Critical Miss: Gamer Science

[Salad Is Murder]

I will kill those who say video games are violent. I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. I wanna eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL!

 

[DocBalance]

Fair enough but, as was already said, they haven't taken it off the table. They just said that there isn't enough solid research to classify it as an addiction in 2007. As this abstract shows, research into this is ongoing.

http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2010-News-Releases/Video-Game-Study.aspx

Further, if we go with the symptoms laid out for gambling addiction (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual oriental Disorders, Fourth Edition):

1. The individual is preoccupied with gambling (i.e. preoccupied with reliving past gambling experiences, handicapping or planning the next venture, or thinking of ways to get money with which to gamble.)

2. The individual needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in order to achieve the desired excitement.

3. The individual has repeated unsuccessful efforts at stopping.

4. The individual is restless or irritable with attempting to cut down.

5. The individual gambles as a way of escaping from problems or of relieving a dysphoric mood (i.e., feeling of helplessness, guilty, anxiety, and depression).

6. The individual after losing money gambling, often returns another day to get even ("chasing" one's losses).

7. The individual lies to family members, therapist, or others to conceal the extent of involvement with gambling.

8. The individual has committed illegal acts such as forgery, fraud, theft, or embezzlement to finance gambling.

9. The individual has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job, education or career opportunity because of gambling.

10.The individual relies on others to provide money or relieve a desperate financial situation caused by gambling.

In order to be diagnosed, a person must have 5 of those symptoms. Much like many other people on these boards, I knew someone who was addicted to the MMOs City of Heroes and World of Warcraft. He showed 7 of the above symptoms. (He didn't do 1,8,and 10.) If the APA uses the same guidelines to measure gaming addiction......well, we've had cases of people dying because they wouldn't stop playing Starcraft. That alone is going to be hard to dismiss.

In the end, I praised this comic more for the accurate portrayal of the reactions around here after Greg Tito wrote his article. Most of the people who criticized the study that Greg Tito reported on never watched the video or read the link. If they did, they would know that the study did not say that violent games cause violence. They just went off what Greg Tito wrote in his Fox-Newsworthy article. The points that can be broken down from the study are:

1)Individuals who play a lot of violent games become desensitized to seeing violent images.

2)These same individuals may experience heightened levels of aggression.

That's it.

He also admits that this study is not conclusive by itself and that there are other factors besides violent gaming that need to be considered. This is hardly the attitude of someone who is hellbent on destroying the industry. However, because the study said that there may be negative side effects, the same people who yell SCIENCE after every Extra Credits episode are now yelling BS as if we were on the Fox News comments board.

And you know what? Gambling shouldn't be classified as an addiction either. At least, not as is. The act of gambling for money, while considered the problem, is far from the main reason gambling addicts gamble. They gamble because it is a controlled environment with which they can experiment with chaos without any short-term disadvantages. It's a psychological issue that goes far beyond gambling.

That's why there are very few addictions that I will concede actually exist, and even those are dubious to me. Outside of drugs, I don't think any addictions(alcohol included)have the impact we place upon them, but are rather just visible symptoms of a much larger problem.

I'll reiterate what I said in a previous post: No piece of media can make you do something you weren't already going to do eventually. When it comes down to it, most of those guidelines could have their subject changed around and fit just about anything. Are we going to start harping on Television or Movie addiction? By your standards, I fear there is a serious epidemic of book addiction among my friends and colleagues, how shall we address that? Hell, by this list, my mum comes awfully close to a Violin Addiction, which clinic should I take her to? It's a slippery slope, and it won't get any more logical any time sooner.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

snip

I think a lot of people don't understand what most studies test for. Most test for desensitization and aggression. And psychology is a valid science. No one in the scientific community actually takes claims like "games cause violence" seriously. That is just new outlets putting a spin on things. You know the most damning thing against both sides? They are inconclusive. Most either have a slight positive or negative correlation. Which means that you can't draw anything substantial from them.

And as to how to argue against them without testing? Point out potential biases and factors. Do violent games make people more aggressive or do aggressive people just play violent games? Can catharsis come into play and have the opposite effect? Or environmental influences as you pointed out.

Seriously, guys. These tests aren't trying to say that we are killers. They are trying to say that games can desensitize us to violence and could make us a bit more aggressive.

 

[Yopaz]

snip

I think a lot of people don't understand what most studies test for. Most test for desensitization and aggression. And psychology is a valid science. No one in the scientific community actually takes claims like "games cause violence" seriously. That is just new outlets putting a spin on things. You know the most damning thing against both sides? They are inconclusive. Most either have a slight positive or negative correlation. Which means that you can't draw anything substantial from them.

And as to how to argue against them without testing? Point out potential biases and factors. Do violent games make people more aggressive or do aggressive people just play violent games? Can catharsis come into play and have the opposite effect? Or environmental influences as you pointed out.

Seriously, guys. These tests aren't trying to say that we are killers. They are trying to say that games can desensitize us to violence and could make us a bit more aggressive.

Did you even bother to read through my post? The whole last segment was about saying it would be ignorant to say gaming does or does not cause violent behaviour.

If I decided to say that gaming had nothing to do with it, I would be wrong. I might be a factor. It might be the only reason. It might be why we're less violent. However, there's no proof for it, but plenty of news where they say it will make you a violent person.

There, from my own post. I stated that it might be the only reason we are violent as well as the reason we are less violent. I also never stated that psychology isn't a valid science. I said that it wasn't a universal science. By that I mean that there's too many factors, things change, culture change, we get new technology, our mentalities change according to this. It's a valid science, but no universal. Gravity will always follow the same rules. Hydrogen and oxygen will always make water when they bond covalently.
Oh, and yes, no-one in the scientific world takes these studies as facts, but a lot of the general public do. Politicians use this to make anti-gaming laws, not necessarily because they believe the studies, but because they assume that enough people to do let them win an election. So then they get anti-gaming laws passed because studies that indicate that violent games may cause aggression because of these studies. That's what make gamers pissed off. Golfers would be pissed if they tried to outlaw golfing too.
A lot of studies are presented incorrectly, and that can really destroy the integrity of the study.
I also don't see any reason to go on with this since we actually don't have that different view on this. Both anti- and pro-gaming studies can't prove anything.
I do however agree fully on the hypothesis that aggressive people play violent video games. If this is a bad thing I can't say, because either of these 2 scenarios make sense:
1: He/she plays video games and likes it so much he/she wants to do it in the real world.
2: He/she plays video games and is satisfied killing things that aren't real.
I also realize that since I do belong in the same group as the the person from frame one in the comic, your original comment did spike my anger a bit and took this farther than required. I apologize for this, and thank you for a well crafted reply.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Did you even bother to read through my post? The whole last segment was about saying it would be ignorant to say gaming does or does not cause violent behaviour.

And this is what I get for responding to messages right after I get up in the morning. Sorry.

 

[Ian Caronia]

This kind of attitude actually quite irritates me.
Believe it or not "common knowledge" is not viable scientific evidence. At one point, it was "common sense" that the earth was flat and light came from the eye. Common sense was wrong.
You could argue that violent media is likely to make mental people more mental or you could argue that providing people an outlet for their aggression could possibly be beneficial. Both of those conclusions are fairly reasonable and both are supported by "common sense."
Studies are often repeated because a single study represents a miniscule cross section of the population. Different studies allow for different geographic age locations, age parameters etc.

Geez, I wish you'd have quoted me on better terms.

Common sense is not viable scientific evidence: True, especially when talking about common sense on it's own. I'll concede that my last sentence about health issues was just dumb, since it was, and the fact that you reacted to it only serves to further embarrass me for likely upsetting someone I'm a fan of. But before I grimace and feel like an ass, let me explain where I was coming from with my sarcasm and my "not insightful" attitude.

Common sense is not the same as common knowledge. Yes, this sounds like semantics, but hear me out. Sense is based on estimation, or rather educated guessing, whereas knowledge is based on facts. Though something can change common sense to common knowledge (like a study echoing what we already figured, as is the case here), that doesn't mean it's insightful. At all. All it's doing is stating what we have put together from personal experience and innumerable articles dealing with similar issues and affects.

Ex: It's common knowledge that those with mental difficulties are often easily influenced. It's common knowledge that those with social difficulties are made worse by staying inside. It's common knowledge that gaming most often takes place inside, and that gaming's goal is the immersion of the players. Thus, it's common sense that someone with pre-existing mental and social difficulties would be made worse by playing violent videogames for prolonged periods of time.

See? A study proving what we already figured out isn't insightful and can only be useful if you're in an argument and need something concrete on the subject to back you up.
_Which brings me to why I was sarcastic towards the modest female scientist in your strip. It was a funny strip, but seemed one sided. We have to realize that the reason many gamers act like that (curse real studies and praise stupid studies) is because of what those real studies are used for. Most often than not, a study that even mentions violent gaming in a negative light will be used by someone high up arguing against violent games/games in general.
*looks at California*
It's because of this that gamers have grown cold to any studies, even insightful ones, that mention gaming in any sort of negative light. They know it's only going to be used as fuel for the anti-gamer/anti-mature game fires that flicker at their brightest in political and media circles. In their desperation they can at times turn to idiocy, like blond dude did with Mr.Lasers in your strip.

I don't know if that point I explained there was what you were actually going for. If it was it wasn't done to the best in the strip. If it wasn't then disregard this sentence. : )

*sigh* And I'd hoped you wouldn't use the "earth is flat" argument. You have no idea how many use it incorrectly. It doesn't belong here either. Yes, it was common knowledge sense that earth was flat at one point. But then what happened? It was discovered the earth wasn't! Something new was shown! Studies proved it wasn't, and that light didn't come from within the eye. Those kinds of studies were insightful, and so they aren't the kind of studies I'm talking about.

I don't think all studies are bad or useless, and I understand repeated studies have their place as well. However I don't blame you for assuming I did disregard all studies since I said that bit of stupid at the end there...
...Uuuugh...

So, in conclusion: I hope I've explained myself clearly and I also hope you don't have any hard feelings towards me or think I meant any by responding with this. I DO however feel that I should've explained myself clearer from the start (ugh) and actually am embarrassed the author of one of my favorite web comics so far was ticked off by something stupid I said (uuugh). Now to grimace and bury my face in my hands. Can't wait to see the next strip!

 

[martyrdrebel27]

My issue is with the scientists that say games will turn ordinary people into murderers and rapists, not the scientists who say that people with pre-existing mental conditions may be more likely to do such things, that's pretty damned obvious. To be fair though, it's the same of any medium, if you're a nut job and you watch a gory horror movie you're probably gonna get as many ideas from that as you would a gory horror game.

personally speaking, i think if i never had a game to come home to and slaughter legions of soldiers, or zombies, or cops, or... whatever i'm choosing to de-life that day, i most likely would've looked for that same satisfaction IRL. but, knowing that i DID have that optional, consequence-free outlet for my anger at my peers and elders, i chose that nearly every time. humans had war and violence and murder and rape and pillaging and destruction and genocide and justin bieber and all the other bad things in life WAAAY before tv's and videogames were around. this may be hard for some people to accept, but at the end of the day, we're all just ultra-violent war machines looking for a reason to push the button.

The way that's written makes me wonder if you once went on a murderous rampage but don't normally do so.

well, come on, i am only human. i do my best, but sometimes i let the occassional multi-state killing spree slip through the cracks.

 

[Yopaz]

Did you even bother to read through my post? The whole last segment was about saying it would be ignorant to say gaming does or does not cause violent behaviour.

And this is what I get for responding to messages right after I get up in the morning. Sorry.

Yet again it seems like you ignored my post completely. There's even an apology in the post for taking this too far, I'd advice you to actually read more than the first few sentences the next time, or at least make it seem like you did. I'm sorry, but I can't build up any sympathy after ignoring the bulk of 2 posts.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Did you even bother to read through my post? The whole last segment was about saying it would be ignorant to say gaming does or does not cause violent behaviour.

And this is what I get for responding to messages right after I get up in the morning. Sorry.

Yet again it seems like you ignored my post completely. There's even an apology in the post for taking this too far, I'd advice you to actually read more than the first few sentences the next time, or at least make it seem like you did. I'm sorry, but I can't build up any sympathy after ignoring the bulk of 2 posts.

I read it. I was apologizing for glossing over a part of your original reply. I didn't feel a need to reply to the rest. I agreed with the rest of the second part of your post.

 

[Allan Foe]

Critical Miss: Gamer Science

Slander versus Pander.


Read Full Article

Ah, I see you've mastered the art of Pigeonholing!
I'm so proud!

But it's almost never "exacerbate pre-existing conditions", is it? Especially when it comes to videogames and violence -- then it's mostly like "suddenly develop extreme pathologies". On the other hand, I don't think anyone ever denied the corrupting effects of something like WoW, that's practically common knowledge, if anecdotal evidence is to be believed. (DON'T YOU DARE DISTRUST MY ANECDOTAL DEVIANCE)

 

[Salad Is Murder]

Anecdotal, schmantecdotal...I FINALLY work in an Alice's Restaurant reference IN CONTEXT and it goes unappreciated.

 

[bunji]

Sociology and psycology shouldn't even be considered real science, but thats just my two cents

 

[Iron Mal]

To be fair, most studies that are poised against gaming tend to have a habit of being framed in such as way as to imply that playing games makes you something of an ammoral bastard.

I'm sorry but having people come out and say that my hobby of choice, something I also happen to be very passionate about, supposedly leads to violence, murder, rape, crime, societal ill and other major issues isn't too far off from being a personal attack on me (especially when gaming is often used in conjunction with the word 'addiction' and claims are made of how 'games are like electronic heroin', they aren't even being subtle with their attempts at demonising us anymore).

With this in mind I think I'm pretty well justified in being skeptical and dismissive of studies that attempt to indirectly label me as what's wrong with society today.

As for the studies that allegedly get a free pass for being pro-gamer, I've only seen one, and all that said was that playing games like Call of Duty can be beneficial to your hand-eye co-ordination and ability to differentiate between subtler shades of grey.

I don't think we have anywhere near as many studies patting us on the back as we do trying to put a sticky note with 'I'm a child molester' on it.

 

[The Wooster]

Common sense is not the same as common knowledge. Yes, this sounds like semantics, but hear me out. Sense is based on estimation, or rather educated guessing, whereas knowledge is based on facts.

A small correction here. Common knowledge is based on the population's interpretation of facts. The point I'm making is the fact that numerous people believe X to be true does not make it true. Nor does it quantify X or detail the exact percentages involved.

Ex: It's common knowledge that those with mental difficulties are often easily influenced. It's common knowledge that those with social difficulties are made worse by staying inside. It's common knowledge that gaming most often takes place inside, and that gaming's goal is the immersion of the players. Thus, it's common sense that someone with pre-existing mental and social difficulties would be made worse by playing violent videogames for prolonged periods of time.

See? A study proving what we already figured out isn't insightful and can only be useful if you're in an argument and need something concrete on the subject to back you up.

Again. Quantifying the factors involved is important. As is evidence for a given position in debate. And by debate I don't just mean people chucking stones at each other over the internet or on television. I mean when it comes to policy negotiation in government and hospitals. Or defining what legally constitutes abuse or neglect. Is allowing your underage child to play six hours of Call of Duty a day neglect? "Common Knowledge" generally doesn't hold up in court.

It's because of this that gamers have grown cold to any studies, even insightful ones, that mention gaming in any sort of negative light. They know it's only going to be used as fuel for the anti-gamer/anti-mature game fires that flicker at their brightest in political and media circles. In their desperation they can at times turn to idiocy, like blond dude did with Mr.Lasers in your strip.

I don't know if that point I explained there was what you were actually going for. If it was it wasn't done to the best in the strip. If it wasn't then disregard this sentence. : )

The point I was making is that a worryingly large proportion of gamers don't even read the studies or articles in question. They simply respond automatically based on the title. For a good example of this, see the current study that's doing the rounds on the frontpage. Whether this behaviour is justified or not is up for debate but it's irritating either way.

So, in conclusion: I hope I've explained myself clearly and I also hope you don't have any hard feelings towards me or think I meant any by responding with this. I DO however feel that I should've explained myself clearer from the start (ugh) and actually am embarrassed the author of one of my favorite web comics so far was ticked off by something stupid I said (uuugh). Now to grimace and bury my face in my hands.

Not at all. In fact now you've clarified your position I do think I owe you an apology.

 

[Saelune]

I was very aware of the part that said "pre-established" as opposed to just makes people angry.

 

[danirax]

was that an accepting science or a stupid science?
it really hard to tell....

 

[JMeganSnow]

I think the only time it's appropriate to call bullshit automatically like that is when somebody does something like this:

Media Pundit: X that doesn't bother anyone else in any way whatsoever has been shown to maybe be "bad for you". Therefore X should be banned.

Everybody Else: Shut yo' mout, foo'.

If the criticism wasn't immediately followed up with "there oughta be a law", there would not be a problem.

 

[Lancer873]

Brings the point across perfectly. Yes, there are obviously some "studies" that involve some BS on the anti-game side of the argument, but I think there are plenty of good studies that are right to say that video games can, in certain circumstances, bring out violent behavior in certain people. The big problem is that those on the anti-game side take those results and blow them out of proportion, claiming it's evidence that video games should be banned (despite the fact that the results are really no stronger than, for example, competitive sports), and then the pro-game side immediately attempts to discredit the studies.

In other words, it's not always the evidence that's wrong, but sometimes it's the conclusions drawn from that evidence. We believe the conclusions are wrong, so we deny the evidence.

 

[Neferius]

Yes, ALL HAIL SCIENCE!!!

Now DND ...I'm working on my psyonic kung-fu grip

 

[Kermi]

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.

Exactly. I was really amazed how quickly people will latch onto some random story about some kid learning survival skills from a game but refuse to accept that violent games might teach people about violence.

I personally think games give people ideas. But they don't turn you into a killer or a hero. They can teach, but not train.