I want to tell you about children's esports, because this is such a mind-blowing topic in terms of prejudice that you can study human nature. We started the esports business twice: once it was normal, and once during quarantine, since the time was freed up and people around suddenly began to understand that it is possible and necessary to bring benefits from games.
And if parents consider football or chess to be unambiguously useful, then the situation with games is ambiguous. The head of the department Nastya began with an interview. In general, Nastya knows how to communicate with her parents, because she once launched a subscription to the Aistbox sets of developmental pieces (a box for a child arrives every month).
Then came the soft psychedelic. The parents told how the children are busy, what a crazy schedule they have.
It seems to me that a parent wants to educate a new self, only better. And every hour of downtime the child perceives as a lack of knowledge and skills. Well, you know, while you sleep, the enemy is swinging. So, on average, the children of the respondents have about an hour (in total) free time per day. The child spends this hour on the phone, that is, he is resting. Parents - oddly enough - want him to spend this hour in English, beat other children in the boxing sections, or somehow dispose of it.
At that moment it became clear that if we turn computer games into something useful, then they will pay for it. Looking ahead, I can add that this is now one of the most effective methods of socialization, which has accelerated progress.
In the meantime, let's get some fun!
Interview with parents
Our sample is mainly parents who care about the child's development. That is, these are those who, in general, are ready to spend money and time on a family. Moscow, ordinary schools, but at the same time parents are somehow interested in something more than just a school curriculum. Further, the description of this particular group of people (they were interesting to us as the most promising clients).
So, the parents of the sample unambiguously perceive computer games as the embodiment of the world's evil.While the child is playing, he either stopped developing or degrades. The softest reaction of those investigated is in the spirit of “we don't have such a problem” (that is, it's still a problem), and the most difficult ones lie in the area “does not want to talk to us, spends all the time on the phone”. That is, they understand that there is no plus or minus without this, but this is bad. Something like drinking beer, eating junk food, watching YouTube or sitting on Facebook. Such a sinful pleasure.
The surprise is that the parents themselves are playing! But they do not consider it to be something bad.
“I come home from work, I’m very tired, I need to relieve stress, for an hour and a half I tear my friends' faces in a shooting game” - this is normal. This is a useful pastime for dad, it relieves stress. He approaches the matter with all seriousness.
If you want your child to read a lot, you need him to see you with a book every day and consider it the norm. If you want your child to grow up as a cattle - behave like a cattle, this should help. But in the case of games, something goes wrong. The model of the assumption is this: if you want your child not to play computer games, then take away the phone and scold him. But keep playing yourself. Sounds logical, right?
Most of the time, both parents do not perceive the subway banging on the colored balls as a game process. They're RIDING. There is a targeted activity, it is a priority. And the game is so, just kill time. In general, it is a little strange to hear from people who want to utilize a child's time as much as possible, the phrase "well, I have to kill time." I waited more for concrete evidence through stress reduction.
We also expected that at least somewhere in the interview the situation would appear, that “my child plays a lot because I couldn't think of something more exciting today” or “because we didn't have time to do it”. Well, or something else, where the parent feels responsible for what is happening. But no. The parent, however, cannot influence the child in any way, but he connects somewhere to the world's evil and picks up these games, from which he cannot calmly eat. That is, all situations in a child's life are controlled by a parent ... well, except for a couple. These are games most often, followed by communication in Tiktok. Bill Gates is definitely to blame. If you think about it, maybe even Ritchie. And quite a bit Stroustrup.
In fact, of course, I'm exaggerating a little now. Parents perfectly understand everything - and that the world has changed, and that games on phones are ubiquitous, and that if a child is given a push-button phone, then his social status at school will dramatically decrease, because everyone is with iPhones, and he is like a sucker. And not all of them play themselves. And it's not always a child on the phone, because you can read a book together, go somewhere, come up with something else. In general, we have many conscientious parents.
But all the same, when the child plays, he is idle. Inadmissible!
What is the problem?
Attempts to conduct factor analysis are as follows:
- If a child just plays on the street, that's good, he shakes his physical form.
- If a child plays board games, that's good, he communicates with his family.
- If a child plays educational computer games, this is permissible.
That is, the question is not in the very process of the game, but in the fact that the parent believes that he leads to degradation in some way.
Can the child not play? Not. Play is an evolutionary device that helps you practice different situations thousands of times with great motivation. Previously, it was believed that through play, animals release "excess energy", that is, this is such a control valve. As the ethological models were refined, it became clear that play was needed not only and not so much as a placeholder for free time. It can be a means of training (lion cubs "hunt" each other and their parents), the ability to better control their bodies, faster connecting neural networks of control (hello, elephants with a freshly discovered cool such a trunk), a means of socialization (hello, all primates) and, of course , learning.
So we love to play evolutionarily. And I have said many times and will say it again: games are new books. Because they replace the imaginary experience with the almost real one. I dare say that by playing the Kerbal space program, you will understand the subject area better than if you go to an astronomy circle for a year. This War of Mine teaches what war is like from the point of view of the civilian population (or it is correct to consider underproduced GDP as old people and send them to death). Any economic simulator shows the relationship of a bunch of indicators and teaches you to count correctly. A Slower Speed of Light
The problem is that if games are directed at something, they usually aren't very entertaining. And if they entertain well, then they do not always teach well. I mean, if there was a technical assignment to make an educational game - as a game it will be bad. But if you put a teaching element (or just good detail) into a good game, then the effect will be excellent.
In general, from my point of view, games are educationally the most similar to the genre of "production novels" - like DeMarco's Deadline and Eliyahu Goldratt's Objectives. It seemed like it was cool and fun, and they learned something else. Relatively imperceptible, because this was not the main goal.
Also, of course, games, like movies (or comics), set a model for behavior. Remember historyabout the beginning of age markings due to the fact that children began to perceive the ways of committing crimes in post-war comics as a guide to action? It’s strange that no one really explored their learning potential back then.
But let's get back to applied history: esports in children's sections. Quarantined.
Parents want to do something so that there are fewer useless games in the child's life. But we are ready to put up with the useful. That is, you can work in the following areas:
- Proving that gaming is the new norm.
- Replace computer games with other activities (board games).
- Replace games with other useful ones.
- Make the same games more useful in the process.
The most promising was to take the very games that children play with great involvement - and try to build something useful on their basis. The first was Fortnight: we would, of course, gladly take CS: GO, but in CS: GO you kill friends with an order of magnitude higher frequency than in Fortnight. Plus, after firing a realistic "chiset", the head makes a realistic clap and leaves a bloody mark on the wall, and after hitting with a two-handed pickaxe from full swing in Fortnite, the enemy only stumbles. Therefore, he, Minecraft, but for the older ones already CS.
Stop-stop, what about the research?
Can you alternate between regular activities and games?
Do they help you relax or waste a resource?
Do they inculcate at the same time any antisocial patterns of behavior?
Given the imbalance between the many studies of "why games are harmful" and the rare "how games can be useful", one must look at long experiences, such as a 10-year perspective. In 2009, they began a large 10-year study of how the behavior of people with video games is changing. 500 teenagers per group (boys and girls in half). There are a bunch of interesting tables about the fact that girls play at 21 more than boys and so on. But the following is important for us:
- 4% played only violent games
- 23% played violent games with a vivid demonstration of violence and normal
- 73% played "peaceful" games
The older the subjects were, the less their history of violent games became.
Research here. According to the results, the groups did not differ from each other in terms of the level of anxiety and propensity to depression. The conclusions are:
- Even the most violent childhood play doesn't have any effect on adult aggression.
- Aggressive children are more prone to violent games.
Simplifying: It's not GTA's fault that kids grow up violent. It's just that already cruel children choose GTA.
Another hodgepodge of the benefits of computer games, with links to research. In short: 3D games orienteering improves memory, games reduce pain levels, dyslexic children read better, help rehabilitate better from injuries, and, carefully, can make you a little smarter.
Can you try to raise a child without games?
There is somewhere in the delta neighborhood of zero. The parent controls the child's environment to a certain level. Anyway, he will see games, mate on the Internet, porn, massive chats and Solovyov. In fact, you need to control not the activity itself, but how the child is prepared for it.
I would bet on the fact that you need to understand that the child will definitely play and try to get the most out of it. Actually, looking ahead, this is what the pundits from the esports faculty of the Russian State University of Physical Culture told us, who wrote a bunch of scientific papers. And a methodology for us. Here it is necessary to stop and say that in Russia there is such a State University of Physical Culture, which trains athletes and coaches. That is, all the achievements of domestic sports are generated by the megamind hidden within its walls.
Russia does not yet have a sufficiently developed methodology for training cybersportsmen. Not in the world either - more precisely, there is at the pro-level. Making the preparation massive is one of our tasks in the future. Here's the thing: to simplify things, once upon a time football was only at the professional level. Soviet coaches developed a methodology for training young players. As its popularity grew, the game began to approach the amateur level until it became a tool for the general development of children. Private leagues, commercial schools and so on began to appear. With esports, plus or minus the same situation: professional sports already exist, but amateur ones (with the same leagues and commercial sections and, therefore, methods) are not there yet. Working on it.
Also, of course, esports is not yet covered by a very large scientific base. So that you understand the specifics, yes, there is a lot of research done on esports actions on the human brain. They study both the psyche and physiology of children. The task is that, as a physical education instructor at school, on average, understands at what age what loads are needed, the esports coach also gave optimal things. From football, we know that it is useless to load with a team game in childhood: that at 5 years old is a year, at 8 years old is understood as a month or two. Because at some point the child sharply realizes that other objects of the world can also be personalities with their own motives. RSUPC also has a developed base in physiology: for example, almost immediately young cybersportsmen are taught to do exercises correctly. In our classes, we show how to properly knead the cervicobrachial region, hands, and so on. Parents are happyand children get a 1-2% advantage in the game. And the coaches also explain what happens to the head when the cervical spine is pinched: "the brain starts to dull." It comes down to the fact that you should try to walk with a straight back and sit straight at school - because you will play better and will not be a stupid vegetable. I sat right on the math - in the evening you will be better off tearing everyone up in games. And you know? Working.
Yes, one more important point: we do not consider esports as a sport in the classical sense. That is, if we say through the coaches that if the child has no contraindications to sports (any), we believe that e-sports is a great addition. If you can, go to the section or at least kick the ball in the yard. This is due to the same methodological base of the Russian State University of Physical Culture.
In the same way, we are not focused on high-performance sports: the task is not for the child to learn to play the game perfectly. It is a remedy. And the goal is to use his interest in the game to develop other skills like communication.
Can games be made useful in terms of practical skills?
Here I turn to the conclusions, supported by the opinion of the esports faculty.
Yes, games can be useful. But if the child plays alone, then progress will be very slow. You can compare online games with the street: a child comes into the community, begins to clarify self-esteem, recruits patterns of behavior from other members of the community and does, plus or minus, what others do. You can come and play with others, but the coach helps in introspection: he first suggests what can be done differently, and then teaches the child to track it on his own.
If you play with a coach, then the coach will nudge you towards much more effective playing tactics. Since we have pre-selected games where tactics useful for the development of the child are more effective, the coach will teach teamwork, proper communication and increase the child's self-esteem.
That is, we tell the child that he will learn to play better. And the very fact that he is progressing in the game leads to progress in those skills and qualities that the parent wants to see in the child.
Is there a specific example of such a benefit?
When I watched the footage of the first fortnight tournament, I thought, "Damn, damn, these are the kindest kids in the world." This I mean that many times I came across schoolchildren in CS, and they have never been kind. Very rarely they were utilitarian-pragmatic. But correct communication is clearly not their strong point.
It seemed to me that eSports for children is about teaching technical skills like shooting accuracy. Or they memorize typical openings. It turned out that the first big block of methodology is the ability to be kind. And useful at the same time. In fact, within the framework of team network games, the same thing: the psychological attitude of the team directly affects the chances of victory, and your communication style directly affects this attitude.
The second surprise (for me) was that children are incredibly tolerant of nicknames. If at school a student with the surname Kozlov would hardly have received the nickname "Pelmen", then nicknames like "Donkey", "Idiot13", "Clutter" and others are like military nicknames. They tried to get to the bottom of the children, they say, what is your nickname so funny. Most of them did not understand and with calm interest began to find out what was actually funny.
This is the kind of emotion the coach expects from them for any insult. Calm pragmatism. Whether in a voice chat in a messenger, in a game chat in a game, or on a bus, you need to split the message into a message and a shell. In the first block, it turned out to be very important how the coach can help the child not react closely to insults on the air. Because children experience it very hard.
Children behave differently in the first training sessions. Someone grunts into the air. Someone constantly scolds someone for poor skills. Someone begins to prompt (or command) what to do. The coaches explain each shudder of the air: why it is necessary and not necessary to do so. What is useful for the game, what is not.
You can't swear: children understand this right away. But the fact that the grunting kid just turned out to be a little forgotten, and wants attention - this is not the most obvious. In general, according to the same Fortnite, psychological diagnostics can be carried out. As part of training, this is important for identifying weaknesses and strengths, but I think we'll get to psychologists. Fortnite is interesting because initially the game has a lot of resources around and little for players. The task comes down to analyzing the situation, to understand who is needed and what is needed in the moment. And realize it. Such an entrepreneurial story. The finals are very interesting: one child will look for the enemy, the second will sit in the bushes and be afraid, the third will sit in the bushes and wait in cold blood. The same is true for reactions to team communication.
I would dig into this topic separately, but for now let's talk about a simple special case: a child was insulted on the air. This happens about once every two minutes in an aggressive environment of peers on the street or in a game. With the growth of friendship and adequacy, the frequency of "you are a fool" decreases to a minimum. But in games unfamiliar anonymous children often intersect, and therefore they smack each other without hesitation. Children worry, snap, behave unproductively, lose their temper and lose. In general, insults are ineffective. Most often, the main problem of lack of proper communication is low self-esteem.
In methodology, we must first instill in the child an understanding of the importance or unimportance of what happened. If his mother insults him, it is important. If some left type in the game is for actions in which it was definitely possible to make a mistake - in theory, it should be spit. But these are children, and they do not have it that way. To understand how “wrong” is, just know that, exaggerating very much, until a certain age (about two years) they do not perceive themselves as a subject (that is, they do not distinguish their own personality), but rather give a personality to the link “parent -child".
The coach asks leading questions every time when offended, so that the child suddenly deduces for himself an assessment of the importance of the left-type opinion. That is, the coach teaches introspection. The most frequent questions are: “Why do you care?”, “What exactly excited you in this situation?”, “What will this change in your life?”, “What are you doing now?” (the expected answer is “playing” and “playing”), “Why did the words of the person you hear for the first time hurt you?”. That is, the wording is not straightforward, but the meaning, I think, is clear. Then the coach explains that you can make mistakes in games. The whole point is that training is just devoted to making him better in the game (if he was told that he was not dragging, it is clear that there was no such super task). Once again, it is indirectly specified that a game is a world where, in principle, they cannot do anything bad to a child that will harm in real life.If necessary, the coach works through the situation further after training, discussing in detail.
Children are not stupid. They are quick to jump into these concepts and are delighted with how cool and calm they react to insults. What is important - they learn to decide for themselves when they still need to listen to their partner and when to turn them off. If it is "left, left, you are a moron, you are a finished moron" - then the child will understand that he was told this with love , wanting to help.
Well, in the sense that the message was more useful than sludge. And if there is less benefit than insults, the player will calmly turn off the voice to the one who interferes. Because he has a goal - to play better.
It is clear that during training, coaches try not to play with random teammates. By listening to how others communicate, children understand how to communicate. Therefore, as in football: we form our own structure, where there are more or less controlled environmental conditions. But, of course, children play on public servers, and skills come in handy there.
In general, now an esports coach is primarily a teenage psychologist who still knows how to shoot well in games.
And finally, the story: the mother of one of the children called, who did not sign up for football (just for the sake of socialization). And she said that the child is fond of computer games, and she would really like him to go to some section. But he has no friends, poor communication, and suffered psychological trauma. They started with him with private personal training, and then moved on to team training. Now he plays quietly. It is clear that we did not conduct 360 ° assessments, but Nastya is sure that he became much calmer - largely due to communication.
So welcome to the new street.