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 :

Poll

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
PHX Corp@Adam802 We'll break out the popcorn in June12/19/2014 - 9:23pm
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante: I'm itching to start it too but I will wait till the patch goes live. >>12/19/2014 - 7:52pm
Adam802Leland Yee and Jackson get trial date: http://sfbay.ca/2014/12/18/leland-yee-keith-jackson-get-trial-date/12/19/2014 - 5:24pm
MaskedPixelanteNevermind. Turns out when they said "the patch is now live", they meant "it's still in beta".12/19/2014 - 5:07pm
MaskedPixelanteSo I bought Dark Souls PC, and it's forcing me to log into GFWL. Did I miss something?12/19/2014 - 5:00pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/republicans-may-have-plan-to-save-internet-providers-from-utility-rules/ this is intreasting. congress may put net nutrality in to law to avoid title 2 classification12/19/2014 - 2:45pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.polygon.com/2014/12/19/7421953/bullshit-cards-against-humanity-donated-250k-sunlight-foundation I have to admit I like the choice o organization. congrats to CAH.12/19/2014 - 1:51pm
E. Zachary KnightIf you are downloading a copy in order to bypass the DRM, then you are legally in the wrong. Ethically, if you bought the game, it doesn't matter where you download it in the future.12/19/2014 - 12:06pm
InfophileEZK: Certainly better that way, though not foolproof. Makes me think though: does it count as piracy if you download a game you already paid for, just not from the place you paid for it at? Ethically, I'd say no, but legally, probably yes.12/19/2014 - 11:20am
ZippyDSMleeAnd I still spent 200$ in the last month on steam/GOG stuff sales get me nearly every time ><12/19/2014 - 10:55am
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante:And this is why I'm a one legged bandit.12/19/2014 - 10:51am
ZippyDSMleeE. Zachary Knight: I buy what I can as long as I can get cracks for it...then again it I could have gotton Lords of the Fallen for 30 with DLC I would have ><12/19/2014 - 10:50am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/12/19/marvel-vs-capcom-origins-leaving-online-storefronts-soon/ Speaking of "last chance to buy", Marvel vs. Capcom Origins is getting delisted from all major storefronts. Behold the wonders of the all digital future.12/19/2014 - 9:59am
MaskedPixelanteSeriously, the so-called "Last Chance" sale was up to 80% off, while this one time only return sale goes for a flat 85% off with a 90% off upgrade if you buy the whole catalogue.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
E. Zachary KnightInfophile, Tha is why I buy only DRM-free games.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
MaskedPixelanteNordic is back on GOG for one weekend only. And at 85% off no less, which is kind of a slap in the face to people who paid more during the "NORDIC IS LEAVING FOREVER BUY NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE" sale, but whatever...12/19/2014 - 9:28am
InfophileRe PHX's link: This is one of the reasons the digital revolution isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's also the flip side where Sony can block access to games you've bought if they ban your account for unrelated reasons. All power is theirs.12/19/2014 - 8:52am
MaskedPixelantehttp://uplay.ubi.com/#!/en-US/events/uplay-15-days You can win FREE GAMES FOR A YEAR! Unfortunately, they're Ubisoft games.12/18/2014 - 6:29pm
Papa MidnightAh, so it was downtime. I've been seeing post appear in my RSS feed, but I was unable to access GamePolitics today across several ISPs.12/18/2014 - 6:06pm
james_fudgeSorry for the downtime today, folks.12/18/2014 - 5:54pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician