posted 08-04-99 12:10 PM ET        

I believe that the personality flaw being demonstrated by JKM in his article on the myth of the bugless program is not merely his own, but shared by the entire group of persons at Firaxis. That personality flaw is "hubris", commonly defined as excessive pride or arrogance. Hubris can either be an individual personality trait, or it can also become a shared group value. I think that the latter has become the case at Firaxis.

Lets examine the case, shall we?

Hubris prevents an individual or group from entertaining information that is unflattering or critical. There is much that could be said on this score. Honest critiques of this product have mostly been met with thunderous silence. Occasionally, a quick fix to a gross flaw is offered, but the willingness to offer only quick fixes or entertain fixes of the worst problems say a great deal about the unwillingness to consider criticism on any level above the superficial. Most instructive as a case study was the Firaxian group response to the "unlimited range missile" issue. For months, the complaint was met with a refusal to acknowledge it, then it was contradicted--on the basis that the programers "knew" (without checking, of course) that their code was sound on this point. Finally, the flaw was begrudgingly admitted to, and a quick fix was attempted. This fix failed in the first attempt because there was no attempt made to genuinely examine the flaw and it's origins. Finally, and only after concrete demonstrations of their error, Firaxis finally did fix the flaw. The tremendous effort involved in getting Firaxis to actually examine their product for error and rectify the error, however, is a case study in the difficulty of the "outsider" group in overcoming the hubistic barriers to communication with the "inner circle".

Hubris lessens empathic involvement with others. A brief review of the history of Firaxian staff posting on these boards reveals a defensive response to public criticism. Consistent with the characteristics of hubris, the members of the hubristic group do not genuinely interact with the "outsider" group. Communications are limited, and when they occur, are typically one way pronouncements, self-justifications or the patronizing attitude of a superior speaking to his inferiors. JKM's characterization of Firaxians who post on these boards as "celebrities" (an appellation which, naturally, he applies to himself) is particularly revealing on this point. Although there is a natural basis for empathy between the producers and consumers of a product, the attitude of the typical Firaxian is to reject those empathetic ties and hold himself apart as "superior" to ties with such persons, who for the most part, are unworthy of his sincere attention.

Hubris is characterized by a belief in the expertise of the "inner circle" as superior to that of any out group memeber, regardless of circumstance. This leads naturally to the adoption of group ideals which are antithetical to the needs of the group that the inner circle was orginally organized to serve. Note how JKM, in his article, lashes out at those who dare to suggest that their needs are not being served. He dismisses opposing points of view as unimformed. He avoids or misinterprets the complaints of the outgroup regarding their dissatisfaction. [Indeed, his characterization of consumers as demanding 100% bug-free programs is a gigantic straw man--set up to be conveniently knocked down, instead of addressing the actual complaints as stated.] He ascribes motives to the actions of the members of the outgroup which, though patently ridiculous, allow him to conveniently dismiss the substance of their complaints on an ad hominem basis. Hubris transforms the normal buisness model of constructive response to consumer complaints on it's head in this case. We see in place of a culture of client service, a pattern of belittling and attacking those whom the group is supposed to serve.

posted 08-04-99 03:32 PM ET            

Does that mean I'm an oxy-moron?

posted 08-05-99 12:11 AM ET            

Great point. Since this isn't a gaming forum but a lounge for out of work mental health interns, I think we should watch how we degrade a noble profession. In that spirit, I have clarified my position. It's a good read. Enjoy!
__________

From now on, I propose we stop using flimsy psycho talk and bring out some big guns.

What is Jeff? Well, his is a "Moral Skeptic." In fact, whenever you speak of him from now on, please refer to him as Jeff, The Moral Skeptic. What is a moral skeptic? I will soon go into detail, but essentially I consider Jeff, The Moral Skeptic a moral skeptic because he views the gaming industry (and thus its moral underpinnings) as a moving target and not subject, therefore, to discussions of absolutes. In other words, we say "Bugs. Absolutely hate them." He says, "Bugs to you, maybe. Design decisions to us. Grow up."

You see, on the surface, a moral skeptic can never be beaten. In actuality, a moral skeptic is really something more like a moral coward and thus easily cowed by showing him a little disrespect. For, you see, the moral skeptic, though claiming all of life is a moving target, is quite absolute on one thing: He is the center of all things important. Assail his status as the (Fir)axis upon which truth spins, and he crubles into a pre-pubescent state of fetal rocking and rejection of solid food. But the art of defeating a moral skeptic is not the subject of my essay. Rather, I am here simply to explain what a moral skeptic is and put our discussions on this issue back on track.

Moral skepticism is an epistemological position that we do not have knowledge or justification for believing in objective moral principles. Moral skepticism does not involve the rejection of moral values themselves, but simply the denial that we have knowledge of an objective realm of morals. Moral skeptics sometimes argue that moral values are similar to aesthetic judgments. Aesthetic judgments such as "This painting is beautiful" and "The food in this restaurant is pretty awful" are not objective in nature are based on human preferences. Analogously, moral skeptics argue that moral judgments like "premarital sex is wrong" or "abortion is wrong" are also not objective in nature. The most effective argument for moral skepticism is to question the existence of the realms in which objective moral principles are thought to reside. If the very notion of a spirit-like realm of abstract entities is called into question, then moral principles cannot be objective in that sense.

MACKIE'S DEFENSE. In Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, J.L. Mackie defends moral skepticism with three specific arguments. His first argument is from cultural relativity. Mackie sees a problem with the fact that our allegedly objective moral beliefs do not appear to shape our cultural. Instead, it appears that it is our culture which shapes our particular moral beliefs, beliefs such as monogamy. Moral subjectivism, then, is the most reasonable explanation for why our moral beliefs mimic our culture. The only possible explanation an objectivist could have is that our particular moral beliefs become distorted as we try to perceive objective value through our diverse cultures. However, Mackie find this counter-argument weak. His second argument against moral realism is that there is some queer, or counterintuitive aspect of any description one might give of an objective moral realm. There are three distinct points to this argument. First, there is a metaphysical problem, or a problem based on the strange spirit-like realm which the realist would advocate. For Mackie, the strangeness of this realm alone is an argument against it. Second, there is a relational problem since it is not clear how this peculiar, non-natural realm would have any connection with natural objects and human actions. Using Plato's terminology, it is not clear how a spirit-like realm of the forms could affect the natural world of appearances: the two realms are too distinct. Third, there is an epistemological problem, that is, a problem in how we would have knowledge of these spirit-like things. We gain knowledge of the physical world through our five sense. But by what faculty do we gain knowledge of this spirit-like realm?

Mackie's third argument against moral realism is based on a psychological explanation for why people believe there are objective values (an explanation which he calls patterns of objectification). His point is that it is more reasonable (less paradoxical) to view morality as an artificial construction, providing we can give a decent account of why so many people erroneously believe that morality is objective. Mackie's psychological explanation is based on a tendency people have to objectify values which are actually subjective in origin. This tendency may best be described as a psychological projection which results from societal demands. There are two parts to this theory. The first is taken from Hume who argued that there is, in general, an instinctive psychological tendency give an objective explanation to something which is subjective in origin. Second, society places external constraints on how we behave morally (such as society's demand that we should not run around naked). Given the external nature of these societal demands, we tend to think that the moral issue in question (running around naked in public) is externally objective. This, then, is why we erroneously believe that there are objective values.

Mackie concludes that even if values are not objective, this does not mean that morality is useless. Instead, Mackie emphasizes the importance of creating moral guidelines which regulate the actions of ourselves and others.

posted 08-05-99 01:39 AM ET            

Personally, I have no idea what motivates JKM in his actions. If anything I suspect he's either secretly rebelling against senior firaxis management in some way, or trying to generate a consumer backlash against the QA dept so that he gets more money and power when doing Alien crossfire (what a stupid name, btw).

Certainly he knows that there is such thing as a bug, and he probably knows that no programmer is wildy delighted to be told that his brilliantly done code crashed and burned after just five minutes. As darkstar put it (kind of) in another thread, just as the tech support mustn't blame the idiot customer for their faults, neither can the QA department directly blame the idiot programmer for his ineptness. Probably especially not when that programmer is international celebrity Brian Reynolds.

posted 08-05-99 09:27 AM ET            

There is an episode of the sitcom "Home Improvement" in which budding first year psychology student, Jill Taylor, purports to analyze the psychological problems of someone she's never even met, based on a mutual friend's description. Naturally, this leads to a lot of sitcom-like trouble. Her psych professor helpfully advises her that one generally likes to *meet* a person before providing a diagnosis to their mental problems. [Cue canned laughter.]

Both JKM's article and my top post engage in the same absurd psycho-babble long distance "analytical" exercise vis a vis perfect strangers as the fictional Jill Taylor. The difference between us is that I knew I was being absurd when I wrote my top post. I was just getting my yayas out, lampooning someone who is rapidly becoming a joke to those whose interests he is theoretically paid to serve. Frighteningly enough, JKM's article appears to be in earnest.

posted 08-05-99 09:42 AM ET            

I really wonder how much of what is done is for their own amusement. I mean can they REALLY be so positive that we, and not the code, are at fault?

akathisia-SMACophant (tm) Official License #002

posted 08-05-99 03:09 PM ET            

OK, in all seriousness, I would say that *most* of the internet societies that I've become involved with enough to post more than 150 examples of my wit, wisdom and profound insights manage to trundle along quite nicely with only occasional angry flareups. Even on the internet, as a general rule, people need a *reason* to display the kind of anger that you see here.

Hmm. Just looked up your profile and saw that you registered here only last month. You've missed out on some history here. If you had been around for a few months longer the motivations for raw anger might be clearer to you. Most of the angriest folks here at this point in time are also the people who care deepest about the game. A lot of them already felt that they've been let down by the quality of this product. A lot of them have put a lot of effort into constructive attempts to communicate product improvements to it's makers. These efforts have been conducted in sincere good faith. A lot of these people had hope and faith that Firaxis next product--Alien Crossfire--would be the game that they'd hoped SMAC would be. While "SMAC Sux"-style interlopers have come and gone, these people have stayed and labored to find means of improving the product.

When I said that these efforts had mostly been met with "thunderous silence" that was an accurate description. Undaunted by the silence, those who are most sincere have persisted and been optimistic. The JKM article provides insight into how these efforts have been perceived on the receiving end (more direct evidence being almost entirely lacking). The picture that JKM paints of his (and by inexorable extension, his organization) attitude towards customer input is discouraging, to say the least, and insulting to say the worst. The formerly optimistic have now become the outraged and irate.

There is the usual number of posters who are expressing sentiments such as "I like the game. It's fun. Anyone who doesn't should just go away and move on with their lives." Their sentiments, always ironic, are even more ironic than usual in the present context. The people who are angriest right now are the people who wanted most to like this game, but could not do so without reservation on account of its glaring flaws. [Yin26, Darkstar, Shining1, Player2, StargazerBC, etc.] They are the ones who have labored hardest to convince Firaxis to honestly address these flaws in the future. Anyone who would blow these people off as naysayers who just don't like the game and should leave would prescribe a lobotomy for a toothache.

posted 08-05-99 06:01 PM ET            

Shining1 - You aren't supposed to tell the programmers they are idiots, but I've done it. That makes it fun to be confronted by a prima donna programmer that goes "You think you can do better? I'd like to see!" and you sit in their chair and code it right. Generally gets you a raise and programming assistants. And one really pissed of programmer that will sometimes hack the code and put a bomb or virus in sections you and yours are responsible for. (Of course, most that do that forget that the source control caught who checked out what and put what into it... so when the fertilizer gets set on fire, they dig through the code and see who did what). [And yes, this is from personal experience... QA to programmer position. Arrogant punk then, I know.]

Analyst - Deluded Optimism? Well, I suppose so. But some companies listen to their users. Almost all the ones I have worked at, anyways. Strange that isn't true of Firaxis... but then, they truly DO seem to suffer from a strong dose of Hubris. And not being a mental health professional, I feel like I can say that. It's just a common man's opinion.

5th... JM has seemingly made it a bit of a game to provoke us. Anytime the forums have dropped to about zero activity, he likes to stir it up. Guess it gives him something to do. Or a way to justify his department. I don't know which. But he was way off base saying that the only way a gaming oriented community can survive is in the bugs in the game. Typically, they survive by focusing on tactics, strategies, counters to "top tactics", and the new players/posters coming into it to replace the long time players/posters who have lost interest in the game and moved on to other games. As a long time game consumer, its a bad sign if the community is focused on bugs. That means the product probably isn't grade "AAA" or even "C"... especially if its a mix of bugs. In the informal investors guide to Game Producers, I believe its a "No-Buy" if that happens more than once or twice in a month. Means they make poor quality products, or near poor quality products, and their position is vulnerable or transitory.