Study Claims Anti-Game Research More Reliable
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Except it's not really that one side is qualified and the other isn't. They are trying to say that because they have more people that implies that their 'truth' is better then another one and that their 'experts' are more qualified because of that 'truth'. So basically it's they are better because there are more of them and they are on the same side of the fence as you. Not you specifically of course.Generic Gamer said:
Gamers need to take off the blinders and realize that OF COURSE violent games can cause a behavior change in its consumers, its common sense that it would. Sure we haven't raised one child in a test tube, raised its clone in another test tube, and had the ONLY difference between them be whether they played Halo vs watched Barney and Friends, but that's a higher standard than can be feasibly met. If you ask for that, you'll never be able to admit to learning anything about the world. Science is a set of things we probably know to be true, not a set of 100% no doubt cause-and-effects. Besides, if your games DIDN'T have the potential to effect you, I'd call that pretty shitty "art", as good art SHOULD change its viewer.Greg Tito said:
Note that I still support private regulation of the videogame ratings industry, since games should still be considered free speech, just like movies and books, etc. Being art and causing violence are not mutually exclusive. Just look at the guy who burned the Korans. Obviously cause violence, but I would never in a million years suggest that he should be prevented from doing so, as he was making a political statement, a right that should be protected at all costs. Let people who actually DO violence pay for their actions, not those they blame for it.
Congrats to those of you who read my whole post instead of reading the first few lines and then flaming me.
BTW people: you don't "fund an anti-gaming study", you fund a gaming study, and then see which way the results go. If you think science is THAT biased, again, we can never truly learn anything from anyone.
Don't care about the quality of the studies, neither side has been able to produce definitive evidence either way, so the question is unresolved.
But this is really simple, if making 'crush videos' and protesting soldiers funerals are protected under free speech (as the court has already ruled), so are video games, end of....
But this is really simple, if making 'crush videos' and protesting soldiers funerals are protected under free speech (as the court has already ruled), so are video games, end of....
The Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life so their decision will have no effect, what so ever, on whether or not they keep their jobs. There will be some political pressure, don't get me wrong. The point is the Supreme Court is the last place where popularity does not always win.Lawyer105 said:
Now that's a backwards way of proving something. In my day, you made whatever claim you wanted, fought a bear while naked, and if you won you were given an official Certificate of Mother-fucking Science and everything you said was true. Nobel Prizes were awarded to those with the fastest times.
The Supreme Court ruled that the WBC has the right to spew it's hate speech within earshot of grieving families under the first amendment.(an act that we have immediate proof of the harm it causes to their targets) If they turn around and say games aren't protected by the first amendment...I'm moving to Canada.
True, but they could be overlooking benefits of gaming like increased skills (hand-eye coordination) or social skills like cooperating on a mission. Focusing primarily on violence in itself is somewhat biased because it excludes the bigger picture of gaming's impact. The primary question is "Does gaming cause a negative behavior?" and rarely ask "Does gaming cause positive behavior?" If there is enough research to definitively answer BOTH questions - specifically "yes" to the former and "no" to the latter - then gaming does indeed hold no artistic or social value and a better argument, I feel, can be made for it's regulation.Generic Gamer said:
A lot of "violent game" studies (most that I've seen anyway) are set out from the start to try to prove that violent games affect kids, most often with completely biased methods that people (for some reason) still seem to take seriously.Generic Gamer said:
Personally I believe that nothing is a result of one specific influence, trying to prove any such causality will never result in an unbiased study
Gee, kinda like global warming research. If you have research that proves, or at least suggests, that humans have virtually no impact on climate, you are called a flat earther in the pocket of the oil companies and will NEVER recieve any government grants to continue your research. On the other hand, if you have very poorly conducted research with obvious faults that shows the slightest hint of man made global warming, tax dollars come flowing your way like a tsunami.
That's the problem when you have politicians deciding which 'science' is and is not valid
Very very very important to note.The Dark Canuck said:
It's not only that, though; a lot of the Bushman and Craig Anderson studies have demonstrated a vast and dismissive negativity to the entire medium. It borders on high-snobbery, and is not objective social science.
They're also somewhat alarmist as well; they've used the term "Public Health Threat" in regards to video game violence. Public Health Threat being more specifically reserved for things like resistant strains of Tuberculosis, or terrorism.
Here's the problem
An, "Anti gaming" study likely has stronger names because there is an agenda to "Prove (God, I hate that word in Social Sciences) that they are harmful. Legitimate individuals find a CORRELATION, and report such.
Slightly less credible, but still quite credible, individuals do a "Pro game" study that show no CAUSATION between video games and violence.
Those anti-gaming studies are more reliable because the label, "Anti-gaming" is applied by people who have no idea what the results of those studies actually mean. Its a very clever way to lie with Statistics, and Im not encouraged, because I probably wouldn't have been able to catch that lie until very late in my undergrad. In reality, when you actually look at, and properly interpreter, the studies themselves, ypu see that there is no danger posed by games.
And if there are, I would like to follow up this case trying to get games like football banned from high schools, and banning sale of shoulder pads to minors, because I can all but guarantee that any harmful causation between video games and violence is doubled when you look at sports. Can someone start trying to censor Football so we can establish a precedent?
An, "Anti gaming" study likely has stronger names because there is an agenda to "Prove (God, I hate that word in Social Sciences) that they are harmful. Legitimate individuals find a CORRELATION, and report such.
Slightly less credible, but still quite credible, individuals do a "Pro game" study that show no CAUSATION between video games and violence.
Those anti-gaming studies are more reliable because the label, "Anti-gaming" is applied by people who have no idea what the results of those studies actually mean. Its a very clever way to lie with Statistics, and Im not encouraged, because I probably wouldn't have been able to catch that lie until very late in my undergrad. In reality, when you actually look at, and properly interpreter, the studies themselves, ypu see that there is no danger posed by games.
And if there are, I would like to follow up this case trying to get games like football banned from high schools, and banning sale of shoulder pads to minors, because I can all but guarantee that any harmful causation between video games and violence is doubled when you look at sports. Can someone start trying to censor Football so we can establish a precedent?