Supernanny Tries to Prove Violent Games Are Bad

[oneplus999]

That depends, I mean sure the more subjects you have the higher the chances that the average will be closer to the mean heart rate for homo sapiens, but it still has a chance to skew results, especially considering that some people have some rather quick heart rates.

That's not taking into consideration the different psychological reactions that people get from games (I'm not saying people who play games are psycho, but everyone has a slightly different reaction to games).

Sorry but you need to read up on your statistics. There is a very high paying field of mathematics to deal with exactly this kind of stuff.

Basically, it doesn't matter if some people are higher or lower, because if you have randomly sampled enough people and put them into two groups, they will have very close to the same average. The more people you get, the closer the two groups will be to each other. Now, if you perform some kind of manipulation on one group but not the other (such as having one group play videogames and the other not) any deviation in the averages must be, in some way, caused by the manipulation you performed.

As for whether the heart rate goes up or down, it's pretty well known that for a vast majority of people, showing them gory images will cause them to release adrenaline. It's part of everyone's "fight or flight" response to potential danger. Some rare people are perhaps going to be neutrally or even negatively affected, but on average people will go up. So once again, on average the change should have been the same from one group to the other. Since the difference in change was non-zero, it must have been related to the manipulation in some way.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'd say you're also getting a certain kind of child and parent, when the parent allows some charlatan like supernanny to show your child violent imagery so she can prove a non point.

Anyways, are most of us here, actually in agreement with most of the world, that violent videogames should have an age rating and GTA should be kept for late teens and adults? No, Supernanny, that 5 year old shouldn't be playing Manhunt, who are you trying to convince? Most parents and most gamers agree, you're preaching to the converted, we also believe a rabid grizzly bear isn't an ideal choice of pet for a toddler.

I think the only probem us gamers have with all this constant media attention is that they just...keep...on...trying to get the results they want to hear, that all video games turn children into killers. Yes, if you give adult orientated stuff of almost any nature to a child not suited to it, it MAY have adverse results, try it with alcohol, drugs, cars, guns, sex, and religion too.

I personally think Bullshit is just as warped as many other shows like italthough I still really enjoy it, just warped in the direction I like most of the time, however, it was good to show a kid who plays shooters understands how terrifying and dangerous real guns are, and I imagine those kids are less likely to get into the gun cabinet at home and 'play' with them to tragic ends.

Most of all, they need to suck it up and realise that gaming is now a more adult entertainment than a child's one, and as such is played by tax payers, voters, and people who watch advertising, and maybe try plumbing this huge market of people instead of hating them.

Of course, there's always going to be anti gamer propaganda coming from TV and printed media, as while you're gaming, you're not watching TV, reading the newspapers or otherwise consuming what they want to tell you. Gaming is the rival of TV, Radio, and the press.

Ok, now I sound like a tin foil hat nominee, so I'll stop.

 

[Stabby Joe]

Where's Cartman when you need him?

 

[Erana]

I thought we had already come to understand that violent games do have a short-term heightening of heart rate and aggression.
Which could easily be attributed to the fact that FPSs do have a competitive element and require one to be on their toes.

And Seriously? Picking up pens? That has far more to do with if the child was raised to mind their manners or not.

I'd say you're also getting a certain kind of child and parent, when the parent allows some charlatan like supernanny to show your child violent imagery so she can prove a non point.

Anyways, are most of us here, actually in agreement with most of the world, that violent videogames should have an age rating and GTA should be kept for late teens and adults? No, Supernanny, that 5 year old shouldn't be playing Manhunt, who are you trying to convince? Most parents and most gamers agree, you're preaching to the converted, we also believe a rabid grizzly bear isn't an ideal choice of pet for a toddler.

I think the only probem us gamers have with all this constant media attention is that they just...keep...on...trying to get the results they want to hear, that all video games turn children into killers. Yes, if you give adult orientated stuff of almost any nature to a child not suited to it, it MAY have adverse results, try it with alcohol, drugs, cars, guns, sex, and religion too.

I personally think Bullshit is just as warped as many other shows like italthough I still really enjoy it, just warped in the direction I like most of the time, however, it was good to show a kid who plays shooters understands how terrifying and dangerous real guns are, and I imagine those kids are less likely to get into the gun cabinet at home and 'play' with them to tragic ends.

Most of all, they need to suck it up and realise that gaming is now a more adult entertainment than a child's one, and as such is played by tax payers, voters, and people who watch advertising, and maybe try plumbing this huge market of people instead of hating them.

Of course, there's always going to be anti gamer propaganda coming from TV and printed media, as while you're gaming, you're not watching TV, reading the newspapers or otherwise consuming what they want to tell you. Gaming is the rival of TV, Radio, and the press.

Ok, now I sound like a tin foil hat nominee, so I'll stop.

Seriously? Don't you know that Mario is trying to get children to not help people who are purposefully knocking over their pens, steal cars, and murder people?

Why, exactly, are they not censoring Television more, then? While I still wish my father had never played such violent video games in front of the two-year-old me, I still feel all the more scarred by the violence on TV- which is often aimed at being all the more real and tragic.

I want to see her find a game she considers "violent" video game that's below the E +10 rating, which would be appropriate for seven-year-olds.
Do a test with them.


Also, why all boys?

 

[LewsTherin]

Her experiment lacked a control group, and it is therefore invalid.

Next.

Also, why all boys?

Because obviously males are just one short push away from being murderous berserkers, and someone must take on the arduous task of keeping these capricious manshildren in check.

 

[FinalHeart95]

To repeat a quote I saw on an XKCD title-test:
"You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right"

That seems to be the problem with all of these violent video game studies. If the study goes against their hypothesis (which is "video games make people violent"), then they just get angry and discard the study altogether. Yet that's not the point. The point is to figure out WHY these school shootings happen, not to keep going until you can "prove" that video games caused them. That's just blatant bias.

 

[HonkingAntalope]

is this not why there are game ratings in place?

 

[Green Tentacle]

Because exploiting kids on TV isn't bad!

Videogames are!

 

[kotorfan04]

Umm wait, she had kids play an FPS? As in a probably m rated FPS. That is fucking terrible. If I had a ten year old play Fallout 3 or L4D2 I would expect it to warp their tiny little minds, then I would laugh but still... this seems somehow wrong. Also I have been playing violent video games for most of my life and I am a well adjusted member of society. Why I even perform a public service now and then by removing a homeless person from the streets. I think the most satisfying part of that is hearing him scream.

 

[Low Key]

Just because the kids' heart rate didn't go up doesn't mean they don't think the violent news story wasn't messed up.

For all we know, the lower heart rate could mean the kids are more content, probably because they had a much more fun experience. And from what I understand, kids emulate parents and soccer in the UK is taken very seriously. The kids probably got pissed off at one another while playing it.

Let's face it, the reason why kids are screw ups are because parents don't invest time in their children, not because they play violent video games. I was playing M rated games when I was 8 years old and I don't feel an unquenchable lust for blood running through me.

 

[chris2245]

Ok
i made an account just for this.
i caught this program on tv a while back and there are so many blunders even a year 6 student wouldnt make when carrying out scientific research.
first both of the kids need to be control groups, i.e monitoured from birth to make sure they view no violent material and play no video games.
secondly, if you have ever played a football game such as the one the "non violent" group played
youll know how boring they are.
hugely
now as the violent footaged was shown directly after, as the shooter group had been playing an exiting, fun game, theyre heart rate had increase considerably, and were "pumped up"
whereas the "Non violent" were relaxed and chilled, so their heart rate would rise more because 1. it could as they had a lower bpm and 2. it could because they were relaxed and as they were shown the footage, became more "exited" causing it to raise, whereas the shooter group would as i said be "pumped"
3. the pencils thing is just redicoooooooolus so i shall awnser it stupidly.
1. the football children thought, maby if i pick up pencils the nasty old woman will stop torturing me with terrible games, whereas the shooter group thought, screw you im not helping, your trying to blame parents shortcomings on the video games, rather than caring about whats happening in your childs life.

 

[Roofstone]

I'll admitt that I have a problem with caring about stuff on the news most of the time. Maybe it is violent games, maybe not.

But who the hell is gonna trust a nanny doing research in the name of science?

 

[Broady Brio]

*Yawns.

Oh... Another person hating on the games industry. "Supernanny tries..." And she will fail like everyone else.

 

[subject_87]

Again, correlation does not mean causation. A lot of these sorts of studies are based on the false assumption that it does; there are an awful lot of other potential factors at work here.

 

[cornmancer]

She says it right there, "I'm no neuroscientist." That's all you need to discredit the theory. Among other things like there only being 40 kids and that it's unlikely she had the assistance of an actual nueroscientist who did go through all the proper steps in the scientific method then had the experiment performed by other scientists to confirm the accuracy. And it's not like she's unbiased.

 

[lukeyboy270]

From what I know gamers tend to be alot more timid / less "filled with nitro" and the sporty people are the ones looking for fights and being as thick as 7 brick walls (and the twilight producers head). I'm not sure how this affects adults but me and my gaming friends are nice people and we all are not fond of IRL violence dispite the games we play yet the people who play football rugby and just hardly game will spout "CHU WUNNA FIGH?!" at the tip of a hat. Speaking as a secondary school student i have expeireince. (p.s my spelling is terrible)