Hi, this is Ray.

Confession upfront. I've already mentioned my embarrassing Civilization VI hours count in a previous newsletter (847 hours, for those keeping track, which has since climbed to a number I refuse to admit). I've talked about board games twice. So when I tell you that today's newsletter is about video games and learning, you might reasonably suspect I'm just rationalizing my own habits.

You'd be partially right. I AM rationalizing. But the rationalization is, fortunately for both of us, also backed by an unusually robust body of cognitive science. Video games (specifically certain genres of them) have been studied more carefully and produced more replicated findings than almost any other "entertainment activity affects cognition" claim. The popular discourse on this topic has been a mess for decades, swinging between "video games rot your brain" and "video games will make you a genius." The actual research, when you read it carefully, lands somewhere more interesting and more useful than either of those positions.

Today's newsletter is the honest tour. What video games actually do to your brain, which genres produce which effects, what the limits of the benefits are, and how to use this without falling for the more enthusiastic claims. Whether you're a gamer wondering if you should feel guilty about your hobby, a parent worried about kids' screen time, or just someone curious about the science, the picture is more nuanced than the headlines suggest. Let's get into it.

ChatGPT is a superpower if you know how to use it correctly.

Discover how HubSpot's guide to AI can elevate both your productivity and creativity to get more things done.

Learn to automate tasks, enhance decision-making, and foster innovation with the power of AI.

Download the free guide

Let me start with the strongest finding in this whole field, because it's genuinely impressive and deserves the headline treatment.

According to a major meta-analysis examining 15 years of research, the effects of action video games on cognition are real, replicable, and notably larger than most cognitive training interventions can produce. As one summary of the research put it, individuals playing action video games increased their cognition more than those playing the control games, with the difference in cognitive abilities between these two training groups being of one-third of a standard deviation. One-third of a standard deviation in cognitive abilities is a substantial effect. For context, that's larger than most pharmaceutical interventions for cognition can produce, larger than the effects of many "brain training" apps, and comparable to effect sizes seen in serious educational interventions.

A 2023 follow-up meta-analysis confirmed and extended this picture. According to the researchers, moderate to large effects were found for top-down attention and spatial cognition, with action video games producing improvements over control video games. The specific cognitive functions that improve most reliably are top-down attention (the ability to deliberately direct your focus where you want it) and spatial cognition (mental rotation, navigation, processing of spatial relationships). These aren't random benefits. They're some of the most useful cognitive functions for almost any kind of learning.

What makes the action video game finding particularly noteworthy is that it does something most cognitive training programs fail to do: it transfers. As one comprehensive review noted, while standard perceptual or cognitive training paradigms often produce learning that is highly specific to the exact context of the trained task, the benefits of action video game play have been shown to extend well beyond the confines of the games… clear enhancements in basic perceptual skills, in the ability to utilize selective attention, and in cognitive flexibility have been noted as a result of action video game play. Most "brain training" makes you better at the specific game and not much else. Action video games appear to actually generalize, producing measurable improvements on tasks that look nothing like the games themselves.

This is the question that fascinates the researchers. Why do action games (first-person shooters, third-person action games, fast-paced combat games) produce these effects when other game genres often don't?

The leading theory is that action games happen to combine several cognitive demands in ways that other genres don't quite replicate. As one analysis explained, gamers are mainly required to maintain and manipulate information from multiple sources and to make rapid decisions; they also need to use their attention skills in a flexible manner by switching between distributed and focused attention. In an action game, you're tracking multiple moving targets, monitoring your own health and resources, anticipating enemy behavior, switching between broad spatial awareness and narrow focused targeting, and making decisions in compressed timeframes… all simultaneously. The cognitive load is high, and the load is on exactly the systems that show improvement.

The same paper noted that video games offer various environments, avoiding full task automatization and fostering new strategies and learning; gamers can also take advantage of increasing difficulty levels that are adapted to their skills, and they can gather immediate informative feedback, which allows them to adapt their behavior and strategies. The difficulty scaling matters. The immediate feedback matters. The variety prevents the brain from fully automating responses. Each of these is a design feature that happens to make action games unusually effective as cognitive training.

A more recent theoretical framework from the Bavelier and Green research group suggests the mechanism is even broader. According to their proposal, action video game play promotes broad generalization by first enhancing attentional control abilities, with action video games promoting what might be called "learning to learn"… improving the underlying systems that enable learning of new tasks. This is a fairly bold claim, but it has support from multiple studies. The idea is that action games don't just teach you specific skills… they tune up the attention system that underlies almost all skill learning. Once that system is sharper, you learn other things more efficiently, not just things related to action games.

Let me get concrete about what gets better and by how much, because "video games help cognition" is too vague to act on.

Attention and the ability to track multiple objects. This is the most reliable finding. Action gamers can track more moving objects simultaneously and respond to them faster than non-gamers. According to one summary, research from the University of Warwick showed that players of action games could track and respond to multiple moving objects 50% faster than their non-gaming peers. This translates to real-world tasks involving multitasking, dynamic environments, and any situation where you need to monitor several things at once.

Visual selective attention. Gamers tend to be faster at picking out relevant targets from cluttered displays. This shows up in tests where participants have to find a specific object among distractors. Action gamers find it faster and with fewer errors. For learners, this maps to skills like quickly scanning text for key information, identifying patterns in data, and processing visually complex material efficiently.

Spatial cognition and mental rotation. Action games involve constant navigation through 3D spaces, which appears to train the underlying spatial reasoning systems. Spatial cognition is correlated with performance in STEM fields, so this benefit has potentially significant downstream implications for academic learning.

Cognitive flexibility and task switching. Gamers tend to switch between tasks more efficiently than non-gamers. This is a useful skill for any kind of complex work that requires juggling multiple components.

Reaction time without sacrificing accuracy. This is an interesting one. The naive expectation is that faster reactions would come at the cost of accuracy. The research consistently shows that action gamers achieve faster reaction times AND maintain or improve accuracy compared to non-gamers. They're not just impulsive… they're making better decisions faster.

Working memory (with caveats). This is where the findings get more mixed. Some studies show working memory benefits from action games. Others don't. The picture is less clean than for attention and spatial cognition. Some genres of games… particularly strategy games… may actually produce stronger working memory effects than action games.

Action games dominate the research, but other genres have their own effects that are worth knowing about.

Strategy games (like Civilization, StarCraft, or Total War) appear to produce different cognitive effects than action games. The research suggests they're particularly useful for complex problem-solving, long-term planning, and decision-making under uncertainty. Some studies have specifically linked real-time strategy games to improvements in cognitive flexibility and higher-order thinking. The mechanism makes sense… these games require holding many variables in mind, planning multiple steps ahead, and adapting strategies when conditions change. Different cognitive load than action games, different training effect.

Puzzle games (Tetris, Portal, puzzle-platformers) seem to train spatial reasoning and problem-solving more specifically. The research on Tetris specifically has shown it can produce measurable changes in spatial cognition and even modest changes in brain structure with extended play. Puzzle games tend to be more narrowly focused than action games… you get good at the specific kind of puzzles the game presents, with some transfer to related spatial tasks.

Role-playing games and MMORPGs appear to have effects on different cognitive domains, particularly social cognition (since they involve significant social interaction) and possibly language skills if you're playing in a second language. One study cited in the research literature found that massively multiplayer online role-playing games can be used to support second language learning. Not what you'd expect from World of Warcraft, but the immersive language exposure does seem to produce real learning effects.

Casual mobile games… the kind you might play on your phone during a break… have produced much less impressive results in research studies. The cognitive demands are typically too low to produce significant training effects. If you're trying to use gaming for cognitive benefit, Candy Crush is probably not your best bet.

Let me be honest about the limits of this research, because the field has had its share of hype problems.

Effect sizes are real but moderate. One-third of a standard deviation is meaningful, but it's not transformation. Don't expect to play Call of Duty for a month and become a genius. The effects accumulate over substantial play (typically tens to hundreds of hours in the intervention studies) and the size of the effects, while real, is modest compared to what some popular coverage suggests.

Transfer has limits. Action games seem to transfer better than most cognitive training, but they don't transfer to everything. You won't suddenly be better at math or memory from playing action games. The benefits are specifically in attention, perception, and certain visuospatial skills. Don't expect them to fix problems they weren't shown to affect.

Excessive play has real downsides. As one summary noted, it is essential to balance gaming with other activities to foster well-rounded cognitive development, as excessive gaming can lead to negative outcomes such as decreased attention span and social isolation. The dose matters. Moderate gaming embedded in a balanced life produces the cognitive benefits we're discussing. Excessive gaming that crowds out exercise, sleep, social connection, or other learning can produce net cognitive harm even while training specific skills.

The intervention studies use spaced play. The research showing strong effects typically involves participants playing several hours a week over months, not marathon sessions on weekends. The space-it-out pattern matters. Cramming gaming hours doesn't produce the same effects as consistent moderate play.

Some publication bias likely exists. As with much of psychology research, studies showing impressive effects are easier to publish than studies showing weak or null effects. The actual size of the benefits is probably somewhat smaller than the published literature suggests. Still real. Just maybe not quite as dramatic as the headlines.

Individual variation is huge. Some people respond strongly to gaming as cognitive training. Others don't show much benefit. The averages obscure significant variation between individuals.

Okay, the practical part. If you've read all this and want to actually leverage gaming for cognitive benefit, here's what the research suggests.

Play action games regularly but moderately. Roughly 3-5 hours per week of action gaming, spread across multiple sessions, is in the range where the research has shown benefits without obvious downsides. Playing 30 hours a week is not 10x more beneficial than playing 5 hours a week. Past a point, more gaming doesn't produce more benefits and starts producing costs.

Mix genres. If you want broad cognitive benefits, vary what you play. Action games for attention and spatial cognition, strategy games for planning and problem-solving, puzzle games for spatial reasoning. The variety produces broader effects than mainlining one genre.

Treat it as a complement, not a replacement. Gaming doesn't replace deliberate practice in whatever you're actually trying to learn. It's a supplement that can support the underlying cognitive functions you need for learning. The student who plays action games AND studies will outperform the student who only studies, on the margin. The student who only plays action games and doesn't study won't learn the actual material they need.

Choose games with real challenge. The cognitive benefits come from genuine cognitive load. Games that are too easy don't produce the effects. The challenging fast-paced games in their respective genres are the ones doing the work. If you're cruising through on autopilot, you're not training anything.

Don't justify everything with this research. This is the rationalization risk I mentioned at the start. The research supports moderate, deliberate gaming as having some cognitive benefits. It does NOT support the use of "but it's good for my brain" to justify a 6-hour weeknight session that displaces sleep and other obligations. Know the difference between cognitively beneficial gaming and just enjoying yourself. Both are fine. Don't confuse them.

Watch for warning signs. If your gaming is displacing sleep, exercise, real-world relationships, or other learning, the cognitive math is probably negative regardless of what the action-games-help-attention research says. The cognitive benefits assume the gaming is embedded in an otherwise healthy life. Without that, the calculus changes.

Here's what I want you to take from all this. The cultural conversation about video games and the brain has been remarkably bad for decades, swinging between moral panic and unfounded enthusiasm. The actual research, when you read it carefully, supports a more reasonable middle position: certain types of video games, played moderately, produce real and measurable cognitive benefits, particularly in attention, spatial cognition, and possibly the underlying capacity for learning itself. These benefits are not magic, not unlimited, and not a substitute for the foundational practices of actual learning. But they're real.

If you've been carrying guilt about your gaming hobby, you probably don't need to. If your gaming is in the moderate range and your life is otherwise functioning, the research suggests you might actually be getting modest cognitive benefits from it. That said, please don't take this as license to triple your screen time. The benefits saturate quickly, the costs of excessive play are real, and the optimal pattern is probably much closer to what you're already doing than to what you might be tempted to do.

For parents and educators: the research doesn't support treating video games as straightforwardly bad for kids. It does support treating them as one element in a balanced cognitive diet, alongside reading, physical activity, social engagement, and other development. The Pokemon-or-perish framing some media coverage suggests is wrong in both directions.

For learners specifically: if you're going to game anyway, choosing genres with cognitive load (action, strategy, complex puzzle) is probably better for your brain than passive mobile games. And spacing your gaming across the week, in moderate doses, produces the cognitive benefits more reliably than weekend marathons.

I'm going to play Civilization tonight. I'll feel slightly less guilty about it now that I've written this newsletter. The 847 hours I've already invested are not, it turns out, entirely wasted. Some of them were applied neuroscience. Most of them were just fun. Both are okay.

Even Gandalf needed to enjoy himself sometimes. Fireworks, pipe-weed, occasionally a long quiet evening in the Shire. The wise know how to play. They just also know when to put the controller down and walk back into the world.

Keep learning (and keep playing, in moderation),

Ray