<<
present evidence that individuals may engage in geek culture in order to maintain narcissistic self-views (the great fantasy migration hypothesis), to fulfill belongingness needs (the belongingness hypothesis), and to satisfy needs for creative expression (the need for engagement hypothesis)
>>
I agree with the above being the main apparent drivers of engagement for most of geeks.
However, one big blind spot in the above is the desire to acquire knowledge thru intellectually rooted, rational debate (analysis and counter-analysis)
Geeks are not entirely a bunch of narcissists who want to belong and be creative. Sometimes, and I would say most times, the underlying motive is knowledge acquisition.
Geeks tend to acquire knowledge constantly and tend to avoid activities that don't contribute to knowledge acquisition. So beneath all the narcism, desire for belonging and creative output there really is a much stronger and much more persistent need for knowledge acquisition...
The authors of this study went for the outward qualities rather than the implicit knowledge acquisition motivation.
> Geeks are not entirely a bunch of narcissists who want to belong and be creative. Sometimes, and I would say most times, the underlying motive is knowledge acquisition.
Underlying? Nope. Selfism, belonging and the like are way more deeper/pervasive (human/animal) attributes than any such superficial (human) motive of knowledge acquisition.
Everyone -- be they a 'normal' or a 'geek' -- seeks to belong. And belonging drives much of human activity, be they 'normal' social activities or 'fringe' geek activities.
> Underlying? Nope. Selfism, belonging and the like are way more deeper/pervasive (human/animal) attributes than any such superficial (human) motive of knowledge acquisition.
While probably not the norm, I suspect a decent portion of 'geeks' might not be able to pursue belonging, or might perceive this to be the case, so they elevate 'knowledge acquisition' and/or other pursuits that don't require other people.
This can apply to kids that don't fit the norm and/or were outcasts or bullied in school, for example. I've met quite my share of solitary figures who while I'm sure they would probably be happier 'belonging', nonetheless prioritize knowledge acquisition or other activities and appear to find quite a bit of happiness in this.
And then there are the significant number of people who just are not like other people and do not or barely seek to belong: (some) autists, the solitary figure living in the woods, spiritual seekers ('wandering the desert', sometimes literally).
It's quite possible that in a roundabout way, through the internet, a number of these people who do or did not prioritize belonging suddenly find themselves belonging anyways.
Arguing that everyone seeks to belong is a bit like arguing that everyone deep down is straight, or wishes to have a partner or children, or any other prejudice we've had throughout the ages based on what is 'common'.
If there's one thing I think we should've learned by now is that there's an incredible variety in what makes humans happy, and working toward a society where this can be pursued, rather than assuming that outliers need to be fixed, is a good thing.
One can choose to not pursue an already existing feeling of belonging, as is evidently the case with many bullied geeks. But that doesn't contradict the fact that all humans harbour feelings of belonging (and selfism, etc.) in their bosom. It is human (animal) nature after all.
They've picked a very narrowly defined behavioral model (convention going) for their generalized observations about geek culture, so the basis of the analysis is wrong, which makes your question somewhat inconsequential.
We don't engage primarily because of some narcissistic need, need for belonging or need for showing off. We engage mainly because of our much more essential and more persistent need for grater knowledge and deeper understanding.
They picked a narrowly defined behavioral model (that of convention going) to derive conclusions about a much bigger sub culture. That's what I mean by the basis of their analysis being flawed.
Actually, they picked a narrowly defined behavioral model (that of convention going) to test hypotheses about a sub culture that obviously exists outside that behaviour model.
I'm not sure what else you expected them to do.
While it is far from conclusive (and the paper is very clear about that), the idea of testing out a hypothesis in an artificially defined context is kind of how empirical science is done. As you get more confident in the hypothesis, you make predictions about more and more varied contexts.
Making behavioral hypotheses about athletically inclined people based on a behavioral model of the crowd in live sport events is not simply empirical science but bad science. You are confusing the spectator (the convention going crowd) for the spectacle (the otherwise normal human behavior that conventions tend to focus on and amplify)
...but that's not at all analogous to the study. Dragon*Con isn't a convention where the general public goes to be entertained by geeks. The people who attend are just as important, if not more, contributors to the culture.
By their definition of geek culture is "a subculture of enthusiasts that is traditionally associated with obscure media", The difference between the control group and the study group was in how they were recruited (an offer that encouraged geek participants/discouraged others, and one that was generically inviting), and they even made an effort to measure engagement with geek culture along with the personality traits.
You are STILL confusing the spectator (the convention going crowd) for the spectacle (the otherwise normal human behavior that conventions tend to focus on and amplify) ... What I was saying, not by way of direct analogy, is that the convention itself, the phenomenon, has its own behavioral biases, and so its' the wrong model to start with.
I know it's easy for me as a random internet guy to poke holes in their work after skimming a paper, but it seems to me they are describing enthusiasts for anything, not just geek culture. From the research methods, it's not clear to me if they controlled for that possibility.
Like, imagine the people who work on old motorcycles. You'd probably find narcissistic fantasy (the rebel, loner image), seeking community with people who share the vision, and people who have time on their hands and an interest in being creative with machines.
I took it to mean that things exist - and that all the meaning is just intellectual overlay on that existence. Wasn't the famous example that meaning exists independent of words? The meaning was already there - and the word with its meaning is an overlay? (Guess there's a reason why I'm not a philosopher...)
To claim that existence precedes essence is to assert that there is no such predetermined essence to be found in humans, and that an individual's essence is defined by him or her through how he or she creates and lives his or her life. As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards."
I don't think 'geek' means anything any more and even the researchers fall back to relying on self identification. Title of the paper should be amended accordingly.
> Table 4. Correlations between Appearance Ratings of DragonCon Photographs and Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Geek Engagement.
So, I haven't* read the entire paper, just skimmed it; but it seems to me that what they're saying is that those geeks who are likely to have their photograph taken at Dragon*Con, are more likely to be narcissists.
That looks as if they are selecting for a subset of geek culture that is more likely to contain narcissists, and then stating that the results are representative of the entirety of geek culture.
Side Note/Related Note: 'Geek Culture', is not relegated to conventions, and in many ways it lies outside it -- Reading, knowledge-gathering, etc. are largely introverted activities; and geek culture itself grew up around early - mid 20th century Science Fiction and Fantasy. So I find it difficult to understand how they could claim that the subset of geeks who visit conventions is representative of the entirety of geek culture in the first place.
I agree with the above being the main apparent drivers of engagement for most of geeks.
However, one big blind spot in the above is the desire to acquire knowledge thru intellectually rooted, rational debate (analysis and counter-analysis)
Geeks are not entirely a bunch of narcissists who want to belong and be creative. Sometimes, and I would say most times, the underlying motive is knowledge acquisition.
Geeks tend to acquire knowledge constantly and tend to avoid activities that don't contribute to knowledge acquisition. So beneath all the narcism, desire for belonging and creative output there really is a much stronger and much more persistent need for knowledge acquisition...
The authors of this study went for the outward qualities rather than the implicit knowledge acquisition motivation.
me thinks :)