Critical Miss: Gamer Science

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Yopaz:

Did you even bother to read through my post? The whole last segment was about saying it would be ignorant to say gaming does or does not cause violent behaviour.

And this is what I get for responding to messages right after I get up in the morning. Sorry.

Yet again it seems like you ignored my post completely. There's even an apology in the post for taking this too far, I'd advice you to actually read more than the first few sentences the next time, or at least make it seem like you did. I'm sorry, but I can't build up any sympathy after ignoring the bulk of 2 posts.

Yopaz:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Yopaz:

Did you even bother to read through my post? The whole last segment was about saying it would be ignorant to say gaming does or does not cause violent behaviour.

And this is what I get for responding to messages right after I get up in the morning. Sorry.

Yet again it seems like you ignored my post completely. There's even an apology in the post for taking this too far, I'd advice you to actually read more than the first few sentences the next time, or at least make it seem like you did. I'm sorry, but I can't build up any sympathy after ignoring the bulk of 2 posts.

I read it. I was apologizing for glossing over a part of your original reply. I didn't feel a need to reply to the rest. I agreed with the rest of the second part of your post.

Grey Carter:
Critical Miss: Gamer Science

Slander versus Pander.

Read Full Article

Ah, I see you've mastered the art of Pigeonholing!
I'm so proud!

But it's almost never "exacerbate pre-existing conditions", is it? Especially when it comes to videogames and violence -- then it's mostly like "suddenly develop extreme pathologies". On the other hand, I don't think anyone ever denied the corrupting effects of something like WoW, that's practically common knowledge, if anecdotal evidence is to be believed. (DON'T YOU DARE DISTRUST MY ANECDOTAL DEVIANCE)

Anecdotal, schmantecdotal...I FINALLY work in an Alice's Restaurant reference IN CONTEXT and it goes unappreciated.

Sociology and psycology shouldn't even be considered real science, but thats just my two cents

To be fair, most studies that are poised against gaming tend to have a habit of being framed in such as way as to imply that playing games makes you something of an ammoral bastard.

I'm sorry but having people come out and say that my hobby of choice, something I also happen to be very passionate about, supposedly leads to violence, murder, rape, crime, societal ill and other major issues isn't too far off from being a personal attack on me (especially when gaming is often used in conjunction with the word 'addiction' and claims are made of how 'games are like electronic heroin', they aren't even being subtle with their attempts at demonising us anymore).

With this in mind I think I'm pretty well justified in being skeptical and dismissive of studies that attempt to indirectly label me as what's wrong with society today.

As for the studies that allegedly get a free pass for being pro-gamer, I've only seen one, and all that said was that playing games like Call of Duty can be beneficial to your hand-eye co-ordination and ability to differentiate between subtler shades of grey.

I don't think we have anywhere near as many studies patting us on the back as we do trying to put a sticky note with 'I'm a child molester' on it.

Ian Caronia:

Common sense is not the same as common knowledge. Yes, this sounds like semantics, but hear me out. Sense is based on estimation, or rather educated guessing, whereas knowledge is based on facts.

A small correction here. Common knowledge is based on the population's interpretation of facts. The point I'm making is the fact that numerous people believe X to be true does not make it true. Nor does it quantify X or detail the exact percentages involved.

Ex: It's common knowledge that those with mental difficulties are often easily influenced. It's common knowledge that those with social difficulties are made worse by staying inside. It's common knowledge that gaming most often takes place inside, and that gaming's goal is the immersion of the players. Thus, it's common sense that someone with pre-existing mental and social difficulties would be made worse by playing violent videogames for prolonged periods of time.

See? A study proving what we already figured out isn't insightful and can only be useful if you're in an argument and need something concrete on the subject to back you up.

Again. Quantifying the factors involved is important. As is evidence for a given position in debate. And by debate I don't just mean people chucking stones at each other over the internet or on television. I mean when it comes to policy negotiation in government and hospitals. Or defining what legally constitutes abuse or neglect. Is allowing your underage child to play six hours of Call of Duty a day neglect? "Common Knowledge" generally doesn't hold up in court.

It's because of this that gamers have grown cold to any studies, even insightful ones, that mention gaming in any sort of negative light. They know it's only going to be used as fuel for the anti-gamer/anti-mature game fires that flicker at their brightest in political and media circles. In their desperation they can at times turn to idiocy, like blond dude did with Mr.Lasers in your strip.

I don't know if that point I explained there was what you were actually going for. If it was it wasn't done to the best in the strip. If it wasn't then disregard this sentence. : )

The point I was making is that a worryingly large proportion of gamers don't even read the studies or articles in question. They simply respond automatically based on the title. For a good example of this, see the current study that's doing the rounds on the frontpage. Whether this behaviour is justified or not is up for debate but it's irritating either way.

So, in conclusion: I hope I've explained myself clearly and I also hope you don't have any hard feelings towards me or think I meant any by responding with this. I DO however feel that I should've explained myself clearer from the start (ugh) and actually am embarrassed the author of one of my favorite web comics so far was ticked off by something stupid I said (uuugh). Now to grimace and bury my face in my hands.

Not at all. In fact now you've clarified your position I do think I owe you an apology.

I was very aware of the part that said "pre-established" as opposed to just makes people angry.

was that an accepting science or a stupid science?
it really hard to tell....

I wish people would recognize that the lady on the left is actually correct. Though with so many gamers being teenagers they probably just don't want to acknowledge science. D'oh well, they probably weren't suited for a career in psychology anyways.

I think the only time it's appropriate to call bullshit automatically like that is when somebody does something like this:

Media Pundit: X that doesn't bother anyone else in any way whatsoever has been shown to maybe be "bad for you". Therefore X should be banned.

Everybody Else: Shut yo' mout, foo'.

If the criticism wasn't immediately followed up with "there oughta be a law", there would not be a problem.

Brings the point across perfectly. Yes, there are obviously some "studies" that involve some BS on the anti-game side of the argument, but I think there are plenty of good studies that are right to say that video games can, in certain circumstances, bring out violent behavior in certain people. The big problem is that those on the anti-game side take those results and blow them out of proportion, claiming it's evidence that video games should be banned (despite the fact that the results are really no stronger than, for example, competitive sports), and then the pro-game side immediately attempts to discredit the studies.

In other words, it's not always the evidence that's wrong, but sometimes it's the conclusions drawn from that evidence. We believe the conclusions are wrong, so we deny the evidence.

Yes, ALL HAIL SCIENCE!!!

Now DND ...I'm working on my psyonic kung-fu grip :D

RedEyesBlackGamer:
Too true. Gamers are so quick to try to discredit or dismiss studies that come out in some way against their hobby, but herald pro-game studies as the truth. You can't have it both ways, guys.

Exactly. I was really amazed how quickly people will latch onto some random story about some kid learning survival skills from a game but refuse to accept that violent games might teach people about violence.

I personally think games give people ideas. But they don't turn you into a killer or a hero. They can teach, but not train.

This is actually very true, the quote "It's funny because its true" applies here, where gamers turn a blind eye to the negatives of gaming. But there are studies that say games are positive and negative... just putting it out there. Need more games where u can actually meet other players or something... but damn creepers are the risk of it.
Most people play with friends in video games, thus helps build some sort of relationship
SO i liked the comic, it true, but kinda overkill for me to the point its untrue

sry double post

RedEyesBlackGamer:
Too true. Gamers are so quick to try to discredit or dismiss studies that come out in some way against their hobby, but herald pro-game studies as the truth. You can't have it both ways, guys.

True; however, it doesn't help the case of the anti-gaming results when they tend to be funded by groups who've traditionally opposed gaming for various reasons. Though I believe a report done by the government (UK) basically stated 'there are problems, but we can't turn our backs on this'. If I could remember the name of the woman in charge of the commission, I'd find and link it (if anyone manages, let me know please - I believe it was during the later part of Tony Blair's PM-ship).

Kakashi on crack:
Lol, basically

There's a happy medium, I just think neither scientific "side" of the arguement wants to look for it.

BTW: Most Stealth Bombers have at one point in their life played a video game with a joystick. Proof that video games can have a practical application ^^

Most Stealth Bombers have at one point in their life brushed their teeth. That must mean that Crest toothpaste helps train people to become stealth bombers!

Weeeeeeell, the guy does have a hawaiji shirt! So he might be right!

Haseo21:
Hate to say it but thats about the truth

Quoted for truth. Very brave of you though Carter and Rydell, prepare for the hatewave.

But what gamer could argue with a lady scientist who was also a babe? I'm having trouble picturing that scenario.

Funny as ever, also interesting topic of public interest!
IT IS TRUE, gamers gain flight and laser vision through gaming - eh, wait, wrong study - it is true, looking from a psychological point, playing "violent" video games, just as watching violent movies increases the testosterone output which increases the potential aggression temporarily e.g.
The bullshit part is about all those newscasts showing only half the truth/ showing only what they think is pleasing the common sense. The whole truth is that our social life is influenced by more than just one component like videogames and violent behavior isn't based on playing violent videogames (only) but on the whole background and it also occurs without the influence of violent media. While on the other hand, i never saw a newscast mentioning the positive influences like increased eye-hand coordination, reaction, tactical thinking e.g., which, vice versa, aren't influenced by videogames only. Not to mention those who never differ between actually different games or even the different genres but think all games are "like CoD".

Guess this isn't new for those around, but it would be nice if the public media and common sence would include this, rather blaming media including violent content for violent behavior, but to think of their own role in this dilemma.

I've noticed this everywhere on the internet, but mostly on this damn site, I've never spoken out against for I know the hypocritical douchebags that make up a portion of this site would come down on me, but I'm glad someone did. Bravo

Out of everything in life it's probably games that are the last thing to inspire me to shank someone.

Great as usual but I miss the old disgustingly filthy comics.

I'm a gamer, and I play tons of violent games (luv em). I'm not gonna try and toss up some huge argument to justify why one group is wrong, the FACT is that some gamers are just complete idiots who fly off the handle and get their rage-on the moment something challenges their hobby. I personally don't rage and I can understand why some studies say what they say. Gamers are in the end, just human beings. Some of us are morons, others are brilliant, yet many gamers tend to band together if one of us is being affected. It could be that Gamers feel almost like...eh...a brotherhood or something? since we all share a medium that no other group shares. We interact with one-another on a daily basis through games or forums, and we can easily relate to other gamers through our favorite and disliked games (If I enjoy game A and hate game B, I'm sure their are hundreds of others who agree).

So all in all, people just need to chill out and ignore what anyone says. Just start spending more time playing games, and less time caring about what some people CLAIM to know about video games (Cause honestly...most of those 'scientists' and 'experts' don't prolly even play videogames).

Grey Carter:
Critical Miss: Gamer Science

Slander versus Pander.

Read Full Article

I love you so much right now.

I've already stated my opinion of the recent, horribly written and biased article the writer wrote on the psychological study of the effects of violent video games, so thank you for wrapping all of that up in two panels.

Video games have an impact of people whether positive or negative. It's great that we scrutinize the studies that claim negative behavior, but we don't do that for the right reasons. Instead of pointing out the flaws in the study and wanting more efficient studies, we simply toss out an data they find because we don't like it. And yet when another study promotes positive reactions we all cheer and believe every single word it says without giving even 1/100th of the skepticism we had with the previous study.

These kinds of studies are not always out to get us. Some of these studies may be pushed with an agenda behind it, but that does not mean we should toss out everything they give us. This applies just as much to the "pro-game" studies, and it's disappointing to see people blindly support anything that sounds good to them.

This comic is even funnier if you read the news posts on this site.

God, so unbelievably true. We leap at every positive study and decry any negative one, and in the end it only hurts our cause. As one of my friends put it, we argue like lobbyists, not trying to find truth but instead just drag the whole discussion into the mud and prevent reasonable debate. So utterly agreed.

FOR SCIENCE!!!!....i'll get my coat

Games are just like any source that can bring different emotions out of you. Games can make you feel better or become pissed off... I can see a child in development playing aggressive games on a constant basis becoming more volatile, same goes for the opposite. I feel kids should only play games that are rated to their age group or games that don't encourage or celebrate extreme violence. If certain kids express a certain mature level, then I would allow a bit more leeway.

Yeah, it's a little ol' thing called confirmation bias. You look for the things that confirm your pre-existing schemas and disregard those that conflict with them. While true for gamers, it happens in basically every other part of society too.

People want to hear what they like to hear.
Sometimes it comforts them.
Other times it makes their opinion seem a lot more valid.

It's just how we work. That's why there's a whole community on YouTube filled with Ranters who write down their rants, read them out, and get tons of views from those who agree. It reinforces the opinion.

Well this now seems especially relevant in light of this.

If I'm skeptical about studies that show correlation between violent media and violent behavior it's because they've been doing them for over 80 YEARS and have still not shown a clear, statistically significant result.

I know I'm late to the game on this one but I had to point out after reading the strip that this behaviour is by no means exclusive to gamers. IF anything it is common to most of mankind, people cling to study findings which support their own preconceived notions and discard or attempt to discredit any findings which go against their opinion.

The reactions to this comic are a good demonstration of the appeal of smug middle ground sneering: you get to point out obvious flaws in human nature and/or epistemology while condescending both sides of the argument for daring to engage an argument.

Stating that violent games exacerbate existing violent pathologies is like stating striking matches in homes with gas leaks is inadvisable. It's meaningless because that's not a common condition under which matches are used nor should the match be the focus as the what caused the house to explode.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 67218)