احسان شاه قاسمی

It is generally perceived that serious games are more interesting to people who are more educated. But is this perception really true? This paper tries to answer this question and some other related questions to provide a clearer picture of who plays strategic games in the US. Data were taken from a large dataset of one of the PEWs surveys. The American Trends Panel is a probability-based online panel which is carried out nationally using a sample of adults in the United States living in households. This survey was fielded for the Pew Research Center by Abt Associates from April 4 to April 18, 2017. Overall, 4,168 participants completed the Wave 26 survey. The results found that in comparison with non-strategic gamers, strategic gamers are more likely to be men, more educated and wealthier, though the differences are small. It seems the old stereotypes about Sgamers and NSgamers should be re-evaluated, if we want to know how to use serious games for educational purposes. 

Synopsis Although research has shown that nowadays we are less likely to have a lifelong love partner, the media industry has increasingly incorporated 'love' as a guarantor of success for media products of all kinds. My argument is that, in order to sell more, the media industry has constructed a false notion of love. Worse than that, we the audiences have adopted this notion; since this is a false construct, many people have come up with unrealistic expectations of their love life. The results can be seen in the ever-increasing rate of divorce. I argue that we need something that I would call "love literacy" to appropriately respond to one evolutionary intention that exists in all of us.

When the war broke out in Ukraine, this eastern European country started a successful resistance that pinned down the Russian army in many regions and created a stalemate that has sparked a war of attrition not only in Ukraine, but also on social media territories in other political spheres. This study investigates the way in which Ukraine war is represented -or to be more precise, fought- in the Iranian X. Data mining methods were employed to search, find and extract posts including “Ukraine war” -or “جنگ اوکراین” in Persian. Our main question was, how did Iranian X users position themselves with regard to war in Ukraine? Using Python, a popular social media research tools, 2027 relevant posts were extracted to show the way in which Iranian users position themselves with regard to Ukraine war. Results revealed that the two Iranian main political factions  -namely Reformists and Fundamentalists- see this war not as a war of other countries, but that of their own. The pro-Western Reformists favor the Ukrainian side of the war and the pro-Eastern Fundamentalists favor the Russian side of the war. They fight on social media as though the Ukrainian war is their own war.

Background: Throughout history, humans have consistently developed groundbreaking technologies, from fire and the wheel to modern computing, showcasing their ability to innovate and control their creations. The rise of artificial intelligence has sparked renewed concerns about whether machines might eventually surpass human intelligence and autonomy.Aims: This study aims to critically assess AI’s role in human society, particularly addressing concerns that it may surpass human control and agency. It seeks to demonstrate that while AI is a powerful tool, it lacks autonomy, self-augmentation, and intentionality, making it unlikely to replace human decision-making. Additionally, the paper examines historical technological advancements, showing how humans have always adapted and controlled new innovations.Methodology: Employing a historical-comparative methodology, this study traces the evolution of computing technologies from early tally systems to quantum computing. It incorporates philosophical analysis through the works of Hubert Dreyfus, John Searle, and Michael Tomasello, assessing AI’s limitations in replicating human cognition.Findings: The study finds that despite AI’s rapid advancements, it remains fundamentally dependent on human input, lacks true understanding, and is incapable of independent self-enhancement. The historical trajectory of technological progress demonstrates that while new technologies can disrupt societies, humans have consistently adapted and maintained control. Philosophical critiques of AI further reinforce the argument that intelligence is not solely computational but deeply rooted in embodiment, intuition, and shared intentionality—qualities that AI lacks.Conclusions: Concerns about AI overwhelming human agency are largely misplaced. Just as humanity has managed previous technological revolutions—including writing, mechanization, and computing—AI will be integrated and regulated according to human needs and ethical considerations. While vigilance is necessary, the myth of AI autonomy is exaggerated.