Talk me into or out of video games

[Catwoman]

I have never met any adult in my entire life who says they're really glad that they had access to video games as a child.

 

I have never met any adult who spent more time on video games, than on doing things outdoors and creating art, who had better fine motor skills than individuals who developed their hands through a variety of media (sculpting, playing violin, playing piano, using a keyboard, tinkering with electronics, gardening). Ever. Ever. In fact I find the idea that video games improve hand-eye coordination for anyone who is not disabled laughable. Sure, it improves hand-eye coordination compared to being in a cage!*

 

I have never met an adult who wishes they spent more time on video games as a child, and when I was a child yes it was common to have a video game console in your home--we were one of the few families without one.

 

I have never met an adult who feels that video games taught them an important life lesson, whereas most of the adults I know can point to experiences with the community or in literature, through which they learned ethics and life lessons that helped them through life.

 

I have seen social gaming and it's cute. I have never seen gaming which promoted healthier social relationships than when people were forced to interact and solve more real, complex, enduring problems than video games present.

 

I know adults who are addicted to video games, and I know adults who occasionally play. Never, ever, have I heard them speak of the things that video games do for them. They talk about video games like someone talks about alcohol, or refined sugar--"It's a guilty pleasure." "Everyone has to relax once in awhile."

 

 

Note the comparison to television (no offense to you personally, MapleCat). That's setting the bar pretty low in my opinion. Not compared to swimming, to family walks to the park, not to learning a dance (on YouTube--we are not Luddites), not to learning a musical instrument, not to building a set of hurdles for the summer, not to doing a puzzle or playing chess, not to reading a book together, not to creating 3-D art or typing a story while sitting on a yoga ball.

 

The improvement is over television, and I can totally get behind that. I do think video games are superior to TV (assuming the themes are equally inoffensive).

 

What I do not agree with, however, is that watching TV is the baseline from which we should be starting. There are so many other things in life!

 

I agree that life doesn't have to be all dull, but I don't see any point wiring my child's brain to a virtual reality because she has been told by Microsoft Corp. that the best way to relax is through an Xbox. I get it, it's fun. Drinking is fun (and I do drink). Neither drinking nor video games has to ruin your life, but either of them can.

 

I have compromised a lot as a parent but I have my limits and this is one of them. It helps that as a member of GenX I am a third-generation video-game potential consumer. My mom, 60, actually won a video game championship as a teen, LOL! She was the local Pong champion. This is where "addiction runs in my family" comes in. She didn't let us have a console. She stuck to her guns and I'm grateful. It makes it way easier to do the same for my own children.

 

I don't demand that my kids are isolated from the world. I'm just not going to fund an addictive habit, end of story. When you can buy your own cable TV, beer, hash, video games, and it's legal, go for it. That's your prerogative. I won't pay for it.

 

 

Yeah, just like it was in 1982, 1992, 2002... Video games are not new. Ask people who had video games as children if they remember and value that time. If they feel that the social currency they gained by knowing how to use an Atari really led to lifelong friendships. I mean knowing about how to put on lipstick or what the right stores were at the mall was of value from 1950-2014 and as far as I can tell it's not my job as a parent to drive my kid to the mall so she can say she went there. (Right?)

 

My kids are growing up in a world very similar to the one in which I grew up. I don't see a need to change the rules now.

 

 

Yep. So are books.

 

 

 

***************************************************************

Real, randomized or at least peer-reviewed studies:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772618/

 

Most of the significant effects were found to be between people who played video games before the study (i.e. preference for such games) and those who did not (no preference or no access). Since a great deal of video game access depends on class, sex (who gives you what presents), and income, I don't even want to go there. I realize the scientists are doing their best but in terms of generalizing the outcomes, nope, not convincing.

 

The vast majority of effects of short-term exposure had to do with performing a very similar task in a similar environment: e.g. if you can click for x or drag y in one context, or practice doing so, you can probably do it in a very similar environment. In other words, practice makes perfect, but only at that skill. Being a great violinist will help you with piano, but will it help you with math?

 

As an example, exercise, even a brisk walk, has been shown to improve performance in other areas that would seem unrelated to light exercise.

 

Also, for those who think this is somehow unique to 2014, I present you with the history of video games:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_arcade_video_game_history#Pre-golden_age_.281971-1977.29

How many adults have you asked whether or not they were "really glad they had access to video games as a child?" How could you even remotely possibly compare their fine motor skills to people who didn't play video games? How would you know about their hand-eye coordination?

 

Considering the popularity of video games, it seems incredibly odd that you wouldn't know a single person who had happy memories of gaming. If many, many people didn't have good memories of gaming, why would those people now be buying gaming systems and games for their own kids? If they thought it had been unhealthy or a time-waster for them, I would think they would be steering their own kids away from them, but that does not seem to be the case.

 

Honestly, while I know there are negatives to video games, I think your position is a bit extreme. No one has suggested that it would be a good idea for kids to play video games 24/7 to the exclusion of all other activities. Why wouldn't a gamer also read books, do art projects, play sports, ride a bike, make friends, participate in community and family activities, or any number of other things? :confused:

 

Playing video games (or watching TV, or whatever) is just one of many things that both kids and adults can do for recreation. Not every moment of every day needs to be productive and educational. Sometimes it's just all about fun and relaxation. (Although if you saw the complexity and strategy involved in most of my ds's computer games, you would definitely not categorize that kind of gaming as mindless entertainment -- some of those games are incredibly difficult!)

[SeaConquest]

Agreeing with Catwoman, and adding that I have plenty of fond memories playing Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Brothers with my Dad. I still managed to read Russian literature (in Russian) for pleasure.

[Joker]

I am an adult who is really glad I had access to video games as a child! I have some seriously awesome memories of playing Atari with my whole family. My mom was hilarious to watch playing Frogger. I think she jumped as much as the frog. :D

[Aspasia]

 

 

I used to value my kids being "different" and shunning pop cultural trappings. I realized that was MY wish, and that I can't expect or demand my children adopt my values at the cost of their social development. 

I've recently acknowledged that I have been valuing "different" for different's sake as well. I'm slowly working on getting over it. :)

 

Honestly, while I know there are negatives to video games, I think your position is a bit extreme. No one has suggested that it would be a good idea for kids to play video games 24/7 to the exclusion of all other activities. Why wouldn't a gamer also read books, do art projects, play sports, ride a bike, make friends, participate in community and family activities, or any number of other things? :confused:

 

Playing video games (or watching TV, or whatever) is just one of many things that both kids and adults can do for recreation. Not every moment of every day needs to be productive and educational. Sometimes it's just all about fun and relaxation. (Although if you saw the complexity and strategy involved in most of my ds's computer games, you would definitely not categorize that kind of gaming as mindless entertainment -- some of those games are incredibly difficult!)

Yeah, I don't understand why people insist on pitting reading or outside play against video games (something I actually use to do, too). There is plenty of time for all kinds of activities, and there are benefits to be derived from more activities than reading or playing musical instruments (both of which we do quite a bit at our house). But you know, a couple times a week, I let my kids watch a movie or a show on Netflix. It's fun, it's relaxing, and it actually fuels their creativity--exposes them to lots of new ideas, just like books. That doesn't mean we don't also read books. It's just another way for them to encounter ideas. Video games seem at least as "virtuous" as television (since some people insist on assigning virtue to our leisure activities).

[Pawz4me]

I am an adult who is really glad I had access to video games as a child! I have some seriously awesome memories of playing Atari with my whole family. My mom was hilarious to watch playing Frogger. I think she jumped as much as the frog. :D

 

Both DH and I have very fond memories of our families playing Pong.

 

We played a lot of Monopoly and other board games, too.  And all sorts of card games.  A did huge jigsaw puzzles.  And read a lot.  I don't think spending a few hours a week playing Pong was a problem at all.  :)

[CaffeineDiary]

I'm an adult who is very glad that I had access to video games as a child.  There, now you've met one!

 

I think it's a wonderful way to spend time.  Being "against video games" is, to me, like being "against books."  There is good and bad in the medium, like in any medium, and your time is well served by determining how to tell the good from the bad.

 

I certainly have vivid and fond memories of bonding with the kids in my neighborhood as we played Ultima III together after school every day.  Video games have made me confront philosophical questions ("What can change the nature of a man? - Planescape: Torment), meditate on how love and the desire to save someone can bring evil (Shadow of the Colossus), educated me about history (any number of war-games, such as Gettysburg or Panzer Command), given me a perspective on what it's like to be a gay teenager (Gone Home) and of course, sometimes just provided me with hours of enjoyable distraction, much as is also provided by books, movies, or TV.

 

 

[Tohru]

I am totally for gaming as long as it doesn't go online.  Wii would be the best one for young children.  Anything that can go 'live' is a terrible, terrible idea and that includes computer games.

 

I think it can be good for some and bad for some. 

 

If your husband wants one and you're considering it because of the positives, I'd just get one.  Your husband's needs matters and he is important too.  Besides, a lot of guys (and women) that aren't physical/athletic can bond through video games - instead of tossing the baseball, they can toss the virtual ball, or you know, slay some dragons together or whatever :)

 

[Tohru]

I have never met any adult in my entire life who says they're really glad that they had access to video games as a child.

 

I have never met any adult who spent more time on video games, than on doing things outdoors and creating art, who had better fine motor skills than individuals who developed their hands through a variety of media (sculpting, playing violin, playing piano, using a keyboard, tinkering with electronics, gardening). Ever. Ever. In fact I find the idea that video games improve hand-eye coordination for anyone who is not disabled laughable. Sure, it improves hand-eye coordination compared to being in a cage!*

 

I have never met an adult who wishes they spent more time on video games as a child, and when I was a child yes it was common to have a video game console in your home--we were one of the few families without one.

 

I have never met an adult who feels that video games taught them an important life lesson, whereas most of the adults I know can point to experiences with the community or in literature, through which they learned ethics and life lessons that helped them through life.

 

I have seen social gaming and it's cute. I have never seen gaming which promoted healthier social relationships than when people were forced to interact and solve more real, complex, enduring problems than video games present.

 

I know adults who are addicted to video games, and I know adults who occasionally play. Never, ever, have I heard them speak of the things that video games do for them. They talk about video games like someone talks about alcohol, or refined sugar--"It's a guilty pleasure." "Everyone has to relax once in awhile."

 

Wow. I'm sad for you.

[PeacefulChaos]

I am an adult who is really glad I had access to video games as a child! I have some seriously awesome memories of playing Atari with my whole family. My mom was hilarious to watch playing Frogger. I think she jumped as much as the frog. :D

I lol'd.  I don't know your mom, obviously, but the mental picture is hysterical.  :D

 

We had these HUGE controllers for our Nintendo.  They had a big joystick you moved with one entire hand and the A and B buttons were massive.  I have no idea why they were so big!!  But my Grandpa would sit there when he tried Mario and bang on the buttons, and I, too, have great memories of playing Mario and Paperboy (how exciting! lol) with my Grandma, of all people!!  We had such fun!  Then when my brother was 5 or so, he had a GameBoy so when he came to visit at Christmas, he and I were behind the chair (what is it about kids loving little alcove spaces?) playing Kirby's Pinball, and we played something... Bubble Bobble??... on the ... Sega?  I guess?

 

Anyway, all of those are fond memories.  Just to add.  :)

Oh, and more recently (like, about 13 years ago lol) - when I beat FF9, I cried at the ending.  DH thought it was the funniest thing he'd ever seen!  :lol:

[Tohru]

Ds plays 'live', and I have to say, many of the interactions he's had are very positive. Even the less positive interactions have been learning experiences...and he's been backed up in those situations by 'strangers'.

 

Ds has had a lot of education on staying safe online.

 

I do agree that young children are best playing games that are not online - they need to be of an age where they can conduct themselves safely.

 

I'm sure, however the op's children are very young...

 

[blondeviolin]

I haven't read all of the responses, but I'll chime in as a mom of young kids. (8, 7, 5, 3, 1) We have a wii, ipads, kindle fires, 3ds, etc. These things are all accessible to my kids. They must ask to use them. (Yes, my oldest must ask to use HER DS.) The standing rule at our house is that schoolwork and chores must be completed before any screen time. Usually by the time schoolwork and chores are done, they are wanting to go outside and play with the other homeschooled kids on our street. If we are in the car for a bit or their friends aren't home, they might play on a device. But when I say that's enough (TV, DS, iPad, anything with a screen...) that means you're done. If there is complaining, I'll likely restrict privileges. If there is sneaking, I will restrict privileges. Using those devices is a privilege that they don't HAVE to have.

 

We haven't ever had to worry about kids exhibiting addictive behavior that I'd be concerned about.

 

BUT, my husband and I are not big gamers. I may turn on the wii occasionally to play. Mario once every six months or so. I'm on my iphone daily, but I use it for reading, checking message boards, and more reading. My husband has some game apps he plays on his phone. He does have a tendency to get addicted and would play a lot more but we have kids and he prioritizes us over games. So he plays game that he can only play a bit at a time or sets a time limit. It's not uncommon for my kids to tell him he's played for X minutes and he turns it off. It's a good model of proper behavior, IMO.

 

On the flip side, my brother plays games. He comes home from work, exercises, does dinner with his family, and then leaves his wife to do bedtime while he is in the room, but not there. He games from 8pm-2am every night. my brothers' kids are always on a computer or wii to game. And if we are in a family setting, they are all looking down at their iPods. They have to turn the router off at midnight after stints of kids sneaking iPods and stuff for days at a time with no sleep.

[Tsuga]

I am very glad to hear that so many people had positive, family-oriented experiences with video games as kids. That does change my attitude to some extent--my experience with VGs is very much an experience of watching addiction, unfortunately.

 

Also, my comments were not intended to invalidate anyone's experience as a whole, but to point out disagreement with specific statements. Joanne, I get what you are saying overall, and yes there are valid parts of that. I disagree with your choice to highlight this time period, is all. Not your parenting in general.

 

Owning video games no more dooms you to addiction than drinking wine dooms you to alcoholism; but the potential is there, and for us it's a big potential.

 

I thought about all the responses to my long post last night and I think for me the key is that there is a lack of creation when playing video games; they are self-limiting. I realize that people use the character narratives as a platform for imaginative play, but that is just to say that however prescriptive something is, people will still try to create with it.

 

I dislike the limiting aspect, the artificial boundaries of algorithms within the games. That I think is the reason that I don't see a lot of positive benefits of the games as compared to other creative ways to spend time. Joanne wrote, "I don't, however, look for "the good" in them any more than I look for "the good" in legos, capture the flag, dolls, or puzzles." So, I don't look for the good in creative play, because to me the act of creating is good. Physical activity builds the brain, builds muscle, builds metabolism, builds physical health needed to live a healthy, happy life. We can't control everything but we can do our best.

 

There is a reason a lot of people complain about the Lego modules: they take out the engineering part and it becomes simple instruction following. Now, some kids really like following those instructions and getting the result, but I see less value in that then experimentation and creativity, at least insofar as play is concerned.

 

Even in board games, you can argue about the rules and make house rules. There are ways to do this in a video game but only after you have quite a bit of programming knowledge--many video game players haven't the slightest clue about how to create a video game (I know some do, but most don't). Whereas my children can create a board game, and do create board game algorithms, and change the algorithms of existing games, freely. So I guess that's where most of my "it is not really that useful" comes from.

 

Finally, I don't think my position is extreme.

 

The length of my posts may be extreme :sheepish grin: but my position is just that I'm not going to pay for luxury goods. And in a world where 2 billion people are chronically under nourished, yes I believe video games are a luxury good.

 

I don't pay for designer jeans either and I'm not paying for a smartphone plan either. That is just not how our family works; it is not how my partner was raised, not how their dad was raised, not how any of our parents were raised--certainly, not how our neighbors are raised, either. There are only a few kids on the block who get what they want like video games etc. but the kids across the street also had to buy their own video games and only with straight As were they allowed to play the games. When my daughter goes to a friends' house, she never begs for video games because they don't have them either. Occasionally, Minecraft or Dreambox, but those are always strictly limited--the one house where I know they have Minecraft, it is used as a reward for chores. (We do have Minecraft, but screen time is limited so she doesn't achieve enough per week to make it fun.)

 

Okay, real finally--since Germany regularly outperforms the United States in math on the PISA, as well as has excellent productivity, higher social mobility, lower infant mortality, higher literacy in the adult population, all while having a higher percentage of people born outside Germany--but they are still worried about the fact that they are not #1 in Europe for math and reading on the PISA, I leave you with this study:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arsindustrialis.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FPISA-Text_05-05-08_2_englisch%5B1%5D.doc&ei=v6WAVOujEOj1igLSjIGAAg&usg=AFQjCNG3Rbou_u34yla6rx7bYvlib0SYOg&sig2=-YowujCjdAJk14zr5wKo9g&bvm=bv.81177339,d.cGE&cad=rja

 

This is Germany's look at the relationship between video game and media use and performance at its schools. No test is perfect. But in this they looked at many different data sources. There is a reason that Steve Jobs and many others severely limited tech in their homes:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/fashion/steve-jobs-apple-was-a-low-tech-parent.html?_r=0

 

Again, not trying to say that any of these statistics will determine the outcome for any individual family. Individuals can always buck the trend.

 

It's not personal.

 

OP asked for opinions and thoughts, and these are mine. I trust you are all making the best decisions for your families--and I don't say that lightly. I really believe it, not just because you are on this board, but because most people here have made a really hard decision to homeschool and I know that's a huge personal sacrifice. So please do not think I'm trying to put a "bad parent" label on anyone. That is the last thing I want to do.

[J-rap]

I didn't read through all the responses.  There weren't as many video games out there when my children were young.  Are your children actively asking for them?   I still remember our first video game -- Castle.  It was so much fun!  After that was Robin Hood.  My kids loved them, but we set a 20-minute limit every 4 hours.  That worked fine, especially since we set the rule right off the bat.  We kept that rule in place through high school.

[Catwoman]

I am very glad to hear that so many people had positive, family-oriented experiences with video games as kids. That does change my attitude to some extent--my experience with VGs is very much an experience of watching addiction, unfortunately.

 

Also, my comments were not intended to invalidate anyone's experience as a whole, but to point out disagreement with specific statements. Joanne, I get what you are saying overall, and yes there are valid parts of that. I disagree with your choice to highlight this time period, is all. Not your parenting in general.

 

Owning video games no more dooms you to addiction than drinking wine dooms you to alcoholism; but the potential is there, and for us it's a big potential.

 

I thought about all the responses to my long post last night and I think for me the key is that there is a lack of creation when playing video games; they are self-limiting. I realize that people use the character narratives as a platform for imaginative play, but that is just to say that however prescriptive something is, people will still try to create with it.

 

I dislike the limiting aspect, the artificial boundaries of algorithms within the games. That I think is the reason that I don't see a lot of positive benefits of the games as compared to other creative ways to spend time. Joanne wrote, "I don't, however, look for "the good" in them any more than I look for "the good" in legos, capture the flag, dolls, or puzzles." So, I don't look for the good in creative play, because to me the act of creating is good. Physical activity builds the brain, builds muscle, builds metabolism, builds physical health needed to live a healthy, happy life. We can't control everything but we can do our best.

 

There is a reason a lot of people complain about the Lego modules: they take out the engineering part and it becomes simple instruction following. Now, some kids really like following those instructions and getting the result, but I see less value in that then experimentation and creativity, at least insofar as play is concerned.

 

Even in board games, you can argue about the rules and make house rules. There are ways to do this in a video game but only after you have quite a bit of programming knowledge--many video game players haven't the slightest clue about how to create a video game (I know some do, but most don't). Whereas my children can create a board game, and do create board game algorithms, and change the algorithms of existing games, freely. So I guess that's where most of my "it is not really that useful" comes from.

 

Finally, I don't think my position is extreme.

 

The length of my posts may be extreme :sheepish grin: but my position is just that I'm not going to pay for luxury goods. And in a world where 2 billion people are chronically under nourished, yes I believe video games are a luxury good.

 

I don't pay for designer jeans either and I'm not paying for a smartphone plan either. That is just not how our family works; it is not how my partner was raised, not how their dad was raised, not how any of our parents were raised--certainly, not how our neighbors are raised, either. There are only a few kids on the block who get what they want like video games etc. but the kids across the street also had to buy their own video games and only with straight As were they allowed to play the games. When my daughter goes to a friends' house, she never begs for video games because they don't have them either. Occasionally, Minecraft or Dreambox, but those are always strictly limited--the one house where I know they have Minecraft, it is used as a reward for chores. (We do have Minecraft, but screen time is limited so she doesn't achieve enough per week to make it fun.)

 

Okay, real finally--since Germany regularly outperforms the United States in math on the PISA, as well as has excellent productivity, higher social mobility, lower infant mortality, higher literacy in the adult population, all while having a higher percentage of people born outside Germany--but they are still worried about the fact that they are not #1 in Europe for math and reading on the PISA, I leave you with this study:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arsindustrialis.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FPISA-Text_05-05-08_2_englisch%5B1%5D.doc&ei=v6WAVOujEOj1igLSjIGAAg&usg=AFQjCNG3Rbou_u34yla6rx7bYvlib0SYOg&sig2=-YowujCjdAJk14zr5wKo9g&bvm=bv.81177339,d.cGE&cad=rja

 

This is Germany's look at the relationship between video game and media use and performance at its schools. No test is perfect. But in this they looked at many different data sources. There is a reason that Steve Jobs and many others severely limited tech in their homes:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/fashion/steve-jobs-apple-was-a-low-tech-parent.html?_r=0

 

Again, not trying to say that any of these statistics will determine the outcome for any individual family. Individuals can always buck the trend.

 

It's not personal.

 

OP asked for opinions and thoughts, and these are mine. I trust you are all making the best decisions for your families--and I don't say that lightly. I really believe it, not just because you are on this board, but because most people here have made a really hard decision to homeschool and I know that's a huge personal sacrifice. So please do not think I'm trying to put a "bad parent" label on anyone. That is the last thing I want to do.

 

Well, I am entirely pro-luxury goods (and lots of them!) so we will have to agree to disagree on that one.  :D

 

But you are mistaken about the lack of creativity and thinking that can go into video gaming. Talk to any kid who plays computer games about the strategy involved in playing them, and then ask them for the details on how they create and share mods for the games with other gamers all over the world. There is tremendous complexity there, and I don't think you are aware of it. I know I certainly wasn't, until my ds and his friends got involved with it.

 

I can definitely understand your reluctance to have any gaming in your home if you have seen addiction firsthand. It makes absolute sense to me that you would be very wary, but I do get a certain sense of superiority from your posts that you think kids who don't play video games are somehow smarter, more creative, and better at doing "non-gaming" activities,  and I do not believe that to be the case -- except in the gaming addiction scenario, which I would agree is a serious problem to families dealing with it. (But I think addiction is the exception rather than the rule.)

 

Again, I think you are making the best decision for your family, and I'm sure I would feel the same way if I felt my ds was becoming addicted to gaming.  For our family, we seem to have found a happy medium that works for us, and I think that is probably true of the majority of gaming families.

[JumpyTheFrog]

As I've stated on other threads, DH and I have very, very strict limits about screen time. My brother failed three years of college due to his video gaming problem, and then finally dropped out. In college, all the guys in DH's freshman dorm spent most of their free time playing Counterstike and other games (except for time spent drinking and drugging). DH's grades improved when he started coming to the library with me to study instead of gaming as much.

 

DH also had a roommate who was addicted to Evercrack (Everquest). He would play for most of his waking hours and stay up half the night regularly.

 

I believe it's possible for many people to self-regulate, but I don't think it's really encouraged much by our culture. Look how many people on this thread have implied their boys wouldn't have many friends if it weren't for video games. Everywhere I go, I see kids (usually boys) with their face stuck in a screen. These games must exert some gravitational pull because it seems like most boys walking by get pulled in and there will be a group huddled around the player staring like zombies. I see it at gymnastics, I've seen it as basketball, I see it all over the place. So many parents are using these games as electronic baby sitters at the store, at older siblings sports practice, etc. I get annoyed by it because I want to encourage Little Guy to play with the other kids getting dragged to the same events, but most of them are glued to a screen, as are their parents. These cell phone and other portable games are taking the place of social interaction.

 

Now, we have let our youngest play the iPad for 30-60 minutes on occation at an all afternoon gymnastics meet. But I see so many parents automatically hand their phone over to their 3-5 year olds at nearly every practice. The kids and parents aren't talking much (and most of these kids are already at school or daycare all day) and the kids aren't trying to play with other kids. It's rare to see anyone at any of these places bring a book or toy or coloring stuff for their kids.

 

Now, if I seem completely against games, you need to realize that my boys, especially the oldest, are the types that don't seem capable of self-regulating screen time. No, my 8 year old wouldn't get bored after a week or two of binging. Giving him much screen time right now would be like handing a drink to a teenager who came from a long line of alcoholics. (Nobody flame me about this comparison. I just mean that both are foolish ideas.) What is the right choice for your family may be different and that's okay.

[Tsuga]

There is tremendous complexity there, and I don't think you are aware of it.

 

 

I am aware that the games are extremely complex. I have played video games and I have also seen high levels of video games played.

 

I am talking about contributing to the creation of the algorithm, versus being able to navigate the algorithm successfully. There is a huge difference, I believe, between creating an algorithm, and between figuring out someone else's algorithm. This is the difference between Lego modules and Lego free play, using a computer program vs. scripting/programming an app. Being a user, a consumer, of someone else's rules and art, and creating your own.

 

I'm not saying it's not hard. I'm saying the value of learning to decode someone else's algorithm in 2d is disproportionate to the amount of time most people spend on games.

 

If you've found a balance, great. But I think that given what we know about the effect of time spent on video games when we disaggregate by social class, income, and parental education, it is at best neutral, whereas sport, imaginative play, art, music, and anything requiring three-dimensional interaction with another human increases performance. So the balance is not one that should be taken lightly.

 

 

[Joanne]

I am very glad to hear that so many people had positive, family-oriented experiences with video games as kids. That does change my attitude to some extent--my experience with VGs is very much an experience of watching addiction, unfortunately.

 

 

 

To me, video gaming is very like alcohol, or even porn (bifurcating porn from the industry, which is the main reason I am against it in general).

 

Many people can use alcohol or porn (or some recreational drugs, even) without an addictive response. They are reasonable, moderated consumers. They may go through a period of over-use, or dysfunctional use, but are not addicted. This happens with alcohol/recreational drugs in young adults.

 

But in at risk, vulnerable brains, the addiction progresses severely and quickly. If a person is genetically at risk AND coupled with early exposure, the risk of addiction is not only greater, but the development of addiction accelerated.

 

The substance (or process) itself is not addictive.

 

The overwhelming majority of young males play video games and the majority of them are not addicted.

[Catwoman]

I am aware that the games are extremely complex. I have played video games and I have also seen high levels of video games played.

 

I am talking about contributing to the creation of the algorithm, versus being able to navigate the algorithm successfully. There is a huge difference, I believe, between creating an algorithm, and between figuring out someone else's algorithm. This is the difference between Lego modules and Lego free play, using a computer program vs. scripting/programming an app. Being a user, a consumer, of someone else's rules and art, and creating your own.

 

I'm not saying it's not hard. I'm saying the value of learning to decode someone else's algorithm in 2d is disproportionate to the amount of time most people spend on games.

 

If you've found a balance, great. But I think that given what we know about the effect of time spent on video games when we disaggregate by social class, income, and parental education, it is at best neutral, whereas sport, imaginative play, art, music, and anything requiring three-dimensional interaction with another human increases performance. So the balance is not one that should be taken lightly.

We are clearly going to have to agree to disagree on this, as you do not seem at all open to seeing any value whatsoever in gaming.

[monstermama]

I am talking about contributing to the creation of the algorithm, versus being able to navigate the algorithm successfully. There is a huge difference, I believe, between creating an algorithm, and between figuring out someone else's algorithm. This is the difference between Lego modules and Lego free play, using a computer program vs. scripting/programming an app. Being a user, a consumer, of someone else's rules and art, and creating your own.

 

I'm not saying it's not hard. I'm saying the value of learning to decode someone else's algorithm in 2d is disproportionate to the amount of time most people spend on games.

 

I'm trying to understand this.  It seems like you're rating the value based on whether the participant is the active creator.  In my mind, that's like saying that appreciating a Monet is a less worthwhile activity than me painting myself.  Or that I should enjoy cooking something myself over eating at a Michelin star restaurant, or writing a story rather than reading someone else's novel.  I'd certainly agree that you have a better appreciation for something if you've tried to make it yourself, and I'm not suggesting that anyone should solely be a consumer and not a producer, but I think the amazing thing about any of these media is that you are experiencing things from someone else's point of view.  My life has been enriched from seeing the world through van Gogh's point of view, through Dickens', through George Lucas's, through Rockstar Games'.  I've "been" a young black male during the race riots in LA, a divorced father trying to save his son from a serial killer, a number of young heroes setting out on adventure with ridiculous outfits.  Why else do people create if it isn't to share their own views and ideas with other people?

[Aspasia]

 

There is a reason a lot of people complain about the Lego modules: they take out the engineering part and it becomes simple instruction following. Now, some kids really like following those instructions and getting the result, but I see less value in that then experimentation and creativity, at least insofar as play is concerned.

 

 

This is another misconception that I used to share. But my experience with specialized Lego sets has proven otherwise. Sure, a kid originally just follows the directions and builds the thing they tell him to build (which, frankly, isn't without value in itself). But with my kid, he'll do that and take it apart, and then build it and take it apart a few times, mastering the function of the different pieces. THEN he uses those pieces, along with other Legos (some from other specialized sets and some of the more generic ones), and he creates AMAZING things--things that plain Legos alone could never create. He almost never goes back to building the thing the directions told him to build. And this kid plays with Legos for several hours a day, creating new things all the time. But the only way to get those specialized pieces--and to fully understand what they can do--is by buying the specialized sets and building them according to the instructions. Imitation is a crucial part of innovation. It happens with art (Picasso mastered classical technique before he went all cubist), it happens with cooking (most innovative chefs master classical technique first), and it happens with technology. Nobody creates in a vacuum. (I suppose they could, but the innovation would be quite slow going.)

 

 

I believe it's possible for many people to self-regulate, but I don't think it's really encouraged much by our culture. Look how many people on this thread have implied their boys wouldn't have many friends if it weren't for video games. Everywhere I go, I see kids (usually boys) with their face stuck in a screen. These games must exert some gravitational pull because it seems like most boys walking by get pulled in and there will be a group huddled around the player staring like zombies. I see it at gymnastics, I've seen it as basketball, I see it all over the place. So many parents are using these games as electronic baby sitters at the store, at older siblings sports practice, etc. I get annoyed by it because I want to encourage Little Guy to play with the other kids getting dragged to the same events, but most of them are glued to a screen, as are their parents. These cell phone and other portable games are taking the place of social interaction.

 

 

I agree. I have suuuuper strong opinions about this. But having video games at home doesn't necessitate burying faces in screens at all times, right? I hang out on Facebook and these forums at home, but I don't do it at my kid's soccer practice. And I don't let my other kids do it either. I think you are surrounded by a sad group of people, because the other moms on my dd's soccer team are very friendly and sociable. Nobody hangs out on their phones at practice, and the little kids play together.

[Joanne]

 

I believe it's possible for many people to self-regulate, but I don't think it's really encouraged much by our culture. Look how many people on this thread have implied their boys wouldn't have many friends if it weren't for video games. Everywhere I go, I see kids (usually boys) with their face stuck in a screen. These games must exert some gravitational pull because it seems like most boys walking by get pulled in and there will be a group huddled around the player staring like zombies.

 

 

 

Video games weren't an issue when I went to college. (Drinking and drugging were ;)).

 

However, I currently spend *copious* amount of time around children 0- 22 and my experience isn't like yours at all. Most kids I see regulate just fine. My kids went through the sports/events stage before smart phones (I think a DS was the latest and greatest, maybe gameboy) but most siblings played around the property if it was a sporting event.

 

I see boys playing with screens, playing capture the flag, pellet gun games, soccer, baseball, football, 4 square, and complicated games they spend more time planning than playing.

 

I think we see what we look for.

 

I also think you *read into* the tread what you wanted to. No one implied "their boys wouldn't have many friends" but several people did mention that video games are part of contemporary conversation.

[Shellydon]

We are a no video game family.  I see no value in them whatsoever. I feel like it is pretty well documented that electronics use rewires the neurology of growing brains.  I constantly overhear moms saying they wish they had never introduced video games to their family and life is a constant fight over the devices. 

 

Good luck with your decision! 

[Joanne]

We are a no video game family.  I see no value in them whatsoever. I feel like it is pretty well documented that electronics use rewires the neurology of growing brains.  I constantly overhear moms saying they wish they had never introduced video games to their family and life is a constant fight over the devices. 

 

Good luck with your decision! 

 

Again, an example of we find what we look for. You are absolutely against video games. You hear people *constantly* wishing they never introduced them and their lives are a constant fight.

 

I am not against them. I can't think of one person in person life that feels that way, and I never hear or overhear those comments.

 

I also know very, very few people who "constantly" fight over devices.

 

 

[Shellydon]

Again, an example of we find what we look for. You are absolutely against video games. You hear people *constantly* wishing they never introduced them and their lives are a constant fight.

 

I am not against them. I can't think of one person in person life that feels that way, and I never hear or overhear those comments.

 

I also know very, very few people who "constantly" fight over devices.

 

Wow.  I am so glad that you assume that my life is exactly like yours.  Neato.

[Tsuga]

We are clearly going to have to agree to disagree on this, as you do not seem at all open to seeing any value whatsoever in gaming.

 

We obviously disagree, which is the point of the thread as OP wasn't looking for The One True Answer About Video Games for Everyone.

 

But it's not true that I am not open to seeing any value whatsoever in gaming.

 

It's relaxing. It's a distraction. You have to use logic and thought and your hands to achieve results against an algorithm. That has value.

 

What I am saying is that given the potential for addiction, and its strong effect on brain function due to the amount of time played and the mode of content delivery, I think that kind of relaxation and distraction should be a last resort for small children because the risks outweigh the benefits particularly considering the alternatives, which have similar value,

 

Just to clarify my position: Yes: "There is a disproportionate risk vs. benefit compared to alternatives". No: "Video games are evil I'm scared ahhhhhhh you're a bad mom!!!!"

 

 

Figuring out someone else's algorithm is actually quite difficult in comparison to inventing one's own. It requires deep understanding.

 

From what you say on here your kids can't sit in a regular classroom for 30 minutes without suffering, so bored they will be. But my average IQ mom can beat any 80s video game in under a month, actually in a single weekend.

 

My brother in law, average IQ, like, 115 max, can beat any video game on the market in a weekend. He claims it has never taken him more, and I've seen his scores. I've seen him play. He plays because it's easy.

 

They are fun precisely because the reward you get for something relatively easy is very high--lights! points! new lives! new colors!--compared to the skill required to obtain said award (spend 25 minutes practicing that button). That's why people choose them.

 

Nobody is choosing video games because they are so challenging compared to riding a unicycle or writing a book.

 

 

Yellow car syndrome.

 

"Yellow car syndrome" is when you over-estimate the prevalence or incidence of a phenomenon because of a personal experience that causes you to be on the lookout. However, nobody here is making claims about prevalence or incidence.

 

I think that knowing one or two children who have issues is more than enough for me to say, "Even a small risk, given the lack of unique benefits, is too much for me. I don't care if it's rare, I have alternatives."

 

 

You also seem to think that people spend a huge amount of time gaming.

 

Yeah, I read about it in multiple articles online and off, some of which I posted earlier. I think people spend between 30 minutes and an hour per day, dedicated gamers much more:

 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

 

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/games-discussion-1000000/how-many-hours-per-day-do-you-spend-playing-video--31255168/

 

http://www.ikeepsafe.org/be-a-pro/balance/too-much-time-online/

 

 

Regarding your earlier comment that there is a lack of creation in playing video games...I believe you aren't familiar with the opportunities nor the resources available to youngsters who want to create. My kid started creating his own video games at the same age he started creating board games and puzzles.

 

I am aware. My kids do create their own games, but nothing compared  to the games that are highly addictive which OP is talking about.

 

Are we talking about learning to code, or getting an Xbox?

 

I see a lot of value in learning to code.

 

I do NOT see a lot of value learning the Xbox.

 

 

You asked "Being a great violinist will help you with piano, but will it help you with math?"...there are studies you might reference so that you can answer that question.  http://www.pbs.org/p...usic-education/ is a general article.

 

You didn't get it. That was my point. Video games do not help you in math. Math scores decline (when you control for income and parental education) with video-game use.

 

Whereas playing an instrument has the opposite effect.

 

People claim that video games are helpful. I'm saying, yes, compared to nothing. Not compared to almost anything else that kids could do.

[PeacefulChaos]

i know it's been a few days since the last comments in here, but I often don't get on at home...

 

 

A couple people have mentioned that they feel like 'kids faces are in screens everywhere'... I have to say that I'm not against that to an extent. I'm thankful that there are things that the kids can take along with them to prevent boredom in waiting rooms, but based on my Irl experience, I'm one of the few. I've had multiple people say something degrading or negative about the fact that I dare to allow my children to play a game while waiting for their siblings at the dentist or doctors office. It's kind of mind blowing, really... What better time and place to do so, than there where they would otherwise have nothing to occupy them? It's not like the waiting rooms are teeming with things for children to do... Yet people (Irl) complain that the kids are sitting there, quietly minding their own business, just because there happens to be a screen in front of them. There is an assumption, apparently, that a kid playing a game in a boring waiting room means they must do so all the time.

Anyway, it baffles me.

They take along books and have their faces in books yet no one says anything... It's an extreme prejudice against screens and it doesn't make any sense.

 

Anyway, a mini rant. Sorry. :)