New Study, Same Results: Violence Is Bad

[Haliwali]

Blimey, and here I was thinking/hoping that we were past this...
*sigh*
The second my space laser is complete I will be aiming at those idiots...

Just need to save about seven septilion more and I'll have enough for mine...

 

[BoilingLeadBath]

Ah, good job, Malygris. It's nice to see people putting links to the actual paper in these articles.

Anyways, to start my actual response, I have to admit that their data does seem to support their overall claim. I'd appreciate it if you guys would stop pretending that they faked their data - it makes us look bad.
(And I don't give much weight to the argument that the violent gamers were better at recognizing a fake fight as an explanation for their delay. They were less likely to report having heard a fight, but it's the difference between a 95% chance as opposed to a 99% chance.)

Also, some things I thought were interesting:

1) The fraction of the of the violent gamers who ended up helping the victim was not significantly different from other group's help-rate. (21% vs 25% - not even a std. dev. apart)
Yet it took them a whole lot longer?
I'm not familiar with the desensitization literature, but I think this is damn interesting.

2) The fraction of people who said their preferred game was violent was quite low. (what, 20%?)
3) Members of this fraction helped the victim much less often then the rest of the population. (11% vs 26%)

 

[Jumplion]

You do know the expenses involved in cancer research, correct? It's not anywhere as easy to sort out as you're appearing to claim.

Now, obviously, this is banal and useless research, but speaking frankly as a student of science, not everyone can be employed on the big issues.

Then fire these people and direct their grants into cancer research. Once we're disease free, can regrow/replace limbs and organs, have cured global warming and are well on our way to becoming an intergalactic species, then we can worry about pesky things like this.

I'll bring out an example I read somewhere else in the escapist;

If I broke an arm, or severed an internal organ, and go to a doctor, how do you think I would feel if the doctor said "I'm sorry, we're working on a cure for cancer, you'll have to wait until we cure it."?

To fire everyone in alternative fields of science and force them to work on one disease or condition, when there are still hundreds of ways to help people who don't have that one particular disease, is ludicrous at best.

But this study is pointless, that much we can all agree with, right?

 

[Aardvark]

I'll bring out an example I read somewhere else in the escapist;

If I broke an arm, or severed an internal organ, and go to a doctor, how do you think I would feel if the doctor said "I'm sorry, we're working on a cure for cancer, you'll have to wait until we cure it."?

The correct response to that example, when it was used previously, should be "Not all doctors are researchers."

BAM! Another poor example blown out of the water!

If you're going to be pedantic and insist that when the call is made to pull funding from people researching stupid, pointless things, such as linking violence and pop culture, reinventing the wheel or the correct pH balance of healthy, natural skin and instead redirecting it to something worthwhile, might be brain science, might be rocket surgery, then all people who have an IQ above room temperature must be fired to make way for one single scientific goal...

I'll let you fill in the last part of that yourself.

 

[Jumplion]

I'll bring out an example I read somewhere else in the escapist;

If I broke an arm, or severed an internal organ, and go to a doctor, how do you think I would feel if the doctor said "I'm sorry, we're working on a cure for cancer, you'll have to wait until we cure it."?

The correct response to that example, when it was used previously, should be "Not all doctors are researchers."

BAM! Another poor example blown out of the water!

If you're going to be pedantic and insist that when the call is made to pull funding from people researching stupid, pointless things, such as linking violence and pop culture, reinventing the wheel or the correct pH balance of healthy, natural skin and instead redirecting it to something worthwhile, might be brain science, might be rocket surgery, then all people who have an IQ above room temperature must be fired to make way for one single scientific goal...

I'll let you fill in the last part of that yourself.

"BAM! Another poor example blown out of the water!"?

Jeez, you need to calm down, no need to be pompous about it. I agreed with you on that this particular "research" was a waste of time and/or money.

But different scientists specialize in different things. It makes absolutely no sense to dump all of the worlds scientists on one thing when there is an equal number of things to tend to in the world.

Quite frankly it's a childish notion, dump all the smart people in the room and they'll somehow solve all the worlds problems.

 

[Aardvark]

Spoiler: Space conservation

"BAM! Another poor example blown out of the water!"?

Jeez, you need to calm down, no need to be pompous about it. I agreed with you on that this particular "research" was a waste of time and/or money.

But different scientists specialize in different things. It makes absolutely no sense to dump all of the worlds scientists on one thing when there is an equal number of things to tend to in the world.

Quite frankly it's a childish notion, dump all the smart people in the room and they'll somehow solve all the worlds problems.

No one is saying put all the world's scientists on one thing. What was said, by myself, is that the funding for stupid, banal, pointless things should be pulled and re-directed towards cancer research. I said the people should be fired. I said more people should be hired. I never said the same people should be hired.

Therefore, the example you used is a pointless example, which was thusly blown out of the water, as it should have been the first time anyone put those words together in that order, then applied them to internet.

 

[Metonym]

The problem with the study is that they draw alot of conclusions based on how long it takes for the subjects to help in a non mundane situation. Even if they do find a tendency towards desensitizing which is attributed to the subjects responses, it doesn´t adress the stability of said desensitization and long term behavioral outcome in the subjects.


The study seem to talk only about priming effects in a short term perspective. Imagine how a long term addicted and full blown "FPS maniac" would react towards these experimental conditions..

1)How persistant are these "effects" in the individual as violence is "learned"? What are the long term effects? That is usually the main focus in the violent media = violent behavior debate.

2) How is violence learned? Actively or passively?

2)The effects are there but they are not that substantial compared to the control group.

3)The experimental conditions are not easily transfered to mundane conditions.

 

[Beffudled Sheep]

I have always enjoyed the suffering of my fellow man. Especially the stupid ones.

 

[Jumplion]

Condesning

Then fire these people and direct their grants into cancer research. Once we're disease free, can regrow/replace limbs and organs, have cured global warming and are well on our way to becoming an intergalactic species, then we can worry about pesky things like this.

Granted, I'll admit, I misread what your main point was, but I did interpret it as you saying everyone should direct everything to cancer research and the like.

But yeesh, you take things a wee bit too seriously. It wasn't much of an argument that you had apparently "blown me out of the water". Calm down and stop being so snarky about everything.

 

[Aardvark]

But yeesh, you take things a wee bit too seriously. It wasn't much of an argument that you had apparently "blown me out of the water". Calm down and stop being so snarky about everything.

I never said I blew you out of the water. Just your stolen example.

Had to sneak that last jab in.

This is political research, nothing more. The only reason garbage like this gets funding is because this is a hot button issue with the ignorant scum and those who want their votes. The funding should be channeled elsewhere, to something that can actually benefit humanity. Something to unite, rather than divide. Cancer was just one big example, could be a hundred things that solve problems, rather than score political points.

 

[Metonym]

By the way, are y'all suggesting that no one has ever died from insensitivity to violence? Have you never heard about the cases of murders in broad daylight where bystanders just watch, doing nothing? This is, in fact, a potentially life-or-death problem if a violent game makes you hesitate even a second in calling the police or stepping in in such a situation.

This is the famous bystander effect and is much better explained by diffusion of responsibility, as previous studies has showed, than a degenerated populace that is subjected to violence in the media.. Long term effects are very hard to infer since studies often are short term designs, that study behavior in a certain experimental situation.

 

[Doug]

"People who had played a violent game took significantly longer to help the victim than those who played a nonviolent game - 73 seconds compared to 16 seconds," the professors noted. "People who had played a violent game were also less likely to notice and report the fight. And if they did report it, they judged it to be less serious than did those who had played a nonviolent game."

Ugh, how long after the playing of the "violent" game did they test this out? I'd imagine for a whole 30 minutes or so afterwards, this could be possibly true. But given I'm the one more likely to help people out on the street if they trip or fall, or at least enquire if they are ok, I officially call "Bull*poop*" on this research.

I reckon they are publishing these "studies" in an attempt to make us snap and "prove them right". That, or I'm paranoid....the voices say I'm not...?

 

[joystickjunki3]

Why did we need another another study to tell us the same thing?

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

ah yes irony strikes again

 

[Dramatic Flare]

Here's an idea.
How about, instead of staging a fight in which someone sprains an ankle, how about staging three fights in a control group setting, the way it's supposed to be done.

The first fight involves just some general fisticuffs, with the opponent just moaning, and asking for some help afterward.
The second fight involves the victim eventually falling silent while the attacker continues shouting, stomping, and hitting the victim after the opponent is down.
the final fight will involve the victim begging while the attacker smacks them around. I would say use a woman for the victim, but it should be a man on man situation to keep it streamlined with everything else.
The control group will play no games, just sit around with a magazine or something. Like a real control group.
A second group will play nonviolent games.
A third group will play mildly violent games.
A final group will play Manhunt.

Now take a portion of each group and run it against each simulation.
THEN tell me the results.
And do it for free.

 

[Iron Mal]

Big problems with this study include the fact that it uses a rather ambiguous method of mesuring the participant's response (hmmm...well, they took longer to respond therefore they must be sociopaths in the making) and thus is too subjective (those who witnessed the violence may have noticed the minor nature of the fight and deemed that a sprained ankle isn't really worth making an immediate fuss over while those who weren't subjected to any violence had no previous example to base the fight upon and thus over-racted by taking immediate action for a miniscule, and somewhat trivial, injury).

Another issue is that if the groups were divided into the 'violent' and 'non-violent' movies/games etc. groups randomly then it doesn't account for individual differences (a violent person is going to be violent regardless of what they've seen), to overcome this issue you would ideally want to gather the most passive P's and ask them to watch the aggressive/violent movie and the aggressive P's would watch the non-violent film (then we can confirm that it is the movie, rather than their nature, that is determining their behavior).

In most cases, research trying to prove a hidden connection between media influence and raised level of violence and aggression tends to either be inconclusive or riddled with practical, ethical and theological issues.

 

[Daye.04]

Spoiler: Iron Mals long reply

Big problems with this study include the fact that it uses a rather ambiguous method of mesuring the participant's response (hmmm...well, they took longer to respond therefore they must be sociopaths in the making) and thus is too subjective (those who witnessed the violence may have noticed the minor nature of the fight and deemed that a sprained ankle isn't really worth making an immediate fuss over while those who weren't subjected to any violence had no previous example to base the fight upon and thus over-racted by taking immediate action for a miniscule, and somewhat trivial, injury).

Another issue is that if the groups were divided into the 'violent' and 'non-violent' movies/games etc. groups randomly then it doesn't account for individual differences (a violent person is going to be violent regardless of what they've seen), to overcome this issue you would ideally want to gather the most passive P's and ask them to watch the aggressive/violent movie and the aggressive P's would watch the non-violent film (then we can confirm that it is the movie, rather than their nature, that is determining their behavior).

In most cases, research trying to prove a hidden connection between media influence and raised level of violence and aggression tends to either be inconclusive or riddled with practical, ethical and theological issues.

Second'n.

As stated by Iron Mal. There is practically impossible to do a research like this with the same basis. People are diffrent. everyone are.

So no matter how you try - unless you have a time machine (Wich then again is practically and theoreticaly impossible) - you will never be able to test anything with the same basis. Since the old factor that everyone is diffrent, you can never really point at anything in particulare.
You can only say that it would seem as maybe.

 

[Aardvark]

You're right about all this, but you're forgetting one important fact: these aren't real scientists. Real scientists don't do social scientific work - that's for the plebes that can't understand proper science.

So you'll have no problem cutting their funding, terminating their tenure and throwing tomatoes at them in the streets?

Excellent, we're all in agreement!