Scientific studies and opinions differ.

For instance, Minnesota Post columnist Susan Perry wrote in January 2013 that the effects of violent video games have already been widely studied, and that the studies have consistently found that violent video games cause no harm to the brain and don’t increase the likelihood of violent acts.

It’d be fair to point out, though, that in her column Perry never defined what she means by “harm.”

Perry then continued by quoting research showing that playing action games is actually associated with positive cognitive outcomes, in the form of improvements in how well we pay attention, how quickly we react, how sensitive we are to images and how accurately we sort information.

Here, however, it’d be fair to note that Perry cited positive research about action video games, not violent video games specifically. An action video game is basically any game that’s not a more relaxed strategy or puzzle game. Being an action game doesn’t make it a violent one.

In another point of view, freelance journalist Brandon Keim wrote for the Public Broadcasting Service in February 2013 about how there is research showing that playing violent video games indeed harms a person’s psychological state, by increasing aggressive thoughts and angry feelings.

Part of the research Keim cited was from analysts out of Ohio State University and universities in Europe. That same research was published on the website Science Daily on December 10, 2012, four days before gunman and violent video game player Adam Lanza went on a killing spree in Newtown, Connecticut.

To be clear, the juxtaposition of such information isn’t a basis for concluding that playing violent video games causes actual violence. But despite what columnist Susan Perry and others would have you believe, science is telling us that habitually playing violent video games does influence people negatively. How that negative influence manifests itself, exactly, varies from person to person.

But, for a moment, take a step away from the impressive and dutiful scientific studies that so many of us look to for answers about causation and solution, and get into a more common sense frame of mind. Then ask yourself — isn’t it fairly obvious? That engaging in violent patterns of behavior, even if it’s simply by interacting with a virtual world, could easily put someone more “in the mood” for real-life attack?

Think, hypothetically, about a man, a boxer, who’s someone that physically abuses his girlfriend. On the one hand, some might argue that a man who’s abusive toward women is only helped by his time spent in the ring, pounding faces and punching kidneys, because it’s considered a legitimate sport and it gives him an outlet for his anger and aggression.

Others, on the other hand, might insist that his time in the boxing ring is just fuel for the fury, a primer for his overall abusive personality.

Some questions to ask are: if that abusive man sincerely wanted to change his ways, would it be better for him to continue or relinquish boxing? What if he continued to box? In future moments when he feels angry or frustrated and things get a little heated between him and his girlfriend, would his regular time swinging in the ring make him more likely to assuage the situation with self-control and tempered words, or to strike?…

And the outer circles don’t have a practical purpose, but they symbolize a new dynamic added to traditional chess play. Circle shadows square.

I used to call Piece “Reciprocal Chess,” to emphasize its complementary rather than competitive nature.

Click here to see Piece game instructions.

I put my line on the land when my hand won’t do.
When at times the land lives cleaner than the palm
or my sprawl’s finger — purple, white and red.

Put my line on the land when that’s the best I have
in time of tremor and chill, bitten nail and unwashed vein.

The land’s face doesn’t often spit like the people I’ve been and seen.
No, it rather gives, or douses, or washes the faces and hands
that haven’t lived like the land’s best times, in the clemency of weather -

from rain to grass and fires that lift the silt and bake the stones.

Read the instructions for Piece – A Cooperative Alternative to Chess. Click here.

1. encourages healthy eye contact – There’s little or no eye contact during a competitive chess game. One reason for this is that the players have to focus on what’s happening on the board in order to defend themselves, to plan future attacks, to see what the other player is plotting, and so forth.

In cooperative chess, though, eye contact occurs frequently, because the players aren’t concerned only with what’s happening on the board, but also with each other’s viewpoint – because cooperative chess is not a war. It’s a partnership.

Healthy eye contact is an important social skill.

–Look at the absence of eye contact in this competitive match between Grandmaster Alexandra Kosteniuk and Super Grandmaster Wang Hao.

2. encourages discussion – Since cooperative chess is a partnership, conversation is encouraged – and necessary. This is exactly the opposite of competitive chess dynamics. In competitive chess, there is no interaction. Tense silence characterizes a typical chess match.

Open discussion is an essential part of quality relationships.

–Listen to the silence in this match, and also notice its cold closing.

3. promotes “togetherness” and not merely “being together.” - In the renowned song “Glycerine,” music artist Gavin Rossdale sings, “I’m never alone/I’m alone all the time.”  This apparent paradox points to how we can be in the presence of others without actually being connected to them. We may be hanging out, but we’re not getting through. 

Cooperative chess promotes a spirit of we’re in this together, and therefore encourages players to not only be together but also to be in unison.

A sense of togetherness is important for all communities.

–Listen to “Glycerine.”

4. creates a kind atmosphere - It’s clear that being a good chess player requires having superior intelligence, to some extent. And champion chess players are lauded for having  just that — superior intelligence. The words “genius” or “prodigy” are often associated with highly-advanced chess play.

But being highly intelligent doesn’t necessarily equal being a nice person. Qualities, such as kindness, are in a different category, generally, than abilities, such as chess mastery. You might remember the classic words of the film character Forrest Gump, who said, “I’m not a smart man — but I know what love is.”

Overall, people are drawn to qualities, not abilities.

–Watch Forrest Gump.

5. teaches you more about someone’s finer qualities - Plato famously said, “you can learn more about someone in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.”

And in an hour of playing cooperative chess, you learn especially about the finer qualities of others:  their positive attitude, sincere interest, willingness to collaborate, an engaging smile, and the list goes on. In contrast, competitive chess tends to highlight negative qualities:  hyper-aggression, coldness and insincerity (especially in the form of insincere pre-game and post-game handshakes), to name a few.

Focusing on the positive qualities that others have strengthens relationships. 

–See if you can discern a correlation between chess legend Bobby Fischer’s game play and his personal life.

Read the instructions for Piece – A Cooperative Alternative to Chess. Click here.

Reblogged from Grovestream:

I billed my bank.

In December 2011, my bank, Desert Schools Federal Credit Union, scheduled an appointment for me to close on a used car loan. In spite of my arriving early for the appointment, the scheduled time came and went and I ended up waiting for at least an hour before finally seeing a loan officer.

I was cordial throughout the entire process, but not without sensing the inequality in the situation.

Read more… 98 more words

I emailed a photo of it to Graham Bergh of Resource Revival in Mosier, Ore. He and his company make practical and decorative products out of bike parts, and I wanted in.

But then Graham replied with the following photo attached.

It was made by Pablo Picasso, before I was born. I had no idea.

left of right surely wrong.

I smiled from the only place possible at that time, close to nothing

on the street in the way.

But “even in laughter the heart may be in pain,” and I dropped streets

on shoes and ran barefoot next to living always breathing,

singing for a first time,

not from her face or his style or their heart, or my past

drug. Smile from the feet I stand, now.

And that’s what I’m telling everyone. Smiling

through my eyes that dance the way hands change.

– Somewhat for John Frusciante… Find more poetry at Povera Press.

In the commercial, various people are shown doing a kind act toward someone else. The sub-theme given to the commercial is, “Doing the right thing and doing the easy thing are rarely the same.”

After watching the commercial — which you can find here: “Doing The Right Thing” — we learn at least the following:

• Moving luggage out of the way of a walking blind person at a bus or train station is ‘not easy.’
• Opening the door for a blind person is ‘not easy.’
• Cleaning a coffee spill with a towel is ‘not easy.’
• Letting someone go ahead of you in line at the grocery store is ‘not easy.’

As you might have noticed, the bar that Liberty Mutual has set for doing the right thing is ‘pretty easy’ to clear. Unless, of course, most in the world really despise blind people — especially the blind people who have the nerve to walk around in public with their dark glasses and walking canes. Then maybe Liberty Mutual would have something to stand for.

But, as it is, we don’t have to be impressed by the morality of Liberty Mutual.

But thanks, Liberty Mutual. Thanks.

The predominantly “vanilla” part is more grassy and surrounded by trees.

The predominantly Latino part is not grassy, has few trees and is at the outskirts of the parking lot.

In August 2012, Brian Dillon, a construction worker who was working in New York City near the Empire State Building, found and alerted police officers after he saw a gunman shoot another man. The officers eventually shot and killed the gunman.

When reporting on the event, multiple media sources said that Dillon had been deemed a hero, even as Dillon played down such a title. He told the New York Daily News: “I just pointed [the guy] out.”

The Huffington Post reported that New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg “called Dillon a hero” in a press conference following the shooting.

But here’s what Mayor Bloomberg actually said at the press conference, after a reporter asked if Dillon was a hero:

“I don’t know. We all use the [word] ‘hero.’ He did what he should have done. He identified what he saw to the police. When he saw something, he said something, and then turned it over to the professionals. And that’s that.”

A much different tone that what media sources presented. So why the twist? Do the media just want to amp up a story to make it more compelling? Is society so morally deficient that a simple act of ‘telling the cops’ or ‘doing what should have been done’ is now a heroic act?

What do you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T12g_HD5gKE (6:45)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/brian-dillon_n_1834080.html

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-08-25/news/33389622_1_brian-dillon-cops-track-cop-car