Games are very good for neural development!! !

Post Reply New Topic

Edited

Interesting.

I do find some games useful training devices.

I like to try to get something useful out of anything in life and not just limit it to schoolwork alone. For much of the time before my mom got me into actual books, Zelda games were the only things I would "read". Again, Zelda, as well as both Portal games, have had a lot of great puzzles. A ton of different games with various types of strategy, like having to survive waves of zombies or other kinds of enemies, or getting a high score. I also think that there are some games that have a kind of storytelling that just can not be replicated in any other kind of media.

Then there are games like Call of Duty that, despite trying to see why others like it so much again and again, I find hard to appreciate at all. It's just mind numbing and doesn't require you to think. I feel games like this give some of the more engaging ones a bad name, as well as to target the medium altogether as a scapegoat for bad parenting.

0 for physical development.

Beautiful.

Also, this is some article trying to validate the existence of video games isn't it?

Huh? Are you saying they don't exist? Or that they aren't good for neural development?

--Rami

http://www.myaspergerschild.com/2011/06 ... -game.html

I am not saying I believe in this article (my mom sent this to me)
but I thought there should be a counter argument

That article is scientism, which is false. Notice how it says 'games *may* yadda yadda yadda'.

Scientism refers to a belief in the universal applicability of the systematic methods and approach of science, especially the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[1] The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[2][3] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[4] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[5] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[6] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I agree - anything that makes a person think will cause neural development. Games are interactive (some more than others), and whereas they tend to not be as deep as books or even movies or full series of TV shows, the interactive part requires much more thinking regardless.

Re: Civ 1 and 2, I've played all of them, and I do think Civ 2 was the most fun overall. Civs 3-5 add some elements and remove others (it's pretty much impossible to have a truly large empire in 3-5.. I'm not sure why they did this exactly.. because the AI will always be relatively poor otherwise?), but overall I find them simply not as fun. I must have put hundreds of hours into Civ 2.. none of the other games have seemed nearly as fun.

Alpha Centauri was fun too at the time, but I went back to it (Good Old Games ftw) and it just doesn't seem that great anymore. Dunno why. Perhaps the planetary terrain is too dull, and the generic-y tech advancement descriptions don't do it for me..

Overall, games are good

I'm trying to say they aren't good for anything.

Civ 2 was great. I'd say it did a lot for me, edumacation wise.

Do you play games?

Some of the greatest thinkers alive today disagree with you.

_The Beginning of Infinity_, by David Deutsch, a physicist and philosopher, made strong arguments for games.

_Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain_, by David Eagleman, a Cognitive Neuroscientist and philosopher, made strong arguments for games.

Would you like to provide some counter arguments to their arguments for games?

--Rami

Yes, I play video games, yes I know I'm a hypocrite.

I've never heard of either of them so that was pointless, never once met a videogame player who was smart.

Hazeleye is a known troll, now banned. I would ignore her posts.

Hmm. I wasn't going to suggest that you are or are not a hypocrite.
-- Why did you mention this?

Are you saying that because you've never met person A, that person A can't exist?
-- If yes, how many people do you know? Now divide that by 6,000,000,000. What percentage is that?
-- If no, what did you mean instead?

My mentioning David Deutsch and David Eagleman was pointless? Why? Are you suggesting that I should have known that you didn't know them?
-- If yes, did you think I'm so smart that could read your mind? I'm not that smart.
-- If no, what did you mean instead?

Rami

You mean banned because of his reply to my post? Oh I don't think that was necessary. Not yet at least. Can you unban him?

Rami