The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
Right. Like suddenly you're supposed to uh turn other other things into targets and other things into into >> you're spot on because then you take someone who that selfidentified non-gamer, make them play 40 hours of Call of Duty and now their contrast sensitivity looks like a video game player and it persists. You know, go back, measure them a year later
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
take a gamer versus a non-gamer just to start with someone self-identified. a typical gamer um actually has what we would call um more sensitive and this is your domain so you can counter me on this anytime but you know contrast sensitivity functions and like a contrast sensitivity function is um you know ability to see uh edges and differentiation um in a visual landscape. Okay, they can see uh faster and uh you know more they're more sensitive to that sort of differentiation. So than someone who says I'm not a video game player or or selfidentifies that way