I was going to make a meaningful comment, but you hit everything I had to sayoneplus999 said:
Bravo good sir
Study Claims Anti-Game Research More Reliable
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Bravo good sir
You make a good point. I mean, they might as well say that reading literature in support of opposing viewpoints sometimes causes people to change their opinions on things, and therefore literature should be subject to censorship. The reason media isn't regulated isn't because it doesn't have any power; it's because it does, and restricting power to only certain people is dangerous.FightThePower said:
...so They're saying that the amount of people who believe something makes it a scientific fact? If that were true the world would be flat, and the stars would be a giant sheet, and magic would be real, (as was commonly believed in the 17th century), and the left index finger would be everybody's weakness, and lastly, babies would be brought in by storks.
Or wait, do they mean that the thing that has more old people backing it is true.
Here's one thing that IS a scientific fact: The older you get, the more xenophobic you get.
Remember words have power, the 1st amendment was made to ensure that you could believe whatever the hell you want to. This unfortunately means we have to contend with flaming retards as well. But then, They're too worried about words other than theirs having power to realize that they should.
Or wait, do they mean that the thing that has more old people backing it is true.
Here's one thing that IS a scientific fact: The older you get, the more xenophobic you get.
Remember words have power, the 1st amendment was made to ensure that you could believe whatever the hell you want to. This unfortunately means we have to contend with flaming retards as well. But then, They're too worried about words other than theirs having power to realize that they should.
scientists... do a multiple blind study. if you do, then the results are reliable.
Control Group 1: children with a normal, middle class families but play no violent games.
Group 1-1: same as above, but they play violent games occasionally.
Group 1-2: " " " " " " " " regularly.
Group 1-3: " " " " " " varied and violent games occasionally.
Group 1-4: " " " " " " " " " " regularly.
Control Group 2: children with abusive/split, middle class families,no games.
Group 2: same as group 1 with different families
repeat as needed for all nurture types, and do psych profiles of each group.
until then, no science.
and studies can be warped. who here likes games and disagrees with this?
this is a gaming forum.
Control Group 1: children with a normal, middle class families but play no violent games.
Group 1-1: same as above, but they play violent games occasionally.
Group 1-2: " " " " " " " " regularly.
Group 1-3: " " " " " " varied and violent games occasionally.
Group 1-4: " " " " " " " " " " regularly.
Control Group 2: children with abusive/split, middle class families,no games.
Group 2: same as group 1 with different families
repeat as needed for all nurture types, and do psych profiles of each group.
until then, no science.
and studies can be warped. who here likes games and disagrees with this?
this is a gaming forum.
As someone who debates on a semi-professional level, I can confirm that there is no surer way to piss your opponent off than to run an argument like this without just cause. Yes, the other side has more briefs. You know what the problem is? All the studies on one side say the same thing, and the studies on the other say the opposite. So if even one study for both is considered a "credible, peer-reviewed" source, then by the transitive property they all are. Source doesn't matter if it's drawing the same conclusions as a source that's already been proven credible.
The Supreme Court doesn't work like this. This is exactly why they're elected for life-long terms- so they won't be swayed by public opinion. They aren't politicians at all.Lawyer105 said:
They have a fair chance.
While the author's experience shouldn't matter in a scientific paper, whether it was published in a good journal is a rather good indicator if the research was good(I say good because of this fallacy: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2198#comic).
And you have to see it from the psychologists' perspective: we need funding for research. I can think of several psychologists who would love to do a full longitudinal study which isolated all confounding variables. Hell, I'd do it if I already had my degree. But that sort of research would cost a shitload of money, and with government funding of research cut(first Bush froze NIH funding, then we had to "balance the budget") the only other option is private funding which is either too little or comes with (biased) strings attached. To my knowledge, no such study has ever been published and the only decent studies done on this issue were either non-conclusive or established weak relationships which any person with basic statistical knowledge can tell you is nowhere near causation. There was one study that proved that video games made people more aggressive in the short term, but that was because of the difficulty leading to frustration and even Tetris can cause that effect. Hell, do enough studies and you'll find anything (http://xkcd.com/882/) I'm sure someone will point that out to the justices if they don't already know. Meanwhile we'll just have to wait and see.
The only thing any of you could do would be getting elected into office and drastically increasing research funding. Get to it, gamer politicians!
And you have to see it from the psychologists' perspective: we need funding for research. I can think of several psychologists who would love to do a full longitudinal study which isolated all confounding variables. Hell, I'd do it if I already had my degree. But that sort of research would cost a shitload of money, and with government funding of research cut(first Bush froze NIH funding, then we had to "balance the budget") the only other option is private funding which is either too little or comes with (biased) strings attached. To my knowledge, no such study has ever been published and the only decent studies done on this issue were either non-conclusive or established weak relationships which any person with basic statistical knowledge can tell you is nowhere near causation. There was one study that proved that video games made people more aggressive in the short term, but that was because of the difficulty leading to frustration and even Tetris can cause that effect. Hell, do enough studies and you'll find anything (http://xkcd.com/882/) I'm sure someone will point that out to the justices if they don't already know. Meanwhile we'll just have to wait and see.
The only thing any of you could do would be getting elected into office and drastically increasing research funding. Get to it, gamer politicians!
It's not surprising, it's a situation where we're looking at a battle largely being fought by, or on behalf, of a younger audience, against an old guard with more time to get established.
What's more the whole "media boogie man" thing has been around for a long time, whether it's been aimed at music, comics, or video games. The same guys who were screaming that rock music was going to turn your kids into baby stabbing Satanists, and actually believe it, are still out there, attacking the media in general. After all you succeed on one front, and that precedent can be used to apply it to other fronts, and I'm sure someone who had a problem with rock music for the same reasons people complain about video games is going to "see" the similarities here as well.
It's hardly a shocking analysis of what's being presented, pretty much par for the course. Remember that as the same basic people try and go against free speech to "protect the children" time after time, even in losing they gain valuable information and insights to make their next attempt that much more effective.
We'll see what happens, to be honest I don't imagine it will take that much longer before we'll see a ruling for good or ill.
What's more the whole "media boogie man" thing has been around for a long time, whether it's been aimed at music, comics, or video games. The same guys who were screaming that rock music was going to turn your kids into baby stabbing Satanists, and actually believe it, are still out there, attacking the media in general. After all you succeed on one front, and that precedent can be used to apply it to other fronts, and I'm sure someone who had a problem with rock music for the same reasons people complain about video games is going to "see" the similarities here as well.
It's hardly a shocking analysis of what's being presented, pretty much par for the course. Remember that as the same basic people try and go against free speech to "protect the children" time after time, even in losing they gain valuable information and insights to make their next attempt that much more effective.
We'll see what happens, to be honest I don't imagine it will take that much longer before we'll see a ruling for good or ill.
Now the question is, did they really get these test results based on recent crimes, and the criminal just so happens to have a game console, or did they take the time to examine young one's who have been playing violent video games for a while and test their agression and such?
This was not an independent review. Brad Bushman is one of the leading anti-game researchers. I refuted a lot of his own research in my thesis.
That issue was the one with Saint's Row 2 on the cover, right? I'm doing a report and I'm using a bit of that article you mentioned as a source...mikev7.0 said:
Thanks for clarifying what I was thinking while reading this article. While I am concerned about the decision being made here and how it will affect us...I am also thinking we should be way more critical of our game research in general, instead of trying to split things along pro and anti sentiments regardless of any actual responsibility we have towards our society.
Overall I find the methodology a bit flawed as instead of trying to pit two sides against each other in a research finding debate and then decide the fate of an entire industry's works based solely on which way the wind blows on the subject, it would have been a bit more responsible to conduct additional properly run, unaffiliated studies for more subject matter to work with, which so far are pretty hard to find considering the amount of special interest groups involved in the matter. We can't have the ESA indiscriminately employing the HULK SMASH method on every study that shows negative effects from games regardless of how legit they are just as much as we can't have politicians stringing up games without even understanding what they are about.
And even if games are dangerous to some degree, shouldn't we be trying to work with each other to ensure responsible handling of them rather than just try to strangle each other over who has absolute control? Sure, impressionable people are more likely to be affected, but the issue has more to do with helping the people who have these problems dealing with games rather than blaming the games outright.
If games promote violent behaviour, then we have one billion people exposed to behaviour inducing substances.
If 90% of games these days are violent, we have 90% of those billion with a potential change of committing violent behaviour.
If only 1% of those commit a violent act, and 1% of those end in deaths (within the next year), we have an annual increase of 900,000 violent crimes and 900 brutal murders.
The British Crime Survey states that
Given that Call of Duty (which is often quoted as the most violent of games) has racked up 600 million hours of game play, and in it's first day sold 5.6 million copies, we would expect (from the previous figures) 560 homicides purely attributable to Call of Duty: Black Ops within the year.
That would place it at the same level as deaths by fire. Nearly double the death rate caused by STDs (excluding AIDS). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate
30 times as many people are killed by accident.
Now, if there are 560 homicides directly caused by Black Ops annually, can anyone find me evidence of one?
Because, if there is a number lower than double digits, then we're talking about something that kills in less than 10 in a billion cases.
Again, that's ten times less chance than Earth being destroyed by a meteorite strike.
If the skeptics have any hard figures to add to that, I'd be happy to see them. Because even with my figures, that's still only a 1:10,000 chance of homicide.
If 90% of games these days are violent, we have 90% of those billion with a potential change of committing violent behaviour.
If only 1% of those commit a violent act, and 1% of those end in deaths (within the next year), we have an annual increase of 900,000 violent crimes and 900 brutal murders.
The British Crime Survey states that
The US Crime Survey states that the US homicide rate, has declined substantially since 1991.
Given that Call of Duty (which is often quoted as the most violent of games) has racked up 600 million hours of game play, and in it's first day sold 5.6 million copies, we would expect (from the previous figures) 560 homicides purely attributable to Call of Duty: Black Ops within the year.
That would place it at the same level as deaths by fire. Nearly double the death rate caused by STDs (excluding AIDS). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate
30 times as many people are killed by accident.
Now, if there are 560 homicides directly caused by Black Ops annually, can anyone find me evidence of one?
Because, if there is a number lower than double digits, then we're talking about something that kills in less than 10 in a billion cases.
Again, that's ten times less chance than Earth being destroyed by a meteorite strike.
If the skeptics have any hard figures to add to that, I'd be happy to see them. Because even with my figures, that's still only a 1:10,000 chance of homicide.
I don't see what the big deal is if they do restrict sales. Sales are already restricted as it is, just privately. No game retailer is going to sell you something M-rated if you don't have an ID. All this would change is that it would be signed into law. It's just peace of mind for the ignorant "concerned parents", and redundancy to everybody else.
EDIT: My opinion was swayed by a later post.
EDIT: My opinion was swayed by a later post.
i have enough faith the justices will see the light of day.
Videogames don't only include "violent" games so to slap a label on the entire industry based on a few examples is unconstitutional. They should see that.
Videogames don't only include "violent" games so to slap a label on the entire industry based on a few examples is unconstitutional. They should see that.
I grew up on video games. Some violent shit too. I don't maim, destroy, kill, harm, or otherwise infect the populous. I am an American that believes in free speech, the right to bare arms, am atheist, we don't know how to spend our money, and am politically neutral because I can smell bullshit when its given to me.
Matter of fact, I think Middle School was probably more harmful to me than Duke Nukem 3D.
Just sayin. I seem to be a well adjusted adult in society and I bet most of you are too.
Matter of fact, I think Middle School was probably more harmful to me than Duke Nukem 3D.
Just sayin. I seem to be a well adjusted adult in society and I bet most of you are too.
here watch this. maybe it will let you see what the big deal isBelated said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech
or read this
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_281/8356-Battlefield-Washington
Yes I think you have the right issue, a group of angsty folk are walking away from a small plane. I think the most telling thing about that article was that the Scientist they were defending really didn't sound like he was "anti-game." Yet the industry did everything they could to paint him as biased.weirdguy said:
I agree with you that we need to be more critical of ALL research. I mean we can develop all the double blind tests and things like that we want yet it still doesn't change the fact that it's only empirical evidence. The studies that concern me most are the ones that are conducted by nueropsychologists, more to the point, the fact that there aren't many and that's probably the "hardest" Science we have to use at this point. We need as close to "fact" as we can get. Your kids are worth that effort I believe.
Many of the studies are unaffiliated, I think it's just each legal side of the arguement grabbing the ones that apply to their cause most. That's my biggest problem, I believe the studies that are showing as inconclusive due to the inconsistency of method aren't being picked up by any side. Until we employ more rigorous methods, My opinion is that a lot of unbiased tests would come out as inconlusive. That voice I feel is being muted just because it doesn't "sing" legally.
I couldn't agree with you more about retailers, publishers, parents, and the kids themselves all working together and having a voice in this but that is the common sense good solution and since I just love quoting Doctor Einstein: "All of us who are concerned for peace and the triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field." That being said I think it would be possible if more folks were involved and willing to work together and not just going into knee jerk defense mode, which goes for all of us.
Great topic to pick for your assignment by the way, I hope that will get people talking about it. I myself am trying to write a speech for toastmasters on the subject. So if anyone can add links to more studies it would be appreciated.
Also to those who have accused me of not loving games and being willing to just throw them under the bus without objective consideration please go read my post in the "Have you ever been in love with a game thread." Cool. Now please stop treating me like an anti-gamer, thanks.
it almost sounds like these guys are playing a game in the court room.
"Look judge, my number/score is clearly higher than the other team so based on that I am clearly better."
It's as if they are trophy/acheivement whores on PSN & Live
They're probably trying to argue on the grounds quantity because they know that most, if not all of their research has no merit. Basically the logic of anti-gaming research is that if people view a violent situation then the viewers will develop violent tendenices. If that were true then we would have to ban all media, like news stations and journals, from ever displaying anything about bombings, rapes, murders and homicides for fear of humanity going the way of a Hamlet ending.
"Look judge, my number/score is clearly higher than the other team so based on that I am clearly better."
It's as if they are trophy/acheivement whores on PSN & Live
They're probably trying to argue on the grounds quantity because they know that most, if not all of their research has no merit. Basically the logic of anti-gaming research is that if people view a violent situation then the viewers will develop violent tendenices. If that were true then we would have to ban all media, like news stations and journals, from ever displaying anything about bombings, rapes, murders and homicides for fear of humanity going the way of a Hamlet ending.