Study Reports Videogames and TV Make Kids Unbalanced
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Her studies say it can cause a 60% increase in psychological issues, but then it says both tv and computer will double that? That's a 120% chance likely to cause a mental problem... explain or you're a failure as a scientist and thus dubbed a pedophile for wanting to spend so much time with little children.
The study seems to have been poorly done. I'd like to see more on the questionaire. Also, did they define what psychologial difficulties plagued the children? Also, wouldn't they have to quiz a group of children who are mentally healthy, then subject them to different amounts of "screen time" for several years to actually determine the type of connection? According to my psych professor, that's the reason psychology has only two laws and a metric crapton of theories: actually testing them is evil.
Not all research needs a hypothesis. It depends on whether it's qualitative or quantitative. From the looks of things, this could be either, as the article doesn't really go to in depth with figures, but still...thethingthatlurks said:
You can have research to find *something*, but not anything in particular, and make of the outcomes whatever you want. It happens all the time. For example, my research was completely qualitative, regarding how vibration effects user immersion in gaming. I could skew my data any way I wanted to as long as I wanted to publish a paper on it. I had no hypothesis before conducting said research.
in her defense, that's not really how percentages like that are "doubled" in a study like this.. I think the idea is that both tv and computer have a 60% chance to cause an effect, and using both of them would give you 2 60% chances which are statistically unrelated to eachother.. like rolling 2 dice, and needing to get under 4 on each.. the first roll has nothing to do with the second.jackknife402 said:
I have no real opinion on the data she collected/released, but I think as I always do in these "Vidya Games are the Devil!" phenomenons - parents need to take control of the situation.. If it's important to them, then they need to become informed, if it's not, and they trust their kids at whatever age to make the right choices, it's not our place to step in and be parents for them, as long as they're not actively dangering the kid.. That's the crux of it I guess, I don't believe that video games are inherently dangerous.
This study... is useless. That is my verdict, and I'll stick with it. There is a large amount of room for error, and there is no way I would ever use this to prove anything were it my research.
Something that's also noteworthy is the social environments the children who had more screen time were in when they weren't looking at some sort of media.
Something that's also noteworthy is the social environments the children who had more screen time were in when they weren't looking at some sort of media.
PFFSHT.
Correlation does not imply causation. Consider this: what if kids with higher 'social difficulties' spend more time in front of screens because of their social difficulties, not the other way around? What if the problem isn't the screentime, but outside stress and body chemistry that causes them to become more introverted? As a lifelong introvert, let me tell you, I was a book-type nerd until I finally managed to scrounge enough for a Playstation(well into my teens) and the introversion and social difficulties definitely didn't start then.
Correlation does not imply causation. Consider this: what if kids with higher 'social difficulties' spend more time in front of screens because of their social difficulties, not the other way around? What if the problem isn't the screentime, but outside stress and body chemistry that causes them to become more introverted? As a lifelong introvert, let me tell you, I was a book-type nerd until I finally managed to scrounge enough for a Playstation(well into my teens) and the introversion and social difficulties definitely didn't start then.
Very, very vague article. Definitions please! =]
And if it counts for anything, once upon a time my mother tried to get me comitted to the local psych ward. One psych eval later,I was proclaimed extrordinarily well-balanced and as having 'a good head on my shoulders'.
This was at a time in my life when I was getting school overwith at school, coming home and playing video games on my 12' Sony Tube TV for at least twelve hours, then sleeping just a tad.
Yes, I admit that the sleep thing was a bad balance. Nowadays I'm in university, spending three hours on public transit to and from classes (falling over a lot -- is this the unbalance we speek of?), and when I finally do get home, I study until the wee hours of the morning, and sleep a couple hours before getting up and doing it all again.
The unfortunate thing with these studies is that psych studies are usually bunk in how they assign 'quantifiable' values to qualitative results. It's like putting these kids on a gradient, from 1 being 'well balanced', 3 being 'took a sh!t', and 5 being 'no priorities'.
So is an average of arbitrarily assigned values truly indicative of a real and likely outcome? Will the average child really take a sh!t? Or do extremes cancel out and leave behind false conclusions?
Rant over. Feel free to tell me what you think. And just so you know, I realise my example is very off-kilter, but I mostly wanted to present the notion of innacuracy.
And if it counts for anything, once upon a time my mother tried to get me comitted to the local psych ward. One psych eval later,I was proclaimed extrordinarily well-balanced and as having 'a good head on my shoulders'.
This was at a time in my life when I was getting school overwith at school, coming home and playing video games on my 12' Sony Tube TV for at least twelve hours, then sleeping just a tad.
Yes, I admit that the sleep thing was a bad balance. Nowadays I'm in university, spending three hours on public transit to and from classes (falling over a lot -- is this the unbalance we speek of?), and when I finally do get home, I study until the wee hours of the morning, and sleep a couple hours before getting up and doing it all again.
The unfortunate thing with these studies is that psych studies are usually bunk in how they assign 'quantifiable' values to qualitative results. It's like putting these kids on a gradient, from 1 being 'well balanced', 3 being 'took a sh!t', and 5 being 'no priorities'.
So is an average of arbitrarily assigned values truly indicative of a real and likely outcome? Will the average child really take a sh!t? Or do extremes cancel out and leave behind false conclusions?
Rant over. Feel free to tell me what you think. And just so you know, I realise my example is very off-kilter, but I mostly wanted to present the notion of innacuracy.
This seems problematic to say the least.
The way this study was conducted doesn't sound like it takes anything into account that's actually useful in knowing the causality here.
For one, the most fundamental (assuming the relationship mentioned is even true at all), does 'screen time' cause the supposed problems, or is it a symptom of the problems?
That is, if kids have social problems, are they more likely to withdraw from other people and spend their time playing computer games/ watching TV instead?
Or is it watching TV and playing computer games that leads to the other?
The way this study was conducted doesn't sound like it takes anything into account that's actually useful in knowing the causality here.
For one, the most fundamental (assuming the relationship mentioned is even true at all), does 'screen time' cause the supposed problems, or is it a symptom of the problems?
That is, if kids have social problems, are they more likely to withdraw from other people and spend their time playing computer games/ watching TV instead?
Or is it watching TV and playing computer games that leads to the other?
Isn't this like saying 'children with runny noses, sore throats, sneezing a lot are more likely to have colds'?
What if they already have these vaguely defined 'psychological issues' and 'screen time' is how they deal with it. Then you're going at the whole problem backwards, and potentially eliminating a valuable coping mechanism, which could just cause major unhappiness down the road!
What if they already have these vaguely defined 'psychological issues' and 'screen time' is how they deal with it. Then you're going at the whole problem backwards, and potentially eliminating a valuable coping mechanism, which could just cause major unhappiness down the road!
You can't trust these studies. There is always someone who claims something because of a study and then there is someone who claims the exact opposite. How am I supposed to know which one is the right one? Well, maybe there is no right one. But at least I know that I shouldn't rely too much on studies.
So children with parents who don't care enough to spend time with them and just park them in front of the TV end up with some problems.
I think I can believe that.
I think I can believe that.
Watching the news even, or a documentary or political debate. Yeah, that psychologically "unbalances" you just because it is a screen.dogstile said:
What the hell is this study saying, what is the ACTUAL variable? The Screen itself or all electronic entertainment? Seditary entertainment? Visual stimulus?
What about kids who listen to music or radio, are they similarly affected. Could that function as a control group?
This study fails in the abstract as it doesn't make clear WHAT is causing WHAT result.
But they specifically say that reading didn't have the same effect. A single anecdote is also less meaningful than a strong correlation in this sort of study.thublihnk said:
On the other hand I don't know if this report actually means anything other than that more and better research could be done on the subject. Perhaps looking at plausible reasons for certain outcomes like some kids being tired and unhappy due to not exercising enough or not sleeping properly. Maybe due to having unsupervised access to a console or DS in their bedroom.