Australian Study "Confirms Dangers of Violent Videogames"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
yay, my university is on the escapist!
Anyhoo, I don't see how they can make any conclusions out of the short term results of this study.
But I wouldn't be surprised if a video game could change your perceptions of the world. I just don't see the big deal is. If people didn't like it they would stop, so don't see the harm of it if they aren't doing harm to others, which the study reveals nothing about.
Anyhoo, I don't see how they can make any conclusions out of the short term results of this study.
But I wouldn't be surprised if a video game could change your perceptions of the world. I just don't see the big deal is. If people didn't like it they would stop, so don't see the harm of it if they aren't doing harm to others, which the study reveals nothing about.
Psychology studies work a bit like sociological studies (heck they even use the same statistical tool) in that yes, they look for a correlation but that correlation needs to achieve a minimum p value to be statiscally significant and be scientifically credible (for social sciences the value is 0.05 meaning its 99.95% probable that the correlation found wasn't due to chance).ReiverCorrupter said:
This coupled with psychology studies following the scientific model(replicable method and results, etc) and following the same rigors other disciplines have in regards to confounding variables means psychology is taken seriously enough by the scientific community afaik.
Finally, the area of psychology is extremely interdisciplinary, overlapping with neuroscience amongst other things which is why I understand why you'd think neuroscience could replace psychology, but i'd disagree with you on this as neuroscience doesn't account for sociological elements, only what goes on in the brain (as fascinating as it is).
If anything, neuroscientists are more likely to replace ai programmers once they figure out how to build a virtual brain or a learning ai that works.
Btw I do not know what the minimum p value is in neuro science but AFAIK the only hard science where you might get a p value of almost 0 would be physics and even then it's extremely unlikely.
If I were to throw a guess into the wind as it is, I would say that there is an effect on the psyche that happens if we consume violent videogames. However, I'd also say that this effect amounts to nill without extreme, prolonged and/or frequent exposure to video game violence.
Otherwise, the impact is probably in the very short term. I've certainly seen people playing shooters and fighters who then turn and yell at whoever asks them to pause and come out for dinner or to be social.
But if you play shooters all day to the point of living in the environment simulated by the game, I think everyone should expect psychological consequences and not be naive about it. Something becomes real to you if you experience it long enough, however strong your intellect may be.
The world is not separated into the sane and the insane. There are degrees of insanity, and we can each step from one into another if we are not conscious of the effects our activities may have on us. Gaming is certainly part of this as well.
Otherwise, the impact is probably in the very short term. I've certainly seen people playing shooters and fighters who then turn and yell at whoever asks them to pause and come out for dinner or to be social.
But if you play shooters all day to the point of living in the environment simulated by the game, I think everyone should expect psychological consequences and not be naive about it. Something becomes real to you if you experience it long enough, however strong your intellect may be.
The world is not separated into the sane and the insane. There are degrees of insanity, and we can each step from one into another if we are not conscious of the effects our activities may have on us. Gaming is certainly part of this as well.
+1EverythingIncredible said:
OT: They could've researched less competitive games as well, no? Take some standard MMORPG, most communities are pretty welcoming I'd say. Of course there's not as much tension in the PVE as there is in PVP, and that's exactly the point that science-man missed: competition is a natural stimulant to strive to uplift one selves over another person. If you're just killing boars, there's no real challenge, less tension and thus a happier place for all!
"Our measure of humanness incorporated two dimensions identified in previous workAbandon4093 said:
(Haslam, 2006; Haslam, Bain, Douge, Lee, & Bastian, 2005). Human Nature refers to features
that are seen as fundamental to our humanity and Human Uniqueness to attributes that
distinguish people from animals. Perceiving a lack of Human Nature in a target is akin to
likening them to objects or machines; cold, rigid, inert, and lacking emotion. On the other
hand, perceiving a lack of Human Uniqueness is akin to likening them to animals; immature,
coarse, irrational, or backward. This framework implies that people can be viewed as lacking
humanness in two ways, and we argue that both may be implicated when playing violent
video games."
Bastian, B., Jetten, J. & Radke, H., Cyber-Dehumanization:
Violent video game play diminishes our humanity, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2011), doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.009
How about you read the fucking thing? It is publicly avaible: http://www2.psy.uq.edu.au/%7Euqbbast1/Bastian%20et%20al%20JESP%20in%20press.pdf
Not quick enough of a breakdown of mehtod?
So a unknown university form unknown location did a study on popular bastardation (lol firefox autocorrect bastardation into retardation, firefox 1, me 0).
[qute]"lacking in core human qualities such as warmth, open-mindedness and intelligence."[/quote]
Yes because gamers are the ones that are acting like a religiuos zealots closign thier mind to anything they dont like and hating on everyone right?
also, when did intelligence became a core human quality? why does majority of humans lack it then?
[qute]"lacking in core human qualities such as warmth, open-mindedness and intelligence."[/quote]
Yes because gamers are the ones that are acting like a religiuos zealots closign thier mind to anything they dont like and hating on everyone right?
also, when did intelligence became a core human quality? why does majority of humans lack it then?
"Gamers tended to see their opponents as less human"
Wait, so they saw the lizard man, cyborg, and god of Thunder as less than human? You don't say . . . .
Wait, so they saw the lizard man, cyborg, and god of Thunder as less than human? You don't say . . . .
Which is the point I was trying to make - they seemed unusually cagey over their methods, at least in this release. Being published in a journal is not a guarantee of great methodology in itself.Abandon4093 said:You can't make any of those claims until we see the methodology. Until then it's about as scientifically valid as an angry screaming man.Frankster said:I fully expect an article in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology to NOT ONLY have full methodology, but a welll written abstract and methods section too, this is a published article in an official psychology magazine read by professionals and furthering overall psychological research.leeprice133 said:Doesn't matter. If it doesn't include a full account of the methodology involved, it's damn near worthless.Frankster said:Actually it has been published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, so peer review is underway.Hydro14 said:
Would be nice to have a link to said article so we can see for ourselves, though looks like it's one of those papers that ain't available online
It is very much worth something, so don't dismiss it just because you don't like the research topic.
Seriously guys, you're all reacting the worst possible way to this, screaming like howler monkeys over how its false or unscientific when fact of the matter is this has gone through all the right channels and has followed normal procedure, this is as scientific as research on videogames will ever be so keeping on trying to deny it does you all a great disservice and validates the negative stereotypes gamers have by saying untrue things about the validity of this research (that's slander btw, something you can't do in academic circles, you have to actually criticize the research).
This is why I asked for an online link if possible to the actual article. I can't disprove or disagree or say how wrong this research is until I actually see it and can point out flaws in methodology or w/e. That is the scientific way to deal with scientific research you view as flawed: reading the article and picking apart its faults!
Seriously question for ya all saying this report is BS or w/e... How many of you have ever opened a scientific journal, let alone a scientific journal in psychology?
Just to save any smartass the trouble: i plan on reading it next week or w/e my library gets it. It'll be far too late to share my musings on it with you all though, topic will be dead by then.
Here's a crash course in sociology... (to actual sociologists, I know I'm simplifying this and favoring Berger).
1. How culture is created is described as a three step process, (1) externalizing, (2) objectivating, and (3) internalizing.
1. a) Externalizing is the act of broadcasting something into the world. This can be as simple as saying something publicly or as complex as an advertising campaign.
1. b) Objectivation is when something that has been externalized becomes a system that reinforces that reinforces the externalized idea.
1. c) Internalizing is when an individual makes what someone else has externalized and objectivated part of their own belief system.
1. d) Example: The diamond industry decides they want people to sell more diamonds, so they start externalizing the idea that diamonds are for engagement rings and that there is a certain minimum amount to spend on the engagement ring. This externalized idea becomes objectivated when buying a diamond engagement ring becomes "just the way things are." Finally the idea becomes internalized when it isn't "just the way things are" to buy a diamond ring but when "what I want to do" is buy a diamond ring.
2. A common method for externalizing ideas is media.
3. That media (books, radio, tv, internet, and etc.) can create and affect culture is not disputed (at least not by the majority). If media couldn't modify culture, then propaganda would be worthless. So the issue is not whether games, as media, can promote violence in individuals. Like any media, they can.
4. The issue is whether games can modify culture more effectively than other media, thus changing how censorship laws should apply to them.
5. Censorship laws already regulate what material can be viewed by what age group.
6. So whether games merit additional laws or not, we can say at a minimum that a game, as media, can be regulated according to age group.
1. How culture is created is described as a three step process, (1) externalizing, (2) objectivating, and (3) internalizing.
1. a) Externalizing is the act of broadcasting something into the world. This can be as simple as saying something publicly or as complex as an advertising campaign.
1. b) Objectivation is when something that has been externalized becomes a system that reinforces that reinforces the externalized idea.
1. c) Internalizing is when an individual makes what someone else has externalized and objectivated part of their own belief system.
1. d) Example: The diamond industry decides they want people to sell more diamonds, so they start externalizing the idea that diamonds are for engagement rings and that there is a certain minimum amount to spend on the engagement ring. This externalized idea becomes objectivated when buying a diamond engagement ring becomes "just the way things are." Finally the idea becomes internalized when it isn't "just the way things are" to buy a diamond ring but when "what I want to do" is buy a diamond ring.
2. A common method for externalizing ideas is media.
3. That media (books, radio, tv, internet, and etc.) can create and affect culture is not disputed (at least not by the majority). If media couldn't modify culture, then propaganda would be worthless. So the issue is not whether games, as media, can promote violence in individuals. Like any media, they can.
4. The issue is whether games can modify culture more effectively than other media, thus changing how censorship laws should apply to them.
5. Censorship laws already regulate what material can be viewed by what age group.
6. So whether games merit additional laws or not, we can say at a minimum that a game, as media, can be regulated according to age group.
Yes, because human history has long taught us that one particularly important, inherent quality in our nature is being open-minded. Hence why every civilization that ever existed, and every group within them (even the ones that preach open-mindedness), are incredibly close-minded and think that their views are right.
Oh wait.
This is such an unscientific study. It came in with a predetermined endgoal in mind, attempted to prove a broadly unspecific idea, and used as a metric of the proof an unquantifiable measure of "humanity". Even evolutionists and climate change proponents use (somewhat) scientific methods to support their theories, as dumb as they are.
Oh wait.
This is such an unscientific study. It came in with a predetermined endgoal in mind, attempted to prove a broadly unspecific idea, and used as a metric of the proof an unquantifiable measure of "humanity". Even evolutionists and climate change proponents use (somewhat) scientific methods to support their theories, as dumb as they are.
Austrian Study "Confirms Dangers of Australian Idiocy"
It's true, becaus I just made a study that totally confirms what I always said: The professor conducting that previous paper lacks core human qualities like a sense of reason and basic deduction.
If he compared teenagers from different groups of interests, say, heavy binge drinkers under 16 and massive gamers under 16 then he would find that gamers where the real humans and binge drinkers are absolutly inhuman !
Astonishing !
Now lets get back to blaming music for all evil because frankly, I don't like todays music either.
It's true, becaus I just made a study that totally confirms what I always said: The professor conducting that previous paper lacks core human qualities like a sense of reason and basic deduction.
If he compared teenagers from different groups of interests, say, heavy binge drinkers under 16 and massive gamers under 16 then he would find that gamers where the real humans and binge drinkers are absolutly inhuman !
Astonishing !
Now lets get back to blaming music for all evil because frankly, I don't like todays music either.