301–310 of 332 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should credit your parents with allowing you to have so much free time and good nutrition.
Or in most cases, it's parental neglect with both parents working full-time jobs with barely enough time to take care of themselves?
My son started playing games (with me) at 4 yo (partly because we were all locked indoors for months on end). Anecdotally - and providing you use some discretion as to choice of game - I’ve found it absolutely fascinating to watch both the pace of development of problem-solving skills, and some of the frankly astounding leaps of logic and intuition young kids are capable of. I vividly remember one rock-moving puzzle…
What games do you recommend for kids of that age?
As a side note, my son learned this using a fight stick, since "move the stick in that direction to make your character go to that direction" is easier for them to comprehend and associate than using a dpad. Also way easier to hold with hittle hands.
I 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.
Civilization 1 was my introduction to world history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> my wife and I decided our kids won't have video games. We'll see how it goes. I think you kid would feel excluded in school, when everyone is playing together online and talking about the latest games.
Is this such a strong component of the American teenager identity? I know exactly one person here (Southern Europe) who plays videogames and nobody talked about it. Sports, music, fashion, movies, politics: that were the things that could make you or break you in high school.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If a given video game took years of investment to complete the current level almost nobody would play that game. How do you explain League of Legends or even E-sports in general? Games are as competitive as they are endeavors of creativity.
The same way I would explain drugs and gambling. Gambling can be very competitive. That appeals to somebody and glamorizing it can generate a lot of money, but that doesn’t mean it’s beneficial in absolutely any way.
Of course. Most video games force you to make decisions at a fairly rapid pace with ever changing information. It's like chess on steroids.
Most of them don't have the depth of chess, though. It's more like working in McDonalds.
Some games are shallow but lots of games have far more depth than chess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One wonders if the effect you're describing isn't the reason that self-directed entrepreneurship seems to be on a sharp decline in the developed world. Believe the media, let alone the internet, and one would imagine we have 8 year olds building nuclear reactors and curing cancer, in their basements. So how can this hare brained scheme you have ever possibly work? Surely somebody else would have done it by now.
> Believe the media, let alone the internet, and one would imagine we have 8 year olds building nuclear reactors On the one hand, we do[0]. On the other, what you're describing is why I don't feel bad about the fact that, 15 years after I had the idea, I've still not learned to use MHD modelling software to experiment with an idea I've had that might make fusors a little more interesting. [0] ok so they were 12 not 8…
None of this is obtained from genius, but from a father who's experienced in such and most likely an engineer. And I think this is why these sort of tales never have the implied follow through. The unstated implication is '12 year old builds nuclear reactor in toy room' is 'imagine what he'll be doing in 5 years!' And, the answer? Shit posting on Twitter, getting political, and trying to make a AR/VR startup.
Not exactly the Atlas upon which the world can comfortably thrust all of their hopes and expectations upon. And nobody is. Ramanujan [1] was a once in a millennia level of genuine abnormal genius, and he dedicated his entire life to a single pursuit. Yet even that mammoth of a man could but scratch the surface of that which is out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of them don't have the depth of chess, though. It's more like working in McDonalds.
Once you get to a high enough level in chess it's a ton of memorization. It's not that deep. Some games are shallow but lots of games have far more depth than chess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once you get to a high enough level in chess it's a ton of memorization. It's not that deep. Some games are shallow but lots of games have far more depth than chess.
Isn't the memorization just a required to play competetively at all? At highest level of chess, memoryzation is a given and it's about brain power and creativity.
Part of the whole Hans Neimann cheating scandal is that he played too close to optimal as measures by his correlation to a computer. So no, it seems mostly to be about drilling positions with solvers and playing faithfully to that.
I played chess competitively as a kid, before chess programs were very strong or widely available. We memorized maybe 4 moves in and that's it. After that it was all strategy, creativity, etc... Nowadays they're doing far more work with solvers and it's pretty much taken the strategy out of it. Which is why Go is increasing in popularity. Competitive gaming probably as well.