Video games are useful for development of the brain

SpaceDweller

Some people are saying that video games, in particular PC games, are useful for development of the brain.
These claims favor younger people, ex. kids and people up to 25 yo., because child brain is in development stage, and since it's developing brain, video games can help or stimulate development or result in better developed brain, ex. higher IQ, problem solving skills and similar.

What do you think about this? is it true or modern "folklore" belief?
How would you justify playing video as useful? or if you are against this hypothesis what is your argument?

It's probably worth taking into account the variety of games, ex gambling games could be classified as not useful because of addiction, strategy games may help in development of problem solving skills, FPS games may help in psycho motoric development etc.

If you think games can be useful, what kind of games would that be?
What factors or types of games do you think are harmful rather than useful?
Do you think amount of time spent on games is important and what time span would you assign to playing games as useful?

EDIT:
Philosophical rationale for this discussion:
The answer to this question would require a lot of testing on people and it would take time, ex. at least 20 years of research and testing, to be able to compare the results to those who never played games to draw any conclusion.
In such research a lot of people would have to "waste" their life on playing games to prove anything which would likely be too expensive.

AFAIK, no such extensive research has been done, games are a new thing, and it would likely take a lot of survey and research effort, therefore I think it's a valid philosophical question, ex. to draw some hypothesis or conclusions on whether it is worth it to conduct such research.

I like sushi

Games are useful for development. This is well known. As for effects on IQ there was no conclusive evidence for a positive or a negative effect.

Generally speaking I think video games are likely better than social media sites like Instagram.

I like sushi

AFAIK, no such extensive research has been done, games are a new thing, and it would likely take a lot of survey and research effort, therefore I think it's a valid philosophical question, ex. to draw some hypothesis or conclusions on whether it is worth it to conduct such research. — SpaceDweller

There have been multiple studies about the effects of video games since video games began. That is why I stated last time I looked (maybe 2-3 yrs ago) there was no conclusive evidence that IQ was effected and that in other areas (such as social ability) the results were mostly neutral or positive.

SpaceDweller

There have been multiple studies about the effects of video games since video games began. — I like sushi

Don't you think to study the effect of games on IQ requires observing an individual over a period of time, ex. from childhood to grown up man, that is, at least 10 years.
And then the result should be based on not a single person but at least 100 of them.

I like sushi

↪SpaceDweller

Didn’t you know that video games have existed for more than 10 years.

Have you done even a tiny bit of research … I don’t think so.

Hillary

↪I like sushi

If you don't mind me intruding, where did @SpaceDweller say they exist only 10 years?

I like sushi

↪SpaceDweller

`Maybe I am coming across as harsh? I don’t know.

Your instincts are correct. All you have to do is look for the studied already made. Like I said, I have no idea what has come about in the last few years but know that studies before then didn’t show a great deal in terms of IQ (if there was any it was slightly positive).

The studies have been done and continue to be done too no doubt. If you are asking how they can best be carried out I would suggest via neurosciences rather than just by psychological self-assessed testing.

IQ tests are in and of themselves not exactly a ‘hard science’ measuring g but they appear to be the best we have and do a good enough job to point out that g exists (or rather was discovered via such testing).

The biggest problem with psychological testing is you cannot really factor in every other single effect so any results you get over a long period of time would be diluted. The larger the set the clearer the overall picture, but tests within certain smaller sets can shed light on other factors too.

This is more or less something for an experimental scientist to deal with and given that psychology is a particularly weak science (in terms of rigidity) neuroscientists are probably the best route to take.

Hillary

Of course videogames contribute to intelligence. But due to the nature of the games, it's a very limited part of intelligence activated and trained. Walking through real life is the best teacher.

SpaceDweller

Have you done even a tiny bit of research … I don’t think so. — I like sushi

Your instincts are correct. All you have to do is look for the studied already made. Like I said, I have no idea what has come about in the last few years but know that studies before then didn’t show a great deal in terms of IQ (if there was any it was slightly positive). — I like sushi

You're right I didn't do much research, I did some googling but non of these researches indicate thorough enough tests to draw any conclusions about IQ improvements.

But I don't think it's much important, I'm more interested in specific areas, such as problem solving skills psyho-motoric developments and possible negative consequences if playing game for too much time time over longer period and the kind of games which could be useful for this.

SpaceDweller

↪I like sushi

↪Hillary

For example games which are aggressive and about killing all around yourself are more likely to make you stupid in real life.
Consider mass shootings is the US, you can otherwise see these things only in games and movies.

For doing such a thing one must be kind of stupid because to get out of it there are only 2 choices:
1.) kill yourself
2.) or go to prison.

Therefore stupid.

I like sushi

↪SpaceDweller

To repeat. The more research done over time has pretty much ruled that out. If anything there are positive effects not negative effects (especially in terms of problem solving).

Many have made the kind of claims you are making and carried out studies to see … the results were no effect or the opposite of what they expected.

I like sushi

↪SpaceDweller

No. Nothing in studies done and research gathered backs this up.

Cuthbert

People choose to play or not play video games. Perhaps the people who choose to play are those who already possess the skills they need in order to play well. So finding out that they do indeed have those skills will tell us nothing about the effect of the games. It's the problem of 'backwards causation' and self-selection. It comes up in a lot of contexts. People lose weight when they go on a particular programme. Is it effective? It could be that the motivation to go on the programme is just what they need in order to lose weight and they would lose weight with or without the programme.

180 Proof

What do you think about this? is it true or modern "folklore" belief? — SpaceDweller

In the absence of corroborating evidence, it's just "modern folklore" to me.

How would you justify playing video as useful? or if you are against this hypothesis what is your argument?

I'm not aware of any scientific studies which test "this hypothesis".

If you think games can be useful, what kind of games would that be?

We humans have eusocial traits and any activities, like games, which reinforce and develop social skills it's reasonable to assume are more adaptive than not. This may sound old school

↪180 Proof

but I'm guessing that tabletop card games, war/board games & roleplaying games are much more social activities than solitary ones like PC/console "video games" and therefore tabletop games are likely to be more adaptive for child and adolescent development than video games.

What factors or types of games do you think are harmful rather than useful?

e.g. "Drinking games", (for-profit, mass-media) contact sports, con games, gambling ...

Do you think amount of time spent on games is important and what time span would you assign to playing games as useful?

As pointed out above, I think the 'type of game' is the most determinative factor in how adaptive or not a particular game is for assisting early human development.

Tom Storm

Games are useful for development. This is well known. As for effects on IQ there was no conclusive evidence for a positive or a negative effect. — I like sushi

Interesting. Apart from playing Monopoly when I was a small child decades ago, I have never played any kind of game - no cards; video games; chess; whatever. I have never had any interest in games or in sport, so I am curious about this.

Agent Smith

In the absence of corroborating evidence, it's just "modern folklore" to me. — 180 Proof

:clap:

I'm not aware of any scientific studies which test "this hypothesis". — 180 Proof

Children are encouraged to play. I've seen dogs, cats, engage in mock battles with their pups an kittens. I suspect it's part of honing their hunting skills; prey animals too have their own games with, I suppose, escape (from predators) being the skill that needs to be mastered.

However, the effect of games on IQ, that's a different story. We'd need hard evidence and the data isn't as encouraging as we'd have liked it to be. Do sportspersons have high IQ? I don't think so.

Even so the nerd-folk and geeks tend to spend an almost inordinate amount of time gaming and they're usually smarter on average albeit physically, they're in the lower percentile.

The more important question I feel is this: Is the world a simulation game we're playing in nightmare mode (one life's all you get)? Ludic fallacy notwithstanding.

Agent Smith

Perhaps the attitude we adopt towards life can make a big difference. Life as a game! Sounds like fun, oui? Does this remind you of what's the in thing these days, the so-called metaverse (an opportunity to assume an alter-ego that may or may not be identical to your actual personality).

Does anyone here have a Khan Academy account? We learn but we also earn energy points that's used in a game-like ranking system. You should try it out if you haven't already. I guarantee you'll learn, I mean have a ball, oh...what's the difference? :wink:

Krishnamurti is apropos here. He claims, in one of his lectures, take life seriously, life is very a very serious affair, but, he goes on to say, that doesn't mean you don't laugh, you don't enjoy, you get the idea!

There's more...

Hillary

Forest Gump was great! He even showed the president his bitten bottom, when he went on that holiday to Vietnam! Great movie. It was, coincidentally, two times on TV here. Both times, I loved it. He had some influence! Shit happens! The firm with that fruit logo, Apple... And the shrimp guy! His brother! :grin:

Hillary

Krishnamurti is apropos here. He claims, in one of his lectures, take life seriously, — Agent Smith

The big secret is to take nothing seriously.

Agent Smith

The big secret is to take nothing seriously. — Hillary

:ok:

Hillary

I play video gym every morning. Half an hour at least I let that guy on the screen sweat a bucket full! My condition is great and my IQ over 160! But what shall I do with such an IQ? How it helps me?

Christoffer

As for effects on IQ there was no conclusive evidence for a positive or a negative effect. — I like sushi

IQ has a fluid range. The base IQ is set by the genetic makeup of the brain while training cognitive challenging tasks can increase the IQ by a few points. Not doing any cognitively challenging tasks will lower it by a few points. Tasks also need to be varied, someone playing chess two hours a day will not get any positive effects after, let's say, a year doing so. General IQ improvements require more than just video games. The most positive effect on children has been 3D spatial visualization improvements and reaction times on recognition, but further outside of that requires a heavy load of in-game puzzles that are varied, but even then there's a limit to what video games can provide. A kid playing games their entire childhood but skipping other activities will develop good skills in certain areas, but be extremely lacking in others. A broad increase in IQ and cognitive functions requires varied inputs and activities, which video games alone won't be enough for.

I like sushi

↪Christoffer

But there is still no conclusive evidence that playing videos games negatively effects a childs score in an IQ test. There is, if anything, better evidence for the opposite effect.

This is not my opinion. It is the conclusions drawn from numerous studies. Maybe there has been something more recent I don’t know about? I have not looked into for a few years.

IQ basically measures ‘g’. IQ tests were originally designed to help identify students who struggled.

There are many case studies that also show how IQ test score are effected by the environment prior to taking the test where scores vary by as much as 10 points. Positive reinforcement and such can have a huge effect on performance.

Again, these are not my opinions. These are repeated studies.

Christoffer

There is, if anything, better evidence for the opposite effect. — I like sushi

That's not what you said though

As for effects on IQ there was no conclusive evidence for a positive or a negative effect. — I like sushi

I don't disagree with there being a positive effect, that's my point, the positive effect has been shown. I'm expanding on that positive effect with the point about general IQ not being affected much since it relates to more areas than just the ones you get positive effects on by playing video games. I.e you get a positive effect, but you need everything else combined with playing video games to get the necessary amplified effect. In basic terms, IQ is nothing without the practical application verifying to your brain what the training was for. You can push IQ, but solidifying it requires a combination of behaviors and thought processes as a whole.

I like sushi

↪Christoffer

And you believe those two statements are contrary?

You just failed your language comprehension test :D

I like sushi

I said the very same thing, with different words, in my second post.

I like sushi

‘Evidence’ is not ‘conclusive evidence’. Maybe that is why the world is mad with nonsense social media accounts of evidence being equivalent to iron cast proof.

Christoffer

You just failed your language comprehension test :D — I like sushi

One says that there's no conclusive evidence for neither positive nor negative, the other that there's evidence for the positive. I'd say those are contradictory. If it's inconclusive there's nothing pointing to the positive over the negative, but you say that it leans towards the positive.

I'd say you can write it more clearly: The studies have shown it to be more positive than negative, but more studies need to be conducted for it to be conclusive enough. That's more clear rhetoric.

But, I'd say there are enough studies to conclude the positive effects. Just not to extent that some argue for.

I like sushi

Bye bye silly

Hillary

The base IQ is set by the genetic makeup of the brain — Christoffer

Genes don't wear make-up. Even no basic one. They just deliver proteins.

Video games are useful for development of the brain

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions