Sturgeon's Second Law and how it affects perception

As an entertainment medium grows, the people who enjoy it may claim that they do not enjoy the medium any longer in the modern day. This happens quite often with relatively newer media, such as video games or foreign television. For example, they will say that the things they enjoyed when they were younger were better, and that modern things are lower in quality. However, is this the truth? Did the entire medium lose its quality? I would argue that this is not the case. So what is happening?

Perception is broadening. Now, it is quite possible to be aware of dozens of modern entries in a medium (For this blog, I'll use video games, I suppose, though it also applies to nearly everything, from books to Japanese television to movies), while in the past, with a lowered exposure, less of the medium was readily available. In the case of video games, in ages past (a decade ago), most people only had access to a single platform of gaming, which was capable of playing perhaps a third of the market. Moreover, access to games was more limited than now, with lower-publicized games slipping under the radar entirely. Now, with the internet and partially due to digital piracy allowing people to play far more games than they could reasonably afford, people are aware of far more of the market, not just the brand-name titles. So why does this make a difference?

Quality experiences are in the minority. Theodore Sturgeon summed it up in an oft-quoted adage, "Ninety percent of everything is crud." The highly-publicized titles are typically the things that are the higher-quality experiences, due to a variety of factors, such as budget and creative teams. The things that people remember are only these quality experiences, while the less enjoyable things fade out of memory (something that happens for every genre- no one remembers bad movies from the fifties apart from fans of bad movies). Moreover, in the past, it was quite possible to never have heard of or experienced these dime-a-dozen games. However, now that we are aware of everything, we are also aware of how terrible and forgettable most things are. In another ten years, only the stellar things from this year will be remembered, and remembered fondly, but the cycle will continue.

In other words: People are blinded by a lack of memories into thinking that a medium has lowered its standards, when nothing of the sort has occurred.

On people who feel entitled to complain

Video games are a fairly niche market. However, among people who enjoy them, there are a high proportion of people who are intense in their opinions. For example: The Playstation Portable Go by Sony. The PSP Go is a handheld video game system, a derivative of the PSP, that includes all of the original's features except where it completely omits physical media (game discs) for digital media (games downloaded from the internet) [the original PSP has this feature as well, the Go merely has a complete focus on it]. A few people who own the system are very vocal about their opinions and try to speak for all owners of the system, as if there was a kind of "PSP Go Community."

Recently, a very popular video game franchise received an iteration on the PSP system. In celebration of the event (A marketing ploy to entice non-system-owners to purchase the PSP), Sony released special editions of the regular PSP in special colors that came packaged with a physical copy of the new game. The response was generally positive- many franchise fans who did not already own the system felt that this was a very good opportunity, since they wanted the system specifically for this game. However, among these previously mentioned PSP Go owners, there was... a different opinion. They cried out that Sony had forsaken them and that the PSP Go deserved a bundle with the game and that Sony was giving "nothing for PSP Go owners." People who already owned a PSP Go were begging for Sony to release a version of the PSP Go that came packaged with a version of a game that would be unplayable on the system it was bundled with. People flagrantly ignored that the game was available in digital form because it was not part of a special bundle. They were angry at Sony for not giving them an excuse to waste their money on things they would not be able to use.

In other words, they complained because they didn't have a waste of money to be complaining about.

(The game itself was released as both a physical version and as a digital version on Sony's Playstation Network, which is the standard practice for most new games on the system.)
(The game in question is Konami's Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker, which is not actually out yet, but vocal people on the internet do not really care to wait to complain about something. The game will be released at the beginning of June)

Why Technology is Good

For the purposes of this blog, I will define technology as such: Any and all man-made constructions with an electronic component, i.e. cars, computers, light bulbs, space stations, etc.

And so: Technology is good. What is good? Something is good if it allows life to spread, increases longevity, or otherwise assists life in its continued existence, etc. How does technology do this? As our technology advances, it is possible to cure physical ailments, not only in humans but in animals, which directly increases the length of life. Moreover, when it comes to human ailments, crippling disabilities such as severed limbs can be completely overcome as the technology behind prosthetic limbs advances. Technology, specifically computers and the internet, can be used as a reservoir of human culture, preserving ancient history as well as modern-day culture (The good and the bad of it). And finally, technology allows life in all forms the capacity to branch out beyond the Earth. While it is not something that has happened yet, it seems inevitable that one day Earth's life will advance beyond the scope of one planet, which would be impossible without the help of technology. And this is why technology is a good thing.

Why Open Enrollment is a good thing

The Open Enrollment policy at HACC and other such community colleges is a good thing. However, there are those who disagree, so I will start there. One of the first reasons given is that not everyone is cut out for college, and that these people will be wasting a lot of money attending HACC when a college environment is not right for them. Another is that open enrollment causes classes, specifically Major-requirement classes, to fill up faster. And finally, it is said that open enrollment is a ploy for the colleges to make money off students who would normally not be attending (due to not being accepted to other colleges). However, now it is time to contest these points and show that open enrollment really is a good thing. The first point: that not everyone is cut out for college. Certainly this is true, however, no one can learn if college is the thing for them if they don't attend it. If they are determined to at least try it for a semester or two, then they will be "wasting money" no matter where they go- however, HACC is a much cheaper college experience than a full university. If they are going to spend money to experience college, HACC with its open enrollment is certainly the cheaper and less painful experience. Second, open enrollment allows students who wish to go through college, but did not qualify grade-wise, an option to fall back and raise their GPA. If they didn't have this, they would never be able to become more eligible for traditional colleges and degrees. Finally, open enrollment allows a wider access to higher education for adults who have been out of school for years. With access to higher education, they can advance in or change their careers, however, traditional colleges are typically designed with young people fresh from high school in mind, and are not as accepting to the needs of an older (oftentimes a parent) student. For these reasons, HACC's open enrollment policy is a good thing.

Why Technology is Bad

For the purposes of this blog, I will define technology as such: Any and all man-made constructions with an electronic component, i.e. cars, computers, light bulbs, space stations, etc.

Technology is evil. Ah, but let us back up a second. What is "bad," anyways? For the purposes of this blog, I will define it as such: Anything which harms nature, wastes limited resources, brings harm to innocent lives, etc. And so, how is technology evil? Let us look. Because of the requirements of technology, irreplaceable resources must be used with reckless abandon. Coal must be burned for electricity, oil must be drilled for to run our cars, forests must be burnt down for the paper on which to record all this "progress." The usage of this technology destroys the Earth. Moreover, as technology makes human life easier, it also makes it longer, allowing individuals to cause more damage over the course of a lifetime. In the pursuit of technology, mankind has abandoned their home, and this is why technology is a bad thing. However, in such terms, it seems like humanity itself is a bad thing. And so it is, from the perspective of everything that isn't a human.

But more on the human perspective later.