19370
Post by: daedalus
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/23/health/living-well/demise-of-guys/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Editor's note: Psychologist Dr. Philip Zimbardo is a professor emeritus at Stanford University and is world-renowned for his 1971 research, the Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo teamed up with artist and psychologist Nikita Duncan to write "The Demise of Guys: Why Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It," released Wednesday by TED Books.
(CNN) -- Is the overuse of video games and pervasiveness of online porn causing the demise of guys?
Increasingly, researchers say yes, as young men become hooked on arousal, sacrificing their schoolwork and relationships in the pursuit of getting a tech-based buzz.
Every compulsive gambler, alcoholic or drug addict will tell you that they want increasingly more of a game or drink or drug in order to get the same quality of buzz.
Video game and porn addictions are different. They are "arousal addictions," where the attraction is in the novelty, the variety or the surprise factor of the content. Sameness is soon habituated; newness heightens excitement. In traditional drug arousal, conversely, addicts want more of the same cocaine or heroin or favorite food.
The consequences could be dramatic: The excessive use of video games and online porn in pursuit of the next thing is creating a generation of risk-averse guys who are unable (and unwilling) to navigate the complexities and risks inherent to real-life relationships, school and employment.
Stories about this degeneration are rampant: In 2005, Seungseob Lee, a South Korean man, went into cardiac arrest after playing "StarCraft" for nearly 50 continuous hours. In 2009, MTV's "True Life" highlighted the story of a man named Adam whose wife kicked him out of their home -- they have four kids together -- because he couldn't stop watching porn.
Dr. Philip Zimbardo and Nikita Duncan are the authors of \
Dr. Philip Zimbardo and Nikita Duncan are the authors of "The Demise of Guys."
Norwegian mass murder suspect Anders Behring Breivik reported during his trial that he prepared his mind and body for his marksman-focused shooting of 77 people by playing "World of Warcraft" for a year and then "Call of Duty" for 16 hours a day.
Research into this area goes back a half-century.
Breivik claims killing was 'necessary'
In 1954, researchers Peter Milner and James Olds discovered the pleasure center of the brain. In their experiments, an electrical current was sent to the limbic system of a rat's brain whenever it moved to a certain area of its cage. The limbic sytem is a portion of the brain that controls things like emotion, behavior and memory. The researchers hypothesized that if the stimulation to the limbic system were unpleasant, the rats would stay away from that part of the cage.
Surprisingly, the rats returned to that portion of the cage again and again, despite the sensation.
In later experiments, when they were allowed to push a stimulation lever on their own accord, they self-stimulated hundreds of times per hour. Even when given the option to eat when hungry or to stimulate the pleasure center, the rats chose the stimulation until they were physically exhausted and on the brink of death.
This new kind of human addictive arousal traps users into an expanded present hedonistic time zone. Past and future are distant and remote as the present moment expands to dominate everything. That present scene is totally dynamic, with images changing constantly.
A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that "regular porn users are more likely to report depression and poor physical health than nonusers are. ... The reason is that porn may start a cycle of isolation. ... Porn may become a substitute for healthy face-to-face interactions, social or sexual."
Similarly, video games also go wrong when the person playing them is desensitized to reality and real-life interactions with others.
Violence in video games is often synonymous with success. Children with more of a propensity for aggression are more attracted to violent video media, but violent media, in turn, can also make them more aggressive. This could be related to the fact that most video games reward players for violent acts, often permitting them to move to the next level in a game.
Yet research reported in the Annual Review of Public Health suggests a link between violent video games and real-life aggression: Given the opportunity, both adults and children were more aggressive after playing violent games. And people who identify themselves with violent perpetrators in video games are able to take aggressive action while playing that role, reinforcing aggressive behavior.
Young men -- who play video games and use porn the most -- are being digitally rewired in a totally new way that demands constant stimulation. And those delicate, developing brains are being catered to by video games and porn-on-demand, with a click of the mouse, in endless variety.
Such new brains are also totally out of sync in traditional school classes, which are analog, static and interactively passive. Academics are based on applying past lessons to future problems, on planning, on delaying gratifications, on work coming before play and on long-term goal-setting.
Guys are also totally out of sync in romantic relationships, which tend to build gradually and subtly, and require interaction, sharing, developing trust and suppression of lust at least until "the time is right."
Less extreme cases of arousal addiction may go unnoticed or be diagnosed as an attention or mood disorder. But we are in a national, and perhaps global, Guy Disaster Mode that needs to be noticed and solutions advanced to fix a totally novel phenomenon, which will only increase in intensity and breadth without the concerted efforts of educators, gamemakers, parents, guys and gals.
It's time to press play and get started reversing these trends.
Queue me at my desk, laughing my ass off, and scene.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Whats that scientists? Too much of something can have an adverse effect on my health? Well gee, thanks guys. I never would have known that had you not spent thousands or even millions of dollars researching the subject...
21853
Post by: mattyrm
I think that's nonsense me. Over protective sissy parents endlessly spoiling their fething brats are what is killing guys! 
19370
Post by: daedalus
Well, I mean, on one hand, I DO notice that my friends and myself tend to rush headfirst into the depths of gaming almost to the point of escapism sometimes, but on the other hand, I view that as solid evidence of something wrong with society and the world around me, not myself, cause I'm awesome. 
53059
Post by: dæl
TLDR, playing cod & watching pyronecrobeastiality
Love the juxtaposition of "the attraction is in the novelty, the variety or the surprise factor" that creates "risk averse" people. 
Its almost as if psychology is a pseudo-science, that could never actually experiment properly because there is no 'control.'
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Mr. Breikviek is a most reputable witness. I cannot conceive of how one would not find him a typical representative of a generation.
Unless of course he is a fething loon.
Who can say?
19370
Post by: daedalus
Kilkrazy wrote:Mr. Breikviek is a most reputable witness. I cannot conceive of how one would not find him a typical representative of a generation.
Unless of course he is a fething loon.
Who can say?
Clearly, we are all mass murderers.
Reminds me of my favorite quote though:
If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music. -Marcus Brigstocke Automatically Appended Next Post: I think I would also be interested in some actual female weigh-in on this; not that you'll find much of it on Dakka, but it would be interesting to get the "other side's" opinion, especially from those who are a part of this little community.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
The reaction in this forum to that story was rather predictable.
514
Post by: Orlanth
mattyrm wrote: I think that's nonsense me. Over protective sissy parents endlessly spoiling their fething brats are what is killing guys!
Nah its the up-their bottom social service 'professionals' attitudes that infect society, don't do this/that because its "inappropriate".
You cant teach children respect or anything resembling discipline, and kids exploit that. While the dogmatised 'professionals' don't have a clue ironically the children do. They know what to say and how to say it, they know the buttons to press and how to get away with stuff scot free. Children naturally have a short term mindset, which is why corporal punishment, a little bit of pain or embarassment, is effective. The kids themsleves know it works, its the 'professionals' who dont. By a time a child turns ten his or her moral outlook is fixed, under the new dogmas that moral outlook is based on shirking responsibility, a grasping for themselves. They grow up not giving a feth and always having an excuse. Well done guys.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Yeah, this is unfortunately what happens when experimental psychologists are left to interpret the data they have collected. Also, this is almost sexist, although I don't know if it's sexist toward men or women. An increasing number of women are getting into both porn and video games. And it is for the goddamn best Its almost as if psychology is a pseudo-science, that could never actually experiment properly because there is no 'control.'
That was true 100 years ago, not anymore. Both phenomenology and the psychology of the school of Wurzburg establised scientific means of introspective analysis. But psychology (just like any new science) is indeed incredibly prone to making stupid affirmation like these. Blame it on the stupid practionners, not on the practice.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
I don't understand this article.
*goes back to watching porn*
5742
Post by: generalgrog
Told ya....
GG
53059
Post by: dæl
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Its almost as if psychology is a pseudo-science, that could never actually experiment properly because there is no 'control.'
That was true 100 years ago, not anymore. Both phenomenology and the psychology of the school of Wurzburg establised scientific means of introspective analysis. But psychology (just like any new science) is indeed incredibly prone to making stupid affirmation like these. Blame it on the stupid practionners, not on the practice.
I was being a bit facetious, certainly Freud's work is a bit questionable, what with only really using Jewish women with hysteria and being a massive coke fiend. But modern psychology, for the most part, seems pretty spot on.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
generalgrog wrote:Told ya....
GG
Porn (of the softer kind) is a great tool in sexual psychology. Video games increase our likelyhood to survive in the post-apocalyptic wasteland.
I see no problem here.
15594
Post by: Albatross
No, GG, what you told us was that looking at pictures of naked ladies makes baby Jesus cry, or some other equally well-thought out and sensible argument that basically amounts to 'because... God.'
You don't get to be smug, particularly because an argument could be made that religious observance is a form of mental and physical 'addiction'.
in other news, moral panic, 'reefer madness', reds under the bed etc, etc.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Although, I have to mention, exposure to porn is proven to desensitize (sp?) to violence for a short amount of hours after.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Kovnik Obama wrote:Although, I have to mention, exposure to porn is proven to desensitize (sp?) to violence for a short amount of hours after.
This I can agree with, in my experiences porn is always followed by a furious beating.
15594
Post by: Albatross
I imagine that 'proven' is probably a little strong, Kovnik. Just saying.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
As much as there can be any proof in human studies. At least it's worth more factually than anything obtained through cultural studies 
50446
Post by: Piston Honda
World of Warcraft > Life
Free internet porn > dating a girl
15594
Post by: Albatross
Kovnik Obama wrote:As much as there can be any proof in human studies. At least it's worth more factually than anything obtained through cultural studies
You could always just admit that you used the wrong word, instead of being an arsehole...
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
I didn't use the wrong word. There are objective facts known about consciousness, for exemple, children up until age 5-6 will, regardless of any subjective incidents, be under the impression that a group of sticks, once split in two groups, do not retain the same amount of sticks, but actually has seen an increase. This is a known fact of genetic epistemology (or Piagetist psychology). This has been positively tested across the world for the last 80 years or so. Like it's been tested rigorously since the 90s that adult minds exposed to pornography (and not erotism) will retain effects of 'numbness' toward violence for a few hours after.
Because your field of study doesn't prepare you to handle objective facts about the human mind doesn't give you any right to attack those that are in such a field.
29408
Post by: Melissia
daedalus wrote:I think I would also be interested in some actual female weigh-in on this; not that you'll find much of it on Dakka, but it would be interesting to get the "other side's" opinion, especially from those who are a part of this little community.
Personally, I think "the demise of guys" is just idiotic scaremongering buy men who feel a need to make themselves feel more manly. A real man has no such insecurities. He could go in to a gay pride parade wearing a pink shirt with seven rainbows on it and crowd surf his way in to a hair salon then get back in home in time to make dinner to his wife, and then upon reflecting on what he did (in bed with his wife, who is asleep from the afterglow of intimacy), he thinks to himself: "Man, I love being so manly. I should try needle point tomorrow." A man who is afraid of his non-masculine (or, dare I say it, feminine!) side is a pussy, not a man.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Melissia wrote:daedalus wrote:I think I would also be interested in some actual female weigh-in on this; not that you'll find much of it on Dakka, but it would be interesting to get the "other side's" opinion, especially from those who are a part of this little community.
Personally, I think "the demise of guys" is just idiotic scaremongering buy men who feel a need to make themselves feel more manly.
A real man has no such insecurities. He could go in to a gay pride parade wearing a pink shirt with seven rainbows on it and crowd surf his way in to a hair salon then get back in home in time to make dinner to his wife, and then upon reflecting on what he did (in bed with his wife, who is asleep from the afterglow of intimacy), he thinks to himself: "Man, I love being so manly. I should try needle point tomorrow."
A man who is afraid of his non-masculine (or, dare I say it, feminine!) side is a pussy, not a man.
One time I asked a really homophobic guy out on a date (I'm straight, FYI). His response was hilarious. He freaked out and started swearing and yelling and threatened to kill me (I was betting on the fact that we wouldn't get physical, because I'm pretty scrawny and would lose in any fair fight). The point being, it was exceedingly hilarious. I should've filmed it.
46915
Post by: Private_Joker
You know what it has actually taught me a few moves in bed, sexually arouses your partner if they like watching it during and is a great stress/ frustration relief.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
A bit Off Topic, but one of my old roomate (another philosophy student, but of the ultra conservative variety) was a self-pubized homophobe (he did so too in classes).
Funny enough, his favourite 'practical joke' was to attempt to ''mock-rape'' me...
... yeah 
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Kovnik Obama wrote:. But psychology (just like any new science) is indeed incredibly prone to making stupid affirmation like these. Blame it on the stupid practionners, not on the practice.
Its not usually the practitioners who are at fault (although they often are to varying degrees) but how its there findings are reported by the media , with little if any scrutiny. The prime example of this is how foods X,Y and Z cause/cure cancer.
As to this particular 'study' I am most impressed on how it seems to be based upon 50 year old experiments on the effects of artifitaily stimulating the pleasure centres of Rats and assuming (for some reason) that everyone who watches porn or plays games are addicted to them. I hope the Nobel commitee knows about this groundbreaking research.
Alternatively its yet another poorly researched/overtly biased piece of rabble rousing designed to sell papers and this guys book.
53059
Post by: dæl
Kovnik Obama wrote:A bit Off Topic, but one of my old roomate (another philosophy student, but of the ultra conservative variety) was a self-pubized homophobe (he did so too in classes).
Funny enough, his favourite 'practical joke' was to attempt to ''mock-rape'' me...
... yeah
Don't need to be a psychologist to figure out what's going on there. The overstating his viewpoint alone should set off a few alarm bells. Automatically Appended Next Post: Palindrome wrote:
Its not usually the practitioners who are at fault (although they often are to varying degrees) but how its there findings are reported, with little if any scrutiny, by the media. The prime example is how foods X,Y and Z cause/cure cancer.
MMR anyone?
53595
Post by: Palindrome
He did manage to get that one past the Lancet's editorial commitee 
I am not saying that the originiators of such dubious research are blameless, but they are not the only guilty party.
53059
Post by: dæl
Palindrome wrote:He did manage to get that one past the Lancet's editorial commitee
I am not saying that the originiators of such dubious research are blameless, but they are not the only guilty party.
Even now some people still believe it causes autism, thats down to the media. MMR = bad, loads of coverage. MMR = good, and we were talking gak, surprisingly little coverage.
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
1-There has always been pornography in society. In university I know for a fact that proliferation has been the case in Britain since at least Eighteenth-Century. I also know from that period that moral panics about dissolute youth and loss of moral values are NOTHING new. Such studies are scare-mongering and irritable rather than informative.
2-Video games are no different to reading books. Something which again, during the Eighteenth-century was held to encourage immorality and sin among those who read novels because it detracted from devotion to godly family duty. Women who read 'profane morals' were belived to become lustful and then decend into being whores and abandoning motherhood. Plus, people who play video games are geeks and nerds; so they do not constitute a generation anymore than 40k players do. Casual gamers (say, one hour a week) don't have enough contact time for any concievable influence to had.
IMO there is already a battery of social and moral disapproval about both porn and video games. Much of it unjustified, hypocritical or childish relics from the nineteenth century. Its like people not liking swearing because in the past it invoked the aid of the devil and was a magical curse.
Plus a lot of psychologists and sociologists IMO are quacks who too often confuse their own perceptions and prejudice with sincere observation.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Melissia wrote:daedalus wrote:I think I would also be interested in some actual female weigh-in on this; not that you'll find much of it on Dakka, but it would be interesting to get the "other side's" opinion, especially from those who are a part of this little community.
Personally, I think "the demise of guys" is just idiotic scaremongering buy men who feel a need to make themselves feel more manly.
A real man has no such insecurities. He could go in to a gay pride parade wearing a pink shirt with seven rainbows on it and crowd surf his way in to a hair salon then get back in home in time to make dinner to his wife, and then upon reflecting on what he did (in bed with his wife, who is asleep from the afterglow of intimacy), he thinks to himself: "Man, I love being so manly. I should try needle point tomorrow."
A man who is afraid of his non-masculine (or, dare I say it, feminine!) side is a pussy, not a man.
Holy gak in the sky. I agree with everything you said.
As an aside sometimes I make dinner to my wife 3, 4 times a night.
Edit: language filter fail.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
2-Video games are no different to reading books. Something which again, during the Eighteenth-century was held to encourage immorality and sin among those who read novels because it detracted from devotion to godly family duty. Women who read 'profane morals' were belived to become lustful and then decend into being whores and abandoning motherhood. Plus, people who play video games are geeks and nerds; so they do not constitute a generation anymore than 40k players do. Casual gamers (say, one hour a week) don't have enough contact time for any concievable influence to had.
That's a bit far fetched. The visual stimuli itself sets apart video gaming from book reading. Then there's the fact that in video gaming, there's a expectation/preparation/action/result structure, which is mostly absent from reading, or at least not lived at the same vividness. It really isn't stupid to think that video gaming has an influence on brain structures, neuroplasticity and all that good stuff. I just think it's a way to easy step to take to think that violent video games breed violent persons.
53059
Post by: dæl
Kovnik Obama wrote:2-Video games are no different to reading books. Something which again, during the Eighteenth-century was held to encourage immorality and sin among those who read novels because it detracted from devotion to godly family duty. Women who read 'profane morals' were belived to become lustful and then decend into being whores and abandoning motherhood. Plus, people who play video games are geeks and nerds; so they do not constitute a generation anymore than 40k players do. Casual gamers (say, one hour a week) don't have enough contact time for any concievable influence to had.
That's a bit far fetched. The visual stimuli itself sets apart video gaming from book reading. Then there's the fact that in video gaming, there's a expectation/preparation/action/result structure, which is mostly absent from reading, or at least not lived at the same vividness. It really isn't stupid to think that video gaming has an influence on brain structures, neuroplasticity and all that good stuff. I just think it's a way to easy step to take to think that violent video games breed violent persons.
Video games use quite sophisticated tactics to create an addiction like mindset.
55318
Post by: Hazardous Harry
Melissia wrote:daedalus wrote:I think I would also be interested in some actual female weigh-in on this; not that you'll find much of it on Dakka, but it would be interesting to get the "other side's" opinion, especially from those who are a part of this little community.
Personally, I think "the demise of guys" is just idiotic scaremongering buy men who feel a need to make themselves feel more manly.
A real man has no such insecurities. He could go in to a gay pride parade wearing a pink shirt with seven rainbows on it and crowd surf his way in to a hair salon then get back in home in time to make dinner to his wife, and then upon reflecting on what he did (in bed with his wife, who is asleep from the afterglow of intimacy), he thinks to himself: "Man, I love being so manly. I should try needle point tomorrow."
A man who is afraid of his non-masculine (or, dare I say it, feminine!) side is a pussy, not a man.
Well said.
Corpsesarefun wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote:Although, I have to mention, exposure to porn is proven to desensitize (sp?) to violence for a short amount of hours after.
This I can agree with, in my experiences porn is always followed by a furious beating.
Heheheh. 
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Did someone just seriously attempt to use Cracked.com as a credible source...
I really hope that's a joke.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
LordofHats wrote:Did someone just seriously attempt to use Cracked.com as a credible source...
I really hope that's a joke.
But at least they always cite their sources. ya they present the story in a humorous spin, but you can click on the links and see what they are referencing. so I'd say they are more credible then fox news or the blaze.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
As someone who reads Cracked regularly, most of the people who write for that site are morons. Funny morons, but morons all the same. EDIT: Hell, they can't even grasp Marvel/DC comic lore very well. Even as nerds their not that bright and they reference that stuff a lot.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Once again, some idiot wants to blame video games for people sucking at life. At least porn is fighting it for the destruction of males. And I know plenty of women who watch (and enjoy!!) porn. Not all girls do-sadly, I lost an ex in part because she found porn on my computer and she couldn't get over it, even though I said she was far more important and threw it all out and swore never to look at it again while we dated-and I didn't. She still didn't care-and some girls (and guys) feel that way. But if a couple has "the talk" before it happens, who cares about watching porn. As for video games, I have a ton and and play them when I'm in the mood-which seems to be less and less common these days. I spend 90% of my Xbox's usage on Netflix.
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
This sounds like my whole fething life. A bit depressing. I feel like nothing more than a statistic.
Guess I should lay off the porn and go out once in a while...
121
Post by: Relapse
timetowaste85 wrote:Once again, some idiot wants to blame video games for people sucking at life. At least porn is fighting it for the destruction of males. And I know plenty of women who watch (and enjoy!!) porn. Not all girls do-sadly, I lost an ex in part because she found porn on my computer and she couldn't get over it, even though I said she was far more important and threw it all out and swore never to look at it again while we dated-and I didn't. She still didn't care-and some girls (and guys) feel that way. But if a couple has "the talk" before it happens, who cares about watching porn. As for video games, I have a ton and and play them when I'm in the mood-which seems to be less and less common these days. I spend 90% of my Xbox's usage on Netflix.
I know a few women that got divorced because their husbands were in the habit of watching porn. They told me it made them feel second rate that their husbands were so wrapped up in the stuff that they were getting progressivly less time with them as the husband's veiwing of porn increased.
I work with a guy that got his wake up call when he told me he was getting divorced because he literally put it that he was addicted to porn. He's the last guy you would think to see in this situation. He's a fairly outgoing person, gets his Elk every hunting season, and is a well respected person at work.
I'm sorry that you had a bad break up over porn on your computer, especially if you were trying to get away from it for your girl friend, but I've seen how that stuff can lead to some pretty bad break ups.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Well, what with the fine ladies of the entertainment industry nowadays, those wifes probably were 2nd rate...
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Im sick of people slagging off porn. My Grandmother who is 87 years old, watches her favourite pornographic DVD on a daily basis (Bizzare dwarves 3) and has done for the past 7 years, and she is one of the most polite and respectable people you could meet.
Its all just poppycock.
I have to log off now lads, the old dear has donned her gimp suit and its time for her 8am session in front of the webcam. :(
18297
Post by: Exalted Pariah
I hoep hes kidding.....anyway, if this is all true, why is crime so low? If we've all become insatiable by normal sex, why dont we all go out and rape people? If videogames make us so bloodthristy, why aren't killing sprees happening?
15594
Post by: Albatross
Kovnik Obama wrote:I didn't use the wrong word. There are objective facts known about consciousness, for exemple, children up until age 5-6 will, regardless of any subjective incidents, be under the impression that a group of sticks, once split in two groups, do not retain the same amount of sticks, but actually has seen an increase. This is a known fact of genetic epistemology (or Piagetist psychology). This has been positively tested across the world for the last 80 years or so. Like it's been tested rigorously since the 90s that adult minds exposed to pornography (and not erotism) will retain effects of 'numbness' toward violence for a few hours after.
Cool, cite a source and I'll agree with you. I wasn't even disagreeing that there were links between porn and attitudes to violence, I just thought your language was a little absolute. If you'd applied a few caveats along the lines of 'studies have suggested...' or ' there is a strong case for...', we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Imagine how wonderful that would be...
Because your field of study doesn't prepare you to handle objective facts about the human mind doesn't give you any right to attack those that are in such a field.
You actually don't know anything about my field, and I'd prefer it if you 'played the ball and not the man' - that is, unless you like being on ignore.
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
Kovnik Obama wrote:2-Video games are no different to reading books. Something which again, during the Eighteenth-century was held to encourage immorality and sin among those who read novels because it detracted from devotion to godly family duty. Women who read 'profane morals' were belived to become lustful and then decend into being whores and abandoning motherhood. Plus, people who play video games are geeks and nerds; so they do not constitute a generation anymore than 40k players do. Casual gamers (say, one hour a week) don't have enough contact time for any concievable influence to had.
That's a bit far fetched. The visual stimuli itself sets apart video gaming from book reading. Then there's the fact that in video gaming, there's a expectation/preparation/action/result structure, which is mostly absent from reading, or at least not lived at the same vividness. It really isn't stupid to think that video gaming has an influence on brain structures, neuroplasticity and all that good stuff. I just think it's a way to easy step to take to think that violent video games breed violent persons.
In what sense is participation different from being a passive watcher. If you clearly desire to view or read about something theres no reason why it wouldn't encourage you to take such actions in the real world. This is what men in the eighteenth century believed was the result of women reading 'profane novels'; it encouraged their imaginations so it would make them behave differently in the real world. Today, society has simply came to view women reading as a natural part of 'feminity' and is considered acceptable; indeed most feminists argue (quite correctly) that this was a means of patriarchy enforcing proper gender roles. Because video games are new it provokes dissent among individuals who desperately under-rate the ability for individuals to distinguish fantasy from real-life. To go with the witnessing is as bad as participating. Another 18th century vice was cock-fighting, which is a purely visual spectator sport involving gambling, even if you didn't own a fighting cock you were still watching two animals butcher eachother and take pleasure from that; which would desensitze you to violence regardless of whether you witness or if you partake of an action.
Also, you could say exactly the same thing about buying an army of 40k models and having them kill eachother. This involves stimulating the imagination to think of violent passions and the same can be said of films. If you actively seek these things out then you are partaking of emotions which could be considered to cause what you're describing. However, these are socially acceptable and its merely because you falsely believe that because the task or problem solving agent is used it encourages more violence. Which makes no sense, even if you work you think about how to meat your goals and achieve them. But experiencing love of violence can be achieved through passive means without interaction (ever seen Rambo 4?) which are surely the cause of becoming desentized to violence.
So I think you're confusing things with your own prejudices. If society considers reading about sex and violence in books or wathcing films to be okay then it has utterly no right to argue that the same in video games like Mass Effect is immoral. It is simply base hypocrisy IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Exalted Pariah wrote:I hoep hes kidding.....anyway, if this is all true, why is crime so low? If we've all become insatiable by normal sex, why dont we all go out and rape people? If videogames make us so bloodthristy, why aren't killing sprees happening?
Exactly, I mean think about the people who play video games more than anyone else; so you're saying some of the meekest people out their ie Nerds or Geeks are the most prone to commit acts of violence. Thats an almost laughable notion. Most violence is the result of poverty, drink and people not respecting the forces of the law n order; nothing has changed in that regard since the 18th century. Indeed I would even suggest that focusing on neural explanations of violence by the gvt is simply a means of ignoring its own respoonsibilites in this regard. Plus you can blame things like gang culture more than video games since they rely upon a masculine culture where self-esteem is built through acts of defiance against the law and society. That is a destructive element and the contempt they show probably does more to awaken callous violence than anything else. If you're with a group of mates putting peer pressure on you to commit crime or violence then it is a vastly more compulsive force on people than an individual partaking in a visual act of violence since he can distinguish fantasy and reality.
This is just my two cents, I only study history and I just find the parrallels of moral panic between now and then startling; especially the desire to blame books and subversive literature rather than poverty and the failings of the state.
17002
Post by: RossDas
Video games really are the favourite subject for the demagogues, frankly I'm more concerned about the increasing lack of positive male role models in young males lives (for some this will be for their entire childhood and adolescence), and the persistent denigration of males in popular media.
53059
Post by: dæl
LordofHats wrote:As someone who reads Cracked regularly, most of the people who write for that site are morons. Funny morons, but morons all the same. EDIT: Hell, they can't even grasp Marvel/DC comic lore very well. Even as nerds their not that bright and they reference that stuff a lot.
They give a broad overview which, as mentioned, you can look into further by following their sources. I've yet to see an outright lie from them.
55422
Post by: treadhead1944
daedalus wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Mr. Breikviek is a most reputable witness. I cannot conceive of how one would not find him a typical representative of a generation.
Unless of course he is a fething loon.
Who can say?
Clearly, we are all mass murderers.
Reminds me of my favorite quote though:
If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music. -Marcus Brigstocke
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think I would also be interested in some actual female weigh-in on this; not that you'll find much of it on Dakka, but it would be interesting to get the "other side's" opinion, especially from those who are a part of this little community.
Apparently you missed the whole Rave scene then, Pretty much describes most of the 90's as lived by me
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
treadhead1944 wrote:daedalus wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Mr. Breikviek is a most reputable witness. I cannot conceive of how one would not find him a typical representative of a generation.
Unless of course he is a fething loon.
Who can say?
Clearly, we are all mass murderers.
Reminds me of my favorite quote though:
If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music. -Marcus Brigstocke
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think I would also be interested in some actual female weigh-in on this; not that you'll find much of it on Dakka, but it would be interesting to get the "other side's" opinion, especially from those who are a part of this little community.
Apparently you missed the whole Rave scene then, Pretty much describes most of the 90's as lived by me
53059
Post by: dæl
RossDas wrote:Video games really are the favourite subject for the demagogues, frankly I'm more concerned about the increasing lack of positive male role models in young males lives (for some this will be for their entire childhood and adolescence), and the persistent denigration of males in popular media.
I'm also concerned that in business women are taught they must display more masculine attributes as well. The increasing prevalence of mysandrony is quite concerning too, it seems harmless, but may well prove quite an insidious form of emasculation over time.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
dæl wrote:They give a broad overview which, as mentioned, you can look into further by following their sources. I've yet to see an outright lie from them.
Just because someone isn't lying doesn't mean their telling the truth. EDIT: Not to say their outright wrong, but most of the time the writers over at cracked are living in their own reality of existence where they like to ignore the minutia of the reality the rest of us live in. Its a problem they have when they wander away from randomness and try to be serious for a moment.
Granted they're probably more accurate than the Onion so there's that
53059
Post by: dæl
LordofHats wrote:Not to say their outright wrong, but most of the time the writers over at cracked are living in their own reality of existence where they like to ignore the minutia of the reality the rest of us live in.
Thats funny, because it sounds like your talking about the sort of people that write hundred page long peer reviewed papers.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
My gawd you may be right @_@
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
In what sense is participation different from being a passive watcher.
From the brain's point of view, there's a hell of a difference. And this is what I was talking about : the influence of video gaming on brains structures through the effect of neuroplasticity. While reading, a person is mostly subject to their own imagination, on a very different level. Sometimes you can see people starting to enact based on what they are reading, twitching their hands or adopting a frown when a character does, but it's an incident, a relaxation of the proper mindset of reading. In video gaming you need to enact, it's the part that makes it a game. So psychological traps can and are elaborated to take advantage of the brain structures that apply to actions, which are linked to those that provoke pleasure (pleasure being the bio-psychological regulation of the positive achievement of an aim).
If you clearly desire to view or read about something theres no reason why it wouldn't encourage you to take such actions in the real world. This is what men in the eighteenth century believed was the result of women reading 'profane novels'; it encouraged their imaginations so it would make them behave differently in the real world. Today, society has simply came to view women reading as a natural part of 'feminity' and is considered acceptable; indeed most feminists argue (quite correctly) that this was a means of patriarchy enforcing proper gender roles.
Sublime art, morbid curiosity, acrasia... ''Men of the 18th Century'' weren't all as stupid as you paint them up. They were quite aware of the 3 phenomenon I just mentioned, which are all based on the separation of theme and moral education. Some men of the 18th century came up with the associationist school of psychology, and were rightly ridicule for over a century after for it....
Because video games are new it provokes dissent among individuals who desperately under-rate the ability for individuals to distinguish fantasy from real-life. To go with the witnessing is as bad as participating.
Also, you could say exactly the same thing about buying an army of 40k models and having them kill eachother. This involves stimulating the imagination to think of violent passions and the same can be said of films. If you actively seek these things out then you are partaking of emotions which could be considered to cause what you're describing. However, these are socially acceptable and its merely because you falsely believe that because the task or problem solving agent is used it encourages more violence. Which makes no sense, even if you work you think about how to meat your goals and achieve them. But experiencing love of violence can be achieved through passive means without interaction (ever seen Rambo 4?) which are surely the cause of becoming desentized to violence.
No, again, witnessing a violent event doesn't have at all the same psychological implication as enacting the violent act. And there's a huge difference between watching a show in which each act of violence occurs inside a definite time frame, which last overall for less than 3 hours, and playing a game for weeks that let you repeat over and over again the same act of violence.
So I think you're confusing things with your own prejudices. If society considers reading about sex and violence in books or watching films to be okay then it has utterly no right to argue that the same in video games like Mass Effect is immoral. It is simply base hypocrisy IMO.
Hum, prejudices? How did you get there? I made no moral point about it. I simply stated (quite correctly) that reading and video gaming doesn't have the same effect on the mind. Would you re-read a sentence 10000 times in order to 'farm' it's meaning and the pleasure you derive from it and it's place in the story? No? That sounds dumb, right? Well that's because there are basic differences between the two.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Exalted Pariah wrote:I hoep hes kidding.....anyway, if this is all true, why is crime so low? If we've all become insatiable by normal sex, why dont we all go out and rape people? If videogames make us so bloodthristy, why aren't killing sprees happening?
Exactly, I mean think about the people who play video games more than anyone else...
I think he was referring to Matty's grandmother doing stuff on webcam.
29408
Post by: Melissia
No, again, witnessing a violent event doesn't have at all the same psychological implication as enacting the violent act. And there's a huge difference between watching a show in which each act of violence occurs inside a definite time frame, which last overall for less than 3 hours, and playing a game for weeks that let you repeat over and over again the same act of violence.
There's also a difference between playing out a fantasy in a video game and living the fantasy out in real life. When I "kill" my enemy in these games, I know I'm not actually killing anyone. After all, I see them up again a few seconds later, and I'm still chatting with them anyway even after their avatar "died". It is a friendly competition, nothing more (Even the ones that have prize money, or are competing for pride, are just that-- they aren't real fights). Their avatar gets back in the fight, we go at it again, and so on and so forth. Even the creatures that don't have humans playing them don't really die, because they're also back up, how soon depending only on the game. I might clear an area from bandits, but come back five minutes later, they're back up and ready to fight again. Or I might massacre a lot of zombies, but next time I play, the zombies are there again. I'm not actually killing them, I'm just out-competing them. And when my character dies, that means they out-competed me. I get back up a few minutes (at most) later, and go at it again, until I decide to take a break or if I need to go do something else. The only thing that might possibly be injured is my ego, and even that not really. Many of the psychologists that study the issue don't seem to understand this mindset. Or be willing to.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Cool, cite a source and I'll agree with you. I wasn't even disagreeing that there were links between porn and attitudes to violence, I just thought your language was a little absolute. If you'd applied a few caveats along the lines of 'studies have suggested...' or ' there is a strong case for...', we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Imagine how wonderful that would be...
I had the study under my eyes... 9 years ago, during my sex psy course. My teacher was the one doing it. Honestly, I don't think I have to dig this up to prove my point to you, as you say, you don't question the truth of it, but the wording. Which is ridiculous, because you clearly don't have any clue about what scientific objectivity is. ''Strongly suggest'' and ''proven'' is exactly the same thing, since science is a field always left open to debate. Scientific proof is never anything else than a 'strong suggestion of the presence of a fact''. And citing a source is nothing more than a sophism (appeal to authority), since no one here (including myself) is trained enough to understand it completely. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:There's also a difference between playing out a fantasy in a video game and living the fantasy out in real life. When I "kill" my enemy in these games, I know I'm not actually killing anyone.
After all, I see them up again a few seconds later, and I'm still chatting with them anyway even after their avatar "died". It is a friendly competition, nothing more (Even the ones that have prize money, or are competing for pride, are just that-- they aren't real fights). Their avatar gets back in the fight, we go at it again, and so on and so forth.
...
Many of the psychologists that study the issue don't seem to understand this mindset. Or care ,for that matter.
Absolutely true, but I don't know how a psychologist could take in account the level of abstraction the player is using. Because that's mostly subjective, for example, after a long work day, killing ghouls in fallout can easily become killing my boss over and over again, subjectively . So that's an element I don't see how you could control. And what's even more likely, in the event that video gaming actually makes people more aggressive, is that it has nothing to do with them being violent, and more to do with some level of frustration, a shorter attention span, less attention to school, thus less educated (for some) etc...
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
So you think an individual who would actively go to and enjoy watching an act of real violence and death ie a cockfight or bear baiting, would be more violence than somebody who plays a videogame? Also it is possible to get wound up whilst reading, believe me, I imagined some very, very, violent and gory things happening to the Freys and Boltons after what they did in A Song of Ice and Fire. Let me pose the question another way. When you read, you essentially imagine what you are watching in your head like a movie; right? Now, what you're saying is that the pro-active involvement has a much greater effect since it encourages a positive response. So, are you saying that simply day-dreaming, using your own imagination independent of any external book or film has a stronger effect than something prompted by an external source? (for example, you're on the metro to your wargames club and imagining what your armies fighting would look like) Now, to me, I don't see how you can distinguish those two things, to me they seem exactly the same and the only conclusion I can reach is that the physical enaction or problem solving is not required for the imagination to provoke violent action. You could argue that, making up stories and images in your head is pro-active in itself; but then how is your brain translating what you are reading into pictures itself any different a process? Both are creative thought surely?
If you say video games have a subconscious effect of making people who play them more violent then you know that is a line which encourages the state making them illegal and asserting its right to maintaining the mental health of its citizens then you can't be surprised when people take exception to that view. Presumably that would mean you couldn't play a video game anymore than you would take drugs because you would believe that the health damage cannot be mitigated by individual will ie distinguishing reality from fantasy since playing a video game warps the mind to be violent in the same way drugs warp the mind. That is what you are saying, if that is true then video games would get banned. I cannot accept that since it is no different from reading or film in my eyes; which have long been considered in the past to be subversive and encourage violence. These attitudes came to be viewed as silly and childish, like saying comics encouraged sexual BDSM and TV melted your brain.
You also mention the amount of time used. If I finish one book or film which is violent, I'll just go and get another. So the process continues. Plus you mentioned farming the meaning of a word 10,000 times which is besides the point. The more repetitive a task gets the less it matters, if you're an admin worker filling letters then you're frankly not all their. Which is how a lot of video gamers are, just focusing on the task without actually registering the killing ie on ME3 multiplayer. By far the most visibly violent reaction from video gamers is when they are killed or lose as in Call of Duty. The actual satisfaction from beating your enemy is minimal if not non-existent. But the effects of having your ego hurt by dying repeatedly is undeniably where people are more likely to swear loudly, curse and get emotional. To my mind this is more because you get involved and is a matter of natural competitiveness, like how football players get involved into the game and behave more violently by spitting and swearing than they do in normal conversation. However, because the psychologist views only a person sitting at a computer screen, such a reaction appears out of its social context and so leads to a negative perception as unaccpetable behaviour. If a psychologist viewed people playing football and acting similarly they would probably shrug their shoulders and pass it off as natural boistrous behaviour during a competition.
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
It's not porn or video games which is doing the damage, we do not discipline kids properly.
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
Melissia wrote:
Many of the psychologists that study the issue don't seem to understand this mindset. Or be willing to.
Its because most psychologists reduce the brain to a passive organic machine that can only be affected by external stimuli. They basically have a serious problem with factoring in free-will and the fact that the mind can only view the world through the filter of ITS own perceptions and prejudices. As a result they don't get that the 'killing' in a video game has no more effect than playing a game of 40k. But like most old hands they see how real such images are and see the length of time something is done and assume it must be a malignant effect. Whereas 40k is just the harmless thing nerds spend hours of their time doing; are you not leading your army to slaughter the opponent with bolters n chainswords?
Basically psychology is essentially in the same place physical surgery was in the eighteenth century, its a quack branch of medicine until neuro-scientists find out exactly how the mind works and it worries me that so much social policy is being based upon very tenuous assertions made by unempircal observations of peoples behaviour which can be frighteningly prone to bias. You only have to look at Freuds theories to understand the extremes this can lead to.
Thought for the day..
'You know nothing Jon Snow.'-Yigritte A Song of Ice and Fire
55422
Post by: treadhead1944
rockerbikie wrote:It's not porn or video games which is doing the damage, we do not discipline kids properly.
This. Growing up I had the fantasy/reality line clearly defined. I was monitored constantly by my parents. When I brought home a game, a book, or an RPG, my parents would check it out first before I was allowed to play or read it. My parents also instilled me with a strong set of morals, set limits, and enforced them. I grew up a pretty stable person. My only glitches stem from chemical issues (chronic depression).
53059
Post by: dæl
treadhead1944 wrote:Growing up I had the fantasy/reality line clearly defined.
There will always be those who cannot tell the difference, they were just as crazy with books, look at Mark Chapman, assassinating John Lennon after reading Catcher in the Rye.
29110
Post by: AustonT
rockerbikie wrote:It's not porn or video games which is doing the damage, we do not discipline kids properly.
Says the nazi...
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
AustonT wrote:rockerbikie wrote:It's not porn or video games which is doing the damage, we do not discipline kids properly.
Says the nazi...
My father is a respectable man. I got disclipined properly as a child. I respect authority. I speak like a gentlemen. I treat everyone with respect even if they don't deserve it. I use appropriate words, I am highly educated. I donate to Green peace. I don't break the law. I am morally responsible, I respect the Police. I have done volunter work. I pay my taxes. Am I still a bad person? I think not. A smack once everywhile when a kid does something wrong is not bad. Also, safe parenting is good, I would not want a 10 year old kid to watch a MA15+ movie.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Kovnik Obama wrote:Absolutely true, but I don't know how a psychologist could take in account the level of abstraction the player is using. Because that's mostly subjective, for example, after a long work day, killing ghouls in fallout can easily become killing my boss over and over again, subjectively . So that's an element I don't see how you could control.
And so you suggest they just make some gak up and hope nobody notices?
That's not Science.
Kovnik Obama wrote:And what's even more likely, in the event that video gaming actually makes people more aggressive
Okay, I can discuss a fantasy event.
Kovnik Obama wrote:is that it has nothing to do with them being violent, and more to do with some level of frustration, a shorter attention span, less attention to school, thus less educated (for some) etc...
Which the video game could could easily help cure in a fashion.
55422
Post by: treadhead1944
dæl wrote:treadhead1944 wrote:Growing up I had the fantasy/reality line clearly defined.
There will always be those who cannot tell the difference, they were just as crazy with books, look at Mark Chapman, assassinating John Lennon after reading Catcher in the Rye.
See also: Chemical glitches.
29408
Post by: Melissia
rockerbikie wrote:AustonT wrote:rockerbikie wrote:It's not porn or video games which is doing the damage, we do not discipline kids properly.
Says the nazi...
Am I still a bad person? I think not.
Advocating racism, misogynism, homophobia, genocide, etc-- which the Nazi philosophy does-- DOES make you a bad person. I'm not saying you do. But being a nazi necessarily makes you a bad person. I don't know if you are one. Or necessarily care, really.
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
Melissia wrote:rockerbikie wrote:AustonT wrote:rockerbikie wrote:It's not porn or video games which is doing the damage, we do not discipline kids properly.
Says the nazi...
Am I still a bad person? I think not.
Advocating racism, misogynism, homophobia, genocide, etc-- which the Nazi philosophy does-- DOES make you a bad person.
I'm not saying you do. But being a nazi necessarily makes you a bad person. I don't know if you are one. Or necessarily care, really.
I don't advocate genocide or misogynism. How a heterosexual man can hate women is well beyond me. Also, advocating genocide is also really stupid. I do not agree with everything the nazis say.
29408
Post by: Melissia
So you disagree with essentially all of the Nazi party's core tenets. Except racism, apparently? Oh, and racists are bad people by nature of being racists. Dunno if I made that clear enough in my previous post
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Melissia wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote:Absolutely true, but I don't know how a psychologist could take in account the level of abstraction the player is using. Because that's mostly subjective, for example, after a long work day, killing ghouls in fallout can easily become killing my boss over and over again, subjectively . So that's an element I don't see how you could control.
And so you suggest they just make some gak up and hope nobody notices? That's not Science.
Where the hell did you go take that I would rather have them make up stuff. You didn't read this thread well enough, I think. I just stated that there are difficulties to assuming the position you took, problems relevant to normal scientific observation. I didn't say it was an excuse for sloppy interpretation of result. These experts should be the most aware of the limits of the interpretative potential of their data and methodology, and yet they make wild claims based on the first hint of correlation. I'll put it in bold because apparently you need me to : This is me criticizing them. Gee. Melissia wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote:And what's even more likely, in the event that video gaming actually makes people more aggressive
Okay, I can discuss a fantasy event.
I hope so, that's called speculating, and is an important part of everyday mental life. Melissia wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote:is that it has nothing to do with them being violent, and more to do with some level of frustration, a shorter attention span, less attention to school, thus less educated (for some) etc...
Which the video game could could easily help cure in a fashion.
Well made, yes, video games can be educational. But farming for 6 hours isn't. And it might melt your brain, so to speak. At least it doesn't feel healthy, so until their's conclusive study on the effect, I won't take your opinion for facts. By the way, is everything fine? Did I say something that annoyed you especially? You seemed to lash out... Automatically Appended Next Post: Totalwar1402 wrote:Melissia wrote:
Many of the psychologists that study the issue don't seem to understand this mindset. Or be willing to.
Its because most psychologists reduce the brain to a passive organic machine that can only be affected by external stimuli. They basically have a serious problem with factoring in free-will and the fact that the mind can only view the world through the filter of ITS own perceptions and prejudices. As a result they don't get that the 'killing' in a video game has no more effect than playing a game of 40k. But like most old hands they see how real such images are and see the length of time something is done and assume it must be a malignant effect. Whereas 40k is just the harmless thing nerds spend hours of their time doing; are you not leading your army to slaughter the opponent with bolters n chainswords? Basically psychology is essentially in the same place physical surgery was in the eighteenth century, its a quack branch of medicine until neuro-scientists find out exactly how the mind works and it worries me that so much social policy is being based upon very tenuous assertions made by unempircal observations of peoples behaviour which can be frighteningly prone to bias. You only have to look at Freuds theories to understand the extremes this can lead to. Thought for the day.. 'You know nothing Jon Snow.'-Yigritte A Song of Ice and Fire
Oh for crying out loud, how much time did you spend in an experimental psychology lab? How many studies on the speed of processing cognitive cycles of the human brain have you examined before passing this judgement? Did you bother to check up the difference between intentionnality and causality in explanations of psychological phenomenon? Have you taken in account the breakthrough of enactive psychology in the latest years? The multitude of scientific methods of introspection established since Wurzburg? The debate on the irreductability of parrallell systems of explanations? The discovery of structural finalism in biological entities?... Do I need to go on? That this particular study is to be refuted by childs on a toy soldier forum isn't at all indicative of an entire field of study, and I don't see what authorize you to make broad claims about an entire science, especially if your going to miss over one century (and it's the one that really matters) of advances in psychology.
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
How's farming for six hours any less healthy than watching TV for six hours?
I'm not seeing any big calls for the destruction of the Television industry due to its effect on modern society.
Oh yeah right, because that would mean targetting the greater majority, and then these quacks are saying that everyone is a little odd, going hurt their reports overall interest level right there.
Easier to go for the little sub faction they don't understand and paint it all on them.
As with violent movies in the past, Video games are just being painted as the bad guys at the moment, as its an easy target for folks like those doing this research.
Porn is another issue, but still not as bad as they sometimes make out. The sooner they get the whole xxx registry names sorted the better though, because at least then a majority of it won't come up on normal google searchs with a simple click of a button.
Thus another often common complaint about it will be removed.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
TV can be unhealthy, but video games involve different parts of the brain, and some of them are deliberately designed to play off (prey on) the addictive parts of the brain and trigger those patterns.
Gods know that plenty of idiots have denounced video games (as with other forms of youth media) for no or stupid reasons, but I would be wary of dismissing all criticism or concerns as quackery or witchhunts.
52833
Post by: Alexzandvar
Yes, it's been so harmful for me to grow up on video games.
I currently have straight A's, I play Football and track, and have lettered in both of those sports. I also plan on going to the Naval Academy.
Yep, I sure am fethed up because I play World of Warcraft.
55422
Post by: treadhead1944
Alexzandvar wrote:Yes, it's been so harmful for me to grow up on video games.
I currently have straight A's, I play Football and track, and have lettered in both of those sports. I also plan on going to the Naval Academy.
Yep, I sure am fethed up because I play World of Warcraft.
I would agree you are, because if you weren't you would want to go to West Point
Good for you, I wish you success at the Academy, just if you play football there, try not to run the score up too much against Army.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Oh this form of "research" again. A bunch of old men doing experiments on something they don't understand and calling it unhealthy, ignoring the presence of worse forms of entertainment that are even more mind melting (I'm looking at you, Jersey Shore)
Nothing new, same paranoid crap, different smell.
And can we not fling around accusations of Nazism?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Some people go their whole lives smoking and never get cancer.
I'm not saying video games are as harmful as cigarettes, but anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Automatically Appended Next Post: CthuluIsSpy wrote:Oh this form of "research" again. A bunch of old men doing experiments on something they don't understand and calling it unhealthy, ignoring the presence of worse forms of entertainment that are even more mind melting (I'm looking at you, Jersey Shore)
Nothing new, same paranoid crap, different smell.
This is the kind of thinking I was cautioning about. If a group of careful researchers does careful, honest, and conscientious experiments and finds there is some evidence of harm, or potential for harm, is that the same thing as the stupid moral panics which led to the Comics Code Authority?
Be careful of mistakenly confusing one for the other.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Well, it appears to me that this research follows the same pattern as earlier forms of so called research.
They take one nut-case, find a link to video games, and apply his insanity to every other gamer out there.
And they also use games as a scapegoat for increased aggression, even though sports elicit a similar response (See : Football hooligans)
I'm sorry, it just reeks too much of past "research" for me to take it seriously.
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
Kovnik Obama wrote:[
Oh for crying out loud, how much time did you spend in an experimental psychology lab? How many studies on the speed of processing cognitive cycles of the human brain have you examined before passing this judgement? Did you bother to check up the difference between intentionnality and causality in explanations of psychological phenomenon? Have you taken in account the breakthrough of enactive psychology in the latest years? The multitude of scientific methods of introspection established since Wurzburg? The debate on the irreductability of parrallell systems of explanations? The discovery of structural finalism in biological entities?...
Do I need to go on? That this particular study is to be refuted by childs on a toy soldier forum isn't at all indicative of an entire field of study, and I don't see what authorize you to make broad claims about a field of science, especially if your going to miss over one century (and it's the one that really matters) of advances in psychology.
Its called an opinion, or do you wish to dismiss that as a distemper of the mind as well; perhaps I should load myself up with drugs until I can't feel those pains anymore? I'am not having an academic discussion with you, if you're going to be patronizing then I wonder why you even bother coming here and having this talk? If you must know I think you ignore free will outright among people who don't have mental disorders; which on the latter you psychologists have done pitifully little to alleviate other than offer empty vacilating advice, innane drivel, or simply hold out sedatives. You have done nothing. You have achieved nothing, and I hold you in utter contempt for that fact. So I have no time for you and treat everything that comes out of your mouths as self-serving bull.
Think me rude if you will, I don't particularly care. I'am authorised to damn you becuase I feel psychologists deserve it and because they need a kick up the arse.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Mannahnin wrote:I'm not saying video games are as harmful as cigarettes, but anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
I could provide anecdotal evidence that church-goers are more aggressive than non-church-goers. Or that right-wingers are actually leftists and up is actually down. Also, that Hitler was right (sorry Godwin).
Anecdotal evidence is indeed anecdotal.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Totalwar1402 wrote:
Its called an opinion, or do you wish to dismiss that as a distemper of the mind as well; perhaps I should load myself up with drugs until I can't feel those pains anymore? I'am not having an academic discussion with you, if you're going to be patronizing then I wonder why you even bother coming here and having this talk? If you must know I think you ignore free will outright among people who don't have mental disorders; which on the latter you psychologists have done pitifully little to alleviate other than offer empty vacilating advice, innane drivel, or simply hold out sedatives. You have done nothing. You have achieved nothing, and I hold you in utter contempt for that fact. So I have no time for you and treat everything that comes out of your mouths as self-serving bull.
Think me rude if you will, I don't particularly care. I'am authorised to damn you becuase I feel psychologists deserve it and because they need a kick up the arse.
And somehow, somewhere you assume I was a scientific materialist... Which, again, from the questions I ask in my last post, should have become obvious that I ain't, since not a single scientific materialist would ever dare pronounce the term 'intentionnality' lest they want to attract attention to evident flaws in their theories. But that would only become obvious if you had a modicum of knowledge on the question at hand, which you don't. Psychologist ignore free will? Which psychologists? Not the existential School of Seabrooke, not the last century of phenomenological studies, and not the enactive psychology of Varela. Again, you speak out of ignorance... You wanna give your opinion on the validity of a scientific field of inquiry, or its method? Well, unless you have an intimate knowledge of it, prepare yourself to give a ridiculous opinion...
51639
Post by: CuddlySquig
Didn't they say something like this about Dungeons and Dragons back in the 70s?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
CuddlySquig wrote:Didn't they say something like this about Dungeons and Dragons back in the 70s?
Sort of.
I don't think there were any studies published on the subject, though. The anti-D&D literature is quite full of lulz.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
CuddlySquig wrote:Didn't they say something like this about Dungeons and Dragons back in the 70s?
Well, beside the scaremongering caused by religious figures who thought that it was initiation to sorcery, a lot of it came from parents not understanding that D&d doesn't involve actual sword waving...
46835
Post by: Totalwar1402
Kovnik Obama wrote:[ Psychologist ignore free will?
Well, yeah, thats what this study says, if video games can alter the behavioural patterns of the brain that undermines the concept of free-will because people aren't choosing how they behave in their lives. Thus arguing that an increase of violence is the result of playing video games means people cannot control their own actions because they become more violent. I encountered a similar theory when studying the material culture of the eighteenth century, basically objects actively shape the perceptions and values of those around them; not the other way around where people apply values to the objects around them. I took exception to this theory because it undercuts free will. To my mind it was peoples desire to acquire these modern status symbols and embrace consumer culture which was important. It was also pretty obvious that British appropriation of Eastern goods like Chintzes and China had a European interpretation forced onto them; both in terms of social values (refinement) and distinctly British adaptations of East Asian designs.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Totalwar1402 wrote:Kovnik Obama wrote:[ Psychologist ignore free will?
Well, yeah, thats what this study says, if video games can alter the behavioural patterns of the brain that undermines the concept of free-will because people aren't choosing how they behave in their lives. Thus arguing that an increase of violence is the result of playing video games means people cannot control their own actions because they become more violent. Its a theory which I ran into when studying the material culture of the eighteenth century, basically objects actively shape the perceptions and values of those around them; not the other way around where people apply values to the objects around them. I took exception to this theory because it undercuts free will.
Free-will explanations do not exclude explanations by causal means, see the compatibilists theories of free-will. Essentially, yes, biological causality can make it almost impossible for free-willed events to happen. That's what an addiction is. If you accept radical free-will conception, then you refuse the possibility of any type of expectations toward human behaviour, not just that based on biological causality, but also any type of behaviour prediction like 'being familiar' with a person.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Kovnik Obama wrote:Cool, cite a source and I'll agree with you. I wasn't even disagreeing that there were links between porn and attitudes to violence, I just thought your language was a little absolute. If you'd applied a few caveats along the lines of 'studies have suggested...' or ' there is a strong case for...', we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Imagine how wonderful that would be...
I had the study under my eyes... 9 years ago, during my sex psy course. My teacher was the one doing it. Honestly, I don't think I have to dig this up to prove my point to you, as you say, you don't question the truth of it, but the wording. Which is ridiculous, because you clearly don't have any clue about what scientific objectivity is.
Hmmm, OK. I was just going to leave you on ignore, but I think it's probably just better to address this:
What's your problem, man? Seriously? Why do you go out of your way to cast aspersions upon the intellects of others? I took issue with the way you worded your sentence because you presented your claim as an open-and-shut case, when in fact, it appears that you once saw a study on the subject 9 years ago, a study which you don't want to cite, or can't. That doesn't strike me as conclusive proof that pornography desensitises individuals towards violence, yet you presented it as a fait accompli. The study probably exists, and there are probably others along the same lines, but to use the word 'proven' in this context seems inappropriate. I am sure that the issue is very much 'up-for-grabs', more so than, say, evolution. In fact, I will continue to doubt your claim if you continue to withhold the proof that should so easily be available if the links between pornography and violence have been 'proven'.
''Strongly suggest'' and ''proven'' is exactly the same thing, since science is a field always left open to debate.
No they are not the same thing. Those words are not synonymous, but that's OK; after all, you're not a native English-speaker.
And citing a source is nothing more than a sophism (appeal to authority), since no one here (including myself) is trained enough to understand it completely.
'Sophism' doesn't mean 'an appeal to authority', though such an appeal can be considered sophistic, depending on the circumstances. And people say cultural theory can't teach you anything about facts...
Well I just taught you one, and here's another: You use appeals to authority all the time, champ. In fact, you've done it in this thread several times.
Anyhow, I've made up my mind to be polite. Let's see if you can manage it too. Oh, and I'm not a cultural theorist, incidentally. Not strictly speaking.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
No they are not the same thing. Those words are not synonymous, but that's OK; after all, you're not a native English-speaker.
I'll refer you to http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm for a disambiguation of the term 'proof' when applied to science. ''Proof, as we mean it when we say "prove me wrong", has nothing to do with science. While we might use the word "proof" in science, it is not a scientific idea. Proving is an exercise in logic.''
''Here's a definition of what it means to prove something: "Proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence."
''In science we collect empirical evidence through the process of experimentation. If we collect enough evidence, we will probably notice patterns or regularities in the evidence, and then we will develop generalizations that describe what we have observed. These generalized descriptions of observed events are called scientific laws.''
''we can call scientific observations, "facts". At least we can do this if we define a fact as an observed event. That is pretty much what it means in a court of law. The concept of fact in law and in science are very similar. A fact in law is an observation. The judge doesn't care what your opinion is. The only information most witnesses are allowed to give in court is what they have observed.''
''Of course, our observations are not perfect, as they are limited by experimental errors, both systematic and random. That doesn't mean our observations are bad. It just means that they have limitations, of which we must be aware. These limitations mean that our conclusions are also not perfect. Scientists will hardly ever give you "the right answer".''
and the most important : ''Proof and truth: proving something does not make it true. It just means that you have convinced other people that the evidence supports your conclusion. There are many examples in law of people who have been "proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" who were not guilty at all. And most of us probably suspect that there are guilty people who get off.
Proof does not equal truth.''
Mr. Dice is (was) a anglophone. 'Sophism' doesn't mean 'an appeal to authority', though such an appeal can be considered sophistic, depending on the circumstances
No, I meant that 'appeal to authority' is a sophism, or a form of, like you said. Citing a source that no one can understand is a sophism of appeal to authority That doesn't strike me as conclusive proof that pornography desensitises individuals towards violence, yet you presented it as a fait accompli. The study probably exists, and there are probably others along the same lines, but to use the word 'proven' in this context seems inappropriate. I am sure that the issue is very much 'up-for-grabs', more so than, say, evolution. In fact, I will continue to doubt your claim if you continue to withhold the proof that should so easily be available if the links between pornography and violence have been 'proven'.
And I do not agree that your doubt over the use of my terminology was ever founded. Everything in science is ''up-for-grabs'', it's an essential part of what makes it Science as we know it today. You still see the use of the term 'scientific proof' or 'scientific evidence' all over the literature.
29408
Post by: Melissia
So you use a commercial stock photography provider as evidence? Amusing. But you still have yet to actually provide any sort of scientific evidence.
53059
Post by: dæl
I think the main problem with psychology is its inability to predict behaviour. In any other scientific field, barring quantum mechanics for obvious reasons, you can predict the behaviour of bodies based on previous evidence. But psychology, because of the complexity and the massive amount of variables, is unable to predict behaviour with a true measure of accuracy. Even a field such as meteorology or astrophysics which deal with incredibly complex systems can accurately predict what will happen. I don't doubt that a century from now we will know far more, but at the moment we don't.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
But you still have yet to actually provide any sort of scientific evidence.
I did state that I wouldn't be able to. If this means you want to discount my post, by all means, go ahead, It'll avoid me having to keep up a conversation with such an unpleasant person. And Mr. Dice is a Chemistry Teacher, this is referenced from exam notes on the subject of 'what is the difference between Law and Science'. I get flamed for days over the fact that I use high brow vocabulary 'to obfuscate the issue', and then when I reference material aimed at high schooler people mock my sources? I don't even...
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
In the end its really just a matter of everything in moderation. If you let video games take over your life, then its a problem. If you let pornography take over your life, then its a problem. But likewise anything done in extremes usually are bad for you. Religions, nationalism, gambling, anything really. anything can become addicting so if someone tells you, you have a problem, you should probably just accept it and get help.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
I would argue that boozing it up like a champ, in defiance of moderation, has made me if not better than definitely a more awesome person.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Do I need to go on? That this particular study is to be refuted by childs on a toy soldier forum isn't at all indicative of an entire field of study, and I don't see what authorize you to make broad claims about an entire science, especially if your going to miss over one century (and it's the one that really matters) of advances in psychology.
Thank you for the insult. I apologize that we children have such different views than you do that it would insult you to the point of insulting children on a toy soldier forum. Again, I apologize for our actions. We did not mean to question your views based on evidence you cannot/refuse to provide. We will attempt to keep our free willed opinions to ourselves from now on.
Right boys? Now back to the clubhouse!
*hangs up "No Girls Allowed" sign*
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
All that was meant by that was that children on a toy soldier forum could refute that study. And what evidence am I supposed to bring here? I'm not defending this study.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Video game and porn addictions are different. They are "arousal addictions," where the attraction is in the novelty, the variety or the surprise factor of the content. Sameness is soon habituated; newness heightens excitement. In traditional drug arousal, conversely, addicts want more of the same cocaine or heroin or favorite food.
And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Kovnik Obama wrote:No they are not the same thing. Those words are not synonymous, but that's OK; after all, you're not a native English-speaker.
I'll refer you to http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm for a disambiguation of the term 'proof' when applied to science.
Yes, that children's science website appears to agree with me:
...it is wise to avoid the word "proof" when discussing ideas in science.
Which is basically what I was saying. You really are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid admitting that I was right to flag up the the word 'proven' as problematic. I wonder what a psychologist would make of that...
5470
Post by: sebster
There's always something wrong with the current generation of boys, because hating young men is fun and easy to do. They don't treat women well, they fight, they're lazy, they just want to spend their time drinking/playing video games/watching porn. There's always a new reason this is just now happening for the first time in human history, and that reason just happens to be whatever the author of the article doesn't like. It never seems to occur to anyone that men between 15 and 25 have pretty much always been like, and likely always will, and we should all just be grateful that sooner or later most of them grow up.
I also think it's really weird that the article describes boys as becoming risk averse. I mean, we've all seen the youtube videos of people getting really badly hurt doing some really reckless, stupid things, and it isn't hard to notice they're almost all young men. It seems to me that's pretty much the prime age for really disfunctional levels of risk adversity, and I would think a little more concern for risk among young men might be a good thing, even if it produced less comical youtube videos.
|
|
