Study Claims Anti-Game Research More Reliable

[Veylon]

Wait. I thought this court case had to do with whether video games were protected speech, not whether or not they were harmful. These are largely separate issues.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

Research with a bias in itself is a problem.

Also the two positions don?t even seem opposed to each other. They could find that video games do cause violence but that wouldn?t clash with whether they are or aren?t protected by the 1st amendment. Right?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

A quick thought:

Surely those people involved in PLAYING the games would have more knowledge and expertise in the effects than those that DIDN'T play the games.

Just throwing that out there.

 

[arealperson]

The State of California's brief - called the Gruel brief after the lead lawyer on the team - was signed by 115 people who believe that violence in games promotes violent behavior, while 82 people signed the Millet brief in support of the EMA's position that games are protected by the First Amendment. An independent group of researchers analyzed the two briefs and found that 60 percent of the 115 on the Gruel brief had been published in respectable scientific journals while that was true of only 17 percent on the Millet brief.

I have several problems with this logic. First, one cannot simply use sheer numbers to judge whether something is true. If that were possible, we'd all be forced to believe that Twilight is the greatest piece of art created in the 21st century or that the world was flat in 1492. The Justices are intelligent people and they will have to judge whether the research found in both briefs is sound based solely on the merits of each study, not how many of them there are.

So the group of researchers argues that a greater percent (60) of one sides group were of greater quality (published in scientific journals -- these are not dedicated 'anti-gaming' journals mind you) than another's and then you present that quality != quantity?  I understand that gaming is very personal to us, but conflating the argument isn't sound logic.

Secondly, I think the discrepancy in numbers has more to do with how our culture funds such research. It is much easier for politicians to siphon public funds to pay for research to "save our children from the videogame menace" than it is for private advocacy groups like the EMA and ECA to conduct their own research. Plus, many scientists or researchers are reluctant to speak out in support of unpopular sentiments - like being pro-gaming - because it might impact their ability to receive public funds in the future. It's the same with research concerning marijuana - no scientist wants to be known as that "stoner guy" because then he won't be able to conduct research on other topics.

This is not to say that gaming, one of the largest industries in the world doesn't "siphon" (sic) funds.  I mean these groups like EMA and ECA are essentially created and backed by publishers, so funding shouldn't be worth arguing.

So, Justices of the Supreme Court, please take Mr. Bushman's study with a very large silo of salt and be sure to look at the agendas behind each and every study submitted for both sides. It's the only way justice will be truly served.

It's ironic that you present the 'salt' appeal to a study that presents itself for an argument as exactly that.  It reads, 'please take the Millet signees significance with [a variable amount of] salt, and look at their presentations as agendas rather than scientifically supported.'

I'm not saying the studies are perfect, or even 'correct', but we're really driving ourselves into cyclical arguments here.

I myself side with the opinion that games can both be an influencing factor and be protected by The First Amendment.  Oh and that the First Amendment shouldn't preclude making a function of the ESRB law.  Nor am I saying the specifics of the ESRB should be law.  But that a law associated with "sales to minors" may in fact be a good one.

 

[mikev7.0]

signed by 115 people who believe that violence in games promotes violent behavior, while 82 people signed the Millet brief in support of the EMA's position that games are protected by the First Amendment

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.

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.

Great points especially your last paragraph. To read not just the responses to the article but Mr. Tito's article itself you would think that all Scientists were either politically motivated, monatarily motivated or cowards. I really don't think it's the place of anyone HERE to judge that. Most people involved with Science aren't in it for the money. Please admit that some of these folks in fact have no dog in the race and actually DO try to stay objective, not only that but it has long been known that you cannot observe something without affecting it so there are tools in psychology as well as other Sciences that are designed to specifically overcome that weakness in method.

The fact is Mr. Tito's article is far more biased than the studies that I've had an opportunity to view so far (and yes I've been following this case as closely as I can since I for one fear what this conservative court will rule.) Isn't journalism supposed to look a lot more balanced? This is in the "news" section, right?

There was a great article in my ex-roomate's copy of Game Informer last month that believe it or not had one of the editors defending a behavioral Scientist for just doing his job while he was being demonized by the game industry. It's worth a read just to see what one of these studies looks like and hear both sides from a journalistic and objective standpoint.

Also nothing in Science is ever proven. An idea is or is not supported and some more so than others. Whenever I hear someone talking in terms of absolutes, I know it's not Science. Using Mathematics is about as close as you can get (rigorous support) and empirical evidence which is the type that usually supports behavioral studies is the best we have right now.

What games DO have on their side in this case however is just how broadly California has tried to define "violence." Even in the opinion of someone who has worked closely with the Supreme Court it is far too broad and will likely be thrown back for a more detailed explanation. Personally seeing the make up of this court, combined with the likelihood that there would be no real public outrage from any group those in power would mind upsetting, it all makes me quite nervous about this case. Although I admit that if I had to take a Scientist or a gamers word for whether or not some levels of violence in games lead to developmental issues, Science trumps gamer every time. I have a feeling most of the general public would agree with me on that. Most of them (go ahead poll the tea party movement if you feel really brave) are already really fed up with what they see as gamers and their #$#$ you attitude anyway. Right now violent video games are just what many politically motivated candidates are looking for during an election year - a scapegoat.

Oh and I almost forgot. While I know he's just another one of those nigh completely biased Science type people who would never do something just to advance the cause of productive thought, Einstein has a very salient quote: "Democracy, taken in its narrower, purely political sense, suffers from the fact that those in economic or political power possess the means for molding public opinion to serve their own class interests."

 

[Fake Nicker]

What i dont get is why is the focus so much on the violence aspect? How about all the other areas of the mind? What about those who get so much addicted that they cant take care of their children or function in real life? I would rather they would trial games as alcohol and not violence inducing weapons. Thats how i see games... shit thats how i see computer sociaolizing. Even facebook is addictive for some. Ive played a hellofalot of games and i can say for sure that i was addicted and it sure did crap on my social life and skills. And i know alot of people who for sure didnt get better by sitting infront of a screen. Infact i know of none who gaming helped with their psychological problems. Alternate induced realities, like the ones induced by alcohol, drugs and the like, are all pitfalls for people who allready suffer from some form of psychological illness. On the other hand i also know alot of people who does the same things and dont suffer at all. Be they drugs or what ever. It all depends on who you are and your WHOLE life.

Instead of restricting games because of violence and using shitload of money on courts how about using that money on helping those who lack the ability to control the usage of said object.

My opinion is that, yes, offcourse gaming affects you. As one said "its pretty shit art if it doesnt affect you" BUT i dont think they are responsible for violence right out. The people who do go on a spree have it in them from the start and i dont think that gaming is THE trigger. But gaming doesnt help them get better either and i belive they end up having it worse from it as they would from any other form of reality shroudding object.

So with my bigass brick-O-text i would claim that its all down to whats in your bucket of life. If its full of parents beating the crap out of you, fighting, shouting, murder, starvation, poverty, loneliness, random violence and bullying, i dont think violent games, or any other kind of violent media of which to hide your thoughts from real life, is a good mix.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Headline says "Study Claims Anti-Game Research More Reliable".

What they didn't tell you was that humans conducting it still aren't considered reliable.

 

[The Dark Canuck]

Science at this point hasnt observed children bieng raised to examine this yet. So nobody really has conclusive proof.

Even then there won't be conclusive proof. Because despite the advances in psychology, we still don't know the answer to why exactly we do the things we do. Theories, yes, but no "facts."

Bushman himself has authored several studies claiming video games cause violence. He's hardly a disinterested party here. See:
http://psp.sagepub.com.proxy.hil.unb.ca/content/28/12/1679.short
http://lol.medieraadet.dk/upload/mulige_aasager_social_hensynsloeshed.pdf
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000597760
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/43/4/1038/
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2010-03383-001

You might want to give public URL's for those, because most databases require you to enrolled at a certain institution or college. Or, if you really, really care about this upload PDF's on scribd.

Yeah, I fixed the first one so that it doesn't require you to be at MY university (oops), but the studies themselves aren't really the point. They're just a smattering of studies by Bushman on video games, to illustrate the point that he's an interested party. He's not going to go out there and say that his studies (or even his side) lack credibility. Thus, THIS study lacks credibility, due to the conflict of interest.

 

[The Dark Canuck]

Bushman himself has authored several studies claiming video games cause violence. He's hardly a disinterested party here. See:
http://psp.sagepub.com.proxy.hil.unb.ca/content/28/12/1679.short
http://lol.medieraadet.dk/upload/mulige_aasager_social_hensynsloeshed.pdf
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000597760
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/43/4/1038/
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2010-03383-001

Very very very important to note.

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.

Precisely. While I can't say that they're not right, I can say that I won't take their word for it. This study loses all credibility since it employs people who are involved in the issue.

 

[FaithorFire]

signed by 115 people who believe that violence in games promotes violent behavior, while 82 people signed the Millet brief in support of the EMA's position that games are protected by the First Amendment

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.

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.

I was going to make a meaningful comment, but you hit everything I had to say
Bravo good sir

 

[Steve the Pocket]

Well, this is hardly surprising. I've read some of the scientific literature, and violent videogames do cause some degree of violent behaviour - a literature review I looked at had the studies overwhelmingly on one side of the fence.

The thing I have a problem with is that the view that 'violent games cause violent behaviour' and 'violent games are protected by the first amendment' are not mutally-exclusive positions, and I don't see why the courts are treating them like they are.

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.

 

[theheroofaction]

...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.

 

[William MacKay]

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.

 

[DocBalance]

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.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Studies can say anything you want them to. Especially when you're trying to impose your position and limit the rights of citizens.

Q.E.D.

 

[The Bandit]

I predict that the anti-gamers will win by a landslide, because policitians (and the people that are supported by them) lack the spine to stand up against anything unpopular. Since gaming is demonised in much of the media the average (read brain-dead, drooling retard) person is firmly convinced that games are evil!

Policitians, as we all know, are in the business of getting elected. Running the country is only what the pretend to do. Since an election is simply a popularity contest of average (see above) people, politicians cannot afford to back RIGHT, unless it is also POPULAR.

So games are gonna come short. Again.

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.

They have a fair chance.

 

[Felix Bartsch]

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!

 

[Therumancer]

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.

 

[Racecarlock]

They've jumped the shark, nuked the fridge...and now they want to fry the coke?

Did you just watch the double team episode of the nostalgia critic?

 

[GeeksUtopia]

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?