Gaming, is really like a sport. And “wastes” time in exactly the same way that playing a game of soccer does, and it can be far more fun, as you have less to lose physically, and it doesn’t matter if you are physically fit or not.

When you look at the world, in the long run, anything you do doesn’t count for jack, so you might as well have fun.
The only way the world can be given meaning is if you turn to religion.

Once recent study found a stronger effect for games, the authors hypothesised that this may be because when it comes to video games, you are in control of what happens, whilst in movies you are a passive observe.

“I was simply making the claim that video games teach a mindset that makes the player better suited to being computer-literate.”

I agree with you there, but I think this only really applies to PC games, and not to all gamers. Again, the problem of the direction of causality exists (are gamers more likely to be interested in computers because they play games, or are they more likely to play games because of their interest in computers?).

“chess teaches a particular mindset: it teaches players to think logically, analyze the future, and divine the psychology of their opponent.”

The difference between chess experts and novices is that they remember more chess board positions, and are able to “chunk” larger positions than novices. In a study comparing psychology, chemistry, medicine, and law students, the transfer of skill from one are to another (from logical thinking to statistical methodological thinking) was extremely small.

“If you deny this, then you’re essentially denying that one can learn anything at all from activities not explicitly designed to teach, and you’re also denying the feasibility of the Dewey Decimal system or any method of learning besides sitting down in class with a textbook.”

I am denying it. There is very little support of the Doctrine of Formal Discipline, the theory that argues that if you teach people will be able to transfer the skills they learn in one area to another. Chess experts gain a lot of chess skills, and these generally don’t help them in any other area (remembering more chess board positions and having larger chunks for these isn’t going to help you in anything other than chess).

“Out (sic) brains are complex organs”

You don’t have to tell me (I’m a neuropsychologist)

I brought up boxing and football with the intention of comparing the boxers and the football players to the video gamers, not the audiences. Like video gamers playing a game, a boxer is playing a game. Except his game requires him to beat the shit out of another human being, a task he’s been trained to do for years. A video gamer isn’t actually hurting anybody, and is probably not a walking weapon due to his video game training. My point was that society’s acceptance of a sport that 1) encourages actual physical violence and 2) does not encourage mental exercises is hypocritical to society’s general uncertainty towards video games, that 1) don’t require actual physical violence to be proficient and 2) often require players to think tactically, strategically, logistically, and in the case of highbrow video games, politically, ethically, and emotionally. It’s just downright hypocrisy to accept the former and disregard the latter for the traits the former possesses!

Then again, there is a major difference between gaming and most other forms of entertainment. Like film, it is often a narrative and pictorial art form. Like sports, its a dynamic spectatorial and participatory experience. It is at once a sport and an art form; it should not be considered as either/or. That’s one of the big problems, I think, with how VGs are regarded.

But the effect of violence in video games wasn’t really my point. I was simply making the claim that video games teach a mindset that makes the player better suited to being computer-literate.

The chess analogy that the good captain mentioned is particularly apt, I think. Chess doesn’t teach any “useful” skills at all inasmuch as you’re probably never going to be called on to play chess during your job, but nonetheless, chess teaches a particular mindset: it teaches players to think logically, analyze the future, and divine the psychology of their opponent. While chess itself won’t be useful in the boardroom, these skills one can gain by playing it certainly will. The same can be said of art or music. Becoming a music lover is unlikely to directly advance your career (unless said career is creating or reviewing it), but it certainly contributes to making you a more cultured, well-rounded person; the same is true of art.2

Games are exactly the same. As with chess, it’s unlikely your workplace will be invaded by soviets/terrorists/aliens/the Mafia/the CIA/LBJ/castro/teamsters/freemasons and you’ll be the only one prepared. What is far more likely is that you’ll internalize the skills required to excel at those games and use the computer assigned to you far more productively than your co-workers, and accomplish more in the same time.

Games–like all other mentally-stimulating activities–alter the ways in which your brain processes challenges and tasks, and makes you more capable at those which require you to think in a similar way to the mentally-stimulating activity itself. Nothing more, nothing less. If you deny this, then you’re essentially denying that one can learn anything at all from activities not explicitly designed to teach, and you’re also denying the feasibility of the Dewey Decimal system or any method of learning besides sitting down in class with a textbook. Out brains are complex organs, constantly reconfiguring themselves based on available stimuli. It’s how we learn not to touch hot stoves, where nearby landmarks are, and how to become better lovers.

Don’t misunderstand me, I think that gaming deserves the same level of “respect” as other forms of entertainment, but it is fundamentally different.

There is a difference between watching violent movies and boxing, and playing a violent game. The difference is that you are in charge of what happens in the video game. It has been long known that violent TV shows lead to violent behaviour in children, and this is generally accepted. However, the gaming community is not ready to accept the same conclusion.

I think the difference between art and music and gaming is that art and music are scholarly pursuits and it takes a level of learning and time to properly understand and appreciate them (this, of course, doesn’t apply to all music and art). Video games, however, are perceived as either child’s play, or something that can be relatively quickly adopted by anyone willing to try.

More violent pursuits out there than violent video games (such as rugby and boxing), changes nothing for video games. Just because everyone cheats on their taxes, it does not mean that you should too (tu quoque).

Just to reiterate, I do think that video games should enjoy the same level of protection as other forms of entertainment (movies, television, music), and should be restricted and controlled in the same way (as they more or less are now).

Prone to violence? What about rugby and American football players, and professional boxers? Their games actually require them to pummel others, and yet these games are totally socially acceptable! Can’t it also be said that chess makes its players more prone to social isolation, football (soccer) making its players more prone to be whiny and immature, etc.?

And what about other forms of entertainment/art, like music, sculpture, painting? If I were to say the study and practice of music doesn’t add anything useful to the person, and universally makes musicians prone to immorality, I would be the laughingstock of the world. People would rightfully object that I can’t make such preposterous claims about an entire medium as a whole, and that music does so enrich people and everyone knows it.

Why then is it considered valid for people to make the same ignorant, over-simplified, sweeping accusations of an equally complex, diverse, and arguably more productive art medium and entertainment pastime? Just because it’s the youngest doesn’t mean it doesn’t merit the same consideration as its artistic and diversionary relatives.

The reason that games are attacked is two-fold. One, it doesn’t teach much that can be used anywhere else. There is a theory in psychology, which I will not go into here, known as the Theory of Formal Discipline. This theory argues that it doesn’t matter what you teach people, as long as you teach them something hard and challenging their mental ability will increase. This is the reason that latin and ancient greek were taught in schools, it was thought that this would make people “smarter” which would then transfer onto other areas, such as maths or English.

Unfortunately, there is no support for this theory (after decades of research). How does this relate to games? Well, it means that video games make you good at video games. That’s it. They won’t make you better at analytic thinking. They won’t make you better at maths, english, physics, etc.

You talk about the traits of puzzle gamers (being calm and patient), rts gamers (multitaskers), etc. The problem with that is that we don’t know why they exhibit these traits. It is the classic problem of correlation =! causation. Are puzzle gamers patient and determined because they have been playing puzzle games for years? Or do they play puzzle games because they are patient and determined?

The other reason that games are attacked is because they are said, by some critics, to make the gamer more prone to violence. Because I don’t live in the USA, I have no idea exactly how insane the raving video games critics are, but there is some evidence that does suggest that this is correct. This evidence, however, is somewhat mixed and it is still too early to conclude anything from it.

Sorry about the info overload, but it was a truly interesting post to read, and it piqued my interest enough to comment (which rarely happens).