ONR: Gamers Better Terrorist Fighters

January 26, 2010 -

Fighting a war on terror demands that military personnel be able to quickly react and adapt to enemy tactics—traits which improve from playing videogames.

Research currently being undertaken by the Office of Naval Research is showing that videogame training is having “surprising” results in helping military personnel adapt to the challenges of fighting terrorists, according to a story on the Department of Defense website.

Ray Perez, a Program Officer for the Office of Naval Research’s Warfighter Performance department, offered comment on what the group’s research has uncovered so far:

We have discovered that video game players perform 10 to 20 percent higher in terms of perceptual and cognitive ability than normal people that are non-game players.

Using the term “fluid intelligence” to describe such field adaptability, Perez believes that cognitive advances gleaned from playing games can last for up to two and a half years.

He continued:

We know that video games can increase perceptual abilities and short-term memory. They allow the player to focus longer and expand the player’s field of vision compared to people who don’t play video games.

We think that these games increase your executive control, or your ability to focus and attend to stimuli in the outside world.

Perez’s group is looking to advance the integration of videogames into training, eventually hoping to be able to “blur the distinction between training and operations.”


Comments

Re: ONR: Gamers Better Terrorist Fighters

Its a proven statistic that video games also make you have twitchy fingers & you have better reaction time to the outside world. For example, driving. If you were to come close to getting hit by someone & had to swerve around them, you would have faster reflexes than a normal person that doesn't play video games. It is a proven fact. A lot of people I have told this to have discredited what I have said. That's fine, b/c when the people eventually find out that I was right & other gamers that told them, they will look stupid! :) Seriously they will. & I do know that the military uses the trigger happy soldiers behind the screens watching the video footage from the sky from a secret spy plane. & therefore they push the buttons to fire at targets. Just like playing video games, only it's for real. :) What the Defense department it doing is awesome!!! :)

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: ONR: Gamers Better Terrorist Fighters

What's the control?  Are video games really increasing those abilities, or do people who have those abilities gravitate toward games?  I know there was an article up last week to the effect that, to a certain extent, game skill is related to certain preexisting cognitive abilities.

Regarding the last sentence, "Perez’s group is looking to advance the integration of videogames into training, eventually hoping to ba able to “blur the distinction between training and operations.”" -- sounds a little too Ender's Game to me.

Re: ONR: Gamers Better Terrorist Fighters

I do not know aobut this particular piece, but ONR did have some findings showing how introducing games into training resulted in better detection.  So the control was the old training methods, along with 'beofre and after' stats.

Re: ONR: Gamers Better Terrorist Fighters

Speaking from the only firsthand knowledge I have in this matter, I know that most military forces in the west are now searching for gamers to pilot UAVs; traditionally experiences airforce pilots would be selected, but the nature of flying a plane is survival, where as with UAVs it's not the case -- the machine can perform more extreme maneuvers (and suicide maneuvers) without endagering it's pilot, since they're doing it by remote. Gamers have much of the same skill for controlling vehicles remotely, but without the same life-or-death survival instincts that are vital for a successful airforce pilot.

Not exactly Ender's Game, but we're getting increasingly close to remote warfare.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician