4 ms·

One relevant fact that's not mentioned in the story is how deeply SL can affect people. There's a significant portion that becomes obsessed with it to the point

One relevant fact that's not mentioned in the story is how deeply SL can affect people. There's a significant portion that becomes obsessed with it to the point it takes precedence over their "real life"'s responsibilities. I've read many a story of both "addicted" gamers and family members of gamers and some of them can be quite devastating. https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&q=second+life+ruined https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&q=second...

Tichy 14y ago
Some of those stories seem rather stupid, for example this one: http://playsquad.commongate.com/post/Second_Life_has_ruined_my_son_s_life/ http://playsquad.commongate.com/post/Second_Life_has_ruined_... (first one I clicked on) Mother claims her son was diagnosed with Aspergers but now blames SL for him not having a normal life. Perhaps she should be happy that her son has found a way to be happy instead. Edit: OK, I clicked on some more, most seem to be about infidelity in Cyberspace. Blame SL? I think not. Not saying that it's impossible to neglect real life too much, but if there wasn't SL, those people would find other ways to drop out.
- facorreia 14y ago
  You're just scratching the surface, don't be so quick to dismiss it. Most of those stories are too personal to post here. Edit: Removed link to article about the wrong game (duh me).
  - Tichy 14y ago
    That article does not even mention Second Life. It mentions WoW and Star Wars online in the last paragraph. While I probably wouldn't blame that persons problems on the existence of games, it might be worth noting that MMORPGs like WoW are very different from Second Life. Todays MMORPGs are optimized for addictiveness - they have fine tuned challenges and rewards to make people play as long as possible (even the guild system apparently plays a part - if your friends play, you are also more likely to play). In contrast to that, Second Life is not even really a game. It has no goals, no challenges, other than what you set up for yourself. So blaming SL for the damage MMORPGs have supposedly done to some people is misguided.
    - facorreia 14y ago
      I ended up pasting the wrong link. I won't post others, as I said, the stories are too personal. If anyone is interested enough, they'll find them. Suffice to say that I have personally talked to people whose lives have been devastated by SL and they were powerless over it.
drostie 14y ago
In a world where our interactions are ever more inauthentic, the virtual can seem more Real than the real. Beside the grind, virtual worlds have managed to solve the deepest fears of human interaction, usually with the promise that you can reinvent yourself if everything goes bad. So they provide an outlet for Ambition. They also enable some sort of personal progress, some sort of real feeling of Change, which enables Love to take hold: people who are otherwise stuck in situations which they feel are beyond their power are enabled by this. The question is not why videogames are so addictive. The question is why the real world isn't.
- roguecoder 14y ago
  Unlike other video games, Second Life is full of actual people. Sure there is a screen and it is easier to self-select, but it is not virtual in the sense that most "addictive" video games are. Second Life addiction makes as much sense as claiming someone is addicted to the telephone, or to painting, or to Martha-Stewart-style homemaking.
- majormajor 14y ago
  The real world is quite addictive for a lot of us.
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  Want to elaborate on "inauthentic" interaction? Because that sounds like something the post office would say to imply that physical letters are more "authentic" than emails.
  - drostie 14y ago
    Interactions become inauthentic for a variety of reasons. The most prevalent one in my immediate experience -- the cancer that afflicts much of my present generation -- is that people want to Make Their Point. In general, the belief that conversation is purely about sharing information (as opposed to being recreational) is cancer in its inauthenticity. If you're ever so focused on making your own point that you fail to hear someone else's -- if you ever find yourself 'crafting a rebuttal' in realtime as you're listening to someone else speak -- then that is deeply inauthentic interaction: masturbatory as opposed to coital, self-directed rather than outward-facing. There are other inauthenticities you see from time to time. One of the key ones is interactions which seek to promote dishonesty. Lots of people in lots of contexts pretend to be someone who they don't really want to become. It's a huge source of stress in first-world countries. The post has only the mildest purchase on the problem, man. Go outside of the first-world countries and you'll find subsistence cultures where the time spent working is only perhaps five hours per day, perhaps less. Imagine having ten hours per day devoted to just playing with your kids, socializing with the rest of the community, singing together, dancing together. What would you do if you were to spend ten hours with the community? I guess that the most typical response would be like Jeanette Winterson staring at a painting for an hour: Supposing we made a pact with a painting and agreed to sit down and look at it, on our own with no distractions, for one hour. The painting should be an original, not a reproduction, and we should start with the advantage of liking it, even if only a little. What would we find? Increasing discomfort. When was the last time you looked at anything, solely, and concentratedly, and for its own sake? Ordinary life passes in a near blur. If we go to the theatre or the cinema, the images before us change constantly, and there is the distraction of language. Our loved ones are so well known to us that there is no need to look at them, and one of the gentle jokes of married life is that we do not. Nevertheless, here is a painting and we have agreed to look at it for one hour. We find we are not very good at looking. -- http://www.randomhouse.com/book/192445/art-objects-by-jeanette-winterson/

Tichy 14y ago

Some of those stories seem rather stupid, for example this one: http://playsquad.commongate.com/post/Second_Life_has_ruined_my_son_s_life/ http://playsquad.commongate.com/post/Second_Life_has_ruined_... (first one I clicked on) Mother claims her son was diagnosed with Aspergers but now blames SL for him not having a normal life. Perhaps she should be happy that her son has found a way to be happy instead. Edit: OK, I clicked on some more, most seem to be about infidelity in Cyberspace. Blame SL? I think not. Not saying that it's impossible to neglect real life too much, but if there wasn't SL, those people would find other ways to drop out.

facorreia 14y ago
You're just scratching the surface, don't be so quick to dismiss it. Most of those stories are too personal to post here. Edit: Removed link to article about the wrong game (duh me).
- Tichy 14y ago
  That article does not even mention Second Life. It mentions WoW and Star Wars online in the last paragraph. While I probably wouldn't blame that persons problems on the existence of games, it might be worth noting that MMORPGs like WoW are very different from Second Life. Todays MMORPGs are optimized for addictiveness - they have fine tuned challenges and rewards to make people play as long as possible (even the guild system apparently plays a part - if your friends play, you are also more likely to play). In contrast to that, Second Life is not even really a game. It has no goals, no challenges, other than what you set up for yourself. So blaming SL for the damage MMORPGs have supposedly done to some people is misguided.
  - facorreia 14y ago
    I ended up pasting the wrong link. I won't post others, as I said, the stories are too personal. If anyone is interested enough, they'll find them. Suffice to say that I have personally talked to people whose lives have been devastated by SL and they were powerless over it.

drostie 14y ago

In a world where our interactions are ever more inauthentic, the virtual can seem more Real than the real. Beside the grind, virtual worlds have managed to solve the deepest fears of human interaction, usually with the promise that you can reinvent yourself if everything goes bad. So they provide an outlet for Ambition. They also enable some sort of personal progress, some sort of real feeling of Change, which enables Love to take hold: people who are otherwise stuck in situations which they feel are beyond their power are enabled by this. The question is not why videogames are so addictive. The question is why the real world isn't.

roguecoder 14y ago
Unlike other video games, Second Life is full of actual people. Sure there is a screen and it is easier to self-select, but it is not virtual in the sense that most "addictive" video games are. Second Life addiction makes as much sense as claiming someone is addicted to the telephone, or to painting, or to Martha-Stewart-style homemaking.
majormajor 14y ago
The real world is quite addictive for a lot of us.
MichaelGG 14y ago
Want to elaborate on "inauthentic" interaction? Because that sounds like something the post office would say to imply that physical letters are more "authentic" than emails.
- drostie 14y ago
  Interactions become inauthentic for a variety of reasons. The most prevalent one in my immediate experience -- the cancer that afflicts much of my present generation -- is that people want to Make Their Point. In general, the belief that conversation is purely about sharing information (as opposed to being recreational) is cancer in its inauthenticity. If you're ever so focused on making your own point that you fail to hear someone else's -- if you ever find yourself 'crafting a rebuttal' in realtime as you're listening to someone else speak -- then that is deeply inauthentic interaction: masturbatory as opposed to coital, self-directed rather than outward-facing. There are other inauthenticities you see from time to time. One of the key ones is interactions which seek to promote dishonesty. Lots of people in lots of contexts pretend to be someone who they don't really want to become. It's a huge source of stress in first-world countries. The post has only the mildest purchase on the problem, man. Go outside of the first-world countries and you'll find subsistence cultures where the time spent working is only perhaps five hours per day, perhaps less. Imagine having ten hours per day devoted to just playing with your kids, socializing with the rest of the community, singing together, dancing together. What would you do if you were to spend ten hours with the community? I guess that the most typical response would be like Jeanette Winterson staring at a painting for an hour: Supposing we made a pact with a painting and agreed to sit down and look at it, on our own with no distractions, for one hour. The painting should be an original, not a reproduction, and we should start with the advantage of liking it, even if only a little. What would we find? Increasing discomfort. When was the last time you looked at anything, solely, and concentratedly, and for its own sake? Ordinary life passes in a near blur. If we go to the theatre or the cinema, the images before us change constantly, and there is the distraction of language. Our loved ones are so well known to us that there is no need to look at them, and one of the gentle jokes of married life is that we do not. Nevertheless, here is a painting and we have agreed to look at it for one hour. We find we are not very good at looking. -- http://www.randomhouse.com/book/192445/art-objects-by-jeanette-winterson/