MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited July 2009
There's a psychological distinction between agression and violence. All violence is aggressive but not all aggression is violence. It can be anything aggressive.
If you see a report mentioning aggression increased by video games check to see if they are talking about violence or not.
On a subtle level, violence from media does increase aggression in the short term. They are more likely to do indirect aggressive acts and be more hostile and generally dickish. It also tends to desensitise them to seeing others be violent or hearing about it. In some cases they will be more likely to do impersonally aggressive actions like give a person in another room a dangerous level of noise blasts, stuff like this.
It's not direct violence, but it is aggression.
The thing that must be remembered is that most people have another little check on aggression called morals, self regulation and all that. So even if people are being influenced to be aggressive, most people are going to self regulate that away from actual blatant violence against others.
The thing you have to ask yourself is what happens if someone doesn't have very good self regulation or a good moral code. Is increasing the aggression in a young child a good thing or a bad thing, since very young children have underdeveloped self regulation. It could affect their socialisation and other non blatant effects that aren't directly violent. How long does this increased aggression last? I'd imagine it naturally fades with time but I don't think there have been enough long term studies done to say for sure.
What Khavalls mother was doing is instilling a good moral code into him because it will counteract it.
Now I don't think violent vidja games are the devil. I play them all the time and love them, I don't want to lose me vidja games.
But it's not a straight cut case of "no negative influence at all". In the short term it desensitises to seeing violence against others and increases aggression generally. In those with other problems it could result in a higher propensity for violence or hostility.
Now I think these things should be known but I don't think you need super censorship laws or anything like that to deal with them. Just need a parent or authority figure like Khavalls who takes an interest in the childs welfare and is aware of what can happen. And you need to be aware of yourself as well after playing a violent game, to make sure you aren't being subtly affected on a level you aren't aware of. Double check yourself that you aren't inadvertently lashing out aggressively at others around you in a manner you normally wouldn't. You know like being more hostile with words, getting angry easier, being a dick, etc. Not that I'm saying you might suddenly buy a gun and head to your local school or anything, that would be stupid and completely out of tone with the rest of this post.
With regards to what Khavall was saying about Violence I agree. He is speaking of violence and here I was speaking about aggression
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
My mother is a famous, world-renowned child development psychologist.
She is also an incredible mother.
She never, ever showed concern about me playing games that had violence other than making sure I knew the difference between the fantasy violence and real violence. She was more concerned about me having gun toys than playing games with guns. Actually, no, once she was concerned that I was playing Deus Ex at 15. I explained to her why it wasn't a problem at the time and she accepted it.
When I've spoken to her as an adult about the subject, her feelings are twofold:
First, when watching me play CoD4, she mentioned "Doesn't this just make you frightened about any prospect of fighting in military service? You just died to someone you didn't see. This is brutal". And I agreed. CoD4 is great about showing that war is brutal, and that being an infantry soldier in a battle is brutal. She knows it's a violent game, she knows it's a realistic military game that rewards kills, her concern was that is is just horrible if someone took it as reality. She saw CoD4 as an anti-killing-people experience. I've explained the artistic merit and she wonders why I would like something that is so macabre... but isn't concerned at all.
Secondly, competition is handled in the brain completely different from killing other people. When people see "100 points" after "Killing" someone in a game, it's a completely different reaction from that which activates when people take up a weapon against other people. Even at the most violent level, when people are practicing clicking on other people very well to get a score, there is no connection with violent impulses.
This is without study. And she's always willing to look at and critique other studies. She's outstandingly good at her job. She really is something of a field legend. But that was her off the top of the head thoughts.
Can I ask her name? I'm a PhD student in child development psychology, and I'd probably recognize her work if you don't think it'd be weird to give me her name.
I ask because developmental psychology consensus on violent media is generally somewhere along the lines of "yes, longitudinal studies really do show an increase in many measures of aggression (and quite a few measures of violence), and while violent video games are new to the field, there isn't really a reason to suspect it'll have a different effect than violent television."
There was actually a pretty interesting book called Grand Theft Childhood that had an interesting. Kids that play no video games and an excessive amount of video games do show a marked increase in aggression, whereas kids who play a moderate amount of video games showed no change in behaviour. I want to spell that out again for the sake of emphasis: kids that play no video games and kids that play an excessive amount of video games show a marked increase in aggression, but kids that play a moderate amount of video games show no change in behaviour.
So, all those parents who prevent their kids from playing video games may not be doing them a favour. Oops.
My mother is a famous, world-renowned child development psychologist.
She is also an incredible mother.
She never, ever showed concern about me playing games that had violence other than making sure I knew the difference between the fantasy violence and real violence. She was more concerned about me having gun toys than playing games with guns. Actually, no, once she was concerned that I was playing Deus Ex at 15. I explained to her why it wasn't a problem at the time and she accepted it.
When I've spoken to her as an adult about the subject, her feelings are twofold:
First, when watching me play CoD4, she mentioned "Doesn't this just make you frightened about any prospect of fighting in military service? You just died to someone you didn't see. This is brutal". And I agreed. CoD4 is great about showing that war is brutal, and that being an infantry soldier in a battle is brutal. She knows it's a violent game, she knows it's a realistic military game that rewards kills, her concern was that is is just horrible if someone took it as reality. She saw CoD4 as an anti-killing-people experience. I've explained the artistic merit and she wonders why I would like something that is so macabre... but isn't concerned at all.
Secondly, competition is handled in the brain completely different from killing other people. When people see "100 points" after "Killing" someone in a game, it's a completely different reaction from that which activates when people take up a weapon against other people. Even at the most violent level, when people are practicing clicking on other people very well to get a score, there is no connection with violent impulses.
This is without study. And she's always willing to look at and critique other studies. She's outstandingly good at her job. She really is something of a field legend. But that was her off the top of the head thoughts.
Can I ask her name? I'm a PhD student in child development psychology, and I'd probably recognize her work if you don't think it'd be weird to give me her name.
I ask because developmental psychology consensus on violent media is generally somewhere along the lines of "yes, longitudinal studies really do show an increase in many measures of aggression (and quite a few measures of violence), and while violent video games are new to the field, there isn't really a reason to suspect it'll have a different effect than violent television."
If the consensus in developmental psychology is "there isn't really a reason to suspect it'll have a different effect than violent television", development psychology is pretty retarded.
There are quite a few differences between violent television and violent video games, most notably the interaction aspect. The interaction aspect makes violent video games a likely outlet for sublimation of aggressive tendencies, whereas violent television probably not so much, due to its passive nature.
Yes Grand Theft Childhood is pretty much the definitive book on the subject.
The main problem with the vast majority of studies is that a psych student blasting another psych student with an air horn 5 minutes after playing a 10 year old video game doesn't tell us anything useful.
Since the Jack Thompsons of the world use correlation as causation routinely I'd love to see them explain the youth violence rate decrease since video games became popular. When I got into this argument in sociology, the class literally did not believe me about the violence statistics being lower, they were all under the impression (including the teacher) that youth violence and school shootings have consistantly been rising year after year. I had to print them out and bring them in.
My mother is a famous, world-renowned child development psychologist.
She is also an incredible mother.
She never, ever showed concern about me playing games that had violence other than making sure I knew the difference between the fantasy violence and real violence. She was more concerned about me having gun toys than playing games with guns. Actually, no, once she was concerned that I was playing Deus Ex at 15. I explained to her why it wasn't a problem at the time and she accepted it.
When I've spoken to her as an adult about the subject, her feelings are twofold:
First, when watching me play CoD4, she mentioned "Doesn't this just make you frightened about any prospect of fighting in military service? You just died to someone you didn't see. This is brutal". And I agreed. CoD4 is great about showing that war is brutal, and that being an infantry soldier in a battle is brutal. She knows it's a violent game, she knows it's a realistic military game that rewards kills, her concern was that is is just horrible if someone took it as reality. She saw CoD4 as an anti-killing-people experience. I've explained the artistic merit and she wonders why I would like something that is so macabre... but isn't concerned at all.
Secondly, competition is handled in the brain completely different from killing other people. When people see "100 points" after "Killing" someone in a game, it's a completely different reaction from that which activates when people take up a weapon against other people. Even at the most violent level, when people are practicing clicking on other people very well to get a score, there is no connection with violent impulses.
This is without study. And she's always willing to look at and critique other studies. She's outstandingly good at her job. She really is something of a field legend. But that was her off the top of the head thoughts.
Can I ask her name? I'm a PhD student in child development psychology, and I'd probably recognize her work if you don't think it'd be weird to give me her name.
I ask because developmental psychology consensus on violent media is generally somewhere along the lines of "yes, longitudinal studies really do show an increase in many measures of aggression (and quite a few measures of violence), and while violent video games are new to the field, there isn't really a reason to suspect it'll have a different effect than violent television."
If the consensus in developmental psychology is "there isn't really a reason to suspect it'll have a different effect than violent television", development psychology is pretty retarded.
There are quite a few differences between violent television and violent video games, most notably the interaction aspect. The interaction aspect makes violent video games a likely outlet for sublimation of aggressive tendencies, whereas violent television probably not so much, due to its passive nature.
It's an assumption made out of necessity (longitudinal studies, well, take a long time). And when you play video games, you're still being exposed to acts of aggression and violence in much the same way as when you watch them on television. I get your argument, but try to think practically. Until we get the data in, should we really assume that being exposed to this particular medium of violence is going be significantly different than the pattern we've seen as violent movies emerged, and then violent music, and then violent television? I'm not belittling the differences in these mediums, but really? Violent video games are finally going to the medium that breaks the pattern because... you actually get to be violent, as opposed to watch others be violent? If anything, I'd expect the effect to be larger. Either way, you're still getting exposed to the violence. Until the data comes in it just seems more reasonable to expect the pattern to hold.
My mother is a famous, world-renowned child development psychologist.
She is also an incredible mother.
She never, ever showed concern about me playing games that had violence other than making sure I knew the difference between the fantasy violence and real violence. She was more concerned about me having gun toys than playing games with guns. Actually, no, once she was concerned that I was playing Deus Ex at 15. I explained to her why it wasn't a problem at the time and she accepted it.
When I've spoken to her as an adult about the subject, her feelings are twofold:
First, when watching me play CoD4, she mentioned "Doesn't this just make you frightened about any prospect of fighting in military service? You just died to someone you didn't see. This is brutal". And I agreed. CoD4 is great about showing that war is brutal, and that being an infantry soldier in a battle is brutal. She knows it's a violent game, she knows it's a realistic military game that rewards kills, her concern was that is is just horrible if someone took it as reality. She saw CoD4 as an anti-killing-people experience. I've explained the artistic merit and she wonders why I would like something that is so macabre... but isn't concerned at all.
Secondly, competition is handled in the brain completely different from killing other people. When people see "100 points" after "Killing" someone in a game, it's a completely different reaction from that which activates when people take up a weapon against other people. Even at the most violent level, when people are practicing clicking on other people very well to get a score, there is no connection with violent impulses.
This is without study. And she's always willing to look at and critique other studies. She's outstandingly good at her job. She really is something of a field legend. But that was her off the top of the head thoughts.
Can I ask her name? I'm a PhD student in child development psychology, and I'd probably recognize her work if you don't think it'd be weird to give me her name.
I ask because developmental psychology consensus on violent media is generally somewhere along the lines of "yes, longitudinal studies really do show an increase in many measures of aggression (and quite a few measures of violence), and while violent video games are new to the field, there isn't really a reason to suspect it'll have a different effect than violent television."
If the consensus in developmental psychology is "there isn't really a reason to suspect it'll have a different effect than violent television", development psychology is pretty retarded.
There are quite a few differences between violent television and violent video games, most notably the interaction aspect. The interaction aspect makes violent video games a likely outlet for sublimation of aggressive tendencies, whereas violent television probably not so much, due to its passive nature.
It's an assumption made out of necessity (longitudinal studies, well, take a long time). And when you play video games, you're still being exposed to acts of aggression and violence in much the same way as when you watch them on television. I get your argument, but try to think practically. Until we get the data in, should we really assume that being exposed to this particular medium of violence is going be significantly different than the pattern we've seen as violent movies emerged, and then violent music, and then violent television? I'm not belittling the differences in these mediums, but really? Violent video games are finally going to the medium that breaks the pattern because... you actually get to be violent, as opposed to watch others be violent? If anything, I'd expect the effect to be larger. Either way, you're still getting exposed to the violence. Until the data comes in it just seems more reasonable to expect the pattern to hold.
Well, sure, if you want to just go your intuition. After all, intuition holds up so frequently in the area of psychology (or really anywhere). I mean, when someone who has a deep seated belief encounters something that contradicts their belief, they just change their belief, right? It's not like they encounter any sort of cognitive dissonance or something. That's intuitive, no?
While I am not familiar with the studies regarding violent television/music/whatever, I am saying that video games would break any pattern precisely because you get to be violent. Sublimation is a powerful defense mechanism and being able to channel violent tendencies (which everyone does, in fact, have) in a socially acceptable manner is a powerful thing to have.
While I am not familiar with the studies regarding violent television/music/whatever, I am saying that video games would break any pattern precisely because you get to be violent. Sublimation is a powerful defense mechanism and being able to channel violent tendencies (which everyone does, in fact, have) in a socially acceptable manner is a powerful thing to have.
And I am saying that's a totally legitimate and plausible hypothesis, and I wouldn't be all that surprised if your theory turning out to be correct, even though I don't personally expect it to.
But, since we won't have any hard data for years, isn't it more reasonable right now for the field to assume things will turn out the same way they did for violent television? Violent video games could break the pattern, but it's probably safer to assume the pattern will hold until the evidence proves otherwise.
Video games don't need to be defended anymore. I believe it is no longer 1994.
Um... globally governments are tending to ban or inhibit video games. The US constitution is barely staving it off over here, but only just.
I think this needs to be repeated.
I'm sure a lot of us in North America see video games as being hunky-dory and not in any real danger of censorship or banning, but in other countries they still carry the stigma of being children's entertainment and all the restrictions that come with it. I know the humiliation of Thompson and such gives us the notion that the issue has been resolved, but that isn't the case.
Yes Grand Theft Childhood is pretty much the definitive book on the subject.
The main problem with the vast majority of studies is that a psych student blasting another psych student with an air horn 5 minutes after playing a 10 year old video game doesn't tell us anything useful.
Since the Jack Thompsons of the world use correlation as causation routinely I'd love to see them explain the youth violence rate decrease since video games became popular. When I got into this argument in sociology, the class literally did not believe me about the violence statistics being lower, they were all under the impression (including the teacher) that youth violence and school shootings have consistantly been rising year after year. I had to print them out and bring them in.
I really don't think you want to hang your hat on those two being particularly strongly related at all. The mid 80s were an explosion for all violent crime, not just youth, and it dropped immensely across the board back to its normal/socially 'acceptable' levels in the mid to late 90s.
====
Khavall,
I apologize if my examples confused you. I meant aggressive behavior only, which, honestly, has been proven to death about 80 times over for just about anything that stimulates the human body, be it TV, bright colors, irritating sounds, etc. Video games aren't an exception to that. The ol' lizard part of the brain gets fired up and the delicious juices we used to need for hunting deer or driving the neighbor from the nice cave so you can have it flow in. I'm sure studies would also show an increased desire to mate if anybody cared to try to link violent video games to sex.
And competitiveness exists outside of formally defined games. I'm not entirely sure where you were even going there or how you got to random football assaults though, so... *shrug*
Yes Grand Theft Childhood is pretty much the definitive book on the subject.
The main problem with the vast majority of studies is that a psych student blasting another psych student with an air horn 5 minutes after playing a 10 year old video game doesn't tell us anything useful.
Since the Jack Thompsons of the world use correlation as causation routinely I'd love to see them explain the youth violence rate decrease since video games became popular. When I got into this argument in sociology, the class literally did not believe me about the violence statistics being lower, they were all under the impression (including the teacher) that youth violence and school shootings have consistantly been rising year after year. I had to print them out and bring them in.
I really don't think you want to hang your hat on those two being particularly strongly related at all. The mid 80s were an explosion for all violent crime, not just youth, and it dropped immensely across the board back to its normal/socially 'acceptable' levels in the mid to late 90s.
That's...kind of the point. The numbers aren't related unless video games are making us more peaceful. Which might be indirectly true if you consider how it makes us too fat to bother going outside to shoot someone. Had games had any real effect, we'd see that explosion staying steady in regards to youth violence.
While I am not familiar with the studies regarding violent television/music/whatever, I am saying that video games would break any pattern precisely because you get to be violent. Sublimation is a powerful defense mechanism and being able to channel violent tendencies (which everyone does, in fact, have) in a socially acceptable manner is a powerful thing to have.
And I am saying that's a totally legitimate and plausible hypothesis, and I wouldn't be all that surprised if your theory turning out to be correct, even though I don't personally expect it to.
But, since we won't have any hard data for years, isn't it more reasonable right now for the field to assume things will turn out the same way they did for violent television? Violent video games could break the pattern, but it's probably safer to assume the pattern will hold until the evidence proves otherwise.
Doesn't that strike you as a teensy bit unscientific? In the absense of evidence, let's assume things behave a certain way. And people wonder why psychology gets a bad rap as being a super soft science. Not only does it not make a whole lot of scientific sense, but it also opens the door to bias.
But beyond all of that, no, it isn't more reasonable to assume we psychologically react to video games the same way as we psychologically react to television, just like I'm pretty sure it is obvious that there are a whole different set of psychological forces involved in playing a sport as opposed to simply watching the sport.
I'm sure it is to a lot of non-gamers. But having taken some of my gaming friends shooting, I can say that Harrison's reaction wasn't out of the ordinary. Most people aren't prepared for that big, fuck-off BOOM that an AK or AR lets off.
He had ear covers on. The AR is loud but it's recoil is virtually non existent. He was probably crying from the emotions involved with the pressure being under so much scruntiny. He had a lot of people watchin him as well as the cameras and all that. It can be a lot for a little kid. I don't think it was shooting the gun that made him cry. Although he was obviously not into it after firing.
I remember the first time I shot an AR-15 I was in my early teens, and I had done a lot of .22 shooting before that. It's not the recoil or the sound from the shot, but the concussive shockwave it gives off. I nearly dropped the gun after firing a round. I gave up my turn after the one shot, and remember being amazed as I stood behind the next person firing, actually feeling the shots.
I can definitely see how this would break down a little kid, especially if they've never shot before.
A duck! on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
The main problem with the vast majority of studies is that a psych student blasting another psych student with an air horn 5 minutes after playing a 10 year old video game doesn't tell us anything useful.
This is true. There needs to be more longitudinal studies outside the lab.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I think you guys are missing the point of the video of Harrison shooting the AR-15.
Lttle dude got his preconceptions about one part of reality torn up, and it's taking his brain some time to process.
Those are learning tears.
Yes. I don't believe the adults realized how much it would jar his brain. Still, even through they are fantasy, he was a wee bit young to be playing that genre of games. He should have been more in the Mario and Zelda arena.
While I am not familiar with the studies regarding violent television/music/whatever, I am saying that video games would break any pattern precisely because you get to be violent. Sublimation is a powerful defense mechanism and being able to channel violent tendencies (which everyone does, in fact, have) in a socially acceptable manner is a powerful thing to have.
And I am saying that's a totally legitimate and plausible hypothesis, and I wouldn't be all that surprised if your theory turning out to be correct, even though I don't personally expect it to.
But, since we won't have any hard data for years, isn't it more reasonable right now for the field to assume things will turn out the same way they did for violent television? Violent video games could break the pattern, but it's probably safer to assume the pattern will hold until the evidence proves otherwise.
Doesn't that strike you as a teensy bit unscientific? In the absense of evidence, let's assume things behave a certain way. And people wonder why psychology gets a bad rap as being a super soft science. Not only does it not make a whole lot of scientific sense, but it also opens the door to bias.
That's actually how all science works. Assume the pattern that has been supported with the most prior evidence holds true for future data points, all while searching for any evidence that contradicts the current theory. It's just magnified here because much of developmental psychology takes decades to research. It's frustrating, and you're right that part of it involves throwing your hands in the air and settling for "in the absence of evidence, let's assume things behave a certain way." But a more fair characterization would be "until our evidence can be collected, we have no choice but to assume this phenomenon will behave the same way as those phenomena most similar to it have behaved in the past."
When I was 14 I was on a field trip touring Army bases is the area as a part of a work placement week in junior high. I was given a chance to fire a 12,7 mm machine gun at a paper target of an airplane.
I can tell you that I was fucking scared shitless, Even though I was in no danger (it was bolted to a tri-pod) and it only had 5-6 rounds for me to fire. The fact that I was holding something designed to kill people, nearly freak me out and even though I managed to fire I could not aim for anything.(paper targets where safe).
The Kid's reaction was perfectly normal to me.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
That was actually very very fucking good and I'd like to thank you for sharing this with us, really.
I had loved Penn & Teller before, especially with the "War on Drugs" episode and so on.
The last video of this episode really struck me deep down inside, especially the metaphor about football, I never really looked at it in that perspective.
Penn and Teller eh? I'm sure this will be well backed science, not deciding upon the outcome they want and then reaching it.
.... What?
do you even watch penn & teller?
they're some of the most upfront, confrontational, NO BULLSHIT people I've seen in the mass media. They don't make bias decisions and just roll with that, they take what is factual and false and splits them down the middle.
We need more people like this.
rakuenCallisto on
0
NappuccinoSurveyor of Things and StuffRegistered Userregular
Penn and Teller eh? I'm sure this will be well backed science, not deciding upon the outcome they want and then reaching it.
.... What?
do you even watch penn & teller?
they're some of the most upfront, confrontational, NO BULLSHIT people I've seen in the mass media. They don't make bias decisions and just roll with that, they take what is factual and false and splits them down the middle.
We need more people like this.
They also "debunked" the second hand smoke myth by having one guy who worked in a smoke filled bar stand up and say "I don't have cancer."
They don't really go through the scientific process properly, though its usually entertaining.
I think you guys are missing the point of the video of Harrison shooting the AR-15.
Lttle dude got his preconceptions about one part of reality torn up, and it's taking his brain some time to process.
Those are learning tears.
Yes. I don't believe the adults realized how much it would jar his brain. Still, even through they are fantasy, he was a wee bit young to be playing that genre of games. He should have been more in the Mario and Zelda arena.
I'd be more concerned over the boy having the headset on and listening to the drivel that is spouted across Xbox Live. "Motherfucking Cock Balls!? Where on earth did you hear that word young man!?"
Omeks on
Online Info (Click Spoiler for More): |Xbox Live Tag: Omeks |PSN Tag:Omeks_R7 |Rock Band:Profile|DLC Collection
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Penn and Teller eh? I'm sure this will be well backed science, not deciding upon the outcome they want and then reaching it.
.... What?
do you even watch penn & teller?
they're some of the most upfront, confrontational, NO BULLSHIT people I've seen in the mass media. They don't make bias decisions and just roll with that, they take what is factual and false and splits them down the middle.
We need more people like this.
They also "debunked" the second hand smoke myth by having one guy who worked in a smoke filled bar stand up and say "I don't have cancer."
They don't really go through the debunking process properly, though its usually entertaining.
To be fair, they usually make a point of saying how unscientific their claims and methods are. And really, who's going to be watching the show other than people who already agree with them. I think most of the time they attack viewpoints that are just as unscientific - these shows are providing an entertaining look at the opposite side of the more visible unscientific viewpoints that a lot of pundits/politicians/whoevers spout.
It's skepticism without rigorous science. Kind of along the lines of Mythbusters for social issues (I'm not that familiar with Mythbusters, but from what I've seen they are a bit more scientific about it than P&T. Still not exhaustive enough to prove most things they test conclusively, but still a step in the right direction).
Penn and Teller eh? I'm sure this will be well backed science, not deciding upon the outcome they want and then reaching it.
.... What?
do you even watch penn & teller?
they're some of the most upfront, confrontational, NO BULLSHIT people I've seen in the mass media. They don't make bias decisions and just roll with that, they take what is factual and false and splits them down the middle.
NappuccinoSurveyor of Things and StuffRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
Mythbusters usually takes a "Confirmed, plausible, busted" approach so, even if they don't get the result, if things seem to be adding up but they can't get the x-factor needed to confirm it, they'll list it as plausible. They work on no assumptions/ previous bias (sure, they think some myths are impossible or other myths possible, but they let their testing determine the "truth." It would be hard to count on one hand the number of myths about which their previous conceptions were completely wrong.) Bullshit doesn't seem to do that.
And, maybe they make their intentions well known (unscientific skepticism) but that makes me wonder what they really want to get across. Do they just want to tear people, who may be correct but not backed by science, apart? Where is the benefit in that?
Of course, they are entertaining and for every episode that ends up being pointless (though entertaining) they have an episode that really is worth watching.
Dammit this thread got me hooked on watching Bullshit! on Youtube again.
I was just thinking the same thing. I watched like two seasons of it back to back a few years ago. This can only end in suffering. And by "suffering", I mean "Youtube watching and potential Amazon purchases".
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Eh. The point of the show to me seems to be not really scientifically analysing everything, just that these viewpoints are the ones used by the mass media (Jack Thompson, Hillary Clinton etc), and no one has bothered to say any counterarguments. So just in case you haven't figured out the more simple counter arguments, here's them.
So yeah, it's arguing... at their level, which isn't great, but I guess its better than nothing.
Bullshit is good when all they would need to make fun of the beliefs is to quote people expressing said beliefs and then read from a textbook that shows why beliefs are bullshit. For example, creationism, homeopathy, and various other pseudosciences.
Bullshit is decent, except for that episode about the bullshit that I personally believe in. That episode was completely off base.
Fix'd for everyone.
This is kind of true. Though they are also obviously wrong sometimes, like the one about second hand smoking where new research made them admit that they had been wrong.
The show is most useful, aside from just being funny, as a way to try and put an issue in perspective, not as actual evidence for one side or another.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Bullshit is decent, except for that episode about the bullshit that I personally believe in. That episode was completely off base.
Fix'd for everyone.
This is kind of true. Though they are also obviously wrong sometimes, like the one about second hand smoking where new research made them admit that they had been wrong.
That's a nice way to whitewash what happened, and it shows how dishonest Penn is if that's the story he's pushing. The reality was that he got caught using "data" from Big Tobacco's pet "scientist" Steve Milloy. Which, if you know the man's reputation, is a big no-no.
Bullshit is good when all they would need to make fun of the beliefs is to quote people expressing said beliefs and then read from a textbook that shows why beliefs are bullshit. For example, creationism, homeopathy, and various other pseudosciences.
As the other thread said it's good for the first season or two. Then you run out of real things to attack and started attacking favoured targets which are actually complicated issues (and their dreaded 'L' bias comes to the fore).
Leitner on
0
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
I'm sure it is to a lot of non-gamers. But having taken some of my gaming friends shooting, I can say that Harrison's reaction wasn't out of the ordinary. Most people aren't prepared for that big, fuck-off BOOM that an AK or AR lets off.
He had ear covers on. The AR is loud but it's recoil is virtually non existent. He was probably crying from the emotions involved with the pressure being under so much scruntiny. He had a lot of people watchin him as well as the cameras and all that. It can be a lot for a little kid. I don't think it was shooting the gun that made him cry. Although he was obviously not into it after firing.
I remember the first time I shot an AR-15 I was in my early teens, and I had done a lot of .22 shooting before that. It's not the recoil or the sound from the shot, but the concussive shockwave it gives off. I nearly dropped the gun after firing a round. I gave up my turn after the one shot, and remember being amazed as I stood behind the next person firing, actually feeling the shots.
I can definitely see how this would break down a little kid, especially if they've never shot before.
Ahh the first time I fired a weapon. Twas a double barreled shotgun. I was 9 and my family was on a hunting trip. My dad stopped to let me shoot it once into the air (with him supporting me). Right when I pulled the trigger a flock of birds flew right into the sights and I killed 2 of them. It kind of freaked me out. Especially how my dad started to immediately act as if nothing happened.
But then comes the part just before the credits where Harrison is seen after his first try to use a gun, where he's in tears with his mother consoling him. I guess plenty of people, for the sake of the internet, would argue about how that kid is a pussy. A more sensible argument would be that perhaps the recoil of the gun, or some gun powder or residue, affected him in a physical sense. That one I can understand. Nevertheless, I think it's one of the more powerful images to be seen in regard to this crusade against video games, and I wonder how many of the crusaders will at least acknowledge it and accept it. Perhaps change their stance.
The kid is no pussy, hes nine yrs old. And I can tell you from experience that shooting a gun as a child can be a terrifying experience (and I wasn't firing high-powered assault rifles).
Yeah, every kid cries the first time out with guns. I did. Fuck, when I was a kid I started crying while frying chicken on a stove because I was scared of the oil much more that day for some reasons. Kids can't control emotions as easily as adults (see also: getting cut with a knife makes you cry as a kid, cutting my finger with a knife as an adult is "oh damnit, I don't have any bandaids right now")
Edit: and to earlier posts, it's fine for adults to get nervous and cry when first handling guns. That shit can be stressful as hell. Guess what the body's response to stress is? Crying.
FyreWulff on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited July 2009
I shot a gun for the first time at my girlfriend's dad's house over July 4th. Now granted, it was a .22 rifle (not a real man's gun like the kid was firing) - but not only did I not cry, I was unnaturally accurate.
Some call it beginner's luck. I call it gamer's edge(tm).
Posts
If you see a report mentioning aggression increased by video games check to see if they are talking about violence or not.
On a subtle level, violence from media does increase aggression in the short term. They are more likely to do indirect aggressive acts and be more hostile and generally dickish. It also tends to desensitise them to seeing others be violent or hearing about it. In some cases they will be more likely to do impersonally aggressive actions like give a person in another room a dangerous level of noise blasts, stuff like this.
It's not direct violence, but it is aggression.
The thing that must be remembered is that most people have another little check on aggression called morals, self regulation and all that. So even if people are being influenced to be aggressive, most people are going to self regulate that away from actual blatant violence against others.
The thing you have to ask yourself is what happens if someone doesn't have very good self regulation or a good moral code. Is increasing the aggression in a young child a good thing or a bad thing, since very young children have underdeveloped self regulation. It could affect their socialisation and other non blatant effects that aren't directly violent. How long does this increased aggression last? I'd imagine it naturally fades with time but I don't think there have been enough long term studies done to say for sure.
What Khavalls mother was doing is instilling a good moral code into him because it will counteract it.
Now I don't think violent vidja games are the devil. I play them all the time and love them, I don't want to lose me vidja games.
But it's not a straight cut case of "no negative influence at all". In the short term it desensitises to seeing violence against others and increases aggression generally. In those with other problems it could result in a higher propensity for violence or hostility.
Now I think these things should be known but I don't think you need super censorship laws or anything like that to deal with them. Just need a parent or authority figure like Khavalls who takes an interest in the childs welfare and is aware of what can happen. And you need to be aware of yourself as well after playing a violent game, to make sure you aren't being subtly affected on a level you aren't aware of. Double check yourself that you aren't inadvertently lashing out aggressively at others around you in a manner you normally wouldn't. You know like being more hostile with words, getting angry easier, being a dick, etc. Not that I'm saying you might suddenly buy a gun and head to your local school or anything, that would be stupid and completely out of tone with the rest of this post.
With regards to what Khavall was saying about Violence I agree. He is speaking of violence and here I was speaking about aggression
Can I ask her name? I'm a PhD student in child development psychology, and I'd probably recognize her work if you don't think it'd be weird to give me her name.
I ask because developmental psychology consensus on violent media is generally somewhere along the lines of "yes, longitudinal studies really do show an increase in many measures of aggression (and quite a few measures of violence), and while violent video games are new to the field, there isn't really a reason to suspect it'll have a different effect than violent television."
So, all those parents who prevent their kids from playing video games may not be doing them a favour. Oops.
If the consensus in developmental psychology is "there isn't really a reason to suspect it'll have a different effect than violent television", development psychology is pretty retarded.
There are quite a few differences between violent television and violent video games, most notably the interaction aspect. The interaction aspect makes violent video games a likely outlet for sublimation of aggressive tendencies, whereas violent television probably not so much, due to its passive nature.
The main problem with the vast majority of studies is that a psych student blasting another psych student with an air horn 5 minutes after playing a 10 year old video game doesn't tell us anything useful.
Since the Jack Thompsons of the world use correlation as causation routinely I'd love to see them explain the youth violence rate decrease since video games became popular. When I got into this argument in sociology, the class literally did not believe me about the violence statistics being lower, they were all under the impression (including the teacher) that youth violence and school shootings have consistantly been rising year after year. I had to print them out and bring them in.
It's an assumption made out of necessity (longitudinal studies, well, take a long time). And when you play video games, you're still being exposed to acts of aggression and violence in much the same way as when you watch them on television. I get your argument, but try to think practically. Until we get the data in, should we really assume that being exposed to this particular medium of violence is going be significantly different than the pattern we've seen as violent movies emerged, and then violent music, and then violent television? I'm not belittling the differences in these mediums, but really? Violent video games are finally going to the medium that breaks the pattern because... you actually get to be violent, as opposed to watch others be violent? If anything, I'd expect the effect to be larger. Either way, you're still getting exposed to the violence. Until the data comes in it just seems more reasonable to expect the pattern to hold.
Well, sure, if you want to just go your intuition. After all, intuition holds up so frequently in the area of psychology (or really anywhere). I mean, when someone who has a deep seated belief encounters something that contradicts their belief, they just change their belief, right? It's not like they encounter any sort of cognitive dissonance or something. That's intuitive, no?
While I am not familiar with the studies regarding violent television/music/whatever, I am saying that video games would break any pattern precisely because you get to be violent. Sublimation is a powerful defense mechanism and being able to channel violent tendencies (which everyone does, in fact, have) in a socially acceptable manner is a powerful thing to have.
And I am saying that's a totally legitimate and plausible hypothesis, and I wouldn't be all that surprised if your theory turning out to be correct, even though I don't personally expect it to.
But, since we won't have any hard data for years, isn't it more reasonable right now for the field to assume things will turn out the same way they did for violent television? Violent video games could break the pattern, but it's probably safer to assume the pattern will hold until the evidence proves otherwise.
I'm sure a lot of us in North America see video games as being hunky-dory and not in any real danger of censorship or banning, but in other countries they still carry the stigma of being children's entertainment and all the restrictions that come with it. I know the humiliation of Thompson and such gives us the notion that the issue has been resolved, but that isn't the case.
I really don't think you want to hang your hat on those two being particularly strongly related at all. The mid 80s were an explosion for all violent crime, not just youth, and it dropped immensely across the board back to its normal/socially 'acceptable' levels in the mid to late 90s.
====
Khavall,
I apologize if my examples confused you. I meant aggressive behavior only, which, honestly, has been proven to death about 80 times over for just about anything that stimulates the human body, be it TV, bright colors, irritating sounds, etc. Video games aren't an exception to that. The ol' lizard part of the brain gets fired up and the delicious juices we used to need for hunting deer or driving the neighbor from the nice cave so you can have it flow in. I'm sure studies would also show an increased desire to mate if anybody cared to try to link violent video games to sex.
And competitiveness exists outside of formally defined games. I'm not entirely sure where you were even going there or how you got to random football assaults though, so... *shrug*
Doesn't that strike you as a teensy bit unscientific? In the absense of evidence, let's assume things behave a certain way. And people wonder why psychology gets a bad rap as being a super soft science. Not only does it not make a whole lot of scientific sense, but it also opens the door to bias.
But beyond all of that, no, it isn't more reasonable to assume we psychologically react to video games the same way as we psychologically react to television, just like I'm pretty sure it is obvious that there are a whole different set of psychological forces involved in playing a sport as opposed to simply watching the sport.
I remember the first time I shot an AR-15 I was in my early teens, and I had done a lot of .22 shooting before that. It's not the recoil or the sound from the shot, but the concussive shockwave it gives off. I nearly dropped the gun after firing a round. I gave up my turn after the one shot, and remember being amazed as I stood behind the next person firing, actually feeling the shots.
I can definitely see how this would break down a little kid, especially if they've never shot before.
This is true. There needs to be more longitudinal studies outside the lab.
Those are learning tears.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Never a source*.
* - Does not include Team Fortress 2.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yes. I don't believe the adults realized how much it would jar his brain. Still, even through they are fantasy, he was a wee bit young to be playing that genre of games. He should have been more in the Mario and Zelda arena.
That's actually how all science works. Assume the pattern that has been supported with the most prior evidence holds true for future data points, all while searching for any evidence that contradicts the current theory. It's just magnified here because much of developmental psychology takes decades to research. It's frustrating, and you're right that part of it involves throwing your hands in the air and settling for "in the absence of evidence, let's assume things behave a certain way." But a more fair characterization would be "until our evidence can be collected, we have no choice but to assume this phenomenon will behave the same way as those phenomena most similar to it have behaved in the past."
I can tell you that I was fucking scared shitless, Even though I was in no danger (it was bolted to a tri-pod) and it only had 5-6 rounds for me to fire. The fact that I was holding something designed to kill people, nearly freak me out and even though I managed to fire I could not aim for anything.(paper targets where safe).
The Kid's reaction was perfectly normal to me.
I had loved Penn & Teller before, especially with the "War on Drugs" episode and so on.
The last video of this episode really struck me deep down inside, especially the metaphor about football, I never really looked at it in that perspective.
do you even watch penn & teller?
they're some of the most upfront, confrontational, NO BULLSHIT people I've seen in the mass media. They don't make bias decisions and just roll with that, they take what is factual and false and splits them down the middle.
We need more people like this.
They also "debunked" the second hand smoke myth by having one guy who worked in a smoke filled bar stand up and say "I don't have cancer."
They don't really go through the scientific process properly, though its usually entertaining.
I'd be more concerned over the boy having the headset on and listening to the drivel that is spouted across Xbox Live. "Motherfucking Cock Balls!? Where on earth did you hear that word young man!?"
|Xbox Live Tag: Omeks
|PSN Tag: Omeks_R7
|Rock Band: Profile|DLC Collection
To be fair, they usually make a point of saying how unscientific their claims and methods are. And really, who's going to be watching the show other than people who already agree with them. I think most of the time they attack viewpoints that are just as unscientific - these shows are providing an entertaining look at the opposite side of the more visible unscientific viewpoints that a lot of pundits/politicians/whoevers spout.
It's skepticism without rigorous science. Kind of along the lines of Mythbusters for social issues (I'm not that familiar with Mythbusters, but from what I've seen they are a bit more scientific about it than P&T. Still not exhaustive enough to prove most things they test conclusively, but still a step in the right direction).
That's a joke, right?
And to Mr. God-King, when someone tries to whitewash the likes of Milloy and Lott, they lose any pretense of being either unbiased or credible.
And, maybe they make their intentions well known (unscientific skepticism) but that makes me wonder what they really want to get across. Do they just want to tear people, who may be correct but not backed by science, apart? Where is the benefit in that?
Of course, they are entertaining and for every episode that ends up being pointless (though entertaining) they have an episode that really is worth watching.
I was just thinking the same thing. I watched like two seasons of it back to back a few years ago. This can only end in suffering. And by "suffering", I mean "Youtube watching and potential Amazon purchases".
So yeah, it's arguing... at their level, which isn't great, but I guess its better than nothing.
Well really more like
This is kind of true. Though they are also obviously wrong sometimes, like the one about second hand smoking where new research made them admit that they had been wrong.
The show is most useful, aside from just being funny, as a way to try and put an issue in perspective, not as actual evidence for one side or another.
That's a nice way to whitewash what happened, and it shows how dishonest Penn is if that's the story he's pushing. The reality was that he got caught using "data" from Big Tobacco's pet "scientist" Steve Milloy. Which, if you know the man's reputation, is a big no-no.
As the other thread said it's good for the first season or two. Then you run out of real things to attack and started attacking favoured targets which are actually complicated issues (and their dreaded 'L' bias comes to the fore).
Ahh the first time I fired a weapon. Twas a double barreled shotgun. I was 9 and my family was on a hunting trip. My dad stopped to let me shoot it once into the air (with him supporting me). Right when I pulled the trigger a flock of birds flew right into the sights and I killed 2 of them. It kind of freaked me out. Especially how my dad started to immediately act as if nothing happened.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
Yeah, every kid cries the first time out with guns. I did. Fuck, when I was a kid I started crying while frying chicken on a stove because I was scared of the oil much more that day for some reasons. Kids can't control emotions as easily as adults (see also: getting cut with a knife makes you cry as a kid, cutting my finger with a knife as an adult is "oh damnit, I don't have any bandaids right now")
Edit: and to earlier posts, it's fine for adults to get nervous and cry when first handling guns. That shit can be stressful as hell. Guess what the body's response to stress is? Crying.
Some call it beginner's luck. I call it gamer's edge(tm).