It’s true that reading is important to learning to write better. Signalling benefits on the other hand are very context-dependent, and I’m more interested in more inherent properties. At any rate, both activities are likely to have diminishing returns and some mix is probably ideal.
Also I’d say merely playing games at all, as opposed to being as hardcore WoW player or something, only has mild negative connotations at worst these days, especially among younger people. In terms of social status, I’d bet that a 16 year old who spent all their time playing CoD online would have higher status among their peers than one who spent all their time reading Twilight, all else being equal.
You seem to really have a grudge against games?
edit: And to clarify, it’s probably true that on the margin a lot of kids spend too much time playing games compared to homework or other activities.
It’s true that reading is important to learning to write better. Signalling benefits on the other hand are very context-dependent, and I’m more interested in more inherent properties.
This is a college admissions article. If you’re ‘interested in more inherent properties’, you’re in the wrong place.
In terms of social status, I’d bet that a 16 year old who spent all their time playing CoD online would have higher status among their peers than one who spent all their time reading Twilight, all else being equal.
Do their peers work at Harvard?
You seem to really have a grudge against games?
I think people are desperately trying to justify their favorite recreation as beneficial, and this desperation starts with the citation of the brain-training literature and continues down the thread.
This is a college admissions article. If you’re ‘interested in more inherent properties’, you’re in the wrong place.
Well, I forgot what the OP was even about, this was more of a side-note. But I did play lots of videogames as a teen and still scored high enough to go to the (equal) best university in the country with a scholarship. (This is in Australia though and we don’t have anything quite comparable to Harvard I guess.) And I suspect that making custom maps in Starcraft was a major reason why I took relatively naturally to programming when first exposed to it in university when even some of my otherwise-smarter peers struggled.
I think people are desperately trying to justify their favorite recreation as beneficial, and this desperation starts with the citation of the brain-training literature and continues down the thread.
I’m pretty certain play I personally play more games than is optimal (for most purposes), but I’m also pretty sure that playing games can be beneficial and that if someone doesn’t play any at all they might benefit from doing so.
But I did play lots of videogames as a teen and still scored high enough to go to the (equal) best university in the country with a scholarship.
So?
And I suspect that making custom maps in Starcraft was a major reason why I took relatively naturally to programming when first exposed to it in university when even some of my otherwise-smarter peers struggled.
The Starcraft editor is not famous for being a terrific programming environment or good pedagogy. You’re confusing cause and effect here, I think...
Just trying to go back to the original topic—point is that playing games can’t be that bad. Maybe I would have done just as well if I spent that time watching TV instead, but subjectively I feel like I did learn mental skills from gaming. Obviously this is hard to prove, but I don’t think the common perception that gaming is completely worthless except as entertainment is actually true. I don’t have any hard evidence in favour but most people who criticize games don’t have any hard evidence against either—the only thing I’ve seen is that playing a large amount of games can harm school performance because it displaces homework, which is presumably true of any hobby taken to excess.
The Starcraft editor is not famous for being a terrific programming environment or good pedagogy. You’re confusing cause and effect here, I think...
It’s not a terrific programming environment but since it was a game I loved I was motivated to get over my initial frustrations (which were high), which might not have happened if I’d just idly tried some dry tutorial. Potentially specialized programming games could be better for this specific task, but I might never have picked up such a thing by myself (I was intimidated by the concept of programming at that age). You’re right that the direction of causation isn’t certain—the other way would be that I just happen to have the special programming sauce that isn’t dependent on intelligence alone (the existence of which hasn’t been ruled out yet AFAIK). At any rate I couldn’t have learned the same thing just from reading books (which I also did a lot of back then) and certainly I wasn’t about to go through SICP in my leisure time regardless.
Anyway this comment thread is way too deep and rambling so I’m just going to state a point succinctly and try to shut up:
Unlike many people, I don’t believe that leisure reading is dominant over videogame playing in the sense that the optimal allocation for learning is 100% reading and 0% playing. (Focused learning can be more effective than both if the person has the energy and motivation to spare). As far I’ve seen there is no good hard evidence for or against this.
In terms of social status, I’d bet that a 16 year old who spent all their time playing CoD online would have higher status among their peers than one who spent all their time reading Twilight, all else being equal.
It’s true that reading is important to learning to write better. Signalling benefits on the other hand are very context-dependent, and I’m more interested in more inherent properties. At any rate, both activities are likely to have diminishing returns and some mix is probably ideal.
Also I’d say merely playing games at all, as opposed to being as hardcore WoW player or something, only has mild negative connotations at worst these days, especially among younger people. In terms of social status, I’d bet that a 16 year old who spent all their time playing CoD online would have higher status among their peers than one who spent all their time reading Twilight, all else being equal.
You seem to really have a grudge against games?
edit: And to clarify, it’s probably true that on the margin a lot of kids spend too much time playing games compared to homework or other activities.
This is a college admissions article. If you’re ‘interested in more inherent properties’, you’re in the wrong place.
Do their peers work at Harvard?
I think people are desperately trying to justify their favorite recreation as beneficial, and this desperation starts with the citation of the brain-training literature and continues down the thread.
Well, I forgot what the OP was even about, this was more of a side-note. But I did play lots of videogames as a teen and still scored high enough to go to the (equal) best university in the country with a scholarship. (This is in Australia though and we don’t have anything quite comparable to Harvard I guess.) And I suspect that making custom maps in Starcraft was a major reason why I took relatively naturally to programming when first exposed to it in university when even some of my otherwise-smarter peers struggled.
I’m pretty certain play I personally play more games than is optimal (for most purposes), but I’m also pretty sure that playing games can be beneficial and that if someone doesn’t play any at all they might benefit from doing so.
So?
The Starcraft editor is not famous for being a terrific programming environment or good pedagogy. You’re confusing cause and effect here, I think...
Just trying to go back to the original topic—point is that playing games can’t be that bad. Maybe I would have done just as well if I spent that time watching TV instead, but subjectively I feel like I did learn mental skills from gaming. Obviously this is hard to prove, but I don’t think the common perception that gaming is completely worthless except as entertainment is actually true. I don’t have any hard evidence in favour but most people who criticize games don’t have any hard evidence against either—the only thing I’ve seen is that playing a large amount of games can harm school performance because it displaces homework, which is presumably true of any hobby taken to excess.
It’s not a terrific programming environment but since it was a game I loved I was motivated to get over my initial frustrations (which were high), which might not have happened if I’d just idly tried some dry tutorial. Potentially specialized programming games could be better for this specific task, but I might never have picked up such a thing by myself (I was intimidated by the concept of programming at that age). You’re right that the direction of causation isn’t certain—the other way would be that I just happen to have the special programming sauce that isn’t dependent on intelligence alone (the existence of which hasn’t been ruled out yet AFAIK). At any rate I couldn’t have learned the same thing just from reading books (which I also did a lot of back then) and certainly I wasn’t about to go through SICP in my leisure time regardless.
Anyway this comment thread is way too deep and rambling so I’m just going to state a point succinctly and try to shut up:
Unlike many people, I don’t believe that leisure reading is dominant over videogame playing in the sense that the optimal allocation for learning is 100% reading and 0% playing. (Focused learning can be more effective than both if the person has the energy and motivation to spare). As far I’ve seen there is no good hard evidence for or against this.
I’d guess it also depends on their gender.