"pro" video games

[Elliot Temple]

http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/05/04/the-positive-and-negative-effects-of-video-games/

> I’ve seen a number of articles purporting to lay out the evils or the benefits of video games for kids. This article actually does a good job of laying out the pros and cons, reasonably objectively. Personally, I’m pro video games, with a healthy mix of other activities mixed in.


He calls his position "pro video games". It includes:

- he thinks video games should be limited
- he thinks video games have significant cons

The article he praises is also mixed up about what is a PRO and what is a CON:

Under PROS it says, "Some of the mental skills enhanced by video games include" and gives, as the first one, "Following instructions". Meanwhile half of the CONS are that psuedo-science is on the anti-video-game side.

The supposedly "reasonably objective" article lists this CON:

> Too much video game playing makes your kid socially isolated. Also, he may spend less time in other activities such as doing homework, reading, sports, and interacting with the family and friends.

Videogames make your kids isolated, while reading and homework are key parts of an active social life? Really?

Other cons include addiction and skeletal disorders. It's just a grab bag of nasty slanders.

The article makes 9 RECOMMENDATIONS. I'll summarize them, in order:

- monitor video games
- loving discipline
- 7-14 hours of video games per week
- limit video games
- monitor video games
- limit video games
- limit video games
- limit video games
- have "good" video games replace TV

So 9 out of 9 recommendations are ANTI video games. Or as the loop insight author would call it, "pro video games".


Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
www.curi.us

[Alan Forrester]

On 4 May 2014 22:34, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
> http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/05/04/the-positive-and-negative-effects-of-video-games/
>
>> I've seen a number of articles purporting to lay out the evils or the benefits of video games for kids. This article actually does a good job of laying out the pros and cons, reasonably objectively. Personally, I'm pro video games, with a healthy mix of other activities mixed in.
>
> He calls his position "pro video games". It includes:
>
> - he thinks video games should be limited
> - he thinks video games have significant cons
>
> The article he praises is also mixed up about what is a PRO and what is a CON:
>
> Under PROS it says, "Some of the mental skills enhanced by video games include" and gives, as the first one, "Following instructions". Meanwhile half of the CONS are that psuedo-science is on the anti-video-game side.
>
> The supposedly "reasonably objective" article lists this CON:
>
>> Too much video game playing makes your kid socially isolated. Also, he may spend less time in other activities such as doing homework, reading, sports, and interacting with the family and friends.
>
> Videogames make your kids isolated, while reading and homework are key parts of an active social life? Really?
>
> Other cons include addiction and skeletal disorders. It's just a grab bag of nasty slanders.
>
> The article makes 9 RECOMMENDATIONS. I'll summarize them, in order:
>
> - monitor video games
> - loving discipline
> - 7-14 hours of video games per week

It's not just only 7-14 hours per week of video games. It's 7-14 of
anything that involves looking at a screen, including TV, DVDs and so
on.

> - limit video games
> - monitor video games
> - limit video games
> - limit video games
> - limit video games
> - have "good" video games replace TV
>
> So 9 out of 9 recommendations are ANTI video games. Or as the loop insight author would call it, "pro video games".

This article isn't even consistent. One paragraph reads:

> Some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are often not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative.

The last paragraph reads:

> According to Los Angeles-based psychotherapist Robert Butterworth, PhD , you should "evaluate the shows and games not just in terms of violence or obscenity, but in terms of the mental engagement that they require. Boys need to slay dragons and play games with action figures of cowboys and Indians," he says. "They need to be in a fantasy where they are conquering heroes; suppressing this may have long-term effects that may not be good."

So video games are bad because they encourage "violence" but they are
good because they give boys the opportunity to "slay dragons"?

Also, the former paragraph hints that sexism is bad and the last
paragraph is sexist. Boys should slay dragons but girls aren't
mentioned. Presumably girls should be playing games that involve
knitting or washing the dishes.

Also, some of the comments are pure poison:

>My son is 13.

And you are sharing this...why?

> He doesn't play 'violent' games ever, but there is some 'killing' etc in Mine Craft and Mario games. I don't like that term but at least it's not blood and guns.

What is the point of these two sentences? Either "violence" is bad or
it's not, which is it?

> However, as fast paced as these games are he cannot seem to do everyday tasks, even brushing his teeth, in a timely manner. Seriously, it appears that he has a mental challenge.

He has the challenge of having a massive bitch for a mother.

>He is a huge procrastinator, always needs to 'use the bathroom' or he's hungry or some other excuse. He doesn't want to do his school work (we homeschool)

She's helping spread the procrastination meme. She's saying he has to
do stuff he doesn't want to, so of course he's going to put it off
unless she helps him figure out something better to do. And if he
doesn't know any other way of dealing with stuff he doesn't want to
do, e.g. - eliminating it or changing his interpretation so he want to
do it, then he will continue to procrastinate.

> I monitor what he's playing within reason. He plays minecraft on teams, which is great but most of his 'friends' are virtual.

So what?

> I even tried Minecraft Homeschool. Same results with a 'little' bit of learning.

Gamification:

http://minecrafthomeschool.com/

So instead of learning stuff he's interested in she's trying to trick
him into learning stuff he finds boring. And teaching him that
learning is a boring chore that has to be coated with games. And she
might be ruining the game for him too.

> I asked him to unload and reload the dishwasher, there was about 1/3 of a load. It took him over 30 min. until I gave him a 2 min timer and a threat of grounding. STILL, didn't get it done.

Suppose that emptying a dishwasher is really easy, then he can learn
it when he has some reason to do so and she doesn't have to bully him.
If emptying the dishwasher is hard in bullying won't help him learn.
So why is she doing this?

Also, she has the time to come up with this elaborate scheme and then
stand around and watch him empty the dishwasher but not to empty it
herself?

> Seriously he looked like he was in super slow motion. Anybody else have this issue? I now have his computer, his phone and his tablet. I've tried to explain that since I am responsible for his well being I have to buckle down and redirect him.

Quite right too! He has to buckle down and learn those dishwasher
emptying skills now! After all he could be the dishwasher emptier to a
great scientist someday! Or maybe he could win the gold at the
Olympics for dishwasher emptying! It'll be just like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSav51fVlKU

But with dishwashers!

Alan

[Elliot Temple]

On May 4, 2014, at 5:14 PM, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Also, the former paragraph hints that sexism is bad and the last
> paragraph is sexist. Boys should slay dragons but girls aren't
> mentioned. Presumably girls should be playing games that involve
> knitting or washing the dishes.

it's worse than that if you look at real games, e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BoD_8DJZ1I

> Also, some of the comments are pure poison:

are you sure the poison isn't diluted with alphabet soup? ;)

>> My son is 13.
>
> And you are sharing this...why?

it's a type of appeal to authority

>
>> He doesn't play 'violent' games ever, but there is some 'killing' etc in Mine Craft and Mario games. I don't like that term but at least it's not blood and guns.
>
> What is the point of these two sentences? Either "violence" is bad or
> it's not, which is it?

author thinks violence comes in degrees (true) and that it's better to make smaller compromises than bigger ones (umm sorta?).

>> However, as fast paced as these games are he cannot seem to do everyday tasks, even brushing his teeth, in a timely manner. Seriously, it appears that he has a mental challenge.
>
> He has the challenge of having a massive bitch for a mother.

:(

>> I monitor what he's playing within reason. He plays minecraft on teams, which is great but most of his 'friends' are virtual.
>
> So what?

a virtual friend would be like Eliza or some other computer-controlled character. a human being who is far away is not a "virtual" friend, he's a real life human being.

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com
www.curi.us