Video Games...

i would not let my kids play video games. i also would not let them watch TV. and i would not let them go to school.

i would give them a READING LIST of books from Chomsky, Nietzsche, Orwell etc and i would find a way to FORCE them to read them all !
 
Pubic, maybe you can find a video game that simulates posting in concise understandable dialog.

Just a thought.
 
lol... well do you have a study showing that young people who play GTA are more likely to steal cars, run down peds, or pick up hookers? Most people understand that video games often represent an escape from reality.

We’re not discussing the number of people that can and cannot discern fantasy from reality… so the empty rationalization which is served by qualifying that ‘most people’ can and do recognize fantasy from reality is IRRELEVANT. The issue is the means of video games to train the human mind and the likelihood that there are processes which are taking place through their unsupervised use as harmless entertainment, which we may not fully understand and which may and very likely already HAVE come back to bite us in the ass; demonstrated through my own personal experience.

No... I don't have such a study... Nor do I have a study which concludes that the rationalizations common to left-think, wherein the pre-pubescent mind is imprinted with the erroneous position that they are perpetual victims of a system that unfairly withholds from them any means to succeed in thier culture; and as such, teaches them that they're entitled to take for themselves those thing which have been unfairly denied them, by those who possess them, by whatever means is available to them... that such training can and HAS ALWAYS, without exception, produce individuals who act upon that training and in so doing find themselves in direct opposition with those who were taught that they're entitled to pursue the fulfillment of their lives, through benefit of the product of their labor and that it is their responsibility to defend thier right to do so, from those who would infringe upon that right... Which the Philospher Samual L. Jackson so brilliantly noted in a recent screen play: '... the brothas bein' held down by the white devil and he gots to get his and whenced he DO... the POELEESE gonna be RIGHT d'er to perpetuate the cycle; where the black man can't hab NUTTIN and has GOTS to pay fo' it when he try! ...' Naturally, the race is irrelevant, as the same result IS CERTAIN with ANYONE that is trained upon such erroneous foundations.

Of course the certain truth noted above is a conclusion which rests upon bed-rock principle and sums from sound reasoning resting within a valid logical construct. Meaning that it is an immutable function of nature; thus stands as truth without regard to the product of an intellectual exercise which compiles supporting data of the soundly reasoned conclusion.

And naturally, your inability to advance a reasoned argument to contest it, does not in and of itself confirm this truth; such a failure is merely evidence to that effect.



No. Your personal anecdote does not count as evidence that video games are damaging. You clearly had an odd reaction to your friend messing with you. People who use training simulators need to understand its limitations, but if they design one realistic enough it can be an invaluable training tool. I'd say a lack of sound cues was a serious limitation to the one you used.

Odd? What was odd about it? The reaction was merely one wherein sound training had been undermined through the unsound practice of disjointed instrument readings... the reaction was perfectly and fully understandable.

It's just that in your world, the consequences are INCONSEQUENTIAL... you reject evidence of cause and effect, where the doubt induced through that simulator, could easily have resulted in the death of three people; where the FINDINGS of an inevitable investigation would have simply reported 'Pilot Error...' correctly noting that the pilot had experienced the disorientation common to vertigo and as a result failed to properly respond to the flight data reflected in his instruments in sustaining and maintaining balanced flight; resulting in a critical loss of altitude and the tragic loss of life.

The effects of the detraining most likely would never have been considered by such an investigation and even if they WERE, this would not change the findings, as the responsibility of the Pilot in Command is FINAL and not subject to negotiation.

HOWEVER, THE FACT IS THAT THE IMPETUS FOR THE DOUBTING OF THE INSTRUMENTS WAS INDISPUTABLY THE FUNCTION OF DE-TRAINING AS A RESULT OF PLAYING WITH A FLIGHT SIMULATOR WITHOUT BEING SUFFICIENTLY AWARE OF THE FULL SCOPE OF THE INPUT DATA WHICH THE SIMULATOR INSTRUMENTS WERE REFLECTING.

All of which could be VITAL in preventing such tragedies in the future...

Now with all of that said; there is certainly no study which confirms your assumptions, yet you trot them out as indisputable fact and the purest essence of reason; despite the simple fact that school shootings executed by children are rationalized to be the responsibility of the GUN... and explained through ceaseless psycho-babble which chooses to ignore the potential training effects of technological devices which train the brain to detach lethal force from moral imperatives; technology which may rest in video-games or movies which provide little or no discussion of valid moral imperatives... while providing graphic demonstrations of effective means through which to apply lethal force.

So spare me the relativist nonsense...
 
Last edited:
I would have to say that my simulator experience was much different. Our unit was one of the first to deploy the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Abrams tank. Maybe a year later we received the Unit Conduct of Fire Trainers (UCOFT). These were simulators with mock ups of the turret of either the M-1 or the M-2/M-3. The software had various battle simulations and battlefield conditions. It reinforced various skills training such as battlefield recognition of armored vehicles and aircraft from silhouettes and battle drills (how fast you can put steel on target after seeing a muzzle flash down field).

I would say that time spent in the simulator was invaluable for improving the efficiency of the crew. It led to the individual development of skills and techniques that made it possible to upgrade the standards of gunnery across the Army. (When the Bradley was first deployed a kill was considered one hit on a BMP target. Coincident with the practice in the UCOFT the standard was raised to 3 rounds on target and it was given a time limit of 7 seconds to engage and kill for single targets and 15 seconds for multiples).

I tried to find a story to relate here from the Gulf War, but couldn't locate it. It described an event where, during the ground war, a platoon of M-1s found that it had been, unbeknownst to them, going up a rise in the desert. When they crested the rise, they found an Iraqi tank battalion on the other side, dug in and waiting. In less than a minute, the Iraqi unit ceased to exist. 4 or 5 M-1 tanks laid waste to 25 + Iraqi MBTs that surprised them. My contention would be that their time in the UCOFT contributed in no small measure to their speed and proficiency.
 
lol... well do you have a study showing that young people who play GTA are more likely to steal cars, run down peds, or pick up hookers? Most people understand that video games often represent an escape from reality.

We’re not discussing the number of people that can and cannot discern fantasy from reality… so the empty rationalization which is served by qualifying that ‘most people’ can and do recognize fantasy from reality is IRRELEVANT. The issue is the means of video games to train the human mind and the likelihood that there are processes which are taking place through their unsupervised use as harmless entertainment, which we may not fully understand and which may and very likely already HAVE come back to bite us in the ass; demonstrated through my own personal experience.

The number of people who would have an adverse reaction is very relevant if we are to assess anything regarding the risks and utility of simulators and video games. This is the type of thing one must evaluate with carefully controlled stats, not personal anecdotes. You attribute your negative experience to the confusion of the simulator. That may or may not be the case. We would need to find a statistical correlation with an adequate sample size to determine the validity of your claim. I have my own preconceptions, obviously, but I am not closed to quantitative data. Qualitative data like anecdotes are more useful to give context for quantitative analyses, as those do risk oversimplifying social phenomena.

No... I don't have such a study... Nor do I have a study which concludes that the rationalizations common to left-think, wherein the pre-pubescent mind is imprinted with the erroneous position that they are perpetual victims of a system that unfairly withholds from them any means to succeed in thier culture; and as such, teaches them that they're entitled to take for themselves those thing which have been unfairly denied them, by those who possess them, by whatever means is available to them... that such training can and HAS ALWAYS, without exception, produce individuals who act upon that training and in so doing find themselves in direct opposition with those who were taught that they're entitled to pursue the fulfillment of their lives, through benefit of the product of their labor and that it is their responsibility to defend thier right to do so, from those who would infringe upon that right... Which the Philospher Samual L. Jackson so brilliantly noted in a recent screen play: '... the brothas bein' held down by the white devil and he gots to get his and whenced he DO... the POELEESE gonna be RIGHT d'er to perpetuate the cycle; where the black man can't hab NUTTIN and has GOTS to pay fo' it when he try! ...' Naturally, the race is irrelevant, as the same result IS CERTAIN with ANYONE that is trained upon such erroneous foundations.

Of course the certain truth noted above is a conclusion which rests upon bed-rock principle and sums from sound reasoning resting within a valid logical construct. Meaning that it is an immutable function of nature; thus stands as truth without regard to the product of an intellectual exercise which compiles supporting data of the soundly reasoned conclusion.

One reason the scientific method replaced philosophical argumentation as the means to ascertain truth (wherever possible) is because what is logically plausible is not always correct.

And naturally, your inability to advance a reasoned argument to contest it, does not in and of itself confirm this truth; such a failure is merely evidence to that effect.

My main point was to show the limitations of your approach.

Odd? What was odd about it? The reaction was merely one wherein sound training had been undermined through the unsound practice of disjointed instrument readings... the reaction was perfectly and fully understandable.

It seems reasonable to suspect that most people are capable of knowing that being in a simulator is not exactly the same as flying a real plane. I suspect your reaction is atypical based upon the lack of controversy around the issue of simulators making pilots incompetent. I don't hear people telling airline pilots not to play flight simulator because it could cause them to unlearn their skills, besides maybe you.

It's just that in your world, the consequences are INCONSEQUENTIAL... you reject evidence of cause and effect, where the doubt induced through that simulator, could easily have resulted in the death of three people; where the FINDINGS of an inevitable investigation would have simply reported 'Pilot Error...' correctly noting that the pilot had experienced the disorientation common to vertigo and as a result failed to properly respond to the flight data reflected in his instruments in sustaining and maintaining balanced flight; resulting in a critical loss of altitude and the tragic loss of life.

No. Your evidence is merely insufficient.

The effects of the detraining most likely would never have been considered by such an investigation and even if they WERE, this would not change the findings, as the responsibility of the Pilot in Command is FINAL and not subject to negotiation.

HOWEVER, THE FACT IS THAT THE IMPETUS FOR THE DOUBTING OF THE INSTRUMENTS WAS INDISPUTABLY THE FUNCTION OF DE-TRAINING AS A RESULT OF PLAYING WITH A FLIGHT SIMULATOR WITHOUT BEING SUFFICIENTLY AWARE OF THE FULL SCOPE OF THE INPUT DATA WHICH THE SIMULATOR INSTRUMENTS WERE REFLECTING.

How is that indesputable? Maybe in your mind, but I'd rather see the net effect on the aggregate if I were responsible for policy pertaining to video games.

Now with all of that said; there is certainly no study which confirms your assumptions, yet you trot them out as indisputable fact and the purest essence of reason; despite the simple fact that school shootings executed by children are rationalized to be the responsibility of the GUN... and explained through ceaseless psycho-babble which chooses to ignore the potential training effects of technological devices which train the brain to detach lethal force from moral imperatives; technology which may rest in video-games or movies which provide little or no discussion of valid moral imperatives... while providing graphic demonstrations of effective means through which to apply lethal force.

So spare me the relativist nonsense...

You're the one claiming that video games risk lives. You are the prima facie case here, and so far studies in general have not backed up what you say. The findings are rather inconsistent and methodology with positive findings are always, from what I've seen, suspect. Me inserting my own speculation is more a matter of showing you that your explanation is not the only plausible one.
 
Last edited:
I would have to say that my simulator experience was much different. Our unit was one of the first to deploy the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Abrams tank. Maybe a year later we received the Unit Conduct of Fire Trainers (UCOFT). These were simulators with mock ups of the turret of either the M-1 or the M-2/M-3. The software had various battle simulations and battlefield conditions. It reinforced various skills training such as battlefield recognition of armored vehicles and aircraft from silhouettes and battle drills (how fast you can put steel on target after seeing a muzzle flash down field).

I would say that time spent in the simulator was invaluable for improving the efficiency of the crew. It led to the individual development of skills and techniques that made it possible to upgrade the standards of gunnery across the Army. (When the Bradley was first deployed a kill was considered one hit on a BMP target. Coincident with the practice in the UCOFT the standard was raised to 3 rounds on target and it was given a time limit of 7 seconds to engage and kill for single targets and 15 seconds for multiples).

I tried to find a story to relate here from the Gulf War, but couldn't locate it. It described an event where, during the ground war, a platoon of M-1s found that it had been, unbeknownst to them, going up a rise in the desert. When they crested the rise, they found an Iraqi tank battalion on the other side, dug in and waiting. In less than a minute, the Iraqi unit ceased to exist. 4 or 5 M-1 tanks laid waste to 25 + Iraqi MBTs that surprised them. My contention would be that their time in the UCOFT contributed in no small measure to their speed and proficiency.

Great piece TE...

I completely agree... The sims were being deployed with a sound curriculum... and well trained supervisory staff who understood the program itself and used the sim to demonstrate and practice sound methods and procedures...

Now imagine that you're a competent but low time tank crew and you happen along the sim and just hop in... no supervision, just the program running behind the scenes and someone in your crew is changing paramaters which relates to range and wind speed and direction of the target without your gunner knowing it. He couldn't hit shit despite his being expert, his best efforts would strike well off target every time...

To say that his mind would struggle to understand what was going on, flipping his understanding of his basic TA instrumentation desperate to restablish continuity with his training and former understanding of his system.

Now lets say that this concluded his 'training' in the sim... he never had the benfit of additional sim-training, and deployed shortly thereafter.

The problem would be that when he was inevitably stressed to place rounds on target and something appeared out of sorts, that doubt he experienced in the sim would return to him... those rationalizations which came over him, when he could not understand the flawed data that was being maniulated without his knowledge would return and while the qualified training which had experienced would inevitably come into play... where he returned his mental faculties to the basics, and rebuilt the understanding of each system until he was once again in symc with his system, were he to be facing a time critical combat requirement, it could easily cost him the engagement, which as we both know is BAD!

That's all I'm saying... That video games, which are sims of sorts, teach people whatever it is they are programmed to do. And while these are not directly applied analogies, they do demonstrate how effective these progams are, or can be... and in all sound calculations where the positive is true, the negative is true.

Meaning that where a program can be used as an effective training tool which provides for the honing of skills sets to a fine edge, when misused they can effectively render a a skilled operator moot, through their effective means to de-train them; where the underlying system is not fully understood and is misapplied; training the individual to that sertain aspects of the system are not reliable, prone to false readings, when in truth, they are not... thus when the stress of application in real time is required, any doubt which arises in the normal course of such an event is multiplied...

But on the whole I completely agree and enjoyed reading your piece.
 
lol... well do you have a study showing that young people who play GTA are more likely to steal cars, run down peds, or pick up hookers? Most people understand that video games often represent an escape from reality.

We’re not discussing the number of people that can and cannot discern fantasy from reality… so the empty rationalization which is served by qualifying that ‘most people’ can and do recognize fantasy from reality is IRRELEVANT. The issue is the means of video games to train the human mind and the likelihood that there are processes which are taking place through their unsupervised use as harmless entertainment, which we may not fully understand and which may and very likely already HAVE come back to bite us in the ass; demonstrated through my own personal experience.

LU said:
The number of people who would have an adverse reaction is very relevant if we are to assess anything regarding the risks and utility of simulators and video games.

Not in this discussion sis... It's relevant in a discussion where the issue is 'how many people my be adversely effected by the unsupervised training through video games' the issue here is 'video games and sims train the mind; thus the unsupervised use of such can result in de-training, imprinting destructive doubt or miscued principles which are not conducive to the stated goal.'


This is the type of thing one must evaluate with carefully controlled stats, not personal anecdotes.

OH MY... That's amazing Ag... But hey, even a blind nut finds a squirrel now and then...

ya see sis: THAT'S PRECISELY THE REASON WHY YOUR POSITION IS NOT RELEVANT.

You attribute your negative experience to the confusion of the simulator. That may or may not be the case. We would need to find a statistical correlation with an adequate sample size to determine the validity of your claim.

No... "I" do not need to do any of that... I was there... I KNOW what happened and I don't need anyone to tell me anything about how it happened, why it happened, or to correlate anything to anything else, BECAUSE I WITNESSED THE PROCESS FIRST HAND and know PRECISELY what correlates to what... as I described in no small degree of resolution.

Now if you can find something in my stated position, where, for instance, that which I correlated can be shown to be disconnected... well then fine... we'll discuss it.

But to simply project that the position is invalid because it's not peer reviewed and scientifically substantiated is just absurd, for several reasons...

Not the least of which is that it projects a standard which is not being equally applied; meaning you, the opposition, is not presenting with peer reviewed, scientifically substantiated argument... your argument to this point has been the time tested and rarely successful: "Nuh huh" defense.

My experience, as described is an accurate rendering of the facts... that I was trained through many MANY hours of instrument training, in the dark, over water on moonless nights, UNDER A HOOD... and despite that training focusing directly upon the correction from unbalanced flight realizing severely distorted attitudes, absent any visual clues beyond those presented by the instruments... and having suffered spacial disorientation to one degree or another in nearly every outing, the DOUBT with regard to instrument data had not come into play previous to the sim experience and the relevant incident.

The mental process realized through the initial disorientation went directly BACK to that sim experience... so it's not a debatable point; the doubt was correlated in that moment back to the sim and the onset confusion imprinted by the unknown elements of the program causing the flight control inputs to not result in anticipated reactions being displayed by the instrument; which inevitably, when the stress of the disorientation during the incident lead me to reconstruct my understanding of the system from known fundamentals...



One reason the scientific method replaced philosophical argumentation as the means to ascertain truth (wherever possible) is because what is logically plausible is not always correct.

No one is arguing that scientific analysis is not appropriate or more accurate than simple observation, there simply is no scientific analysis available relevant to the incident, thus you want to use the CONCEPT of scientific analysis as a means to discredit my conclusions, without the burden of PRODUCING IT.

Thus your ARGUMENT FAILS.


My main point was to show the limitations of your approach.

Yeah... I got that... sadly, that is neither a valid, nor remotely sustainable argument.


It seems reasonable to suspect that most people are capable of knowing that being in a simulator is not exactly the same as flying a real plane. I suspect your reaction is atypical based upon the lack of controversy around the issue of simulators making pilots incompetent. I don't hear people telling airline pilots not to play flight simulator because it could cause them to unlearn their skills, besides maybe you.

What seems reasonable is the conclusion that based upon this last paragraph you've never operated as pilot in command of an aircraft...

Well this point has already been addressed... specifically where I noted that had I crashed that plane, which surely would have resulted in the deaths of all aboard, there would have been no means for those investigating that crash to know ANYTHING about that incident; this no means to correlate that experience, to my failure to correct from spatial disorientation... and return the aircraft to balanced flight.

Thus it's not likely that a controversy could develop...

What's more, the issue is NOT that flight sims are bad... that they're dangerous or any other similar implication. These are projections which you're advancing, as is your habit, are designed to avoid the argument; and to do so through one of a litany of potential appeals... in this case you're projecting the argument to absurd levels by extending to absurdity the scope of the conclusions which may be drawn, but which are in NO WAY, BEING so much as IMPLIED by my position.



No. Your evidence is merely insufficient.


Only where you want the luxury of projecting counter-evidence which does not exist as being sufficient to discredit it. Sadly, that's a want which rests in unsound reasoning and as such FAILS miserably...

The effects of the detraining most likely would never have been considered by such an investigation and even if they WERE, this would not change the findings, as the responsibility of the Pilot in Command is FINAL and not subject to negotiation.

HOWEVER, THE FACT IS THAT THE IMPETUS FOR THE DOUBTING OF THE INSTRUMENTS WAS INDISPUTABLY THE FUNCTION OF DE-TRAINING AS A RESULT OF PLAYING WITH A FLIGHT SIMULATOR WITHOUT BEING SUFFICIENTLY AWARE OF THE FULL SCOPE OF THE INPUT DATA WHICH THE SIMULATOR INSTRUMENTS WERE REFLECTING.

How is that indesputable? Maybe in your mind, but I'd rather see the net effect on the aggregate if I were responsible for policy pertaining to video games.

Well the absence of dispute, beyond your 'nuh-huh' defense is fair evidence of it... It's my testimony, born of my experience and given your stark lack of experience as a pilot in command of an aircraft, you're surely in no position to contest the experience or the conclusions drawn from it. But to understand that, you'd actually have to be a pilot... so that you don't understand it serves reason.

Now with all of that said; there is certainly no study which confirms your assumptions, yet you trot them out as indisputable fact and the purest essence of reason; despite the simple fact that school shootings executed by children are rationalized to be the responsibility of the GUN... and explained through ceaseless psycho-babble which chooses to ignore the potential training effects of technological devices which train the brain to detach lethal force from moral imperatives; technology which may rest in video-games or movies which provide little or no discussion of valid moral imperatives... while providing graphic demonstrations of effective means through which to apply lethal force.

So spare me the relativist nonsense...

You're the one claiming that video games risk lives.

False... My claim is that video-games imprint a form of training upon the brain which we simply do not understand; and that there is the VERY REAL POTENTIAL that such training could produce unintended and undesirable effects; and that some of those effects COULD RESULT IN HARM. That is NOT a statement which declares that 'videogames risk lives.' It is supposition, founded in experience...



You are the prima facie case here, and so far studies in general have not backed up what you say.

LOL... well that's a fine conclusion; it simply rest upon the total absence of any study which tests my conclusions against my experience...

But MAN! Wouldn't it be cool for you if there were? What you would have there is a STRONG, well reasoned argument, founded in scientific analysis and the findings born out through empirically tested evidence. Which is what you want to project ya have now... when in truth what you've got is a myth shrouded in an ethereal facade of science; based upon evidence that despite your implication, does not actually exist.

The findings are rather inconsistent and methodology with positive findings are always, from what I've seen, suspect.

"The Findings?" I'll have to assume your speaking directly to the conclusions drawn from my supposition...

You claim that their inconsistent, yet there is not a single instance in your would-be analysis which speaks to ANY inconsistency in my conclusions as they relate to my observations... so once again your implying a standard which you fail to submit in evidence and imply that my conclusions are inconsistent with that unstated standard. Clearly you contest the methodology... but I've not come to the table and claimed any method beyond comparing my experience against my observations.

You want to imply that there are studies in existence which tested pilots through similar is not precise circumstances... where the findings of these studies discredit my own conclusions; you simply have no means to prove such studies exist and it's most likely that such do not. It is my contention that where such would be tested, that it is all but impossible that they would not come to the same conclusions, given the immutable reasoning which requires that they would... Spatial disorientation is a very real killer of airplanes and crew; with the most infamous being Jr. Kennedy... his death and that of his wife and sister-in-law were a direct result of precisely that. A fact which I and every other pilot which has shared his common experience, but managed to live through it, understood immediately upon hearing the circumstances relevant to his flight on that fateful day.

All my observations speak to Ag, is the mental process which lead to the reinforced, but momentary doubt, in my instruments that night.

And I submit that had the same scenario come to pass in the absence of my substantial training in correcting from unusual attitudes under instrument flight, which provided for my means to draw on that experience and reconstruct my understanding of the system and principles which make controlled flight sustainable; that my friends and I would have perished, as I succumbed to the need to listen to my instincts and rolled that plane inverted to satisfy my skewed sense of balance. At 3000 ft, one closes with the earth fairly quickly in an inverted dive irritated by the application of maximum power; power which is applied to induce a climb, as one pulls on the flight controls towards that same end... with the result in reality being that they're aircraft is not in balanced flight and the power is pulling the aircraft into compliance with the flight controls which are directing it nose first, into, in our case, the Gulf Of Mexico.

I will also submit that in every circumstance over the many years since, wherein I relayed this account to fellow pilots, each one, without exception has concurred with my conclusions... with the perfectly plausible and imminently reasonable caveat, that spatial disorientation is dangerous in any flight condition, so ANYTHING which amplifies the natural tendency of the brain to rationalize the disjointed information coming from one's flight instruments, only adds to the severity of that situation...

Again, and in closing, I have not EVEN implied that simulators and videogames are dangerous in and of themselves... but that where they are utilized absent prudent supervision and absent the understanding of the principles surrounding the context of the game itself... that they have the POTENTIAL to MIS-TRAIN, to misinform the brain... which HAS THE POTENTIAL TO LEND CONFUSION TO CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ALREADY STRESS THE FUNCTIONS RELEVANT TO THE mis-training...

I don't see how you can reasonably contest that... but then 'reason' is not your long suit, thus you contest of it, serves reason.

Me inserting my own speculation is more a matter of showing you that your explanation is not the only plausible one.

No shit? Well that's brilliant...

Next time that appeals to you, bring an actual argument where the plausible alternative is specifically advanced and supported through an intellectually sound, logically valid basis in reasoning.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top