Carl Sagan is rolling in his grave at the kind of anti-intellectual statement expressed here. Make use of that thesaurus of yours to better explain complex concepts and anyone will understand you. Lording over the "dummies" is not something I consider a valuable use of my knowledge, and perhaps you'll come around to that viewpoint when you have enough life experience to temper that raw knowledge into genuine wisdom.
This is going to be a little off topic... but...
Carl Sagan's study lies in more of a scientific field. There are many arguments made against the unification of science and of course, the inclusion of social science. Psychology is considered a special science, but even then, there is no clear method to unify sciences in general. Even the micro-reduction promoted by Oppenheim and Putnam have flaws pointed out by Kitcher. I can go on and on about the unity of science, as well, but again, probably 0.001% will understand this time around.
While I appreciate the optimistic perspective that promotion of knowledge to all should be an active role of anyone in possession of knowledge, but only to an extent.
You are right in that I may change my perspective for that I am still under twenty years of age. However, doing what I am doing and being assertive about my perspectives are principles I hold firm to.
I personally believe epistemology is something an individual must undertake as a personal endeavor. People can motivate or encourage the behavior, but the counter argument must also be considered. There are people who are entirely against epistemology and claim knowledge to be the true deviation from true human nature, which makes me hesitate before attempting to forcefully educating others. (Not to mention the indolent nature of humanity, which doesn't carry moral/ethic values and shouldn't be assessed with these simple affinities)
I certainly admit that not being able to translate complex concepts into simplistic language is a lack of ability and experience. However, even professors make students read through dense materials, no one will bother to go through the heavy/dense material that many before them had to venture through just to gain that knowledge if everything is spoon-fed.
Also, people like to discredit one another, therefore namedropping/referring to theories are better than just articulating in a paraphrased manner.
Back on topic,
In the plainest words I can think of, gaming is usually a stress-release method for people. When it loses that functionality, people will either turn away from gaming or become obsessed with it and treat it as if it is real life.
Losing a contributing player group is certainly not something we want, as long as it contributes more than it destroys (Yes, talking about CODE here). Or that the group may suffer from the amount of negative reputation to the point of generating an apathetic attitude toward the playerbase, which will make it ruthless and consider less for the community. Then that can decay into grieving just to vent the annoyance gathered from the community.
I don't think either is healthy for the game. One side we are losing a large chunk of player-generated content, on the other side the player-generated content becomes toxic and actually more destructive than contributing.
I don't know if that made any sense, it felt shallow to me, but that's the best I can do.
)
