Keep On Playing Those Mind Games
Video games aren’t just kid stuff any more. It is a multibillion dollar industry that has branched out from entertainment into areas such as educational software. Nowresearchers are working on waysthat video games might be used to boost memory and thinking skills in the elderly – and some people aren’t crazy about that.
根据联邦Administration on Aging, 72.1 million Americans will be over the age of 65 in the year 2030 – more than double the number of seniors in 2000 – making up 19 percent of the population. So why would someone take issue with research efforts aimed at helping older adults age gracefully? Politics.
如果你错过了它，参议员麦凯恩和科伯恩发布了a list8月3日排名他们所谓的“100个最差刺激项目”。其中一个项目是NC州立大学和格鲁吉亚科技正在由国家科学基金会资助的视频游戏研究。
具体而言，参议员表示，赠款是将“营销视频游戏融资给老人”。那是与事实一起玩游戏。该研究实际上是一项两阶段倡议，旨在改善老年人的认知功能。认知功能是指内存，解决问题，批判性思维和其他心理技能。
在第一阶段，研究人员将确定可在视频游戏中找到的某些品质是否导致老年人的改善认知功能。这项工作建立在既定研究。
In phase two, once the researchers have determined which qualities improve mental abilities, they will develop a set of guidelines that can be used to design a new class of video games, board games or other activities for older adults, as well as a prototype video game that follows those guidelines.
In short, they are seeking to identify and develop tools that can help slow the decline in cognitive functioning associated with aging. With the so-called “graying” of the U.S. population, it is hard to see how that’s wasteful. After all, we’ll all be facing the symptoms of aging one ofthese days.
- Categories:
那样，我不“觉得”。这是一个结论。我想在那里得出结论，因为我相信平衡是非常重要的，特别是当你把政治带入学术界时，反之亦然。
The Lennon reference is clever, but intent behind the reference may not be.
Wow, sorry you feel that way. And here I thought it was a clever classic rock reference.
I agree, funding is vital to academic research, but without money, there should be no funding, and grad students should understand that. This is why I’m not in academia and in the private sector, but my heart still lies in academia. There is a delicate balance that should be adhered to between funding and the burden that funding produces on a population. This funding, though small, was a piece of a larger fund that tossed that balance aside.
Again, I agree, it is money well spent, but not this money. It is a case where people can disagree, but how do you reason funding from debt? The title of the article and the content of the article are contrary. Sure, politicians play word games with their stances, which is why many politicians are quickly finding themselves out of a job this year, but the article doesn’t lead credence to the other side of a very reasonable opinion. So the title and the substance of the article is just another mind game, however unintentional.
在第一点，运行研究的成本 - 而不是微不足道 - 并不巨大。You’re right, the salaries are small, but they are primarily funding research assistants — grad students, etc. Those sorts of positions are vital to the research field, and one can imagine that the grad students are spending the money (which was a key goal of the stimulus package).
在你的第二点，研究/研发，我认为这是一个合理的人可能不同意的情况。我认为这是金钱，你没有。我认为我们中的任何一个都是不合理的，我们刚有不同的意见。
此外，谢谢您对我们正在做的事情感兴趣，并称重。我们希望看到更多的讨论摘要！
没有额外的金钱来源，您提供的简单崩溃不会持有水。这是5个增加的工作，每年35千克，没有进一步的资源来运行该研究。此外，新产品的开发应来自私营部门或政府补助，不超过均衡的政府预算。这笔钱来自普及债务的刺激基金，并且被吹捧为避免直接经济崩溃的绝对必要。
Again, the study is useful and could produce products that would be good for an aging public in the long run, but it should not have been funded by the stimulus. Having received a physics and philosophy degree from NCSU, I know the benefits of government funding, but I, of good conscience, could not be a part of a study funded by this stimulus package.
There is a fine line between Academic Research and Product R&D, and in my opinion, product R&D is risk and the burden of risk should be taken by those willing, with their own money; i.e. private sector funding. Using taxpayer debt (not even taxpayer money yet) to fund a study that may or may not produce any usable new products, is bordering too close to Product R&D, and is not what this stimulus should have been spent on.
好问题杰夫！NC国家在四年内收到授予的约700,000美元。这笔钱正在创造五个工作岗位。让我们从那里脱落：每年700,000美元超过4岁，每年175,000美元。每年175,000美元的五项工作实际上非常好 - 特别是当您认为这也是投资：a）。开发一类新的产品，这可能会产生额外的投资和创造创造机会;b）。发展产品的开发将改善我们的生活质量。
Seems like a win/win/win, to me.
是的,我意识到我拼努力wrong as soon as I hit submit.
只是因为它是一个很好的研究，endevor并不意味着它是一个很好的刺激项目。正是在哪里，是该项目经济的直接刺激？
去吧！
在73我尝试做各种形式的研究和投资信，每天几个小时。
Sure would be nice to know if that helps and/or if there are more productive ways to try to keep the old brain going strong.
Al