But that's my exact point.Dr.Panties 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:Quick, everybody!
Scramble to find reasons to disbelieve this study in the way that you never would if their findings had been different!
It doesn't strike me as anything other than typical of what we are. This constitutes us. This is what we do, and have done, since the capacity for argument manifested. And I will do exactly the same, and so will you, despite any pretensions to the contrary.Zhukov said:But that's my exact point.Dr.Panties 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:Quick, everybody!
Scramble to find reasons to disbelieve this study in the way that you never would if their findings had been different!
People who are invested in games (that is to say, people here) always dismiss any of these studies that have even slightly negative results. "Oh, they've got an agenda". "They've just got it in for games." "This is bullshit, I play CoD every day and I never killed anybody." Even something like this which is vague and not particularly critical.
Then, on those rare occasions when someone says that video game violence doesn't have any effect, everybody is all, "Fuck yes Science has prevailed!"
Basically, this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/8903-Gamer-Science].
That doesn't strike you as the slightest bit silly?
They didn't make up the name, it was already called the Macbeth Effect long before it was connected to video games.FalloutJack said:...Macbeth?
Really,MacbethThe Scottish Play is hardly the best thing to use in a parallel study with violent video games.
I believe the point that we're trying to wrestle with here is that there's nothing unclean about gaming, ergo the idea that this study is...well...bogus. I'm fairly certain it's not important that it's an effect elsewhere...Alterego-X said:They didn't make up the name, it was already called the Macbeth Effect long before it was connected to video games.FalloutJack said:...Macbeth?
Really,MacbethThe Scottish Play is hardly the best thing to use in a parallel study with violent video games.
The only thing this experiment is trying to prove about video games, is that first time players feel guilty about them.
It doesn't need to prove that guilt materializes in cleansing, because THAT HAS ALREAD BEEN PROVEN in several other experiments.
Agreed.Thespian said:Okay, seriously?
That is pathetic. A fundamental of the scientific method is that the larger your sample group is, the more accurate you are going to be. 76? That's nothing. Also, what does 76 "people" mean? What ages were they? What kind of people in general? Was any social science included here at all?Andy Chalk said:A recent study conducted by the University of Luxembourg had 76 people play violent videogames for 15 minutes
It's not like "People who game a lot tend to not buy cosmetics as a present" is a bad stereotype, but this experiment is a joke.
A very conclusive and useful study. I performed a study too. The majority of 76 people beat up and nicked the wallets of researchers at the University of Luxembourg for performing what they considered useless research, then played violent videogames as a reward and a form of catharsis for morally righteous beating up of pointless researchers. Many also lit up a celebratory cigarette in a mirror of post-coital bliss.A recent study conducted by the University of Luxembourg had 76 people play violent videogames for 15 minutes, after which they were told to select gift items for others. Those who were "inexperienced" with violent games were more likely to select "hygienic products" like shower gel, deodorant and toothpaste than those who played violent games on a regular basis.
Heh, I was thinking that too.Sylveria said:I think this just proves that casual gamers have better personal hygiene than hardcore gamers.
Exctly what i saw in this article as well. I always buy hygiene products as ifts because i suck at giftmaking.Reaper195 said:All I can tell that this prooves is that some people are more likely to buy hygiene products than others. And as a gift? That just proves that they have no idea what to actually get someone, since 'hygiene' products are used by most people, so it's a roundabout (If rather cheap) gift.