But the short answer is that it is preposterous to dismiss technologically mediated achievement as somehow fake As preposterous as it is to create this strawma

But the short answer is that it is preposterous to dismiss technologically mediated achievement as somehow fake As preposterous as it is to create this strawman of the article and rail against that? It's crystal clear that he's not talking about the incidental advances one may obtain from playing video games and that he's not talking about the special niche of 'video games' where the game is an educational instrument. That dismisses your examples and probably your 'on and on'. Meta-comment: The parent is an example of a critical comment that is upvoted and subsequently hurts the community. It diminishes the chance that people will read and learn from the article. The remark about video games is a relatively minor part of the essay (mostly it was the sbject of the post that inspired this one) and the criticism of only that part probably gives a lot of people the wrong impression about the article. Comments touching only remotely on the article, however insightful, should not be voted to the top. (Please note that this meta-comment does not depend on me disagreeing with (part of) the comment)