Violent Videogames Cause "Macbeth Effect"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I totally checked this article because of the Patrick Stewart picture.
Anyway, interesting topic for a study.
Anyway, interesting topic for a study.
This is just getting silly.
In other news, violent video games cause the desire for French toast.
In other news, violent video games cause the desire for French toast.
So. Okay? What does this have to do with, well, anything? I honestly see no point in this study at all.
...Macbeth?
No, I'm sorry, but that is stupid. In fact, it is a rare and special kind of stupid that one can only find developed in secret storerooms underneath five-century-old buildings located in small countries. And there, we find ourselves in Luxembourg. I'm sorry, Luxembourgian - should any of you be about this evening - but I use to wonder what it is people DO over there, and now I find that it's so-called research into video games. Pity. A few more years of work and they could've realized that the whole thing was a load of crap.
Really,Macbeth The Scottish Play is hardly the best thing to use in a parallel study with violent video games. They're no closer to finding a deeper meaning in the video game conundrum than they are over here, where it is standard to hit your head against a poll until you start believing Jack Thompson and Fox News as a benchmark for study. I mean, for starters, most inexperienced gamers - upon playing such a game for hours - find this stuff to be AWESOME, not 'unclean'. I played Doom when I was a child and have yet to believe that I'm dirty for wanting to kill every demon under the sun, nor anything I've blasted, electrocuted, melted, burned, tortured, vaporized, or EATEN. And this includes other players.
Where does any scientist of Luxembourg get off by saying he has an objective study to announce to THE WHOLE WORLD based solely on the tiny gulp of humanity he worked on out of the gaming community...from Luxembourg. Maybe that's how they are in that part of the world, but that is hardly the whole picture. Certainly video game SALES don't back up that study. By god, violence sells! And why not? Simulated violence is far more healthier than the real thing, and legal, and theraputic. I have taken precisely two psychology courses in all my time in college. I wouldn't even need them to tell that this is bullshit.
No, I'm sorry, but that is stupid. In fact, it is a rare and special kind of stupid that one can only find developed in secret storerooms underneath five-century-old buildings located in small countries. And there, we find ourselves in Luxembourg. I'm sorry, Luxembourgian - should any of you be about this evening - but I use to wonder what it is people DO over there, and now I find that it's so-called research into video games. Pity. A few more years of work and they could've realized that the whole thing was a load of crap.
Really,
Where does any scientist of Luxembourg get off by saying he has an objective study to announce to THE WHOLE WORLD based solely on the tiny gulp of humanity he worked on out of the gaming community...from Luxembourg. Maybe that's how they are in that part of the world, but that is hardly the whole picture. Certainly video game SALES don't back up that study. By god, violence sells! And why not? Simulated violence is far more healthier than the real thing, and legal, and theraputic. I have taken precisely two psychology courses in all my time in college. I wouldn't even need them to tell that this is bullshit.
Well....fuck.Scrustle said:
Now all that government money spent on this "research" was burned for nothing......as usual
Well, that is unfortuante. Will all of Neptune's great oceans not wash this blood from my controller?
I smell all sorts of bullshit on this one.
The alternating between the terms "videogames" and "media" outside of directly referencing the study was the largest red flag.
The shallow diversity of the study strikes as odd in general. Just gamers, just playing games, without consideration of parallels and correlations outside the study. Where are the sports games to show that it's not mearly a matter of hygenics or other attempts to affect the same response without using a media buzz issue. There's no indication that this study is responsible for coining the phrase "Macbeth Effect", but there is also no indication of it sourcing other studies beyond acquiring that phrase. What happens when you cross movie watchers and gamers within the context of this study? How many of the "innocent" gamers were fans of slasher flicks? What was their level of exposure to violence aside from videogames? Movies of both violent and non-violent varieties have been around for decades so even if this study was intended for videogame audiences only why is there no mention of the medium that videogames have only recently surpassed in terms of complexity and media attention?[footnote]I'm just playing dumb here. The only reason this study exists, and the only reason Escapist threw together a story on it, is because any time "Videogames" and "Negative impact" are in the same sentence you get some form of media shit-storm, which drives up hits/views and rakes in advertising cash. They don't need to understand it, they just need to make sure you're agitated[footnote] Yes the irony of this post just rose to apocalyptic levels[/footnote]. "I'm not entirely clear on what exactly this study proves"[/footnote]
Sicko.
Thank you.
The alternating between the terms "videogames" and "media" outside of directly referencing the study was the largest red flag.
The shallow diversity of the study strikes as odd in general. Just gamers, just playing games, without consideration of parallels and correlations outside the study. Where are the sports games to show that it's not mearly a matter of hygenics or other attempts to affect the same response without using a media buzz issue. There's no indication that this study is responsible for coining the phrase "Macbeth Effect", but there is also no indication of it sourcing other studies beyond acquiring that phrase. What happens when you cross movie watchers and gamers within the context of this study? How many of the "innocent" gamers were fans of slasher flicks? What was their level of exposure to violence aside from videogames? Movies of both violent and non-violent varieties have been around for decades so even if this study was intended for videogame audiences only why is there no mention of the medium that videogames have only recently surpassed in terms of complexity and media attention?[footnote]I'm just playing dumb here. The only reason this study exists, and the only reason Escapist threw together a story on it, is because any time "Videogames" and "Negative impact" are in the same sentence you get some form of media shit-storm, which drives up hits/views and rakes in advertising cash. They don't need to understand it, they just need to make sure you're agitated[footnote] Yes the irony of this post just rose to apocalyptic levels[/footnote]. "I'm not entirely clear on what exactly this study proves"[/footnote]
In the original context of murdering an actual person, a spot of blood on you is a good sign that you've been bad, so it's a good idea to make sure there's none left on you. Fine, I'll give them that, but
In the animal kingdom, having anything sticking to you or staining you increases the likelihood of your detection by predators or prey items which can have disastrous effects on your food intake and life expectancy. Like other contaminants and foreign material it can also compromise the effectiveness of fur and act as a vector for disease and infection. Most mammals groom themselves after eating, fighting or just when there's nothing better to do. Clean = Survival.
In this study, people who are unaccustomed to the violence depicted in videogames gave the automatic response of wanting to cleanse themselves. Those with previous exposure have turned off that automatic response because their conscious mind is able to differentiate between "fictional" and actual violence. ie Videogames do not make people violent and exposure to violent media does not "desensitize" people to violence. People who cannot differentiate between portrayed violence and real violence are shitting in everyone else' bed and even "science people" will misconstrue facts to make a buck.
In the animal kingdom, having anything sticking to you or staining you increases the likelihood of your detection by predators or prey items which can have disastrous effects on your food intake and life expectancy. Like other contaminants and foreign material it can also compromise the effectiveness of fur and act as a vector for disease and infection. Most mammals groom themselves after eating, fighting or just when there's nothing better to do. Clean = Survival.
In this study, people who are unaccustomed to the violence depicted in videogames gave the automatic response of wanting to cleanse themselves. Those with previous exposure have turned off that automatic response because their conscious mind is able to differentiate between "fictional" and actual violence. ie Videogames do not make people violent and exposure to violent media does not "desensitize" people to violence. People who cannot differentiate between portrayed violence and real violence are shitting in everyone else' bed and even "science people" will misconstrue facts to make a buck.
Two people are arguing, both of whom are using idiotic process and poor logic in front of (hundreds of) thousands of other people. One person wants you labeled as immoral, the other wants people to leave you alone. You would honestly deflate both of them?Zhukov said:
Sicko.
FalloutJack said:
Thank you.
Ok, if you want to have a story about a sample size of 76 people as a curiousity, fine, whatever, just don't expect anyone to take it too seriously.
But the first sentence of the article is a flat out lie.
But the first sentence of the article is a flat out lie.
Oh, I doth wonder aloud, for what have we here?
Another misadventure does bubble up from minds most weak?
Games, I read, games cause the plague!
As sure as they do the other multitude of ails.
Gather one's pace and avert thine gaze, for here, there is most absent of scenes.
Another misadventure does bubble up from minds most weak?
Games, I read, games cause the plague!
As sure as they do the other multitude of ails.
Gather one's pace and avert thine gaze, for here, there is most absent of scenes.
Not going to lie, when I first saw this article title I thought.
"Wait Violent Video Games cause bad luck for stage actors?"
Then I read it and thought,
"So wait, there's an entirely different Macbeth Effect? How come I've never heard of it?"
"Wait Violent Video Games cause bad luck for stage actors?"
Then I read it and thought,
"So wait, there's an entirely different Macbeth Effect? How come I've never heard of it?"
Not to mention that a proper scientist does not go into research with an attitude like "let's reveal how the long term exposure to violent media negatively affects attitudes towards aggression". If you go looking specifically for negative effects then chances are you will find them. Everyone just assumes that there is some kind of long-term change in behaviour induced by games and that this change is for the worst. I mean why not suppose that veteran gamers are actually less aggressive? Maybe there is no change at all? Talk about soft science.Thespian said:
Yeah, quickly everyone. You know, like you do when participating in a discussion, debate, and/or argument about something in which you are emotionally or otherwise invested.Zhukov said:
Scramble, everyone, because Zhukov is attempting, and abjectly failing, some...semblance...of irony.