×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 技多不压身,工到自然成:安省技工证书特训班,点击咨询报名!
Ad by
  • 技多不压身,工到自然成:安省技工证书特训班,点击咨询报名!

电子游戏的确是一个controversial的话题。反对的人强调是容易addicted,而忽视它带来的益处。但其实什么成了addicted都不好啊。我倒想向你学习学习心理学。

1。"Instant Gratification". 凭什么说instant gratification就一定不好呢?人们欲望的满足不就是一个instant和long term的结合吗?如果吃饭没有instant gratificatioin,只有long term的营养上的满足,人们吃饭还有乐趣吗?再比如,老公爱你long term的,但是要是他ML不能给你instant gratification,你估计早蹬了他。比赛中如果没有最后一分钟胜负的instant gratification, 那种thrilled的感觉,谁会看呢?

2。"Narcissism". 其实在某种程度上自恋不是坏事,因为这可能就是自尊、自强。有研究说那些伟人都有一定程度的自恋,他们最看得起的是自己。倒是一般的人做不到这么自恋。拿破仑、毛泽东。。。

3。心理学曾一度被看成pseudo-science,就是因为它的很多理论本身就是controversial的,缺乏客观的验证。它的一些理论可以供你参考,开拓你的思路,但是要是让它作为decision making 的依据,那你就太幼稚了。
Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下家园 / 望子成龙 / 不是危言耸听,周六的“国家邮报”文章从进化心理学的角度看电子游戏对人类社会的影响。也许我们就此灭亡,可能是夸张。但是影响不可小瞧。(没有时间翻译,大家凑合看吧)有那么几个老是砸我的电子游戏观点的,一定还要来砸。不砸不散。
    本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛How it all ends

    Geoffrey Miller
    National Post

    Saturday, February 18, 2006

    The World Question Center recently asked a group of distinguished thinkers: "What is your most dangerous idea?" What follows is one of the more intriguing responses.

    - - -

    The story goes like this: Sometime in the 1940s, Enrico Fermi was talking about the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligence with some other physicists. They were impressed that our galaxy holds 100 billion stars, that life evolved quickly and progressively on earth, and that an intelligent, exponentially-reproducing species could colonize the galaxy in just a few million years. They reasoned that extra-terrestrial intelligence should be common by now. Fermi listened patiently, then asked simply, "So, where is everybody?"

    That is, if extra-terrestrial intelligence is common, why haven't we met any bright aliens yet? This conundrum became known as Fermi's Paradox.

    The paradox has become ever more baffling. Over 150 extra-solar planets have been identified in the last few years, suggesting that life-hospitable planets orbit most stars. Paleontology shows that organic life evolved very quickly after our Earth's surface cooled and became life-hospitable. Given simple life, evolution shows progressive trends toward larger bodies, brains and social complexity. Evolutionary psychology reveals several credible paths from simpler social minds to human-level creative intelligence. Yet 40 years of intensive searching for extra-terrestrial intelligence have yielded nothing. No radio signals, no credible spacecraft sightings, no close encounters of any kind.

    So, it looks as if there are two possibilities. Perhaps our science overestimates the likelihood of extra-terrestrial intelligence evolving. Or, perhaps evolved technical intelligence has some deep tendency to be self-limiting, even self-exterminating. After Hiroshima, some suggested that any aliens bright enough to make colonizing space-ships would be bright enough to make thermonuclear bombs, and would use them on each other sooner or later. Perhaps extra-terrestrial intelligence always blows itself up. Fermi's Paradox became, for a while, a cautionary tale about Cold War geopolitics.

    I suggest a different, even darker solution to Fermi's Paradox. Basically, I think the aliens don't blow themselves up; they just get addicted to computer games. They forget to send radio signals or colonize space because they're too busy with runaway consumerism and virtual-reality narcissism. They don't need Sentinels to enslave them in a Matrix; they do it to themselves, just as we are doing today.

    The fundamental problem is that any evolved mind must pay attention to indirect cues of biological fitness, rather than tracking fitness itself. We don't seek reproductive success directly; we seek tasty foods that tended to promote survival in ancestral times and luscious mates who tended to produce bright, healthy babies. Modern results: fast food and pornography. Technology is fairly good at controlling external reality to promote our real biological fitness, but it's even better at delivering fake fitness -- subjective cues of survival and reproduction, without the real-world effects. Fresh organic fruit juice costs so much more than nutrition-free soda. Having real friends is so much more effort than watching Friends on TV. Actually colonizing the galaxy would be so much harder than pretending to have done it when filming Star Wars or Serenity.

    Fitness-faking technology tends to evolve much faster than our psychological resistance to it. The printing press is invented; people read more novels and have fewer kids; only a few curmudgeons lament this. The Xbox 360 is invented; people would rather play a high-resolution virtual ape in Peter Jackson's King Kong than be a perfect-resolution real human. Teens today must find their way through a carnival of addictively fitness-faking entertainment products: MP3, DVD, TiVo, XM radio, Verizon cellphones, Spice cable, EverQuest online, instant messaging, Ecstasy, B.C. Bud. The traditional staples of physical, mental and social development (athletics, homework, dating) are neglected. The few young people with the self-control to pursue the meritocratic path often get distracted at the last minute -- the MIT graduates apply to do computer game design for Electronics Arts, rather than rocket science for NASA.

    Around 1900, most inventions concerned physical reality: cars, airplanes, zeppelins, electric lights, vacuum cleaners, air conditioners, bras, zippers. In 2005, most inventions concern virtual entertainment -- the top 10 patent-recipients are usually IBM, Matsushita, Canon, Hewlett-Packard, Micron Technology, Samsung, Intel, Hitachi, Toshiba and Sony -- not Boeing, Toyota or Wonderbra. We have already shifted from a reality economy to a virtual economy, from physics to psychology as the value-driver and resource-allocator. We are already disappearing up our own brainstems. Freud's pleasure principle triumphs over the reality principle. We narrow-cast human-interest stories to each other, rather than broadcasting messages of universal peace and progress to other star systems.

    Maybe the bright aliens did the same. I suspect that a certain period of fitness-faking narcissism is inevitable after any intelligent life evolves. This is the Great Temptation for any technological species -- to shape their subjective reality to provide the cues of survival and reproductive success without the substance. Most bright alien species probably go extinct gradually, allocating more time and resources to their pleasures, and less to their children.

    Heritable variation in personality might allow some lineages to resist the Great Temptation and last longer. Those who persist will evolve more self-control, conscientiousness and pragmatism. They will evolve a horror of virtual entertainment, psychoactive drugs and contraception. They will stress the values of hard work, delayed gratification, child-rearing and environmental stewardship. They will combine the family values of the Religious Right with the sustainability values of the Greenpeace Left.

    My dangerous idea-within-an-idea is that this, too, is already happening. Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, and anti-consumerism activists, already understand exactly what the Great Temptation is, and how to avoid it. They insulate themselves from our Creative-Class dream-worlds and our EverQuest economics. They wait patiently for our fitness-faking narcissism to go extinct. Those practical-minded breeders will inherit the earth, as like-minded aliens may have inherited a few other planets. When they finally achieve Contact, it will not be a meeting of novel-readers and game-players. It will be a meeting of dead-serious super-parents who congratulate each other on surviving not just the Bomb, but the Xbox. They will toast each other not in a soft-porn Holodeck, but in a sacred nursery.

    Geoffrey Miller is an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico and the author of The Mating Mind. This article originally appeared on Edge, www.edge.org.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
    • 我女儿已经玩电脑和游戏玩得不知人间烟火了。不交男朋友,不出去玩,不识东南西北,不知道埃塞俄比亚在那,....退化了。。
      • 这个这个,这个要进教科书作经典范例。可以联系我吗?我们好好谈谈? :)
    • 这个夸张了一点。电子游戏主要是不要上瘾,也不用视为洪水猛兽。Dsicovery杂志2005年7月有一篇文章大谈电子游戏的好处,而且认为从游戏中获得的技能
      是applicable to real-life,能促进创造性思维(lateral thinking)。如果你看那篇文章,你说不定恨不得马上去买那几个游戏。
      http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-05/features/brain-on-video-games/?page=2
      • 当然了。 问题还是全面好。 比如你这篇,就是另一个角度来看问题。 我也用所谓的多媒体来学习或是教小孩。不过电子游戏也是很大的一个范畴,其中很多东西是代表了一个不好的趋向, 有些也是可以涉猎,并有益处。
        • 游戏是要引导孩子玩好一点的,不是打打杀杀,狂轰滥炸的。我自己曾经也很上瘾,说实话,要有很强的自控能力。出国后就没时间玩了,对某些游戏还是很怀念。
          有益的是一些智力性的,比如simcity。象“仓库世家”,有一些题目相当难。其实游戏能打很多关,高水平的,也往往是比较聪明的小孩。
    • welcome back triton. This forum is boring without you.
    • 本来不想就电子游戏的问题和你再争,但你说不砸不散,这不是挑衅吗?首先问你:你到底认真阅读了这篇文章没有啊?
      • 笑话。 我当然读了。 难道你读出电子游戏很有益处了?
        • 那好吧,我多说几句,论战开始了。
          本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛1. 这篇文章本身就是“危”言耸听,你却说不是。文章一开始就说:World Question Center问了一些著名思想家:什么是你们最dangerous的想法?也就是最wild(危言,怪异的)的想法。这篇文章不过是回答之一。
          2. 这是不过是一个思想极端Conservative的curmudgeon(和观念顽固的坏脾气人),打着所谓“evolutionary psychology”的学术旗号,的一篇反科学、反进步的小品文罢了(或许本身就是调侃),不是一项研究和调查,没有任何数据。你却拿来当宝贝。他反对的不是一个电子游戏,而是反对科技给人们带来的一切生活方式的改变。包括:印刷术、电视、电影、游戏机、手机、网络、DVD, MP3等等。他把一切科技进步给人们带来的满足视为fake fitness,把人们追求精神生活的欲望视为“fitness-faking narcissism”,视为“Great Temptation”(就像撒旦的),而且说只有“Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, and anti-consumerism activists”能够survive. (看来这家伙是会支持因为漫画闹事的人)。对这种“语不惊人誓不休”的文章,本来不必认真,看看一笑了之也就罢了,你居然当宝贝?
          3. 想要自己的危言plausible,你就必须学会:1)偷换概念;2)以偏概全;3)戴上学术的帽子。这篇文章里比比皆是,不值一驳。比如说:“any evolved mind must pay attention to indirect cues of biological fitness, rather than tracking fitness itself”,这条理论成立吗?或许在原始社会成立。那时的人们靠的是生存的本能而寻找美味食品。现在的科技允许人们直接追求美味,这有什么不好?他说:90年代的发明多是物质实体,而现在的发明多是虚拟娱乐的东西。他知不知道有多少虚拟技术已经让原来的物质实体的发明更加完善?比如训练飞行员的模拟舱,汽车里的GPS等等?他说:“The printing press is invented; people read more novels and have fewer kids”,什么话啊?个别MIT的学生放弃了NASA去了EA, 他就说最后他们也失去了self-control. 他的理想社会就是:宗教般的“右”加上绿色和平主义者的“左”。你接受得了吗?那样最后回到工业革命之前。Internet是个典型的virtual environment, 没有它你能想象吗?
          4. 其实,在思想上做一个conservative很容易,你只要循规蹈矩,反对一切新事物就行了。但在思想上做一个liberal很难。你要不断的学习和探索。Bill Gates们liberal到了连大学都不上了,一般人是接受不了的。可必须承认的是:世界是由Liberal(思想上)创造的,第一个取火种的人、第一个吃螃蟹的人。。。。。。更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
          • 这是一个很右派的文章。可是作者也是一位专业人士,从进化心理方面做出电子游戏对人类文明的影响。你可以说这是反动,反动一切的革新,
            但这正是这个世界需要的。面临太多的,眼花缭乱的新鲜玩意,我们还是后退一点,看清楚了再说。
            技术的发展,无疑是近几百年来,对人类社会最大的变化。可是不要说地球环境本身的变化,就说西方世界人口的变化就可以说出作者的预测和推论是不错的。所有的先进文明都面临人口减少,可是性确更开放。目前的趋势就是西方文明和日本都会灭亡,如果按目前的人口增长模式下去的话,不出100年,他们的人口不足以维持自己的经济体系。
            这文章当然是一个大胆的,假设性的文章,从一开始作者就已经表明。也是危言耸听的文章。但是其中提出的解释模式,提出的问题,是很有道理的,可以借鉴的。
            • 不要认为专业人士的话就一定信。令人信服的是真正的科学研究。前不久公布的关于补钙的一项研究,历时7年,耗资1800万,得出的结论是服用补钙品没有用,这才是真正的科学,靠的是数据。
              不少西方学者历来喜欢危言耸听。前几年一个美国学者有一篇:“谁来养活中国”,轰动一时。可这么多年过去了,中国粮食问题越来越不成为问题。这样的例子很多。

              危言的特点就是孤立地、片面地看问题。其实人类的进步就是不断超越自己的过程。就像人们不会等到石油用完了才想起找新能源,布什的新年国情询文说得很清楚。日本和西方国家也不会看着人口下降到经济崩溃的地步,到时候他们会采取鼓励生育、放宽移民的政策。

              看来你在国内时,Marx Dialectic Materialism没学好啊。至少没有学会全面地、发展嘀看问题。
              • 心理和社会学的研究往往是很难用数学,或建模来实现的。关于那个粮食的问题,我也是很有兴趣。作者的研究非常有见地(我买了他的书 PLAN B),历史是很慢的,说未来的事情,因为往往没有实现,所以被说成是危言耸听。
                如果没有人来危言在先,政府的补救也是不会那么快的。
                因为60-70年代的小型柴油机,还有小电动机的发展,使得大部分的粮食生产都转往依赖地下水。导致地下水表下降,全方位的数据已经显示世界性的地下水表的下降。这个缺水引起的问题,导致沙漠化,在世界各地都明显。这个问题还是会出现的,不会不出现的。到时就是如何养活全世界的人问题。如果现有的模式不改变,这个问题就一定会出现。我认为这不是危言耸听,而是真实的科学。
                这个缺水和电子游戏的发展,作者都有一个假设,就是目前的趋势如果任其发展到一定程度的话,就会有一定的后果。这也是为政府的补救和人们的觉醒提供一个警钟,不是没有益处。
                所以我认为作者的研究还是提供了有益的结论。
                • 危言也的确有这个作用。这样的危言一直没停止过,比如电灯、照相、电影、电视等等发明之后,总会有危言。现在也很多:爱滋、禽流感等等,可人类还是不断进步。
                  农业过分依赖地下水造成地下水位下降,可世界农业最发达的国家却是缺水的、沙漠化的以色列,因为那里采用的是滴灌技术,用水量极少。所以说,科技是可以让人们摆脱传统上对水的过分依赖。更何况还有基因技术等可以大幅度提高单产量。中国在成为最大的世界加工厂后,有能力进口粮食,所以政府才有胆量让农民退耕还田。

                  看问题还是要发展嘀看哦。
                • 只要是成为科学,就必须要有客观验证,不然就仅仅是猜想,假设。科学的发展不是难在假设,而是验证。社会学等不容易数学建模,是因为变量更多。但人们一直朝这个方向努力。测谎仪就是用心理学建模的一个例子。
              • 关于补钙的报道, 请看完全文再下结论。
                本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Big Study Finds No Clear Benefit of Calcium Pills
                By GINA KOLATA
                A large, seven-year study of healthy women over 50 found no broad benefit from calcium and vitamin D supplements in preventing broken bones, despite widespread endorsement by doctors for the supplements.

                The study, whose results are being reported today, also found no evidence that the supplements prevented colorectal cancer, and it found an increased risk of kidney stones.

                The study's leaders said there were hints of benefits for some subgroups in the study. But the supplements' only positive effect in the overall study population — 36,282 normal, healthy women ages 50 to 79 — was a 1 percent increase in bone density at the hip.

                The $18 million study was part of the Women's Health Initiative, a large federal project whose results have confounded some popular beliefs and raised questions about public health messages that had been addressed to the entire population.

                Last week, the initiative reported findings that low fat diets do not protect against breast or colorectal cancer or heart disease. A few years ago, the initiative's study on hormone treatment after menopause showed it had more health risks than benefits.

                In every case, the initiative was testing hypotheses that arose from studies that observed populations and correlated certain health practices with medical outcomes. But such observational studies, statisticians agree, can yield misleading information because a group that happens to follow certain health advice may differ in unknown ways from groups that do not.

                Those drawbacks are alleviated in a clinical trial, like those of the Women's Health Initiative, which randomly assigned women to a preventive strategy, like hormones or diet or supplements, or not, and looked for definite results — a fractured bone, a heart attack.

                In the new study, the participants were randomly assigned to take 1,000 milligrams of calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D a day, or to take placebos, and were followed for seven years. Researchers looked for effects on bone density, fractures and colorectal cancer. The lack of an effect on colorectal cancer over the seven years was so clear that it has aroused little debate. But the effect on bones is another story.

                Osteoporosis specialists said the study, published today in the New England Journal of Medicine, was likely to put a dent in what has become a widespread medical practice of recommending that all women take calcium and vitamin D supplements starting at menopause if not sooner, as a sort of insurance policy against osteoporosis. But beyond that there is no agreement on what, if anything, healthy women should do.

                The study's investigators emphasized encouraging hints and biological plausibility in the data. When they looked only at adherent women, or those who took 80 percent of their pills, the supplements reduced hip fractures by 29 percent. The annual rate of hip fractures in adherent women taking the supplements was 10 per 10,000 as compared with 14 per 10,000 in adherent women taking placebos.

                In a separate subgroup analysis of all women in the study over 60, the investigators saw a 21 percent reduction in hip fractures in the group taking the supplements. The rate was 19 per 10,000 in women over 60 taking the supplements, compared with 24 per 10,000 in women over 60 taking placebos.

                But such subgroup analyses are questioned by many statisticians, who point out that there always will be subgroups in a large study showing one effect or another, simply by chance.

                Some subgroups, as happened in this study, will show a positive effect and others, as also happened in this study, will show a negative effect, but those effects often are nothing more than random fluctuations in the data. Over all, searching the data after the study is done in order to find subgroups that support a hypothesis can produce misleading results, statisticians say.

                And, added David Freedman, a statistician at the University of California, Berkeley, who has written books on clinical trial design and analysis, women who take their pills as directed year in and year out are known to be different from ordinary women, so it is a mistake to generalize from them to the entire population.

                Dr. Jacques Rossouw, a project officer for the study, explained the limitations. "These are secondary analyses and are exploratory to some extent," he said.

                Nonetheless, said Dr. Elizabeth G. Nabel, the study's director, the subgroup data and the increase in hip bone density do indicate the value of adequate calcium and vitamin D. "Based on all the results, women — particularly those over 60 — should consider taking calcium and vitamin D for bone health," she said.

                Others were not so sure.

                Dr. Ethel Siris, president of the National Osteoporosis Foundation, said the new study made her question the advice given by many doctors that all women take calcium supplements regardless of what is in their diet. "We didn't think it hurt, which is why doctors routinely gave it," Dr. Siris said.

                The new study, she said, shows it can hurt to take the supplements; among the women taking them there were an additional five cases of kidney stones per 10,000 women per year. So, Dr. Siris said, her suggestion is that doctors urge the supplements only upon women not getting enough calcium, 1,200 to 1,500 milligrams a day, from their diets.

                "Enough is enough," Dr. Siris said. "Too much of a good thing isn't a good thing."

                Dr. Clifford J. Rosen, director of the Maine Center for Osteoporosis Research and Education in Bangor, said he would now reserve the supplements for women over 70 — the age group with the greatest risk of hip fractures — who are not getting enough calcium and vitamin D.

                "This is a public health intervention," Dr. Rosen said. "We've been recommending it for everyone but it probably doesn't work in the majority of people or the effect is small. And there is an increase in kidney stones. It is not a benign intervention."

                Others went further, asking whether healthy women should be taking the supplements at all. Cynthia Pearson, executive director of the National Women's Health Network, an advocacy group, knew what her organization would say. "Because this isn't very effective doesn't mean you have to go look for something else," she said. "If you consider yourself reasonably similar to those women, which is what most of us aspire to be, don't worry. Life is good."

                Susan Ellenberg, a statistician and former official at the Food and Drug Administration who is now at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, said: "It's disappointing. You would like there to be a simple inexpensive way to prevent hip fractures in older women."

                But, Dr. Ellenberg said, "I think it's pretty clear that if there's any effect at all it's extremely modest. Even when you do those questionable subgroup analyses, there's just a barely significant effect, and that's in a very, very large group."

                The study was begun to ask about a popular belief so fervently held that it has become almost a tenet of public health. Since adequate calcium and vitamin D are needed for healthy bones, and since women's bones normally start to thin after menopause, women should take the supplements to help protect themselves from the devastating bone fractures that can occur with osteoporosis.

                And there may be another benefit — studies that observed people who happened to be taking calcium supplements had indicated that the supplements might reduce colorectal cancer risk.

                The study was medical science's one chance to ask in such a rigorous way whether those beliefs about calcium and vitamin D were true. Such large studies, investigators said, tend not to be repeated.

                Its investigators also realized that they would be applying the cold light of science to popular messages that have fueled a booming calcium supplement industry, with annual sales, reports Dr. Joel S. Finkelstein, an osteoporosis researcher at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, of $993 million on 2004.

                Calcium supplements, Dr. Finkelstein wrote in an editorial published today in the New England Journal of Medicine, are "the biggest seller of the multibillion-dollar dietary-supplement industry."

                Those messages may have falsely reassured many women that the supplements are going to protect them, Dr. Finkelstein said.

                "Women come to see me all the time saying, 'How can I possibly have osteoporosis? I exercise and I take calcium and vitamin D,' " he said. "The ads for calcium have given many women the impression that they are protected against osteoporosis. The message of the study is that calcium and vitamin D by themselves are not enough."

                As a therapy to protect against osteoporosis, Dr. Finkelstein said, supplements are "pretty weak." Women who have the condition should consider taking one of the seven prescription drugs on the market that have been shown in rigorous clinical trials and approved by the Food and Drug Administration to prevent fractures, he advised. Six of the drugs inhibit bone breakdown and one spurs the growth of new bone.

                But disappointing results are valuable, too, said Dr. Russell Harris, a specialist in internal and preventive medicine at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine.

                "We advance in medical science," Dr. Harris said "not only by finding things that work but by finding things that don't work and by encouraging people to think about other things."

                Now, some osteoporosis specialists are saying the study was flawed — it should have focused on older women, or it should have used higher doses of vitamin D, or it should have excluded women who already had plenty of calcium in their diets.

                Dr. Siris said she understood the reaction. When she saw the results of the study, her first instinct was to pick it apart. But, she said, she was put off by the attacks on the Women's Health Initiative study that showed there were health risks from hormone treatments for menopause.

                In the hormone study, she said, she thought the results were right and "now I find myself thinking there was something wrong with the design of this study because I don't like the results." She decided to resist the temptation to shoot the messenger.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
                • 结论我没说错啊。
                • 虽然我没有看这个报道。不过对于类似的报道却看过一些。这样的研究很难确定实验的样本,因为影响人的因素有很多,很难在众多的因素中确定和某一后果的相关关系。
                  比如前几天说的吃的油腻和清淡对妇女的心血管血压疾病没有什么关系,但是并不意味着,你就可以马上吃油腻食物。我认为这研究比我列出的危言耸听还要没有科学根据。
                  钙片还是会有卖,也还是会有人吃。类似的说吃维生素没有用,可是还是有很多人吃一样。科学在这上面可能还没有人的本能来得直接。而我引用的文章就是从人的本能出发的。
                  • 哈哈,你才是真自恋啊。“科学在这上面可能还没有人的本能来得直接。而我引用的文章就是从人的本能出发的”。----乐水同志语录
                  • 讨论到现在已经很清楚了,再批驳你大家会说我不厚道,对人家妇道人家也这么穷追猛打。
                    不过你还是很有个性嘀。
      • runaway consumerism and virtual-reality narcissism. 我倒是经常教育小孩不要“BUY BUY BUY", 不要那么MATERIALISM和CONSUMERISM,
        现在看来还要灌输不要”VIRTUAL-REALITY NARCISSIM".好像你所说的游戏的什么“MAKE MOVIE",我看其中的自得其乐,自我恭维和虚拟成就感,就是NARCISSIM.
        Get a DV, write a script, ask someone, play something, shoot something, edit it to a movie, is far more better than you playing a vedio game of "Make a movie".
        Can you tell the difference?
        • 电子游戏的确是一个controversial的话题。反对的人强调是容易addicted,而忽视它带来的益处。但其实什么成了addicted都不好啊。我倒想向你学习学习心理学。
          1。"Instant Gratification". 凭什么说instant gratification就一定不好呢?人们欲望的满足不就是一个instant和long term的结合吗?如果吃饭没有instant gratificatioin,只有long term的营养上的满足,人们吃饭还有乐趣吗?再比如,老公爱你long term的,但是要是他ML不能给你instant gratification,你估计早蹬了他。比赛中如果没有最后一分钟胜负的instant gratification, 那种thrilled的感觉,谁会看呢?

          2。"Narcissism". 其实在某种程度上自恋不是坏事,因为这可能就是自尊、自强。有研究说那些伟人都有一定程度的自恋,他们最看得起的是自己。倒是一般的人做不到这么自恋。拿破仑、毛泽东。。。

          3。心理学曾一度被看成pseudo-science,就是因为它的很多理论本身就是controversial的,缺乏客观的验证。它的一些理论可以供你参考,开拓你的思路,但是要是让它作为decision making 的依据,那你就太幼稚了。
          • 如果你能控制ADDICTION的问题,你玩什么都不会有人反对。为什么所有的政府都禁毒啊?因为人们没有办法来控制这个毒品的ADDICTION。为什么大麻可以非刑事化?因为大麻不会引起ADDICTION,或是ADDICTION不会比香烟和酒精大。
            就是因为有一些人对于ADDICTION控制薄弱,所有有很多帮人戒烟戒酒的。同样也是适应于电子游戏。
            • 你怎么把游戏机和毒品相提并论?强词夺理啊?这两者是质的问题,而玩儿游戏机是玩多玩少的量的问题。谁说所有人都帮人戒烟戒酒?大麻在很多国家都合法化了,怎么老移民了还这么说话?
              • 所有有人 = 所以有人。 大麻非刑事化 = 大麻合法化。 再看看,是不是说的有理?
                • 在很多不少国家大麻的确合法化了啊。
    • 作者也承认:弗洛伊德的快乐的原则战胜了现实的原则。其实马克思历史唯物主义早就告诉我们:不断地追求物质上和精神上满足是人类进步的根本动力。