Item — HN Reader

> ...to mentally active (reading), to mentally passive (videogames, movies)

I'm sorry, since when did playing video games become "mentally passive"? (I say that somewhat half-jokingly.)

While reading I'm sure is much more healthy than playing video games, I don't think you can put video games -- for the most part -- in the same "mental" classification as watching a movie. Most video games require thinking and coordination.

Movies, on the other hand, barely require thought, zero coordination, and free your hands up to stuffing your face with processed goodies.

2 comments

Haha I thought the videogame line would draw this comment out. I actually agree with you 100% - I love videogames and often argue for them as much deeper and valuable experiences than people give them credit for.

In this example it's a personal aspect of how they fit into my life - the games I tend to play these day aren't very mentally engaging. Tends to be something I've played so much it's routine & reflex (CounterStrike) or really easy that I play for other reasons (Pokemon).

I actually 'invented' the snacking hierarchy because of CounterStrike. Time between rounds was brutal for eating goodies.

I appreciate your defense of video games, but now I'm going to have to defend movies. Yes, many movies "barely require thought," yet these are generally movies with the same degree of artistic merit as "mentally passive" video games. I'd argue that the more unimaginative pop fiction qualifies likewise.

Whatever the medium, whatever the degree of explicit interactivity, a good example of that medium's literature will require plenty of thought.

Well said. In my case I specifically seek out movies and games for their low mental requirements because I get my mental engagement elsewhere.