Video Gaming

[sean]

i was into video games between 10-15 years old or so. i can remember getting a nintendo, i think i was in 4th grade. definitely changed my life, and i'm not sure if for the better. i recall being way less interested in going outside and exploring my neighborhood, riding dirt bikes with my friends, it became all about beating the boss on level 5.

 

i recently stumbled across this article by a game designer with the perspective that social game designer's goal is to degrade the player's quality of life.

 

very interesting view, and imo it displayed a certain level of consciousness that intrigued me enough to want to play the kind of game this guy would create.

 

so i played a game he designed. it's called "braid". i think it was like $8 for the pc. 2d side scroller reminiscent of mario or kid icarus, but with a layer of depth added through a nonlinear story that can be interpreted a number of ways. the focus is on solving clever puzzles that i have to admit felt rewarding to figure out.

 

sean

[Sloppy Zhang]

i was into video games between 10-15 years old or so. i can remember getting a nintendo, i think i was in 4th grade. definitely changed my life, and i'm not sure if for the better. i recall being way less interested in going outside and exploring my neighborhood, riding dirt bikes with my friends, it became all about beating the boss on level 5.

 

Well it all depends on your perspective, what's important to you, and your level of maturity and decision making process. The whole child development thing is a pretty complex issue, because people have different values- my uncles were all very physical and so my cousins always HAD to be outside or playing sports or something. When I'd go visit them, we'd all get kicked outside, because kids are supposed to be outside exploring. What usually wound up happening is that we'd sit on the low branches of a tree, and do nothing for 2-3 hours when we were allowed to come back inside.

 

But my parents focused more on the educational side of things, less on the physicality, so on the weekends we could pretty much do what we wanted. Sometimes we'd just play video games. But sometimes we'd ride our bikes or scooters around the neighborhood. I got into tae kwon do and karate, so I would go to that as a kid- and part of the inspiration for that was all of the tv and video games I got to play, I wanted to be like a power ranger!

 

So they can reinforce one another.

 

i recently stumbled across this article by a game designer with the perspective that social game designer's goal is to degrade the player's quality of life.

 

very interesting view, and imo it displayed a certain level of consciousness that intrigued me enough to want to play the kind of game this guy would create.

 

Very interesting view indeed, but I think his opinion of "social games" is pretty limited. Not every game in which you team up with your friends is necessarily a social game. Think of first person shooters were you can team up with your friends and accomplish stuff. Now there are a few things that can only be unlocked with ungodly amounts of time and work- but those of that is aesthetic, and has no real gameplay effect, it's just a status symbol like, "hey, I got 20,000 kills on my player profile!" so if you ignore stuff like that, those types of games are pretty easy to pick up and put down.

 

Now if you get into things like World of Warcraft, it's a slightly different story. While you get plenty of casual gamers on that, it's easy to get sucked into the uber competitiveness of the game, and have to dedicate lots of time to it, so for a game like that, this guy may certainly have a point.

 

But that can hardly be attributed to all games, or even just the mainstream games. There's as much variation in games as there is in movie and book genres.

 

so i played a game he designed. it's called "braid". i think it was like $8 for the pc. 2d side scroller reminiscent of mario or kid icarus, but with a layer of depth added through a nonlinear story that can be interpreted a number of ways. the focus is on solving clever puzzles that i have to admit felt rewarding to figure out.

 

sean

 

I highly suggest to anyone interested in a different type of game, to check out "The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind". Great game. Non-linear, sandbox style role playing game. Massive world (takes place on a fairly large island). Dozens of towns, dozens of quests, hundreds of NPC's. Different ways to finish different quests. You don't have to do anything. You could just explore the world. Of course, you can "live" in the world, and it's quite easy to get sucked in there (and many people do!), but it really is quite excellent, and quite different from just your run of the mill "shoot everything in sight!" (though there are some parts like that).

[Stigweard]

Sloppy Zhang, the longer you argue in favor of your addictions the longer they are yours.

 

Game designers have made it their profession to trap and ensnare players to keep them playing their games; to keep investing their time, their money, and their attention. If you feel it is OK to have your awareness trapped and your life force vampirized then you are welcome to it.

 

Have you heard of the Skinner Box?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber

 

It is a behavioral experiment that “uses sophisticated operant schedules of reinforcement to reward repetitive actions”. Originally used on rats and mice, game designers have excelled in creating “Skinner Boxes” that trap the human mind.

 

Let me spell it out … game designers are CONSCIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY creating intoxicating, addictive drugs for the human mind!

 

You tried to argue that addictive computer games aren’t responsible for the addiction in the same way knives aren’t to blame for murder. You are trying to establish that computer games are somehow “neutral”.

 

What utter BS !!!

 

These games are INTENDED to be addicting and the companies that market them invest $billions every year to find new innovative ways to hook and exploit the masses in the same way tobacco companies lace their cigarettes with a cocktail of chemicals to further hook the user.

 

Let’s compare:

 

Skinner Boxes gives food rewards for repetitive actions.

 

CG’s give better gear, better traits, and levels for repetitive actions.

 

Skinner Box researchers found that random rewards stimulate greater willingness to perform said repetitive actions

 

CG’s, especially MMORPG, use random drops to make the players go back and “do that run” over, and over, and over.

 

Poker machines and other gambling games use the tantalization of winning a reward to stimulate repetitive action.

 

CG’s do exactly the same.

 

Skinner Box researchers found that if you give the test subject quick rewards at the start and then slowly space out the rewards they showed greater tendancy to keep doing the said repetitive action.

 

CG’s give you quick levels at the start and then the time it takes to level up gets increasingly slower. Players actually increase their gaming time the closer they get to a new level … “just the next level, just the next level, just the next level, just the next level, just the next level …”

 

Skinner Box researchers found that they could increase the tendency to do the repetitive action if they punished non-action (in the form of electric shocks).

 

CG’s punish the player for stopping the game by having limited save points in a mission. Some online games have real-time decays imposed if the player doesn’t logon and play. In social games peer pressure becomes an additional "punishment" ... "Shit! Lyndorian the Elf Hunter is levelling faster then me, I'd better put in some more hours grinding Hill Trolls!"

 

And I could go on….

 

The bottom line again, these games are NOT there for the player’s benefit. They are there for the profit margin of the developing company and these companies will go to exorbitant lengths to hook you in and keep you addicted to their drip feed of “little rewards”.

 

Now if you are happy to be trapped like a pathetic lab rat in a Skinner Box then go and be delusionally happy in your addictions. But the very fact that you are on this forum tells me that you have at least a half an inclination to be a spiritually independent being. In which case I challenge you to become mindful of the snare you are in, see clearly the ‘sweet bait’ that is keeping you there, and liberate yourself from this life-sucking human treadmill.

 

For I can promise you one thing … you can have your addictions or you can have your spiritual liberation … you can’t have both. You choose.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Stigweard

[Mal]

^ rigid thinking is a dangerous trap because you are not what you think you are; but what you think, you are.

 

If we wanted to go "hard core" we shouldn't be wasting valuable meditation time on distracting entertainment, like 'net surfing TTB But I think making the jump from enjoying computer games to pathetic lab rat on a life sucking treadmill status is going rather too far.

[freeform]

.

Edited December 18, 2019 by freeform

[Jetsun]

On the body level it is hard to distinguish between a game and real life when you are totally absorbed, I played a mmo for about a year and got pretty addicted and there were times when I was "fighting for my life" that I would get real adrenaline rushes and get rage when I was defeated. But I agree with the above posters the developers actually purposely hook you in, the developers of Warcraft have perfected the techniques and all the other mmo makers have learned from them.

 

But it's not all bad, when you are part of a guild you do get to meet and socialise with a lot of different people from different countries and I think the social aspect of the game is the thing which keeps a lot of these games going. For some people it is some of the main socialising they get, for example one person I played with was a full time carer for his mother so he couldn't go out much so the game provided a good outlet for social interaction.

[Sloppy Zhang]

[Friend]

Edited November 16, 2011 by Friend

[freeform]

Freeform the hunter mode is something really indeed bad habit, well this is not only

in game it happens also in work- pressure pressure, more more, profit profit, faster faster, busy busy.

The knowing of hunt mode and the abillity to switch between modes I consider as a useful skill and should lead to techniques for the masters of our time.

 

Q

 

Yes - completely.

 

Also - most people never realise they're almost constantly in hunter mode... They need to take a holiday, or buy something, or 'pamper' themselves - with food/drugs/material goods to give themselves permission to to relax into passive mode. (The mind likes hunter mode, because the awareness is so narrow - this is similar to how the mind attends to the world.)

 

I actually realised that calling it hunter mode gives the wrong impression about hunters, and their awareness - they attend to the present and the body - just with an intense laser-beam like focus... whereas most of us use the laser-beam like focus to attend to trivialities and illusions - usually outside of us.

 

We use our ability to focus as a tool. The narrower and shallower the focus, the less present - the less present, the more predictable - the more predictable, the safer we feel... we trade in feeling safe for being awake.

[Stigweard]

[Sloppy Zhang]

Is it rigid thinking to see the snare and point it out in stark terms?

 

It is rigid to call a brick wall a threat to public safety just because a couple of morons decide to bang their heads against it, while the vast majority of the populace throw bouncy balls against it.

 

To repeat my earlier statement, the longer you argue in favor of your addictions the longer they are yours.

 

To repeat my earlier statement, people are going to see what they want to see, regardless of fact. Take a deep breath and a couple of steps back from yourself, and peruse some of the articles about Cognitive Bias.

 

The Council On Science And Public Health to the AMA put out a report (for balance this report has a section on the benefits of games on page 2) that defined “computer game overuse” as more than 2 hours of “screen time” per day. And yet a 2007 Harris Interactive online poll of 1,187 people found that the average time played per week by teenage boys was 14hrs.

 

I'm not quite following your math.....

 

Computer game overuse is more than 2 hours of screen time per day.

 

If you take the average of that sample (keep in mind that it is a SAMPLE), and you find that the average time is 14 hours per week, that's about 2 hours per day, which is at the furthest extreme of just acceptable. Any more over that is over use.

 

How about you? How many hours of “screen time” are you putting in per week??

 

During school semester/work week (during summer)? None. I don't have a game console or tv where I live.

 

Only time I even get a chance to play these days is if I go to where my parents live, which is where my brother lives, so that's where the console is.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Stigweard]

I'm not quite following your math.....

 

Computer game overuse is more than 2 hours of screen time per day.

 

If you take the average of that sample (keep in mind that it is a SAMPLE), and you find that the average time is 14 hours per week, that's about 2 hours per day, which is at the furthest extreme of just acceptable. Any more over that is over use.

 

LOL ... the average, or central tendency of a data set is a measure of the "middle" value of the data set. The average "screen time" per week is 14hrs which equates to 2hrs per day (14/7). This is the "middle" value which means half is above this figure and half is below.

 

[Mal]

[Sloppy Zhang]

LOL ... the average, or central tendency of a data set is a measure of the "middle" value of the data set. The average "screen time" per week is 14hrs which equates to 2hrs per day (14/7). This is the "middle" value which means half is above this figure and half is below.

 

The middle value is the median. The average is the sum of all the data divided by the number of people the data was taken from.

 

Though my expertise is not in statistics, the choice presentation of data and "facts" is what I do study.

 

The weakness of the average is that it is highly susceptible to outliers. Michael Jordan graduated with a major in geography from the university of north carolina, yet his career salary came from being a star athlete. If you average the salaries of four year geography majors, Michael Jordan's phenomenal career salary gets averaged in, creating a number which is a bit different than what you'd get if you look at all the numbers in total, or perhaps other statistical data, like the median.

 

Now the thing with polling people who identify as gamers means that extreme outliers are included, but might not necessarily be fully represented- because you get people who play 1-2 hours week mixed in with people who play 14-16 hours a day.

 

Then you've got people like me who self identify as a gamer, but the last time I played a video game was January 1st- after that I had to return to classes

 

[edit] Furthermore, I must say I am raising an eyebrow about some of the conclusions that you are drawing from this study (as I've had time to review it more thoroughly since it's initial posting).

 

To say the study defined video game overuse as more than 2 hours per day is more like a half truth-

 

The actual quote (page 2, lines 31 and 32) is this:

 

For this report,

32 heavy game use will be defined as those who play more than 2 hours per day.6,7

 

Now those numbers at the end correspond to references at the end, 6 and 7, which are:

 

Roe K, Muijs D. Children and computer games: a profile of the heavy user. Euro J Comm.

1998; 13:181-200.

7. Goldstein J. Does playing violent video games cause aggressive behavior? playing by the

rules. Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago; October 27, 2001. Available at: www.

culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/goldstein.html. Accessed March 21, 2007.

 

Now I haven't been able to access either of those two things, but so far, this is what I'm seeing:

 

1) computer game overuse is defined as more than two hours for the purpose of this study- it is not a universal definition, and I do not think it is meant to be taken as such. The later section on addiction, page 4, lines 39-40, say this:

 

39The percentage of players affected by video game overuse varies. Many researchers believe that

40 video game addiction occurs only in a small minority of players, while others disagree.

41 Researchers at Nottingham University in the United Kingdom polled 7000 gamers and found an

42 addiction rate of 12% by World Health Organization criteria.49 Research in the United States has

43 estimated that anywhere from a small minority to as much as 10% to 15% of players may be

44 affected. 45 However, as with findings on long-term aggression, there is currently insufficient

45 research to definitively conclude that video game overuse is an addiction.

 

2) Much of the research and the thoughts about causes discuss children, and in some cases, adolescents. At least, that's what I gather from the referenced material (which, as of the time of this post, I have not accessed). Now that's all rather interesting, but children are much different from adolescents, which are much different from young adults, which are much different than older adults. And ALL of those unique, diverse groups partake in video gaming. Even a narrowly focused study admits that there are limitations and there is not conclusive evidence to support certain wide sweeping statements, yet you, Stig, seem to be attempting to apply this to all gaming!

 

Revisiting point 1, we must then question for whom two hours is "excessive". Is it young children in their developmental stages? Is it adolescents who might need to be handling other important responsibilities? Is it young adults? Adults? Older adults? What genres of games are we taking into account? The socio-economic status of the person? The season? (as a kid I spent more time playing games during the summer than during school)

 

A lot of factors that don't seem to be accounted for.

 

3) I just have to laugh out loud at some of the other categories, like a temporary increase in aggressive behavior. Then I have to sigh, because of the short sightedness of the researchers. I posit that what they call "short term aggressive behavior" is known by another name- competitiveness. Perhaps they should look at the "short term aggressive behavior" and "actions which are no pro social" which occur on colleges campuses towards rival fans on game days! The same games which they say encourages "short term aggressive behaviors" more often than not also encourage team strategy and communication in order to accomplish a goal.

 

Of course, that doesn't always work out (WARNING: language):

 

 

 

[edit]4) On the section about people who are likely to be addicted, especially to the internet/mmorpgs, it talks about people who are marginalized by society, who aren't very comfortable in social situations, and who go to the internet to escape. I'd say those same people are the stereotypical "comic book guys" of The Simpsons, and the stereotypical D&D nerds of the days long past (a few of whom are now big game developers and doing quite well!) In that case, AGAIN, internet and video games are not the cause- they are where people run to for shelter. Their condition occurs before the addiction to video games. In which case, regulating or eliminating video games would simply be getting rid of the symptom, the external thing that they latch on to, and would not be addressing the root cause, the internal condition which leads them to attach to things in the first place!

 

And now I've officially wasted too much time on this topic.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Stigweard]

As fun as statistical argumentation is, let's not detract too much from the main point that addictive computer gaming is most definitely hazardous and, in particular relevance to this forum, is an extreme detriment to anyone wishing to make any progression in Taoist cultivation.

 

However let’s play with the numbers seeing that that’s where you are trying to scrape together some sort of solidity for your argument.

 

You are most definitely correct that the average of a sample can be a fuzzy-lined distinction and should be used for evaluation with caution. However, with a sample size of 1,187, the standard error adjustment would only be 2.9%.

 

Standard Error = 1/SQRT(n+1)

n = sample size

 

But for the sake of extreme prejudice let’s use an ultra-pessimistic standard error of 9%. This means that, instead of half (or 50%) of these gamers playing excessively, we can reduce it down to 41%. This is still an alarming amount of the highlighted group of gamers who are falling in the “over-use” area of more than 2hrs “screen-time” per day.

 

The crucial piece of information you have neglected to notice and account for (speaking of cognitive bias) is that I was using a very specific demographic of “males aged 12-19”. I can fully accept that, when looking at a sample of ALL computer gamers (male, female, all ages etc.) then the percentage of computer game over-use would be substantially less, perhaps even around the 15% mark of the study you quoted. But again this depends on the definitions of “addiction” used in those particular studies.

 

What we can see here is that, if addiction levels are around 15% across all demographics of gamers whilst addiction levels for teenage males is up around the 41%, then we have effectively identified a significantly high-risk demographic for computer game addiction. This is made even more significant to this discussion when we account for the fact that the demographic leniency on TaoBums is young males (What is the Average Age of a Tao Bum?).

 

Returning to the definition of “over-use”, I am very confident with the relevancy of the "over 2hr per day" threshold. In fact I think 2hrs is quite a conservative time allowance. After all, if you are sitting on your ass for more than 2hrs a day twiddling a joystick or mashing a mouse on a computer game then you really do have a problem.

 

But, to return to point, on many levels such computer game over-use is a major backward step for any aspiring Taoist cultivator. This is because addictive computer games:

 

* Ensares and conditions the mind of the gamer, turning them into a “pathetic lab rat” in a skinner box.

* Artificially stirs up the heart/mind, distorting the natural flow of energy and forces the energy to be locked in the head. With the mind so disturbed the communication between Shen and Jing is severed.

* Creates poor circulation and restricted breathing due to poor sedentary posture. This sedentary posture can also lead to muscle and joint problems.

* Overloads the body with adrenalin and cortisol without the physical exercise that usually accompanies the release of these chemicals. As a result the adrenals can burn out and the organs can be sapped of vitality.

* Imprints negative imagery through the eyes into the subconscious. It also imprints the associated “story lines” that accompany the majority of games. If we also subscribe to the Taoist belief that our life experiences arise from our inner energy vibration then, by carrying these artificial imprints within us, we are creating further discordance in our lives.

* Desensitises the gamer to acts of violence.

* Robs the gamer of time which could be better spent in sincere cultivation.

* Interferes with relationships and careers because, with the game imprinted so deep in the mind of the gamer, that’s all they can think about.

* Interferes with quality of sleep both because gamers tend to play late into the night and because the artificial light of the screens shining through the eyes catastrophically destroys the natural circadian rhythm.

 

The downsides of addictive computer games so outnumber any of the meager benefits that it would hypocrisy and delusion for a Taoist cultivator to indulge in them.

 

While I feel that resorting to an Operant conditioning model is acceptable, as well as difficult to argue against since it's a good model to explain that sort of button pushing reward response behavior. I do feel it's an overly simplistic approach i.e. it doesn't explain why I returned to gaming.

 

I'm willing to elaborate if anyone is interested.

Please do

Edited March 4, 2011 by Stigweard

[Sloppy Zhang]

As fun as statistical argumentation is, let's not detract too much from the main point that addictive computer gaming is most definitely hazardous and, in particular relevance to this forum, is an extreme detriment to anyone wishing to make any progression in Taoist cultivation.

 

You keep saying that, but you've never really presented anything other than stereotypes and far reaching generalizations which don't have any basis in the real world.

 

However let’s play with the numbers seeing that that’s where you are trying to scrape together some sort of solidity for your argument.

 

No, I'm not, actually. I worked pretty hard to get my B in statistics. Got the credit, haven't looked back. I'm not that great in math, but I retained enough to know when data is being manipulated to suit someone's argument.

 

This is still an alarming amount of the highlighted group of gamers who are falling in the “over-use” area of more than 2hrs “screen-time” per day.

 

But that number, two hours, was fairly arbitrarily determined. They defined that just there, in the article. The two sources, which I cannot access (have tried, if you got direct links, please link them) refer to studies done in child development. And that's its own animal. But teenage years? Young adult years? Adult years? Older adult years? People who know the difference between reality and fantasy? People who can make decisions about 1) how much time they have, and 2) how much time they can spend on something? Completely different.

 

Returning to the definition of “over-use”, I am very confident with the accuracy of the "over 2hr per day" threshold. In fact I think 2hrs is quite a conservative time allowance. After all, if you are sitting on your ass for more than 2hrs a day twiddling a joystick or mashing a mouse on a computer game then you really do have a problem.

 

And how so? Compared to watching a movie, video games are more engaging. In a previous post, I listed several reasons why video games would be a fun alternative given certain situations. It's not always the best option, but it's not always the worst option.

 

Furthermore, you don't seem to be taking this holistically- you seem to be homing in on one aspect, the video games, and going at it relentlessly without looking at other factors. Some people enjoy mental exercises and activities more than physical. It doesn't mean that since they play video games more often compared to other people, that they are being unhealthy. It means they'd rather do that than something else, and that's fine. Now I'll be the first to admit that problems arise when games are done to the exclusion of other activities necessary for health and well being. But, AGAIN, that's a fringe case, and is based on the individual's ability to make healthy choices. Which is NOT caused by video games- that's a pre-existing condition. EVEN when you consider teenagers.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Sloppy Zhang]

* Ensares and conditions the mind of the gamer, turning them into a “pathetic lab rat” in a skinner box.

 

Easily countered by some self awareness, as well as awareness of the situation, coupled with an ability to make healthy decisions. Nice weather outside, friends want to play some basketball, you've already played for two hours? Okay, get up and move. Rainy day outside, your friend across the country has some free time, you've got some free time, you've been working on a paper all afternoon, going to take a break before you get back to it? Maybe it's time to play some games.

 

* Artificially stirs up the heart/mind, distorting the natural flow of energy and forces the energy to be locked in the head. With the mind so disturbed the communication between Shen and Jing is severed.

 

Now you can apply that to ANY life situation. Countered by self awareness and an ability to keep it together, which increases with experience (though some people seem to naturally be more "together" than others, even at a young age)

 

* Creates poor circulation and restricted breathing due to poor sedentary posture. This sedentary posture can also lead to muscle and joint problems.

 

This is a HUGE assumption. You're assuming that if you play video games, you automatically take up a poor posture. You are also assuming that video games are not balanced by other activities.

 

* Overloads the body with adrenalin and cortisol without the physical exercise that usually accompanies the release of these chemicals. As a result the adrenals can burn out and the organs can be sapped of vitality.

 

So can getting into an argument with someone. So can thinking about a painful experience. So can almost anything. As above: learn to deal with it healthily, won't be a problem.

 

* Imprints negative imagery through the eyes into the subconscious. It also imprints the associated “story lines” that accompany the majority of games. If we also subscribe to the Taoist belief that our life experiences arise from our inner energy vibration then, by carrying these artificial imprints within us, we are creating further discordance in our lives.

* Desensitises the gamer to acts of violence.

 

As above: are you so weak that you cannot even deal with mental images coming from your mind? Is your own mind so weak, and your practices so feeble, that watching a series of static images played one after another to produce the illusion of movement breaks everything you've worked for in developing compassion and other "developed" virtues?

 

Please, do not underestimate the individual.

 

* Robs the gamer of time which could be better spent in sincere cultivation.

 

That's obviously your top concern, sitting hunched over your computer typing away at a random internet nobody! (see all the assumptions I've made in that sentence?)

 

* Interferes with relationships and careers because, with the game imprinted so deep in the mind of the gamer, that’s all they can think about.

 

Addressed above- balance your life (healthy decision making which is an area of life independent from external form such as video games, as well as appropriate mental togetherness and health).

 

* Interferes with quality of sleep both because gamers tend to play late into the night and because the artificial light of the screens shining through the eyes catastrophically destroys the natural circadian rhythm.

 

Your generalizations show themselves again: "because some people play games in an unhealthy way, games are inherently unhealthy, rarrr!"

 

The downsides of addictive computer games so outnumber any of the meager benefits

 

The downsides which "outnumber" the "meager benefits" exist only within a small portion of the population which would have a problem regardless of the existence of computer games- if they instead got addicted to marbles, you'd be on a crusade against the anti taoist principles of marbles!

 

that it would hypocrisy and delusion for a Taoist cultivator to indulge in them.

 

I think you've indulged enough in your computer usage already. I'm sure you will develop arthritis from all the typing you've been doing, you'll develop shoulder tension from your poor posture, neck cramps which will stagnate chi flow to the upper centers, creating blockages and causing headaches. The eyestrain from having to read all the text will throw off your circadian rhythm, you won't be able to sleep. You'll also develop erectile dysfunction because hunching over the keyboard puts pressure on your crotch, squeezing the blood vessels, and causing them to rupture. Permanent damage to your man parts.

 

And what's the reason for this? All of your posting on TTB's!

 

TTB's is anti taoist, we should get rid of it! Any real taoist would NEVER be on TTB's! It's hypocrisy to call yourself a taoist, but then destroy your body and social life (which I didn't even get into about how bad it'd be destroyed because it's just so scary, I don't want to artificially stimulate my body by thinking about it) by being on TTB's!

 

[/sarcasm]

 

The point of that little run was to show you what happens when you apply your same logic to something else. And what happens? It's ridiculous!

 

I'm sure you have taken steps to ensure your TTB's activity is healthily balanced with the rest of your life. I'm sure you can find people who spend a lot more time on TTB's than you, and a lot less time than you. I'm sure some of them live healthy lives, and some of them live unhealthy lives. And guess what? TTB's (more than likely), has very little, if anything at all to do with that! The ones whose lives have been destroyed by TTB's activity are a vast minority, and the factors contributing to their degrading quality of life would have been there regardless of the existence of taobums.

 

Correlation does not imply causation!!!!!

Edited March 4, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Stigweard]

 

I have made my case and have provided all relevant support for it using my personal experience as a both a long-term cultivator and as someone who was once caught in the snare of computer game addiction. I have also provided specific research that highlights computer game addiction as significant issue especially for young males.

 

And you have provide your opinions which of course you are free to do.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

 

I have made my case and have provided all relevant support for it using my personal experience as a both a long-term cultivator and as someone who was once caught in the snare of computer game addiction. I have also provided specific research that highlights computer game addiction as significant issue especially for young males.

 

And you have provide your opinions which of course you are free to do.

 

 

Yeah I was pretty much going to bring this to a close as well.

 

Of all the things you could label as dangerous by default, I think video games are quite far from being one of them. Video games have definitely brought good things into my life, and I think that, like anything else, if you make good decisions, almost everyone can interact with them in a healthy, enjoyable way.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Mal]

Balance that's something I want to get into.

 

But I've spent 1h30min on TTB today and I want to go do some Tai Chi now, play a 2 person game with my partner this afternoon, if she has finished studying, and go out to dinner with my parents and do a bit of practice after that.

 

So I'll have to come back to this a bit later.

[RyanO]

This thread is interesting to me because I've had a sort of love/hate relationship with VG's. Here is a funny and relevant article on cracked that explains why video games are addictive:

 

http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html

 

I find myself agreeing with both Stig and Sloppy (and others) despite their differences. There are many different variables to this argument.

 

As an adolescent I spent probably too much time playing video games, the peak being around 1996 when I was twelve and some fantastic RPGs were coming out on the Playstation. Like Enishi, I played Final Fantasy VII, Xenogears, Chrono Trigger (SNES) and many others. My favorite game was Suikoden:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suikoden_(video_game)

 

This game is (very loosely) based on the classic Chinese story Water Margin. As such it has some Taoist themes, for instance your job is to recruit the 108 Stars of Destiny. It is very imaginative and I feel, like Sloppy, it did a lot to spark my creativity. Such video games fueled my childhood love of mythology and fantasy and my spiritual journey would not be complete without these experiences.

 

I am not trying to say these games were perfect or didn't have some of the telltale traits of addictive video games. But I do think they are far superior to a lot of modern games played over the internet. Such games are geared almost specifically to trigger the addictive cycle as in the article.

 

I was recently with my brother-in-law and he was playing Call of Duty, a first person shooter. I decided to see what the fuss was about (it's one of the highest selling games) so I picked it up (I have a PS3 and still occasionally play). And man, this game is like CRACK. Heart gets racing, and you get such a feeling of satisfaction from doing well (conversely get really pissed when you don't). It's almost like it's geared JUST to stimulate you in that way. My curiosity satisfied, I decided to quit playing this game because it serves no useful purpose. It almost feels like it forces you to go all or nothing. I think I went through withdrawal when I stopped playing!

 

It does kind of scare me that such games are so popular. Then again, society scares me in the same way because people are addicted to many things.

 

Anyhow, I do think video games have the potential to be worthwhile, but it seems to me that most games are made (especially today) to keep you addicted, just like the cracked article says.

Edited March 15, 2011 by RyanO

[Enishi]

Many of the games on the market now are far larger and more addictive than the ones which initially inspired me as a kid.

 

As much as I love Fallout 3, I will readily admit that it is EXTREMELY ADDICTING. The design of the game compells you to want to see and do EVERYTHING, and doing everything will take hundreds upon hundreds of hours. With such a massive amount of content, trying to limit oneself to 7 or less hours a week is incredibly difficult. Now, one one hand that game did inspire me in its own way and caused me to ponder issues of peak oil and civilizational collapse. However, out of the hundreds of hours I spent on it, only maybe 10-20 of those hours could be said to have genuinely expanded my wisdom, as opposed to just wasting time.

 

I've now taken up the habit of disconnecting my PS3 for weeks and storing it in inconvenient locations within the house to avoid going over my personally set limit of no more than 7 hours per week (less when busy with various projects).

 

MMORPGs are reportedly even worse, which is why I avoid them like the plague.

[RyanO]

Many of the games on the market now are far larger and more addictive than the ones which initially inspired me as a kid.

 

...

 

MMORPGs are reportedly even worse, which is why I avoid them like the plague.

 

Haha my feelings exactly. This is my post summarized in two succinct sentences.

[gendao]

I've had to put them down altogether, but that might also be because of lack of self control. I write software and LOVE writing bots for games, were it not for that I would probably never game. I played WoW, worked on both the Glider bot as well as Pocket Gnome (I soley wrote the 1.5 revision of PG). I crack out on it though and it's bad for me lol. I would play with 5 toons at once and loved being able to solo instances or dominate PvP, having the smallest richest guild was fun too lol. No self control though, it was all or nothing... I decided to save my ass and close all my accounts. As for any positive aspect, I can most certainly say that my time would be better spent on other things. As for recreation, sure it was fun recreation and we all need some of that, but now I resort to things like masting contact staff... just as entertaining and I'm gaining levels IRL lol.

Gaming actually runs counter to true spirituality.

 

True spirituality is about peeling back the illusive layers of the onion to find the true nature of reality - not adding more. It is about engagement and integration - not escapism.

 

So, gaming is just adding yet another VR layer to our societal matrix which is already a huge layer in itself. It's funny that people today cannot even handle this matrix level of VR and must escape into yet another one on top of it!

 

Pragmatically, this is just a huge waste of time for which you could be doing more productive things in the "real world." I don't care what level you get to in some game - it generally doesn't translate to anything outside of it. So congratulations on wasting your life.

[RyanO]

Gaming actually runs counter to true spirituality.

 

True spirituality is about peeling back the illusive layers of the onion to find the true nature of reality - not adding more. It is about engagement and integration - not escapism.

 

So, gaming is just adding yet another VR layer to our societal matrix which is already a huge layer in itself. It's funny that people today cannot even handle this matrix level of VR and must escape into yet another one on top of it!

 

Pragmatically, this is just a huge waste of time for which you could be doing more productive things in the "real world." I don't care what level you get to in some game - it generally doesn't translate to anything outside of it. So congratulations on wasting your life.

 

I sort of agree with you, but then again, I sort of don't. Would you put reading a good fiction book in the same category?