[HN Gopher] Games' affordance of childlike wonder and reduced bu...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Games' affordance of childlike wonder and reduced burnout risk in
       young adults
        
       Author : azalemeth
       Score  : 129 points
       Date   : 2025-12-24 13:43 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (games.jmir.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (games.jmir.org)
        
       | christophilus wrote:
       | I'm skeptical of most studies, these days, but I'll gladly
       | reference this one as a justification for slacking off.
        
         | peacebeard wrote:
         | Some studies are better than others, and headlines / secondary
         | sources don't do enough to comment on this, but looking the
         | source and having an opinion about their methodology, sample
         | size, etc. can help a lot.
        
       | sktrdie wrote:
       | What about Call of Duty?
        
         | fwipsy wrote:
         | For me at least, competitive shooters are addictive, put me in
         | an overstimulated reward-driven mindset that seeps into every
         | aspect of life, affecting attention span, enjoyment, mood, and
         | sleep. If there's childlike wonder in there it's not worth it
         | for me.
         | 
         | Quit planetside 2 in high school after about 1000 hours.
        
           | wiseowise wrote:
           | Preach. It might start innocent, but give it a couple of days
           | and I turn into a maniac.
        
         | Aldipower wrote:
         | Nice play of words. :-)
        
       | jebarker wrote:
       | I just bought a Switch 2 having not really played games much for
       | decades. I'm finding that occasional breaks for "mindless" gaming
       | noticeably relaxes my always on, work obsessed brain. The
       | challenge is overcoming the feeling that it's an unproductive use
       | of time and I should be reading, coding, exercising etc. But in
       | balance I think it's just the break my mind needs right now.
        
         | fwipsy wrote:
         | I do this too, but it bothers me a little bit to think that my
         | mind needs to be doing something all the time in order to feel
         | relaxed. Video games are fun but the ones I play are not really
         | that restful; ditto web browsing. I've been exploring breathing
         | exercises, mindfulness, journaling, just listening to music by
         | itself more but it's tough not to just get bored with it. Maybe
         | that means I need to do it more.
        
           | jebarker wrote:
           | FWIW I've had a meditation practice for over a decade and do
           | use things like box breathing and journaling too. But
           | sometimes my brain just needs stimulation and this has never
           | gone away. I've learned that the thing I need to avoid is
           | engaging with my monkey mind in spiraling thoughts, so video
           | games are ideal as they require enough attention to prevent
           | me getting distracted but I can also zone out and just play.
        
         | goalieca wrote:
         | People can be snobby about reading to the point of being too
         | judgmental. Don't feel guilty about your free time. There isn't
         | a hierarchy of pastimes with one better than another.
        
           | dugidugout wrote:
           | I hear this more and more as I age. This isn't what original
           | comment was doing, but when discussing recent readings or
           | hobbies with my friends or community I often must prod for
           | the actual object of their pass-time or sit through a winded
           | preface devaluing their enjoyment. It saddens me that people
           | can so easily betray their own experiences.
        
         | hombre_fatal wrote:
         | I find that the feeling for me isn't about unproductive time
         | but rather unfulfilling time.
         | 
         | A game can be fulfilling in some ways. Maybe it's a really good
         | game. Or it's a way to socialize with friends or family.
         | 
         | It can also turn into a compulsion. That's why I avoid solo
         | queue competitive multiplayer gaming. I try to only queue up
         | with a friend, else I should go do something else.
        
       | dqv wrote:
       | Tangential. I spent _a long time_ thinking that entertaining
       | myself was a waste of time and that I should just focus on
       | "productivity". This was dumb. Reading fiction, playing games,
       | leisure, etc. is necessary. Not only as a way to relax, but also
       | to be imaginative and creative, which are necessary components to
       | being productive.
       | 
       | For a long time, social media slop kind of filled the void of
       | leisure, but didn't really feed into my imagination. It's wild
       | how I can read through a few pages of a novel and spend the next
       | hour just thinking about the scene coming into existence, the
       | real-world references that play into the story, and the
       | implications of the events that are unfolding. In that same time,
       | had I been on social media, I would have seen like 100 short
       | clips that barely feed the imagination.
       | 
       | I really enjoy "wasting time" thinking about and reading stories
       | or playing games or whatever else, it really adds dimension to my
       | life. I know that wise people have probably brought this up
       | before (like I'm pretty sure a YouTube video has been recommended
       | to me with the title of "I am BEGGING you to read fiction", which
       | I did not watch, but took as a sort of "please come back from
       | your coma, we miss you" message), but it just didn't click for me
       | until I really felt creatively empty.
        
       | putzdown wrote:
       | This is an area that could really use good research, but this
       | study looks badly designed and completely dismissible. I hope
       | it's true that video game playing has some mental health
       | benefits, and I wouldn't be surprised. You're not going to
       | determine whether it does by asking a bunch of people how they
       | feel about Mario and Yoshi.
        
       | lynguist wrote:
       | There's a certain culture that prefers "efficiency", punishes
       | non-productivity, and every little slack, even enjoyment of life
       | must be "earned". In that culture these video games that are pure
       | playfulness (but it doesn't just have to be video games, it could
       | be poetry, whatever, just something with no productivity!) are
       | the antidote.
       | 
       | I'm happy I wasn't born into this culture. (I've seen and heard
       | absurd, almost comical examples of this from my colleagues, like
       | justifying not replacing a black and white TV in the 1990s...
       | From my point of view they're ascetics, but from their point of
       | view they're normal.)
        
         | wiseowise wrote:
         | A "certain culture" is an euphemism for bad economy, I assume?
        
           | rightbyte wrote:
           | When I was a kid the general setup seemed to be the poorer
           | the kid the more toys and higher weekly allowance it had. To
           | compensate I guess.
           | 
           | Obviously not very poor but relatively poor.
        
           | sublinear wrote:
           | It can also be argued that when a culture seeks escapism it's
           | because things are bad.
           | 
           | In other words, there's no correlation.
        
         | dingi wrote:
         | Precisely. The 'hustle' culture and the fetishization of hyper-
         | efficiency act as a catalyst for a wide range of systemic
         | societal problems. I'm glad that I'm not part of that sphere.
        
         | sublinear wrote:
         | Interesting take. I'm in my 30s and not sure I've ever known
         | that kind of culture, yet I do understand the sentiment against
         | heavy media consumption (which most video games fall under).
         | 
         | Video games, TV, and movies put me in a situation where I must
         | gamble several hours of my time to digest them. That kind of
         | time investment cannot be isolated from the rest of a day.
         | Media has a tendency to set my mood regardless if I liked it.
         | Most fandoms are radioactive as well. I'm pretty sure what I'm
         | saying is the majority opinion, so it shouldn't be a surprise
         | that so many people shrug their shoulders and strongly avoid
         | both that media and its fans. It doesn't help that there are no
         | shortcuts around this either because if honest critics ever
         | existed they definitely don't now.
         | 
         | The result is that many have a very high bar, and even when
         | it's met they still don't want to sink more than about an hour
         | into it at a time. It's less about efficiency and more about
         | having better things to do.
        
       | acbart wrote:
       | It took me a surprisingly long time to find the actual games: -
       | Super Mario Bros Wonder - Yoshi's Crafted World - Yoshi's Woolly
       | World
       | 
       | So relatively modern games. I initially assumed that they were
       | using the original Super Mario Bros game and Yoshi's Island - my
       | millennial bias, I suppose. But I wonder if this result would
       | replicate with a game like Yoshi's Island or Yoshi 64. Older
       | graphics, in different ways. But I suspect that the fanciful
       | aesthetic would still win out.
        
         | bena wrote:
         | Wonder for _reducing_ burnout risk?
         | 
         | I don't know, maybe it's because my experience with Wonder was
         | unique, to a degree.
         | 
         | My autistic stepson has the game. Loves Mario. Will gladly get
         | into any game, whether it is an RPG like the Paper Mario or
         | Mario & Luigi series, platformers like the core Mario games, or
         | the action/adventure Luigi's Mansion. _However_ there are parts
         | and levels he knows he cannot do.
         | 
         | He also loves schedules. Monday is the "free" day, but every
         | other day of the week has a planned activity. He's gotten
         | better at being flexible, but he still likes the regularity.
         | 
         | And that's where I come in. I'm the "hard level" guy. And the
         | last level of Mario Wonder, The Final-Final Test Badge
         | Marathon, was just miserable. Eventually, I had to just tell
         | him that if he wants to play another game, we'll just have to
         | give this one up. The last section where you have to play blind
         | is just too much.
         | 
         | So we moved on to Super Mario 3D World. Eventually, I did beat
         | Champion's Road, but once again, it was just a chore.
         | 
         | I think the burnout reduction mostly comes from the ability to
         | play in general. In my case, these games have become
         | obligations for me.
        
         | crims0n wrote:
         | Yoshi's Island still holds up, and I think it remains a
         | contender for one of the best platformers of all time. Recently
         | replayed with the little ones and they were completely
         | captivated.
        
       | vasco wrote:
       | > Over the course of 3 weeks, exploratory, in-depth interviews
       | were conducted with 41 participants (women: n=19, 46.3%; men:
       | n=21, 51.2%; preferred not to disclose sex: n=1, 2.4%; mean age
       | 22.51, SD 1.52 years). All interviewees were full-time students
       | (confirmed by their student IDs) and had experience playing a
       | Super Mario Bros. or Yoshi game (screening questions by the RAs
       | included the name of the specific Super Mario Bros. or Yoshi
       | games respondents had played and which console they used to play
       | the game, eg, Wii U, Nintendo Switch, or Nintendo Switch 2).
       | Interviews were conducted in a university cafeteria and lasted
       | between 25 and 40 minutes. All interviewees were reassured of the
       | anonymity of their responses and were informed that their
       | participation would help inform academic research. At the end of
       | the interview, each interviewee was given a chance to ask any
       | questions they may have had.
       | 
       | Some tiktok videos have deeper research than this.
        
       | headmelted wrote:
       | The fact this study even exists is a sign of something having
       | gone very wrong IMHO.
       | 
       | The notion of tracking if time spent on _anything_ helps "prevent
       | burnout" speaks volumes to how we view ourselves as consumables.
       | 
       | The whole culture we have emphasises trading working the best
       | years of your life just so you can (maybe) rest for a little
       | while at the end of your life when your health is failing, which
       | has always been really sad to me.
        
         | fwipsy wrote:
         | I agree, but hard work is nothing new. Did the average person
         | throughout history have more leisure than we do? I doubt it.
         | I'm uncertain how to think about burnout in this context. Did
         | they have burnout and were forced to work through it? Were they
         | better at pacing themselves? Maybe the type of work (mental
         | rather than physical labor) or circumstances (working for a
         | corporation) today are more conducive to burnout?
        
           | jetrink wrote:
           | > Did the average person throughout history have more leisure
           | than we do? I doubt it.
           | 
           | Recent anthropological and archaeological research is
           | challenging the traditional view that ancient lives were
           | "nasty, brutish, and short." Instead, it appears that many
           | ancient peoples worked less than eight hours per day and
           | frequently took time off for festivals or to travel long
           | distances to visit friends and family. And unlike today, work
           | usually had a more flexible rhythm where short periods of
           | hard work were separated by long periods of light work and
           | rest.
        
             | dugidugout wrote:
             | Can you provide the specific research you are referring to?
        
               | Aurornis wrote:
               | I don't know what research they saw, but the claim was
               | mainstreamed by the popular book "Sapiens". The author
               | romanticized past life and made claims that life was
               | leisurely until agriculture came along and made us all
               | miserable as we toiled working the soil. Before that we
               | supposedly relaxed all day as our food was easy to catch
               | and we didn't have to build anything because we were
               | always on the move. There are some very obvious problems
               | with that statement that will be easily spotted by anyone
               | who has ever done any hunting or camping.
        
             | Aurornis wrote:
             | > Instead, it appears that many ancient peoples worked less
             | than eight hours per day
             | 
             | This statement is technically correct if you let the word
             | "many" do the heavy lifting and ignore the people doing the
             | work (slaves, etc)
             | 
             | Claiming that average life in the past was easier is just
             | false, though. If it was easier to shelter, feed, and
             | clothe yourself in the past then those methods wouldn't
             | have disappeared. You'd be able to do them now if you
             | wanted to. Easier than before, in fact, because you can
             | walk to the store and buy some wood instead of chopping
             | down trees by hand and letting them dry for a few seasons
             | before building, and so on.
        
             | acheron wrote:
             | This is ridiculous of course. Read Bret Deveraux's recent
             | series about peasant life.
        
           | EGG_CREAM wrote:
           | I don't have any citations, but I don't think that "work" was
           | at all similar to what we do now. Early hominid work would
           | have involved many different tasks throughout the day, such
           | as tracking, hunting, cleaning, gathering, building,
           | repairing, traveling, etc, right? Compare that to "do this
           | one task 8-16 hours in a row," and it does seem like a mode
           | of work we would be particularly ill suited for. Orrrr maybe
           | I'm wrong, I'm using general knowledge and inductive
           | reasoning, so I would not be suprised to learn I'm off base
           | here.
        
           | AndrewKemendo wrote:
           | > Did the average person throughout history have more leisure
           | than we do?
           | 
           | Unambiguously yes. This is well documented and impossible to
           | ignore.
           | 
           | Marshal Sahlins described it best in Stone Age Economics but
           | reading Graeber will get you there or Levi Strauss if you're
           | into the whole structural anthropology thing
        
           | tracker1 wrote:
           | I'm not sure how environmental factors play into this either.
           | As a Gen-Xer, it often feels like the current late teens and
           | early 20-somethings all have a crippling level of "anxiety"
           | over what should be relatively simple human interaction, and
           | this started well before COVID solidified this influence.
           | Does this in general have an outsized effect on burnout?
           | 
           | I've felt true burnout twice in my life, the first time was
           | after several years without any vacation time taken and about
           | 3 months of 60-80 hour weeks. I literally hit a wall and
           | couldn't even open a project in front of the computer, I was
           | in a haze and not safe to even do anything. My brain was
           | like, "nope!" More recently, a couple years ago it's been a
           | larger state of dissolution about my career without a clear
           | alternative so much as something that I would consider a
           | disablement.
        
           | anal_reactor wrote:
           | It's not about leisure time. It's about the meaning of work.
           | In the past, effects of your work were very direct - carry
           | shitload of stone from one place to another together with
           | your cousin, build a house for you and your family. Nowadays
           | it's all very abstract - have a useless Teams meeting with
           | people you don't care about so that you can do press buttons
           | that maybe change some metrics you don't even understand.
           | What was the last time you felt "I'm happy I built this"?
        
           | lbrito wrote:
           | >Did the average person throughout history have more leisure
           | than we do?
           | 
           | Yes. In the middle ages (and presumably in any agrarian
           | society) people would work intensely for a few weeks and have
           | the most of the year free.
        
         | soared wrote:
         | A recent HN thread I cannot seem to find discussed the idea
         | that currently in the US work is the default state, and leisure
         | exists to refuel for work. At other times in history, leisure
         | was the default state and work existed to enable leisure. This
         | context affects everything in life - IE a microwave frozen meal
         | is excellent in the work viewpoint (time value ratio), but if
         | you enjoy cooking it's horrible in the leisure viewpoint.
        
           | Insanity wrote:
           | My girlfriend and I were talking about this the other day. We
           | both have full time jobs and can only cook "real meal" in the
           | weekend now that WFH ended.
           | 
           | It sucks, I enjoy cooking and want to eat at least somewhat
           | health conscious...
        
             | bombcar wrote:
             | Brutal comment because I'm a random Internet AI:
             | 
             | You can adjust what "real meal" means for you so that
             | cooking at home is possible. The hardest part is finding
             | time together if schedules don't line up.
             | 
             | For two weeks write down what you do with your time, and
             | then evaluate it afterwards and decide if it was the best
             | use.
        
               | Insanity wrote:
               | Lol, fair enough, but I think this is a workaround rather
               | than a solution.
        
             | Aurornis wrote:
             | > We both have full time jobs and can only cook "real meal"
             | in the weekend now that WFH ended.
             | 
             | Do you have extra long hours and/or an extreme long (1
             | hour) commute?
             | 
             | It's common in my social circles for parents to work 8-5 or
             | 9-6 and still cook weekday meals that are healthy. With
             | some meal and grocery planning it's not that hard, unless
             | you of course have on of those 90+ minute commutes and a
             | job that keeps you in office until 8PM.
             | 
             | Unless your definition of "real meal" is something more
             | than I'm thinking of, like something that requires hours of
             | prep.
             | 
             | > It sucks, I enjoy cooking and want to eat at least
             | somewhat health conscious...
             | 
             | There are a lot of healthy meal planning (ahead of time
             | prep) or quick and easy recipes out there. It's pretty easy
             | to prepare a healthy meal with steamed vegetables and a
             | warmed protein in 10 minutes. We can even make an entire
             | healthy meal in 30 minutes start to finish after doing it
             | for years.
        
               | Insanity wrote:
               | More traditional "French" cuisine is not typically ready
               | in 10-30 minutes when starting from scratch (or I'm just
               | incredibly slow).
               | 
               | Cooking a full meal would at least take me an hour end-
               | to-end. As a sibling comment mentioned, it's more that
               | when I finally get home (6:30 -7pm), I rarely have the
               | energy to put in that kind of time.
               | 
               | So I end up making a quick pasta or other such dish that
               | is ready in 30 minutes.
        
               | Aurornis wrote:
               | > More traditional "French" cuisine is not typically
               | ready in 10-30 minutes when starting from scratch
               | 
               | I was responding to the part of your comment about not
               | being able to eat healthy.
               | 
               | Cooking traditional French cuisine on weeknights is not
               | the only way to have a healthy meal. Eating homemade
               | French cuisine every weeknight would be a luxury for
               | working class standards just about anywhere.
        
             | RyanOD wrote:
             | How many hours does your job and commute require?
             | 
             | I'd genuinely like to understand a job that is so time
             | consuming that a person wouldn't be able to cook dinner.
             | That doesn't seem ok to me.
        
               | wiseowise wrote:
               | Not op, the job is so soul and mentally draining that you
               | "can't afford" cooking.
        
               | Insanity wrote:
               | I should have clarified it, but you hit the nail on the
               | head. I arrive home with little energy after a day in the
               | office.
               | 
               | By the time I'm home it's at least 6:30pm, usually a bit
               | later. If I would work until 6:30 but from home instead
               | of the office, I'd probably still be up for cooking.
               | 
               | Although you also need to get gym time in, family time,
               | chores and other stuff...
        
               | lentil_soup wrote:
               | I have the same, my commute is a 10min walk, I have no
               | dependants and make a good salary and I find it
               | impossible to cook, I'm just depleted after work. If I
               | add exercise and some social interaction then my time is
               | spent recovering energy... It's probably a sign of burn
               | out or of a bad job
        
               | eru wrote:
               | Have you considered cooking before work?
        
               | hnthrowaway121 wrote:
               | Super normal. Let's say at the simplest, you take 30 mins
               | to get ready to leave from waking up, 30 mins from front
               | door to sitting at your desk, 30 mins to get to bed and
               | sleep that's 2 hours of your 24 just kinda handling the
               | bare functional minumum. Sleep for 8 and now you are left
               | with 12 hours. Work plus breaks at work is probably 8-10
               | at the best.
               | 
               | So OK, 3-5 hours left over for everything else, assuming
               | perfect execution on the other parts. Do you have family
               | or pets that need something? Do you have dishes and
               | laundry and trash days and bills to pay? Do you want to
               | watch TV, play a game, do any kind of hobby or leaning?
               | Are you sick? Do you have friendships? Are you tired from
               | work being physically or mentally demanding? Do you need
               | to exercise?
               | 
               | All of those things need to be handled in the same few
               | "outside work" hours each day.
        
               | Aurornis wrote:
               | > that's 2 hours of your 24 just kinda handling the bare
               | functional minumum. Sleep for 8 and now you are left with
               | 12 hours.
               | 
               | 24 - 2 - 8 leaves you with 14 hours, not 12 hours.
               | 
               | Sounds pedantic, but 2 hours is a lot in the context of
               | your argument that we only have a few hours per day to do
               | anything.
               | 
               | This conversation gets repeated ad nauseum on social
               | media, yet in the real world it's common for people to
               | operate fine on normal weekly work schedules. Back when I
               | was still reading Reddit there was an endless stream of
               | posts like this complaining that there was no time left
               | to do anything after work. Every time when the OP was
               | asked where their time was going, it revealed one of two
               | things: Either they were taking way too long to go
               | through the basic motions of life (e.g 2 hour morning
               | routines and 2 hour dinner prep every day with a 1 hour
               | bedtime ritual) or they realized they actually had a lot
               | of time but it was just disappearing somewhere and they
               | couldn't figure it out. That latter one could almost
               | always be traced to spending too much time on phones or
               | in front of TV.
        
           | jebarker wrote:
           | > At other times in history, leisure was the default state
           | and work existed to enable leisure.
           | 
           | What times/places are you thinking of when you write this?
        
           | Saline9515 wrote:
           | At which time exactly was leisure "the default state"? The
           | only way to have this is by having a slave-like class while
           | the idle elite could enjoy "leisure", or live in very low
           | density, caloric rich environment, which doesn't last long or
           | ends up with wars (and being enslaved by the neighboring
           | tribe, if you are from subsaharian Africa).
        
           | Aurornis wrote:
           | > At other times in history, leisure was the default state
           | and work existed to enable leisure
           | 
           | It wasn't that long ago that a lot of hard work was necessary
           | to even survive through the winter each year.
           | 
           | What times in history had leisure as the default state? When
           | was life so much easier than it is right now? Where were all
           | the food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment materials
           | coming from during this time and why was it so much more
           | efficient than today?
        
             | eru wrote:
             | > It wasn't that long ago that a lot of hard work was
             | necessary to even survive through the winter each year.
             | 
             | Well, not all parts of the world have winters.
        
               | Aurornis wrote:
               | Every time this topic of historical leisure time comes up
               | and people start bringing up problems with the theory,
               | the goalposts start moving as fast as the conversation.
               | Are we now only talking about people who didn't live in
               | areas with winters? Because those areas have different
               | sets of problems including entirely different sets of
               | insects, diseases, and predators that aren't controlled
               | by annual winters, among other things.
        
           | citizenpaul wrote:
           | I think there is a growing online mix up of "leisure" time in
           | the past. 99% of people were farmers, farming season is 3-4mo
           | a year. That doesn't mean they had 9mo to do whatever they
           | wanted. The time off was technically not their job but they
           | were doing work on other survival tasks. If you consider re-
           | roofing your shelter leisure time then yeah past people had
           | more leisure time.
           | 
           | We have much more non-survival leisure time now.
        
           | RobRivera wrote:
           | The WHOLE US!?
        
         | Aurornis wrote:
         | > The fact this study even exists is a sign of something having
         | gone very wrong IMHO.
         | 
         | I agree, but for different reasons: The paper is an example of
         | someone sending out surveys to collect self-reports and then
         | writing a paper title as if they had performed a study. They
         | did not. They just surveyed some college students and drew
         | conclusions by running statistical analyses on the data until
         | they got something that seemed significant.
         | 
         | It appears to have worked, though, as I've seen it shared
         | across the internet by assuming it's a robust proof of
         | something.
         | 
         | This paper is very bad. The numbers in the abstract don't even
         | add up, which any reviewer should have caught. To be honest
         | this feels like an undergraduate level assignment where
         | students are asking to give a survey and do some statistical
         | analyses. The students usually pick a topic close to their own
         | life (like Super Mario Games) and then come up with some result
         | by playing with their survey numbers until they find something.
        
           | LeoWattenberg wrote:
           | > They just surveyed some college students and drew
           | conclusions by running statistical analyses on the data until
           | they got something that seemed significant.
           | 
           | Is this just cynicism or based on anything? From reading the
           | methods section it doesn't appear this is what happened
        
             | Aurornis wrote:
             | From the paper:
             | 
             | > Methods:
             | 
             | > We used a mixed methods approach. First, qualitative data
             | were collected through 41 exploratory, in-depth interviews
             | (women: n=19, 46.3%; men: n=21, 51.2%; prefer not to
             | disclose sex: n=11, 2.4%; mean age 22.51, SD 1.52 years)
             | with university students who had experience playing Super
             | Mario Bros. or Yoshi. Second, quantitative data were
             | collected in a cross-sectional survey...
             | 
             | So interviews with a biased sample (students with
             | experience playing the game) and then a survey.
             | 
             | Also, try adding up those n= numbers. They don't sum to 41.
             | The abstract can't even get basic math or proofreading
             | right.
             | 
             | If the body of the paper describes something different than
             | the abstract, that's another problem
             | 
             | EDIT: Yes, I know the n=11 was supposed to be an n=1.
             | Having a glaring and easily caught error in the _abstract_
             | is not a good signal for the quality of a paper. This is on
             | the level of an undergraduate paper-writing exercise, not a
             | scientific study as people are assuming.
        
               | smallerize wrote:
               | It looks like "prefer not to disclose sex" was typoed and
               | should be 1 instead of 11.
        
               | nebezb wrote:
               | Seems like n=11 should have been n=1. Use 19, 21, and 1
               | as a numerator of /41 and you end up with all the same
               | percentages written in the abstract. A typo that should
               | have been caught, but surely nothing more than that and
               | certainly not substantive enough to qualify the claim
               | below:
               | 
               | > This paper is very bad. The numbers in the abstract
               | don't even add up, which any reviewer should have caught.
        
               | Aurornis wrote:
               | > A typo that should have been caught, but surely nothing
               | more than that and certainly not substantive enough to
               | qualify the claim below:
               | 
               | Such an obvious error should have been caught by the
               | authors proofreading their own work, to be honest. Any
               | reviewer would also catch it when evaluating the quality
               | of the sample size.
               | 
               | I find it strange that people are bending over backward
               | to defend this paper and its obvious flaws and
               | limitations.
        
             | gs17 wrote:
             | It does seem to be cynicism, they're convinced the authors
             | "gave people surveys with a lot of questions and then tried
             | to find correlations in the data", but nothing indicates
             | they did more than the 9 questions (plus one more for sex
             | as a control) the paper includes, and restricted it to only
             | Mario/Yoshi players. Ten questions is pretty short.
        
               | Aurornis wrote:
               | > and restricted it to only Mario/Yoshi players.
               | 
               | Do you not see the problem with drawing conclusions from
               | a sample set that pre-selects for Mario/Yoshi players?
               | 
               | How do you think they're determining that playing
               | Mario/Yoshi prevents burnout if they only surveyed
               | Mario/Yoshi players?
               | 
               | I really don't understand all of the push to support this
               | paper and disregard critiques as cynicism. The paper is
               | not a serious study, or even a well written paper. Is it
               | a contrarian reflex to deny any observations about a
               | paper that don't feel positive or agreeable enough?
        
               | gs17 wrote:
               | I've critiqued it plenty in other comments, including
               | that exact issue. However, that doesn't mean they "gave
               | people surveys with a lot of questions" to p-hack, it
               | seems like a study designed (albeit not well designed) to
               | test one specific hypothesis. I see no reason to question
               | that they did the methods as described in the paper,
               | which were designed to test this very specific thing
               | (they didn't even test "childlike wonder" in general,
               | just self-reported Mario-induced childlike wonder), but
               | their conclusions aren't supported by their data. If they
               | were p-hacking as you accuse them of, why not have more
               | questions? Why not survey non-Mario players too so
               | there's a new variable to create significant results out
               | of a null?
        
           | ThePollingStone wrote:
           | This study reminds me of the types of projects I did when I
           | took statistical psychology classes in undergrad. I was
           | hoping to see data taken directly after participants had
           | actually played the games in a controlled environment. Also,
           | why focus on just Nintendo games?
           | 
           | Judging by the authors' affiliations and Nintendo-approved
           | rhetoric, this does appear to be a shill.
        
         | andai wrote:
         | Especially since we're about to give birth to an entire species
         | which is better suited to the task!
        
         | darepublic wrote:
         | This is the problem of evil right. Those human tribes who just
         | chilled out after meeting the bare requirements of survival
         | died off because some greedy assholes outcompeted them.
        
           | andrewflnr wrote:
           | I'm only a casual follower of ancient human evolution and
           | anthropology, but this doesn't mesh with my impression. Lots
           | of human groups have been able to relax in relatively
           | hospitable environments, over long spans of time.
        
             | mothballed wrote:
             | They were overwhelmingly overpowered by those who took
             | advantage of the fact they didn't have black powder,
             | rifles, or western ships.
             | 
             | A few who managed to evade this past WWII took advantage of
             | the fact everyone was desperate to freeze things in place
             | to avoid nuclear war, those are the fortunate few who are
             | locked into place for the indefinite future.
             | 
             | Of course there's also the heart of Africa, with no great
             | navigable waterways or geography to trade to europe, north
             | america, or asia, no one gives much a shit what they do.
             | 
             | ------------- re due to throttling -------
             | 
             | >I don't think happened because of evolutionary pressure on
             | tribes as the previous poster claimed.
             | 
             | Not a necessary precondition, it can happen through
             | cultural pressure (also something passed down by the
             | generations in tribes). I don't recall previous poster
             | requiring it happen through gene expression.
        
               | andrewflnr wrote:
               | I don't think happened because of evolutionary pressure
               | on tribes as the previous poster claimed. Certainly
               | that's not clear from the evidence. The human genotype
               | was pretty well set by the time all that was happening,
               | which means whatever evolutionary basis exists for "the
               | problem of evil" had already acted, including on all the
               | people living easy (or at least manageable) subsistence
               | lifestyles for centuries previously.
        
               | Aurornis wrote:
               | > Of course there's also the heart of Africa, with no
               | great navigable waterways or geography to trade to
               | europe, north america, or asia, no one gives much a shit
               | what they do.
               | 
               | If this is your standard for a relaxing "chilled out"
               | lifestyle then I'm afraid you'd be deeply disappointed if
               | you saw the realities of living like this. In many places
               | simply maintaining a consistent supply of food and
               | drinkable water is nearly a full time job, and that's
               | with the various contentions of aid coming in.
        
               | mothballed wrote:
               | >If this is your standard for a relaxing "chilled out"
               | lifestyle then I'm afraid you'd be deeply disappointed if
               | you saw the realities of living like this.
               | 
               | Not my standard, the standard presented by the previous
               | poster, where getting food/water/shelter is "chilling"
               | and doing that plus conquering etc is the "less chill"
               | version.
               | 
               | I wasn't explaining why the heart of Africa is "chilled
               | out." I was explaining why at least the initial waves of
               | people with guns who spent an inordinate amount of their
               | "chill time" scheming on how to conquer others, didn't
               | bother much with inner central Africa, thus even _if_
               | they were chilling they were a bit safer from western
               | ships and guns.
               | 
               | I don't think I ever made the claim all of the heart of
               | africa is just chillin. I'm explaining why there is the
               | potential people in some places could focus more on just
               | eating and sheltering and watering and not as much time
               | fighting against people who spend time on gunpowder and
               | ships. All else equal it should cost less time to eat and
               | shelter than to do that plus other things, and by the
               | standards here, that was the "chill" that was relative to
               | doing all that _plus_ worrying about conquering.
               | 
               | >>Those human tribes who just chilled out after meeting
               | the bare requirements of survival died off because some
               | greedy assholes outcompeted them
               | 
               | >If this is your standard for a relaxing "chilled out"
               | lifestyle then I'm afraid you'd be deeply disappointed if
               | you saw the realities of living like this.
               | 
               | What you've done is redefined chilling out, from what the
               | OG poster had it at (basically food + shelter), and
               | instead you're arguing against _someone else_ that their
               | original definition we were already working on is wrong.
        
           | Aurornis wrote:
           | > Those human tribes who just chilled out after meeting the
           | bare requirements of survival died off because some greedy
           | assholes outcompeted them.
           | 
           | The idea of tribes just "chilling out" to survive is a modern
           | anachronism projected on a romanticized past. We're so
           | disconnected from the realities of clothing, feeding and
           | sheltering ourselves without modern amenities that it's hard
           | to imagine what pre-industrial like was like. Thinking that
           | "chilling out" was a viable path to survival is a symptom of
           | that disconnectedness.
        
             | mothballed wrote:
             | If you look at a tiger, for instance, they sleep 16 hours a
             | day (or a closer animal, take a look at the night monkey).
             | I realize a human isn't as powerful or have the same needs
             | as a tiger, but I don't see why a (pre-historic) humans
             | have to work that much harder than a tiger merely to eat
             | and reproduce and live long enough that enough survive to
             | do that. A human can work smarter than a tiger, after
             | all... surely we can "chill" as many hours a day as the
             | tiger can.
        
         | jMyles wrote:
         | ...I don't view myself as a consumable. I enjoy accomplishing.
         | I do not enjoy burnout. I'm interested in ways to prevent it.
         | It's really that simple.
         | 
         | I don't particularly find this survey compelling, but I also
         | don't want to be judged as some vampiric capitalist just
         | because I'd like to have more work bandwidth.
        
         | eru wrote:
         | > The whole culture we have emphasises trading working the best
         | years of your life just so you can (maybe) rest for a little
         | while at the end of your life when your health is failing,
         | which has always been really sad to me.
         | 
         | Have you considered getting a job you like better?
         | 
         | You can also take sabbaticals. Or retire early.
        
           | lbrito wrote:
           | Unrealistic for most working people with families.
        
       | Insanity wrote:
       | I'll share this with my partner.
       | 
       | But as I've told her before: "games aren't meant to be relaxing
       | to me, it's to compete!"
       | 
       | I do wonder how these results would translate to more competitive
       | games like CS.
       | 
       | FWIW, I used to game competitively (in tournaments) more than a
       | decade ago. Now I _technically_ play just casually, such as "The
       | Finals". But I only play the ranked mode with friends who used to
       | be in my competitive team.
       | 
       | Some days when we play it's just chatting and good fun (we've
       | known eachother for almost 2 decades), but other days we get "in
       | the zone" and it's not truly relaxing.
        
         | crims0n wrote:
         | As I age, it gets harder to enjoy competitive games. I just
         | can't keep up with people who play 6 hours a day and are in
         | their peak twitch-reflex years.
        
           | dugidugout wrote:
           | I see this sentiment and rationalization a lot but I don't
           | understand it.
           | 
           | Age aside, presently, are you saying you cannot meet a
           | threshold you would label competitive? Competitive games are
           | almost always played on a spectrum? I would argue your
           | placement in the spectrum should curate the ground for
           | competition if the player base is large enough (and ladder
           | system coherent).
           | 
           | Now with my framing understood, how does age fit in? I can
           | buy that as you age you have less time to put into a game and
           | potentially weaker reflexes (I'm not going to pretend to know
           | the science here), but this should simply inform your
           | placement on the ladder?
           | 
           | I don't think it has anything to do with "people who play 6
           | hours a day and are in their peak twitch-reflex years" unless
           | you mean your enjoyment is derived from overcoming this
           | archetype.
        
             | wiseowise wrote:
             | Competitiveness implies desire to win. There's no fun if
             | you constantly lose, and you'll always lose against a kid
             | who spends half of their living day making sure they're
             | better than you in the game.
        
               | dugidugout wrote:
               | "There's no fun if you constantly lose, and you'll always
               | lose against a kid who spends half of their living day
               | making sure they're better than you in the game" is true,
               | but hardly reality for the reasons I provided.
               | 
               | While I appreciate you leaving the value of
               | competitiveness in the air... on the other hand, by
               | defining it so purely, you've essentially resigned
               | yourself from participating.
               | 
               | I'm curious what games have molded this perspective.
        
           | Insanity wrote:
           | I'm by no means great at games anymore. But in these casually
           | competitive games, you get matched against people in similar
           | rank.
           | 
           | For anyone playing The Finals, I'm hovering around 30-40k
           | ELO. Definitely mid-tier.
           | 
           | I play about 4h a week fwiw.
        
       | throwfaraway135 wrote:
       | If someone was wondering if this is statistically significant
       | after reading the first line in the method and seeing 41
       | interviews, then the answer is probably yes, as the final results
       | are based on a study with 336 full-time university students.
       | 
       | > The final sample consisted of 336 full-time university students
       | (women: 19/41, 46.3%; men: 21/41, 51.2%; prefer not to disclose
       | sex: 1/41, 2.4%; mean age 22.51, SD 1.52)."
        
         | Aurornis wrote:
         | > as the final results are based on a study with 336 full-time
         | university students.
         | 
         | The final results were from a _survey_ , not a study where they
         | trialed Super Mario games on students and followed their
         | progress.
         | 
         | Also did you notice that the numbers in your quote don't even
         | agree? In parentheses the numbers are out of 41, not 336.
         | 
         | This is not a serious paper.
        
           | throwfaraway135 wrote:
           | > Also did you notice that the numbers in your quote don't
           | even agree? In parentheses the numbers are out of 41, not
           | 336.
           | 
           | I agree that it's at least sloppy.
           | 
           | > The final results were from a survey, not a study where
           | they trialed Super Mario games on students and followed their
           | progress.
           | 
           | afaik a study can consist of one single survey
           | 
           | > This is not a serious paper.
           | 
           | Maybe, maybe not, my only point was about the sample size
           | which was surprising if you read only the top part.
        
             | gs17 wrote:
             | > afaik a study can consist of one single survey
             | 
             | It definitely can (and they had interviews too), although
             | there's a lot of limitations with their methodology they
             | don't address in the paper.
        
         | gs17 wrote:
         | It's "statistically significant", but it doesn't really say
         | what the title says and they draw a lot of causal conclusions
         | that don't really follow the data IMO. The main result is
         | really that happiness and burnout risk were negatively
         | correlated (what a surprise, people burning out aren't happy?),
         | although the caveat is that's only shown in Mario-playing
         | college students.
        
       | Aurornis wrote:
       | I wouldn't put much weight into this paper. This is a self-
       | reported survey paper. They gave people surveys with a lot of
       | questions and then tried to find correlations in the data (aka
       | p-hacking).
       | 
       | Even the surveys had leading questions like "affordance of
       | childlike wonder" from the game:
       | 
       | > Second, quantitative data were collected in a cross-sectional
       | survey (N=336) of players of Super Mario Bros. and Yoshi to
       | examine the games' affordance of childlike wonder, overall
       | happiness in life, and burnout risk.
       | 
       | There are even glaring numerical errors in the abstract that
       | should have been caught by anyone doing any level of review or
       | proofreading:
       | 
       | > First, qualitative data were collected through 41 exploratory,
       | in-depth interviews (women: n=19, 46.3%; men: n=21, 51.2%; prefer
       | not to disclose sex: n=11, 2.4%;
       | 
       | That n=11 is supposed to be n=1, if you didn't catch it. It also
       | doesn't explain why the n=41 survey group separate from the 300+
       | survey group asked about burnout.
       | 
       | So I know this will generate a lot of discussion about burnout,
       | but this is not the kind of paper to draw conclusions from.
       | Everything about it, from the self-reported survey format to the
       | idea itself, looks like someone started with a highly specific
       | idea (Super Mario reduces burnout) and wanted to p-hack their way
       | to putting it in a paper.
        
         | mrandish wrote:
         | > This is a self-reported survey paper.
         | 
         | Thank you for this post! The headline claim struck me as one
         | that would be difficult to evidence with any scientific rigor.
         | Reading the abstract furthered this feeling but I couldn't be
         | bothered to read the methodology, so thanks for doing it.
         | 
         | > Everything about it, from the self-reported survey format to
         | the idea itself, looks like someone started with a highly
         | specific idea (Super Mario reduces burnout) and wanted to
         | p-hack their way to putting it in a paper.
         | 
         | Indeed. Even the idea that individuals can reliably self-
         | diagnose "burn-out" in an objective way is highly dubious.
        
       | cons0le wrote:
       | This seems like a pretty loosey goosey study. How do you
       | realistically quantify someone's "overall happiness in life" and
       | "burnout risk" into 1 number ?
       | 
       | I'm not sure how they did the control group, but I would be
       | curious about the difference between 15 minutes playing Mario,
       | and just getting a 15 minute break.
       | 
       | I think any significant time away from work/studying could reduce
       | burnout risk
        
         | gs17 wrote:
         | > How do you realistically quantify someone's "overall
         | happiness in life" and "burnout risk" into 1 number ?
         | 
         | There's existing survey methodologies for these, and then they
         | added a Mario-specific set of questions (IMO these questions
         | were poorly designed, they expected people to be able to
         | accurately report how much Mario games specifically change
         | their childlike wonder, which even if true, kind of changes the
         | conclusion they should be able to make).
         | 
         | > I'm not sure how they did the control group
         | 
         | It's not that kind of study. They didn't sit half the
         | participants down with Mario and half took a nap, it's
         | interviews and surveys. Their only "control" was showing it
         | didn't correlate with gender.
        
       | djaouen wrote:
       | From experience, my childhood hobby of playing video games, such
       | as Final Fantasy VII, influenced my view of reading other, non-
       | video-game material, such as novels, short stories, and non-
       | fiction. I don't know how many fewer books I would have read in
       | my life had I not played those games when I was younger!
        
       | pdpi wrote:
       | "Childlike wonder" is an interesting turn of phrase here, that
       | reminds me of one specific game -- Outer Wilds. The way I like to
       | describe Outer Wilds is that you're exploring the star system in
       | your grandma's back garden, escaping a blackhole just in time for
       | dinner.
       | 
       | Everything about the game seems designed to elicit that response.
       | The in-world technology is absolute jank, with wooden spaceships
       | and patched-over spacesuits. Both groups of aliens in the game
       | (the Hearthians and the Nomai) are intensely curious and driven
       | by wanderlust. The story's stakes are simultaneously enormous and
       | none at all, like a child playing make-believe.
       | 
       | Playing it genuinely gets me feeling like a child, and that's
       | something truly special.
        
         | gatkinso wrote:
         | One of my favorites as well. A folk space exploration sim. I
         | did find a few of the puzzles a bit too difficult though.
        
       | zenethian wrote:
       | Is anyone else really bothered by the title of this? Super Mario
       | Bros is a specific game, but what are "Yoshi" games? Feels like
       | the none of the researchers had ever played video games before.
        
         | gs17 wrote:
         | There's a "Yoshi" series now, but they specifically mean
         | Yoshi's Crafted World and Yoshi's Woolly World.
        
       | throwaway743 wrote:
       | I'd assume Katamari has the same effect. Felt a sense of joy I
       | haven't felt in a while, when playing the latest one after having
       | not played a Katamari game since around 08.
        
       | kevinfiol wrote:
       | Might have just been nostalgia, but I've played video games since
       | I was a child, and largely took a extended break from Nintendo
       | titles when I became an almost-exclusive PC gamer in the late
       | 2000s.
       | 
       | I finally played Mario Odyssey for the first time last year, and
       | I instantly felt like a kid in 1997 again, and my mood was
       | elevated with excitement for playing this game -- it was clear a
       | ton of love was poured into the level design and game mechanics.
       | It was the best gaming experience I've had in my adult life.
        
         | rightbyte wrote:
         | > I finally played Mario Odyssey
         | 
         | I have no words for how good that game is. It is both fresh and
         | nostalgic at the same time. And the hat thing is done
         | perfectly. Like, the more hats the bosses have the better they
         | are, duh, of course.
         | 
         | Dark(er) side of the moon gets really challanging for adults
         | too.
         | 
         | It would be so easy for Nintendo to just spam Mario games but
         | they don't.
        
         | loloquwowndueo wrote:
         | Wait until you play Super Mario Wonder!
        
           | npodbielski wrote:
           | I do not know... Oddysey felt better. Wonder is rushing you.
           | Always. In odyssey you can just explore some city a bit and
           | there is no pressure. No timer, no nagging. You can just sit
           | on the bench.
        
             | loloquwowndueo wrote:
             | Odyssey gives me motion sickness and headaches :(
        
         | SilverElfin wrote:
         | My experience has been the opposite. For both "hardcore" PC
         | games and "simpler" games like Mario, as an adult it's not only
         | hard to find time but once I do, games feel like an exhausting
         | chore. I go in anticipating relaxation but can't get it.
         | Sometimes even just getting to the menu screen brings this
         | feeling of dread. I'm not sure how to go back to the feeling of
         | being a kid.
        
           | npodbielski wrote:
           | I think those games are not the problem. If you feel dread...
           | I mean if you would felt boredom or be annoyed that you will
           | be spending time in a useless activity... But dread? Maybe
           | you should talk to some friend or the family?
        
           | lbrito wrote:
           | Same, it feels like more work. In the old days you would
           | punch the cartidrige in and get started. The controllers
           | themselves had half a dozen buttons. Nowadays if I spend more
           | than a few months without playing ill forget the commands,
           | and I don't have the mental energy or time to spend
           | relearning before being able to actually enjoy the game. I
           | paused zelda for 2.5yrs and couldn't pick it up again. Just
           | too much relearning
        
         | biophysboy wrote:
         | Totally relate to this. The movement in Mario 64 still holds
         | up, 30 years later. When I picked up Odyssey, the first thing I
         | did was figure out how much I could push the limits of the
         | character physics, just like I did when I was 8.
        
       | grugagag wrote:
       | I've been cooling off my brain after work on my way home on the
       | bus by playing video games and it is very effective. Time flies
       | and they move you in a completely different mental space.
       | Initially I got Miyoo mini for my kid and installed a lot of
       | Pico-8 games. Quickly I decided to get another one for myself and
       | it's been quite some therapy for the past year. By the way, I'm
       | in my mid 40s and haven't been playing games for a really long
       | time, since the 80s or the 90s. I highly recommend Pico-8 games.
       | I find the games very creative and novel and yet quite simple and
       | to the point. I recently got into making a few myself, of course
       | with the help of LLMs.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-12-24 23:01 UTC)