Despite the dawning of the End Times (at least as far as our semester is concerned), I was able to find time for a chat with a colleague yesterday about a currently amorphous project that is staring to take shape. It’s a project that’s being spearheaded by other interests, but my colleague has been approached to take on what may be a significant role in it, and he’s thinking it over. So, much of our chat had to do with the potential of the project along various trajectories it might take — lots of “what if” since, as mentioned above, it’s pretty amorphous right now.
Anyhow, one of the tentative aims is to improve kids’ skills in and engagement with a particular broad subject area where the general perception is that kids need better skills and engagement. The tool to achieve this would be games that the kids would play on their own time (so it wouldn’t gobble up valuable class time; I guess you need that to get kids ready for the high-stakes standardized tests and stuff). And, the research driving this strategy has, apparently, focused a lot on the neurophysiology of how kids interact with games to identify the features a game ought to have to get kids addicted to it.
For both of us, this seems like a red flag.
So, the question: Do you think it’s a good idea (where “good” equals ethical or some other relevant value; feel free to specify it in your answer) to build kids’ skills and/or competencies by means of a delivery device that is explicitly designed to be addictive? (In case it matters, we’re talking about children younger than 13 years old.)
Does it matter what the actual skills and/or competencies are?
Does it matter whether the designed-to-be-addictive delivery method might itself be more attractive to the kids (and the adults they eventually become) than the various real-world venues in which the application of these skills and/or competencies are taken to be important?
Lay it on me.
My wife says that if high school had been presented as lyrics to 80s music she would have graduated with straight As.
My younger son would benefit greatly if more of the curriculum was available in game form. In particular, the humanities, since he already has a natural talent for math and science (just the facts, Ma’am). But he has some trouble with focussing on productive tasks and a lot of trouble with motivation. If bits of history and social studies could be put into game form I think it would engage him.
And yes, I’m concerned that games, which he can laser focus, contribute to his poor ability to concentrate in more mundane activities, but it’s such a struggle that I’d be willing to try anything.
Are they actually using the term “addictive”? It seems unlikely that any sort of game would have “real” addictive properties, like say cocaine, or even coffee.
Yes, the research base not only explicitly aims for addiction (and uses the word), but is working really hard to achieve that neurophysiological state by non-chemical means.
Which, you know, gives one pause.
That is surprising. Sounds possibly iffy.
I can’t let this pass without referencing a Star Trek episode about such a game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_%28Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation%29
Why are chemical substance addictions ‘real’ Bashir and why is it so implausible to you that nonchemical stimuli can become addictive?
It is quite possible to induce the human brain to dose itself with various neurochemicals in a way that makes it ‘want’ more such doses..
You get just such a dose when you do things like gain a level or finish an achievement in a game.
I think I would be concerned about this stopping kids being able to concentrate on things that don’t have the same fast reward-cycle that the games have.
Other than that, it sounds AWESOME! Let me know when they come out with the graduate-level eukaryote genomics version.
On the one hand, this gives me a little ethical twinge, since it seems wrong prima facie. On the other hand, I have a sneaking suspicion that videogame addiction of some sort is endemic in modern US kids. The designers of commercial video games are more circumspect about their motivations (they’re never going to admit that they’re trying to literally induce neurophysiological addiction), but they’ve been tremendously successful in making genuinely addictive games (e.g. http://kotaku.com/5384643/i-kept-playing–the-costs-of-my-gaming-addiction). So, perhaps I might reframe the question a bit: A large number (a majority?) of children in the US might show some signs of video game addiction already; is it ethically problematic to work to replace the objects of addiction, most of which weren’t designed to meaningfully enrich the user, with something that is enriching? When couched in those terms, my feeling is that the researchers should have at it, since replacing World of Warcraft or the like with something that bears more value seems like a significant net positive for all parties involved.
(For the record, I’ll note that I love video games myself, and I believe that, along with some downsides, there seem to be real upsides in playing them even in forms that aren’t explicitly educational.)
Great topic! It does raise some interesting questions. To what degree is it OK to change what someone likes? Are there fair and unfair ways to do this?
First off, I would argue that there is a difference between trying to ‘achieve that neurophysiological state’ of ‘addiction’ in the neuroscience sense, and our everyday, or even psychological understanding of addiction. My understanding (neuroscientists, please correct me if I’m way off) of neurophysiological addiction is that it involves triggering ‘rewards’ in the brain. These rewards, I think, are normally present when we do basically pleasurable and evolutionarily desirable things like have sex, eat, etc. So in a sense, we are all seeking this addict’s rush every time we do something pleasurable. Some things just happen to do it more and with greater dependency.
I imagine this admits of degrees. If I praise a child and give him a jelly bean every time he does a math problem, I am trying to get him to associate pleasure with math. My ultimate goal would be for him to feel pleasure doing math. Would this not be similar neurophysiologically to addiction?
Also, I would argue that, at least in our current society (possibly as part of the human condition) we are inevitably ‘addicted’ to something, usually several things. This is addiction in the more everyday sense of the word, meaning we will indulge in some pleasurable behavior, possibly to excess. People have ‘addictions’ of this informal sort to all kinds of things sugar, violence, consumerism, reading, marathon running, etc. So, rather than have kids addicted to, say, violent video games, perhaps being addicted to educational ones is a good thing for them and for society at large.
There is also the matter of degree here too. Is the goal to get them addicted to the point that they prefer the games to, say, watching TV and want to do it for at least an hour a day? Or is it to have a result more like the Star Trek episode that Bashir mentions, where the game completely eclipses all other aspects of the person’s life? I’m guessing the goal is not to make the kids SO ‘addicted’ to the game in any sense that playing it would have a negative impact on them leading a well-rounded life.
Then, of course, there is the question as to how well-rounded does anyone’s life really have to be? Many people have activities that they like to do in a way that outsiders would think was a little excessive. For instance, Star Trek fans, golf fans, and birdwatching enthusiasts all often seem to slightly ‘overindulge’ in their interests, but generally people think this is more amusing and quirky than pathological. Likewise, very dedicated scientists and artists may be consumed by their passion for their work with desirable results for many. If a kid grows up with a hobby of playing an educational video game a bit obsessively, is that really such a bad thing? Is it worse than the kid who has an inordinate love for baseball or playing the guitar?
FWIW my husband grew up on and still indulges in some of the most violent video games ever invented, much to the surprise of people who know him as a gentle, hippie-like fellow who loves kittens. He actually has a rather addictive personality, which I try to direct towards productive or neutral pursuits, such as learning the guitar or playing video games at home. If he is going to overindulge in something, I (and he) would rather it was something like those activities than alcohol or some dangerous and expensive pursuit.
Let me just say this. The assessment industry (those who bring you the standardized tests) is embracing this kind of thing whole heartedly.
I don’t know if it’s a passing fad in the industry, but I suspect that much of it is here to stay.
I like it. My 8-y.o. grandson gets “addicted” to computer games with real learning hidden in them, such as Angry Birds’ reliance on physics. Other games teach him how to reason and learn, such as developing strategies for Plants vs. Zombies or Super Mario. After he’s played a game a few times or enough to achieve mastery, he moves on to another game, an element pedagogical games must support.
Addiction implies a dependence which cannot control. I cannot imagine how lack of control can be argued to be a net positive. Yes, you may addict kids to a game and improve some specific skills… but at what cost? How does the question different from giving the children an addictive drug that improves attention or academic performance?
My choice would be to opt for a “delivery device” that consist of an engaging, interesting and funny teacher that loves his/her work and is well compensated for the work.
It doesn’t strike me as terribly different form giving three year olds m & ms to potty train them. The dose makes the poison, but I’m reasonably convinced by the argument gold stars, praise, grades and *any* external rewards can (at least sometimes) bork the ‘ natural’ rewards system. So I kind of think the intent (and expanded deffinition) regarding ‘addiction’ is new, but the screwing with kids brains is old.
I think the relevant issue is, does this merely use the reward system, which anything mildly pleasurable does, or will the game actually make the children dependent and lose control. Would they go through withdrawal? It’s hard to imagine how a game could lead to that level of dependence. Seems like “use the reward system for encouragement” sounds better that “addiction”. Though this isn’t my area…
You are getting there Bashir. There is no fundamental difference and anything that activates the common reward machinery has the potential to induce some form of compulsive, uncontrolled behavior. The scale from “I like this” to “I can’t stop doing this” is not discontinuous. So the fundamental issue is not one of addictive/nonaddictive but degree of attraction.
The question for Janet is does this game do it? With what severity, how recoverable and in what fraction of children is the addiction produced? What are the real world consequences of this dependence?
“addiction” as a term is a sensationalistic red herring in this context, if you ask me…
Best case scenario (from the point of view of my colleague’s potential involvement in the project) is that “addiction” is being used in a sensationalistic, non-technical sense.
However, in the event that the researchers know what addiction really is and are designing a can’t-stop-doing-it delivery method for skills training — one which maybe is more attractive (and gives more reliable, immediate rewards) than the in-the-real-world settings in which these skills are taken to be important (which is the purported reason to cultivate them in kids)? I have a problem with it.
Which is why I think the research needs to address just the questions DM identifies here. Up front, not as an afterthought.
Seniors have been told that doing often (as per an addiction?) Soduku, crossword, cryptogram, Ken-ken, jig-saw, etc. puzzles is an antidote to many forms of aging of the brain. Experts indicate that different forms of puzzles are more beneficial than an addiction to only one type, encouraging brain pliability. I currently spend a bit too much time with Sudoku.
I do find that it is easiest to put the puzzles down when I have an opportunity to interact with one or more grandchildren, and I suspect most other seniors find that too! I’m not sure the 13-year-olds feel the same about putting down their games to interact with grandparents, though.