Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Geek culture: debate and discuss!
Ok, there really hasn't been a intellectual debate since the Death Penalty thread. Soo... here's one. Which may or may not succeed.
Statement: Geek culture is a culture of consumption.
Discuss!
Statement: Geek culture is a culture of consumption.
Discuss!
Comments
The consumption part is actually two parts. It's buying things like video games, hardware, toys, etc. It's also the actually consuming of things you may or may not have bought. Actually read the comics, watch the movies, play the board games, etc.
The creation is the fanfics, the youtube movies, the podcasts, the mashup songs, the remixes and the cosplays.
The collaboration is when all the geeks hang out together in forums on the net, conventions, etc.
It doesn't matter what geekery you choose, be it board games, anime or RC helicopters. You buy it, you do it, you make it and share with other like-minded individuals. The more you do those things, the more geeky you are.
It's also a bit different in that geeks generally enjoy twiddling widgets, which is related to the creation aspect of geekdom; there is a somewhat utilitarian streak in geeks, so there is a tendency to modify those things we buy, thereby getting further mileage out of your consumption.
Basically, geek culture seems to be more directed, purposeful, and intelligent consumerism, for the most part. I wouldn't lump it in with the MTV/Hot Topic/A&F-type trendy consumerism that dominates most of American culture.
But yeah, I do think geek cosumerism is better than any other consumerism, and yeah, I'm arrogant for it. So sue me. ^_^
Actually, upon further consideration, I think geek culture leans more towards creativity than anything else. While it is true that there is a large consumerist streak, most of the consumption is done in order to make manifest your version of your geekery. The tendency to twiddle with consumed products is a way of manifesting said root creativity.
I mean, the rules for Settlers of Cataan call the resources llumber, clay, stone, wool, and grain, right? How many geeks ignore those names and instead use "wood" and "sheep," thus allowing for many jokes to be made? A small example, I know, but that demonstrates just how deeply-rooted the twiddling instinct is in geekdom.
And you're deluding yourself if you think your consumption is pull instead of push. That's the nature of push consumption, you don't know that it's being pushed on you. See the previous discussion of Curling.
Consumption is consumption. Geeks buying the latest video game is no different than normal people buying the latest pop album. Part of the reason you think you are so much better is because companies sell you the idea that you are better. That's how you sell geek shit. You make it seem like people who buy it are different, cool, not in the majority, smart, etc. Geeks eat that stuff up and get all pretentious about their stuff. Normal folk fall for the opposite trick of buying stuff everyone else is buying because it's the latest popular thing.
In summary. You're so pwn3d by the people selling you geek shit that they have you thinking you pwn them.
Thing is, once you realize that, you can look at those same things in a different way; if you realize how things are being pushed onto you, you can really curb that consumerist instinct. There is a natural tendency for humans to consume, because we're social creatures with varying levels of inter-dependcy. However, you can most certainly make concious decisions of what consumerisms in which you [b]want[/b] to engage, as long as you realize how you're being targeted.
If you are subject to any sort of push consumerism, you are definitely capable of thinking for yourself, doing the research, and coming to your own conclusion. Once you realize that you can actually do that, you stop being affected by push consumerism.
Your point maintains that people will always remain ignorant of the effect of push consumerism upon them; I contend that you CAN become aware of it, and once you are, consumerism takes a different turn.
If your point were true, nobody would really buy anything except the thing that is pushed most. People can make concious choices as to what they want to consume, and thinking the opposite is rather arrogant.
Furthermore, how do you know that I haven't moved beyond push consumerism? I just explained how someone moves beyond it; one cannot really understand that unless one has actually moved past it.
Maybe you think I've moved past push consumerism 100%; that's not my contention here. In fact, that's not even possible, because the social animal instinct is hard-wired into us. There is no way to completely break away from it, but you can curb it, and if you fall victim to it, correct your action.
Case in point, I bought TMNT 2: Battle Nexus for the cube a while back. The only reason I bought the game is because of its inclusion of the original TMNT arcade game. That's an example of a company playing on my nostalgia in order to get me to buy a shitty product.
And shitty it was. I realized my mistake, admitted it, and sold the game back. Had I truly been a victim of push consumerism, I would've tricked myself into liking it because of the nostalgia angle.
Essentially, you're admitting that you've derailed this debate into an ad-hominem attack.
In fact, this: Was your first response to me. Your entire argument thus far has been ad-hominem. Let's get back to debating the point, shall we?
Back to the twiddling thing: I contend that the hacker sub-culture is an outgrowth of the natural geek tendency to twiddle. If the urge to twiddle weren't present in geeks before the hacker sub-culture arose, it never would have arisen in the first place.
The creativity isn't always the trait you see the most, but I contend that it is the root of most geek activity. Geeks from all walks of life tend towards the more logical, hands-on approach to figuring things out, and the best way to figure stuff out is to screw around with it. Perhaps the creativity stems from an inflated form of human curiosity, but I contend that at the root, geeks are creative, and they consume in order to create.
The comic book nerds who just collect, for example, are rarely of the hoarding type; more often than not, they wish to create a large collection, show it off to other people, and in that way they feed their ego and innate feeling of superiority. Still, at their core, for whatever reason, their main goal is to create.
While collecting comics might be creating a collection, it isn't creative. It's just a matter of spending money and being obsessive compulsive. It is only a small portion of the comic community that actually wants to, and does, create new comic stories and art. Those people are comic hackers.
Only the subset of geeks who are hackers and artists are creative. The vast majority of geeks are just consumers.
What I'm saying about consuming is an ad-hominem attack, but it's also more. I'm saying that nobody raised or living in this society can 100% avoid consumerisms. It's almost impossible. The only ways out are crazy, such as fleeing to a Buddhis monestary. The best way to deal with this sad state of affairs is not to lie to yourself and say you are somehow magically smarter than everyone else. It is simply to recognize and admit when bad marketing, PR and consumerism is going on. Then submit or resist as you will.
It's not bad to fall for it, because everyone falls for it. What's important is you recognize it. I suggest you read Douglas Rushkoff's books, especially Coercion. They go a long way in helping you see a lot more of what's going on. i.e: Noticing the curling.
The concept of originality is suspect to begin with, and that would generate an entirely separate argument. For the sake of this discussion, I'll contend that "original" simply means "coming from the self," rather than "nobody's done this before." Expressive indicates that the action is an attempt to make manifest part of the self, and that is very true in nearly all of geek culture.
The guy who wants to make a comic collection is trying to express some part of himself; maybe he wants to show it off to his friends and brag about it, as many geeks do, but that is inherently an expressive action. That geek is expressing his innate sense of superiority via his collection. How he does it doesn't matter; the willingness and desire to express himself in some fashion inherently makes him creative. It's also original in that it comes from him, and no other sources; it may be, on occasion, guided by consumerism, but again, my contention is that geek consumption is more pull than push. Geeks are often victims of push consumerism - we both agree on that - but only in their areas of geekery, and even then, many geeks recognize the pushing.
A guy who buys a zillion model kits, assembles them exactly according to the directions, and then just leaves them in a closet, is not at all creative. Anyone that does anything with said model kits, even simply arranging them on a bookshelf, is being creative, because they're doing something with the product outside of the task itself. They have some specific goal in mind beyond the actual completion of the task. A geek who just builds things for no other reason is compulsive; most geeks are slightly obsessive, but not that many are actually compulsive at all. One does not have to physically modify the object in order to be creative; how one presents it and uses it can be totally creative.
I would like to point out that we totally agree about the whole "push/pull" consumerism deal, and that I pointed out, repeatedly, that it can be recognized, and often is, and that I have recognized it myself, and thus I understand when I fall victim to it. You ad hominem attack is even more baseless than usual, because it was unwarranted. Since we obviously agree about this point, let's not argue about how we agree; we do that way too much anyway.
glimp7: I'd like to make a distinction between "intelligent" and "smart." I contend that geeks are, by definition, intelligent, because intelligence moreso denotes concious thought rather than good decisions. Being "smart" is either all about being knowledgeable - that is, knowing lots of factual information - or more about being wise. When I say that geek consumerism is "intelligent," I mean to say that it is directed and purposeful, done with a specific goal in mind.
I would actually contend that a lot of geeks aren't really "smart," because they're so into their various geekeries that they can't readily connect with the outside world. Hence, decisions in their life, and patterns of thought, tend to be focused around their geekery more than anything else. Ph.D.'s are basically uber-geeks, and if you ever meet a Ph.D. who's been in the field for 30 or 40 years, their ego tends to be amazingly fragile, because all of their self perception is focused around their geekery. This is what tends to happen to geeks with sufficient time, if they don't recognize and try to deal with it.
While we may appear to agree on the push/pull thing there is one point we don't really meet on. What I'm saying is that man people, including you, often feel you are pulling when you're really being pushed. You also sometimes feel you have recognized the consumerist tendency when you have not. Notice I'm not making an absolute statement. I'm just pointing out that you are being pwn3d more than you realize, and your impression of how much you are avoiding "the man" is an exaggeration.
Want evidence? You play Word of Warcraft and you tried to defend it.
You're right, many people have not completely realized their subjection to push-type comsumerism; realistically, there are gradual degrees of realization. It's not an "all-or-nothing" kind of deal; one might be aware of certain types of push but not of others. There is a tendency, too, to categorize too many things as push; that's paranoid, and as Penn said in his radio show, is an egotistical thing. Quite a lot is pushed, but not all.
I understand that I'm pushed a lot, but I also didn't say that I pull exclusively. As I've said, that's impossible, and I realize that. The key is to look at what is being offered, and determine how it's being pushed onto you, what is being emphasized and what is being hidden. The key there is factual research; go out, gather as much data as possible, try to find out which of those facts are driven by an agenda that generates a conflict of interest, and make your decision. You can't do it perfectly, no, and I never said that. However, you can try damn hard, and that's the best you can do.
As for the WoW thing, I don't have to defend a choice of game I play to anyone ever. I recall in our argument that we basically agreed WoW takes as much skill as most video games, in that none of those take any real skill at all, and it's really all just the illusion of requiring skill. I also contend that that is true of any game, because at their core, games are based in some kind of mathematics, or at least some human thought pattern. DRM always fails because people made it; someone out there can figure out how to break it.
That's also weak-ass evidence; HOW did I decide to play WoW? Do you know? Of course not, but I do. I started playing WoW because it's something I could do with my brother and other people I know; the actual choice to play WoW is irrelevent, because if it were any other MMO, I would've done the same. The push here is from other people; the product itself did not factor into it.
Yes, paranoia can be viewed as egotistical. But what I'm telling you is not paranoia, nor is it a whacko conspiracy theory. Go to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/ where you can watch PBS Frontline for free on the net. Watch "Merchants of Cool" and watch "The Persuaders". Rushkoff made both of those, there's a fucking shitton of scary marketing going on all around. Also, be sure to look at the years those were made and know that things have only gotten worse since then. Not everything is push, but there's so much, that most people would shit their pants if they realized it.
Sure, you can do research and such. But that's a dangerous path. Often "researching" what you will consume involves putting yourself in a position to be pushed upon. But since you think you are doing "research" you think you're pulling. The best thing to do to avoid being influenced by marketeers and PR guys is to learn how to detect them. It takes an epic spot check, I can tell you that.
You're right, you have no obligation to, nor can you be forced to, defend your own choices. However, I am the type of person who can, and will, defend everything I ever say or do. If I can't defend it, I probably shouldn't be saying it or doing it. Saying you don't have to defend yourself looks to me like a cover up. It's something people say when they can't defend themselves, and won't admit wrong doing. If you can defend your choice, why choose not to? If you confront me on why I like something, why I said something or why I do something, I'll always come out with it. If i can't, then I can only admit that I did wrong or admit I sucked.
Yes, we agreed WoW takes as much skill as most video games. Most video games are shit. Notice I don't play those shit games. If I do play a game that is not a skill game, like Phoenix Wright, I don't try to pretend there is skill involved.
You contend that every game just has an illusion of skill? That is patently untrue. WoW specifically keeps its illusion of skill by making the rules of the game secret. Games of perfect information have only skill and strategy selection in determining victory. Also, sports, I win. Sports are a specific subset of games in which athletic skill and ability is important. If the skill in playing soccer is an illusion, I don't know what isn't.
If you want to discuss what has skill and what does not, ask this question. What skill does the game require? A game like Street Fighter requires memorization of input patterns and manual dexterity. Those are the skills it requires. A game like baseball requires arm strength and leg speed in short bursts. It also requires hand-eye coordination for catching and throwing. World of Warcraft, if the rules were not secret, would require no skills at all. The only skill in WoW is knowledge of the secret rules.
It doesn't matter how you decided to play WoW or other MMO, and it doesn't matter why. The fact is that you play it. It pushed itself on you, and it continues to push itself on you. Even if the push is indirectly sent to you through your friends and relatives, that doesn't change it. You argue that you try to be aware of, and avoid, push consumerism. But then, you fall for the oldest trick in the book. You get one person hooked on your product, then you get that person to sell the product to their friends and relatives. Pwn3d. You argue that geeks are creative, but then you prove yourself wrong. You're spending your precious time and money for the privilege of performing monotonous and useless tasks. You can't even live up to your own arrogant idea.
And now to use the last fireball I memorized today.
I make a podcast, I write a blog and I make software. What do you do that is creative? Yes, besides having fun arguments on forums. :P
Sports require skill and training, yes; however, skill tops off at some point and is eclipsed by physical ability, which is genetically determined. You can train yourself to play soccer every damn day, 8 hours a day if you wanted, and you'll still never be as good as someone whose genetic potential is greater than yours. Games that break down to any physical attribute are as broken as level-based RPG's. Some people are just at a higher level than you, and try all you want, you can't beat them. That's a fact.
Your statement about factual research borders on the paranoid; it is important to remain skeptical about any research you do, because realistically any of it stands to be bullshit. That's why you have to do extensive and critical research. Only after that will you be able to say that you have researched anything thoroughly.
As for games that require skill, I will point out that you have, at many points in your life, talked up your Tetris DS and Mario Kart "skills." I would like to point out that a program could be written for those games to make them completely unbeatable. Any skill is therefore totally illusory, because it doesn't really require human input. Those games are more comparison of physical attributes, and those are again limited by genetics.
I'll watch those two programs when I have an opportunity, but right now the sound is broken, at least for me. Until then, let me say that again, I am aware of a great deal of push marketing and yes, I'm certain that a lot slips me by too. I'm really more curious as to how you are so utterly convinced, though, that I am far less sensitive to it than you. That's not a statement for which you can muster any supporting evidence whatsoever, and no, the WoW deal is not evidence.
Now, here's where I'm curious. You contend that doing research is tricky business, because you'll be in a position to be pushed upon, and that you are easily deceived into think that you're pulling when it's really more PR guys pushing on you. You also state that getting into something via friend or relative is also an example of push. I agree with both of these statements, in that push comes from a lot of sources. However, I contend that you can recognize a push and turn it into a pull. My real question here, for you, is just how one avoids push, or rather engages in pull; learning about anything new automatically involves being pushed upon, and it is apparently impossible to completely resist push. So just how is one supposed to "pull," exactly, if not by being subjected to a push and then coming to one's own conclusion outside of the push influence? I've told you up and down that I recognize push, and recognize where I don't recognize it, which are a couple of your criteria for defeating push, and yet you claim that I am still engaging in push and have deceived myself into thinking I pull. So, again, how does one engage in pull, and to be more specific, how do you engage in pull?
As for being creative, I play various pen-and-paper RPG's (a creative endeavor), on occasion write prose, on occasion play the sax, customize my Warhammer army, and often engage in technical writing at my job. I also often have to find creative solutions to problems that arise in the lab, and have to concot ways to deal with particularly tricky results.
The easiest way to tell push from pull is this. Let's say you're browsing the web, or reading a magazine, or walking in a store and you see something. You get an urge to buy it. Or let's say your friend tells you about something and you think "yeah, I could buy that". That's all pull. Push is when you, independent of anything else, have a problem. You decide that your problem can be solved by purchasing a product. You then seek out every product thatn can possibly solve your problem. Then you decide if you are actually going to buy something or not. If you decide to buy one, you pick the right product from the right store.
So if I'm sitting in my room scratching my foot and I say "I really need a foot cream", that's pull. Then I go to the drug store and I go to the foot sccrathing section. Immediately they are starting to push me with the labels on their boxes, their brands, their prices, etc. What do you do? You buy a foot cream because your foot itches. As long as you notice that the generic brand is the same stuff as the name brand, but cheaper, you're all set.
In order for something to really be pull you have to want it before you know about it. In a world without marketing and branding where only dry facts about products were on the labels would everything be pull. Nobody would buy anything they weren't already seeking out.
Pull or push consumerism isn't necessarily better or worse than others. It's just important to recognize and manage the two, so you don't suffer economically.
You should create more stuff.
You're right. Developing a new automobile that guzzles gas is not creative in my mind. Maybe the frame of the car is artistic (highly unlikely, all look the same), but the idea of it isn't. I could stack some blocks on top of eachother and call it a building, but that's not creative. That's just stupid. If it's not original (assuming the creator has seen something similiar), it doesn't classify you as a creative being. It just makes you an asshole for taking credit for someone elses work.
I agree with you on what pull consumerism is, and what push consumerism is. By the way, I think you got "push" and "pull" mixed up in the first paragraph. I think your first example is supposed to be push, and the second pull, and your foot cream example reinforces that. Just want to make sure that we're on the same wavelength here.
So anyhow, we agree as to what is clearly pull. Now, here comes a somewhat sticky situation. Let's say you have a particular interest; as a consequence, you're always looking for new things within that interest. Sometimes it's a particularly driving want or need ("Man, I really want a new video game"), and sometimes it's held at a lower level. The question is, what if you, in pursuit of a particular interest, go out and consume in order to fulfill a desire within said interest? Example: I like Slayer, Children of Bodom, and Mastodon. I always look for new releases by these bands (though I don't buy music), and am always on the lookout for concerts. I found out about a concert that is occuring in Albany on June 29th, so I went and bought a ticket.
Now, I did not specifically say at some point, "Today, I need a ticket to a tour with Slayer and some other awesome bands." However, I AM constantly on the lookout for new things involving that interest, even though I may not know of the existence of a specific incarnation of said interest. Can it really be said that I am the subject of push here?
It seems to be a combination of pull and push, in that instance, but leaning more towards pull. I contend that if you ACTIVELY SEEK something within a specific interest, you are generally engaging in pull.
The previous example I gave, of the TMNT: Battle Nexus 2, is an example of succumbing to push within an interest. I saw a game, and bought it solely based on its advertisement without having a specific desire to acquire it. That is push.
Another example is seeking out new German board games; if you go into a store looking specifically for a new boardgame, or if you look around on the 'net for information about new board games coming out, you're pulling, even though the eventual result is a push. That seems more pull to me than anything else.
It is my contention that, since a geek devotes most of his time and energy in pursuit of his interests/passions/obsessions (I tend to think of geeks as having passions bordering on obsessions, moreso than hobbies), it stands to reason that a greater proportion of their consumption will be of the pull nature, since their consumption will be more directed towards their specific interests.
Now, I did say that I thought geek consumption was "better," and I should qualify that. It is better, in the sense that I think pull consumption is generally better, but only to an extent. An overemphasis on pull consumption will result in severe bootstrapping issues; a geek that only pulls would only get into things that he was already into. That's why the stereotypical geek is socially retarded, and worsens as time goes on; his focus in life becomes more and more on his interests only, and he loses the desire to seek anything outside of those interests. Pull consumerism is important, but so is push, as we both agree.
Push consumerism is necessary in order to become involved in new things; if there were no push, there wouldn't be a way to get anyone into anything beyond those things in which they were already interested. Hence, I agree that both are important, but in many cases, I think pull is preferrential. As I said, since geeks spend more time in pursuit of their interests, they will engage more in active seeking of said interests, and thus will have a greater proportion of pull versus push. That's why I contend that geeks gravitate towards pull moreso than push.
OK, that was nowhere near as short as I wanted it to be. Go me.
Restart or Continue...
*Powers off*
I guess I don't really have a problem with much of what you said. If you just want to discuss where you draw the line on pushing and pulling, I don't care. I'm just trying to say that a lot of the time what seems like pulling is really just opening yourself up to pushing. For example, today I'm going to the video game store to get Mario, which was pushed on me. While I'm there browsing, all of the products for sale will be pushing themselves on me. It might feel like pulling to keep an eye on new video game release information, but what you're really doing is exposing yourself to the latest pushes.
The only serious problem I have with the latest volley is that you think people can't try anything new without having it pushed on them. That's just a bunch of crap. The people who can only experience new things if they are pushed into it are uncreative, unimaginative losers. The way you pull new things is by thinking of new things. Then you find out if someone else has made them already. If so, you buy it. If not, you make it. The only time push is required for new things is if you don't think of new tyhings.
The only reason I seem to be arguing that the only way to try new things is to have them be pushed is because I thought that's what you were arguing. See, those two statements taken together said to me that it's technically impossible to avoid being pushed upon, since, realistically, the only way to find out about new stuff is to A.) do "research" or such on the 'net, keeping an eye out and so forth, or B.) being recommend by friends, relatives, or someone else that you know. I took that to mean that you were saying push could not be avoided at all, which I actually think is untrue. It's prevalent, but you can learn to recognize and deal with it. I was just trying to turn your point around and back to mine.
I agree with you, mostly, on that last point, that you can find out about new things without being a victim of push. Granted, the vast majority of finding out about new stuff generally takes the form of push, direct or indirect, but as long as you curb the push instinct and consider the offered item thoroughly, you're all good.
I have to disagree about the "new things" idea, because, quite frankly, I don't believe in such a thing as a truly original or new thought. That's a topic for a separate argument, but it is essentially nigh impossible to pull an idea out of a void. Invariably, it has some basis in something else you've observed. I see pull as a seeking out of a way to fulfill a want/need/desire that exists outside of the thing you seem to want. When the item itself creates the need, that's push.
I don't want to be too hasty, so feel free to jump back to the topic, but it seems like we've reached a sort of agreement about the push/pull nature of general consumerism and geek consumerism, so I'd like to move back to the "creativity" argument.
I guess I can't demonstrate that creativity is exclusive to geek consumerism; it seems to me instead that all humans have an innate "fuckin' with things" instinct, and that seems to me to be emphasized in geeks. It's not always the surface characteristic, and in fact, I dare say that "creative" does not really describe most geeks, but it is an underlying motive force that I contend tints most geek hobbies and geek consumerism.
But as for useful creativity, I'm going to say the hackers, the artists, the inventors, etc. are the people who are truly creative. Non-usefully creative geeks are no more creative than MTV-watching teenies.
Would anyone else like to give some insight on this topic, or have Scott and I killed it?