GJtehR

[dot.]

OKies, obviously I'm a newb here - I found this site. . hmm. . I don't member how. . .but Anyways!

Meh name's Kristina, age 17, obviously female. I'm into psychology and the like, as well as anything out of teh oridinary.

Don't be fooled by the name though, I'm actually quite normalesque, asidew from me making up words and wearing brightly colored eyeshadow. The GjtehR name is just something I thought up in frustration at all the other names I thought of being taken. GJtehR has become my name throughout the interwebs.

I write alot, as well as draw. I've tried my hand at fractals too. . .I just love art, period. I mostly do abstract designs, poetry, and short stories.

I'm a moderator at another forum [url]the-scholars.com[/url]. It's a forum based on RTK history and the like. I'm Kristina there.

Lookin foward to the forum!

[ardizt]

Hi there, welcome and check the forum rules 2nd Topic on the Intro section.

Psychology sucks

[HeRetiK]

Welcome to the forums!

What's wrong with Psychology, ardy? O.o

[dot.]

Hi there, welcome and check the forum rules 2nd Topic on the Intro section.

Psychology sucks

Already checked the rules before I joined. Tis be a habit so not to look like an idiot, yanno?

Why do you say psychology sucks?

[Brandon]

Welcome.

[Spaced Ape]

Who isn't interested in psychology these days?

[dot.]

Who isn't interested in psychology these days?

True - I'm wanting to go for a doctorate though. Most people just have a passing interest. I'm serious about it!

[Spaced Ape]

For the longest time I wanted to as well, but then I realized it's better to get inside people's minds without them knowing you are. (Not that I do)

[obskewer]

Psychology is the most interesting subject i've ever taken in school. Alot of pychology I like to study at my own leisure, such as child development, and body language.

I'm hoping Philosophy will be an EVEN better subject, though.

Welcome to the boards!!

[Guitar_clock]

NO. PHILOSOPHY WILL NOT BE A BETTER SUBJECT. MARK MY WORDS.

[Spaced Ape]

NO. PHILOSOPHY WILL NOT BE A BETTER SUBJECT. MARK MY WORDS.

TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT!

[obskewer]

That's because Philosophical argumentation is something hard to convey from a text book. I plan on opening up discussions in class all the time, like how I start debates amongst Psychology students, already.

[Spaced Ape]

Haha. Oh wow. You have a lot to learn.

Wanna argue over something? Go for it. Name any subject and I'll go at it with yah.

[Guitar_clock]

That's because Philosophical argumentation is something hard to convey from a text book. I plan on opening up discussions in class all the time, like how I start debates amongst Psychology students, already.

Still doesn't help. The text makes more sense after a while.

[obskewer]

Video games are destructive to the morals of our society. I will admit to wasting alot of my time playing them. So much experience I could of gained learning how to grow a living plant, practicing my real life social skills, or teaching myself how to fend off a hostile adversare. All of these I've gained through electronic interaction, but without the same effectiveness of actual trial and error, and classical conditioning. In real life, there are no reset buttons. No power ups. No hacks or cheat codes. Everything is straightforward, although there is no set program to interpret what commands we can input next. Also, elements must always be placed into a game, first hand. Where as in reality, all elements are completely random, and undetermined before they happen. There is an absense of realism, in all video games, which is a good thing. Once graphics engines and processors become advanced enough, interaction with video games will become a true detachment from life.

Counter-Arguement?

[Spaced Ape]

Probably won't be until much later. I'd love to do so now, but I have a job I must attend to.

Oh, and be prepared for when I do return.

[obskewer]

Pussy
jk

[Fetus]

Im going for Sex Psychology. Woot.

[Spaced Ape]

Video games are destructive to the morals of our society. I will admit to wasting alot of my time playing them. So much experience I could of gained learning how to grow a living plant, practicing my real life social skills, or teaching myself how to fend off a hostile adversare. All of these I've gained through electronic interaction, but without the same effectiveness of actual trial and error, and classical conditioning. In real life, there are no reset buttons. No power ups. No hacks or cheat codes. Everything is straightforward, although there is no set program to interpret what commands we can input next. Also, elements must always be placed into a game, first hand. Where as in reality, all elements are completely random, and undetermined before they happen. There is an absense of realism, in all video games, which is a good thing. Once graphics engines and processors become advanced enough, interaction with video games will become a true detachment from life.

Counter-Arguement?

Alright let's get to it.

The idea that video games are destructive to morals and the ilk is a non-factual opinion. Like all consumerist items you are given the choice to live in any (legal) way you choose. As video game is an entertainment and a consumable item, it has all free rights to be able to be used by those who have chosen to do so. And to say that playing video games has little value in construction of ability and learning is also non-factual as there have been many games created for the sole purpose of training and sharpening one's mind (America's Army and Brain Age come to mind). The development of greater and better processes leading to a more "realistic" gaming experience is not only a further step in the right direction of future entertainment and marketing, but also in being able to more better address the ability for learning and experience to become more accessible to the masses. To say this is a negative only goes to show you are arguing against yourself in wishing it was both realistic and not realistic.

[obskewer]

Video games are destructive to the morals of our society. I will admit to wasting alot of my time playing them. So much experience I could of gained learning how to grow a living plant, practicing my real life social skills, or teaching myself how to fend off a hostile adversare. All of these I've gained through electronic interaction, but without the same effectiveness of actual trial and error, and classical conditioning. In real life, there are no reset buttons. No power ups. No hacks or cheat codes. Everything is straightforward, although there is no set program to interpret what commands we can input next. Also, elements must always be placed into a game, first hand. Where as in reality, all elements are completely random, and undetermined before they happen. There is an absense of realism, in all video games, which is a good thing. Once graphics engines and processors become advanced enough, interaction with video games will become a true detachment from life.

Counter-Arguement?

Alright let's get to it.

The idea that video games are destructive to morals and the ilk is a non-factual opinion. Like all consumerist items you are given the choice to live in any (legal) way you choose. As video game is an entertainment and a consumable item, it has all free rights to be able to be used by those who have chosen to do so. And to say that playing video games has little value in construction of ability and learning is also non-factual as there have been many games created for the sole purpose of training and sharpening one's mind (America's Army and Brain Age come to mind). The development of greater and better processes leading to a more "realistic" gaming experience is not only a further step in the right direction of future entertainment and marketing, but also in being able to more better address the ability for learning and experience to become more accessible to the masses. To say this is a negative only goes to show you are arguing against yourself in wishing it was both realistic and not realistic.

Many teenagers waste valuable time playing video games, that could otherwise be consumed by self-study, physical hands-on practice, excercise and general socialization, amongst other possibilities. Ofcoarse video games make valid learning tools... Because they are fun! However, what the player learns is still entirely up to the game designer, themselves. You cannot customize your education in America's Army. All it will teach you to do is to effectively kill people. There are already enough applicants for that position. There is no contradiction to what I have already stated, because the more real video games become, the more attached gamers will become to them. Even the most astute gamer might have a difficult time discerning fact from fiction, as the already thin line between realism and surealism thins out, and eventually fades away. Is this type of educative, utilitarian design really worth something that could, otherwise, detach us completely from the outside world?

[Schnabel von Rom]

Welcome! You seem like a nice person who hopefully stays.

[Spaced Ape]

Video games are destructive to the morals of our society. I will admit to wasting alot of my time playing them. So much experience I could of gained learning how to grow a living plant, practicing my real life social skills, or teaching myself how to fend off a hostile adversare. All of these I've gained through electronic interaction, but without the same effectiveness of actual trial and error, and classical conditioning. In real life, there are no reset buttons. No power ups. No hacks or cheat codes. Everything is straightforward, although there is no set program to interpret what commands we can input next. Also, elements must always be placed into a game, first hand. Where as in reality, all elements are completely random, and undetermined before they happen. There is an absense of realism, in all video games, which is a good thing. Once graphics engines and processors become advanced enough, interaction with video games will become a true detachment from life.

Counter-Arguement?

Alright let's get to it.

The idea that video games are destructive to morals and the ilk is a non-factual opinion. Like all consumerist items you are given the choice to live in any (legal) way you choose. As video game is an entertainment and a consumable item, it has all free rights to be able to be used by those who have chosen to do so. And to say that playing video games has little value in construction of ability and learning is also non-factual as there have been many games created for the sole purpose of training and sharpening one's mind (America's Army and Brain Age come to mind). The development of greater and better processes leading to a more "realistic" gaming experience is not only a further step in the right direction of future entertainment and marketing, but also in being able to more better address the ability for learning and experience to become more accessible to the masses. To say this is a negative only goes to show you are arguing against yourself in wishing it was both realistic and not realistic.

Many teenagers waste valuable time playing video games, that could otherwise be consumed by self-study, physical hands-on practice, excercise and general socialization, amongst other possibilities. Ofcoarse video games make valid learning tools... Because they are fun! However, what the player learns is still entirely up to the game designer, themselves. You cannot customize your education in America's Army. All it will teach you to do is to effectively kill people. There are already enough applicants for that position. There is no contradiction to what I have already stated, because the more real video games become, the more attached gamers will become to them. Even the most astute gamer might have a difficult time discerning fact from fiction, as the already thin line between realism and surealism thins out, and eventually fades away. Is this type of educative, utilitarian design really worth something that could, otherwise, detach us completely from the outside world?

Yeah, you kinda repeated your whole argument with different wording.

[Guitar_clock]

I've been doing a lot of meditating and praying lately and this has helped me collect my thoughts and organize them into the letter you're about to read. I will start this discussion by arguing that the video game is hell-bent on suppressing our freedom. Then, I will present evidence that there may be nothing we can do to prevent the video game from making good on its word to deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by its subordinates, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to encourage our spirits to soar. But don't despair. Rather, take comfort in the knowledge that the video game will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let it challenge all I stand for. At least putting up with another the video game hissy fit is easier than convincing the video game's cohorts that the video game ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. Something that I have heard repeated several times from various sources -- a sort of "tag line" for the video game -- is, "We should go out and turn our country into a heartless cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. And when we're done with that, we'll all pit the haves against the have-nots." This is not a direct quote, nor have I heard it from the video game's lips directly, but several sources have paraphrased the content to me in near-enough ways that I feel fairly confident it actually was said. And to be honest, I have no trouble believing it. The video game hates, with a pure and perfect hatred, all those who fight to the end for our ideas and ideals. There, my ranting is finished.

[obskewer]

FINE! I'll stop being a lazy prick and actually do research then. Give me a day or so.

[Spaced Ape]

FINE! I'll stop being a lazy prick and actually do research then. Give me a day or so.

Give you a day or so? I wrote mine is 5 minutes straight from my head. You don't get "a day or so" in a real debate.

Come on duuuuude.