Originally posted by Ihmotepp

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.

 

One thing you have to keep in mind is that these development stages are not mutually exclusive. In other words, once you reach the Postformal development stage, you function at that stage, you don't go between the Formal and Postformal stages. What we learn in previous development stages helps us move on to next stages. But the tools that we learned in previous stages are not lost.

If you follow the theory, all normal adults function at the Postformal stage, that stage includes everything we have learned through out our lives. Kind of like simple arithmetic is the basis of all higher math. You can try to do algebra without grasping the concept of arithmetic but you probably won't get very far. You don't function somewhere between arithmetic and algebra, you understand arithmetic and use it to understand algebra. Same with cognitive stages of development. As an adult, you don't go between functioning as a child and as an adult. You function as an adult.

I think that in your thesis, the better example would be not the difference between Formal and Postformal stages but rather which cognitive tools do postformal adults utilize when playing an MMO.

Originally posted by heartless

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 (this is a link).

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.

 

I fail at jokes on forums, the context is often too obscure to me when I read it.

While CC is used successfully to solve many dire issues in our minds, it shouldn't be used as a motivator for innovation. Monetary rewards, for example, actually reduce work effectiveness in the creative sectors.

If you want people to be creative and think about what they're doing, don't punish or threaten them and keep rewards to a minimum. The motivators are intrinsic in that case (they want to do it because they feel it will validate themselves).

If you want people to just get something done, CC is the way to go (they want to do it to avoid failure and gain rewards).

But I guess this really has nothing to do with the thread.

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Massive

Quote

Pyramid

One thing you have to keep in mind is that these development stages are not mutually exclusive. In other words, once you reach the Postformal development stage, you function at that stage, you don't go between the Formal and Postformal stages. What we learn in previous development stages helps us move on to next stages. But the tools that we learned in previous stages are not lost.

That's pretty much what I was getting at in my other posts, but I was confused about the application of the stages: whether descriptive of permanent or temporary behavior.

So yeah, I agree. We always function at the latest stage we achieve (unless our brains become physically damaged somehow), regardless of the environment.

Our brains develop new functions / tools over time, our environment dictates how we use them, not whether we can use them.

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

So yeah, I agree. We always function at the latest stage we achieve (unless our brains become physically damaged somehow), regardless of the environment.

 Our brains develop new functions / tools over time, our environment dictates how we use them, not whether we can use them.

I think that is what the OP is basically trying to get at.

The "environment" - in this case the medium through which players are interacting with each other; in some ways acts to retard or regress those functions. Players interact with other players in ways they never would in a setting of direct contact because the medium prevents them from fully acknowledging the "real" nature of the other player.

I'm not sure it has as much to do with how we think as it does with how we perceive and interact with other people online.

Originally posted by ericbelser

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

So yeah, I agree. We always function at the latest stage we achieve (unless our brains become physically damaged somehow), regardless of the environment.

 Our brains develop new functions / tools over time, our environment dictates how we use them, not whether we can use them.

 

I think that is what the OP is basically trying to get at.

The "environment" - in this case the medium through which players are interacting with each other; in some ways acts to retard or regress those functions. Players interact with other players in ways they never would in a setting of direct contact because the medium prevents them from fully acknowledging the "real" nature of the other player.

I'm not sure it has as much to do with how we think as it does with how we perceive and interact with other people online.

Just because the game doesn't allow you to fully interact with others, doesn't mean that you regress cognitively.

.

Originally posted by biofellis

All this potentially goes out the window depending on the design of any particular MMO.

• Most MMOs have level separators, wherin it becomes difficult to tedious to group with other 'wrong-leveled' players.
• Most MMOs have non-sharing aspects built in, so that grouping is more a formality than a true community.
• The quest structures are class separated for the most part- especially at low level- the 'training' phase. Imagine learning to solo.
• Formal Socializing ends up being over-structured in many cases- (Guilds and schedules/demands/cliques).
• and so on...

So- psychology goes so far, but wanting to be social, and having the game discourage your 'particular' flavor of social is very likely. Ultimately, people do what works, or is fun despite being broken. MMOs really force these options- except for the experimenters. That was me.

Later.

 

The original post is about how you relate to the character you are playing in the game. Whether you play it as a role, like in a table top game pretending to be someone you are not, or whether you simply move your character around the game like you would move Pac Man around gobbling up dots.

The OP is  not really about grouping.

Originally posted by heartless

Just because the game doesn't allow you to fully interact with others, doesn't mean that you regress cognitively.

So you don't think the lack of depth and context to the interactions can lead to people choosing more basic/simplistic responses? I'm not saying it actually permanently regresses you or makes you less capable of higher order thought in a real sense, just that it encourages superficial responses often based on earlier and simplistic modes of thought. You cannot perceive all the nuances and context that accompany a more normal interaction, so you revert to the most basic/simplistic interpretations of people's actions. 

Think about the differnence in how you interact with a close RL friend that you play a game with vs Joe Normal that you've just met in game. 

Anywyas, if you are interested in this stuff and haven't already spent years reading them, Nick Yee has an excellent series of articles on this sort of thing at the Daedalus project.

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/

Originally posted by ericbelser

Originally posted by heartless

Just because the game doesn't allow you to fully interact with others, doesn't mean that you regress cognitively.

 

So you don't think the lack of depth and context to the interactions can lead to people choosing more basic/simplistic responses? I'm not saying it actually permanently regresses you or makes you less capable of higher order thought in a real sense, just that it encourages superficial responses often based on earlier and simplistic modes of thought. You cannot perceive all the nuances and context that accompany a more normal interaction, so you revert to the most basic/simplistic interpretations of people's actions. 

Think about the differnence in how you interact with a close RL friend that you play a game with vs Joe Normal that you've just met in game. 

Anywyas, if you are interested in this stuff and haven't already spent years reading them, Nick Yee has an excellent series of articles on this sort of thing at the Daedalus project.

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/

 

 

 

 

Choosing a more basic response does not mean that the person regresses cognitively, which is sort of what the OP was hinting at.

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by ericbelser

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

So yeah, I agree. We always function at the latest stage we achieve (unless our brains become physically damaged somehow), regardless of the environment.

 Our brains develop new functions / tools over time, our environment dictates how we use them, not whether we can use them.

 

I think that is what the OP is basically trying to get at.

The "environment" - in this case the medium through which players are interacting with each other; in some ways acts to retard or regress those functions. Players interact with other players in ways they never would in a setting of direct contact because the medium prevents them from fully acknowledging the "real" nature of the other player.

I'm not sure it has as much to do with how we think as it does with how we perceive and interact with other people online.

 

Just because the game doesn't allow you to fully interact with others, doesn't mean that you regress cognitively.

Exactly, heartless.

.

Originally posted by biofellis

Originally posted by Ihmotepp 

The original post is about how you relate to the character you are playing in the game. Whether you play it as a role, like in a table top game pretending to be someone you are not, or whether you simply move your character around the game like you would move Pac Man around gobbling up dots.

The OP is  not really about grouping.

 

Grouping is 'potentially' 'evidence' of one's behavioral mindset/ability/scope- which in theory is caused/limited by one's level/range of thinking.

From the OP

• "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."

My point is that the game's design makes 'obvious' motivations/judgements about such choices less clear.

I guess I should specify, (within the OP context) that 'Formal' thinkers can be 'persuaded' to appear 'Concrete' due to game design limitations that discourage 'Formal' dynamic enjoyment.

Actually, since there is no real distinction between stages in reality (there's a lot of everything happening when it shouldn't according to the article), the theory itself is a bit unreliable to use as a general model.

We do not lose our ability to think and determine possibilities by cause of our changing environment, we still pick the most important factors and act on them. If the game implies that you have a higher likelihood of getting the loot you want without being grouped, then you will stay solo. If the game makes grouping inconvenient, and playing alone is more convenient and enjoyable, you will stay solo.

Cognitive functionality has nothing to do with it, the variables the environment present are handled by our brains at our highest achieved stage regardless of what the variables are.

If problem solving enters the picture, you end up with what seemed to be unrelated material now being very relevant. Non-linear problems (such as socializing) are more difficult to solve than linear problems (such as a puzzle with an obvious solution). Soloing is a linear problem - you go about your duty as an adventurer and slay beasts and rescue the occasional princess from castles. Nothing requires much thought, and you get rewarded pretty well for doing it (quest rewards, loot drops... all for you!) - better, perhaps, than if you were to join a group for adventuring.

Grouping is a non-linear problem... but it is also a non-linear problem with extrinsic motivators - which means it's interpreted by your brain as a linear problem (personal survival / risk / gain involved). So you compete with your group members for stuff now... Unless the groupees are your friends or guild members, it is scarcely worth the effort to group up and tolerate the banter / misunderstandings / drama and possibly lose out on some good loot by a ninja looter.

The only reason people will group in an MMORPG is if they feel there is nothing to lose by doing it; if they're comfortable doing it. Many players do not feel this way, and it is not because of their cognitive ability, it's because the environmental factors tell them that it's a waste of time and they will more likely than not be uncomfortable in a group.

.

Originally posted by biofellis

I think you're covering most of my point- I'm not saying the theory is correct- I'm saying that what may seem to apply should sometimes consider more factors. That what makes sense may sometimes do so only while overlooking something else.

"Look at that rat- No matter what, he won't go straight to the exit" "But- he's in a maze." "Really? I hadn't considered that..."

The 'something else' of course is usually nowhere near as obvious. But watching the path of the rat (behavior) and overlooking the maze (game design (influencer)) is missing a big factor and any perceptions of behavioral influence will come out skewed.

I like theories- it's how one discovers actual rules and relationships. And for the most part (especially in psychology) they don't approach science until many (if not 'all') factors are considered.

At least one more in many cases.

With Psychology being a fairly newer science compared to most, I think the key thing to note here is that it revolves around theory. Theories are generally unproven and especially in Psychology's case can only be support by correlation (which we know from statistics 101 does not relate to a cause).

I believe the OP's use of this theory is misused and interpreted. First of all, Piaget's theory was mainly applied for CHILD DEVELOPMENT and if you read the wiki, it is a general step by step going from baby to toddler to pre-teen through teenage years ending at young adulthood. It is saying that everyone reaches Formal operational stage. There is no staying in concrete partially and being a little bit formal by the time you are a young adult. It is, you are a concrete and when you hit 13, you start moving into formal operational and reach that stage fully when you ARE a young adult. That is clearly stated in the wiki the OP linked. 

I don't know how it got linked to appreciating roleplaying more etc. besides the mention of "abstract qualities" and "imaginary". I think the theory was inappropriately applied to the RPG realm here especially when the theories focus was around again, child development. Maybe if the statement in the post involved different ages like:

1. Young adults are more likely to appreciate roleplaying more because they are in the formal operational stage than adolescents or preteens.

2. Adolescents will not appreciate roleplaying as much because their level of thinking is only at the concrete operational stage.

Then, we can say it could be applied a little bit better, but then again the theory isn't linking roleplaying games themselves seeing that it IS appreciate by varying age groups. Perhaps in different ways if the OP is trying to use the theory, it could be applied to RPG's and video games but the theory itself seems to broad in itself (and unproven and old in itself) for it to be useful in terms of speaking about video games in more modern times (which is even newer compared to Psychology in itself).

Originally posted by Jairoe03

Originally posted by biofellis

I think you're covering most of my point- I'm not saying the theory is correct- I'm saying that what may seem to apply should sometimes consider more factors. That what makes sense may sometimes do so only while overlooking something else.

"Look at that rat- No matter what, he won't go straight to the exit" "But- he's in a maze." "Really? I hadn't considered that..."

The 'something else' of course is usually nowhere near as obvious. But watching the path of the rat (behavior) and overlooking the maze (game design (influencer)) is missing a big factor and any perceptions of behavioral influence will come out skewed.

I like theories- it's how one discovers actual rules and relationships. And for the most part (especially in psychology) they don't approach science until many (if not 'all') factors are considered.

At least one more in many cases.

 

With Psychology being a fairly newer science compared to most, I think the key thing to note here is that it revolves around theory. Theories are generally unproven and especially in Psychology's case can only be support by correlation (which we know from statistics 101 does not relate to a cause).

I believe the OP's use of this theory is misused and interpreted. First of all, Piaget's theory was mainly applied for CHILD DEVELOPMENT and if you read the wiki, it is a general step by step going from baby to toddler to pre-teen through teenage years ending at young adulthood. It is saying that everyone reaches Formal operational stage. There is no staying in concrete partially and being a little bit formal by the time you are a young adult. It is, you are a concrete and when you hit 13, you start moving into formal operational and reach that stage fully when you ARE a young adult. That is clearly stated in the wiki the OP linked. 

I don't know how it got linked to appreciating roleplaying more etc. besides the mention of "abstract qualities" and "imaginary". I think the theory was inappropriately applied to the RPG realm here especially when the theories focus was around again, child development. Maybe if the statement in the post involved different ages like:

1. Young adults are more likely to appreciate roleplaying more because they are in the formal operational stage than adolescents or preteens.

2. Adolescents will not appreciate roleplaying as much because their level of thinking is only at the concrete operational stage.

Then, we can say it could be applied a little bit better, but then again the theory isn't linking roleplaying games themselves seeing that it IS appreciate by varying age groups. Perhaps in different ways if the OP is trying to use the theory, it could be applied to RPG's and video games but the theory itself seems to broad in itself (and unproven and old in itself) for it to be useful in terms of speaking about video games in more modern times (which is even newer compared to Psychology in itself).

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

I agree. heartless pointed out that what I was trying to say related more to the Formal stage versus Post Formal stage, and not so much the concrete vs. Formal. Once I read the article above this seemed to make much more sense.

@biofellas I agree with you also. Game design has a HUGE impact on how players act in a game. The game encourages players, rewards them, and they will have no choice but to respond to those game mechanics.

This is why I always find it a specious argument when players suggest you pretend some game mechanic exists. Oh, you want perma death? That's easy just delete you character when you die, even though that mechanic doesn't really exist in the game. Oh, you want a real challenging grouping game? That's easy, just never solo and pretend you can't easily solo to the cap.

But it's not possible for  a normally functioning adult to completely ignore the game mechanics, and unreasonable to suggest someone pretend they dont' exist.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

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

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

Op's interpretation is way too shallow and for one part also condencending. There is no such thing that a person is either this or that. You dont fall just in one category.

To give you an example. There are players who play a MMO, just to rush through content. This doesnt mean they cant immerse themselves with the game if they would want to. Its possible they do that for example in a different game, but in their current game they chose not to. This can be because they prefer to PVP at max lvl, or simply find the lore not that interesting.

Also the underlined part just shows your interpretation of this. You use the terms understanding and appreciation. So even if someone understands roleplaying, but choses not to, its because they dont appreciate it? What about simply not liking it? Appreciating implies that you acknowledge something. That its more then just a preference. So basically you look down on people who dont appreciate that. 

I think you need to see the gender issue seperately from this, because that is a form of insecurity most of the time.

I suspect that the reason you posted this, is because you like to roleplay/play different gender and are fed up with the comments of others about your preference of playing. Posting this just shows insecurity.

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

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

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

 

Op's interpretation is way too shallow and for one part also condencending. There is no such thing that a person is either this or that. You dont fall just in one category.

To give you an example. There are players who play a MMO, just to rush through content. This doesnt mean they cant immerse themselves with the game if they would want to. Its possible they do that for example in a different game, but in their current game they chose not to. This can be because they prefer to PVP at max lvl, or simply find the lore not that interesting.

Also the underlined part just shows your interpretation of this. You use the terms understanding and appreciation. So even if someone understands roleplaying, but choses not to, its because they dont appreciate it? What about simply not liking it? Appreciating implies that you acknowledge something. That its more then just a preference. So basically you look down on people who dont appreciate that. 

I think you need to see the gender issue seperately from this, because that is a form of insecurity most of the time.

I suspect that the reason you posted this, is because you like to roleplay/play different gender and are fed up with the comments of others about your preference of playing. Posting this just shows insecurity.

Actually, if you read the entire thread, and I admit it's long, you'd see that the theory has been redefined.

Instead of Concrete vs Formal, it's now Formal vs. Post Formal. heartless pointed out the Post Formal stages of development, and they seem to fit more in line with what I was describing.

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

Although I sometimes play female characters in single roleplaying games, I tend to play male characters most of the time in single player games and in MMORPGs.

If I did play a female character in an MMORPG, I would not care if someone else thougtht that was strange or "gay". I would assume they were immature and moslty interested in flirting, which I don't do in MMORPGs.

Here's one example of Post Formal thinking:

Basseches (1980. 1984), for one, argues that postformal thinkers use the idea of form rather than the idea of thing. Forms are structures whose fundamental function is to change. As such, forms have system-like properties. Things are structures whose fundamental function is to maintain their stability or identity. They have the properties of simple, linear, causal models seen in formal operations. In postformal thinkers, structure can never be temporally crystallized, but it can still be used to interpret society, nature, and the self as organizations in constant transformation.

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

 No, its not even Post-Formal vs Formal if we are even just using the wiki link. Post-Formal is not even detailed within the link. It's a matter of personal preferences whether or not 1 can fully appreciate roleplaying or more complex aspects of a game. This is again a theory on psychological development for the common human beings. Everyone goes through these stages and acquire different levels of thought and processing. Again, the theory in itself is too broad to be able to make specific implications with video games and people's preferences. I agree with an above poster, that some people will just merely appreciate certain parts of a game and others will appreciate other parts of the game. There is no higher level of appreciating some higher level of abstract or more complex concepts within an MMORPG. Preferences and appreciation is all matters of perspective, not levels of thought and psychological development.

Originally posted by Jairoe03

 No, its not even Post-Formal vs Formal if we are even just using the wiki link. Post-Formal is not even detailed within the link. It's a matter of personal preferences whether or not 1 can fully appreciate roleplaying or more complex aspects of a game. This is again a theory on psychological development for the common human beings. Everyone goes through these stages and acquire different levels of thought and processing. Again, the theory in itself is too broad to be able to make specific implications with video games and people's preferences. I agree with an above poster, that some people will just merely appreciate certain parts of a game and others will appreciate other parts of the game. There is no higher level of appreciating some higher level of abstract or more complex concepts within an MMORPG. Preferences and appreciation is all matters of perspective, not levels of thought and psychological development.

We are not just using the wiki link, but this link instead:

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

A little ways down there is a nice synopsis of Post Formal development stages and the various theories about them.