Reputation: 2589
Q&A:
52
0
4
1611
142
0
Classifieds:
0
0
|
Kids need time to just be kids, too, to just kick back and not have to think for awhile. If screentime is their downtime, let them have a little, so long as it isn't preventing them from getting their homework done. Don't let it become the only kind of downtime they have, but a total prohibition isn't realistic.
We all need some time to be non-productive, some unscheduled time. Just don't let them use the screens right before bed, put reasonable limits on types of games and programs, and reserve the right to further limit or prohibit screen use if it becomes an issue.
I see a lot of people who seem to think kids need to have a sanctioned activity for every second. I'd have gone crazy with that kind of overscheduling, and I think most kids would.
|
I think you are constructing a false dichotomy between playing games and never having any downtime. If we were talking about smoking cigarettes or playing with explosives, nobody would be arguing that kids "need" it to unwind and be unproductive. If games are in fact harmful, then why allow them? There are any number of other things that you can do to be non-productive, unscheduled, be a kid, and so on. It is not true that kids who are not allowed video games spend 100% of their time on drudgery.
The point that not all activities must be "sanctioned" or organized, adult-led, group activities is well taken, to be sure. You're right about that.
But the central question is, what harm, if any, do games cause? If they are harmful, and offer no benefits, then what is the justification? If you believe there is some level of game play that is acceptable, what level is that? And what is the evidence to support it?
What bugs me about games is that they look an awful lot like pure rock cocaine to me. They're addictive -- by design -- and they don't seem to make you a better person in any way. I've observed that the more anybody plays them, the worse shape that person is in.
|
|
Video games are like any other games: they can be fun, they often involve serious intellectual challenges, and they can be a safe outlet for competitive and aggressive urges. As far as gamers being in bad shape: that's true of any excessive sedentary habit.
Like sitting on your ass and commenting on internet message boards, for instance. Not that that's all you do, but I doubt you would accept the idea that the unhealthiness of doing nothing but commenting on internet message boards is conclusive evidence that commenting on internet message boards is inherently bad for one's health.
Your reasoning is all sound, but your premise that video games are more akin to smoking and home bomb cooking than to poker and parcheesi, and that therefore the burden of evidence is on those who feel that games ought to be allowed, is ridiculous.
|
|
I agree with Lee. I've been a gamer my whole life, have known many other gamers, and a very large percentage of us are rather skinny, to be honest. For those who are on the bigger side, I think it's less the video games that make them that way, and more their personality/lifestyle. I've never met anyone who was skinny and then suddenly became fat after playing video games. If someone hates exercise, of course they're going to choose a sedentary activity like video games instead of physical activity. So I think your logic is a little backwards there.
As I've said before on this site, everything in moderation. There are tons of other activities you can say are unhealthy, and as people like Lee and I will point out, just about anything in excess is unhealthy.
As for games being addictive, as Geni said, it's in the parents' control. If it becomes an issue, restrict usage. As much as I love gaming, I never let it interfere with the rest of my life. I'm also old enough to make those calls for myself. Young kids and teens will almost always choose to play more games instead of doing chores, homework, etc, and that's where PARENTING comes in.
|
|
Even though I've considered myself a gamer, parents do have a right and need to raise their children with their own ideals in mind. And there certainly were instances in my life where I was probably given too much free reign to do what I wanted, as a kid, but few people can look back and say their child hood was perfectly balanced between parental control and personal freedom.
|
|
|
Lee, you're clueless about how I spend my time so let's ignore that bit of snark.
With regard to the burden of proof, what I've seen is numerous studies that document harm from games. Mostly they show harm with violent games and with excessive time playing, but even non-violent games and moderate time are associated with obesity, poor verbal development and weaker social skills.
And therefore the burden shifts to showing what benefit games offer. The harm is documented. Is the benefit documented? Where?
The vague talk about *problem solving* is a hypothesis, but where's the evidence? And there are hundreds of other activities that teach problem solving that don't have a documented harm.
So even if we were considering a minuscule amount of screen time -- 15 to 30 minutes a week, say -- the known benefit is zero and the known risk is non-zero. No?
|
|
|
elenchos: First you deliberately misconstrue my point about how you spend your time (which was more that the one thing I know you do, which is comment on internet message boards, would be an unhealthily sedentary activity if it were not balanced with other things, as I'm sure it is in your case), then you make a vague appeal to authority (there are numerous studies claiming that masturbation leads to blindness as well), and then infer a benefit of zero on the grounds that the only benefit provided is available elsewhere. The logic there would imply that because potatoes have calories, and since calories are available elsewhere, potatoes have no benefit, and given the potential for solanine poisoning should be avoided completely.
Clearly if one were to make dietary pronouncements in this manner one might be considered slightly mad. In any case, I for one do not accept it as a rational basis for taking the position on video games that you are arguing for.
|
|
|
Potatoes are a good source of vitamin C, and many other vitamins. They're also inexpensive, and easy to cook. Toxic potatoes are easily identified visually, by the green discoloration. Which is why there have been *zero* solanine poisonings in the US in the last 50 years, in spite of eating some 20 million tons of potatoes yearly.
There have been more than zero cases of children harmed by video games in the last 50 years. And games are not known to be a source of vitamin C. If there was a way to visually identify which video games are harmful, as easily as one can see which potatoes are tainted with solanine, it would make an enormous difference.
I'd be pleased to see even one study that demonstrates a positive effect from games. Just one.
|
|
|
See, was that so hard?
I can't say I find Wei Peng's unpublished paper all that convincing. With regard to purported "educational" games, he writes, "Only positive effects will be discussed among educational games." That's called begging the question. We want to know if the effects are positive or negative, and he declares at the outset that negative effects are not under consideration at all. So the question of whether there are better uses of your time than playing "educational" games is not examined at all. And even then, he finds mixed results, at best, to support the claim that educational games are of any worth. What the relevance of that to buying your kid a home video game system is, I don't know.
Similarly, if you're not a laparoscopic surgeon, is the second study really saying games are helpful to you? Its telling that you have to dig up such an obscure profession to find someone who is better off from playing games.
But I grant you, you found something. It's much more informative than all that defensiveness and the false choices and straw man attacks.
|
|
|
You're really not understanding much of what I'm saying, elenchos. Defensiveness, false choices and straw man attacks characterize your position much more than mine. Peppered with generous helpings of surly condescension, of course.
You asked for studies saying that games could have positive effects, and I obliged, as you seemed to be suggesting they didn't exist. I still see this as fundamentally beside the point, because we haven't established that games are harmful to children. We have merely established that you believe they are, because studies you have read suggest correlations between playing video games and unhealthy personal attributes.
You acknowledged at the very beginning of this thread that unstructured, undirected play time was beneficial to children, but said that you didn't feel that video games were an option because they pose, in your view, serious mental and physical health risks.
When I pointed out that all of us do things which if done immoderately would pose the very same mental and physical health risks, you very quickly shifted the goal posts. Now, you feel that it must be shown that video games are clearly superior to some other form of leisure activity in order to be allowed at all -- these games must have a specific benefit that cannot be found elsewhere before we can run the risk that the relatively meagre science justifying the moral panic around video games may be correct.
Bullshit.
If your position is that video games, even in strict moderation and alongside other varieties of structured and unstructured activity, are innately harmful and children should be shielded from them in the same way we shield them from cigarettes and explosives, there ought to be some evidence to that effect, and you have so far not gone out of your way to cite it.
|
|
|
Your link is interesting; it has several contradictory "Related Stories" over on the right:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100607122547.htm
The one that says violent games are only a problem for a minority of kids involved all of 118 subjects, who merely played a game and then too a quiz. Some study. While the link next to it, "Violent Video Game Feed Aggression In Kids In Japan And U.S." involved a total of over 1500 subjects who were followed for 3-6 months.
The article "How Violent Video Games Are Exemplary Aggression Teachers" involved even more subjects, 2,500, studied for six months.
Huh. I wonder what that means. Any theories?
|
|
"Research is inconclusive, emphasises Kierkegaard. It is possible that certain types of video game could affect emotions, views, behaviour, and attitudes, however, so can books, which can lead to violent behaviour on those already predisposed to violence. The inherent biases in many of the research studies examined by Kierkegaard point to a need for a more detailed study of video games and their psychological effects."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080514213432.htm
"However, Kierkegaard explains, there is no obvious link between real-world violence statistics and the advent of video games. If anything, the effect seems to be the exact opposite and one might argue that video game usage has reduced real violence. Despite several high profile incidents in US academic institutions, "Violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s," says Kierkegaard, "while video games have steadily increased in popularity and use. For example, in 2005, there were 1,360,088 violent crimes reported in the USA compared with 1,423,677 the year before. "With millions of sales of violent games, the world should be seeing an epidemic of violence," he says, "Instead, violence has declined."
|
|
|
Aggression isn't even the worst effect of video games.
They suck up all your time, and give you nothing in return. They don't make you smarter or impart knowledge of anything other than video game lore. And you spend all that time on the couch.
Americans have been getting fatter, and fatter, and fatter still. Teenagers especially are growing alarmingly obese. People who believe utter nonsense seems to be on the rise too; one in five think Obama wasn't born in the US, or that 9/11 was a hoax. It's as if knowing things that are actual facts is out of fashion. Why is that?
|
|
|
I play my video games at a desk.
Also, obesity has many causes, but I very much doubt a valid criticism of video games is that they make you fat. The valid criticism is never getting out of the house and exercising. You are blaming the symptom, not the cause of the problem. Should we stop people from knitting because you sit while you do that activity? Should we forbid our children from reading because they can't exercise while doing it?
And finally, maybe video games have given you and the people you know nothing in return, but for me personally they have given me a lot in my life. I am an extremely fast typist because of online games - literally only because of that (I failed typing classes several times when I was younger). This is one major factor for why I have placed as high as I have in law school this year. I am able to easily translate thoughts in my head into my writing - which I attribute to the necessary speed of conveying ideas in online games. I learned amazing leadership skills and organizational skills running a 100+ person guild a few years ago (as well as meeting wonderful people, many of whom I still talk with and are a very healthy support group for me). I have an amazing ability to retain knowledge and with a single cue of my memory entire blocks of knowledge come back to me - this I attribute to reading (where just seeing a cover of a book is all it takes to remember the entire story) AND to video games (where simply entering a dungeon recalls to me entire maps, strategies, boss fights, and ways to lead a group to survive). Literally, encyclopedic levels of knowledge that come back to me at a simple cue - of which I have thousands stored in my mind from running dungeons in games and this is a skill that will translate amazingly well into being a practicing lawyer where a clients name will recall every case, every strategy, and every issue I will need to know.
I learned complex diplomatic and strategic thinking from both playing chess as a child AND playing strategy games - which has served me amazingly well in life. Chess taught me to think five steps ahead in life, to look at not just my first move, but all possible moves, and all possible responses to those moves. But strategy video games taught me to do that AND taught me to juggle complex statistics, organizational charts, and while making critical decisions under pressure.
So, my point is - you don't know what you are talking about.
Whatever the studies show, it is very clear that my generation, which was raised on computer games, the generations that have come after me that were raised on video games, and the kids right now at home playing them, are NOT violent crazed monsters.
Second, your personal opinion is that games offer no benefit and no return for their time. I disagree, and I think I have a lot more personal anecdotal evidence to form an opinion on than you do.
I think it is one of the most active ways to engage a persons mind with a recreational activity. Second only to sports, I believe, and games offer a more intellectual engagement where sports help with active decision making and strategy, they also work more on muscle memory and physical endurance. Games offer similar levels of active thinking, but more deeply engage the brain and critical thinking while not engaging the body.
Books, movies, t.v., knitting. sewing, all other hobbies are passive forms of entertainment. We are not talking about education itself - we are talking about recreation. For something that is meant to be relaxing and fun, games are amazingly interactive and challenging and have given me wonderful benefits in my life.
|
|
|
elenchos, are you just looking to argue? Because you haven't really made any coherent points and stuck to them. Lee and Basil have countered every single flimsy point you've made in a logical, structured manner, and you haven't responded to any of the *very* good points they've made.
We are very much aware that you hate video games with a fiery passion. And I don't think any of us take issue with that. You're allowed an opinion. But you're failing spectacularly at convincing anyone else of their evil.
Video games are not for everyone. That is a fact. What *isn't* fact, as has been proven quite thoroughly now, is that they are harmful to anyone who plays them.
And as for the downfall of america, if you want a serious answer, then ask the rather off topic question elsewhere. If you are seriously suggesting that video games are to blame, then that's just plain ridiculous :P
|
Enter your comment or ask a new question
New comments are not being accepted at this time.
|
Arts & Music
Books & Writing
Cars, Bikes & Transit
Celebrations & Gatherings
Entertainment & Film
Family & Kids
Finance/Insure/Legal
Food & Drink
Gardening
Government Services
Health & Fitness
House & Home
Jobs & Education
News & Politics
Pets
Questionland FAQs
Science & Technology
Sex & Relationships
Sports & Recreation
Style & Beauty
Trips & Travel
Whatever
Lani Silva
Griffin
MyrnaMinkoff
BasementDweller3
Sphinx
ozchick
kitschnsync
Tom Sackett
Matt
e.strange
Rev.Enant
mynameiskate
Jesica
Jessica Baxter
TVDinner Redux
