US Spies Use Custom Video Games for Training

Wired reports that the US Defense Intelligence Agency has just acquired three PC-based video games which they will use to train the next wave of analysts. The games are short, but they have branching story lines that change depending on how a trainee reacts to various problems. Quoting: "'It is clear that our new workforce is very comfortable with this approach,' says Bruce Bennett, chief of the analysis-training branch at the DIA's Joint Military Intelligence Training Center. Wired.com had an opportunity to play all three games, Rapid Onset, Vital Passage and Sudden Thrust. The titles may conjure images of blitzkrieg, but the games themselves are actually a surprisingly clever and occasionally surreal blend of education, humor and intellectual challenge, aimed at teaching the player how to think."

thinking about it...

[martyb]

The titles may conjure images of blitzkrieg, but the games themselves are actually a surprisingly clever and occasionally surreal blend of education, humor and intellectual challenge, aimed at teaching the player how to think. (emphasis added)

Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum! (*)

* I think I think, therefore I think I am!

But seriously, I'm curious as to what part of these games is aimed at improving cognitive skills versus indoctrination? i.e. the difference between "how to THINK" versus "HOW to think."

Re:How to Think

[halivar]

The way we learn has changed; probably irrevocably. We are now in a post-literary world. We increasingly think more visually and spatially, and less sequentially (thus the reduction of news to 30-second bites, but in a multitude of them). We learn by seeing and doing, and not by reading and hearing. It stands to reason that our teaching methods will have to change, as well.

Branching storylines? Can we have some?

[danaris]

What would it take to get some real branching storylines in games for us ordinary mortals?

That's always been one of my major gripes with most games that have a story: none of your decisions can affect it aside from "Whoops! You failed! Now the world ends!"

...and if someone knows of some such games that do exist, I'd appreciate knowing about them, especially if they're not PC-only ;-)

Dan Aris

Re:How to Think

[gatzke]

I don't think the way we learn has changed, just the technology now makes it possible to do more visual and spatial instruction.

When all you have is a chalkboard, all you can do is a chalk talk. Now that tools are there for rapid content creation, things should change slowly.

The US was lauded years back for great hands-on engineering labs. Now that you can do virtual labs, maybe this will take a hit? As someone who has taught with both, I can tell you anecdotally that hands-on real-world wins by far...

And I thought spatial reasoning was valued as a higher level of thought? Or is that different from learning spatially?

Sadly engineering and science profs are rarely given formal instruction on educational methods. One thing that I did pick up in my limited instruction was that people learn visually and sequentially, so you need to cater to both (read+equation AND graphs+figures). Usually the visual learners get left out, so now they have a better chance in some cases...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:How to Think

[CastrTroy]

For what part of human history have we ever learned by reading? Most people couldn't read for most of human history. It has always been much easier to learn something by doing it, rather than just reading a book about it. Don't get me wrong. Reading is important, and is useful for figuring certain things out. It's really good for passing on ideas and information. However, it is not the best way to learn how to do anything. Do you learn how to program by reading about it, or by doing it? Do you learn how to draw a picture by reading about it? Do you learn how to drive by reading about it? If I want to know, for instance, how to change the padding using CSS, I can read about it. If I don't actually go and do it, there's a much smaller chance that I will remember it when I need to do it again. If I go ahead and actually implement it, and type it out, I am much better able to retain the information.

Re:Names

[Thyamine]

Because there are still people out there that think games are for toddlers or young children. They don't understand why adults would want to play them, let alone the fact that they could be educational or used for training.

Re:Start game

[Achoi77]

You wake up and the room is dark. _

> Open eyes

You can't see any eyes to open.

> Search for light switch.

You have been eaten by a grue.

Re:How to Think

[radl33t]

I learn by collecting and organizing information. The answer to your questions (for me) is yes. I agree that it is easier to do something by copying it, but it is slower and not necessarily better. The biggest challenge is that it often requires resident expertise. This is an absurd constraint considering the wealth of knowledge available to me.

Clearly, there will be some element of practice-seeing-doing-copying-whatever required, but good research can not be underestimated. And reading is the most efficient way for me to collect that information. It is one of my main problems with audio\visual "learning". If I understand the concepts then these media are terribly slow. Printing the words for me to read would be 10 times as fast. Pictures say 1000s words, videos do this at 30fps, but most of it is either garbage or redundant. And of course, people talk slow. Even very experience oriented activities like shooting guns, cultivating drugs, or technical get-away driving can be conquered quicker by replacing vast amounts of practice with basically classroom work. You take the lessons and advice from the most seasoned very quickly and you avoid inventing the wheel. It applies universally, so far as I can tell.