Hashtag Perspective

It's been a while, guys. I know. "Why did you stop posting?" you all ask me. "I need something to read while on the toilet," you say. Well, your pleas have been answered--don't worry. You can all stop pestering me day-in and day-out for another post. Seriously. It's all I hear about.

I've been pretty damn busy lately. A lot of you probably already know this because--and this may come as a shock to some of you--GSAS majors actually do a substantial amount of work. At least, we do when we're taking Game Development I. I finally had some time to breathe, so I decided to go get a milkshake at 4 am with some friends. It was a damn good milkshake. Now, however, I'm not tired in the slightest, so I thought I'd share with you all of my recent musings.

It's come up quite a lot lately that "a fair number of arguments are actually not logical arguments, but rather arguments about language and definitions." The reason it comes up so often is probably because I hang out with a lot of very self-aware people. I've become quite introspective, myself, and it's led me to start thinking a lot about perspective (knew that was coming from the title, didn't you? Very astute of you. Very astute). How I view the world is (obviously) different from the way everyone else views the world. This is true for pretty much everyone. You didn't need me to tell you this.

"So everyone is different," you say, "we all already knew that." Hush. This is my blog. Stop interrupting me. How are you even doing that, anyway? Better yet, how did I know that's what you were going to say? I didn't. I'm bluffing.

I've realized lately that I'm very "in-the-middle" about a lot of things. I'm both a programmer and an artist. I'm both logical and empathetic. I like chocolate and vanilla because they're both viable flavors in their own right (I'm both being serious and joking right now)! I think it's good to be in the middle on a lot of things, because that's the way I was raised--to try to see both sides of an issue--and it's made being an observer very interesting.

Back home, I always felt like I was more logical than empathetic. I think, in the grand scheme of things, I heir on the side of logic when compared to the human race on the whole. At RPI, however, it seems as though the concentration of logical thinkers is very high, which makes me seem more empathetic when compared to the surrounding population. Because now I tend to heir on the side of empathy when it comes to debates and discussions, I've started to view a lot of topics differently. I make more concessions, now--rather than laying it on thick with the logic. I guess really I'm embracing the balance of empathy and logic that I already had, and coming to find it a very intriguing trait of humans on the whole.

Going back to perspective, though, I think it's interesting how a few of the people I talk to regularly think very differently than I do. There is someone who I've referred to as "essentially my opposite" on more than one occasion, and I find myself consistently intrigued by her differing views. There is something to be said for always getting a fresh perspective on trivial things that you may have taken for granted. Everyone's life is different, and everyone was raised in a different way.

Often times I'll argue with fellow GSAS majors what qualifies as "good design", and I've found that everyone has their own preferences ("Duh," you say. Shhh. We talked about this earlier). Some people are willing to look past their preferences, however, and design games that they, personally, might not like. These are the designers I hold in the highest regard.

Dr. Marc likes to say that "there are many aspects to a game, and a lot of things that you won't really care about, but somebody has to." I've decided that I want the mechanics of my games to feel "solid"--though if you ask me what I meant by the term "solid" I don't know that I could tell you. I've decided that "good UI" is crucial to a game, but I couldn't quantify what was "good" and what wasn't without examples. I'd like to think this is the perspective I bring to a game design team, and that everyone will at least understand why I focus on these two things first and foremost. I hope that people appreciate my insight as much as I appreciate theirs, and understand my definitions of "solid" and "good", even if they don't completely agree.

I think I've sort of made it clear already, but one of the points I wanted to get across with this post is that I may be "in-the-middle", but that doesn't mean I don't have opinions. Pretty clear I've got opinions seeing as I have a blog, in which I write about my opinions. I mean, duh. My opinions, however, are not as radical as some people might assume. One thing I've noticed about arguments is that, usually, each person picks a side. That's kind of how it goes. However, just because I've picked a side does not mean that I won't make concessions to the other side. I try to make concessions when I can, but sometimes I don't get the chance to. A lot of times I feel as though the people I'm arguing with don't think I'm being genuine when I make a concession to their side, which I always find weird, honestly. Do not enough people do this? Does it really throw people for a loop when I agree with them immediately after disagreeing with them? Does it make me fickle? Or does it just make me empathetic?

I'll admit--it's hard for me to make up my mind on a lot of issues. If I ever say anything contradictory it's probably because I believe each statement to a certain extent--not that I'm lying about my true opinions. Honestly, it's because I'm trying so hard to be transparent about what I believe that I contradict myself so much, weird as that is. I'm very prone to "paralysis by analysis". That said, I think that it's difficult to make a statement that can go either way on a topic that is currently being argued. I think that, in the scope of an argument, people take what I say as way more absolute than I mean it to be. Please don't. Really. I very rarely work in absolutes, and it's frustrating when people assume that I do.

This is running very long, so I think I'll end it here. I just want to finish by referencing The Phantom Tollbooth (which, if you haven't read, you should totally go pick it up. It's a short read, and it's incredibly clever). In the book, there's this part where Milo, the main character, meets the same man four times in a row--each time under a different title. He is "The Fat Man" to a skinny man, "The Skinny Man" to a fat man, "The Tall Man" to a short man, and "The Short Man" to a tall man. He's always the same person, though, which confuses Milo, until the man explains:

It's all about perspective.

Perspective can be shifted by upbringing, and it can also be shifted by a person's current frame of mind, but being able to flow freely through multiple perspectives is the key to being a more empathetic person, I've found. Trying to shift your own perspective when communicating with others will likely make communication easier on the whole, which will end up being better (and much less frustrating) for both parties. If you ever feel like you're attempting to talk to a wall, try it out--try to understand the perspective of the other person and maybe you'll learn something new. If it doesn't work, you might actually be talking to a wall. Probably the reason everyone's looking at you funny. Maybe you should just walk away like nothing happened. Yeah. No one saw that. You're good.

--J