
A Psychological Exploration of Engagement in Geek Culture - kushti
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142200
======
ilostmykeys
<< present evidence that individuals may engage in geek culture in order to
maintain narcissistic self-views (the great fantasy migration hypothesis), to
fulfill belongingness needs (the belongingness hypothesis), and to satisfy
needs for creative expression (the need for engagement hypothesis) >>

I agree with the above being the main apparent drivers of engagement for most
of geeks.

However, one big blind spot in the above is the desire to acquire knowledge
thru intellectually rooted, rational debate (analysis and counter-analysis)

Geeks are not entirely a bunch of narcissists who want to belong and be
creative. Sometimes, and I would say most times, the underlying motive is
knowledge acquisition.

Geeks tend to acquire knowledge constantly and tend to avoid activities that
don't contribute to knowledge acquisition. So beneath all the narcism, desire
for belonging and creative output there really is a much stronger and much
more persistent need for knowledge acquisition...

The authors of this study went for the outward qualities rather than the
implicit knowledge acquisition motivation.

me thinks :)

~~~
brian-armstrong
What does convention going have to do with knowledge acquisition? I don't see
how they're related.

~~~
ilostmykeys
They've picked a very narrowly defined behavioral model (convention going) for
their generalized observations about geek culture, so the basis of the
analysis is wrong, which makes your question somewhat inconsequential.

We don't engage primarily because of some narcissistic need, need for
belonging or need for showing off. We engage mainly because of our much more
essential and more persistent need for grater knowledge and deeper
understanding.

~~~
cbsmith
Non-geek conventions are also for "greater knowledge & deeper understanding".
Geeks aren't unique in that regard.

~~~
ilostmykeys
They picked a narrowly defined behavioral model (that of convention going) to
derive conclusions about a much bigger sub culture. That's what I mean by the
basis of their analysis being flawed.

~~~
cbsmith
Actually, they picked a narrowly defined behavioral model (that of convention
going) to test hypotheses about a sub culture that obviously exists outside
that behaviour model.

I'm not sure what else you expected them to do.

While it is far from conclusive (and the paper is _very_ clear about that),
the idea of testing out a hypothesis in an artificially defined context is
kind of how empirical science is done. As you get more confident in the
hypothesis, you make predictions about more and more varied contexts.

~~~
ilostmykeys
Making behavioral hypotheses about athletically inclined people based on a
behavioral model of the crowd in live sport events is not simply empirical
science but bad science. You are confusing the spectator (the convention going
crowd) for the spectacle (the otherwise normal human behavior that conventions
tend to focus on and amplify)

~~~
cbsmith
...but that's not at all analogous to the study. Dragon*Con isn't a convention
where the general public goes to be entertained by geeks. The people who
attend are just as important, if not more, contributors to the culture.

By their definition of geek culture is "a subculture of enthusiasts that is
traditionally associated with obscure media", The difference between the
control group and the study group was in how they were recruited (an offer
that encouraged geek participants/discouraged others, and one that was
generically inviting), and they even made an effort to measure engagement with
geek culture along with the personality traits.

~~~
ilostmykeys
You are STILL confusing the spectator (the convention going crowd) for the
spectacle (the otherwise normal human behavior that conventions tend to focus
on and amplify) ... What I was saying, not by way of direct analogy, is that
the convention itself, the phenomenon, has its own behavioral biases, and so
its' the wrong model to start with.

------
neilk
I know it's easy for me as a random internet guy to poke holes in their work
after skimming a paper, but it seems to me they are describing enthusiasts for
anything, not just geek culture. From the research methods, it's not clear to
me if they controlled for that possibility.

Like, imagine the people who work on old motorcycles. You'd probably find
narcissistic fantasy (the rebel, loner image), seeking community with people
who share the vision, and people who have time on their hands and an interest
in being creative with machines.

~~~
analog31
Agreed. I would also include people who enjoy accumulating huge sums of money.

------
MrTonyD
Was it Sartre or Camus who said "existence precedes cognizance"? As far as I
can tell, I was born a geek - from my youngest memory.

I guess that when you only have the "hammer" of psychology everything looks
like a "nail" driven exclusively by current psychological theories.

~~~
hiddencost
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence)

The quote actually has the opposite point: you are what you do, you aren't
something due to being born that way.

~~~
MrTonyD
I took it to mean that things exist - and that all the meaning is just
intellectual overlay on that existence. Wasn't the famous example that meaning
exists independent of words? The meaning was already there - and the word with
its meaning is an overlay? (Guess there's a reason why I'm not a
philosopher...)

~~~
hiddencost
"

To claim that existence precedes essence is to assert that there is no such
predetermined essence to be found in humans, and that an individual's essence
is defined by him or her through how he or she creates and lives his or her
life. As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: "man first of all
exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself
afterwards."

"

Disclaimer: just pulled from wikipedia.

------
Paul_S
I don't think 'geek' means anything any more and even the researchers fall
back to relying on self identification. Title of the paper should be amended
accordingly.

------
fao_
> Table 4. Correlations between Appearance Ratings of Dragon _Con Photographs
> and Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Geek Engagement.

So, I _haven't* read the entire paper, just skimmed it; but it seems to me
that what they're saying is that those geeks who are likely to have their
photograph taken at Dragon*Con, are more likely to be narcissists.

That looks as if they are selecting for a subset of geek culture that is more
likely to contain narcissists, and then stating that the results are
representative of the entirety of geek culture.

Side Note/Related Note: 'Geek Culture', is not relegated to conventions, and
in many ways it lies outside it -- Reading, knowledge-gathering, etc. are
largely introverted activities; and geek culture itself grew up around early -
mid 20th century Science Fiction and Fantasy. So I find it difficult to
understand how they could claim that the subset of geeks who visit conventions
is representative of the entirety of geek culture in the first place.

~~~
bitwize
You mean cosplay girls who wear slave Leia or slutty Chun Li costumes to cons
are more likely to be narcissistic? Stop the presses!

