Study Claims Anti-Game Research More Reliable

[DanDeFool]

Our studies must be better because they come from better sources = Appeal to Authority = logical fallacy = FAIL

QED

Technically appeal to authority isn't necessarily wrong if the person has authority in that field. Appealing to newton in regard to force diagrams isn't fallacious for example.

No, it's not necessarily wrong to appeal to authority, but it's still a fallacy because you're looking at the origin of the argument rather than the argument itself.

It's like saying that because Barack Obama supports the Democrats, the democrats must be the best political party. Certainly, Barack Obama is an expert in the field of policymaking, but he supports the democrats out of a clear political bias, so his authority in this field is dubious.

There have been other posts about how the more experienced researchers in the "gamez r bad 'mmkay?" field may have their own biases.

 

[Lawyer105]

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 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.

Oh good! We might actually have a chance then!

 

[Jodah]

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 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.

Oh good! We might actually have a chance then!

Yep, I can see this going either way based on prior decisions in similar cases (none involving video games but similar situations). The main issue with predicting it is that there are two newer justices. They have no past cases to look at.

 

[Bad Jim]

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.

Has nobody thought that those two things aren't mutually exclusive?

I did. The argument is a bit like this: Far more academic papers refer to climate change than the planet Jupiter. Ergo, Jupiter does not exist.

I also thought that the judge himself should decide what is protected by the First Amendment.

 

[weirdee]

If yall want to read more on related subjects, another source I'm using for my paper is Game Addiction by Neils Clark and P. Shauvaun Scott. So far it looks like it takes an evenhanded approach to the issue, rather than throwing red flags left and right and pushing an agenda regardless of evidence.

 

[I.N.producer]

I found this excellent article by C.J. Ferguson "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly: A Meta-analytic
Review of Positive and Negative Effects of Violent Video Games." Found at: http://www.tamiu.edu/~CFERGUSON/videometa2.pdf

It's basically an examination of the effects of video games, as shown by several other studies, he actually looks at positive and negative effects by analyzing the results of other studies.

Ferguson has another analysis of research methods that are used in many of the studies, including the studies by Bushman and Anderson. That is here: http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/videometa1.pdf

Just a note: Ferguson has a degree in clinical psychology, teaches classes in abnormal psychology, and does research on media effects and research methodology.