Yeah, that makes sense ... although I expect that's less to do with the violence itself, and more to do with aggressive competition. You get that effect in sports too, except it's called "team spirit".Andy Chalk said:
Research Finds Negative Effects in Violent Videogames
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And my point is that a million points of data that were each obtained through faulty experiments will lead to an incorrect conclusion. Bad data is bad and should be thrown out. Having a great deal of bad data does not somehow make it good data.Farther than stars said:
Maybe those who prefer violent and aggressive video games are already more aggressive and confrontational in nature then those who prefer sports and non-violent games?????
Can we just stop with these articles? Every single time something like this gets posted it's always by some university saying the exact same thing every single time. Then, all the comments just turn into a giant circlejerk about how video games don't cause violence any more than other media and blah blah. It's getting kind of annoying seeing this content consistenly rehashed on this site, there has to be something more interesting to report on.
I mean...okay?
The first study just shows that humans will draw creative solutions from recent experiences. The second one makes perfect sense; violent content is more intense, so it will provoke a stronger response.
But I'm pretty sure you'd get extremely similar responses from, say, violent TV programs. There is yet to be any evidence that video games have a significantly greater effect on people than other violent media.
It's an interesting study, but doesn't condemn video games at all.
The first study just shows that humans will draw creative solutions from recent experiences. The second one makes perfect sense; violent content is more intense, so it will provoke a stronger response.
But I'm pretty sure you'd get extremely similar responses from, say, violent TV programs. There is yet to be any evidence that video games have a significantly greater effect on people than other violent media.
It's an interesting study, but doesn't condemn video games at all.
AGAIN, a scientific "research" done by a biased group, who would probably rather chisel onto their computer screens rather than use them.
When are we going to see the day that these people look away from a violent persons OUTLETS and start looking at the person? Each person is going to have a unique background, ethnic culture & upbringing, and these are all going to be factors in how a person reacts to violence in a video game. But no, these people have to give results based on a generalised test with random people. We weren't even told about their backgrounds, they could have been prisoners for all we know. I know that's a bit over the top, but my point is that aggressive people are going to react to aggressive things, the game has next to nothing to do with it.
I like how they decided to name it as "Disturbing" when they asked questions directly after the gaming, when the scenarios within the game are still fresh in their mind and obviously going to affect their thinking process. What about giving them a few hours, hey?
I'd probably be inclined to agree with this, had they not already been trying to make us think like this for the last few decades. Next, they'll be waving a cross at GTAV, stating that this is the cause of increased road rage in america. Again, look at the people. Not their outlets.
When are we going to see the day that these people look away from a violent persons OUTLETS and start looking at the person? Each person is going to have a unique background, ethnic culture & upbringing, and these are all going to be factors in how a person reacts to violence in a video game. But no, these people have to give results based on a generalised test with random people. We weren't even told about their backgrounds, they could have been prisoners for all we know. I know that's a bit over the top, but my point is that aggressive people are going to react to aggressive things, the game has next to nothing to do with it.
I like how they decided to name it as "Disturbing" when they asked questions directly after the gaming, when the scenarios within the game are still fresh in their mind and obviously going to affect their thinking process. What about giving them a few hours, hey?
I'd probably be inclined to agree with this, had they not already been trying to make us think like this for the last few decades. Next, they'll be waving a cross at GTAV, stating that this is the cause of increased road rage in america. Again, look at the people. Not their outlets.
One thing people In this medium don't consider is what if they're right? what if people playing violent video games does cause some form of anger/aggregation/violence. We gamers are to quick to stand up and defend our medium, but truthfully there really hasn't been enough research into this area and for people to make sweeping statements such as "this is just another bullshit study" this doesn't encourage them to study further. A good analogy here is with cigarettes, for years people smoked and either Ignored medical research or continued to smoke anyway. I will admit that I am not an expert on any of this research but if you ignore every study that goes against what you want to find then you are no better than fox news.
So much anger. Wow.
The study is a small focus group. The sampling could be bigger. What are the quantitative results? Don't know..I don't want to pay to actually download the study from Scopus. And yes, there are seemingly presumptuous conclusions without basis in the article printed here. But...
Why is it so hard for everyone to believe that video games can affect your behavior? The study doesn't say you are going to act out the things you saw in a violent game. It says there is evidence that they influence behavior. If the study said video games about selfless acts inspire people to volunteer in their community, would there be this uproar of dissent?
Your brain is a very complicated thing. It is influenced by everything you take in and not all of it on a conscious level. Your super-ego is always there, putting the stop limits on your actions and filtering incoming information to fit your belief system. But that underlying id shifts its boundaries around based on the environment it experiences.
For Example: I did a couple long days of Saints Row 3 a while back. Afterwards, I didn't want to whip out The Penetrator for any beatdowns. But I do remember that my driving was actually more reckless for a bit. I pulled into a parking spot way to fast and came really close to the side of another car. That was the way I had been driving for the past few days in game. The reckless driving style was becoming an unconscious competent act (see: The 4 Stages of Learning) and I had to do a conscious mental "reset" to get back into the right mindset. I'm 43. And I slipped into a recent, abnormal behavior during a normal unconscious act. Is the game to blame? Hell no--I am the only one accountable for my actions. But, my short-lived behavior change was a direct result of my gaming experience.
The study is a small focus group. The sampling could be bigger. What are the quantitative results? Don't know..I don't want to pay to actually download the study from Scopus. And yes, there are seemingly presumptuous conclusions without basis in the article printed here. But...
Why is it so hard for everyone to believe that video games can affect your behavior? The study doesn't say you are going to act out the things you saw in a violent game. It says there is evidence that they influence behavior. If the study said video games about selfless acts inspire people to volunteer in their community, would there be this uproar of dissent?
Your brain is a very complicated thing. It is influenced by everything you take in and not all of it on a conscious level. Your super-ego is always there, putting the stop limits on your actions and filtering incoming information to fit your belief system. But that underlying id shifts its boundaries around based on the environment it experiences.
For Example: I did a couple long days of Saints Row 3 a while back. Afterwards, I didn't want to whip out The Penetrator for any beatdowns. But I do remember that my driving was actually more reckless for a bit. I pulled into a parking spot way to fast and came really close to the side of another car. That was the way I had been driving for the past few days in game. The reckless driving style was becoming an unconscious competent act (see: The 4 Stages of Learning) and I had to do a conscious mental "reset" to get back into the right mindset. I'm 43. And I slipped into a recent, abnormal behavior during a normal unconscious act. Is the game to blame? Hell no--I am the only one accountable for my actions. But, my short-lived behavior change was a direct result of my gaming experience.
What a crock of shit I play nothing but violent video games my whole life from Mortal Kombat to Gears of War and I've never hurt anyone who didn't have it coming
No, but the fact that there are large quantities of data means that the accumulative chances of it being faulty fall under the fault margin. Or is scientific consensus something that's now on trial here?DrOswald said:
Sample size is way too small, choosing from university students is not a representative sample, wasn't double blind(which probably means the stories read to the violent games group were read in a more aggressive tone), expectation of violence in media does not equate to expectation of violence in real life, expectation of violence does not equate to violent behavior or tendencies in the subject, this is not even close to being something that you can reasonably draw a conclusion from.
I have a feeling that there's a lot that's not mentioned here OR on the Ohio State site... mostly because Andy lifted the article in its entirety(sans Wikipedia links to most of the games).
Given the fact that more and more people are long term gamers now that when I was a kid leads me to believe that there isn't really a link between even the increased aggression and actual increases in violence.
Given the fact that more and more people are long term gamers now that when I was a kid leads me to believe that there isn't really a link between even the increased aggression and actual increases in violence.
So you're telling me that after playing a war game a work of FICTION, when people were presented with other works of fiction that they referred to the other and most recent work of fiction.
If you've just finished watching 300, and I ask you to think of a color, are you more likely to say florescent pink or crimson red?
I don't see how this proves anything.
If you've just finished watching 300, and I ask you to think of a color, are you more likely to say florescent pink or crimson red?
I don't see how this proves anything.
I've played video games since the Atari 2600. The only offense I've ever committed was a moving violation 20 years ago (and no I don't play racing sims). Either the world is sitting on a powder-keg of violent videogamers ready to go ape-shit at the slightest provocation, or people are just looking for a scapegoat.
I know you gave the disclaimer about the methodology, but i can only speak from personal experience and my post was based on such.Cryo84R said:
Im 20 years playing violent video games. I volunteer at my local search and rescue unit, im a corporal in the army reserve, i do a shit load of charity work as an actor (my main job), the only altercations i have ever been involved in has been to defend someone,and i have no criminal record and one citizenship award
I watch violent movies too.
I pay my taxes, do right by my neighbours, I vote and take a principled stand when i need to.
I also have an MA from a university.
Im not perfect, but i do alright by people. Im certainly no genius, what i have noticed however in my time in university is that Academics will and quite happily shit on anyone and anything if it gets them a thesis.
These guys admitted to a limited scope of study and they found results.... fine. Results are results, but insinuating conclusions out of this is a betrayal of the academic and research principle these guys are hiding behind. From my own perspective and using my own personal experience as a flimsical authority in this matter, i think these guys are not only stretching, but also attention seeking.
Thank you, I'm always effected in my writing by any media I've recently consumed. It is part of the reason why when I sit down to write a particular Genre I put myself on a genre ban of that particular genre.sethisjimmy said:
I don't want my work to seem overly derivative or be overly influenced by other media in that genre. So say I'm writing a fantasy story, I don't play any fantasy games, watch any fantasy movies etc. Because if I do elements of them will find their way into my writing and it will greatly distract me and generally stop my flow.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that having a large amount of bad data does not make it good data.Farther than stars said:
Imagine that 10,000 different experiments are performed. The objective of these experiments are to determine which value is larger: A or B. 9900 of the experiments come to the conclusion that A is larger than B, while only 100 of the experiments state that B is the greater value.
According to your logic the 9900 experiments are more likely to be true, and this is the important part, even if many or most of them can be proven to be experimentally unsound. Simply because there are more of them.
Moving on. After the 10000 experiments are performed and we check the methodology of each, it turns out that 99% of the results favoring A were based on faulty experiments, while only 1% of the results favoring B were based on faulty experiments. This means that there were only 198 valid experiments, with 99 results in favor of A being larger and 99 results in favor of B being larger.
While this is an extreme example, it demonstrates that faulty data (data obtained through flawed experiments) should be ignored entirely. They should have no bearing on our conclusion at all. Valid conclusions can only be drawn from good data, and a valid scientific consensus can only be reached using good data.
Which means that if this is indeed a garbage study, then it should put in the list of experiment to be ignored entirely. It does not matter if that list has 5 items or 1,000,000 items. All of them should be ignored completely.
They must have a TARDIS to be able to see "Long term effects" in a three day span.
Honestly.. what a bunch of rubbish, you can't test the long term effects of ANYTHING in a short period of time, that's completely against the definition of LONG TERM
*looks at captcha*
I'm Batman? well that's one way to calm me down after getting slightly worked up haha
It didn't accept my answer of "This city's full of people, WILLING TO BELIEVE IN GOOD"
I'm sad now.
Honestly.. what a bunch of rubbish, you can't test the long term effects of ANYTHING in a short period of time, that's completely against the definition of LONG TERM
*looks at captcha*
I'm Batman? well that's one way to calm me down after getting slightly worked up haha
It didn't accept my answer of "This city's full of people, WILLING TO BELIEVE IN GOOD"
I'm sad now.