227: Step Into the Light
- Thread starter Chris LaVigne
- Start date
This brings up an interesting point.Dom Camus said:
It seems the study could have avoided this issue altogether if it just framed things differently. As has already been pointed out, much of the coverage of the issue seemed to commit the error of equating correlation and causation. But the researchers themselves could have simply framed their category as "children with less than (x) hours sunlight/outdoor activity" instead of "children with more than
hours in front of a screen."The analysis seems to indicate that they were only using "hours in front of a screen" as a stand in for "hours not outside" anyhow. Still, it's easier for parents to identify their own children by the "hours in front of a screen" category, which seems to be why it would be framed this way.
Another problem, though, is that these parents of this one potentially-at-risk group (kids in front of screens) are probably not likely to get news like this from gaming journalists (unless they are gamers themselves), so I agree that it was not really a story for the gaming press in the first place.
Indeed, indeed. We, gamers, are quickly turning into a group that will angrily lash out at anything we find doesn't agree with the way we act. As games become more mainstream, the 'hardcore' gamer is becoming one of those fringe groups that lash out at any media that becomes well known and defends only its own obscure, impenetrable take on its media.
I expected this from Destructoid, which is silly and that is kind of its point, but not from GamePolitics.
I expected this from Destructoid, which is silly and that is kind of its point, but not from GamePolitics.
But, read the article carefully. It says that one of many things that were measures was the amount of hours spent using electronic entertainment. A correlation was found. They put it in their conclusion, as is their job. Everything else is media circus.copycatalyst said:This brings up an interesting point.Dom Camus said:
It seems the study could have avoided this issue altogether if it just framed things differently. As has already been pointed out, much of the coverage of the issue seemed to commit the error of equating correlation and causation. But the researchers themselves could have simply framed their category as "children with less than (x) hours sunlight/outdoor activity" instead of "children with more than
The analysis seems to indicate that they were only using "hours in front of a screen" as a stand in for "hours not outside" anyhow. Still, it's easier for parents to identify their own children by the "hours in front of a screen" category, which seems to be why it would be framed this way.
Another problem, though, is that these parents of this one potentially-at-risk group (kids in front of screens) are probably not likely to get news like this from gaming journalists (unless they are gamers themselves), so I agree that it was not really a story for the gaming press in the first place.
"In a phone interview, Melamed explains playing videogames doesn't cause low vitamin D levels. It's the decreased time kids spend outdoors that does, since a primary source of vitamin D is sunlight."The Random One said:
The correlation that was found is, as I said, using 'time in front of a TV' as a stand in for 'time not outside.'
You can get your vitamin D from heavy dairy intake.
I live in Washington state, where the sun dissapears for half a year under heavy rainfall. I haven't seen a ray of light in 2 weeks. & when the sun does come out, I still can't go outside. Do you know how hard it is for a redhead to avoid getting freckles?
I live in Washington state, where the sun dissapears for half a year under heavy rainfall. I haven't seen a ray of light in 2 weeks. & when the sun does come out, I still can't go outside. Do you know how hard it is for a redhead to avoid getting freckles?