when I frame things in terms of “adequacy” it seems at times a little distanced from the case, but when I frame them in terms of levels of play they end up much easier for me to work with.
Presumably the value of thinking in terms of levels of play for you is in drawing on your experience with various games being played at various levels of play; it might be good to be more explicit about this since presumably not everybody has such experience.
Competitiveness and aliveness seem clearly good and useful to track to me. I’m less sold on seriousness; I’m worried that it’s susceptible to problems analogous to problems applying the absurdity heuristic, e.g. if you don’t play video games much you might not think people take video games seriously and you would be very, very wrong about that.
Related but maybe easier to get a sense of is how strong the incentives are to try hard, e.g. do people get paid a lot for doing this, do they accrue a lot of status, that kind of thing (although this heuristic still seems like it risks coming to the wrong conclusion about video games, and also it mostly predicts Goodharting rather than getting good at the thing per se).
I think the problem with not recognizing speedrunning is less the absurdity heuristic and more just having the wrong information? There are many things that are not “respectable” or “mainstream” but are taken very seriously (many video games, fanfiction, editing certain Wikipedia pages, etc. etc.). My sense is that it’s quite possible for an outsider to assess this by checking out fan communities and the like.
Presumably the value of thinking in terms of levels of play for you is in drawing on your experience with various games being played at various levels of play; it might be good to be more explicit about this since presumably not everybody has such experience.
Competitiveness and aliveness seem clearly good and useful to track to me. I’m less sold on seriousness; I’m worried that it’s susceptible to problems analogous to problems applying the absurdity heuristic, e.g. if you don’t play video games much you might not think people take video games seriously and you would be very, very wrong about that.
Related but maybe easier to get a sense of is how strong the incentives are to try hard, e.g. do people get paid a lot for doing this, do they accrue a lot of status, that kind of thing (although this heuristic still seems like it risks coming to the wrong conclusion about video games, and also it mostly predicts Goodharting rather than getting good at the thing per se).
I think the problem with not recognizing speedrunning is less the absurdity heuristic and more just having the wrong information? There are many things that are not “respectable” or “mainstream” but are taken very seriously (many video games, fanfiction, editing certain Wikipedia pages, etc. etc.). My sense is that it’s quite possible for an outsider to assess this by checking out fan communities and the like.