Int - Show me the evidence

[Benejeseret]

As yet another round of "stat yourself" threads just popped up, so did a common enough quote.

"Gamers tend to have above average intelligence."

Really?



Show me the evidence.

Not anecdotes, no generalizations, just peer-reviewed correlative studies supporting your statements with applicable references.

[drengnikrafe]

I made that quote, I believe. In any case...

While in Statistics, I started gathering evidence. First of all, the gamers in that class had the highest grades, and understood the concepts the best. Upon investigating the rest of the classes, the trend remained. Granted, this isn't exactly what you asked for, but...
I can run a full-blown experiment if you want. Well, all except for the fact that the best thing I could do was use IQ tests, which, while a decent measure of intelligence, are less than perfect.

The problem with your request is that it asks us to take a semi-abstract concept and provide solid proof that Group A is better than Not-Group A.

Also, correlation is not causation.

[sonofzeal]

Dude, if "peer-reviewed correlative studies" are your lowest standard of evidence for every little fact, you may want to go home and rethink your priorities. Many things can't be accurately measured or even properly defined, and Intelligence is one of these. In addition, not every question can be addressed by a scientific study, and of those that can be, not all have.

Sometimes you have to go on the best available evidence, and sometimes the best available evidence is common knowledge and anecdotes, both of which highly support pen-and-paper RPG gamers being well above average for intelligence.

[RebelRogue]

At least, this seems to be generally true for a lot of forummers compared to average joes, all IMO (and thus not really what you asked for, sorry). However, it still seems people vastly overrated their Int stats in that thread (I'm not targeting anyone in particular, I just think the number of 18s in there was a little over the top).

[drengnikrafe]

I would also like to add a disclaimer. People who become gamers of their own free will tend to be of higher intelligence. I can tell a story to justify it about "breaking out of social norms" and "memorizing rules", but... I find there isn't really a special connection between people born into a gamer family that are forced to game from a young age and intelligence. In my experience.

Also...

At least, this seems to be generally true for a lot of forummers compared to average joes, all IMO (and thus not really what you asked for, sorry). However, it still seems people vastly overrated their Int stats in that thread (I'm not targeting anyone in particular, I just think the number of 18s in there was a little over the top).

On what scale? 2e conventions say you're among the best in the country (I think) if you're an 18. 3e is more along the lines of "one in 512", or "20% better than average". I can believe that some people who came to this forum have 3e 18 INTs.

[Optimystik]

As yet another round of "stat yourself" threads just popped up, so did a common enough quote.

"Gamers tend to have above average intelligence."

Really?



Show me the evidence.

Not anecdotes, no generalizations, just peer-reviewed correlative studies supporting your statements with applicable references.

Yay google!

[erikun]

"Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons." (from the SRD)

Roleplaying is a game which involves using your imagination to predict, analyze, and overcome challanges. D&D is a game involving learning and applying multiple rules to various situations in an attempt at simulation. The internet is a text-based medium where your ability to write and reason (or lack thereof) is the primary means of communication.

Therefore, a D&D roleplayer on the internet is someone who takes an effort to learn and apply rules to various imaginary situations, then uses language to the best of their ability to converse about doing so with other people. For fun. As recreation.

Now, there are several motivations for someone engaging in activities related to the D&D definition of Intelligence. (Note that D&D Intelligence doesn't necessarily resemble what you might call "real world intelligence".) For one, they might be naturally Intelligent, and be drawn towards roleplaying. They might have expanded their Intelligence through applying it repeatedly while roleplaying.

Or perhaps they are forced to roleplay, and are actually bad at it. Perhaps they stick with it solely for social reasons. Perhaps they are compulsive, and are simply interested in memorizing as much as possible about their desired subject, D&D. There are multiple reasons for someone to roleplay, or play D&D, and it does not mean that everyone doing so must have (or does have) above average intelligence.

D&D is a game which relies on Intelligence (the D&D term) for the best results. Thus, it will be assumed that a D&D gamer will be focused on Intelligence, just as it will be assumed that a weightlifter will be focused on Strength. This doesn't mean that a random gamer has high Intelligence, just as a random weight lifter has high Strength. It means that someone who wishes to spend their time in an Intelligence-related activity will more likely be one who takes an interest in their own Intelligence.

Or, if you prefer a different approach:

Show me the evidence that weightlifters have above average Strength.
Show me the evidence that religious persons have above average Wisdom.
Show me the evidence that politicians have above average Charisma.

If these requests are impossible to fulfill, either from being too vague or too difficult to measure, then the request, "Show me the evidence that gamers have above average Intelligence" is similarly impossible to fulfill and a pointless claim.

[Temotei]

I learned to read from The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, if that's worth anything to you. That owl taught me well.

[RebelRogue]

Using Int to optimise/strategize when RPGing is but one "school of thought". It's common for D&D players, yes, but some are into the "acting" aspects of roleplaying moreso than fiddling with numbers/strategies. Such people would probably be more prone to high Charisma scores. Just saying!

Anyway, I've met quite a few gamers lacking in both these stats (in my humble understanding of them in the simplified stat system of D&D).

[faceroll]

There are metrics in real life to describe all those characteristics, erikun.

[Benejeseret]

Thanks Optimystik, following up on your link we have the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation putting out some report on the subject. I could not find the actual study, but given its a foundation report it may not actually be a reviewed publication but definitely a possible link.

erikun - Definitions are very important. I fully agree. However, I kept it fully open and I think we should consider any evidence of any kind (though we lean toward actual studies of some sort, whatever their methodology or assumptions)

Show me the evidence that weightlifters have above average Strength
I fully admit to only skimming abstracts. However, there are entire journals committed to that and here is just one quick example that addresses that very question and definition. I say again, there are likely thousands of studies backing that statement.

Spoiler

Show

J Strength Cond Res. 2005 May;19(2):433-7.
Short-term effects on lower-body functional power development: weightlifting vs. vertical jump training programs.

Tricoli V, Lamas L, Carnevale R, Ugrinowitsch C.

Department of Sport, School of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. [email protected]

Show me the evidence that religious persons have above average Wisdom
Lets call this one a draw and pass over it for the sake of goodwill

Show me the evidence that politicians have above average Charisma
I am not a social scientist (no background) but I have managed to find at least some studies looking into that aspect.

Spoiler

Show

J Appl Psychol. 2007 Nov;92(6):1584-96.
Adding fuel to fire: the impact of followers' arousal on ratings of charisma.

Pastor JC, Mayo M, Shamir B.

Department of Organizational Behavior, Instituto de Empresa, Madrid, Spain. [email protected]

and what might be a review

Int J Psychoanal. 1995 Aug;76 ( Pt 4):845-55.
Charisma and attachment theory: a crossdisciplinary interpretation.

Aberbach D.

London School of Economics, Department of Sociology, London.

Finally, as a move toward what I am getting at I believe you said this quite well.

"Show me the evidence that gamers have above average Intelligence" is similarly impossible to fulfill and a pointless claim.

If it is impossible to fulfill and support, then we should stop using that rationalization entirely.

[drengnikrafe]

Alright, Benej, you've established quite firmly that stories and rationalizations are not going to work on you. Here are my questions:
-Do you want this to be an Simple Random Sample, or will Stratified work?
-How big do you want the range of this experiment to be? Because I can test my school, no problem, or I could actually put a bunch of legwork in and test a larger area.
-Are you looking for something within the 5% range for confirmation of an absolute, or will a general trend work?
-How can I measure intelligence? Will IQ work, or do I need to dig up GPAs, SATs or ACTs too?

You design it, I'll work on it.

[Benejeseret]

drengnikrafe -

Also, correlation is not causation.

Indeed. That is a chant that ever science/stats student should have to chant on a daily basis. If we can do better the correlation, great, but we might be stretched to even do that for this case.

sonofzeal -

In addition, not every question can be addressed by a scientific study, and of those that can be, not all have.

I agree to some degree. Science is not to answer Why, but certainly can do justice to How, When, Where, Who and the simple "Is this the case" type.

Here is a challenge then to all of us.

If the question has not been addressed, is it worth addressing?

If the question has not been addressed, what can we do (since we are proposed to be above average persons) to address the question?



If the question has not been addressed, should we be claiming an answer.
No

[Yellow]

Why are we supposed to impress this guy again

[drengnikrafe]

At this point, I just want to have a study somewhere on these forums that has been conducted, and can decidedly prove, once and for all, that gamers are above average.
Shoot. I'm not impartial, and thus am likely to use inadvertantly bias the results... Do we have anybody who is truly neutral on this, who is willing to process the data (when collected) using proper statistical tools?

[erikun]

I agree, definitions are important, on both sides of the issue. For example, what should we include in the term gamer? Is anyone who sits at the table every week a gamer, or is it only the people who are "dedicated" to the game somehow. How would we make such a distinction? How would we determine a "professional" gamer? (My use of the term "professional" will become apparent later.)

I'm not very familiar with health studies, but I do know that it is a very well-informed field. A passing introduction in college courses has indicated that we know how much exercise the body needs to maintain optimal health, how much force a person can exert based on body muscle mass, and even how different weight-training exercises tone the body. And while we can clearly observe that professional bodybuilders are stronger than the average person, it becomes more questionable if you include "casual" weightlifters. How about the person who visits the gym once a week for weightlifting, and watches TV the other six days. Will he be stronger than the average person? If we set the casual weightlifters next to the professionals, will the average be (significantly, detectably) different from a worldwide average?

I admit that my priest/wisdom example was poorly thought out, so thank you for avoid it. My point was that wisdom is more abstract and difficult to measure.

Politicians have the same issue as gamers and weightlifters - are we counting just the professionals, or anyone who gets up on a soapbox and tries to make a statement? The studies you mention seem to be closer to "how are people affected when spoken to by a politician they agree with" as opposed to "how many people can a politician influence," though.

On the other hand, I think Optimystik has been more helpful in this thread than I have - I'm not exactly pointing out studies, as you requested. And while I'm not sure "gamers have above average intelligence" is a good phrase, I think it is because it can be worded better. I prefer "gamers tend to place mental activities in high priority," just as someone who visits the gym places physical activity as a priority, and a politician places the ability to influence others in high priority. This doesn't mean that a gamer necessarily has high intelligence - partially because being a gamer can be notoriously vague - but that someone who spends time in a medium focused around imagination and reasoning will likely be someone who places imagination and reasoning in high reguard.

And as RebelRogue mentioned, people play the game for various reasons. Someone might play for analytical reasons (in-game INT) while others for social roleplaying (in-game CHA) and others for simulationist aspects (arguably in-game WIS). And depending on how you look at it, all three could fit within the real-world term of intelligence.

Yet another long post.

[Vorpalbob]

I myself don't really know how this sort of thing would be done, but a friend of mine IRL has the head for the data processing stuff. I'll see if he's interested.

He prowles the forums under the pseudonym Worira.

[Bayar]

I learned english from Cartoon Network. At the age of 5. Am I smart now ?

[sonofzeal]

sonofzeal -
I agree to some degree. Science is not to answer Why, but certainly can do justice to How, When, Where, Who and the simple "Is this the case" type.

Here is a challenge then to all of us.

If the question has not been addressed, is it worth addressing?

If the question has not been addressed, what can we do (since we are proposed to be above average persons) to address the question?



If the question has not been addressed, should we be claiming an answer.
No

I still think you're treading on very dangerous ground. I can claim to know all sorts of things that aren't actually the subject of scientific review, or at least where I don't know of any.

For example, I've never seen a scholarly study on what exactly the colour of the sky is (though one probably exists), but I can still claim to know that it's blue. For a more appropriate example, I've never seen a scholarly study that suggests that people who work in childcare tend to enjoy being around children, but it makes sense.

Similarly, it makes sense that people who enjoy playing a highly abstract game with a large amount of mental arithmetic and complex rulesets would tend to be above average for intelligence.



As to actual evidence, Braun and Sachs suggest (in a 1985 paper I can't get the name for) that Dissociative Capacity links strongly with an "excellent working memory", and others have suggested it relates very closely to "the capacity to ignore extrinsic stimuli". Since Dissociative Capacity is fundamentally about the ability to divorce a segment of the self able to operate semi-independently, it makes sense (though I can't prove it) that it's plays a role in good roleplaying. The ability to think, act, and react as if you were a different person is fairly close to the core talent we connect with Dissociative Capacity. This would suggest that RPG-gamers are hence likely to have above-average working memories and a good ability to ignore distractions.

I highly recommend "Exploring Dissociation: Definitions, Development and Cognitive Correlates" by Anne P. DePrince, Lisa DeMarni Cromer, for more on this subject.

[Benejeseret]

Yellow - I'm not asking to be impressed. What I'm asking borders on rhetorical (though I like the idea of finding evidence) and here are the reasons I ask the question:

1. If it is true, then it is a great way to explain to parents or other anti-gaming groups the benefits. Especially if we can push past correlation and into causation. If nothing else, there is simple pride.

2. Accuracy...maybe it's just me, but I feel a twinge of hypocrisy when in a conversation about intelligence we rely on unsubstantiated bias and perception.

3. If it is not true, then we can stop relying on that crutch and take one step closer to a representative self-stat idea. Furthering self-awareness is ultimately a good thing even if we don't like the answer.

[Benejeseret]

Sonofzeal - Love the suggested study, disagree with your earlier logical flow

I've never seen a scholarly study that suggests that people who work in childcare tend to enjoy being around children, but it makes sense..

Similarly, it makes sense that people who enjoy playing a highly abstract game with a large amount of mental arithmetic and complex rulesets would tend to be above average for intelligence.

Following from your nurse example, the next statement should read: it makes sense that people who play a highly abstract game with a large amount of mental arithmetic and complex rulesets enjoy playing a highly abstract game with a large amount of mental arithmetic and complex rulesets.

But I get where you're going.

That said, would it then make even more sense to say: people who play DnD with an inherent chance-based rolling system should have a higher percentage of people with gambling issues then the general public.

[sonofzeal]

That said, would it then make even more sense to say: people who play DnD with an inherent chance-based rolling system should have a higher percentage of people with gambling issues then the general public.

Hardly. The addictive portion of gambling is not the fact that it is a chance-based rolling system, it's that it is a Variable Ratio Simple Schedule with a low probability of reinforcement but a strong reinforcement when it does happen. Experiments have shown that this is one of the most effective ways of producing non-functional addictive behaviour, where the behaviour in question is repeated almost indefinitely even after reinforcement has ceased altogether. This, I could probably find you papers on, although it's not my specialty so excuse me if I'm occasionally imprecise in my terminology. It's been a while since I really looked at it.


Anyway, D&D doesn't really have that. Rewards are more or less consistent from session to session, and while your character might go for many sessions without getting anything and suddenly gain some massive artifact, the pleasure that player himself experiences from playing the game should be subject to only minor variation. If it were a game where the players got nothing out of it for long stretches of time, punctuated randomly but infrequently by strong positive reinforcements, you'd be more likely to see crossover with problem gambling behaviour. I'd deny that this hypothetical game has much to do with D&D as I play it, though.

[Semidi]

Asking a gaming forum if gamers are intelligent (whatever that means) is just about the one of the worst way of getting an accurate answer that I can think of.

[Superglucose]

I have not personally noticed any particular trend regarding gamers and intelligence. Some are intelligent, some are not. In my experience, the average gamer is of average intelligence.

I will say that generally people think they're smarter than they really are.

[Mikeavelli]

A lot of Gamers will think and believe their fellow gamers have above average intelligence because...

A. They're gamers, and believe themselves to have above average intelligence.

B. Their friends are gamers, and many people believe their friends are more intelligent than those idiots who aren't their friends. Especially if those idiots disagree with them.

C. There might really be something to it.

[hr]

I'm tending towards A and B actually. I've gamed with quite a few groups, in quite a few social situations.

- While in the Air Force, I gamed with a small group of people who were, as far as I knew, the only gamers in my entire squadron. The Air Force handles enlisted promotions through a weighted point system that depends heavily on a standardized test over your job field and general knowledge.

Every member of my gaming group did exceptionally well on that test, and tended to get promoted the first year they were eligible for promotion. Since only an average of 20% of eligible airman of my rank get promoted each year, the rate was much higher among gamers.

- Currently I'm out of the military (thankfully) and going to school on the G.I. Bill, I'm back to socializing with a lot of my former gamer friends. In the 'gamer' social group, a distressingly large number of my peers either dropped out of college, or never even started. Make of that what you will.

[Leolo]

I do not believe that role playing games players tend to be more intelligent.

But this is by far related to an acceptable definition of the term. I know many people that are not as good in maths than i do. But it does not make them less intelligent.

What i can say is that gamers tend to have academical jobs, like computer scientist, teacher or something similar.
Also they tend to have interest in books, (fantasy) art, writing skills and things that require good imagination in general.
Outside of the english speech area there is also a tendency that role playing games encourage their players to be multilingual. Sometimes to the point where you are supposed to be multilingual or unable to use material published only in english language.
And then role playing games are a niche product. To be a gamer brings you in contact with a specific milieu of people.

But there are other social backgrounds and milieus that have similar prerequisites and consistence. All that a study could show is that the interests of people depends remarkable on their social background. And that we call someone intelligent if he has interests that are marked as being typically for intelligent people.

[Demented]

While I don't think there's a correlation between gaming and intelligence, there does seem to be a moderate correlation between gaming and adolescent to college-age males capable of supporting an expensive hobby and ownership of a computer (at least for those who can frequent the forum to a webcomic).

I reckon that studies pertaining to the intelligence of adolescent males, college-age males, and individuals with disposable income are far easier to come by than studies pertaining to the intelligence of gamers.

...Though, the popularity of gaming is ever increasing to other demographics.

[Kaiyanwang]

I will say that generally people think they're smarter than they really are.

I second this.

[Zen Master]

Why are we supposed to impress this guy again

Well - what he asks is highly relevant. If we claim to be above average intelligence, but have nothing to support such a claim, then we do not know whether that is the case. We do, however, know that we are hypocrites.

Wouldn't you rather know you are above average intelligence?

[Superglucose]

I'm smart enough for my own tastes. I'll always want to be smarter, I think, but I can figure out plenty, you know? It's not like I'm living life confused. I guess in that regard it doesn't really matter to me whether or not I'm smarter than everyone else or dumber than everyone else (though I'd say I'm right in the middle) so long as I am happy with who I am.