20% Smarter >.>

games quicken your thought process through games where you need to be able to make quick decisions or look at 15 different things and make sense of them at one time.

Ranu do you know how they do studies and statics? They will never question every single person in any given group, that would be stupid. But if you've ever studied this, you take a small sample sizes, no it doesn't have to be double blind, that is to protect from the placebo effect in medical studies. if you require every person of a group or the world to be asked a question to make a study valid then you've just ruled out every single study EVER! XD

I keep talking about the US Government stamp, because of the study that is linked.

I used "Dragoon" as an example, because it holds about as much water as the "study" does.


What you keep failing to recognize is this:

Anything you do in your life, stimulates your brain. As long as it's not sniffing paint or doing harmful drugs, etc. Hell, they even say that elderly people learning a new language is a good way to maintain memory and stave off alzhiemers(sp?). And why is that? Because it stimulates their brain.

You have no idea how much I've learned since after High School, until now. And to be honest: The cognition they keep talking about in the "study", I learned very well on my own without video games. And I can identify more doing 100 MPH down the road in real life then anyone else I've ever met, either in their real lives or in a video game. I am hyper sensitive to such things that they keep championing in that "study", but I didn't do it with video games. And yet I can bet that I can recognize more in a single second or while driving down the road at 100 MPH, then nearly all that have learned such in a video game.

Again, Video games can be a very powerful tool. But this "study" is a load of crap, and is not truth nor fact. It is propaganda at it's finest, plain and simple.

Video games are but one avenue that you can use to achieve intelligence, and in my opinion is a poor one at that. Until we have absolute virtual reality, meaning virtual reality you can smell/taste/feel etc? Video games are and will be a poor substitute to reality based learning and comprehension and cognition etc.

Sorry, but if you cannot see that this study is a load and still won't see that after all my posts and others posts? Then you don't/won't understand, and I gotta get back to work. ; ;

I do know how they do it. But one question? How would that be stupid to compile all the data, that is available?

Small sample sizes are at best.....just insights, nothing more without the proper outlines, like decades of actual evidence.

And how would including every single person the study effects, rule out every other study? That's just not a smart observation, sorry.

It doesn't take every person in the world, but it does takes a good sized one and many, many years to make such claims as this "study" did, sorry.

75% of stats are wrong 85% of the time due to them being 100% skewed to satisfy results.

That also happens in real life. I can gaurentee I'm more hyper-sensitive to my surroundings then you, and none of it came from a video game. Real life has a higher frame rate then video games, lol.

Lol, your post above mine is very, very true.

this ain't no *** measuring contest. People act differently through different types of learning experiences. Minor lessons from video games, major ones through life experiences.

And why isn't it? Afraid I'd win?

It needs to be pointed out, regardless. Because video games are no substitute for real life, at least til we get true virtual reality.

no matter about win or lose, because everyone's life experience is different.

This was fun until you started--on that fake reality you're opposing--waving your *** around and claiming it was the biggest without any proof; making it as valid as you claim the study to be.

No one said this was a substitute for real life: rather it's being pointed out that video games can very powerfully myelinize parts of your brain that are not so often used, making you in fact "smarter."

Oh np, it's pretty much what I meant. When I read through the article I just saw that title as more of an eye-catcher than relating to the actual meat of the story. Pretty sure that was the only part of the article that mentioned anything about "making people smarter", just that like you said, the games can be a good teaching mechanism.

Edit: this is quoting Ranu's post quoting mine, not sure why it didn't quote you, but it doesn't seem to want to let me edit in the quote either. lol

Ranu, I think you are missing something.

The vast majority of that article is The Escapist, including the title.

What the study shows is that videogames exercise the sections of the brain that perform perception (noticing objects or ideas) and thought process (in terms of what the study appears to aimed at, most likely a combat situation and how to survive it) duties, thus gamers score higher in those categories than non-gamers.

Another point, is the total ambiguity of the word 'smart'. Intelligence has many, many facets and to dump them all together with that word is futile, again something to lay at The Escapist's feet and not the research results or who performed the research. Note the quotations from Perez, he never mentions it at all.

This is the actual Defense article on the study: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=57695 it actually presents a completely different perspective.

Also.... you say that you are Mr. Superman when it comes to processing information, what about the rest of us normal humans? How can you say observation research on normal people is worthless when you present yourself as so far above the average?

QFT. Also, where did either article say "Smart"? They simply said they tended to have higher cognitive and perceptual processes. They can think quicker and more imaginatively, sure. That may or may not be because of the games or the demographic games attract.

Long story short: Potential =/= Intelligence. Albert Einstein would have been a grease jockey if he hadn't tried to do something with his intelligence, and I'm positive there have been (and are for that matter) geniuses who work stupid jobs and accomplish very little due to lack of motivation, etc.