![[Jerry's Home Page]](/jhan/pictures/jdogs.gif)
Thus, this essay will come as a shock to most people, and I fear my reputation as a serious student will be destroyed. (Well, I never really had that reputation, but that's beside the point.) You see, I'm a hard-nosed, no regret, computer gamer.
The stats I collected revealed I spent 33.5 hours, or 20% of the week, using the computer. Out of this time, I spent 21 hours playing one of two games; Age of Rifles or Steel Panthers. The other 12 hours or so were spent using the computer for communication purposes. Thus, it appears I use the computer for two main purposes; entertainment and communication. There is the disclaimer that this was a light workload week; I don't usually spend that much time playing games. Age of Rifles was also a recent purchase; thus, I tended to spend more time with it. However, it would be easy for me to say I spend two hours a day playing one thing or another. Wasting time, as some people would say.
There is a very interesting stigma attached to being a gamer. It's worse if you're a wargamer, such as I; there's a social stereotype of wargamers being baby eating monsters. Well, at the very least, we're not normal. In any case, there is a very strong sense that we're wasting the computer's potential, since we're producing nothing of material worth. There's also the idea that we don't have lives, friends, or intelligence. ("After all, if they were smart, they wouldn't be playing computer games all the time.")
Yet, these same people would think nothing of going to the Bombshelter once a week, or watching four hours of TV at night. I personally don't watch much TV (maybe six hours over the entire week), and I don't drink at all. Most of my friends are gamers as well, so we end up playing together. I managed to read two books during the week in question, as well as doing all the volunteer activities that I have some responsibility for, so I like to think I have a life. (Maybe too much of one, but that's for another essay.) I certainly don't eat babies, and I certainly don't love war. I probably hate it more than the average person, because I've read what it can do to people (and I pray that I never see it first hand.) I can't speak objectively concerning my intelligence, but I would like to believe I'm not a complete idiot.
Besides, which is the more intellectually challenging? Drinking beer or trying to figure out how "Marse Lee" managed to hold off the Union for three years, out-manned and out-gunned?
Of course, this raises the question of why use the computer for such activities? Because there are things the computer does that no boxed war game (or any game, for that matter) can do. Using the computer, I can fly planes, and drive ships. I can conquer distant galaxies, and fight for freedom here on the planet Earth. I can get squashed by my friend playing Head to Head over the network, and then return the favour. And, I can sit down by myself, and figure out how General Pickett should have attacked at Gettysburg.
Thus, am I making the efficient use of the computer in my gaming exploits? I believe so, in my biased POV. I choose to be entertained by the computer, and the computer delivers. There are many other things I do for relaxation, but this is one of my favourite methods.
Now, what about communication? In this case, there is no negative social stereotype. At worst, the use of the computer for reasonable amounts of e-mail and WWW browsing is neutral; these days, where the WWW is the latest fad, it is even encouraged. Thus, the statistics concerning my use of the computer for communication remain unchallenged. Yet, this is the category where I am dissatisfied with the computer. My mind's ability to process information, and the time available to process information are dwarfed by the computers ability to the same. It is a rare day that I do not check my e-mail at night and discover I have a hundred messages waiting for me. Many times, people resort to e-mail when making a simple phone call would be more productive and satisfying.
The extreme example is an answering machine message I received from a friend of mine that I tried to call and ended up playing phone tag with: "Why did you call me for? If you want to talk to me, it's easier to send e-mail."
This brings up the most delicious irony of all. The uses where I feel the computer needs improvement are the uses that society has decided are socially acceptable. The uses where I feel the technology is proceeding well are the areas where I feel I must defend myself from the stereotype of being a lazy, stupid, time-waster. This irony is sweetened by the fact that it is usually the entertainment uses of computers that force the home technology forward. Sound Cards, CD-ROMs, 3D Accelerator Graphic Cards, are all examples of this.
Thus, we have a fascinating glimpse into the nature of Society and Computerization, in particular in terms of productivity. We have an area that is socially acceptable, but where the technology requires improvement. We have an area that is not socially acceptable, but where the technology is more than satisfactory. It is in this second area that more resources and more time have been spent. It is in this area that the most money is to be made.
What is the contradiction here? Is there a contradiction? How does this relate to the "Productivity Paradox" as related in Computerization and Controversy?
By all the conventional definitions of productivity, writing and selling games is a wonderful use for computers. It makes money and it employees large staffs of people covering the entire spectrum of industry. Yet, it is considered by society to be a negative use of computers, and is discouraged by "serious" people.
On the other hand, we have the service of providing e-mail. Somewhat successful, but nowhere near as successful as the computer entertainment industry. It certainly doesn't employ as many people as the computer entertainment industry can. Yet, it is considered to be a positive use of computers, to be encouraged.
Thus, we have a paradox. It isn't limited to computers either; look at the illegal drug trade. Billions of dollars are generated in revenue, all of it illegal. How can something like that flourish when mines and factories across the country have closed?
It seems that the best guarantee to succeed in an industry is to be banned, or, at least, to be viewed as socially unacceptable. Maybe this has to do with the fact that socially unacceptable things usually involve pleasure. Maybe there is a thrill in breaking social taboos, which encourages participation. But, there is something here that has to be unearthed, something that I feel is fundamental to the way Society runs.
What is this fundamental idea? I will be frank and admit I don't know the answer. All I know for sure is that I'm a computer gamer. For the rest, I'll do the best I can when I get there.
For outside viewers, the course textbook is Computerization and Controversy , 2nd ed., ed. by Rob Kling, Academic Press, 1996.
(For comparison, I spent about 60 hours sleeping / 36% of the week.)
Evaluation Form for this essay.