Another frustration relates to sources and citations. The first three chapters are almost devoid of them, despite the fact that psychologists, scientists, anthropologists, and sociologists are invoked to make various claims. Myers writes that "[p]sychologists report a child's virtual self often reflects more about their core self-image than the self they display in their day-to-day behavior." He also writes that "[s]cientists, sociologists and anthropologists suggest that active social participation and involvement in online virtual worlds is a more constructive and healthy human experience than passively watching television, reading a book, or being in an unhappy job or relationship." I want to know which psychologists are reporting such things and what studies they conducted to arrive at their conclusions. Or which scientists (a very generic term), sociologists, and anthropologists made the suggestion that involvement in online virtual worlds is more constructive and healthy than the other activities referenced, and how this diverse group of experts came to their conclusions. Myers not only fails to provide any information on the studies behind these conclusions, but does not even provide us with the names of the experts involved so we can do our own follow-up reading.
Where we do get some more information, certainly more names, is where Myers gets to advertising, a subject with which he has significant experience. Myers writes that advertisers have really caught on to the role of emotions and connections in marketing, and names a number of companies that have aligned themselves with specific television shows to exploit this realization — Sears Roebuck & Company with Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, Coca-Cola and AT&T with American Idol, FOX with MySpace, in acquiring it, American Express with the Tribeca Film Festival, Axe deodorant with disruptive media events in sponsoring them, etc. Some, such as Sears, have opened retail outlets in Second Life, and "[m]arketers and corporations are embedding themselves to explore these unexplored territories." But he makes the unconvincing and unsupported claim that this focus on emotional connections is "dramatically altering traditional creative and media strategies that have been sacrosanct in the ad business for decades."
Myers proceeds to set up a sharp dichotomy between intellect and emotion, between brain and, as he puts it, heart and gut. In making his argument, he makes some sweeping statements and grand speculations that betray not only his anti-intellectualism, but in invoking another well-worn but spurious dichotomy, the East/West divide, also essentialism and exoticization. "Eastern cultures," he claims, "and many revolutionary groups, typically have emotional influences at their foundation," whereas "western societies and cultures are brain-led, driven by mental rather than emotional decisions." I recommend reading up on Orientalism. Edward Said's work by that title would be a good start. Myers sees a move, through the long-range effects of involvement in virtual worlds, towards an emotional model, as opposed to an intellectual model.
Article comments
1 - Vikk Simmons
When I read the title I thought this would be a book that would touch on the consequences of living in virtual worlds but apparently you didn't find it so. That's a shame. Having worked in an environment where at least half of the staff played War Craft--including the GM--and having a 15-year old grandson taking his responsibilities to his online virtual friends more seriously than those of his real family, I continue to wonder at the long term effects of the growing virtual society and game playing. I have no doubt that there are many plusses. But I refuse to believe there the dark side is nonexistent. I still may read the book more for th sections you found interesting but it is a shame the writer chose content as he did--but understandably so.
2 - Abram
Thanks for your comment, Vikk. As I mentioned near the beginning of the review, the impact of virtual worlds cannot be ignored. The reason the book interested me at first was precisely because I expected it to take a serious look at the phenomenon, to study it, examine it from different angles, etc. It was, unfortunately, a book by someone whose mind is already made up, based, I think, on insufficient evidence. It is too significant a phenomenon, with the potential for a profound (for better and/or worse) impact on present and future generations, to arrive at easy, one-sided and premature conclusions. Please do read it for yourself. All perspectives need to be heard and examined.