Critical Miss: Gamer Science
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
TheMaddestHatter said:
I'm going to need a source. Which studies were criticized, and when this was said.
The division between agreement and disagreement is recursive. As is the discussion on the division. As is the discussion on the discussion of the division...HankMan said:
Of course, the real problem here is that any legitimate study will be published in an academic journal and will never reach the mainstream media (gaming or otherwise) as anything more than a few out of context quotes chosen by a reporter unqualified to evaluate their significance. As such, no one outside the scientific community will realistically have the option to examine what experiment was actually performed, what data was collected and what conclusion was drawn in their entirety. I tend to scoff at most studies presented on either side when it comes to gaming because so few of them seem to have passed any sort of proper peer review.
Thank you for this comic. After I read this article and it's comments:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/110382-Psychology-Study-Blames-Games-for-Aggressive-Behavior
it is good to see someone on the Escapist point out the hypocrisy. This is especially timely as it is difficult to call out Fox News on what it does if we do the same thing.
Also
Edit: Ninja'ed and by someone with far more creativity.
Also "Anti-gamer" is often used on this site to mean "Anything that says that gaming can have negative side effects". That has as much validity as labeling me as "Anti-Driving" if I do a study that says "a lot of people die in car wrecks". While it may be an unpleasant fact, if we are to accept that Extra Credits is right in that gaming can elevate us mentally and spiritually, we also have to accept that gaming can also have negative side effects mentally and spiritually.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/110382-Psychology-Study-Blames-Games-for-Aggressive-Behavior
it is good to see someone on the Escapist point out the hypocrisy. This is especially timely as it is difficult to call out Fox News on what it does if we do the same thing.
Also
I just googled this and the closest that I found to a refutation is that the American Psychological Association does not believe that playing games equals violent behavior. However, it seems to be generally accepted by the APA that games do cause aggression and can become an addiction. Both are findings that could be taken as "anti-gamer". Do you have a link to this?TheMaddestHatter said:
Edit: Ninja'ed and by someone with far more creativity.
Also "Anti-gamer" is often used on this site to mean "Anything that says that gaming can have negative side effects". That has as much validity as labeling me as "Anti-Driving" if I do a study that says "a lot of people die in car wrecks". While it may be an unpleasant fact, if we are to accept that Extra Credits is right in that gaming can elevate us mentally and spiritually, we also have to accept that gaming can also have negative side effects mentally and spiritually.
Too true, it speaks more towards human beings than it does gamers, but it's the same thing.
I wish games could make me have flight and laser vision, that would be badass! No more driving around and I could fry the people that piss me off!
I wish games could make me have flight and laser vision, that would be badass! No more driving around and I could fry the people that piss me off!
You know what really exacerbates pre-existing social and mental difficulties when exposed to it in excess?
Glorifying war and government sanctioned murder for over a decade all across the globe. We now live in a generation where people will grow up to never know a world that existed without things like the 'Patriot Act', or the global war on terror.
Perhaps this shit needs to be.. ooh.. I don't know.. considered, when conducting studies of aggressive behavior patterns on the rise in teens. Because heaven forbid if environmental factors in one's "home" has anything to do with societal angst and cold, hard, unadulterated aggression aimed at authority. Whodathunkit, ya know? Create a world of unreal chaos, and guess what, you start living with it at home too.
But no, let's focus on video games, because clearly we need to scapegoat the symptoms instead of coming to the crux of the problem.
(Obligatory facepalm.jpg)
PS; Comic still represents a growing minority of internet scholars.
Glorifying war and government sanctioned murder for over a decade all across the globe. We now live in a generation where people will grow up to never know a world that existed without things like the 'Patriot Act', or the global war on terror.
Perhaps this shit needs to be.. ooh.. I don't know.. considered, when conducting studies of aggressive behavior patterns on the rise in teens. Because heaven forbid if environmental factors in one's "home" has anything to do with societal angst and cold, hard, unadulterated aggression aimed at authority. Whodathunkit, ya know? Create a world of unreal chaos, and guess what, you start living with it at home too.
But no, let's focus on video games, because clearly we need to scapegoat the symptoms instead of coming to the crux of the problem.
(Obligatory facepalm.jpg)
PS; Comic still represents a growing minority of internet scholars.
The problem isn't the science itself but how it's utilized.
"This study suggests that people who are mentally prone towards violence and are easily influenced become more violent when they play violent games frequently"
It's a stupid study. It's a needless study. Yes, it's "Science". But really it's just common sense or lack there-of.
I could make a study that suggests "People who dislike violence are disgusted by violent video games" and it would officially pass as Science.
With most of these studies being obviously politically charged and completely needless, there's no wonder a lot of people rally behind the idea that they're bullshit. Not because the results themselves are bullshit. They are accurate because they're made to portray games badly (I could do the same for just about anything. Such as a study that people who have low self esteem tend to get depressed if they are constantly insulted every day and wow, it'd be science!), but they are not accurate of a game's effect in general on the population and society at large.
As for the positive ones, they're more general to begin with, which is why they tend to garner the support of gamers. Not just that, they're a line of defense against these politically charged and fixed results.
There are very few neutral studies that actually pertains to video games and the effects of violence, etc etc. They're just difficult to find through the whole mess of idiotic tests...
"This study suggests that people who are mentally prone towards violence and are easily influenced become more violent when they play violent games frequently"
It's a stupid study. It's a needless study. Yes, it's "Science". But really it's just common sense or lack there-of.
I could make a study that suggests "People who dislike violence are disgusted by violent video games" and it would officially pass as Science.
With most of these studies being obviously politically charged and completely needless, there's no wonder a lot of people rally behind the idea that they're bullshit. Not because the results themselves are bullshit. They are accurate because they're made to portray games badly (I could do the same for just about anything. Such as a study that people who have low self esteem tend to get depressed if they are constantly insulted every day and wow, it'd be science!), but they are not accurate of a game's effect in general on the population and society at large.
As for the positive ones, they're more general to begin with, which is why they tend to garner the support of gamers. Not just that, they're a line of defense against these politically charged and fixed results.
There are very few neutral studies that actually pertains to video games and the effects of violence, etc etc. They're just difficult to find through the whole mess of idiotic tests...
Lol. That's true.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
But the irony is that scientific studies conclude that ALL people are inherently biased. (And their true biases are subconscious, so you're not really aware of them. The ones you are aware of aren't true biases by the mere fact that you know what they are, and can thus work around them if you have to.)
That being the case, all people will end up using their innate biases to pick and choose what they believe.
Evidence which contradicts their internal biases is rejected; Anything which supports them is not.
Inevitably, this leads to endless arguing between people with mutually contradictory biases, as neither will concede any point which undermines their own bias.
Whatever points they do concede, are the ones they were more or less ambivalent or uncertain about.
Makes politics seem a whole lot more futile once you know that, that's for sure.
(It also suggests in any given argument, the only people who should be allowed to make decisions on something are those with no implicit biases in the discussion at hand. - But that'd be impossible to work out in practice. And in some arguments, such a person might not even exist.)
And fox news does the opposite, do you want to be like fox news? do you?RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Everything in moderation, to much gaming is bad, just like to much chocolate, to much alchohol or to much LSD.
thepyrethatburns said:
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
I'm going to need a source. Which studies were criticized, and when this was said.
Source: http://energeticarticles.com/self-improvement/addictions/teen-game-addiction-is-it-a-problem
That's for the American Psychiatric Association. Not the American Psychological Association, my mistake. Further source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625133354.htm
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.
Yes. Everyone's perception and paranoia is through the roof these days. The air we breathe is charged with political rhetoric, fear, treachery, insanity, etc. So whenever a claim is made against a large group of people, literally minding their own business (playing games), well people get offended by that, by default.Testsubject909 said:
Seriously, it's like this entire world is trying to find enemies where there are none, and faults where they don't exist. The fact that we have all these social, economic and political problems and disasters in the world right now, and there are people spending time trying to claim "aggressive teens/people" is coming from gaming... well, it's bogus by default. Head in the sand behavior.
It discombobulates my psyche, and I desperately try find different sand that I'm comfortable putting my neck in.
They didn't render them BS. They just decided to not add it as an addiction. They take their job seriously. Just because the APA didn't find enough evidence to add it doesn't mean all anti-game studies are useless. The biggest critique of most of the studies is not factoring in all other media. I just don't want to discard them as worthless. That would be foolhardy.TheMaddestHatter said:
No, that would be recognizing the obvious scapegoating that has been going on since the beginning of time. First it was Classical Music, then it was Realistic Painting, then it was Abstract Art and Cubism, then it was Jazz, Rock And Roll, Comic Books, Radio, TV, Hip-Hop, Rap, Books, Movies, Religions, Movements, Clothing, Video Games, and everything except the actual people involved. I will reiterate the same thing I say every-time something comes up: There is no piece of media, no art, no clothing, and no outside influence that can make you do anything you don't already have some inclination towards doing. If I have done something to hurt myself or others, the problem is me and will always be me. The same applies to every other person on this planet, and I'm tired of people taking the easy way out rather than looking for some introspection that can actually help them change their lives.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Sorry, but the fact is that never has a study done a particularly good job of demonstrating a link between video games and violence. The reason studies keep getting funding is because the vast majority of these studies get ripped apart in peer review. Either the study fails to adequately control the variables, or the study utterly fails to provide a point of comparison to other violent media, i.e. music, movies, tv, and even books.
Gamers can be quick to dismiss these studies, sure, but it's up to the scientists to adequately defend their work, which is something that has been sorely lacking. That's the way science works.
Gamers can be quick to dismiss these studies, sure, but it's up to the scientists to adequately defend their work, which is something that has been sorely lacking. That's the way science works.