British Neuroscientist Says Games Cause Dementia

[MisterDyslexo]

I'm not gonna argue that games have never harmed or don't have the ability to harm a fragile mind, but at the same time, I think we can all acknowledge that film has done that, no? What about theatre, what about paintings and sculptures? Music and literature? I would guess those who psyche it serious harms are in the less-than .0001%, just as everything else I listed, and I'm no rocket scientist, no neurologist, no psychologist, but it just varies among people, as clearly demonstrated how some people cling to different things. Some cling to games, others books, others comics, so-on and so forth, because you can't make broad and irrational generalizations about how everybody's mind and subconscious functions the exact same way.

 

[mrdude2010]

quote]Is the uncertainty between whether the penguin and its position in the washing machine times the uncertainty of the position of the monkeys playing the harpoon greater than ħ/2?

It's a common misconception that the whole equation is greater than ħ/2, but the truth is that it's actually less than ħ/2. Lot's of people forget to carry the 4.

This is very important.

I totally agree and I'm glad you came to me for answers.

[sub][sub]By the way, I was totally expecting to get disowned by my post all day, and when I saw this quote, I got the greatest sense of relieve. Thanks for that. [/sub][/sub]

hbar is equal to h/2π, and E=hc/lambda. The constant hbar/2 is dependent on the uncertainty in momentum and position. The uncertainty in x times the uncertainty in momentum has to be greater than hbar/2, or you would know too much about either quantity, because measuring one intrinsically affects the other, according to the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

... I'll keep that in mind. Right now, my first year college mind is a bit flustered. O_O

hbar/2 = h/4π, which is where you might have been confused. there are a couple other forms too, such as ∆E∆t≥hbar/2, as well as some ways of expressing it as a wave or something. We don't go into that until next semester, then an elective during senior year I think.

totally understandable, we did some of that stuff last year 1st semester for my major. It's really difficult to apply properly sometimes because things you think would break it often have some other element you add in that is also uncertain in some way, so it always ends up working out. Einstein didn't like it ("God does not play dice") and came up with some thought examples designed to disprove it, but Bohr ("Who are you to tell God what to do?") ended up proving that it worked anyway.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Between this and the article that popped up in my MSN news thing that said <url=http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/11/8273914-mind-blowing-sex-actually-can-wipe-memory-clean>really really good sex can cause amnesia, it seems all the fun stuff is causing your brain to rot.

I dont know how much of this i would believe though. And Im always reminded that any of these things can be expanded to media such as Movies and yet thats just "conveniently" left out of the conversation.

off topic, that pciture scared the every living fuck out of me when i scrolled down the page and saw it at 1 am in the pitch dark last night, so I found my new profile image.

 

[De Ronneman]

Warning sign #1: the article was released in The Sun, which is to legitimate news what TMZ is to 60 Minutes.

Warning sign #2: the author is "Baroness Greenfield." Anyone who uses a political/social title as their first name is clearly mad.

Warning sign #3: there's the usual Escapist inclusion of a sane professional who apparently had the time to write up an easy refutation of the nutjob's claim.

Warning sign #4: included in said refutation was the fact that the baroness was trying to sell a line of video games that supposedly counteract the condition she's touting as real. That's about as transparant as you can get short of breaking an empty test tube into a subway car, screaming that it was filled with a deadly virus, and then offering to sell sips from the "antidote" you have in a waterbottle for only $10 per person.

This is the most coherent and awesome retort I've seen in quite a while, thank you for making my day, good sir!

I have nothing else to ask. My jaw sort of hit the floor when I read that she said videogames are bad, then there's some videogames to make it better... Does not compute...

 

[Sofus]

Oh my...

The amount of evidence is simply overwhelming me. Beware!! dooing fun stuff will make you forget boring and utterly useless crap that nobody cares about! ... ehh.. over a long period of time that is.

Flee!! run for the caves... the electronical overlord is taking over... ahhhh!!

 

[geizr]

That image is going to give me nightmares.

 

[Strazdas]

her argument is as good as saying "studying cause addiction because we do a lot of it".

Then agian i dont want to cry much about newspapers anymore, since Guardian, also known for his "making shit up" altrough nto as much as fox, sun or daily mail, recently been very spot on on many things and brought me to its attention.

 

[Gitty101]

I mean no offense to anybody with or somebody who knows a person with the disease, but most of the people with it probably haven't even played a videogame before. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't dementia only affect those in the 'later' stages of their lives?

 

[CosmicCommander]

Also reported in the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/8825655/Video-games-can-alter-childrens-brains.html

Also right wing

Because obviously political affiliations dictate coverage of issues such as health, and the paper is not just making an objective analysis of it.

Seriously, did it say "SHE'S RIGHT"? It's reporting on the news. Like a newspaper is supposed to.

But this is The Sun, an idiot's guidebook printed in bite-sized daily installments which people only buy for the sports news and the pictures of tits. Their news coverage is so pissweak that they don't get credit for reporting on this woman's claims, especially since they didn't bother their arses to show the other side of a rather startling claim, merely pointing it out without any kind of "objective analysis" of what was said - a move which represents an anti-gaming bias which they seem oddly keen to promote.

So no. Your argument doesn't hold up, not in the slightest. When The Sun holds a reputation for it's "news coverage" that goes well beyond "doubtful" and right into "national joke", you can't possibly claim that they have the authority, reason, knowledge and wisdom to dictate which stories and claims constitute as 'fact', and therefore, you cannot claim that their "report" on the issue is in any way reputable.

And, if we ignore social perceptions of The Sun as idiotic, the piece itself falls apart when subjected to an objective analysis. As I already pointed out, the piece contains no counter-argument, no original research, no analysis of the claims presented and most egregiously of all, nothing to suggest that their scientific basis is doubtful - which it is.

In short, there is nothing about this piece that suggests it constitutes as "news" and even less to suggest that The Sun is attempting to simply 'tell us the facts' when many rather important facts anything resembling criticism or analysis of the claims presented is notably absent, resulting in the printing of a piece that suggests that the flawed claims of this woman are, in fact, the truth, when that simply isn't the case. And it's a version of the truth that The Sun just keeps trying to push.

Of course the Sun merely states what the woman said without making any of their own similar claims, but that doesn't mwhich means that they're probably not going to end up taking any legal flak for this, despite the fact that the intended implications of the piece are clear as day. This is not "reporting the news" this is giving a modicum of validity to a very unlikely claim by printing the claim in full and claiming it as news coverage, while simultaneously making the wildly irresponsible (yet not altogether unexpected) move of simply leaving out any opposing viewpoint.

That is NOT "reporting the news".

Oh, I'm aware. The Sun is the most idiotic rag ever put to print, and the article was clearly stupid bile. If you followed the quote trail there, you'll see I was discussing an article in The Telegraph, not the original Sun article.

Apologies for the confusion.

 

[CosmicCommander]

my mistake. That Telegraph article had a bit more credibility and at least gave a passing nod to balance and journalism. A tip of the cap to you, and enjoy your-wait

Oh, my pleasure, I'm glad we could engage i-... Oh.

On another thread a while ago, you actually said to someone "go away, lefty, you're not welcome here."

Wow, I have a stalker? Blast. Flattering.

I tend to employ a lot of glib, dry, and somewhat rude humour- even during debates. I'm relatively sure that wasn't made with sincerity; and if it was, I was probably drunk.

Who are you to criticise other people for being upfront about their bias?

Well, I wasn't criticisng their bias. I was defending the Telegraph from that attack because the poster claimed it wasn't objective or right based on vague accusations it was "right wing".

 

[CosmicCommander]

Maybe he was accusing it of a right-wing bias because he tends to employ a lot of glib, dry, and somewhat rude humour - even during debates. You have to admit, he just might be. And if he is, you can't defend the telgraph because he'd be using the same approach to criticising an argument or viewpoint that you once used.

You can't discount that, no. But it struck me he was genuine- I may be wrong, but insofar I haven't been disproved.

So I apologise. My attack on you was not only presumptuous but hypocritical, and I failed to hold you to the same standards by which I judge myself. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt regarding that past comment - after all, we all say things that are, or at least appear foolish, and we all learn from our mistakes and change over time. I should have applied that liberty to you, but in my haste, I failed to do so.

Anyway, thanks for not flaming me, I guess. A reasonable discussion is more than I deserved.

No problemo.

 

[TimeLord]

I stopped reading the article the moment you mentioned that it was from the Sun.

It's just an embarrassment that that paper is still in print.
If you still need convincing that the Sun is a joke. They have boobs on page 3, every day. So much so that such girls are referred to in general society as "Page 3 girls" and everyone instantly knows who they are.