Violent Videogames Cause "Macbeth Effect"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Reaper195:
Shit, I just ripped a dudes heart out. Now I need to brush my teeth!

But srsly...biggest load of bullshit I've seen. 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.

Or you could just look up "Lady Macbeth effect" and refrain yourself from looking like a moron.

Quick, everybody!

Scramble to find reasons to disbelieve this study in the way that you never would if their findings had been different!

Huh, I thought giving someone a hygiene product would be an insult.

Diddy_Mao:
Wow...okay. So I think I've just found my career.
Step 1. Form Independent study group.
Step 2. Get some folks to play "violent video games."
Step 3. Have them pick from some stuff. (Soda, food, office supplies etc. )
Step 4. Publish findings
Step 5. Wash rinse repeat.

It's an endless cycle of grant money sucking non-science. The wold must know if violent video games cause people to choose Coke or Pepsi. McDonalds or Burger King. Marvel or DC!

I can answer those Questions for you.

1: Coke.
2: Burger King.
3: Tie, sadly i only had 2 Subjects in the Test Group, one voting DC, the other Marvel, leaving it at a 1:1 Tie. Further Study needed. Perhaps with 3 Subjects next time.

On Topic though, what kind of bullshit is this? As a Experiment it barely qualifies, the amount of Subjects is almost laughable, the timeperiod does not even register, there is no control group to test against either, and the outcome is inconsequential at best. Who is to say that People who play violent video games for longer periods of time would not buy hygiene products as gifts?

Again, failure of a study.

Well, there's probably some glimmering nugged of ..something hidden away in all this, after all, isn't taking enjoyment from mindless violence rather a 'guilty pleasure'?

I think the idea that you'd want to scrub away your sins in the shower after half an hour of Bulletstorm is a bit much however.

Yay, a scientific study not talking about how we are all serial rapists/murderers. Just saying we smell bad... wait what?

maybe there was a really good sale at a Bed Bath & Beyond near the...University of Luxembourg? or whatever kinda store lol

76 people. Well yeah, mandatory comment about sample size.

Seriously, it's "SCIENCE!" all over again, while science is quietly shedding a tear in the corner. *blargh* But I suppose nowadays you can have research "prove" anything.

After seeing the title I thought was going to be yet another study on how violent videogames make you do violent things (cause you know, Lady Macbeth and all) but this is like 100 times more entertaining.

I totally checked this article because of the Patrick Stewart picture.

Anyway, interesting topic for a study.

I think it proves gamers as a whole know the difference between fantasy and reality and know the acts of violence towards humans in reality is wrong.

This is just getting silly.

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.

Scrustle:
But they gave the hygiene products to other people, they didn't take them for themselves.

Well....fuck.
Now all that government money spent on this "research" was burned for nothing......as usual

I would actually call it the "Feel good do good phenomenon" as long as we're tossing psychobabble around.

Well, that is unfortuante. Will all of Neptune's great oceans not wash this blood from my controller?

Aggression may for the whole part be a genetic behavior, not learned behavior.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbcwDXhugjw

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?[1]

Zhukov:
Quick, everybody!

Scramble to find reasons to disbelieve this study in the way that you never would if their findings had been different!

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?

Sicko.

FalloutJack:
...Macbeth?

[1] 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[2]. "I'm not entirely clear on what exactly this study proves"
[2] Yes the irony of this post just rose to apocalyptic levels

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.

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.

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?"

Thespian:
Okay, seriously?

Andy Chalk:
A recent study conducted by the University of Luxembourg had 76 people play violent videogames for 15 minutes

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?

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.

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.

Zhukov:
Quick, everybody!

Scramble to find reasons to disbelieve this study in the way that you never would if their findings had been different!

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.

Scramble, everyone, because Zhukov is attempting, and abjectly failing, some...semblance...of irony.

With all these studies claiming that video games cause this, that, and the other, can we just say that "video games cause everything" and be done with it?

Right, because someone who buys lots of soap does so because they feel the need to cleanse their morality.

I don't see the connection, not ever sure there's a correlation.

what did the gamers pick! D: I feel like my knowledge of the study is fundamentally incomplete! D:

Dr.Panties:

Zhukov:
Quick, everybody!

Scramble to find reasons to disbelieve this study in the way that you never would if their findings had been different!

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.

But that's my exact point.

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.

That doesn't strike you as the slightest bit silly?

I love how people are getting all defensive about this when the study isn't one of those videogames turn people into Hitler studies it is just looking at the effects of a violent videogame on someone who has never played them compared to someone who has.

Zhukov:

Dr.Panties:

Zhukov:
Quick, everybody!

Scramble to find reasons to disbelieve this study in the way that you never would if their findings had been different!

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.

But that's my exact point.

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.

That doesn't strike you as the slightest bit silly?

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.

Introduce a context within which consensus is, fundamentally, unachievable (the inernetzz), and no-one should be surprised, least of all one as articulate as yourself. This is said without irony and, for what it's worth, I retract the tone of my previous post.

I clicked on this article because the preview showed Patrick Stewart. Now WHERE is Patrick Stewart?!

Just seems like students confirming/replicating previously known knowledge.

Guys, drop the pointy sticks and back away from the nice people in the white coats. They didn't actually claim to have proven that you don't feel moral guilt and therefore are bad. There's been no demonstration that the so-called experienced gamers were also desensitized to displays of actual real-world violence, so I don't see that this is any kind of attack on our characters.

Besides, if they do attack our characters we'll kick their asses.

FalloutJack:
...Macbeth?

Really, Macbeth The Scottish Play is hardly the best thing to use in a parallel study with violent video games.

They didn't make up the name, it was already called the Macbeth Effect long before it was connected to 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.

As an actual science researcher, I must agree on the issue raised against the sample size. While I understand the point of the study (people more frequently exposed to violent media are more desensitized to violent media: tautology ahoy!), the sample size is insufficient for statistical relevance.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.