Supernanny Tries to Prove Violent Games Are Bad

thenoblitt

New member
May 7, 2009
759
0
0
you know you can also show them news about the iraq war and 9/11 and see if that desensitizes them to, then we can prove that not only video games desensitize them so everyone will shut up about it
 

Davey Woo

New member
Jan 9, 2009
2,468
0
0
I can imagine you'd get psyched up a lot more playing an FPS, so wouldn't their heart rates be faster anyway?
I suppose it depends on how long she left between the video games and the news story.
 

wolf thing

New member
Nov 18, 2009
943
0
0
the boy who played the violent video game probly felt more adult and indupendint. this could mean they didnt get the pencil because they felt that the "supernany" was indupendint unuf to get pencil. resarch shows that indupendint people tend to treat other people as if they are indupendint.
this test shows people reachions to adult hood not violans
 

Beeple

New member
Apr 16, 2009
45
0
0
killer-corkonian said:
Targie said:
To add to the points against this experiment I actually watched the show on TV last night.
Firstly the average resting heart rates (Beats per minute) for the non-violent group was apparently 80ish and just over 90 for the violent lot. Not only is the difference a little large for a test on heart rate jumps if the kids resting heart rates are that high I think finding out why should have been priority over doing this experiment. I mean 0.0.

The other half of the experiment involved in them being interviewed and the interviewer intentionally knocking down a pot of pens. The hypothesis was that the non-violent group would be more inclined to help. Whilst this was the case the procedure was in no way standardized as the researcher leant over to pick up the pens himself in 2 of the 4 shown from the non-violent group before they offered to help. Whereas in the violent group he was quick to ignore it and ask another question. Either they didn't help or otherwise would have been labelled ignorant etc. The test was biased to begin with.

I also fail to see the relation between helping to pick up pens and being desensitized to violence (Whilst it is worth research it isn't related to violence >.>)

I'm not a neuro scientist either but I am a psychology student well educated enough to notice bias and lack of standardization.

Summary: The experiment was too flawed to be considered valid. Another pop at videogames. Move along.

(What will be interesting is next week with the kid with an 80 (Something around there I believe) hour per week game addiction)
We need more people that can wave fancy degrees around on the Escapist. And not like art degrees or philosophy or anything, I mean the mean green stuff, like medicine and psychology, biochemistry.
Also, 80 bpm resting? What the fuck is this, were they shot at while playing football, then punched and thrown into the room within 2 seconds?
I'm no doctor, but either those results are skewed beyond proportion or these kids need some morphine and a good diagnosis, stat. That many beats per minute in an idle state could, if I'm correct, severely lower life expectancy if untreated.
Oh, and as regards to the pens, just absolutely and completely controlled and directed testing there.
I expected more from you, Supernanny.
I expected more.
Heh I can't wave a degree I don't have. I'm a psychology student. Not quite there yet.

GeekFury said:
Few problems there, first off she did'nt knock the pens over the male doctor did and secondly the heart rates of the boys who played the football game were not shown it was only said that those that played the violant games heart rate when up.

Though my main problem with that test was the fact that if you watched closely you saw the doctor move for the pens, not always obvious but he made a subtle move for them when he had the kids that played the football game there and when he had the kids that played the violent video games on he shrugged the dropping of pens off and just continued asking the questions, without a pause.

Debunked.
Just a quick point. They did show the graph comparing the heart rates of the boys before and after they played the games. I can't quite remember the exact numbers but they were ridiculously high. 80s for one group and 90s for the other. The increase for each group was also very minor (2 for the non-violent group and 8 for the violent group) these are very negligible as heart rate can fluctuate anyway, probably not by 8 but it means there is very little effect on heart rate if anything.

BloodyThoughts said:
Well, first we need to know how the kids behavior is naturally, if she choose the hell spawns to play the shooter, of course they are not going to be polite, or are going to not react so much to violent news. What we need to do, is get the sweetest children (if that's possible) you can get, Have them play an FPS, then see what happens.
In her defense it wasn't her that chose the sample, it was a pair of researchers who had supposedly done the same research several times and got the same results. (Wow... a bias experiment giving reliable results. NO WAI!). As has been said a couple of times it is a very reductionist approach to the matter in that they had very little background information about the sample and all the data was ordinal. (The pens I'm assuming are recorded as Helped/ Didn't help).

But yeah bias experiment. Negligible results. Nothing proven/disproven. Move along.
 

Video Gone

New member
Feb 7, 2009
563
0
0
Targie said:
killer-corkonian said:
Targie said:
To add to the points against this experiment I actually watched the show on TV last night.
Firstly the average resting heart rates (Beats per minute) for the non-violent group was apparently 80ish and just over 90 for the violent lot. Not only is the difference a little large for a test on heart rate jumps if the kids resting heart rates are that high I think finding out why should have been priority over doing this experiment. I mean 0.0.

The other half of the experiment involved in them being interviewed and the interviewer intentionally knocking down a pot of pens. The hypothesis was that the non-violent group would be more inclined to help. Whilst this was the case the procedure was in no way standardized as the researcher leant over to pick up the pens himself in 2 of the 4 shown from the non-violent group before they offered to help. Whereas in the violent group he was quick to ignore it and ask another question. Either they didn't help or otherwise would have been labelled ignorant etc. The test was biased to begin with.

I also fail to see the relation between helping to pick up pens and being desensitized to violence (Whilst it is worth research it isn't related to violence >.>)

I'm not a neuro scientist either but I am a psychology student well educated enough to notice bias and lack of standardization.

Summary: The experiment was too flawed to be considered valid. Another pop at videogames. Move along.

(What will be interesting is next week with the kid with an 80 (Something around there I believe) hour per week game addiction)
We need more people that can wave fancy degrees around on the Escapist. And not like art degrees or philosophy or anything, I mean the mean green stuff, like medicine and psychology, biochemistry.
Also, 80 bpm resting? What the fuck is this, were they shot at while playing football, then punched and thrown into the room within 2 seconds?
I'm no doctor, but either those results are skewed beyond proportion or these kids need some morphine and a good diagnosis, stat. That many beats per minute in an idle state could, if I'm correct, severely lower life expectancy if untreated.
Oh, and as regards to the pens, just absolutely and completely controlled and directed testing there.
I expected more from you, Supernanny.
I expected more.
Heh I can't wave a degree I don't have. I'm a psychology student. Not quite there yet.

GeekFury said:
Few problems there, first off she did'nt knock the pens over the male doctor did and secondly the heart rates of the boys who played the football game were not shown it was only said that those that played the violant games heart rate when up.

Though my main problem with that test was the fact that if you watched closely you saw the doctor move for the pens, not always obvious but he made a subtle move for them when he had the kids that played the football game there and when he had the kids that played the violent video games on he shrugged the dropping of pens off and just continued asking the questions, without a pause.

Debunked.
Just a quick point. They did show the graph comparing the heart rates of the boys before and after they played the games. I can't quite remember the exact numbers but they were ridiculously high. 80s for one group and 90s for the other. The increase for each group was also very minor (2 for the non-violent group and 8 for the violent group) these are very negligible as heart rate can fluctuate anyway, probably not by 8 but it means there is very little effect on heart rate if anything.
You wave that damn degree, boy!
Wave it like you MEAN IT!
What?
 

Blanks

New member
Mar 17, 2009
1,203
0
0
okay... so why is violence in games a bad thing when there's violence in books, movies and televison not to mention violence in the world around us surely games should be that last thing on the list >.>

also sports are violent too ya know
 

VonVirgo

New member
Mar 25, 2009
145
0
0
Why is it videogames, and only videogames, being accused of desensitizing children?
 

Pimppeter2

New member
Dec 31, 2008
16,479
0
0
Shes the flashy girl from flushing, the Nanny named Fran!

Sorry, that just plays in my head whenever I hear the word Nanny.
 

Lenny Magic

Hypochondriacal Calligrapher
Jan 23, 2009
756
0
0
Oh My god you people are missing the real issue here! Those pencils need to be saved!
 

tsu-money

New member
Jul 27, 2009
58
0
0
Sporky111 said:
When I see a test perfomed by a professional, educated, unbiased person, using scientific method I'll be more likely to believe it.

However, she is a child care specialist, not a psychologist. She's setting out to prove her point, not find results. No credibility at all.
I agree with this post.
 

Kailon791

New member
Jul 16, 2009
26
0
0
wow, shes saying that like its a bad thing to not be easily affected. granted you dont want kids to not care about others, but you also dont want a bunch of wusses who run away crying at the first sign of blood.
 
Sep 4, 2009
354
0
0
Supernanny can go sit on the naughty step for 38 minutes for misleading parents. And she should think hard about what she's done.

And then come in here and apologise to everyone. Even the Halo fan boys.
 

SinisterDeath

New member
Nov 6, 2006
471
0
0
So, how do we know that the 20 kids who played football, weren't already athletic?
And those who played vidoe games, weren't always playing video games?

Also, isn't your heart rate increasing dramatically at idle, a sign of bad shape.? :p
 

TheYellowCellPhone

New member
Sep 26, 2009
8,617
0
0
I don't trust her, mostly because she didn't do enough research. A total of 40 kids, we don't even know if they're the same age or weight or anything.

Leave it to the experts.
 

Macgyvercas

Spice & Wolf Restored!
Feb 19, 2009
6,103
0
0
Adding Jo Frost to my List of Things That Piss Me Off in 3...2...1...now.

Also, speaking as a science major, her methodology in conducting this "experient" is downright appalling.
 

pwnzerstick

New member
Mar 25, 2009
592
0
0
Testing heat rate alone, pretty much makes this bullshit as heart rate varys depending on weight and age among other things.