I was picturing a "Scientific" mood ring, myself. Probably gets the same results.ResonanceGames said:
That, or a huge thermometer with a big "Human Decency" label glued to it.
Australian Study "Confirms Dangers of Violent Videogames"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
That, or a huge thermometer with a big "Human Decency" label glued to it.
uhmmm.....no there isn't, and this is another "study" thats full of shit.Andy Chalk said:
video games don't make me violent, fucking cocaine does
Indeed, but I think it might be only a matter of time before Australian government gives up on this censor war it's pulling off on videogames.Pyramid Head said:
I mean, has anyone in Australia with video games, to anyone's knowledge, gone on a mass murder spree?
If there was a person in that country's histroy that did that, its government will eventually (even if it takes years for it to happen) face the fact that video games wouldn't be the cause behind it, it would just because that person is either evil, or a complete idiot.
That's coming from someone who lives in the US, a country that I know a decent amount of Non-Americans believe is full of idiots, take that for what you will.
It seems that they've only looked at competitive games. Games are most impactful as a medium when players are immersed and competitive games, especially those played agaisnt other human players, are not immersive. It would appear that they don't fully understand videogames, that they see any game where you kill enemies as the same. Obviously it's difficult for anyone who hasn't invested time in actually playing games to know these kinds of things so you can't really blame them but they aren't looking at the right things. Of course, it's pretty difficult to be immersed in a game if you've got a bunch of guys studying you while playing. Maybe they'll actually figure it out eventually.
Yes, it's true. If you let videogames raise your kids, they will turn into socially depraved, emotionally unstable assholes. The same thing happens if you let TV raise your kids. The root cause however are neither videogames nor TV. The real problem which leads to anti-social behaviour in kids and teenagers is self absorbed, ignorant parents.
Let's see...
Yeah. Nice. Now, how about you do a test against MarioKart and see how that non-violent game pans out against a violent game like Bastion? I think you'll find a very different set of results.
Or Pokemon versus Jagged Alliance?
Or Amnesia versus Final Fantasy?
See if the non-violent ones make people less uptight than the violent ones?
Bias, Foreshadowing, FUD.
Negative being undefined. Effects also being a weasel word encompassing symptoms, perceptions and catalysts
So only violent ones?
No, they haven't.
Bias, Unqualified assumption
How much more?
but not linked
Which other forms? All or some?
So, a quality unbiased reporting then.
So you admit bias. Straightest way to plot a straight line graph? Only plot two points.
Bias
Unrelated, uncorroborated, unnamed
Real life violence doesn't have players.
Weasel word
Uncategorizable, uncategorized, how much less?
Weasel word
Players don't suffer violence. Characters do.
So opponents don't take damage?
Again, unnamed.
Self corroboration
repeating previous unproven statement - with all the criticisms of such.
All avatars are computer generated.
Because it's so easy to know.
3 weasel words that are unqualified.
Yeah. Nice. Now, how about you do a test against MarioKart and see how that non-violent game pans out against a violent game like Bastion? I think you'll find a very different set of results.
Or Pokemon versus Jagged Alliance?
Or Amnesia versus Final Fantasy?
See if the non-violent ones make people less uptight than the violent ones?
Forget the fact that violence has gone down massively in recent years. Or the fact that its just a dam video game. Just because the type of media has a habit of making immature products doesn't mean that they are any worse than say tv or even books.
its not that we hate violence, its just that we live in a safe and privileged country. and we are aware of that fact. as for the sex part, whats funny about being ok with it? unless you have had some sort of traumatic experience involving sex, its the most natural thing in the world.Orks da best said:
I'm not going to read this story, because as the title says. It has been absolutely confirmed. No point arguing there. It's just 100% true. Now brb, I'm late for sarcasm school.
what I think he fails to realize (intentionally?) is that when we are playing games, the parts of ourselves that people interact with ARE less human. As in, completely not human. maybe he has some issues if he thinks that the characters in cod blops are humans, not pixels...
Of course I'm going to see my friend playing jonny cage as less human, because I'm not interacting a human, I'm interacting with a character in a computer game.
Of course I'm going to see my friend playing jonny cage as less human, because I'm not interacting a human, I'm interacting with a character in a computer game.
Okay having actually read the study (and being in a position to understand it) and because I don't want this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/8903-Critical-Miss-Gamer-Science] to occur, I'll break the research down, but first...
Here is the pressed released publication by Bastian
http://www2.psy.uq.edu.au/~uqbbast1/Bastian%20et%20al%20JESP%20in%20press.pdf
------
Since you're wondering, the problem with the study was based on theoretical grounds and participant samples.
In regards to your point about virtual characters being separate from reality, that's also something that many researchers don't examine. I've always theorized that when playing video games we access a separate reality, a parallel dimension of thinking if you will, and that's how we're able to distinguish between reality and games. Prolonged exposure especially with an interactive medium can result in transfer effects, both good and bad.
Please don't shoe Australian academics with Australian conservatives, I could easily say that Americans hate science based on the amount of politicians who are creationist. And no, sex is more taboo than violence depending on which cohort you examine.Orks da best said:
Here is the pressed released publication by Bastian
http://www2.psy.uq.edu.au/~uqbbast1/Bastian%20et%20al%20JESP%20in%20press.pdf
To be brief, the study had a few participant issues, but otherwise the methodology and measurements are sound. His conclusions were far-reaching, but what results the study yeilded are actually quite interesting if you take a bit of time reading below.
The researchers had separated two players and had them only interact through the video game. In the first experiment two random participants played either a violent game (Mortal Kombat) or a non-violent game (Top-spin) competitively against one another and were given a 'humanity scale' after play. The scale they used was developed by the authors and while fairly recent, had gone through testing as all scales should, and based on the items they measure what they are intended to. The scale works in the same manner as a questionnaire that would measure self-esteem or depression.
The data yielded had essentially found that playing the violent game had resulted in lower scores on the humanity scale. Essentially we dehumanize the players when we intend to inflict virtual violence upon them. These results DO make sense, consider when you play a game online and you swear and abuse other players, but you wouldn't do it if they were in the room with you. They didn't find the same effect for Top Spin, so there was a clear difference between playing violent and non-violent video games.
The researchers had separated two players and had them only interact through the video game. In the first experiment two random participants played either a violent game (Mortal Kombat) or a non-violent game (Top-spin) competitively against one another and were given a 'humanity scale' after play. The scale they used was developed by the authors and while fairly recent, had gone through testing as all scales should, and based on the items they measure what they are intended to. The scale works in the same manner as a questionnaire that would measure self-esteem or depression.
The data yielded had essentially found that playing the violent game had resulted in lower scores on the humanity scale. Essentially we dehumanize the players when we intend to inflict virtual violence upon them. These results DO make sense, consider when you play a game online and you swear and abuse other players, but you wouldn't do it if they were in the room with you. They didn't find the same effect for Top Spin, so there was a clear difference between playing violent and non-violent video games.
Actually they did. They found that co-operating with a person didn't have the same dehumanizing effect as when you were playing competitively. In contrast to first experiment, they had people play co-operatively and found no difference in their global perceptions such as self-esteem, open-mindedness etc. had they actually allowed players to view each other physically or at least allowed voice while playing the co-op game (in this case it was Call of Duty 2) than we may have seen an increase in those global perceptions. However they argue that they wanted participants to only interact through the medium, although I suspect there would have been to many extraneous variables to consider when analysing the results such as the likeability of your randomly assigned co-op partner.Erana said:
------
Since you're wondering, the problem with the study was based on theoretical grounds and participant samples.
Most of their literature and theory was based on a man called Craig Anderson, the world's most published author on video game and violence. Anderson is a competent researcher, however one suspects he often looks for certain outcomes in his experiments, and far-reaching conclusions are made from his studies, not by him personally but by conservatives and nay-sayers looking for ammunition. However his methodology is sound, so even if he was looking for certain results he is heavily limited by the objectivity of his experiment. Science is cool like that. Anderson's research has been heavily leaning towards increased aggression as a result of violent video games - which in it self isn't wrong. However aggression doesn't result in violence, and that's where so many people draw conclusions. Very few research papers I've read have explicitly linked the two so directly, and Anderson also doesn't explore the pro-social aspects of gaming, not because he ignores them but because that research was only conducted very recently.
Now here is the methodological issues. Firstly participants while appropriate average age, consisted mostly of females - a major issue of using undergraduate psychology students as you primary test subjects - and statistically females don't play games as often as men. Bastian assumed that they would enjoy the game as much as men, and the same effect would have occurred, and he doesn't account for prolonged exposure since males play games more regularly. The second is that video games are an interactive medium not just on screen but with people, although I can appreciate the problems with it, I imagine his results would have turned out a bit differently had he allowed the players to interact.
Now here is the methodological issues. Firstly participants while appropriate average age, consisted mostly of females - a major issue of using undergraduate psychology students as you primary test subjects - and statistically females don't play games as often as men. Bastian assumed that they would enjoy the game as much as men, and the same effect would have occurred, and he doesn't account for prolonged exposure since males play games more regularly. The second is that video games are an interactive medium not just on screen but with people, although I can appreciate the problems with it, I imagine his results would have turned out a bit differently had he allowed the players to interact.
Interestingly enough this issue has been raised several times. They wonder because sports is more socially acceptable why the violence and aggression relationship studies haven't in say football, haven't received the same attention as video games. Especially considering when you're more likely to see heads caved in when Manchester United lose than when the reigning Starcraft player does.Andy Chalk said:
In regards to your point about virtual characters being separate from reality, that's also something that many researchers don't examine. I've always theorized that when playing video games we access a separate reality, a parallel dimension of thinking if you will, and that's how we're able to distinguish between reality and games. Prolonged exposure especially with an interactive medium can result in transfer effects, both good and bad.
So, if you are playing the game that spawned the ESRB, and you are trying to win the game, you are a terrible inhuman person?
Well, considering the only thing you can do in that game is attack or be attacked, I see the Witch in the river argument (throw a woman in the river, if she sinks, she is not a witch, if she floats, she is a witch, burn her).
Maybe if he used a game that has some moral choice between "kill the person" and "not kill the person" instead of "rip his head off" or "rip his spine out", then you would see that people are not all inhuman freaks.
Honestly, what the hell kind of doctor would use one of the most violent games ever created, to see if games cause violence? >.>
Its like saying "I'm going to go to the most white-trash town in America and bring my 50 black, gay, atheist friends, and see if they don't like us"
Well, considering the only thing you can do in that game is attack or be attacked, I see the Witch in the river argument (throw a woman in the river, if she sinks, she is not a witch, if she floats, she is a witch, burn her).
Maybe if he used a game that has some moral choice between "kill the person" and "not kill the person" instead of "rip his head off" or "rip his spine out", then you would see that people are not all inhuman freaks.
Honestly, what the hell kind of doctor would use one of the most violent games ever created, to see if games cause violence? >.>
Its like saying "I'm going to go to the most white-trash town in America and bring my 50 black, gay, atheist friends, and see if they don't like us"
Couldnt his methods and findings be applied to quite a few other things besides games, like others have said, sports springs to mind and that has very noticeable and widespread violence linked with it, why are games still te big evil and sports is celebrated????
Also no matter how hard you try to say games make people violent or killers, the fact that it clearly doesnt can not be got around. I know literally dozens of gamers in person and probably the same again online, yet as far as im aware, none of them have committed a single murder.
Also his way of taking results and the way he has come to this conclusion sound very very vague and oh so very dodgy, my science teacher would be shocked (and knowing him probably demand to know who had paid me to show this results with nothing to back them up).
But i bet anti game people will take this as the final proof and ignore the much more reliable studies in the past that have said there is no real link, cause thats what anti game people seem to do these days.
Also no matter how hard you try to say games make people violent or killers, the fact that it clearly doesnt can not be got around. I know literally dozens of gamers in person and probably the same again online, yet as far as im aware, none of them have committed a single murder.
Also his way of taking results and the way he has come to this conclusion sound very very vague and oh so very dodgy, my science teacher would be shocked (and knowing him probably demand to know who had paid me to show this results with nothing to back them up).
But i bet anti game people will take this as the final proof and ignore the much more reliable studies in the past that have said there is no real link, cause thats what anti game people seem to do these days.
Hmmm... I've already made all my usual arguments and don't feel like re-typing them... I'll just use this...
Yeah, this study hasn't actually produced any real evidence towards the staements it's making.
What I think it's saying is that when you play a guy at video games you really want to beat him up? So? You're playing a game, and are well aware it isn't real hence the dehumanization. I have no problem killing Johnny Cage, I know he isn't real, it doesn't make me deranged.
And as said, violence against the opponent is common in pretty much all sports. I hoped the essay also recommended the cancellation of all sports to be safe.
What I think it's saying is that when you play a guy at video games you really want to beat him up? So? You're playing a game, and are well aware it isn't real hence the dehumanization. I have no problem killing Johnny Cage, I know he isn't real, it doesn't make me deranged.
And as said, violence against the opponent is common in pretty much all sports. I hoped the essay also recommended the cancellation of all sports to be safe.