Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

doctoreldritch t1_iwzwx2r wrote

Before anybody reports this for violating comment rule 4: they really didn't control for socioeconomic status beyond "food poverty," as this was less of a study and more of a data dredge performed on existing survey data.


Awkward_and_Itchy t1_ix04ot3 wrote

Sorry I'm dumb but this means they basically sifted through existing data to draw conclusions instead of making a study to gather fresh data?


AngelKitty47 t1_ix068ny wrote

yes its done all the time


Awkward_and_Itchy t1_ix06d3s wrote

It makes sense i suppose. We can learn lots from data but it does have blind spots like not controlling for socio-economic backgrounds.


PriorTable8265 t1_ix06js1 wrote

It's easier to get funding for a new study if you have existing data to back up your assumption.


apartsell95 t1_ix14i9s wrote

It also allows for further studies to be made with the sole purpose of including those blind spots that were found in the previous ones, it's like adding Lego blocks together one by one without realizing you're actually building the Millennium Falcon.


CircularRobert t1_ix2hr3d wrote

Or like you knew you want to build the millennium falcon, but your wife won't greenlight the big purchase, so you built a mini version, then a little diorama, then start to kitbash one together, until she sees you're actually serious about it, and then she approves the funding for the thing you actually wanted.


standard_candles t1_ix2fb02 wrote

Also you don't need/or need a new approval to do human subject research


routerg0d t1_ix0ygn0 wrote

They troll through data all the time to find trends. Some alternative medicine treatments come from such data hunts. If they find that people taking X but also have Y and it causes Y to be less of an issue even though X was for another condition the medicine is clearly impacting Y as well. So then a proper study on the medicine is done against Y.


Drink_in_Philly t1_ix4gc1s wrote

Also, people who can escape the stresses of life by hiding in videogames where they don't have to deal with their problems and life's challenges would seem happier, at this time and in a snapshot. But as life goes on, hiding from your issues and escapism in general can lead to much worse problems down the road.


doctoreldritch t1_ix4kef8 wrote

Eh, imo this perspective is overblown and a symptom of societal dysfunction. Kids playing games is not escapism, it's (socially) normal behavior and (evolutionarily) a safe way to learn and practice basic skills (motor coordination, hand-eye coordination, basic logic, etc).

The quality of the specific games they play should be under scrutiny, certainly--most mobile games for example don't teach anything beyond addictive compulsions--and they should be accompanied by physical play behaviors as well (eg sports), but there's nothing inherently wrong with even fairly heavy gaming.

Plus, leisure is an important facet of human psychology and you could conversely argue that gamers are more happy simply because any leisure activity improves mental well-being. You might even argue further that these leisure activities are especially critical during childhood, because the minor dysfunctions of having no leisure time compound throughout childhood and produce a very dysfunctional adult. Top this all of with the fact that the most antisocial thing any child can do by definition is simply to not fit in, and consider the fact that gaming is an extremely popular leisure activity.

My point here of course is not that gaming should be especially encouraged or anything, but that human psychology is not simple and children are not made of glass, so until the science is in on the lifetime harm/benefit ratio, parents should drop the hubris and focus on gaming (or whatever else the kids enjoy doing) with their kids (even if that sometimes just means watching them fall off the same ledge 500 times in a row).