"Nor, indeed, does the study compare the benefits of training on action video games with those of other activities that involve switching off the computer and getting a life."

Excellent!

Regards

When I was a lad, I played a lot of adventure games (of the old-school, Sierra variety, i.e.) which taught one to take every object not nailed down, and then try to use them in various unlikely situations.

Perhaps this is why I have so many DIY/jerry-rigged furnishings and things in my apartment.

(Good thing those types of games have largely fallen out of fashion; too much of this effect would have been a disaster for consumer goods retailers.)

I would argue that while action games can be beneficial, World of Warcraft isn't exactly in the same genre per se. There's a difference between games that increase the speed of judgment calls and games that suck the life out of anyone who plays it.

I stopped playing Starcraft II to read this and its only about first person shooters? Starcraft at a high level is like playing chess and piano at the same time.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that fast, accurate decision making is a skill that is improved by playing certain video games. What then? Specifically, what part of living a successful life benefits from fast, accurate decisions? Perhaps faster is always better, since if there's absolutely no downside in exchange for "faster", then we have more time to do other things, and time is the one commodity of which we can never make or buy enough.

On the other hand, which professions really benefit from split-second decision making? How many of us are going to be fighter pilots, or combat soldiers for that matter? Clearly, fighting of any sort is something that requires quick decisions, but do we really want to live in a society whose fundamental social element is combat? If I am having a discussion with my doctor about how to proceed with treatment for my cancer, am I going to be impressed by the speed with which he made a decision? Should political campaigns be limited to one hour prior to the opening of the polls? Do the parents who can decide in 5 seconds how to deal with their unruly teenager produce better results than those who ponder the problem for a few weeks?

I can't help but think that in most of the decision-making required in a relatively peaceable society, speed is really not a big factor, and so the ability to make good decisions faster is no great benefit. Knowing the human ability to fill all available time, I also suspect that those who make decisions faster simply pack their time with more decisions to make.

@D. Sherman

I think you're reading the article too narrowly. The point isn't that people who play video games make any individual decision faster. The overarching point is that these people are taking in information (Observing), determining the probability of outcomes (Orienting), making a decision (Decide), and acting (Act)quicker than they would be otherwise. What video games are helping you do is run through an OODA loop quicker (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act). It's the basic thought structure behind all decisions we make. The quicker one accurately runs through an OODA loop, the more successful one tends to be.

I suppose phrasing it as "making a decision" is misleading. What they're really talking about is "adapting to new information." And the quicker you can adapt to rapid-fire information, the better off you will be.

Seeing as World of Warcraft (WoW) is more like The Sims 2 than Unreal Tournament, the study doesn't say anything about why WoW might be good for you.

The "anti-social" argument is antiquated. In WoW, and presumably every other new MMORG, one is in constant conversations and negotiations, in text chats and voice chats, such as Ventrilo. Further, one has to be superb at politics, aka "guild drama", to recruit successful raiders. From a parental view, this microcosm of life is both negative and positive: getting kicked from a raid because one's gear (GS-gear score) is low is analogous to not being invited to a party because of one's physical appearance. How the player responds and what lessons he or she draws can make it a useful, less painful experience.

...and speaking of probability...my son, when he was 11 years old, was able to calculate the probability of three critical strikes in a row. He glazed over when I tried to introduce the more general binonial distribution, though.

It's just too bad Blizzard does not have the inspiration to create a learning game. Instead of smelting "saronite" for instance, they could have used real elements, required knowledge of the periodic table and material sciences to level, and punched in geology and geography, to make parents enthusiastically buy more game time.

How does this effect stack up to intensive sports training, especially if the author is going to allude to something concerning motion and traffic, like driving? I am not convinced that it is initially better. Video games >> TV, though ;)

The "anti-social" argument is antiquated. In WoW, and presumably every other new MMORG, one is in constant conversations and negotiations, in text chats and voice chats, such as Ventrilo. Further, one has to be superb at politics, aka "guild drama", to recruit successful raiders. From a parental view, this microcosm of life is both negative and positive: getting kicked from a raid because one's gear (GS-gear score) is low is analogous to not being invited to a party because of one's physical appearance. How the player responds and what lessons he or she draws can make it a useful, less painful experience.

...and speaking of probability...my son, when he was 11 years old, was able to calculate the probability of three critical strikes in a row. He glazed over when I tried to introduce the more general binonial distribution, though.

It's just too bad Blizzard does not have the inspiration to create a learning game. Instead of smelting "saronite" for instance, they could have used real elements, required knowledge of the periodic table and material sciences to level, and punched in geology and geography, to make parents enthusiastically buy more game time.

How does this effect stack up to intensive sports training, especially if the author is going to allude to something concerning motion and traffic, like driving? I am not convinced that it is initially better. Video games >> TV, though ;)

In para 2, do you mean “probabilistic inference” rather than "interference"?

Wow, the comments are really nasty. I think back in 19th century it would read something similar to:

Newspaper: The scientists discover that putting salts of uranium next to a photo paper can make paper look exposed
Comments: Wow, now we found another way to spoil a perfectly good photo paper! Way to go, science! What next, pointdexters - you discover that you can burn it as well?

The article led me to remember the late psychologist Leonard Eron, whom I was privileged to know a little. He and his colleagues conducted some of the most extensive longitudinal research ever done on the development of aggression. He was quite convinced that watching violent television caused children to become more aggressive. He felt that the appeal of violent television(and I'd think violent video games) could be had without the violence by making the television active, but not violent. The way this article is written suggests that the study shows benefits from playing action video games, but the violence often associated with such games may not be necessary to reap the benefits, and may carry its own negative consequences.

Wired's Gamelife column mentioned a similar idea citing the "Armed with science" podcast which had a Navy intel officer talking about how real-time strategy games have benefits to "fluid intelligence." So Starcraft can make me smarter after-all. Still no evidence for role playing games though, sorry WoW.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/armedwithscience/2010/01/20/video-episode-5...

Steve T., I agree, he should have used 'inference', but it seems to be a wide spread issue. Many people must have read 'inference' from the original works and assumed it said 'interference'. They have propagated the mistake ever since. (Inference interfered with?)

But my real reason for commenting, studies in psychology are a success if they can show anything. This study used a specific measure that was associated with specific types of game. Other types of games will produce other types of results, so the Sims and WOW might have benefits, but they have not been identified.

I remember reading about video game exposed children becoming being better keyhole surgeons than those who weren't regardless of greater experience in regular surgery.

However, only so much benefit will be gained from this sort of training and experience. Time still needs to be spent on productive activities for the benefits of the training to be realised.

@D.Sherman,

I see no arguement. What practicality can faster decision making really have in our current environment?

Well... How about stock trading? Beating out an in-office competitor in the board room during an important meeting and getting that raise you've always wanted? Or, perhaps, as you are riding your bike and a taxi cab stops immediately in front of you in downtown Chicago and you have only moments to avoid ramming a 2000 pound vehicle at 15 to 20 mph. It seems to me that all these things require decision making. Also, the article gave some good examples as well. Driving, navigation, these are all things that seem practical in a peaceful society. In fact, an intelligent man such as yourself can see that someone who can make quick decisions can better avoid and relieve certain instances of domestic confrontation before tempers flair and the probability of danger escalates.

Of course talking to your doctor about cancer treatment wont require snap decisions, that is simply not a situation in which such thinking is required. Careful research must be done to assess a specific need. It is easy to think of examples where fast decision making is not essential. However, to argue the point that having a quick wit is not beneficial to "living a successful life" is remarkably acute.Also, you make it seem in the beginning of your comment that you are skeptical of the finding produced by this research. If that is what you wish to argue, I feel there are better avenues for that.

Obviously, any sort of entertainment that requires you to act, react, interact, and plan ahead will do you good in the real world. They got a grant for this? Can I get a degree in the bleedin' obvious as well? :-)

Interesting.

Now only if such high speed and accurate decision-making could be transferred to events with serious consequences.

I can think of something more immediate for all parents of teenagers -- taking standardized tests that have time limits. Surely, if the students who participated were able to answer the tests just as accurately, but faster, then there's an advantage to be had there in the real world.

By world of warcraft I think the author was making a play on words. He actually meant a a virtual world or video game based on war.

"Nor, indeed, does the study compare the benefits of training on action video games with those of other activities that involve switching off the computer and getting a life."

This has to be one of the Economist's quote of the year. Well done!

Now, could the Economist run a comparison of carbon footprints between someone who spends his life inside WoW (or EVE, or CoD, or FF-XIV for that matter), and those who spend "real" life?