The Labeling Discussion Thread!

[InquilineKea]

<p>Yee, N. (2006). The Labor of Fun: How Video Games Blur the Boundaries of Work and Play. Games and Culture , 1, 68-71. (pdf)</p>

<p>

Video games are often framed as sites of play and entertainment. Their transformation
into work platforms and the staggering amount of work that is being done in these games often
go unnoticed. Users spend on average 20 hours a week in online games, and many of them
describe their game play as obligation, tedium, and more like a second job than entertainment.
Using well-known behavior conditioning principles, video games are inherently work platforms
that train us to become better game workers. And the work that is being performed in video
games is increasingly similar to the work performed in business corporations. The microcosm of
these online games may reveal larger social trends in the blurring boundaries between work and
play.

</p>

<p>===</p>

<p>Labels are imprecise and depend on context (as you can see above - it seems that the “video game” label makes work seem like play, when in reality, they can be blurred). They are forms of generalization - since after all - you can’t categorize every single minute detail under them. As a result, they are categorizations - social constructs that reflect the interests of whatever memes happen to be in human collective consciousness, rather than any description of underlying themes.</p>

<p>Anyhow, the point is, labels are flawed. Even scientific ones, like the exogenous/endogenous distinction, are not completely precise. Labels like “liberal” and "conservative,’ “democrat” and “republican” are extremely context-dependent and mean nothing unless huge swarths of the population happen to hold narrow-minded views that do not deviate from their mainstream party. Perhaps labels are a convenient way to draw people further into the label’s own basin of attraction. Why do people love labels so much?</p>

<p>Anyways, in this thread, rant all you want about labels. Or defend them. or specify which labels you want removed.</p>

[TheOneCurlyFry]

<p>im in ur thread, labelling ur d00dz</p>

[fizix2]

<p>NetHack is the latest rage in “competitive sports”…</p>

<p>But really, labels are used since trying to analyze everything as a new phenomenon would take a long time and get annoying. It’s like defining a function in computer science and calling it repeatedly rather than copying and pasting the code over and over again…</p>

[mj93]

<p>I think we need a new label for people who excel in a specific area, but it has to have the same connotation as “genius!” but only in a specific area.</p>

<p>so i think it should be “finafide” which would be short for “finis a fide” which in Latin (i think) translates to exceptional in one area.</p>

[fizix2]

<p>savant? (10 char)</p>

[LesOs]

<p>^I agree.</p>

<p>/<em>yay</em>/</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>Savant has negative connotations though, since it implies “below average intelligence” in other areas. Alternative words do exist, depending on the domain. The word “talented” seems to describe it well (it’s more domain-specific than gifted).</p>

<p>Another label is the label “relationship”. The label could apply to a wide variety of relationships (even if they are romantic ones)</p>