There may be a huge selection bias in their study: insiders are more likely to publish their game, weather they are bad or good. In comparison, hobbyist have to propose better games in order to have the chance to be visible and then published. This would bias the study into thinking that hobbyist are more innovative than professionals.
Hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games
61–70 of 150 posts
Re: Hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games
#62That's because there are more hobbyists than professional designers.
Re: Hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games
#63This kind of thing has been shown in all sorts of creative endeavour. But it ignores consistency, which is the main mark of professionalism. Yeah, if you disregard all rules and norms sometimes you come up with something AMAZING that no-one following the rules could ever conceive of. But most of the the time it's just crap.
That's why it's so fun to go to things like band competitions. Everybody plays about four songs. You see so much variety there. I guess it doesn't suit those people who just listen to the radio. Same about random small cafes or bars with live music.
The good thing about that is you're not expecting too much - the secret to happiness is low expectations.
But it's not a great method of doing business!
Re: Hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games
#64Sometimes I think researchers do not understand second-order effects of their pet theories. The societal/market result of stuff like this will inevitably be something like "Let's crowdsource more of these creative activities, so we can drive down the already rock-bottom compensation rates of the few jobs that cannot be automated - this research says we're not going to lose anything on the quality side anyway". In the…
Predicting second- and subsequent order effects accurately is basically impossible for any non-trivial issue.
Here I'd argue that the effect may instead be that professionals are able to figure out what the amateurs are doing differently and incorporate it into their discipline.
If you hold up the research trying to figure out which second-order effect is more likely, you'll never get any research done on anything of substance. (You see, the second order effect of your suggestion is an overall suppression of research. Damn, arguing from second-order effects sure is tempting!)
Re: Hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games
#65If you use a product, you are aware of things that people that don't use it, aren't.
If you are suggesting, that boardgame designers are not playing with the boardgames they designed, you are probably not familiar with the boardgame development process, which includes a shitton of playtesting to finetune the game's balance. If you are not suggesting this, I have no idea what you suggesting.
Re: Hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games
#66This kind of thing has been shown in all sorts of creative endeavour. But it ignores consistency, which is the main mark of professionalism. Yeah, if you disregard all rules and norms sometimes you come up with something AMAZING that no-one following the rules could ever conceive of. But most of the the time it's just crap.
The mean quality of amateur designs is lower, but the variance is much, much higher. When a creative market reaches a scale where thousands or hundreds of thousands of amateurs can experiment with new designs, the number of outliers surpassing the quality of professional designs is significant. The challenge is finding a high-throughput way to filter those amateur board games. We like to think the best games will ris…
> Furthermore, the line between amateur and professional blurs quickly when the amateurs start selling their products. Once someone starts a Kickstarter or opens a store to sell their amateur board game, they are effectively professionals. They tend to start behaving as such.
Yes, in the sense that they have to factor in "professional" responsibilities, such as paying attention to costs; e.g. production and marketing.
However, I think when many people say "professional game designer" I think they may (rightly or wrongly) include "seasoned" (i.e. with a track record).
Of course, both amateurs and professionals may be seasoned. And both may have passion and dedication to their work.
Re: Hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games
#67This kind of thing has been shown in all sorts of creative endeavour. But it ignores consistency, which is the main mark of professionalism. Yeah, if you disregard all rules and norms sometimes you come up with something AMAZING that no-one following the rules could ever conceive of. But most of the the time it's just crap.
Maybe amateurs can more easily escape local maximas because they don't know the ingrained rules that lead to them.
Yes, perhaps.
Also, perhaps expert knowledge of common tendencies can help to avoid local maxima.
Re: Hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games
#68Am I just bad at reading the graphs or is the effect size negligible?
Re: Hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games
#69This kind of thing has been shown in all sorts of creative endeavour. But it ignores consistency, which is the main mark of professionalism. Yeah, if you disregard all rules and norms sometimes you come up with something AMAZING that no-one following the rules could ever conceive of. But most of the the time it's just crap.
Keep in mind that hobbyists sometimes spend as much, or more, time than professionals at a given craft. I've known people with incredible skill at specific trades, but they had something completely different as their day job.
So true. Microsoft Encarta was never going to out-compete Wikipedia. And Windows Shell is never going to rip out bloat as ruthlessly as dwm, or lay it on as thickly as Compiz, or be as customizable as anything other than GNOME 3+.
Re: Hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why it's so fun to go to things like band competitions. Everybody plays about four songs. You see so much variety there. I guess it doesn't suit those people who just listen to the radio. Same about random small cafes or bars with live music.
The good thing about that is you're not expecting too much - the secret to happiness is low expectations. But it's not a great method of doing business!
Well, I don't think it is "the" secret, and probably not a "secret" at all. (At least, I hope not.)
Regarding happiness, Maslow's model [1] is well-known and makes sense to me. As I understand it, happiness is built on a foundation by satisfying:
1. physiological needs
2. safety needs
3. belongingness & love needs (i.e. connectedness)
4. esteem needs
5. self-actualization
- "There is little scientific basis to the idea: Maslow himself noted this criticism."
- "However, it has been pointed out that, although the ideas behind the hierarchy are Maslow's, the pyramid itself does not exist anywhere in Maslow's original work."
And my views:
- I question the universality of #5. There are many people who could, technically, accomplish 'more' that are happy doing 'less'. Perhaps #5 would be better explained as "agency" -- the ability to choose a path in life?
- That said -- I agree with you -- there is something to be said for expecting 'less'. This idea is compatible with "make the most of what you have". But less relative to what? For example, should one expect to be safe from violence, at least most of the time?
- The studies around "good" stress versus "bad" stress come into play too. This is consistent with sayings such as "the bad times help us appreciate the good times" and "we better appreciate the things we work for".
- Still, I believe that people, in general, are happier and more developed if they are not unnecessarily constrained. Unpacking this idea probably would requires a discussion of how individuals relate to society as well as normative theory of justice.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs