Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

quanticfoundry.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#51

Post by beat »

Nadya wrote: post #49
beat wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't all hobbies just time-killing activities, though? Is obsessiveness (or worse, the technique of obsessiveness) a useful measurement?

My issue is that since all hobbies are time-killing activities that time ceases to be a useful measure. The majority of people who spend 10,000 hours doing something eventually become skilled or knowledgeable at that thing - but not always. If you remain poorly skilled and not very knowledgeable on a thing after 10,000 hours I'm going to assume those hours were spent "casually" and not with a lot of focus to learn an…

Speaking as someone who has spent decades mastering a hobby craft (playing guitar)... first, if someone is involved in a hobby consistently at all, then the label applies. Terrible guitarists are as much guitarists as geniuses are. This is not to equate the players - only to equate the labels. You need something more precise to distinguish. My son is a hardcore gamer. My spouse is a gamer, but not a hardcore gamer. When more committed gamers say "That's not a real gamer", it's about exclusion and snobbery, not a real measure of anything else, including talent and skill (fwiw, my spouse would probably trounce you at her games). So be very careful when taking this position that you're being distinctive rather than judgmental.

Another thing I've observed is that people who have committed their 10,000 hours and become really, really good are often in doubt about their own abilities. That's because they notice things that less experienced people do not. After 35 years of playing guitar, I feel I know less about it now than I did when I'd been playing for two years. The sense of scope of what I don't know is overwhelming sometimes.

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#52

Post by dang »

paidleaf wrote: post #24
wgerard wrote: post #17

Ignoring the graphs, curious how much of this is just a response to community. Anecdotes abound, beware. Even as an older (for gaming, anyway) white male, the community in some competitive games is just really unappealing - it basically reminds me of middle school, and I guess I'm not really into that anymore. Lots of things said just to get a reaction (e.g. racial slurs), lots of weird discussions about women, lots…

> I don't really have the time to be competitively good at any of these games, and the community kinda sucks unless you are competitively good so it's kinda like what's the point? You could play with people on your own level? > At least with rec sports the community is generally nice even if you're terrible (probably because you're in-person). Really? Try playing pick-up basketball games if you are terrible. Even wit…

We've banned this account for repeatedly taking HN threads into hellish, repetitive flamewar.

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#53

Post by Nadya »

beat wrote: post #51
Nadya wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue is that since all hobbies are time-killing activities that time ceases to be a useful measure. The majority of people who spend 10,000 hours doing something eventually become skilled or knowledgeable at that thing - but not always. If you remain poorly skilled and not very knowledgeable on a thing after 10,000 hours I'm going to assume those hours were spent "casually" and not with a lot of focus to learn an…

Speaking as someone who has spent decades mastering a hobby craft (playing guitar)... first, if someone is involved in a hobby consistently at all, then the label applies. Terrible guitarists are as much guitarists as geniuses are. This is not to equate the players - only to equate the labels. You need something more precise to distinguish. My son is a hardcore gamer. My spouse is a gamer, but not a hardcore gamer. W…

I also play guitar, I know my music theory, I can play chords on a piano, but if anyone asked me to play a song - outside of doing an improv. chord progression - I'd be able to do so. I still fumble trying to find the right notes quickly enough to play music. I feel it would be insulting to other pianists if I called myself a pianist - even though I play piano almost daily. My office has a grand piano in the lobby and I'm the first one in every morning by a few hours, giving me time to dabble with it alone.

Dunning-kruger doesn't prevent them from being able to explain things (even if not necessarily in "formal terms", there are plenty of talented musicians out there who don't know a lick of music theory!) or perform at levels that an unpracticed person could. Almost anyone who picks up a guitar could learn a basic version of Deep Purple or Ironman or the intro riff to Enter Sandman in a few hours, barring any physical limitations. But you're not going to be cranking out improv solos or a jazz chord progression without any practice whatsoever.

To ask again, in your own words, what are the differences between a master pianist, a pianist, and someone who can play the Hot Cross Buns melody? I personally feel there is an important distinction, if only to convey information accurately, between saying "I am a master pianist", "I can play piano", and "I am learning to play piano."

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#54

Post by beat »

Nadya wrote: post #53
beat wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who has spent decades mastering a hobby craft (playing guitar)... first, if someone is involved in a hobby consistently at all, then the label applies. Terrible guitarists are as much guitarists as geniuses are. This is not to equate the players - only to equate the labels. You need something more precise to distinguish. My son is a hardcore gamer. My spouse is a gamer, but not a hardcore gamer. W…

I also play guitar, I know my music theory, I can play chords on a piano, but if anyone asked me to play a song - outside of doing an improv. chord progression - I'd be able to do so. I still fumble trying to find the right notes quickly enough to play music. I feel it would be insulting to other pianists if I called myself a pianist - even though I play piano almost daily. My office has a grand piano in the lobby an…

Some years ago, I taught an after-school chess club at my son's middle school. Now, I'm no sort of decent chess player at all, but I know the rules, and I know a little.

For the first day of class, I sent around a questionnaire, asking students to rate themselves as beginning, intermediate, or advanced. All of them, except my son, rated themselves as intermediate or advanced. I then played all of them at the same time, and won all of those games.

And I suck.

This really is a complicated question, though. First, perspective. Are you describing yourself, or someone else? Is there any sort of a formal rating system? (For example, a Bachelor of Science degree is a formal rating system.)

Take the guitarist example. Every guitarist I know, no matter how good (and I know professionals) is quite limited in what they can play. Neil Young can't play classical. Classical players can't play Neil Young, either! They might be able to get the notes right - by ear, even - but they'll lack feel, expressiveness, and tone. Measuring guitar, or many other forms of art, in terms of technique can be blindingly wrong. What's good guitar technique? Playing fast? Knowing a lot of scales? Piffle. Good guitarists can express what they want to express. Period. That's my measure.

So you see why I have a problem with the idea of "convey information accurately". I think it's philosophically wrong.

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#55

Post by Nadya »

beat wrote: post #54
Nadya wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also play guitar, I know my music theory, I can play chords on a piano, but if anyone asked me to play a song - outside of doing an improv. chord progression - I'd be able to do so. I still fumble trying to find the right notes quickly enough to play music. I feel it would be insulting to other pianists if I called myself a pianist - even though I play piano almost daily. My office has a grand piano in the lobby an…

Some years ago, I taught an after-school chess club at my son's middle school. Now, I'm no sort of decent chess player at all, but I know the rules, and I know a little. For the first day of class, I sent around a questionnaire, asking students to rate themselves as beginning, intermediate, or advanced. All of them, except my son, rated themselves as intermediate or advanced. I then played all of them at the same tim…

There are many grey areas when not using a 'formal' rating system (eg: college degree). But the formal system is rigged in that it isn't available to everyone - and is heavily biased towards those with the right pedigree or luck. Not to say nobody gets into college through hard work, just that it's skewed.

I feel most people are able to identify a good guitarist whether or not they like the music the guitarist plays. Even when the guitarist only plays with 1 string [0].

>For the first day of class, I sent around a questionnaire, asking students to rate themselves as beginning, intermediate, or advanced.

I blame your questionnaire for not defining the levels of play or being granular enough (1-10 scale). With those options I would assume "beginner" means "doesn't know how a knight can move across the board or the difference between a rook and a bishop", a 1 on a 10 scale. For example, I'm a "novice" chess player for sure - but not a "beginner" (some people may use these terms interchangeably), a 2 or 3 on a 10 scale. Assuming the students in the club knew the rules of Chess - it's not a surprise nobody answered "beginner"!

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8H-67ILaqc

Re: What Men and Women Consider Hardcore Gaming Are Not The Same

#56

Post by beat »

Nadya wrote: post #55
beat wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some years ago, I taught an after-school chess club at my son's middle school. Now, I'm no sort of decent chess player at all, but I know the rules, and I know a little. For the first day of class, I sent around a questionnaire, asking students to rate themselves as beginning, intermediate, or advanced. All of them, except my son, rated themselves as intermediate or advanced. I then played all of them at the same tim…

There are many grey areas when not using a 'formal' rating system (eg: college degree). But the formal system is rigged in that it isn't available to everyone - and is heavily biased towards those with the right pedigree or luck. Not to say nobody gets into college through hard work, just that it's skewed. I feel most people are able to identify a good guitarist whether or not they like the music the guitarist plays.…

One of my favorite books on guitar theory, The Advancing Guitarist by Mick Goodrick, has a whole section called "The Science of the Unitar", about learning to play on just one string, as a way of thinking of the guitar differently.

To use your analogy, it doesn't take long in a conversation to tell if the person you're speaking with is well educated or not.

Post reply on HN