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.

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...

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.

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.

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*

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.

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.

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...

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.