9 ms·

This feels like sensationalism. You could make the exact same argument for music, books, films or TV - it is an artistic medium. A game can be a complete waste

This feels like sensationalism. You could make the exact same argument for music, books, films or TV - it is an artistic medium. A game can be a complete waste of time, and equally it can be an enriching and educational experience. Blindly sticking them all into one category is naive.

waihtis 6y ago
Agree partially - however, comparing games to books is really apples to oranges. Games are a high degree more addictive, and the major problem are not the artistic story-driven games but the engineered-to-addict AAA’s.
- jedimastert 6y ago
  As a counter-argument, have you seen come people's romance novel collection? They can be absolutely addicting as well; fulfilling an instinctual need.
  - waihtis 6y ago
    Unfortunately I have not. But makes sense, I suppose both serve as a strong mechanism of escape to their respective core audiences.
  - watwut 6y ago
    I can honestly say I never met anyone like that. Romance readers I know are less focused on it then Sci-find readers I know.
  - quantified 6y ago
    Not an addiction widespread enough to care about. Unless it’s all free/stolen, limited by their economic capacity as well.
Barrin92 6y ago
for certain kinds of TV the analogy might hold, for film or reading it's harder to see. As the article points out games fit very well into what it calls 'limbic capitalism', using reward mechanisms of the brain to keep people engaged in repetitive tasks. If you go through the list of the most popular games, very few are artistic in nature. This isn't really true for reading. Okay, sure you can write erotica or fan-fiction, but culturally everyone knows that this is garbage essentialy. Going and picking up a (challenging) novel is relatively hard work, which is why reading that kind of fiction is on continuous decline.
daenz 6y ago
The difference between games and everything else you listed is that games are interactive. This has a huge impact on how powerful the psychological rewards are. The point is that games offer simulated experiences that give a false sense of accomplishment.
- D13Fd 6y ago
  On the other hand, maybe the interactivity of games means that you are using more of your brain than you would be in passive consumption. I tend to think that, say, a month spent in competitive gaming at night is better For your mind than a month spent binge watching Seinfeld at night for the second time.
apatters 6y ago
If digitally induced dopamine spikes are a concern, why isn't porn at the forefront of the discussion? Erectile dysfunction has roughly doubled in young men over the past decade and some research attributes it to online porn. https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/ https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/
- waihtis 6y ago
  Difficult conversation topic for many, I suppose
- dgellow 6y ago
  Are you sure it isn't actually at the forefront of the discussion? Because I remember reading quite a lot of stuff during the past 2-3 years on the effects of porn on young adults.
- NeverFade 6y ago
  The article focuses on "fake fitness": the false sense held by gamers that their gaming activities promote fitness and success in the real world. The article aims to show that this sense is indeed false. Porn consumers don't generally share a sense that porn consumption improves their real-world fitness and success. You could make a separate argument against porn consumption, but the "fake fitness" argument the article makes doesn't apply to porn addiction.
timkam 6y ago
Most people who like books, films and TV, consume these media types passively, i.e., they are less immersive and hence perhaps less dangerous. With _creating_ music, I'd argue the situation is similar to martial arts: it requires discipline, and actually social skills if you want to be relevant. The same is true for many "e-sports". However, I agree with Rogan more or less, because there are just too many games that are too dull and too many young males who waste their time with them. Based on my personal experience, I would say most of my time spent gaming as a teenager was wasted, but playing music actually taught me important lessons for life. For me the social aspects, as well as the "mastery" aspects of gaming were just too simple, too simulated.
- irvtivitbibgbog 6y ago
  What sort of "lessons for life" did playing music teach you?
  - timkam 6y ago
    These insights may be trivial, but still important to experience first hand and early in life (let me highlight that I was never an excellent or successful musician, though): * Having solid basic skills in a profession is crucial; in contrast, almost nobody really needs a virtuoso. Practically, nobody needs a rock star or diva. * Always be reliable, even if others are not (don't pay back unreliability by being not reliable yourself). Be the one who is on time and does his homework. (In contrast, in school I learned that what technicality qualifies as homework often does not pay off.) * Continuity is key to get a decent chance to succeed (again, in contrast school taught me that you can make things up as you go along, as long as you are somewhat talented). To relate to the topic: the problem with many video games is that reliability and continuity come effortless. You simply need to go online and play. In contrast, as an amateur musician, I had to make sure I have the right gear, plan the transport without owning a car, make sure I can get into a rehearsal room regularly, find the right people to play with (the ones who have the connections that are needed to actually get a gig) et cetera.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  > The same is true for many "e-sports". Just like in "real" sports, many personalities in "e-sports" make a point of being douchebags. Some make a point of being a nice person. > For me the social aspects, as well as the "mastery" aspects of gaming were just too simple, too simulated. I agree, in multiplayer games "mastery" relates to improving mechanical skill, i.e. getting better at mashing specific button sequences as fast as possible or getting better at flickshots. These take a lot of time to get marginal improvements (e.g. improving your aim just a little bit beyond your personal baseline can take thousands of hours). In singleplayer and RPG games, "mastery" happens on the character and doesn't require anything from the player beyond either repeating some action a large number of times (e.g. picking locks to improve lockpicking skill) or simply allocating "skill points" awarded by advancing the game.
hombre_fatal 6y ago
Sure, more can be said about it than "games = bad". But at the same time, the difference between the things you list is the level of fulfillment. Or, in other words, how you feel about your time spent doing that thing 5 or 10 years later. Even though I have good memories in some games, I don't look back on my time in World of Warcraft and think "yeah, that's definitely how I'd spend that time if I had a do-over." Meanwhile, my time spent learning language, meeting up with friends, and writing short stories are expenditures of time that I'm proud of. Games usually suffer from two things: 1) Games tend to be cheap entertainment on the Netflix and Twitter and heroin side of the fulfillment continuum. 2) It's too easy to sink a lot of time in games, and they tend to dominate your mind when you're in them. You mention music, but people aren't just sitting at their desk from 6pm to 4am listening to music. Most hobbies don't grip you like that. It makes it easy to neglect other things in ways that, say, an addiction to hiking does not. As a former big gamer myself, I think most people are stuck in the trap of games and only a small fraction of people are doing something particularly fulfilling with them. But my point wouldn't be that games = bad, but rather: beware. For example, on the other hand, there was a time when I was only gaming to play online with my best friend who had moved across the country. That was some fulfilling gaming. But I wouldn't be surprised if most people were like me and found it very hard to strike a healthy balance.
NeverFade 6y ago
> A game can be a complete waste of time, and equally it can be an enriching and educational experience. There are a few exceptional games that encourage creativity and arguably provide some education. However, the majority of gamers have been playing roughly the same FPS that provides the same basic violent catharsis since Doom came out 27 years ago. For this vast majority of gamers, games are just mindless fun which neither aims for, nor achieves, any sort of meaningful self-improvement. > You could make the exact same argument for music, books, films or TV - it is an artistic medium. Most popular entertainment, just like the aforementioned FPS, is just mindless diversion catering (or if you will, exploiting) our baser instincts and propensity for addiction. That applies to all forms of popular entertainment: games, TV, films, and even books. The point of the article is that games - unlike films or TV for example - promote a sense "fake fitness". Nobody believes that they acquire some valuable fitness by binge-watching Friends on Netflix. However, gamers do tend to hold a false belief that they are gaining some valuable skills out of the huge amounts of time they spend playing popular video games. RPGs for example directly exploit this delusion: your character gains many valuable skills, and by falsely identifying with them, you feel a sense of accomplishment even though all you did was mindlessly grind some braindead "quests" and your odds of surviving in a real combat situation are just as bad as before - worse, probably, because your fitness has deteriorated from so many more hours of sitting on your couch mashing buttons.
- mrob 6y ago
  Doom is one of those exceptional games that encourages creativity. Doom was the game that popularized modding, and people are still making new maps for it today.
  - NeverFade 6y ago
    Let's not kid ourselves: the vast majority of people who play highly popular FPS games are not modders. They just play the game. This is especially true for the current generation of gamers who are often playing on consoles lacking any modding capabilities.
- partyboat1586 6y ago

waihtis 6y ago

Agree partially - however, comparing games to books is really apples to oranges. Games are a high degree more addictive, and the major problem are not the artistic story-driven games but the engineered-to-addict AAA’s.

jedimastert 6y ago
As a counter-argument, have you seen come people's romance novel collection? They can be absolutely addicting as well; fulfilling an instinctual need.
- waihtis 6y ago
  Unfortunately I have not. But makes sense, I suppose both serve as a strong mechanism of escape to their respective core audiences.
- watwut 6y ago
  I can honestly say I never met anyone like that. Romance readers I know are less focused on it then Sci-find readers I know.
- quantified 6y ago
  Not an addiction widespread enough to care about. Unless it’s all free/stolen, limited by their economic capacity as well.

Barrin92 6y ago

for certain kinds of TV the analogy might hold, for film or reading it's harder to see. As the article points out games fit very well into what it calls 'limbic capitalism', using reward mechanisms of the brain to keep people engaged in repetitive tasks. If you go through the list of the most popular games, very few are artistic in nature. This isn't really true for reading. Okay, sure you can write erotica or fan-fiction, but culturally everyone knows that this is garbage essentialy. Going and picking up a (challenging) novel is relatively hard work, which is why reading that kind of fiction is on continuous decline.

daenz 6y ago

The difference between games and everything else you listed is that games are interactive. This has a huge impact on how powerful the psychological rewards are. The point is that games offer simulated experiences that give a false sense of accomplishment.

D13Fd 6y ago
On the other hand, maybe the interactivity of games means that you are using more of your brain than you would be in passive consumption. I tend to think that, say, a month spent in competitive gaming at night is better For your mind than a month spent binge watching Seinfeld at night for the second time.

apatters 6y ago

If digitally induced dopamine spikes are a concern, why isn't porn at the forefront of the discussion? Erectile dysfunction has roughly doubled in young men over the past decade and some research attributes it to online porn. https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/ https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/

waihtis 6y ago
Difficult conversation topic for many, I suppose
dgellow 6y ago
Are you sure it isn't actually at the forefront of the discussion? Because I remember reading quite a lot of stuff during the past 2-3 years on the effects of porn on young adults.
NeverFade 6y ago
The article focuses on "fake fitness": the false sense held by gamers that their gaming activities promote fitness and success in the real world. The article aims to show that this sense is indeed false. Porn consumers don't generally share a sense that porn consumption improves their real-world fitness and success. You could make a separate argument against porn consumption, but the "fake fitness" argument the article makes doesn't apply to porn addiction.

timkam 6y ago

Most people who like books, films and TV, consume these media types passively, i.e., they are less immersive and hence perhaps less dangerous. With _creating_ music, I'd argue the situation is similar to martial arts: it requires discipline, and actually social skills if you want to be relevant. The same is true for many "e-sports". However, I agree with Rogan more or less, because there are just too many games that are too dull and too many young males who waste their time with them. Based on my personal experience, I would say most of my time spent gaming as a teenager was wasted, but playing music actually taught me important lessons for life. For me the social aspects, as well as the "mastery" aspects of gaming were just too simple, too simulated.

irvtivitbibgbog 6y ago
What sort of "lessons for life" did playing music teach you?
- timkam 6y ago
  These insights may be trivial, but still important to experience first hand and early in life (let me highlight that I was never an excellent or successful musician, though): * Having solid basic skills in a profession is crucial; in contrast, almost nobody really needs a virtuoso. Practically, nobody needs a rock star or diva. * Always be reliable, even if others are not (don't pay back unreliability by being not reliable yourself). Be the one who is on time and does his homework. (In contrast, in school I learned that what technicality qualifies as homework often does not pay off.) * Continuity is key to get a decent chance to succeed (again, in contrast school taught me that you can make things up as you go along, as long as you are somewhat talented). To relate to the topic: the problem with many video games is that reliability and continuity come effortless. You simply need to go online and play. In contrast, as an amateur musician, I had to make sure I have the right gear, plan the transport without owning a car, make sure I can get into a rehearsal room regularly, find the right people to play with (the ones who have the connections that are needed to actually get a gig) et cetera.
formerly_proven 6y ago
> The same is true for many "e-sports". Just like in "real" sports, many personalities in "e-sports" make a point of being douchebags. Some make a point of being a nice person. > For me the social aspects, as well as the "mastery" aspects of gaming were just too simple, too simulated. I agree, in multiplayer games "mastery" relates to improving mechanical skill, i.e. getting better at mashing specific button sequences as fast as possible or getting better at flickshots. These take a lot of time to get marginal improvements (e.g. improving your aim just a little bit beyond your personal baseline can take thousands of hours). In singleplayer and RPG games, "mastery" happens on the character and doesn't require anything from the player beyond either repeating some action a large number of times (e.g. picking locks to improve lockpicking skill) or simply allocating "skill points" awarded by advancing the game.

hombre_fatal 6y ago

Sure, more can be said about it than "games = bad". But at the same time, the difference between the things you list is the level of fulfillment. Or, in other words, how you feel about your time spent doing that thing 5 or 10 years later. Even though I have good memories in some games, I don't look back on my time in World of Warcraft and think "yeah, that's definitely how I'd spend that time if I had a do-over." Meanwhile, my time spent learning language, meeting up with friends, and writing short stories are expenditures of time that I'm proud of. Games usually suffer from two things: 1) Games tend to be cheap entertainment on the Netflix and Twitter and heroin side of the fulfillment continuum. 2) It's too easy to sink a lot of time in games, and they tend to dominate your mind when you're in them. You mention music, but people aren't just sitting at their desk from 6pm to 4am listening to music. Most hobbies don't grip you like that. It makes it easy to neglect other things in ways that, say, an addiction to hiking does not. As a former big gamer myself, I think most people are stuck in the trap of games and only a small fraction of people are doing something particularly fulfilling with them. But my point wouldn't be that games = bad, but rather: beware. For example, on the other hand, there was a time when I was only gaming to play online with my best friend who had moved across the country. That was some fulfilling gaming. But I wouldn't be surprised if most people were like me and found it very hard to strike a healthy balance.

NeverFade 6y ago

> A game can be a complete waste of time, and equally it can be an enriching and educational experience. There are a few exceptional games that encourage creativity and arguably provide some education. However, the majority of gamers have been playing roughly the same FPS that provides the same basic violent catharsis since Doom came out 27 years ago. For this vast majority of gamers, games are just mindless fun which neither aims for, nor achieves, any sort of meaningful self-improvement. > You could make the exact same argument for music, books, films or TV - it is an artistic medium. Most popular entertainment, just like the aforementioned FPS, is just mindless diversion catering (or if you will, exploiting) our baser instincts and propensity for addiction. That applies to all forms of popular entertainment: games, TV, films, and even books. The point of the article is that games - unlike films or TV for example - promote a sense "fake fitness". Nobody believes that they acquire some valuable fitness by binge-watching Friends on Netflix. However, gamers do tend to hold a false belief that they are gaining some valuable skills out of the huge amounts of time they spend playing popular video games. RPGs for example directly exploit this delusion: your character gains many valuable skills, and by falsely identifying with them, you feel a sense of accomplishment even though all you did was mindlessly grind some braindead "quests" and your odds of surviving in a real combat situation are just as bad as before - worse, probably, because your fitness has deteriorated from so many more hours of sitting on your couch mashing buttons.

mrob 6y ago
Doom is one of those exceptional games that encourages creativity. Doom was the game that popularized modding, and people are still making new maps for it today.
- NeverFade 6y ago
  Let's not kid ourselves: the vast majority of people who play highly popular FPS games are not modders. They just play the game. This is especially true for the current generation of gamers who are often playing on consoles lacking any modding capabilities.
partyboat1586 6y ago