Just because you can put yourself in the matrix doesn't mean it works or its any good.
Also,
I highly doubt the Bartlet test has any significance in game design.
Then again, Freud's theories were almost all wrong yet he is still quite
relevant in psychology.
Anyway, the reason why Bartlet test
still lives on, is precisely the same why some certain personality tests
keep popping up in popular culture: People who don't know any better
find it entertaining.
It is largely an exercise in frivolity; I don't deny that one bit. Is any harm being done by perpetuating something you don't like though - especially if you legitimately believe it to already be irrelevant? If it's already so irrelevant, then who cares? Let people have their fun. If we were talking about the perpetuation of a relevant topic that was holding back the potential of psychology then maybe there would be grounds to say, "Can we stop this and focus on something important?" But by your own admission that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a silly topic that is fun to ponder in a completely harmless way. I mean...if it's not fun to you, there's probably a big BACK button on your browser and you should become acquainted with it.
To me it's like horoscopes. A few people take it seriously, most people take it with a fun sense of humor, and it's a no-harm-no-foul thing.
Are you saying there is no harm in pseudo-science? Some people take it seriously. That's harmful.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Almost all psychology is flawed to one degree or another, because everyone is basically somewhere in the gradient. I largely look at psychology as a framework for generalization of the human mentality. It's hard to create any sort of accurate psychology; the best we can hope for are generalizations that work most of the time. I think the Bartle test passes that test. I think it's pretty well proven to work most of the time as a generalization of the four types of behavior in gaming.
Good thing is that we don't need mathematically perfect psychology. It will be a very different world if your every behavior is perfectly predictable and rational.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
I imagine here the objection is because Bartle mentions gaming types without hierarchy. I'm guessing quirhid would have preferred a tier system like something out of Nietzsche
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Are you saying there is no harm in pseudo-science? Some people take it seriously. That's harmful.
Actually, yes...I'm exactly saying there is no harm in pseudo-science. Claims that lack relevancy don't do harm. If you strip away a set idiotic beliefs from someone, they will just find a new set of idiotic beliefs to claim. David Hannum (and not P.T. Barnum, as is usually attributed) said, "A sucker is born every minute." Getting rid of irrelevant or otherwise foolish beliefs doesn't get rid of the suckers.
The point is that these things simply don't do that much harm, and if they do any at all it's going to be grossly exaggerated. The people that believe pseudo-scientific claims are not the same people that have any control over the flow of scientific discovery or information. They do not hold back the scientific community or have any credibility within the scientific community. In order to harm the scientific community they would have to influence the scientific community in some way, which they do not.
Rather or not there's any merit to the Bartle Test, discussion of it doesn't hold back the course of psychology or game design.
Almost all psychology is flawed to one degree or another, because everyone is basically somewhere in the gradient. I largely look at psychology as a framework for generalization of the human mentality. It's hard to create any sort of accurate psychology; the best we can hope for are generalizations that work most of the time. I think the Bartle test passes that test. I think it's pretty well proven to work most of the time as a generalization of the four types of behavior in gaming.
Good thing is that we don't need mathematically perfect psychology. It will be a very different world if your every behavior is perfectly predictable and rational.
That's exactly my point, though. Psychology won't be perfect; it can only hope to be good enough. For all intents and purposes I don't see how the Bartle Test doesn't classify as good enough to accurately but generally explain types of player personalities.
Comments
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I imagine here the objection is because Bartle mentions gaming types without hierarchy. I'm guessing quirhid would have preferred a tier system like something out of Nietzsche
The point is that these things simply don't do that much harm, and if they do any at all it's going to be grossly exaggerated. The people that believe pseudo-scientific claims are not the same people that have any control over the flow of scientific discovery or information. They do not hold back the scientific community or have any credibility within the scientific community. In order to harm the scientific community they would have to influence the scientific community in some way, which they do not.
Rather or not there's any merit to the Bartle Test, discussion of it doesn't hold back the course of psychology or game design.