Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Ask your investment, budget, and other money related questions here
AnalyticalEngine
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:57 am

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by AnalyticalEngine »

Fascinating thread. There are some parallels with my own experience here. There have been periods in my life where my online life was more salient than my offline life, and it was for a variety of reasons. I will outline them here.

1. When the offline world is grim, the online world is more appealing. A common mistake a lot of anti-internet people make is they compare an ideal IRL life to an average online life. Of course, the IRL world has more potential peak of experience, as there are many things you can only do physically. But there are also a great number of people who can't capture the height of IRL experience, due to factors like poverty, impoverished physical environments, or lack of skills IRL. This is why only "weird nerds" used to live terminally online but this has spread to more normal people as the internet has grown and in situations where the physical world is either too dangerous or too impoverished to exist fully in. The implication of this is that more people will live more online as the physical world deteriorates. (Provided the power grid and internet stay up)

2. The further from normative you are, the more the internet has appeal because you can connect with people who are like you. In my experience, I have to go through seven layers of the song and dance of masking to talk to normal people IRL, but online, I can easily find people who more closely meet my subjective and lived experience, and I'm not having to hide who I am to them the same way I have to with normal people IRL. The same thing goes with having deep conversations in places like this forum. I think this is also why the internet becoming more normative is seen as a genuine loss to people who remember the 90s/2000s internet--MOPs have replaced geeks.

What I have realized lately is that finding people who are non-normative the same way you are IRL requires a major upgrade in social skills and a real willingness to network to hell and back, which is not something everyone can or wants to do.

3. People who grow up online don't draw the distinction between online life and offline life. That is, even though IRL has more potential for deep physical experience than online, if you are never exposed to that, you never even realize it exists and will thus continue to just live online. This is another trend I except to get worse with time.

4. Spending a lot of time online (12 hours+ a day) starts to make the internet feel more real than the rest of your life. You reach this point where the physical world literally feels less real than screen time because you've trained your brain to associate screen time with real emotional experiences and the physical world with emptiness.

5. Because there are no physical limits, the online world starts to operate in the realm of pure psychological abstraction. What you see online is therefore a better look at the unencumbered nature of the human mind than interacting with people IRL, which is subject to limitations. Likewise, it can be easier to express yourself in the way you want other people to receive you as online because people IRL tend to make judgements about you based on how you look.

6. Is the physical world even more real than the internet at this point? We live in such a technological society that time spent not looking at a screen really isn't more "real" than the internet. I mean, if I live in my consumer house, commute to the office, go to Walmart, and spend my free time at the bar, all of those things are human-designed anyway and therefore not really that much more "real" than the internet. It's so hard to have genuine real experiences in hyperreal consumer society, and so this distinction of online vs offline starts to breakdown. Likewise, if everyone I interact with IRL spends a ton of time on twitter and starts acting like twitter IRL, am I even escaping the internet at this point?

These are all trends I expect to worsen as the material basis of society continues to erode.

Now I do want to add, I've been making a major effort to cutback on my screen time and do more physical stuff. This has helped tremendously with my quality of life. But I'm also in a position where I can afford to do this because I have the mental, social, and monetary skills to do so. I think a lot of people who only average or below average skill easily get stuck viewing online as more salient than offline for these reasons. I therefore do think we'll continue to see the boundary of online vs offline continue to erode.

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by daylen »

But the physical world is pretty much empty. ;)

sky
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:20 am

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by sky »

People interact with the online world through intellect, dreams and imagination. People interact with the physical world through the senses.

People who spend a lot of time online may experience a deficit of sensual stimulation, which might lead to psychological problems.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by jacob »

We live in interesting times. The people with the best real world social skills, lets call them bar-skills, conversely seem to be the ones with the weakest social skills online. Forsooth, most can't spell and think lmao substitutes for a punctuation mark. It's a steep uphill climb in terms of reading comprehension to get most people to answer two or more questions in a single email---yet a phonecall would actually work.

You become good at what you practice.

The virtual world is a bonanza for those with an Aspergerish talent for grasping technical details and understanding complex subjects that's generally not valued in the real world---the one obsessed with shared human experiences like dancing, making loud small talk, and social maneuvering. Or nature, aka that miserable green place that's hot, humid, and stingy.

You practice what you value.

I bet there's a tendency to see whatever world or rather layer of reality that one occupies as the most real. Concrete thinkers, for example, will see the world of jobs, supermarkets, and Disneyland as very real because they don't see the underlying systems which would reveal that it's just as constructed as the virtual world. Even the magic of nature goes away once one knows the construct. Quantum woo sounds far less fascinating after grokking the Schroedinger equation.

Whether the experience of any reality is impoverished likely depends on one's skill of engaging with it and how meaningful one finds it. In other words, it's about the strength of the connection. I would not presume that peak experiences can only be had with/from physical humans or natural landscapes. Indeed, that claim seems rather like a romantic counterreaction(?) to me; I'll bet it's mostly made by people who are temperamentally incompatible with the "built environment" or the Platonic world of ideas.

As we become better at building more worlds, humanity might differentiate. The nature-lovers can be out in nature. The spreadsheet jockeys can sit in a cubicle. I think the mistake is in declaring one connection more meaningful than others ... that easily leads people in the wrong direction. IOW, I don't think we should try to "adjust" people to enjoy the same thing.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by jacob »

steelerfan wrote:
Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:33 pm
People merginig this game with the real world. I dabbled with it briefly but my real life won out. When I retire I may go back in.
I saw it referred to as a "lifestyle" more than a game. Since it replicates so many real world roles, what's your take on how many [Dave Graeber] bullshit-type jobs are in the game? Is there a steady stream of noobs mining ore for the old-money wealthy analogous to teenage burger flippers in the real world? Not everybody can be "king", so I presume there may be competition for the "good" roles similar to IRL?

AnalyticalEngine
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:57 am

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by AnalyticalEngine »

@Jacob - Interesting analysis. It seems, then, one cannot simply reject the virtual as "bad" simply because it is virtual. Maybe the pitfall a lot of social commentators have is only commenting on poor engagement with the virtual world. Ie, it's not hard to see how spending 8 hours a day on TikTok is not a good use of your time, but it's much harder to make an argument that something that requires skill and brings meaning, even if it's virtual, is bad.

Thus virtual worlds are bad if people spend the entire time doomscrolling and comparing themselves to images of their friends (a low ability of engagement) but potentially beneficial if you're one of the top players in EVE or posting on forums that bring value (ERE). And yet, because the average person doesn't engage well with the internet, the perception becomes all of virtual worlds are bad.

theanimal
Posts: 2627
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by theanimal »

Like sky said, virtual worlds and games engage with your senses in a limited way and I have further noticed they do not facilitate the development of one's ability to handle emotions and adversity in the real world. In my experience viewing others who fall under this type, overcoming a challenge in the virtual world does not lead one to be able to do things in the real world, like hiking up a hill in the rain or spending much time disconnected, without experiencing high levels of stress. The players have never had to process real emotions and do not know how to constructively deal with feelings that arise as a result when disconnected. I have witnessed this in more than one person, with one being someone I know well. These are people with combined use of tik tok/strategic games like the above. It seems to lead to fragile human beings. Maybe some people are the exception, but if we are talking about large portions of society spending more time in virtual worlds I see that as a very bad thing.

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by daylen »

Couldn't it also go the other way where too little virtual exposure leads to the inability to imagine alternative physical realities? If all time was spent in nature, wouldn't our own nature run in more or less a loop?

Seems like the most interesting civil path is a combination of our looped natures with virtual construction of what we could become. This can be done with a few brains linked up through vibrations in physical fields or through brains linked up through vibrations that are filtered digitally then spat back out as vibrations worlds away. Magic! Also quite inspiring.

Though, brute nature can also be fun.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by jacob »

It's to be expected that an individual would be stressed when out of their natural environment. It's easy to flip all these arguments around. Those whose experiences primarily derive in a concrete sensate way dealing with events (and humans) as they come would be similarly distressed with situations that require the intellectual ability to abstract and imagine potential situations that haven't happened yet. Being intellectually blind to complexity is a handicap in civilization.

In the built environment, these are the people who constantly stress about running out of money because they can't grasp the concept of a budget, fail to plan for tax returns and proceed to ignore them, eat too much junk food because it tastes so good, ... whose imagination is limited to Disney movies, Hallmark cards, and what they can buy, whose political understanding is limited to "us good, them bad"; the ones who don't know the name of the vice president, the chief justice, or how a tripartite system works.

That is to say the real world tends towards being intellectually empty in terms of its perceived complexity. Most humans, especially those who primarily focus on sensations, have little clue as to what is going on behind the curtain. Insofar one takes things as they come and don't engage with them intellectually, understanding is usually limited to one's training or previous experience, which does not cover novel situations. At best the majority picks up on the cause and effect relation for a single variable; often coming up with the wrong explanation (latent variables).

The lift the veils that hide the underlying reality requires an imaginative intellect as assisted by papers, books, writing, drawing, programs, games, ...

I don't think blaming the system and desiring a return to a more parochial agrarian time when things were simpler and thus better is a solution. Appealing to nature---that things are better because they're found in nature---is a fallacy. It's particularly problematic since we're rapidly wiping out the remaining part of nature. Hence the OP suggestion via Randers (I may be putting too many words in his mouth) to focus on the virtual and the complex. We'll be eating soylent green soon enough.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by jacob »

Man you people are too fast for me to keep up ...

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by jacob »

As far as I'm concerned ... I think there are different, nay very different, types of humans. MBTI is one such model, but I don't actually think it covers all that is possible. For example, some people have and do speculate that the ego was not always a conceptual thing. At some prehistoric time, however, people began to see themself and others as individuals: the ego was born. Brain scans of current humans reveal that "the self", that is the ego and the perception of the physical boundary between the body and the not-body sits that the top of the center of the brain---basically what would be right under a mohawk. It's conceivable that this ego-activity was not always there. Indeed through lots of meditation, one can learn to attenuate this activity and proceed to drop this separation and thus feel one of the universe in a very deep way. This may be how humans used to feel. It does seem to come with certain survival based disadvantages. Why care about solving problems like being hungry or not getting eaten when everything is wonderful and part of the same universe. Note how predators and prey often intermingle when the predators aren't hungry. It's not like the prey likes to be eaten ... but a sense of self allows the prey to plan to not be prey. This is the advantage.

There's also the idea of a bicameral mind that during Homeric times, the mind was basically schizophrenic with one part of the brain talking and the other part listening which was experienced as taking instructions from the gods.

N-brain activity, which concerns abstraction, happens primarily in the neocortex which is the latest addition in the triune brain. This is also where logic exists, logic and analysis being recent additions. Emotions sit in the limbic system which is older. And basic sensations are part of the reptilian brain system.

Basically, I submit that these systems have co-evolved with human behavior. For example, to carry around a brain this massive (relative to bodyweight) requires fire to cook so as to reduce the load on the digestive system---our feeding system takes up much less effort than that of a cow or a lion.

This all to rehash that the "return to nature" by appeal to nature approach is wrong. Because we basically can't. Because we already left nature several tens of thousands of years ago even if we still carry all the brain parts that worked back then.

We still use those parts to various degrees even though some are conceivably vestigial. The preference of usage basically determines out MBTI type. Having multiple difference types in the human species allows for A LOT of flexibility and vastly increases the potential solution space. This is why I get on my hobby horse soap box when one-size-fits-all suggestions are proposed.

Ideally the goal would be to tweak the various temperaments towards being compatible with the 21st century.

Not aim for something that worked in the 11th century or the minus 450th century.

PS: In the far future, even our species live long enough, we might add another letter to the MBTI as a new brainstructure develops or evolves. Maybe C for cybernetic implants ... as measured by one's reliance of such. Perhaps we should already start thinking in those terms as some are so married to their smartphones that they effectively have "google-brain".

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by daylen »

Rimworld is ahead of the curve. Worlds on the rim of habitation with emergent politics, dynamic ideologies, highly variable personalities, industrial strength meditations, and implants of all kinds. It was outlawed in Australia for a time for its brutality, I assume.

theanimal
Posts: 2627
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by theanimal »

I’m confused about the argument against returning to nature. I don’t see anyone arguing that, was that discussed in another thread? We currently live in a blended environment where people spend some time online and some time in the real world. Spending less time or no time in virtual worlds does not mean one is living in the wilderness or has withdrawn from using screens. Examining the extremes, nearly all the time in a virtual world or returning to nature, only the former is really possible on a societal scale in our current times. We seem to agree that most people lack complexity, I am arguing that more time in virtual world is not the solution for the vast majority in terms of the OP. For some with the interest and the aptitude, sure it may satisfy the source of meaning. However, levels of anxiety, loneliness, depression and suicide are at the highest in recorded history for teens and youth (ie those who use screens most) and only continue to increase. Coincidentally, rising in parallel with the adoption and use of screens. Correlation or causation? Will even more time in digital worlds reverse this trend?

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by daylen »

What's more interesting to me is whether or not we can sufficiently blur the line between what activities are considered "real" and what activities are considered "virtual". Then we could experience "reality" while also imagining alternate "realities" that are reflected in the singular reality we share. One reality meets many realities in mutual creation.

Otherwise we would be split between realities that are likely out of our control/choice.

User avatar
Jean
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by Jean »

I sometimes feel like i'm retreating to games, because my natural habitat as been shrunk too much.

User avatar
gubbe
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:44 pm

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by gubbe »

jacob wrote:
Sun Aug 07, 2022 12:18 pm
Another reason this is interesting to me is that Jorgen Randers (of Limits to Growth) predicted an increasing move to virtual worlds and by extension meaning as the natural world diminishes. This would to my mind look something like Ready Player One with people deriving more of their meaning via their online life than their real life where they might be on UBI, working minimum wage jobs, and generally unable to do much due to lack of funding or resources. Some in the first world already live like this.
This reminds me of a news story I read a couple of years ago about a severely disabled person who spend all his time living through World of Warcraft.

In a blog post, this person wrote “"There my handicap doesn't matter, my chains are broken and I can be whoever I want to be. In there I feel normal."

When he died 25 years old, his parents thought he had a lonely and isolated life but then a lot of people showed up to his funeral and his parents learned about his online life.

Full story: https://www.bbc.com/news/disability-47064773.amp

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by jacob »

theanimal wrote:
Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:28 pm
I’m confused about the argument against returning to nature. I don’t see anyone arguing that, was that discussed in another thread? We currently live in a blended environment where people spend some time online and some time in the real world. Spending less time or no time in virtual worlds does not mean one is living in the wilderness or has withdrawn from using screens. Examining the extremes, nearly all the time in a virtual world or returning to nature, only the former is really possible on a societal scale in our current times. We seem to agree that most people lack complexity, I am arguing that more time in virtual world is not the solution for the vast majority in terms of the OP. For some with the interest and the aptitude, sure it may satisfy the source of meaning. However, levels of anxiety, loneliness, depression and suicide are at the highest in recorded history for teens and youth (ie those who use screens most) and only continue to increase. Coincidentally, rising in parallel with the adoption and use of screens. Correlation or causation? Will even more time in digital worlds reverse this trend?
The OP/Randers argument is essentially that nature is vanishing fast and the nature/capita is going even faster. There are already 3 times as many humans by weight as there is remaining wildlife on the surface. Thus the recommendation [in the 2052 book] i literally to get some good electronic entertainment and learn to enjoy it because that's all that's eventually going to be there. In particular, it's best to not develop an affinity for nature in order to avoid the sad feelings of loss.

The Ready Player One scenario seems more viable and plausible (it's the way the world is heading) even if it's simple smartphone games than going into nature for the vast majority. (This is where we disagree?). Inner city people might never leave the core due to inaffordability. More than half of humans are now urban.

It's tricky to separate cause or correlation.

My main line of inquiry is to which degree virtual living can satisfy the need for meaning and connection. I think I'm going to run some personal experiments. I think I'm somewhat motivated by considering the "real world" to be a solved problem (WL8). The real world is after all pretty simple ;-) It is not a source of daily motivation to rehash this solution. I've previously argued the opposite: That playing video games is dumb when you can play stock market, for example. But when stock market has been won, one is looking for other games. The virtual world may not be an infinite game---neither is sitting under a tree---but it does contain an effectively infinite number of games, whereas the real world contains only one.

User avatar
Jean
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by Jean »

I wonder if we will have the same sort of clash between onlinist and naturist, than beetween pastoralist and agriculturist.
In a way, moving parts of life online is similar to switching to agriculture, it's a way to increase how much people can cohabitate on a given territory, it is an alternative to conquest wars.
I'm pretty sure that without online activity, we would be much further in the violence escalation in the west, because online activites offer a great exaust for the anger that usually lead to violence.
If i was a terrorist group trying to create chaos, i would try to get steam and other similar service offline for more than a few days.

AnalyticalEngine
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:57 am

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by AnalyticalEngine »

I propose that there is a fulfilling/healthy way to experience the virtual and an unfulfilling/unhealthy way. My personal experience with getting heavily invested in online communities is that they tend to just reproduce all the problems with the offline social world. Ie, the petty interpersonal dynamics made worse by the lack of face to face empathy and the type of person most online communities attract. Solving the equivalent of the roommate problem for an MMO may be the solution here. Additionally, a lot of digital entertainment is made to be addictive, which makes the intrinsic experience less fulfilling and more compulsive.

However, virtual entertainment doesn't need to be tied to either the roommate problem or addiction, so that may be the direction of the answer. I'm curious what your experiments result in, Jacob.

zbigi
Posts: 978
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:04 pm

Re: Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

Post by zbigi »

jacob wrote:
Mon Aug 08, 2022 5:03 pm
I think I'm somewhat motivated by considering the "real world" to be a solved problem (WL8). The real world is after all pretty simple ;-) It is not a source of daily motivation to rehash this solution. I've previously argued the opposite: That playing video games is dumb when you can play stock market, for example. But when stock market has been won, one is looking for other games. The virtual world may not be an infinite game---neither is sitting under a tree---but it does contain an effectively infinite number of games, whereas the real world contains only one.
The real world also has a large number of games. Apart from solving the money problem, you could also try to become an artist, an inventor, a businessperson, a political activist, an indepedent mathematicial or scientist, a video game developer etc. etc. It can be just as arbitrary as getting gud at Counterstrike. 99% of people choose video games because they are specifically designed to be rewarding, introduce habits and addictions (the "core loop" concept in video game design), whereas the real world doesn't care if we enjoy ourselves. But, unless one tries to go pro in a given game or otherwise reach to top of the hierarchy (CEO in EVE online etc.), I think gaming full-time is not challenging enough to provide meaning and ultimately will likely have a negative effect on wellbeing.

Post Reply