Listen to a baroness talk about video games....

[0roo0roo]

..

 

[HappyPuppy]

The real question is why would you believe that titles and an education would not make someone a blithering idiot.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
The real question is why would you believe that titles and an education would not make someone a blithering idiot.

i don't believe the two automatically go together..but this is still a jaw dropping level of stupidity to see from someone like that.

 

[magomago]

Wtf kind crack you smoking? I went through it all.....and I was expecting some old hag saying games is going to ruin our futures and lives and is hurting us...some kind of crap like we saw with Clinton and Lieberman but this time with 'sciiiennnceeee' backing her.
Surprisingly, she says none of that. She goes through and questions if our brain, which is extremely sensitive to external stimulus, can be affected by games as well. She says that all the crazy headlines written in the papers are headlines that she can't write (and this is very true: media twists and distorts much of scientific reporting). She admits that all she has is circumstantial evidence, however she believes it can be proven with some well designed tests, and she is willing to say easily that she has no problem if she is wrong.

Where does the blithering idiot part come from?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: magomago
Wtf kind crack you smoking? I went through it all.....and I was expecting some old hag saying games is going to ruin our futures and lives and is hurting us...some kind of crap like we saw with Clinton and Lieberman but this time with 'sciiiennnceeee' backing her.
Surprisingly, she says none of that. She goes through and questions if our brain, which is extremely sensitive to external stimulus, can be affected by games as well. She says that all the crazy headlines written in the papers are headlines that she can't write (and this is very true: media twists and distorts much of scientific reporting). She admits that all she has is circumstantial evidence, however she believes it can be proven with some well designed tests, and she is willing to say easily that she has no problem if she is wrong.

Where does the blithering idiot part come from?

you are easily fooled by a few sprinklings of science that are only very slightly related to her ridiculous opinion on video games. i guess you couldn't see through that smoke screen. if you make extraordinary claims using your credential and position to give yourself credibility you better be backing it up with some damn good proof. she had zip. only her assertions coming out her keester to be frank. the idea that video games have no consequences shows how fundamentally uninformed she is about the area. video games always punish players for not understanding the game play mechanic, games reward users for discovering how a game works. it is all about actions and consequences, and in a way that people can discover just by playing around. that is the fun in it, you figure out the game, its not much more than a gussied up puzzle. that nurturing this problem solving ability would lead kids to not understand reality is simply stupid.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.badscience.net/2009...-susan-greenfield-cbe/
...."There is much talk of the ?prefrontal cortex?. Regular readers will remember fascinating research from Yale in 2008 showing that the use of neurosciencey language can make an uninformative and circular argument appear more plausible to a lay audience. But do Greenfield?s ideas have substance beyond this? Let?s see.

?While a child who falls out of a tree will quickly learn not to repeat the mistake, someone who goes wrong on a computer game will just keep playing.? It seems to me that experimenting in a safe environment is one of the key, enduring, almost definitive features of all ?play?. Perhaps I am wrong and this is entirely new. Moving on. ?Computer use could be cutting attention spans, stifling imagination and hampering empathy, she said.? ?As a result, the parts of the brain involved in these traits will not develop properly.?

Neuroscienciness aside, again, with the best will in the world, this seems slightly foolish, simply because there are so many different things you could do with a computer, some of which would probably enhance attention span, imagination, and empathy.

In fact, those with long memories may be doubly confused here, because Professor Greenfield herself personally endorses a computer games product called MindFit, which is supposed to keep you clever. Greenfield launched this product ? using Baronial privilege ? two years ago in the House of Lords, to much media fanfare in the Times, Telegraph, BBC and more

MindFit?s games were supposed to exercise ?short-term memory, spatial memory, visual perception, scanning, divided attention, shifting, awareness, hand-eye coordination, time estimation, planning and inhibition.? So do lots of computer games and activities. When Which magazine investigated the company?s claims they were sent three studies. Two had basic design flaws, and one they reported as being well designed, with some positive results, but this had not been formally published.

?There is good evidence that some activities help maintain mental processes,? said Which, and I agree. ?But many of these are cheap or even free, such as getting regular physical exercise, eating healthily and having an active social life.? Baroness Greenfield?s personally endorsed product, MindFit, costs £88. That?s quite a lot of money.".....

don't be so easily led magomago...

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: magomago
Wtf kind crack you smoking? I went through it all.....and I was expecting some old hag saying games is going to ruin our futures and lives and is hurting us...some kind of crap like we saw with Clinton and Lieberman but this time with 'sciiiennnceeee' backing her.
Surprisingly, she says none of that. She goes through and questions if our brain, which is extremely sensitive to external stimulus, can be affected by games as well. She says that all the crazy headlines written in the papers are headlines that she can't write (and this is very true: media twists and distorts much of scientific reporting). She admits that all she has is circumstantial evidence, however she believes it can be proven with some well designed tests, and she is willing to say easily that she has no problem if she is wrong.

Where does the blithering idiot part come from?

you are easily fooled by a few sprinklings of science that are only very slightly related to her ridiculous opinion on video games. i guess you couldn't see through that smoke screen. if you make extraordinary claims using your credential and position to give yourself credibility you better be backing it up with some damn good proof. she had zip. only her assertions coming out her keester to be frank. the idea that video games have no consequences shows how fundamentally uninformed she is about the area. video games always punish players for not understanding the game play mechanic, games reward users for discovering how a game works. it is all about actions and consequences, and in a way that people can discover just by playing around. that is the fun in it, you figure out the game, its not much more than a gussied up puzzle. that nurturing this problem solving ability would lead kids to not understand reality is simply stupid.

lol holy crap put down the bong dude for a second. She said in that clearly that she has no evidence or proof, and its all circumstantial at this point. I did not hear her say that she had peer reviewed evidence or papers published that support exactly what she thinks is going on. She was confident that some tests could be designed to prove what she wanted, and if her IDEAS (not evidence or proof) are wrong then she is absolutely fine with that.
I'm not being tricked - I plainly listened to the words and took out what she said. I never said I fully agree, I never said I fully disagree, but it certainly isn't along the lines of what your post initially led me to believe...and that saddens me because i was expecting some good entertainment

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: magomago
Wtf kind crack you smoking? I went through it all.....and I was expecting some old hag saying games is going to ruin our futures and lives and is hurting us...some kind of crap like we saw with Clinton and Lieberman but this time with 'sciiiennnceeee' backing her.
Surprisingly, she says none of that. She goes through and questions if our brain, which is extremely sensitive to external stimulus, can be affected by games as well. She says that all the crazy headlines written in the papers are headlines that she can't write (and this is very true: media twists and distorts much of scientific reporting). She admits that all she has is circumstantial evidence, however she believes it can be proven with some well designed tests, and she is willing to say easily that she has no problem if she is wrong.

Where does the blithering idiot part come from?

you are easily fooled by a few sprinklings of science that are only very slightly related to her ridiculous opinion on video games. i guess you couldn't see through that smoke screen. if you make extraordinary claims using your credential and position to give yourself credibility you better be backing it up with some damn good proof. she had zip. only her assertions coming out her keester to be frank. the idea that video games have no consequences shows how fundamentally uninformed she is about the area. video games always punish players for not understanding the game play mechanic, games reward users for discovering how a game works. it is all about actions and consequences, and in a way that people can discover just by playing around. that is the fun in it, you figure out the game, its not much more than a gussied up puzzle. that nurturing this problem solving ability would lead kids to not understand reality is simply stupid.

lol holy crap put down the bong dude for a second. She said in that clearly that she has no evidence or proof, and its all circumstantial at this point. I did not hear her say that she had peer reviewed evidence or papers published that support exactly what she thinks is going on. She was confident that some tests could be designed to prove what she wanted, and if her IDEAS (not evidence or proof) are wrong then she is absolutely fine with that.
I'm not being tricked - I plainly listened to the words and took out what she said. I never said I fully agree, I never said I fully disagree, but it certainly isn't along the lines of what your post initially led me to believe...and that saddens me because i was expecting some good entertainment

you can't have it both ways when you hold that position though, esp in public and in that capacity, esp when you repeatedly go into the public touting your extraordinary claims. she did the basic dance around the issue and covered her ass in the same way that all pseudo scientific pr people do when they dance around the science to push their claims. whatever lipservice she gave to science did not match with her opinions which are appallingly simplistic once you strip away the bullsh*t.

yea she's not as blatant as jack thompson, shes probably more dangerous since she holds credentials/titles and a relatively prestigious position. either way its galling.

heres a break down of her position that social websites damage children.
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1197
"Professor Susan Greenfield is the head of the Royal Institution and the person behind the Daily Mail headline "Social websites harm children?s brains: Chilling warning to parents from top neuroscientist?, which has spread around the world (like the last time she said it, and the time before that).

It is my view that Professor Greenfield has been abusing her position as a professor, and head of the Royal Institution, for many years now, using these roles to give weight to her speculations and prejudices in a way that is entirely inappropriate. [?]

We are all free to have fanciful ideas. Professor Greenfield?s stated aim, however, is to improve the public?s understanding of science: and yet repeatedly she appears in the media making wild headline-grabbing claims, without evidence, all the while telling us repeatedly that she is a scientist. By doing this, the head of the RI grossly misrepresents what it is that scientists do, and indeed the whole notion of what it means to have empirical evidence for a claim. It makes me quite sad, when the public?s understanding of science is in such a terrible state, that this is one of our most prominent and well funded champions.Professor Susan Greenfield is the head of the Royal Institution and the person behind the Daily Mail headline "Social websites harm children?s brains: Chilling warning to parents from top neuroscientist?, which has spread around the world (like the last time she said it, and the time before that).

It is my view that Professor Greenfield has been abusing her position as a professor, and head of the Royal Institution, for many years now, using these roles to give weight to her speculations and prejudices in a way that is entirely inappropriate. [?]

We are all free to have fanciful ideas. Professor Greenfield?s stated aim, however, is to improve the public?s understanding of science: and yet repeatedly she appears in the media making wild headline-grabbing claims, without evidence, all the while telling us repeatedly that she is a scientist. By doing this, the head of the RI grossly misrepresents what it is that scientists do, and indeed the whole notion of what it means to have empirical evidence for a claim. It makes me quite sad, when the public?s understanding of science is in such a terrible state, that this is one of our most prominent and well funded champions."