New Study Finds a Link Between Online Gaming and Higher Grades
- Thread starter Lizzy Finnegan
- Start date
Video games open you up to new ideas. Plenty of games teach you things like history, even if there is added flare. Dynasty Warriors got me super into Chinese history. Did Zhao Yun kill 1000 Wei soldiers? Probably not...but I know who Zhao Yun is. And Ive since delved into my own study of the period to learn the fact from the fiction. I know Sun Jian did a lot of what Guan Yu is credited with, I know that Diao Chan is probably not real, and I know that Liu Bei is a terrible husband.
Plus plenty of games challenge your world views, make you think critically, and obviously all the constant problem solving.
Plus plenty of games challenge your world views, make you think critically, and obviously all the constant problem solving.
You could say the same about youtube, the cinema, and playing Netrunner at the LGS weekly tournament. Did you know Caissa was a dryad usually portrayed as the goddess of chess? Netrunner might help you learn that, too.Saelune said:
Call me skeptical... but I believe the true causal relationship is the fact said students are wealthy enough their kids have access to a computer of their own and a whole lot of poorer kids might not.
I do. But I think the interactive aspect of gaming gives it a major edge that less/non-interactive media doesn't.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
As for your computer thing...ofcourse access is part of it. You have to play the games to get the effects. Not that I don't admire your "computers for children" desire, I think its not really the point here. If you gave a poor kid a computer and all they did was watch cat videos and discuss Taylor Swift drama on Twitter, I don't think they would become any smarter.
Its like talking about how books can also help you learn, but going on about illiteracy. Obviously if you cant read you cant benefit, but being able to read doesn't mean they will use it for learning.
I don't know... I work my brain harder in Netrunner than I have any MMO. For starters, it's an asymmetrical game where the rules and what you can do depends on the role you're playing... secondly, there is way more meta and interactivity in board games. After all. You're sitting there ... looking at someone... trying to determine whether they put an agenda in a remote server, or it's just a way to force you to spend all your credits breaking ICE for a pointless asset.Saelune said:
Assuming we're talking about videogaming compared to boardgaming ... how board gaming tends to be more directive based, though not necessarily.
Way more bluffing, psyching out, subterfuge, and surprises in Netrunner than any MMO I've ever played. And that's becsuse I'm face to face with another human. They'll be talking up one of their resource card combinations late game as if they're really special, in friendly gamer banter. When in truth your attention should be focussed on how many Shivs they have in their icebreaker suite, and recalling they've likely used up their recursion capabilities to bring them back into play again... realizing you can fuck them over by putting one more sentry ICE in a scoring remote.
Puzzles! Scarily deep puzzles, bristling with strategic complexity....
What I'd like to see is studies showing how well board gamers benefit from weekly games nights/tournaments and academic studies.
Dealing with people directly is always going to be more 'interactive' than a RNG and a chatbox. I'd rather my children play board games personally. Not that I'd ban video games...
A: it's something we can bond over better...
B: I think board gaming also teaches good etiquette in the right gaming circles. In the right gaming circles, that is... (I feel the need to stress this after a particularly unfortunate incident at a MTG regionals... Netrunner, due to banning money awards, is a far less toxic crowd... but apparently they've cleaned it up a lot in the last 11 years...)
The thing is if a child has easy access to the internet to play games, they have easy access to use the internet to do homework. To study. To research and properly plan out a pre-essay before formalising it into a proper poece of academic writing. A kid who doesn't have that is going to suffer. Hence all Australian parents on welfare should receive a laptop and internet credits for every child over 10.
It will cost us less in the long run... and even if it only raises up a handful of children to receive a better chance of university admittance it will pay for itself. I think the message to take from this is; "Easy internet is good, hard to access internet is bad...."
Even if that might not account for all the difference in scores, I'm willing to bet it is the largest contributing factor.
Yeah, I was just trying to be positive. I agree that this doesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot by itself. And it's definitely good to have doubt when it comes to any social science (or any science really) until it's been replicated a few times. I just find that too often the news focuses on negative things so when I hear positive stuff I try to encourage it.Xsjadoblayde said:Ah, sorry, I think my wording and lack of spacing made it read far less calm than I was actually meaning; was in a rushed, frantic moment whilst typing at current location due to hectic environment that probably contributed.. It is just a common niggling doubt I have with various studies, alongside that the paper wouldn't load on device, so had to take the article at face value, But I see and understand your point now.Synigma said:
People need to remember this is a prime case of trying to apply some story to statistical variation, which of course is what you need to make your study seem worth while and to have a news story.
But it's the same old variety of "we asked 100 people if they eat peanuts and have cancer" -> "BREAKING NEWS: Peanuts Cure Cancer!".
But it's the same old variety of "we asked 100 people if they eat peanuts and have cancer" -> "BREAKING NEWS: Peanuts Cure Cancer!".