You're cutting out a really important middle step: the media interpreting the scientific data for us. So often, an organization like Fox News will report the former sort of study as "Violent video games can bring out violent tendencies; therefore, video games are evil and must be banned." This sort of logic is equivalent to "Water mixed with arsenic is typically fatal; therefore, water is poisonous and must be banned." The original studies dealing with violence in media dealt with TV, and, goodness knows, it probably goes for everything from movies to books to stage plays. Rather than decry violence in $POPULAR_MEDIA_DU_JOUR, we ought to be looking at violence in media as a whole, and how we can present violence (and to whom) such that these effects are minimized.
Critical Miss: Gamer Science
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
That's from before the vote mentioned in the first quote. They looked into all current studies as of 2007, found the science faulty, and don't treat it as a disorder or an addiction. To my knowledge, they are not accepting any applications on the subject until new conclusions are drawn or new techniques are used to bolster credibility. I have not found anything contrary to this, and I research the subject extensively.[/quote]TheMaddestHatter said:
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.
This is true, gamers are like this it would seem. But the "study" that inflamed this debate really is faulty. Heres what i gather.
Person A is playing a violent videogame for hours. He is then shown a picture of a man with a gun in his mouth. He shows a little reaction.
Person B is looking at pictures of Lolcats and a guy on a bicycle, then is shown a picture of a man with a gun in his mouth. He has alot more reaction then person A.
All I can say is.....no fucking duh.
Watch good fellas. Watch it again. Less reaction? good for you.
Watch a disney movie. Then watch a guy get hit with a baseball bat. Are you reacting?
....No duh.
It does sound like they are honest with their results. Its the fact that it seems ready-made to be misconstrued IMMENSELY.
Person A is playing a violent videogame for hours. He is then shown a picture of a man with a gun in his mouth. He shows a little reaction.
Person B is looking at pictures of Lolcats and a guy on a bicycle, then is shown a picture of a man with a gun in his mouth. He has alot more reaction then person A.
All I can say is.....no fucking duh.
Watch good fellas. Watch it again. Less reaction? good for you.
Watch a disney movie. Then watch a guy get hit with a baseball bat. Are you reacting?
....No duh.
It does sound like they are honest with their results. Its the fact that it seems ready-made to be misconstrued IMMENSELY.
The reason why people call "bullshit" on the negative studies is because the people who perform the studies (or report the studies) have a tendency to be extremely biased on the issue, which is reflected in the results.
Most of these studies don't imply that there is definitive games = violence. Most of them were designed just to prove that there is a correlation between violent games and violent behavior, no matter how small the percentage.Exterminas said:
But everyone seems to assume that any study that proves positive was headed by Mr. Garrison in that gay marriage episode of South Park.
Well, undoubtedly a game could be a causal factor in triggering or worsening dispositions for pre-existing mental flaws and deficiencies in unstable individuals.
...just like a flickering street light could be a signal to some nutjob that it's time to go snuff somebody's life out.
And just like no one would ever seek to put legal limitations on streetlights because a few freaks might be triggered by them - as such regulation would be grossly disproportional to the "threat" posed by them - there's little reason to limit games (or movies, TV-series etc.) beyond the ordinary age restrictions on marketing to minors.
Unless proven that games featuring violence (or other crimes) are generally liable to increase the number of violent acts (or other crimes) committed by ordinary individuals with no pre-existing disposition for instability, then all this research is of no practical significance beyond being misused as source material for overblown scare campaigns on FOX.
...just like a flickering street light could be a signal to some nutjob that it's time to go snuff somebody's life out.
And just like no one would ever seek to put legal limitations on streetlights because a few freaks might be triggered by them - as such regulation would be grossly disproportional to the "threat" posed by them - there's little reason to limit games (or movies, TV-series etc.) beyond the ordinary age restrictions on marketing to minors.
Unless proven that games featuring violence (or other crimes) are generally liable to increase the number of violent acts (or other crimes) committed by ordinary individuals with no pre-existing disposition for instability, then all this research is of no practical significance beyond being misused as source material for overblown scare campaigns on FOX.
There's this podcast I listen to called Skeptoid, which examines popular beliefs. They had a show in which the host took student questions, and one of them was on this very topic. According to Skeptoid, there is a divide between researchers who say violent video games have no effect on a person's mental wellbeing, and those who say it has some effect. But even amongst those who say it does have an effect admit that it is pretty small.
For most normal people, playing violent video games is not going to turn them into a psychopath. For those with mental-health issues as well as a predisposition towards psychotic behaviour or sociopathic behaviour, violent video games might have an effect at raising aggression levels or inspiring anti-social behavior. But I will contend that many other things could trigger that sort of behaviour, not just games.
Millions of people play violent video games, all around the world. In the US, Crime rates are FALLING and have been since the late 80's. I know that correlation is not causation, and I'm certainly not saying that video games cause less crime, but if they were as dangerous as some say they are, then surely crime rates would have gone up!
You know what? Alcohol DEFINITELY can increase aggression and has caused countless crimes. Why don't they try to get back on the prohibition wagon?
For most normal people, playing violent video games is not going to turn them into a psychopath. For those with mental-health issues as well as a predisposition towards psychotic behaviour or sociopathic behaviour, violent video games might have an effect at raising aggression levels or inspiring anti-social behavior. But I will contend that many other things could trigger that sort of behaviour, not just games.
Millions of people play violent video games, all around the world. In the US, Crime rates are FALLING and have been since the late 80's. I know that correlation is not causation, and I'm certainly not saying that video games cause less crime, but if they were as dangerous as some say they are, then surely crime rates would have gone up!
You know what? Alcohol DEFINITELY can increase aggression and has caused countless crimes. Why don't they try to get back on the prohibition wagon?
Hits the nail on the head.
Far too often, on this very site no less, pro gaming "studies" would be lauded and accepted with almost no resistance whereas studies which can be more negative are met with howls of indignation and suddenly everyone is a master scientist capable of spotting all sorts of faults in the experiments and dismissing their conclusions as invalid.
There is NO discussion value in these kind of threads otherwise, since we are simply provided with a statement and an already made view, but no information of which to form our own (which results in everyone being a pseudoscientist despite not having a clue how these things work as mentioned above).
Far too often, on this very site no less, pro gaming "studies" would be lauded and accepted with almost no resistance whereas studies which can be more negative are met with howls of indignation and suddenly everyone is a master scientist capable of spotting all sorts of faults in the experiments and dismissing their conclusions as invalid.
On a related note whenever the escapist does provide a story on these kind of studies, it would be nice if they included parts of the abstract detailling the results and the strength of the correlation found.TheRealCJ said:
There is NO discussion value in these kind of threads otherwise, since we are simply provided with a statement and an already made view, but no information of which to form our own (which results in everyone being a pseudoscientist despite not having a clue how these things work as mentioned above).
"exacerbate pre-existing" is the important part of panel one that most people neglect either out of ignorance or malice.
Of course gamers dismiss studies that say games are bad. Gamers often know that they feel relaxed after shooting someone, the studies that says games are bad are always idiotic. Watching someone's pulse rate increase when they play Call of Duty doesn't mean that they will use violence after seeing it. Likewise pro gaming studies are just as big a pile of bullshit.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Personally I have had problems with anger issues for years, but after I started playing violent game I've been getting calmer and more relaxed.The Game I Wanna Be The Guy on the other hand could make me want to punch someone. This is however not a valid study, but the case for many gamers. They think about how they react to violent games, and often that does involve a feeling of being more relaxed outside the game world.
What's a common factor for those kids going into a school shooting a bunch of kids and teachers is that they have played violent video games. They also tend to have problems at home, in school, being bullied, feeling outside, watching violent movies and having access or know how to get access to guns. Probably 7/10 of the kids being shot are likely to have played violent games. There's another reason why we dimiss it. There are lots more playing games than there are killers.
Violence have been decreasing for a long time, not increasing with the trends of violence in games going up. All the worst wars have been fought before games.
They used to blame movies before games reach this level of graphics and popularity, but seems to have forgotten all about it even though that was the devil's work in the 80's.
Psychology is not a universal study, which means this is utter bullshit. Observe a million different persons through their life, make sure they will all meet certain obstacles that will be the same for all. How do they deal with them, do they deal with them, give up ignore? There might even be a million different reactions to this because they will have lived a million different lives.
Another proof that's sorely underrepresented is that there's less violence in other countries than America - the land of the games are bad studies. I for one can only recall one person being shot in my 20 years of living. To be fair I don't think I would remember anything from more than 10 years back with confidence, I also don't follow the news very closely so I might have missed something. Anyway, my point is that violent video games are just as popular here, yet there's less violence. Why?
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. So to summarize.
I hope this explains why I hate "Games are bad "studies"" and shows some proof that it might be complete bullshit. Or if you are not convinced, tell me why not every single gamer has gone on a killing spree.
As many others have stated, this comic is too true. This sums up most gamers pretty well, and I know I react the same way when someone says it leads to violence.
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!
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!
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.thepyrethatburns said:
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.
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.Yopaz said:
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.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
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.Yopaz said:
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.
And this is what I get for responding to messages right after I get up in the morning. Sorry.Yopaz said:
Geez, I wish you'd have quoted me on better terms.Grey Carter said:
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
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!
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.Ickorus said:
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 said: