| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/20/2010 08:12:37 PM · #226 |
Oh! Now this thread was a good read...I find the discussion rather fascinating and oddly humorous. Technology impacts our lives in so many ways and offers choices both healthy and unhealthy.
Life is about options and choices and video games and porn offered up on the platform of technology both hinders and give us liberty simultaneously.
What would happen if we had to sit in a empty room completely bare of choices for a day? Would we meditate and find our deeper inner selves? Or, just sit there and stare at the fly on the wall wondering when the day is over...what's for dinner?
Although I may not always like the choices presented in some video games or other forms of technology, what I do like and appreciate is that I have a choice at all.
However, in a world of choices also comes the weight of responsibility and the best technical choice becomes the one in wise hands.
Well, that's my two cents...hope they come out with a Lego Star Trek game soon!!!
;-)
|
|
|
|
10/20/2010 08:14:25 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Studies are actually meaningless to me. Especially in this day and age, where even the side we AGREE with are usually so laden with corporate sponsorship (either above or below board), or personal biases, that the end results mean nothing. For every study that produces one result, there's one that produces the exact opposite. Whether it's behavior or global warming, it all means basically nothing. NOTHING. Anecdotal evidence and personal experience and basically just following instinct? That's what I'll stick with. Thank you very much.
*ETA* oh, and believe it or not, I'm not disagreeing that Looney Tunes doesn't have any effect either. I certainly know that my brother and I lost a couple of teeth because of the hour after a WWF viewing. |
Okey-doke. I thought you were the one looking for less "superstition" in life, but I guess to each their own... |
It's not superstition, it's cause and effect. Give donuts = a few hours of hell. Don't give donuts = not so much. If you WANT to pretend that something not based on ONE study is "superstition", that's your problem. lol. Not mine.
ETA: Besides, for a person so caught up on studies, how on earth do you believe in a god!? The mind boggles. |
Did you see, it was a meta-analysis. It looked at sixteen studies. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 08:14:48 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Studies are actually meaningless to me. Especially in this day and age, where even the side we AGREE with are usually so laden with corporate sponsorship (either above or below board), or personal biases, that the end results mean nothing. For every study that produces one result, there's one that produces the exact opposite. Whether it's behavior or global warming, it all means basically nothing. NOTHING. Anecdotal evidence and personal experience and basically just following instinct? That's what I'll stick with. Thank you very much.
*ETA* oh, and believe it or not, I'm not disagreeing that Looney Tunes doesn't have any effect either. I certainly know that my brother and I lost a couple of teeth because of the hour after a WWF viewing. |
Wow, that's not very fair.
The doctor is right, anecdotal evidence is crap. There are any number of reasons your kids could start spazzing out... one of them is that you're expecting them to. That's what the blind does... it helps remove the influence of the observer on the experiment.
You might as well discount everything said by everyone! Who doesn't have an agenda?
My own anecdote: When I was a kid I'd drink six-packs of Jolt Cola in two hours, and never get hyper, despite the sugar AND caffeine. Does this prove you wrong? Hardly. |
Individualism plays a part, certainly. I do laugh at the "They act that way because you expect them to" part. Yaaaahhh.
To be fair, I do tend to discount everything said by everyone :D |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 08:15:20 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Studies are actually meaningless to me. Especially in this day and age, where even the side we AGREE with are usually so laden with corporate sponsorship (either above or below board), or personal biases, that the end results mean nothing. For every study that produces one result, there's one that produces the exact opposite. Whether it's behavior or global warming, it all means basically nothing. NOTHING. Anecdotal evidence and personal experience and basically just following instinct? That's what I'll stick with. Thank you very much.
*ETA* oh, and believe it or not, I'm not disagreeing that Looney Tunes doesn't have any effect either. I certainly know that my brother and I lost a couple of teeth because of the hour after a WWF viewing. |
Okey-doke. I thought you were the one looking for less "superstition" in life, but I guess to each their own... |
It's not superstition, it's cause and effect. Give donuts = a few hours of hell. Don't give donuts = not so much. If you WANT to pretend that something not based on ONE study is "superstition", that's your problem. lol. Not mine.
ETA: Besides, for a person so caught up on studies, how on earth do you believe in a god!? The mind boggles. |
Did you see, it was a meta-analysis. It looked at sixteen studies. |
Sixteen pieces of crap :) |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 08:18:56 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't have those answers for you Mousie. Not in any scientific way at least. Nobody knows. It doesn't mean there isn't a difference between the ends of the continuum though just because you can't draw a line somewhere. |
You can't draw a line... rather we can't draw a line scientifically... but you want... what? People to stop playing them? Making them? Changes in legal policy?
Why are we even talking about this if we can't tell when it's good and when it's bad?
How can you craft a solution when you can't even define what contributes to a problem?
Or are we really just cane-waving here?
By the way, does anyone remember hysteria around the violent, occult scourge known as ROLE PLAYING games?
Yeah, they ruined kids, those magic missiles! |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 08:19:43 PM · #231 |
Here's a good one: The question remains as to why the
results of controlled studies differ so
much from the impression of parents. A
possible explanation is expectancy. A
study by Hoover and Milich37 tested a
group of parents and children where the
parents believed that their children were
adversely affected by sugar. They chal¬
lenged all the children with a drink
sweetened with artificial sweetener (pla¬
cebo), but for half the parents they told
them the drink was sweetened with
sugar. They then asked the parents to
observe and rate their children's behav¬
ior, and the researchers observed and
recorded the parents' behaviors in in¬
teracting with their children. The effect
sizes (d) for the parent ratings and be¬
havioral coding of the parents ranged
from -0.57 to 1.11 with seven of the 11
measures greater than 0.42, which are
considerably higher than those found
for the sugar studies.
In other words, if you told the parents their kids had gotten sugar drinks, they thought their behavior was worse even though nobody had. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 08:20:43 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't have those answers for you Mousie. Not in any scientific way at least. Nobody knows. It doesn't mean there isn't a difference between the ends of the continuum though just because you can't draw a line somewhere. |
You can't draw a line... rather we can't draw a line scientifically... but you want... what? People to stop playing them? Making them? Changes in legal policy?
Why are we even talking about this if we can't tell when it's good and when it's bad?
How can you craft a solution when you can't even define what contributes to a problem?
Or are we really just cane-waving here?
By the way, does anyone remember hysteria around the violent, occult scourge known as ROLE PLAYING games?
Yeah, they ruined kids, those magic missiles! |
Are you mixing me up with someone else? When have I said any of this? Don't you all hear that I think the video games are the symptom not the disease? It's like talking to a room of deaf people. (No offense Robert.)
EDIT: Actually I should moderate my stance. My real position is the video games are the symptom, not the disease, BUT I guess I have been arguing that they can effect some changes on their own like a positive feedback cycle. I'm not advocating for any laws banning then, but like someone above (Paul?) I wish they weren't being made.
Message edited by author 2010-10-20 20:27:41. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 08:27:41 PM · #233 |
Are you confusing asking a question with putting words in your mouth?
Again:
Why are we discussing the supposed corrosive influence of games when we can't even define what's corrosive?
What is the goal of pointing out the evils of games, in this context?
Seriously. These are questions. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 08:29:33 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess I have been arguing that they can effect some changes on their own like a positive feedback cycle. I'm not advocating for any laws banning then, but like someone above (Paul?) I wish they weren't being made. |
Yes, that. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 08:30:13 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Are you confusing asking a question with putting words in your mouth?
Again:
Why are we discussing the supposed corrosive influence of games when we can't even define what's corrosive?
What is the goal of pointing out the evils of games, in this context?
Seriously. These are questions. |
The answer is we could consider a 9 or a 10 on the scale as corrosive, but you think the whole idea should be tossed if we can't differentiate between a 4.5 and a 4.6. That is not a valid counterargument. The short term studies found that VVGs caused increased aggression (which seems to be generally accepted even by Tycho's people). I don't know where they fell on the continuum, but wherever they were, they caused an effect. One would assume that "the more violent" the more effect, although this is just an assumption. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 08:44:36 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The answer is we could consider a 9 or a 10 on the scale as corrosive, but you think the whole idea should be tossed if we can't differentiate between a 4.5 and a 4.6. That is not a valid counterargument. The short term studies found that VVGs caused increased aggression (which seems to be generally accepted even by Tycho's people). I don't know where they fell on the continuum, but wherever they were, they caused an effect. One would assume that "the more violent" the more effect, although this is just an assumption. |
Now you're putting words in MY mouth!
I haven't said we shouldn't care about video games, or even their possible negative consequences. I do care about the influence of video games. If I had kids I'd pick and choose what I wanted them to play, trying to get them interested in the ones that I think will better them as well as entertain them. That's what my parents did for me with TV and books. I, consequently, watched a lot of PBS.
I'm asking why we're discussing this when nobody can point to the 'it' that's the problem. 9 to 10 on WHAT scale? The scale of 'how evil games are'? You don't even have a scale.
So I'll assume we're all just cane-waving here.
Get off my lawn you punks! |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 09:13:19 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Mousie:
As has been mentioned... the people playing games are often geeky/nerdy or meek/wussy/shy. It's partly because sports don't have an appeal for people like this that they turn to other forms of less directly confrontational entertainment to fill their time. |
I sprint swim. shrug |
I cross-train. Neither's exactly what I call confrontational. You must play video games! :) |
No time these days, though I do have an xbox360 with a well-played game of Oblivion IV on it. |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 09:33:59 PM · #238 |
Any consideration regarding the kind of people who like to play very violent video games in the first place? And whatever happened to the evil that is reading??
If only creating is of worth, who consumes the creation? Who reads the book you wrote, views the pictures you took? What is the worth of every day conversation? |
|
|
|
10/20/2010 10:45:17 PM · #239 |
Ah it's all good Mousie. I've made my points on the subject and you just seem to be muddying the waters.
You seemed to state your position on things, but I don't know what your argument has to do with it. You care about video games, but are you contending that we are essentially at square one knowing whether they have any effect on people? And the main reason is because you want some official hierarchical list of violent video games?
Here's what you need to know. A quote from Chris Ferguson, Tycho's guy who is pretty well as big a naysayer as you can get when it comes to thinking video games have bad consequences. "We have some experimental studies that say there's at least a short term effect for playing violent video games on aggression." I don't think I'm taking his quote out of context. I think he may be conceding that there is some evidence for this (probably because some of these studies were prospective, blinded experiments).
We can just take it from there. Let's assume there is no scientific evidence beyond that. Some people might argue that's the end of the story and it doesn't matter, others might argue that it's the tip of the iceburg. If we believe that they can have a detrimental effect, then it would be nice to know what the threshold is (like in your questions), but we don't and I'm guessing that study would be both hard and time consuming. We probably will never know. Unfortunately that's the way the world often works. But, the fact we don't have that study doesn't change that you can still launch into either the pro- or against argument from the short-term evidence we have.
I hope that makes sense.
I've noticed that four of the last five threads I've posted in are in Rant. That's a bad sign. I should probably go and be more productive on the site... :)
Message edited by author 2010-10-20 22:46:08. |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 12:02:11 AM · #240 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I'm asking why we're discussing this when nobody can point to the 'it' that's the problem. |
Because the usual way humans figure out what "it" is is by discussing, analyzing, trying out and testing different options and seeing what the results (if any) might be. |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 08:39:05 AM · #241 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ah it's all good Mousie. I've made my points on the subject and you just seem to be muddying the waters.
You seemed to state your position on things, but I don't know what your argument has to do with it. You care about video games, but are you contending that we are essentially at square one knowing whether they have any effect on people? And the main reason is because you want some official hierarchical list of violent video games?
Here's what you need to know. A quote from Chris Ferguson, Tycho's guy who is pretty well as big a naysayer as you can get when it comes to thinking video games have bad consequences. "We have some experimental studies that say there's at least a short term effect for playing violent video games on aggression." I don't think I'm taking his quote out of context. I think he may be conceding that there is some evidence for this (probably because some of these studies were prospective, blinded experiments).
We can just take it from there. Let's assume there is no scientific evidence beyond that. Some people might argue that's the end of the story and it doesn't matter, others might argue that it's the tip of the iceburg. If we believe that they can have a detrimental effect, then it would be nice to know what the threshold is (like in your questions), but we don't and I'm guessing that study would be both hard and time consuming. We probably will never know. Unfortunately that's the way the world often works. But, the fact we don't have that study doesn't change that you can still launch into either the pro- or against argument from the short-term evidence we have.
I hope that makes sense.
I've noticed that four of the last five threads I've posted in are in Rant. That's a bad sign. I should probably go and be more productive on the site... :) |
When I played high school football and hockey, before there were any violent video games, some people would bash lockers in with their heads or fists, as well as players on the other team.
When I played at violent gaming LAN parties more recently, some people would drink pop and eat chips.
This whole thread is ridiculous, but carry on.
Message edited by author 2010-10-21 08:40:19. |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 10:11:49 AM · #242 |
My first real online gaming experience came to me when I was asked to fix a PC owned by the son of someone who worked in my firm. This particular PC was fully loaded custom gamer's PC designed specifically to support high speed games both visually and with the best audio money can buy. I laugh because this PC was probably worth more than my car! Anyways, after tweaking and fixing the PC, then I had to test it. A gamer's PC provides a full sensory experience and surprised me by a total immersion into a sub-culture video world. I had trouble surviving in the games long enough to complete my tests of the system, but I learned a good lesson about that world on the internet. A good gamer's PC makes the experience highly interactive.
However, despite being part of this virtual world, the son grew up and played sports such as football quite successfully. He did well academically in school and recently graduated from law school. He's a sweet resposible person who was fortunate to buy some extraordinary hardware to support his online adventures.
I am surprised at the strong reactions here. I'm a firm believer that you create your own experience in this world based on who you are as a person...virtual or otherwise!
|
|
|
|
10/21/2010 01:45:48 PM · #243 |
I'm not muddying the waters, I'm pointing out that the waters ARE muddy, and that the people making absolute claims don't have anything specific to stand on apart from 'short term aggression'... and even that isn't necessarily a problem!
I'd posit that aggression is quite a valuable tool when properly applied. You might have caught that from the tone of my posts. (No, I haven't been playing any games recently.)
Yet here we have a ton of people unrepentantly saying video games are a net loss. Funny, that!
Well, I'm gonna back off, because I feel I've made my case...
And they just released Fallout: New Vegas!!! I will have no time for the truly important things in life, like squabbling in forums.
Look out, mantis nymphs! I'm level 1!
|
|
|
|
10/21/2010 01:53:18 PM · #244 |
Does anyone know if it possible with a PS3 to simply plug in a Keyboard/Mouse to use instead of the silly controller. I would own everyone in Medal of Honour with a Keyboard/Mouse, but with the controller I spend most of my time dead.
I don't use a desktop PC anymore, and want to leverage my PS3 and TV. |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 02:19:19 PM · #245 |
| Anyone have an idea how much old Nintendo games are going for on eBay? |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 03:19:26 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ah it's all good Mousie. I've made my points on the subject and you just seem to be muddying the waters.
You seemed to state your position on things, but I don't know what your argument has to do with it. You care about video games, but are you contending that we are essentially at square one knowing whether they have any effect on people? And the main reason is because you want some official hierarchical list of violent video games?
Here's what you need to know. A quote from Chris Ferguson, Tycho's guy who is pretty well as big a naysayer as you can get when it comes to thinking video games have bad consequences. "We have some experimental studies that say there's at least a short term effect for playing violent video games on aggression." I don't think I'm taking his quote out of context. I think he may be conceding that there is some evidence for this (probably because some of these studies were prospective, blinded experiments).
We can just take it from there. Let's assume there is no scientific evidence beyond that. Some people might argue that's the end of the story and it doesn't matter, others might argue that it's the tip of the iceburg. If we believe that they can have a detrimental effect, then it would be nice to know what the threshold is (like in your questions), but we don't and I'm guessing that study would be both hard and time consuming. We probably will never know. Unfortunately that's the way the world often works. But, the fact we don't have that study doesn't change that you can still launch into either the pro- or against argument from the short-term evidence we have.
I hope that makes sense.
I've noticed that four of the last five threads I've posted in are in Rant. That's a bad sign. I should probably go and be more productive on the site... :) |
When I played high school football and hockey, before there were any violent video games, some people would bash lockers in with their heads or fists, as well as players on the other team.
When I played at violent gaming LAN parties more recently, some people would drink pop and eat chips.
This whole thread is ridiculous, but carry on. |
Huh. Maybe video games are just a reflection of real life behavior. Hmm I wonder what is driving the real life behavior...
|
|
|
|
10/21/2010 03:29:48 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by yanko:
... I wonder what is driving the real life behavior... |
I thought the violent high school sports behaviour was due to stupidity. Those were the kids who had a tough time maintaining passing grades in order to stay on the teams. Probably some were passed purely due to sports. Those guys are probably in prison now, anyway. |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 04:26:12 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:-
When I played at violent gaming LAN parties more recently, some people would drink pop and eat chips.
----------------------------------------
you were never invited to LAN parties ;-)
Message edited by author 2010-10-21 17:11:12.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2010 04:36:01 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by yanko:
... I wonder what is driving the real life behavior... |
I thought the violent high school sports behaviour was due to stupidity. Those were the kids who had a tough time maintaining passing grades in order to stay on the teams. Probably some were passed purely due to sports. Those guys are probably in prison now, anyway. |
Actually, the ones who didn't go to prison...went to college. I used to know a a college professor who complained incessantly about how well sports stars are pampered and idolized despite being academically impaired. |
|
|
|
10/21/2010 04:40:41 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Does anyone know if it possible with a PS3 to simply plug in a Keyboard/Mouse to use instead of the silly controller. I would own everyone in Medal of Honour with a Keyboard/Mouse, but with the controller I spend most of my time dead.
I don't use a desktop PC anymore, and want to leverage my PS3 and TV. |
You can use a keyboard/mouse, but they have to be Bluetooth, and not EVERY brand works. I think there's a compatibility list out there somewhere.
Be forewarned that not every game will let you use the keyboard/mouse combo, and of those games that do, you're limited to playing in lobbies that allow them.
|
|
