Usernames Reveal the Age and Psychology of Game Players (sciencedirect.com) 262
limbicsystem writes: Your online name can reveal a lot about you. Researchers from the University of York and Riot Games have shown that information harvested from the usernames of players who signed up to 'League of Legends' can sometime reveal both their ages and how they behave online. And the short story is that both younger players and players with obnoxious names are more likely to exhibit toxic online behavior.
And this is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Research sometimes does need to state the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience, sometimes you need to research the 'obvious' because sometimes what seems clear-cut turns out to not be. It's part of the reason that people say things like 'data is not the plural of anecdote'.
And once you've done the research you have to write the paper to justify the expenditure of resources and time to verify the results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While there is some value to doing things "formally", that value is probably very low in this case.
On the other hand, you have 'lots' of graduate students who need to write a paper for their doctorate...
Re: (Score:2)
That pretty much sums it up.
Considering that this is social studies it is fairly innovative. They didn't focus on misogyny in gaming communities for once.
'Ethics in game journalism'..?
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, sometimes you need to research the 'obvious' because sometimes what seems clear-cut turns out to not be. It's part of the reason that people say things like 'data is not the plural of anecdote'.
And once you've done the research you have to write the paper to justify the expenditure of resources and time to verify the results.
That still doesn't make it news.
Re: (Score:3)
... so it's part of being a douchebag and regurgitating trite sayings in an effort to sound intelligent instead of actually contributing to the discussion by putting forth one's own well developed views?
Well, it's certainly part of being an asshole to concentrate on something like 1/6th of what I wrote to, in a round about way, call me a douchebag.
Hell, I didn't even say it. I said it's part of the reason people say things like that. Meanwhile you ignored the parts of my post where I did offer my own 'well developed views', even if they're extremely abbreviated in the post.
To restate: You still have to check out what seems obvious because it turns out to not always be the case. Even if you simply conf
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except when you have years gaming online that counts as research, if someone has played multiplayer games for years, that would be the equivalent of research fron a statistical standpoint (aka enough datapoints to draw a valid conclusion).
No.
Re: (Score:3)
Except when you have years gaming online that counts as research, if someone has played multiplayer games for years, that would be the equivalent of research fron a statistical standpoint (aka enough datapoints to draw a valid conclusion).
Not unless you actually collect and collate the data and do the statistics. Otherwise, people are extremely prone to various biases in their perceptions, chief among them confirmation bias, where you unwittingly overvalue data points that support your belief and undervalue those that don't. To reach trustworthy, bias-free conclusions you must use a trustworthy, bias-free (as far as you can make it) process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure looks like a candidate for an ig-Nobel Prize. News flash: People with names like "g0ats3x" are likely to be trolls and still live with their mothers!
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: "Ihealz4u" is not a role player.
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping there was some sort of form that I could put my username into that would attempt to tell me if I was an asshole or not. I just wanted to see if they got it right. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are some multiplayer games that aren't plagued with jerkoffs. I'd tell you the names of those games, but then all the jerkoffs would show up.
But mostly, multiplayer gaming is just a big bag of turds.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an untested hypothesis: Ratio of immature, vindictive brats slowly fall off the longer the game is out.
Don't have any proof, just a gut feeling. Wait for about 8 months since the game launch before trying the waters.
I have no idea what variables affect this...
Re: (Score:2)
And any MMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If not toxic, then certainly irritating. I have a policy that when I hear someone in the lobby of my games that's just leaves his headset mic on all the time, I just drop straight out. I really don't want to hear feedback and subvocal grunting and huffing. PRESS TO TALK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, they choose "Anonymous Coward".
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Research that confirms an expected answer is not useless.
But, what about Slashdot usernames? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between anecdotal evidence and properly correlated research data.
Agreed. The problem is the "properly" qualifier, which most published studies have trouble meeting, and the percentage of valid conclusions goes down even further when you try to measure nebulous social science issues.
Research that confirms an expected answer is not useless.
While what you say is literally true, the problem is that "research that appears to confirm an expected answer" is frequently "useless." Anyone who has been following recent attempts to reproduce studies in various fields know that Ioannidis's claims that most published research findings are false [nih.gov] has been shown to be an accurate assessment again and again.
And everything gets even worse in a situation like this. Even if researchers have the best of intentions, there are fundamental cognitive biases they are working against in setting up the experiment. There is potential to unintentionally (or intentionally) bias the data collection, the measures chosen, the categories and analysis system created, the ultimate statistical measurements used to determine significance, etc., etc. at every stage. When such an "obvious" hypothesis is the starting place, this is GOING to happen in the vast majority of cases.
So, I'd go so far as to say that 90% of research that APPEARS TO confirm an expected answer is useless... because it probably didn't actually measure things accurately or have enough statistical power to support the conclusions beyond what was already expected in most cases anyway.
And here's the thing -- even IF some researchers manage to overcome all of these biases and did a study like this and found NO correlation -- would they even publish it? Would a journal accept it? "Yeah, we looked for a correlation and didn't find any strong evidence." Note that's different from finding strong evidence AGAINST a correlation, which would likely take a different experimental design. Instead, they would have just found a negative result for their hypothesis... which seems uninteresting, and may be nearly unpublishable unless they found an interesting way to spin it.
So, publication bias means it's even MORE likely that studies like this are completely useless.
There's only ONE REASON why a study like this is generally useful -- it sets up a scientific "standard" in an official publication which COULD make another future study that proves the opposite publishable. Because now if another study comes along and can't find this correlation, they can argue it IS interesting, since it contradicts previous "science."
This study itself is likely useless, if it's like most studies of the sort. Its only usefulness is if it actually leads someone to disprove it or to qualify it with further nuance that partially disproves it. I wouldn't take it as evidence of anything without a thorough review of the procedure (in likely much more detail than would appear in any publication).
Re: (Score:2)
While what you say is literally true, the problem is that "research that appears to confirm an expected answer" is frequently "useless." Anyone who has been following recent attempts to reproduce studies in various fields know that Ioannidis's claims that most published research findings are false [nih.gov] has been shown to be an accurate assessment again and again.
You see this pop up every time you see a study to which someone viscerally disagrees. It's mostly used as a bludgeon by extraordinarily lazy internet forum demagogues. The correlate, naturally, is the study which confirms someone's preexisting beliefs being touted as infallible truth handed down by the god of science.
It's this sort of ruthless irrationality from the self-described rationalists that is responsible to the public mistrust of science we've seen growing over the past few years. The science ch
Re: (Score:3)
Note that I agree with the results of the study. Identifying young jackasses by user name isn't generally hard.
Nonetheless, I agree with GP's comment. Most studies of this sort, for a variety of reasons, aren't worth the (metaphorical) paper they're printed on....
Re: (Score:2)
You see this pop up every time you see a study to which someone viscerally disagrees. It's mostly used as a bludgeon by extraordinarily lazy internet forum demagogues.
Uh, I agree with the results of TFA -- or, well, I at least think it's highly likely to be correct in its findings. What I'm saying is that even if it happens to be correct, experience and MANY, many studies of high profile articles in major journals have shown that such studies usually don't have the statistical power or unbiased design to actually demonstrate what they claim to.
The correlate, naturally, is the study which confirms someone's preexisting beliefs being touted as infallible truth handed down by the god of science.
Only if that someone is an irrational idiot who doesn't believe in a proper scientific method.
It's this sort of ruthless irrationality from the self-described rationalists that is responsible to the public mistrust of science we've seen growing over the past few years. The science cheerleaders are actively working against their own interests.
Huh? So, are you arguing that we
Re: (Score:2)
They used players who signed up to League of Legends. By definition, they're all toxic. That's why I stopped playing. I prefer to enjoy the games I play.
Re: (Score:2)
What is so toxic about words on the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as you have demonstrated over your illustrious Slashdot career, when people start making massive damnations of great swathes of the population (such as your fantastic "women can't be scientists" rant), it can spread to other less-critically-adept people, which can cause problems for the rest of society which has to deal with lazy-thinking muppets such as yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Words are words. Internet or not. Say you're with some friends, and one has to leave to run errands for his wife. If you were to call him a "pussy-whipped beta fag and that his wife is a bitch and that all women are stupid bitches out for money", he might not want to hang out with you.
If you were on the internet playing an MMORPG and a player in group logged off to run and errand for his wife and you called him a "pussy-whipped beta fag and that his wife is a bitch and that all women were stupid
Re: (Score:2)
I know this seems obvious, but this is one of the things science is for: testing what seems obvious, because sometimes what seems obvious is in fact wrong. Common sense got society to maybe the 17th century, which sucked. It took the ability to question our natural understanding of the world and test it with the scientific mindset to get beyond all that.
So yes, this is what I would have guessed. But knowing it is a different thing, and we can all say that now.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, in WoW, there have been guilds that only take older players and players with acceptable names for ages. While there are nice teenagers that can fit in well with a guild or group, unfortunately many do not.
Seriously, this is at least 10 years too late.
Re:And this is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
It tells us that you are way too hung up on shit that doesn't concern you.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why it's good to have some of the older guys still around Slashdot. Because they're more likely to drop a truth bomb when one's needed. Nethead (1563), I salute you.
Re: (Score:3)
It tells us that you are way too hung up on shit that doesn't concern you.
This is how we end up with things like the War on Drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry. What does Ms Hudson's sexuality have to do with how Anslinger was bought off by the DuPonts to start an underground race war? You've lost me.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the name alone doesn't tell us a whole lot. There's a slim chance that a female would want to tolerate us. Fortunately, what the name doesn't tell us - the signature does tell us. It tells us that there's a female willing to tolerate us. Don't worry, she's not going to rape you. Nor is she some feminist feel good zealot. In fact, she's insightful and intelligent.
This is based on observations and communications. Not some white knight silliness. She's good people and one of the few remaining good people
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You'd think, well I would, that with the maximum karma that they'd let you babble as much as you want but it appears the 50 post threshold is absolute. It seems silly and arbitrary to me.
There's a post limit?
This being SJW Friday, I think we should consider that a GOOD THING(tm) :-)
tee-hee (Score:4)
My username reveals nothing about me. :-( So I can be obnoxious online in anonymity.
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pretty sure my username doesn't reveal anything, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here!
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I can probably make a reasonable guess at your age and gender.
Re:tee-hee (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I can probably make a reasonable guess at your age and gender.
Maybe, but I self-identify as a 16-year old girl with big boobs who is a poly-demi-platonic trans-otherkin.
Re: (Score:2)
Also animated and Japanese, presumably.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid fucking cunts, the pair of you.
No, like most trolls, you have it all wrong, boobs come in pairs, but the only cunt here is you.
I'm not surprised at your lack of familiarity, you've probably never actually seen or touched a real one, have you?
Re: (Score:2)
There's not much gets past you, is there?
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, cover blown.
Fuck "Toxic" (Score:2, Insightful)
What's with sociology and weasel words?
Toxic is meaningless. In high enough doses, water is toxic (and can lead to water poisoning). It's just a slightly stronger way of saying "problematic", which is another weasel word (everything has pros and cons - so everything is problematic).
Words like "toxic" and "problematic" just mean "I don't like it, and I think it's a bad thing on balance but I can't prove it". If you can't prove it's a bad thing for some squeaker to tell me to fuck my mother, maybe you should
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ah yes, "problematic", the catch-all weasel word used by countless SJWs to mean "something I don't like".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it meant "imaginary monster under the bed".
... because that's how it's used ...
Re: (Score:2)
It's a reference to the "god warrior", a hysterical religious nut woman that appeared on the trading spouses show:
https://youtu.be/q3mDLsyn6ns [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3)
What's with sociology and weasel words?
Toxic is meaningless.
The study actually looked at LOL players and how often they were reported or given whatever in-game thingy LOL has to "like" someone. So they're not measuring their own arbitrary interpretation here of bad behavior, but instead community reaction. That seems like a reasonable measure. However, their definition of "anti-social names" could well be arbitrary.
I was quite amused that their finding of "old players nicer than young" was in the age range of 12-26, no older players were actually studied, just ki
Re: (Score:2)
no older players were actually studied, just kids and young adults
The wife and I are regular WoT players and both in our 50's. We basically ignore chat and just play the game. The wife has been playing for a few years, she used to get rattled by trolls until I explained they're just bored kids in their pyjamas waiting for mum to send them to bed.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a good demonstration of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Because he questioned the narrative?
Re: (Score:2)
No, because his comment is brainless and moronic. He (or she or whatever) is questioning the use of words like 'toxic' and 'problematic' while at the same time asking the authors to prove that something is 'bad'.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are.
No, YOU are!
No, YOU ARE!!
Ad infinitum.
Re: (Score:2)
Toxic in this context means: "Antisocial, liable to scare people away". In an activity that is meant to be social (multiplayer-gaming), and meant to have a large audience (LoL is a commercial product, after all), it is a nice, pithy description. What is your problem with it?
Re: (Score:2)
>> What's with sociology and weasel words?
It passes the time until the next person in line orders their coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
The first argument out of your keyboard was ad hominem. Not a great start.
1. Trash talk is part of relating to players. You're not supposed to get offended. you're supposed to up the ante and throw some back. why? It shows the other players that you have a sense of humor and a good competitive attitude (ie can handle losing). The ones who don't, fail the test by taking the trash talk personally, so they just leave, or never join in the first place. This filters the skinned whiners who are often sore losers
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just leave this here. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Fuck "Toxic" (Score:5, Insightful)
League is competitive; if someone tells you to fuck your mother, then you're doing it right. Don't like it? Then fuck right off, faggot. You're obviously not prepared to handle actual social interaction.
Amazing. Someone actually believes this. I'll repeat the kicker:
You're obviously not prepared to handle actual social interaction.
From the guy who wrote:
if someone tells you to fuck your mother, then you're doing it right. Don't like it? Then fuck right off, faggot.
Seriously. It's right above this post. Read it for yourself. This actually happened. It makes me sad. The collectivist in me wants to know where we went wrong. How did we fail him so badly.
His justification for supporting this kind of adolescent behavior?
League is competitive;
This past spring, we gave a stupid amount of money (around 10k) to the local little league team. Why? Because we think learning things like teamwork and sportsmanship [wikipedia.org] are important.
To One With Whisp, I'm sorry that you were not offered the same opportunity to learn about sportsmanship [wikipedia.org] as the kids participating in those kinds of activities. I can only hope that you take this opportunity to learn a little more about it, develop some empathy, and learn how to play well with others.
Well... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am definitely not a human, but an ant! :P
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
What age are the original names? And do they use the age when I CREATED the name? (25 years ago, offline) or do they use the age when I first used it online (20 years ago)? Or do they use one of the many years in between then and now? I mean WTF. I have handles from when I was 10 years old BBS'ing. And the name is even on the list of legal names in Iceland. (did you know you have to have your name approved by the gov't in Iceland? But I digress.)
This whole concept is officially stupid. Only people who want to be known as assholes will pick asshole names. No News Here. NNH.
So, if my user name ... (Score:2)
Makes me wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I chose my name around 1986 as well. I can't take credit for making it up, but I've been using it for almost 30 years. The sad thing is that I missed out on grabbing the .com domain name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So how do I skew the evidence? I chose my nickname in 1986 when I was young, and I still use it today. Since it hasn't changed at all I wonder how they presume to associate any "age" data with that.
Well, if you had chosen a childishly obscene user name back then, and still considered it appropriate to use, that could still provide some insight into your potential behavior today.
Re: (Score:2)
They only assumed an age when the username contained a number that could be interpreted as a year, i.e. 'goodguy1996', or 'blowme88'. They compared the date to the player's birth year, and it correlated very well. That was their only method, so a username like 'Dunbal' would have been excluded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So how do I skew the evidence? I chose my nickname in 1986 when I was young, and I still use it today. Since it hasn't changed at all I wonder how they presume to associate any "age" data with that.
You're right. They'll never be able to guess that the owner of FunkyColdMedina was a teenager back in the '80s, and is thus in roughly his late 40's now.
Sounds dodgy to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like someone wanted to use research grant money to play League of Legends.
Researchers need better maths. (Score:4, Insightful)
1985 = 30 years of age.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> 1985 = 30 years of age.
Uh, could you check that math again?
Please?
I'm pretty sure you made a mistake. It's an easy mistake to make, apparently, because my calculator is bugged and says the same thing when I subtract 30 from 2015.
Bad spellers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunately, you're in the even larger group that can't distinguish between "its" and "it's" reliably. HINT: "it's" is a contraction of "it is", "its" is a possessive.
My I'm in a pissy mood today. I guess that whole post-pancreas thing is
Sometimes (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:2)
http://bash.org/?14207 [bash.org]
Obviously (Score:2)
Pussycat1 is older than Pussycat2736415 !
Who would have thought.
Ah, yes, "toxic". (Score:4, Insightful)
I presume it is known that younger people exhibit the more obnoxious behaviors online, simply because when you are a gamer, you observe this behavior, and it doesn't take an academic study to figure it out.
Now, I say "obnoxious" because it puts the behaviors contextually in the realm that they belong.
When someone says "toxic", they semantically put a greater weight on it. They give it a word that's supposed to be scary and instill paranoia, and the strong feeling that people are "problematic" and need "re-education" (okay, they don't use that last one, but guaranteed, it's coming).
That's how you know the person(s) who published this study aren't gamers. Because real gamers have been dealing with obnoxious behavior since they picked up their first controller (me: original NES in 1985; we had Atari and Colecovision, but I was way too young to use them back then), and they don't try to create a stigmatizing label over it. They keep playing. They return the smack-talk or they proceed to shut the mouthy bastard up by annihilating him.
Seems to me the only reason studies like this one exist is so some preening pseduo-intellectual can jerk him/herself off by reinforcing stereotypes about gamers being beneath them. (And yes, I'm aware that the study says that the obnoxious behaviors come from younger people, but since the word "toxic" was invoked, you can be sure that someone, somewhere will use that as evidence that gaming instills "toxic" behavior in gamers.)
-LaurenC
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a gamer who's been playing longer than you and I have never felt that trash-talk was appropriate. You should also keep in mind that there have always been plenty of non-competitive games. PVP gamers frequently seem to think they are the only ones that count for some reason. Someone who only plays solo 4X games is just as much a gamer as you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not by it's cover, by it's title. Which is not unreasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Not by it's cover, by it's title. Which is not unreasonable.
And apparently, you can reasonably accurately judge the book by it's title. Thanks slashdot, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, not judging a book by its title is just stupid. If you see a book titled, Python for Data Analysis, you can reasonably (and accurately) assume that it is not a mystery novel. And if you see a book titled, Missing Men of Saturn, you can judge reasonably (and accurately) that it's not going to teach you how to adjust a carburetor on a 1960's MGB-GT.
Anyone who has been to a library (I realize that might limit the test populat
Re: (Score:2)
A dangerous game. I picked up a copy of Learn fad language in 24 hours the other day. It turned out to be a touching story about a boy and his dog dealing with the illness and subsequent death of his sister-in-law.
Re: (Score:2)
They might be if they can help your guild/team/whatever win matches.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... I'm going to guess you had a shitty American car from the early 1990s and that it impressed you enough to use it as a username. Which means, you probably got more life out of it than you could have hoped for, have some sort of affinity towards it, and it was not just a bargain but enabled you to be where you are today.
Also, I'd guess that it was a 93 Escort Wagon. Hmm... I'll say, LX version and red or blue but I'm going to guess red. I'd also hazard that you no longer own it and that you no longer o
It depends where you put the brackets. (Score:2)
That or a bus full of prostitutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well, I AM a prankster angel who can read in the Book of Destiny.