Video games make you better at math?

This is really cool: playing action video games increases math test scores. It works both for men and women, and could possibly be used to reduce the gender disparity in math. That's really cool, and another great example of how weird our brains are.

Thoughts on VT

By now we have all heard of the tragedy at Virginia Tech. As soon as I saw it after returning from class today, I immediately thought of a friend who goes there. Thankfully she's ok, but there are (so I've heard) 33 people who should still be alive right now. I wish there were something I could do for them, or for their families, but nothing I can say will do justice to the magnitude of the loss.

There have already been some inevitable reactions. People are calling for gun control, people are blaming videogames, and people are blaming the current US culture. I want to say a bit about these points.

First, gun control may have prevented this. We need to remember that while gun control is remarkably good at keeping guns away from people who obey the law, it's not particularly good at keeping them out of the hands of criminals. I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issue, but I ask those who hear this to remember that we can't be certain about how things would be different with gun control. As one commentator said, "Don't fear guns, fear cars." We hear about shootings but not fatal crashes, 42,884 Americans die in car crashes a year, which is almost 5 per hour. Just something to keep in mind.

Second, videogames almost certainly had nothing to do with it. A recent study found that videogames don't influence people with "stable" personalities, and that those who are influenced can be made calmer or angrier, and that it's a passing effect. However, the study was done with fairly small samples (22 in the "influenced and angrier" group), so it might not be right. Even so, the evidence indicates that videogames do not cause violent behavior.

Lastly, is our culture to blame? Perhaps we do ingest too much violence for our good, perhaps the murder just snapped under the weight of his failure to meet society's standards. It's entirely possible, and I'm not going to say that I love the US's culture right now; it is despicable in many ways. But I'm hesitant to blame society for this one. While we don't know who this young man was or why he did it, it's best to assume nothing about him. I think the most likely scenario is that several bad things happened to him in a row and he just snapped.

I know that people don't like to believe that extraordinarily bad events can be explained by mundane reasons, they like big events to have big causes. They also like to find blame, whether it be lack of gun control, videogames, or a bad culture. I hope we can move the blame to the back of our minds and instead grieve for the dead, and save reactions until a time when the facts are known and can be weighed with calm minds.

Evolutionary Algorithms used to make better videogame AIs

There was an interesting blurb in New Scientist about evolutionary algorithms in videogames:

The team used evolutionary algorithms to generate characters for the game Quake3 and then multiplied them by producing random mutations in each character’s behavior. Each of these mutants then took on the standard computer opponent. Those that performed well were "mated" to create a new selection of mutants, while the rest were discarded. The team repeated the process a number of times, finally creating characters that were able to beat the conventional computer bad guys and were much tougher for humans to play against.

This is the first time I’d heard of evolutionary algorithms being used in videogames, but it makes sense. If they can compute the shortest way to connect a bunch of points, or other complex math problems, and if they can evolve complex behaviors, then why not make more difficult videogame AIs? Evolutionary algorithms can produce a stunning number of different results, which would mean more distinct AIs, which creates more realistic and more difficult gameplay. Not only could it produce a multitude of different styles, it could also produce the best ones.

Traditionally, as difficulty level increases, enemies simply have more health, deadlier and more accurate weapons, and find you faster; behavioral modification is slight (at least in the games I’ve played). However, now they could actually behave more effectively, more like a real player would, with strategies and tactics. Evolutionary algorithms routinely surprise their designers with how much they can produce from little input, and the same would be true of game AIs: very complex situation-dependent behaviors would emerge. Even in advanced games, even on the highest difficulties, AIs are still pretty dumb. By evolving characters, game designers could change that.

An even more dramatic improvement would be characters that evolve based on how you play. Over the course of the game, you kill thousands of characters. The game knows characters are easiest for you to kill, and can play less of them. But you also die dozens of times, so it would also know which ones kill you best, and could play more of them. In this way you’d find yourself up against the most vexing opponents for your style. Not only could the game change the frequency of the characters, it could change the strategies themselves. As you progress and get better at the game, the characters adapt to your style, and you have to counter-adapt. In evolutionary terms, this is an arms race, and it ends with you as a better player. Or losing and throwing the controller at the screen, whichever comes first.

I have yet to play a videogame where the AI is harder than another player, and with evolutionary algorithms it could soon happen. I look forward to the day when the computer is better than my roommate (that bastard can really kick ass at Halo).

Data doesn't lie: violent and sexual media are not influencing children

I, for one, want to know when people are going to stop bashing violent and sexual media. Case in point, here are two articles, one is about teens, wrestling, and violence; the other is about teens, "raunchy music", and sex (those poor teens, it's always something). Violence and sex are the two darlings of reporters and sociologists wanting to get their names places; suggesting a link guarantees at least a mention in the newspaper.

Unfortunately, when someone says, "It's yet more evidence that, when it comes to kids and [violent] media, learning happens," their conclusions are going to be suspect. Or how about, "Whether it's hip-hop, rap, pop or rock, much of popular music aimed at teens contains sexual overtones. Its influence on their behavior appears to depend on how the sex is portrayed, researchers found." Do theses researchers ever consider the possibility that the innately violent seek out violent media? Or that the kids who have sex at ten like sexual lyrics? It's completely obvious, but it never gets mentioned.

Continue reading...You'd think that in a day and age where studies have found that genetic factors determine about 50% of our personality (taken from Matt Ridley's The Agile Gene) that these "researchers" (who are often nameless) would start to suggest that these forms of media (whether violent or sexual) cater to the people who are already violent or sexual, instead of causing the behavior.

It turns out that humans are sexually maturing younger than ever, to the point where some are suggesting that 6 or 7 be considered normal age for girls to hit puberty, whereas a couple centuries ago it might not happen until 17 (New Scientist, July 22, subscription required). Assuming kids are having sex earlier and more often, should it be a surprise? Physiologically they might be at the point where they should be starting. Maybe our age of adolescence is what's out of whack, or the fact that we're eating so well (as was suggested in the article). No one stops to consider that maybe children are maturing earlier than they used, so the idea of when things are “supposed” to happen is outdated.

But that's just one possibility. "However, Yvonne K. Fulbright, a New York-based sex researcher and author, said factors including peer pressure, self-esteem and home environment are probably more influential than the research suggests." I agree with her, but she gets two paragraphs, less than the 17-year-old sex-ed site manager, who has no supporting evidence at all for her claims. She just says, "Teens will try to deny it, they'll say 'No, it's not the music,' but it IS the music." Yeah, and while we’re jumping to baseless conclusions, Heavy Metal makes kids bite the heads off of bats and worship Satan.

However, the most damning evidence is the data on sex. Teen pregnancy rates are falling, and have been for quite some time. 2003 (the most recent year I found data for) had the lowest rates in 15 years. According to the CDC, more teens are abstaining, and fewer teens are having sex now than in 1995. So why, if sexual lyrics are corrupting our children, are the children having sex less? I guess facts don’t matter when we’re talking about sex.

It's almost as though the baby boomers forgot how Rock and Roll was supposed to corrupt the moral fabric of the youth beyond all repair. Funny how they're spewing the same garbage that was spewed fifty years ago. It's just as wrong then as it is now.

And the violence. Oh boy the violence. How is it, that when violence rates are the lowest they've been in over forty years, and have been declining for thirteen, we could be an epidemic of violence? If we’re in an epidemic of violence, why have almost all forms of violence in schools declined in the past ten years? How is it that violent videogames, which came about in the last decade or two, could be responsible for increased violence if violence has decreased? How is it that, according to the Surgeon General, there are 27 factors that increase violent behavior more so than violent media, such as socioeconomic status, academic failure, poor parent-child relations, weak social ties, and being male? How can anyone claim violent media is destroying our society? It's more likely that, giving the falling rates coinciding with the rise of videogames, they're making it better! Of course, I realize that correlation does not indicate causation, so I will leave that as a hypothesis and, unlike the "researchers" in these articles, not just state facts from nothing.

Violence has always existed, and it will always continue to exist. There's no way to get people to stop hurting each other. Some people are more prone to it than others, just by their genes or environment (by environment I mean family and socioeconomic status). Arguably, by giving those people a way to express their violent tendencies without hurting anyone, videogames (and perhaps other media too) do a great good. But this is pure speculation, and unlikely to ever be seriously studied.

Googling “violence” and “videogames” invariably brings up a study from Iowa State University that claims a connection between violent videogames and desensitization to violence. There was a decreased physiological response resulting from playing videogames, but this in no way makes those people more likely to commit crimes. Perhaps violent videogames really do desensitize people to violence, it seems to be the case for a short time after exposure, but there is no proof that this makes people more likely to be violent, which is what’s really important.

What I really think we should study is why people consistently claim that new things, things that they don’t understand, and things that scare them are destroying the world. There are dozens of examples, from videogames to filesharing to homosexuality to the Theory of Evolution. There are tons of historical ones, Rock and Roll and heliocentric theory spring immediately to mind. Fortunately, it seems as though many, if not most, people see through these inane fears, and I’m hopeful that in time these fears will be relegated to the fringe minorities. That would truly be a great day.

"Video Game Unlocks Orgasm Secrets"

Apparently, there's a videogame for the Nintendo DS that teaches women has to masturbate and orgasm. It uses the DS touch-screen to stroke, tickle, poke, or whatever a little bunny. You can even blow into the microphone. The more you "stimulate" it, the more "excited" it gets, eventually it starts flying around the screen.

I can't help but wonder, how many women who pursue a game like this don't already know their own bodies well enough to know how to masturbate? I also wonder what the reaction to something like this will be. It probably won't be nearly mainstream or popular enough to attract the kind of attention that games like GTA get, but still. Some prude who thinks that masturbation really does kill kittens, or whatever garbage the dolts who think that the human body is disgusting believe, will probably see it and rally the morality police against it. They must have nothing better to do. Maybe they should try masturbating. I know a bunny who can help them out.