Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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).

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.

rockerbikie wrote:It's not porn or video games which is doing the damage, we do not discipline kids properly.

Says the nazi...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Didn't they say something like this about Dungeons and Dragons back in the 70s?

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.

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...

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.

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.

The Brothers gonna sort you out.

http://www.derekyu.com/avgpa/gallery.html

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.

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.

Kovnik Obama wrote:I'll refer you to http://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm for a disambiguation of the term 'proof' when applied to science.

So you use a commercial stock photography provider as evidence?

Amusing.

But you still have yet to actually provide any sort of scientific evidence.

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.