Forums » General Gaming

The Neurology of Gaming

    • 59 posts
    November 29, 2012 4:23 PM EST

    I found this via a Facebook page I liked ("I F*cking Love Science") and thought it was interesting and figured you guys would like to see it! 

    http://dsc.discovery.com/life/this-is-your-brain-on-video-games-infographic.html

    Thoughts?

    I have to say I dislike the Discovery Channel, or I dislike organizations of media that appeal to "laymans" in such a way that makes it unscientific as a whole because the "bigger picture" or context is missing, they ignore the rest of the experiment, I think its called "tabloid journalism". Also they never reference their articles and so they speak in terms that are so layman it makes it unreliable in the scientific community because of its "summing up" and lack of understanding and explanation.

    For example, it states that video games does in fact make people more aggressive, it however doesn't support this claim with references and its tabloid journalism approach makes it seem like this is true but only out of context. Say it may be true that aggressive does increase with playing video games it may only increase when the subject in question has aggressive tendances anyway and so aggressive people play these aggressive games so are more likely to be aggressive. Or it only increased in 30 out of 50 people or a slight increase so while there may be an increase its really not significant enough but could be translated into layman its "it causes aggressiveness". But its mostly tabloid journalism. Which is never good.     

  • November 29, 2012 4:58 PM EST

    Not my field of science but I'll do my best. I agree with you that the Discovery Channel shouldn't 'dumb down' stuff if it completely removes the point the people who figured it out were trying to make. Luckily I have something I call "Short-Span Obsession-ism disorder (oddly named on purpose)," basically where I get obsessed something for like a week, so if I see something on the Discovery Channel that interests me, I'll do more info on it, using more credible sources. I also enjoy Shark Week

    • 291 posts
    November 29, 2012 5:57 PM EST

    All I can say is, "meh".  I feel like a lot of information is left out.

    For example:

    Violent gameplay suppresses emotional responses.  Yes, this is true.  However, it doesn't go to explain why or for what reason.  Why are emotional responses suppressed?  Because it's not real.  We know that what is happening on screen isn't real, therefore, we'll feel less bad if we decapitate someone than if we did such a thing in real life (which would cause an appropriate level of horror and emotional pain in most people).

    Another one:  Violent gameplay increases aggressive responses.  But in what context?  What responses?  What situations?  What was the actual study, if it could have even been called a study.

    And another:  Games that require teamwork help develop collaboration skills.  Again, in what context?  What was the game?  Because, frankly, I have a hard time believing teaming up with people to PVP or raid in an MMO would increase anyone's collaboration skills.  Most of the time you're just doing what someone tells you to do.  That's not really collaborating, that's following directions.  Collaboration also involves communication, which is often sorely lacking.  However, if we are talking about teamwork in the context of playing with friends, then yes, it would probably help develop your ability to communicate effectively with your friends.

    I could do this with every single point.  The big question for all of these is "In what context?"

    I'm just of the stance that video games probably don't do that much bad or good for you.  Not anymore than watching a movie or building models or any number of hobbies might.  So long as you moderate your activities, you'll be fine and live a standard life like everyone else.  Obviously, getting addicted and neglecting real life is very much a negative, but that could happen with any hobby.  I suppose video games, like television, tend to be the easiest to encounter.

    • 111 posts
    November 29, 2012 6:11 PM EST

    Well "Discovery" ??Channel be blowed and tabloid journalism which subscribes to the postulation that video games make people more aggressive.

    As someone who is over 60 and has been playing video games for nearly 20 years I can tell you that adults (really old people) were saying this about me and my mates when we were playing cowboys and Indians in the streets dressing up and wearing toy six guns etc. We also played war and used toy smgs and heavy toy machine guns in mock battles with 20 or so of us taking part in a field with bushes, trees and ditches.Were we more aggressive? No on your Nelly! We were playing and rarely did anyone get hurt unless they fell out of a tree as a sniper, or maybe sat on their scabbard. Last I heard falling off a keyboard wasn't that dangerous, neither is blistering your thumb on your games console

    As far as I can see the only risk element attached to playing video games is that connected with the lack of physical exercise and any prolonged absence fro exposure to sunlight 

    • 88 posts
    November 29, 2012 7:21 PM EST

    That's the problem with most research, most of it is extremely specific. All you can do is read the research yourself and then form your own opinions based on the science, although figuring out what information is useful requires a bit of practice.

    For example, "violent gameplay suppresses emotional responses" may have been the conclusion of a study that showed a statistically significant difference (although what are they comparing said emotional responses to?), which may be as low as a .5% difference. This is of course just an example, and it's likely these kind of studies use a different form of sampling. Point being, studies may show something but that something may have no real life application. As Kyrielle pointed out we're lacking context to go with the information we're recieving.

    I didn't read the article because Imeera said it lacked reference, so I couldn't care less. If I am to read it I need access to every single study so I can dissect every piece of information and form my own opinon. I don't need someone else to dissect the information for me and tell me what the findings are because he may be interpreting the results in a different way because he hates video games, or he really wants these studies to show something interesting to increase the number of studies made in this field.

    Always go to the source, don't go for the summed up version of it; a lot is left out to make their point.

    • 162 posts
    November 30, 2012 3:01 AM EST

    I've to say that a group of about 20 yelling an swearing boys with toy swords or guns always looks quite scaring to me. In those cases I tend to take a little detour.

    • 162 posts
    November 30, 2012 3:22 AM EST

    In the first years Discovery and NGC were broadcast on the dutch tv I regular look at them. Unfortunally the last years they are broadcast to many program's like Hillbilly hand fishing, Chasing UFO's, Building, supercars, Finding bigfoot, that Teutel crap, etc. (at least on the dutch version btw), so I look quite less at them. I look more Animal planet now.

    What does that last last controle shaped picture means btw? That women stay quite and calm when achieve something while men gonna bounce around as addicted lunatics ?

    • 966 posts
    November 30, 2012 4:25 AM EST

    I agree with you about the discovery channel thing, barely watch it anymore either.

    And I think that means that male gamers on general get more satisfaction from achieving something in-game than female gamers.

    • 577 posts
    November 30, 2012 9:10 AM EST

    Doesn't it show it's references at the bottom?

    • 88 posts
    November 30, 2012 2:34 PM EST

    I just looked, and ..

    Short answer: Yes and no. But mostly no.

    Long answer: Only websites are referenced. That's a big no, they need to reference all of the actual studies. Referencing websites does not tell me wether or not the studies they used are good or bad. If you go to their first referenced site, click an article and scroll to the bottom. You'll often see a bunch of lines sporting a <title> <name of person(s) who did the study> <journal in which the study was published (including year and journal number)>

    Again, linking to a site doesn't tell me if the studies used were any good, and if they are basing their infographic (which is basically summed up information) on other information that has been summed up you basically get the 1 feather into 10 chickens thing. Information is lost, people are biased when creating/reading articles and doing/reading research.

    • 144 posts
    November 30, 2012 3:43 PM EST

    I don't really put a whole lot of stock in these studies. Normally people make them and/or read them to justify their point of view, but I don't need to justify myself. I love to play video games and will continue to enjoy them for the foreseeable future. Whether it's good or bad for me, that won't change.

    • 111 posts
    November 30, 2012 8:46 PM EST

    If you class swearing as "Jesus Christ" or an insult as "We can use your mum's rock cakes as ammo for our catapults (a very sensible and practical suggestion)" then yes we did yell at each other a bit. In those days words beginning with f were restricted to fish, fish net stockings and football. "Bloody Hell" was about as serious as it got and then if you were overheard by your parents a cauliflower ear resulted for the language. It was not uncommon to see a group of boys playing football, swimming or paddling, climbing trees, and exploring, Usually though it was 2 three or four like minded scallywags that got up to mischief. Playing games together was important. For boys it was usually games linked to violence, competition, or one upmanship. For girls it involved a different sort of role play. Doctors and nurses was common (yuk) postman's knock, skipping  and other really boring and sissy stuff which lacked any competitiveness or testosterone input unless you were into dressing up(Ralph)