Study Claims Anti-Game Research More Reliable

vid87

New member
May 17, 2010
737
0
0
Generic Gamer said:
vid87 said:
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.
Research is neither 'pro' nor 'anti' gaming, they all ask the same question and some come to a positive conclusion whereas others come to a negative one. If you set out to prove a specific viewpoint then your research is already fatally biased.
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.
 

ZeZZZZevy

New member
Apr 3, 2011
618
0
0
Generic Gamer said:
vid87 said:
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.
Research is neither 'pro' nor 'anti' gaming, they all ask the same question and some come to a positive conclusion whereas others come to a negative one. If you set out to prove a specific viewpoint then your research is already fatally biased.
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.

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
 

Fenderaxe

New member
Apr 21, 2011
3
0
0
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.
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
 

Saladfax

New member
May 16, 2008
15
0
0
The Dark Canuck said:
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.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
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?
 

Annulus

New member
Feb 17, 2010
13
0
0
Greg Tito said:
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.
The issue goes much deeper than this.

A lot of studies, especially those conducted in psychology, are highly flawed, even despite the authors' best intentions.

Search "the decline effect". Very interesting article on New Scientist.
 

Falseprophet

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,381
0
0
Just how exhaustive is this literature search anyways?

1) Is it just a bunch of correlation studies, as has been suggested by commenters above?

2) Are most of the anti-game studies those ones from the 80s and 90s where they tested a sample group of a few dozen undergraduates and measured "aggression" based on things like "aggressive thoughts" (that do not necessarily translate into action) or sounding airhorns after 15 minutes of playing Pac-Man?

3) Can these studies explain why rates of violent crime--especially among youth--have dropped dramatically since video games became a prominent form of entertainment?
 

pwnzerstick

New member
Mar 25, 2009
592
0
0
They say that the Gruel brief has 48 times more the number of "respected" studies than the contrary, but these studies are most likely respected for the sole purpose of their outcome rather than the science around them. Esentialy what I am saying is that the only reason those studies are respected is because their results said that games cause violence.
 
Sep 4, 2009
354
0
0
Greg Tito said:
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.

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.

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.
Excellent points. Thank you for the continued coverage on this Mr. Tito, you're a credit to the community.
 

cerebus23

New member
May 16, 2010
1,275
0
0
Problem is in this day and age you are unlikely to find many people that have not played video games, we all have seen the stories that "stretch" when some teen commits some violence then mention in the article oh he played modern warfare, just like the good old days when stories stretched to mention that some kid listened to ozzy osbourne or marylin mansion, or i could push that further that most people invloved in gang violence listens to rap like NWA and ice tea and etc so that rap music must cause gang related violence.

It is just simple creating connections that exist but have no basis in fact any proof or logic that say one thing caused this behavior. It is just making the inference enough times that it sticks.

Why would not the anti game side have more ammo, and more "accredited" signees, the state of CA and many places in europe have had studies funded to prove that video games do cause violent behavior, you are not going to publish a study you pay for that does not support what you payed for in the first place, or you are like the federal government and just redact the study heavily and take things out of context to create outlandish and non sensical aka lies about something.

Being that most of the lower courts in fact tossed out the games are bad research as bad studies and not good research, should speak volumes about the quality of said research, despite the names signed on the thing that have either had an axe to grind or were payed to sign it.

Then the simple fact of the matter stands that in the explosion of video games and gaming, youth and teen violence is down, violent crime rates across the board are down over previous decades and have been declining despite the fact that since the 90s more and more people have been gaming and if these studies had any basis in reality then we would expect to see a rather noticable uptick in youth and teen violence, but the actual number do not bear that out no matter what stacks of peoples the bureaucrats in california want to pay for and shove under the justice's nose.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
Greg Tito said:
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.

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.
Honestly, I have to wonder if you would take such discrepancy if the study found that the "Pro-Game" research was more reliable than the "Anti-Game" research. I get that this is a gaming news site, so of course we'd take umbrage to this study, it's just an interesting thought.

What really bothers me though is that it's "Video Games cause violent behavior" studies versus "Video Games have first amendment rights" studies. Can you even research "Video Games have first amendment rights"? That, I think, is BS.
 

antipunt

New member
Jan 3, 2009
3,035
0
0
I'm more interested in what those studies 'prove'.

I doubt it's: increased video games leads to increased violence (all ages; all types of game; whatever).

Probably a lot more benign than that, they got nuthin
 

sinterklaas

New member
Dec 6, 2010
210
0
0
we all have seen the stories that "stretch" when some teen commits some violence then mention in the article oh he played modern warfare
I wonder why they never make a link between a shooting involving teens and violent movies. Oh wait, complete bias against video games.

And yes, I believe video games can cause a change in young teenagers, I for one will never allow my children to play games that I do not deem fit for them. I would NEVER let my children anywhere near games like Gears of War until they are at least 18.

Also, extreme violence in movies is okay, but when it comes to games its suddenly bad? Hypocrisy.
 

cerebus23

New member
May 16, 2010
1,275
0
0
sinterklaas said:
we all have seen the stories that "stretch" when some teen commits some violence then mention in the article oh he played modern warfare
I wonder why they never make a link between a shooting involving teens and violent movies. Oh wait, complete bias against video games.

And yes, I believe video games can cause a change in young teenagers, I for one will never allow my children to play games that I do not deem fit for them. I would NEVER let my children anywhere near games like Gears of War until they are at least 18.
And that is your right and responsibility as a parent good on you. Sadly it seems too many parents want to shove off their parenting duties on the state in enough cases that this silliness continues.

Each and every child is different there is no one set age where all children are ok and not ok to play one game or another, but i doubt video games are any worse at ramping young kids up than say watching dragonball z, or watching the old star wars movies with lots of laser pew pew and lightsaber fights. We were all kids once and we know that we get a jolt of adrenlin when watching tv or movies or playing sports or some roughhouse play, But none of that is permanent watch dbz as a kid does not skew your thinking or make you think beating the snot out of some super being for hours on end is the sane and rational way to view life, and i doubt video games have any more effect than the typical adrenlin buzz that many other child friendly activities have.

But you set the limits for your kids i will support and applaud that and stand up for your right to do that each and every time.
 

Harker067

New member
Sep 21, 2010
236
0
0
DanDeFool said:
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.
 

Rex Fallout

New member
Oct 5, 2010
359
0
0
yes they have published works, but tell me, what have they published? Does it involve psychology at all? Does it involve studies into children and who they grew up to be after playing violent video games? Some of these people could have published papers on purple dinosaurs, and still be being called, 'experts'. Age is a major factor here. Older people are more likely to dislike video games, and there for, have more experience to justify their words. Whereas video games are a younger, newer medium of art, and there for many of its advocates are- get this- younger, with less experience. So it can be seen that this is a completely one sided argument. I have a bad feeling about what the SC is going to rule...