Do You Consider Yourself Eccentric?

[irinmisfit92]

I think a lot of people here regard me as being weird, different, eccentric, rebellious, perverted and unrefined sometimes in my speeches, etc. I wonder whether you guys feel the same way. I do feel I'm different and sometimes I'm kind of sad about it, looking at how I don't really fit in especially at school and I find it hard to find people whom I can talk to about my interests, but sometimes I feel kind of special.

I don't mean any offense but I realised that many people who like literature may be a bit eccentric sometimes. It's really fun having those kinds of people around.

[Paulclem]

I think lots of people feel the same way, and there are innumerable reasons for it - intellectual, financial, class, caste, disability, impairments, psychology, estrangement, loneliness, geograpical proximity, race, accent, employment, mindset, religion...

Eccentricity might be more normal than not.

[Delta40]

Embrace your uniquness. Love it and be who you are. To do otherwise is to cheat yourself IMHO. I struggled for years as a young person with epilepsy and what a 'flaw' it was in my personality. Sounds so ridiculous now. Not everybody is a fitter and turner! I guess that is what I like about getting old. I discover things anew.

[Emil Miller]

Embrace your uniquness. Love it and be who you are. To do otherwise is to cheat yourself IMHO. I struggled for years as a young person with epilepsy and what a 'flaw' it was in my personality. Sounds so ridiculous now. Not everybody is a fitter and turner! I guess that is what I like about getting old. I discover things anew.

The only real advantage in getting old is that each day you are nearer to the point where it will no longer matter.

[Delta40]

The only real advantage in getting old is that each day you are nearer to the point where it will no longer matter.

It's like the feeling you get after unhooking a too tight bra at the end of a long, hot day!

[Alexander III]

I have to agree with Paul. Being eccentric is rather normal. The un-eccentric ones are the abnormal ones.

[Delta40]

Eccentric: adj.
1. Departing from a recognized, conventional, or established norm or pattern. See Synonyms at strange.
2. Deviating from a circular form or path, as in an elliptical orbit.
3.
a. Not situated at or in the geometric center.
b. Having the axis located elsewhere than at the geometric center.
n.
1. One that deviates markedly from an established norm, especially a person of odd or unconventional behavior.
2. Physics A disk or wheel having its axis of revolution displaced from its center so that it is capable of imparting reciprocating motion.

[Emil Miller]

It's like the feeling you get after unhooking a too tight bra at the end of a long, hot day!

I can honestly say that I have never experienced that kind of intimation of mortality, but Y front pants are a constant reminder of advancing years and their inevitable outcome.

[tailor STATELY]

Given that I revel in different circles than most and am effected less by perturbation - yes, I believe I am mildly eccentric.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Vonny]

The only real advantage in getting old is that each day you are nearer to the point where it will no longer matter.

But at that point you don't have to do things for any reason or because you have to. You can do things just because you want to.

[Emil Miller]

But at that point you don't have to do things for any reason or because you have to. You can do things just because you want to.

Absolutely, but the time in which we have to do them is obviously circumscribed.

[Brett Cottrell]

Let's see. I'm an attorney with a sense of humor; I wear suits with deep purple cowboy boots; once a year I grow a handle bar mustache that robs thousands of bees of their wax. That should qualify me as eccentric.

Oh, and for good measure I wrote a novel with a protagonist named "Insanity."

[Maximilianus]

I think a lot of people here regard me as being weird, different, eccentric, rebellious, perverted and unrefined sometimes in my speeches, etc. I wonder whether you guys feel the same way. I do feel I'm different and sometimes I'm kind of sad about it, looking at how I don't really fit in especially at school and I find it hard to find people whom I can talk to about my interests, but sometimes I feel kind of special.

I don't mean any offense but I realised that many people who like literature may be a bit eccentric sometimes. It's really fun having those kinds of people around.
I don't fit anywhere very well either, and I've been called some of those names too, but now I am okay with it and don't care anymore. One has to reach a point of self-acceptance, and maybe look for similar people if you really need some company. But if you don't find anyone, don't worry much and stop looking. Sometimes when you stop looking for something, the something you need may show up on its own.


Embrace your uniquness. Love it and be who you are. To do otherwise is to cheat yourself IMHO. I struggled for years as a young person with epilepsy and what a 'flaw' it was in my personality. Sounds so ridiculous now. Not everybody is a fitter and turner! I guess that is what I like about getting old. I discover things anew.
Good advice!


Eccentric: adj.
1. Departing from a recognized, conventional, or established norm or pattern. See Synonyms at strange.
2. Deviating from a circular form or path, as in an elliptical orbit.
3.
a. Not situated at or in the geometric center.
b. Having the axis located elsewhere than at the geometric center.
n.
1. One that deviates markedly from an established norm, especially a person of odd or unconventional behavior.
2. Physics A disk or wheel having its axis of revolution displaced from its center so that it is capable of imparting reciprocating motion.
That's me in there, noun number one :)

[papayahed]

I think a lot of people here regard me as being weird, different, eccentric, rebellious, perverted and unrefined sometimes in my speeches, etc. I wonder whether you guys feel the same way. I do feel I'm different and sometimes I'm kind of sad about it, looking at how I don't really fit in especially at school and I find it hard to find people whom I can talk to about my interests, but sometimes I feel kind of special.


Your screen name contains the word "misfit". That's a pretty clear indication of how you want to present yourself. I'm not saying we wouldn't have thought you were weird or different if your screen name was "NormalNancy" but you've stacked the deck in the opposite direction.

[Helga]

in my experience it's the people who keep saying they are weird or eccentric are the ones who are more "normal". we all probably have eccentric parts (some more than others) but to me this is just another stamp you put on yourself and act like it true. you are who you are with no stamps to explain it.

[OrphanPip]

I'm pretty boring, I don't think of myself as particularly eccentric. I'm just maladjusted.

[Emil Miller]

I don't mean any offense but I realised that many people who like literature may be a bit eccentric sometimes.

I don't know why people who are often described as 'bookish' are also condidered eccentric by non literary types but it seems to be true.
Here is an extract from my most recent book:

Why was he fated to become a bibliophile rather than some other member of the cognoscenti? His interest might have turned towards painting or even something as esoteric as heraldry; anything would have been better than literature. Looking back, he found the hold that books had over some of the people he’d come into contact with was little short of incredible. Some of them spent practically all of their time reading and building up collections of thousands of books. Others would spend a lifetime in search of obscure works by equally obscure authors in order to possess something that was unattainable but also unwanted by anybody else.
What was it about the printed word that held them in thrall? It usually began in childhood when the alchemy of rearranging the letters of the alphabet into recognisable objects opened a whole new world that was different for each individual. It was a magic that usually waned with familiarity but for some it never lost its power to entrance. Just as the thirty-two pieces on a chessboard could be utilised to infinity, so were the boundaries of the written word limitless.

[Vonny]

I don't know why people who are often described as 'bookish' are also condidered eccentric by non literary types but it seems to be true.
Here is an extract from my most recent book:

Why was he fated to become a bibliophile rather than some other member of the cognoscenti? His interest might have turned towards painting or even something as esoteric as heraldry; anything would have been better than literature. Looking back, he found the hold that books had over some of the people he’d come into contact with was little short of incredible. Some of them spent practically all of their time reading and building up collections of thousands of books. Others would spend a lifetime in search of obscure works by equally obscure authors in order to possess something that was unattainable but also unwanted by anybody else.
What was it about the printed word that held them in thrall? It usually began in childhood when the alchemy of rearranging the letters of the alphabet into recognisable objects opened a whole new world that was different for each individual. It was a magic that usually waned with familiarity but for some it never lost its power to entrance. Just as the thirty-two pieces on a chessboard could be utilised to infinity, so were the boundaries of the written word limitless.

That's an interesting passage. In the coming generations, there will be a small number of "eccentrics" who read and then the masses. It's already that way, but the line will be more sharply drawn.

So many children now only play video games and it's going to affect their brain development.

There's a lot of talk about "people today" and "people back then" and I may be the only one who thinks the groups are different, but I think there will be an even more noticeable difference in "people tomorrow."

I've never played video games but I think that whatever possibilities that are allowed for creativity are built in by the programmer, so that no matter how "imaginative" the game appears, there are constraints built into it. The participant is always selecting from some sort of menu. In contrast, if a child is given building blocks or crayons - these kinds of toys allow for limitless possibilities, and allow the child's creativity to develop, in the same way that words allow for endless possibilities.

Increasingly, anyone who can think independently and abstractly, is going to be "different." In my country, it will be the more wealthy who can afford quality education, and human teachers for their children rather than being taught from something on a screen or some type of robot. And it will be the more elite and wealthy children who will be encouraged to read. Propaganda and advertising, which disseminates in the form of "peer pressure" will always dominate the underclass of consumer children and tell them that it's "cool" to play video games and uncool to read. Society wants the underclass to have those programmed minds.

[OrphanPip]

Well video games and reading are not mutually exclusive pursuits, one can play video games and still have time to read. And studies show that certain video games are actually quite good at improving problem solving skills and hand, eye coordination in children.

Also, I recall a report on the CBC not too long ago saying that children and youth book sales accounted for close to 40% of the booksales in Canada, suggesting that children are actually more likely to read these days than adults. And, let's be honest, the vast majority of the publishing industry caters to largely middle class consumers of genre literature, there's not much more going on in those books intellectually than what can be gained from certain video games.

Moreover, considering that I received my education in the sciences, I know a lot of very clever people who haven't read anything other than text books since high school.

[Vonny]

OrphanPip, I speak as an American. I know it's different in Iceland, and no doubt in Canada.

Everyone does need to be able to use computers, and I'm sure there are benefits to computer games. Anything (other than methamphetamine) is fine in moderation.

I know, also, that most of the reading that does go on among people of all ages is not the kind that does much to develop the mind. There is a lot of reading that goes on on forums, for example, but it is not the kind that really develops the attention span because we are reading "blurbs" here and there.

I just know parents who tell me that all their kids want to do is stare at a screen. They compete for video game scores against other kids and they are obsessed with this. The kids don't want to go outside to play or do anything that is simply intrinsically rewarding.

Even now, it is the children who go to private schools who are introduced to Shakespeare and great literature in a way that engages them. The less advantaged kids believe that Shakespeare is stupid.

Of course there are clever people who study science and aren't interested in Shakespeare. My brother is very intelligent and he reads mostly technical and nonfiction material.

But I think a few years down the road the majority of people, the "non-eccentric", won't be able to spell, or write a complete sentence, and they will probably struggle to read and copy from Sparks Notes.

[papayahed]

I know, also, that most of the reading that does go on among people of all ages is not the kind that does much to develop the mind. There is a lot of reading that goes on on forums, for example, but it is not the kind that really develops the attention span because we are reading "blurbs" here and there.


How do you know this? Is there some study or source you can give a link to?

[Vonny]

How do you know this? Is there some study or source you can give a link to?



I said it in the spirit of "chat". Do I need to provide a supporting document?


Edit: I can probably get a link to some study when I see my psychiatrist the next time, if you want it.

Actually, I simply interjected that statement to build on something OrphanPip had mentioned.


And, let's be honest, the vast majority of the publishing industry caters to largely middle class consumers of genre literature, there's not much more going on in those books intellectually than what can be gained from certain video games.


So no, at this time, I do not have proof of my statement.

[JuniperWoolf]

As an intense gamer, an avid reader and a former student of psychology, I can tell you that Vonny is 100% wrong. I was taught in my very first year that kids who were introduced to video games at a young age develop logic and reading skills sooner than those who never played. Zelda, one of the oldest console games and the one that I played most as a kid, is practically one big problem solving exercise. RPGs taught me how to read. As for quality, you can't speculate because you wouldn't know anything about the content of games if you don't play them. When I started reading H.P. Lovecraft in my twenties, I recognized many references and ideas that I first encountered in Fable 2. World of Warcraft is brimming with literary allusions, compiling a list would take forever.

Here (http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Broken-Games-Better-Change/dp/1594202850)'s a mainstream book written in a nice reader-friendly style for the laymen by researcher Jane McGonigal that further expands on these points (and Vonny, she's American).

Also, I'd just like to add, that gamers aren't pasty fat boys living off of cheetos in their mother's basements. Every gamer I know has multiple hobbies. As many of you know, I also hike, play tennis, occasionally interact with my peers and have a blackbelt in taekwondo, I just happen to enjoy video games. They're fun and stimulating, they're just a hybrid of puzzles and books in a digital format. Try to have an open mind.

[MarkBastable]

I'd rather my kids played a well-designed video game than read a badly-written book.

As to eccentrics, I've met quite a few really eccentric people, and none of them thought they were in the least eccentric. I'd suggest that's just about the only common characteristic of eccentrics: they don't know they are.

[Brett Cottrell]

I'd suggest that's just about the only common characteristic of eccentrics: they don't know they are.

Well, that's probably true. But after nearly forty years of being called eccentric (I'll assume people called me that when I was a toddler), I just run with it.

But I suppose that eccentric depends on context. My high school eccentricity in Boise, Idaho, probably would have been simply another punk rock kid in NYC. And in my current neighborhood in Washington, DC, (Dupont/Logan area) eccentric is such the norm that the norm is eccentric.

So would that make me normal? Hmmm. Depends on context. Nobody who has read anything I've ever written has called me anything resembling normal. And I run with it...

[cl154576]

Some people like to call themselves "weird" or "crazy" because they think it means they're unique.

[Vonny]

Well, that's probably true. But after nearly forty years of being called eccentric (I'll assume people called me that when I was a toddler), I just run with it.

But I suppose that eccentric depends on context. My high school eccentricity in Boise, Idaho, probably would have been simply another punk rock kid in NYC. And in my current neighborhood in Washington, DC, (Dupont/Logan area) eccentric is such the norm that the norm is eccentric.

So would that make me normal? Hmmm. Depends on context. Nobody who has read anything I've ever written has called me anything resembling normal. And I run with it...


In Idaho you were most definitely eccentric! :yesnod:

Edit: Oh wait, I don't know you, I know someone will call me down.




I can tell you that Vonny is 100% wrong


I'd just like to add, that gamers aren't pasty fat boys living off of cheetos in their mother's basements.

I'm sure relieved to know that this is a myth.


Try to have an open mind.

Okay, just remember to let me know when I'm wrong, so I can adjust my thinking.
:blush2:

[JuniperWoolf]

Okay, just remember to let me know when I'm wrong, so I can adjust my thinking.


Don't worry, arguing against blind assumptions is kind of a hobby of mine.

[Vonny]

Don't worry, arguing against blind assumptions is kind of a hobby of mine.

It must be wonderful to see so clearly.

[Emil Miller]

That's an interesting passage. In the coming generations, there will be a small number of "eccentrics" who read and then the masses. It's already that way, but the line will be more sharply drawn.

So many children now only play video games and it's going to affect their brain development.

There's a lot of talk about "people today" and "people back then" and I may be the only one who thinks the groups are different, but I think there will be an even more noticeable difference in "people tomorrow."

I've never played video games but I think that whatever possibilities that are allowed for creativity are built in by the programmer, so that no matter how "imaginative" the game appears, there are constraints built into it. The participant is always selecting from some sort of menu. In contrast, if a child is given building blocks or crayons - these kinds of toys allow for limitless possibilities, and allow the child's creativity to develop, in the same way that words allow for endless possibilities.

Increasingly, anyone who can think independently and abstractly, is going to be "different." In my country, it will be the more wealthy who can afford quality education, and human teachers for their children rather than being taught from something on a screen or some type of robot. And it will be the more elite and wealthy children who will be encouraged to read. Propaganda and advertising, which disseminates in the form of "peer pressure" will always dominate the underclass of consumer children and tell them that it's "cool" to play video games and uncool to read. Society wants the underclass to have those programmed minds.

You raise some interesting points. Recently, I was reading an article by an American psychologist on the pros and cons of the digital revolution's impact on people's education. One of its conclusions is that people react more quickly to what they see on their computer screens than if they were reading from a hard copy, but tests carried out later on both children and adults showed that their attention span lessened as a result; often leading to a superficial assessment of what they were reading. This corresponds to what you have written regarding how, not only children, but also the brains of adults can be affected.
Currently, there is an argument raging in France about the increased digitalisation of education at the expense of traditional methods of teaching. Some teachers feel deracinated by the increasing encroachment of the computer and its either/or with little or no space for maybe: it's an interesting viewpoint.
Your assertion that society wants an underclass with programmed minds depends on what is meant by society. If you mean a political elite, you may be right but, on the other hand, if you mean a corporate elite, you are most certainly right, for how can it sell its products at maximum profit unless its customer base is conditioned to accept what it is told to buy? Individual thought is the enemy of the corporation and vice versa.

[papayahed]

I said it in the spirit of "chat". Do I need to provide a supporting document?


Edit: I can probably get a link to some study when I see my psychiatrist the next time, if you want it.

Actually, I simply interjected that statement to build on something OrphanPip had mentioned.

So no, at this time, I do not have proof of my statement.

Sorry, I must have misread your post.

[Vonny]

Sorry, I must have misread your post.

Just curious, what did you mistakenly read in my post? I wish I knew.

[irinmisfit92]

I don't fit anywhere very well either, and I've been called some of those names too, but now I am okay with it and don't care anymore. One has to reach a point of self-acceptance, and maybe look for similar people if you really need some company. But if you don't find anyone, don't worry much and stop looking. Sometimes when you stop looking for something, the something you need may show up on its own.


Good advice!


That's me in there, noun number one :)

Well I suppose it's not like I'm entirely against my eccentricity; just that I get really annoyed and lonely sometimes when I'm considered a shadow or a nuisance because seeing me is just weird.

Nah, things don't really come to me. At least the things I want don't.

[Alexander III]

Also how would you define eccentric, do you mean "weird" or rather "outside norm"?

There is a big difference.

Weird is someone who people see and think this man has a starnge mind or he is crazy. A weird man invokes ridicule and curiosity and pity.

Outside of norm on the other hand is different. I spend more on clothes and partying and recreational drugs a month than most fellows student spend on rent. I enjoy the company of fellow female students and prostitutes in a casual manner equally. I read a lot of poetry and philosophy and history compared to most students (well almost everyone who isn't a fellow lit major). I attend Oxford. I live in various countries during the year and have traveled the world extensively. In my student house me and my housemates have a Jacuzzi and a mercedes and porsche in the garage.

These things are all out of the norm - but not weird.

So if you define eccentric as weird I am not, If you define it as out of the norm I am.

Of course all the things I mentioned are external components of my existence rather than internal - so is one eccentric because of his external components (car, house, clothes ect.) or due to internal components (personality, way of thinking) ?

[irinmisfit92]

Your screen name contains the word "misfit". That's a pretty clear indication of how you want to present yourself. I'm not saying we wouldn't have thought you were weird or different if your screen name was "NormalNancy" but you've stacked the deck in the opposite direction.

I was pretty much inspired by the British series Misfits and I find myself to be one too so I decided to include it in my username because I've always used "irin92" in all of my website usernames and it's boring.

I suppose I do, but not everyone who's eccentric has gone through what I have.


in my experience it's the people who keep saying they are weird or eccentric are the ones who are more "normal". we all probably have eccentric parts (some more than others) but to me this is just another stamp you put on yourself and act like it true. you are who you are with no stamps to explain it.

I dunno there's always a stamp for everything in my opinion. Anyway how do you feel about yourself? I'm confused because everyone's talking about eccentric in an intelligent way and not talking about how they feel instead.


I don't know why people who are often described as 'bookish' are also condidered eccentric by non literary types but it seems to be true.
Here is an extract from my most recent book:

Why was he fated to become a bibliophile rather than some other member of the cognoscenti? His interest might have turned towards painting or even something as esoteric as heraldry; anything would have been better than literature. Looking back, he found the hold that books had over some of the people he’d come into contact with was little short of incredible. Some of them spent practically all of their time reading and building up collections of thousands of books. Others would spend a lifetime in search of obscure works by equally obscure authors in order to possess something that was unattainable but also unwanted by anybody else.
What was it about the printed word that held them in thrall? It usually began in childhood when the alchemy of rearranging the letters of the alphabet into recognisable objects opened a whole new world that was different for each individual. It was a magic that usually waned with familiarity but for some it never lost its power to entrance. Just as the thirty-two pieces on a chessboard could be utilised to infinity, so were the boundaries of the written word limitless.

That's very interesting. I realised that my interest in movies came first - then books came afterwards.


As an intense gamer, an avid reader and a former student of psychology, I can tell you that Vonny is 100% wrong. I was taught in my very first year that kids who were introduced to video games at a young age develop logic and reading skills sooner than those who never played. Zelda, one of the oldest console games and the one that I played most as a kid, is practically one big problem solving exercise. RPGs taught me how to read. As for quality, you can't speculate because you wouldn't know anything about the content of games if you don't play them. When I started reading H.P. Lovecraft in my twenties, I recognized many references and ideas that I first encountered in Fable 2. World of Warcraft is brimming with literary allusions, compiling a list would take forever.

Here (http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Broken-Games-Better-Change/dp/1594202850)'s a mainstream book written in a nice reader-friendly style for the laymen by researcher Jane McGonigal that further expands on these points (and Vonny, she's American).

Also, I'd just like to add, that gamers aren't pasty fat boys living off of cheetos in their mother's basements. Every gamer I know has multiple hobbies. As many of you know, I also hike, play tennis, occasionally interact with my peers and have a blackbelt in taekwondo, I just happen to enjoy video games. They're fun and stimulating, they're just a hybrid of puzzles and books in a digital format. Try to have an open mind.

I have to agree with your argument. I live in a dorm where everyone obtained a scholarship to study in this country. Most of the guys who play World of Warcraft almost every single day are really smart; and they actually discuss how to win the battles through strategy.

Sims really helped me to learn more English vocabulary, because in Indonesia the English taught in schools generally use very simple vocabs and therefore I learned A LOT from games and movies. This is especially true for movies which may seem passive at first but actually it broadens up your mind. I feel that a lot of people who are into gaming may also end up being programmers themselves, which is a very interesting and lucrative job.


Also how would you define eccentric, do you mean "weird" or rather "outside norm"?

There is a big difference.

Weird is someone who people see and think this man has a starnge mind or he is crazy. A weird man invokes ridicule and curiosity and pity.

Outside of norm on the other hand is different. I spend more on clothes and partying and recreational drugs a month than most fellows student spend on rent. I enjoy the company of fellow female students and prostitutes in a casual manner equally. I read a lot of poetry and philosophy and history compared to most students (well almost everyone who isn't a fellow lit major). I attend Oxford. I live in various countries during the year and have traveled the world extensively. In my student house me and my housemates have a Jacuzzi and a mercedes and porsche in the garage.

These things are all out of the norm - but not weird.

So if you define eccentric as weird I am not, If you define it as out of the norm I am.

Of course all the things I mentioned are external components of my existence rather than internal - so is one eccentric because of his external components (car, house, clothes ect.) or due to internal components (personality, way of thinking) ?

I define it more as a "out of the norm" thing. Well it sounds like you're really wealthy; it's interesting to note that some rich kids really don't behave like the stereotypical rich kid in my dorm. One of the girls is very conservative it drives me crazy sometimes. Another guy is a self-proclaimed ******* whom I can call one of the people I can really talk to around here (who loves partying and just got drunk recently).

[papayahed]

OrphanPip, I speak as an American. I know it's different in Iceland, and no doubt in Canada.

Everyone does need to be able to use computers, and I'm sure there are benefits to computer games. Anything (other than methamphetamine) is fine in moderation.

I know, also, that most of the reading that does go on among people of all ages is not the kind that does much to develop the mind. There is a lot of reading that goes on on forums, for example, but it is not the kind that really develops the attention span because we are reading "blurbs" here and there.

I just know parents who tell me that all their kids want to do is stare at a screen. They compete for video game scores against other kids and they are obsessed with this. The kids don't want to go outside to play or do anything that is simply intrinsically rewarding.

Even now, it is the children who go to private schools who are introduced to Shakespeare and great literature in a way that engages them. The less advantaged kids believe that Shakespeare is stupid.

Of course there are clever people who study science and aren't interested in Shakespeare. My brother is very intelligent and he reads mostly technical and nonfiction material.

But I think a few years down the road the majority of people, the "non-eccentric", won't be able to spell, or write a complete sentence, and they will probably struggle to read and copy from Sparks Notes.


Just curious, what did you mistakenly read in my post? I wish I knew.

I mistook the bolded statement. I thought you were making a statement of fact rather then an opinion.

[Vonny]

Thank you for the reply.

Yeah, when I said "I know" it was just my way of speaking, just a preface...and it's just my opinion that reading celebrity magazines, etc., does little to improve the mind in the same way that most of the video games do little to improve the mind, and may even stunt development. There are probably studies to support my opinion, (as studies can be found to support almost any opinion), but I don't really have time to locate and provide them.

[MarkBastable]

... it's just my opinion that ... most of the video games do little to improve the mind, and may even stunt development...



So what are the last five video games you played?

[Vonny]

So what are the last five video games you played?

If you read above you'll see that I've never played one, so my mental disability is caused from other factors. I had lead poisoning as a child because I lived in a very old house that had a very old chipped bathtub and no shower.


I'll quote myself here:



I've never played video games but I think that whatever possibilities that are allowed for creativity are built in by the programmer, so that no matter how "imaginative" the game appears, there are constraints built into it. The participant is always selecting from some sort of menu. In contrast, if a child is given building blocks or crayons - these kinds of toys allow for limitless possibilities, and allow the child's creativity to develop, in the same way that words allow for endless possibilities.

[MarkBastable]

If you read above you'll see that I've never played one

The implication of the question was that, as you haven't played any, it's difficult to gauge how much weight your opinion carries.

[OrphanPip]

Games are not by their nature passive, some are of course, but many require actively engaging with them. Think of one of the oldest games we have in the West, chess. It is obvious to anyone who has played chess that it takes effort and smarts to play it well, and many video games require similar intellectual faculties.

Video games come in diverse forms, while I see little benefit besides fun (which is validation enough for use in moderation) of a game like Halo. However, there are still the social aspects and it forces a player to think of strategy to play it well.

[Emil Miller]

Thank you for the reply.

Yeah, when I said "I know" it was just my way of speaking, just a preface...and it's just my opinion that reading celebrity magazines, etc., does little to improve the mind in the same way that most of the video games do little to improve the mind, and may even stunt development. There are probably studies to support my opinion, (as studies can be found to support almost any opinion), but I don't really have time to locate and provide them.

Vonny,

If you google 'The effects of video games on the brain,' you will see a host of studies suggesting that they are either good or, conversely, bad more or less in equal measure. So, if you believe those that say they are bad, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. There is a fascinating study carried out in Japan with a wide sample of children that shows that a frontal part of the brain that is normally in use for general perception, atrophies in those who played games for 3-7 hours each day.

[OrphanPip]

Vonny,

If you google 'The effects of video games on the brain,' you will see a host of studies suggesting that they are either good or, conversely, bad more or less in equal measure. So, if you believe those that say they are bad, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. There is a fascinating study carried out in Japan with a wide sample of children that shows that a frontal part of the brain that is normally in use for general perception, atrophies in those who played games for 3-7 hours each day.

Well I'd caution against that argument. All research is not created equal, to really come to a nuanced understanding of the available research we'd have to look in depth at all the studies and perform some kind of meta-analysis, to see if some meaningful trend emerges.

No one would suggest that video game addiction is good for you, or that you should spend more time playing video games than doing sports or something active. However, none of that means that there can be no benefit from playing a game 1 or 2 hours a day. I only occasionally play video games, once or twice a week for an hour or two, and my game of choice is usually Starcraft, a game widely recognized as being very difficult to master. Some people actually make a living out of the game in South Korea where it has become some sort of professional sport for some bizarre reason.

[MarkBastable]

Vonny,

If you google 'The effects of video games on the brain,' you will see a host of studies suggesting that they are either good or, conversely, bad more or less in equal measure. So, if you believe those that say they are bad, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's.

You should hear me on ballet. I know absolutely nothing about it, and I've never been to one, and I haven't even read anything about what other people think about it - but, God, my opinion's valid.

[zoolane]

I have alway being weird in way or other accord people I know or freinds,family. I have more or less got used to being different and you what I would rather being odd ball if that you want to call it then being chav or what it is to normal.

Personal I told all 3 girls good to be different thenfollow the crowd.

[Emil Miller]

You should hear me on ballet. I know absolutely nothing about it, and I've never been to one, and I haven't even read anything about what other people think about it - but, God, my opinion's valid.

Well I suggest that you google it, as I suggested that Vonny does re video games, and when you are au fait with it, your opinion will have some validity.

[MarkBastable]

Well I suggest that you google it, as I suggested that Vonny does re video games, and when you are au fait with it, your opinion will have some validity.

Well, that's your opinion.

But, yes. 'When'.

[Vonny]

Well I suggest that you google it, as I suggested that Vonny does re video games, and when you are au fait with it, your opinion will have some validity.

I know this is self-absorption on my part Emil, but you are always teaching me a new word! :lol: Had to google that one, or is it two?

[Emil Miller]

Well I'd caution against that argument. All research is not created equal, to really come to a nuanced understanding of the available research we'd have to look in depth at all the studies and perform some kind of meta-analysis, to see if some meaningful trend emerges.

This is undoubtedly true, but in quoting the Japanese study I was simply using it as an example of the anti-video-games argument, which may indeed require caution but is nonetheless interesting in it's general conclusions.

[cafolini]

It amazes me when people don't grasp the abilities of video games to sustain and improve people's development to stages never seen before in history.

[Vonny]

It amazes me when people don't grasp the abilities of video games to sustain and improve people's development to stages never seen before in history.

I'm not judging all video games. I know of a very smart older woman who plays World of Warcraft and her teenage daughters also play it. (However, this woman used to be thin and now she's heavy.) And I don't think the majority of kids are playing that game.

People did fine before video games. Just look at Emil. He learned to read and understand allusions. The pyramids got built, as well as the Brooklyn bridge, before children were raised on video games.

I think on the whole video games are more detrimental than beneficial. And I think more of the children coming along today who are addicted to them (and many are) are going to be deficient compared to people who have grown up reading books and playing chess. It just happens that I admire readers over compulsive gamers. That's just my preference.

[MarkBastable]

People did fine before video games.

People did fine before central heating, the printing press and vaccinations against polio. That argument - "well, we didn't have the Interweb in my day" -doesn't really tell us anything about anything.

[Vonny]

People did fine before central heating, the printing press and vaccinations against polio. That argument - "well, we didn't have the Interweb in my day" -doesn't really tell us anything about anything.

Oh no, I grew up without central heating, and I can tell you that I didn't do fine. (We had fireplaces and usually no wood.) People weren't fine before the polio vaccine, or the printing press.

People were fine before video games.

What a silly argument. :lol:

The thing is, you took that one sentence out of context. I said people invented great things before they were raised on video games. And just wait and see, 50 years down the road, what kind of great inventions are in our future. I think we'll see a deficit.

When I think of the astronauts who went to the moon - those guys were brilliant - they still are - and they weren't raised on video games.

[MarkBastable]

Oh no, I grew up without central heating, and I can tell you that I didn't do fine. (We had fireplaces and usually no wood.) People weren't fine before the polio vaccine, or the printing press.


Okay - let's take those one at a time...

Your problem, then, was not the lack of a mechanism for providing heat, but of the fuel to make it work. Had you wood, you'd've been fine. So...

...Sod it. I can't be bothered.

[Emil Miller]

I'm not judging all video games. I know of a very smart older woman who plays World of Warcraft and her teenage daughters also play it. (However, this woman used to be thin and now she's heavy.) And I don't think the majority of kids are playing that game.

People did fine before video games. Just look at Emil. He learned to read and understand allusions. The pyramids got built, as well as the Brooklyn bridge, before children were raised on video games.

I think on the whole video games are more detrimental than beneficial. And I think more of the children coming along today who are addicted to them (and many are) are going to be deficient compared to people who have grown up reading books and playing chess. It just happens that I admire readers over compulsive gamers. That's just my preference.

Now before the usual suspects answer your post, it is necessary to point out that Cafolini's post should be ignored as unsubstantiated nonsense. The important thing to remember in dealing with posts is to analyse the mentality behind them before giving reply; otherwise, you lay your opinions open to contradiction that may simply be a knee jerk reaction from those who disagree for the sake of it rather than from any desire to add a genuine contribution to the debate.

EDIT: Too late I'm afraid.

[MarkBastable]

Now before the usual suspects answer your post, it is necessary to point out that Cafolini's post should be ignored as unsubstantiated nonsense. The important thing to remember in dealing with posts is to analyse the mentality behind them before giving reply; otherwise, you lay your opinions open to contradiction that may simply be a knee jerk reaction from those who disagree for the sake of it rather than from any desire to add a genuine contribution to the debate.

This is very true. I keep it mind constantly. In fact, I have it in mind as we speak.

[Vonny]

Okay - let's take those one at a time...

Your problem, then, was not the lack of a mechanism for providing heat, but of the fuel to make it work. Had you wood, you'd've been fine. So...

...Sod it. I can't be bothered.



You're right. A home with any kind of warmth in it is a good home. :)

Video games in moderation are fine, but not necessary or very important.


Books should be plentiful and encouraged. Reading peacefully in front of a fireplace in winter is ideal. And children should receive their polio vaccinations.

Oops I cross-posted with you Emil. I think what happens in these discussions is a lot of knee jerking on both sides, because we both just think we're right and have no way to prove anything!

(The truth is though, fireplaces aren't efficient. You need wood stoves in addition to the fireplace. You also need well-insulated walls.)

[Emil Miller]

This is very true. I keep it mind constantly. In fact, I have it in mind as we speak.

A wise decision.

[MarkBastable]

Then again, contrast and compare this:


....video games do little to improve the mind, and may even stunt development...




Vonny... If you google 'The effects of video games on the brain,' you will see a host of studies suggesting that they are either good or, conversely, bad more or less in equal measure. So, if you believe those that say they are bad, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's.


..with this...


It amazes me when people don't grasp the abilities of video games to sustain and improve people's development to stages never seen before in history.



Cafolini's post should be ignored as unsubstantiated nonsense. .

[Vonny]

What does all of that mean? Is there any point to that?

Time will show you that I'm correct. Just wait and see.

See if the next generation is brilliant enough to develop a cure that they will need very badly for the diabetes and obesity so many of them will have.

[Scheherazade]

Diabetes and obesity did not exist before video games?

My grandma would have been rather upset for having suffered all her life from an illness that had not existed.

I really don't see the difference between gaming and spending hours on end surfing the net either.

[stlukesguild]

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Don't worry, arguing against blind assumptions is kind of a hobby of mine.

Vonny- It must be wonderful to see so clearly.

:lol::thumbsup::hurray::smilielol5:

[Silas Thorne]

On the benefits of video games side, check out this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039012/AIDS-cure-Gamers-solve-puzzle-stumped-scientists-years.html

[Vonny]

Diabetes and obesity did not exist before video games?

My grandma would have been rather upset for having suffered all her life from an illness that had not existed.

I didn't say that Scher. I'm don't know why you ask me that question when I didn't say anything like that.

But wait and see if we have another Jonas Salk. And if we do, notice if he grew up compulsively playing video games.

Plus, diabetes and obesity wasn't as epidemic as we're seeing today and will see in the future. Again, I have no proof, just my opinion.

[stlukesguild]

People did fine before central heating, the printing press and vaccinations against polio. That argument - "well, we didn't have the Interweb in my day" -doesn't really tell us anything about anything.

You're surely not comparing the merits of video games to central heating, the printing press, and polio vaccinations, now are you? That would certainly go far toward proof of your own eccentricity... unless you're still 15.:crazy:

Now before the usual suspects answer your post, it is necessary to point out that Cafolini's post should be ignored as unsubstantiated nonsense.

That seems to be a common aspect of his/her posts.:smilewinkgrin:

[Vonny]

People did fine before central heating, the printing press and vaccinations against polio. That argument - "well, we didn't have the Interweb in my day" -doesn't really tell us anything about anything.

You're surely not comparing the merits of video games to central heating, the printing press, and polio vaccinations, now are you? That would certainly go far toward proof of your own eccentricity... unless you're still 15.:crazy:

Luke is another example. He grew up hunting for snakes in his spare time.

[stlukesguild]

Luke is another example. He grew up hunting for snakes in his spare time.

Not many snakes here-about... lot's of tadpoles, though. And praying mantises. The one I caught at 12 got out of the terrarium and laid eggs the forced air heat ducts. When Winter arrived and the warm air started to flow through the ducts, the eggs hatched and we had a billion baby praying mantises in the basement. Dad was ever so overjoyed.:smilewinkgrin:

[MarkBastable]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]

You're surely not comparing the merits of video games to central heating, the printing press, and polio vaccinations, now are you? That would certainly go far toward proof of your own eccentricity... unless you're still 15.:crazy:



Oh, come on. You - who so often argue principle over cases - know that that's not what I was doing.

[MystyrMystyry]

Schazza, I don't think you can really compare gaming with surfing the net, even though the basic mechanism is the same. The satisfaction of achieving a number of simple pre-defined goals is complete, where the surf process is an endless quest as new ridiculous information continues to emerge and jolt the brain.

For i.e. you want to self-publish in Kindle. And it should be a simple enough task. You've written the book in Word and it reads clearly on the screen and in print-out no problem.

But there's this html web format you must use which doesn't allow for hyphenated words, and you can't use a spacer for an empty line, you must use code. But never fear, developers have brought out programs to make it breezy and easy - except they don't function like you'd expect and if one does it will miss something important, which another has but that in turn will miss something else, and on on on...

In the meantime Kindle introduces new features to get the poor writer's weary mind around, which also make the programs you've finally got used to less than useless. And there's a gaping emptiness to it all that makes you think 'where has the fun gone?'

But load up a game and blast away (or whatever the game's about) for twenty minutes and it feels like you've actually achieved something because there on the screen is a score that tells you that you have.

My internet scorecard would read something like: 'So far this year you've pitied about thirty thousand people you know nothing else about, viewed about a hundred thousand products and services you have no intention of buying, discovered half a million unimportant trivia facts and learnt a ton of useless already outdated information - oh and downloaded much software full of bugs (and fixes where available). You've had Nigerians trying to scam you, you've had thsose same scammers on-sell your email address to cause as much grief as possible, and you've had a few hits on you tube disproportional to the amount of time/work you've put into it. And also you've completely failed to make it pay for itself in anything approaching break even.

[Much more edited out]

But load up Bulletstorm and it's the perfect counter reaction to one of the most frustrating endeavours you've ever undertaken.'

[Vonny]

Oh, come on. You - who so often argue principle over cases - know that that's not what I was doing.

I wonder, what is the principle of this to you? I'm serious here, no sarcasm. I do wonder. Is the principle that you're right and I'm wrong?

[JuniperWoolf]

It must be wonderful to see so clearly.

It's not about vision, lady, it's about being fair. Making broad assumptions about groups of people and then putting them forth as fact when you know absolutely nothing about them or what you're passing judgement on is unfair. Being prejudiced against people because of what they do or how they choose to identify themselves without any information at all is one step away from judging them based on how they were born.

You've said yourself that you've never even played a video game and you're obviously not in the business of social research, nor have you ever so much as glanced at a study pertaining to the subject. What merit then are we to attach to your assumption that they are "bad," making us sick, and are causing a halt to our species' advancement? The answer is none. No merit whatsoever. Scientific and technological advancement hasn't even slowed down, it's gotten faster. That's obvious if you would just think for a second. Imagine what someone in the 90's would think of an iPad. Remember the internet in the 90's? Remember what touch screen technology was like, that little bumpy sheet that they pasted over computer screens? You can't seriously believe that people who play video games are idiots who don't invent anything (and you'd be hard pressed to find someone in a computer sciences department who doesn't play video games, or in any other science department at a university for that matter).

This is EXACTLY like the time that you accused Satanists of sacrificing children. No prior information, no proof at all, you just kind of imagine things about groups of people. First it's "I KNOW that Satanists sacrifice babies," then it's "I KNOW that video games have no merit." I mean, my god, what's next? "I KNOW that people with green eyes prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla." It's ridiculous. It seems like you're the one basing all of your opinions on your ability to "see," since your random assertions closely resemble those of guesswork-esque fortune tellers.

[ftil]

As an intense gamer, an avid reader and a former student of psychology, I can tell you that Vonny is 100% wrong. I was taught in my very first year that kids who were introduced to video games at a young age develop logic and reading skills sooner than those who never played. Zelda, one of the oldest console games and the one that I played most as a kid, is practically one big problem solving exercise. RPGs taught me how to read. As for quality, you can't speculate because you wouldn't know anything about the content of games if you don't play them. When I started reading H.P. Lovecraft in my twenties, I recognized many references and ideas that I first encountered in Fable 2. World of Warcraft is brimming with literary allusions, compiling a list would take forever.

Here (http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Broken-Games-Better-Change/dp/1594202850)'s a mainstream book written in a nice reader-friendly style for the laymen by researcher Jane McGonigal that further expands on these points (and Vonny, she's American).

Also, I'd just like to add, that gamers aren't pasty fat boys living off of cheetos in their mother's basements. Every gamer I know has multiple hobbies. As many of you know, I also hike, play tennis, occasionally interact with my peers and have a blackbelt in taekwondo, I just happen to enjoy video games. They're fun and stimulating, they're just a hybrid of puzzles and books in a digital format. Try to have an open mind.

Hm…I have a different opinion about the impact of games and computer. It kills creative and independent thinking. Secondly, an intense contact with computer rather than real life interactions affects people on emotional level as people loose interest in emotions. C. Steiner called it the verbal barrier. In order to cross a linguistic barrier we need to have environment that is friendly to emotional information. When we cross emotional barrier we can talk about emotions in such a way that we develop an increasing awareness about feelings. People who spend time in isolation don’t analyze their feelings and lose interest in emotions all together. Without analyzing our feelings we can never escape from a state of numbness, physical turmoil, or emotional chaos.

Quote from Revolution in Education-Soviet Style written by Charlotte Iserbyt
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com...Ed_Iserbyt.pdf

The next time you attempt to discuss with a friend or acquaintance a serious issue (such as legal emigration, the Iraq war, or our loss of constitutional rights under Patriotic Act, or the Supreme Court Decision doing away with private rights and you get that “glazed, blank, mindless, couldn’t care less expression” refer to this article which attempts to explain the cause of that glazed expression: Pavlovian/Skinnerian conditioning, be it through programs at school, computers at school or at home, the television, radio, music, video games, or plain print media.


A very well written article that explains the danger of Pavlovian/Skinnerian computerized education with its goals to eliminate memory, conscience, imagination, creativity, insight, intuition, and most importantly free will. Without free will and ability to think and make decisions for themselves, lacking conscience and personal sense of responsibility our children will be no more than conditioned (trained) animals. It is really scary.

[OrphanPip]

Hm…I have a different opinion about the impact of games and computer. It kills creative and independent thinking. Secondly, an intense contact with computer rather than real life interactions affects people on emotional level as people loose interest in emotions. C. Steiner called it the verbal barrier. In order to cross a linguistic barrier we need to have environment that is friendly to emotional information. When we cross emotional barrier we can talk about emotions in such a way that we develop an increasing awareness about feelings. People who spend time in isolation don’t analyze their feelings and lose interest in emotions all together. Without analyzing our feelings we can never escape from a state of numbness, physical turmoil, or emotional chaos.

First of all, playing a video game 3-5 hours a week is not extreme isolation, who of us is never alone for a few hours a day? And video games do not necessarily involve a lack of in person interaction. Just stop into an internet cafe that caters to gamers. And it is relatively recent that multiplayer actually involved the internet, it used to involve actually sitting next to people and playing, which people still do as well.

[ftil]

First of all, playing a video game 3-5 hours a week is not extreme isolation, who of us is never alone for a few hours a day? And video games do not necessarily involve a lack of in person interaction. Just stop into an internet cafe that caters to gamers. And it is relatively recent that multiplayer actually involved the internet, it used to involve actually sitting next to people and playing, which people still do as well.

I didn’t talk about 3-5 hours a week. Lol I wouldn’t say a word. I think that you know how big problem it has become. Before internet people spent hours watching TV. Today, people switched to computer and games. According to reasrch 40% people have developed addiction to computer. I would be that long to read about it in DSM. :D

[OrphanPip]

I didn’t talk about 3-5 hours a week. Lol I wouldn’t say a word. I think that you know how big problem it has become. Before internet people spent hours watching TV. Today, people switched to computer and games. According to reasrch 40% people have developed addiction to computer. I would be that long to read about it in DSM. :D

That statistic sounds like it was pulled out of your ***. The only thing similar I could find is a non-cited statistic that 40% of Americans play video or computer games. I imagine only a small portion of those who play games actually are addicted.

The self-published, and not peer reviewed, ramblings of some random person on the internet does little to convince me of your hyperbolic claims.

[ftil]

That statistic sounds like it was pulled out of your ***. The only thing similar I could find is a non-cited statistic that 40% of Americans play video or computer games. I imagine only a small portion of those who play games actually are addicted.

The self-published, and not peer reviewed, ramblings of some random person on the internet does little to convince me of your hyperbolic claims.

LOL! Check by yourself......before making a comment. :D

[JuniperWoolf]

think that you know how big problem it has become. Before internet people spent hours watching TV. Today, people switched to computer and games.

And before that they used to work like slaves and die like dogs, but oh they were such free thinkers in the good ol' days, away from the brainwashing influences of video games and televisions.


I would be that long to read about it in DSM.

Actually it would, the DSM-IV-TR is thicker than a phone book with print just as fine, and gets thicker with every revision. It's validity is a subject of heavy debate, I wouldn't stake your claim on it, even if you didn't randomly invent that statistic (which I'm pretty sure you did).

[OrphanPip]

LOL! Check by yourself......before making a comment. :D

Check what, I tried to check your claims of what "research says" and nothing came up. Point me in the direction of the research at least if you will not provide it.

[Vonny]

Go out and talk to some parents. That's what I do.

[OrphanPip]

Go out and talk to some parents. That's what I do.

Well if parents have children "addicted" to video games, they should take the video games away, otherwise they're just incompetent parents and it's no fault of video games that parents don't know how to raise their children.

[Vonny]

That works for wealthy people who can put their kids into schools with like-minded parents, but there's extraordinary peer pressure among children to compete in these games and parents are beside themselves because children today have minds of their own.

But I know of one father who drives a bus and pays to send his 8 year-old son to private school, and this dad is still fighting this battle.

This dad predicts that humans will evolve to have tiny little feet and very large thumbs. He thinks their heads will be large, but I think that overly optimistic. I think their heads will be more shrunken.

[OrphanPip]

But if they are playing the games with peers are they being anti-social? And I think it is a bit of a cop out. There's tremendous peer pressure to drink, do drugs, have sex at an early age, shoplift, and generally be rebelious.

I grew up in a lower working class family, and I also played video games after school with friends almost every school day, and often on weekends. We also did other things, but video games was a big part of this. This was before internet gaming was more popular than console split screen gaming though. Friends weren't allowed in my house though, because my mother was bat-**** crazy.

[Vonny]

But if they are playing the games with peers are they being anti-social? And I think it is a bit of a cop out. There's tremendous peer pressure to drink, do drugs, have sex at an early age, shoplift, and generally be rebelious.

I grew up in a lower working class family, and I also played video games after school with friends almost every school day, and often on weekends. We also did other things, but video games was a big part of this. This was before internet gaming was more popular than console split screen gaming though. Friends weren't allowed in my house though, because my mother was bat-**** crazy.

Whatever you've done has obviously worked out fine. You're one of the more impressive people on the forum - not to flatter you, just fact.

But these kids don't play together. I'm pretty sure they play independently somehow and then match scores.

[MarkBastable]

Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Oh, come on. You - who so often argue principle over cases - know that that's not what I was doing.



I wonder, what is the principle of this to you? I'm serious here, no sarcasm. I do wonder. Is the principle that you're right and I'm wrong?

No, that's the case.

[Vonny]

Well Mark, I'm right, I won. :) As the elderly gentleman at the post office today said to me when he opened the door and let me go ahead of him, "Beauty before age."

[JuniperWoolf]

...because children today have minds of their own.

But they really shouldn't, considering that they play so many of those indoctrinating, brain-killing video games. ;)

[Vonny]

But they really shouldn't, considering that they play so many of those indoctrinating, brain-killing video games. ;)

You're right, they have group-think. They are just children who think they know it all.

We thought it was great fun to build snowmen in winter. It is. But kids today don't know this. If you drive around, you don't see snowmen in yards anymore. It's funny how things have changed in about 15 to 20 years.

[JuniperWoolf]

:rolleyes: Oh please, not the old "back in my day" speech. You know, you're swiftly becomming the youngest senior citizen I've ever met.

[Vonny]

:rolleyes: Oh please, not the old "back in my day" speech. You know, you're swiftly becomming the youngest senior citizen I've ever met.

I really am like that. I'm old-fashioned. I like old things. Plus, I'm the youngest in my family, and my oldest brother tells me things he remembers, because he's also old-fashioned.

Well, this is all from me. I'm off to bed now.

[MarkBastable]

You're right, they have group-think. They are just children who think they know it all.

We thought it was great fun to build snowmen in winter. It is. But kids today don't know this. If you drive around, you don't see snowmen in yards anymore. It's funny how things have changed in about 15 to 20 years.

Well, that's convinced me. I was won over by the old "two bits of coal and a carrot" argument.

I can say absolutely sincerely that no rational person could argue with that kind of structured logic.

[Vonny]

Well, that's convinced me. I was won over by the old "two bits of coal and a carrot" argument.

I can say absolutely sincerely that no rational person could argue with that kind of structured logic.

Thought I'd check back once more. I don't know what's meant by "two bits..." But I'm glad you can see that you can't argue with the truth. :lol:

(but I know it won't stop you from continuing to try.)

[Emil Miller]

Not many snakes here-about... lot's of tadpoles, though. And praying mantises. The one I caught at 12 got out of the terrarium and laid eggs the forced air heat ducts. When Winter arrived and the warm air started to flow through the ducts, the eggs hatched and we had a billion baby praying mantises in the basement. Dad was ever so overjoyed.:

:smilielol5:


Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Oh, come on. You - who so often argue principle over cases - know that that's not what I was doing.


I wonder, what is the principle of this to you? I'm serious here, no sarcasm. I do wonder. Is the principle that you're right and I'm wrong?

Yep got it in one.


This dad predicts that humans will evolve to have tiny little feet and very large thumbs. He thinks their heads will be large, but I think that overly optimistic. I think their heads will be more shrunken.

There are a few walking around like that already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Oh, come on. You - who so often argue principle over cases - know that that's not what I was doing.

QUOTE=Vonny;1076572]I wonder, what is the principle of this to you? I'm serious here, no sarcasm. I do wonder. Is the principle that you're right and I'm wrong?.[/QUOTE]


[B]
No, that's the case.

Now there's a surprise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Well, that's convinced me. I was won over by the old "two bits of coal and a carrot" argument.
I can say absolutely sincerely that no rational person could argue with that kind of structured logic.


But I'm glad you can see that you can't argue with the truth. :lol:

(but I know it won't stop you from continuing to try.)

Now what on earth gives you that impression Vonny?

[papayahed]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ndi0618l.jpg

[ftil]

And before that they used to work like slaves and die like dogs, but oh they were such free thinkers in the good ol' days, away from the brainwashing influences of video games and televisions.



You prefer to derail discussion rather then go to the bottom of the problem. Since you didn’t respond to the article I have posted, I will bring Charlotte Iserbyt again who served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration. Why don’t you argue with her and convince her that she is wrong.
Education- The deliberate dumbing down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt.
Free e-book
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

Secondly, you have mentioned that you studied psychology so that you couldn’t miss what a number of developmental psychologists wrote on that subject. You may use rationalization as your defense but in the end of the day it is you who will face the music. After all, it is your life.


Actually it would, the DSM-IV-TR is thicker than a phone book with print just as fine, and gets thicker with every revision. It's validity is a subject of heavy debate, I wouldn't stake your claim on it, even if you didn'trandomly invent that statistic (which I'm pretty sure you did).

I have a strong opinion about DSM and the only reason that I mentioned it is the fact that only psychological or mental problems with high prevalence find its place there. It will not be DSM IV but DSM V. :brow:





Originally Posted byOrphanPip
Check what, I tried to check your claims of what "research says" and nothing came up. Point me in the direction of the research at least if you will not provide it.

You are very quick to do research. Lol I am not as quick you are as I like doing thorough research before I make up my mind. I don’t believe one research. I don’t have them handy as it was a while a ago. So, you ask me to spend my free time to look for those research while you will be enjoying your fee time. No thanks no. I have already done that and I have more interesting things to do. :banana:

[OrphanPip]

Generally, I try not to make a habit of believing numbers that seem in direct contradiction to the available research, are not cited, and are posted in conjunction with reference to a conspiracy nut of Alex Jones proportions.

So, since you are unwilling to even try and defend your claims, I am forced to conclude that you are just full of ****.

[Emil Miller]

Then again, contrast and compare this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vonny
....video games do little to improve the mind, and may even stunt development...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller

Vonny... If you google 'The effects of video games on the brain,' you will see a host of studies suggesting that they are either good or, conversely, bad more or less in equal measure. So, if you believe those that say they are bad, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's.


..with this...


Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
It amazes me when people don't grasp the abilities of video games to sustain and improve people's development to stages never seen before in history.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Cafolini's post should be ignored as unsubstantiated nonsense.



There is no inconsistency in pointing out an arguable position as opposed to an obvious nonsense. Unless, of course, you happen to believe that video games: "... sustain and improve people's development to stages never seen before in history."

[bentley]

Take joy in the fact that life is not fair. Yours is a path unique and uncomparable to others. To thine known self be true, and prepare for the adventure ahead.

[JuniperWoolf]

Secondly, you have mentioned that you studied psychology so that you couldn’t miss what a number of developmental psychologists wrote on that subject.

Um, yeah. Exactly. :rolleyes:

My second year psych prof was my school's leading scientist in cognitive development and his special interest was the brain activity of children in relation to today's technology (his research focus was on the internet's effects on social interaction and vocabulary, but he liked video games too). He is, literally, an expert. On this subject, I get my ideas predominantly from him, but also partially from personal experience. I'm a gamer (and a darn good one, I might add) and also a student. I am speaking from the point of view of a student. Almost every student I've ever met has played games. No one who knows what they're talking about can honestly call a full time science student lazy and stupid. There's just too much work involved, being lazy and getting past the first year wouldn't even be possible, especially if you have a job which most of them do. If games are played in moderation, they can be great. They're fun, relaxing, challenging, educational and they improve hand-eye coordination (they really do, I'm into archery too and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be as good as I am if I didn't play so many video games).

So, my opinion is supported by a scientist that I've actually studied under (me and 500 other people, but still), and also from my own existence. If games made people fat, antisocial, diabetic, stupid and lazy, I would be those things because I play them often and have since age three when I played Super Mario Bros for the first time. I am none of those things. Some students are, but not the majority by far. The only other group of people that I hang out with are my hometown friends. They all play games too, almost everyone my age does, and the number of fat, diabetic, antisocial, lazy and stupid people is very low. Therefore, the assumption can't be correct.

I can, however, attest to the fact that video games taught me how to read before any of my peers, I learned how to read directly from one of my mom's RPGs. I can also promise that many games take a lot of thought to master (again, I'll refer you to Zelda or any number of stratedy/puzzle solving games). They also introduced me to a number of literary and historical concepts VERY early in my development. If you've never played one, then your opinion doesn't deserve consideration because you literally don't know what you're talking about.


I have a strong opinion about DSM and the only reason that I mentioned it is the fact that only psychological or mental problems with high prevalence find its place there. It will not be DSM IV but DSM V.

Aaaaand that's just called counting. After four comes five. Brilliant deduction.


I don't know what's meant by "two bits..."

*whispers* I think it's a British thing.

[Silas Thorne]

Generally, I try not to make a habit of believing numbers that seem in direct contradiction to the available research, are not cited, and are posted in conjunction with reference to a conspiracy nut of Alex Jones proportions.

So, since you are unwilling to even try and defend your claims, I am forced to conclude that you are just full of ****.

It might be entertaining though to read about how we are all being turned into socialist robot slaves by the evil computers and their mind-smoke.

[irinmisfit92]

Whatever you've done has obviously worked out fine. You're one of the more impressive people on the forum - not to flatter you, just fact.

But these kids don't play together. I'm pretty sure they play independently somehow and then match scores.

Trust me, a lot of kids now prefer to play multiplayer games nowadays. The reason why people here love World of Warcraft is not only because they are able to feel as if they are in a battlefield but also because they can be allies with other people. My friends often discuss about strategies involved and why they win/lose.

I know there's one person who's so engaged in games alone and his scholarship is terminated because of gaming, but that's an exclusive case. Everyone in my dorm (who is considered pretty smart as all of us obtained scholarships) loves playing games and it's not necessarily bad. In fact, now there's a rising trend to play iPhone games as compared to computer games. I played Dance Mania (or whatever it is) with my friends last time and it really bonded us together.

And I'd just like to note that my posts always turn to something else other than the topic XD it's hilarious.

[ftil]

Generally, I try not to make a habit of believing numbers that seem in direct contradiction to the available research, are not cited, and are posted in conjunction with reference to a conspiracy nut of Alex Jones proportions.

So, since you are unwilling to even try and defend your claims, I am forced to conclude that you are just full of ****.

Thanks for your honesty. :D You haven’t carefully read my response. I see your way of arguing your point. Very convincing and mature, indeed. :reddevil: Please, don’t forget that a forum is a place to relax and not to do a homework for others. :biggrinjester:

originally posted by JuniperWoolf:


If games are played in moderation, they can be great. They're fun, relaxing, challenging, educational and they improve hand-eye coordination (they really do, I'm into archery too and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be as good as I am if I didn't play so many video games).

I totally agree that if is games are played with moderation, it is fun and relaxing. But I didn’t talked about moderation. The reason that I was interested in researching that subject was the fact that many of my friends as well as people I talked to voiced their concerns about their children spending too much time playing games. Nothing what we do in moderation can be bad.


My second year psych prof was my school's leading scientist in cognitive development and his special interest was the brain activity of children in relation to today's technology (his research focus was on the internet's effects on social interaction and vocabulary, but he liked video games too). He is, literally, an expert.

Well, I never base my opinion on one expert. I have learned how it can be misleading.lol


If games made people fat, antisocial, diabetic, stupid and lazy, I would be those things because I play them often and have since age three when I played Super Mario Bros for the first time. I am none of those things. Some students are, but not the majority by far.

Well, if you speak for yourself or your friends, it is a different story. I wouldn’t have any concerns if it applied to the majority of players.


Aaaaand that's just called counting. After four comes five. Brilliant deduction.
I hate math. I care less if 2+2 = 4 or 5. But I have a good of sense of humor and can laugh freely. It was not about counting but about the fact how often they update DSM, introducing new diagnostic categories. :lol:

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

The OP:
I think a lot of people here regard me as being weird, different, eccentric, rebellious, perverted and unrefined sometimes in my speeches, etc. I wonder whether you guys feel the same way. I do feel I'm different and sometimes I'm kind of sad about it, looking at how I don't really fit in especially at school and I find it hard to find people whom I can talk to about my interests, but sometimes I feel kind of special.

I don't mean any offense but I realised that many people who like literature may be a bit eccentric sometimes. It's really fun having those kinds of people around.
Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing personal attacks or off-topic comments will be removed without further warning

and

posters will receive infraction points.

For those who would like to discuss the video games and their effects can do so in a separate thread.

[virginiawang]

My old translation teacher once mocked the whole class, in an attempt to praise me, that they had basketballs on top of their necks rather than real heads, for the fact that they never think before they translate. They respond as fast as they can.

[zoolane]

My old translation teacher once mocked the whole class, in an attempt to praise me, that they had basketballs on top of their necks rather than real heads, for the fact that they never think before they translate. They respond as fast as they can.

So whatare you try to imply that people who think on their feet for example teachers or salesperson who good that their job. That they have basketball for brains. People who are quick thinkers just mean that they problem solves or have ability to cope with lots of things.

Quote from 'The Free Dictionary'.

quick (kwk)
adj. quick·er, quick·est
1. Moving or functioning rapidly and energetically; speedy.
2. Learning, thinking, or understanding with speed and dexterity; bright: a quick mind.


thinking [ˈθɪŋkɪŋ]
n
1. opinion or judgment
2. the process of thought
adj
1. (prenominal) using or capable of using intelligent thought thinking people
put on one's thinking cap to ponder a matter or problem

[Varenne Rodin]

Well, that's probably true. But after nearly forty years of being called eccentric (I'll assume people called me that when I was a toddler), I just run with it.

But I suppose that eccentric depends on context. My high school eccentricity in Boise, Idaho, probably would have been simply another punk rock kid in NYC. And in my current neighborhood in Washington, DC, (Dupont/Logan area) eccentric is such the norm that the norm is eccentric.

So would that make me normal? Hmmm. Depends on context. Nobody who has read anything I've ever written has called me anything resembling normal. And I run with it...

You are fantastic!

[ClaesGefvenberg]

I do feel I'm different and sometimes I'm kind of sad about it, looking at how I don't really fit in especially at school and I find it hard to find people whom I can talk to about my interests, but sometimes I feel kind of special.I am old enough to have been to numerous class reunions, and every time people tell me that they remember me as the bloke who marched to my own beat. I am sure they are entirely correct. I cannot recall ever giving a toss about confirming to the norm back then. As it happens, I still don't. :cornut:

Does that make me an eccentric? It probably does, but what do I care?:ihih:

/Claes

[JuniperWoolf]

I've never thought about whether I'm "eccentric" or not, because I don't really think about other people that much (people who aren't my friends, or who aren't among those that I really like and admire but who I'm not close enough to for me to consider friends). Most people seem kind of boring. Compared to the idea of normal behaviour and a normal identity, everyone that I like might be described as eccentric.

[Varenne Rodin]

There's no pretension here. I'm straight up bonkers.

[cafolini]

I don't know if I am one. But if I could I would just to try it. If it is eccentric to like hamburger with peanut butter and sour plum jam, or duck roasted with tahini and grape molases, I am one.

[cacian]

Depends how you define eccentric.
It could be from something to anything.
So it is a bit vague to me as word, although I reserve the idea of declaring myself under one or two even three words just in case I do notlive up to them.

[Buh4Bee]

I know I am a little off. I was called freaky by a colleague on Tuesday.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

No, since each of us, including myself, are centered in our own universe no matter where we stand. Those who stand apart from our center, are considered eccentric.
.