Slashdot Mirror
Average Gamer Is 35, Fat and Bummed
kamapuaa writes "According to a study published in the upcoming October issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the average US video game player is 35 years old, overweight, and tends toward depression. Specifically, female video game players tended towards depression, while males tended towards large BMIs. While the study itself points to several conclusions, one researcher noted: '... habitual use of video games as a coping response may provide a genesis for obsessive-compulsive video-game playing, if not video-game addiction.'"
On the flip side, the Washington Post is running a story about the mental health benefits of playing video games.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think the mods intentionally replaced "Slashdotter" with "Gamer" in the title?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
Alex Trebek: This average Gamer Is 35, Fat and Bummed
Contestant: What is slashdot?
Alex Trebek: Can you be more specific?
Contestant: Who is Cowboy Neal?
Alex Trebek: Congratulations to our new Jeopardy champion!
Trolling is a art,
I'm under average!
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Video games as coping mechanism. That's an interesting way of looking at this. I found that when I played World of Warcraft, that's exactly what it was. It allowed me to cope with not having a girlfriend and deaden my emotions to the outside world. In that sense it became very addictive. I think it would probably be very similar to drinking alcohol or some drug.
It's funny because WoW is the only game that did that to me. I'm glad I stopped playing because now I don't feel like an automaton (gradually regaining my humanity), but I really feel bad for all the people who are like me who are still playing for that reason. I think WoW is a great game if you can just play it as a game to have fun, but I'm just not one of those people.
Funnily enough I can still play console games without any problems, they are not the same at all. Perhaps it's just pseudo social aspect, or the feeling while playing WoW that you are forced to grind (e.g. it's out of your control). An interesting thing that will probably be studied by psychologists for years to come.
We are fat and depressed but we have amazing mental health. Sounds fine to me.
I don't understand these studies about addictive gamers who are depressed, lonely, blah blah blah. Gaming, like watching tv dramas or sports or news, or listening to the radio or ipod, is simply a way to pass the time. Why gaming would make someone depressed makes zero sense to me.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Cue obligatory "Make Love, Not Warcraft" Southpark episode in 3..2..1...
Shit, with stats like those, that Soutpark episode just went from Animated Comedy to PBS Documentary.
35, Fat, and Bummed? Or something close?
I'm only 24! Way to offset the bell-curve :D
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Out of 100 depressed fat 35-year-old gamers polled 99 turned out to be depressed fat 35-year-old gamers. 1 turned 36 while being polled.
Given the choise between Hitler and RIAA/MPAA I'd go for the first one - at least he knew when to shoot himself.
I'm 35. I tend toward depression. But I'm one sexy bitch.
My mom even says I'm the handsomest guy in school . . . err, work now, I guess.
Sweet informative mod.
For your info I'm THIRTY-SIX.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
"According to a study published in the upcoming October issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the average US video game player is 35 years old, overweight, and tends toward depression"...and tends to troll anonymously the various forums where they can feel superior to young adults, children, and the mentally handicapped.
Some over-sensitive mod is gonna mod this flamebait or troll, when the reality is, I'm meta-trolling the article. Get it? No? Shit, me neither. Hand me that controller, will you?
Sent from your iPad.
In order to self-identify as a gamer, you've got to have a certain mindset to begin with. "I play video games, and that's the most important thing in my life". When you're a teenager that's fine, since most teens don't exactly have the resources to go out and have a real life, but when you're 35, you should be at the point where your other dreams are coming true.
I play video games, a lot. I've spent hundreds of dollars on them this year and spent hundreds of hours in them. However, I don't self-identify as a gamer as such, because it's not the central tenet of my lifestyle, nor a major frame of reference for my personality.
The article doesn't tell exactly how they differentiate the two. If it's by self-identification, the problem I've already mentioned crops up. If it's by number of hours spent, it's a poorly designed study to determine the effects of video games, because it's simply axiomatic that if you are more introverted, you'll spend more time doing activities alone.
It's been a long time.
Specifically, female video game players tended towards depression, while males tended towards large BMIs.
Are the women depressed because their dating pool is made up of fat guys?
Or do we eat because our women are so depressing and food is our only solace?
*in a soft soothing mid-Western voice*
Remember folks to pay a visit to Slashdot: where the gamers are above average, the readers are fat and depressed and the women are nonexistent.
My work here is dung.
Like Duh!!
Way to go with creating another generalization in the mass media.
And mass media wonders why newspapers are failing and considered obsolete?
Scientia et Potentia
We keep hearing about how the average age of a gamer is around 30. It's surprising, but I can deal with that. Not unreasonable. Now 35? That's a little tougher to swallow, and a cursory look at the article shows why.
(Emphasis mine).
The study excluded kids. It's just adult gamers.
Still it's a little tough to believe that the average age is 35 unless there were few members of the study outside their 30s, or their definition of "gamer" is quite loose. They may consider going to Atlantic City and playing video poker a "gamer", but just because someone Skis once a year or so, are they a Skier? I know we want to count casual gamers, but we still need to exclude "irregular" gamers for the purposes of studies like this, or the findings are quite meaningless.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
This is gonna do wonder's for the self esteem of everyone who fits into this category... er... I'm gonna go eat some ice cream and play some WoW... at least my toon is hot...
Pissed off at the boss, need to vent? A bit of Gears of War will do the trick.
Need some exercise to burn off the pounds? A late afternoon set or two of Vertua Tennis will keep you slim and trim, baby!
Did someone cut you off on the commute home, Bunky? Time for some Need for Speed revenge, bitches!
Wife not giving it up lately? Create a character in The Sims that digs that back hair, homey!
that the survey wasn't national. They "analyzed survey data from 552 adults in the Seattle-Tacoma area. The subjects ranged in age from 19 to 90, according to the study, published in the October issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine." No offense to my fellow Americans in Seattle, but its not the happiest place with 226 days of cloudyness. The data might be a bit unbalanced.
http://www.ajpm-online.net/webfiles/images/journals/amepre/AMEPRE_2561.pdf
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
That this probably applies to movies, books, and several other ways that a person can blow off steam and escape from the day to day grind for a while without getting exercise.
Shock! Awe!
I thought I had seen obsessive escapist book reading before, then my wife got a kindle. Actually, I wonder if these addictions are not worst than many drugs. Afterall, reading is healthy and good, and nobody wants to bother someone reading a book. (nor do they usually want to be bothered)
Though, once you have spent all your free time reading for a month to the exclusion of household chores and social interaction.... well I doubt its much better or worst if its a video game.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
... and I don't mean the gamers.
I know I live in Southern California and, thus, the demographic is slightly skewed, but I'm having trouble thinking of *any* gamer I know IRL who is obese or depressed; yes, most are probably at the higher end of "average", but they're not obese.
Also the paragraph:
Well, yes. Soemone who spends time playing games is going to seek out other people who spend time playing games; the most logical place to do so is in the game. I bet if you studied sports enthusiasts, you'd find they sacrifice non-sports-related social activities to meet people who play and/or talk about sports. Whether it takes place in person or digitally is really secondary. In the days when arcades were everywhere, you had most of these gamers meeting up in the "real-world" there; it's simply that, now, we do most of our gaming at home instead of in arcades. The method of communication is simply less important than the target or subject.
The whole thing sounds a little odd, though that could just be the reporter's summary and not the actual data.
Or are researchers really skimping on data sets these days? 500ish people in one area? Seriously since when did that constitute a valid data set to base an entire population of 330m people on?
Om, nomnomnom...
Nice headline. The MS in MSNBC is not for Math Skills.
From TFA:
analyzed survey data from 552 adults in the Seattle-Tacoma area.
The subjects ranged in age from 19 to 90,
And later on, points out that this is merely correlation, AKA scientific fact to a journalist.
it is not conclusive, its researchers say, but rather serves to "reveal important patterns in health-related correlates of video-game playing and highlights avenues for future research."
Sumo wrestlers are video game addicts?
I win! I'm 30, overweight, and happy!
Of course, managing my life actively- including minimizing WoW play time to not interfere with family life, work or home projects- is a big part of the equation.
Gaming is a great distraction- a distraction from the things you know you need to do with yourself and your life. Manage your playtime accordingly.
In the immortal words of IceT (?),
You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
You know, social sciences are a great thing, you can find some very interesting data.
However, I am increasingly sick of these kinds of studies that use a sample pool so small as to be statistically irrelevant. I realize it costs money to do bigger studies, but trumpeting this kind of tiny average as 'fact' goes beyond mere chutzpah to full on fucking annoying.
Well since I cannot beat pop culture with mere logic, I might as well join them and open up Dr. Doom's Videogame Addiction Curative Haus. Forced to play the Atari 2600 version of ET until eyes bleed, while fed tofu and listening to a mix of Britney Spears and the Pussycat Dolls.
Because a lot of them are actually somewhat based on reality...
Asians are generally good at math because their culture values learning and route memorization.
Europeans are kinda snobby because they are.
Americans are fat and lazy because they are.
Africans are good at sports because they are not fat and lazy.
African-Americans are a mix of the above two groups.
etc... etc...
Short bald men are usually single, good looking men are usually not, the sky is blue etc. etc...
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I think there is a feedback loop at work here. Games are created which appeal to a certain demographic, that group keeps buying the games, and so new games are designed to appeal to the same group. From the perspective of a game maker, this a safe approach, since creating new games is expensive and risky.
The biggest thing I notice about games today is that they are time sinks. They have huge numbers of levels which require performing the same basic combat maneuvers over and over again. They have difficulties set very high which necessitate much practice and many retries to succeed. Some games provide hundreds of secret objects to seek out. Some games allow players to level up as a way of rewarding those who play for dozens and dozens of hours.
Who was time for this, and the desire to spend this much time? The lonely, the single, the depressed, the inactive.
I want to play games which take about 3 to 10 hours to complete, and which are rewarding, entertaining, surprising, and non-repetitive through the entire experience. I hope that such games become common some day. Then gaming could really be for everyone.
In my country, most people that age (who own a computer) don't even bother to use computers until absolutely necessary. Gaming is completely out of question!
Life is too good to waste... Read!
Go to work and do some extra hours, so you can buy stuff you don't need.
Gee, games are just to have some fun, at least I'm not doing drugs or beating up my girl.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Fat, depressed, and 35 is no way to go through life, son.
Maybe I should read the article, but you can be a pound or two past your 'ideal weight' and you move into the overweight categories. Are they specifying a range outside of ideal, or just anything not 'ideal'. The US is overweight on average, so how would this be news that a sub-group of an overweight group is also overweight?
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
I've been a gamer for years, and I've never been 35 or overweight. You'd think sooner or later the law of averages would catch up to me if this were true, therefore it is false. I am convinced that the average gamer is a 23-year old skinny university student.
The article doesn't go into how the researchers coded gamers vs nongamers, it just says 'differentiated adult video-game players from nonplayers', which suggests a pretty hard distinction: Do you play video games AT ALL? If so, you're a gamer.
Does the exact definition have serious implications on the quality of the results, though? Unless there are some really counter-intuitive confounding conditions at work, no.
For example: What if, for some oddball reason, people who play an *occasional* video game (but not more, and so could be coded either way, depending on your exact definition of "gamer") have a high rate psychological problems compared to the rest of the population? If that sort of people made up a large proportion of your sample size, and/or if their psych problems were severe enough, then the exact definition of "gamer" would matter a hell of a lot. Depending on precisely where you drew the line in your study, you might see no correlation, or a positive correlation, or a negative correlation.
Unfortunately, the study's methodology doesn't allow us to determine the likelihood of such a situation, so you can't say much. I would have suggested coding each participant's "gamer-ness" as a discrete ordinal variable with more than 2 possible values, as in "On a scale of 1 to 10, how much of a gamer is this person?" Or, you could use the number of hours played, per week. Either way, you can use a bootstrap-like technique, calculating T statistics with various monotonically incrementing values of your "gamer-ness" variable, and verifying that the T values do increment monotonically (or close to it) along with "gamer-ness".
But these changes would require a larger sample size, so if you can't draw a bigger crowd (budget, time, opportunity), so it's a trade off.
You're not -old-!
Well I can't just call you Anonymous Coward...
Dare to Hope. Prepare to be Disappointed.
Then I got divorced and got my life back.
What?
I'm finally above average at something! Suck it, hat.... Ah, fuck.
"...analyzed survey data from 552 adults in the Seattle-Tacoma area. The subjects ranged in age from 19 to 90, according to the study.." Yes- I'm sure this is enough data. 552 adults in the Seattle-Tacoma area that were willing to participate in the study is all you need to prove your hypothesis! Seriously- I read this on MSNBC yesterday and was finally fed up enough to remove MSNBC from my RSS reader. This crap is meaningless.
Sucks to be you guys. I'm 34, within 10 lbs of my ideal weight, and reasonably happy considering the state of the world I live in. I'm in ur statistics skewing ur averages:P
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The traditional and popular answers for coping with depression ("get out more!") don't work for introverts. I would expect that introverts are overrepresented in the "gamer" demographic.
But I don't think it is loneliness that depresses this group. I suspect it is meaninglessness. existential crisis hits this kind of person pretty hard. Not only is life itself meaninglessness, but their life in particular is meaningless. Goals for goals' sake have no motivational power, so they lack drive to do much of anything apart from play their games. They go to work and perform your basic survival tasks out of rote habit. Such is the life of someone who can't find anything that is really exciting.
It is easy to say "well you lack drive, and that is what is wrong with you." The answer is rejected out of hand, since such people are clear-minded enough to see that the only reason they "lack drive" is because the meaningless bullshit that drives most people is precisely that...meaningless bullshit...and hence they simply can't get excited about it, even if they try.
You don't help such people by taking away their games and forcing them to go to dance clubs (or whatever). They just sit there, feeling alone in the crowd, and wishing they could be doing something more interesting than listen to air-heads blather on about shoes.
In my experience (anecdote. sue me.) study of psychology, physics, and philosophy keep life seeming interesting enough to be worth the trouble. I combine that with games, of course, because entertainment is important too. Also, I meditate (non-religious), but I realize that not everyone finds non-drug-induced altered states of consciousness to be as intriguing as I do.
I am going to say it is "ok" for people to be this way. If these methods of coping with depression don't work, then get a prescription for some mood-altering drugs. That is ok too. Just don't let people tell you that you are some kind of failure for having seen the valuelessness of the bullshit they proffer as being worthwhile.
What about the average Harry Potter fan?
... I'm only 34!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Well, that _some_ people will play it as some great escape from a shitty reality, is I suppose true of anything else. Equally I know someone who' a workaholic to escape the rest of reality, and pretty much because work is the only place where he's appreciated. Other people go fishing to escape reality, or spend hours tuning their car, or whatever else.
On the other hand, I only need to look at my parents who took to WoW like to cocaine. And, you know, they're a lot over 35 and not exactly the stereotypical image of the lonely gamer or slashdotter either. You know, what with one of them being a woman, and both of them having gotten laid before (or I wouldn't be here.)
The other die-hard gamers I know, most are married, the majority are of average weight, and one is pencil-thin. Only one was obese, but the key word is "was." (Suspiciously, he started exercising after someone sent around a link to a study saying that the obese and smokers cost the health insurance less because they die a lot earlier;)
So I just have to wonder. Maybe they just saw that the average gamer was fat and depressed because the average person wherever the study was done was fat and depressed?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I'm shocked that the US is still using this antiquated and inaccurate measure.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
>>Specifically, female video game players tended towards depression, while males tended towards large BMIs.
Large BMI? That's totally me.
But only if it means Big Massive Intellect.
What a bunch of sensationalist bullshit.
* A third of Americans are obese. (*1)
* Two thirds of Americans are overweight. (*1)
* Ten percent of Americans are on anti-depressants. (*2)
Therefore, chances are that almost every demographic of people short of mountain climbers and marathon runners has a significant portion of their numbers that are obese and/or depressed (not to mention the number of people who are depressed in the general population but are not on medication or have not even been diagnosed because they have no medical coverage or are perhaps embarrassed).
I also suspect that people who are obese and/or depressed tend to watch television. Or listen to a lot of music. Or commit suicide more often. Or spend more time at home. Or any other number of things. Big deal. What is the point for this study even existing, anyway? What is it they're trying to prove? Fat and depressed people are less likely to spend their time running marathons? No fucking shit, geniuses! So what?
(*1) http://www.americansportsdata.com/obesitystats.asp
(*2) http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03411375.htm?whichcatatetheprozac
This statistic is about right, however much we might not want to look at it. I'm 32, at least mildly overweight, and am slowly recovering from a 2.5 year addiction to World of Warcraft.
World of Warcraft is my generation's real life answer to the Matrix. We sit in something close enough to a pod, stuffing ourselves with junk food while we attempt to distract ourselves from the misery of contemporary mainstream existence, yet it doesn't make us happy.
The only real difference between WoW and the Matrix is that in WoW's case, the gameplay is no longer as good. ;)
I guess most people didn't catch the significance of Andrews University...
Two of the study's coauthours (Wendi Kannenberg, Gary L. Hopkins) are from Andrews University Institute for Prevention of Addictions. Andrews is a Christian university run by a denomination which doesn't accept evolution. I've spoken to a prof from their biology department, apparently it's a bastion of the Intelligent Design movement. (Here's a book published by Andrews University Press).
I'm not saying that proponents of intelligent design and those around them are incapable of doing serious scientific research. I'm thinking this might partially explain what feels like an anti-gamer bias.
The joys of crowdsourcing...
The opinons expressed are those of the voices in the author's head and are not necessarily those of the author.
Most of the gamers I know are 55-65 years old, 2/3's of them know COBOL...
I am 33.
I resemble that remark!
Playing GTA or Splinter Cell is probably a lot safer than Prozac or Paxil. As for the weight stop ordering to much Popeye's chicken and start using the Wii games, they really work up a sweat.
Actually, sad to break this to you, but just about everything you do in your free time is simply "passing time." Whether it's watching TV, playing a game, chatting at the pub, going mountaineering, tuning your car, reading a book, going to the theatre, or whatever else. There's a reason it's called a "passtime". Get it? "Pass" and "time"? Ring a bell yet?
So, yes, unless you spend every waking moment _working_ on something, then yes, you too are just "passing time" a lot.
And by "work", I mean as in you actually expect to sell it or otherwise get a tangible return on investment, and primarily for that return on investment. If it's just one of the intangible and impossible to measure benefits used as excuses for why your hobby is better than his, sad to break it to you, but it's still just a hobby. You're still doing it to pass the time.
So get off the high horse, drop the snotty self-importance, and realize that yes you too pass the time. Waiting to die or something? Then why do you try to project that idiocy on others?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I'm surprised the average gamer is as old as this study indicates, but otherwise I tend to believe the results. I know several people who fit the profile described.
In some ways I find myself falling into the pattern and I find that it tends to be a vicious cycle. I don't game excessively, at most I'll play a couple of hours in the evening both on weekdays and weekends. I don't have the time to play all day on weekends, although I used to do so from time to time. Inevitably I find myself feeling miserable that I'm wasting all this time not being constructive.
I definitely have a tendency to get into games more strongly when I'm unhappy with work. And I find that I tend to have some more compulsive tendencies. I feel the need to explore every last detail, to unlock what I can and at least play through to the end. But I tend to want to fit that all within a short time frame, which means I play excessively for a while then eventually grow tired of the experience. So unlike some people I could never play an MMO for too long because I eventually get frustrated with the never-ending experience and I give up. I may still feel that pull to the game, but other feelings manage to overpower that compulsion.
As for the vicious cycle, it comes down to the way games occupy my time. I tend to play in the evening. So it inevitably means that I go to sleep later than I should. So obviously, the following day I feel like crap. This lack of energy prevents me from doing exercise, investing time in anything constructive, and generally being more productive at work. I get upset with myself. Unfortunately, the following evening I find myself with the energy to stay up, my body having gotten accustomed to this, and the cycle starts over. So my point is that I'm creating the reason to be depressed and then feeding into it on a daily basis.
The best way I've found to address this is to force myself to be occupied by other activities and to fill my time with friends as much as possible. I think part of the problem is that there's all this pent up energy due to sitting at the office all day and it's far too easy to expend it by doing something like playing games.
I'M BIG BONED!!!
Depressed gamer chicks are hot.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
lets use electroshock! we'll shock these bastards back to health! remeber that one! it's all psychiatric non-sense also called religion replacement therapy... a sucker is born every minute, just like the believe that everything is addictive (instead of just facing the fact of life, all humans are autistic little kids who like repetition!) u don't need a religious nut or a psychiatrist to tell you that!
Yes, but what percentage of gamers have trouble urinating due to an enlarged prostate? Those gamers should try Avodart!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Everyone has SOME form of escape in their lives. Some are just healthier than others. Personally, I think videogames are pretty mild compared to the dangers of SOME forms of escapism.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I'm 35, weigh more than I should (or at more than I used to)... however I'm not depressed. Gaming maybe gets in the way of doing some of the things I ought to, which also accounts for the weight gain, it just means I should play less 2 and go down the gym/compose music more.
But hey, they're all fun, so it's good!
I tried. Hey, they can't all be gold.
Sweet informative mod.
So why not experience it to the fullest? Live your life knowing that none of it matters and that it's OK that none of it matters, because the only thing important is that you enjoy the experience, which you may never have again.
That sounds a lot more like hedonism than existentialism.
That doesn't imply that your point is lost, though.
I'm unsure if the majority of the people who tag stories just don't know what "correlation does not imply causation" actually means, or if this is just another case of mass not RTFAing.
"Correlation does not imply causation" means that if A correlates to B it does not mean that A causes B. But if it's a statistically strong correlation in a well designed experiment then _something_ is causing the relationship. Perhaps A is causing B, perhaps B is causing A, or perhaps some third factor is causing A and B to show up together.
This study, like many others that have been slandered with the tag, seems to be pretty careful about its terminology. The only reference to a possible causation is actually of the reverse, "One interpretation of the findings, researchers said, is that among women, video-game playing 'may be a form of "digital self-medication."'"
In another place they state "While the study helps 'illuminate the health consequences of video-game playing,' it is not conclusive, its researchers say, but rather serves to 'reveal important patterns in health-related correlates of video-game playing and highlights avenues for future research.'"
So not only do they state that it's a statistical correlation and not conclusive proof of causation, they also give specific examples to show that they're considering other possible relationships besides A causing B. Is the "corellationisnotcausation" crowd just not going to be happy until scientists stop doing research altogether?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Admittedly, I didn't RTFA, but I haven't seen anything that mentioned that gamers were more likely to be broke.
*Your*.
Well, for example how about the fact that the obesity percentages are not the same across the globe.
In the USA, US, as of 2007, 33% of men and 35% of women are obese. (And another third are "only" overweight.) In the EU, where I'm looking at my gamer friends I described in that message, (depending on the country) you're getting between a third and a half that many obese people. E.g., to pick a comparable year, in 2006 in the Netherlands there were only about 12% obese men and about 10% obese women. Germany actually is the heavy-weight of Europe (pun intended) and slightly out-edges even the USA in percentage of "overweight" males, but at a quick googling seems to be at only 13% outright "obese", again as of 2007.
So there you go. It seems to me like all their study found was that the average gamer is the average person in that place. They look at the gamers over there and see a lot of fat ones, I look at the gamers over here and see a lot of people anywhere between fit and a bit overweight.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I'd be interested to hear how these dimensions (weight, age, happiness) would score if the extremely broad category of 'gamer' were broken down along favorite genre or at least along the core/casual/MMO subgroups. Are mostly-FPS players more or less content with their lives than MMO players or Peggle addicts? Do their predilections for certain types of games correlate to other life patterns which could better account for their relative happiness or physical health? For my part, I'm 35, in good shape, and very happy with my life. Games have been my major entertainment activity for my entire life, and I follow the industry like mad when I'm not playing. I'm right in the center of the age and interest demographic; why am I not overweight and depressed? Because I have other interests. I would imagine that sports gamers are more likely to engage in physical activity when they don't have a gamepad in their hands, and it would be interesting to know if serious WoW players are seeking community because they have poor social lives, or are rather embracing community because they're naturally more happy and social people. This broad-brush study, and its similarly broad-brush conclusions, aren't particularly enlightening or interesting, but the subject certainly is.
I'm 31 going on 32, I've lost weight, but I guess if something that was life changing didn't happen to me I'd be fitting right in with that 35 years old and fat demographic I suppose.
In other words, US gamers are typical of the general US population, such that
- most (60%ish) are overweight
- they are far more likely to be depressed than counterparts from almost every other country
- the average age is about 35
What a depressing article, makes me feel old, pass me the Cheetos.
The article and almost every poster is coming from a primitive 20th century reality-centric perspective that values activities in the physical world higher than activities in the "virtual" world. Every mention of video games or virtual worlds is dripping with value-judgment and inflated self importance. It's an ignorant type of Imperialism that fails to look at the bigger picture or to acknowledge the arbitrary nature of these value judgments.
Why is an interaction in the real world any more "valuable" than an interaction in a virtual world? There is no reason other than the value that the participant places on the action. The old methods of valuation - working to pay your way, exercising to maintain a fit body, finding a mate and procreating - have all been subsumed by technology and society. An individual never has to leave their chair to work, there is no need to "fight to live" or maintain a powerful physique, and procreation can be handle with zero contact between sperm-donor and egg-donor.
In five hundred years whatever type of human is alive at the time will look back at this age and the popular perspective on virtual worlds as just another type of cultural imperialism that has done nothing but hold back evolution and progress. While I do see the value in contact with other people and physical fitness, etc, it is evident to me that these types of interaction are only valuable to us as long as we as a culture value them; the inevitable march of technology and progress will soon enculturate humanity into a future of virtual worlds and holo-decks.
(\(\
(^.^) INFECTED
(")")
I find my depression is what allows me game time, the more depressed I am the less I can play. I just get to the point of waking up in the morning and going back to sleep for the rest of the day and waking up again at night with a headache that lasts all night waiting for some sort of news or something to look forward too.. Well I guess just to keep me going. At any rate the research was probably something stupid like a poll. Perhaps people just feel alone and long for some kind of friend they can connect with, I know thats what I'm looking for still. And just aren't quite sure how to reach someone.
Was this poll taken in Sunset Valley or Riverview?
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Using correlation-IS-causation logic we have to conclude that games make you fat. upcoming studies will analyse which game has how many calories. later we plan to include games in the food-pyramid.
other studies indicate that playing "Barbie Fashion Show" makes you young and female, whereas playing World of Warcraft makes you sad and lonely...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
I'm a 38year old woman, a gamer a sys admin, and surprise I am not fat, depressed nor do I look like I should live under a bridge and scare children. I am sick to death of having to explain to people that yes, I can be hot and a geek. No I am not tooting my own horn I am just calling it like it is. Enough with putting gammers in a bad light, there are fat depressed folks everywhere, perhaps they need to look at ALL QVC users are fat depressed housewives
For me, I am somewhat overweight but for my small size. However, I am almost 35 and haven't had a lot free time to play PC games (does Flash games count too?). I get about 0-2 hours per week. :( I used to play way more in the past like a few years ago. I'm too busy with real life, work, other lazy activities (Internet, television/TV shows, movies, etc.). :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
http://www.w3bbo.com/forums/ASL-Old_Obese.jpg
Bwahahahaha
Just try it. Get 10-15 minutes of sun during the hours of noon-3pm (if you're lucky enough to live somewhere in view of the sun) and just see if that doesn't massively boost your mood.
They're only depressed because Duke Nukem Forever hasn't been released yet. The same old games get boring after a while.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Take this as an object lesson in why the statistical mean is not always a useful value.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
While I see your point and it's a valid one... I'd divide it roughly like this:
- do you spend that time primarily because you like playing that game? I.e., from the angle of "I have another hour to try to finish this level"? Then it's passing the time, and only incidentally it happens to have some utility value too.
- do you spend that time primarily because you try to figure a game mechanic out, even if that game wouldn't be exactly at the top of what you want to play? I.e., from the angle of "I have another hour to try to figure out why people like this thing?" Then it's work, and only incidentally it happens to have some fun value too.
Of course, it's not that clear cut, but I think you get the idea.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If you don't read pulp crap then it's impossible to read that much. Quality literature consumes much more brain power than pulp fiction and is tiresome to read. Pulp, romance, horror, J.K. Rowling, ect. are just as strenuous on the brain as watching Two and a Half Men, so you can do it all day. Load her kindle up with Shakespeare and Steinbeck and she'll have to take breaks.
Quite true, unless you're really just skimming in order to get another book under your belt. In which case, why bother?
Even middle-brow literature like Stephen King should be taken it slowly to properly absorb the characters, settings, and ideas.
Doesn't invalidate the research, but it's worth noting that Tacoma used to be the "most stressful U.S. city": http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/West/01/10/life.stress.reut/
My favorite Tacoma memories generally involve being in a car and not stopping.
Okay, being 40, a gamer, overweight and a history of depression, plus I live in Washington State, I guess they polled me.
wait, they didn't.
See, I'm a gamer but it's not my fault I'm 40. I blame my parents for that.
Damn cold January in 1968.
Okay, now lets get to my overweight problem. I've always been bigged boned. Not my fault.
in fact, i was carrying a few extra before I discovered my first video game back in the 70's.
And then there's EQ2, so ya, maybe I'm playing a bit more video games then excersing.
Now to depression.
Ya, i'm depressed. I'm depressed that most PC games are shitty ports.
I'm depressed that there's a whole new generation of gamers that think using a gamepad for first person shooters is the only way to play. noobs.
I'm depressed that I have a $5k gaming computer that only have 2 games that try to bring it to it's knees.
But does playing games make me depressed? nope. I mean, seriously. If doing something for fun makes you depressed, you need to change what you are doing for fun.
Be seeing you...
There's also the view that that entire framework for statistical analysis is fatally flawed. An argument to that effect (available publicly from his course website):
http://www.indiana.edu/~kruschke/articles/KruschkeBayesianDataAnalysisDraft.pdf
Hope the uni servers don't get slashdotted >.>;
I must say that even responding to this article as a slashdotter is self-biased. It would seem most likely that slashdotter/tech/nerd would immediately feel contempt for this study. Though I'm not sure if I agree with the accuracy of the study and I do think the article makes a generalize point. I feel the need to defend it. Really it comes down to "anything in moderation can be good". However, as human beings we are all sooooo different, and react stronger or weaker to certain activities like video games. Some people are just addicts by nature, so its kind of an ambiguous problem. Nevertheless, people can go through phases and still maintain some shred of dignity,success in their lives, play hardcore MMOs as well, and still move forward. Despite, whatever validity the study has, it holds some sad but true points about America society. Heck if we were less the materialist, self-loathing country at times and cared about others then just ourselves, we probably would have articles like this making video games the scapegoat. Technology and video games are great and fun, though people get disillusioned and forget how to have real connections with the world/people and in effect get these clincial depressed, "mild-adaptive" behaviors, and it's becoming this dangerously closed infinite loop. As people we should work to help each other, and clue each other in that you can still be a gamer and utilize healthy coping habits. Realize at least you have the ability to play games, while people with problems in starving countries.... don't even understand the concept of a "overweight gamer". Leave a legacy, at some point it just gets a little selfish. Well, IMO.
[500 from Seattle/Tacoma, WA] is a very small set from a very small region
I agree with you on the region part---I don't know that people are equally happy in all places of the world (or the US).
But as for using more people---based on what statistical calculations do you say that the number of people is insufficient? Is the observed variance absurdly unrealistic?
[BMI is] not accurate in the 'overweight' range
BMI is not great to measure individuals, but it can work reasonably well to measure populations---there's a distribution of people heavy with muscle vs. heavy with fat, and if you select random people those two groups cancel out. Do you know that this isn't the case here? How do you know?
I don't claim to have answers that contradict yours---or rather, I don't claim to know that those answers are true. It's just that the questions should be asked and answered before I'll agree with your claims.
35 year old sedentary American:
Eats a processed diet, high in frozen dinners, pizza, fast food, and soda.
All of which (in the US) contains high levels of High Fructose Corn Syrup
Over-dependence on which upsets serotonin levels
which blocks the neurochemical precursors to feeling "full", encouraging over-eating and weight gain (and profits for food manufacturers, which in turn continue to lobby for corn subsidies)
Serotonin imbalance also leads directly to depression and insomnia.
When you're too fat to get out the door and too unskilled and alienated from society to engage in social functions, really there's not a lot to do aside from game, eat, and post comments to slashdot.
In other news, summary very closely describes me save that I am 32, not 35. And I don't have a flatscreen monitor. D:
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
Maybe in America, the word has a different meaning, but this side of the pond, "bumming" is a verb.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
....um..... ....what was the middle one again?
There is no way there's enough gamers in their 40s and above to counterbalance the fact that almost everybody under 20 plays video games.
modding down of the parent post even is another evident example of arrogance. everybody but americans know it.
Read radical news here