British Neuroscientist Says Games Cause Dementia

[Lukeje]

Well don't you think it's weird that only the right wing papers report it?

You probably can find the story in the Guardian or the Times. It's just that the audience of papers such as the Sun or the Telegraph are making a big woohoo over the entire thing.

Where we should be seeing it reported is in peer reviewed scientific journals.

 

[Marudas]

Lets all travel back to the dark ages, where nothing bad ever happened ever.

Or we can ignore nerd baiting laughable articles and move on =x.

 

[PixelKing]

I'm 13, does that mean in 10 years I'll have dementia?
If it means anything, I've been gaming for 11 years already and have had no problems with any illness due to it and when I first played GTA I didn't want to engage in a fine killing spree.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

Go watch Extra Credits. I think it's safe to say that Daniel Floyd, despite not having a degree in science, is probably smarter than you.

 

[Johnson McGee]

Where we should be seeing it reported is in peer reviewed scientific journals.

A cursory search of these publications reveals a large amount of evidence for the opposite of what the Baroness is asserting.

Examples:

http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/eTELEMED.2010.21

http://isp.sagepub.com/content/54/4/370.short

 

[Giftmacher]

Baroness Greenfield lost all credibility long before this, pasting her name over brain training products, banging on about the pscho-social effects of social networking sites. Scientist in name only, but then again we're only human! I'd just ignore her evidence free speculation.

-Gift.

 

[Lim3]

She got served by Dr. Ben Goldacre.

In any event i think saying addiction is a bit much; i get addicted to new games for short periods of time, but appart from that I'm fine.

Interestingly, extremely hard core internet users activate neurological pathways highly similar to those seen in substance abuse. Unlike the baroness, I will actually cite source: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0020708

The study cannot be expanded to games in general. And where does the baroness go wrong? She extends the conclusion of the study she cites (namely, the same one I just looked at) which had to do specifically with internet addicts using the net 10 hours a day. In other words, people who already have some kind of recognized deviancy. Nor can you then equate that to another activity, such as gaming (though the majority of the study participants' time online was gaming, so...) Yes, she's grossly overreaching, and has stated she is pointing out a correlation which she cannot prove is causal. Yes, she's almost certainly overreacting like no body's business.

Yet you know what? Most of the responses on this thread are far worse science.

Yes. Someone says something that disagrees with your established point of view; immediately post "She's dumb, the Sun is an awful paper, etc." If this is you, you have no business criticizing anyone else on the grounds of sloppy science.

Now that I've alienated -everyone-, I'll sit in my corner alone.

Where did I critize someone else based on "sloppy scienece"?

you have no business criticizing anyone else on the grounds of sloppy science.

All I said was she was served by another doctor, based on the fact that she refused to publish creditable evidence to support her thesis.

And then I made a statement based on my own opinion, and myself and did not relate it to any other individuals.

Yet you know what? Most of the responses on this thread are far worse science.

Oh wow! A gaming forum isn't the place for an academic discussion about scholarly articles on science? Who would have thought?

 

[dickywebster]

Its the sun, they kinda have the same reputation as the fox network in britain, so i find that hard to believe =P
Also it almost sounds like the dementia stuff was thrown in at the end, rather than been the main thing, sounds more like a case for game addiction than anything else.

Oh and baroness means nothing, she was either born to the title or was made one or married a baron.

 

[CatsAttackAgain]

Oh, an ignorant person. Never seen that before.

 

[WolfThomas]

I'm sorry but I'm with Dr Ben Goldacre, every time.

Spoiler: Here's him explaining how real evidence based medicine works

 

[Metalrocks]

one of these smart asses again. these people really try everything to pull games in to the dirt by claiming some crap that maybe is 5% true.
i just looked up on wikipedia and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia

ok, i dint read the whole article but i dint read anything about games and that mainly people over 65 can get it.

 

[GoddyofAus]

Lol, the Sun.

 

[Daveman]

You know, I think there should be fines for when the media totally misleads the public either due to malicious intent or because of total ignorance.

 

[Sir Shockwave]

A Baroness? England still has a Feudal system?

Something tells me this woman isn't a few hairs short of crazy O.O

 

[monkey_man]

I think this is outrageous bollocks.
Furthermore, I think this is outrageous bollocks.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

The Sun, someone who calls themselves a Baroness, and no data cited.

Damn, I'm convinced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Greenfield,_Baroness_Greenfield

>Susan Adele Greenfield, Baroness Greenfield, CBE[1] (born 1 October 1950) is a British scientist, writer, broadcaster, and member of the House of Lords. Greenfield, whose specialty is the physiology of the brain, has worked to research and bring attention to Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease.

>Greenfield is Professor of Synaptic Pharmacology at Lincoln College, Oxford. On 1 February 2006, she was installed as Chancellor of Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh. Until 8 January 2010, she was director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, but following a review,[2] she was made redundant.[3]

I know all of that. A bit puzzled by the point of your comment?

 

[Lukeje]

Where we should be seeing it reported is in peer reviewed scientific journals.

A cursory search of these publications reveals a large amount of evidence for the opposite of what the Baroness is asserting.

Examples:

http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/eTELEMED.2010.21

http://isp.sagepub.com/content/54/4/370.short

I'm not particularly surprised by that.

 

[renegade7]

Brain stimulation and mental arousal cause dementia....huh, learn something new everyday. Because here I was thinking that those things PREVENT dementia.

 

[thedoclc]

She got served by Dr. Ben Goldacre.

In any event i think saying addiction is a bit much; i get addicted to new games for short periods of time, but appart from that I'm fine.

Interestingly, extremely hard core internet users activate neurological pathways highly similar to those seen in substance abuse. Unlike the baroness, I will actually cite source: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0020708

The study cannot be expanded to games in general. And where does the baroness go wrong? She extends the conclusion of the study she cites (namely, the same one I just looked at) which had to do specifically with internet addicts using the net 10 hours a day. In other words, people who already have some kind of recognized deviancy. Nor can you then equate that to another activity, such as gaming (though the majority of the study participants' time online was gaming, so...) Yes, she's grossly overreaching, and has stated she is pointing out a correlation which she cannot prove is causal. Yes, she's almost certainly overreacting like no body's business.

Yet you know what? Most of the responses on this thread are far worse science.

Yes. Someone says something that disagrees with your established point of view; immediately post "She's dumb, the Sun is an awful paper, etc." If this is you, you have no business criticizing anyone else on the grounds of sloppy science.

Now that I've alienated -everyone-, I'll sit in my corner alone.

Where did I critize someone else based on "sloppy scienece"?

you have no business criticizing anyone else on the grounds of sloppy science.

All I said was she was served by another doctor, based on the fact that she refused to publish creditable evidence to support her thesis.

And then I made a statement based on my own opinion, and myself and did not relate it to any other individuals.

Yet you know what? Most of the responses on this thread are far worse science.

Oh wow! A gaming forum isn't the place for an academic discussion about scholarly articles on science? Who would have thought?

First, I didn't say -you-. You missed the part where I said "Most of the threads" and then changed tone to address a reader. If you are, etc. But hey, take it out of context as you like.

Second, look up a straw man. That's what you set up with your comment there. Yes, it's a gaming site, but the Escapist has an illusion of trying to be "better" and "smarter", and the topic being discussed is academic and scholarly. Of course I'm not saying this is a site for posting academic work, and (watch the change in tone) I don't think I was unclear about that, so anyone saying so probably misread or projected.

The point I was making is that it's hypocritical to hear about something which does not fit preconceived ideas, then turn around immediately and say, "Raaaa, she's an idiot, rage, rage, insult!" That's childish. That is similar to the laughing dismissals gaming gets from pundits in other fields. And yes, the flaw in logic I just committed was intentional.

 

[Lim3]

- snip -
First, I didn't say -you-. You missed the part where I said "Most of the threads" and then changed tone to address a reader. If you are, etc. But hey, take it out of context as you like.

Second, look up a straw man. That's what you set up with your comment there. Yes, it's a gaming site, but the Escapist has an illusion of trying to be "better" and "smarter", and the topic being discussed is academic and scholarly. Of course I'm not saying this is a site for posting academic work, and (watch the change in tone) I don't think I was unclear about that, so anyone saying so probably misread or projected.

The point I was making is that it's hypocritical to hear about something which does not fit preconceived ideas, then turn around immediately and say, "Raaaa, she's an idiot, rage, rage, insult!" That's childish. That is similar to the laughing dismissals gaming gets from pundits in other fields. And yes, the flaw in logic I just committed was intentional.

It's not unreasonable to assume you were addressing myself with your post, as you know, you quoted me.

Also once again why are you saying things like "Raaaa, she's an idiot, rage, rage, insult!" when I clearly didn't say anything like that.

I get your point, but I don't understand why you're making that point to me? Also if you want to see a thread with illogical discussion try here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.309626-The-misinterpretation-of-evolution?page=1

I don't think the escapist has the 'illusion' of trying to act better and smarter. Just like every other website with open membership there will be stupid 'childish' comments and smart comments. It's also worth noting that some of the childish comments are probably from children.