Study About 'Sexist Games' is Severely Flawed

[FalloutJack]

Big sigh.

It's always the same thing. 'Gaming causes violence!' 'Gaming causes sexism!' 'Gaming causes chest-bursters!'

Uhh...wait. No, scratch that last one.


There are no chest-bursters on planet Earth. Have a nice day.

ANYWAY! They never know what they're talking about, the study is skewed to make the result look positive in their favor, so why bother? It's always been bogus, from the very first paranoid ideas about television to now. Why bother?

 

[wulf3n]

Here's the "why" then.
BECAUSE making a product that is good is a good thing.

"good" is rather nebulous term. What defines good? good to whom? What a publisher defines as good, isn't necessarily what the you or I might define as good.

If you want to still be theoretical we could rather turn this discussion in "WHY should a man behave good if he could entirely get away unpunished with being evil?". Which perhaps might be the same question, although in a much greater scope.

As the old saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Man, that's so cute that you think this way. So naive, so optimistic.

I suggest you experience people. People in general. Not your friends, not your selected crew, but people.

You'll find out stupid people like stupid things.

It wasn't a question about the existence of stupid people or their propensity to like "stupid" things, but rather their ability, or more specifically lack of inability, to purchase and consume media.

If your earlier assertions are correct, The majority of people are stupid and stupid people like stupid things, then it stands to reason that the majority of games will be stupid.

 

[someguy1231]

See, this is why Anita Sarkeesian gets compared to Jack Thompson. They're both making emotional judgements that aren't backed up by science.

 

[renegade7]

Study About 'Sexist Games' is Severely Flawed

A new study claims to have found a correlation between "sexist" video games and a lack of empathy. But there are some issues.

Read Full Article

More like "another week, another video game site completely misinterprets the results and purpose of a video game related study". Did you even read the abstract? The conclusion was only valid for study participants who held "strong masculine beliefs", which was what the study was investigating in the first place.

So it's not "video games cause sexism". It's "people who play video games and who already hold sexist beliefs may find those beliefs to be reinforced by the experience of playing the video game", which really should seem like a "duh" kind of conclusion. People who already have sexist attitudes and issues with empathy towards women can, in some video game situations, find an environment that encourages their behavior. If you actually read the study (the horror, I know, but some of us have to deal with that kind of thing every day) you'll find that the majority of participants were unaffected, with the purpose of the study in the first place being to identify which participants were more strongly affected and why.

In conclusion:

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I know for a fact that a well made "shopping simulator-esc" game would sell gang busters.

Because, for years, the best selling game for PC was The Sims. A game where you go to work, buy stuff, play on the PC while your baby is on fire, then drown after the ladder to your swimming pool mysteriously disappeared.

Good times.

 

[sumanoskae]

Weeeeeeeeell, except that's not what the study said or did.

This is the problem. There's two debates going on. One among academics and one among gamers. Whenever one of these studies comes out, it's a case of gamers and/or the gaming press turning them into "games make you murderers/rapists!" and then railing against that strawman and it never seems to end. No matter how reasonable or uncontroversial such a study is, it sparks "controversy" if it finds anything even potentially negative about gaming.

Which is weird, because we as a whole seem to intuitively understand things like cultivation theory are real when it's media depicting gaming in a negative light. Suddenly, such depictions are biased and poison the mainstream against us. This study and its coverage will probably be used as exactly such an example thousands of times.

Um, have YOU read the study; I have, and that's exactly what it claims to evidence.

"Results support the prediction that playing violent-sexist video games increases masculine beliefs and decreases empathy for female violence victims, especially for boys and young men who highly identified with the male game character. Previous research has shown that video games are especially likely to increase aggression among players who identify with violent game characters, and that a reduced empathy is one of the major predictor for aggression against women."

And there's a hell of a lot more to these studies than the reductive argument that's being made against them. Hell, I'm not even sure where the "therefore, rapist" mentality comes from. I'm not sure why it's wrong for this hypothetical/fictional other group to overly simplify things, but it's absolutely fine to reduce a study on decreased empathy response among people who view sexualised media (neither new nor controversial in academic or scientific circles) into this crusade against video games. That this specific study charts a correlation between identification with the protagonist and lack of empathy still doesn't even come close to My 2 cents: You're gonna, what, do a survey on somebody and use that as a metric to predict their capacity for sexual violence?

They might full well see a problem with that logic, because it's not theirs. However, that's the problem: since they never said any of this, there's no way to know. And since they're not going to post here, asking loaded questions is even less helpful. They might even agree that there's more to the psychology of a rapist, but then, they never address that issue, either.

I'm wondering how many of the people outraged here have actually read the study. Or so much as looked at the abstract.

Or did they just Listen and Believe when they were told they should be outraged at this study because it says...I don't know, the claims have become so distorted it's hard to keep track.

There is nothing to simplify; the test was lacking in nuance. Let's be real; these kids were asked to play a game for a total of 30 minutes, shown a couple of photographs, and then given a survey. Are these people really trying to argue that a person's beliefs can be in any significant way affected by playing GTA for 30 minutes? That's fucking insane!

Were they expecting a person to enter the room with the opinion that it is immoral to pressure a woman into sex, and then after shooting up some virtual gangsters and encountering some hookers, they suddenly alter their belief system about this completely separate situation? Hell, did they even bother to look into the player's beliefs PRIOR to playing the game?

Calling this method "Scientific" is an insult to science.

More importantly, how is flashing someone violent photography a remotely reliable method for predicting their empathy? At best, you have proven that being exposed to violent imagery... makes you less sensitive to violent imagery. There is a WORLD of difference between being involved with violence and seeing it second hand, as any number of war veterans will tell you.

Why does the gaming community get upset about studies like this? Because they're disrespectful of the medium.

"This investigation of virtual representations of males and females in video games is extremely relevant, because video games have distinct features compared to other forms of media and different effects on males and females. Unlike images in traditional media, game characters are designed to respond to a user?s actions [39], which can promote a powerful experience that goes beyond passive media consumption. Often these interactions mirror communication in the physical world, and users often react to virtual situations in natural and social ways."

This is another one of my favorite parts. Because, you know, I'm sure all those kids frequently went on ballistic rampages through the city and participated in the criminal underworld on a regular basis, with no fear of repercussion since, as we all know, when you die you just sort of appear in front of a hospital with a chunk taken out of your bank account. Where did this idea come from? It's fallacy is almost self-evident!

I don't appreciate the flagrant misrepresentation of the GTA series; Nico, for example, is neither disrespectful of women nor is he indiscriminately violent without the player's input. The characterization of the GTA series as nothing more than "Murder simulators" shows a profound lack of nuance in the tester's understanding of the game and the medium as a whole. You wouldn't conduct a study on the effects of film without consulting and respecting the opinions of film makers.

No other medium endures the constant scrutiny by those ignorant of it's techniques. And people wonder why gamers are so defensive...

 

[Something Amyss]

Um, have YOU read the study; I have, and that's exactly what it claims to evidence.

"Results support the prediction that playing violent-sexist video games increases masculine beliefs and decreases empathy for female violence victims, especially for boys and young men who highly identified with the male game character. Previous research has shown that video games are especially likely to increase aggression among players who identify with violent game characters, and that a reduced empathy is one of the major predictor for aggression against women."

Aside from saying it's one of the major predictors, it doesn't actually say sexual violence. It says, you know...aggression. So no, it's not exactly what it claims to evidence. Not as long as you're concerned with being factually accurate, anyway. It's not suggesting using this to predict capacity fir sexual violence (at best, it would be one tool, but even that's drawing extra inference), it doesn't address a causal link between sexual violence specifically and decreased empathy, etc.

 

[Strazdas]

Also no, you said doctors, implying medical professionals. in this very post i quoted even.

So you're just going to straight up ignore the fact that I proved you wrong in this?
You could have made yourself look like a resaonble mature person by admitting that you were hasty in making a claim about what I said and that you stand corrected, but sure, intellectual discussions are overrated.

please refer to this post of yours:

some doctors also have homeopathic background and offer homeopathic treatment and claims it's better than conventional medicine.

emphasis mine.


As for why i didnt respond, i felt i had nothing further to add to the conversation and did not want to derail the thread further.

 

[Yopaz]

Also no, you said doctors, implying medical professionals. in this very post i quoted even.

So you're just going to straight up ignore the fact that I proved you wrong in this?
You could have made yourself look like a resaonble mature person by admitting that you were hasty in making a claim about what I said and that you stand corrected, but sure, intellectual discussions are overrated.

please refer to this post of yours:

some doctors also have homeopathic background and offer homeopathic treatment and claims it's better than conventional medicine.

emphasis mine.


As for why i didnt respond, i felt i had nothing further to add to the conversation and did not want to derail the thread further.

That post was written as a response to the one you quoted, so it was actually written after you said I mentioned doctors. Let me quote that post in its entirety for you:

Im not aware of anyone in the medical field that actually supports these homeopathy studies. heck, most of the studies used by homeopaths themselves claim that the author did not found a link between homeopathy and medicine.

So you are claiming to be an expert in behavioural studies now? I never claimed medical experts disasgree on homeopathy, although plenty of them do in fact believe in homeopathy and some doctors also have homeopathic background and offer homeopathic treatment and claims it's better than conventional medicine. I said people. As in non-experts. That includes the author of this article who clearly doesn't grasp the statistics behind choosing a sample size and it includes me as I am mainly concerned about inflammation.

I what now? I said im not aware of a medical expert supporting homeopathy, not that im an expert in behavioral studies. I am actually an expert in statistics though, and can recognize bad ones in this case.

Also no, you said doctors, implying medical professionals. in this very post i quoted even.

This is the part of my post that you quoted in its entirety:

Did you know that 50% of the articles published in Nature in neurobiology has been shown to be incorrect in their analysis and should be retracted? That one third of publications in life science in general can not be replicated by independent laboratories? Why aren't there articles on that? Shoddy science happens in every field, it's a huge problem, but every single article doesn't require a long article which (poorly) picks it apart. The peer review system needs to improve and all journals need to agree on certain standards.

Why are we so set on debunking this study? Because we disagree with it. Sadly that's what science is facing across the board. Studies showing that homeopathy doesn't work in double blind trials is met with the same type of arguments as come up whenever someone says anything bad about video games.

I mentioned doctors exactly zero times. Why do you lie and say that I said doctors?
Also how did you get to the part about medical professionals arguing homeopathy? I said that whenever a study finds something bad about video games we are quick to start arguing. YOU drew the connection between this article and this thread and medical professionals, not I.

I believe its a duty of every person that wants rational mind and intelligence to prevail to oppose falsehoods, including those presented in badly done "scientific" studies.

Calling this article rational is a falsehood. It is loaded with plenty of personal bias mirroring the original study. We don't need more of that.

Adding an additional story here does not make the site loose anything

Things lost when I read this:
1. Credibility in unbiased reporting on this site.
2. A desire to read future articles form this contributor.
3. Any belief that this site has standards higher than any tabloid newspaper.
If you want this site to be a circle jerk of your own opinions I see why you think that nothing is lost. If you want quality reporting or at least wit then you'd see the loss.

Seriously, why do you lie? Can't you simply admit that you made a mistake? This very quote shows that the part you quoted (cherry picked) comes after you said I mentioned doctors. You are welcome to flag my post again, but remember, I am not accusing you of lying, I am proving that you've lied twice.

[
I believe its a duty of every person that wants rational mind and intelligence to prevail to oppose falsehoods, including those presented in badly done "scientific" studies.

You do see the irony of the fact that you said this in the very same post where you had false information in your own post, right? I pointed out your falsehood and someone gave me a warning for it. Then you go on and keep spreading falsehoods rather than admitting that you were wrong.

 

[Yopaz]

Also no, you said doctors, implying medical professionals. in this very post i quoted even.

So you're just going to straight up ignore the fact that I proved you wrong in this?
You could have made yourself look like a resaonble mature person by admitting that you were hasty in making a claim about what I said and that you stand corrected, but sure, intellectual discussions are overrated.

please refer to this post of yours:

some doctors also have homeopathic background and offer homeopathic treatment and claims it's better than conventional medicine.

emphasis mine.


As for why i didnt respond, i felt i had nothing further to add to the conversation and did not want to derail the thread further.

So after you just straight up lied and was caught and you refuse tyo admit it.

I believe its a duty of every person that wants rational mind and intelligence to prevail to oppose falsehoods, including those presented in badly done "scientific" studies.

You said this. Yet you create falsehoods in this thread.

 

[Strazdas]

Sigh, i see you are riled up about this. Lets recap:

I said i dont know medical professionals (didnt say doctors) supporting homeopathy in response to you claiming research being inconclusive.
After that you responded to me, while using the term doctors in your response.
I pointed out that, even in that response supposedly calling me out (ironically, for something i never said), you used the term you are looking for.
Apparently, im a liar now.

Edit: formatting.

 

[Yopaz]

Sigh, i see you are riled up about this. Lets recap:

Without including anything I said, making this all your claims.

I said i dont know medical professionals (didnt say doctors) supporting homeopathy

That you did, I agree.

in response to you claiming research being inconclusive.

No, research on homeopathy is quite conclusive, which is why I used it as an example. I said that PEOPLE (not medical professionals, not doctors, not researches) will argue it regardless of how well a study is conducted.

After that you responded to me, while using the term doctors in your response.

Yes, after you brought up medical professionals I mentioned that a few doctors use homeopathy. I did not however bring up medical professionals first, which is what I have been saying all along. I said PEOPLE (not medical professionals, not doctors, not researchers).

I pointed out that, even in that response supposedly calling me out (ironically, for something i never said), you used the term you are looking for.

Not saying I never used it, just saying I wasn't the one to first bring it up.

Apparently, im a liar now.

Well, yes. You could have looked over your post and said "OK, I admit I misunderstood, no biggie", but you chose to quote me out of context to prove your point and refuse to actually go back to your initial post. I have made mistakes like that numerous times when I get riled up and admitting them doesn't make me feel stupid. I make mistakes and I can admit that. You made a mistake and would rather quote me out of context and ignore me than do that.

I'll stop bothering you now. You can keep your illusion that you are right since it apparantly means a lot to you even when I have proven you wrong several times.

 

[Fallow]

This is quite literately the whole "Video games cause violence" shit all over again with a new coat of paint. Thank you millennial hipsters for having to make gamers go though this shit all over again.

The thing is though that it is well established that fictional violence (whatever in games or movies) desensitizes people to violence in the short term. This is nothing new. The more important, and as yet unanswered, questions are if there is a long term effect and if people are more prone to act in an aggressive manner after being desensitized by media.

It is not moral hysteria to report on actual scientific findings, especially not findings that are in line with prior research.

This is the thing I do not understand.

The study says "desensitized" when the GTA players looked at an abused woman, but what does that mean? Given the experiment it seems far more likely (and also in line with studies on many many many different topics) that playing a 'violent as all hell' game (much like being in an active combat scenario) provides perspective. I.e. the players aren't desensitized to the abused woman, but rather they see her "not so bad" after playing through a game where people get blown to bits right and left, which is far worse than being abused.

Consider the following: When you were young, scraping your knee or getting stung by a bee was an end-of-the-world scenario because it hurt worse than anything you had experienced before. Nowadays, cutting your finger when preparing a salad or getting stung is an annoyance at worst. Perspective is important since we don't have absolute values to attach to our experiences, and while you are immersed in a game you apply the perspective from that game (which means that violent death is a common occurrence, something that rarely holds in our day-to-day life).

I do not think they are "desensitized" at all, but rather they are using the perspective, the "grading scale" if you will, that has far worse events on the upper end.


This could probably be tested for in a study, but I'm not sure how one should design it yet.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

This is the thing I do not understand.

The study says "desensitized" when the GTA players looked at an abused woman, but what does that mean? Given the experiment it seems far more likely (and also in line with studies on many many many different topics) that playing a 'violent as all hell' game (much like being in an active combat scenario) provides perspective. I.e. the players aren't desensitized to the abused woman, but rather they see her "not so bad" after playing through a game where people get blown to bits right and left, which is far worse than being abused.

Consider the following: When you were young, scraping your knee or getting stung by a bee was an end-of-the-world scenario because it hurt worse than anything you had experienced before. Nowadays, cutting your finger when preparing a salad or getting stung is an annoyance at worst. Perspective is important since we don't have absolute values to attach to our experiences, and while you are immersed in a game you apply the perspective from that game (which means that violent death is a common occurrence, something that rarely holds in our day-to-day life).

I do not think they are "desensitized" at all, but rather they are using the perspective, the "grading scale" if you will, that has far worse events on the upper end.


This could probably be tested for in a study, but I'm not sure how one should design it yet.

Not really. Desensitized in this scenario means they answered lower on questions relating to empathy and sympathy towards the woman. Being desensitized in the way you suggest does not affect empathy or sympathy in these studies, because someone who has seen a lot of suffering can still empathize with "less" suffering to the same degree (ie. acknowledge that the woman suffers) as before. As an example, I meet people with severe mental illness and all the associated problems (social, economical, personal etc.) daily, yet me and my colleagues feel a high degree of empathy and sympathy towards them, even if we have met a lot of people that has had it worse.

The fact that earlier studies along these lines show that those who played violent games were more likely to assign blame to the woman for having been battered (agreeing with statements like "she had done something to deserve the beating"), suggests that it has nothing to do with "perspective" and everything to do with good old fashioned desensitization. After having played a game where you kill women for no reason you don't gain some magic "perspective" out of it, your brain is just temporarily wired to not think of violent assault as particularly bad.

 

[Naldan]

From what I've learned in videogames, and especially from those criticizing them, is that this comic strip is inherently sexist and racist because the creators chose a woman to tell bullshit and a latino-looking person being dirty and dressed rather unprofessionally.

What is that? That is only my perception? I don't need to proof anything. I bet there are a lot of scientific studies done to support my superior position.

And also, there are definitely articles who just report on these studies. Go to Wikipedia. They only need 2 sources to back up a claim, I bet I'm going to be right then.

What? Wikipedia isn't important for the perception of any topic for all people remotely having access to the internet?

Fine, then leave the reporting of the matter at hand to the journalists. I bet neutral reporting on something extremely flawed with the glitter of "Scientific" is ethical and true to the craft of journalism as f-.

---

Sarcasm aside, it's nice to know how unsexist the community at large is. (In my opinion) If people wouldn't be so struck with fear of being called a sexist, they wouldn't defend this kind of behaviour by the other journalists and wouldn't attack the author of this article for challenging the narrative. Even if they should have transfered their expertise from the "Violence in Videogames" era and identify these tactics correctly.

My points above reflected more clear:

- That is the worst strip from Cory and Grey I've ever seen and my sarcasm and former leftism&marxism&feminism haven't even kicked in
- The study is so biased that it's leaking out of my monitor
- Wikipedia is flawed and the "reports" are being used for intentional induction of bias in articles specific editors don't like/want to change
- Wikipedia has helped thousands of students to their degree. How can you not see that? And you defend these kind of studies? This kind of abuse of glamour and power of the "scientific" society, where anybody can make up with the help of some professors and a lot of money, needs to be fought in cases as clear as this. What a disgrace. And only because renowned publications have a fail-rate of 50% (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) doesn't make it better
- People actually still read mainstream media. With the glitter of science sprayed over the dung, it even gets extra traction

Oh well.

 

[sumanoskae]

Um, have YOU read the study; I have, and that's exactly what it claims to evidence.

"Results support the prediction that playing violent-sexist video games increases masculine beliefs and decreases empathy for female violence victims, especially for boys and young men who highly identified with the male game character. Previous research has shown that video games are especially likely to increase aggression among players who identify with violent game characters, and that a reduced empathy is one of the major predictor for aggression against women."

Aside from saying it's one of the major predictors, it doesn't actually say sexual violence. It says, you know...aggression. So no, it's not exactly what it claims to evidence. Not as long as you're concerned with being factually accurate, anyway. It's not suggesting using this to predict capacity fir sexual violence (at best, it would be one tool, but even that's drawing extra inference), it doesn't address a causal link between sexual violence specifically and decreased empathy, etc.

I am honest to God struggling to come up with a way to explain this more simply.

Video games > Reduced empathy
Reduced empathy > Aggression against women

I mean Jesus Christ, what other conclusion are you expecting me to draw? Are you going to start arguing that 1 + 1 = 7 next?

What else are the statements "Reduced empathy is one of the major predictor for aggression against women", and "Decreases empathy for female violence victims" supposed to imply? You think by "Aggression" they mean, what, cat calling?

You complained that gamer's confound facts in order to support a victim narrative, but you're over here willfully ignoring the words of the study you're trying to defend.

 

[renegade7]

From what I've learned in videogames, and especially from those criticizing them, is that this comic strip is inherently sexist and racist because the creators chose a woman to tell bullshit and a latino-looking person being dirty and dressed rather unprofessionally.

What is that? That is only my perception? I don't need to proof anything. I bet there are a lot of scientific studies done to support my superior position.

And also, there are definitely articles who just report on these studies. Go to Wikipedia. They only need 2 sources to back up a claim, I bet I'm going to be right then.

What? Wikipedia isn't important for the perception of any topic for all people remotely having access to the internet?

Fine, then leave the reporting of the matter at hand to the journalists. I bet neutral reporting on something extremely flawed with the glitter of "Scientific" is ethical and true to the craft of journalism as f-.

---

So if I understand this properly, you're saying that we need to fight shitty, biased, reactionary journalism written by people with no understanding of the subject with more shitty, biased, reactionary journalism, written by people with no understanding of the subject?

I know, probably better than anyone here, the extent to which popular science reporters can fail to properly understand what they're writing about. The solution to this is not play their game, hushing up or going into full-on defensive mode any time an inconvenient result is found, and it's not to attack the competence of the researchers or the integrity of the results, otherwise you're no better than nutjobs like Ken Ham. Rather, the solution is to emphasize that:

-Moral judgments, normative social arguments, and policy recommendations should not be drawn from single studies

-Most psychological and sociological studies are limited in scope to a particular set of circumstances, and studies in those areas never make the claim that influence X universally directly causes behavior Y

-Initial studies like this one report only on correlation, not on causation, and the studies make no pretense of claiming causation

-The abstract of the study is made readily available and should always be read first

And what really irritates me about how bad the Escapist's reporting here was is the fact that they didn't even bother to reach out to the researchers and ask them to discuss their results.

If that kind of diligence had been given, it would have been more clearly understood that this study actually weakens the claim that "violent video games cause violence" by, first, giving an example of how susceptibility to desensitization is variable based on individual characteristics of players and secondly by showing that only a small minority of players, most of whom had pretty clear predispositions towards aggression to begin with, showed enough desensitization to cause concern.

- The study is so biased that it's leaking out of my monitor

Really, which part of it? Here's the paper, in full, in case you need to look through it again: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0152121#sec008

- Wikipedia has helped thousands of students to their degree. How can you not see that?

First, where exactly was I talking about Wikipedia?

Second, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a teaching resource. Encyclopedia articles are written by and for people who already have a high level of background understanding of the material, they will not introduce a person to a subject or give you the kind of information you'd need to get by in college courses.

And you defend these kind of studies?

I don't "defend" studies, I only point out that denial and accusations of conspiracy are not productive ways to engage with a scientific result, even if that result is uncomfortable or inconvenient. As a researcher myself, I can attest to the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists are acting in good faith, and that regardless we have basically nothing to gain from conspiring in the ways we usually are accused of.

Or am I just in on the conspiracy?

This kind of abuse of glamour and power of the "scientific" society,

Oh, that is just rich. "Glamour and power"? I'd like to know where scientists are being given glamorous and powerful lives, maybe they're accepting applications.

where anybody can make up with the help of some professors and a lot of money, needs to be fought in cases as clear as this.

You mean cases where someone spent a lot of money bribing a group of psychologists to fabricate a study designed to contribute to the brainwashing of society into thinking that some sexist people sometimes become more sexist when they're given an opportunity to act sexist?

Forgive me if that seems far fetched. But then again, if I was in on the conspiracy, that's exactly what I'd want you to think, isn't it?

I'd go into more detail, but I have to start getting ready for work, and it takes so long to get into my human disguise in a way that convincingly hides my reptilian features.

What a disgrace. And only because renowned publications have a fail-rate of 50% (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) doesn't make it better

 

[Naldan]

So if I understand this properly, you're saying that we need to fight shitty, biased, reactionary journalism written by people with no understanding of the subject with more shitty, biased, reactionary journalism, written by people with no understanding of the subject?

I know, probably better than anyone here, the extent to which popular science reporters can fail to properly understand what they're writing about. The solution to this is not play their game, hushing up or going into full-on defensive mode any time an inconvenient result is found, and it's not to attack the competence of the researchers or the integrity of the results, otherwise you're no better than nutjobs like Ken Ham. Rather, the solution is to emphasize that:

-Moral judgments, normative social arguments, and policy recommendations should not be drawn from single studies

-Most psychological and sociological studies are limited in scope to a particular set of circumstances, and studies in those areas never make the claim that influence X universally directly causes behavior Y

-Initial studies like this one report only on correlation, not on causation, and the studies make no pretense of claiming causation

-The abstract of the study is made readily available and should always be read first

That sounds pretty reasonable. Though, I find your point: "he solution to this is not play their game, hushing up or going into full-on defensive mode any time an inconvenient result is found, and it's not to attack the competence of the researchers or the integrity of the results," way too naive. It's been proven to me again and again, especially in my political spheres and from my own party, that non-discussion or no arguments make it worse.

And what really irritates me about how bad the Escapist's reporting here was is the fact that they didn't even bother to reach out to the researchers and ask them to discuss their results.

If that kind of diligence had been given, it would have been more clearly understood that this study actually weakens the claim that "violent video games cause violence" by, first, giving an example of how susceptibility to desensitization is variable based on individual characteristics of players and secondly by showing that only a small minority of players, most of whom had pretty clear predispositions towards aggression to begin with, showed enough desensitization to cause concern.

I agree that Lizzy should have had the decency to reach out to the authors of the study. But please explain to me why this is fanfared as proof of building misogyny in gamers through video games when it was so cut and dry.

Really, which part of it? Here's the paper, in full, in case you need to look through it again: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0152121#sec008

I make no promises but I might later if you care at all.

- Wikipedia has helped thousands of students to their degree. How can you not see that?

First, where exactly was I talking about Wikipedia?

What makes you believe that I was talking specifically to/about you?

Second, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a teaching resource. Encyclopedia articles are written by and for people who already have a high level of background understanding of the material, they will not introduce a person to a subject or give you the kind of information you'd need to get by in college courses.

That opinion is true and should be the case. Fact of the matter is that your opinion is out of this world, far from any reality. I am in school and have been for 16 years in total. The majority of my friends have a degree, one in Informatik Bachelor of Science, one specialized in the economy sector of informatics (don't know the exact name for an accurate translation right now), and one is trying something in mechanics. Wikipedia was a major source to them for information, sometimes as a summary of a certain part in a specific book to quickly mark them as a credible source - with success. All my more recent "class mates" have used Wikipedia, the teachers in recent years allowed Wikipedia to be a source by itself, further increasing its credibility as an independant institution. The meme to cite Wikipedia as a source didn't come off as a joke, at least nowadays it isn't.

But maybe that's totally different in the US.

You can argue if this is good or bad, and I would probably (at least when concluding your statements) agree with you. But it simply isn't the reality. Wikipedia is actively shaping opinions.

I don't "defend" studies, I only point out that denial and accusations of conspiracy are not productive ways to engage with a scientific result, even if that result is uncomfortable or inconvenient. As a researcher myself, I can attest to the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists are acting in good faith, and that regardless we have basically nothing to gain from conspiring in the ways we usually are accused of.

Or am I just in on the conspiracy?

Institutes don't get funded privately? And you've never seen faulty, finished, published results?

Oh, that is just rich. "Glamour and power"? I'd like to know where scientists are being given glamorous and powerful lives, maybe they're accepting applications.

I'd suggest that you take this less personal. Maybe you haven't experienced it, but if people read "scientists have found out that", they usually tend to believe what is written next. I don't mean a researcher's live is glamorous, I mean that to the general public, you know, those whose opinion publications tend to want, scientists have a certain authority.

With this point in particular, I meant that publications abuse the supposed prestige.

You mean cases where someone spent a lot of money bribing a group of psychologists to fabricate a study designed to contribute to the brainwashing of society into thinking

As an example:


That is what in most Social Justice courses throughout the US happens, except that

that some sexist people sometimes become more sexist when they're given an opportunity to act sexist?

Wouldn't make much sense since this is not where the misuse stems from. Do you believe in The White, Cis-Shet, Capitalistic Patriarchy?

Just an example.

Forgive me if that seems far fetched. But then again, if I was in on the conspiracy, that's exactly what I'd want you to think, isn't it?

Do you feel insulted personally?

I'd go into more detail, but I have to start getting ready for work, and it takes so long to get into my human disguise in a way that convincingly hides my reptilian features.

You at least act as you were part of a collective, taking any insult personally and compensating with sarcastic remarks. Why? I maybe failed to make clear who misused what and who I deem absolutely nefarious instead of just corrupt. Hopefully, this makes more sense to you. I don't know you, or were you part of this publication? Gee, man. I fight for bigger science funding. I simply can't trust anyone, after so many bogus publications, that accepts a high amount of private funding, especially when I know who funded what (WHICH I DON'T KNOW HERE, SO DON'T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS) and then see a suspect publication again.

What a disgrace. And only because renowned publications have a fail-rate of 50% (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) doesn't make it better

Did you know that 50% of the articles published in Nature in neurobiology has been shown to be incorrect in their analysis and should be retracted? That one third of publications in life science in general can not be replicated by independent laboratories? Why aren't there articles on that? Shoddy science happens in every field, it's a huge problem, but every single article doesn't require a long article which (poorly) picks it apart. The peer review system needs to improve and all journals need to agree on certain standards.

 

[Yopaz]

Did you know that 50% of the articles published in Nature in neurobiology has been shown to be incorrect in their analysis and should be retracted? That one third of publications in life science in general can not be replicated by independent laboratories? Why aren't there articles on that? Shoddy science happens in every field, it's a huge problem, but every single article doesn't require a long article which (poorly) picks it apart. The peer review system needs to improve and all journals need to agree on certain standards.

Not sure why you quoted me without saying anything directed to my post so I'll just guess it's about verifying my claim.
http://www.nature.com/news/reproducibility-1.17552
A Nature special actually takes up the problems featuring several artciles published in Nature. Yes, the problem is big enough that Nature made an issue specifically for reproducibility and sloppiness in science.

This is the article concerning neuroscience in specific http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v14/n5/full/nrn3475.html
Another example is this one: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v14/n9/full/nn.2886.html
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep01102
Moving out of articles published in Nature Neurology we have even worse statistics http://www.jove.com/blog/2012/05/03/studies-show-only-10-of-published-science-articles-are-reproducible-what-is-happening
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4260475/

Sure, we should confront bad science when it occurs, but we should make sure to do a good job of it. One of the articles I linked to actually took up sample size just like the one posted here. The difference is that the author actually demonstrates why the sample size is insufficient rather than going by a gut feel.

The original article claiming gaming causes sexism is bullshit because their study design contains severe flaws. This article criticizing it contains severe flaws. I am not going to support this one just because it supports what I want to be true.