But if reading yields benefits, and gaming has "no real difference" then that means one or both of two things.Rednog said:I'll trivialize it because the article title is kind of jumping the gun. The article is more about reading vs non reading kids.bob1052 said:inb4 the crowd of people who will say anything to trivialize a study that isn't in favor of gaming before turning around to quote any that are.
Heck the article even says directly
So pretty much reading = good, games = no real difference."The research suggests teenagers who spend a lot of time playing video games should not worry too much about their career prospects. Playing computer games frequently did not reduce the likelihood that a 16-year-old would be in a professional or managerial job at 33, the research finds. Mr Taylor's analysis also indicates that children who read books and did one other cultural activity further increased their chances of going to university."
The author pretty much buried his own title.
1. Games are negating any benefit from reading, causing children identified as gamers by this study to not gain the benefit that reading yields
2. Children who are identified in this study by the common factor of playing games are less likely to read books and therefore they do not gain the benefit that reading yields.
No matter how you look at it, this study is saying that gaming is less than ideal for children, either indirectly or directly (when dealing with post secondary education, the part you quoted about job status at 33 is interesting).