作者：Steve Watts

随着网络的兴起，游戏文化也繁荣起来了。曾经的游戏场和公交车站，已经转变为一种复杂的虚拟社会体系，并具有自身完整的忠实度和亚文化群。在这片日渐在成长的游戏社区，我们如何彼此联系？我们可以从三个重要的方面进行探索，即：互相支持、互相争论、共同抵抗外来威胁。

gaming-communities(from 1up)

支持、争论和抵抗的行为非常普遍——事实上，它们就是人类行为的自然延伸，我们已经通过科学的方法观察了人类行为好多年。为了深入了解文化规范（游戏邦注：cultural norms，指团体集体的信念、态度、价值、迷思、仪式与自我印象），我和美国罗格斯大学的社会学教授Karen Cerulo进行过一番谈话。

Cerulo表示：“在社会学家当中广泛存在争议——人们在这些社区中的表现与在现实生活的‘面对面’社区中如此相似，那么，这些社区是否算是‘真实’的？我的研究表明，这种社区是面对面社区的翻版，人们以相同的方式处理人际关系。所以，这种联系和关系在人们的生活中是非常真实的。当受到来自外部的突然威胁，人们表现出的内部凝聚力、团结一致，正是我们在其他社区中所见识到的社会行为。”

事实上，Cerulo认为，因为网络社区演变得更加接近现实世界的社区，所以它们更少关注社区的建立基点，反而更关注社交互动。“大部分人担忧社会上会涌现一批利用网络散播活动的放逐者，但我们看到的并非如此。人们利用网络、围绕共同的兴趣爱好结合成一个团体。游戏社区就是其中的一种。我们经常看到某个人的粉丝团（游戏邦注：如脱口秀主持人奥普拉、或者明星麦当娜），个人成为团体的焦点，但真正的核心是粉丝之间的联系。个人几乎屈居次位，因为团体真正关注的其实是共同的兴趣爱好。在大多数情况下，粉丝归属于不止一个的团体，而且是出于共同的兴趣才产生人与人之间的联系，与生活环境关系不大。”

这些紧密的社会联系，尽管是数字化的，仍然具有某些积极影响。游戏玩家可以且经常出于互助的社交原因而聚集在一起。Child’s Play和Extra Life 是两个非常著名的电子游戏社区，它们的社区成员经常共同救助生病的孩子。其实，关于社区的慈善行为和帮助他人的活动足够再写出一整篇文章了。

gaming-communities (from 1up)

但这些联系不仅限于单纯地反映大文化——这些形成于游戏社区的、紧密的社会联系可以使我们团结起来帮助自己的社区成员。当游戏设计师Brian Wood惨死于车祸，游戏社区迅速向他的遗孀Erin发送了支持信。Brian Wood 纪念馆就是为他的建立的，对社区个人影响的最肯定表现是来自Erin本人的声明：“我由衷地感谢你们的同情和支持，真的很感谢你们在我最绝望的时候点亮了我的生活。”

当然，我们往往对自己进行任意的归类，从而引起内耗。支持“马里奥”或“索尼克”？购买“使命与召唤”或“战地风云”？选择“Xbox”还是“PlayStation”？虽然这些分类会引起一些内讧，但也是相当正常的，这反映了团体健康成长的动态。

Cerulo解释道：“无论是什么类型的团体，自己的还是别人的，都有一个团体的核心。“比如，一个团体可以从大家最喜欢的射击游戏开始。团体一旦成形，必然会和其他个人/团体划清界线、承认自己是内部人员以保持团结一致、抵抗任何越界的人以保持团体的强大。保持团体凝聚力的方式之一是对敌对方采取过分消极的态度。这不是关于其他射击游戏好不好的问题，而是创造一种内部的凝聚力、相互的忠诚、共同的目标。”

比较不健康，或至少令人有些不快的是，一名成员被整个团体唾弃为“贱民”。Cerulo提到，有些社会学家推论，巩固团体凝聚力的必要行为就是寻找替罪羊。Cerulo揭示：“这种斗争实质上是重申他们加入团体的原因、让成员再次保证效忠于团体。这些事反反复复，但再普通不过了。”

即使是团体的“贱民”，仍然会受到本团体的庇护。“团体动力学表明，如果任何人试图将‘替罪羊’从团体中移除，团体成员就会联合起来留住‘替罪羊’。所以这是一股正常的、最终强化和建立团体的力量。如果我把你当成替罪羊，我只是在提醒所有人我们珍视什么、唾弃什么。所以一定程度上，即使对个人来说是蛮痛苦的经历，但对团体来说，这就是健康向上的精神。”

虽然玩家有时候会因为一些鸡毛蒜皮的事产生分岐，但整个文化的团结程度足以抵抗外部的威胁。我们经常看到玩家联合起来反对他们认定的敌人。在最近的最高法院庭审中，大部分社区力挺EMA联盟（Entertainment Merchants Association），最终使美国最高法院承认加利福尼亚禁止向未成年人出售暴力游戏的规定是无效的。尽管在游戏圈中长期存在关于游戏的“艺术性”的争论，但玩家基本上一致认定游戏这种媒介符合政府对艺术表达的定义，因此，这一领域的争议也应受到宪法第一修正案（关于新闻、出版自由等）言论自由的保护。

与之类似，澳大利亚最近引入一种R18+评级制度来改革原有的视频游戏分类系统，所以零售商可以合法地出售成人游戏。许多国际玩家抛开对游戏内容描述的个人偏见，一致支持澳大利亚的这项举措。此时，我们无视特定的游戏机或游戏系列的粉丝分类，站到了统一战线。

“就算团体当中存在争论，如果外部有人威胁到团体的生存，所有的不和马上被弃置一边，所有成员马上团结起来一致对外。这种一致性顽固地扎根在成员的心里，鼓舞成员为团体而战，为自己的生存而战。从国家的层面上举列，9.11事件爆发时，我们目睹了大家的齐心协力。来自外部的威胁，引发了一次大规模的爱国主义行动。人们心甘情愿牺牲自己平日里不肯付出的代价。9.11事件让所有人都凝聚在一起。”

我们从来没有见识过如此混乱的战争——长期存在的、关于电子游戏暴力的影响的辩论。也许因为这个主题牵涉到众所周知的事件——从澳大利亚R18+评级制度到哥伦拜恩大学枪击事件）。我们经常引用轶事证据或支持我们立场的研究结论，因为这些论据比任何反驳与我们信仰相悖的言论更给力。

我们可能没有意识到，当我们这么做时，我们已经陷入证实偏差（confirmation bias）的微妙形式。这个术语是指个人或团队倾向于寻找、解释、记住能证实他们的信仰体系的信息。这种现象普遍存在于分歧严重的领域，如政治或宗教，但在我们的社会小环节中也能见到。

想想看，你有没有见过这样的报道：最新科学研究表明，电子游戏暴力与现实生活中的侵犯行为存在因果联系。你有没有转到报道的评论部分？不少人完全拒绝这种结论，称这是伪科学、指责研究存在偏见。那么，如果有新闻报道称二者不存在必然联系，这些玩家联盟就承认了科学的监督？答案应该是否定的。我们只不过是被自己所认同的信息吸引罢了。

我不是说这些暴力研究是错误的，或只是提供了复杂事件的冰山一角。但抗拒、排斥我们所不喜欢的信息，接纳、铭记支持我们早就坚信的信息，就是人类行为的表现。

Cerulo认为：“我们大家都会出现选择性感知，尤其是当我们谈论时政。所以人们往往会记住证实自己想法的研究，或倾向于忘记反驳自己的想法的论据。说到政治，你看福克斯电视台或微软全国广播频道（MSNBC，该频道主张社会革新），因为你知道其中的内容就是你的信仰。”

如果游戏粉丝一味地将自己曝露于有利信息中——或被当作直面对立信息的愚昧媒介先锋——那么大众文化就会质疑我们的客观性，其次就是我们的结论。这时候，意见领袖就要出来主持公道了。

opinion leader(from 1up)

Cerulo解释道：“就是研究表明，我们所谓的意见领袖或信息把关人，也会接收与自己的信念相反的信息。他们这么做不是为了扩大自己的眼界，而是为反对论来袭做准备。所以有些人可能会阅读一些与自己的观点相悖的资料，以便好地回击对立阵营。”当意见领袖发起反对辩论时，往往会在社区范围内传播，并得到成员的随声附和。这些早有准备的人自然就扮演起了意见领袖的角色。

在军事行动或医学研究的范畴内，证实偏差会酝酿可怕的风险。相比之下，玩家的偏见反而显得无毒无害。虽然如此，如果我们想推行所谓的严肃文化标准，请务必牢记在心，我们的行为和态度代表着社区的形象。

也许我们会如此反应，并不值得大惊小怪。根据Cerulo所述，这只是让我们成为大文化圈中的一个小细胞。“那些认为面对面互动更好的人请记住，网络上的行为模式大抵一致。人们的运作方式是一样的，所以我们需要不断提醒自己记住这个重要的事实。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Support, Divide, Defend: Why Game Communities Form, Argue, and Unite

By: Steve Watts

The Internet has created a boom of gaming culture. What was once the purview of playgrounds and bus stops has evolved into a complex virtual social structure, complete with its own allegiances and subcultures. How we relate to each other in this community has also grown, and we see this manifest itself in three key areas: supporting each other, arguing amongst each other, and rising together against external threats.

These behaviors aren’t unusual; they’re actually a natural extension of human behavior that we’ve seen and observed through the scientific method for years. To gain more insight on cultural norms, I talked to Karen Cerulo, chair of the sociology department at Rutgers University.

“There was an awful lot of disagreement among sociologists [12 years ago] as to whether these were ‘real’ communities where people might behave similar to face-to-face communities,” Cerulo told 1UP. “My research shows that this is a replication of what people would do in face-to-face communities, how they would approach these relationships and so forth in the same way. So these ties and bonds are very real in people’s lives. All of the behavior about in-group cohesion, closing ranks when threatened from without, breaking into camps — those are the exact social behavioral patterns we witness in any community.”

In fact, Cerulo suggests that as these Internet communities evolve to become more like those in the real world, they become less focused on the central point and more on the social interaction. “Most people were concerned that we were going to see social outcasts who used the Internet to propagate activity and so forth, but that’s not really what we found,” she said. “People gained an ability to coalesce around a common interest. So gaming might be one. We often find in fan groups for a person (say Oprah or Madonna), the person becomes a focal point but what’s really going on is the bonds forming among the fans. The person becomes almost secondary, because it’s really about the interest of the group. In most cases, [fans] belong to more than one group and link to people based on interest instead of living environment.”

These tight-knit social bonds, digital as they may be, can have some positive effects. Gamers can, and often do, rally behind social causes to help each other or society at large. Child’s Play and Extra Life are two well-known examples of the video game community coming together to help sick children. In fact, one could devote an entire article to charitable causes and promotions set up in the name of helping people — and I have.

But these bonds aren’t restricted to simply giving back to the larger culture; the tight-knit social bonds that form around the game community can make unite us to lend a hand to our own members. When game designer Brian Wood died in a tragic car accident, the community was quick to offer letters of support to his widow, Erin. The Brian Wood Memorial Trust lives on as a monument to his legacy, but the surest sign of the community’s personal effects can be found in a statement from Erin Wood herself. “Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for the compassion and support,” she wrote. “It is so appreciated, and has been a light to me in this impossible situation.”

Of course, we also tend to create arbitrary divisions amongst ourselves, leading to in-fighting. Mario or Sonic? Call of Duty or Battlefield? Xbox or PlayStation? While these divisions can create some internal strife, they’re also a fairly normal, healthy part of a burgeoning group dynamic.

“No matter what kind of group you’re talking about, in-group, or out-group, you choose what is going to be the center point,” said Cerulo. “It may start out as a shooter you like more than another, but once the group forms, there’s a tendency to draw boundaries, create solidarity by identifying yourself as an insider, and to keep the group strong by bracing against anybody who’s beyond your boundary. One way to keep your group cohesive is to take an overly negative view of your competitors. It’s not really about whether the other shooters or as good. It’s about creating a sense of cohesiveness within, creating mutual loyalty, mutual goals.”

Perhaps less healthy, or at least more unpleasant, is when a member within the group becomes a pariah. Cerulo mentioned that some sociologists theorize that scapegoats are a necessary part of reaffirming group cohesion. “The fight in essence allows people to re-articulate why they’re in the group, and to get people to recommit to the group. These come and go but they’re quite normal,” said Cerulo.

Even a pariah, though, tends to fall under the protection of the community. “Group Dynamics show that if anybody tries to remove [a scapegoat] from a group, the group will rally to retain them. So this is normal and ultimately strengthening and building the group. If I use you as a scapegoat, I’m reminding everyone what we value and don’t value. So at some level, even though it’s painful for the person, in the broader group health it’s rejuvenating.”

While gamers can sometimes divide themselves over petty squabbles, the culture at large is united enough to fight off threats from without. We see gamers banding together against common so-called enemies on a fairly regular basis. The community largely rallied behind the Entertainment Merchants Association in its recent Supreme Court hearing. Despite a long and exhaustive debate in gaming circles over whether games qualify as “art,” gamers were fairly uniform in agreeing that the medium qualifies under the government’s definition of artistic expression, and therefore deserved equal free speech protection under the First Amendment.

Similarly, Australia has recently won its struggle to receive an R-18 rating so retailers can sell games with mature content. Regardless of personal feelings over games with those descriptors, many international gamers supported Australian enthusiasts with agreement on the issue. When this happens, we drop the arbitrary divisions between fans of a particular console or series, and come together.

“Even when there is contention going on within a group, if someone from outside threatens to destroy the group, disagreements dissolve and people band together,” said Cerulo. “That identity becomes so strongly entrenched in you that fighting for the group is fighting for your own survival. We see this at the national level, say after 9/11 — you see a period when everyone pulls together. A threat from without, you see an enormous nationalistic movement, people sacrificing things that they wouldn’t under other circumstances. It pulls everyone together.”

We’ve arguably never witnessed a battle with such rough-and-tumble trench warfare as the long-standing debate over the effects of video game violence. Perhaps it’s because it touches everything the public at large knows about our medium — from Australia and the Supreme Court to the Columbine shootings. We often cite anecdotal evidence (“Well, I’m not a killer”) or point to the studies that support our side, giving those pieces of evidence more weight than anything that contradicts what we want to believe.

We may not realize it, but when we do this, we’re engaging in a subtle form of confirmation bias. The term refers to the tendency among individuals and groups to seek out, interpret, or remember information that reaffirms their belief structure. This is common in hotly-contested arenas like politics or religion, but it sneaks its way into our own sub-section of society as well.

Think about how often you’ve seen a news story, perhaps here at 1UP, referring to a new scientific study that suggests a causal link between video game violence and real-life aggression. Did you scroll to the Comments to see dozens of people rejecting it outright, calling it poor science, and accusing the study of bias? Then, when a news story covers a study that suggests no causal link, do those same gamers levy that same degree of scientific scrutiny? The likely answer is no. We gravitate towards the information that we want to believe.

This isn’t to say that these violence studies aren’t inaccurate, or at least offer incomplete pictures of more complex issues. But the tendency to reject and “dump” data that we dislike, and accept or remember data that supports what we already believe, is part of human behavior. The inherent danger is only exposing ourselves to one set of information.

“All of us engage in selective perception,” said Cerulo. “It’s especially true when we’re talking about political issues. So the pattern is that people will tend to remember the studies that confirm what they believe, or they’ll tend to forget studies that contradict what they believe. In politics, you watch Fox or MSNBC, because you know they’re going to confirm what you believe.”

If game fans only expose themselves to favorable information — or worse, are seen as mindless vanguards of the medium in the face of contradictory info — the culture at large questions our objectivity and, ultimately, our conclusions. This is where community leaders come into play.

“The one exception to the rule are the people who we might think of as opinion-leaders, or gatekeepers,” Cerulo explained. “Research shows they will expose themselves to information that is counter to their beliefs. They’re not doing it to broaden their horizons, they’re doing it to prepare themselves for counter-arguments. So someone might read something that contradicts their own opinions, so they can get ready with their own defense.” Once an opinion-leader makes a counter-argument, it tends to spread and be echoed among the community. These people who prepare naturally fall into leadership roles.

Confirmation bias can hold dire risks if in the context of military action or medical research — bias from gamers is undoubtedly harmless by comparison. Nevertheless, it’s important to keep in mind how our actions and attitudes may reflect on the community, if we want to forge ahead in being regarded as a serious cultural touchstone.

Perhaps it’s not surprising that we react this way. According to Cerulo, this just makes it us an accurate microcosm of the culture at large. “People who suggest that there’s something better in face-to-face [interactions] need to keep in mind that the behavior patterns we witness online are very much the same. People seem to be functioning in the same way, so that is something that is very important to continually remind ourselves about.” （source:1up）