drcpunk.livejournal.com (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
drcpunk.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
labcats2006-02-20 08:24 pm
drcpunk.livejournal.com) wrote in labcats2006-02-20 08:24 pm
LIghting Candles vs Cursing Darkness, or The Lumpley Principle
Vincent Baker has something he calls the Lumpley Principle: Gaming is a social activity. The game affects and is affected by the social dynamics of the gaming group.
This is also true of talking about gaming, and discussions in general. That is, the gaming 'blogosphere is a social activity, and is affected by social dynamics.
This is, or should be, fairly obvious. And, while I am about to make more obvious statements, it should be understood that I fall prey to, well, being a flawed human being.
If you use inflammatory language, you will tick people off. This means that they may not pay attention to what might be perfectly valid points.
People see what they want to see in a text.
People also see what they expect to see. Fr'ex, when I commented on Fair Play a while back, I was surprised when Emily said that if I had an issue with someone I was quoting, I should take it up with him -- or with her. I was surprised because I was quoting it and saying, "Yes, he's right," essentially.
A couple of posts later, she said that she'd realized she'd misread my comment.
No harm, no foul -- she'd been polite in both posts, and I think the second was there before I'd read the first -- but this is an example of the extension of the Lumply Principle that I was talking about there and here. There had been a series of intense, sometimes less than polite or clear, discussions and comments on various logs, particularly anyway, and I think a lot of us were feeling residual touchiness.
Follow the 'blogosphere closely when there are intense, heated discussions, and, if you are not disengaged from these discussions, they can suck you in. I've seen myself follow post after post, checking back regularly throughout a day, and getting more and more agitated. I don't like being there. I'd rather err on the side of ignoring the whole 'blogosphere.
And, what we bring to a discussion isn't just what's in the discussion. My parents have health issues that are stressing me the heck out. On a day where I've been fretting about this, you bet it influences how I read and react to the 'blogosphere.
Don't take that last paragraph too far. How my stressing over that affects things is neither simple nor a straightforward case of "X stress here leads to Y stupid comment there." Anyone saying that is one kind of fool. I sit down to an rpg, and yep, X stress is there -- but it may be that I have a blast with the game, and let go of the stress for a while.
There's no 1-to-1 correspondence of events outside the game / discussion to how a game or discussion plays out. The point is that we are social creatures, and these things are factors.
Being aware of all of this is useful. Reading too much into it is risky, often foolish, and an example of the Lumpley Principle, as it can cause much irritation at a self-appointed expert on someone else's psychology.
That said, if you're writing a post or a comment, who is your audience? What are you trying to accomplish?
Do you want to communicate? To convince people of anything? If so, you're a danged fool if you insult your audience and then get surprised that the audience is offended, unwilling to listen, and too quick to misinterpret.
I advised![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mnemex of this when I read one of his comments to a 'blog. His comment was, on the whole, thoughtful and intelligent. Only the first paragraph was inflamatory.
So, he was opening up with a paragraph that was likely to offend the person to whom it was addressed. Nope, I didn't think that person would then be receptive to the rest of the comment.
Nor was he. I looked over the response, and told mnemex that he'd pretty much invited it. He agreed, and said he'd posted an apology (or tried to -- I'm not sure if his machine and the blogging software ever communicated).
Do you just want to rant, and you don't really care if anyone agrees? Okay, but then, folks will still be responding to your rant as, well, a rant. They may well be at fault, especially if you say up front, "This is a rant. I am not trying to convince anyone of my position, nor do I expect anyone to be convinced."
If this happens and you get dopey comments, the thing to do is simple, but not easy: Do not respond.
NB: I ran this by both mnemex and Emily before posting.
This is also true of talking about gaming, and discussions in general. That is, the gaming 'blogosphere is a social activity, and is affected by social dynamics.
This is, or should be, fairly obvious. And, while I am about to make more obvious statements, it should be understood that I fall prey to, well, being a flawed human being.
If you use inflammatory language, you will tick people off. This means that they may not pay attention to what might be perfectly valid points.
People see what they want to see in a text.
People also see what they expect to see. Fr'ex, when I commented on Fair Play a while back, I was surprised when Emily said that if I had an issue with someone I was quoting, I should take it up with him -- or with her. I was surprised because I was quoting it and saying, "Yes, he's right," essentially.
A couple of posts later, she said that she'd realized she'd misread my comment.
No harm, no foul -- she'd been polite in both posts, and I think the second was there before I'd read the first -- but this is an example of the extension of the Lumply Principle that I was talking about there and here. There had been a series of intense, sometimes less than polite or clear, discussions and comments on various logs, particularly anyway, and I think a lot of us were feeling residual touchiness.
Follow the 'blogosphere closely when there are intense, heated discussions, and, if you are not disengaged from these discussions, they can suck you in. I've seen myself follow post after post, checking back regularly throughout a day, and getting more and more agitated. I don't like being there. I'd rather err on the side of ignoring the whole 'blogosphere.
And, what we bring to a discussion isn't just what's in the discussion. My parents have health issues that are stressing me the heck out. On a day where I've been fretting about this, you bet it influences how I read and react to the 'blogosphere.
Don't take that last paragraph too far. How my stressing over that affects things is neither simple nor a straightforward case of "X stress here leads to Y stupid comment there." Anyone saying that is one kind of fool. I sit down to an rpg, and yep, X stress is there -- but it may be that I have a blast with the game, and let go of the stress for a while.
There's no 1-to-1 correspondence of events outside the game / discussion to how a game or discussion plays out. The point is that we are social creatures, and these things are factors.
Being aware of all of this is useful. Reading too much into it is risky, often foolish, and an example of the Lumpley Principle, as it can cause much irritation at a self-appointed expert on someone else's psychology.
That said, if you're writing a post or a comment, who is your audience? What are you trying to accomplish?
Do you want to communicate? To convince people of anything? If so, you're a danged fool if you insult your audience and then get surprised that the audience is offended, unwilling to listen, and too quick to misinterpret.
I advised
mnemex of this when I read one of his comments to a 'blog. His comment was, on the whole, thoughtful and intelligent. Only the first paragraph was inflamatory.So, he was opening up with a paragraph that was likely to offend the person to whom it was addressed. Nope, I didn't think that person would then be receptive to the rest of the comment.
Nor was he. I looked over the response, and told mnemex that he'd pretty much invited it. He agreed, and said he'd posted an apology (or tried to -- I'm not sure if his machine and the blogging software ever communicated).
Do you just want to rant, and you don't really care if anyone agrees? Okay, but then, folks will still be responding to your rant as, well, a rant. They may well be at fault, especially if you say up front, "This is a rant. I am not trying to convince anyone of my position, nor do I expect anyone to be convinced."
If this happens and you get dopey comments, the thing to do is simple, but not easy: Do not respond.
NB: I ran this by both mnemex and Emily before posting.