Mapping is my name for the concept that something that exists in a virtual world also exists in the real one. Of particular interest is the mapping of human behaviors. Some of these, I assume, will map while others will not. My claim is that if we knew which did and which didn't, we could use virtual worlds as social science test beds in the way that Ted and I have been agitating for for some time. I'm linking to a white paper in which I tackle this mapping idea, what we'd need to do to validate it, and a research framework for those interested. I would love to hear comments, criticisms and general feedback.
This mapping thing is kind of an odd idea, but not without precedent. Many will recall epidemiologists getting excited by the Warcraft Plague incident, and there are other similar events dating back to at least Habitat. I was intrigued by the reaction, but also struck by how dangerous it might be to assume that mapping existed when it really didn't. In other words, there is a validity hurdle to get over, and I spend a fair amount of time in the paper tackling that.
Where did this idea come from? I've been noodling it around since my PhD work, and I spoke about it at a conference I hosted in Champaign-Urbana in 2005. I believe I used the term "pipe dream" in my powerpoint title, but I've become more optimistic since.
Also in 2005, at Castronova's first Ludium conference, the attendees were challenged to create a game to test something. Being a Michigan-trained social psych guy, I immediately launched into a spiel about whether and how virtual environments could be used to test real human behaviors. Despite the very colorful and creative work of Mssrs. Dibbel and Sheldon (toilet paper was used to great effect, I recall), our group was full of fail, coming in dead last. My idea was far too wonky to compete with the likes of Raph's Disasterville. Damn you creative game makers /shakesfist
Well, I'm not giving up!
Recent Comments