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But to simply project that the position is invalid because it's not peer reviewed and scientifically substantiated is just absurd, for several reasons...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