Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 259 posts

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

#211

Post by bmacho »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #177
bnralt wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, the vast majority of game play time, even with most complex games, is spent on relatively mindless repetitive behavior. This gets worse the more time is spent with a specific game. As a player improves, they start to know what they're supposed to do in more and more situations (compare the way a novice agonizes over an opening pawn move in chess with the way advanced players often speed through the…

> As a player improves, they start to know what they're supposed to do in more and more situations (compare the way a novice agonizes over an opening pawn move in chess with the way advanced players often speed through the opening moves). Chess is a particularly bad example because you can memorize openings. In Fischer random chess, the starting positions of the pieces are randomized, so even advanced players will ag…

In chess advanced players start to agonize at move 7. Chess has all the benefits of Fisher random chess, but has an additional layer, and requires three additional skills: learn, analyze, and memorize.

(I myself I am a bughouse chess person, it's a very different beast on the same board. It's full of adrenaline, hope, fear, anger, grief, in 2 minute long runs.)

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

#212

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

pocketsand wrote: post #151
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 the noise in polygenic scores is random, all that will do is reduce correlations. Random measurement error always reduces the ability to observe relationships. To be clear, I do not know enough about polygenic scores to judge one way or another how the noise "works" vis-a-vis the entire analysis. The Porsche comment is snide, but actually exposes a similar error in your critique. Sure, a tax return-derived measure…

> If the noise in polygenic scores is random, all that will do is reduce correlations. Random measurement error always reduces the ability to observe relationships.

I think you’re misunderstanding how they’re being used (or I am). I think they’re trying to control for genetics via polygenic scores, not trying to establish a relationship between those scores and intelligence. The analogy is that you’re measuring the effect of the price of kids’ socks on their intelligence, and saying the observed effect isn’t due to parental income in some other way, because you’ve controlled for parental income(by controlling for whether there’s a porche in the driveway).

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

#213

Post by em500 »

christophilus wrote: post #5

I’ve tried to encourage my wife to choose video games over Disney+ when she needs to drop the kids in front of something, but she still has a strong resistance to the idea that games are better. To me, it’s pretty obvious. The kids problem solve when gaming, and are obviously engaged. When watching TV, they look like zombies. I think my wife’s biggest hang up with games is that she was always told that they rot your…

> To me, it’s pretty obvious. The kids problem solve when gaming, and are obviously engaged. When watching TV, they look like zombies.

Are you not just seeing what you want to see? Maybe from your wife's perspective, the kids are carefully to observing and learning a wide range of human emotions, social dynamics, new idioms and music from Disney+, whereas in their games they're learning a few tricks that they repeat ad nauseam to get some trivial rewards from their digital Skinner boxes?

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

#214

Post by watwut »

slothtrop wrote: post #209
watwut wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not concerned over them feeling angry. I am concerned over yelling, swearing, mistreating younger siblings or other family member after playing. If that does not happen, fine. But when it does happen, younger sibling or grandma are more entitled to not be target of aggression then someone else of gaming. The exactly same way as with adults - whether they feel angry does not matter. Whether they demand everyone e…

> I am concerned over yelling, swearing, mistreating younger siblings or other family member after playing. This is happening at home, presumably where it's the parent's place to discipline.

So? Yes, parent has power to punish the kid or yell at it. That power does not make parent happy about situation.

If observed more then once, the parent will conclude exactly what you see in this thread.

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

#215

Post by jrussino »

javajosh wrote: post #26

The only program I let my kids use is KidPix on the iPad. It's a (rather remarkable) drawing and animation program and I'm constantly amazed at what they make with it. And sometimes horrified. But the 5 yo enjoys creating scenes with sound effects (that she recorded) and animation (that she also recorded), while the 3 yo enjoys making intricate drawings and then methodically coloring everything green. It's his favori…

There was a discussion here a few years back about this interview/documentary with the creator of the original KidPix: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25108875

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

#216

Post by asdff »

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 are going to critique the methodology please provide a reference where this is not a robust method. You may be right but how can I tell without some references? The scholar.google search for "controlling for genetics using polygenetic scores" brings up many recent papers about this methodology and the arguments made in these seem stronger to me than this one comment. IMO on the internet when people can easily misinterpret the science, its important to be clear as possible especially when we take things down.

As far as scientific reports goes its a fine journal, its run by nature. It's not on the same planet as the predatory journals that spam inboxes. I worry that people will read your comment, assume you speak from authority, and discount any work they might see coming from that journal when we both know that good science can be found in scientific reports, and that impact factor is more strongly correlated with "sexy" or expensive science than good science anyhow.

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

#217

Post by asdff »

bamboozled wrote: post #77
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…

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

I think there is something to do with agency. Look at the video games kids are playing, like minecraft. They are building homes, changing the environment to suit their needs, stockpiling resources, linearly levelling up, etc. It's a lot more enticing than being told what to do every day in scouts or marching up that same tired old trail you are already bored to death of, or seeing your skills plateau in sports. Plus there aren't even many adults doing these things anymore to pass on to their kids. Hard to become a teenage fisherman when you don't have a family member to teach you to tie a lure or what bait is good for where, or have a spare rod you can use, and have no money to buy a rod since you aren't working yet, and have no way to even get to somewhere to get a rod or even get to a fishing hole without your parents making time to shuttle you about. Hard to play catch when your dad doesn't own a glove to toss with you.

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

#218

Post by gwern »

pocketsand wrote: post #151
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 the noise in polygenic scores is random, all that will do is reduce correlations. Random measurement error always reduces the ability to observe relationships. To be clear, I do not know enough about polygenic scores to judge one way or another how the noise "works" vis-a-vis the entire analysis. The Porsche comment is snide, but actually exposes a similar error in your critique. Sure, a tax return-derived measure…

> If the noise in polygenic scores is random, all that will do is reduce correlations. Random measurement error always reduces the ability to observe relationships. To be clear, I do not know enough about polygenic scores to judge one way or another how the noise "works" vis-a-vis the entire analysis.

That's correct, it is a flaw of the entire analysis, not the PGS in isolation. Yes, the polygenic score, when used to define 'genetic intelligence', will be biased towards zero and will miss a lot of the genetic intelligence. What then happens is the video-game playing becomes a measure of intelligence (genetic or otherwise), capturing what the polygenic score (and other covariates) miss. The logic then works in reverse: the reduced correlation is precisely why the residual confounding works. The worse your 'measurements' are at measuring the underlying trait, the more wiggle room there is for your 'outcomes' to actually be correcting the 'measurements' and not vice versa. See "Statistically Controlling for Confounding Constructs Is Harder than You Think" https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... , Westfall & Yarkoni 2016. (More examples: https://www.gwern.net/notes/Regression )

What OP shows is not that video game playing causes IQ, but IQ causes video game playing. The choice to play video games (or not play them, because you are bad at learning) is an additional 1-item long IQ test and helps corrects for the error.

(And we do in fact know that video gaming & IQ correlate, so nothing new there. We also know from all the brain training randomized experiments that the causal arrow doesn't run in the direction they want it to run. OP is very wrong, including in claiming that the Flynn effect justifies believing in their effect - it actually is a criticism of their claimed causal relationship between IQs have been steady or falling even as video gaming increased massively.)

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

#219

Post by hackernewds »

mrtksn wrote: post #81
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 ?

Sure but not everyone has access to these all the time. When I was a kid, I used to live in a smaller town on the river Danube and I did my fair share of biking and fishing. Those are definitely great activities that everyone who can should do but watching TV and playing video games is also nice. The more options you have the luckier you are.

Disagree with this categorization, unless one lives in Chernobyl there is always something to do outdoors solo or with a party. Using your body as it was designed to be physically active is naturally good for the body and the mind

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

#220

Post by hackernewds »

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?

What about coyotes running around drawing tunnels! Take caution!
Post reply on HN