Something of an odd topic, I’ll admit.
I’ve recently been poking around YouTube and found a few interesting articles on introversion vs. extroversion. One clip in particular lays out the differences fairly clearly.
To summarise somewhat:
- Introverts aren’t antisocial; they just prefer socialising with small groups (and often need to recharge with “alone time” afterwards).
- Introverts recharge by being alone. Socialising takes effort and can be exhausting.
- Introverts tend to be more introspective and thoughtful. Giving the right answer is important.
- Introverts value a small number of deeper friendships over a large number of shallow ones.
- Introverts tend to made uncomfortable by overstimulation. Loud music, noisy parties, chaotic environments will make many introverts uncomfortable. I’ll qualify this somewhat; chaos is not necessarily bad, but unfamiliar chaos is. My desk at Ebit was always very messy, but I knew where everything lived. Our network was highly complex, but this didn’t worry me as I knew it in detail. On the other hand, having new devices added without being informed always stressed me out….
I fit this category fairly well, although I developed some adaptations over the years. My main advantage has been a lack of self-consciousness, so with a certain amount of internal editing I can free-associate in conversation and do a reasonable job of appearing social.
Sturgeon’s law (called by Theodore Sturgeon himself “Sturgeon’s Observation”) is that “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”
This implies that, given that overall quality levels have remained the same, as much “good” material has been produced in the last ten years as has been produced overall in the last year; and as much “good” material in the last fifty years as overall material in the last fifty years.
Humans tend to remember the high points (the “good” material, or in rare cases the exceptionally bad material) much more easily than they remember the mediocre.
Thus we have the belief that all modern games are bad, because they are compared with the best games of the last thirty years; that all modern movies are bad, because they are compared with the high points of movie making since WW2. That all books are bad, because modern bodice-rippers are compared with To Kill a Nightingale and Catch-22.
It’s not really true. We overlook the crap and think the great games are representative of their periods. We overlook the modern classics-in-the-making and elevate the titles that have been proven by time.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with a “retro” view, because the older titles really are as good or better than the new ones, but we shouldn’t overlook excellent new material when it comes along – particularly when the best of it learns lessons from the “retro” titles, giving a richer and more nuanced view overall.