Have you ever read a book that made such an impact that afterwards, everything appeared to be turned upside down? That answered questions you didn't know you had in you, and improved the way the world worked as a whole? It shouldn't even be a book; some movies or documentaries can have that same impact, provided they take stern from reality (so no: 'the matrix' doesn't count).
It saddens me to say that "Digitale Dementie: hoe wij ons verstand kapotmaken" by Manfred Spitzer is such a book. While it's translated from the original German version (Digitale Demenz: wie wir uns und unsere Kinder um den Verstand bringen) and probably is named Digital Dementia in English (equally probably with a "How we destroy our minds" subtitle), I can't find it on amazon or other sources right now. But that's not really the issue now...
I love computer games. I've played computer games for over 20 years and hope to do so till I die. And the internet has become my second home (or even my first home, in a matter of speaking). I watch videos, read texts, the news, chat in fora, and so on. And why not? Everyone else does. Heck...our entire society seems to move toward the internet. Thanks to the internet and smartphones, there's hardly an end to the potential apps promise to offer. How can any of that have a shadow side?
Unfortunately, it does. And a strong one.
Let's start with a couple simple examples: how many phone numbers do you know by heart? Obviously your own. And perhaps one or two more. But why should you? Your phone knows them. However, since we no longer have to memorize numbers (numbers you dial more than a few times will be added to your contacts soon), we no longer train that part. Which leads to us not using that. A few days ago, I had to admit I don't know the number of my girlfriend by heart...and I couldn't look it up because I was busy using that phone at that time. All in all...ouch.
Here's another hilarious/tragic incident: did you know it's now a common complaint to road services that people call without a clue where they are if their GPS device breaks down? I learned driving and navigating the old fashioned way: with an actual paper map. Going somewhere meant studying said map and getting an idea of how to go there before even starting the car. Nowadays, it's almost as much a routine to "set the gps" (assuming it's a new trip) as turning on the engine. I still do a double check on where I'm going before I set said gps, but the part of my brain that handles navigation isn't getting much use in a car (I almost feel lucky for doing most stuff by bike or train). And to drivers out there...be honest: how well would YOU do without gps?
The irony of it all is that the more technology makes our lives easier, the more we become dependent of it and the harder it'll be to do without it (in an extra illustration: I no longer have an idea whether 'dependant' or 'dependent' is the correct English word...I'm just going by what the auto correct tells me).
The horror is that the above mentioned stuff is only a scratch of the surface. The book is filled with many, many researches that time and time again prove that the more we're busy with digital media, the worse we'll be off. The rate at which children do NOT watch television is directly proportional to how their education will be (meaning: the less television, the better their grades). The more we assume data will be stored on the internet, the less effort we do to remember it (yes, even when we are asked to remember it). If you type words, you're less inclined to remember it than actually using a pen to write it. Self control is significantly less with children who watched cartoons prior to a number of exercises than those who drew paintings before. Numbness to violence is increased (and has way more influence than you might think). Fuck...it even statistically proves that people who multitask a lot on their computers are WORSE at multitasking than those who rarely ever do it.
Oh...here's another exercise: name the lawyer who went on a crusade against GTA: San Andreas because of the hot coffee mod. If you've never heard of the guy, you'll be forgiven, but avid gamers like myself who followed that situation and almost wanted to crucify the guy should know him. However...I had completely forgotten his name (it was Jack Thompson). Strange, isn't it? You hold a grudge against someone for attacking your favorite passtime, yet a few years later you can't even recall their name. I'd say "why is that?", but I already pointed it out before: my mind didn't bother to remember it because it was stored on the internet.
Speaking of which...I almost wish Spitzer was a Thompson-kind of guy. Meaning: some random dude who simply boils down a given situation (a high school massacre) and throws up violent media as the sole scapegoat to blame for it (without any proof or scientific research). It would certainly make matters easy. I wouldn't even be writing this stuff right now. But it's an almost sad truth that Spitzer brings all the arguments to the table we as a gaming community should have brought. Why aren't there studies that prove that video games are good as outlets of violence that actually increase pacifism outside said games? It's because they don't. Why video games certainly increase planning, multitasking, hand-eye co-ordination and other stuff you can use in real life, right? Erm...no. Or rather: barely. The very few advantages it does have are easily countered by the myriad of disadvantages video games and media in general ARE proven to cause.
I won't be going in detail (Christ...I can't just copy-paste the entire book here), but lemme assure you that everything I've said in the field of research and study is done properly. There are plenty of notes to these studies, a clear overview of the goals, participants (groups and 'control groups' for double blind measurements) and findings.
One of the scarier aspects is that the media itself isn't playing fair in reporting this. It's Spitzer's second book on the subject, and in one of the later chapters he mentions how his long research for that previous book is countered by someone who barely used any sources, yet got as much - if not more - airtime by the media. I can't say much on the flak he got for this book - I just got it from a library - but the fact that Germany IS more cautious when it comes to violence means that things at least could have been worse.
You can understand: I don't like to read this sort of stuff as a gamer. If I'm piledriving a random virtual passenger into the ground in Saints row 4, I don't want to think about how this lessens my reaction towards violence in the real world. I don't want to think about the growing percentage that's addicted to the internet and/or video gaming, let alone be part of it. I want to be able to read a news article about someone who crashed his car and immediately stole another one WITHOUT automatically assuming that that person enacted reflexes he picked up in a GTA game (yes, the ethical compass is another thing that gets messed up with certain video games).
I wish...but I can't.
Do I have criticism for the book? Hardly. There are sections where I'd like to object that not all video games are equal (playing tetris vs Crysis 2, for example, will have a different effect), but this certainly isn't by lack of knowledge by the author (there actually is mention of a study that checks on the difference between tetris and crysis 2, as far as that is concerned). And the worst part is that I have no reply to the counter-counterargument: that the difference in games is usually used to mask the ill-effects of the worst kinds. Which is true: I can bang on about how games like lyne, tetris or sim city positively affects this or that brain activity...but even if these arguments are true (I admit it: I don't have anything NEAR that amount of studies to prove anything of these claims I'm pulling out of my ass), they don't excuse for the far majority of violent games.
The only other thing I can come up with isn't much better: the relatively recent online component. The social stigma of being left out is nowadays excuse for the parents to let their children play online. This is something I won't deny...but to what degree is this a bad thing? Spitzer sees this as a negative trend as well (people are drawn into further depth of their addiction because of it), but I'm not sure to agree on it. It's true he doesn't try to have the argument against games both ways (meaning: he makes little to no reference to the gamer being a creature living in complete solitude), but I'd like to have seen more studies in this regard.
Nonetheless, these points of critic are pretty weak compared to the huge case that's piled up here. If I had a child, I'll certainly look for other means of play besides television or tablets before (s)he is four. And even then...my little nephew was raised without television...almost unthinkable in this day and age. But now he's grown up, he's one of the smartest people I know (he skipped two classes, knows Chinese and is currently in the US somewhere). And sure, the fact that his father is a doctor means something. But that "no television" may have had a far greater influence than I thought thus far...
It saddens me to say that "Digitale Dementie: hoe wij ons verstand kapotmaken" by Manfred Spitzer is such a book. While it's translated from the original German version (Digitale Demenz: wie wir uns und unsere Kinder um den Verstand bringen) and probably is named Digital Dementia in English (equally probably with a "How we destroy our minds" subtitle), I can't find it on amazon or other sources right now. But that's not really the issue now...
I love computer games. I've played computer games for over 20 years and hope to do so till I die. And the internet has become my second home (or even my first home, in a matter of speaking). I watch videos, read texts, the news, chat in fora, and so on. And why not? Everyone else does. Heck...our entire society seems to move toward the internet. Thanks to the internet and smartphones, there's hardly an end to the potential apps promise to offer. How can any of that have a shadow side?
Unfortunately, it does. And a strong one.
Let's start with a couple simple examples: how many phone numbers do you know by heart? Obviously your own. And perhaps one or two more. But why should you? Your phone knows them. However, since we no longer have to memorize numbers (numbers you dial more than a few times will be added to your contacts soon), we no longer train that part. Which leads to us not using that. A few days ago, I had to admit I don't know the number of my girlfriend by heart...and I couldn't look it up because I was busy using that phone at that time. All in all...ouch.
Here's another hilarious/tragic incident: did you know it's now a common complaint to road services that people call without a clue where they are if their GPS device breaks down? I learned driving and navigating the old fashioned way: with an actual paper map. Going somewhere meant studying said map and getting an idea of how to go there before even starting the car. Nowadays, it's almost as much a routine to "set the gps" (assuming it's a new trip) as turning on the engine. I still do a double check on where I'm going before I set said gps, but the part of my brain that handles navigation isn't getting much use in a car (I almost feel lucky for doing most stuff by bike or train). And to drivers out there...be honest: how well would YOU do without gps?
The irony of it all is that the more technology makes our lives easier, the more we become dependent of it and the harder it'll be to do without it (in an extra illustration: I no longer have an idea whether 'dependant' or 'dependent' is the correct English word...I'm just going by what the auto correct tells me).
The horror is that the above mentioned stuff is only a scratch of the surface. The book is filled with many, many researches that time and time again prove that the more we're busy with digital media, the worse we'll be off. The rate at which children do NOT watch television is directly proportional to how their education will be (meaning: the less television, the better their grades). The more we assume data will be stored on the internet, the less effort we do to remember it (yes, even when we are asked to remember it). If you type words, you're less inclined to remember it than actually using a pen to write it. Self control is significantly less with children who watched cartoons prior to a number of exercises than those who drew paintings before. Numbness to violence is increased (and has way more influence than you might think). Fuck...it even statistically proves that people who multitask a lot on their computers are WORSE at multitasking than those who rarely ever do it.
Oh...here's another exercise: name the lawyer who went on a crusade against GTA: San Andreas because of the hot coffee mod. If you've never heard of the guy, you'll be forgiven, but avid gamers like myself who followed that situation and almost wanted to crucify the guy should know him. However...I had completely forgotten his name (it was Jack Thompson). Strange, isn't it? You hold a grudge against someone for attacking your favorite passtime, yet a few years later you can't even recall their name. I'd say "why is that?", but I already pointed it out before: my mind didn't bother to remember it because it was stored on the internet.
Speaking of which...I almost wish Spitzer was a Thompson-kind of guy. Meaning: some random dude who simply boils down a given situation (a high school massacre) and throws up violent media as the sole scapegoat to blame for it (without any proof or scientific research). It would certainly make matters easy. I wouldn't even be writing this stuff right now. But it's an almost sad truth that Spitzer brings all the arguments to the table we as a gaming community should have brought. Why aren't there studies that prove that video games are good as outlets of violence that actually increase pacifism outside said games? It's because they don't. Why video games certainly increase planning, multitasking, hand-eye co-ordination and other stuff you can use in real life, right? Erm...no. Or rather: barely. The very few advantages it does have are easily countered by the myriad of disadvantages video games and media in general ARE proven to cause.
I won't be going in detail (Christ...I can't just copy-paste the entire book here), but lemme assure you that everything I've said in the field of research and study is done properly. There are plenty of notes to these studies, a clear overview of the goals, participants (groups and 'control groups' for double blind measurements) and findings.
One of the scarier aspects is that the media itself isn't playing fair in reporting this. It's Spitzer's second book on the subject, and in one of the later chapters he mentions how his long research for that previous book is countered by someone who barely used any sources, yet got as much - if not more - airtime by the media. I can't say much on the flak he got for this book - I just got it from a library - but the fact that Germany IS more cautious when it comes to violence means that things at least could have been worse.
You can understand: I don't like to read this sort of stuff as a gamer. If I'm piledriving a random virtual passenger into the ground in Saints row 4, I don't want to think about how this lessens my reaction towards violence in the real world. I don't want to think about the growing percentage that's addicted to the internet and/or video gaming, let alone be part of it. I want to be able to read a news article about someone who crashed his car and immediately stole another one WITHOUT automatically assuming that that person enacted reflexes he picked up in a GTA game (yes, the ethical compass is another thing that gets messed up with certain video games).
I wish...but I can't.
Do I have criticism for the book? Hardly. There are sections where I'd like to object that not all video games are equal (playing tetris vs Crysis 2, for example, will have a different effect), but this certainly isn't by lack of knowledge by the author (there actually is mention of a study that checks on the difference between tetris and crysis 2, as far as that is concerned). And the worst part is that I have no reply to the counter-counterargument: that the difference in games is usually used to mask the ill-effects of the worst kinds. Which is true: I can bang on about how games like lyne, tetris or sim city positively affects this or that brain activity...but even if these arguments are true (I admit it: I don't have anything NEAR that amount of studies to prove anything of these claims I'm pulling out of my ass), they don't excuse for the far majority of violent games.
The only other thing I can come up with isn't much better: the relatively recent online component. The social stigma of being left out is nowadays excuse for the parents to let their children play online. This is something I won't deny...but to what degree is this a bad thing? Spitzer sees this as a negative trend as well (people are drawn into further depth of their addiction because of it), but I'm not sure to agree on it. It's true he doesn't try to have the argument against games both ways (meaning: he makes little to no reference to the gamer being a creature living in complete solitude), but I'd like to have seen more studies in this regard.
Nonetheless, these points of critic are pretty weak compared to the huge case that's piled up here. If I had a child, I'll certainly look for other means of play besides television or tablets before (s)he is four. And even then...my little nephew was raised without television...almost unthinkable in this day and age. But now he's grown up, he's one of the smartest people I know (he skipped two classes, knows Chinese and is currently in the US somewhere). And sure, the fact that his father is a doctor means something. But that "no television" may have had a far greater influence than I thought thus far...
