Discussion in 'Video Games and Technology' started by Shaun_C, Dec 2, 2006.
It's an interesting read
In a "damning inditement of how badly science is reported in the media" kind of interesting way.
Not to mention the guy they're interviewing obviously knows jack about video games. If you're a scientist running a study like this, isn't it usually a good idea to have a good understanding of what's involved? His comments about the rating system for instance are just laughable.
Shhhhhhhhhh..... don't use that name in a thread about violent games; he'll hear you.
AH! You're right! *runs and hides*
Care to elaborate?
Most important line in the whole article
All the study demonstrates is that violent games are exciting. Well, no duh.
"He who shall not be named" will probably use crap pseudo-science studies like this and make more outrageous claims...
I'm going to go against the grain, and that it comes down to everything else in life: trash in, trash out. It's not just what you put in, but also how much you put in.
I wonder what the brain activity for standard RPGs are though...?
And to those who would claim it does absolutely nothing, that's false. The reason the U.S. army put body outlines of people on the targets was because people were freezing up when being in the situation of actually shooting a person. The outline helped decrease the number of "freezes" significantly. While it's no where near the same, watching people being shot on T.V., games, etc. does desensitize you to the images.
That's pretty much what I got out of it as well. Even the researcher said that it excites your fight or flight response. I know that some games like that can also be a healthy outlet for negative feelings.
I also have to agree with Rodimus, that we need to be careful about how much time we put in on stuff like this because there can be a garbage in-garbage out thing taking place.
1). It's a bad study, that would get torn a hole in a peer reviewed journal. The sampling is godawful for a start.
2). They detected increased patterns of activity on one area of the brain. What they didn't detect or find is what that area does, if any new connections are formed as a result or anything that suggests this activity even affects behaviour in the slightest.
There are LOTS of things that affect brain activity with no demostrable effects on behaviour.
Separate names with a comma.