= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gunnar_Zarncke comments on Summary and Lessons from "On Combat" - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (64)
I meant the well-founded results that solders can be trained to automatically act in certain patterns even when under stress via authentic simulations. Simulations which involve FPS, Paintball, fotorealistic target on shooting ranges...
He over-extends these to children playing only the FPS part of this training by assuming that the FPS part is enough to anchor the behavior.
FPS are a way to train behavioral patterns. Action sequences that are likely to get executed without conscious thought when under stress - same as intended for soldiers.
The behavioral pattern that FPSes train is to slightly move the mouse and click with your index finger.
I (or for that matter Grossman) don't mean fine motor skills. I mean higher abstractions like scan environment, search next target, shoot, move on, stop on game-over.
"Stop on game-over" as a behavioral pattern is, I think, pure fiction. Note that it's different from "stop on command" which is trained in a lot of situations.
So, let's take, say, wildlife photography. It teaches one to "scan environment, search next target, shoot, move on". OMG, wildlife photography trains killers!
In the more general sense, the loop "scan -- locate -- act" is very common -- look e.g. at a football match or a traffic cop or a driver fighting through traffic or... etc. etc. It's by no means unique to FPSes.
Sorry. I have the impression that you are intentionally misunderstanding me. I just can't read that as genuine desire to understand what I (or Grossman) mean but as to use your own metaphor soldier arguments.
For example "stop on game" over was admittedly simplistic but you could have read it as including "stop on command" which is the actual case mentioned by Grossman. He doesn't claim that "game over" stops the children but actual commands (probably by caregivers) did in attempted violence cases.
I am not trying to misunderstand you. But try stepping away from Grossman's claims and looking at it from your own eyes.
This is nonsense on stilts. "Stop on command" is one of the first behavioral patterns taught to small children as soon as they are able to understand and respond (and for good reasons, too). This is reinforced in daily life, in school, etc. Making someone stop on command has nothing at all to do with computer games.