I'm yoinking that term.Agayek said:
OT: Why do we have these threads monthly? Nothing changes from thread to thread.
Researcher Links Violent Video Games To Moral Maturity Development
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT: Why do we have these threads monthly? Nothing changes from thread to thread.
Pretty sure I saw a study a few years back that stated that violent movies and TV are far worse than video games. It all comes down to the movies and TV are very passive acts. A person doesn't have to act or think or do anything and the movie will keep on going. But with a game, if you don't do anything, nothing happens. Plus, there is the whole issue of failing in the game that keeps bringing the player back to reality.blackrave said:
Wish I knew where I had seen that.
And do you think any politician or news anchor who will reference this study will have even bothered to look at the data?CaptainMarvelous said:
Not saying you're wrong, I just expect someone will use this sort of thing as justification without having read it at all.
Guess what my hand puppet has done no deep research at all, and has found that playing violent video games actually makes people more mature and have a deeper moral stature... Where is my million dollar grant for this pointless study?
Halp! Police! I've been robbed!lacktheknack said:
But yea, that always seemed to be the best way to describe (most of) the behavior here. It's basically running away from reality because you don't like the implications of it. 'Cowardice' really does fit better than anything else I can think of.
Some of you people are an absolute joke. You carry on about biased studies and people pushing an agenda, but when a study that says good things about gaming comes up, you consider it the gospel truth. This isn't a flawed study, and it isn't pushing an agenda, but because it doesn't fit in with your perfect image of gaming it's filthy lies made up by ignorant fools to discredit gaming and gamers. Give me a fucking break, it's some data.
The worst part is that you do exactly what the people you complain about do, and that's ignoring studies that don't support your argument. I saw the term 'intellectual cowardice' further up the thread, and it's right on the mark.
The worst part is that you do exactly what the people you complain about do, and that's ignoring studies that don't support your argument. I saw the term 'intellectual cowardice' further up the thread, and it's right on the mark.
Moral maturity and puberty don't mix very well at the best of times anyway. At that age, my friends and I spent our recesses having friendly brawls. We weren't supposed to but the school yard was large and had a small forest that obscured some of the field from the teachers. My SNES time was heavily restricted and monitored so I don't think that factored into it at all.
... Man, that was back in... 1999-2000. Time flies...
... Man, that was back in... 1999-2000. Time flies...
^Angerwing said:
You know, a lot of people on here might be technically right at times, but context can often be just as informative as the actually content. Sure, you can talk about how correlation doesn't equal causation all you want, but that doesn't stop people from flocking to it the second it supports something they agree with.
I specifically said they may not have intended it. It's not intent we're disagreeing on here.Gorrath said:
You've changed the wording in a way that's pretty meaningful to what we disagree on. They didn't say mitigate the findings of the correlation, they said mitigate the effects of the thing they studied. The simple use of the the word effect in that sentence does imply a specific cause and effect relationship that the study does not establish.Gorrath said:
I think I've found the problem. That's not what I'm saying. This isn't a matter of significant flaws in how the research was conducted or even the conclusions. This is a case of, like I was saying, the study finding a correlation, and then the word choice, language, and omission of other possible relations suggesting that that the correlation is tied to one specific cause-effect relationship.Gorrath said:
I'm not trying to dismiss the study, and I'll grant you the details I'm taking about are relatively minor when comparing it to other video game studies, but I wouldn't call it nitpicking for a couple reasons. It shows a bias and inclination towards a specific interpretation of the correlation that may carry over into future research and it's use of language lends support to those who would claim the data proves cause and effect. I don't think taking issue with either of these things is nitpicking.Gorrath said:
Sample size, correlation, etc etc ...
I want to learn a little more about this Sociomoral Reflection Measure. Does anyone here know about this; its reliability, its definition of "morals"?
I want to learn a little more about this Sociomoral Reflection Measure. Does anyone here know about this; its reliability, its definition of "morals"?
when i read the title i thought yeah finally a study confirming my theory. when i read the article im filled with sadness at what they claim. Mature video games INCREASE moral maturity. that is because of a simple fact that people develop by learning. if you learn about mature content you can develop your opinion about it, and morals are PERSONAL OPINIONS. the ONLY way to develop morals is to either experience or spectate the moral questionable content. Everything else is not development but indoctrination.
Indoctrination is a very real problem. It is the reason you have racists that have never seen an actual black person and the like.
Indoctrination is a very real problem. It is the reason you have racists that have never seen an actual black person and the like.
why not? how would playing a violent game for 3 hours stifle your developement? as opposed to, say, walking for 3 hours?Clovus said:
are you implying that 13 year olds cannot be psychologically stable?Clovus said:
Y'know, I shouldn't let these studies affect me too much. They happen all the bloody time, but they make me personally angry.
I've struggled with mental problems for years, some of them violent, and whilst there's a shocking lack of actual treatment available, blowing off steam on a virtual battleground is one of the few things capable of calming me down after a meltdown so I can start thinking rationally again.
These fuckers want to blame videogames when they should be blaming the fact that there's not enough treatment available, and as long as they keep trying, things won't ever change. People like them ain't worth pissing on if they were on fire.
I've struggled with mental problems for years, some of them violent, and whilst there's a shocking lack of actual treatment available, blowing off steam on a virtual battleground is one of the few things capable of calming me down after a meltdown so I can start thinking rationally again.
These fuckers want to blame videogames when they should be blaming the fact that there's not enough treatment available, and as long as they keep trying, things won't ever change. People like them ain't worth pissing on if they were on fire.
Regardless of the game type. 3 hours is pushing the daily average limit. This indicates lack of parental involvement which should already be warning bells for social morality development issues. Before bashing the researcher though it may be a good idea to read the full article:
Follow the source to the source to the full article: The above story is based on materials provided by Taylor & Francis. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
For once I was able to track down the original publication. Already picked up that only 8% of the survey admitted to playing 3 or more hours. The top game, you guessed it, Call of Duty, which I think even for an adult is shallow gun toting fan service. Surprised to see Super Mario series come in a close second and GTA came 3rd.
Looking closer at the stats it seems that modern parents aren't doing such a bad job as the percentage of violent unattended children is in the minority. It's not all gloom and doom people.
Correction: NHL came 3rd.
Follow the source to the source to the full article: The above story is based on materials provided by Taylor & Francis. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
For once I was able to track down the original publication. Already picked up that only 8% of the survey admitted to playing 3 or more hours. The top game, you guessed it, Call of Duty, which I think even for an adult is shallow gun toting fan service. Surprised to see Super Mario series come in a close second and GTA came 3rd.
Looking closer at the stats it seems that modern parents aren't doing such a bad job as the percentage of violent unattended children is in the minority. It's not all gloom and doom people.
Correction: NHL came 3rd.
Wait, we need to know more. For starters what violent games? Mario murders things by jumping on their heads and crushing them; does that count as violent?
That said we can all probably guess that we're probably talking the typical CoD stuff, and to that I point out that (in my country at least) 8th grade is below the PEGI age rating for all CoD games (most of which have an 18+ certificate, 1 or 2 have are 16+). So seeing as the video game community & industry has already labelled these games as unsuitable for 13 year olds, what exactly was the point of this study?
Additional: The article on this in the source is shockingly poor.
That said we can all probably guess that we're probably talking the typical CoD stuff, and to that I point out that (in my country at least) 8th grade is below the PEGI age rating for all CoD games (most of which have an 18+ certificate, 1 or 2 have are 16+). So seeing as the video game community & industry has already labelled these games as unsuitable for 13 year olds, what exactly was the point of this study?
Additional: The article on this in the source is shockingly poor.
I came into the comments to query this because, yeah, my limited stats knowledge (I did stats 108, makes me a pro, I know) was at odds with OP's article. 109 kids seemed like a reasonable sample size. It'd be nice to get a link to the actual study though, you're absolutely right.Requia said:
It's difficult to tell with the correlation =/= causation stick. It is overused on the internet to handwave stats, but I'm not sure if it's entirely invalid in this case, although you didn't necessarily suggest that it was. It could simply be that children who happen to be morally underdeveloped (whatever that means) are more likely to enjoy and play violent video games.
Edit:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09523987.2013.836367
I do not even read these things anymore. This week some team that was paid to be against video game will release a study. Next week a team that was paid to be FOR a study will release a report that says the exact OPPOSITE. How about this, make your own mind up about what violence in games does and tell the reports to screw off.
See I had the exact opposite thought. When I was playing the first Dawn of War, I had this epic 8 hour battle as tau vs IG and it was the single most bloody grueling fight in my gaming experience. I had like war flashbacks at night anyway that got me to thinking about World War I and if anyone ever really studies that war, you can't come back as anything but a pacifist assuming you're not a psychopath.