…in case you weren’t sure, darling, that University of Maryland study quoted in Fox’s “Sexbox” squib isn’t exactly what it was advertised to be.
This study didn’t involve thousands of young children. It didn’t even involve “real life experience” or even if they knew the difference between real life and fantasy. The Washington Post, in their story Students See Video Games As Harmless, Study Finds is more accurate, but not much more. The post still sensationalizes the issue by claiming that 14-year olds, who are filled with wrath, consider themselves “immune to mayhem.”
#1 by Merkwurdigliebe on January 29th, 2008
Great. Three Feminazis trying to tell me that I’m a misogynistic bigot.
#2 by bullet on January 29th, 2008
So the study starts with the premise that video games are bad and proceeds to they harm people who are unable to tell that they are bad? WTF? Also, it’s men that can’t tell, but women are fine.
This is just the SOS with a twist of feminism. “Stereotypes” are now the issue. I’d love to see what harm the Italian plumber stereotype does to 14-year-old males and society at large.
#3 by L'Emmerdeur on January 29th, 2008
I am a misogynistic bigot! Does this make me play more video games, or did the video games twist me? I want a chicken sandwich, but i want an omelet, too.
#4 by hellfire on January 29th, 2008
I’m still waiting for the study that shows the correlation between old school pac-man players and pill-popping drug addicts.
#5 by D-0ne on January 29th, 2008
This isn’t about feminists… It’s about idiots who want things their way.
#6 by Toastrider on January 29th, 2008
D-One has it right.
Both sides of the political divide have ‘em — what I call the Nanny Staters. They know what’s best for you. No, don’t try to argue. Just be quiet. We know better than you.
*sigh* *headdesk*
–TR
#7 by Soulflame on January 29th, 2008
You’d think that with millions of gamers around the world today, we’d be able to destroy civilization with our irrepressible urges to destroy in short order. Although, possibly it’s true; I’m just waiting for the resonance cascade scenario, personally.
#8 by Steve on January 30th, 2008
I’m waiting for the zombie apocalypse, myself.
#9 by Wanderer on February 18th, 2008
I can prove that listening to Lawrence Welk music is bad.
Ask people if the think Lawrence Welk music is bad. Compare their ratings of the music to how much of it they listen to. You’ll find out — surprise! — that the people who listen to Lawrence Welk music don’t think it’s bad!!! So that proves that it is!
Because, y’know, the irrefutable proof that someone’s opinion is wrong is they disagree with you
That study proves equally well that not playing video games is harmful, because some people who don’t play video games don’t agree with me that they’re not bad. They don’t agree with me, they’re therefore wrong, case closed.
In decades of watching this crap, going all the way back to the attacks on D&D starting in the 70’s, I have never seen a valid study on the topic. Every last one I’ve seen, or at least that has been widely publicized, has started with a conclusion and sought data to prove it. That’s how law works, not science.
I’ve seen studies “prove” that video games are bad because serious gamers don’t get as excited while playing a violent game as non-gamers do. Well, duh. We’re used to reacting to a fast-paced, confusing game; like driving down the San Diego Freeway, if you’re new to it you’ll get all stressed out about it, but if you’ve been driving it twice a day for years, you don’t even have to think about what you’re doing unless something goes wrong. That study used this to “prove” that gamers get desensitized to violence. Helloooo, we get desensitized to stuff moving around really fast on a computer screen that we have to choose the right control inputs to score points from. I suppose if the study had showed that gamers’ pulse rates, etc., did increase more than those of the non-gamer group, then it would “prove” that we get off on violence, too.
Sticking with the driving model, when I’m doing a long road trip on the interstate, I “get in the zone” and I would guess that my vital signs are at or below my normal resting levels. That doesn’t mean that I’m “desensitized” to driving. Rather, it’s that driving on interstates is something I’ve done so much that I don’t have to be all keyed up to think about what I’m doing; the reactions are pretty much hardwired by now. Likewise, if I’m driving through Boston, my heart rate is through the roof, etc., but that doesn’t mean I get off on driving in Boston, just that it stresses me out.
If anyone tried to “prove” anything about driving by using the same standards they use to “prove” things about the effects of playing video games, they’d be laughed out of the room. Why does logic, common sense, and science vanish when games get involved?