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

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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Craig R.Ok, my internal debate was short-lived. If Win10 is still a year out, I'm not waiting that long for an SSD, so on Win7 I will remain.09/30/2014 - 7:52pm
Matthew Wilsonits called windows 10, and I am happy to get the start menu back.09/30/2014 - 7:18pm
Jessy HartIs this stuff about Windows 10 legit? Is it actually called Windows 10 or is it just some stupid joke?09/30/2014 - 6:57pm
ZippyDSMleeSo I been trying to play Bioshock Infinite I got all the DLC,ect but do not want the extras to make your charatcer over powered from the start.....they force you to take them which is quite annoying......09/30/2014 - 6:45pm
Craig R.I need to upgrade to an SSD, still seriously debating moving to Win8.1 from 7 at the same time09/30/2014 - 6:07pm
Craig R.Win10 is probably Win8.1 with more cleanup and the Start button back.09/30/2014 - 6:06pm
Sora-ChanAhh, it's just weird seeing someone's post all of a sudden have replies from days prior before it was posted due to that.09/30/2014 - 5:49pm
MechaTama31sora: I broke the ordering intentionally, as AE's and my conversation had squeezed the text boxes down to be quite slim. I replied to an earlier post of his instead of the one I was actually replying to.09/30/2014 - 5:46pm
MechaTama31So, 9 would have been the good one, but they are skipping it to do two crap ones in a row?09/30/2014 - 5:41pm
Sora-ChanSo, judging from the poll post for #gamergate, it looks like too many thread replies breaks the ordering of posts, as seen with the recent post from Infophile.09/30/2014 - 5:31pm
Andrew EisenOr no! It wasn't Y3K compliant. Microsoft thought it best to super future proof its OS and skipped straight to 10 which is Y3K compliant!09/30/2014 - 5:01pm
Andrew EisenJust tell them it wasn't Y2K compliant.09/30/2014 - 5:00pm
Craig R.Looking forward to having to explain to coworkers down the road what ever happened to 9 *sigh*09/30/2014 - 4:57pm
Craig R.2k was crap. XP was solid, 7 is good, 8.1 is actually really good once you make it look like 7 :)09/30/2014 - 4:52pm
Sora-Chan@MP As someone who has used each version of windows since 3.1... I prefer Vista over 7 for various reasons. The only thing I give 7 over Vista is preformance. They really screwed up a bunch of things when making 7. Also, XP was a pain. 2k was better.09/30/2014 - 4:13pm
Jessy Hart@E. Zachary Knight Is that show called Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures?09/30/2014 - 3:34pm
IanCWin 8 isn't bad, it just can't decide whether to be a desktop OS or a tablet OS.09/30/2014 - 2:40pm
IanCI think its a way of getting round giving it free to Win 8 users...09/30/2014 - 2:39pm
MaskedPixelanteWindows alternates between bad and good versions. XP was good, Vista sucked, 7 was good, 8 sucked, therefore 10 will suck, QED.09/30/2014 - 2:18pm
E. Zachary KnightPerhaps they are calling it "10" because on a scale of 1-10 of how awesome it is, it is a clear 10.09/30/2014 - 2:06pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician