Texas A&M Researcher Disputes New Game Violence Study

November 3, 2008 -

Earlier today GamePolitics reported on a study published in the journal Pediatrics which details U.S. and Japanese longitudinal studies suggesting that violent video game play leads to increased aggression in children.

Of the research, Iowa State professor Craig Anderson, whose work constitutes the American segment of the report, said:

We now have conclusive evidence that playing violent video games has harmful effects on children and adolescents.

But, in a letter to Pediatrics, Christopher Ferguson, a researcher at Texas A&M International University, has called the Anderson study into question. Ferguson claims that the research contains "numerous flaws" and disputes its meaningfulness. Ferguson writes:

In the literature review the authors suggest that research on video game violence is consistent when this is hardly the case. The authors here simply ignore a wide body of research which conflicts with their views...

The authors fail to control for relevant "third" variables that could easily explain the weak correlations that they find. Family violence exposure for instance, peer group influences, certainly genetic influences on aggressive behavior are just a few relevant variables that ought either be controlled or at minimum acknowledged as alternate causal agents for (very small) link between video games and aggression...

Lastly the authors link their results to youth violence in ways that are misleading and irresponsible. The authors do not measure youth violence in their study. The [research tool used] is not a violence measure, nor does it even measure pathological aggression. Rather this measure asks for hypothetical responses to potential aggressive situations, not actual aggressive behaviors.



Comments

Re: Texas A&M Researcher Disputes New Game Violence Study

Yay bible fight.

The fact is, translation allows flaws to be introduced (even if you believe the bible to be perfect). To minimize the impact you should be reading a study bible with three or four different translations, and when something doesn't make sense get a rough translation of the chapter.

To the other commentors:

Quite frankly, there are a NUMBER of groups claiming to be christian and claiming to act from the bible that aren't. They're making stuff up. Jack Thompson, for instance, flat out insults people that disagree with him. That isn't very Christ like, he isn't following Christ's example, he isn't acting as a Christian (Literally:"Follower of Christ").

One of the HUGE problems with abortion is that it is almost always used after adultery. The absolute minority of cases in 1/100th a percent occur after rape. The other excuses such as "it would hurt the mother" are bullcrap, at least in america. Our medical system is equipped and REQUIRED EVEN IF YOU CAN'T PAY to provide life saving care.

"It would damage the mother's health!" Then why is she having sex and taking that risk? "But it was rape!" Falls into a tiny tiny tiny minority.

"The baby's disabled anyway." You really want to get into eugenics? Last time that happened we had some dumbass raise enough of a force to nearly conquer all of europe.

Regardless, it's a silly argument as long as men aren't held accountable for impregnating a woman-unless they're married then divorce. They should have to pay, right off the top of their paycheck, child support that went into the form of foodstamps, medical credits, etc so that the mother couldn't abuse it. And once the mother remarried or no longer needed it, then the man could possibly be off the hook.

Watch, if you introduce that into a male dominated government, it'll be rejected entirely.

Re: Texas A&M Researcher Disputes New Game Violence Study

Quick question: You got research to back up those numbers?

Re: Texas A&M Researcher Disputes New Game Violence Study

I don't question that translation allows for errors to slip through. The error he mentioned, however, isn't something that could slip through without purpose or a serious blunder.

Re: Texas A&M Researcher Disputes New Game Violence Study

Nevermind this comment :p

Re: Texas A&M Researcher Disputes New Game Violence Study

No, there isn't any wiggle room. The exact point at which a sperm and egg cell merges is irrelevant to knowing that the resulting zygote is alive, or to know that both the egg and sperm were alive. Life comes from life. Even accepting that this wiggle room exists, it wouldn't be more than a couple of weeks before you could officially say that you were killing a zygote. So your  premise is bunk.

You've asserted that the beliefs of one billion people are completely invalid. I don't need to explain myself. You do. The original language (Aramaic, I belive) is far simpler than any language today. The assertion that any translation other than King James is invalid is laughable too. Old English can be translated to modern English fairly easily, and complete misunderstandings would have to be purposeful.

Just for giggles, here is the pertinent section, Leviticus, chapter 18: Unlawful Sexual Relations:

Leviticus 18

Unlawful Sexual Relations

 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.

 6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

 7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

 8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

 9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

 10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

 11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

 12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

 13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

 14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

 15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

 16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

 17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

 18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

 19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

 20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

 21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. 

 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

 23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

 24 " 'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

 29 " 'Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.' "

This is from NIV, btw. Notice 22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Provide proof that this was supposed to be a condemnation of prostitution. Then explain why those who slept with prostitutes in the Old Testatment were not considered wicked men for doing so.

Re: Texas A&M Researcher Disputes New Game Violence Study

Argumentum ad populum. Invalid. Just because a belief is held by many doesn't mean it's either right or worth respect.

IIRC, Jesus also tossed out the old restrictions, so please quote something other than Leviticus. Have you been shaving?

 

 

 

Re: Texas A&M Researcher Disputes New Game Violence Study

1) No, it was not argumentum ad populum. I did not make the case that the sample size made my stance right. I DID make the case that saying that such an extensive belief system is completely invalid places the burden of proof more on him than me.

2) Whether or not Jesus tossed out the old restrictions (for the most part, he didn't, but that's a different conversation) is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Notice my last paragraph. I was argueing against the notion that the whole thing is bunk based on translation errors, and was deconstructing the error he attempted to defend his position with.

In short, you've missed the forest for the tree.

Re: Texas A&M Researcher Disputes New Game Violence Study

1) Again, Billions != right.  The burden of proof is on those that wish something other than the Null Hypothesis. Which means the burden lies on you, not him.

2) If you argue for laws based on Leviticus, be even handed, no preference. No cherry picking.

 

Re: Texas A&M Researcher Disputes New Game Violence Study

Firstly many say that it is a question of when life begins and that is wrong, anything that can still grow is still alive in some respect.  The question is when HUMAN life begins.  That is much harder to determine.  To say that abortion is wrong from the start though is to say that condems are wrong and for that matter not having sex is wrong because it prevents sperm from entering the egg and developing.  Honestly that is ridiculous.  Honestly I do not think abortion is wrong if it is done early, it could have been an accident, or caused by one of manyrape cases that go unreported due to fear.  I do not define human life as something with human genes, I define human life as consciousness, and an egg and sperm are not conscious the moment they meet.  I also feel that when a body becomes conscious that is when a soul is present.

Second, you are being a bible literalist.  I cannot present proof against what they meant any more than you can present proof for it.  This section of the bible was talking about populating their new promised land, of course have sex with a guy would seem a waste in that respect, because 2 guys cannot have a baby.  They had a story about how sinful a guy was for pulling out during sex so not to have a baby.  We are far beyond the need to populate the planet, we need population control now.  Why do people have problems with gay people anyway?  They aren't trying to make you gay why try to make them straight?  If it is a choice to be gay why would you be gay and lose the chance at having kids of your own?  Why do so many teenagers kill themselves for being gay if it is just a choice?  Did you make a conscious decision to like girls, or have the ability to be atracted to anyone if you will it enough?  Of course you can't.  If you could there would be no such thing as ugly.

 

 


Re: Texas A&M Researcher Disputes New Game Violence Study

Read his argument, then read mine. He said that 1) Abortion was a discussion over whether or not a fetus is alive and 2) that english-speaking Christians have based their beliefs on lies because they did not speak the ancient language that the books of the Bible were written in, and he cited the example of Leviticus 18:22 in his argument.

The discussion over abortion has nothing to do with the status of the fetus as alive, nor whether or not the fetus is human. The fetus is growing under its own power, thus it is alive. The fetus's DNA reveals that the fetus is human, thus the life is human. Whether or not it is a person, whether or not it has the right to live, and whether or not the government has the right to restrict abortion is what the discussion is over. The facts that the fetus is alive and that the fetus is human are not disputable.

His second point was that english-speaking and reading Christians have based their belief on an invalid Bible, and therefore, their beliefs are based on a lie, is where the discussion of Leviticus came up. He said, in effect, that the only way a person could truly know what Christian beliefs are is to base their beliefs on the original text of the Bible.

Whether or not homosexuality is wrong is irrelevant to the conversation. Secondly, the book of Leviticus was given to the Levites as a group of rules for them to follow. Whether or not these rules are practical is of no concern to whether or not rule-abiding Levites followed them.

Re: Texas A&M Researcher Disputes New Game Violence Study

A sperm is alive. An egg is alive. Therefore the embryo is alive. There's an unending chain of life back until the first organism.

The problem isn't that it's alive, the problem is determining when it's a person.

 

 

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

How do you usually divide up your Humble Bundle payments?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelantehttp://i5.minus.com/iN5o9iu1ON2NG.jpg "It cursed my gear? WHY WOULD IT DO THAT?! THIS GAME IS BUGGED!"04/24/2014 - 9:51pm
Matthew Wilsonthe lose of nn would not be good for us, but it will not be good for verizion/comcast/att in the long run ether.04/24/2014 - 2:16pm
Matthew Wilsonsadly yes. it would take another sopa day to achieve it.04/24/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoI am also confused. Are you saying NN would only become law if Google/Netflix pushed the issue (against their own interests)?04/24/2014 - 2:10pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, you are saying a lot of things but I am still unclear on your point. Are you saying that the loss of Net Neutrality will be good in the long run?04/24/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew WilsonOfcourse it does I never said it did not.though over time the death of NN will make backbone providers like Google, level3 and others stronger becouse most isps including the big ones can not provid internet without them. they can peer with smaller isps04/24/2014 - 1:54pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, and that still plays in Google's favor over their smaller rivals who don't have the muscle to stand up to ISPs.04/24/2014 - 1:45pm
Matthew Wilsongoogle wont pay becouse they control a large part of the backbone that all isps depend on. if verizon blocks their data, google does the same. the effect is Verizon loses access to 40% of the internet, and can not serve some areas at all.04/24/2014 - 1:14pm
Neenekolack of NN is in google and netflix interest. It is another tool for squeezing out smaller companies since they can afford to 'play'04/24/2014 - 12:57pm
Matthew WilsonI have said it before net nutrality will not be made in to law until Google or Netflix is blocked, or they do what they did for sopa and pull their sites down in protest.04/23/2014 - 8:02pm
Andrew EisenGee, I guess putting a former cable industry lobbyist as the Chairman of the FCC wasn't that great of an idea. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=204/23/2014 - 7:26pm
Andrew EisenIanC - I assume what he's getting at is the fact that once PS3/360 development ceases, there will be no more "For Everything But Wii U" games.04/23/2014 - 5:49pm
Andrew EisenMatthew - Yes, obviously developers will eventually move on from the PS3 and 360 but the phrase will continue to mean exactly what it means.04/23/2014 - 5:45pm
IanCAnd how does that equal his annoying phrase being meaningless?04/23/2014 - 5:09pm
Matthew Wilson@Andrew Eisen the phrase everything but wiiu will be meaningless afer this year becouse devs will drop 360/ps3 support.04/23/2014 - 4:43pm
Andrew EisenFor Everything But... 360? Huh, not many games can claim that title. Only three others that I know of.04/23/2014 - 3:45pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/04/23/another-world-rated-for-current-consoles-handhelds-in-germany/ Another World fulfills legal obligations of being on every gaming system under the sun.04/23/2014 - 12:34pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/steam-gauge-do-strong-reviews-lead-to-stronger-sales-on-steam/?comments=1 Here is another data driven article using sales data from steam to figure out if reviews effect sales. It is stats heavy like the last one.04/23/2014 - 11:33am
Andrew EisenI love RPGs but I didn't much care for Tales of Symphonia. I didn't bother with its sequel.04/23/2014 - 11:21am
InfophileIt had great RPGs because MS wanted to use them to break into Japan. (Which had the side-effect of screwing NA PS3 owners out of Tales of Vesperia. No, I'm not bitter, why do you ask?)04/23/2014 - 10:52am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician