GameBanshee Forums

Fable, well said, I've never thought of it, that way. I always thought that RPG PC games/books/board games were intellectually stimulatin'...and I still think it can be, at least in board games, where everyone can contribute their ideas and are forced to solve & get through different puzzles/situtations. Lookin' at it your way, though, I can see what you're gettin' at, after all these computer games/books are produced for the masses, and the intellectuality needed for these games doesn't exactly compare to the level of intelligence needed/used for a physics paper.
However, if you compare the Computer with the TV, wouldn't you think the computer can/is a lot more intellectually stimulatin'? Also, some games do require a certain level of thought, which IMO is an intellectual stimulant (eg:Myst for a lack of a better idea). As to books, well I only seem them really, like you mentioned, improvin' your linguistic/writing skills and as a form of cheap fun.
I guess it depends a lot on POVs, but I do think that serious Sci-fi/RP'ers are of above average intelligence (and by serious I mean those who don't play RPG games or read fantasy books simply for the mindless hack 'n slash). Just for reference, fantasy books I enjoyed readin' the most were R.A.Salvatore's Drizzt novels and Margaret Weis/Tracy Hickman's Dragonlance stories..

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
however i do disagree with the idea of the same question being asked over and over again.

Actually some questions regarding certain case already covered on one particular thread. Which is why I'd rather look away rather than flame the member who post it. I think forum mods should put another addition on the forums sticky which suggest the use of search feature rather than posting another "already posted" thread.

Here's some more idea :
1. post a reply which contain the link to get the answer and closed the thread to avoid any flaming.
2. move the thread question top become the part of the already existing thread - I know this is quite trouble some

@Fable: In that case, what exactly do you mean with the term sci-fi? One of my favourite sci-fi novels is Solaris by Stanislaw Lem and i certainly dont think its that unimaginative. There is also authors like Ray Bradbury and Denis Lindbohm (swedish, Dont know if he have been translated to english ) that, Whatever you may think of their books, Do not imo follow the default template you often see in fantasy litrature.

@Dottie, the phrase that Frogus used was "intellectually stimulating," and I perceive that as something different from "imaginative." Ray Bradbury is a heart-warming author with a strong touch of humanity, at times an imaginative author, but I wouldn't say he presents any kind of concepts within an intellectual framework that stimulates profound speculation.

Typically, the kind of novels that do provoke thought are poor sellers. Take Spinrad's Bug Jack Barron: a brilliant fantasy novel, one of the first to invoke a futuristic necropolis. (It was written in the late 1960s.) Well thought out, very detailed, remarkable prose, filled with ideas and characters that grab by the throat. Tense plot. Big seller? Would you believe it was rejected for publication by the very publisher that commissioned it? When finally released, it was nominated for awards, but was a deadweight on the market. The public wanted sci-fi shoot-em-ups, Conan and magic, etc.

It's but one example; I can give you more than a dozen. My point is simply that the sci-fi/fantasy market can have some very fine books--Solaris is one; so are Lem's later, darker, more mordant efforts. But it is a market whose works are written to please, soothe, depress or exalt, rather than intellectually provoke with novel ideas.

@Fable: I see what you mean then, though I must admitt that judged by those standars im not sure I've ever read a intellectually provoking book.

Originally posted by Dottie
@Fable: I see what you mean then, though I must admitt that judged by those standars im not sure I've ever read a intellectually provoking book.

I'll bet you have. Ever hear of Kurt Vonnegut? He's not considered fantasy (least of all, by himself--he hates the stuff, and sci-fi, too); more like speculative fiction. He's not interested in rehashing tales told by Scandanavian skalds in the 12th century. He writes about people, not magic or ray guns. But quite a few of his novels include a "fantastic element," as well as a few smuggled-in ideas with enormous explosive potential. Vonnegut's sneaky that way: he doesn't make the ideas the main focus of his story, but keeps them floating underneath everything. He's probably the most accessible of the "thinking fiction" authors in the last generation or two.

Originally posted by fable


I'll bet you have. Ever hear of Kurt Vonnegut? He's not considered fantasy (least of all, by himself--he hates the stuff, and sci-fi, too); more like speculative fiction. He's not interested in rehashing tales told by Scandanavian skalds in the 12th century. He writes about people, not magic or ray guns. But quite a few of his novels include a "fantastic element," as well as a few smuggled-in ideas with enormous explosive potential. Vonnegut's sneaky that way: he doesn't make the ideas the main focus of his story, but keeps them floating underneath everything. He's probably the most accessible of the "thinking fiction" authors in the last generation or two.

I have read slaughterhouse five, but I was quite young at the time. Should I reread it or do you recommend I try another of his books?

Originally posted by Dottie


I have read slaughterhouse five, but I was quite young at the time. Should I reread it or do you recommend I try another of his books?

It's quite good, and you might enjoy it, again. You might also want to check out Huxley's The Island, and Hesse's The Glass Bead Game (sometimes called Magister Ludi).

Originally posted by fable


It's quite good, and you might enjoy it, again. You might also want to check out Huxley's The Island, and Hesse's The Glass Bead Game (sometimes called Magister Ludi).

Ill try to get my hands on them then. And now I should probably stop spamming a serious topic.

You weren't spamming Dottie...

...you were COMMunicating.

*sees fable's warning look of not posting unrelated topics*

As for the real topic, this is what I see:

For RPG-Pnp players, most of them would definitely tend to be those who love to read and spend time reading. Reading all those rulebooks, interpreting them and then playing takes certain skills in order to fully appreciate the game.

I don't have any intention to pigeonhole but when I was in highschool (80's), most of the gamers were the "smart ones."

I don't think geeks or nerds are appropriate since a number of us are very much active and into sports... and girls.

It's just that we have all this affinity to reading. Maybe that is why all of us gamers in hs belonged to the "non-academically challenged"

Fable,

I guess the exsistence of a relationship between imagination and intelligence as a whole is somewhat analagous to the way a fuel injector is related to an engine. Modern psychological theory (fairly young, only about fifteen years old) regarding cognitive ability divides what intelligence quotient tests mean to measure. One of those divisions is imagination. As such tests are truly limited to measuring intelligence in terms of problem solving (fit the shape in the shape, recognize the analogy, etc), imagination plays a role in reasoning and analysis.

Where, outside of a purely logical arena, a problem is presented that requires abstract reasoning, imagination allows creative "leaps of logic." That is to say that where analytical or linear thinking cannot arrive by itself at the end of an equation, creative ability can often suffice. It basically helps define 2, for example, outside the sum of its parts (1 and 1). Now as far as intelligence as a whole is concerned, a stronger creative ability may not mean a greater problem-solving ability because where certain areas of the brain that "fuel" imagination and abstract reasoning are very active, the parts of the brain that allows for logical reasoning may not be so active.

This is really just paraphrased pop psychology babble.

I'd still like to hear your thoughts on arrogance (or the portrayal thereof) as a societal defense mechanism. Do we have a tendancy to flaunt our subject matter expertise when the area in which we are experts is (1) very specialized (like in the case of an rpg) and (2) "outsiders" ask us for help?

I've read some PKD (who is very intellectually stimulating, I'll have you know @Fable , no I don't want an argument) and some Asimov, which also seemed quite thoughtful. I however am by no means an expert....

Is there anyone in here who really does conform to the geekish sci fi roleplayting nerd stereotype? Maybe we can prod them and make them tell us what they know...

posted by ILL WILL
Now as far as intelligence as a whole is concerned, a stronger creative ability may not mean a greater problem-solving ability

As I posted on the previous page, there is a correlation between high score on cognitive tests and high score on so called creativity tests, but again, we must question whether there is a relationship between creativity as measured in tests, and imagination as demonstrated by RPG:ers. As is obvious from my post on the previous page, I do not think we can assume such a connection.

where certain areas of the brain that "fuel" imagination and abstract reasoning are very active, the parts of the brain that allows for logical reasoning may not be so active.

What do you mean? Do you mean abstract reasoning occur in different parts of the brain than logical reasoning?

Regarding reading Sci-Fi and Fantasy as a marker for intellegence I totally agree with Fable here. As a person who has always been very interested in literature, I must say I find Sci-Fi and Fantasy among the most disappointing genres when it comes to offering intellctual stimulation, novel ideas and material for speculation. Sure there are some good writers like for instance Philip K D!ck, but the good writers seem to be those who are not dependant on the Sci-Fi or fantasy environment, but tell a story that could have been placed in any time or world, a story about the human nature and the foundation of our existance.

Originally posted by Dottie
Egalia's Daughters wich imo hardly can be described as comfort books.

Egalia's daughters were classified as feminist literature when I read it

Originally posted by C Elegans


Egalia's daughters were classified as feminist literature when I read it

I dont get it, isnt it still sci-fi? And the reading was hardly comforting, not for me in any case.

Originally posted by C Elegans
Regarding reading Sci-Fi and Fantasy as a marker for intellegence I totally agree with Fable here. As a person who has always been very interested in literature, I must say I find Sci-Fi and Fantasy among the most disappointing genres when it comes to offering intellctual stimulation, novel ideas and material for speculation. Sure there are some good writers like for instance Philip K D!ck, but the good writers seem to be those who are not dependant on the Sci-Fi or fantasy environment, but tell a story that could have been placed in any time or world, a story about the human nature and the foundation of our existance.

I don't think that the two necessarily go hand in hand, and I don't mean that science fiction writers are necessarily proficient at the kinds of science they write about. What I hypothesise is that people who are interest in science fiction tend to also get interested in real science. For instance, how many kids suddenly became interested in dinosaurs after Jurassic Park. Regardless of the quality of the science presented in the movie, the field of paleontology received a tremendous boom in interest after the movie came out.

I believe that this connection between science fiction and real science is an indirect indicator of intelligence, because, let's face it, stupid people don't get excited over quantum mechanics or nitpick that lasers from ray guns shouldn't be seen and that ships blowing up in space don't make noise.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
What I hypothesise is that people who are interest in science fiction tend to also get interested in real science. For instance, how many kids suddenly became interested in dinosaurs after Jurassic Park. Regardless of the quality of the science presented in the movie, the field of paleontology received a tremendous boom in interest after the movie came out.

I see what you mean, it is however not my personal experience. People get interested in stuff that popular media presents ina an attractive way, like the move Jurassic Park. Then they swiftly loose interested when they realise that the science of paleonthology cannot clone neither dinosaurs nor mammuths, instead, it is a fairly boring subject that demands an exceptional degree of patience and attandence to detail - as most sciences.

I understand your argument, and you may be right, I can't say, but in my experience, there is no connection at all between science fiction and real science. On the contrary, most professional scientists I know don't like science fiction.

For the really novel, speculative and stimulating stuff, it's much better to read either the specialist journals, or if you can't, the state of the art-appendixes aimed for non-specialists that follows journals for all sciences such as Nature's Insights or Science's Special Issues I recently read one about Artifical life, another about nanotechnology - Oh my

Originally posted by Dottie
I dont get it, isnt it still sci-fi? And the reading was hardly comforting, not for me in any case.

But is everything Sci Fi or Fantasy that describes a future or other world? Is sir Thomas Moore's "Utopia" from 1516 Sci-Fi? Is sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia from 1593 fantasy? Would the Apocalypse in the bible also qualify as Sci-Fi then? And the traditional aboriginal legends of dream time is Fantasy?

How should we define Sci-Fi and Fantasy as genres?

Originally posted by C Elegans


But is everything Sci Fi or Fantasy that describes a future or other world? Is sir Thomas Moore's "Utopia" from 1516 Sci-Fi? Is sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia from 1593 fantasy? Would the Apocalypse in the bible also qualify as Sci-Fi then? And the traditional aboriginal legends of dream time is Fantasy?

How should we define Sci-Fi and Fantasy as genres?

Heh, yes thats a good question. Perhaps my view on whats sci-fi is abit to wide... I did after all consider Songs from the Second Floor a sci-fi comedy. Not many people did agree...

Originally posted by Dottie
Heh, yes thats a good question. Perhaps my view on whats sci-fi is abit to wide... I did after all consider Songs from the Second Floor a sci-fi comedy. Not many people did agree...

My take on defining artistic genres, is that stuff created long before a genre is established as a genre, does not qualify since the context differes a lot. For instance, the modernism as an artistic genre grew from other genres as well as a reaction against existing, established genres, so I would not call Egyption poetry from 1500 BC modernism, even though it fulfills some criteria like not being rhymed, not following certain verse measures, etc.

C...

No. What I mean to say is that abstract thinking and logical reasoning are different thought processes and operate via different mechanisms than one another. Often times, aren't they inverse (logical thinkers think differently than abstract thinkers) where those strong in abstract reasoning tend to be less strong in logical processes and vice versa?

To your first, it is not my contention that rpgers would score high on creativity tests (though that would be an interesting study). I do tend to believe the notion that creativity is a component of problem solving ability.