|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/18/2010 01:49:35 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I hate when these conversations are redundant and I suddenly have to explain myself all over again because someone just joins and decides not to read what's almost there. |
I try to quote their post and then add a quote of my own previous post, rather than writing anything out again ... I find the slight degree of snarkiness intimated by the format helps sublimate the frustration just a little bit ... :-( |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 02:21:13 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
....studies you can find that link violent video games to aggressive behavior... |
Is it the other way around? I've always been aggressive, but have only recently started playing violent video games.
My wife is not aggressive at all, and she sucks at these games. |
A possible important point. Most studies can only make a link, but do not speak to causation (although a few do try to get at causation). |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 04:43:28 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
....studies you can find that link violent video games to aggressive behavior... |
Is it the other way around? I've always been aggressive, but have only recently started playing violent video games.
My wife is not aggressive at all, and she sucks at these games. |
A possible important point. Most studies can only make a link, but do not speak to causation (although a few do try to get at causation). |
IMO, the most important point is that when zombies finally do attack, I'll be sitting pretty and you'll be up shit creek. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 04:50:17 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In my opinion it's the idea of "occupying time" or "passing time" that's so wrong. Our society excels at making our lives comfortable by the blood, sweat, and tears of the lower classes. We get our home theaters, Play Stations, big screen TVs, and plenty of time to watch them. |
Where do you get this stuff???? Who do you think pays for the big screens & Play Stations? It's not like they're issued by the Central Office. The blood, sweat, and tears of the lower classes???? You're going to have to justify that melodramatic generalization.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
God forbid we work more than 40 or 50 hours in a week! We need to have time to warm the couch cushions, watch our favorite TV shows, and get to the next level on the latest game. And what affords us the time and the money to indulge ourselves? The working lower classes that work a second job at McDonald's to make and ends meet. |
Certainly not in my case or most of the people I know. Where do you get the idea that some poor guy is working a second job to pay fopr YOUR video game???? That's absurd! I don't know about you, But I have a job, and if I want something, I work, save up, and pay for it myself. I'd like a new camera......where do I sign up to have someone else work for it?
I had my own business for about 20 years.....and I worked 60-80 hour weeks.....that gets old REALLY fast! It was worth it to a certain extent as time spent at the business furthered MY business. Why would I want to work like that for someone else, though? Also, I work to live, not the other way around. If you want top spend all your time working, fine, but don't begrudge those of us who want to have other pursuits outside of the workplace. And......not all of us who have free time to occupy as we see fit sit on a couch in front of a screen.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
They ensure that we can get our food as fast as possible so we can get home to our TV sets faster. Or the office assistant that can hardly put food on the table for his/her kids, but at least he/she makes sure that the paper work gets done so we can leave work early. |
Where do you get these ideas???? When was the lasdt time you went into a fast food place where your impression was "They ensure that we can get our food as fast as possible so we can get home to our TV sets faster." Most of what I see are lazy, sullen teens, otr others who couldn't give a rat's ass about their level of competency.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I just hate to think about all the hours that are wasted watching TV or playing video games. On average, parents spend more time watching TV than having quality time with their children. Think of the impact for good that Americans could make if each person gave up one hour of media time per week to volunteer in their community. |
Again, I think you're completely misguided here......what you think is time wasted may be a way for someone in a high stress job to relax. I don't know what makes you think you get to be the one who determines whether or not how someone uses THEIR time as a waste. To some people, I waste a lot of time with my photography. I don't make any money from it and I don't accomplish anything. I guess you think I should sell my camera and use that time at a soup kitchen? That would be YOUR choice though, NOT mine.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
That's my rant. I guess that's just how things are. Hedonism, capitalism... all of it contributes. It's our American way of life. It's all about more. More money for less work. More tasty foods with less nutritional value. More TV time but less meaningful family time. More praise but less effort. More possessions but less happiness. More social networking but less actual socializing. More being served but less serving others. More choices but fewer good choices. More years of life but fewer meaningful years. More marriage and divorce but less love. More production but fewer jobs. The list goes on... |
You have the right to your opinion, but your "Chicken Little", going to Hell in a handbasket, point of view is both narrow, and to say the least, kind of offensive, especially when you consider that most of the people here to whom you're speaking are decent, hardworking, and caring people who do their best to live. If they want to play video games, or watch a movie, why does that indicate the decline of society?
|
|
|
|
10/18/2010 05:47:34 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tycho, did you read the whole thread already? |
Yes I've been following it -sometimes with amusement, sometimes exasperation- since the original post.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I posted a few of many studies you can find that link violent video games to aggressive behavior. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you want to search yourself for the literature do a google scholar search for "violence and video games". |
I'm familiar with most of them, thank you very much. Why do you think I said, "I'm of the [informed] opinion that..."? Or do you just not bother paying attention to what is being said?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You assert they have a been "ripped to shreds" so now it is incumbent upon you to show the evidence of their eviceration. |
Happy to oblige: Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do; Lawrence Kutner & Cheryl Olson, is a start; it's not perfect, certainly has some weaknesses but will get you going. I'll throw another name for your convenience; Christopher Ferguson (Behavioral psychologist from Texas A&M). You know, Google's your friend. Or go through the archives of GamePolitics.com and Gamasutra.com, where you'll find plenty of sources (From both sides of the debate). I'm surprised that you did not encounter any of these in your rigorous research. Or were you simply cherry-picking the sources you found to suit your purposes?
Oh don't forget to look up Ian Bogost, as well. This is not directly related to psychological effects of videogames but hey if one's going to talk about videogames, one should be curious to know what they are all about, right?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You also decide to counter known medical fact (the diminishing returns of pleasurable acts) with the phrase "mumbo jumbo". That's top shelf intellectually... :P |
What you've just done here, Doc, is downright intellectual sleaziness, I regret to say...I was about to add that I was leaving it up to you to figure out why I'd said that, but somehow I have the feeling that you already know why.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2010 05:51:23 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
IMO, the most important point is that when zombies finally do attack, I'll be sitting pretty and you'll be up shit creek. |
No doubt! I already have my weapon choices planned out for each phase of the zombie outbreak, something I'd never have a feel for without using simulated firepower in simulated terrain against artificial zombies.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2010 07:11:39 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
IMO, the most important point is that when zombies finally do attack, I'll be sitting pretty and you'll be up shit creek. |
No doubt! I already have my weapon choices planned out for each phase of the zombie outbreak, something I'd never have a feel for without using simulated firepower in simulated terrain against artificial zombies. |
Simulated? Artificial? |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 08:42:04 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
IMO, the most important point is that when zombies finally do attack, I'll be sitting pretty and you'll be up shit creek. |
No doubt! I already have my weapon choices planned out for each phase of the zombie outbreak, something I'd never have a feel for without using simulated firepower in simulated terrain against artificial zombies. |
Simulated? Artificial? |
Not everyone has easy access, you know. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 08:46:43 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Tycho:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tycho, did you read the whole thread already? |
Yes I've been following it -sometimes with amusement, sometimes exasperation- since the original post.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I posted a few of many studies you can find that link violent video games to aggressive behavior. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you want to search yourself for the literature do a google scholar search for "violence and video games". |
I'm familiar with most of them, thank you very much. Why do you think I said, "I'm of the [informed] opinion that..."? Or do you just not bother paying attention to what is being said?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You assert they have a been "ripped to shreds" so now it is incumbent upon you to show the evidence of their eviceration. |
Happy to oblige: Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do; Lawrence Kutner & Cheryl Olson, is a start; it's not perfect, certainly has some weaknesses but will get you going. I'll throw another name for your convenience; Christopher Ferguson (Behavioral psychologist from Texas A&M). You know, Google's your friend. Or go through the archives of GamePolitics.com and Gamasutra.com, where you'll find plenty of sources (From both sides of the debate). I'm surprised that you did not encounter any of these in your rigorous research. Or were you simply cherry-picking the sources you found to suit your purposes?
Oh don't forget to look up Ian Bogost, as well. This is not directly related to psychological effects of videogames but hey if one's going to talk about videogames, one should be curious to know what they are all about, right?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You also decide to counter known medical fact (the diminishing returns of pleasurable acts) with the phrase "mumbo jumbo". That's top shelf intellectually... :P |
What you've just done here, Doc, is downright intellectual sleaziness, I regret to say...I was about to add that I was leaving it up to you to figure out why I'd said that, but somehow I have the feeling that you already know why. |
On the first part I should ask what concept has specifically been shown false? On the outside chance you are assuming I am making some direct line between video games and mass murder shooting sprees, I am not. The results are much more insidious than that. Instead of asking me to read a whole book, why don't you take one of the studies I mentioned in specific and use it as an example of how the work has been debunked?
I'll quote the abstract again for reference:
Journal of Adolescence
Volume 27, Issue 1, February 2004, Pages 5-22
Video Games and Public Health
The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance
Douglas A. Gentile, , , a, Paul J. Lynchb, Jennifer Ruh Linderc and David A. Walsha
Abstract
Video games have become one of the favorite activities of American children. A growing body of research is linking violent video game play to aggressive cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors. The first goal of this study was to document the video games habits of adolescents and the level of parental monitoring of adolescent video game use. The second goal was to examine associations among violent video game exposure, hostility, arguments with teachers, school grades, and physical fights. In addition, path analyses were conducted to test mediational pathways from video game habits to outcomes. Six hundred and seven 8th- and 9th-grade students from four schools participated. Adolescents who expose themselves to greater amounts of video game violence were more hostile, reported getting into arguments with teachers more frequently, were more likely to be involved in physical fights, and performed more poorly in school. Mediational pathways were found such that hostility mediated the relationship between violent video game exposure and outcomes. Results are interpreted within and support the framework of the General Aggression Model.
On the second part, in any good conversation (or debate), it behooves one to speak in a way that allows your opponent to understand your point. Using code words or some inside joke accomplishes nothing. I'd take the phrase "mumbo jumbo" to mean that you think the idea of psychological toleration and desensitization is fallacious. If I'm mistaken, please explain yourself so we can carry on a meaningful conversation. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 09:34:39 PM · #85 |
| Going back to my very uncertain knowledge of Greece and Rome... seems a lot of good came out of those societies before they fell. What do you think will come of ours? Smart phones? 3D TVs? Where's the poetry of this age? The symphonies? I suppose we can argue that the science side of things has progressed. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 09:47:35 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Tycho:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tycho, did you read the whole thread already? |
Yes I've been following it -sometimes with amusement, sometimes exasperation- since the original post.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I posted a few of many studies you can find that link violent video games to aggressive behavior. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you want to search yourself for the literature do a google scholar search for "violence and video games". |
I'm familiar with most of them, thank you very much. Why do you think I said, "I'm of the [informed] opinion that..."? Or do you just not bother paying attention to what is being said?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You assert they have a been "ripped to shreds" so now it is incumbent upon you to show the evidence of their eviceration. |
Happy to oblige: Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do; Lawrence Kutner & Cheryl Olson, is a start; it's not perfect, certainly has some weaknesses but will get you going. I'll throw another name for your convenience; Christopher Ferguson (Behavioral psychologist from Texas A&M). You know, Google's your friend. Or go through the archives of GamePolitics.com and Gamasutra.com, where you'll find plenty of sources (From both sides of the debate). I'm surprised that you did not encounter any of these in your rigorous research. Or were you simply cherry-picking the sources you found to suit your purposes?
Oh don't forget to look up Ian Bogost, as well. This is not directly related to psychological effects of videogames but hey if one's going to talk about videogames, one should be curious to know what they are all about, right?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You also decide to counter known medical fact (the diminishing returns of pleasurable acts) with the phrase "mumbo jumbo". That's top shelf intellectually... :P |
What you've just done here, Doc, is downright intellectual sleaziness, I regret to say...I was about to add that I was leaving it up to you to figure out why I'd said that, but somehow I have the feeling that you already know why. |
On the first part I should ask what concept has specifically been shown false? On the outside chance you are assuming I am making some direct line between video games and mass murder shooting sprees, I am not. The results are much more insidious than that. Instead of asking me to read a whole book, why don't you take one of the studies I mentioned in specific and use it as an example of how the work has been debunked?
I'll quote the abstract again for reference:
Journal of Adolescence
Volume 27, Issue 1, February 2004, Pages 5-22
Video Games and Public Health
The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance
Douglas A. Gentile, , , a, Paul J. Lynchb, Jennifer Ruh Linderc and David A. Walsha
Abstract
Video games have become one of the favorite activities of American children. A growing body of research is linking violent video game play to aggressive cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors. The first goal of this study was to document the video games habits of adolescents and the level of parental monitoring of adolescent video game use. The second goal was to examine associations among violent video game exposure, hostility, arguments with teachers, school grades, and physical fights. In addition, path analyses were conducted to test mediational pathways from video game habits to outcomes. Six hundred and seven 8th- and 9th-grade students from four schools participated. Adolescents who expose themselves to greater amounts of video game violence were more hostile, reported getting into arguments with teachers more frequently, were more likely to be involved in physical fights, and performed more poorly in school. Mediational pathways were found such that hostility mediated the relationship between violent video game exposure and outcomes. Results are interpreted within and support the framework of the General Aggression Model.
On the second part, in any good conversation (or debate), it behooves one to speak in a way that allows your opponent to understand your point. Using code words or some inside joke accomplishes nothing. I'd take the phrase "mumbo jumbo" to mean that you think the idea of psychological toleration and desensitization is fallacious. If I'm mistaken, please explain yourself so we can carry on a meaningful conversation. |
While I don't have the knowledge to debunk the study (nor really wish to), it does lead into what I myself have been saying all along, as have you (really). It's not about VIDEO GAMES so much as it is about finding a way to lessen the impact of a society that has seemed to have lost the ability to regulate and moderate. Even violence, in moderation, is perfectly ok. As long as that violence is filtered through understanding. What we're missing here is that that understanding is too often non-existent. We have too many children playing games too far above their level of understanding, with no to very little supervision, discussion, and/or intervention. Is this the fault of the games themselves? Of course not. It's the fault of parents that don't give a shit, and will do anything to "get the little bastard out of my hair for awhile".
Once again, I argue that the original rant is just completely out of line and erroneous. It's ranting against the WRONG THING. The right thing to rant about is the society. The culture. The over-permissiveness that leads to over-abuse. The over-detachment of emotion and care.
DrAchoo calls it "hedonism" (Which, personally, I believe is just a buzz-word meant to cause reaction). Johnnyphoto puts the blame on the upper-class (Which, personally, I believe to be blind in so many ways). The OP blames it on the symptoms. The problem here is that we're so focused on trying to find something to BLAME, that we're missing the forest for the trees.
We don't need to blame anything. We just need to relax a little. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 11:43:45 PM · #87 |
| Probably people who are searching for something to blame want to find it so they can effect a change. I agree with your message of moderation. It just seems like everything in culture is trying to one-up the last thing and it has led to madness. While thinking about this conversation I remembered the Al Quaida hostage tape from years back where they beheaded the prisoner. Is it not somehow revealing that networks would choose to actually air it? It doesn't seem like there would be any reason to other than the quest for ratings. I was quite upset about it at the time. |
|
|
|
10/19/2010 12:01:54 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I remembered the Al Quaida hostage tape from years back where they beheaded the prisoner. Is it not somehow revealing that networks would choose to actually air it? It doesn't seem like there would be any reason to other than the quest for ratings. I was quite upset about it at the time. |
Out of curiosity, on what grounds should they NOT have aired it? When similar (and worse) scenes are shown in "fictional" guise on television nightly? Are you comfortable, personally, with a conspiracy where the networks, collectively, decide what's too sensitive for you to see? How did you feel about the government's clampdown on news photos of caskets returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, and their justification for same?
R. |
|
|
|
10/19/2010 01:04:21 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On the first part I should ask what concept has specifically been shown false? On the outside chance you are assuming I am making some direct line between video games and mass murder shooting sprees, I am not. The results are much more insidious than that. Instead of asking me to read a whole book, why don't you take one of the studies I mentioned in specific and use it as an example of how the work has been debunked?
I'll quote the abstract again for reference:
Journal of Adolescence
Volume 27, Issue 1, February 2004, Pages 5-22
Video Games and Public Health
The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance
Douglas A. Gentile, , , a, Paul J. Lynchb, Jennifer Ruh Linderc and David A. Walsha
Abstract
Video games have become one of the favorite activities of American children. A growing body of research is linking violent video game play to aggressive cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors. The first goal of this study was to document the video games habits of adolescents and the level of parental monitoring of adolescent video game use. The second goal was to examine associations among violent video game exposure, hostility, arguments with teachers, school grades, and physical fights. In addition, path analyses were conducted to test mediational pathways from video game habits to outcomes. Six hundred and seven 8th- and 9th-grade students from four schools participated. Adolescents who expose themselves to greater amounts of video game violence were more hostile, reported getting into arguments with teachers more frequently, were more likely to be involved in physical fights, and performed more poorly in school. Mediational pathways were found such that hostility mediated the relationship between violent video game exposure and outcomes. Results are interpreted within and support the framework of the General Aggression Model. |
Oh you want to see a specific refutation of a specific study? Well aren't you clever? If I'd known I'd one day be asked to provide something like that, I would've kept a spreadsheet of cross-references. How about I just point you to published works that discuss the methodology, namely the General Aggression Model, the Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Test, etc.? Would you settle for that? I think you should, if we are to have a meaningful conversation as opposed to a meaningless pissing contest. Actually, I've already given you some useful links; the book you do not want to read and several of Ferguson's papers, both of which list many other resources. Incidentally, what's so hard about reading a mere 200-something-page book on a subject you seem to be interested in, unless you do not wish to form an informed opinion but simply want to stick to your prejudices? (And this is a sincere question). Not to toot my own horn but I've recently bought a 1300-page brick of a book just so I could acquire some in-depth knowledge on a subject which I'd been only superficially interested in for a long time but have lately become more curious about. Just saying. But I digress.
Regarding the GAM; I don't know if you've checked it out, but in my humble opinion, one does not have to be a psychologist, cognitive scientist or scientist of any sort to see that it's rather BS from its a priori assumptions all the way down to the conclusions it allegedly leads the researcher to. Gentile and his buddy Craig Anderson, however, can't seem to get enough of it. One wonders -well at least I wonder, since I'm a jaded, cynical grump- if these guys have some hidden agenda.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On the second part, in any good conversation (or debate), it behooves one to speak in a way that allows your opponent to understand your point. Using code words or some inside joke accomplishes nothing. I'd take the phrase "mumbo jumbo" to mean that you think the idea of psychological toleration and desensitization is fallacious. If I'm mistaken, please explain yourself so we can carry on a meaningful conversation. |
No cryptic messages, no inside jokes whatsoever. I just had this feeling that you were well aware of what you were doing knowing perfectly well that you shouldn't be doing it but still went ahead and did it. I told you, I'm cynical, just can't help it.
You made the claim, which, candidly speaking, one can only describe as conjecture if one feels like being charitable, that "the society" is plagued with this "ever increasing need for pleasure" (come again?) and spiced it up with a bit of scientific jargon. What I called "Mumbo jumbo" is your whole conjecture. Well ok, ok! That factual bit (i.e. diminishing returns) takes it out of the league of "mumbo jumbo" and elevates it to the league of "sophistry". My bad. Anyway...But when you were called out on it, you, instead of addressing the real issue (i.e. your conjecture), chose to pull a magnificent text-book example of a straw man, sprinkled it with a subtle(-ish) ad hominem and hurled it my way. That's what got my goat and what I called "intellectual sleaziness".
Are we good now? |
|
|
|
10/19/2010 01:31:17 AM · #90 |
Man, your nose is bent all out of shape. I read an interview with your guy Ferguson. It was interesting and he does seem to have more to him than some crackpot. I had forgotten about the study published in Pediatrics which he doesn't like either. I read his rebuttal (published electronically by Pediatrics), but I'll have to refresh myself with the study itself to evaluate what he has to say. On one hand, he seems smart enough to know if he was just whistling Dixie before writing to a journal like Pediatrics, but on the other hand, Pediatrics, a peer reviewed journal and probably the most important journal of the specialty thought the violence article was fit to print.
Interestingly, Ferguson makes at least two points in his interview. 1) Studies to show that violent video games lead to short term aggression. and 2) He worries about controlling for variable that aren't considered in the studies but admits that it would be very hard to control for them. His point then, is not to say there is no link between video games and aggression, but that the link has not been definitively shown for long term effects. There is a difference.
But as I said, I am not making the argument that people play video games and then commit violent crimes. If you think I am, you set up a straw man.
Let's start off with what Ferguson is willing to admit. Violent video games increase aggression in the short term. If violent video games are pervasive in our culture (or other forms of violence such as television and movies), then wouldn't it be logical that even a small, pervasive change in culture still changes it? As an analogy, insurance companies are not generally worried about not covering very expensive drugs that are rarely used. I treat a condition called hereditary angioedema. It is rare and in our whole practice we have only three patients with it. Drugs are now available in the US in the last year that are life-changing (they have been available in Europe for some time). A year's worth of drug for one patient costs literally $300,000-$500,000. We do not generally have insurance companies rejecting the claim. On the other hand, Advair is a drug that is very helpful for asthma, a common disease. One year's worth of Advair costs around $2000. We have insurance companies rejecting Advair all the time and wanting to substitute something cheaper but not as helpful. Why? They know if they can save $500/year on tens of thousands of patients they will save a lot more money than fighting one case that costs them a half a million.
Very few people "go postal" after playing video games or watching the latest slasher movie. But even if they become more aggressive in the short term and cut someone off in traffic, fight with their girlfriend, or spit on a stranger, society suffers. If you compare the trends in television, movies, games (ie. video games) for violence from the last sixty years you will see a glaring and obvious increase in what is considered "the norm". Leaving all the studies aside, and just thinking as a rational being, how can this not affect society in some way? And how can the effect be anything but negative? |
|
|
|
10/19/2010 01:39:26 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Where do you get this stuff???? Who do you think pays for the big screens & Play Stations? It's not like they're issued by the Central Office. The blood, sweat, and tears of the lower classes???? You're going to have to justify that melodramatic generalization.
Certainly not in my case or most of the people I know. Where do you get the idea that some poor guy is working a second job to pay fopr YOUR video game???? That's absurd! I don't know about you, But I have a job, and if I want something, I work, save up, and pay for it myself. I'd like a new camera......where do I sign up to have someone else work for it?
I had my own business for about 20 years.....and I worked 60-80 hour weeks.....that gets old REALLY fast! It was worth it to a certain extent as time spent at the business furthered MY business. Why would I want to work like that for someone else, though? Also, I work to live, not the other way around. If you want top spend all your time working, fine, but don't begrudge those of us who want to have other pursuits outside of the workplace. And......not all of us who have free time to occupy as we see fit sit on a couch in front of a screen. |
Jeb, I'm just illustrating the concept of, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". I'm not saying that some people get nice things straight from low income folks. Nevertheless, it is because some people (primarily in foreign countries) work for virtually nothing that we are able to afford nice cars, big screen TVs, and even DSLR cameras. If you think about all the R&D, human labor, and cutting edge technology that goes into those products, and how affordable they are for most Americans, it sorta makes you wonder why that is. Believe me, I love technology as much as the next guy, but if it weren't for India, China, and Mexico I probably wouldn't be driving a Honda and taking pictures with a Canon DSLR. At any rate, I'm not an economist, but I am clever enough to figure out that not everyone can be rich, and not all people who make LED TV's, iPhones, and Play Stations are living comfortable lives. We have affordable technology today for the same reason we built coast-to-coast railroads over one hundred years ago. We take advantage of the lower classes in society and make them do the hard work.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Where do you get these ideas???? When was the lasdt time you went into a fast food place where your impression was "They ensure that we can get our food as fast as possible so we can get home to our TV sets faster." Most of what I see are lazy, sullen teens, otr others who couldn't give a rat's ass about their level of competency. |
Actually I got that idea from the overweight white woman who was following me in her Cadillac Escalade while eating a Big Mac on the way home. She was in a hurry for something, and it didn't look like she was on the way to the gym. If you think about it, it makes sense. The whole concept of "fast food" is that you can get your food "fast" and get on to your life. Sure, you aren't always on the way home... but the less time you spend preparing meals and commuting, the more time you have to "kick back".
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Again, I think you're completely misguided here......what you think is time wasted may be a way for someone in a high stress job to relax. I don't know what makes you think you get to be the one who determines whether or not how someone uses THEIR time as a waste. To some people, I waste a lot of time with my photography. I don't make any money from it and I don't accomplish anything. I guess you think I should sell my camera and use that time at a soup kitchen? That would be YOUR choice though, NOT mine. |
Actually, photography is completely different from playing video games or watching TV. When you take pictures you have to think creatively, and you are actually producing something... art! When you play video games you create nothing, at least nothing that exists outside of your gamer profile. I would gladly recommend photography to someone over playing video games. I've seen some of your pictures Jeb, and some of them are actually very moving. I don't think I would say the same about your WoW character or your kill count on Modern Warfare.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You have the right to your opinion, but your "Chicken Little", going to Hell in a handbasket, point of view is both narrow, and to say the least, kind of offensive, especially when you consider that most of the people here to whom you're speaking are decent, hardworking, and caring people who do their best to live. If they want to play video games, or watch a movie, why does that indicate the decline of society? |
First of all, I didn't say anything about going to hell in a hand-basket (at least I don't remember saying that). Second of all, I realize that most people here are decent, hardworking people. I'm not criticizing anyone here. I'm just being a little critical of our society in general. The majority of people who play video games don't play them excessively, and are good people. But considering all the possibilities that are available to people, and all the great opportunities that can be pursued, it's just sad to see some people applying themselves to virtual fantasy worlds. I believe that there is a time and a place for video games and other forms of entertainment, but I also believe that entertainment is becoming too much of a necessity in peoples daily lives. What happens when our internet goes out for a day or our video games system dies? Panic!
When I see the Boy Scouts of America creating a "Video Game Merit Badge" and I see schools all around the country cutting music and art programs, I'm a little disturbed. Hopefully I'm not alone in feeling that way.
Thanks for commenting on my rant Jeb. |
|
|
|
10/19/2010 03:33:55 AM · #92 |
A couple of points.
How violent video games are probably does not matter. The link between violent video games and voilent behavior is pretty weak. Setting aside the basic isues in soft science of proving causality (do voilent people like to play violent video games, or do violent video games make you violent?) When you can show me a long term doule blind study on anything causing some single psycological effect, I will agree there is a causal link, until then, it is just a matter of taste and opinion. I enjoy shooting mosters ala Doom, but Grand Theft Auto is beyond my ability to enjoy, because the violence creeps me out.
Video games are not usually violent.
Top ten best-selling video game franchises:
Mario (240 million)[181]
Pokémon (200 million)[182]
Tetris (125 million)[74]
The Sims (125 million)[183]
Need for Speed (100 million)[184]
Final Fantasy (97 million)[185]
Madden NFL (75 million)[186]
Sonic the Hedgehog (70 million)[187]
Grand Theft Auto (70 million)[188]
FIFA (65 million)[189]
Only two have any violence at all. The fastest growing game today is Farmville, a game where you pretend to grow vegetables. I can only hope it doesn't turn our kids agrarian.
The only reason (IMHO) to hate video games, is that they are a waste of time. Its the same reason you might hate watching sports, writing on facebook, texting, or most anything on a computer, perhaps including reading this.
In the last decade there has been a shift from a pluriality of the qualified college applicants being male, to being female today. It seems boys playing video games an average of three hours a day tends to not be a productive use of your time. It makes you less prepared for college, or life in general.
That said, the fear that video games, on line porn, the music the kids are listening to, or any other new thing is going to ruin our culture and lead our world down the road to ruin, is the same fear every generation has written of. |
|
|
|
10/19/2010 09:04:25 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
But considering all the possibilities that are available to people, and all the great opportunities that can be pursued, it's just sad to see some people applying themselves to virtual fantasy worlds. I believe that there is a time and a place for video games and other forms of entertainment, but I also believe that entertainment is becoming too much of a necessity in peoples daily lives. What happens when our internet goes out for a day or our video games system dies? Panic! |
I guess what bugs me is the idea that it's been decided that the whole idea is somehow wrong. I hate the damn things, but it's predominantly because I suck at them. My sentiments lie with proper parenting, and choices.
If someone wants to blow all their free time and stay glued to a screen, I figure that's on them. It won't be my fifteen year old daughter, but if my 37 year old neighbor never leaves his room......well, the world he misses out there will still keep chugging along.
Things change all over.....I remember a decade ago when our home had six or seven TVs. Now......we have a decent size one in the living room, the kid has a small flat screen on the wall of her room, and I don't watch TV....at all. That was then, this is now.....
I guess my natural rebellion tells me that I don't really want someone else deciding for me what my kid can or can't do with her free time and judging it as harmful when they don't have a clue outside of a study run to prove someone's point.
Thanks for the kind words on my photography, but to tell you the truth, my own personality traits, and my camera, have caused me more grief than you'd imagine. I've pursued it to obsessiveness on occasion, and alienated people around me with it. But it wouldn't be accurate to blame the photography, and it's a heck of a lot better than a virulent drug habit. If I didn't learn anything else from that, it's that the drugs are merely a symptom. People who are intent on being self-destructive will find a way.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
When I see the Boy Scouts of America creating a "Video Game Merit Badge" and I see schools all around the country cutting music and art programs, I'm a little disturbed. Hopefully I'm not alone in feeling that way. |
The merit badge does sort of seem out there, but I'd like to see the reasoning, and the description before I condemn it. We've both seen the kind of nerds that couldn't start a campfire, or pitch a tent to save their lives. Maybe this is a way to at least get them out of their rooms and into a program where they might try and learn regular scouting skills?
Most of what I've seen in the way of music and art programs going down the tubes has more to do with money and qualified personnel than anything.I don't see video games as replacing them. I know my daughter has way more access to what she wants to do for recreation at home than through the school's servers, and she's always had all the access to music interests. The last school (public) she attended had three different venues for her to participate in as a drummer.....all at the same time if she so chose.
Around here, the schools that have the best music programs are the public schools. The majority of the small private schools have their music kids augmenting their work with private tutors.
I dunno......I guess I'm just the eternal optimist.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Thanks for commenting on my rant Jeb. |
No charge, dude!......8~)
Never did get an answer from Sneezy as to whether his conclusion that porn is becoming more hardcore was from personal experience or extensive research.......after all, mightn't it just be that the industry is doing something about the unjust quantity of content for kinky people, and ensuring that they have their fair share of entertainment as well?......8~)
|
|
|
|
10/19/2010 10:18:11 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
|
You know Doc, when I ask you a direct question, you bend this way. When I ask you to elaborate on something you said earlier, you twist that way. And you keep wriggling, wiggling and wobbling so as to continually shift the focus of our "meaningful conversation". You remind me of belly-dancers. Therefore, from now on I'll call you "Dr. Belly-dancer" (in a genuinely friendly way, of course).
Originally posted by Dr. Belly-dancer:
Man, your nose is bent all out of shape. |
Oddly enough, I find your flippancy rather endearing.
Originally posted by Dr. Belly-dancer:
I read an interview with your guy Ferguson. |
My guy, huh? Noted.
Originally posted by Dr. Belly-dancer:
It was interesting and he does seem to have more to him than some crackpot. I had forgotten about the study published in Pediatrics which he doesn't like either. I read his rebuttal (published electronically by Pediatrics), but I'll have to refresh myself with the study itself to evaluate what he has to say. On one hand, he seems smart enough to know if he was just whistling Dixie before writing to a journal like Pediatrics, but on the other hand, Pediatrics, a peer reviewed journal and probably the most important journal of the specialty thought the violence article was fit to print. |
How gracious of you to consider Ferguson to be worthy of your attention. Tell me, did you subject your guys/gals (Gentile, Anderson et al) to the same unbiased, impartial screening and evaluation process, or did they become your guys/gals automatically simply because their claims happen to support your position?
Originally posted by Dr. Belly-dancer:
Interestingly, Ferguson makes at least two points in his interview. 1) Studies to show that violent video games lead to short term aggression. and 2) He worries about controlling for variable that aren't considered in the studies but admits that it would be very hard to control for them. His point then, is not to say there is no link between video games and aggression, but that the link has not been definitively shown for long term effects. There is a difference. |
Ferguson and others emphasize that since controlled experiments on violent behaviour can't be conducted because of ethical issues, "violence" is replaced by "aggression", and one of the tactics your guys/gals use so that their study will return the results they have already decided it should return is to deliberately broaden the definition of "aggression" beyond acceptable limits. They also point out that 1) GAM assumes that human mind is a "blank slate" and a person will do whatever is written on it, 2) As such, it does not take other factors, such as genetic predisposition, peer influence and prior exposure to aggression and violence within the family, into consideration, and 3) In the end, it flat out concludes that simply by playing violent videogames, a person -even the mellowest, the most peaceful person- could turn into an aggressive, violent jackass.
Originally posted by Dr. Belly-dancer:
But as I said, I am not making the argument that people play video games and then commit violent crimes. If you think I am, you set up a straw man. |
Don't I know it, man, don't I know it! I know there's a deeper, more insidious problem, which hopefully you'll elaborate on one of these days, and it has something to do with...what was it?...oh yeah, ever increasing need for pleasure, hedonism and a super secret Illuminati conspiracy to take over the world. Now that I think about it, that would make a hell of a videogame. We just need to find a reluctant hero (Yes, he has to be reluctant in the beginning. Character development, you know) who will give up all his worldy possessions and concerns and go fight tooth and nail to save the rest of us (from ourselves). I'm thinking that a physician turned deadly ninja -especially deadly with a stethoscope- would be a good, original idea.
Originally posted by Dr. Belly-dancer:
Let's start off with what Ferguson is willing to admit. Violent video games increase aggression in the short term. If violent video games are pervasive in our culture (or other forms of violence such as television and movies), then wouldn't it be logical that even a small, pervasive change in culture still changes it? As an analogy, insurance companies are not generally worried about not covering very expensive drugs that are rarely used. I treat a condition called hereditary angioedema. It is rare and in our whole practice we have only three patients with it. Drugs are now available in the US in the last year that are life-changing (they have been available in Europe for some time). A year's worth of drug for one patient costs literally $300,000-$500,000. We do not generally have insurance companies rejecting the claim. On the other hand, Advair is a drug that is very helpful for asthma, a common disease. One year's worth of Advair costs around $2000. We have insurance companies rejecting Advair all the time and wanting to substitute something cheaper but not as helpful. Why? They know if they can save $500/year on tens of thousands of patients they will save a lot more money than fighting one case that costs them a half a million. |
Umm...Ok...I'm kinda lost here, if you haven't noticed already. "Even a small, pervasive change in culture still changes it"? Yeah "change" has that annoying habbit of changing things. What's your point exactly, and how do the insurance company policies fit into it?
Originally posted by Dr. Belly-dancer:
Very few people "go postal" after playing video games or watching the latest slasher movie. But even if they become more aggressive in the short term and cut someone off in traffic, fight with their girlfriend, or spit on a stranger, society suffers. If you compare the trends in television, movies, games (ie. video games) for violence from the last sixty years you will see a glaring and obvious increase in what is considered "the norm". Leaving all the studies aside, and just thinking as a rational being, how can this not affect society in some way? And how can the effect be anything but negative? |
Well Doc, you're not the only one who can dance. I'll remind you of a study that I mentioned in one of my earlier posts: Brad Bushman (Uni. of Michigan), one of your guys, says in his 2007 study that there's a link between violent Biblical passages and violent behavior. He point-blank states that a guy can go out and do something violent just because he's read those passages a few times and got excited. Now I'm sure that very few people "go postal" after reading their Bible. But even if they become more aggressive in the short term and cut someone off in traffic, fight with their girlfriend, or spit on a stranger, society suffers. Leaving all the studies aside, and just thinking as a rational being, how can this not affect society in some way? And how can the effect be anything but negative?...Now what? |
|
|
|
10/19/2010 10:49:50 AM · #95 |
I'll explain myself a bit more on the "hedonism" front, since you asked. In general I mean our culture is increasingly interested in the idea that "pleasure" (ie. having fun) is the goal of life and is the overriding reason for living. (To be clear, this is only one philosophy among many in our culture, but its influence is waxing over time.) If you ask people why they work, they answer to make money to go on vacation or buy things. They do not work to contribute to society or help others, etc. Their motivation has changed.
In conjunction with this changing cultural motivation we can clearly see that the typical modes of our entertainment (TV, internet, video games) are becoming more extreme over time. More violent. More sexual. More graphic. This is due to the fact that we crave "new" stimulus and things can only be new once. Can you imagine the movie Saw being released in the 60s? Do the Playboy shoots of the 70s compare to online porn of today in their hardcore nature? These are just examples. And while there may be large elements that would not choose these things to be "the norm", we have a bit of the tail wagging the dog and media can shape culture.
As Sheryl Crow says, "All I want to do is have some fun before I die". |
|
|
|
10/19/2010 11:33:15 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... If you ask people why they work, they answer to make money to go on vacation or buy things. They do not work to contribute to society or help others, etc. Their motivation has changed. ... |
What year was it that people answered this quesiton, "To contribute to society or help others, etc."? |
|
|
|
10/19/2010 11:41:35 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... If you ask people why they work, they answer to make money to go on vacation or buy things. They do not work to contribute to society or help others, etc. Their motivation has changed. ... |
What year was it that people answered this quesiton, "To contribute to society or help others, etc."? |
I think it was the year of the Zombie's Revenge (level 34 sniper, 50.4 head-shot average) |
|
|
|
10/19/2010 11:50:17 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Actually, photography is completely different from playing video games or watching TV. When you take pictures you have to think creatively, and you are actually producing something... art! When you play video games you create nothing, at least nothing that exists outside of your gamer profile. |
I can provide you with so many obvious counter examples that disprove you on precisely this point so easily that it's hardly worth my time. Are you willing to retract this statement?
It's shockingly uninformed, I'm afraid.
I can't believe anyone would even SAY this!!! |
|
|
|
10/19/2010 11:54:36 AM · #99 |
I'd also like to remind people that I'm old enough to have spent much of my childhood before video games were generally available in the home, and did plenty of stuff outside with my friends...
Like blow holes in frogs and other small animals using real live BB guns. Children are monsters.
Yeah, those video games, what a menace.
I'd much rather have kids outside pointing sticks at each other and screaming BANG BANG, making rubber-band guns, throwing rocks all day, and killing wildlife, yep.
Message edited by author 2010-10-19 11:58:35. |
|
|
|
10/19/2010 12:33:09 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... If you ask people why they work, they answer to make money to go on vacation or buy things. They do not work to contribute to society or help others, etc. Their motivation has changed. ... |
What year was it that people answered this quesiton, "To contribute to society or help others, etc."? |
That was my reaction also. Since when has a majority, or even a significant plurality, of people in a society, any society, worked for those stated purposes?
R. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 05:20:11 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 05:20:11 PM EDT.
|
