Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds Video Games Are Not Bad for Kids
mcgrew writes with news that a study done by the Pew Internet & American Life Project has found game playing is all but universal among teens, and it provides a "significant amount of social interaction and potential for civic engagement." 97% of teens responding to the survey said they played games (75% played weekly or more often), and roughly two-thirds of teens use games as a social experience. The full report (PDF) and the questionnaire with answer data (PDF) are both available for viewing. From the report: "Youth who take part in social interaction related to the game, such as commenting on websites or contributing to discussion boards, are more engaged civically and politically. Youth who play games where they are part of guilds are not more civically engaged than youth who play games alone."
Maybe I'm just old, but when I was a kid, we left grown up matters like politics to the adults.
Well, that explains the ignorance of the modern voter. I kid... Mostly...
Every study hides and undisputable fact of life:
"People (and groups) are self-interested first and foremost."
Games aren't a public service -- there is a profit motive behind them whether or not they're bad for children. Likewise, studies that claim the opposite (in lieu of other child-vices) have the same root -- a profit motive.
Here is a study I'd like to see:
1. Which is better for children: Throwing rocks at my neighbor's window or playing GTA?
2. Which is better for children: Attending a public school or playing Age of Conan.
At the end of the day, I'm the parent and I'll decide what's good or bad for my children -- I don't need some pointy-head-pencil-pusher to feed me agenda-ized information.
It's all about where they do the posting. I started posting on Slashdot many years ago when I was a teenager, as revealed by my handle. This website has shaped and developed my ability for written communication by providing both good and bad examples, and by providing me with feedback on the things I say.
Youtube is different; posting there is like throwing your words away. Discussion does not take place; people throw the words out and then turn their back on them. Here, people come back and see if their comments have scored well. In so doing, they notice replies and reenter the discussion that they had participated in earlier in the day.
Well, that's how it's worked for me.
Obviously, there's plenty of terrible comments here, but overall this is easily among the best forums on the internet.
Whereas the average adult has control over politics...
Nope, didn't think so.
Whether or not a person can vote is frankly irrelevant to the issue.
In general: Knowledge is Power. Kids will grow up and later be able to vote, and are directly affected by various issues under the control of politicians.
I am frankly surprised that anybody is worried that kids are taking interest in their surrounding environment and it's social mechanisms, I personally am more concerned about kids *not* taking an interest in politics, but then again I'm from the UK and currently living in France, where things are done differently to the US (which I assume is where you're referring to).
Children are not illiterate and incompetent sheep up until the age of majority, whereupon they suddenly become intelligent voters who know all about politics.
Worrying about things which you have no control of is often justified if those things have significant and pervasive control over you.
Although the leap from "interested in" to "worried about" is somewhat tenuous IMO.
Given the current political climate and pre-election/leadership issues publicity in many parts of the world including the US and the UK, a child would inevitably be exposed to significant quantities of information on the subject (in a easily digestible and hype-enhanced format most likely, too).
Disclaimer: I am 18 and about to commence university studies in the UK.
There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
overly aggressive video games like manhunt and GTAx can be very bad for children who have not developed proper conflict resolution skills.
I certainly don't agree with banning games like that since they provide many hours of enjoyment to me.
I will not let my son play them until he's mature enough to demonstrate the ability to choose something other than aggression.
I do support game ratings and I wish retailers would enforce them. I don't agree with government regulation of games or movies. That would be censorship.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I've never been a huge fan "educational" games. I do think there are some good titles, but I think that the majority of educational games fail because they think that the emphasis is on being "educational". The underlying game has to be fun or the kid will throw it aside.
That said, I think that *all* games are educational. When my daughter was three she picked up my wife's Animal Crossing game and fell in love with it. I sat down and played with her and read all dialogue. Eventually I had to read to her less and less as she was increasingly able to recognize words. Today she's five and reads at a 3rd-grade level. Obviously it's not solely due to games like Animal Crossing, but I think it certainly helped.
Yes. Because adults are so much better at decision making. (sarcasm should be dripping off your screen by now)
Quite frankly, my experience is that people who were idiots in middle-school still were idiots in middle-age. They even had the same attitudes. This means that age has little to do with whether you're worth listening to. And any attempt to deride someone's interest based on their age is merely an attempt by someone older to keep the competition out.
Not to mention that it is only beneficial to develop and study interests early rather than late.
I'm not sure where you got this idea from, but I find it highly disturbing.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
... a study will find that Video Games *Are* Bad for Kids.
Umm.. how exactly is kids being interested in politics a good thing?
Because we can't expect kids to suddenly pick up a full set of political knowledge and opinions on their 18th birthdays. If they start being interested sooner, they'll be better prepared when they're finally able to vote, and we'll hopefully see higher turnout among young adults.
It's the same reason that kids who start drinking at a younger age, with their parents' supervision, end up with healthier attitudes toward alcohol. The ones who have no experience with alcohol before turning 21 (or moving out of the house) are the ones who turn into binge drinkers as soon as they have the chance.
Being that children can't vote, and no-one cares about their political opinions,
It's unfortunate that no one cares about their political opinions, because minors are certainly affected by political decisions. Recall that one of the reasons the USA split away from Britain was that it was being affected by decisions it had no power over ("no taxation without representation").
Still, for the health of our democracy, we should encourage kids to think about political issues before they start voting. That way, when the time comes, they'll be more likely to make a decision based on substance instead of treating it like American Idol.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Exactly. Compared to most forums I've been to, Slashdot's trolls are better written than the admin's posts on other forums.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
You used the correct you{r|'re}, proving Darkness404's point.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Studies can be made to show anything by simply selecting which data proves your point. Take them with a grain of salt.
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association