It seems like 95% of OCN doesn't get the difference between correlation and cause-effect.
Just because the the average gamer experiences more difficulties with social interaction, doesn't mean "gaming is bad for you!" is proven..
Possible alternative hypothesises:
1) People with social difficulties tend to feel more comfortable behind a display. It's a safer environment because they feel in control and the amount of unpredictability drops by a huge factor compared to social interaction.
2) All the time you game, is time you don't spend developing social skills (assuming the alternative is spending time with people). But that's also the case for people who read books instead of socialise. No attempt at generalising, but the stereotype of "book wurm" isn't that far fetched. 1) also applies to reader books.
It's not that gaming isn't good for you. On the contrary. If an individual fails to function in a complex social environment when exposed to it for longer periods of time, it might very well be a good idea to let him/her cool off with some gaming breaks. I suspect that the gaming is a symptom, not a cause - hence correlation
Oh crap! I actually used rational reasoning in an internet argument. Woops
Originally Posted by brucethemoose
Originally Posted by Pantsu
Gaming is escapism, so it wouldn't be surprising to find out that kids having problems in their life would end up gaming more. So it can be a symptom that when left unchecked can lead to more issues, but simply banning gaming would not fix the root cause of the need for gaming in the first place.
Yeah. I'd think you'd find a similar correlation with other "healthier" forms of escapism (reading fiction, radio etc.)
Bloody hell, I got ninja'd Edited by xioros - 1/10/17 at 2:38am