Friday, March 13, 2009

Why is there Anti-Intellectualism?

Last night Sue and I were talking about why economists and planners keep using, and endorsing, failed methods. Why would one stick to a policy, or method, that was shown to be a failure? Why would you spend all of your resources in a destructive campaign rather than a constructive discussion? I proposed that the problem was two fold. First, they were not experienced with the real world and simply never received the data (they live in a fantasy land), and second, that they were unable to overcome there irrational faith in the obviously failed policy.

Then Sue found this extremely interesting article you should read:

Why is there Anti-Intellectualism?



While reading this work I began to see where some of the resistance to the open design of Dragon Storm comes from. Sue created a flexible creativity driven RPG system. Some people understood this at a fundamental level and played the game happily. Other people started looking for, and even imposing, strict rules. Those rules generally came directly from earlier rpg systems. They moved to take the creative element out of DS and put it back in the box. That attitude has always confounded and confused me.

That makes me wonder about future game designs. Do we try to restrict them to be more palatable to a larger audience, or do we continue to argue for individual creativity? Not an easy decision. Obviously from a commercial point of view there is just one answer, but what about from a cultural point of view? Which is more important to the society? Which is most important to us?

Now I will get off of my soap box and wait for a response.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

RESPONSE:

Some people feel safe with things neatly boxed and no loose ends. Some people feel boxed in with those constraints and want to be able to run free. Welcome to the human condition where our Creator (be it science or a god) gave us free will.

I see this with GMs also. Some write a careful script and make their players stay within those narrow guidelines no matter what the character wants to do. Other lead the group to a certain point and let the character's decisions lead the story the rest of the way.

From the DS perspective, the job becomes to balance the two sides and allow both ends of the spectrum to have fun. From the intelligence perspective, well, some people just can't color outside of the lines and have a too high opinion of themselves to boot. They live life by the script that was given to them as a child or in college or sumpthin' and will not deviate from that script. Maybe it is not so much intelligence as it it is an ingraining or imprint dating from childhood. Those who do color outside of the lines and think outside of the box need to challenge the scripted regularly so that maybe a consensus somewhere in the middle will be found. This is were I will stop before I get into trouble...

MarkEllisHarmon said...

I am always hesitant to bring up interesting topics because many people (not including you!) are unable to question their own beliefs and simply wonder if there is another way.

This article, in part, questions several assumptions that are widely held (even by me) in an interesting way that has made me think and review my own thoughts. It has also stated clearly some ideas I have always struggled with.

I am reasonable comfortable with uncertainty, but many people I know have a need for absolute rules, even if the rules are demonstrably wrong, and even harmful. I have always wondered why.

But I to could get in trouble saying too much. I am going to go review Guns, Germs and Steel with a new ear. (I have the audiobook version, which I still recommend).