Study Claims Anti-Game Research More Reliable

[Giest4life]

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.

 

[Stabby Joe]

Despite this negative news, I've heard more news stories in favor of the games industry over the last few months... so I wouldn't abandon all hope just yet.

 

[brodie21]

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

i agree. and how is it possible to determine that video games affect people at all everyone is different and there are too many variables in a child's development to isolate the effect that video games have.

 

[Veloxe]

Ah the good old "the people on my side of the fence are better then yours" legal argument.

Not to nitpick but that's actually a perfectly good legal argument. 'Of the two diametrically opposed experts we have here one is qualified' is a hell of a good point if I'm honest.

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.

 

[vid87]

So how much pro-gaming research HAS been done? Saying there's more credible research in anti-gaming could mean that research concentration has been essentially one-sided.

 

[oneplus999]

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.

 

[vid87]

So can they really say something is more legit when it's a seemingly one-sided argument? How much pro-gaming research HAS been done? Seems this discussion should be dropped until a more balanced case can be made.

 

[ph0b0s123]

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....

 

[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.

 

[-Dragmire-]

Does anyone else see the lovely irony in the title?

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Does anyone else see the lovely irony in the title?

yeah. its pretty meta if i do say so myself.

 

[linwolf]

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.

If you go by that logic and demand definitive evidence, no psychology holds up.

OT: I do think that games can result in behaviour change there are a lot of evidences that support this.

 

[i7omahawki]

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?

 

[vid87]

-Moved down - Sorry

 

[Ironic Pirate]

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.

 

[KeyMaster45]

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.