[Air-l] Video Game Addiction

muraco one at muraco.org
Sat Oct 19 18:16:21 PDT 2002


so valuable...

THERE ARE NO STUDIES WHICH DEMO THAT GAME ADDICTS USER'S BRAINS ARE NOT
BEING MODIFIED BY THEIR ADDICTION
THERE ARE NO STUDIES WHICH DEMO THAT GAME ADDICTS USER'S BRAINS ARE BEING
MODIFIED BY THEIR ADDICTION.

that being said....
what was the point to the original post about how game user's addictions
couldn't be real addictions as real addictions are only physiological???

stay on the list -- bad Elijah!

----- Original Message -----
From: "elijah wright" <elw at stderr.org>
To: "muraco" <one at muraco.org>
Cc: <air-l at aoir.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Air-l] Video Game Addiction


>
>
> dear muraco,
>
> 1) thanks so much for forwarding an off-list personal email to the list.
> :( bad muraco!
>
> 2) i'm afraid you still don't understand my last mail to the list.
>
> 3) no one but you seems to be making informational claims, and i see no
> evidence of hostility.
>
> 4) a quick google search with the terms " +"video game addiction"
> physiological change" returns multiple hits, with multiple perspectives.
>
> 5) textbook trolling - nicely done.
>
> ~elijah
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, muraco wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:15:58 -0700
> > From: muraco <one at muraco.org>
> > To: air-l at aoir.org, elijah wright <elw at stderr.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Air-l] Video Game Addiction
> >
> > interesting that asking for verification of
> > "no shred of evidence exists for the brains being altered in game users"
> > gets so much hostilty...
> > I guess you have no study to cite, and that being said then I guess
> > THERE IS NO SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT GAME USERS BRAINS ARE NOT BEING
MODIFIED BY THEIR GAME ADDICTION.
> >
> > and so I guess your original statement isn't so useful...
> >
> > I continue with the noting that your defintion of addiction is most
flawed....
> > that addiction can include only psychological dimensions,
> > and therefore it would seem appropriate to note
> > "the addiction of game users..."
> >
> > which is I believe where we started...
> >
> > sadly I was hoping for something a bit more concrete to debate about....
> > otherwise why the post?
> > Muraco
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "elijah wright" <elw at stderr.org>
> > To: "muraco" <one at muraco.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 5:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Air-l] Video Game Addiction
> >
> >
> > >
> > > thus far, no one but you has indicated that there needs to be a cited
> > > study in order to establish that "no shred of evidence exists".
> > >
> > > you *could* go fire up google, instead of trolling the AIR list....
> > >
> > > elijah
> > >
> > > On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, muraco wrote:
> > >
> > > > Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:53:32 -0700
> > > > From: muraco <one at muraco.org>
> > > > Reply-To: air-l at aoir.org
> > > > To: air-l at aoir.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Air-l] Video Game Addiction
> > > >
> > > > coool then someone is going to cite the source???
> > > > this study that looked at users brains???
> > > >
> > > > I am not hostile but I do think I want things cited, and not spouted
off
> > > > without much thinking...
> > > >
> > > > so this study???
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "elijah wright" <elw at stderr.org>
> > > > To: <air-l at aoir.org>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 4:44 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Air-l] Video Game Addiction
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm, and I am also unaware of any study that actually looked for
altered
> > > > > > brains in video-game addicts, so you must know of such a study
as you
> > > > > > are claiming "no shred of evidence" was found. I should like to
know
> > > > > > about the study that actually looked at these game users brains.
Please
> > > > >
> > > > > tsk, tsk.  hostile?
> > > > >
> > > > > "no shred of evidence" can be interpreted to mean "no evidence has
been
> > > > > presented" as easily as "there is evidence to the contrary"...
two rather
> > > > > different options.
> > > > >
> > > > > which was actually meant is debatable, no? semantics :)
> > > > >
> > > > > elijah
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Air-l mailing list
> > > > > Air-l at aoir.org
> > > > > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Air-l mailing list
> > > > Air-l at aoir.org
> > > > http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Air-l mailing list
> Air-l at aoir.org
> http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
>





More information about the Air-L mailing list