Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

It is funny you should say that, because you basically said “If you manage to give every North Korean access to the international media, the North Korean society would change”, which seems not that far away from “If you manage to make mainstream video games break all the sexist tropes, you will get video games players to change”. If I understand what you said well, you are saying the media are just giving people the will to change, but then they force the change themselves. I am okay with that. If video games breaking the sexist tropes just give people the will to be less sexist, and they do the change themselves, the starting point is still getting video games to break the sexist tropes, the end result is still people being less sexist, it is all the same to me.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where does this "media" come from?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
It isn't just that, in entertainment especially a lot of products have specific targeted demographics ahead of time and the choices made about the product are done to cater to what the stereotypical person in that demographic wants.

Yeah, I know. It is just both funny and sad when they do this on stuff that was previously completely gender-neutral because there is no damn reason for it to be gendered.

And I would like to provide a quite funny unexpected counter-example with My Little Pony : Friendship is Magic, which was targeted both at young girls and adults, mostly neckbeards .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:


And I would like to provide a quite funny unexpected counter-example with My Little Pony : Friendship is Magic, which was targeted both at young girls and adults, mostly neckbeards .

 Sigvatr wrote:
MLP wasn't targeted at adults, it was explicitely targeted at young girls, even surprising the authors to a large extent.

I am consistently bothered by this throw-away phrase "media affects people" as if its some kind of argument winner, an inarguable statement of fact. In reality it's lazy, it's too vague, it's pseudo-intellectual at its worst. It makes a gigantic broadstroke which is so heinous in its inaccuracy as to render it an utterly meaningless buzz-phrase. Media affects people. Yes but what kind of people, what kind of media and in what kind of ways? We know of course that news media can affect peoples political views or the amount of fear they have in their day to day lives of the possibility of say a terrorist attack. This in turn has knock-on effects. News media can incite panic buying, protests, you name it. But news media is (supposedly) a completely factual representation of what is actually going on in the real world. There's a reason why a video of a real death has more impact than a death in a movie, a videogame, a book or a television series.

So I ask you this. In what way, specifically, do videogames affect people? What kind of people do they affect? Is it universal or are some people more susceptible than others? To what degree does it affect people? What attitudes can it inspire? We already know, based on uncountable studies that videogames do not cause violent behavior, so that indeed is one way in which videogames DO NOT affect people. What about the current hot-topic, sexism? We know for instance that gender portrayal in advertising can influence buying behaviors and even the perception of gender roles, but can videogames do the same thing or more to the point, do they have to TRY to do that? Advertising is the finely honed apex of the manipulation of consumer thought. It's sole goal is to change your mind, make you want to buy something, or act a certain way. It's entire purpose is laser-focused on just that. But again, advertising at least to some degree is factual, it's based in the real world on real products. Can you really apply the same standard to videogames and if so, where is your proof?

See I've been asking for proof for a while (Funny, so have I... -HB). Does a game like Dead or Alive foster sexist attitudes within its players? Where is the proof of that and more to the point why are we listening to people that say that it does who don't have a hint of a background that would make us believe them? Where are the scientists? Where are the psychologists who can tell us "yes, X media can cause Y behavior". We've heard this argument before, it came from Jack Thompson. Jack didn't have any evidence either and study after study has rebuked his assertion that videogames cause violence. As a result I remain skeptical, as is healthy, about games causing anything else and continue to believe in the consumers ability to separate fantasy from reality.

"Media affects people". 3 little words with no meaning. Ask for the rest of the sentence, then the rest of the paragraph and then the list of studios pertaining to videogames.

I'll continue to push for more diverse characters in videogames because I think that makes videogames more interesting and has the potential to make them appeal to a wider demographic. These are all good reasons to do it. I'd rather we reach a goal where videogame writing is better and we have better characters because we used positive reasoning to get there, rather than scaremongering tactics and pseudoscience.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Meanwhile, from the wizened words of TotalBiscuit:

I am consistently bothered by this throw-away phrase "media affects people" as if its some kind of argument winner, an inarguable statement of fact. In reality it's lazy, it's too vague, it's pseudo-intellectual at its worst. It makes a gigantic broadstroke which is so heinous in its inaccuracy as to render it an utterly meaningless buzz-phrase. Media affects people. Yes but what kind of people, what kind of media and in what kind of ways? We know of course that news media can affect peoples political views or the amount of fear they have in their day to day lives of the possibility of say a terrorist attack. This in turn has knock-on effects. News media can incite panic buying, protests, you name it. But news media is (supposedly) a completely factual representation of what is actually going on in the real world. There's a reason why a video of a real death has more impact than a death in a movie, a videogame, a book or a television series.

So I ask you this. In what way, specifically, do videogames affect people? What kind of people do they affect? Is it universal or are some people more susceptible than others? To what degree does it affect people? What attitudes can it inspire? We already know, based on uncountable studies that videogames do not cause violent behavior, so that indeed is one way in which videogames DO NOT affect people. What about the current hot-topic, sexism? We know for instance that gender portrayal in advertising can influence buying behaviors and even the perception of gender roles, but can videogames do the same thing or more to the point, do they have to TRY to do that? Advertising is the finely honed apex of the manipulation of consumer thought. It's sole goal is to change your mind, make you want to buy something, or act a certain way. It's entire purpose is laser-focused on just that. But again, advertising at least to some degree is factual, it's based in the real world on real products. Can you really apply the same standard to videogames and if so, where is your proof?

See I've been asking for proof for a while (Funny, so have I... -HB). Does a game like Dead or Alive foster sexist attitudes within its players? Where is the proof of that and more to the point why are we listening to people that say that it does who don't have a hint of a background that would make us believe them? Where are the scientists? Where are the psychologists who can tell us "yes, X media can cause Y behavior". We've heard this argument before, it came from Jack Thompson. Jack didn't have any evidence either and study after study has rebuked his assertion that videogames cause violence. As a result I remain skeptical, as is healthy, about games causing anything else and continue to believe in the consumers ability to separate fantasy from reality.

"Media affects people". 3 little words with no meaning. Ask for the rest of the sentence, then the rest of the paragraph and then the list of studios pertaining to videogames.

I'll continue to push for more diverse characters in videogames because I think that makes videogames more interesting and has the potential to make them appeal to a wider demographic. These are all good reasons to do it. I'd rather we reach a goal where videogame writing is better and we have better characters because we used positive reasoning to get there, rather than scaremongering tactics and pseudoscience.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Meanwhile, from the wizened words of TotalBiscuit:

Spoiler:

I am consistently bothered by this throw-away phrase "media affects people" as if its some kind of argument winner, an inarguable statement of fact. In reality it's lazy, it's too vague, it's pseudo-intellectual at its worst. It makes a gigantic broadstroke which is so heinous in its inaccuracy as to render it an utterly meaningless buzz-phrase. Media affects people. Yes but what kind of people, what kind of media and in what kind of ways? We know of course that news media can affect peoples political views or the amount of fear they have in their day to day lives of the possibility of say a terrorist attack. This in turn has knock-on effects. News media can incite panic buying, protests, you name it. But news media is (supposedly) a completely factual representation of what is actually going on in the real world. There's a reason why a video of a real death has more impact than a death in a movie, a videogame, a book or a television series.

So I ask you this. In what way, specifically, do videogames affect people? What kind of people do they affect? Is it universal or are some people more susceptible than others? To what degree does it affect people? What attitudes can it inspire? We already know, based on uncountable studies that videogames do not cause violent behavior, so that indeed is one way in which videogames DO NOT affect people. What about the current hot-topic, sexism? We know for instance that gender portrayal in advertising can influence buying behaviors and even the perception of gender roles, but can videogames do the same thing or more to the point, do they have to TRY to do that? Advertising is the finely honed apex of the manipulation of consumer thought. It's sole goal is to change your mind, make you want to buy something, or act a certain way. It's entire purpose is laser-focused on just that. But again, advertising at least to some degree is factual, it's based in the real world on real products. Can you really apply the same standard to videogames and if so, where is your proof?

See I've been asking for proof for a while (Funny, so have I... -HB). Does a game like Dead or Alive foster sexist attitudes within its players? Where is the proof of that and more to the point why are we listening to people that say that it does who don't have a hint of a background that would make us believe them? Where are the scientists? Where are the psychologists who can tell us "yes, X media can cause Y behavior". We've heard this argument before, it came from Jack Thompson. Jack didn't have any evidence either and study after study has rebuked his assertion that videogames cause violence. As a result I remain skeptical, as is healthy, about games causing anything else and continue to believe in the consumers ability to separate fantasy from reality.

"Media affects people". 3 little words with no meaning. Ask for the rest of the sentence, then the rest of the paragraph and then the list of studios pertaining to videogames.

I'll continue to push for more diverse characters in videogames because I think that makes videogames more interesting and has the potential to make them appeal to a wider demographic. These are all good reasons to do it. I'd rather we reach a goal where videogame writing is better and we have better characters because we used positive reasoning to get there, rather than scaremongering tactics and pseudoscience.

Yeah, here is the answer from AnonySocialScientist :

Spoiler:

Hi, I am a real social scientist who studies video games and their impact. I would have happily used my real name a year ago, but GG has made me very reluctant to do so, since I have neither the time or energy to be harassed. I have written some popular stuff on games, and have published peer-reviewed research. I have also been involved in educational game design and worked with a lot of well-known game companies. My background is in sociology and economics, but I work psychologists as well. I am not a member of DiGRA, and my work is quantitative (experimental and economentric) not qualitative. This is the answer to TB's recent question ("Where are the scientists? Where are the psychologists who can tell us 'yes, X media can cause Y behavior'"), sticking to peer-reviewed research.

First, the good stuff. Video games can make you a better surgeon, people who are good at video games make 1/3 to 1/2 the errors of those who are not [1]. Video games can also teach you how to lead [2], can increase satisfaction and happiness [3], and do a whole bunch of other amazing stuff: see von Ahn's work on games and computing, for example. So there are certainly positive real-world effects. That is, after all, why I study games, to see if I can put these positive effects to good use.

Prior to GG, I may have focused more on the good than the bad, but TB and GG in general has made it important to examine the negative effects as well. I think everyone here knows that video games are not linked to violence, even among vulnerable populations [4]. However, that doesn't mean that video games can't have negative real-world consequences, as there is a difference between linkages to violence and links to aggression and other negative effects. This has long been controversial, one early meta-study of 54 other studies [5], found strong links between video games and aggression, though these early studies were subject to considerable criticism[6].

As bad news for fellow lovers of games: in the past couple of years, there has been much better evidence of the link between violent video games and aggressive behavior. A quite impressive recent long-term longitudinal study in JAMA pediatrics concluded "This study found that habitual violent VGP [video game play] increases long- term AB [Aggressive Behavior] by producing general changes in AC [Aggressive Cognition],and this occurs regardless of sex, age, initial aggressiveness, and parental involvement." [7] Further, some populations seem particularly vulnerable, especially those with three Big Five traits: "high neuroticism (prone to anger and depression, highly emotional, and easily upset), disagreeableness (cold, indifferent to other people), and low levels of conscientiousness (prone to acting without thinking, failing to deliver on promises, breaking rules)." [8]

On the gender and video games side, there is less good empirical quantitative work, but what is there goes against the arguments of TB. One study exposed individuals to either sexist video game depictions of women or else control images of women, and then asked them to judge a real-life sexual harassment case. Men exposed to the video game depictions were more likely to tolerate harassment than those not exposed, and higher levels of exposure to video game violence had similar effects. [9] A second study found "that playing a video game with the theme of female “objectification” may prime thoughts related to sex, encourage men to view women as sex objects, and lead to self-reported tendencies to behave inappropriately towards women in social situations." [10] There is still more work to be done, but the early evidence strongly suggests that games matter on views of gender.

So, what does it all mean? I am strongly inclined to believe games are a force for good, but that they also have potential negative consequences, as can all media. We have evidence that what happens in games matter, and I worry that, by ignoring science, that groups like GG will only cause the focus to be on the negative, not the positive. I'll answer questions in the comments if you have any...

[added on reflection] Let me also say on other thing. There are a number of us in academia who love games, care about games, and believe games are important. We have been working for years to make games a legitimate tool for education and for study, and we were making progress. People were starting to take games seriously. And then came GamerGate. I have seen the careful progress of a decade come crashing down, and now, when I go to talk about games to industry groups or fellow academics, GamerGate always comes up as an example of how terrible and immature people who play games are. It will take years and years to repair the damage, and it is absolutely devastating to the serious study and application of the power of games to real problems. We are going to have trouble getting grants, getting foundations to fund games, and getting people to take us seriously. It is devastating and makes me very sad.

[1] Rosser, J. C., Lynch, P. J., Cuddihy, L., Gentile, D. A., Klonsky, J., & Merrell, R. (2007). The impact of video games on training surgeons in the 21st century. Archives of surgery, 142(2), 181-186.

[2] Reeves, B., Malone, T. W., & O’Driscoll, T. (2008, May). Leadership’s online labs. Harvard Business Review.

[3] Przybylski, A., N. Weinstein, K. Murayama, M. F. Lynch, and R. Ryan, 2012 “The ideal self at play: the appeal of video games that let you be all you can be.” Psychological science, 23: 69–76. SAGE Publications.

[4] Ferguson, C.J., Olson, C.K. Video game use among “vulnerable” populations: The impact of violent games on delinquency and bullying among children with clinically elevated depression or attention deficit symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2014

[5] The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance DA Gentile, PJ Lynch, JR Linder, DA Walsh - Journal of adolescence, 2004

[6] Ferguson, C. J. (2010). Blazing angels or resident evil? Can violent video games be a force for good?. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 68.

[7] Gentile, D. A., Li, D., Khoo, A., Prot, S., & Anderson, C. A. (2014). Mediators and moderators of long-term effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: practice, thinking, and action. JAMA pediatrics, 168(5), 450-457.

[8] Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2010). Vulnerability to violent video games: a review and integration of personality research. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 82.

[9] Dill, K. E., Brown, B. P., & Collins, M. A. (2008). Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1402-1408.

[10] Yao, M. Z., Mahood, C., & Linz, D. (2010). Sexual priming, gender stereotyping, and likelihood to sexually harass: Examining the cognitive effects of playing a sexually-explicit video game. Sex roles, 62(1-2), 77-88.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
... uses a lot of loaded language...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
... uses a lot of loaded language...

And speaking of loaded language, let's see what the ADL's been up to lately:

Spoiler:

Thanks for the links Hybrid. Have only had a quick look, but the first study (Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment) uses a lot of loaded language, which makes me question their bias. They even use the phrase social justice at one point

For the second study (Sexual Priming, Gender Stereotyping, and Likelihood to Sexually Harass) the language is a lot more neutral, although it should be noted that it is not without its limitations. First, the study focused primarily on immediate cognitive effects of playing sexually-oriented games, not long-term effects. In addition, a typical video game may take hundreds of hours of playing time to complete. The effects of repeated experience on players’ cognition, emotion, attitude, and behavior should also be addressed.

Although the sexually-oriented video game chosen in the research was a popular game title, the use of a single game as treatment may have limited the generalizability of the findings. We cannot be sure if the findings can be extended to all sexually oriented video games.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
... uses a lot of loaded language...

And speaking of loaded language, let's see what the ADL's been up to lately:

Spoiler:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can't watch a 6 minute video?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

for the "tl;dr" crowd (I made it about 2 minutes in) what was the general idea?? For the record, that lady was boring as feth to listen to, and very "mom-preachy" so it was off-putting to me

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I just wish video games had progressed as an art to the point where we could start applying new criticism, new historicism, deconstructionism, or formalist analysis to them a bit more frequently without coming off as fanboys as opposed to facile feminism analysis nearly exclusively.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
[
Can you read the Partial transcript?


To sum it up the ADL made a very biased one sided lesson plan for teachers that basically reads like it was written by Anita Sarkeesian. Most of the sources are either Sarkessian's work, news articles about her work or the threats she received or one study that breaks up types of online harassment on gender and type.

nomotog wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I just wish video games had progressed as an art to the point where we could start applying new criticism, new historicism, deconstructionism, or formalist analysis to them a bit more frequently without coming off as fanboys as opposed to facile feminism analysis nearly exclusively.

Well everyone is a fan, so don't worry about that. I mean the only people who care enough to critically look at anything are fans. If you want, try out your criticisms. I might be fun seeing what your talking about.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And speaking of loaded language, let's see what the ADL's been up to lately:

 Polonius wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
Is "gaming culture" even a thing anymore? I kind of thought it has gotten to the point that so many people play video games that "playing video games" isn't really enough of a niche to hang a cultural identity on.

Despairing the end of gamer culture is a pretty big factor in gamer culture, actually.

Rant time:

Here's the problem. For about 20 years, from the first Video game crash of 1983 through the mid 2000s, video gamers were mostly kids and what we'll charitably call individuals in the social hinterlands. In other words, losers.

As gaming gains more and more mainstream acceptance, a lot of gamer types are realizing a horrible truth: they're not losers because they play games. They're just losers, and they happen to play games. Now, just because their losers doesn't mean they want to accept that. They've blamed external forces for so long, that they cannot accept that the problem is them.

That's why hard core, fedora and trench coat wearing Gamer Culture is so toxic. These are people that lived under the delusion that their alienation and marginalization was due to their hobby. That gak simply ain't true, not when you've got frat boys playing Xbox and Homecoming queens that play WOW. But they can't handle it. They want gaming (and nerd culture in general) to go back to being niche, so at least they can pretend to be normal sized fish in a small pond.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And speaking of loaded language, let's see what the ADL's been up to lately:

Thanks to the Glossary pop-up, I can't help but think it's the Aegis Defence Line making these claims

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I just wish video games had progressed as an art to the point where we could start applying new criticism, new historicism, deconstructionism, or formalist analysis to them a bit more frequently without coming off as fanboys as opposed to facile feminism analysis nearly exclusively.

Well everyone is a fan, so don't worry about that. I mean the only people who care enough to critically look at anything are fans. If you want, try out your criticisms. I might be fun seeing what your talking about.

It's more the tone and background research I was referring to. I am starting to see a bit more in the academic journals (I am a teacher) but the debate in popular culture seems almost exclusively gender driven. Certainly some game designers are making some interesting narrative choices (swery, Kojima, maybe Levine) but the debates seem obsessed with easy targets with little depth. Really, all of the discussions currently going on about video games were had with literature and film from the 1940s-1960s but with much less academic rigor than then. I mean just look at a comparison between a "credible" gaming blog (take your pick) vs a credible film blog (davidbordwell.net or movie mezzanine.com for example) and you will see pretty quickly that the tone and maturity level is markedly different. The question begins to arise--is it the art or the consumers of the art that account for this disparity?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And speaking of loaded language, let's see what the ADL's been up to lately:

Thanks to the Glossary pop-up, I can't help but think it's the Aegis Defence Line making these claims