[HN Gopher] The impact of digital media on children's intelligence
___________________________________________________________________
The impact of digital media on children's intelligence
Author : codesuki
Score : 273 points
Date : 2022-05-17 11:12 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| f0e4c2f7 wrote:
| When I was a kid I spent too much time on computers but it was
| mostly reading Wikipedia and googling programming questions, that
| kind of stuff.
|
| Where I grew up there wasn't anyone around I could ask those
| kinds of questions of. I know that's not the Netflix / ipad world
| that the study is talking about or nessecarily exists today. But
| I suspect that bifurcation still exists.
| switchbak wrote:
| My early days were DOS mode-x experiments mainly in Turbo
| Pascal. I had a manual I printed out, and some kind of BBS
| usenet-like forum thing.
|
| The docs were so sparse and the communities so small that it
| really was a much different experience than today. I have fond
| memories of it, but that might just be me looking back with
| rose colored glasses.
|
| I would have killed for stack overflow though! But there is a
| sense of self directed mastery that you don't get when you are
| so much more familiar with how fast the bodies of knowledge
| are.
|
| The closest I get to that these days is trying to hack code on
| a plane :)
| ho_schi wrote:
| My entry was scripting in Counter-Strike (Quake CFG Scripts).
| This cannot happen with consoles and Apps on Pads/Smartphones
| entirely prevent this.
|
| Some people try to bring this modification friendly things
| back, with BBC Microbit, RasPi and so on. But in the end you
| need to be motivated - and playing better was huge motivation
| for me!
| fartcannon wrote:
| Which is a good reason to encourage Apple to open up their
| tiny handheld computers. So kids can learn to tinker.
| da39a3ee wrote:
| They say that some of their main conclusions change if they
| control for parental education level, which they did not do. So
| that makes it all sounds questionable. Plus I've never heard of
| the journal; don't be misled into thinking it's a high profile
| Nature journal. Someone else here says it's a low quality
| journal.
| javajosh wrote:
| The only program I let my kids use is KidPix on the iPad. It's a
| (rather remarkable) drawing and animation program and I'm
| constantly amazed at what they make with it. And sometimes
| horrified. But the 5 yo enjoys creating scenes with sound effects
| (that she recorded) and animation (that she also recorded), while
| the 3 yo enjoys making intricate drawings and then methodically
| coloring everything green. It's his favorite color, and he enjoys
| this. Not affiliated at all, but KidPix is a _great_ piece of
| software, and I wouldn 't have known about it except it was on a
| public library computer.
|
| My point is there is (at least) another important category of
| program that the researchers missed: creator software. I've also
| made simple songs with them with garage band, but the UI is still
| rather difficult for them to use it on their own. I was inspired
| to take this approach because my first introduction to computers
| was Logo on an Apple IIe, and Seymore Papert's beautiful work
| left a lasting impression.
| jrussino wrote:
| There was a discussion here a few years back about this
| interview/documentary with the creator of the original KidPix:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25108875
| javajosh wrote:
| Thanks jrussino! I was hoping HN would come through with some
| more info on the author, because it's clearly a special
| program, and it certainly wasn't on my radar before kids +
| public library. (They still call it "Kid Pix 3D" even though
| it's really "Kid Pix 5" on the iPad)
| fullstop wrote:
| Tux Paint is available for iOS. There's another one that my
| kids loved, which was a puppet show theater app, which easily
| let you animate characters and add voices. Unfortunately, I
| don't recall the name of it.
| lawgimenez wrote:
| It's amazing the researchers forgot to include categories like
| apps. The apps my 3 year old son used is Pokpok, YouTube and an
| iOS app I develop specifically for him since he's on the non-
| verbal ASD spectrum.
|
| I believe this research is severely lacking.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Measuring "Intelligence" always seems to result in some
| questionable science.....
|
| That being said I do wonder about how I would have turned out had
| my childhood not been spent hiding under the covers at night with
| a small light devouring novel after novel and instead been
| inundated with social media and other distractions.
| woliveirajr wrote:
| Hiding and reading instead of sleeping is some universal thing?
| Fine :-)
|
| Today it's hiding and using the "smart"phone
| swframe2 wrote:
| I think it is better to focus on getting kids to do creative
| projects. For example, parents should get them to write and
| illustrate a story once a month, or learn to play a music
| instrument, etc. If kids are doing interesting projects that
| change yearly and they work to improve their skills then the
| amount of time they spend on digital media will decrease and will
| not be a concern.
|
| Having kids do projects is super helpful. 1) It builds their
| confidence in their ability 2) It shows the world (e.g. college
| admission boards) how they are valuable 3) It can become a way
| for them to be their own boss 4) It allows them to figure out
| what they want to be 5) It keeps them busy and out of trouble
| asdff wrote:
| The "get them to" part is the killer. I was easily frustrated
| as a kid and quit a lot of things in hindsight that I wish I
| stuck with. You never realize that time now is an investment
| for later, or that learning curves are different for everyone
| as a kid. I think that environment where you are in a cohort as
| a kid can be challenging too. If you see a few people in your
| class who are really good at something and you are struggling,
| that kills your confidence, and you will probably quit before
| actually putting in the work you need to get yourself to that
| same level and just assume it will always be impossible for
| you. As an adult now I see a lot of my peers still with this
| mentality and they drop new hobbies fast. Life is a slow march
| though and you shouldn't hold yourself to the standards of
| others, but that's a lifelong lesson that even 35 year olds are
| learning, and not something you can easily tell a 5 year old.
|
| Of course, if you push too hard the other way, your kid may
| just hate the skill and drop it. I knew a lot of people who
| were forced into piano lessons, and got very good at it too.
| Many quit over the years due to that resentment once their
| parents gave them the choice, and today never play any music in
| adulthood. Such a shame.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| If this study has you scratching your head about the impact of
| digital media, do have a read of "Four arguments for the
| elimination of television" by Jerry Mander.
|
| The arguments included in it are no different than many of these
| new studies coming out. If you grew up to be a latchkey kid and
| had your fair share of TV/video games/etc, it might give you
| perspective into things you never thought about.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3NBEurnIqY
| erikpukinskis wrote:
| Interesting perspective.
|
| One of the things he mentions is that TV is passive, and puts
| you in an alpha state where your brain stops trying to respond
| because there's no point in responding.
|
| My partner and I do watch a few hours of TV every night now.
| But we don't do this "alpha" thing, at least not exclusively.
| We pause _frequently_ to comment on or joke about what we're
| seeing. To the point that I think sometimes a 30 minute show
| will take us an hour to get through.
|
| The way it works is one of holds the remote and pauses whenever
| they want to, and if the other wants to pause they just say
| "pause!"
|
| I wonder how that changes Mander's analysis. For us it make TV
| a pretty fun interactive experience.
|
| And this way of watching was largely impossible when Mander did
| his work, because you simply couldn't pause TV. Although you
| could pause a VCR or DVD.
|
| I'm curious how widespread pausing is. I certainly feel that
| even solo TV watching is a more interactive experience than TV
| watching was when I was a kid. Alone, I'll pause to Wikipedia
| things or to go find related media.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. I'm sure there's plenty of counter-
| arguments to his, but the only thing I have to work with is
| my anecdote/experiences.
|
| Ridding myself of TV over the last 2 years has been extremely
| hard. I'm down to watching a maximum of an hour a night. Most
| times I don't even try nor care to. I have seen significant
| improvements to my own life, but most importantly I see the
| effects it has had on my young kids and how much more
| creative they are because they aren't sitting in front of a
| TV watching shows like I was when I was their age. It was the
| only thing I knew as a parent taught by mine and I had to
| challenge that for myself.
|
| Moderation is the key to everything, but this book woke me up
| to things I wasn't aware of and figured I'd share.
| npteljes wrote:
| I had to look this up on Wikipedia:
|
| "A latchkey kid, or latchkey child, is a child who returns to
| an empty home after school or a child who is often left at home
| with no supervision because their parents are away at work."
| aporetics wrote:
| Is the effect of media on intelligence really the primary
| concern?
|
| Ad absurdum: if watching the Kardashians for two hours a day
| doubled your intelligence (however you decide to measure that)
| would you do it? Would you have your kids do it?
| raptortech wrote:
| "Unexpectedly, watching videos also benefited intelligence
| (standardized b = + 0.12)"
|
| I would love to know what "watching videos" means here. There's a
| big difference between educational YouTube (Kurzgesagt, Physics
| Girl, Vertitasium, etc) and TV.
| lesgobrandon wrote:
| conqueso wrote:
| "Digital media" is a gigantic umbrella and there are so many
| variations and confounding factors that I doubt anything useful
| could come from a study like this. As with anything that has the
| potential for addiction or maladaptive behavior, the difference
| between healthy and unhealthy consumption comes down to
| moderation and mindful consumption.
| npilk wrote:
| Steven Johnson had an interesting take on this in his book
| Everything Bad Is Good For You:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Bad_Is_Good_for_Y...
|
| TL;DR - the _complexity_ of media has been increasing over the
| past decades, which means that children spending time with
| digital media are benefiting from it relative to past
| generations.
|
| As an example, playing a modern AAA video game is much more
| mentally stimulating than playing Pong. But also, watching an
| hour of a modern TV show, or even a modern reality show, is more
| challenging mentally than watching classic TV from the 60s and
| 70s--there are many, many more plots and relationship dynamics to
| track and speculate about.
| asdff wrote:
| I wonder what Johnson thinks about the decline of reading going
| on in parallel to the rise of TV viewership? It's true that old
| shows or movies might have had simpler and more tidy plots (not
| all of them of course), but I think even the most complicated
| modern shows aren't nearly so complicated as a basic novel.
| Case in point, anything adapted from print to tv or film has a
| lot of plot left out because there simply isn't enough time to
| convey that information given the lower information density of
| these forms of media vs the printed page. Before serialized TV
| was also serialized stories that could have very complicated
| subplots and other things going on. Then you have the newspaper
| itself with all of its complicated real world subplots; a lot
| more content certainly than what the talking heads on CNN can
| cover even with 24 hour news.
|
| It's interesting with the internet too, even though there
| should be a lot more stories in the zeitgeist at once given its
| wide reach, sometimes due to its virality, one storyline is
| able to dominate everything at once and suck the air out of the
| room. Did we really need a dozen article about Will Smith
| slapping Chris Rock in everything from Reuters to The Atlantic
| for seemingly two whole days? If you only got news from twitter
| that might consume your entire feed. If you got your news from
| the newspaper, that would at most just consume one article or
| two out of many others of pages of printed material. It would
| also be limited to probably one section of the many different
| sections of the paper all covering different news topics.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| A counter argument (made by Alan Kay and others) is that the
| language complexity of what people read is reducing which is
| leading to a return to an oral culture rather than literate
| culture (to our collective detriment). My anecdotal experience
| as a high school English teacher leads me to say this _feels_
| true.
| svnt wrote:
| Who are the others? I would like to read more about this.
| leonroy wrote:
| A few years back a comparitive analysis was made of past
| president's vocabularies and their grade level:
| https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-
| ob...
|
| Politics aside it does seem that presidents have been
| pitching their language lower and lower to appeal to a
| broader audience. I recall reading about how Obama
| simplified the vocabulary of his speeches from college
| level to 10th grade, to 4th grade to 2nd grade:
| https://smartpolitics.lib.umn.edu/2010/01/29/professor-
| obama...
| https://smartpolitics.lib.umn.edu/2011/01/27/keeping-it-
| simp...
|
| On the flip side though George Washington's first inaugaral
| address goes to the other extreme where it's impenetrably
| verbose:
| https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/have-
| pr...
|
| Anecdata at this point but I fear the OP might be right -
| we are simplifying our language over time.
| coffeeblack wrote:
| Is playing chess online "digital media"? What about learning to
| code with online tutorials?
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Playing chess, a game, is probably considered "gaming".
| mdrzn wrote:
| "At baseline, time watching and socializing were negatively
| correlated with intelligence, while gaming did not correlate.
| After two years, gaming positively impacted intelligence, but
| socializing had no effect. This is consistent with cognitive
| benefits documented in experimental studies on video gaming."
|
| So it's confirmed? Gaming > Socializing? /s
| Aeolun wrote:
| Only if you optimize for intelligence accoring to the standards
| in the article.
|
| Intelligence does not directly correlate with either success in
| life or happiness (I believe intelligence is negatively
| correlated with happiness).
| twofornone wrote:
| Do you have a source for that? Happiness I can believe,
| especially because of the correlation between intelligence
| and neuroticism, but if IQ is a valid proxy for intelligence
| then I think the consensus is that intelligence strongly
| correlates with success.
| hackernewds wrote:
| High IQ people are also thought to be prone to ambition,
| questioning for purpose and stricter yearning at any
| achievement level which leaves them perennially unsatisfied
| trelane wrote:
| It's also tracking "intelligence" rather than e.g. "social
| skills" so there may be other benefits that they didn't track.
| RGamma wrote:
| Those who played e.g. during WoW's golden age will attest that
| the two don't contradict whatsoever :)
| zivkovicp wrote:
| Technically correct is the best kind of correct ;)
| LewisVerstappen wrote:
| Slightly confused on how they define "socializing"
|
| They state
|
| > Socializing via social media, text, and video chat
|
| Is socializing via social media mean talking in a chat? Or does
| scrolling your instagram feed and liking your friend's posts
| count as socializing?
|
| Or scrolling Twitter and liking/replying to your friend's
| tweets? That could be considered socializing too?
| versteegen wrote:
| > Following the steps of a previous study with this same
| dataset (measuring baseline associations only [13]), we
| categorized screen time here into three major groups: (a)
| Watching (1 + 2), (b) Socializing (4 + 5 + 6), (c) Gaming
| (3).
|
| So that's why they described it as " ocial media, text, and
| video chat". Their data comes from the ABCD study. I didn't
| look much further. https://abcdstudy.org/
| dash2 wrote:
| The fact that they "controlled" for genetics using polygenic
| scores already is a strong sign of low quality research.
| Polygenic scores are powerful, but they contain very large
| amounts of noise compared to the true genetic effects.
| Controlling for genetics using them is like controlling for
| income by asking whether the respondents own a Porsche.
|
| Also, be aware that Scientific Reports is, if not quite a
| predatory journal, a very low bar. They publish tens of thousands
| of articles every year, while charging vast fees.
|
| In general, these guys have correlations, not causation.
| Children's IQ - and gaming habits etc. - develop as they age, so
| controlling for baseline IQ is not enough to make a correlation
| with later IQ and gaming causal. It seems much more likely that
| smarter kids game more, e.g. because they live in richer
| households. (No, controlling for SES isn't enough to rule this
| out, for much the same reasons of measurement error as for the
| genetics.)
|
| If you wanna believe that your hours on COD have made you a
| genius, go ahead, I won't stop you. Just don't imagine that this
| research proves it.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| > In general, these guys have correlations, not causation
|
| You can say that for almost every human study that's not drug
| based, or very short-term.
| dash2 wrote:
| No.
|
| * There are tons of randomized controlled trials of policy
| measures (malaria bednets, minimum income). Many measure
| long-run outcomes.
|
| * Natural experiments can measure long-run effects. In
| economic history, sometimes that means centuries.
|
| * Many other designs are plausibly causal. The right
| instrumental variable, or a regression discontinuity design.
| In some cases, even a simple diff-in-diff with panel data.
| This design, nope.
| pocketsand wrote:
| The treatment here is regular social media use and video
| game playing. This not something where you can randomize
| people to treatment conditions, like you can with malaria.
|
| Likewise, tell me -- what would be a good instrument for
| estimating a causal effect of video game playing? What
| measure would plausibly affect intelligence only through
| video game playing? Where is there a natural experiment
| that allows for an RD design where young people on one side
| of the discontinuity play video games and the others do
| not?
|
| We get it -- you've taken a causal inference or
| econometrics course and want people to know it.
| svnt wrote:
| Waldorf schools or Amish communities would be a place to
| start.
| dash2 wrote:
| No, my point is that bad research which conforms to
| people's priors should not be taken seriously.
|
| There are many experiments on video game playing. Most of
| them are short run, obviously. But never underestimate
| researcher ingenuity. Here's a cute paper which uses as
| an instrument "did your roommate bring a video game to
| university"? Not beyond critique, but plausible: https://
| economics.uwo.ca/people/stinebrickner_docs/paper2.pd....
| It's also relevant because the dependent variable is how
| much students study, and their resulting performance.
|
| More to the point, if anyone seriously thinks video games
| will raise kids' IQ, and can persuade funders of it, they
| could simply give the treatment group an Xbox. That would
| be expensive - say $20K-ish - but much cheaper than the
| benefit of an extra IQ point or 2, over millions of
| children.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| >If you wanna believe that your hours on COD have made you a
| genius, go ahead, I won't stop you. Just don't imagine that
| this research proves it.
|
| You know there are more video games styles than FPS right?
| Strategy games teach patience and discipline, EVE online
| teaches economics, even the much dismissed 'mindless' fps teach
| teamwork.
|
| I think it's likely that at least _some_ games do increase
| intelligence relative to other activities (i.e. mindlessly
| watching tv) but less so than others like reading.
| dijit wrote:
| > mindlessly
|
| I think this is probably more key than you think.
|
| Mindlessly watching junk food TV is not going to help you a
| lot. It's not very "nutrient rich" (to continue the
| expression) in terms of knowledge gained.. but you will
| probably gain some.
|
| Watching documentaries and, crucially, actively watching them
| is probably very good in terms of how much you learn.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| It takes a certain kind of nerdy kid to sit down and watch
| a documentary (not judging, I _was_ that certain kind of
| nerdy kid). With video games, the user, i.e. child is
| actively engaged. Video games require more from the
| consumer. I found myself much more likely to dig into
| history while playing civilization than I did while
| watching a documentary for example.
| svnt wrote:
| Actively engaged does not mean exercising higher
| cognitive function, and even less so developing higher
| cognitive function.
|
| Imagine if e.g. basketball players never practiced but
| just played for all the marbles at the most competitive
| level every day when they stepped on the court. You would
| have chaos and exhausted players.
| pocketsand wrote:
| If the noise in polygenic scores is random, all that will do is
| reduce correlations. Random measurement error always reduces
| the ability to observe relationships. To be clear, I do not
| know enough about polygenic scores to judge one way or another
| how the noise "works" vis-a-vis the entire analysis.
|
| The Porsche comment is snide, but actually exposes a similar
| error in your critique. Sure, a tax return-derived measure of
| income would be superior to measuring if someone owned a luxury
| car. But, if you found yourself in a situation where all you
| had to go on for measuring economic wellbeing was (luxury) car
| ownership, your analysis is likely to improve by including it
| rather than excluding it, unless the measure itself had serious
| other issues with its accuracy.
|
| Likewise, for SES, it is an imperfect measure, but it is the
| best we have for measuring social position in a concise way.
|
| Having worked in research and universities for a while, the
| type of critique presented in this post is one you often see of
| new graduate students. They are able to tear down problems with
| research very well, but tend to overlook whether the study
| itself was still informative, or whether the opposite finding
| is likely to be true.
|
| For example, suppose we wanted to know if video games or
| watching videos on the internet are making you dumber. A study
| like this may not convince you it's making you smarter, but it
| presents decent evidence they're not making you dumber. You can
| point out how the measures aren't perfect, but that is far from
| saying the opposite is true or the observed trends are
| completely spurious.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| > If the noise in polygenic scores is random, all that will
| do is reduce correlations. Random measurement error always
| reduces the ability to observe relationships.
|
| I think you're misunderstanding how they're being used (or I
| am). I think they're trying to control for genetics via
| polygenic scores, not trying to establish a relationship
| between those scores and intelligence. The analogy is that
| you're measuring the effect of the price of kids' socks on
| their intelligence, and saying the observed effect _isn't_
| due to parental income in some other way, because you've
| controlled for parental income(by controlling for whether
| there's a porche in the driveway).
| gwern wrote:
| > If the noise in polygenic scores is random, all that will
| do is reduce correlations. Random measurement error always
| reduces the ability to observe relationships. To be clear, I
| do not know enough about polygenic scores to judge one way or
| another how the noise "works" vis-a-vis the entire analysis.
|
| That's correct, it is a flaw of the entire analysis, not the
| PGS in isolation. Yes, the polygenic score, when used to
| define 'genetic intelligence', will be biased towards zero
| and will miss a lot of the genetic intelligence. What then
| happens is the video-game playing becomes a _measure of
| intelligence_ (genetic or otherwise), capturing what the
| polygenic score (and other covariates) miss. The logic then
| works in reverse: the reduced correlation is precisely _why_
| the residual confounding works. The worse your
| 'measurements' are at measuring the underlying trait, the
| more wiggle room there is for your 'outcomes' to actually be
| correcting the 'measurements' and not vice versa. See
| "Statistically Controlling for Confounding Constructs Is
| Harder than You Think" https://journals.plos.org/plosone/arti
| cle?id=10.1371/journal... , Westfall & Yarkoni 2016. (More
| examples: https://www.gwern.net/notes/Regression )
|
| What OP shows is not that video game playing causes IQ, but
| IQ causes video game playing. The choice to play video games
| (or not play them, because you are bad at learning) is an
| additional 1-item long IQ test and helps corrects for the
| error.
|
| (And we do in fact know that video gaming & IQ correlate, so
| nothing new there. We also know from all the brain training
| randomized experiments that the causal arrow doesn't run in
| the direction they want it to run. OP is very wrong,
| including in claiming that the Flynn effect justifies
| believing in their effect - it actually is a criticism of
| their claimed causal relationship between IQs have been
| steady or falling even as video gaming increased massively.)
| dash2 wrote:
| The point is not whether including polygenic scores is better
| than nothing. The point is whether it's good enough to
| justify the claims they are making. It's not. The same holds
| for SES.
|
| I disagree that this study presents decent evidence of
| anything. I don't claim that the conclusions are false. But
| they haven't backed them up. There are lots of ways that the
| observed trends can be spurious. I mentioned some. The study
| is very weakly informative.
| DANK_YACHT wrote:
| > The point is not whether including polygenic scores is
| better than nothing. The point is whether it's good enough
| to justify the claims they are making. It's not.
|
| What is the justification for this assertion? If polygenic
| scores are simply "noisy," then, as the GP mentioned, they
| may be good enough when used in aggregate. There can be a
| lot of signal in noisy data. Ask any ML practitioner.
| dash2 wrote:
| Polygenic scores are themselves an aggregation. And they
| contain a ton of noise. From twin studies, R2 of the
| "true" polygenic score on education is about 40%. The R2
| of our best actual polygenic score is 4%. IIRC these guys
| aren't even using the education polygenic score. They're
| using the PGS for IQ. That's even noisier (because it was
| created using smaller samples, and you need biiig samples
| for this to work).
| DANK_YACHT wrote:
| > Polygenic scores are themselves an aggregation. And
| they contain a ton of noise.
|
| Again, noisy data can still be useful. For instance,
| generate a perfect single-variable normal distribution,
| sample along the x-axis and perturb each point randomly
| in the y direction either up or down. Depending on the
| range of random values used to move the sampled points,
| you can still see the underlying distribution even though
| the data is noisy.
|
| Two possible arguments you might make:
|
| 1) The data is noisy and the paper's authors haven't
| collected enough data to account for the amount of noise.
| Usually people will do something like null-hypothesis
| significance testing to measure this.
|
| 2) The noise isn't uniformly random and has some
| underlying bias that is affecting the results.
| dash2 wrote:
| Noisy data can be useful. What it can't do is be useful
| enough to say "we have controlled for X". There will be a
| large unmeasured component of genetic variation -
| probably about 90% of it - that controlling for the PGS
| doesn't capture. Given that, throwing a PGS into the
| regression is not worth the candle.
| Foobar8568 wrote:
| Pattern recognition+spacial rotation+quick answer to
| stimuli+repetitive tasks or short term memories, several IQ
| components are testing these. Kids might have higher IQ because
| of video games, but poorer to everything else that matters.
| riskable wrote:
| > Pattern recognition+spacial rotation+quick answer to
| stimuli+repetitive tasks
|
| Sounds like we're training kids--through video games--to be
| fantastic CAD engineers and plumbers.
| asdff wrote:
| If you are going to critique the methodology please provide a
| reference where this is not a robust method. You may be right
| but how can I tell without some references? The scholar.google
| search for "controlling for genetics using polygenetic scores"
| brings up many recent papers about this methodology and the
| arguments made in these seem stronger to me than this one
| comment. IMO on the internet when people can easily
| misinterpret the science, its important to be clear as possible
| especially when we take things down.
|
| As far as scientific reports goes its a fine journal, its run
| by nature. It's not on the same planet as the predatory
| journals that spam inboxes. I worry that people will read your
| comment, assume you speak from authority, and discount any work
| they might see coming from that journal when we both know that
| good science can be found in scientific reports, and that
| impact factor is more strongly correlated with "sexy" or
| expensive science than good science anyhow.
| 323 wrote:
| Playing with toys does make kids smarter. It's not such a
| stretch to assume that video games have a benefit too.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| The right kind of toys, yes... and the right kind of video
| games.
|
| There are toys, and games, that make you dumber. Especially
| games designed to emphasize the addiction loop and monetize
| inconvenience. Case in point: Angry Birds.
|
| It used to be a very fun, silly, physics-based game. Now, it
| is infested with pay-to-unlock consumables that in some cases
| are required to get all three stars on a level (because you
| can't knock everything down without an explosion and the
| default roster of birds for the level doesn't give you that).
|
| The simpler a physical toy is (a ball, simple blocks) the
| more likely it is to contribute to a child's development. The
| insidious "I-need-another-outfit-Barbie" on the other hand
| only trains frivolous spending. Even Lego sets vary in the
| kind of play they foster.
|
| Playing with toys and games can have cognitive benefits, but,
| digital or otherwise, there's a quality spectrum parents have
| to be aware of.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| > Especially games designed to emphasize the addiction loop
| and monetize inconvenience.
|
| I think that falls within the purview of _gambling._
| nicce wrote:
| The cost is no joke.
|
| "Scientific Reports is an open access journal. To publish in
| Scientific Reports, all authors are required to pay an article-
| processing charge (APC) of $1,495."
| bigmadshoe wrote:
| This is becoming very common in academia. The university I
| used to work for is beginning to require that all research is
| published in open access journals. Do you know the ludicrous
| fees universities pay to closed-access journals?
| BeetleB wrote:
| This is not an unusual charge for open access journals.
|
| The New Journal of Physics, a respected open access physics
| journal, charges $2225.
|
| https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/journals/new-
| jo...
| napier wrote:
| "Open access" journal fees are often accounted for by
| institutional affiliations or grant funding donors. The
| upside of upfront publication charges is that the research
| output isn't paywalled and therefore ideally reaches more
| eyeballs and brainpans than the conventional route.
| nicce wrote:
| That is the upside, but there are many other high
| reputation peer-reviewed open journals with close to zero
| payment. Is the domain really worth the cost?
|
| It is kinda messed up, when you adjust the price based on
| the available money of institutional affiliations or
| donors. It is just more profits for journal and nothing for
| authors, while forcing authors to pay.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > there are many other high reputation peer-reviewed open
| journals with close to zero payment
|
| Which are those? The journals that I expect to still be
| up are the ones that require actual payment for
| publishing.
| svnt wrote:
| Most grants in the fields I've looked at preclude their use
| for paying publishing fees.
| jcranberry wrote:
| They also did a post hoc analysis using parental education
| instead of SES by the suggestion of a reviewer and the video
| game correlation persisted.
| throwingrocks wrote:
| Your response seemed reasonable, and I was nodding along until
| the last paragraph. I get the impression you had your mind made
| up about video games and intelligence long before this study
| was published.
| lettergram wrote:
| I think the point the prior commenter was making was that
| this research validates people who think gaming is good. They
| pointed out the issues and said "if you still want to believe
| this, I can't stop you"
|
| The commenter may have a bias, but most prior research shows
| us the opposite of the study.
|
| I also saw the poor experimental design and had a similar
| thoughts. Basically, this research looks poorly done and like
| an effort to prop up the gaming industry (and / or validate
| the authors pre-suppositions).
| d3ckard wrote:
| In any case, using CoD as an example does not exactly show
| good will.
|
| I personally believe in huge gains from gaming, based on
| personal experience (so obviously n = 1, read further
| accordingly).
|
| Platformers train hand-eye coordination and pattern
| recognition, strategies teach resource management, RPGs
| about optimization and adopting growth mindset, racing
| games require long-time concentration, puzzlers and
| adventure games test your logic.
|
| In general, games require you to: - learn a set of tools -
| master them - conquer objective
|
| while also prevailing in face of adversity.
|
| I never regretted the hours I spent gaming and I feel they
| contributed very much to my softeng career (not directly
| though).
| nosianu wrote:
| If you seriously play the game you get good at... the
| game.
|
| Even within the same game genre that barely translates.
| People good at Starcraft I struggled with Starcraft II,
| people great at Warcraft made little headway in Starcraft
| II (e.g. WCIII players like Grubby or Happy).
|
| Given that, claiming that things even further removed
| than those other games, which closely resemble one
| another, requires quite a bit of proof. It does not look
| like the skills transfer well even between similar games.
|
| > _while also prevailing in face of adversity._
|
| I don't think we agree on what "adversity" is. You are
| just playing a game, and your brain knows it. If someone
| has the same brain reaction to the game avatar being in
| virtual "danger" to his actual body being in mortal
| danger than I'd like to see that, and I think most people
| would think that is not normal or healthy.
|
| You don't need to defend yourself, if you had fun playing
| than that's more than enough. I don't understand why you
| want to drive yourself to seeing more in it than that.
| confidantlake wrote:
| It didn't translate 100%, but even a pro player in
| Starcraft1 unsuccessfully transitioning to Starcraft2
| still played at an insanely high level relative to the
| general population. It was the difference from maybe
| being a top 50 player before to a top 500 player after. I
| would say that this is evidence of a very high carryover.
|
| WC3 => Sc2 is a much greater leap than sc1 -> sc2 but
| still there was decent carryover. Grubby was still a GM
| or high masters player, even if he was no longer elite.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > Even within the same game genre that barely translates.
| People good at Starcraft I struggled with Starcraft II,
| people great at Warcraft made little headway in Starcraft
| II (e.g. WCIII players like Grubby or Happy).
|
| That might be true if you're comparing the top 0.1%, but
| someone who played a lot of Starcraft would be miles
| ahead of any newcomer in both Starcraft II and Warcraft
| III.
|
| Your example is like saying that a world-class sprinter
| would struggle to be a world-class cyclist. Yes, that's
| true, but the aspects that do carry over - cardio and
| muscle development - would immediately put them in the
| top 5% of the field even if they never win the Tour de
| France.
| svnt wrote:
| Maybe a world-class sprinter would be in the top 5% of
| the entire population who has ever cycled (not "the
| field"). Sprinting and cycling are so different you may
| as well be comparing snooker and darts and saying that
| wrist control is the determining factor.
| bnralt wrote:
| > Even within the same game genre that barely translates.
| People good at Starcraft I struggled with Starcraft II,
| people great at Warcraft made little headway in Starcraft
| II (e.g. WCIII players like Grubby or Happy).
|
| Even being good at Starcraft I in 1998 wouldn't make you
| good at Starcraft I in 2003. People uncover certain
| optimizations and strategies over times that are quickly
| adopted by everyone, to the extent that playing the same
| a good player in 1998 would get you dubbed a "noob" in
| 2003.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > good will.
|
| I think you meant good faith. They didn't use it as an
| example though, it was just rhetorical.
| hackernewds wrote:
| The question is about incrementality. in those same hours
| you played CoD, do you think (assuming the endpoint as
| you suggest is being a softeng) you could have learned
| more by practicing softeng (even if for half the time)
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| Obviously. Which is why the question _isn 't_ about
| incrementality. It's about whether the choices one was
| willing to make were beneficial to something that doesn't
| seem remotely related at first glance.
|
| Most people aren't going to program 10 hours a day. But
| they might program 8 hours a day and then do 2 hours of
| entertainment. Maybe those 2 hours of watching TV were
| better spent gaming in terms of contributing to other
| aspects in life. Maybe those 2 hours of gaming could've
| been 2 hours of drawing instead.
|
| If we're talking about incrementality, we'd better
| question why almost every software company is still
| treating their employees like idiot savants when games
| show us how quickly people can learn drastically
| different concepts, as long as presented correctly.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> Platformers train hand-eye coordination and pattern
| recognition, strategies teach resource management, RPGs
| about optimization and adopting growth mindset..._
|
| Sure - and joining the high school football team teaches
| teamwork, self-discipline, dealing with adversity,
| appearing before crowds, nutrition, fitness, etc etc
|
| So what?
| rowanG077 wrote:
| I don't understand your reply. This is a thread about the
| impact video games can have and whether they are
| positive. How is it not relevant listing a few examples
| on how specific games could improve certain areas of a
| person?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I'm actually really curious what effect playing fast,
| twitchy games will have on things like reaction time as
| one ages. Would be interesting to see long-term studies
| on the subject.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Video games are available to people of all abilities. You
| certainly can't say the same of football (indeed, with
| concussions, one might question if this _lowers_
| intelligence over the long term)
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Anecdata but one thing I've noticed over time between those who
| grew up on video games and those who didn't is that those who
| were gamers deal better with change, especially WRT learning
| new software in the workplace, starting new projects, etc...
|
| Obviously though the benefits aren't there if people just
| mindlessly play the same game all day.
| riskable wrote:
| This makes sense: Every game is a new piece of software that
| has to be installed/inserted with its own interface and
| mechanics. If you played a lot of games it means you had to
| get used to using a lot of different interfaces and controls.
| rererr wrote:
| The worst things you can say about Scientific Reports are it
| doesn't have the same novelty/impact requirements as many
| journals* and people like to over-emphasize the "Nature" part
| of the name in a pointles grab for journal prestige. Journals
| in general can be pretty shady on a case-by-case basis. See
| "Nano Chopsticks" published in Nano Letters for a good
| materials science example of straight garbage (laughably
| obvious image manipulation) getting published in a fancy
| journal.
|
| *Not really a problem if you correctly believe science should
| be more than publishing sexy results.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Good points. If you'd want to find the impact of Digital Media
| on children's IQ, how would you proceed?
| svnt wrote:
| The question is too big and poorly defined, and IQ as an
| indicator is both incomplete and too narrow.
| dash2 wrote:
| A first shot would be a look at the introduction of digital
| media in particular places or times. Some people have done
| this with the internet by using e.g. distance to an ADSL
| exchange as an instrument.
|
| Or, a randomized controlled trial. If it has an effect worth
| caring about, then it's worth running an experiment on. A
| real positive or negative effect would be a big deal for
| policy.
| barbecue_sauce wrote:
| What about Sim City?
| versteegen wrote:
| Note though that their data comes from the ABCD study, so at
| least the journal's reputability is not relevant to quality of
| data collection and most of the experimental design. Edit: of
| course, this is not a rebuttal of your specific criticisms.
| rapind wrote:
| > If you wanna believe that your hours on COD have made you a
| genius, go ahead, I won't stop you. Just don't imagine that
| this research proves it.
|
| Video games, like all things, should not all be treated equal.
| I could certainly see problem solving skills developing from
| world building or highly complex games (Civ, PoE, etc.). In
| fact, most (but not all) highly successful games have depth,
| which requires time investment and problem solving. The
| difference in games can be as varied as comparing a marketing
| pamphlet to Asimov's novels.
|
| I don't dispute your take on the quality of the research
| though. I would even go further and speculate it would be
| really really hard to come up with meaningful tests due to game
| variance. So most anything on the subject is likely fluff.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > I could certainly see problem solving skills developing
| from world building or highly complex games (Civ, PoE, etc.).
| In fact, most (but not all) highly successful games have
| depth, which requires time investment and problem solving.
|
| I'm a big grand strategy fan, mostly Paradox games rn, and I
| almost feel like these are worse for me because the depth
| keeps me engaged longer (and honesty waste a lot of time)
| compared even to something like a shitty copy/paste mobile
| game employing dark patterns because those get so boring so
| quick. Whereas if I start and eu4 or ck3 campaign and
| actually play it, it's almost certain my brain will be shot
| to hell to for a few days.
| boringg wrote:
| Ahh I agree with this. I think there is a benefit at the
| beginning in the learning process of the game but then it
| has seriously diminishing returns. I would put factorio in
| this category where once you get the model and have learned
| most of the curve you are then at diminishing returns or
| negative returns because of the painful way in that devs
| construct these games to keep you on for longer periods of
| times. I'm not sure the highest levels of complexity and
| long dedication to the game really do provide greater
| learning for people.
| boringg wrote:
| I'll add to this I wish there was a game that didn't
| follow the traditionally.. now you've leveled up spend X
| time at this level/technology/etc before you go to the
| next one. Why not create a game that you can grow as fast
| as you can learn instead of putting in time barriers.
| Probably incentives for developers/game companies ruin
| that model but would be nice for a change.
| jklinger410 wrote:
| I've played thousands of hours in EU4 and am still very bad
| at it. Same with Cities Skylines.
|
| But I could go on and on about the very real ways I apply
| those losses to my work life. I do think they have a huge
| benefit.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Hades, played competently, is a nice little optimization
| problem with lots of arbitrary constraints thrown at you to
| keep it fresh. Well, it is mostly reflexes, but the
| optimization problem is also a significant part of it.
|
| Grand strategy and 4x games always feel like too much
| depth, to me. I _know_ I could do better if I pause and
| manually place every worker /micro everything. But that's
| overwhelming. I could try to be clever and only optimize
| where necessary, but the game is paused, there's no
| tradeoff for analyzing everything other than my time. Just
| give me the meaningful choices, game!
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| I wouldn't underestimate how much time people can sink into
| dumb gotcha games. Maybe not you, but others.
|
| IMO, the biggest problem with modern video games is how
| many of them are designed to keep you playing virtually
| forever. I think a game like Zelda (maybe not BoTW, but
| definitely OoT) is _great_ for children, because it teaches
| problem solving and rational thinking, _and_ it has a
| natural time limit! You might play it incessantly for a few
| days, but eventually you 'll reach the end and need to seek
| out a new experience.
| mc32 wrote:
| Some years ago it was farmville that wasted people's
| time.
| albrewer wrote:
| > gotcha games
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gacha_game
| [deleted]
| paulluuk wrote:
| I think that even if we found that children who play
| difficult games tend to be more intelligent, that still
| makes it hard to separate correlation from causation. Do
| children become smarter because they play difficult games?
| Or do smart children enjoy playing difficult games? Or
| both?
| nluken wrote:
| I _love_ Paradox games, but I can 't play them because as
| soon as I start up a campaign I know it will become a huge
| time sink for a few days. I think their games definitely
| require/develop problem solving skills, especially in areas
| where you need to make changes to create indirect effects.
| With that said, they may not be the best way of going about
| it.
| bnralt wrote:
| In my experience, the vast majority of game play time, even
| with most complex games, is spent on relatively mindless
| repetitive behavior. This gets worse the more time is spent
| with a specific game. As a player improves, they start to
| know what they're supposed to do in more and more situations
| (compare the way a novice agonizes over an opening pawn move
| in chess with the way advanced players often speed through
| the opening moves). Games might be complex, but you might
| only be dealing with that complexity ~10% of the time (or
| less as you improve).
| rapind wrote:
| Some competitive (PvP) games are basically imperfect chess.
| Just like you'd learn chess, and eventually move on to
| studying matches, you would do the same with some (PvP)
| video games, like DotA etc.
|
| On the other hand you could literally have a game to see
| how long you can keep pushing a big read button (dopamine
| inducing effects and sounds included of course!).
|
| The variance is huge. We couldn't make a blanket general
| statement about brain development from tabletop games that
| include say Snap / War, Checkers, and Chess. And that's not
| even a sliver of the variance video games gave.
|
| P.S. I'm by no means a gaming advocate. IMO video games are
| becoming (have become) Vegas 2.0 and I could list a huge
| number of potential negatives.
| bnralt wrote:
| > Just like you'd learn chess, and eventually move on to
| studying matches, you would do the same with some (PvP)
| video games, like DotA etc.
|
| Sure, but as far as I know there isn't much value (beyond
| personal interest) in studying high level chess (and from
| what I've seen, it's detrimental when people start
| obsessing over it). You're putting effort into getting
| better at playing a game.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| > As a player improves, they start to know what they're
| supposed to do in more and more situations (compare the way
| a novice agonizes over an opening pawn move in chess with
| the way advanced players often speed through the opening
| moves).
|
| Chess is a particularly bad example because you can
| memorize openings.
|
| In Fischer random chess, the starting positions of the
| pieces are randomized, so even advanced players will
| agonize over the opening move.
| bmacho wrote:
| In chess advanced players start to agonize at move 7.
| Chess has all the benefits of Fisher random chess, but
| has an additional layer, and requires three additional
| skills: learn, analyze, and memorize.
|
| (I myself I am a bughouse chess person, it's a very
| different beast on the same board. It's full of
| adrenaline, hope, fear, anger, grief, in 2 minute long
| runs.)
| BeetleB wrote:
| Reminds me of when I played SimCity 2000 as a teenager. In my
| first attempt I ran out of money and got kicked out.
|
| So I decided to start again. I noted down the cost of all the
| necessary items: Residential, city, industrial zones, cost of
| building roads, power plant, and utility lines, and of course
| water. I put the game on pause, took out a notebook, and
| started calculating a somewhat optimal city with the initial
| budget I was provided.
|
| I built the city very quickly, and this time round I didn't
| run out of money, and took the game all the way to
| archologies. I did skimp on fire stations and a disaster
| destroyed most of the city, but it still survived overall.
|
| I don't think I could have succeeded without that level of
| planning.
| DANK_YACHT wrote:
| Any real-time PvP game has the ultimate puzzle: another human
| being. Once you're mechanically familiar with a PvP game, the
| game disappears, in a sense, and you're left trying to figure
| out the (very human) weaknesses of your opponent. It's quite
| a beautiful experience, and not one unique to video games.
| You see similar phenomena in sports and many other forms of
| competition as well.
| spookybones wrote:
| I feel fortunate enough to have grown up playing point and
| click games, like Myst, 7th Guest, and Fate of Atlantis, and
| keeping a notebook on my desk for clues to puzzles. I think
| it had a positive effect on my development, comparable to
| playing chess, which I also did.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > If you wanna believe that your hours on COD have made you a
| genius, go ahead, I won't stop you. Just don't imagine that
| this research proves it.
|
| Maybe it's the games you play (CoD) that make imagine that
| game-playing develops no reasoning skills.
|
| Play something else (starcraft, for example).
| dash2 wrote:
| I never claimed anything about whether game-playing developed
| reasoning skills. Indeed, I explicitly said "believe that if
| you want to." I just said this research didn't prove it.
| boloust wrote:
| Is there a reason to consider the use of a noisy signal as a
| strong sign of a low-quality study, without addressing whether
| the noise is correlated with the outcome?
|
| Do we think this study would be improved if it did not control
| for genetics at all?
| dash2 wrote:
| It wouldn't be any worse. The question isn't whether the
| noise is correlated with the outcome. The question is whether
| the denoised variable would be _much more_ correlated with
| the outcome (yes), and whether that would change the effect
| of the focal variable.
|
| In any case, it's a weird thing to control for in a panel
| study. Why not just use per-person fixed effects? That would
| eliminate _all_ effects that are constant across individuals.
| PKop wrote:
| Interesting points mentioned about genetic influence and
| heritability of intelligence..
|
| "We believe that studies with genetic data could clarify causal
| claims and correct for the typically unaccounted role of genetic
| predispositions. Here, we estimated the impact of different types
| of screen time (watching, socializing, or gaming) on children's
| intelligence while controlling for the confounding effects of
| genetic differences in cognition and socioeconomic status."
|
| "The contradictions among studies on screen time and cognition
| are likely due to limitations of cross-sectional designs,
| relatively small sample sizes, and, most critically, failures to
| control for genetic predispositions and socio-economic context.
| Although studies account for some confounding effects, very few
| have accounted for socioeconomic status and none have accounted
| for genetic effects. This matters because intelligence,
| educational attainment, and other cognitive abilities are all
| highly heritable."
| svnt wrote:
| I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but do take their claims
| here with a huge grain of salt.
| carbocation wrote:
| I don't think the problem is that polygenic scores are noisy.
| (You can choose to make them less noisy by restricting to
| significant SNPs, for example.) And noise doesn't require
| directional bias. But to me there are 2 problems:
|
| (A) Polygenic scores for behavioral traits may be estimated in
| GWAS where the null assumptions (e.g., that mating is not
| conditioned on the trait being estimated) may not be valid[1].
| That is on top of the issues that we usually face for other
| phenotypes (e.g., more routine population stratification due to
| geographic history).
|
| (B) The authors did not describe the (genetic) ancestral
| background of the children being studied. Current techniques are
| biased across ancestries, for most traits, when using polygenic
| scores[2]. Certainly adjusting for 20PCs in the final model, as
| the authors seemingly did, would not be expected to make the
| scores comparable unless all of the children are from a close
| ancestral group.
|
| With these sources of stratification, the polygenic score
| represents more (and less) than the trait that you're hoping it
| estimates; it also encodes population stratification.
|
| As such, I hardly think this study can be interpreted.
|
| 1 = https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28294-9
|
| 2 = https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6563838/
| aaron695 wrote:
| christophilus wrote:
| I've tried to encourage my wife to choose video games over
| Disney+ when she needs to drop the kids in front of something,
| but she still has a strong resistance to the idea that games are
| better.
|
| To me, it's pretty obvious. The kids problem solve when gaming,
| and are obviously engaged. When watching TV, they look like
| zombies.
|
| I think my wife's biggest hang up with games is that she was
| always told that they rot your brain. Also, our kids talk about
| games, but never about TV which she interprets as games being
| more addictive. I interpret it as games being more interesting
| and engaging.
| mariocesar wrote:
| Games and Watching Videos are two different dopamine rewards
| systems, but both are still dopamine rewards systems. I
| encourage my kid for games more than watching youtube or doing
| anything less challenging. However, I still worry about when
| the stubbornness of leaving the games appear.
|
| One rule I made to myself is simply don't encourage anything
| just for dopamine rewards. I try to mix things with effort,
| contemplation, or interaction. Doing something like this
| specific rule: No more than 1h playing Minecraft alone. If you
| want to keep playing, ask Dad, Mom, or your cousins to play
| together; the same for Watching videos.
| trelane wrote:
| Games are designed to be addictive, so restraint is a good
| option. So is television, though, so limiting both is a good
| policy. I would guess that games' interactivity and
| personalization lead to much more opportunities for deeper
| addiction, though (see e.g loot boxes.)
| throwoutway wrote:
| Are old games designed to be addictive? The original NES and
| Sega games? Like Mario Bros, etc? I think more recent games
| added the addictive components
| anthonypasq wrote:
| whats the difference between fun and addictive?
| bena wrote:
| They may not be as refined, or they may not have been
| mistaken at what qualities were addictive, but they were
| designed to be addictive.
|
| Of course, the incentives were also a little different. Old
| arcade, for example, games wanted you to drop in more
| quarters. So they had to find ways to make you lose. But
| not just lose, lose when you're just close enough to the
| next level.
| moduspol wrote:
| Old games were designed similarly to arcade games, where
| the "true" goal was to get you to keep inserting coins.
| Then there was kind of a slow transition away from that,
| but they still relied heavily on the player spending a lot
| of time replaying prior levels to get to the harder (final)
| ones due to the limited amount of content.
|
| IMO it was addictive, but only to certain personality
| types. Mine is definitely one of them. Others would see a
| difficulty spike and/or the amount of re-treading they need
| to do to make progress as a deterrent.
|
| Recent games are more addictive in a way that appeals more
| widely.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| Id disagree that console games were the same as arcade.
| Arcade often had gimmicks that _required_ more quarters,
| whereas console encouraged mastery (e.g. learning boss
| patterns, level layouts, etc). Very few console games
| would need a game genie to beat, but many arcade games
| are near impossible with a single quarter.
|
| In reality for certain personalities (myself included)
| that focus on mastery is actually the addictive bit, and
| I think its a productive addiction all things considered.
| Im not addicted to the mind-numbing aspect of playing,
| I'm addicted to the huge amount of knowledge I need to
| gain in order to succeed. Its the same reason I was drawn
| to DOTA and Magic later in life.
| moduspol wrote:
| A single quarter? Perhaps, though every arcade had a few
| wizards that, through mastery of the game and its
| mechanics, could play for much longer on much less money.
| I couldn't tell you how many were literally impossible on
| a single play, though I don't see the distinction as
| particularly important. In both cases, the idea is
| clearly to have the player continuously retrying, getting
| more and more skilled, and going further and further.
| They both absolutely encouraged mastery.
| Peku wrote:
| I don't think they were intentionally, but some people can
| get addicted.
|
| One more level
|
| Just after this boss
|
| I think single player games now are just as addictive as
| they were then. Especially when you look at indie games
| (Shovel Knight, Death's Door etc).
|
| The moment interaction with other players happens is when I
| feel a higher bump in addiction can happen. Loot boxes,
| seeing a cool skin etc.
| Mandelmus wrote:
| >Games are designed to be addictive
|
| It depends strongly on kind of game, and especially on the
| business model involved. Gacha games, free-to-play, and
| similar models are very much optimised around addictiveness.
| Personally I've found that story-based _finite_ games, i.e.
| the ones you play through and then you 've experienced it,
| are much better in those respects. Unfortunately those seem
| to become much more rare these days.
| thr0wawayf00 wrote:
| > i.e. the ones you play through and then you've
| experienced it, are much better in those respects.
|
| This has not been my experience at all. It's very easy for
| me to play a few rounds of rocket league and keep my daily
| game time to under an hour. When I play stuff like Zelda
| BOTW though, I have to use the parental controls on myself
| or else I'll spend half of my day on it.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| Short-term addictive, long-term harmless. Like
| traditional media.
| Peku wrote:
| I think BOTW, while it has a beginning and ending, is
| much more open than some other games where you're on a
| structured path.
|
| However I think it speaks that everyone has a different
| approach and solution to how they play games. It then
| becomes interesting to see what they play and how they
| limit their self.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| In my observation, the platform matters. The iPad has a
| noticeable negative impact on my kids mood in ~15
| minutes, and I've observed similar behavior with other
| tablets and other kids.
|
| The PlayStation doesn't seem to do that, although my son
| gets in trouble more often when it's time to end because
| there is a higher level of effort to get out. But it
| doesn't seem to zombify him.
| usrn wrote:
| Some games are addictive and some television is garbage. You
| have to be picky with both. Older Disney films had some great
| music, animation, and morals. Good video games make you think
| or build reflexes.
|
| If I had a kid they'd have a laptop running Linux with all
| the open source games (and some of the older Nintendo ones on
| emulators) and probably a collection of older films on DVD.
| christophilus wrote:
| Yeah. We only let them play offline games that aren't gotcha.
| The current playlist is Journey, Zelda, Mario, Tunic, Death's
| Door.
| loudmax wrote:
| Limiting both is a good policy, but understanding the
| different games is also an important aspect here. When my
| kids were in elementary school I encouraged them to play
| Minecraft and I played with them. I didn't prevent them from
| playing Clash of Clans because so many of their friends were
| playing, but I made sure they understood how incentives were
| structured and how the game was designed around that.
|
| That was ten years ago, and I still don't know if I struck
| the right balance. Parenting is hard. If you have young kids
| today it's a good idea to understand what games are popular
| and what their business models are.
| lemmiwinks wrote:
| Why are you trying to fight over what is the best for your
| kids?
|
| Both have obvious benefits: Grimm Brothers tales are still
| culturally relevant for a reason, even if you can probably find
| useless brain fodder on Disney+; and video games can totally
| teach some stuff to your kids.
|
| Just let them choose what they want I guess?
| SnowHill9902 wrote:
| Why not neither?
| christophilus wrote:
| I don't know about you, but sometimes it's really nice to
| distract the kids while you relax.
| [deleted]
| NateEag wrote:
| Forget relaxing - sometimes it's nice to distract the kids
| so I can, say, cook dinner without them literally hanging
| off my legs.
| objektif wrote:
| I can't even go to the bathroom in peace. How do you guys
| manage time for yourself??
| JamesSwift wrote:
| Easy, you dont!
|
| - Parent of a 2,4,6, and 8 year old
| loudmax wrote:
| Hang in there. Your kids will require less supervision as
| they grow older. But also the stakes are higher as the
| potential for emotional turmoil and property damage
| increase.
| NateEag wrote:
| I mostly don't.
|
| I get a few hours after they're in bed and before I go to
| bed in which to cram cleanup, catching up with my wife,
| and other bits of essential life maintenance.
|
| It does get easier as they age. Our youngest is three, so
| I have a while before the "hanging off my legs" phase is
| done, but I can remember the era of newborns, when I
| could be interrupted at any moment, and I couldn't count
| on an entire hour to myself at any point during the day
| or night.
|
| (FWIW, a big part of making this work is shifting your
| mindset to appreciate the little things and recognize how
| precious they actually are. At this point I cherish being
| woken up by a wailing toddler and rocking her back to
| sleep, because I know I won't get many more moments in my
| life when she's a tiny little bundle snuggled up and cozy
| against my chest, and it's truly magical when I manage
| not to be hung up on anger over being woken up at 3 AM.)
| fullstop wrote:
| You have about 1,000 weekends with your kids before they
| are legally adults. My children are mostly grown up now
| (18 and 14) and, despite the sleepless nights, I miss
| having them fall asleep in my arms and their absolute
| wonder of the world as infants and toddlers.
|
| It's all over far too soon. Make the most of it!
| erfgh wrote:
| Why can't the kids play among themselves? I have two little
| daughters, ages 3 and 5 and I've never had to drop them in
| front of something. If I have time to play with them I do
| (which is most days) but when I don't have time or I'm very
| tired or I need to do something else I tell them to play
| among themselves.
| loudmax wrote:
| That's great. Keep doing this as much as you can. Not
| everyone has the luxury of being able to spend much time
| with their kids, so if you do, don't squander the
| opportunity.
|
| It's going to be harder to keep these boundaries as your
| daughters grow older and their natural personalities
| develop. They'll likely take interest in whatever their
| friends and social peers are doing, and the two of them
| may go off in wildly different directions. Stay engaged
| and be ready to adjust your parenting techniques as the
| girls grow older.
| fullstop wrote:
| Telling them to go play has diminishing returns as they
| get older.
|
| My kids are 18 and 14, and I've done my best to encourage
| creating things instead of consuming things.. but
| sometimes they need some down-time, and so do I.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| Nothing is better than the 10% of the time that siblings
| get along. The problem is that 90% of the time they
| actually are fighting with each other and its way more
| frustrating to deal with as you repeat the same exact
| arguments you've made every single day for the past 2
| years.
| the_af wrote:
| What if you only have one child?
| svnt wrote:
| Then congratulations you already know how to create his
| proposed solution.
| the_af wrote:
| Haha.
|
| But seriously, additional children come with their own
| pros and cons. Plus, of course, there's the thing about
| _wanting_ more than one child.
| the_only_law wrote:
| The places I've seen people plop devices in front of
| their kids has mostly been places you'd prefer it if kids
| weren't running around.
| bennyp101 wrote:
| I've found that doing that just makes it worse - they
| both have very strong personalities, so it ends up in war
| rather than letting me cook for 10 mins!
| bennyp101 wrote:
| Sometimes my kids want to relax too.
|
| They spend a decent amount of the week doing after school
| clubs/sports - so sometimes they fancy an hour of playing
| Mariokart or wii sports or something - I prefer that because
| then we can join in as well.
|
| (Otherwise they love watching Ninjago - which tbf I don't
| mind that much!)
| em500 wrote:
| > To me, it's pretty obvious. The kids problem solve when
| gaming, and are obviously engaged. When watching TV, they look
| like zombies.
|
| Are you not just seeing what you want to see? Maybe from your
| wife's perspective, the kids are carefully to observing and
| learning a wide range of human emotions, social dynamics, new
| idioms and music from Disney+, whereas in their games they're
| learning a few tricks that they repeat ad nauseam to get some
| trivial rewards from their digital Skinner boxes?
| ip26 wrote:
| Amen, my preschooler got a lot out of watching (quality)
| shows, learning about conflict resolution, expressing &
| communicating, and so on. Learning to relate with complex
| emotions that characters were experiencing was a big
| cognitive milestone.
| tiahura wrote:
| I agree. My 4 year old loves Fortnite.
|
| Reasoning through combat strategy, even in the age-
| inappropriate context of gun battles, exercises higher level
| thinking that clearly remains off when watching Ryan's world.
|
| To be fair, the article does say watching videos had a positive
| effect as well.
| asdff wrote:
| The people handwringing about combat games have obviously
| never played them and their complaints reflect that. War is
| brutal, violence is terrible, and when you hear that there is
| some army game where you shoot people, you naturally think
| thats terrible, and I don't blame them for thinking that from
| their gut. But its nothing like the experience of being in an
| army and shooting people and dealing with that of course. You
| are playing capture the flag or something like that; team
| deathmatches are kinda like a basketball game racking up as
| much points as you can in the time period. No one actually
| dies, they respawn in five seconds and try again. Its
| basically just a game of electronic dodge ball or tag, or
| even basketball if you squint. campaign shooting games feel
| like those carnival shooting games with the flashing lights
| and point values for different targets, especially games like
| call of duty where its just march through the campaign and
| rack up points for different levels.
|
| That's all they really are when you remove the theming and
| look at the actual mechanics of the game. the mechanics
| aren't screwed up or morally bankrupt or anything like that,
| they are the same games we've always played of racking up
| points or moving an object across a playing field or
| something like that. It's probably the reason why the fps
| formula is so successful, it plays almost like the games we
| already like kinda like basketball (with deathmatch) or
| football/soccer (with capture the flag or assault style
| gamemodes moving some object offensively or defending as a
| team).
| mrtksn wrote:
| I recall, when I was a kid the games were extremely addictive
| for me and I couldn't just quit playing unless I absolutely
| have to. I had emotionally very similar experience when
| quitting smoking, the feeling that if I just can have this one
| more smoke I will be satisfied and live happily thereafter is
| very similar to the desire to have one more round.
|
| So I wouldn't call games "not addictive". If anything, watching
| something on TV is often less adictive because you are told a
| story with its introduction, climax and ending(up until the
| Netflix ruined everything with it's endless shovelware).
|
| IMHO, the key is moderation. A day with diverse activities is a
| day well spent, kid or adult.
|
| Today, if I play Sid Meier's Civilization, a day or two would
| be completely gone and I will be disconnected from the reality
| and I will need to re-adapt to the real world. I suspect,
| excessive gamings primary risk is developing unhealthy
| understanding of the world in the area where the game simulates
| the real thing.
| luckydata wrote:
| that just sounds like ADHD. the ADHD brain craves stimulation
| and games are a pretty easy place to find it. Modern life is
| kinda boring, especially if you grow up in a US suburb.
| bamboozled wrote:
| What about neither TV or computer games and doing things
| outside like fishing, hiking, scouts, riding bikes etc ?
| asdff wrote:
| I think there is something to do with agency. Look at the
| video games kids are playing, like minecraft. They are
| building homes, changing the environment to suit their
| needs, stockpiling resources, linearly levelling up, etc.
| It's a lot more enticing than being told what to do every
| day in scouts or marching up that same tired old trail you
| are already bored to death of, or seeing your skills
| plateau in sports. Plus there aren't even many adults doing
| these things anymore to pass on to their kids. Hard to
| become a teenage fisherman when you don't have a family
| member to teach you to tie a lure or what bait is good for
| where, or have a spare rod you can use, and have no money
| to buy a rod since you aren't working yet, and have no way
| to even get to somewhere to get a rod or even get to a
| fishing hole without your parents making time to shuttle
| you about. Hard to play catch when your dad doesn't own a
| glove to toss with you.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| This always gets discussed whenever gaming or screen time
| comes up.
|
| Kids below a certain age can't do this stuff on their own
| anymore in a lot of places. Your neighbors will call child
| protective services on you.
|
| This leads to kids being raised indoors, or only in
| enrolled events, because parents can't spend all of their
| time outdoors with the kid.
|
| Then when the kid is old enough to be outdoors on their own
| without supervision they don't want to be because they have
| been raised indoors.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| So let them call? Letting your children roam unattended
| is not child abuse, especially if the child is old enough
| to reasonably keep themselves safe.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I lived in a state that actually does consider it
| neglect, legally, if you let your <10 year old child roam
| alone.
|
| Check your local laws, because having child protective
| services called on you is not a good time.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Explain that to the cops and Child Protective Services.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I absolutely would. It sickens me how our society seems
| hellbent on making sure everyone is anxious and fearful
| of everything, all of the time. If people do not stand up
| and push back, this sort of government paternalism just
| keeps intruding. I'd fight any charges against me to the
| supreme court if necessary, and I'd hope they'd set a
| precedent.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > Letting your children roam unattended is not child
| abuse
|
| I'd check your local laws around this. I know people in
| my city have been investigated for Child Neglect for
| letting their 7 year old walk to the mailbox alone.
|
| Yes, that's how insane we've become about kids.
| psiops wrote:
| Way too dangerous! Injury, skin cancer, pedophiles, drugs,
| terrorists, need I go on?
| hackernewds wrote:
| What about coyotes running around drawing tunnels! Take
| caution!
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| It's sad I can't tell if this is sarcasm
| mrtksn wrote:
| Sure but not everyone has access to these all the time.
| When I was a kid, I used to live in a smaller town on the
| river Danube and I did my fair share of biking and fishing.
| Those are definitely great activities that everyone who can
| should do but watching TV and playing video games is also
| nice. The more options you have the luckier you are.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Disagree with this categorization, unless one lives in
| Chernobyl there is always something to do outdoors solo
| or with a party. Using your body as it was designed to be
| physically active is naturally good for the body and the
| mind
| mrtksn wrote:
| Come to Istanbul or any 5M-10M+ city. Anything outdoors
| is hours away for the most, so it's a special occasion
| and cannot be a daily activity. Those who have access,
| they use it. Most don't have access.
|
| Europe tends to be on the better side of the things
| because the cities are not gargantuous. Amerikan suburbs
| thanks to the early driving age probably situated fine
| too but I hear that helicopter parenting is widespread in
| the USA, so maybe they have the opportunity but don't use
| it?
| galoisgirl wrote:
| Are you asking seriously? How about bad weather, or that
| part of the day when you've already done those things?
| bamboozled wrote:
| I remember riding my bike through the rain and hitting
| puddles full speed and doing skids on wet grass and
| absolutely loving it. I also remember we used to go catch
| and observe certain insects and frogs that would only be
| seen in the rain.
|
| I'm not saying you're wrong. Just bad weather can be an
| opportunity for children too. What about doing art? Lego
| ? Even cooking something fun?
|
| Recently my friends kids were going mad because they
| wanted to jump on the trampoline but she wouldn't let
| them because it was raining. I really couldn't see the
| logic behind it. I'd just let them go for it.
|
| If they've been outside doing stuff all day I can't see
| how they'd need more stimulus, maybe a bit of TV /
| relaxation is good for them ?
|
| The comments seemed framed as if it was TV or games,
| that's all.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Agree with you in general, but trampolines are pretty
| dangerous regardless of the weather and maybe not a great
| unsupervised activity.
| [deleted]
| phonescreen_man wrote:
| Trampoline in the rain is a lot of fun, We could say
| trampoline in the rain is dangerous but they pretty
| dangerous any weather conditions.
| sweetbitter wrote:
| For some of us 'bad weather' is good weather, and vice
| versa. Especially so for children- who doesn't like the
| uplifting feeling brought by rain?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Freezing rain isn't uplifting.
| [deleted]
| mderazon wrote:
| Today they're built to be even more addictive to push for
| monetization by ads / in app purchases
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| I.e. the problem isn't video games, it's ads, greed, and
| lazy parenting.
|
| It's not that hard to find good games. Even our moms
| managed to know Nintendo. We were annoyed that every video
| game was a "Nintendo" to our moms, but thinking back on it,
| that meant mom walks into game store and asks for Nintendo,
| can't go wrong there.
| deepGem wrote:
| Borrowing shovelware. This is gold Jerry!
| cestith wrote:
| That's a somewhat popular term already. It was especially
| useful in the days of shareware/careware and close-source
| freeware distributed largely on CD or dial-up BBSes. You'd
| buy a CD with 650 MB of content, and depending on the
| publisher it might be 1/4 or 9/10 just crap.
| snarfy wrote:
| My addiction to video games led me to software development.
|
| Addiction is a peculiar thing. Anything that makes you feel
| good is inherently addictive. People get addicted to biting
| their fingernails.
|
| Is it bad to be addicted to reading? Or working out? If
| gaming is making your synapses fire faster, if for nothing
| more than to increase your IQ score (which is based on
| speed), is it a bad addiction?
|
| Addiction is a compulsion to do something you would not chose
| to do. It really depends on that something whether it's good
| or bad for you. Addiction is something everyone will have to
| deal with at some point in life. Learning it from gaming is
| probably not a bad thing.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| > IQ score (which is based on speed)
|
| IQ tests are _not_ based on speed?
| slothtrop wrote:
| Right. I would begin to see addiction to gaming as a
| potential problem at the threshold where it interferes with
| other aspects of one's life. For as much as I loved gaming
| as a kid, it never posed a problem. I still played sports
| and finished schoolwork. Probably it overtook some
| potential social time, but I also lived in a pretty
| isolated area, so w/e.
|
| It's funny, because people put a premium on creativity and
| inspiration for their children, but that level of
| engagement is indistinguishable from that of addiction to
| gaming. Even without gaming in the picture, it's not
| uncommon for parents to get leery at the prospect of their
| kids spending all their time on books or a musical
| instrument.
|
| They want to see a balance according to their preferred
| level of allocation to every activity, but still see
| savant-like engagement. It's absurd. Geniuses are geniuses
| because they go into the deep end. You can make the case
| that it might be possible to manipulate the environment to
| the extent that obsessive engagement will likely follow one
| path over another, but ultimately it's not up to you, and I
| don't see one as objectively more important than another.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Not every addict makes something out of their addiction but
| every addict gives a lot of their potential away, often
| their health too.
|
| A lot of people become software developers without being
| addicted to games. Great software developers bring things
| on the table that they learned doing stuff that is not
| software development, gaming is one of those but people are
| capable to do so many great things.
|
| Nerding over something is cool but when it becomes an
| addiction, it's dangerous.
| erfgh wrote:
| The problem is that games are very addictive so in extreme
| cases they can destroy much more thoroughly than TV can.
| mcv wrote:
| Tell that to my son's anime addiction. It's worse than his
| gaming addiction ever was.
| npteljes wrote:
| How old is he and what is he watching? (if you don't mind)
| mcv wrote:
| 13, and tons of anime. Naruto, Sword Art Online, One
| Piece, Full Metal Alchemist, and now Seven Deadly Sins.
| largbae wrote:
| This article seems to be saying the opposite, can you share
| any references?
| svnt wrote:
| Just my memory but eg gaming cafes have resulted in
| numerous deaths from exhaustion (World of Warcraft) while I
| cannot recall the same ever happening at a soap opera cafe
| (does this exist?) or sports bar.
| brightball wrote:
| Nintendo games on a console that don't need an internet
| connection or include advertising. These have been the best
| combination for our kids where they have fun but aren't
| addicted and can easily put them down.
|
| The moment games include advertising they optimize for all the
| wrong things. I won't let my kids get free games on iPad, etc
| for this reason alone.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| Not a parent but if I was, I would absolutely get them a
| Switch over an Xbox/PS5. While games can be hit and miss on
| XB/PS, Nintendo seems to really have their shit together when
| it comes to releasing consistent high quality games with no
| shenanigans.
|
| The downside is the games never go on sale so you aren't
| getting any deals but the upside is that you can give your
| kid just about any Nintendo game and not worry about
| shenanigans around loot boxes, ads and other crap they stick
| inside games now.
| Peku wrote:
| Agreed. The constant dopamine hit with sounds and flashing
| colors set a horrible precedence. It's bad enough television
| advertisements hit all the right spots, now video games are a
| minefield their selves.
| isolli wrote:
| My daughter is transitioning from children's games to pre-
| teen games, and I can't find a single acceptable game on the
| tablet.
|
| Until now I hadn't realized how sensible Apple's rules around
| children's games had been, notably: no internet connection
| required, and no ads.
| shmde wrote:
| > single acceptable game on the tablet. ( iPad )
|
| I was trying to game on my brother's iPad (M1 chip) and
| realised that iPad even though powerful are absolutely
| trash when it comes to the free video gaming market. Filled
| to the brim with advertisement, slot machines, lootboxes,
| paid powerups to levelup. Only acceptable games were paid
| like Minecraft, terraria, Limbo etc. But they cost too much
| on the iPad. I won't advise strangers on how to raise kids
| but a steam deck ( if its available in your region ) with
| parental settings on has a huge list of games which go on
| sale very often or Nintendo switch would be a great option
| for kids to play.
|
| I tried so hard to find good free games on my brother's
| ipad but I realised, thats not what an iPad is good for.
| Its Excellent for video content consumption, reading,
| surfing web but not gaming period. I remember a time when
| there were lots of beautiful video games on my nexus tablet
| but the switch to freemium model has completely turned the
| mobile market into a dumpster fire.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Regardless of ads or Internet connectivity requirements, I
| can find hardly any acceptable games on phones/tablets, in
| mobile app stores. If you want to play games on the go, I
| suggest a proper videogame console, like a 3DS.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Seems good. But in theory, also monopolistic behavior.
| Through the same logic, they could mandate a certain
| political leaning as well
| whatusername wrote:
| Have a look at Apple Arcade.
| foobarian wrote:
| Plug for Stavros K's site: No-bullshit games!
| https://nobsgames.stavros.io/
| idontwantthis wrote:
| Some games are incredibly addictive though. Roblox for example
| can completely take over a kid's mind.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Yeah surprised no one else here mentioned Roblox, they seem
| to be flying under a lot of people's radar but they're a
| completely terrible company.
| legitster wrote:
| I definitely feel games have made me more intelligent, but at
| the cost of my attention span and work ethic.
| svnt wrote:
| Also can we talk about the hoarding instinct that develops? I
| always max out my inventory, ie my basement. Just in case I
| need to craft or sell something, which I almost never do.
| sandos wrote:
| As others have said, highly dependent on the game. My kids
| playing minecraft together on the TV? I have no trouble at all
| with that. Them sitting, like zombies, playing shovelware
| android games? I am likely to shout at them to go out and play
| when that happens.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Minecraft together on the TV? Single screen co-op mode? What
| platform is that on?
| odessacubbage wrote:
| games are such a personal experience that is simply much easier
| to talk about them at length. i also think that even if you are
| very blackpilled about the dark patterns at work in many modern
| games, it is still very easy to appreciate the value of
| something like the logical journey of the zoombinis
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eePTsHpp1eI, sam and max: hit
| the road https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yWnnk9fyJE, or the
| zachtronics games
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o99hbZy8CuE&list=PLdg60-Uktz...
|
| in what may be somewhat more of a hot take, i would argue that
| there is an incredible amount of educational value to be found
| even within the most meritless garbage games as they are still
| fundamentally systems to be dissected and solved and learning
| the maximally efficient way to do something worthless is a
| skillset that transfers quite handily to the valuable things in
| life. also unlike tv, games have a lot of potential to be
| immensely collaborative [or competitive] and social. some of my
| fondest childhood memories were going to my friend's house and
| co-oping diablo with one of us controlling the mouse and the
| other controlling the keyboard. there are many far less ad-hoc
| ways for kids to share games and even singleplayer is a highly
| rewarding shared experience.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > I think my wife's biggest hang up with games is that she was
| always told that they rot your brain
|
| People used to say that about TV too.
|
| I always feel a bit personally attacked when people claim
| videogames are just bad for you full stop. I'm really
| passionate about games, I grew up playing NES, and just never
| stopped. I almost always have a new game waiting to play for
| when I'm finished with what I'm currently playing.
|
| Sample size of one, but I don't think my brain is rotten. I
| have a pretty successful career in software, I have a close
| partner, I have a social life. I have other hobbies too, but
| it's my main one.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I know my gaming takes time away from other
| stuff I could/should be doing, like building side projects or
| getting enough exercise. But TV does the same, so in a choice
| between the two I pick gaming any day
| watwut wrote:
| Very very honestly, my experience with people who watch Disney
| too much is much much better then with excessive gamers. Only
| one of those groups yells, swears and is vent their anger at
| people around when they loose the match.
|
| For the record, my kids do play games, I never did complete
| ban. But, the gaming does not seem to be superior, does not
| zombify them less nor leads to more inventive play after
| session finished.
| slothtrop wrote:
| You might as well lambast sports on the conceit that kids
| might swear and get angry for losing.
| svnt wrote:
| Not the same. Sports have refs, coaches, and parents. Yes
| it is possible to get a bad outcome in sports but there is
| no container in competitive online gaming. It is Lord of
| the Flies by design.
| slothtrop wrote:
| > no container in competitive online gaming.
|
| Actually in competitive scenarios, e.g. tournaments,
| there are. Add to the fact ranked play is generally
| better behaved.
|
| Speaking of parents, from my experience playing hockey,
| they are usually the worst offenders. Yelling at not just
| the refs, but the kids too. I've seen intimidation in
| more than one occasion.
|
| At any rate, concern over the prospect of kids being
| "angry" is a weak take.
| watwut wrote:
| I am not concerned over them feeling angry. I am
| concerned over yelling, swearing, mistreating younger
| siblings or other family member after playing. If that
| does not happen, fine. But when it does happen, younger
| sibling or grandma are more entitled to not be target of
| aggression then someone else of gaming.
|
| The exactly same way as with adults - whether they feel
| angry does not matter. Whether they demand everyone else
| to tip toe around them after/during playing, whether they
| loudly swear or hit the table with fists does matter.
| slothtrop wrote:
| > I am concerned over yelling, swearing, mistreating
| younger siblings or other family member after playing.
|
| This is happening at home, presumably where it's the
| parent's place to discipline.
| watwut wrote:
| So? Yes, parent has power to punish the kid or yell at
| it. That power does not make parent happy about
| situation.
|
| If observed more then once, the parent will conclude
| exactly what you see in this thread.
| slothtrop wrote:
| So it's irrational to signal out gaming on the whole.
| svnt wrote:
| You think these eight-year-olds are playing video games
| in tournaments?
|
| As someone who coaches elementary school sports players,
| I can tell instantly the ones who play online competitive
| video games and those who don't. Sample size is maybe
| only ~40 kids, but I'm convinced.
|
| Maybe it improves behavior later but the ones who do are
| initially the worst sports I've seen in my life. I have
| to spend time before every practice and game reiterating
| stuff like "it's not ok to pretend to teabag the other
| players".
|
| I'll agree parents have changed a lot since I played. I
| think the poor example they set influences this
| generation of parents.
| asdff wrote:
| Gamers have their clans too and people can get kicked
| from that. You can get mic banned or worse too for being
| too flagrant. You can lose real money if microsoft bans
| you and you had a bunch of digital games for example. In
| sports its not like all the interactions are going to be
| moderated either. Sports are pretty notorious for talking
| crap about the opposition, but it can get much worse than
| just talking crap. I heard a lot of terrible racist
| things too during my time in high school sports just 10
| years ago, from players and parents. There are a lot of
| nasty people out there and they perpetuate those views on
| their kids.
| watwut wrote:
| If I had seen people act the same way in sport or other
| activity I would. Which actually also happen in real life,
| when some club or sport becomes source of bad peer
| pressure, many parents wont allow kids to participate.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| Because competitive games are a cesspit. Even games with
| highly competitive PvE aspects have this problem (MMOs, most
| notably). Ironically, those are also the games which allow
| for the highest time investment for the common player. Mostly
| because everyone is online and anonymous, which subsequently
| keeps their filters from activating.
|
| By comparison, I've never had a local game of Mario Party
| remotely as heated as the average experience in a
| competitive, online game. Not even after Chance Time did the
| unthinkable.
|
| The downsides of Disney are a little more subtle, too.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| The one thing everyone who plays a competitive game has in
| common is wishing they played less. Part of it is
| definitely self selection, people who aren't competitive
| never start playing these games
| sidcool wrote:
| It's a huge report. TL;DR anyone?
| noufalibrahim wrote:
| Can't say whether they're addictive or not. My personal opinion
| based on my own history is that the reward system in games
| (levelling up etc.) made me feel like I'd achieved something
| while in reality, I just entertained myself.
|
| Long hours of gaming and imbibing this translated over into the
| real world where it became harder for me to put in effort because
| I had to see rewards accumulate as a score somewhere and that
| wasn't happening.
| pcurve wrote:
| Looking back in my childhood, I clearly exhibited sign of
| addition.
|
| Walking into arcade filled me with joy. Trying to decide which
| game to play. Imagining if I'm going to finally beat Wonderboy
| on one coin. Playing Kabal with my brother.
|
| I was a good kid, but I would STEAL money from Mom's purse
| occasionally to satisfy my arcade craving.
|
| Wow!
| objektif wrote:
| What are some good apps and games to have your 3-5 yo play? I can
| definitely see TV making them more and more mentally inactive.
| istorical wrote:
| maybe just tell them leetcode is a video game.
| conqueso wrote:
| I am very out of touch w/ the current world of gaming, but in
| my past experience Nintendo has always been the 'healthiest'
| platform. The games are full of beautiful animation and great
| music - truly works of art, and aren't violent and/or trying to
| get them to buy things.
| fassssst wrote:
| GarageBand
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-17 23:01 UTC)