play and experimentation as there is no room for that in the corporate world. Failure can cause loss and death, and so experimentation is a risk as it includes a possibility to yield very negative results. Needless to say, role-playing is a form of experimentation, so very few closed-minded individuals would enjoy it.

If the developmental stages don't describe it, then there should be something that does.

I don't think environmental factors can be determined to be the complete cause of what you describe as closed-mindedness.

I think it must, like most behaviors, also have a developmental component.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Inc. quote pyramid.

 

If the developmental stages don't describe it, then there should be something that does.

I don't think environmental factors can be determined to be the complete cause of what you describe as closed-mindedness.

I think it must, like most behaviors, also have a developmental component.

The open-minded / closed-mindedness of an individual is directly related to their early environment. Parents usually have the biggest impact on this, telling the child what to believe and what not to believe, rather than allowing them to explore and investigate the possibilities for themselves.

As we age, we can understand more abstract meanings and create justifications for them (so yes, it is indirectly related to the cognitive development cycle). For example, a child will simply accept that God exists if you tell them to believe it, and at a later age may begin to justify that thought in whatever way possible if the idea is prominent in their life.

But information tends to have difficulty entering or leaving a closed mind, meaning there is less possibility for experimentation. So that individual may decide that there is a God and will dislike anyone who tells him otherwise.

I don't believe your ability to take information in an objective or subjective way is influenced by the natural development of your brain. That much is influenced by what is learned and contained within the brain. Since no information ever spontaneously appears in your brain by no cause at all, then it must be strictly an environmental factor. Behaviors are a result of the environment, you know.

As we age, we gain access and control over new functions of the brain (clearly shown by the article in the OP). How we use those functions is dictated by our environment. We choose to accept or decline certain variables for those functions based on the first variables we learn.

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Inc. quote pyramid.

 

If the developmental stages don't describe it, then there should be something that does.

I don't think environmental factors can be determined to be the complete cause of what you describe as closed-mindedness.

I think it must, like most behaviors, also have a developmental component.

 

The open-minded / closed-mindedness of an individual is directly related to their early environment. Parents usually have the biggest impact on this, telling the child what to believe and what not to believe, rather than allowing them to explore and investigate the possibilities for themselves.

As we age, we can understand more abstract meanings and create justifications for them (so yes, it is indirectly related to the cognitive development cycle). For example, a child will simply accept that God exists if you tell them to believe it, and at a later age may begin to justify that thought in whatever way possible if the idea is prominent in their life. Information tends to have difficulty entering or leaving a closed mind, meaning there is less possibility for experimentation.

However, I don't believe your ability to take information in an objective or subjective way is influenced by the natural development of your brain. That much is influenced by what is learned and contained within the brain. Since no information ever spontaneously appears in your brain by no cause at all, then it must be strictly an environmental factor.

As we age, we gain access and control over new functions of the brain (clearly shown by the article in the OP). How we use those functions is dictated by our environment. We choose to accept or decline certain variables for those functions based on the first variables we learn.

Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate this is simply not true. Siblings with different outlooks on life, for example, raised in the same environment.

Brothers where one is a closed minded bigot, and the other is an open minded liberal. Yes, it happens.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Inc. quote pyramid.

 

More Stuff

 

More Stuff

 

Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate this is simply not true. Siblings with different outlooks on life, for example, raised in the same environment.

Brothers where one is a closed minded bigot, and the other is an open minded liberal. Yes, it happens.

The siblings become each other's environment, which in turn influences how they behave.

One may have a very closed mind, which would possibly influence the other to have an open mind. No two individuals may ever have the same environment, as that would be physically impossible (breathing different atoms, seeing different perspectives, hearing different things at different times, seeing each other's reactions).

If two clones of the same man were to emerge at the exact same time in two isolated chambers of the same dimensions and make, they would have similar but different responses. They are no longer the same man duplicated, they are two unique individuals because they are in different places spatially and by perspective.

People are influenced by their environment from themselves to their parents, down to the atomic level.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by heartless

Let me guess, taking a developmental psychology course?

I think that you should really re-read your textbook/Wikipedia. Poor Piaget is spinning in his grave.

 

I noted in the OP that I am not taking a Psychology course, nor did I study Psychology in college.

In other words you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by heartless

Let me guess, taking a developmental psychology course?

I think that you should really re-read your textbook/Wikipedia. Poor Piaget is spinning in his grave.

 

I noted in the OP that I am not taking a Psychology course, nor did I study Psychology in college.

 

In other words you really have no idea what you're talking about.

If he does or doesn't, he at least has a fleeting interest in the subject.

If you think you have anything to add, I'd like to know your opinion on how different levels of human cognition tie into the interests of the games we play. I find my opinions to be stale and long-winded, and I prefer to try a fresh perspective now and then... would you mind sharing yours?

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by heartless

Let me guess, taking a developmental psychology course?

I think that you should really re-read your textbook/Wikipedia. Poor Piaget is spinning in his grave.

 

I noted in the OP that I am not taking a Psychology course, nor did I study Psychology in college.

 

In other words you really have no idea what you're talking about.

If he does or doesn't, he at least has a fleeting interest in the subject.

If you think you have anything to add, I'd like to know your opinion on how different levels of human cognition tie into the interests of the games we play. I find my opinions to be stale and long-winded, and I prefer to try a fresh perspective now and then... would you mind sharing yours?

Personally, I find his application of the theory to be crude. While I can sort of see how the sensorimotor stage may be applied to an MMO (like a child learning the world through it's senses), everything else is complete nonsense applied with the OP's typical "people who don't group are lesser than those who do" belief.

His whole view on the matter can be dissolved by simply pointing out that almost everybody who is playing an MMO has the capacity to think abstractly already and applying abstract thinking to a game does not require more cognitive development. Assuming that we're talking about adults, or children who have reached puberty, if you follow Piaget's theory.

The theory assumes that in the beginning stages the subject possesses less cognitive abilities than at a later stages. While when we start a new game all we're lacking is the knowledge of the game, our cognitive abilities are still present. Most of us anyway.

Moreover, his whole interpretation of concrete and formal stages is ridiculous as, according to Piaget, everyone goes through the formal operational stage. In other words, you cannot be a normal adult and not go through the formal operational stage. Basically, you cannot be a successful businessman and only develop as far as the concrete stage, as the OP implied. Well, unless you're a 10 year old successful businessman, then maybe.

As far as your comments go, I didn't read them all because it's a lot of reading (sorry =P) but if you're saying that cognitive development is greatly influenced by environmental factors, then I agree with you completely.

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by heartless

Let me guess, taking a developmental psychology course?

I think that you should really re-read your textbook/Wikipedia. Poor Piaget is spinning in his grave.

 

I noted in the OP that I am not taking a Psychology course, nor did I study Psychology in college.

 

In other words you really have no idea what you're talking about.

If he does or doesn't, he at least has a fleeting interest in the subject.

If you think you have anything to add, I'd like to know your opinion on how different levels of human cognition tie into the interests of the games we play. I find my opinions to be stale and long-winded, and I prefer to try a fresh perspective now and then... would you mind sharing yours?

 

Personally, I find his application of the theory to be crude. While I can sort of see how the sensorimotor stage may be applied to an MMO (like a child learning the world through it's senses), everything else is complete nonsense applied with the OP's typical "people who don't group are lesser than those who do" belief.

His whole view on the matter can be dissolved by simply pointing out that almost everybody who is playing an MMO has the capacity to think abstractly already and applying abstract thinking to a game does not require more cognitive development. Assuming that we're talking about adults, or children who have reached puberty, if you follow Piaget's theory.

The theory assumes that in the beginning stages the subject possesses less cognitive abilities than at a later stages. While when we start a new game all we're lacking is the knowledge of the game, our cognitive abilities are still present. Most of us anyway.

Moreover, his whole interpretation of concrete and formal stages is ridiculous as, according to Piaget, everyone goes through the formal operational stage. In other words, you cannot be a normal adult and not go through the formal operational stage. Basically, you cannot be a successful businessman and only develop as far as the concrete stage, as the OP implied. Well, unless you're a 10 year old successful businessman, then maybe.

As far as your comments go, I didn't read them all because it's a lot of reading (sorry =P) but if you're saying that cognitive development is greatly influenced by environmental factors, then I agree with you completely.

Agreed, but given a new method of interfacing (a new body, so to speak) we must re-learn what we've already accomplished on the lower stages and apply limitations to the higher stages. So the OP's implementation of the theory was yea, a tad crude... but it's mention is still important, I think.

Personally, I think the theory is incomplete or possibly too quantified. The stages cross-over, skip, and meld in far too many untested instances to be as concrete and general as implied in that article.

Oh, that's also on the wiki at the bottom... I should read this stuff more carefully.

Yeah, I don't expect anyone to read my comments. They're long and dry and often misinformed (but the links are usually good, if you see yellow text in my posts, click them!). I may do it intentionally because I want to get it out of my head and on to paper so-to-speak, but also keep it unnoticed so I can be like "told ya so!" a year or two later down the road if I end up being right.

Originally posted by Plasuma!!! 

Agreed, but given a new method of interfacing (a new body, so to speak) we must re-learn what we've already accomplished on the lower stages and apply limitations to the higher stages. So the OP's implementation of the theory was yea, a tad crude... but it's mention is still important, I think.

Personally, I think the theory is incomplete or possibly too quantified. The stages cross-over, skip, and meld in far too many untested instances to be as concrete and general as implied in that article.

Oh, that's also on the wiki at the bottom... I should read this stuff more carefully.

 

Yeah, I don't expect anyone to read my comments. They're long and dry and often misinformed (but the links are usually good, if you see yellow text in my posts, click them!). I may do it intentionally because I want to get it out of my head and on to paper so-to-speak, but also keep it unnoticed so I can be like "told ya so!" a year or two later down the road if I end up being right.

I fail to see how learning how to control a character in a game is the same as cognitive development. Besides, I think classical conditioning would be a more appropriate when talking about MMOs. Show an epic item to a raid of WoW players and watch them salivate.

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Plasuma!!! 

Agreed, but given a new method of interfacing (a new body, so to speak) we must re-learn what we've already accomplished on the lower stages and apply limitations to the higher stages. So the OP's implementation of the theory was yea, a tad crude... but it's mention is still important, I think.

Personally, I think the theory is incomplete or possibly too quantified. The stages cross-over, skip, and meld in far too many untested instances to be as concrete and general as implied in that article.

Oh, that's also on the wiki at the bottom... I should read this stuff more carefully.

 

Yeah, I don't expect anyone to read my comments. They're long and dry and often misinformed (but the links are usually good, if you see yellow text in my posts, click them!). I may do it intentionally because I want to get it out of my head and on to paper so-to-speak, but also keep it unnoticed so I can be like "told ya so!" a year or two later down the road if I end up being right.

 

I fail to see how learning how to control a character in a game is the same as cognitive development. Besides, I think classical conditioning would be a more appropriate when talking about MMOs. Show an epic item to a raid of WoW players and watch them salivate.

It's not the exact same, but it's still revisiting the basics. Learning to move and control yourself in a new world is very similar to taking your first baby steps, but usually, most of the work is done for you.

A man who learns to control a robotic prosthetic arm through practiced mental impulses is a more adequate parallel... this is just teaching our brains to interface with new objects. The more automated they are (press a button, character walks), the faster we can grasp them.

As for classical conditioning, that has been found to be an outdated method of control and leads to many social issues that harbor negative influences on our minds (ie "survival / beast mode"). It works for linear situations, such as fighting a mob or filling out a daily quota of forms for an accounting job, but if you were to want to get a person to solve a complex problem (to which the answer is not obvious), you would be better off not having any extrinsic motivators. No carrots on sticks.

Originally posted by Plasuma!!! 

As for classical conditioning, that has been found to be an outdated method of control and leads to many social issues that harbor negative influences on our minds (ie "survival / beast mode"). It works for linear situations, such as fighting a mob or filling out a daily quota of forms for an accounting job, but if you were to want to get a person to solve a complex problem (to which the answer is not obvious), you would be better off not having any extrinsic motivators. No carrots on sticks.

Since we're talking about MMOs here, and especially since the most complex thought process is determining in which direction to roll your face on the keyboard, I think CC works quite nicely. But either way, it was a joke.

But if we're going to be serious about it, CC is still used by behaviorists and quite successfully. Systematic desensitization, for example is used to treat phobias.

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by heartless

Let me guess, taking a developmental psychology course?

I think that you should really re-read your textbook/Wikipedia. Poor Piaget is spinning in his grave.

 

I noted in the OP that I am not taking a Psychology course, nor did I study Psychology in college.

 

In other words you really have no idea what you're talking about.

If he does or doesn't, he at least has a fleeting interest in the subject.

If you think you have anything to add, I'd like to know your opinion on how different levels of human cognition tie into the interests of the games we play. I find my opinions to be stale and long-winded, and I prefer to try a fresh perspective now and then... would you mind sharing yours?

 

Personally, I find his application of the theory to be crude. While I can sort of see how the sensorimotor stage may be applied to an MMO (like a child learning the world through it's senses), everything else is complete nonsense applied with the OP's typical "people who don't group are lesser than those who do" belief.

His whole view on the matter can be dissolved by simply pointing out that almost everybody who is playing an MMO has the capacity to think abstractly already and applying abstract thinking to a game does not require more cognitive development. Assuming that we're talking about adults, or children who have reached puberty, if you follow Piaget's theory.

The theory assumes that in the beginning stages the subject possesses less cognitive abilities than at a later stages. While when we start a new game all we're lacking is the knowledge of the game, our cognitive abilities are still present. Most of us anyway.

Moreover, his whole interpretation of concrete and formal stages is ridiculous as, according to Piaget, everyone goes through the formal operational stage. In other words, you cannot be a normal adult and not go through the formal operational stage. Basically, you cannot be a successful businessman and only develop as far as the concrete stage, as the OP implied. Well, unless you're a 10 year old successful businessman, then maybe.

As far as your comments go, I didn't read them all because it's a lot of reading (sorry =P) but if you're saying that cognitive development is greatly influenced by environmental factors, then I agree with you completely.

yes, everyone goes through the formal stage, but I was trying to express that I think there are degrees in this formal stage.

It's not, you cross this line, you operate in the formal stage, and that's it.

In fact it clearly states in the original article that the formal stage has a long period of development lasting on into adult hood.

And there's a difference I would think of having the ability to operate in the Formal, which is required to be a normal functioning human being, and constantly doing so to the ultimate level of development of that stage.

And we don't abandon the other stages of development. WE still use them all, even after we progress into the next if I'm understanding the concept correctly.

And again, if the steps of cognitive development can't be used to describe the concept I'm discussing, then surely something can?

I freely admit I have no formal training in psychology, so no I'm no Paiget and have no real idea of what I'm talking about, just a vague idea based on personal observation. But the stages of development seemed to express what I am seeing in the real world as a basic difference between people that function differently in terms of perceptions.

The "grouping" example isn't really helpful here, and I think that's taken out of context of the original post. I'ts more about the ability to play a role, such as believing you are a mage in an fantasy world, or not believing everyone that plays a female character "must be gay".

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

yes, everyone goes through the formal stage, but I was trying to express that I think there are degrees in this formal stage.

It's not, you cross this line, you operate in the formal stage, and that's it.

In fact it clearly states in the original article that the formal stage has a long period of development lasting on into adult hood.

And there's a difference I would think of having the ability to operate in the Formal, which is required to be a normal functioning human being, and constantly doing so to the ultimate level of development of that stage.

And we don't abandon the other stages of development. WE still use them all, even after we progress into the next if I'm understanding the concept correctly.

And again, if the steps of cognitive development can't be used to describe the concept I'm discussing, then surely something can?

I freely admit I have no formal training in psychology, so no I'm no Paiget and have no real idea of what I'm talking about, just a vague idea based on personal observation. But the stages of development seemed to express what I am seeing in the real world as a basic difference between people that function differently in terms of perceptions.

The "grouping" example isn't really helpful here, and I think that's taken out of context of the original post. I'ts more about the ability to play a role, such as believing you are a mage in an fantasy world, or not believing everyone that plays a female character "must be gay".

 

 

Look, the fact of the matter is that Paiget's theory deals with how a child seeks to understand experiences by forming concepts and cognitive strategies. That is not the same as an adult utilizing past experiences and abstract thinking in order to deal with a situation presented in an MMO.

Moreover, there are a lot of developmental theories:

Psychoanalytic - Child battles unconscious impulses and overcome major crises.
Behaviorism - Child responds to stimuli and reinforcement.
Sociocultural - Child learns skills, tools and values through "apprenticeships."
Epigenetic - Child develops impulses, interests and patterns inherited from ancestors.

I'm not going to get into a deep discussion about these theories, if you really are interested in developmental psychology, you're more than welcome look them up on your own. Needless to say, that no theory fully explains the behavior of humans as they go through life. The theories all have their flaws, for example cognitive theory fails to take into account genetics, and the best approach is to use portions of some, or all, of those theories.

But If you're really interested in understanding how adults function in an MMO, look into the Postformal Stage. In my opinion that stage has a much better application to what you're trying to do here.

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

yes, everyone goes through the formal stage, but I was trying to express that I think there are degrees in this formal stage.

It's not, you cross this line, you operate in the formal stage, and that's it.

In fact it clearly states in the original article that the formal stage has a long period of development lasting on into adult hood.

And there's a difference I would think of having the ability to operate in the Formal, which is required to be a normal functioning human being, and constantly doing so to the ultimate level of development of that stage.

And we don't abandon the other stages of development. WE still use them all, even after we progress into the next if I'm understanding the concept correctly.

And again, if the steps of cognitive development can't be used to describe the concept I'm discussing, then surely something can?

I freely admit I have no formal training in psychology, so no I'm no Paiget and have no real idea of what I'm talking about, just a vague idea based on personal observation. But the stages of development seemed to express what I am seeing in the real world as a basic difference between people that function differently in terms of perceptions.

The "grouping" example isn't really helpful here, and I think that's taken out of context of the original post. I'ts more about the ability to play a role, such as believing you are a mage in an fantasy world, or not believing everyone that plays a female character "must be gay".

 

 

 

But If you're really interested in understanding how adults function in an MMO, look into the Postformal Stage. In my opinion that stage has a much better application to what you're trying to do here.

Hey, you made a positive contribution to the thread. Bravo!

I think you have hit the nail on the head. With a hammer even.

I was confusedly using the Concrete and Formal stages to describe my concept, and it is more likely that the difference in behaviors is related to stages in the Post Formal development.

That makes perfect sense.

I found this paper, and especially this section makes sense:

A Review of Some Postformal Research:

http://www.tiac.net/~commons/Four%20Postformal%20Stages.html

It seems that what I have been mistakenly trying to describe as the difference between Concrete and Formal cognitive development, may be the difference between Formal and Post-Formal cognitive development.

I think the idea is still valid, although I did grossly misuse the stages.