11–20 of 91 posts
"The participant pool was composed entirely of 72 female students at the University of Texas at Austin, because researchers were unable to find male participants who played computer games for less than two hours a day." The sample size seems far too small and narrow to draw any conclusions from.
Consider the opportunity costs involved. The huge amount of time and energy usually 'spent' on games like this could have been used for something else, possibly boosting mental flexibility and other things equally or more than Starcraft. I would expect the purported positive effects of gaming should be way more pronounced, given the many hours many people play each day. It seems that someone who spends the same time…
Just for personal developments sake, your right, gaming is probably not the perfect activity, but its also not the worst.
If engaging in a very strategic game for a couple of hours each week wouldnt lead to any positive mental improvements, i would be suprised. Human ability is based upon experience, training and talent in almost any field.
[1] http://www.wate.com/story/3684503/study-video-games-help-qui...
Consider the opportunity costs involved. The huge amount of time and energy usually 'spent' on games like this could have been used for something else, possibly boosting mental flexibility and other things equally or more than Starcraft. I would expect the purported positive effects of gaming should be way more pronounced, given the many hours many people play each day. It seems that someone who spends the same time…
There are no "correct choices" in life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sample size has nothing (not strictly true) to do with whether a result is statistically significant. I imagine they chose this sample size because it could potentially yield a statistically significant sample. A larger sample size means that a smaller average increase is required to show that it is a statistically significant deviation than a smaller sample.
> Sample size has nothing (not strictly true) to do with whether a result is statistically significant. I hate to rain on your parade, but sample size has everything to do with whether a result is statistically significant. http://sph.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/BS/BS704_Power/BS704_Powe...
If you want to test whether penicillin can cure a staph infection, you can get statistically significant results with a handful of tests.
Nothing new really. There have been alot of studies that show that games train reflexes and other mental abilities [1] If engaging in a very strategic game for a couple of hours each week wouldnt lead to any positive mental improvements, i would be suprised. Human ability is based upon experience, training and talent in almost any field. [1] http://www.wate.com/story/3684503/study-video-games-help-qui...
Nothing new really. There have been alot of studies that show that games train reflexes and other mental abilities [1] If engaging in a very strategic game for a couple of hours each week wouldnt lead to any positive mental improvements, i would be suprised. Human ability is based upon experience, training and talent in almost any field. [1] http://www.wate.com/story/3684503/study-video-games-help-qui...
What is a far from obvious, to me, is that this specific training in a specific context improves response outside of this context and for other tasks. Really how knowing that you have to build immortals when you see roaches - or vikings when you see colossi, could possibly useful in everyday life?
Consider the opportunity costs involved. The huge amount of time and energy usually 'spent' on games like this could have been used for something else, possibly boosting mental flexibility and other things equally or more than Starcraft. I would expect the purported positive effects of gaming should be way more pronounced, given the many hours many people play each day. It seems that someone who spends the same time…
I think playing starcraft as part of an active, diverse mental life enriches is particularly complimentary as it a sport-like game that is challenging in many aspects (you need to multitask, think strategically, react quickly and control with great dexterity) and team games also open the social aspects. If it is not done in moderation then yes, you have to wonder if your best mental efforts during the day would better be directed at something more productive. Not for the sake of productivity, or for some moral reasons. Only because it might start to hurt financially/socially/healthwise etc. In the end, there are no skills particularly relevant in the grand scheme of things, we live, we have experiences, we die, universe goes on.
Consider the opportunity costs involved. The huge amount of time and energy usually 'spent' on games like this could have been used for something else, possibly boosting mental flexibility and other things equally or more than Starcraft. I would expect the purported positive effects of gaming should be way more pronounced, given the many hours many people play each day. It seems that someone who spends the same time…