greenberg@calgary.UUCP (Saul Greenberg) (11/24/85)
After Roy Masrani and I submitting a highly tongue-in-cheek abstract titled "Iconic interfaces for office systems based on video-games", a serious reply was posted asking the question: "Is it appropriate to increase a user's emotional involvement with a model filled with conflict?" According to principles of human factors research, the answer would be yes. Psychological experimentation is highly pragmatic - people's reactions to stimuli are measured, not their morality. As an example, one study looked at individual differences between male and female reaction to video games. The findings suggest that while males react strongly to a "shoot-em down" game, female reaction is generally negative. The result - develop a "female-oriented" game. I suggest that experimental psychology has no morality. If a conflict-filled metaphor is an efficient one, then its use can be justified psychologically. The morality of the metaphor is a philosophical question which is answered in terms of good taste and judgement. Unfortunately, the demands of the marketplace usually takes precedence. This is simple to prove - advertisements use a wealth of psychological knowledge to manipulate the masses, which I personally find repugnant. As scientists, we have a quest for knowledge. History suggests that this knowledge is rarely used for the lofty ideals it was intended for. Saul Greenberg Dept of Computer Science University of Calgary, Canada
zben@umd5.UUCP (11/26/85)
In article <577@calgary.UUCP> greenberg@calgary.UUCP (Saul Greenberg) writes: > .... As an example, one >study looked at individual differences between male and female reaction >to video games. The findings suggest that while males react strongly to >a "shoot-em down" game, female reaction is generally negative. The >result - develop a "female-oriented" game. Indeed. The Pac-Man video game, one of the first commercial video games to use a non-"shoot-em-up" paradigm, was also very popular with women. Perhaps the "avoidance" paradigm speaks to something in our social structure, most specifically the pre-liberated-feminism "pursuit and avoidance" sexuality. Now, can we say anything about the Pac Man "power pill"? For those unfamiliar with the game, these are the four blinking dots in the corners of the game, which when "eaten" confer (for a short period of time) the ability to defeat in combat the "ghosts" which one normally avoids. Of course, this maps onto a reversal-of-roles, and would speak perhaps to socially-repressed desires for dominance... I saw an interview with a top-level female executive of the company that produced this video game. She said outright that women were such a part of the success of Pac-Man that they decided to dedicate the follow-on game, Ms. Pac-Man, to them. Since then there has also been a Pac-Man Junior game, continuing this sexually stereotyped paradigm. Is this pandering to mankind's basest motivations any better than the blatant commercialism you later decry? -- Ben Cranston ...{seismo!umcp-cs,ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!zben zben@umd2.ARPA
jss@ihu1e.UUCP (Smith) (12/05/85)
> In article <577@calgary.UUCP> greenberg@calgary.UUCP (Saul Greenberg) writes: > > > .... As an example, one > >study looked at individual differences between male and female reaction > >to video games. The findings suggest that while males react strongly to > >a "shoot-em down" game, female reaction is generally negative. The > >result - develop a "female-oriented" game. > > Indeed. The Pac-Man video game, one of the first commercial video games to > use a non-"shoot-em-up" paradigm, was also very popular with women. ... Not a "shoot-em-up" but an "eat-em-up"? I am not sure that I see the difference. -- J. S. Smith AT&T IW There are lots of opinions around this place, but these are mine and no one else's (pitty the poor soul if they do share mine.)