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

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
And yet if you wish you wish to argue widening the net to frame all the research in the video as done by conservatives then where's the evidence?

Hell where's the evidence the experiments gave flawed results?
More shit nobody said.

Except it does if you'd watched the video. Pretty clear cut differences in multiple different experiments many of which have been repeated throughout the years giving the same results which were split along the lines of peoples gender.
I did watch the video. I think you're not really understanding the difference between A) Male and female both exist, and there is some level of sexual dimorphism in humans; and B) gender as a strict binary.

Conservative parties/ groups have been conflating these two positions (and wrongly assuming the former indicates the latter) for centuries, so it's not an enormous surprise.

A specific you said? No.
A general position you're in? Yes.
I don't believe anything like that, which is why I didn't say it or anything like it. You're making it up.

Except as I pointed out that's the present progressive point.
In your mind.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
It was deliberately used as a pejorative to try and get people to have a knee jerk reaction and respond more from a place of emotion than reason.
No, it's the underlying principle that hypotheses derive from existing understanding. However, what forms the existing understanding?

When we have an understanding of how the world works from society, it derives from socially constructed notions. So for instance, in the 19th century women and black people were widely believed to be intellectually deficient compared to white men, so when people started examing brains, they attempted to explain why women and black people were more stupid and "found" evidence to prove so. So if their assumption is that women are better than men at multitasking and researchers find a difference in men's and women's brains, the obvious thing to do is suggest that causes women to be better at multitasking. But maybe women aren't better than men at multitasking, that's a folk tale. And yet now the study has reinforced the notion that women are better at multitasking.

The second issue is a well known issue with science that perhaps when a resaercher look for something, they maybe find it even when they shoudn't: their hypothesis and attitudes influence their output. So to go back to the OP, someone sets out to find if computer games increase violence. So maybe they measure some things, and don't find it. So they look at more things, and maybe then they find something. (This can also synergise with flawed research practices - not fraud per se, but imperfections like data mining, etc.) Then they publish, and say "Look, evidence computer games induce violence". Furthermore, as there is also a bias towards publication of positive results (as the story of this thread also indicates) because negative results aren't so interesting, the studies that don't find a link can be marginalised or even not published at all.

Put these together, you have a system which can have a propensity for reinforcing (at least in the short-medium term) existing societal assumptions - in other words, conservatism. It's not necessarily the conscious intent of the researcher or any indication of their personal beliefs, it's just a way the system works.
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2013
4,574
372
88
Finland
But maybe women aren't better than men at multitasking, that's a folk tale. And yet now the study has reinforced the notion that women are better at multitasking.
Hah, I didn't know that it was disproven. Had to check if women still have the nose though, and they do! Hmm, does it put farts in a new evolutionary light?

The direction of this thread has lead into a pet peeve of mine: scientific research made controversial by people claiming it explains everything outside the discipline. To be fair, sometimes the researchers get a little too excited with their findings, but damn do people read too much into it. Even I've had it bite me in the butt when I've referred to something "on average" and that gets taken as a huge generalization that tells more about me than anybody else. Being in the right isn't as fun if others think less of you for it.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
More shit nobody said.
Yeh no people were saying it. Not in those precise words but words to that effect.


I did watch the video. I think you're not really understanding the difference between A) Male and female both exist, and there is some level of sexual dimorphism in humans; and B) gender as a strict binary.

Conservative parties/ groups have been conflating these two positions (and wrongly assuming the former indicates the latter) for centuries, so it's not an enormous surprise.
Yet again further research on Trans individuals have found their neural connection structure more similar with the opposite sex to their birth sex.


I don't believe anything like that, which is why I didn't say it or anything like it. You're making it up.
Yet that was part of the conversation train.


In your mind.
So why are Anita and others so keen to eliminate women's sports and just make it mixed gender?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
No, it's the underlying principle that hypotheses derive from existing understanding. However, what forms the existing understanding?

When we have an understanding of how the world works from society, it derives from socially constructed notions. So for instance, in the 19th century women and black people were widely believed to be intellectually deficient compared to white men, so when people started examing brains, they attempted to explain why women and black people were more stupid and "found" evidence to prove so. So if their assumption is that women are better than men at multitasking and researchers find a difference in men's and women's brains, the obvious thing to do is suggest that causes women to be better at multitasking. But maybe women aren't better than men at multitasking, that's a folk tale. And yet now the study has reinforced the notion that women are better at multitasking.

The second issue is a well known issue with science that perhaps when a resaercher look for something, they maybe find it even when they shoudn't: their hypothesis and attitudes influence their output. So to go back to the OP, someone sets out to find if computer games increase violence. So maybe they measure some things, and don't find it. So they look at more things, and maybe then they find something. (This can also synergise with flawed research practices - not fraud per se, but imperfections like data mining, etc.) Then they publish, and say "Look, evidence computer games induce violence". Furthermore, as there is also a bias towards publication of positive results (as the story of this thread also indicates) because negative results aren't so interesting, the studies that don't find a link can be marginalised or even not published at all.

Put these together, you have a system which can have a propensity for reinforcing (at least in the short-medium term) existing societal assumptions - in other words, conservatism. It's not necessarily the conscious intent of the researcher or any indication of their personal beliefs, it's just a way the system works.
Except as I said it's pretty hard to fake some of the results.
Some of the experiments have been repeated multiple times showing the same results.
One of the researchers in the video I posted was the one providing evidence for the nurture theory and yet the results of the experiments were still showing the difference
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Yeh no people were saying it. Not in those precise words but words to that effect.
No, you just have a tendency to "interpret" what people say into the most wildly exaggerated nonsense.


Yet again further research on Trans individuals have found their neural connection structure more similar with the opposite sex to their birth sex.
Yes, I know. And you believe this indicates that gender is a strict binary...?

So why are Anita and others so keen to eliminate women's sports and just make it mixed gender?
I don't really give a shit, but this has nothing to do with you claiming progressives apparently think men and women have "no differences other than genitals", which nobody said.

It seems almost a universal law that the longer gender-related conversations continue on the internet, the likelihood of someone moaning about Anita Sarkeesian approaches 1.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,343
358
88
Anita realises the legal fight is lost
There was never a legal fight. Had there been, we would had seen it when she was in front of the United Nations. Now, transcribe here what she said, and point out where she is asking for laws to ban videogames. We'll be waiting.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
There was never a legal fight. Had there been, we would had seen it when she was in front of the United Nations. Now, transcribe here what she said, and point out where she is asking for laws to ban videogames. We'll be waiting.
I think Dwarvenhobble's point was that Anita learned from history that the legal fight was lost. From the likes of Jack Thompson and such.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
Harder still to interpret them correctly. Apparently.
Not really when it's counting connection between areas mostly.


No, you just have a tendency to "interpret" what people say into the most wildly exaggerated nonsense.
No I'm just used to seeing Weasel Words on show by people going "Well that's not what I meant because I didn't say exactly those words just words to those effect". All to common like how Mary Whitehouse claimed to not want anything banned


Yes, I know. And you believe this indicates that gender is a strict binary...?
Considering how clear cut the results were that even Dr Verma was shocked. Considering the common traits and common strengths and weaknesses seen generally between the genders. Yes it indicates that.

I don't really give a shit, but this has nothing to do with you claiming progressives apparently think men and women have "no differences other than genitals", which nobody said.

It seems almost a universal law that the longer gender-related conversations continue on the internet, the likelihood of someone moaning about Anita Sarkeesian approaches 1.
Except it does have something to do with it because if you want to abolish gendered sports then you must believe women are on equal footing in said sports or equally capable as men which would mean you believe men and women aren't different other than genitals. No other physical differences or capabilities.

There was never a legal fight. Had there been, we would had seen it when she was in front of the United Nations. Now, transcribe here what she said, and point out where she is asking for laws to ban videogames. We'll be waiting.

After a brief pause and a laugh, Sarkeesian responded: “I would love for companies to have moral restrictions, but they don’t.” She then dove into a multitude of examples of games or movies wherein female characters are used only as devices to show how depraved a male character is, citing specifically Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood and the Grand Theft Auto series.
I would also cite the UN's own advocacy piece related to that panel where Anita spoke, problem is they've withdrawn it and wiped it from most of the web because turns out in that piece they were pushing claims about the harms of video games written by a person who hilariously cited Jack Thompson's work and had claims about how Sony and Pokemon were secretly Satanic lol.

So no there was no legal fight because Anita learned the legal fight was pointless video games were protected from government censorship and that argument of "Oh the government will act if you don't" no longer could be used. So most of her work has been presenting the restrictions she wants as for the "Moral good" of the world. It's why her series tacitly implies sexy video game characters are the cause of domestic violence and rape. Oh and before you say "No she doesn't" then what purpose is it when she brings up said statistics like she regularly does in the series?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
No I'm just used to seeing Weasel Words on show by people going "Well that's not what I meant because I didn't say exactly those words just words to those effect". All to common like how Mary Whitehouse claimed to not want anything banned
If you think criticising one specific conception of gender as a strict binary is "weasel words" for dismissing everything all conservatives say, then... I don't know what to tell you. You're searching for grievances, because that's patent nonsense.

Considering how clear cut the results were that even Dr Verma was shocked. Considering the common traits and common strengths and weaknesses seen generally between the genders. Yes it indicates that.
Right, so you're just reading conclusions into the research that Dr. Verma never made. She didn't say it indicates that; she just identified differences. You then elaborated your own more absolutist conclusion from that. Quelle surprise.

Except it does have something to do with it because if you want to abolish gendered sports then you must believe women are on equal footing in said sports or equally capable as men which would mean you believe men and women aren't different other than genitals. No other physical differences or capabilities.
This is just you attributing beliefs to other people that they haven't expressed.

If someone wants to abolish sex-segregated sports, then it follows that they believe the two sexes are roughly equivalent in footing, though that position doesn't imply anything about sexual differences that don't have an impact on sporting performance.

Out of interest, where are you getting it from that Anita Sarkeesian wants to "abolish gendered sports"?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
If you think criticising one specific conception of gender as a strict binary is "weasel words" for dismissing everything all conservatives say, then... I don't know what to tell you. You're searching for grievances, because that's patent nonsense.
Well I think it's rather a denial of Science considering the paper by Dr Verma hasn't seen any actual academic papers providing counter evidence. Hell much of the rebuttals to it seem to not even address the paper but be addressing papers by others about the variations in brain matter types based on gender.


Right, so you're just reading conclusions into the research that Dr. Verma never made. She didn't say it indicates that; she just identified differences. You then elaborated your own more absolutist conclusion from that. Quelle surprise.
Yet those are the conclusions presented in the video that in adult there is a shockingly clear difference.


This is just you attributing beliefs to other people that they haven't expressed.
Except Anita's positioning as of Tropes vs Women video 1 was the idea there is no fundamental strength difference between men and women.

If someone wants to abolish sex-segregated sports, then it follows that they believe the two sexes are roughly equivalent in footing, though that position doesn't imply anything about sexual differences that don't have an impact on sporting performance.
Except as we can both see from this thread people very much are stuck in the idea that there are no differences anywhere else. Either.

The argument for years in Science has moved to Nature vs Nurture in terms of neurology and in terms of cell actions etc it's been basically conclusively proved there are differences.

Out of interest, where are you getting it from that Anita Sarkeesian wants to "abolish gendered sports"?
Her Twitter mostly lol
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Well I think it's rather a denial of Science considering the paper by Dr Verma hasn't seen any actual academic papers providing counter evidence.
If you think that, you either haven't looked hard enough or don't understand what you need to look for.

Her paper is not, in and of itself, "wrong". But the thing with science is that how hypotheses are set and data is analysed creates the conclusions. If different hypotheses and analysis is used, different conclusions may be reached. So a question that may be asked is, what if they used a suboptimal analysis, or they made inaccurate assumptions in their hypothesis?

The main criticism of Dr. Verma's paper is that it represents a form of average connectivity: none of the "male" or "female" brains her lab examined individually have the connection differences shown in their paper. That alone should give anyone pause for thought. Again, what this repeats is the idea that there is huge variability and overlap between sexes.

Further research has suggested a "mosaic hypothesis", whereby there are patterns of connectivity within certain brain areas which we could define as "male common" and "female common", however in practice any one individual has a mix of "male common" and "female common" components irrespective of their sex. This is in fact what Dr. Verma's lab found, and could have reported had their data been analysed differently. The way they presented their results misleadingly exaggerated male and female brain differences.

In a similar way, one might note that predictions of whether brains are male or female are in the region of 85%. But there's a trick here: brain size relates to body size at an interspecies level, and men are physically larger. When removing total brain size, prediction accuracy drops to 60%: barely above random chance.

* * *

But, you know, what the fuck is the point of explaining all this? I'm in three threads trying to explain science to people who don't know their arse from their elbow on the topic, and they're all convinced they're right up there with Albert Einstein, Santiago Ramon y Cajal or Marie Curie because they watched a video.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Well I think it's rather a denial of Science considering the paper by Dr Verma hasn't seen any actual academic papers providing counter evidence. Hell much of the rebuttals to it seem to not even address the paper but be addressing papers by others about the variations in brain matter types based on gender.
Counter-evidence to... the idea that there is sexual dimorphism in humans? Well, no, of course not. Because Dr. Verma is providing evidence of the forms and scale of sexual dimorphism in humans; not that sex acts as a strict binary.


Yet those are the conclusions presented in the video that in adult there is a shockingly clear difference.
You're still not recognising the difference between 1) big differences existing; and 2) two forms acting as a strict binary. As evidence of the latter, you point to someone concluding the former. They're not the same thing.


Except Anita's positioning as of Tropes vs Women video 1 was the idea there is no fundamental strength difference between men and women.
I've just rewatched the first Tropes vs Women video to see if this comes up, and it doesn't; you're making it up.

Except as we can both see from this thread people very much are stuck in the idea that there are no differences anywhere else. Either.
Nobody has expressed this. You're just tiresomely attributing the same strawman belief to people over and over.

Her Twitter mostly lol
Can you link where? Because last time you claimed Anita Sarkeesian said something, I wasted 5 minutes watching the video in question to find out you were just making shit up again.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
If you think that, you either haven't looked hard enough or don't understand what you need to look for.

Her paper is not, in and of itself, "wrong". But the thing with science is that how hypotheses are set and data is analysed creates the conclusions. If different hypotheses and analysis is used, different conclusions may be reached. So a question that may be asked is, what if they used a suboptimal analysis, or they made inaccurate assumptions in their hypothesis?

The main criticism of Dr. Verma's paper is that it represents a form of average connectivity: none of the "male" or "female" brains her lab examined individually have the connection differences shown in their paper. That alone should give anyone pause for thought. Again, what this repeats is the idea that there is huge variability and overlap between sexes.

Further research has suggested a "mosaic hypothesis", whereby there are patterns of connectivity within certain brain areas which we could define as "male common" and "female common", however in practice any one individual has a mix of "male common" and "female common" components irrespective of their sex. This is in fact what Dr. Verma's lab found, and could have reported had their data been analysed differently. The way they presented their results misleadingly exaggerated male and female brain differences.

In a similar way, one might note that predictions of whether brains are male or female are in the region of 85%. But there's a trick here: brain size relates to body size at an interspecies level, and men are physically larger. When removing total brain size, prediction accuracy drops to 60%: barely above random chance.

* * *

But, you know, what the fuck is the point of explaining all this? I'm in three threads trying to explain science to people who don't know their arse from their elbow on the topic, and they're all convinced they're right up there with Albert Einstein, Santiago Ramon y Cajal or Marie Curie because they watched a video.
No I've seen people try to present the counter evidence and most of it was some dudes blog post often misunderstanding the paper.

Also her paper points out a generalised difference it doesn't say every brain will have all the full range of differences because not all brains will be wired the same way so the connections will be different but following a similar pattern as the paper lays out.

Also the mosaic model of the brain was just what I was on about relating to types of matter and region sizes etc. What Dr Verma's paper analysed was interconnectivity of regions of the brain. So why would Dr Verma's paper talk about things they were not in fact studying in the paper itself?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
Counter-evidence to... the idea that there is sexual dimorphism in humans? Well, no, of course not. Because Dr. Verma is providing evidence of the forms and scale of sexual dimorphism in humans; not that sex acts as a strict binary.
yet as I pointed out other evidence is showing it can go down to a cellular level too.



You're still not recognising the difference between 1) big differences existing; and 2) two forms acting as a strict binary. As evidence of the latter, you point to someone concluding the former. They're not the same thing.
Except that is what the compilation of all the evidence so far points to. Though not huge differences in most areas just a couple.



I've just rewatched the first Tropes vs Women video to see if this comes up, and it doesn't; you're making it up.
The belief that women are somehow a “naturally weaker gender” is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.
Now are you sure you watched the right video again?


Nobody has expressed this. You're just tiresomely attributing the same strawman belief to people over and over.
Yet people very much are pushing against the idea of neurological differences in this thread are they not?


Can you link where? Because last time you claimed Anita Sarkeesian said something, I wasted 5 minutes watching the video in question to find out you were just making shit up again.


 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
No I've seen people try to present the counter evidence and most of it was some dudes blog post often misunderstanding the paper.
Oh congratulations, you read someone's blog post. Clearly the most authoritative source of scientific criticism. No doubt the points the dude got wrong in his blog post were explained through some neuroscientific Centre of Excellence like Reddit or 4Chan.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
yet as I pointed out other evidence is showing it can go down to a cellular level too.
I actually lol'd at this bit. You have to be a bit more more subtle.


Except that is what the compilation of all the evidence so far points to. Though not huge differences in most areas just a couple.
But... literally every piece of evidence you've presented so far is just about differences existing, which nobody disputes. For the umpteenth time: big differences in sexual morphology does not mean the sexes are strictly and exclusively binary.

Look at it this way: there are big differences between Iron and Carbon. Huge differences, all the researchers point to how massive the differences are! Well, sure, yes. But... stuff exists that isn't either iron or carbon. And some stuff is an alloy of iron and carbon, making a distinct substance: steel. And then you even have forms of carbon that more resemble iron than they do other forms of carbon.

Differences =/= a strict binary.

Now are you sure you watched the right video again?
I watched this one, which was the earliest I was aware of from 2011. Is that quote from another one?

Yet people very much are pushing against the idea of neurological differences in this thread are they not?
There's some argument against the idea that there are large neuro-biological differences, mostly because the differences that have been observed in brain structure & chemistry tend to be rather small, and because those observable differences actually haven't been attributed directly to differences between the sexes.

Researchers are able, in aggregate, to look at a large number of brain-scans and identify certain features of morphology that are more common in the brains of males, and other features that are more common in the brains of females. In aggregate. But there's a large amount of overlap, and if you show the same researcher a single brain-scan without telling them if it's a male brain or a female brain, they won't be able to tell you with certainty whether it's one or the other.

This kind of research has limitations you're not appreciating.

So... nowhere does she call for the "abolishing" of gender-separated sports, that was another enormous exaggeration.

A bit like if I were to say I'd like to see more mages in D&D, you might interpret that as me advocating all melee fighter classes be banned.
 
Last edited: