FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS CAUSE BRAIN DAMAGE ACCORDING TO NEW STUDY

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Studies are generally flawed, though.  Nor do they equate to law.

See how easy it is to dismiss science when you don't agree with it.

 

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

SNIP

I'd give up, the amount of knowledge and education you would have to impart in order for some people to understand even a 1/10th of it would cost $20,000 if it came from a university.

 

Scientific illiteracy is a thing, unfortunately.

 

[PlayStation 2]

Of course it's Canada. If Florida is America's penis, then Canada is the hat always flying off America.

[Stefan1024]

Just keep in minde: correlation is NOT equal to cause!

 

Edit: and as with every human body function: if you don't use it, you lose ot, as our body tries to finde the most efficient adaption to the daily requirements.

[Equlix]

This story caused me more brain damage than any game. 

[Tsuki]

so, i dont play a lot of first person shooters (some, but they arent really my style). but this is the biggest load of crap ive ever heard.

[Soonercoop]

20 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

2. Games like CoD and CS:GO require very little thought and are usually just reaction time tests.

I would say that in competitive, CS:GO requires a decent amount of thought to communicate with teammates and employ strategies in placement, weapon choice, eco, etc. compared to other titles. 

 

If this study holds any water, I still think that it probably depends on the person and how they play the game. For instance, if I was new to the fps genre, it would probably take me a while to reach this phase of 'autopiloting' compared to most kids my age who have pretty much exclusively been playing fps games since they began gaming. I would bet that the main reasons that fps games in particular show a difference is that they are vastly popular, all at least decently similar to one another, and have extremely fast, disposable matches that involve nearly less thought than most forms of media consumption. I'd be curious to see similar studies on kids who watch inordinate amounts of youtube or people who binge watch television series compared directly to this study to see which is more productive.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, I have to agree with their study?  Am I not allowed to question it?  A law is more of an absolute.  All they did was make a group of guys do a task for 90hrs...there was no control to it other than learning.  That makes the study flawed.  Do push ups for 90 hours straight, see how that goes for ya.  So, mindless task for 90 hrs vs learning for 90 hrs straight.  Why not do this!  Stare at the sun for 90 hours straight then try to read a book on calc for 90 hours straight.

You don't have to agree with it, but if you had bothered to read it you'd know no one said it was a law. No one is claiming any absolutes that you seem think they are.

 

Your opinions mean nothing if you don't even bother reading or trying to understand the process.

[KrisWalker]

Bottom line is that someone at the University got absolutely owned in game and decided to come up with this study.  

[SpaceGhostC2C]

7 hours ago, Stefan1024 said:

Just keep in minde: correlation is NOT equal to cause!

Actually, in the context of an RCT it is. That's why we do experiments when we can. 

 

Your cautionary words are very relevant when looking at non-experimental data, though. 

 

3 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

 I was questioning their study, but you wanted me to just accept it as an absolute.  That's what your responses have been towards people questioning it.  Now, you're contradicting your earlier replies.

I think some reading comprehension is missing in that summary. 

Also, there wasn't many people questioning the study, because barely anyone read it. They were just throwing random caveats to the news article. 

 

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

I'd give up, the amount of knowledge and education you would have to impart in order for some people to understand even a 1/10th of it would cost $20,000 if it came from a university.

 

Scientific illiteracy is a thing, unfortunately.

 

I thought Idiocracy was just a light comedy... But the divide between scientists and the rest of society is real

The large masses enjoying the results of scientific research constantly dismissing scientists and their methods... A few more years and this thread will be:

-"I think them scien'ists are just faaag! "

-"Yeah, headshot!" 

[nims0c]

If I play in third person will I still damage my brain? :thinking:

[Princess Luna]

As far as I am concerned only League of Legends causes brain damage.

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

The title then generalized it as "FPSes cause brain damage!"

Except you know, the study did not generalize it as that at all.

The title of the study is:

Quote

Impact of Video Games on Plasticity of the Hippocampus

 

That's quite different from "FPSes cause brain damage".

[HisEvilness]

I must admit my brain has a hard time processing playing with utter n00bs and could lead to brain damage.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

that studies are generally flawed as they focus on things in their favor,

You come with these sort of vague generalizations and expect to be taken seriously...

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

and that they are not laws which are more absolutes.  

No one stated otherwise. You come and tell us that a camel is not a bear: OK, true, so?

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

This study focused on doing an activity that takes little to no brain function for 90 hours then had people essentially learn for 90 hours as a controller.

Let's say you can simplify it as that, OK.

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

 The title then generalized it as "FPSes cause brain damage!"  

The wrong title of this clickbait thread, yes. How does that have anything to do with the study and its method? The researchers never said such thing!

 

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, doing anything that requires little to no brain activity for 90 hours would do that.

Actually, is much more subtle than that, as there are different types of activities, different regions of the brains, and not all of them behave the same. All of these nuances, of course, are covered in the research paper.

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

 No shit, learning for 90 hours improves brain activity.  Simple logic proves the flaw of this study.  

So the results of the study seeming obvious to you prove the study flawed? 

 

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

But, remember if you don't agree with it, question it, then you simply dismiss science because you don't agree with it.  That's my point.

Yes, I'm all for that, but one can only agree or disagree with what one knows and understand.

Apparently, most people don't have time to learn and understand, though they have an urgent need to judge and conclude in 5 seconds. That is also a point.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

 You can prove how flawed this study is with simple logic.

You keep saying that without ever proving anything.

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

The study focused on a mindless task for 90 hours[limiting it to FPS games], and then learning[puzzle games] for 90 hours.  You can prove how flawed this study is with simple logic.

How does that make the study flawed?

In fact, if you had read the study (it seems to be behind a paywall now, but I was able to access the full text at work yesterday) then you would know that it was not just FPS games vs puzzle games.

 

Also, if you think "simple logic says that if you use one part of your brain then it will increases in volume" then I don't think you understand how complex the brain is or why this study was even made to begin with. Even IF the brain was a simple thing where we could just assume it worked in certain ways, it would still be a good idea to test things because sometimes things work in counterintuitive ways.

[Doobeedoo]

Urm I've been playing fps games for almost 2 decades now. 

So depends how you play them is how your brain will improve or damage it self

[LAwLz]

26 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

-snip-

I don't understand why you say the study is flawed when it seems like you think it is "simple logic" that it would be correct.

Can you please put in simple terms why you think the study is flawed? Is it because you think the results are obvious? Is it because you think they just looked at some people doing a "braindead activity" and then had another group do a "learning activity" and determined that the "learning group" became smarter?

 

 

32 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, all they did was have them do a brainless activity for an excess amount of time then had them learn for the same amount of time to observe the impact of the hippocampus.

Excess amount of time? Did you even look up how much time they spent on it? Because I certainly would not say it was an excessive amount of time.

Do you think they did 90 hours of gaming straight? They didn't.

 

 

26 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

What they observed was a difference in the utilization of the hippocampus of doing a brainless activity for 90 hours then learning for 90 hours.

Well

1) It was not "brainless activity". Just because one part of the brain isn't used as much does not mean the activity is "brainless". Other parts of the brain can be working a lot.

2) It was not a difference in utilization. It was actually a difference in volume. The hippocampus is one of the few areas of the brain where neurogenesis occurs.

3) I an not sure you could say the other games were "learning" games. They were games like Super Mario 64, and even in the same game the way you played made a difference.

 

 

45 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Or, am I missing something here?

Yes, you are missing a massive amount of things. For example that the study was actually three studies, and you seem to generalize a lot (which is not something you can do when talking about studies of how specific parts of the brain changes depending on what you do).

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, the linked articles are pretty vague.  I just keep seeing 90 hours which sounds more like an excessive gaming session.  The articles keep changing from 3D puzzles games to Mario.  Mario is not a puzzle game it is a 3D platformer.  If I'm missing something then it's shitty journalism to blame.  Also, the brainless part was a joke about the autopilot part.  Lastly, even if it wasn't 90 hours straight they are still setting it to 90 hours.  So, the question of 1 hour still applies.  But, then again my friend does seem to have brain damage.  He plays a lot of FPS games and falls for conspiracy theories.

 

The article is very bad compared to the actual paper (see this post).

It was not one session that was 90 hours. Do you honestly believe they sat down and played for 90 hours straight? The first study (out of three) actually took place over 6 months. I can't see over what period of time the second and third study took place though.

 

They tested several games, not just COD vs puzzle game. In fact, they even tested different types of FPS games and found that the design of the game was more important than the genre.

 

I doubt 1 hour would have any measurable impact.

 

Not sure if that last part is a joke, but this is not related to believing conspiracy theories.

[luckydog32]

I think it's pretty odd that 90 hours of anything can cause a measurable change in the level of gray matter. And if it is that malleable then it should be easily reversible.

[Jito463]

My question would be, were they allowed to play any other games in between the study sessions?  If so, wouldn't that skew the results?  If not, then who exactly where they using for this study?  Because I don't know of any gamer who would eschew all other games for months on end, just to play one game for a specific set period of time each day.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

My question would be, were they allowed to play any other games in between the study sessions?  If so, wouldn't that skew the results?  If not, then who exactly where they using for this study?  Because I don't know of any gamer who would eschew all other games for months on end, just to play one game for a specific set period of time each day.

2

Don't have the full study anymore, but I am fairly sure the people involved did not play any games before the study and during it, they only played the games provided to them.

 

 

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

 I feel like one of the most hated shooters would not have the same impact as Borderlands, COD, and Killzone which is Destiny.  It can get boring, there's more than just the FPS aspect of it like actual puzzles, tons of platforming, adventure/treasure hunting, and more.  It's probably the most bipolar pay wall games ever created in terms of actual genre.  Borderlands is kinda like that, but it goes back to the FPS part a lot more.  I wonder what hack and slash, brawlers, racing, actual puzzle games, and more would do.

The study was specifically for the hippocampus. So it's not just like throwing in some puzzles would combat the counter the negative impact. It would need to be something that specifically relies on the hippocampus, such as spatial memory.

[mr moose]

Dunning kruger effect. 

[LAwLz]

17 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I take it spatial memory has to do with that?

Haven't played Destiny so I don't know what that game is like. I am also not a neuroscientist so I am not at all qualified to say what will and won't use certain regions of the brain.

Even a statement like "the hippocampus is responsible for spatial memory" is a very big simplification.