What Are the Most Widely Believed Myths About Video Games?

I will start with the most obvious/common one.Video games cause violence - This has never been proven. Itu2019s that kind of phenomenon or hoax created by people who think ONLY with common sense, not facts.

You shoot in video games -> you automatically become serial killer in real life.nNo, it really doesnu2019t work like that. Actually considering how many people play video games (hundreds of millions of people all around the globe), there is really small amount of aggressive or dangerous people, and most of them donu2019t even play video games at all.

nnNow, of course there may be cases when someone is so addicted to or affected by a video game that they will go crazy and potentially dangerous. But it is more of an individual exception than rule.Video games are for kids - This obviously is not true since there are now probably more adult games than those for younger audience.

Plus it is just a myth that games (even those that are not 18) are made for young audience. There are games which are very complex and are meant to be played by intelligent and skilled players - which are mostly adults. nThis myth still comes from the 80u2019s and 90u2019s when games were played only by children, teens and hard core geeks.

Today games are same entertaining medium like TV or the internet.Video games are for lazy and dumb people - There are tons of people who argue that games are only for lazy and dumb people who donu2019t or canu2019t do anything else, like sports or whatnot.nThe thing is that video games are meant to be intellectually challenging, not physically.

It is more like playing chess. However chess is admired by most people, yet video games are frown upon.nMaybe it is just my opinion, but think it is much better for your brain when you play an interactive and challenging game than watching TV brainlessly and just passively receiving random information and commercials

· Other Questions

What did Japan think would happen after attacking Pearl Harbor?

Japanese pride and very survival were at stake when FDR ordered the shutting off of US vital materials to Japan, including 80% of the oil they used.So the striking out at Pearl Harbor was seen as a necessary attack to protect its national interests.Japanese leadership knew they would have a six month to year advantage before the US could respond offensively.

Japan had been stalled in China, prior to Pearl Harbor, and had toyed with US help to consolidate its gains in China, as it was a financial and military drain on Japan. The massive Japanese attack launched starting with Pearl Harbor greatly overwhelmed the undermanned opposition. US military bases on Wake island and Guam quickly fell with US and Filipino troops fighting a losing defensive battle till April 1942.

The Japanese leaders and population were ecstatic. After the taking of British Singapore, the exuberant Japanese wondered what to do next, as their war plans had been so easily fulfilled.Doolittles raid would change everything.

The US bombing of the Japanese homeland greatly shocked the Japanese people. Though the damage was minimal, it showed that Japan was vulnerable, damaging morale.Worst, it altered Japanese war plans.

Convinced of success, that the battle of the Coral Sea where the US had battled the Japanese to a draw, was just a aberration, the Japanese Navy decided to expand eastward its umbrella of protection, splitting its forces, in all out assaults on the Aleutian Islands and capturing Midway, possibly with further attacks on the Hawaiian Islands.To this point, Japan felt very confident of success, as they had been dictating the offense against little opposition. There was a time factor involved, as the US geared up for war, that was still half a year away.

The first American troops to see actions against Germany wouldnt happen till November, 1942, when US troops were landed in Algiers. So the Japanese were counting on the same time line. The Japanese continued to see their naval force superior to the US, which it was.

The only problem was, that the US had broken Japanese codes, and set a trap for the Japanese Navy at Midway.Till the battle of Midway, only six months into the war with the US, Japanese war fever was running high. The despised Americans were being overpower by the Japanese.

There was a feeling of invincibleness, foolish giddiness, that Japanese war victories would continue unabated.After the great Japanese lost of 4 aircraft carriers, coupled with Doolittles Raid, the Japanese knew they were more vulnerable to further attacks, and they had no power to extend their protective curtain. Japan knew from the start they could not win a conventional protracted war with the great industrial nation of the US, but by securing a perimeter barrier they had hoped to keep the US outside their zone of area they controlled.

It was a pipe dream.The military was counting on an armistice, losses so great to the Americans, they would sue for terms. Defeating the Americans was never seen as realistic.

With Germany having great success against the Soviets at this time, this seemed like a real possibility

------

I am dumb. I process info slow, hard time relating things being taught to what I know. I don't know a lot of things.

I'm 21. How do I help myself?

Dumb is a broad term, at least that is what I like to believe.

At at very young age, I have found myself learning things much slower than most of my friends. But then I learned the concept of brain plasticity from my psychology class and found it is possible to rewire our brain through training. What I have learned from my research and experimentation is that it is very hard to increase your IQ(Whatever that is), but it is very possible to train yourself to become a better thinker.

To process information faster:It doesn't means you have to force yourself to concentrate and think faster. You will be overloaded with too much information and stress, which can result in an analysis paralysis. Around 80% - 90% of the information in any given situation can be irrelevant.

Our brain also tends to operate better when we are working with less information. Thus practice comprehending what is going on by only looking for the key points and filtering out the irrelevant information. People that have trouble operating on very little information tend to be good critical thinkers.

They are the people that would think slowly through every possible angle of the information in order to reach a conclusion they are satisfied with. It is very good for philosophical thinking and generating ideas, but not for processing information fast. Learning things by relating it to what you know:It works very well, until it doesn't work.

An example would be if a chimpanzee would receive a banana every time he performs a certain trick, he would come to learn that is the way his world works. Then one day his owner was in a bad mood and decides not to give him banana when he performs a trick. The chimpanzee gets confused and have a hard time relating this to what he knows.

We are a lot smarter than chimpanzees, but we often make the same mistake on a higher level. I hit a block when I was trying to learn variables in math class in elementary school. It was too different from how I learned everything up to that point.

How does 2XY3 turns into Y3-2X? And how did the 2X move to the other side like that? I had trouble relating to what is going on.

The way we understand how the world works can be very limited compared to how the world actually works. Whenever you have to learn something new or solve a problem that is outside your usual area of expertise, you have to adapt a new way of thinking instead of just applying how you think it works to it. Overtime the limits of your thinking can be expanded, and you will become more flexible with your thinking

------

Why doesnt the US Military or even the Canadian military have something like a foreign legion like the French?

Why doesn't the US or Canadian military have something like the French Foreign Legion?nGiven that these countries are popular for immigrants, some of who would like to serve in the ranks of these elite militaries but would have get through the immigration process, wouldn't it be good to have a foreign branch for those who do not mind gaining citizenship that way ?nBecause neither the US nor Canada had a tradition of recruiting foreign citizens for their military services, neither of them needed foreign troops, and neither of them wanted them.

Today, only a handful of nations welcome foreign recruits.In the late Middle Ages and Renaissance periods, many reigning monarchs were linked by marriage to the royal families of other nations and were able to command the loyalty of foreign troop units in their military forces. France, following the 1789-99 French Revolution, embarked on imperial expansion with Napoleonic and other royal relatives married into various royal houses or placed as rulers by conquest.

The Napoleonic armies often included units of foreign origin. This trend continued after Napoleon, but some of these units were unavailable or unwilling to serve in all cases. The French Foreign Legion was created by King Louis Philippe in 1831, from foreign regiments of the French armies.

Recruits included soldiers from the recently disbanded Swiss and German foreign regiments of the Bourbon monarchy. The Royal Ordinance for the establishment of the new regiment specified that the foreigners recruited could only serve outside France. The French expeditionary force that had occupied Algeria in 1830 was in need of reinforcements and the Legion was accordingly transferred to Algeria.

nWikipedia, French Foreign Legion The USA and Canada, for different reasons, each relied on their respective domestic populations to serve in their armed forces. In each case, however, the use of citizens as soldiers contributed to the formation of national identity and involved oaths of loyalty to the nation. In contrast, the Foreign Legion takes advantage of its unique tradition, requiring that recruits take an oath of loyalty to the Foreign Legion, not to France.

The purposes of the Foreign Legion are (at least theoretically) abhorrent to the US and Canadian international policy ethos.The United States does make provision for prospective immigrants to serve. The fundamental concern for loyalty, however, leads to a requirement that the immigrant have committed to and been admitted to permanent residence.

Service in the US military is an avenue for these immigrants to secure accelerated naturalization to citizenship