Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tal Rasha" data-source="post: 3643731" data-attributes="member: 46213">You see, what comes between a paper or study and general acceptance is public skepticism. I believe it is a good, healthy thing. The media often seeks out the sensational. Even if it doesn't, it may not be able to accurately investigate and report all facts. Studies may be biased. They may be supported by hidden interests. They might have inappropriate data sets, or their results might be wrongly interpreted. Read, for example, <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070704-gaming-plays-minor-role-in-adolescent-life.html" target="_blank">this article</a> . Previous study shows that &quot;for each hour spent gaming during the week, the time that boys spent reading dropped by 30 percent&quot;. Carefully examining the details shows that &quot;This would be problematic except for the fact that boys only spent an average of eight minutes reading on a typical weekday.&quot; As long as we're not dealing with rock hard science (and this is rare indeed, even mathematics isn't what it once was), I think it wise to doubt what scientists and doctors say, at least for a while.Another point is that more and more things tend to be categorized as diseases or afflictions, when in fact they might not be (IMHO). Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that I have heard, a while back, of a drug one could take in order to become &quot;more sociable&quot;. This, if true, I find disturbing.And &quot;addicition&quot; is a strong word. Drugs, cigarettes, alcohol? Sure. Sex, social status, money? Maybe. Video games, TV, rock music? Hmmm...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tal Rasha, post: 3643731, member: 46213"] You see, what comes between a paper or study and general acceptance is public skepticism. I believe it is a good, healthy thing. The media often seeks out the sensational. Even if it doesn't, it may not be able to accurately investigate and report all facts. Studies may be biased. They may be supported by hidden interests. They might have inappropriate data sets, or their results might be wrongly interpreted. Read, for example, [URL=http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070704-gaming-plays-minor-role-in-adolescent-life.html]this article[/URL] . Previous study shows that "for each hour spent gaming during the week, the time that boys spent reading dropped by 30 percent". Carefully examining the details shows that "This would be problematic except for the fact that boys only spent an average of eight minutes reading on a typical weekday." As long as we're not dealing with rock hard science (and this is rare indeed, even mathematics isn't what it once was), I think it wise to doubt what scientists and doctors say, at least for a while. Another point is that more and more things tend to be categorized as diseases or afflictions, when in fact they might not be (IMHO). Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that I have heard, a while back, of a drug one could take in order to become "more sociable". This, if true, I find disturbing. And "addicition" is a strong word. Drugs, cigarettes, alcohol? Sure. Sex, social status, money? Maybe. Video games, TV, rock music? Hmmm... [/QUOTE]

Verification