Gralian said:
Dastardly said:
I think the greater hazard in video games is the sense of accomplishment we feel when completing tasks.
I agree with this, but with one major amendment; it's not a hazard that we feel greater accomplishment from virtual tasks. It's a natural reaction to being praised for doing something and being duly rewarded. It's why we play games in the first place, and you could even argue, partly why sports is popular. The feeling of "oh yeah man we just beat the other team!" is the same feeling you get when you go "oh yeah man we just beat that huge-ass boss!".
Oh, I definitely agree that it's natural. No question at all about that. It's also logical and reasonable. But I call it a "hazard." That means that it
could be dangerous. A sharp turn on the road is a "hazard," meaning it could pose a risk if not properly negotiated. It doesn't mean that turn itself is somehow bad or unnatural, just that it can more easily lead to problems than some other, gentler turns out there.
The reward is often extremely disproportionate to the task, even though both are fictional.
Here's where I wasn't very clear. By "the reward," I mean the feeling of satisfaction that comes with the awesome item. By "the task," I simply mean the in-game task--clicking the mouse at appropriate times to reduce a hit point bar to zero while keeping your own above zero (with other variations thrown in to add some complexity, of course).
We internalize the victory of a fictional situation far faster than we internalize the danger. What I mean is that it's more likely for a person to think, "I'm awesome for having completed this quest and gotten this awesome sword!" than it is for them to think, "I'm in actual mortal peril from these digital zombies."
A lot of this has to do with the fact that
other people reinforce the satisfaction of the reward, whereas other people don't reinforce the fictional danger. "Sweet, man, you got that sword. I hear it's really hard to go, so awesome!" is far more common than "Wow, I can't believe you risked your life against those fictional zombies..."
Our sense of reward is generally proportionate to the amount of risk we
perceive the task to entail. We can often allow a
fictional risk to increase our
perception of the risk we had to take to achieve the result. So, while you actually just had to sit at home and click buttons in a safe environment, your mind tells you that you braved hordes of zombies
and demonstrated extraordinary combat prowess (and magic!) to get this sword. Consciously, we know there was no danger.
(For another example, consider roller coasters or skydiving. People enjoy these tasks and love them because they feel that sense of excitement and accomplishment. You buy a keychain to show everyone how you braved that coaster, or you keep a video to show everyone how you braved the open sky. We feel as though we just overcame a very real and significant chance of injury or death. Statistically, these are both
extremely safe activities (due to the gear, the training instructors, all all of the safeguards in place). Our minds amplify that perceived danger, however, and this also amplifies the "rush" and sense of accomplishment.)
With that cognitive bias, when we internalize the risks and rewards unequally, the reward is disproportionate to the actual task.
This is where i feel the crux of your argument should be. rewards are more immediate. When you do that quest to slay those ten undead, you don't have to wait for the end of the month to get your reward. It's just a thirty second jog down to the guy who gave you the quest and you collect your reward. Multiplying that by the dozen, it's easy to see why the feeling of reward and accomplishment is much more pronounced in video games. Even if you don't take the MMO template, simply killing another player in an online shooter is still a feeling of "accomplishment and reward" for the skill of the player.
This really is the crux of my argument. I just feel that this phenomenon is
amplified due to the cognitive bias mentioned above (in which we can disproportionately internalize the weight of these accomplishments).
Here is where i take serious issue with your argument. While getting a stable job, a place to live, and making sure you have food on your plate are very serious real life achievements indeed, having a girlfriend, having kids, climbing mountains, or learning to play an instrument is not...
All hobbies have the potential to become the same kind of problem--when you sink that hole-in-one, you feel like the king of the world, and this could become an addictive feeling when the rest of your life isn't as exciting or immediately (or immensely) gratifying. But, yes, it is similarly "unimportant," all things considered. (I do think video games have the potential to contain far more, and more active, reinforcers for this sort of thing, though.)
When I talk about "real world accomplishments," I'm talking about those things that often don't
feel as rewarding as "slaying a dragon," but are in reality far more important, difficult, and noteworthy. Few people feel the same thrill at getting a steady paycheck that someone might if they killed a world-ending necromancer... but that shouldn't diminish the accomplishment.
In the end, it's not about weighing the
actual accomplishments, though. I'm just talking about the potential for someone to become addicted to the inflated
sense of accomplishment that the video game world often provides, to the point that they play games
to the exclusion of some more important real-world activities.
Someone that enjoys games, but still gets work done and keeps their marriage healthy, that's fine. Someone who enjoys games just as much... but allows it to interfere with work or with their marriage, because the game feels more immediately and immensely rewarding? That's the kind of problem I'm talking about.
(Also, the 'caller' in the original post isn't necessarily in that category. I'm just talking about some of the problems a person asking the "Is it too much?" question might want to watch for.)
