New Study Dismisses Link Between Violence and Videogames

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Retardinator:
Life is but finding the right measure of not giving a shit. ;)

Absolutely. It's just annoying having to even HEAR the same old naysayers, is all. All we can hope is that things will improve in the coming decades.

I wonder when we'll get the "New Study dismisses link between sexism and videogames" Now that we've got the politically right's bs out of the way, it's about time we started on the left.

Now while I agree with the premise, I do think that we should keep in mind that the Media Coalition isn't a research organization, it's a third-party advocacy group which lobbies for industry. In other words their members want to maintain the status quo to make money, or in certain cases, help craft legislation to protect their products (SOPA, PIPA, etc.)

I just wrapped up reading the 13-page report (not a "Study" Escapist" and the best they can come up with is that:
- The science on violent media and causing real-world violence in inconclusive at best
- Violent crime rates have gone down in recent years
- First Amendment, First Amendment, First Amendment

Again, I personally believe in the premise of what they are saying, that video games do not cause violence, but until a reputable scientific or medical organization comes forward with actual data, we gamers have to stop relying on crap "research" like this. Causation is not correlation and in order for us to defend games properly someone out there needs to do due diligence and get some hard science behind this thing.

CygnusMal:

Again, I personally believe in the premise of what they are saying, that video games do not cause violence, but until a reputable scientific or medical organization comes forward with actual data, we gamers have to stop relying on crap "research" like this. Causation is not correlation and in order for us to defend games properly someone out there needs to do due diligence and get some hard science behind this thing.

No matter how reputable or scientific they are, it is the fact that we cannot measure the quantity of the violence in the videogames.(let alone how much impact that may cause to the children.) Most of groups with sense would not start the research they cannot draw conclusion on.

Pirate Of PC Master race:
Most of groups with sense would not start the research they cannot draw conclusion on.

That's why I want to see a medical board or some folks from the scientific community take this on. Also it's not about measuring the quantity of violence in a videogame, it's about measuring the impact of that violence on the brain. From a quantitative standpoint you could take something mainstream and generally considered "violent", such as CoD or GTA and use that as your baseline. Actual games, actual people, actual neurologists collecting data - none of this third-party sponsored research that both sides seem to point to for their talking points.

This is probably something that will necessitate a federal research grant, which seems to be the way things are blowing towards anyway, but until then I remain skeptical on most of the "data" that's out there.

I stopped caring what these studies said years ago, they are all bias to some extent and aren't going to change anything.

I'm not sure how we would answer this question. We live in a society that loves violence. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that a breast or saying "fuck" nets you an R rating, but a zombie apocalypse can pass with a PG-13 rating. I don't think watching a movie or playing a video game makes you want to kill, but it does create a society where violence is a norm rather than an exception.

It also doesn't make much since to link relatively rare mass killings to media violence. I think it makes more sense to look at domestic violence or child abuse, which are unfortunately more common. Are heavy consumers of violent media more likely to beat their wife? I don't know but it is an interesting hypothesis.

redknightalex:

Kargathia:
Pretty much. In the veritable avalanche of scientific studies it's rather easy to ignore one whenever it doesn't suit your agenda.

Although any scientist worth their salt would consider opposing opinions before even considering publishing to a peer-reviewed journal, even if they need to come up with it themselves or completely contradicts their own line of thinking. That's the beauty, and the fault, of science: there's no real way of knowing, 100% if something is right. Pretty sure that science has had their own problems yet they have, in the end, mostly corrected them, ie homosexuality being in the DSM III and there-after no longer considered a mental disorder. It's not perfect, and science still has a new set of problems to figure out, but science itself is not at fault.

OT: The study looks to be a decent read but I've read better metas on this subject five years ago than this one. They've been doing research on violence and video games since the early '90s (at least), which many studies also include violent TV, and most came up with no correlation.

Then again, try to teach politicians about correlation because I'm sure that brings in the money. Oops, I meant voters.

Any scientist that's even remotely interested in being taken seriously will indeed have his article properly peer reviewed. The problem, however, is that the people with the biggest microphones in front of them aren't scientists, and have no obligation whatsoever to the scientific method.

Gearhead mk2:

Rainboq:

Gearhead mk2:
How long before this one gets debunked and over-reactive morons are banning games again?

Its a meta-analysis, as such, its a study of the studies, and its conclusions are pretty solid. That said, this is science, so things aren't guaranteed.

I know what a meta-analysis is, I've read Bad Science. Awesome book. What I mean is they'll come out with this, and there'll be a few people who go THEY'RE JUST GAMES or THAT WAS BIASED or TINC UF TEH CHELDRAAAAAANZ and everything will go back to normal. It will have been like this was never published.

As someone who debates creationists for giggles, its really easy to pin them down as to what makes it biased, and if they even understand the methodology. They will find their position indefensible.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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