British Neuroscientist Says Games Cause Dementia
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
lol year the sun is about on a par with the newspapers they read in men in black to look for alien stories.
its owned by Rupert Murdock which should tell you all you need to know.
I'll worry about this dosey *****'s ideas if they show up in new scientist.
its owned by Rupert Murdock which should tell you all you need to know.
I'll worry about this dosey *****'s ideas if they show up in new scientist.
Although I don't like to be the voice of reason when it comes to our right wing newspapers:Aidinthel said:
The Sun is the number one selling paper in Britain.
The Daily Mail (perhaps the most right wing mainstream paper) is the number two best selling.
Whatever else people tlel you about these not being well respected etc, it still is unchangable fact that they sell more newspapers than anyone else, (approx figures The Sun sells 3 million, the Mail 1.5 million, the nearest closest rival 850,000) So they do apparently represent the majority opinion in this country.
I'm not taking my scientific findings from a rag that can't even supply decent tits or funny pages...
Fucking poorly CG created comics about vampires taking up half a page by themselves.... Fuck that newspaper...
Oh and her opinion is shit, I guess...
Fucking poorly CG created comics about vampires taking up half a page by themselves.... Fuck that newspaper...
Oh and her opinion is shit, I guess...
I worked in a Hospital for a brief stint and I was chatting with a nurse who mentioned:
Nurse: "I used to go to the gym and play sports... they I realised I was getting addicted to I quit"
Me: "But... err, you were getting healthier, were happier and sociable, right?"
Nurse: "yes, but it was still addiction. And addiction is wrong, no ifs or buts about it, I WILL NOT make the same excuses as heroin addicts, addiction is BAD! End of."
And this nurse was no dummy, she's a trained medical professional and the other nurse and doctor in the conversation nodded in agreement "oh yes, addiction is bad in all forms".
THAT is the attitude I have detected throughout the British medical establishment. OK, I can't say I have a comprehensive study, but you have to consider how often game critics use the term "addicting" as a positive description of games yet in the medical establishment it is as damming as labelling something as a "carcinogen".
That is why I worry that this "idea" can pick up traction even without backing of peer reviewed scientific study.
TL;DR: Hugely differing use and intention of term "addicting" in the games industry as opposed to the medical establishment is going to cause trouble
Nurse: "I used to go to the gym and play sports... they I realised I was getting addicted to I quit"
Me: "But... err, you were getting healthier, were happier and sociable, right?"
Nurse: "yes, but it was still addiction. And addiction is wrong, no ifs or buts about it, I WILL NOT make the same excuses as heroin addicts, addiction is BAD! End of."
And this nurse was no dummy, she's a trained medical professional and the other nurse and doctor in the conversation nodded in agreement "oh yes, addiction is bad in all forms".
THAT is the attitude I have detected throughout the British medical establishment. OK, I can't say I have a comprehensive study, but you have to consider how often game critics use the term "addicting" as a positive description of games yet in the medical establishment it is as damming as labelling something as a "carcinogen".
That is why I worry that this "idea" can pick up traction even without backing of peer reviewed scientific study.
TL;DR: Hugely differing use and intention of term "addicting" in the games industry as opposed to the medical establishment is going to cause trouble
I have read several studies claiming the opposite for years now. It's been some years since the last study I read claiming that, but I don't think the fact that the media has evolved makes our brains worse though. If she hasn't presented any proof by now I don't think this is worth getting upset over, though if this is true then I will restrict my kids on not playing too much games when that time comes.
well, they don't. video games have been around how long? and they've only been popular for how long? And we're expected to believe the cause a mental disorder related to old age? Pathetic scare tactics.
You know what Video Games need? The level-headed and sensible approach of 1860's Victorian medical philosophy.
Video Games are the leading cause of dementia and female dirtiness. They promote bad humors by infuriating a healthy phrenology.
Video Games are the leading cause of dementia and female dirtiness. They promote bad humors by infuriating a healthy phrenology.
Let me see... A baroness scientist taking an authoritarian position on what she claims, without presenting evidence what so ever. Looks like a bad case of "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. Nor the fact that she is a scientist, nor especially the fact that she's a baroness is a valid argument in defending her position. That would be an in-depth study on both neurology and psychology of children playing video games spanning several years at least, eventually providing evidence to her claims, after which the said study would have to be seriously verified again and again and again.Earnest Cavalli said:
In short: she's a pretty lousy scientist... even despite being a baroness, muahaha.
Yeah, by the way, did you know that games are a leading cause for homosexuality? Not genetics, not in utero conditions... games and nothing but games.
"So they do apparently represent the majority opinion in this country."MelasZepheos said:
3 million + 1.5 million is no where close to the whole 60 million population of the UK. The thing is not many people read newspapers any more, and why should they?
It's not like newspapers are the only source of news. And to anyone with a critical mind, who really considerer it the best source? Newspapers are inherently hamstrung by how the printing process is slow with latency yet impossible to amend yet tries to be as current as possible, the result is papers are full of huge inaccuracies as they rush as fast as possible to get something out. They just CANNOT compete with other media like TV, Radio and internet for news.
So what are papers for? Cheap polemic. The currency of this medium is not facts, or insight but a political ideology that panders to their (minority) audiences' fear, disgust and hate. It is not for the critical mind who likes to extract from multiple sources but for a throw away rag of limited consideration while they are fed a stream of self-affirming logical fallacies.
On average 6-7 million people regularly watch political programs like "Have I got News For you". I don't have figures but I'd wager more people watch one of the videos on The Escapist than subscribe to the Daily Mail.
Magazines like The Economist has wider circulation of 1.6 million per week though it is a weekly magazine rather than daily paper, arguably it has more influence than the Daily Mail that labours the point and really, who reads which publications.
I take a daily train along the London line sharing it with businessmen commuters and are they reading any papers? Maybe the evening standard (which is handed out for free) if anything it's The Times but they aren't. They're on iPads, laptops, smartphones or doing paperwork. Newspapers aren't what they used to be.
Do not give a fuck.
I'd rather die with dementia, unable to remember the life in which I did what I wanted than die with a fully capable mind in which I remember the bitter, unfulfilled and joyless life I had lived.
I don't see the obsession with living without ailments, it sounds like a shit way to live.
I'd rather die with dementia, unable to remember the life in which I did what I wanted than die with a fully capable mind in which I remember the bitter, unfulfilled and joyless life I had lived.
I don't see the obsession with living without ailments, it sounds like a shit way to live.
I think you demonstrate the weasel words that Greenfield uses. Using the word "arousal" and "children" is clearly inflammatory in what it implies but doesn't directly say. She may argue that she is using a scientific term but she chose a term that colloquially is used to mean "to have a heightened sense of sexual emotions" which is obviously really wrong to think of inspiring in children.MianusIzBleeding said:
Yet she said "it arouses children".
That's fucked up. That's inappropriate, for how it by weasel words implies perversion of children when there is nothing to state. Games are notorious for having extreme censorship of anything remotely sexual, to a far greater extent than film and TV and the shit you can get away with is music. You think it's OK for a little kid to hear that "disco stick" song?
Oh, but using ANY electronic gadgets, that causes "arousal".
Greenfield is a waste of time.
