Talk:The Big Model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Links to Ben Lehman blog fixed 2 Totalizing Discourse 3 Possible Totalizing Response 4 Removed Reference to Me 5 Citations

[edit] Links to Ben Lehman blog fixed

The links at the bottom of the page are broken: Lehman moved from blogspot to "thesmerf" and later to wordpress; the links to thesmerf lead nowhere. The "introduction to..." parts 1-6 are still at his blogspot and the 7th was made at wordpress; though he moved all the former to WP too. I´m updating the links to point at the WP versions.

(signed: Gorsh ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.169.115 (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Totalizing Discourse

An anonymous poster added the following line to the end of the criticism section: "This, however, does not address the criticism by some that the model, like its predecessors presents itself a totalizing one rather than simply as a useful heuristic in better understanding RPG play." First of all, there should be a comma after "predecessors." Secondly, though, I don't see the criticism in this line -- not yet. That the Big Model is totalizing is a given; why this is a feature worthy of criticism is not explained. This seems more a rhetorical preference of the critics (they prefer a useful heuristic rather than a totalizing model), not an actual rhetorical stance. I've removed the line in the absence of greater detail, but I would be happy to see a second paragraph explaining this criticism in detail. -- Joshua BishopRoby 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Totalizing Response

I think your second paragraph is long the lines of:

Some worry that by attempting to make a totalizing discourse of RPG theory the Big Model could be used to limit or remove other theories that do not easily fit into its frame. The ability to greet a new theory with the question "yes but where does this fit into the Big Model?" and dismiss the theory if no one can provide a suitable answer is one such use of power. Even if this method is never used, the mere presence of a totalizing discourse can smother enquiries into areas outside or counter to the dominant theory.

A related criticism is that because the model is based on behavioral models it works well for talking about the activity in a game, but works poorly for talking about issues like the emotional subjective states around a game. Because of this issue the Big Model may have trouble dealing with play issues such as immersion, where feeling a certain way - subjective and not behavioral - is the point.

In this manner, combined with the totalizing issue raised above, it is possible for people to (rightly or wrongly) to use Big Model rhetoric and logic to dismiss immersion and discussion of immersion from being worthy or possible things to talk about in the field of RPG theory. The arguments together closely mirror what John Searle wrote of behaviorist psychology in that it started by saying, let's concentrate on those aspects of human psychology we can measure and ended by defining everything we couldn't measure out of existence.

As such the argument against Big Model shouldn't be seen as being that it is "complete" as a theory, but that it also can used as a rhetorical stance in order to limit the ability of individual voices to provide their own explanations or theories in much the same way that say, certain breads of Evangelical Christianity or Marxism use their discourse to try and create a monolithic front that will silence all voices that disagree with them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.181.82 (talk • contribs)

That was me, btw. Don't know why I wasn't signed in. Brand Robins

[edit] Removed Reference to Me

Malcolm Sheppard here. I was quoted in an earlier edit about something that didn't really haver to do with the Big Model per se, but brain damage in reference to Neural Darwinism. I'm obviously not a fan of the BM, but that's not the substance of my position.

• Technically speaking, you're not supposed to modify pages regarding your own personal involvement. No big deal this time, but next time you can drop a note on the Talk page and someone else will verify the veracity of the claim and edit accordingly. Which may seem kind of weird, but it's Wikipolicy. Thanks, Malcolm! Joshua BishopRoby 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

There are no citations to outside resources in this article. Given that most discussion of the Big Model tends to have the problem that it consists entirely of citations of earlier work (mostly threads on the Forge), this shouldn't be too hard for someone with some experience to fix. Better than references to threads on the Forge would be references to books (not sure if there are any where the Big Model is explicitly discussed) or articles on the Forge or on blogs, but even references to threads would be nice. — λ 15:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

- I've added a handful of references to get this started. I want to know what others think about the format and such, which I think probably needs improvement. Also there are many more references available, these are just a starter. Brand Robins