lute (05/16/82)
As a behavioral scientist, I must admit that the trend in obsessive- compulsive interests in computer games, by children has me worried a bit. A few years ago, I was the Games manager in a Brentano's bookstore (ca. 1977- 1978). At that time the hot new games were: Merlin, Simon, Boris(computer chess), electronic baseball and football and some others I can't remember. Although some of them provided cooperative/competetive type games which allowed you to play with one or more other people, the BIG selling point that was that they were portable and could be played ALONE! Kids were CONSTANTLY coming in to play on our demos and as time went on, so did a lot of adults. One day, a man in his early 40's commented on how great all these new games were and how he wished he had had them around when he was a kid. Though against my sales judgement, but well within my moral and behavioral science judgement, I told him something that I have since told everyone who I talk to he gets that starry-eyed look about computer games. "These games are fun, there is one problem, they are doing away with the human playmate." There is a great loss society suffers in this simple truth. In games of the imagination like Cowboys and Indians, Mother may I, Simon says, or active games like kickball, dodgeball etc., children learn how to make up their OWN rules, challenge unfair rules, compromise, play games cooperatively as well as competitively, choose teammates and make friends, plus get exercise that helps their physical growth and health. It is from the social interaction of childrens' early game playing that they learn by adolescence and adulthood how to: make friends, date, cultivate business sense and diplomacy, and in general, be social! NO MACHINE CAN TEACH A SPECIES HOW TO EFFECTIVELY INTERACT WITH THEIR OWN KIND! Since most of these simple computer games promote a certain level of social isolation, I think that everyone should show some level of concern that the use of such games does not get out of hand. I enjoy playing games on the computer, or blowing a few dollars on pac-man, battle zone or defender, but in a proportionately smaller amount than the time I enjoy spending with people, involving myself in other activities. A child often, has not yet learned how to put such things in perspective, and here lies the danger. Machines do not require a person being assertive. They do not require understanding feelings, nor do they require you learn to deal with face-to-face confrontation with another "unpredictable" individual. Dealing with a machine, then, creates a false sense of control and predictability in one's personal space. But this is strictly an illusion. If a person tries to live this illusion when dealing with other people, they will find that none of their problem-solving patterns work (as they are accustomed to when dealing with a computer), and hence, in their embarrassment and confusion they retreat to the comfortable predictability of their computers. Thus, they become more inept in their ability to deal effectively with other humans! It is bad enough when I see this type of behavior occur in adults, born at a time when computers played only a small part in their lives growing up. I often cringe when I consider the long-term behavioral/societal effects that such things that computer games might have. Then again, I might only be over-reacting like some social commentators did when I was growing up on the "Dangers of Television on Today's youth!" In the final analysis though, I think that it will be the responsibility of parents and schools to make sure children (from day one) get a balanced perspective of when you are to deal with computers and when you are to deal with people. I know this idea will make a lot of parents and educators cringe since it is now "in" to be a "buudy" to your child (which I think is just adults chickening out of responsibility, or afraid to hear their child say, "I hate you" after they punish them). But if we adults, who have been on both sides of the computer age, don't show children a balanced perspective; tell me...who will? Jim Collymore mhuxh!lute
jcwinterton (05/17/82)
On the CBC station this morning, there was an interview with Mel Lastman, Mayor of North York (one of the biggest boroughs in Toronto) in which was discussed the new by-law to regulate video games parlours. One owner was interviewed as well. The owner stated that all his machines are run by tokens, not quarters, which must be bought from the counter man. He said that they will not sell tokens to school children during school hours and that they take other precautions and reserve the right to cut off anyone who appears to be in bad shape or is rowdy and disturbing others. Lastman's final comment was that licencing is needed. Here we go again, yet another bureau in the city government. *sigh*. John Winterton.
davy (05/18/82)
In response to John Winterton's article mentioning that the Video Arcade used only "tokens", rather than quarters. I saw an interesting sign in one of the arcades here at Purdue (Lafayette, Indiana). It read something like: NOTICE It is *ILLEGAL* to use Pin Pan Alley tokens in any other arcade, and also *ILLEGAL* to use tokens from another arcade here at Pin Pan Alley. The sign went on, however, this was what surprised me. I know that most arcades use tokens which are "unique", i.e., I have tried using the "wrong" tokens at a couple of the arcades in town, and they don't work anyway. I did find it interesting that there is a law which covers this. Any lawyer types out there who know if this is a new law, or is it covered under some older law? --Dave Curry