Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Researcher Finds Gaming Stunts Brain
Bill Gates writes: "This story at the Guardian describes research done in Japan showing that playing video games in youth prevents development of the front lobe, leading to violent behavior." Turns out what at first appears to be arbitrary, mind-numbing violence may turn out to be just that. It seems this study might have returned different results, though, if it looked at the effects of video games which require lots of calculation instead.
"If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we would all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetative electronic music."
Only here, will you find two completely contradicting stories within a week of each other...
:)
Which one do we believe?
Me? I'll believe whichever one I heard most recently. I'm gullible.
Come on. Have any of you ever heard that gaming causes violence apart from dubious research projects that started showing up after Columbine ? It's not video games that cause violence, it's just that people/kids predisposed to violent behaviour like to play violent video games. That's all. In order to fight violence, we have to go after the symptons, but that's harder to do than to blaim video games.
:-)
But I agree that video games stunt the brain in another sort of way, because peole who enjoy playing video games a lot think that LAN parties are the best way to use computers and a network.
Using the most sophisticated technology available, the level of brain activity was measured in hundreds of teenagers playing a Nintendo game and compared to the brain scans of other students doing a simple, repetitive arithmetical exercise. To the surprise of brain-mapping expert Professor Ryuta Kawashima and his team at Tohoku University in Japan, it was found that the computer game only stimulated activity in the parts of the brain associated with vision and movement.
In contrast, arithmetic stimulated brain activity in both the left and right hemispheres of the frontal lobe - the area of the brain most associated with learning, memory and emotion.
Ok, sounds fair enough. But what about compared to something like -television- that certainly many more children do for many more hours in their youth.
From the article, it sounds like they are saying video games prevent proper development, they don't cause damage. That would imply that something like TV would certainly do as much and more prevention than video games.
And television isn't mentioned at all, nor anything else. There are lots of things kids can do that don't involve any thinking...I don't know many kids that sit down and do math all day
I'm 20 and I don't have a credit (or debit) card. How am I supposed to play my ultra-violent video games?
Oh right, warez. It's too bad, games were one of the few things I still paid for.
That just means you have nothing better to do. In my experience, 80% of a class can get A's--they just, in one way or another, choose not to.
Around here we call them "lurkers".
Actually...
:)
Many modern psychiatric theorists explain the chemical-physical relationship as two sided.
It is commonly accepted that changing the chemicals of the brain (through medication or drugs of some kind) correlates directly to behavioral changes.
However, some theorize that it works both ways; you can also change your brain chemistry through repetetive behavioral changes.
So yes... a repeated, habitual (addictive?) activity can probably change the chemistry of your brain, to some extent.
Or at least it's possible.
What a great comparison they did... Let's compare playing a video game to "an exercise called the Kraepelin test, which involves adding single-digit numbers continuously for 30 minutes." Yeah, I'm sure that continuously adding numbers is quite a lot of fun for the researchers, but something tells me that the average kid won't think that this is a good time...
Seriously, this article practices once of the major fallacies of statistics. They do a basic study of some Nintendo video game (they don't mention which one) versus continuously adding numbers or reading aloud. Then they draw the conclusion that:
"But the other thing is to ask them to play outside with other children and interact and to communicate with others as much as possible. This is how they will develop, retain their creativity and become good people."
Excuse me?!? The study had absolutely nothing to do with playing outside with other children. There's a chance that doing just that would be even worse for the childrens' frontal lobes. We don't know because the study said nothing about other behaviors, just playing a game & doing math.
If you ask me, this is nothing but inflammatory nonsense designed to generate a lot of press time and give people a good excuse to take away our fun.
Let me predict the arguments here regarding this article.
Funny-ha-ha's aside, what on earth did we expect? That spending 8 hours a day watching repetitive, unvaried images of violence and gore would create a race of uber kinder?
Don't get me wrong, I like games. I used to write them, and I enjoy playing them, including FPS'ers. I honestly feel that (partly because I used to write them) I'm smart enough to realise that playing them does actually makes me dumber and antisocial (and I'm pushing 30). I don't think they make me more violent, but my fragile little mind was well formed before I really started playing gore-o-ramas in earnest, plus I blow off a lot of steam playing physical sports, something that GenY is doing less and less.
No, it's not the collapse of civilisation as we know it, but if you're going to argue that environment doesn't shape behaviour, then we have no grounds for debate, and you mite ars wel kil me, cuz i am gay but monkie.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Grrrr. Anyone making fun of my underdeveloped frontal lobe will find my foot up his overdeveloped ass! Most of my youth was spent playing Japanese RPGs. If doing repetitive math for 30 minutes is good for the development of the frontal lobe, I probably have the largest frontal lobe in the world.
First they take a bunch of kids, split them into two groups. One group plays Nintendo (aside : should have chosen better game consoles...), and their brains "stunts" (based on instant brain scans done on them). The other groups do math, and their frontal lobes get simulated.
Their conclusion? Games Bad : kids become dumb. WTF? How the hell can they make this kind of slippery slope argument?!
Why not they take a bunch of kids, and have them do NOTHING BUT MATH for a year, and see if the kids become super geniuses? Most likely they will just become (a) bored to the death (b) mad.
Children needs all kinds of stimulation so they can learn to become well-rounded human beings. Too much Computer Games is Bad. Too Much Math Is Bad. Too Much *insert thing here* is Bad.
(Begin Ad Hominem) Maybe the study's "need for funding" has something to do with such "controversial new result"? (End Ad Hominem)
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
I've been playing video games since age 11 and I have no urge to be violent against other people because of that
Much of the development that occurs in children occurs BEFORE age 11. Some child psychologists believe that things like the personality are basically set whenyou are 8 years old or so. Most of us who say, "Playing games didn't hurt ME any!" can't really say that, because we didn't play games when we were really young.
I don't know whether or not violent games make children more aggressive, but it cannot be said that the games have NO effect, because everything we do affects us in some way right?
Anyhoo, the take home message is probly that too much gaming is not as productive as doing something else. Duh!
And any of this assumes that the study was done correctly. In fact, there are serious questions about normalization: very high activity in the visual and motor areas might simply have caused "normal" frontal lobe activity to be normalized away.
Between playing video games and watching television, I think kids are a lot better off playing video games.
Quick guide to getting into a UC:
1) Take a lot of AP classes. It doesn't matter if you get good grades in the class, just good scores on the tests.
2) Write a good personal statement. Hype up personal tragedy and overcoming difficulties.
3) Do well on the SAT II. SAT I counts for shit.
4) After school activities do matter. Sucks for us antisocial types, but it's true.
If you've got the rest, you can have a shit GPA and not only get into college, but get a free ride to boot.
"Ironically, then, precisely at the time when both the Executive and Legislative branches of government are agitating for a reduction of gratuitous (and maybe non-gratuitous) violence in the media, the U.S. has been on a five-year downward trend in violence statistics. According to FBI crime statistics, both violent crimes (including murder) and property crimes are down substantially, in all regions of the country, both urban and rural. Some drops are very dramatic. For example, between 1993 and 1997 murder in Los Angeles dropped 48%. In Boston it dropped 56%. Divorce is down, marriages are up. Teenage pregnancies have dropped, unemployment is down. Moreover, recent government reports tell us that the number of weapons brought to high schools has dramatically declined" (http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/sfischo/violenc e.html
Note that this is IN SPITE OF both increased amounts of violence in the media over the last ten years and a large increase in the number of children who spend a lot of time playing violent games. And it is additionally in spite of computer games being, as you say, "more seductive" and "more involving".
I'm afraid your view of a "downhill slide into violence and depravity" is not reflected in real statistics. More likely its just a popular view that you've adopted - possibly the usual jaded cynicisms that people get as they age .. the "when I was young kids were sweet and innocent, but kids today have no respect and don't read anymore, and society is going to the dogs" syndrome. In all likelihood, the "serious problem" you refer to is just perception. Society has always been violent. A few hundred years ago, for example, it was normal to take your kids on a "family outing" to see public executions (hangings or even beheadings) in the town square. That was normal then, but most people I know would think that todays 'precious fragile children' would be irreperably psychologically damaged by something like that.
Anyway, there is a lack of correlation between your gloom-and-doom viewpoint and real-world statistics. Such widespread negative perceptions are probably more likely the result of mainstream media focusing disproportionately on horrible, but statistically highly unlikely events, such as Columbine.
I can certainly say that violence would increase in my school if violent video games were ever banned.
I know kids with no hope of a social life, or even the smallest amount of self-esteem, whose entire lives are centered around being good at video games.
Take away the video games, and you're pulling the pin out of a grenade.
for a similar study on the effects of reading Slashdot 10 hours a day.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
I remember a few weeks ago there was a study (I can't find it now, slashdot search is down) showing that video games increased intelligence. So which is it, hmmmm? Could it be both? Does this mean in 50 years we will have a society of nothing but brilliantly insane Lex Luthor clones running the show? I always wondered where those comic book super-villians came from, now I know, they are our children! Now I'll bet everyone thinks twice before "saving the children". :)
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
The five years preceding 1999 showed a drop in crime statistics purely because of broader social trends, particularly a general increase in prosperity, plus a marked increase in police activity in troubled areas, such as South Central LA. (Watts is now an armed police camp, inundated with social workers.)
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
Which games prevent development? All video games? Impossible. There are no clear references to the type of game these kids played.
Computer game stimulates only vision and movement... That depends on the type of game and its goals. Even super-violent Quake3, in its team variants, demands a very high level of coordination and calculation. Well, if you don't come just shooting right and left. However, one should note that there are really dumb games around with a very "mechanical" nature.
The world doesn't stop just on one Nintendo game.
I have seen the behaviour patterns of hundreds of Doom/Quake gamers from 12 to 40 years. The best way to drop stress is to have a kick'ass round at the end of the day. You get home like an angel...
What are the real pattern behaviours of people before/after they played this Nintendo game? What social reactions happen? Is there a control group who didn't play this game at all? Or played other similar/different game? What if I restrict the playing of this game for some N period of time, how behaviour changes?
The article said that the researcher DID NOT see
the parts of the brain associated with emotion stimulated while playing violent video games as he expected, but DID see those areas of the brain active when the student was doing math. Sounds obvious to me - doing math causes more violent emotions than playing violent video games ever could. I think the conclusions are pretty obvious that we should stop teaching math at once!
biology - necessary if one wants to talk sensibly
about various things damaging children's brains! -
I recommend the book Early Intelligence . That only
really covers early childhood ("the first five years"), but it gets harder to cause
developmental damage after that, so...
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
Anyone who has worked in tech support and had to deal with gamers (I want little ping! Too much pocket loose!) could tell you this for free.
--
enterfornone - logging in for a change
There are at least a few big problems with this article. First, no mention is made of whether these results have been accepted for publication in a refereed journal. If they haven't been, then it is just one guy spouting off. There's not even a comment taken from a scientist unconnected to the work. Is it at least a reasonable-sounding guy? Well, the article explicitly mentions that, short of funding, he started researching video games with an expectation of getting funded by games manufacturers (well-known funders of world-class psychological research?) Finally, I'm no brain expert, but I'm very skeptical of the notion that generic, childhood frontal lobe activity is sure-and-certain associated with moral development. If it were, wouldn't we be doing frontal lobe exercises each morning? The kook alarm is ringing loudly...
At first, I read this and thought...
That is why I lack any serious intelligence... my career is a sham... my ego has been deflated... I'm ruined.
All because I played nintendo like it was a religion when I was younger.
Then I realized I played RPG's and all the other interesting games too.
*bliss*
I'm saved... a few indiscriminate gaming choices when younger have saved me.
Or not?
I have a feeling this case studies the extreme and not the norm. (as with most things). In any event, we know that too much of anything isn't a good thing. We have been preaching this since times begining.
"The importance of this discovery cannot be underestimated ."
"To the surprise of brain-mapping expert Professor Ryuta Kawashima and his team at Tohoku University in Japan, it was found that the computer game only stimulated activity in the parts of the brain associated with vision and movement."
Not surprising, on three counts!
First, obviously 'shoot em up'-games improve hand-eye coordination. ("Improve hand-eye coordination: that sounds better already, no?)
Leading me to point two: Japanese society generally disapproves of individualist pursuits such as gameplaying. The Japenese scientific establishment may well have the same biases. This conclusion will be popular. Back to 18-hour a day schooling, kids.
Third, The Guardian is a left-wing paper with a fairly strong anti-technology bias. So the fact it is reported here is suspicious too.
What I am trying to say is: interpret your news critically. This does not mean the article is untrue; it just means some extra work is needed before we all throw out our kids' Gameboys.
Michael
PS my two boys are playing a game as we speak. I have the impression it's a worthwhile pursuit. They are leadning to talk together, plan a course of action, and they are learning to use PCs. Oh and hand-eye coordination.
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Where do you think raves came from?
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
Comparing to math is totally invalid. Most children do very little math, trying to avoid it as much as possible. It only exercises the whole mind because the mental exercise is novel. If doing simple arithmetic exercises made us better people mentally, then every cashier, who does tons of arithmetic exercises on the brain every day, should be a better person (mentally) than anyone else. The only other person who does more math (maybe not even) is a math professor.
After playing hours of Soul Calibur, DOA2, Tekken Tag, GT3 and some other video game its name I have forgotten at this point, I was about ready to fire up Tribe 2 when I thought about checkin Slashdot for some good news about Video Games to read this! AAAAARGG!
NEED TO DESTROY RISING!
In places like Russia, they have practically zero cases of attention deficit disorder
Interesting. You use the fact that ADD doesn't exist outside of the US as proof of US culture turning kids into mindless zombies (Which I don't necessarily disagree with).
I use this fact as proof that ADD is bullshit.
Case study: My girlfriend was diagnosed with ADD and prescribed Ritalin because she had bad grades. As someone very close to her, I knew very well why she was getting bad grades. School was frankly, very boring. And not only was it boring, but she didn't care. The idea of doing menial drudge work instead of enjoying life wasn't very appealing.
Of course, you say "Well, all kids should love learning. If she finds it boring, she must have ADD!" Guess what? Public schools really are boring! Instead of say, making schools better, we're just prescribing more drugs.
I'm absolutely amazed by what I hear about kids learning in European public schools. If you ask most kids why they put up with such bullshit in the US, they say "Well, yeah, it's totally stupid. But I won't get into a good college if I don't go with it! And then where will I be?!"
We had a coworker come in from the UK (H1B Visa) who was a big South Park fan. We were discussing the episode where all of the kids started coming down with ADD. I mentioned that it was a big problem here. That shocked him. He thought that South Park had made ADD up. He had never heard of ADD until he visited the USA.
"For every kid who really needs Ritalin, you prescribe it to 500,000 kids who don't" -- Chef, South Park
As an aside, I'm suprised the pro-censorship movement is sticking to banning sex and smut and video games. Why don't they promise to eradicate NSYNC and Brittany Spears instead? If they pitched it the right way, I probably wouldn't even realize that I was supporting censorship. :)
My girlfriend's point of view:
"Well, see, this is how a Russian mother treats a child who might have ADD. She takes the skin on her their thigh, and then she twists it. Several times. And then the kids don't have ADD anymore. Simple and very effective."
Child abuse is a terrible thing, but a small controlled application of pain can be a great problem solver.
Video Games to treat ADD?
Incidentally, I think ADD is a fake disease just like everybody else. It's a chance to put schoolkids on Soma^H^H^H^HRitalin, which the schools want to do to control behavior. (I wonder how much money Merck and other companies make from selling Ritalin, too...)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Perhaps this explains raves.
-Ben
my thoughts exactly!
I know I keep my room as dark as possible (glare sucks on monitor screen, especially for extremely dark games like Quake), many of my friends listen to repetitive techno, and pill-popping is pretty popular (say that 5 times fast)...
Firstly, ignorance of the functions of the frontal-lobe (and all parts of the human brain) can and should be remedied before offering dissenting opinions, based solely on a combination of your admitted lack of expertise and your skepticism. You could do worse than a search on Google on "Frontal lobe" + "Human brain".
Secondly, as you continue being skeptical of the purpose and utility of the frontal lobe in the regulation of moral developement in human beings, consider the sad case of Phineas Gage, a railroad construction worker in the late 1800s, who had the misfortune of having a steel rod driven through his frontal lobe while working with explosives.
In a rather remarkable stroke of curious luck, the rod, which went completely through Gage's skull by way of his cheek, avoided piercing that part of the lobe associated with motor activity and speech. Gage could continue walking, and talking, and being basically a productive personality after recovering from the accident.
And yet, within months very startling changes in personality and behavior were manifest in Gage's life. He became impulsive, incredibly crude, vulgar, boisterous, and given over to constant lying. He became, in effect, a person without a conscience. His physician, John Harlow, wrote of his accident, "The equilibrium between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities seems to have been destroyed.".
Science is in many ways indebted to Mr. Gage's tragic accident. It was because of the ghastly transformation of person that followed in the wake of his accident that the medical community of the day began to associate behavior with biology. This marks, then, the (forgive the pun) 'big bang' event of neuroscience.
Now, a study is released which suggests that certain types of activity (playing certain types of videogames) can retard the development of that part of the frontal lobe which provides a seat of human conscience. Whether the study is perfect science, flawed science or quackery, we have the opportunity to give the matter the serious consideration it deserves. (We can see, by way of the Gage tragedy, that scientists have known for 150 years that the frontal lobe in some respect controls / regulates decision-making and impulse regulation.)
If the study is biased, incomplete or otherwise lacking, find the sound basis to make that assertion. (HINT: Don't fall prey to the seductive lie that the passion of your conviction can somehow be translated into the merit of your belief, lest you make comments like 'I don't know much about this subject, but I DO know I'm skeptical, which should be of SOME relevance'.)
And as for your comment about doing frontal-lobe exercises each morning, you've got to be kidding. I can think of a LOT of activities that can lead to the physical development or cognitive edification of mankind. Yet I know few people who are disciplined enough in lifestyle to engage in these activities on a daily basis. Why is this? Because the work is hard, and the rewards are longterm, not immediate. We know a lot of ways to improve ourselves. Few people choose them. They'd rather sit at home, eating DingDongs and playing Quake.
(dramatic music swells as this lengthy retort ends with an abrupt, ironic conclusion.)
FIN
They don't say what game they tried, but it was a nintendo game....
Let's look at the trend in PC games. Games are going multi-player-over-the-Internet it a big way. The MMORPGs are moving along at a clip not seen since the explosion of "community-based Web sites".
So, when the game simulates a world, complete with thousands of other "real" people (players) to interact with, what would this study show? I have quite varied conversations in Everquest, and that's just the social aspect. There's also the math (yes math! in the form of statistics, simple arithmetic and algebra).
Then, there's the group dynamics. How do you organize people? Not a lesson most teenagers learn....
Now, we move to other styles of games. Myst, for example is pure puzzle-solving. Logic math and pretty pictures. I'd be concerned about any kid that played a video game to the exclusion of all else, but if it were Myst I suspect they'd come out of it with some improved logic skills.
Now on to hybrid games. Soul Reaver is a puzzle-solving/action game. Perhaps this kind of well-rounded game (I think Tomb Raider is in this catagory, but never played it) should be stressed for its ability to train many areas of the brain at once.
Now, to the future.... What happens when "video game" is an antiquated term? What happens when computers are used to simulate vast virtual environments with social activity, education and entertainment combined? What then? It's coming, and I think running around saying "it's stunting their growth" is not the most mature way that we can respond....
Let's evaluate what our kids do for the merits and flaws of each activity. Provide alternatives, not demands and never forget that you're trying to train them to be adults who can live thier own lives, not pets.
...because: "'The importance of this discovery cannot be underestimated,' Kawashima told The Observer."
;)
After all, Prof. Kawashima is quoted as such right in the article.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
I've been playing computer games on and off since I was 4 (the first game I got really badly hooked on was Joust on my Atari 2600, back in 1984 or therabouts), so I like to think I'm reasonably well qualified to comment. I grew up with computer games all around me, first with my Ataris (2600 & 400), through Amigas (an A500 and an A1200) and far too many hours spent in arcades, and then into the PC world.
Do you know what? I really do think, looking back on it now, that computer games stunted my emotional and intellectual growth. Not because of anything insidious about the games themselves, not that they were necessarily ultra-violent (be fair, realistic ultra-violence in computer games has only been around since Doom or maybe Wolfenstein - certainly Doom was the first game that made me twitch uneasily when I shot someone), but because they were an addiction. Even when I didn't feel addicted, it was something I could easily slide into, and completely forget about more important things that I had to do. Much more effective at that than TV, because a good computer game involves your brain completely. TV programs just don't do that, no matter how good they are.
Case in point: I started learning to play the piano when I was 4. I made good progress to begin with, I didn't have much in the of distraction. It wasn't long, however, until I would find myself playing computer games instead, rather than practising my piano. Eventually, aged 8, my piano teacher gave up on me because I was making no progress at all. I rue that day now. To me, being able to play a musical instrument would be a far more useful skill to have than being able to set high scores (not that I could much even at the height of my gaming skills - I was always crap, despite my addiction - indeed, perhaps that's what fed it).
Case in point 2: girls and social skills. When everyone else was learning how to interact with each other, I was.... inside learning how to shoot stuff in Xenon II. When, aged 11, 12, 13, they were learning about the opposite sex, I was... inside learning how to play Civilisation. Now, I wasn't completely unaware of girls at the time - hormones start flowing around that age and there's nothing you can do about it. But because I was no good at interacting with people, hormonal urges turned into frustration, and frustration turned into anger. For me, that anger turned into anger at myself and self-hate, leading to a spiral of low self-esteem and depression that I have struggled to get out of ever since. I can understand how for some people that turns into outward violence, they just deal with the same problem in a different way. I don't think it's the games themselves that turn people violent, but the reaction to feeling excluded because they have been playing games instead of interacting with other humans.
Case in point 3: exams and university. I dropped out of uni because of games. Whilst everyone was going to lectures and tutorials, I was.... at home learning how to play Quake and Descent. I would beat myself up about not going in that day, but the feelings only lasted as long as it took to fire up Quake and start getting involved. Once I had done that, I was just too absorbed to remember what I ought to have been doing. Somehow I managed to struggle through my first year (my uni wasn't at all strict about people turning up) but it came to the end-of-year exams and... well inevitably I didn't get the marks. Out I went. That was the final straw for me. I descended into a living hell of depression and apathy for a year, but eventually I began to sort myself out. That year was also the year I realized where one of my biggest problems was - and I finally gave up serious gaming for good.
I don't think I'd mind so much if I actually learnt something about computers whilst gaming - but you don't. You learn what computer you should have, you get hold of it, you learn to boot it and you learn how to load a game. That's it. My computer knowledge only started really advancing past the 'point, click, play' stage once I gave up gaming. The fact that it develops hand/eye co-ordination is all very well, but there are plenty of other activities that develop those skills too, and don't involve cutting yourself off from humanity. Maybe a few hardcore gamers will go on to write their own games... but what about the 99% who don't?
I realise it's probably not very politically correct on Slashdot to point out some of the human and social problems with some types of computing, but that's the way it is. Computer gaming can easily lead to addiction (the games are designed to be addictive!), and unchecked, any addiction is very hazardous. The fact that it's an addiction that affects kids and teenagers more than anyone else, people who are at crucial points of social and intellectual development, only makes it all the more insidious.
You could be right, but I also think that games put you into a heightened state of alertness, which is inevitably followed by a crash and feeling of depression.
Why don't they seek substantial copyright reform? Maybe movies and music recordings should be exempt from copyright. This would not stop the next Britney Spears, but it would take away the profit motive from the men who packaged and marketed her. Would Britney be shaking her ass for free in front of a webcam? Probably not. I notice the Christian Right doesn't complain about webcams or 'blasphemous' posts on Usenet. What really hits their hot buttons is when 'immoral' content is legitimized by the government or huge media corporations.
Huge media corporations shouldn't exist, and if they didn't then these Christians would not be upset by the abuse of a 'privileged pulpit.'
This is not flamebait, Slashdot, this is what happened to me. I realize it's not a pretty story, but there you go. It wasn't a pretty time for me either.
Perhaps I should stress that I do not blame the games. I know from experiences elsewhere in my life that I am prone to addiction. I smoke. I have, in the past, drunk too much regularly. I find bad habits easy to pick up. I don't want restrictions on games either - to do so would restrict people's liberties for the sake of a few for whom it might turn into a problem. It hasn't worked on drink or drugs, so I don't think it would be any use here either.
But that still doesn't change the fact that I ended up genuinely hooked, to the severe detriment of the rest of my life, on computer games. The sooner that people realize that computer gaming is both addictive and potentially destructive for some, the better. Once people have realized that, then strides can be made towards harm reduction and everyone can go about their gaming without fear of it taking over their lives.
Although the study of human behaviour and its origins is nothing new (psychology is a much older field than neuroscience), the study of behaviour in relation to brain function is a much newer field. The point I am trying to make here is that there is so much we don't know about how the brain works (despite all the advances that we've made so far in terms of PET scans and MRIs that monitor brain activity). So when people make these kinds of claims ("video games make your child violent"), you have to start questioning their methods of research as there could be several factors that influence the child's mental and moral development. Kids who play Quake 3 but live in a nice, stable household in the suburb are not likely to go violent. But kids who live with violence day in day out, even if they don't play video games, are *more likely* (this is the distinction that can be left out in the more vigorous emotional debates) to become violent simply because they've learned to accept violence as a way of life. Something that you learn from experience is that real life has much more of an impact on your behaviour than games do.
So before we start the call for extreme measures to control video game usage, we must learn more about neuroscience's relation to behaviour in general before we can make specific claims about the effects of video games on kids.
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.