Because dud was scared too >.>



I agree to the above statement.

But oh! We have a Massassian that is evidence of this preposterous article.



GET HIM!

yarr

IN MY DEFENSE

i would have taken drugs without video games

problem is!

if i knew i would never ever take drugs in my life, would i start playing games at an early age?

Just figured that out? :p

I wasn't afraid to make the thread, just the using the title.. :p

But seriously. This is one of the most unscientific studies I've ever seen. I'd /love/ to get my hands on the funding records.

Penny Arcade has a nice piece up about it today

ha ha ha, some poeple are stupid.

I always wonder when they talk about how realistic these games are. Have they ever taken a bat and beat someone with it? Do they think the person just falls to the ground where a pool of blood expands underneath them?

Wow, awesome, I'm totally the first person to point out that Penny Arcade has a news post and comic about this!

http://www.penny-arcade.com/

I can't believe nobody beat me!

[QUOTE=Rogue Leader]I always wonder when they talk about how realistic these games are. Have they ever taken a bat and beat someone with it? Do they think the person just falls to the ground where a pool of blood expands underneath them?[/QUOTE]

Apparently you haven't either b/c trust me they do :p

I think he beat you to it saberopus.

BTW, this bull. I know many people who play video games and none of them are doing drugs.

Every study that suggests violent video games have an effect on people's behavior never seem to look at any disposition the person might have toward violence, or anything else that might be a factor in a person's violent behavior.

WTSKFJALKDSFJLKT.

The thing I hate most is stuff like this:



I mean, obviously I know that isn't at all true. It's like they can just make stuff up and put it in the news because the people reading the article won't know the difference.

Articles like this suck anyway because they don't ever give the numbers. They just say 'A LINK HAS BEEN FOUND BETWEEN DRUG USE, RAPES, VIOLENCE, INCEST, MURDER, AND VIDEOGAMES'... never telling us in how many out of the total cases and in what circumstances and how large the sample was, and how it was randomized, and from whence the subjects were collected.

Bah. Taking statistics really enlightens you on how much crucial information is nearly always left out of these reports... information that could even completely discredit the study in some cases. I only hope that those who would make decisions on such matters are more thoroughly informed... but I suspect not.

I remember a news segmant on a major network reporting on how gaming increases reflexes, hand-eye coordination, and the ability to track multiple objects at once. This, reportadily, makes those who play video games (especially simulator type games) "safer drivers."

So, they are not all bad, but the good ones seem to get drowned out..

I will add, that I have come very close to being in several accidents where people weren't watching where they were going (particularily, not breaking in time). I have swerved off the road to keep people from hitting me on several occassions. In only one of the cases was there a collision:

I was rolling in behind traffic as they were starting off from a traffic light. Suddenly, several vehicles up, a moving van decides to slam on the breaks (for no apparent reason), this causes everyone behind him to do the same. Instinctively, everytime I have to break hard, I look into the rearview mirror. In it, I see a black mustang bearing down hard. I could deduce in this quick glance that based on it's speed and distance, it wouldn't have time to stop in time. So, I am left with a choice and I have to act quickly. Do I swerve into the right-hand lane and risk getting hit by another car that's in that lane (that I didn't notice in my mirrors cause of my blind spot)? Do I brace myself for inpact? Or do I attempt to quickly climb up onto the median? Quickly, I twist the wheel to the left and give the car some gas. A half a second later, BAM, the mustang makes contact, sending me across the median, over a No U-turn sign, and hitting a stopped car on the other side in the rear passenger door. The only person that got hurt was the guy driving the mustang. He put his arm up right before the collision and the air bag hit it with enough force to leave a nice big bruise on his arm.

Ahead of me, was a small blue nessian with a very cute brunette in it who got out to see if she needed to stay or not. Of course, like a dumb ***, I told her that it was fine and she could go ahead (I'm assuming she was with the rest of us students on the way to class that got detoured due to construction on the bridge several miles back). Ahead of her was a large utility truck. Of which, the nose of her car would have fit nicely underneath if I had held my ground and did nothing (the mustang would have hit me and I would have hit her, etc). She probably would have been decapitated. *sigh* I'd probably be married to her today if I had told her to stay instead of the lovely wife I have now (I'm not complaining, just saying). Anyhow. My car took the worst beating. Mind you, it didn't take very much beating in the front since the majority of the impact was dispersed between him hitting me at a glance (since I was in the process of trying to get up on the median), me accelerating, going against gravity, and running over the No U-turn sign. The rear was somewhat dented from where the mustang hit, but not bad. Oh yeah, but the bottom part of the No U-Turn sign is what "totaled" the car out. It went through the bottom of the car, severing the break line and "pushed" up on the bottom of my seat (it punctured all the way through the bottom of the car, and almost my seat too).

Anyhow, I'm not sure why I just typed all that. I guess just to prove the point that if it weren't for my fast reflexes (from playing Battlefield 1942, at the time), the accident would have been 100 times worse. Granted, the lady across the median would not have been affected, but the dent in your rear passenger door was a small price to pay when weighed against the safety of a human life.

Well, I guess objectiveness is really out the window anymore. The TITLE of the article already gives a conclusion to evidence that they haven't even given you yet. That's classy. Gee, I wonder if they did that for the large majority of news readers who just skim through headlines without reading anything else and drawing conclusions on the entire subject based off of them. I mean Jesus, at least try to hide it. Put a "might be" in there, perhaps.

"Playing the violent game boosted young men's blood pressures..."

So does reading this article.

"...and appeared to have more of an effect on those who came from more violent homes or communities, the researchers report..."

I can guarantee you that they are paid way too much.


I love things like; "Research shows" , "A group of scientist found that". Amazing how you completely left out who they were, where this "study" was held, and most importantly, who funded them.

I just don't get it. Can anybody read that article and really think that it was , in anyway, truthful, unbiased, or even legitimate? I felt like I was reading something out of the ****ing Onion. What an absolutely ridiculous article. Thank you Anne Harding, for your contribution to the ever-decline state of journalism.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc anyone?

Simpsons Hit and Run FTW

Yeah, totally!

Amicus Curiae Semper Fidelis Ad Hoc Veni Vedi Vici.

I heard that recently but I can't remember what it means.

If you look at the methodology of the study (at least what it seems to be, as it's presented in the article), they aren't making that mistake. They're showing that soon after playing a video game, subjects who were assigned to play the more violent one displayed certain reactions/behaviors.

That said, I throw my lot in with the rest of you being disgusted with the way the media presents studies with this. I realize that you can't expect the lay reader to understand what p < .05 means, but the presentation of the results of any study like this (especially in the headline) as definite truth makes me cringe.

Hate to sound paranoid, but I think the coverage and depiction of video games and their effect depends somewhat on which part of the media is discussing it.

You have to remember that video games as a form of entertainment are in competition with movies, television, newspapers, etc. for the viewer's time and money. There's also personal bias of the reporter of course; an article written by Jack Thompson citing the same statistics and studies as one written by Tim Buckley could reach a drastically different conclusion.

Game Informer (I think issue 156?) recently ran an article written by a parent, who at the outset admitted his various biases as both a parent and a gamer, ultimately arriving at the conclusion that video game violence is ok, but good parenting (restrictions on the household level, not state/federal) is also required. Sadly this kind of evenhanded approach that defends freedom of expression while emphasizing personal responsibility is rare. It's easier to take everything you hate or fear and put in one big associated article then condemn the lot.

Afterall, a recent study (forget the specific statistics, our laymen readers wouldn't understand them) showed a relationship exists between video games, rap music, marijuana, homosexuality and communism. If you don't want your child to become a rapping gamer, ban communist homosexuality now! Sigh.

This is really pretty simple to explain. How simple, you ask?

Fight or flight response.

Okay, I'm done.

That article is bull crap. I tend to drink alcohol BEFORE or DURING playing violent video games, but never AFTER.

Haha, the mass media is willing to say anything to attack their competition.

For the record: I learned it was cool to smoke cigars, drink and gamble from James Bond movies.

haha, YOU LOST THE PA RACE

Ok here is how I see it...

We know that they have picked a random sample of 100 males. An obvious part of the study is that there blood pressure increased. This is a well known fact. Now I have to ask, how many of these males actually wanted to go out and do drugs or drink alcohol after playing these games. We don't know how many actually did this. No percentage, no actual results from the study were reported. Another factor that they might not have included was that how many of the males have a history of already doing drugs and/or drinking alcohol.

What I'd like to also know is were they in any way trying to correlate blood pressure to drug use/drinking. If they were, I'd like to also a dotplot graph on their correlation and what the correlation is.

Until I see graphs, figures, and the report on the results, I see this as complete bull crap.

I do drugs and beat people because its fun, not because of some damn video games.

GTA OWES ME ROYALTIES. D:<

I can make a pretty good guess on how the did the drug study.


"Researcher": "Hello, college student, have you ever done a drug."

College Student: "Yes, I have tried some pot."

"Researcher": "I see. And, Have you ever had any form of alcohol?"

College Student: "..."

"Researcher": "Uh Huh. And, finally, have you ever played a violent video game?"

College Student: "..."

"Research": "A HA! Finally, undeniable proof of the connection between drinking, drug use, rape, genocide, and violent video games!!"

As usual, attack video games because they have to be ruining America's youth! Forget a culture that promotes drinking, sex, conflict, and irresponsibility!

Although the article failed to mention more detail, the blood pressure analysis seemed reasonable as well as the increased competitiveness and decreased cooperation.

I don't believe the study ever adequately supported this exact statement, the first sentence in the damn article:



Way to go researchers!

I don't know why people enjoy GTA. The idea of beating someone with a bat doesn't make me say, "Sweet, I'm gonna pwn some n00bs!"

You forgot to ask "Have you ever had a violent thought in your life?"

I just realized...

I game less, yet my desire for alcohol, drugs, and pillaging has increased.

EXPLAIN THAT?

Very interesting point.

Can I go raid our liquor cabinet, have sex with a hooker then kill her for the money back, and go on an acid trip now because I can blame games?

Alright. So, all of you are bashing the research, while others of you would like to criticize the general populace for believing the news article without looking into what the actual study says.

How many of you looked the article up?

First of all, I quote from the study: "We randomly assigned participants to play a video game high in violence, Grand Theft Auto III, or a video game comparatively low in violence, The Simpsons: Hit and Run." Thus, their observations are taken right after people play a game (which they didn't choose). They're not conflating the gaming with other factors.

On the risky behaviors: "After video game play, participants completed the Funk et al31 15-item Attitudes Towards Violence Scale ({alpha} = .76). Participants used a 7-point Likert scale (–3, "very harmful to my health to +3, "very helpful to my health") to indicate the perceived health benefit or risk of engaging in alcohol use, marijuana use, and sex without use of a condom." They found that the random group of people assigned to play GTA rated alcohol and pot more permissively (this finding at a 95% confidence level). Interestingly, "Contrary to hypothesis, the violent video game condition was not associated with hostile social information processing, permissive attitudes toward violence, and attitudes toward sexual activity without condom use." (Of course, the media article didn't report this.)

So, given two random homogenous groups of guys polled on their attitudes, one group was more permissive than the other when it came to alcohol and pot. The only factor distinguishing this group was that they played GTA rather than the Simpsons game. You could say that maybe it's just a statistical fluke, but the chances of that are rather low.

Of course, it's open to interpretation whether it makes sense to say that GTA makes people more accepting of alcohol. Maybe it's not because of the violence, but because of other aspects of the game's content. The researchers admit this possibility, though the media article doesn't.

My point is: yes, the reporting on research in the news almost invariably sucks, but that doesn't mean that the research itself is scientifically unsound.

(Another grief of mine: that the news didn't even cite the article. So I'll do a bit better:
Effects of Media Violence on Health-Related Outcomes Among Young Men
Sonya S. Brady; Karen A. Matthews
Archive of Pediatrics and Adolesc Medicine 2006;160:341-347.)

I don't think anyone was really getting into the method of the study, just the conclusion.

you'd have to be an idiot to be swayed by the ps2's graphics with respect to gta3.

Uh, actually that is true. Well, more or less. If you keep hitting characters after they're dead, a "pool" of blood does show up.

IIRC, the pool shows up whether you hit them after they're dead or not. And I know for a fact that the size of the pool has nothing to do with how many times you hit them. They're trying to make the violence seem more "interactive" to the people reading the article. :p