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.Yopaz said:
Critical Miss: Gamer Science
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Ah, I see you've mastered the art of Pigeonholing!Grey Carter said:
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)
Anecdotal, schmantecdotal...I FINALLY work in an Alice's Restaurant reference IN CONTEXT and it goes unappreciated.
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.
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.
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.Ian Caronia said:
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.
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.
Not at all. In fact now you've clarified your position I do think I owe you an apology.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
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.
This is actually very true, the quote "It's funny because its true" applies here, where gamers turn a blind eye to the negatives of gaming. But there are studies that say games are positive and negative... just putting it out there. Need more games where u can actually meet other players or something... but damn creepers are the risk of it.
Most people play with friends in video games, thus helps build some sort of relationship
SO i liked the comic, it true, but kinda overkill for me to the point its untrue
Most people play with friends in video games, thus helps build some sort of relationship
SO i liked the comic, it true, but kinda overkill for me to the point its untrue
True; however, it doesn't help the case of the anti-gaming results when they tend to be funded by groups who've traditionally opposed gaming for various reasons. Though I believe a report done by the government (UK) basically stated 'there are problems, but we can't turn our backs on this'. If I could remember the name of the woman in charge of the commission, I'd find and link it (if anyone manages, let me know please - I believe it was during the later part of Tony Blair's PM-ship).RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Most Stealth Bombers have at one point in their life brushed their teeth. That must mean that Crest toothpaste helps train people to become stealth bombers!Kakashi on crack said:
Quoted for truth. Very brave of you though Carter and Rydell, prepare for the hatewave.Haseo21 said:
But what gamer could argue with a lady scientist who was also a babe? I'm having trouble picturing that scenario.
Funny as ever, also interesting topic of public interest!
IT IS TRUE, gamers gain flight and laser vision through gaming - eh, wait, wrong study - it is true, looking from a psychological point, playing "violent" video games, just as watching violent movies increases the testosterone output which increases the potential aggression temporarily e.g.
The bullshit part is about all those newscasts showing only half the truth/ showing only what they think is pleasing the common sense. The whole truth is that our social life is influenced by more than just one component like videogames and violent behavior isn't based on playing violent videogames (only) but on the whole background and it also occurs without the influence of violent media. While on the other hand, i never saw a newscast mentioning the positive influences like increased eye-hand coordination, reaction, tactical thinking e.g., which, vice versa, aren't influenced by videogames only. Not to mention those who never differ between actually different games or even the different genres but think all games are "like CoD".
Guess this isn't new for those around, but it would be nice if the public media and common sence would include this, rather blaming media including violent content for violent behavior, but to think of their own role in this dilemma.
IT IS TRUE, gamers gain flight and laser vision through gaming - eh, wait, wrong study - it is true, looking from a psychological point, playing "violent" video games, just as watching violent movies increases the testosterone output which increases the potential aggression temporarily e.g.
The bullshit part is about all those newscasts showing only half the truth/ showing only what they think is pleasing the common sense. The whole truth is that our social life is influenced by more than just one component like videogames and violent behavior isn't based on playing violent videogames (only) but on the whole background and it also occurs without the influence of violent media. While on the other hand, i never saw a newscast mentioning the positive influences like increased eye-hand coordination, reaction, tactical thinking e.g., which, vice versa, aren't influenced by videogames only. Not to mention those who never differ between actually different games or even the different genres but think all games are "like CoD".
Guess this isn't new for those around, but it would be nice if the public media and common sence would include this, rather blaming media including violent content for violent behavior, but to think of their own role in this dilemma.