The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence • Hacker News Board

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#131

Post by dijit » Tue, May 17, 2022, 2:43 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #119

dash2 wrote: post #13

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 jour…

>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 ot…

> 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.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#132

Post by wing-_-nuts » Tue, May 17, 2022, 2:43 PM UTC

psiops wrote: post #80

bamboozled wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about neither TV or computer games and doing things outside like fishing, hiking, scouts, riding bikes etc ?

Way too dangerous! Injury, skin cancer, pedophiles, drugs, terrorists, need I go on?

It's sad I can't tell if this is sarcasm

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#133

Post by slowmovintarget » Tue, May 17, 2022, 2:44 PM UTC

323 wrote: post #55

dash2 wrote: post #13

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 jour…

Playing with toys does make kids smarter. It's not such a stretch to assume that video games have a benefit too.

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.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#134

Post by confidantlake » Tue, May 17, 2022, 2:45 PM UTC

nosianu wrote: post #105

d3ckard wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 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.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#135

Post by moduspol » Tue, May 17, 2022, 2:47 PM UTC

JamesSwift wrote: post #96

moduspol wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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 addicti…

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.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#136

Post by jimbokun » Tue, May 17, 2022, 2:51 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #129

bluefirebrand wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

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.

Explain that to the cops and Child Protective Services.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#137

Post by bluefirebrand » Tue, May 17, 2022, 2:51 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #129

bluefirebrand wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

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.

> 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.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#138

Post by jimbokun » Tue, May 17, 2022, 2:52 PM UTC

bamboozled wrote: post #95

galoisgirl wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you asking seriously? How about bad weather, or that part of the day when you've already done those things?

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 m…

Agree with you in general, but trampolines are pretty dangerous regardless of the weather and maybe not a great unsupervised activity.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#139

Post by jklinger410 » Tue, May 17, 2022, 2:53 PM UTC

the_only_law wrote: post #106

rapind wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 investme…

> 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) compare…

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.

Re: The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

#140

Post by slothtrop » Tue, May 17, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

snarfy wrote: post #108

mrtksn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

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 compu…

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.