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
Heh I can't wave a degree I don't have. I'm a psychology student. Not quite there yet.killer-corkonian said: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.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)
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.
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.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.
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).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.
You wave that damn degree, boy!Targie said:Heh I can't wave a degree I don't have. I'm a psychology student. Not quite there yet.killer-corkonian said: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.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)
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.
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.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.
I agree with this post.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.