Researchers Challenge "Attention Span" Study
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
tl;dr
Sorry, I just find it hard to keep focused when reading long articles like tha...oooh! A penny!
Speaking seriously though, I actually do have evidence to believe that they are right in saying that games do not actually have a negetive impact on (and can actually improve) your attention span and attention to detail (ever seen a killcam in MW2 where some shrap eyed sniper has managed to see a slightly different shade of grey that happened to be you and instantly land a headshot? I rest my case).
Sorry, I just find it hard to keep focused when reading long articles like tha...oooh! A penny!
Speaking seriously though, I actually do have evidence to believe that they are right in saying that games do not actually have a negetive impact on (and can actually improve) your attention span and attention to detail (ever seen a killcam in MW2 where some shrap eyed sniper has managed to see a slightly different shade of grey that happened to be you and instantly land a headshot? I rest my case).
Meh, not sure what to think of the study in the first place. The best lawyer I know is an avid gamer (and I know a lot of lawyers). I myself am a fairly well adjusted individual who's got a solid grade average, a GF and the occasional job on the side. My attention span is a bit short, but I was always like that, even before I started gaming, so I doubt there's any correlation.
Perhaps in some cases gaming can be a contributing factor, which is an angle most studies seem to miss. It's alway "Yes or No", when in reality gaming likely does contribute to some cases of violence, lack of attention and whatnot, but so do MANY other things. It's not a black and white world and only a bad scientist would try to paint it that way...
Perhaps in some cases gaming can be a contributing factor, which is an angle most studies seem to miss. It's alway "Yes or No", when in reality gaming likely does contribute to some cases of violence, lack of attention and whatnot, but so do MANY other things. It's not a black and white world and only a bad scientist would try to paint it that way...
There exists a creature, who, on a regular basis, will ruthlessly maul and cannibalize its own species. They will posture, they will make threats, they will lie, cheat, and steal from each other, and they will literally rip each other to pieces given the opportunity. At least once a year, this ruthless brutality reaches an epic scale, and the entire world shudders at their merciless struggle to survive.
These creatures are called researchers, and I just described grant season.
These creatures are called researchers, and I just described grant season.
Well, can't say I'm surprised.
Why don't Harvard re-conduct the study properly and see what results they get?
From my own experience however, the studies that say we are murderers who can't pay attention to our murder plan for more than 5 seconds ago (both because of games) never REALLY seem to correlate with what people see from day-to-day life.
Why don't Harvard re-conduct the study properly and see what results they get?
From my own experience however, the studies that say we are murderers who can't pay attention to our murder plan for more than 5 seconds ago (both because of games) never REALLY seem to correlate with what people see from day-to-day life.
hah god knows most studies are meaningless to begin with seeing that there are always WAY TO MANY variables that arent accounted for. Especially if it isnt tested in laboratory conditions. These survey tests are always wrong. Best to believe what u have personally experienced or do further research on the matter. NEVER take only one persons words.
Plus nice to see Science Dukeing it out in the name of Games XD
Plus nice to see Science Dukeing it out in the name of Games XD
-"Wild STUPID-STUDY and BIAS appears!"
-"SCIENTIFIC-COMMUNITY sends out FERGUSON and CERANOGLU"
-"FERGUSON uses LOGIC on Wild BIAS", It's not very effective...
-"CERANOGLU uses STATISTICAL-SIGNIFICANCE on Wild STUPID-STUDY, It's super effective!
-"Wild STUPID-STUDY faints"...
-"Wild Bias runs away"...
-"FERGUSON is Evolving!!!... FERGUSON evolved into GAMER-FRIEND."
-"SCIENTIFIC-COMMUNITY sends out FERGUSON and CERANOGLU"
-"FERGUSON uses LOGIC on Wild BIAS", It's not very effective...
-"CERANOGLU uses STATISTICAL-SIGNIFICANCE on Wild STUPID-STUDY, It's super effective!
-"Wild STUPID-STUDY faints"...
-"Wild Bias runs away"...
-"FERGUSON is Evolving!!!... FERGUSON evolved into GAMER-FRIEND."
Bunk I say Bunk! Indeed there is no reason to claim that gaming causes short......ooooo shiny.....MUST KILL SHINY!!
I love you. And I bet you had to concentrate for a whole minute to get all that down.grimsprice said:
I didn't think you needed to be a scientist to tell the other guys were talking out of their asses, you know, but it probably does help.
Good on them.
Good on them.
Science is a process -- or a method, at any rate. As Ferguson and Ceranoglu are demonstrating, one of its cardinal rules is that it is far easier to disprove a theory than to find supporting evidence. Those of us interested the debate should also remember that this doesn't mean the idea (that videogames decrease concentration in other parts of childrens' lives) isn't true, but that this particular study's conclusions cannot be taken at face value, and may even need to be thrown out altogether. A future study (based on the first, but taking into account the criticisms) may actually support the idea, but this study is bunk. This is why it's all about the peer-review.
It still bothers me that none of the reports on the study I've found mention what kind of games were used. We could assume that the "scientists" believe all games are violent shooters because their sales are so high and they attract the most controversy. I could see it having some (some, not much) plausibility if it focused on kids who only play high-paced, seizure inducing shooters. I want to point that it's obvious a person's attention is stimulated while playing said games, but the study was directed at the affects it might have in other aspects of life - as if it were draining battery power or something.
I could be wrong, and maybe it's the news reporters' ignorance that points in those directions, but there's absolutey no mention, of RPG's, RTS's, stealth games, point & click adventures, or any other kind of game that rewards patience and ingenuity over quick reflexes.
Maybe the more pressing issue is how the education system can adapt to this high tech era and be able to stimulate new generations. Imagine playing a hundred hour RPG that reanacted Moby Dick for an english course, or an RTS where you controlled an entire theatre of WW2 that was historically accurate for social studies. From a gaming standpoint, these could be boring, but if gaming experience and education have to be as closely related as the study suggests, it'd be a hell of a lot more effective than what we have now.
I could be wrong, and maybe it's the news reporters' ignorance that points in those directions, but there's absolutey no mention, of RPG's, RTS's, stealth games, point & click adventures, or any other kind of game that rewards patience and ingenuity over quick reflexes.
Maybe the more pressing issue is how the education system can adapt to this high tech era and be able to stimulate new generations. Imagine playing a hundred hour RPG that reanacted Moby Dick for an english course, or an RTS where you controlled an entire theatre of WW2 that was historically accurate for social studies. From a gaming standpoint, these could be boring, but if gaming experience and education have to be as closely related as the study suggests, it'd be a hell of a lot more effective than what we have now.
I agree, and I disagree.DTWolfwood said:
Studies are never meaningless, as you can always learn something from the way they are conducted, if nothing else. Even the most biased study ever will inform us about how to run studies, as well as how to identify biased studies. Though it is true that even with properly run experiments and studies most results are either inconclusive or later shown to be flawed, biased, or outright wrong, this doesn't mean that studies are meaningless. Yes, uncontrollable variables will always be a problem, but with enough studies that use different enough variable controls and methods, general trends can be determined, and theories (which will then be tested) can be postulated. This is harder in the realms of psychology and even biology than it is in the more discretely "hard" sciences such as physics (as if we could ever account for all of the variables inherent in gravity, cosmic rays, etc. even in those), but it is still important.
Relying on personal experience, as you suggest, is next to worthless, since it only provides a single, even more variable-laden data point! That's why the scientific method was developed in the first place. I agree with your general sentiment (that we shouldn't take too much away from any single study), though without perhaps the level to which you take it, and I absolutely agree that you should never take one person's word for something like this (or anything else, really). Personal research is great, too, but only if people with funding and planning have done proper experimental studies already for you to learn from.
gaming may not create short attention spans... but there are conclusive studies that regular use of internet shortens attention spans, don't believe me...next time you are looking at an article that you are half way done with and in the corner of your eye you see another interesting article..... I'd be willing to bet you click it before finishing the one you are on. here is an interview on the subject... oh and btw when I was looking for this article I got distracted three times. http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1903951,00.html