In case anyone takes up my offer in this question to join chat for some discussion, I'll throw this thought out there:

When considering the impact of video game playing on the development of social skills, many people point out (rightly so) that modern video games tend to put much more emphasis on social interaction and multiplayer aspects in general than the games of the past

This is generally cited as a counter to the claim that it is desirable to limit children's time in front of a computer to encourage them to develop more social skills.

However, are the semi-anonymous to fully-anonymous social aspects of online gaming comparable to "real life" social interactions, or do they operate by such different sets of rules and guidelines as to qualify as a wholly distinct set of skills?

and good morning/afternoon @TorbenGundtofteBruun :)

Hello! I just popped in during a small break. What good timing :-)

You say "you can learn relatively little from gaming" but I'm not sure that's true. Worst case I can imagine: If a kid plays only Halo or Quake 3 or some such multiplayer killing game, they still learn real tactics and thinking ahead (that is, assuming they're halfway good at it -- which I'm not).

@TorbenGundtofteBruun "Relative" in this case refers to "relative to what you can learn from books", and I think that is an accurate statement

you can also learn those same skills you describe from books (at least partially), plus a host of others you cannot from games

Given the wealth and breadth of computer games, there's a good chance kids will learn a lot from them though -- from logical thinking, over math skills, analytical, geospatial awareness, in-game timing (=deadlines!), and so on.

Books can give you the ideas and spur your imagination. I am all for books because of this. But it won't give you actual practise.

@TorbenGundtofteBruun However, how effective is the "actual practice" in video games? The vast majority of games are designed primarily to be fun. This is typically accomplished at the expense of major elements of realism

I learned flying a small aircraft from MS Flight Simulator as a young teen. One day I found myself in one such cockpit, for real, and I was allowed to fly it -- successfully, I might add. Reading piloting books would not have given me that skill -- but likely a deeper understanding.

using Halo/Quake/whatever as an example, many of the tactics in those games rely upon the ability of players to soak up some amount of damage, whereas in real life, a soldier who gets shot once is usually out of commision

I agree that casual games and computer games of our youth happily sacrifice realism for playability. But these days, games are getting ever more advanced and realistic, even to the point that the military is using them for troops training...

I agree that the two mediums can be complementary sources of skills and learning

complimentary : yes!!

and also that the variety of learning topics increases with the advance of game technology and types

There's a world of difference between the original DOOM game and something like, I don't know what today's titles are, but e.g. America's Army, where a single bullet can disable you. So things have become more realistic = better learning effect. But also, less fun perhaps.

however, we are still a long way from the amount of learning material available in game form being comparable to the volume of learning material available in book form

- but digital learning is on a fantastic rise. Think of the Khan Academy, or all the e-learning that's become so cost-efficient popular in business these days.

@TorbenGundtofteBruun I'm not a FPS player, but my understanding is that the people who enjoy America's Army are very few compared to, say, MW3, because America's Army emphasizes realism vs. "fun" (America's Army is supposed to be a "real" military training simulator)

I think books was the best available medium for a long time -- millenia! -- but we are beginning to see what simulations and 3D and augmented reality etc etc can really do for us.

@TorbenGundtofteBruun I equate most forms of digital learning more to books or a combination of book + classroom learning, rather than "games"

@TorbenGundtofteBruun absolutely!

However, the argument is for learning via video games, which is different than learning from computer-assisted technology

@Beofett I'm not sure ... all these mass-player shooting games require amazing skill to handle. I don't think there's much difference in the players of the different flavors.

Going back to the classic MS flight simulator, did that really even count as a game? It was more of an educational tool when first released.

@Beofett I am perhaps taking a wider view of this definition. I see that video games and computer-assisted reality is growing ever closer and is already overlapping considerably, just look at iPhone games these days. Stunning.

@TorbenGundtofteBruun Oh, I'm not saying they don't require skill. Far from it. I'm not saying they don't offer some real-life benefit to learning those skills, either. Just that the emphasis on "fun", and what most people define as "fun", limits the real-world skill learning

@Beofett It has been named a "simulator" since the mid-80's. it's not a game, it never was. But for me, as a 12 year old kid, it was a game like any other. Same with submarine "simulator" computer "games" -- they all claim to be simulators, but really you only do it for fun so it is a game.

@TorbenGundtofteBruun I agree that the gap between the two mediums (video games vs. books) is dwindling rapidly, and eventually there is likely to be no gap

@Beofett I think there are many applications out there that are both considered "fun" and "games" but still provide learning and useful real-life skills. Shooting games are perhaps not the best example, it was just the first thing that occurred to me. I still claim that lots of games give you practical experience in life skills such as planning ahead, communicating with others, even perseverance and problem-solving creativity.

Casual games are not among them though -- they're purely for relaxation.

(you asked for a chat, you got one!) :-)

@TorbenGundtofteBruun I don't dispute in any way that there are lots of practical experiences in life skills obtainable in video games. Quite the contrary!

@TorbenGundtofteBruun indeed, thanks! :)

@Beofett I'm not stopping here, just smiling at the fortunate timing.

I have learned a lot in my life on the computer, both by surfing the web (which could arguably be called a "video game") and by playing traditional games

However, I have learned far more from reading

With all the schools today introducing or even requiring laptops or even tablets, I think the line between software and books will blur completely in the near future.

plus I am aware of far more topics that I could learn from reading that I have not yet touched (languages - both spoken and programming, history, the various sciences, math, philosophy, etc.)

@TorbenGundtofteBruun oh, yes

the trend is very much towards digitizing, and it is inevitable (to my regret) that paper books will very soon be considered completely archaic

@Beofett "deep learning" with the aim of truly understanding a topic probably does require textbooks (macro economics, anyone? Statistical analysis?). Less deep learning can surely be accelerated (or launched) using software.

@Beofett When was the last time you actually looked something up in a book? I have no paper-based reference material around me, but I do have Google. The digital is convenient for sure, but might also be the start of the end. I'm thinking of those lazy folks in the "WALL-E" movie, victims of the ultimate convenience.

@TorbenGundtofteBruun I actually have a reference set of books on my desk here at work that I do consult when I'm actively programming

however, that is for when I can't conveniently google-fu the specific syntax I'm looking for

more importantly to me, though, I just like the feeling of losing myself in an old-fashioned paper book

it is comforting to me, out of habit

@Beofett real physical objects are comforting on a whole different level than digital stuff could ever be. There's nothing like losing yourself in a book, oblivious of your surroundings!

Back on topic though: I am curious if anyone can dig up and report on actual studies about computer usage/gaming.

As am I. I'm unlikely to have a chance to do much research this morning, but hopefully later this afternoon I'll have a chance to do some digging

I'd like to know whether I should actively encourage my 2-year-old to spend time at the computer, or prevent it. If the latter, then when to start, and with what? Questions, questions...

talk to you later! :-) waves

@Beofett I want to emphasize that in the context of Quake/Doom, health/damage is an abstraction. In Quake, it was essential to victory in order to establish a routine and a good sense of risk-reward. Often times you'd have to shoot a rocket at the floor infront of you in order to be able to jump high enough to get something useful, at the cost of health. It was about time management, because useful things spawned at intervals in known places and you wanted to be sure to arrive as they appeared.

@Doug Understood. My point was that the tactics learned are not necessarily directly translatable to real life scenarios, and that any useful skills gleaned would have to be filtered from the non-practical skills that are frequently tied with them in games

in other words, the concept of action/reaction as it pertains to motion and momentum learned from rocket-hopping in quake is useful, but you need to remember that launching an explosion at your feet to take advantage of it is likely to work out poorly in real life :)

@Beofett I think there's a factor of quality in both. My family saw no purpose to my reading of many books (basically anything philosophy, or the communist manifesto? forget it. Promethus Rising? My dad refused to finish the first page) - even more lighthearted things such as the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Now, my partners mother always has her nose in a book, but they're drug-store "best seller" kind of dime a dozen books.) - I see those as chum and as far below most video games.

@Doug oh yes. it think there's equal potential for "time wasting" in both mediums

Even worse, I think there is far more "information" presented in the guise of books that is actively detrimental to learning than you would find in video games

@Beofett Sure, but are you genuinely concerned that it is teaching children that explosions are not dangerous? I hate to resort to anecdote, but I played Doom/Quake when I was still single-digit years old and I've never attempted a rocket jump ;) -- the fantasy vs. reality element was never an issue. Sometimes I wonder if it was my exposure - and even perhaps the exaggerated gore - that made that possible. Could the move to realism actually be a problem?

many people perceive books to have an inherent level of authority that lends more credibility to "bad information" if it is published in paper form. The "if someone took the trouble to print it, it must be true" fallacy..

@Doug lol but how many times have you actually had a rocket launcher available to try?

"wow, I never thought that would work in real life!"

@Beofett Fair enough :P -- but to add another anecdote, I remember renting a NES game Splatterhouse when I was very young (5 or 6?) and I remember being unhappy with the extreme content (this was before ratings). So I had something that made me object/approve based on, in retrospect, what I think is a rather appropriate criteria. I'm trying to instill that same criteria in my kids, but I don't know how I arrived at it.

I made my mom return it

I have to run - I'll log back on from work.

@Doug That's a whole other concept (and an extremely important one!). While I don't have that particular experience, I know I was subject to peer pressure (and still am, to an extent!), and sometimes found that, once I really thought about, the activities I claimed to enjoy just weren't really much fun to me. Like you, I really want to instill in my son the ability to discern what they like and don't like independently

@Doug I'm looking forward to continuing this discussion :)

This is a very interesting discussion that I can't dig into right now, but I think @Doug is on to something in the original question in that different mediums are capable of stimulating experience and learning. I liken it a bit to regular exercise, any expert will tell you that it's far more important that you do something you enjoy and will do regularly, rather than trying to maximize your workout's potential, which will likely be less fun, you might hurt yourself, and you won't come back.

I think kids will always have activities that parents prefer and ones that that they are less comfortable with. I can no longer call myself a gamer, but I would enjoy if my kid liked to play video games because it's an activity we could do together (if I was willing to put in the time). Much like I would enjoy it if my kid wanted to play basketball.

On the other hand, if my kid was passionate about piano or dance, while I believe I would be supportive, I would not enjoy participating in those events to the same extent.

I believe the issue with screen time, computer access and the like is really the potential for parental neglect. It's very easy to stick your pre-schooler in front of a TV and walk away. There's some notion that books are a safe way to do this, which is certainly true compared to unfettered internet access - though reading of several books has been considered subversive throughout history.

There may also be something to the cognitive notion of reading, it seems like you have to be thinking at some level to be reading (though that may not be true, I've certainly flipped pages without anything really sinking in). There's also a certain education that's required before you can curl up with a book - the barrier to the computer seems less significant.

@SteveJackson So, I brought the question up after reading another question about someone wanting to stop their 13 year old daughter from watching anime, playing games and talking to her friends. You bring this up in a later message, but my concern is that if someone were to ask "How do I stop my daughter from playing sports, flying kites and chatting on the phone?" it would be perceived as somehow less ... vaild ... than the stopping games/internet.

(the 'sitting reading books is quaint but sitting on cells phones is uncomfortable')

My 3.5 year old has sat with me and played Battlefield 3. When I die, she goes "Oh! they got you! Try again!" -- I don't think I'm trivializing death to her. She's innocent enough that she probably just doesn't get it - when I run out of bullets, she tells me I need more batteries - but I think some people would be mortified by the idea. We set up clear explanations of what is real and what isn't. Some peoples kids seem to think people live in the TV. Mine just don't.

@Doug when the pediatrics tv study came out, Wired had some sort of "TV is bad for kids" feature - and I really think that's our inclination as a society, we're trying to enforce certain norms and using science as a stick to beat the "bad" parents with. But I think the end result is mostly just guilt for the "good" parents, and the bad ones go about doing what they're doing.

It's an absurd idea that kids can't be constructive on a computer. But there's at least some anecodotal connection between people that are drawn to online things and obsessive tendencies. I think @aarthi would call them nerds :) Obsessive behavior should always be a concern for parents, regardless of the form it takes.

Interesting. That's a lot to digest, because the indictment seems to be that these things simultaneously destroy attention span whilst encouraging obsessive behaviour. I've never been a "thing" guy - you know what I mean? At what point does a hobby cross in to obsession? Sometimes it feels like one can't truly appreciate something (wine connoisseur) without being obsessed. If I understand you, you're not saying that obsession is wrong, just that it has to be observed and carefully regulated

But that goes back to it - why is being a wine connoisseur considered to be a trait of high-society, but someone who really enjoys anime (again citing the aforementioned question) is just obsessed. I don't get anime at all, and like you said, I would want to try to support my kids if they did. I'm trying to set myself up for being objective about things that my kids really enjoy without accusing them of being obsessed.

That's my thinking as well. I think it's important to encourage some diversity. I always had people telling me when I was growing up to go outside rather than sink my nose in a book. And upon reflection, I agree. It's good to get lots of experiences. But I think certain personalities are going to tilt towards understanding things deeply and many games are deeply immersive.

So I don't think that's necessarily bad, but I also remember the kids that flunked out of college because they played Everquest 24/7 when they first got a taste of parental freedom.

I gotta go afk, I'll check this out later.

Right, and I know people like that too. But you also then see yourself as someone who was "OK" despite their insistence, right? Man, I spent so many hours inside. I stayed in Europe for six weeks when I was 10, and still racked up hours upon hours of Wing Commander. "Go outside" to boot - but I just didn't like to. I have ridiculous allergies, I've never been a fan of being dirty, etc. -- as an adult, I like to try to be fit and I enjoy camping. My parents didn't enforce their concerns.

Whereas I know people who were perfectly modelled, who as soon as they were free - e.g. college - they had open season

I almost feel as though my self-indulgence in teenage years kind of made me "have enough" and I just sort of self-corrected. I have cousins who's parents only increased their exertion of force or discipline or rules as adolescence appeared, and they're seriously messed up kids now.

Anyway, I saw the "stop kids from doing [x]" questions, and it just made me remember, how unpleasant it was for your parents to not get you. I came from a pretty dark blue collar family, (you don't need high school, just a factory job") and I liked programming. I really, really want my kids to feel that I understand them, and coming at them with "everything you like is wrong" just sounds/feels so... alienating.

@Doug In regards to your response in comments to @DA01, I don't believe he's referring to censorship, or even the issue of children seeing content that might be offensive

One of the strongest (IMO) arguments against learning social skills over the internet is that the social rules and conventions present on the internet are vastly different than what you encounter in "real life"

A big part of this is the perceived freedom from repercussions that comes with communicating from an anonymous or pseudo-anonymous identity

it is similar to the claim that much of the "road rage" people experience is because people feel a certain freedom to act without social inhibitions because the consequences of their behavior will not follow them into other social environments.

@Doug I think we had similar experiences. My brother-in-law lives with me and is just starting to "get" things I learned when I was much younger. But my window of irresponsible behavior was closer to 14-24 while his is more of 19-29. It's something I'm very interested in learning about myself and my parenting style - can I grant my kid the independence to learn those hard knocks by doing them?

@Beofett This really can't be stated enough and I think it's interesting how non-anonymous the internet is becoming. Everyone is on facebook and everything is tied to it. Anonymity on the internet might be fading away, but then there's all those privacy concerns that follow - it's going to get pretty messy I think.