- hijack an individual's senses, disabling their ability to perceive reality through reason.
Your abstract language makes it difficult to understand you. You're claiming that video games interfere with one's ability to think rationally? On the contrary, I've found that video games are so thoroughly and intensely rational that many people are unable to play them competitively. People who are not used to analyzing events causally, devising clever methods, and maximizing their efficiency are tremendously impaired.
I give as an example Guild Wars, a MMORPG. In Guild Wars, it's important to devise an effective "build" for your character -- a combination of skills and spells that play off one another effectively. To design a good build requires a significant amount of analytical and hypothetical thinking -- "How will x, y, and z affect a and b?" "How will others react to e and f?" Because Guild Wars is an intensely competitive game, it forces the player to either think critically or fail. It can be seen as practice for rational thinking and real-life decision-making.
- encourage participation in an economic system that sets the individual as a financial means to others.
This is, once again, abstract enough to obscure what is actually happening. If I'm really self-interested, I don't care on principle what economic systems my activities foster -- leave that to the altruist. I care much more about whether the economic system in which I take part enables my pursuit of happiness. If I enjoy playing video games, and they provide for me an entertaining and mentally stimulating diversion, then I'll buy them and be happy.
- in the making may involve the sacrifice of the physical and/or mental well being of others (see: EA's treatement of employees).
Who are you, Ghandi? I'm self-interested, so I don't especially care if others were unhappy making my games. Moreover, they chose their profession and chose to work for demanding companies. I simply participate in the same system in which they have chosen to participate by buying their games. If for some reason I want to be nice, the least I can do is enjoy the fruits of their labors.
- are the means to short-term happiness, and thus inferior to long-term happiness as potentially acquired by alternate uses of one's time.
When one video game is finished, there's always another. Therefore, video games function as a long-term, mentally stimulating diversion -- much like any other art.
- detract from the productive potential of an individual.
Two errors: First, although successful production is objectively measurable, the decision in which pursuit to be productive is subjective and individual. If someone decides to become the best video game player in the world and succeeds by beating all the other best players, he has made a real accomplishment -- something tangible and quantifiable. One might retort that beating a video game provides no inherent benefit to a person's life -- true, but neither do the green slips of paper we call money. We assign values to things based on how difficult they are to obtain or do. Therefore, being the best in the world at anything is highly valuable.
The second problem is a bit deeper -- the assumption that any moment not spent working productively is being wasted. On the contrary, a rational individual understands that working effectively requires that sometimes he stop working and relax. The most obvious example of this is the necessity of sleep -- stop sleeping, and at first you'll gain extra time for production, but you'll rapidly lose the ability to work entirely. It's the same with entertaining diversions -- lose them and you gain more time for working, but eventually you lose your motivation to work. The object of your labors ceases to be meaningful to you. In short, you burn out. A healthy-minded objectivist can see past the naive absolutism of "Never Stop Working," and recognizes the necessity of entertaining diversions.
- may lend to a form of addiction or dependancy, unnecessarily debilitating the player's capacity to actualize themselves as a heroic being in the objective absolute of reality.
The obvious reply is, "Well, don't do that." You might respond, "What if I cannot help my addiction?" at which point you lose the right to call yourself an objectivist. You have the willpower to use video games as a mentally stimulating diversion and no more. If you become addicted to lights moving on a screen, that is your fault.
- potentially suggest immoral behaviours and beliefs.
Enough of the moralizing, Ghandi. If you're an objectivist, you know that seeing another's behavior does not force a person to imitate that behavior. You should have the willpower to see something, appreciate it aesthetically, and then do something else entirely. Anything less indicates that you're a slave to irrational impulses.
Video Games are Irrational
in Video Games
Posted
I give as an example Guild Wars, a MMORPG. In Guild Wars, it's important to devise an effective "build" for your character -- a combination of skills and spells that play off one another effectively. To design a good build requires a significant amount of analytical and hypothetical thinking -- "How will x, y, and z affect a and b?" "How will others react to e and f?" Because Guild Wars is an intensely competitive game, it forces the player to either think critically or fail. It can be seen as practice for rational thinking and real-life decision-making.
This is, once again, abstract enough to obscure what is actually happening. If I'm really self-interested, I don't care on principle what economic systems my activities foster -- leave that to the altruist. I care much more about whether the economic system in which I take part enables my pursuit of happiness. If I enjoy playing video games, and they provide for me an entertaining and mentally stimulating diversion, then I'll buy them and be happy.
Who are you, Ghandi? I'm self-interested, so I don't especially care if others were unhappy making my games. Moreover, they chose their profession and chose to work for demanding companies. I simply participate in the same system in which they have chosen to participate by buying their games. If for some reason I want to be nice, the least I can do is enjoy the fruits of their labors.
When one video game is finished, there's always another. Therefore, video games function as a long-term, mentally stimulating diversion -- much like any other art.
Two errors: First, although successful production is objectively measurable, the decision in which pursuit to be productive is subjective and individual. If someone decides to become the best video game player in the world and succeeds by beating all the other best players, he has made a real accomplishment -- something tangible and quantifiable. One might retort that beating a video game provides no inherent benefit to a person's life -- true, but neither do the green slips of paper we call money. We assign values to things based on how difficult they are to obtain or do. Therefore, being the best in the world at anything is highly valuable.The second problem is a bit deeper -- the assumption that any moment not spent working productively is being wasted. On the contrary, a rational individual understands that working effectively requires that sometimes he stop working and relax. The most obvious example of this is the necessity of sleep -- stop sleeping, and at first you'll gain extra time for production, but you'll rapidly lose the ability to work entirely. It's the same with entertaining diversions -- lose them and you gain more time for working, but eventually you lose your motivation to work. The object of your labors ceases to be meaningful to you. In short, you burn out. A healthy-minded objectivist can see past the naive absolutism of "Never Stop Working," and recognizes the necessity of entertaining diversions.
The obvious reply is, "Well, don't do that." You might respond, "What if I cannot help my addiction?" at which point you lose the right to call yourself an objectivist. You have the willpower to use video games as a mentally stimulating diversion and no more. If you become addicted to lights moving on a screen, that is your fault.
Enough of the moralizing, Ghandi. If you're an objectivist, you know that seeing another's behavior does not force a person to imitate that behavior. You should have the willpower to see something, appreciate it aesthetically, and then do something else entirely. Anything less indicates that you're a slave to irrational impulses.