Prolific "video games make you bad" researcher exposed as planning to refuse to publish his work if it doesn't show video game make you bad + mor

[Dwarvenhobble]

Welcome to the story I don't think anyone expected coming out now.

First the foundations of the claims video games make your violent have been shaken after the main piece of research claiming to show said affect has failed to be replicated



The latest development in said field should annoy even more people interested in Science


A study has collected ~50% of the results they were after, will check if it proves their hypothesis, if it doesn't they won't bother finishing the research and will just start a new lot instead.

One of the contributors a Brad J. Bushman has a rather long history of research about how violent media and violent games cause violence but with research that has been found to be flawed in various ways and papers withdrawn due to this

Search Results for “bushman” – Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

retractionwatch.com

Dr Bushman for his part has claimed his critics and those doubting his research are being paid off by the video game industry previously

https://archive.md/IJtPR

The latest research by Dr Bushman and co which he intends to pull the plug on if the initial results don't support his and his groups hypothesis?
Violent Video games cause racism

https://archive.fo/LN3sn

Oh and if Yang he references sounds familiar it's some-one whose work Dr Bushman often cites and seems to run in the same circles as believing that violent games are harmful

Dr Bushman and his group have also previously pushed the claims violent video games cause sexism and other such claims

https://archive.fo/ZzZBh

 

[Seanchaidh]

Who is paying the anti-video games people? Bored boomers?

 

[Agema]

Who is paying the anti-video games people? Bored boomers?

They can reasonably be getting government grants as there is a clear public interest justification for this research; some universities will chuck research money at their staff; there will be all sorts of special interest groups who would pay.

Psychological studies often don't require a lot of money, either.

 

[Gergar12]

Video games are bad is the new reading is bad, writing is bad, the radio is bad, and movies & TV is bad.

Anything in excess is bad.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Who is paying the anti-video games people? Bored boomers?

Is Sarkeesian a boomer? No? Logic dictates then that it's people that want to play morality police and age has nothing to do with it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Is Sarkeesian a boomer? No? Logic dictates then that it's people that want to play morality police and age has nothing to do with it.

Sarkeesian has almost nothing to do with the thread topic or what I wrote.

They can reasonably be getting government grants as there is a clear public interest justification for this research; some universities will chuck research money at their staff; there will be all sorts of special interest groups who would pay.

Psychological studies often don't require a lot of money, either.

Well, that's true. But still, it seems like it ought to be like bleeding a stone compared to other grifts.

 

[Worgen]

Who is paying the anti-video games people? Bored boomers?

That's a good question. Although considering anytime a mass shooting happens and the perp was someone who has touched a video game the usual right wing alarmists show up to say guns had nothing to do with it and it was all those evil videogames that made it happen.

Sarkeesian has almost nothing to do with the thread topic or what I wrote.

Shes a boogieman for people who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Avnger]

Is Sarkeesian a boomer? No? Logic dictates then that it's people that want to play morality police and age has nothing to do with it.

Keep going you culture-warrior, you! Saving western civilization from the SJW menace one obscure forum post at a time.

 

[Trunkage]

That's a good question. Although considering anytime a mass shooting happens and the perp was someone who has touched a video game the usual right wing alarmists show up to say guns had nothing to do with it and it was all those evil videogames that made it happen.

Yeah, that makes about as much sense as milk causing violence. It would be weird for school shooter NOT to play video games because they are that prevalent

 

[Trunkage]

I would think it would be very normal for poeple not to post results that dont back up their hypothesis

 

[Houseman]

I would think it would be very normal for poeple not to post results that dont back up their hypothesis

I wouldn't. In fact, I'd think that good science would be publishing your results ESPECIALLY if they don't back up your hypothesis.

You think scientists should only publish things that they WANT to be true, and hide the results if they aren't in their favor?

 

[Avnger]

I wouldn't. In fact, I'd think that good science would be publishing your results ESPECIALLY if they don't back up your hypothesis.

You think scientists should only publish things that they WANT to be true, and hide the results if they aren't in their favor?

Are you struggling to understand the difference between "would" and "should"? Because only one of those appears in Trunkage's post, and it isn't the one you're attempting to put in their mouth.

 

[Houseman]

Are you struggling to understand the difference between "would" and "should"? Because one of those appears in Trunkage's post, and it isn't the one your attempting to put in their mouth.

Are you really fighting me on this? Really?

Trunkage said "I would think", not "scientists would" or "scientists should".

I'm talking about what scientists should do in order to be considered ethical. Someone saying " I would think" is just another way of saying "I believe this is probably true".

I'm saying that I disagree with him. What are you doing? What point are you making? Do you have anything, at all, to contribute here?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

That's a good question. Although considering anytime a mass shooting happens and the perp was someone who has touched a video game the usual right wing alarmists show up to say guns had nothing to do with it and it was all those evil videogames that made it happen.

I mean Biden did famously call the the video game industry leaders and said his mind wasn't made up and to push for more research.

Obama Calls for Government Funded Research Into Violent Video Games

.................

www.forbes.com

...... in the wake of Joe Biden's fact finding mission about the cause of gun violence.

Right wing alarmists at this point I swear have to be just using it as a convenient easy excuse. I doubt many of them really believe it anymore it's just a good distraction.

Shes a boogieman for people who have no idea what they are talking about.

And people to blindly get behind when they have no idea of the things she's actually said or pushed for because they think she's doing good and saving the world or some shit.

Keep going you culture-warrior, you! Saving western civilization from the SJW menace one obscure forum post at a time.

sorry who thinks they're saving the world again?

I wouldn't. In fact, I'd think that good science would be publishing your results ESPECIALLY if they don't back up your hypothesis.

You think scientists should only publish things that they WANT to be true, and hide the results if they aren't in their favor?

Only time not worth publishing is if you found nothing like trying to synthesis something in a lab and you just entirely fail and get nothing worth writing up from it. Or you know you're one of the professors I had who to publish his results needed the uni to pay for a legitimate copy of the software he had already used to do the research and get results from instead of the copy he'd "borrowed" from a friend.

 

[Worgen]

Yeah, that makes about as much sense as milk causing violence. It would be weird for school shooter NOT to play video games because they are that prevalent

At this point yeah, it would be weirder if they didn't play games. But, we have to make sure gun's reputation stay unsullied so we have to find something else that could contribute to such abhorrent behavior.

 

[Worgen]

I mean Biden did famously call the the video game industry leaders and said his mind wasn't made up and to push for more research.

Except not really.

"In the meeting itself, Biden lay no direct blame at video games' feet, and the worst thing he did was to say that the industry needs to address how it's "perceived" by the public, saying he didn't believe an actual link between violent games and violent actions was there. But now the Obama administration wants to put that theory to the test:

"Congress should fund research on the effects violent video games have on young minds," the President said in his remarks today."

In the article it says this is more about the public perception of video games and it sounds like actually trying to help protect them.

Right wing alarmists at this point I swear have to be just using it as a convenient easy excuse. I doubt many of them really believe it anymore it's just a good distraction.

Well the largest right wing group that tended to always wheel out the "video games cause violence" thing was the NRA and considering the court battles they are involved with at the moment, we probably wont be hearing from them for awhile, assuming they aren't just dissolved.

And people to blindly get behind when they have no idea of the things she's actually said or pushed for because they think she's doing good and saving the world or some shit.

No one is saying she's saving the world or some shit, her vids were about taking a critical look at games and how they portrayed woman and attempting to get developers to have better examples of woman in games. An objective she seems to have reached considering how since her vids have come out we have seen much greater representation in games from AAA to indie.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Except not really.

"In the meeting itself, Biden lay no direct blame at video games' feet, and the worst thing he did was to say that the industry needs to address how it's "perceived" by the public, saying he didn't believe an actual link between violent games and violent actions was there. But now the Obama administration wants to put that theory to the test:

"Congress should fund research on the effects violent video games have on young minds," the President said in his remarks today."

In the article it says this is more about the public perception of video games and it sounds like actually trying to help protect them.

Well Biden did come out in 2019 to say they're "not Healthy"

Biden: Violent video games ‘not healthy’ but aren’t ‘in and of itself why we have this carnage’

Former Vice President Joe Biden on Monday said that violent video games are unhealthy, but would not point at them as the reason for mass shootings after President Trump named the games a…

thehill.com

Joe Biden called a 'billionaire' video game maker a 'little creep' who makes 'games to teach you how to kill people'

Former vice president Joe Biden is no fan of violent video games, nor is he a fan of the people who make them.

www.businessinsider.com

Also

Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden called an unnamed video game developer a "little creep" who make games "to teach you how to kill people"

Well the largest right wing group that tended to always wheel out the "video games cause violence" thing was the NRA and considering the court battles they are involved with at the moment, we probably wont be hearing from them for awhile, assuming they aren't just dissolved.

It's funny because they actually have made some video games to promote themselves lol. Again kind of evidence it's just a distraction wheeled out by them.

No one is saying she's saving the world or some shit, her vids were about taking a critical look at games and how they portrayed woman and attempting to get developers to have better examples of woman in games. An objective she seems to have reached considering how since her vids have come out we have seen much greater representation in games from AAA to indie.

Anita thinks she is though lol. Her Vidcon panel years ago was all about how changing media will change culture and create a better world lol.

Also until literally the E3 presentation period last year when E3 was meant to be Anita was claiming nothing had changed and gaming hadn't improved at all in terms of real representation.

Anita Sarkeesian: "No more excuses for the lack of women at E3"

E3 2015, some declared, was the year of the woman. The return of Tomb Raider and Mirror's Edge was complemented by the …

www.gamesindustry.biz

For those who want it here the near hour long vidcon panel thing she was on

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Houseman]

Only that you reveal that you don't understand how research gets published. Failing to find something is often not very news worthy and might not be indicative of anything, hence many researchers don't bother attempting to publish their lack of findings. Finding something is much more explosive, because that is not only more interesting to the general public, it also has higher interest from publishers.

They did find something. They found that there's no link between video games and whatever negative behavior that they thought they would find. That alone is significant, because it disproves the common stereotypes that the media continues to spread.

Refusing to publish findings that are not in line with their expectations means hiding those findings from the public. If these "scientists" are only interested in the headline: "Video games enforce stereotypes!" and are not open to publishing findings that say "Video games don't enforce stereotypes", then they are biased and unethical.

Imagine if scientists acted as you suggest, and were so biased and unethical that they hid the truth and refused to publish science that says "evolution is real" or "the Earth orbits around the Sun, not the other way around" because they "failed" to find proof of their assertions, and deemed it "not very newsworthy".

Think of it like this:
If you go into a forest, intent on finding an animal and you come back without one, is that because there are no animals there?

This case isn't like that. This isn't an "Absence of evidence" scenario.

This is evaluating gamers to see if they will virtually act out their aggression on an avatar.
Here, the "absence of evidence" is significant, because it means that the hypothesis is WRONG, not that it is INCONCLUSIVE.
You can't just do the same experiment over and over again until the results turn up how you want them to, and then pretend that the hypothesis is proven. Not all experiments require just one success.

You're the one who doesn't understand.
You would advise taking random samples of people again and again until you manage to find one that fits your hypothesis, and then call that "good science".
Any reasonable person would say "hey, you're just ignoring data that proves you wrong! That's not right!"

Your method would involve giving 100,000 people Vitamin X to fight, say, Covid-19, where 99,000 show no improvement, and 1,000 of them do. Then you'd discard that 99,000 and publish the 1,000 with the headline "Vitamin X is the cure for Covid!"

And that's your idea of good science.

Get out of here with that nonsense.

 

[Trunkage]

I wouldn't. In fact, I'd think that good science would be publishing your results ESPECIALLY if they don't back up your hypothesis.

You think scientists should only publish things that they WANT to be true, and hide the results if they aren't in their favor?

People don't like making mistakes. Especially public ones. Also, if you fail, your funding might be pulled. It would also disincentives any funding going to you in the future

Although... a lot of scientific research is only based around how much you can suck up to superiors. The value of the research does is not even considered. For a very extreme example, see Lysenko. For lesser examples, see John Birch Society (and their shenanigans in George Mason Uni), Open Society Foundation, RAND corporation and the CAP pac. Results, positive or negative, aren't specially necessary. These groups are VERY good at shaping any results to fit their narrative.