deadly neurotoxin.mechanixis said:Well, he may not have shot John Lennon, but he might have killed Gabe Newell with neurotoxin.
deadly neurotoxin.mechanixis said:Well, he may not have shot John Lennon, but he might have killed Gabe Newell with neurotoxin.
Not having the majority of comments on a negative game article being "lalala, can't hear you", "Like psychology is a real science", and my personal favorite: "[insert anecdotal evidence that has no point or relevance]" would be a great start. You know how we prove we aren't all man-children? Respond rationally and sensibly to claims.Andronicus said:Well, what are we supposed to say? "You know what? Maybe I really am just one more ragequit away from going postal with an SMG down the local mall." I don't buy it. If this was a serious issue, why don't we see horror stories revolving around gamers in the newspapers every day? Most news stories that feature "killer gamers", show us obviously highly unstable people, and who totally played Call of Duty that one time. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that videogames turn people into mindless, unfit zombies, who sometimes recover just for long enough to become raging psychopaths.RedEyesBlackGamer said:Too true. Gamers are so quick to try to discredit or dismiss studies that come out in some way against their hobby, but herald pro-game studies as the truth. You can't have it both ways, guys.
Yeah but many gamers will just hear "gaming causes violence" (even though its probably talking abut aggressive behavior) and just respond with "I've been playing M games since I was 5 and I haven't murdered any one, stupid". They wont listen to qualifiers like pre existing aggression becomes more apparent, or those with little aggression avoid the violent content all together.ShadowsofHope said:While somewhat true, I would argue that taking out the "exacerbated, pre-existing" requirement out of the speech in the first square, and just putting in "is a root cause of" tends to be more in line with what most anti-gaming or overtly-critical-of-gaming studies put out overall. There is a very notable difference between "games cause this condition", and "games may help exacerbate a pre-existing condition".
Hehehe glad I'm not the only one who saw the double standard of it all.RedEyesBlackGamer said:Too true. Gamers are so quick to try to discredit or dismiss studies that come out in some way against their hobby, but herald pro-game studies as the truth. You can't have it both ways, guys.
How I see it is something like "games may help exacerbate a pre-existing condition" gets picked up by media sources and turned into a sensationalist news story("new study claims games cause violence!") both because there is profit involved and it seems so many people do not know the difference between correlation/causation and have no concept of degrees of magnitude. Gamers rage against the implication that is being made and it sets the stage for any study that talks about a link between video gaming and aggression to be reflexively dog-piled on because of previous portrayals. This phenomenon happens with other things as well.ShadowsofHope said:While somewhat true, I would argue that taking out the "exacerbated, pre-existing" requirement out of the speech in the first square, and just putting in "is a root cause of" tends to be more in line with what most anti-gaming or overtly-critical-of-gaming studies put out overall. There is a very notable difference between "games cause this condition", and "games may help exacerbate a pre-existing condition".
True but it works the other way too.The anti-gaming brigade will jump on any negative study and herald it as proof that games are bad but are just as quick to dismiss any studies that show the positive effects gaming can haveRedEyesBlackGamer said:Too true. Gamers are so quick to try to discredit or dismiss studies that come out in some way against their hobby, but herald pro-game studies as the truth. You can't have it both ways, guys.
Holy shit? Planes can play video games??? OH MY GOD WE'RE DOOMED, NO MR STEALTH BOMBER, DON'T TAKE MY GAMING RIG. NOT MY PCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC!!!!!!!!!! (gets blown up by stealthy missile launched by stealth bomber)Kakashi on crack said:Lol, basically
There's a happy medium, I just think neither scientific "side" of the arguement wants to look for it.
BTW: Most Stealth Bombers have at one point in their life played a video game with a joystick. Proof that video games can have a practical application ^^
Simple solution. We act better than them. Take the high road.MetalDooley said:True but it works the other way too.The anti-gaming brigade will jump on any negative study and herald it as proof that games are bad but are just as quick to dismiss any studies that show the positive effects gaming can haveRedEyesBlackGamer said:Too true. Gamers are so quick to try to discredit or dismiss studies that come out in some way against their hobby, but herald pro-game studies as the truth. You can't have it both ways, guys.
Is that Cory playing the stereotypical gamer?Grey Carter said:Critical Miss: Gamer Science
Slander versus Pander.
Read Full Article