Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 4375856" data-attributes="member: 4720">Odd.... I've DONE psychological research on video games, game theory, development, etc..... and I can't find anything in your claims that any self-respecting psychologist would touch with a 10-meter cattle prod.The personification of imagination is fascinating.&nbsp; The continuum from good imagination to ZOMG broken imagination is amazing.&nbsp; Too bad the concept of mythic archetypes came along.&nbsp; On your scale, there are officially no pure acts of imagination possible in a narrative format, as far as I can tell.In any case, to retreat to the original point of this thread.... I have actual DATA suggesting that playing video games and tactical games sit next to learning a musical instrument as the only 3 truly generalizable skills that have been studied.Getting better at Halo (as a random example of one of the games actually studied) ALSO makes you better at about a dozen other tasks, mostly involving hand-eye coordination, motion tracking, etc, but also resource allocation, tactics, etc.&nbsp; Almost every other task you do in life actually only makes you better at that one thing ONLY.Also.... for the 3 people who felt less imaginative while playing WoW.... you took away your brain's idle time.&nbsp; Instead of spending your idle time cooking over ideas you were vaguely conscious of or not even noticing, you were concentrating on playing the game.&nbsp; Achieve Zen Koan Mastery: Farming Netherbloom! and you can idle imaginatively while playing the game.&nbsp; It's a real time-saver.&nbsp; But, as many here suggested, you simply allocated your time differently, and saw an effect on other activities.Apoptosis.... I was in the field for about 6 years, and the literature on these issues in my experience is spotty, badly founded, and a complete disaster.&nbsp; Like 90% of psychological research, the PI's previous research, personal habits, and biases are more obvious contributors to the claims in the results and discussion than the actual data.&nbsp; There's a reason I moved back into straight biology after grad school.&nbsp; Blech.&nbsp; Good luck getting a cohesive story from it.&nbsp; I couldn't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 4375856, member: 4720"] Odd.... I've DONE psychological research on video games, game theory, development, etc..... and I can't find anything in your claims that any self-respecting psychologist would touch with a 10-meter cattle prod. The personification of imagination is [i]fascinating[/i]. The continuum from good imagination to [I]ZOMG broken[/I] imagination is amazing. Too bad the concept of mythic archetypes came along. On your scale, there are officially no pure acts of imagination [i]possible[/i] in a narrative format, as far as I can tell. In any case, to retreat to the original point of this thread.... I have actual DATA suggesting that playing video games and tactical games sit next to learning a musical instrument as the only 3 truly generalizable skills that have been studied. Getting better at Halo (as a random example of one of the games actually studied) ALSO makes you better at about a dozen other tasks, mostly involving hand-eye coordination, motion tracking, etc, but also resource allocation, tactics, etc. Almost every other task you do in life actually only makes you better at that one thing ONLY. Also.... for the 3 people who felt less imaginative while playing WoW.... you took away your brain's idle time. Instead of spending your idle time cooking over ideas you were vaguely conscious of or not even noticing, you were concentrating on playing the game. Achieve [I]Zen Koan Mastery: Farming Netherbloom![/I] and you can idle imaginatively [i]while[/i] playing the game. It's a real time-saver. But, as many here suggested, you simply allocated your time differently, and saw an effect on other activities. Apoptosis.... I was in the field for about 6 years, and the literature on these issues in my experience is spotty, badly founded, and a complete disaster. Like 90% of psychological research, the PI's previous research, personal habits, and biases are more obvious contributors to the claims in the results and discussion than the actual data. There's a reason I moved back into straight biology after grad school. Blech. Good luck getting a cohesive story from it. I couldn't. [/QUOTE]

Verification