Study About 'Sexist Games' is Severely Flawed

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Study About 'Sexist Games' is Severely Flawed

A new study claims to have found a correlation between "sexist" video games and a lack of empathy. But there are some issues.

Read Full Article

I'll just insert the obligatory, "NO DUH" right here. Most of these studies/reports are commissioned by people with a severe case of confirmation bias. Besides, we've already seen countless other studies with much longer testing cycles and a larger set of variables accounted for that have found absolutely no real effects caused by video games. Hell, the most notable one I can think of in recent memory is this decade-long study with a sample size of over 11 thousand children:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131119/03314525287/study-11k-children-video-games-probably-dont-alter-behavior.shtml

This vilification of entertainment media, especially that of video games, has gotten old eons ago.

Crazy..at no point during this study did anybody with even half a working brain stop to think how stupid the various decisions shaping this study were. Each process the study used, my worry for the research scientists state of mental health increased two-fold. It reads like a student's first attempt at opportunity sampling. What medication have they been abusing? I recommend some violent videogames, like pokemon or that one arcade machine that tests your endurance to an ever increasing electric shock. Never did any harm to me. Apart from a few "accidents" at the care home with residents pacemakers that stains an otherwise worrying C.V.

So a biased, rigged study about how gaming is sexist wasn't peer-reviewed by anyone, fact checked at all, and was accepting as utter fact by several news outlets? I'm shocked. I'm surprised no one in the study talked about tropes.

This is quite literately the whole "Video games cause violence" shit all over again with a new coat of paint. Thank you millennial hipsters for having to make gamers go though this shit all over again.

kiri3tsubasa:
This is quite literately the whole "Video games cause violence" shit all over again with a new coat of paint. Thank you millennial hipsters for having to make gamers go though this shit all over again.

Amen. The only difference between the hatred against video games then and the hatred now is the politics of the people attacking games, that's all. The same tactics, the same mindset, the same "Won't somebody think of the children?" arguments, etc. It's just this time people in the media (both gaming and otherwise) share the said politics, so more often than not they're on the same side of those attacking games. I'm just glad to see that there are some people who are willing to do some digging, tell the truth, and don't suffer from a severe case of cranial-rectal inversion such as Ms. Finnegan here.

kiri3tsubasa:
This is quite literately the whole "Video games cause violence" shit all over again with a new coat of paint. Thank you millennial hipsters for having to make gamers go though this shit all over again.

The thing is though that it is well established that fictional violence (whatever in games or movies) desensitizes people to violence in the short term. This is nothing new. The more important, and as yet unanswered, questions are if there is a long term effect and if people are more prone to act in an aggressive manner after being desensitized by media.

It is not moral hysteria to report on actual scientific findings, especially not findings that are in line with prior research.

kiri3tsubasa:
This is quite literately the whole "Video games cause violence" shit all over again with a new coat of paint. Thank you millennial hipsters for having to make gamers go though this shit all over again.

The best part is that whenever a study comes up it either debunks the whole violence angle or has such shoddy methodology that it can be thrown out without a second thought.

Okay, I'm going to sidestep the whole study and just ask one question that I think is a fair one to ask - why make an article attempting to criticize a study while not reporting on the original study itself? Its not like its an old study whose credibility has suddenly fallen into question. I just don't see the point. Its like making a long-winded response video to a Youtube video with 12 views - who gives a shit? If one doesn't care to report on it when it was published why does one care about a response to it? I don't understand any logic behind it besides "because clickbait".

MarsAtlas:
Okay, I'm going to sidestep the whole study and just ask one question that I think is a fair one to ask - why make an article attempting to criticize a study while not reporting on the original study itself? Its not like its an old study whose credibility has suddenly fallen into question. I just don't see the point. Its like making a long-winded response video to a Youtube video with 12 views - who gives a shit? If one doesn't care to report on it when it was published why does one care about a response to it? I don't understand any logic behind it besides "because clickbait".

What if it was being reported uncritically as fact in a bunch of other publications like Cnet, Time, The Daily Telegraph, and The Daily Beast? There are a lot of publications just taking the study at face value while this is one of only three that actually look into the study.

MarsAtlas:
Okay, I'm going to sidestep the whole study and just ask one question that I think is a fair one to ask - why make an article attempting to criticize a study while not reporting on the original study itself? Its not like its an old study whose credibility has suddenly fallen into question. I just don't see the point. Its like making a long-winded response video to a Youtube video with 12 views - who gives a shit? If one doesn't care to report on it when it was published why does one care about a response to it? I don't understand any logic behind it besides "because clickbait".

Because the study is a trainwreck. I don't see how this could be reported on without editorializing even a little, considering the wildly hyperbolic and oddly presumptuous statements the researchers seem to make. It would be like trying to report on a study about the effects of caffeine on the nervous system by starting from the premise that "serial killers usually drink coffee, right?"

Also, the study was covered over the past few days by a number of large publications and it's related to gaming; which makes it news.

I do disagree with Liz on her point about the age-restriction thing, as we know all too well that very few games with an 18+ rating are actually played by people exclusively over the age of 18-- and that's okay, by the by. But the study specifically singles out violence against women, links it exclusively to lack of empathy (which is ridiculous, since lack of empathy is a leading factor for all violent behavior regardless of the recipient), uses GTA as a "sexist" game (while asking from players to play missions NOT involving women in any way) and then reaches the insane conclusion that indifferent response to a picture is somehow a sound scientific conclusion. In the meantime, things like prior experiences, cultural differences and family background don't seem to be factored in and that's in a sample size that's already too small and over half of it is female.

Also, what the flying does that even mean?

?It is OK for a guy to use any and all means to ?convince? a girl to have sex

How about you make that a little more vague? Next time, answer the question yourselves whydontcha?

Absolutely embarassing. Even for a layman, this is a disaster. Remember that English TV nanny persona that run an 'experiment' with kids playing videogames, after which she and the others in that 'experiment' tried their hardest to manipulate the results to perpetuate this "games are bad for children" narrative? That's of about the same quality.

I've been reading up on statistical analysis recently for some research work, and even after only ten or fifteen hours of studying the subject, I can tell you that a study group of 48 people is utter nonsense. "Statistical power" is, basically, the size the study needs to be in order to yield accurate results. This study is almost comically underpowered. You'd need to test thousands of people to get anything useful.

That's not even starting on how they exclusively picked teenagers beneath the game's content rating, or how they coloured the results of the study by classifying GTA as a "violently sexist" game before determining whether it had any impact on violence or sexism.

This shouldn't have been published. It's not a study, it's a puff piece.

Well what a stupid fucking study. There's an age gate on more mature games for a reason. Let's also not forget Jim's video on violent video games. Even though it is mentioned in the video and was originally published on this very website, please keep the warning in mind Jim gives regarding the violent clip. The suicide footage starts at 1:20 and ends at 1:50. Skip this portion if you are not comfortable with it

Gethsemani:

kiri3tsubasa:
This is quite literately the whole "Video games cause violence" shit all over again with a new coat of paint. Thank you millennial hipsters for having to make gamers go though this shit all over again.

The thing is though that it is well established that fictional violence (whatever in games or movies) desensitizes people to violence in the short term. This is nothing new. The more important, and as yet unanswered, questions are if there is a long term effect and if people are more prone to act in an aggressive manner after being desensitized by media.

It is not moral hysteria to report on actual scientific findings, especially not findings that are in line with prior research.

All the answers you need can be found in the crime statistics... wich have been pointing downwards permanently since 1990... wich means that videogames had no negative effect whatsofreaking ever on society.

The tragic part is that this isnt exactly rocket science, i dont need year lasting studies with 11 thousand participants to see that video games as a medium had no negative effect on society, unless someone wants to claim that the crime statistics would be even lower if videogames werent a thing.

Yet the media needs its bogeyman. No matter if its rock n roll, comics, dungeon and dragons or rap music. All of these where accused of "corrupting the youth" or " X leads to Y" fallacies... the media never gets tired of claiming the newest form of entertainment is somehow responsible for all the evils in the world. Only this time nothing came out yet to replace gaming as the big next thing so in scarcety of alternatives the media decided to go for another round, this time with the help of professional victims and internet hipsters, and im afraid "game journalists" who perpetuated the status quo of the pariah gamer...

Its a moral scare to get in those sweet sweet clicks and television scores. a ever repeating cycle so to speak.

MarsAtlas:
Okay, I'm going to sidestep the whole study and just ask one question that I think is a fair one to ask - why make an article attempting to criticize a study while not reporting on the original study itself? Its not like its an old study whose credibility has suddenly fallen into question. I just don't see the point. Its like making a long-winded response video to a Youtube video with 12 views - who gives a shit? If one doesn't care to report on it when it was published why does one care about a response to it? I don't understand any logic behind it besides "because clickbait".

When bad information goes unopposed it often gets confused for the truth. That youtube video may have only 12 views, but thats 12 people who wanted that video to be made. That being said, if one does not care about a report on the study why does one comment on such report?

They asked teenage boys whose hormones are turning their brains into a supernova if "It is OK for a guy to use any and all means to 'convince' a girl to have sex" and expected rational mature answers?

These KIDS are 15 years old. Holy fucking shit.

Into the trash it goes.

In my last year at school they started getting potential new teachers to teach a class and getting the kids to rate them. I remember after one batch of potential teachers they asked the class who would they prefer, and almost all the male students responded 'The hot one'.

That's how most teenage boys are. If they want to do a fair and useful study (witch it sounds like they didn't want to) they would use people who are, as a group, not likely to use 'I did your mum' as the ultimate comeback.

I also think that if they showed me a picture of a girl that had been abused and said 'this girl's been abused, how do you feel?' I would probably just give a meh. Its nothing to do with me, I don't know the person, will probably never meet the person, there's nothing I can do and this being a study she's probably an actress. That doesn't mean I don't care about abuse or I would commit abuse, just that I don't care about a picture your waving at me.

When a study is using terms like "violent sexist video games" which are very loaded and subjective without hard definitions you know it is bullshit.

This was published in PLOS One, an open access journal that anybody can and has published in. They charge the authors to publish, basically whereas most traditional journals would be selective about which studies they published, PLOS One will publish nearly anything as part of their business model.

I would take this poorly researched and poorly controlled psych study with a huge grain of salt.

I'm not sure all the criticisms of the study are legitimate.

* Age ratings on games are a fairly arbitrary in the first place, so it would be wrong to assume that immature gamers can't give an accurate reflection on the effects of playing a mature game. Age is probably a factor in how we respond to games, but it would be silly to assume that an underage gamer would have no response worth measuring. It's like ignoring a study that finds smoking as bad for children, because cigarettes have an age rating on the pack.
* Whilst I agree it would have been worth gauging the participants opinions prior to getting them to play the games, I could also see a concern that this could bias them for when they answer the same set of questions later. Test subjects, once they realise what it is they're being tested on and what the test is specifically trying to do, have a habit of adjusting (consciously or unconsciously) their behaviour.
* So what if the study shows only pictures of violence against women? The object of the test was to see if empathy levels were effected by sexist games, not to see who the participants empathise with more.

Over all, it is a single test with a very small sample size, that is only of limited value by itself (not withstanding all the other criticisms I agree with). Newspapers will naturally do their stupid thing of uncritically parroting it, but that's unfortunately not new. My only real concern is that gamers have an instinct to reflexively pooh-pooh any game study that says something negative about the effects of gaming. Many people here would have probably dismissed the study without even looking at it, let alone doing some critical analysis of it.

Karadalis:

All the answers you need can be found in the crime statistics... wich have been pointing downwards permanently since 1990... wich means that videogames had no negative effect whatsofreaking ever on society.

This is not "all the answers I need" to draw that conclusion. The most salient problems are that crime statistics are influenced by many things, from government policies to social equality to crime prevention efforts to the level of trust in law enforcing agencies and many more. If most of these are getting better, the detrimental effect of one minor element (and video game violence is minor compared to police corruption, for example) can be mitigated by the positive effect of the other factors.

Karadalis:
The tragic part is that this isnt exactly rocket science, i dont need year lasting studies with 11 thousand participants to see that video games as a medium had no negative effect on society, unless someone wants to claim that the crime statistics would be even lower if videogames werent a thing.

Yet the media needs its bogeyman. No matter if its rock n roll, comics, dungeon and dragons or rap music. All of these where accused of "corrupting the youth" or " X leads to Y" fallacies... the media never gets tired of claiming the newest form of entertainment is somehow responsible for all the evils in the world. Only this time nothing came out yet to replace gaming as the big next thing so in scarcety of alternatives the media decided to go for another round, this time with the help of professional victims and internet hipsters, and im afraid "game journalists" who perpetuated the status quo of the pariah gamer...

Its a moral scare to get in those sweet sweet clicks and television scores. a ever repeating cycle so to speak.

And that is all your opinion and not proof of anything. Let me be clear about this: I absolutely don't think video games have caused any major problems or increased crime rates. But so far the scientific data is still not sufficient to draw a conclusion either way, and the short term scientific findings very much suggest that violent games (just like movies) can have a detrimental effect on our short term ability to feel empathy and compassion and increases our affinity for violent or aggressive solutions to problems in the short term. Whatever that has any significant impact on how we conduct ourselves is another matter.

Strazdas:

MarsAtlas:
Okay, I'm going to sidestep the whole study and just ask one question that I think is a fair one to ask - why make an article attempting to criticize a study while not reporting on the original study itself? Its not like its an old study whose credibility has suddenly fallen into question. I just don't see the point. Its like making a long-winded response video to a Youtube video with 12 views - who gives a shit? If one doesn't care to report on it when it was published why does one care about a response to it? I don't understand any logic behind it besides "because clickbait".

When bad information goes unopposed it often gets confused for the truth. That youtube video may have only 12 views, but thats 12 people who wanted that video to be made. That being said, if one does not care about a report on the study why does one comment on such report?

The point is that you a site is devoting page space to a subject that probably doesn't deserve the attention it is being given. If a newspaper's front page story was "This Youtuber's theory about aeroplane chem trails are inaccurate", people might come away thinking that such a negligible story is actually much more important than it really is. Any media outlet has to figure out what gets prominence (they only have so many journalists and headline space), and it raises an eyebrow if it goes after something so paltry. There is a danger that it is also straying into nut picking territory for the purposes of indulging a particular political view of its readership.

maninahat:

Strazdas:

MarsAtlas:
Okay, I'm going to sidestep the whole study and just ask one question that I think is a fair one to ask - why make an article attempting to criticize a study while not reporting on the original study itself? Its not like its an old study whose credibility has suddenly fallen into question. I just don't see the point. Its like making a long-winded response video to a Youtube video with 12 views - who gives a shit? If one doesn't care to report on it when it was published why does one care about a response to it? I don't understand any logic behind it besides "because clickbait".

When bad information goes unopposed it often gets confused for the truth. That youtube video may have only 12 views, but thats 12 people who wanted that video to be made. That being said, if one does not care about a report on the study why does one comment on such report?

The point is that you a site is devoting page space to a subject that probably doesn't deserve the attention it is being given. If a newspaper's front page story was "This Youtuber's theory about aeroplane chem trails are inaccurate", people might come away thinking that such a negligible story is actually much more important than it really is. Any media outlet has to figure out what gets prominence (they only have so many journalists and headline space), and it raises an eyebrow if it goes after something so paltry. There is a danger that it is also straying into nut picking territory for the purposes of indulging a particular political view of its readership.

A study that is attacking gaming and was reported as truth by multiple news website is not worthy of attention of a gaming website? Also unlike physical paper, Online publications dont run out of "headline space". In fact more articles are better for them because that means more clicks.

Lizzy Finnegan:
There was no attempt to gauge the opinions of the participants prior to exposing them to the games - so there was no baseline on how empathetic they were prior to being exposed to the game, nor was there any way to determine their beliefs on the "masculine behaviors" prior to playing the games. Each participant was given a specific objective in the game, which is not uncommon for a controlled study - however, there was no comparison between the short-term objective-based play (do this mission right here) and the player's ability to play without any sort of mission.

Exposing them to the question beforehand would influence the results. This is correct when you have objective measurements such as a blood sample since you need a baseline. For monitoring your personality however whenever you get a repeated question you will try to answer in a similar way as your initial answer.

The fact that people universally deemed too immature to play a particular game may have concerning reactions to playing aforementioned game is not particularly groundbreaking - otherwise all games would be recommended for all players.

Neurobiology (or actual science) has shown that neural plasticity decreases with age making younger participants more suited for studying behaviour as they are more prone to change. The mechanisms for this are clear and how to increase plasticity has been demonstrated in rats. Older individuals form less new synapses and make fewer connections. Also let's face it, we all know plenty of people too young to play games will play them.

only 48 participants were included in the small group who played these "violent sexist" games, and half of them were female. Of the "violent sexist" game participants, only 4 were over the age of 16

Do we actually have enough information to know whether or not this is a small sample size or not? If they did a power analysis and figured that including more participants was unnecessary then it's fine. If they did not do that or figured they would need more to reduce the standard deviation (although I am guessing if they used deviation of some sort they were using SEM rather than SD) then we should discredit it completely. Simply saying that their sample size is too small shows lack of understanding of statistics. I know enough statistics to say I don't know if that is enough or not. Maybe some of the brighter members of the site can chime in?

I've spent plenty of time talking about that one small group, though. Now, let's take a look at the "neutral" and "violent non-sexist" games. To begin, not a single 15-year-old was assigned either of these titles - every single 15-year-old participant was assigned one of the "sexist" games. The "neutral" games, rated 10+, were played by mostly of 18-year-olds, while the pair of Half Life titles, rated 16+, were played by mostly 17-year-olds. Both of these categories were made up 100% of people in the recommended age group for the games, whereas only one participant in the "sexist" group met the criteria for playing the game in the first place.

This however is a solid point. I would also have added that Half-Life as the violent game is a bad pick. It's not personal like GTA, nor are you the agressor, the majority of the enemies aren't even humans. Manhunt would have been better and maybe one group with Spec Ops: The Line would be interesting.

I haven't read the study myself, but I distrust any research based on subjective data by default. We should probably isolate kids from birth and have them play these games 8 hours a day for a few years then release them back in the wild and see if they start catcalling women and beat up prostitutes to get their money back after sleeping with them.

Strazdas:

MarsAtlas:
Okay, I'm going to sidestep the whole study and just ask one question that I think is a fair one to ask - why make an article attempting to criticize a study while not reporting on the original study itself? Its not like its an old study whose credibility has suddenly fallen into question. I just don't see the point. Its like making a long-winded response video to a Youtube video with 12 views - who gives a shit? If one doesn't care to report on it when it was published why does one care about a response to it? I don't understand any logic behind it besides "because clickbait".

When bad information goes unopposed it often gets confused for the truth. That youtube video may have only 12 views, but thats 12 people who wanted that video to be made. That being said, if one does not care about a report on the study why does one comment on such report?

Did you know that 50% of the articles published in Nature in neurobiology has been shown to be incorrect in their analysis and should be retracted? That one third of publications in life science in general can not be replicated by independent laboratories? Why aren't there articles on that? Shoddy science happens in every field, it's a huge problem, but every single article doesn't require a long article which (poorly) picks it apart. The peer review system needs to improve and all journals need to agree on certain standards.

Why are we so set on debunking this study? Because we disagree with it. Sadly that's what science is facing across the board. Studies showing that homeopathy doesn't work in double blind trials is met with the same type of arguments as come up whenever someone says anything bad about video games.

Damir Halilovic:
They asked teenage boys whose hormones are turning their brains into a supernova if "It is OK for a guy to use any and all means to 'convince' a girl to have sex" and expected rational mature answers?

These KIDS are 15 years old. Holy fucking shit.

Into the trash it goes.

This is greatly exaggerated, our hormones aren't really that different during puberty as most think, but coupled with immaturity and lack of experience it does have some funny effects. This would have been fine if the average (or median) age of the groups were similar. They really did inavlidate their study on that one though.

Also because I know this is necessary I DO NOT PERSONALLY THINK GAMES CAUSE SEXISM, OR VILENCE, BUT I DO NOT HAVE PROOF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND I DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD LEND TO MUCH WEIGHT TO STUDIES THAT DO NOT SHOW ADVANCED BEUROBIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS THAT CAN VALIDATE THEIR CLAIM

Stewie Plisken:

?It is OK for a guy to use any and all means to ?convince? a girl to have sex

How about you make that a little more vague? Next time, answer the question yourselves whydontcha?

Yeah that part is really weird. Someone answering "Yes" to that question can go from:
"Yes, I will buy her chocolate and flowers and take her on fancy dates to get her to want to have sex with me."
over
"Yes, It's totally ok if a girl is drunk out of her mind when she decides to have sex with me."
to
"Yes, I can just point this gun at her head to convince her that she absolutly wants to have sex with me right now."

Yopaz:

Strazdas:

When bad information goes unopposed it often gets confused for the truth. That youtube video may have only 12 views, but thats 12 people who wanted that video to be made. That being said, if one does not care about a report on the study why does one comment on such report?

Did you know that 50% of the articles published in Nature in neurobiology has been shown to be incorrect in their analysis and should be retracted? That one third of publications in life science in general can not be replicated by independent laboratories? Why aren't there articles on that? Shoddy science happens in every field, it's a huge problem, but every single article doesn't require a long article which (poorly) picks it apart. The peer review system needs to improve and all journals need to agree on certain standards.

Why are we so set on debunking this study? Because we disagree with it. Sadly that's what science is facing across the board. Studies showing that homeopathy doesn't work in double blind trials is met with the same type of arguments as come up whenever someone says anything bad about video games.

Because Escapist isnt Neurobiology or life science (whatever that is, im guessing a magazine name?) site, but it is a gaming site. Its not like its unprecedented, escapist has reported on at least a dozen of studies related to gaming in the last that i remmeber of.

Im not aware of anyone in the medical field that actually supports these homeopathy studies. heck, most of the studies used by homeopaths themselves claim that the author did not found a link between homeopathy and medicine.

maninahat:

* So what if the study shows only pictures of violence against women? The object of the test was to see if empathy levels were effected by sexist games, not to see who the participants empathise with more.

Which makes the conclusion absolutely unreliable, because the researchers assumed instantly that the subjects didn't empathize because of and not despite the fact that a woman was portrayed as a victim (by the by, the picture they showed them seems to have been fairly tame as well). All the while it ignores upraising, family environment, values, pre-conceived notions on social issues, education, peer & group mentality and other things that would factor in any kind of response to a matter as complicated as this.

This started as a complaint that maybe female characters shouldn't be sexualized so oftenly because it's awkward, because it paints "gamers" as the group that "wants this" and because it's a tired cliche and we would please like something new.
That's where we were when femfreq did the tropes vs women kickstarter and that's how it got funded.

And now? Now it's "games cause violence" all over again. What the fuck.

I'm done.
That whole "games cause violence" thing was my childhood and I lost enough braincells arguing against that wall of stupidity already.

Strazdas:

maninahat:

Strazdas:

When bad information goes unopposed it often gets confused for the truth. That youtube video may have only 12 views, but thats 12 people who wanted that video to be made. That being said, if one does not care about a report on the study why does one comment on such report?

The point is that you a site is devoting page space to a subject that probably doesn't deserve the attention it is being given. If a newspaper's front page story was "This Youtuber's theory about aeroplane chem trails are inaccurate", people might come away thinking that such a negligible story is actually much more important than it really is. Any media outlet has to figure out what gets prominence (they only have so many journalists and headline space), and it raises an eyebrow if it goes after something so paltry. There is a danger that it is also straying into nut picking territory for the purposes of indulging a particular political view of its readership.

A study that is attacking gaming and was reported as truth by multiple news website is not worthy of attention of a gaming website? Also unlike physical paper, Online publications dont run out of "headline space". In fact more articles are better for them because that means more clicks.

There are a million shitty game studies quoted by a million misguided newspaper stories. This one isn't even notable compared to those. As to web space, whilst it is true that you can have an infinite number of articles, for practical and aesthetic reasons you only put so many on a website's front page. The Escapist has a scrolling headline thing, four main stories on display, and a small list below. I only found this story through the comment page.

maninahat:

There are a million shitty game studies quoted by a million misguided newspaper stories. This one isn't even notable compared to those. As to web space, whilst it is true that you can have an infinite number of articles, for practical and aesthetic reasons you only put so many on a website's front page. The Escapist has a scrolling headline thing, four main stories on display, and a small list below. I only found this story through the comment page.

Escapist has actually reported on quite a lot of gaming studies in the past. Also the webiste gets less than 10 new content items per day nowadays, one extra isnt really going to push anything out of the front page.

Also if its the same scrolling headline i think your talking about, mine has 7 stories? could it be just related to screen size?

Someone paid a lot of money to have this study conducted. I can only imagine that with results as skewed as this, whoever that person was got exactly what they wanted.

Strazdas:

Because Escapist isnt Neurobiology or life science (whatever that is, im guessing a magazine name?) site, but it is a gaming site. Its not like its unprecedented, escapist has reported on at least a dozen of studies related to gaming in the last that i remmeber of.

Life science = science about life. So cancer research, immunology, neurobiology just to mention a few examples. These articles are reported in the media (not understood, but reported). It's rarely reported even by science journals. This is article exists out of a personal bias which is as unscientific as the original article. That's why I am criticiszing it. If the criticism had been good and well thought out it would at least have been entertaining, but this is basically a circle jerk. Write a biased article and present it to a biased audience. Anti-vaccine sites do the same and they sometimes make more good points than this article.

Im not aware of anyone in the medical field that actually supports these homeopathy studies. heck, most of the studies used by homeopaths themselves claim that the author did not found a link between homeopathy and medicine.

So you are claiming to be an expert in behavioural studies now? I never claimed medical experts disasgree on homeopathy, although plenty of them do in fact believe in homeopathy and some doctors also have homeopathic background and offer homeopathic treatment and claims it's better than conventional medicine. I said people. As in non-experts. That includes the author of this article who clearly doesn't grasp the statistics behind choosing a sample size and it includes me as I am mainly concerned about inflammation.

Yeah, since there was no baseline (as any good scientist knows, there has to be one), then the results of this study are automatically invalidated.

Eh, it's kind of hackneyed. There are a couple of things wrong with the study that are pointed out by the author here (nice job, Lizzy). I have read some interesting comments here about how there is not baseline, but that isn't true, that is what the non-violent game is supposed to be in this case. That said, even if you could consider this a strictly good study, good use of scientific method does not automatically make for "good science".

We know for a fact (as shown by other studies) there is a short term change in emotional attitudes after various types of stimulus. We also know that shortly after, the people return to their default state (regression towards the means). Unless someone lived in a state that enforced unsympathetic attitudes towards women constantly, there is no actual danger of ill effects of video game violence being permanent.

Lets also face the fact here that even GTA is not about violence towards women exclusively. Yeah, you could beat some women to show you are "manly" (which is hilarious because the idea that being sexually aggressive or violent towards women is not going to be considered "manly" by everyone, it's going to change from person to person), but that will make for a boring game very quickly and it's more than likely most people would just stop out of boredom. It's also not about driving badly, gunning down cops, committing robberies.... no studies are trying to enforce the idea that video games increases the number of these things or the likelihood of someone committing these types of crimes. No, it's an aimed study made to prove a specific point.

It does do that in the short term... but as I stated earlier, a good study =/= good science.

Stewie Plisken:

maninahat:

* So what if the study shows only pictures of violence against women? The object of the test was to see if empathy levels were effected by sexist games, not to see who the participants empathise with more.

Which makes the conclusion absolutely unreliable, because the researchers assumed instantly that the subjects didn't empathize because of and not despite the fact that a woman was portrayed as a victim (by the by, the picture they showed them seems to have been fairly tame as well). All the while it ignores upraising, family environment, values, pre-conceived notions on social issues, education, peer & group mentality and other things that would factor in any kind of response to a matter as complicated as this.

But that's why you try to work with randomly selected groups of a sufficient size; to control the confounding variables created by the things you listed. If all of those factors had a strong enough influence that it creates nothing but sprawling, uncorrelated data, the test would be completely unreliable. But if among big enough random groups, there is still a reasonable correlation forming, then those outside influences aren't having too negative an influence to throw off the results.

Holy Hell, I can not wait for the media to grab onto the next "thing" and leave my hobby alone. Art, Books, Films, Television and now Video Games. Does everything someone else finds interesting have to be responsible for the fall of Mankind?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here