Huh, my immediate assumption was income played a huge role but the video game cohort had poorer parents. The gender difference is huge though, the nongaming cohort had 288 males and 840 females while the gaming cohort had 372 males and 307 females. Also, I'm a bit confused why they just dumped anyone with between one and three hours of videogame playing a day.
Discarding all the moderate users seems like a design flaw. A possible effect on cognition is a fairly natural question for regression. Maybe you saw it in the text but, "This threshold was selected as it exceeds the American Academy of Pediatrics screen time guidelines, which recommend that videogaming time be limited to one to two hours per day for older children." The thought process I can sort of imagine is that…
Video gaming may be associated with better cognitive performance in children
141–150 of 332 posts
Re: Video gaming may be associated with better cognitive performance in children
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a similar upbringing. Video games and TV were blamed for bringing down our grades, and were extremely restricted. We never had a console. Dad would come home and put his hand on the TV to see if it was warm, and ground us if it was. I was allowed to spend time on the computer if I was writing BASIC or playing something "educational" (like Carmen SanDiego, or Oregon Trail). The occasional Sierra game slipped in.…
It's funny how different circumstances shape people so differently. I had access to a lot of video games and I decided I wanted to make them as a kid and that started my programming experience around 11-12. If I didn't have video games I probably wouldn't have become a programmer!
Re: Video gaming may be associated with better cognitive performance in children
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
This appears to be the study, though I'm not entirely sure [1] and it reads: Screen Time Survey This threshold was selected because it exceeds the American Academy of Pediatrics screen time guidelines, which recommends that video-gaming time be limited to 1 to 2 hours per day for older children. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
Yeah, I saw their excuse for focusing on over three hours a day. I don't understand why you dump that data rather than use it somehow, like a third cohort.
Re: Video gaming may be associated with better cognitive performance in children
#144Video games might improve cognitive abilities, but they also cheat the reward centers of your brain and offer the feeling of success while achieving none.
A Stanford professor was teaching a seminar on engagement (engagement is a euphemism for addiction). He has a pretty choice quote: "You will play my game thinking you're getting better and better, but you will just be playing longer and longer."
Games can be a force for good, but the average game company is not optimizing for cognitive performance, they are optimizing for engagement (or loot boxes), the lack of alignment coupled with capitalist investment into games seems hazardous to the positive qualities they can have.
Re: Video gaming may be associated with better cognitive performance in children
#145only competitive gaming develops brain and teamwork (for team play games). leisure/casual gaming is no better than browsing TikTok.
Re: Video gaming may be associated with better cognitive performance in children
#146only competitive gaming develops brain and teamwork (for team play games). leisure/casual gaming is no better than browsing TikTok.
I was in master league when I played Starcraft competitively, so I don't discount the real lessons you can learn from intense focus towards a clear goal, and the acceleration provided by competitive arena.
But there are plenty of people who cheat or buy their way toward "success" in games, because they are chasing the "status" they get from a silly little virtual badge. I know a handful of these folks in real life. They have many other problems, but are very "successful." I know a World of Warcraft Gladiator (rank 1 arena champion for a season) who botted honor at the expense of other players (in-game currency to attain higher quality gear) and in real life juiced his company's image by purchasing online accounts and controlling conversation in forums. I've shared a meal with a current professional gamer who nonchalantly engages in crypto fraud.
Winning is absolutely not everything. Some of the greatest things we can attain in this life will require mass cooperation of humans, and those experiences require dedicated folks with faith in humanity--people who aren't always looking for every crack in the law to screw over their fellow man to get rank 1.
I've seen lots of heartwarming content on TikTok, and left most Counter-Strike and Call of Duty lobbies feeling very dispirited.
Re: Video gaming may be associated with better cognitive performance in children
#147Re: Video gaming may be associated with better cognitive performance in children
#148I credit RuneScape with teaching me the value of delayed gratification and basic economics. I credit competitive Halo 3 with teaching me team building and strategy skills. I credit StarCraft with training my mind to travel at warp speed. Honestly. My video game experience was instrumental to my success so far in life. This is not surprising to me.
I learned one of the most valuable lessons of my life from RuneScape. My brother and I, playing for years, had amassed something like 100k gold between the two of us. We wanted more gold and were reading a guide online about to get it. The guide recommended a simple process of buying and selling coal in a kind of arbitrage trade. My brother and I were torn if we should try it, reasoning that if it were so easy to mak…
Re: Video gaming may be associated with better cognitive performance in children
#149I’d be a very different person without games when I was young. Got me into programming, thinking beyond my immediate reality… etc. More stimulation is probably good for development, that’s how pathways form, I have been told. Call me armchair “points out the obvious parts then gets pessimistic guy,” but we’ll likely never actually know if it’s a correlation in the time period that’s more consistent with like… the nut…
I’d be a very different person if I played more video games when I was young. I spent a lot of my time outside exploring and playing games with my friends. Later in college when a lot of my peers were playing counter strike all day long I got into programming because I always wanted to learn how to do it.
in-game mysteries (is it possible to solve X or Y quest, get a certain item, and so on?), some of which persist today (probably the remaining ones can't be solved),
social interaction: you needed to trade with players for almost everything -- buying all equipment, even to use magic you were required to trade unless you could make them yourself),
in-game economy, mechanically, the game wasn't too hard, it was very well balanced; a big element was finding where you could be more efficient to sustain your own advancement through the game; trading was a major gameplay element,
making friends: for many, this was really the point of the game, just meeting people, talking for hours, finding where they came from (often distant countries I'd have no opportunity to visit); most activities greatly benefited from a group, although you could solo;
coordination: you needed a really good attention and coordination to play in certain situations; most of all, you needed to understand your capability and the requirements to make sure you didn't lose weeks or even months of progress (the death penalty was something like 10% of your total playtime!).
It's hard to overstate how much growth it afforded me and by brother -- the lessons are too numerous to cite, from interacting with people to managing risk on everything you do. We did recognize, even at the time though, that it could get us 'hooked' in a bad way -- and that the game was ultimately limited and there was a life outside (other activities) with a greater horizon. My brother just quit completely one day to never return; I always kept visiting the world out of curiosity and nostalgia. It really felt like having a wild virtual childhood. I still think about people I've met in that world some 20 years later.
Unfortunately, some of the aspects that enabled this experience have been degraded significantly. The greatest loss was probably due to cheating and bots. Cheating was already possible, maybe right from the beginning, but it took a long time to develop and become widespread. At one point though, almost every serious player was cheating, and a significant portion using bots to automatically achieve high levels with low risk (or just amass fortunes and transfer to "clean" characters). Seeing no great alternative, the developer (Cipsoft) started to understandably introduce the various cheating systems (automatic aiming and item usage, etc.) into the game itself, reduce death penalties, and so on. It also copied other games that have automated markets and so on, and for a while bots almost ruined the game (only much later they got a deal with BattleEye that significantly improved the situation -- but the game was already changed). The game now is much less wild and much more like a single player experience.
One very interesting aspect of the game is how much this wilderness is important but still very troublesome. The risk is what teaches risk management; but it also enables other player abuse. The possibility to kill and get killed was very scary (of course, maybe not as scary as many IRL risks), but it also built serious trust, when you had to trust your friend wouldn't turn against you for personal gain, find who to trust, etc.. It really showed what's ugly about humans at the same time as what's really amazingly beautiful -- some of the most kind and selfless people I've met were playing that game (and also a handful keen to set you back a long time just for pleasure). I think one way or another everyone that played it learned the value of cooperation in some way. I thought it was my yardstick of civilization to see if people would kill for fun when "it's just a game" (with serious in-game consequences for your victim) or act cooperatively -- I thought the ideal game was not one where you can't kill one another, but one you can, but almost no one does (I never subscribe to the notion that in game killing was "a fun part of the game" -- although I did see the allure of the loot; after all, not killing was also part of the game; in any case, you could always stop playing or opt for non-pvp servers, which most of my IRL friends did -- but I refused).
A very interesting experiment just in life, is the least I can say.
Note: There is a spiritual successor of the classic game going on in https://medivia.online/ Be warned -- this kind of game is as much of a time sink (and perhaps as addictive) as it sounds; but if you feel ready for this sort of experience, it seems still possible; I haven't ever played Medivia.
Re: Video gaming may be associated with better cognitive performance in children
#150Nictone has been known to cause nootropic effects, yet it results in long term damage and dependence. Considering the gaming industry is big money (just like big tobacco, big weed, big sugar, and big infinite scroll), I would take any study like this with a boulder of salt. Video games might improve cognitive abilities, but they also cheat the reward centers of your brain and offer the feeling of success while achiev…
For me, the golden era of games was SNES to PS2 as feels like the best mix of budget creativity and computing power. The industry was still figuring itself out back then.
Games like Hollow Knight aspire to that older era too.
That said, I recently picked up Overwatch 2 and I'm impressed at how high the skill ceiling is, the spatial and strategic reasoning to play that game semi-pro is definitely nontrivial and Blizzard are definitely a part of Big Gaming.
>Games can be a force for good, but the average game company is not optimizing for cognitive performance
Unsure if you have games like Factorio in mind or Nintendo brain games but games that are mechanically rich (eg Souls or Elder Scrolls) can give plenty for someone to reason about if they are already so inclined.
I spent a lot of time thinking how to min/max from a very young age and it's a similar mindset to at least QA but also coding.