Donald Norman is an excellent designer and broadly knowledgeable but this essay he wrote is laughable. Especially this paragraph which represents his viewpoint and is the meat of the essay,
Even if his hypotheses are correct, there is no evidence — nor does Johnson pretend there is — that the enhanced problem-solving skills come along with advanced understanding of how to create a logical argument, how to reason from evidence, and how to reach sustainable, justifiable conclusions.
which is ironic since it's a fallacy and specious in the extreme. Yes, Donald is defending logical reasoning using fallacious reasoning! WTF? Seriously!
It doesn't MATTER if modern computer games create advanced understanding or logical arguments, blah blah blah. All that matters is whether computer games are better or worse than the alternative. And since the alternative is board games like Monopoly and Risk, as well as games of chance like Solitaire, Poker, and Bridge. Or pure recall like Scrabble. Well, it's pretty obvious they're superior.
Moreover, NOTHING will promote logic since you can't teach analysis. Those who have it, need precious little to be taught the rules of thinking. And those who don't have analysis will NEVER learn, no matter how ritualistically they try to use it or he tries to teach it. The same thing for understanding and synthesis. So not only is "but does he look good in leather?" completely irrelevant, and asinine in the extreme, but you can't teach it period.
Too bad there is no comment system or any possible way to respond to anything on Donald Norman's website.
