There are four stages of cognitive development:

* 1.1 Sensorimotor period
* 1.2 Preoperational Period
* 1.3 Concrete operational stage
* 1.4 Formal operational stage

If you are a reasonably functioning person, you'll make it to Concrete, and you have some Formal operational thinking.

However, it's been posited that many people tend live their lives in the Concrete stage, and never make it fully into the Formal Operational stage.

The Formal Operational stage is where you begin abstract reasoning. This stage of development can continue throughout adult hood.I think that many gamers in MMORPGs fall into categories of being either in the Concrete operational stage, or the Formal operational stage. This has nothing to do with intelligence. you can be a brilliant person, successful business person, etc., and not fully develop the Formal operational stage. Or, you can be dumb as a rock, and fully develop the formal operational stage.

In any case, the person with the fully developed Formal Operational stage will understand and enjoy more areas of a game that have to do with abstract things like role playing. They will be  morel likely to play the game as a character, not just their real selves interacting with other real people while they play a game.

The person still in the concrete operational stage, will interact with the game like they are playing solitaire, and chatting with other people. They will not fully appreciate or understand playing a role, or playing for example a different gender. They will consider these things odd, or come up with the idea that is must be because someone is gay, and they will consistently be unable to relate in a meaningful way to those that function in the Formal Operational stage of development.

most will probably find this thread boring, I know. I dont' study psychology, didnt' major in it or anything like that. Just my thoughts on the subject.

Look at that: one of the most vocal anti-soloists implying that people who prefer grouping and role-playing operate at higher levels of cognitive ability, lol. I wouldn't consider this thread to be boring though, just a joke.

Originally posted by econ24

Look at that: one of the most vocal anti-soloists implying that people who prefer grouping and role-playing operate at higher levels of cognitive ability, lol. I wouldn't consider this thread to be boring though, just a joke.

You could function at the concrete level, and still group all the time. I think  you would, however, be concerned mostly with doing the content, not so much on immersing yourself in the game as part of a band of explorers, for example. However, in that example the game play would be largely the same, you group with others and whack mobs, the difference would be primarily in how you perceive the activity.

I did state clearly that one is not, IMO, smarter than the other, they simply perceive things differently.

I don't believe one is superior to the other, they are just different.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp 

I don't believe one is superior to the other, they are just different.

Perhaps you should read the link you posted. To paraphrase:

"The Concrete operational stage occurs between the ages of 7 and 12 years."
"The Formal operational stage commences at around 13 years of age (puberty) and continues into adulthood."

Whether it was your intention or not, you just insulted people.

One other quote:

"During this (Formal operational) stage the young adult is able to understand such things as "shades of gray".

Worth bearing that one in mind, Ihmotepp.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

In any case, the person with the fully developed Formal Operational stage will understand and enjoy more areas of a game that have to do with abstract things like role playing. They will be  morel likely to play the game as a character, not just their real selves interacting with other real people while they play a game.

The person still in the concrete operational stage, will interact with the game like they are playing solitaire, and chatting with other people. They will not fully appreciate or understand playing a role, or playing for example a different gender. They will consider these things odd, or come up with the idea that is must be because someone is gay, and they will consistently be unable to relate in a meaningful way to those that function in the Formal Operational stage of development.

Wow.

Just... wow.

It's like you spend nights awake trying to find new ways to say "I hate the people that I can't force to group with me."

Hrmm, too many stereotypes for and against the theory to make any sort of heads and tails of it, as far as milestoning is concerned. Men are 'fully developped' at 25 ('average' age, whatever that means) when their pre-frontal lobe (the reasoning area of the brain) completes its growth. But yet, some people are 'fully matured' at 15 and fail to see the point of going through the 'adolescent rebel' phase, the 'collegiate party' phase, etc. Others develop addictions during their 'mid-life crisis' stage and never bounce back.

I do think that seeing a 'bigger picture' requires a certain degree of maturity, operational understanding, and insightfulness. Being concerned with oneself, versus the group, versus how both can be mutually involving. 'Inclusive' and 'exclusive' are 2 words that come to mind. Fully understanding the impact and importance of these would be a good mile-marker.

Complete sidenote: if you study 'intellectual' works, there is often a dark, morbid, or depressing undertone involved. I do think intellectuals fail to get 'theirs' out of community, because no one can fully relate to them. 'It's lonely at the top' is true. As a communal species, they cannot fill a personal need, and struggle with being 'alone' in their minds.

Edit: Swapped sentence fragments.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Ihmotepp 

I don't believe one is superior to the other, they are just different.

Perhaps you should read the link you posted. To paraphrase:

"The Concrete operational stage occurs between the ages of 7 and 12 years."
"The Formal operational stage commences at around 13 years of age (puberty) and continues into adulthood."

Whether it was your intention or not, you just insulted people.

One other quote:

"During this (Formal operational) stage the young adult is able to understand such things as "shades of gray".

Worth bearing that one in mind, Ihmotepp.

I understand how you might take it that way, but it's more about generalizing the concept, than applying it verbatim to gamers.

I'm not trying to say anyone didn't make it out of puberty, or they can't understand shades of gray.

It's more like, have you ever met anyone that is really, really entertained by reality shows, but really really doesn't like to watch any sci fi or fantasy type movies?

I have, and it's not about intelligence or maturity. The people that like the reality shows can be very  intelligent, and very mature, they just perceive things differently.

I'm not trying to say if you function primarily in the concrete stage you  act like an immature 13 year old. You could be Bill Gates.

And vice a versa, you may have a very well developed Formal operational stage and be a sanitation engineer.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

In any case, the person with the fully developed Formal Operational stage will understand and enjoy more areas of a game that have to do with abstract things like role playing. They will be  morel likely to play the game as a character, not just their real selves interacting with other real people while they play a game.

The person still in the concrete operational stage, will interact with the game like they are playing solitaire, and chatting with other people. They will not fully appreciate or understand playing a role, or playing for example a different gender. They will consider these things odd, or come up with the idea that is must be because someone is gay, and they will consistently be unable to relate in a meaningful way to those that function in the Formal Operational stage of development.

 

Wow.

Just... wow.

 

It's like you spend nights awake trying to find new ways to say "I hate the people that I can't force to group with me."

 

 

Thank you. It only took me a few minutes to think this one up over morning coffee and a quick google,  so, you know, I'm flattered.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

It's more like, have you ever met anyone that is really, really entertained by reality shows, but really really doesn't like to watch any sci fi or fantasy type movies?

You're attempting to draw a correlation between cognitive development and whether one prefers sci-fi movies or reality TV?

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

It's more like, have you ever met anyone that is really, really entertained by reality shows, but really really doesn't like to watch any sci fi or fantasy type movies?

You're attempting to draw a correlation between cognitive development and whether one prefers sci-fi movies or reality TV?

Not exactly.

I'll use the cross gender example.

The person in the Concrete will tend to think like this:

I'm a guy, so I will play a guy. Anyone that is a guy and does not play a guy character must be gay. I cannot relate to any other reason someone would play a girl character if they are a guy.

A person in the Formal Operational will think more like this:

I am a guy, however I am going to separate myself from the character. The character is not "me" it is a separate entity that exists in the game world. I may choose to play this character because it is aesthetically pleasing to me, or because I wish to play a role, similar to an actor portraying a character in a movie. Like a good actor, I may wish to explore roles that are unlike my real self. I also acknowledge that a male may want to play a female character because they have gender issues, or because they are gay.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp 

Not exactly.

I'll use the cross gender example.

The person in the Concrete will tend to think like this:

I'm a guy, so I will play a guy. Anyone that is a guy and does not play a guy character must be gay. I cannot relate to any other reason someone would play a girl character if they are a guy.

A person in the Formal Operational will think more like this:

I am a guy, however I am going to separate myself from the character. The character is not "me" it is a separate entity that exists in the game world. I may choose to play this character because it is aesthetically pleasing to me, or because I wish to play a role, similar to an actor portraying a character in a movie. Like a good actor, I may wish to explore roles that are unlike my real self. I also acknowledge that a male may want to play a female character because they have gender issues, or because they are gay.

Elimination of egocentrism (the ability to view things from another's perspective) is Concrete, not Formal.

The anti-genderbenders don't have that perspective due to cognitive retardation; it's because they sexualize their character and have trouble reconciling that other people don't.

Interesting theory, i think you may have adapted Piaget's thought to a sort of analysis that it wasn't meant to address. This is a developmental theory yes, but unlike Freud's psychosexual development stages, it's meant to provide benchmarks for observation of functional development. A person lacking the capacity for abstract thinking or hypothetical-deductive reasoning may well be unable to even succesfully negotiate a complex UI.

Remember Freud's theory is based on the study of fixation, which doesn't correlate directly to the brain's functioning capacity. Piaget's on the other hand approaches functionality through constructivism and is useful in addressing a different set of issues. You can't treat this theory in the same way you would Freud's, which to all practical purpose is what you're proposing here . I will say it's a novel aproach however, from my experience RPGers tend to gravitate more towards the opposite pole, and are more willing to embrace Jungian concepts.

Wouldn't read to much into it though, to deduce functional brain capacity from a gamer's behavioral attitudes may seem intuitive but it's far from a scientific aproach and its based on too many leaps and bounds of logic. You may be stretching what can be reasonably infered from observation a bit too thin. It's a nice pet theory but it simply won't stick.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Ihmotepp 

I don't believe one is superior to the other, they are just different.

Perhaps you should read the link you posted. To paraphrase:

"The Concrete operational stage occurs between the ages of 7 and 12 years."
"The Formal operational stage commences at around 13 years of age (puberty) and continues into adulthood."

Whether it was your intention or not, you just insulted people.

One other quote:

"During this (Formal operational) stage the young adult is able to understand such things as "shades of gray".

Worth bearing that one in mind, Ihmotepp.

That's according to Piaget (sp?).  Many people think the ages portion is bunk.

...

Wow, talk about going around the block to get to the refrigerator.

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.

Originally posted by Caleveira

Interesting theory, i think you may have adapted Piaget's thought to a sort of analysis that it wasn't meant to address. This is a developmental theory yes, but unlike Freud's psychosexual development stages, it's meant to provide benchmarks for observation of functional development. A person lacking the capacity for abstract thinking or hypothetical-deductive reasoning may well be unable to even succesfully negotiate a complex UI.

Remember Freud's theory is based on the study of fixation, which doesn't correlate directly to the brain's functioning capacity. Piaget's on the other hand approaches functionality through constructivism and is useful in addressing a different set of issues. You can't treat this theory in the same way you would Freud's, which to all practical purpose is what you're proposing here . I will say it's a novel aproach however, from my experience RPGers tend to gravitate more towards the opposite pole, and are more willing to embrace Jungian concepts.

Wouldn't read to much into it though, to deduce functional brain capacity from a gamer's behavioral attitudes may seem intuitive but it's far from a scientific aproach and its based on too many leaps and bounds of logic. You may be stretching what can be reasonably infered from observation a bit too thin. It's a nice pet theory but it simply won't stick.

 

Of course I can't deduce anything concrete from merely playing video games, so I agree with you there. I wasn't trying to say it was an absolute, and that one person is in Stage 3 and cannot progress and one person is fully developed Stage 4, but that there may be degrees involved in the stages that affect these sorts of perceptions and interactions.

I certainly wasn't trying to say anyone playing games had a complete lack of the capacity for abstract thinking, just that it may be more developed in some than in others.

In any case I'm not making this up myself, I'm just applying something I read in an article somewhere to people that play video games, although I'm afraid I  don't remember the source. It may be that I completely misunderstood the article.

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by Ihmotepp 

Not exactly.

I'll use the cross gender example.

The person in the Concrete will tend to think like this:

I'm a guy, so I will play a guy. Anyone that is a guy and does not play a guy character must be gay. I cannot relate to any other reason someone would play a girl character if they are a guy.

A person in the Formal Operational will think more like this:

I am a guy, however I am going to separate myself from the character. The character is not "me" it is a separate entity that exists in the game world. I may choose to play this character because it is aesthetically pleasing to me, or because I wish to play a role, similar to an actor portraying a character in a movie. Like a good actor, I may wish to explore roles that are unlike my real self. I also acknowledge that a male may want to play a female character because they have gender issues, or because they are gay.

Elimination of egocentrism (the ability to view things from another's perspective) is Concrete, not Formal.

The anti-genderbenders don't have that perspective due to cognitive retardation; it's because they sexualize their character and have trouble reconciling that other people don't.

I think that's an oversimplification of the Concrete.

 Concrete:

"Elimination of Egocentrism—the ability to view things from another's perspective (even if they think incorrectly). For instance, show a child a comic in which Jane puts a doll under a box, leaves the room, and then Melissa moves the doll to a drawer, and Jane comes back. A child in the concrete operations stage will say that Jane will still think it's under the box even though the child knows it is in the drawer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development#Formal_operational_stage

We see the beginning of this ability in it's rudimentary form in the Concrete, but it continues to develop in the Formal Operational:

During this stage the young adult begins to entertain possibilities for the future and is fascinated with what they can be.[6] Adolescents are changing cognitively also by the way that they think about social matters.[6] Adolescent Egocentrism governs the way that adolescents think about social matters and is the heightened self-consciousness in them as they are which is reflected in their sense of personal uniqueness and invincibility.[6] Adolescent egocentrism can be dissected into two types of social thinking, imaginary audience that involves attention getting behavior, and personal fable which involves an adolescent's sense of personal uniqueness and invincibility.[6]

One of the more interesting posts I've seen, Ihmotepp.

One thing I'd add that seems very relevant.

People take short cuts when it comes to thinking. The science of the world around us is so complex that no one person can know and comprehend it all. And people instinctively know this. That's why people take these short cuts. They align themselves with political parties and join/participate in other associations just for this reason. This isn't my take on things, I've read this numerous times in scientific journals and studies (online stuff, I'm not a scientists. Although, I have stayed at Holiday Inn Express's at various times.)

I see this in gaming. People want to have it handed to them. They don't want to have to "earn it" in any real manner. To some of us, this is a drawback to our games, as we few want that something that's more challenging. We aren't in games to relax or enjoy the candy, we're there to tickle our deeper interests. Unfortunately for us, we have been in the extreme minority.

Someday, maybe someone will come out with a game that gives us that deeper experience. I think the timing is right, as many people are sated on the candy and might knowingly or unknowingly want that deeper experience. But we need someone with the money to come to that conclusion. They are probably more likely to come to the conclusion that MMOs have simply run their course. What a shame for all of us.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

One of the more interesting posts I've seen, Ihmotepp.

 

One thing I'd add that seems very relevant.

People take short cuts when it comes to thinking. The science of the world around us is so complex that no one person can know and comprehend it all. And people instinctively know this. That's why people take these short cuts. They align themselves with political parties and join/participate in other associations just for this reason. This isn't my take on things, I've read this numerous times in scientific journals and studies (online stuff, I'm not a scientists. Although, I have stayed at Holiday Inn Express's at various times.)

 

I see this in gaming. People want to have it handed to them. They don't want to have to "earn it" in any real manner. To some of us, this is a drawback to our games, as we few want that something that's more challenging. We aren't in games to relax or enjoy the candy, we're there to tickle our deeper interests. Unfortunately for us, we have been in the extreme minority.

 

Someday, maybe someone will come out with a game that gives us that deeper experience. I think the timing is right, as many people are sated on the candy and might knowingly or unknowingly want that deeper experience. But we need someone with the money to come to that conclusion. They are probably more likely to come to the conclusion that MMOs have simply run their course. What a shame for all of us.

Thank you. Most posters were just insulted, but it's nice that at least someone found it interesting.

I have to say that I'm not a fan of to much complexity in games unless you feed it to me slowly. I don't want to log on to an MMORPG and be overwhelmed by the GUI and all the choices to the point I have to study a manual for several hours before i can play the game. I should be able to play the game intuitively, and then begin to learn more and more as the game goes on.