The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence

I think it's more about comfort in familiarity than discovering something new (Frozen isn't that deep), but whatever the case, as external media there's always some intrinsic "I want this for reasons I think are my own" motivation combined with extrinsic "I want this because for good or ill, by various carrots and sticks, others made it intending that I should want it" motivation. Would it be so bad if Frozen had a built-in times-watched counter or an XP bar? Nonsensical for the latter and tasteless, but grant that it could bring people in for rewatches more than it pushed them away, it still surely wouldn't rob people of all their will, ultimately they'd still rewatch for some other intrinsic reasons along with the extrinsic XP bar and other extrinsic things like the intentionally designed attractive (for many) art aesthetic. How much of each motivation will vary; I think people are probably biased to imagine the extrinsics are usually 'nice bonuses on top'.

Destiny doesn't really help your case, I think. The most objectionable thing they do (as I hear it, I skipped it), at least relative to things like it (Warframe), is exploit fear-of-missing-out psychology; they remove previously released content. (Like adding an ad to a site to exploit/monetize viewers, this is not a neutral design choice, and has driven people away from the game entirely rather than what seems to be the default assumed effect of any psychology exploit (except 'make things beautiful'?) of sucking out their will and owning them.) But over time they've not just cut stuff, but added new content. So there are eventually fresh(er) experiences even if you hit max level/acquired everything/etc. like an MMO. Until they dry out anyway, and the problem solves itself, because ultimately an infinitely increasing XP bar just isn't enough to keep most people interested.

They did make an actual title cut to the sequel for Destiny 2 and that's where further new content went -- has it since had enough content added that another timeline could have legitimately packaged it as Destiny 3?

Besides all that, it's legitimately a game, quite more than a glorified slot, it's a full simulation, and has a satisfying core gameplay loop -- the same one refined through the earlier Halo games.

Similarly, though not as core, it's also just satisfying to have Link roll around everywhere. Adding lootboxes to OoT would be beyond tasteless and obscene, but the product would still be quite a bit better than an actual glorified slot, because there's enough game design there alongside, there's something beyond just plain 'give money maybe win prize'. Japanese crane games / ufo catchers are more in line with glorified slots than a game with typical distasteful 'games-as-service' monetization strategies.

That ties in with your earlier deleted edit I still thought worth addressing. I see the concern on glorified slots, but I don't think it's really worth worrying about. In video games, even some hypothetical one with master manipulator levels of thought to make it indefinitely addicting, it's ultimately not chemical injection in basis to form a true dependency on the average human, and so the next thing comes out sooner or later and voila, newness, change. Is the 'Destiny is a dead game' meme close to the truth? It certainly seems a lot less popular than several battle royales, and those too will decline.

Casinos are in comparison much more niche, have little competition and innovation (look at their dull slots with no redeeming game design to them at all), have physical chemical associations (booze and smokes minimum) driving a bunch of it (their psychological playbook is laughably weak in comparison to something like Genshin Impact), and of course must be enabled by real money. The last factor is the simplest barrier to keep kids from getting addicted to casino-style crap, free-to-play dominates. Now maybe it's sad if trends like lootboxes or gachas or battle passes continue (or perhaps in your mind also trends of games designed with elements to never end), but it's far from concerning, especially when games lacking such crap continue to be successful...

I agree, and thanks for the advice. However, as another commenter pointed out, I believe the lack of good games in mobile app stores is a direct consequence of the economic model, driven by ads and internet connectivity.

I appreciate the perspective. I kind of agree with you however my ideas slightly changed over the last year. It is hard to keep spending as much time as possible with kids when you are also trying to make a living and prepare for a better future for them. I think a balanced approach is better for your mental health and also for their future.

It’s the only thing I have permanently banned and blocked inside and (as well as I can) outside my home.

> That makes them more noisy, not less.

Using only genome-wide significant SNPs reduces the amount of variance explained by the polygenic score, which is what you describe and I agree with. My comment about the concern about "noise" is with respect to a sibling comment ("Polygenic scores are powerful, but they contain very large amounts of noise compared to the true genetic effects.") That is the "noise" that I was addressing. And just as you say, the noise is, essentially, a worthwhile cost to pay since it should not be directional, and so we use various approaches to include thousands or millions of SNPs in these scores.

> Also, neither of your two problems are the problem here

I don't agree. These problems occur very clearly in any mixed-ancestry analyses, and they have to be carefully accounted for or else they induce between-ancestry bias. It's not a function of the phenotype itself (i.e., I'm not making a comment about intelligence); this is true for all polygenic scores.