A Rebuttal to Gaming Educations

by Seán Michael Peters

When I perused through the editorials section, I came across an interesting title. "Gaming Educations," I said aloud, and pondered as to the meaning of a title, and what content it might contain. After all, it is an interesting premise, that perhaps things found in games can be used to supplement one's education, or at least not detract from it. What I found, however, was the arrogant statement that "Gaming is NOT a waste- it is probably more important than formal education beyond middle school." Now, I can understand thinking that the public education system is flawed, but this statement just struck me in such a way that I felt compelled to write a near-immediate rebuttal, especially given that I was told in the introductary paragraph that I would be almost guaranteed to agree with the points contained further on.

There are several points contained within Gaming Educations which strike me as ludicrous. First of all, it is asserted that Doom can increase reaction time while driving. Several scientific studies have been conducted on the subject of reaction time. The general consensus is that reaction time is primarily genetic. It is possible to improve reaction time by practicing, but practicing, generally, only improves the reaction time of that specific action. According to these studies, the chances of Doom or the like improving your reaction time while driving is slim- Your driving reaction time will be primarily genetic, and may improve with more driving practice, not video games.

Further on are assertions that RPGs can teach emotion, thought, and philosophy. These also are statements which I find hard to believe. It seems counter-intuitive that love is something that can be taught, especially in a medium so often fraught with tired stereotypes and immature character development with regards to that facet of humanity. This seems especially odd considering that several RPGs have featured prominent characters who have revelations that emotions can only be learned through experience, not through teaching (Terra from Final Fantasy VI, Tio from Grandia II). To say that games can teach emotions when those same games preach that emotion cannot be taught truly seems off.

I was also very taken aback by the notion that RPGs can teach philosophy. Philosophy is so much more than wondering why something happens, although that is part of its core. Philosophy is more about explaining why something happens, about the beauty of reasoning, and deeper questioning. True philosophy requires a groundwork in logic and types of reasoning, in deduction and induction, in argument, and a study of those great philosophers who came before. I have yet to see an RPG teach me of Thomas Kuhn, a brilliant man in the philosophy of science, who, for all intents and purposes, invented the idea of a paradigm. Some RPGs may require you to ask why, but that is not learning philosophy.

I will skip a section here, because the example used in the original editorial is from Deus Ex, which I have only briefly played, and am therefore unable to refute or even understand the example and its relativity to the situation.

Further on in the editorial, when thought and knowledge begin to be discussed, I found it difficult to divine what point was trying to be conveyed. It is true that knowledge and difference are, to some extent, still feared in our modern society. However, I fail to see exactly how Kefka's attack on Figaro 'teaches' this, or even demonstrates it. Edgar's superior mechanical knowledge did enable him to win, but it does not seem clear exactly how this is an example of persecution because of knowledge or differences. Figaro was not set ablaze because Edgar was a 'nerd', or knew a lot about machines, but rather because they were harboring Terra, and Kefka knew it. Figaro's submersion was a triumph of technology, but it was most definitely not a triumph over the ignorant persecution of the learnéd.

Although I do agree that evil does (at times) emerge from a lack of listening and observation, I feel that the examples used are inappropriate to the statement. The Vietnam war was not entered because America didn't listen to the Vietnamese, it was waged as part of the current regime's anti-communist agenda. America heard the people say that they didn't mind having a communist government, but America didn't care. In their current mindset, communism was evil, whether or not it had approval from the populace. Likewise, it was not necessarily a case of Japan not listening at Hiroshima, but perhaps (I do not presume to know, by any means) because the Japanese government still believed that they had a chance to win. Perhaps it was not until the second bomb, at Nagasaki, that the gravity of the situation truly set in, and their hopelessness blossomed. Although both of these things were certainly preventable, it is not the lack of listening which is at fault, but rather a clash of ideologies which are incompatible.

There are also such things which cannot (or at least have not) be taught in RPGs. I have yet to find a game which teaches me integral calculus, for instance, or a game which teaches me to sing. Even if games could teach love, and reaction time, and thought, and philosophy, to say that games are more important than high school, and college after that, ignores those subjects which may very well be necessary and are not suited to be presented in such a format. After all, not only have I not seen a game which teaches me integral calculus, but I wouldn't want one. Such a thing wouldn't seem like a game to me. Not only that, but to say such a statement ignores another fundamental purpose of the American system of education: School is not only meant to provide knowledge, but also social skills, and practice at interaction. Although RPGs do highly encourage going around talking to NPCs, the only way social interaction can truly be learned is through experience. Even if a school's educational merit is questionable, at the very least, it will teach necessary communications skills.

In short, although RPGs present some concepts which provide material for critical thought and learning, they are hardly a substitute for formal education. Despite the general state of the American public school system, games, in their current form, are not suitable as a replacement. RPGamers, I suggest you apply yourself fully to your education. Although games have many benefits, they cannot truly impart philosophy, calculus, or love.

Original Editorial: Gaming Educations