4 ms·

They picked a narrowly defined behavioral model (that of convention going) to derive conclusions about a much bigger sub culture. That's what I mean by the basi

They picked a narrowly defined behavioral model (that of convention going) to derive conclusions about a much bigger sub culture. That's what I mean by the basis of their analysis being flawed.

cbsmith 11y ago
Actually, they picked a narrowly defined behavioral model (that of convention going) to test hypotheses about a sub culture that obviously exists outside that behaviour model. I'm not sure what else you expected them to do. While it is far from conclusive (and the paper is very clear about that), the idea of testing out a hypothesis in an artificially defined context is kind of how empirical science is done. As you get more confident in the hypothesis, you make predictions about more and more varied contexts.
- ilostmykeys 11y ago
  Making behavioral hypotheses about athletically inclined people based on a behavioral model of the crowd in live sport events is not simply empirical science but bad science. You are confusing the spectator (the convention going crowd) for the spectacle (the otherwise normal human behavior that conventions tend to focus on and amplify)
  - cbsmith 11y ago
    ...but that's not at all analogous to the study. Dragon*Con isn't a convention where the general public goes to be entertained by geeks. The people who attend are just as important, if not more, contributors to the culture. By their definition of geek culture is "a subculture of enthusiasts that is traditionally associated with obscure media", The difference between the control group and the study group was in how they were recruited (an offer that encouraged geek participants/discouraged others, and one that was generically inviting), and they even made an effort to measure engagement with geek culture along with the personality traits.
    - ilostmykeys 11y ago
      You are STILL confusing the spectator (the convention going crowd) for the spectacle (the otherwise normal human behavior that conventions tend to focus on and amplify) ... What I was saying, not by way of direct analogy, is that the convention itself, the phenomenon, has its own behavioral biases, and so its' the wrong model to start with.

They picked a narrowly defined behavioral model (that of convention going) to derive conclusions about a much bigger sub culture. That's what I mean by the basis of their analysis being flawed.

cbsmith 11y ago

Actually, they picked a narrowly defined behavioral model (that of convention going) to test hypotheses about a sub culture that obviously exists outside that behaviour model. I'm not sure what else you expected them to do. While it is far from conclusive (and the paper is very clear about that), the idea of testing out a hypothesis in an artificially defined context is kind of how empirical science is done. As you get more confident in the hypothesis, you make predictions about more and more varied contexts.

ilostmykeys 11y ago
Making behavioral hypotheses about athletically inclined people based on a behavioral model of the crowd in live sport events is not simply empirical science but bad science. You are confusing the spectator (the convention going crowd) for the spectacle (the otherwise normal human behavior that conventions tend to focus on and amplify)
- cbsmith 11y ago
  ...but that's not at all analogous to the study. Dragon*Con isn't a convention where the general public goes to be entertained by geeks. The people who attend are just as important, if not more, contributors to the culture. By their definition of geek culture is "a subculture of enthusiasts that is traditionally associated with obscure media", The difference between the control group and the study group was in how they were recruited (an offer that encouraged geek participants/discouraged others, and one that was generically inviting), and they even made an effort to measure engagement with geek culture along with the personality traits.
  - ilostmykeys 11y ago
    You are STILL confusing the spectator (the convention going crowd) for the spectacle (the otherwise normal human behavior that conventions tend to focus on and amplify) ... What I was saying, not by way of direct analogy, is that the convention itself, the phenomenon, has its own behavioral biases, and so its' the wrong model to start with.