Slashdot Mirror

Did you know that all valid studies on the effects of video games have concluded that video games make players more violent? There are tons of personal stories that prove this fact too.

I know that Slashdot refuses to accept this, but there is a scientifically proven link between video games and violence. Do a Google search and find out for yourself.

This is a good article on the link between games and violence, refuting almost all the myths you here on Slashdot about how videogames don't make people violent.

Another article, Video Game Violence Research Yields Mixed Results - while it has a title you may think supports video games don't cause violence - actually suggests that most violent video games DO cause violent behaviors, while some (puzzle games) do not.

The only, and I do mean only, studies that conclude that video games are not directly linked to an increase in violent behavior are studies that were funded by video game publishers. Sort of like how the Microsoft-funded study discovered that Windows is more secure than Linux.

The military uses video game technology to train soldiers to kill. They know that video games make violent behaviors come more naturally. It's a proven fact by now, and all the Slashdot posts in the world won't change that.

Do some actual research. Video games are linked with an increase in violent behavior. It's a fact, like it or not.

http://www.apa.org/psycinfo/

There you go.

"Please post links to some of these studies. The cynic in me says the studies were probably funded by athletic departments."

Of course it does, you don't like the results, so you're looking for any way to discount them that you can find, and that's the easiest.

"As a counterpoint, there was a New York Times Magazine article a year or two ago that analyzed a few big name schools with big time football programs. In summary, the article presented reasonable evidence showing that the programs were in fact losing money for the school and did not benefit other athletic or extracurricular activities."

If you're referring to the article I read (by Selena Roberts, I believe) you'll relaize that was an editorial, and not a study. She drew some... questionable conclusions based on figures that were, well, let's say they were dubious.

I find it interesting that you'd be willing to accept an editorial in the New York Times (magazine, which I understand has slightly better crediblity that the fishwrap) but immediately question the results of studies YOU'VE NEVER SEEN.

Interesting. I'd read one of Dunning's earlier papers (warning: PDF) a while back. I'm glad to see he's still at it.

One thing that bugs me though, is the last section of the article you linked, where it posits that a remedy is better feedback. While this makes sense, I wonder how people in need of such feedback are to judge the quality of the feedback they receive. Too often, a person is perceived as knowledgable and authoritative merely because he exudes confidence when he speaks. How is a neophyte in need of guidance to differentiate between feedback from a true expert and that from a clueless yet confident imposter?

We've all seen it: the employee who's convinced she's doing a great job and gets a mediocre performance appraisal, or the student who's sure he's aced an exam and winds up with a D.

The tendency that people have to overrate their abilities fascinates Cornell University social psychologist David Dunning, PhD. "People overestimate themselves," he says, "but more than that, they really seem to believe it. I've been trying to figure out where that certainty of belief comes from."

Dunning is doing that through a series of manipulated studies, mostly with students at Cornell. He's finding that the least competent performers inflate their abilities the most; that the reason for the overinflation seems to be ignorance, not arrogance; and that chronic self-beliefs, however inaccurate, underlie both people's over and underestimations of how well they're doing.

The studies do *not* show, naturally enough, that video violence causes *violent* behavior, because such studies would be prohibited. Nevertheless, there are studies that show strong correlations between video violence and violent behavior.[1]

Links here and here.

The evidence is compelling enough that the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a policy statement.

[1]"aggressive" behavior is pulling hair, biting, hitting; "violent" behavior is causing real damage to someone.

Look up into the night sky - is that not proof enough of an Intelligent Designer?

Not particularly. It is however a demonstration of the vast emptiness of the cosmos and the chaotic distribution of matter that's completely indifferent to the existence of biota on this planet.

Everytime I forgive or feel forgiven, love or feel loved, that testifies to me there is a Divine Creator.

That's because of your Mormon background. The same instances that your religion calls the Spirit fit into a previously unrecognized emotional response called elevation

Even you can't deny that in those moments, mortality seems more than just living sinews of flesh coexisting on a giant rock floating out in space.

Well of course I can deny it and so can anyone else. Just because you've become dogmatic and brainwashed doesn't mean others have to accept your worldview.

There is no such thing as coincidence in this life.

Please, now you're just quoting from Latter Days.

Everything is intimately interconnected in this universe, just as one byte of data is sibling to another byte of data in cyberspace (but I digress).

So, that byte of data sitting on Joe Blow's hard drive in San Dimas that forms part of his most-recently downloaded pron is interconnected to little Sally Froo-Froo's pictures of her Bunny-Wunny that her daddy gave her for her birthday?

I somehow think not.

Why was level 60 the goal? Was the fun of the game not merit enough?

I think part of what makes games like this interesting is how they capitalize on our goal/reward system. They try to find the spot where you have a tangible goal, which is just difficult to be totally engaging - not too difficult to be frustrating, and not too easy to be boring. This is what humans apparently want to do, we find it immensely rewarding. (See Csikszentmihalyi's idea of flow for some good theory and research about this).

I recently started playing w.o.w., but one of the things that impresses me about it is that they way it acheives the appropriate level of challenge is by leaving many levels of challenge open for the player to find the right one. Rather than trying to predict exactly how difficult each task needs to be, the player naturally finds the tasks that are at the right level. There are goals and sub-goals, rewards little and small, all aimed at giving you opportunities to engage yourself.

The expansion seems to be an attempt to provide more opportunities to find this sweet spot once you have reached level 60. It's just a fact of human nature that we tend not to be satisfied; apparently we like to have things to acheive even if they are fictional...

Were the control and experimental groups properly established?

No, this was a correlational study, not an experimental one. They tried to see if differing levels of one variable tended to appear with differing levels of another variable in a certain population.

Did the kids actively seek out violent encounters, or are they simply more assertive, and unwilling to let other trample on them? Many children are bullied and simply meekly accept it.

So, violent video games make people more assertive? If the null hypothesis is that violent video games don't affect behavior then isn't that it makes them more assertive equally as implausible as the hypothesis that it makes them more violent?

That they play violent video games may imply parents with poor parenting skills, as most games of that type are rated for 17 and up. Was any testing done to control for or examine the effect of home life?

Doubt it because that would be more difficult to assess. In any event, that variable could interact in that it enabled the relationship or made the relationship stronger, but it cannot somehow unmake this correlation as some people seem to think.

I'll bet you if I had a copy of the study, I could point out severe flaws in their methodology. They managed to find a correlation, how strong of one who knows, that doesn't mean anything.

So why bother doing studies at all? This study presumably was peer reviewed, by the way.

You seem to be commiting the common fallacy of finding a study that supports your view, and assuming that proves it true.

How can you say this when I never said anything about the theory or what my view was? I just pointed out a single piece of evidence. Should I not have brought it up?

In any event the quote I used was from here, and it says that you can get a full copy by emailing APA PR department. You could even email the study's authors and offer any objections you might have.

In this case, it's not your fault because the summary doesn't actually link to a description of the study. I found it here

Thanks for the info.

According to researchers Jessica Nicoll, B.A., and Kevin M. Kieffer, Ph.D., of Saint Leo University, youth who played violent video games for a short time experienced an increase in aggressive behavior following the video game. One study showed participants who played a violent game for less than 10 minutes rate themselves with aggressive traits and aggressive actions shortly after playing. In another study of over 600 8th and 9th graders, the children who spent more time playing violent video games were rated by their teachers as more hostile than other children in the study. The children who played more violent video games had more arguments with authority figures and were more likely to be involved in physical altercations with other students. They also performed more poorly on academic tasks.

Furthermore, violent video game players "tend to imitate the moves that they just 'acted out' in the game they played," said Dr. Kieffer. For example, children who played violent karate games duplicated this type of behavior while playing with friends. These findings demonstrate the possible dangers associated with playing this type of video game over and over again.

The APA did not release any new research, whatsoever pertaining to electronic games and violence. If you read their own press release, it is quite clear that the APA adopted a resolution based on previous research by others.

It would be nice if the linked article or the AP summary it cites related any of the actual facts of the APA study. Here's their own assessment.

Here's the APA press release which provides some instructive details.

To summarize: two studies. First study, they interview a bunch of college kids. In a nutshell they found a statistical correlation between playing violent video games and a measurement of "trait aggressiveness" as well as actual aggressive behavior. All the usual issues of advocacy research here: they ignore whether video games cause their definition of aggression or vice versa, or if both are increased simultaneously in individuals by another unknown factor. Or if self-reporting of aggressive behavior and thoughts might be greater in video game players for some unknown reason. The question of what kind of bias might exist in the metrics developed is wide open as well.

Second study - hell, this one is such a beauty I'll just give you the quote:

In the second study, 210 college students played either a violent (Wolfenstein 3D) or nonviolent video game (Myst). A short time later, the students who played the violent video game punished an opponent (received a noise blast with varying intensity) for a longer period of time than did students who had played the nonviolent video game.

Invite a person to engage in an artificial act of aggression against a person with whom they have been placed in an adversarial relationship (the subject is described as an "opponent") immediately after engaging in: scenario A, an intrinsically adversarial game, scenario B, an artistic, environment-centered puzzle-solving game. Clearly, the video game has made this person aggressive.

The bias the APA shows in presenting these two studies side by side is a totally separate line of fruitful inference. But I imagine there's good money in generating garbage research like this in this hysterical age.

"The bottom line is we see three things," Kieffer tells WebMD. One is short-term change toward more aggressive behavior. Two, there are gender differences: Boys play more often and they are more likely to be at risk of behavior changes. And three, some more vulnerable kids are drawn to these games -- kids who are already more violent, and those with low self-esteem."

Committee on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media: Elizabeth Carll, PhD, and Dorothy Singer, EdD co-chairs; Craig Anderson, PhD, Brad Bushman, PhD, Karen Dill, PhD and Lilli Friedland, PhD.

"The bottom line is we see three things," Kieffer tells WebMD. One is short-term change toward more aggressive behavior. Two, there are gender differences: Boys play more often and they are more likely to be at risk of behavior changes. And three, some more vulnerable kids are drawn to these games -- kids who are already more violent, and those with low self-esteem."

Committee on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media: Elizabeth Carll, PhD, and Dorothy Singer, EdD co-chairs; Craig Anderson, PhD, Brad Bushman, PhD, Karen Dill, PhD and Lilli Friedland, PhD.

"The bottom line is we see three things," Kieffer tells WebMD. One is short-term change toward more aggressive behavior. Two, there are gender differences: Boys play more often and they are more likely to be at risk of behavior changes. And three, some more vulnerable kids are drawn to these games -- kids who are already more violent, and those with low self-esteem."

Committee on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media: Elizabeth Carll, PhD, and Dorothy Singer, EdD co-chairs; Craig Anderson, PhD, Brad Bushman, PhD, Karen Dill, PhD and Lilli Friedland, PhD.

Anderson (one of the authors cited in the resolution, and one of the members of the committe that drafted the resolution) has a list of rebuttals to this and other "Myths" about his work:

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

See Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant. Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables...

I think he does a crappy job of explaining it. Experimental design gets you out of the "correlation != causation" problem, but opens you up to a host of other problems (validity, due to operationalization of variables, etc.) - which is why there are so many other "Myths" listed on his page he feels the need to debunk.

Just because "correlation != causation" is true for some types of studies (including some psuedo-experimental studies) doesn't mean it's a valid argument for experimental designs like some of the ones listed here.
And even with psuedo-experimental designs, if one can establish the occurance of a prior event (or factor), you can establish causality through various statistical models. Example, structural equation modeling (or partial least squares modeling) are perfect for this.

It's not one study, it's a resultion citing a combination of studies on television and media (including but not exclusive to video games).

http://www.apa.org/releases/resolutiononvideoviole nce.pdf

Anderson's studies are video game specific, but they are not new.

For those with a brain who like to read the original sources instead of the popular media's hack job of the summaries here are (I think) the two opposing studies.
Dmitri Williams (University of Illinois, Urbana)
"Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an Online Game" Communication Monographs Vol. 72, No. 2, June 2005, pp.217-233, (this is a pdf) which says there's no link

AND in the other Corner

Well, no one paper, actually. The APA "Committee on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media" appearently did a metastudy of several papers on the topic and come up with a resolution (pdf) and press release. At the end of the resolution is a bib of the papers taken into consideration. I certainly don't care enough to plow through all those - but William's paper isn't in the bib. I suspect there was lots of group thought going in that committee -lots of the papers were written by members of the committee.

I suspect that you can't make a blanket statement on video games. Folks with a predisposition for violence might be pushed over the edge to real life violent acts from habitual video play; whereas there are, I'm sure, many more level-headed people who understand this is all fantasy and escapism and can easily dissociate the video playing with real life. At least I hope so. Otherwise you all better run away from me. Fast.

For those with a brain who like to read the original sources instead of the popular media's hack job of the summaries here are (I think) the two opposing studies.
Dmitri Williams (University of Illinois, Urbana)
"Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an Online Game" Communication Monographs Vol. 72, No. 2, June 2005, pp.217-233, (this is a pdf) which says there's no link

AND in the other Corner

Well, no one paper, actually. The APA "Committee on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media" appearently did a metastudy of several papers on the topic and come up with a resolution (pdf) and press release. At the end of the resolution is a bib of the papers taken into consideration. I certainly don't care enough to plow through all those - but William's paper isn't in the bib. I suspect there was lots of group thought going in that committee -lots of the papers were written by members of the committee.

I suspect that you can't make a blanket statement on video games. Folks with a predisposition for violence might be pushed over the edge to real life violent acts from habitual video play; whereas there are, I'm sure, many more level-headed people who understand this is all fantasy and escapism and can easily dissociate the video playing with real life. At least I hope so. Otherwise you all better run away from me. Fast.

It's a new resolution from the APA. Here's the link to the pdf of the resolution: http://www.apa.org/releases/resolutiononvideoviole nce.pdf

If you take a look you will see that much of the research cited was related to aggressive behavior and Television.

To summarize:

Link between agressive behavior and television (not video games)
Link between child development and media (not video games or electronic media except Singer 2005 - it's mostly television)
Link between aggressive thoughts and violent media (half Television and half Video Games - but Anderson's research is not new)
Lack of "Punishment" for violent actions in media (Television only)
Link between video games and agressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, decreased helpful behavior, and increased physio arousal (Anderson - not new and *only* Anderson et. al. studies cited)
The cited studies of video gaming sexualized violence are video game specific
The other citations are to support general learning theory / repetition arguments - but not citing specific experimental findings unless arleady noted above.

Their last point (before resolving that video games are teh evil) is that "studies on media literacy demonstrate when children are taught to view television critically... there is a reduction of television viewing... a clearer understanding of messages... children feel less frightened... can learn to distinguish between fantasy and reality... and can identify less with aggressive characters"

Questions: Since this isn't new research (just a new resolution from the APA)...

1) Why didn't they make the same resolutions for all violent media (including television)?

Is it because the rating system is failing in terms of video games? Would that fix it? Is the APA making a public policy recommendation because there is some need (current policy is broken for this specific media)? That is, the media is no worse, it's just that the safeguards in place don't work as well as others (TV, Movies)?

2) Why make this resolution now?

If there is no new research and much of the research relates to television? Could some recent events be behind it?

Basically they are saying, since we know that violent media inspires violence, and video games are media then violent video games must inspire violence.

This seems to be the actual document they are all referring to http://www.apa.org/releases/resolutiononvideoviole nce.pdf

Not exactly the actual study, but at least closer to the source. Assuming this and the post article are appealing to the same research (its difficult to say for sure since the article never says anything specific about the actual study, which is strange because I was under the impression that it was considered good journalism to cite your sources), it does appear certain parts were left out of the article, including

children and adolescents who are attracted to the violent content in the games are likely to be more vulnerable to the effects of that exposure

Both Nicoll and Kieffer say that the recent changes that put age limits and rating systems on games make it more difficult for young children to purchase and play these video games. But, say the psychologists, "future research needs to explore why many children and adolescents prefer to play a violent video game rather than play outside, and why certain personalities are drawn to these types of games."

"I also have to wonder about possible bias. The APA funded this study, and it wouldn't exactly be surprising if an association of psychologists (i.e. people who get paid to cure insanity) wanted to suggest that a fairly popular hobby like playing video games turns children into sociopaths."

Well I don't see anything about them funding it, just publishing it. But if true, wouldn't that make them want to play up the other more complex causes of human behavior? I mean if problem children can be cured by taking away their video games, they would be out of business.

TFA (which seems to be a opinion piece) says it's a study, but the link in TFA leads another article which talks about an APA statement which does contain a fair number of references in the linked PDF.

Nothing really new here, as far as I can tell. It looks like it's just APA reiterating their previous stance on video games.

Here, for you parent.

"Does anybody have some links?"

Sure, here's a few after a quick Googling. I'm sure there are better ones, but I don't have time to find them right now.
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/23/1728_56903. htm
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/54/65223.htm
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/Vide o_Game_FAQs.html
http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers /walsh.html
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

Anecdote aside, there is zero evidence that violent video games reduce crime, while there is at least some evidence that violent media harms children.

Just one more rationalization from a group of readers who will say anything to allow an 11-year-old to buy GTA. Take Two thanks you.

roses are #0000FF
violets are #FF0000
Stroop's effect
is all in your head

What kind of empirical evidence are you looking for? (Will this do?) What are you referring to when you say "normal environment"?

Is being brought up by your grandmother ok with you? How about being brought up by your grandmother and her girlfriend?

There oughta be a law against stupidity. I mean, seriously, what forces people like yourself to post when they clearly don't know anything about the subject? May be you are so stupid as to not realise it?

40 mm single-wall nanotubes were made in 2004 (photo of 40mm SWNT here). The tensile strength of nanotube composites has been measured and was (Ray Baughman's group at University of Texas) as high as 600J/g (compared with Kevlar fibres at 27-33J/g).

I hate incompetent morons, who speak as if they are on the same level with people who know something. Please, don't ever break into a discussion unless you have something truly valuable to contribute and you double- and triple-checked it. Thanks.

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.htmlFac ts versus Myths about video game violence The guy covers the main points about video game violence. In short, yes there are. But there are more studies that show that children are likely to become violent if their parents are negligent or violent.

Many psychologists even doubt that addiction is the right term to describe what happens to people when they spend too much time online. "It seems misleading to characterize behaviors as 'addictions' on the basis that people say they do too much of them," says Sara Kiesler, PhD, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University and co-author of one of the only controlled studies on Internet usage, published in the September 1998 American Psychologist. "No research has yet established that there is a disorder of Internet addiction that is separable from problems such as loneliness or problem gambling, or that a passion for using the Internet is long-lasting."

Many psychologists even doubt that addiction is the right term to describe what happens to people when they spend too much time online. "It seems misleading to characterize behaviors as 'addictions' on the basis that people say they do too much of them," says Sara Kiesler, PhD, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University and co-author of one of the only controlled studies on Internet usage, published in the September 1998 American Psychologist. "No research has yet established that there is a disorder of Internet addiction that is separable from problems such as loneliness or problem gambling, or that a passion for using the Internet is long-lasting."

This "early post" is brought to you by the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association). We are an organization dedicated to the eradication of dogs. ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) is committed to protect our oxygen, to clean our streets, and to curb noise pollution - through the simple eradication of canine pests.

We have recently "connected" with the GNAA to form one ECFA. Stay connected. Please note that since we are moving to a larger demographic (the untold scores of people who deal with dog messes, noises, and annoyances daily), most of the current GNAA content is offline. In fact, we're pulling all of it except the "early post", which is now a ECFA-style "early post". The traditional GNAA "early post" will continue to be posted on all SCO stories, as insisted by upper GNAA management and its core team of fans. The illicit images and language will not be a part of the new combined organiztion. We do not condone any sexual lifestyle or race.

Have you ever stepped in DOG DOO-DOO

Are you MAD?

Do you KILL DOGS?

Are you a MAD DOG KILLER?

If you answered "YES" to any of the above questions the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) is for you! You no longer need change your skin color or sexual lifestyle in order to become a member of an "EVIL TROLLING ORGANIZATION." Instead, you can work toward the noble of goal of INCREASING OUR SUPPLY OF O2! OVERPOPULATION of DOGS is RAPANT in this country. Did you know that DOGS turn BENEFICIAL O2 into CO2 simply to gain their energy to bark, drool, and howl? They ACTUALLY BURN OUR OXYGEN SUPPLY!!! One dog easily waste the Oxygen output of ten mature trees! This country has MANY UNWANTED, ABANDONED DOGS that WE ARE PAYING MONEY TO KEEP ALIVE. We are FEEDING them our food supply while making the homeless STARVE! Are you TIRED of having your TAXES increased? Humane Societies cost our country over $100 million annually. By using a Dog Killing Gadget, a dog can be turned into beneficial food, helping us all. We let children go hungry yet feed our **UNWANTED** dogs like royalty.

One dog can output over 10 lbs of droppings daily. One dog can aggrivate the allergies of untold numbers of people with its fast growing hair and all too common dandruff. Do you own a dog? Are you tired of its mess? Don't feel like planting ten trees and waiting 10 years for them to reach maturity? Then get it euthanized. Euthanasia is a painless way for a dog to... terminate. However, it can be too expensive to buy these drugs for the LARGE NUMBER of DOGS in the HUMANE SOCIETIES. It is thus proposed that these dogs be turned into food for the homeless. One dog can feed up to five homeless children for one day.

Many have wondered the best way to exterminate dogs. Euthanasia is by far the most clean method, but it taints the meat and is cost prohibitive. Thus, the most economical method is our K9Zap product featured on TechTV ($29.95), which deals a fatal shock to a dog up to 60lbs. Alternatively, the slightly messier bakers chocolate approach costs only about $0.30 per pound of dog. For more information, reply to this message or contact Gadgets for the Elimination of Dogs (GED). A rifle also works wonders, but may be against local codes, and is generally best to avoid in dog elimination.

WANT TO SUPPORT THE ECFA? Simply participate in our propaganda campaign to exterminate dogs. You can become a member of our slashdot trolling team, our usenet trolling team, or you can be a member of our local campaigning - by simply handing out brocures or posting signs outside humaine socities. If you have MOD POINTS, alternatively you can moderate this post UP to support our cause.

==This post brought to you by the Proud Dog Killers in #windows on EFNET.

The ECFA wants YOU... to join the GNAA/ECFA troll group. Just find a public internet spot, and post either recommended troll (posted below) or an alternate one of your choice. You can still use the "classic" GNAA post, but keep in mind that GNAA now stands for Great Negro Assocation of America
--
This "early post" is brought to you by the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association). We are an organization dedicated to the eradication of dogs. ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) is committed to protect our oxygen, to clean our streets, and to curb noise pollution - through the simple eradication of canine pests.

We have recently "connected" with the GNAA to form one ECFA. Stay connected. Please note that since we are moving to a larger demographic (the untold scores of people who deal with dog messes, noises, and annoyances daily), most of the current GNAA content is offline. In fact, we're pulling all of it except the "early post", which is now a ECFA-style "early post". The traditional GNAA "early post" will continue to be posted on all SCO stories, as insisted by upper GNAA management and its core team of fans. The illicit images and language will not be a part of the new combined organiztion. We do not condone any sexual lifestyle or race.

Have you ever stepped in DOG DOO-DOO

Are you MAD?

Do you KILL DOGS?

Are you a MAD DOG KILLER?

If you answered "YES" to any of the above questions the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) is for you! You no longer need change your skin color or sexual lifestyle in order to become a member of an "EVIL TROLLING ORGANIZATION." Instead, you can work toward the noble of goal of INCREASING OUR SUPPLY OF O2! OVERPOPULATION of DOGS is RAPANT in this country. Did you know that DOGS turn BENEFICIAL O2 into CO2 simply to gain their energy to bark, drool, and howl? They ACTUALLY BURN OUR OXYGEN SUPPLY!!! One dog easily waste the Oxygen output of ten mature trees! This country has MANY UNWANTED, ABANDONED DOGS that WE ARE PAYING MONEY TO KEEP ALIVE. We are FEEDING them our food supply while making the homeless STARVE! Are you TIRED of having your TAXES increased? Humane Societies cost our country over $100 million annually. By using a Dog Killing Gadget, a dog can be turned into beneficial food, helping us all. We let children go hungry yet feed our **UNWANTED** dogs like royalty.

One dog can output over 10 lbs of droppings daily. One dog can aggrivate the allergies of untold numbers of people with its fast growing hair and all too common dandruff. Do you own a dog? Are you tired of its mess? Don't feel like planting ten trees and waiting 10 years for them to reach maturity? Then get it euthanized. Euthanasia is a painless way for a dog to... terminate. However, it can be too expensive to buy these drugs for the LARGE NUMBER of DOGS in the HUMANE SOCIETIES. It is thus proposed that these dogs be turned into food for the homeless. One dog can feed up to five homeless children for one day.

Many have wondered the best way to exterminate dogs. Euthanasia is by far the most clean method, but it taints the meat and is cost prohibitive. Thus, the most economical method is our K9Zap product featured on TechTV ($29.95), which deals a fatal shock to a dog up to 60lbs. Alternatively, the slightly messier bakers chocolate approach costs only about $0.30 per pound of dog. For more information, reply to this message or contact Gadgets for the Elimination of Dogs (GED). A rifle also works wonders, but may be against local codes, and is generally best to avoid in dog elimination.

WANT TO SUPPORT THE ECFA? Simply participate in our propaganda campaign to exterminate dogs. You can become a member of our slashdot trolling team, ou

The ECFA wants YOU... to join the GNAA/ECFA troll group. Just find a public internet spot, and post either recommended troll (posted below) or an alternate one of your choice. You can still use the "classic" GNAA post, but keep in mind that GNAA now stands for Great Negro Assocation of America
--
This "early post" is brought to you by the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association). We are an organization dedicated to the eradication of dogs. ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) is committed to protect our oxygen, to clean our streets, and to curb noise pollution - through the simple eradication of canine pests.

We have recently "connected" with the GNAA to form one ECFA. Stay connected. Please note that since we are moving to a larger demographic (the untold scores of people who deal with dog messes, noises, and annoyances daily), most of the current GNAA content is offline. In fact, we're pulling all of it except the "early post", which is now a ECFA-style "early post". The traditional GNAA "early post" will continue to be posted on all SCO stories, as insisted by upper GNAA management and its core team of fans. The illicit images and language will not be a part of the new combined organiztion. We do not condone any sexual lifestyle or race.

Have you ever stepped in DOG DOO-DOO

Are you MAD?

Do you KILL DOGS?

Are you a MAD DOG KILLER?

If you answered "YES" to any of the above questions the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) is for you! You no longer need change your skin color or sexual lifestyle in order to become a member of an "EVIL TROLLING ORGANIZATION." Instead, you can work toward the noble of goal of INCREASING OUR SUPPLY OF O2! OVERPOPULATION of DOGS is RAPANT in this country. Did you know that DOGS turn BENEFICIAL O2 into CO2 simply to gain their energy to bark, drool, and howl? They ACTUALLY BURN OUR OXYGEN SUPPLY!!! One dog easily waste the Oxygen output of ten mature trees! This country has MANY UNWANTED, ABANDONED DOGS that WE ARE PAYING MONEY TO KEEP ALIVE. We are FEEDING them our food supply while making the homeless STARVE! Are you TIRED of having your TAXES increased? Humane Societies cost our country over $100 million annually. By using a Dog Killing Gadget, a dog can be turned into beneficial food, helping us all. We let children go hungry yet feed our **UNWANTED** dogs like royalty.

One dog can output over 10 lbs of droppings daily. One dog can aggrivate the allergies of untold numbers of people with its fast growing hair and all too common dandruff. Do you own a dog? Are you tired of its mess? Don't feel like planting ten trees and waiting 10 years for them to reach maturity? Then get it euthanized. Euthanasia is a painless way for a dog to... terminate. However, it can be too expensive to buy these drugs for the LARGE NUMBER of DOGS in the HUMANE SOCIETIES. It is thus proposed that these dogs be turned into food for the homeless. One dog can feed up to five homeless children for one day.

Many have wondered the best way to exterminate dogs. Euthanasia is by far the most clean method, but it taints the meat and is cost prohibitive. Thus, the most economical method is our K9Zap product featured on TechTV ($29.95), which deals a fatal shock to a dog up to 60lbs. Alternatively, the slightly messier bakers chocolate approach costs only about $0.30 per pound of dog. For more information, reply to this message or contact Gadgets for the Elimination of Dogs (GED). A rifle also works wonders, but may be against local codes, and is generally best to avoid in dog elimination.

WANT TO SUPPORT THE ECFA? Simply participate in our propaganda campaign to exterminate dogs. You can become a member of our slashdot trolling team, our

The ECFA wants YOU... to join the GNAA/ECFA troll group. Just find a public internet spot, and post either recommended troll (posted below) or an alternate one of your choice. You can still use the "classic" GNAA post, but keep in mind that GNAA now stands for Great Negro Assocation of America

---

This "early post" is brought to you by the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association). We are an organization dedicated to the eradication of dogs. ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) is committed to protect our oxygen, to clean our streets, and to curb noise pollution - through the simple eradication of canine pests.

We have recently "connected" with the GNAA to form one ECFA. Stay connected. Please note that since we are moving to a larger demographic (the untold scores of people who deal with dog messes, noises, and annoyances daily), most of the current GNAA content is offline. In fact, we're pulling all of it except the "early post", which is now a ECFA-style "early post". The traditional GNAA "early post" will continue to be posted on all SCO stories, as insisted by upper GNAA management and its core team of fans. The illicit images and language will not be a part of the new combined organiztion. We do not condone any sexual lifestyle or race.

Have you ever stepped in DOG DOO-DOO

Are you MAD?

Do you KILL DOGS?

Are you a MAD DOG KILLER?

If you answered "YES" to any of the above questions the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) is for you! You no longer need change your skin color or sexual lifestyle in order to become a member of an "EVIL TROLLING ORGANIZATION." Instead, you can work toward the noble of goal of INCREASING OUR SUPPLY OF O2! OVERPOPULATION of DOGS is RAPANT in this country. Did you know that DOGS turn BENEFICIAL O2 into CO2 simply to gain their energy to bark, drool, and howl? They ACTUALLY BURN OUR OXYGEN SUPPLY!!! One dog easily waste the Oxygen output of ten mature trees! This country has MANY UNWANTED, ABANDONED DOGS that WE ARE PAYING MONEY TO KEEP ALIVE. We are FEEDING them our food supply while making the homeless STARVE! Are you TIRED of having your TAXES increased? Humane Societies cost our country over $100 million annually. By using a Dog Killing Gadget, a dog can be turned into beneficial food, helping us all. We let children go hungry yet feed our **UNWANTED** dogs like royalty.

One dog can output over 10 lbs of droppings daily. One dog can aggrivate the allergies of untold numbers of people with its fast growing hair and all too common dandruff. Do you own a dog? Are you tired of its mess? Don't feel like planting ten trees and waiting 10 years for them to reach maturity? Then get it euthanized. Euthanasia is a painless way for a dog to... terminate. However, it can be too expensive to buy these drugs for the LARGE NUMBER of DOGS in the HUMANE SOCIETIES. It is thus proposed that these dogs be turned into food for the homeless. One dog can feed up to five homeless children for one day.

Many have wondered the best way to exterminate dogs. Euthanasia is by far the most clean method, but it taints the meat and is cost prohibitive. Thus, the most economical method is our K9Zap product featured on TechTV ($29.95), which deals a fatal shock to a dog up to 60lbs. Alternatively, the slightly messier bakers chocolate approach costs only about $0.30 per pound of dog. For more information, reply to this message or contact Gadgets for the Elimination of Dogs (GED). A rifle also works wonders, but may be against local codes, and is generally best to avoid in dog elimination.

WANT TO SUPPORT THE ECFA? Simply participate in our propaganda campaign to exterminate dogs. You can become a member of our slashdo

This "early post" is brought to you by the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association). We are an organization dedicated to the eradication of dogs. ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) is committed to protect our oxygen, to clean our streets, and to curb noise pollution - through the simple eradication of canine pests.

We have recently "connected" with the GNAA to form one ECFA. Stay connected. Please note that since we are moving to a larger demographic (the untold scores of people who deal with dog messes, noises, and annoyances daily), most of the current GNAA content is offline. In fact, we're pulling all of it except the "early post", which is now a ECFA-style "early post". The traditional GNAA "early post" will continue to be posted on all SCO stories, as insisted by upper GNAA management and its core team of fans. The illicit images and language will not be a part of the new combined organiztion. We do not condone any sexual lifestyle or race.

Have you ever stepped in DOG DOO-DOO

Are you MAD?

Do you KILL DOGS?

Are you a MAD DOG KILLER?

If you answered "YES" to any of the above questions the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) is for you! You no longer need change your skin color or sexual lifestyle in order to become a member of an "EVIL TROLLING ORGANIZATION." Instead, you can work toward the noble of goal of INCREASING OUR SUPPLY OF O2! OVERPOPULATION of DOGS is RAPANT in this country. Did you know that DOGS turn BENEFICIAL O2 into CO2 simply to gain their energy to bark, drool, and howl? They ACTUALLY BURN OUR OXYGEN SUPPLY!!! One dog easily waste the Oxygen output of ten mature trees! This country has MANY UNWANTED, ABANDONED DOGS that WE ARE PAYING MONEY TO KEEP ALIVE. We are FEEDING them our food supply while making the homeless STARVE! Are you TIRED of having your TAXES increased? Humane Societies cost our country over $100 million annually. By using a Dog Killing Gadget, a dog can be turned into beneficial food, helping us all. We let children go hungry yet feed our **UNWANTED** dogs like royalty.

One dog can output over 10 lbs of droppings daily. One dog can aggrivate the allergies of untold numbers of people with its fast growing hair and all too common dandruff. Do you own a dog? Are you tired of its mess? Don't feel like planting ten trees and waiting 10 years for them to reach maturity? Then get it euthanized. Euthanasia is a painless way for a dog to... terminate. However, it can be too expensive to buy these drugs for the LARGE NUMBER of DOGS in the HUMANE SOCIETIES. It is thus proposed that these dogs be turned into food for the homeless. One dog can feed up to five homeless children for one day.

Many have wondered the best way to exterminate dogs. Euthanasia is by far the most clean method, but it taints the meat and is cost prohibitive. Thus, the most economical method is our K9Zap product featured on TechTV ($29.95), which deals a fatal shock to a dog up to 60lbs. Alternatively, the slightly messier bakers chocolate approach costs only about $0.30 per pound of dog. For more information, reply to this message or contact Gadgets for the Elimination of Dogs (GED). A rifle also works wonders, but may be against local codes, and is generally best to avoid in dog elimination.

WANT TO SUPPORT THE ECFA? Simply participate in our propaganda campaign to exterminate dogs. You can become a member of our slashdot trolling team, our usenet trolling team, or you can be a member of our local campaigning - by simply handing out brocures or posting signs outside humaine socities. If you have MOD POINTS, alternatively you can moderate this post UP to support our cause.

==This post brought to you by the Proud Dog Killers in #windows on EFNET.

This "early post" is brought to you by the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association). We are an organization dedicated to the eradication of dogs. ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) is committed to protect our oxygen, to clean our streets, and to curb noise pollution - through the simple eradication of canine pests.

We have recently "connected" with the GNAA to form one ECFA. Stay connected. Please note that since we are moving to a larger demographic (the untold scores of people who deal with dog messes, noises, and annoyances daily), most of the current GNAA content is offline. In fact, we're pulling all of it except the "early post", which is now a ECFA-style "early post". The traditional GNAA "early post" will continue to be posted on all SCO stories, as insisted by upper GNAA management and its core team of fans. The illicit images and language will not be a part of the new combined organiztion. We do not condone any sexual lifestyle or race.

Have you ever stepped in DOG DOO-DOO

Are you MAD?

Do you KILL DOGS?

Are you a MAD DOG KILLER?

If you answered "YES" to any of the above questions the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canis Familiaris Association) is for you! You no longer need change your skin color or sexual lifestyle in order to become a member of an "EVIL TROLLING ORGANIZATION." Instead, you can work toward the noble of goal of INCREASING OUR SUPPLY OF O2! OVERPOPULATION of DOGS is RAPANT in this country. Did you know that DOGS turn BENEFICIAL O2 into CO2 simply to gain their energy to bark, drool, and howl? They ACTUALLY BURN OUR OXYGEN SUPPLY!!! One dog easily waste the Oxygen output of ten mature trees! This country has MANY UNWANTED, ABANDONED DOGS that WE ARE PAYING MONEY TO KEEP ALIVE. We are FEEDING them our food supply while making the homeless STARVE! Are you TIRED of having your TAXES increased? Humane Societies cost our country over $100 million annually. By using a Dog Killing Gadget, a dog can be turned into beneficial food, helping us all. We let children go hungry yet feed our **UNWANTED** dogs like royalty.

One dog can output over 10 lbs of droppings daily. One dog can aggrivate the allergies of untold numbers of people with its fast growing hair and all too common dandruff. Do you own a dog? Are you tired of its mess? Don't feel like planting ten trees and waiting 10 years for them to reach maturity? Then get it euthanized. Euthanasia is a painless way for a dog to... terminate. However, it can be too expensive to buy these drugs for the LARGE NUMBER of DOGS in the HUMANE SOCIETIES. It is thus proposed that these dogs be turned into food for the homeless. One dog can feed up to five homeless children for one day.

Many have wondered the best way to exterminate dogs. Euthanasia is by far the most clean method, but it taints the meat and is cost prohibitive. Thus, the most economical method is our K9Zap product featured on TechTV ($29.95), which deals a fatal shock to a dog up to 60lbs. Alternatively, the slightly messier bakers chocolate approach costs only about $0.30 per pound of dog. For more information, reply to this message or contact Gadgets for the Elimination of Dogs (GED). A rifle also works wonders, but may be against local codes, and is generally best to avoid in dog elimination.

WANT TO SUPPORT THE ECFA? Simply participate in our propaganda campaign to exterminate dogs. You can become a member of our slashdot trolling team, our usenet trolling team, or you can be a member of our local campaigning - by simply handing out brocures or posting signs outside humaine socities. If you have MOD POINTS, alternatively you can moderate this post UP to support our cause.

==This post brought to you by the Proud Dog Killers in #windows on EFNET.

This "early post" is brought to you by the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canus Familirous Association). We are an organization dedicated to the eradication of dogs. ECFA (Euthanasia for Canus Familirous Association) is committed to protect our oxygen, to clean our streets, and to curb noise pollution - through the simple eradication of canine pests.

We have recently "connected" with the GNAA to form one ECFA. Stay connected. Please note that since we are moving to a larger demographic (the untold scores of people who deal with dog messes, noises, and annoyances daily), most of the current GNAA content is offline. In fact, we're pulling all of it except the "early post", which is now a ECFA-style "early post". The traditional GNAA "early post" will continue to be posted on all SCO stories, as insisted by upper GNAA management and its core team of fans. The illicit images and language will not be a part of the new combined organiztion. We do not condone any sexual lifestyle or race.

Have you ever stepped in DOG DOO-DOO

Are you MAD?

Do you KILL DOGS?

Are you a MAD DOG KILLER?

If you answered "YES" to any of the above questions the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canus Familirous Association) is for you! You no longer need change your skin color or sexual lifestyle in order to become a member of an "EVIL TROLLING ORGANIZATION." Instead, you can work toward the noble of goal of INCREASING OUR SUPPLY OF O2! OVERPOPULATION of DOGS is RAPANT in this country. Did you know that DOGS turn BENEFICIAL O2 into CO2 simply to gain their energy to bark, drool, and howl? They ACTUALLY BURN OUR OXYGEN SUPPLY!!! One dog easily waste the Oxygen output of ten mature trees! This country has MANY UNWANTED, ABANDONED DOGS that WE ARE PAYING MONEY TO KEEP ALIVE. We are FEEDING them our food supply while making the homeless STARVE! Are you TIRED of having your TAXES increased? Humane Societies cost our country over $100 million annually. By using a Dog Killing Gadget, a dog can be turned into beneficial food, helping us all. We let children go hungry yet feed our **UNWANTED** dogs like royalty.

One dog can output over 10 lbs of droppings daily. One dog can aggrivate the allergies of untold numbers of people with its fast growing hair and all too common dandruff. Do you own a dog? Are you tired of its mess? Don't feel like planting ten trees and waiting 10 years for them to reach maturity? Then get it euthanized. Euthanasia is a painless way for a dog to... terminate. However, it can be too expensive to buy these drugs for the LARGE NUMBER of DOGS in the HUMANE SOCIETIES. It is thus proposed that these dogs be turned into food for the homeless. One dog can feed up to five homeless children for one day.

Many have wondered the best way to exterminate dogs. Euthanasia is by far the most clean method, but it taints the meat and is cost prohibitive. Thus, the most economical method is our K9Zap product featured on TechTV ($29.95), which deals a fatal shock to a dog up to 60lbs. Alternatively, the slightly messier bakers chocolate approach costs only about $0.30 per pound of dog. For more information, reply to this message or contact Gadgets for the Elimination of Dogs (GED). A rifle also works wonders, but may be against local codes, and is generally best to avoid in dog elimination.

WANT TO SUPPORT THE ECFA? Simply participate in our propaganda campaign to exterminate dogs. You can become a member of our slashdot trolling team, our usenet trolling team, or you can be a member of our local campaigning - by simply handing out brocures or posting signs outside humaine socities. If you have MOD POINTS, alternatively you can moderate this post UP to support our cause.

==This post brought to you by the Proud Dog Killers in #windows on EFNET.

ECFA COMPLETES TAKEOVER OF GNAA

The ECFA (Euthenasia for Canus Familourous Association) and the GNAA (G** N***** Association of America) are connecting into one ECFA. Stay connected. Both the ECFA (Euthenasia for Canus Familourous Association) and the GNAA share one common goal - A HAPPIER MANKIND! Members of the combined group, which will be called ECFA, will not be required to change their skin color or practice homosexuality as previously required to be members of an EVIL ORGANIZATION. The motto of the combined ECFA will be to protect our oxygen supply, to clean up our streets and sidewalks, and to curb noise pollution. The combined organization will be headed by the current leader of the ECFA and will be headquartered on EFNET. Employees of the GNAA will be able to apply for new jobs at the combined ECFA headquarters. We will be taking all existing GNAA content OFFLINE FOREVER on "ECF-day", when the two organizations will be merged into one. "We are expanding to target a much larger demographic, not just the homosexual and colored population," the CEO of ECFA's parent company was quoted as saying. While the GNAA trollers will continue, their message will be changed. The chatroom, movie, and illicit images will not be a part of the new organization, as it doesn't fit the new demographic.

About GNAA:
The GNAA has a vast membership of slashdot trollers who claim to have dark complexion and have a perverted sexual lifestyle. By harnessing the powers of the GNAA, the ECFA will be able to spread its message throughout slashdot much more effectively.

Are you G**, Are you a N*****, Are you a G** N*****? If you answered "yes" or "no" to any of the above questions, the combined organization is for you!

About ECFA:
The ECFA would like you to do one thing - KILL A DOG. By KILLING A DOG, you will ELIMINATE one USELESSLY RESPIRATING animal from this planet. Are you TIRED of having your TAXES increased? Humane Societies cost our country over $100 million annually. By eliminating DOGS, this money can EDUCATE OUR KIDS. OVERPOPULATION of DOGS is RAPANT in this country. Take a stand! Help rid this INFESTATION. KILL A DOG TODAY!!!!

Have you ever stepped in DOG DOO-DOO

Are you MAD?

Do you KILL DOGS?

Are you a MAD DOG KILLER?

If you answered "YES" to any of the above questions the ECFA (Euthenasia for Canus Familourous Association) is for you! Why change your sexual lifestyle or change your skin color to join an EVIL ORGANIZATION when you can simply INCREASE OUR SUPPLY OF O2! Did you know that DOGS turn BENEFICIAL O2 into CO2 simply to gain their energy to bark, drool, and howl? They LITERALLY BURN OUR OXYGEN SUPPLY!!! One dog can waste 2 moles of O2 PER HOUR! This country has MANY UNWANTED, ABANDONED DOGS that WE ARE PAYING MONEY TO KEEP ALIVE. We are FEEDING them our food supply while making the homeless STARVE! By using a Dog Killing Gadget, a dog can be turned into beneficial food, helping us all. We let children go hungry yet feed our **UNWANTED** dogs like royalty.

Save Our Oxygen! One dog can easily use the entire oxygen output of ten full size trees. One dog can output over 20 lbs of droppings daily. One dog can aggrivate the allergies of untold numbers of people with its fast growing hair. Kill a dog today!

Do you own a dog? Are you tired of its mess? Don't feel like planting ten trees and waiting 10 years for them to reach maturity? Then get it euthanized. Euthanasia is a painless way for a dog to... terminate. However, it can be too expensive to buy these drugs for the LARGE NUMBER of DOGS in the HUMANE SOCIETIES. It is thus proposed that these dogs be turned into food for the homeless.

We are connected with the GNAA to form one organization, called ECFA!

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

people who had the most accurate self-perception were depressed people

Maybe you're thinking of this paper: Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Good reading. Not that it applies to me, or anything.

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

It's what we call a self-fulfilling prophecy. In regards to this topic, perhaps study of the gender differences of academic subjects is important, but I feel it is a good idea to not publicize the findings beyond the scientific/education community, where it could help teachers to help female/male students cope with the subject matter. For more reference on this subject, you can google for psychology self fulfilling prophecy, or go to these links.

I suspect your complaint is primarily directed at the office dressing. The "I don't need to learn, I'm friends with the CEO" hordes. Right school, right background, right golf buddies. Blind of their own incompetence, the Peter Principle extended .
People have a reason to be arrogant. Its not necessarily based in reality. The functionally incompetent have a viable position in the marketplace. Investors hand people a lotta rope/a lotta risk and sometimes, just sometimes, the venture accomplishes amazing things no sensible businessman would even attempt. Its a proven business tactic and IMHO the primary fuel for the dotcom explosion (and implosion). The self-assured can't-fail/never-failed approach sometimes works (given sufficient guidance and willingness to participate). Unfortunately as you indicate, the so-afflicted are not pleasant to work with.

"The problem is not knowing that you don't know something. I don't know Python or Perl, but that's okay... I don't try and hand out advice on those topics."

Problem is, that isn't always easy. There have actually been studies done on this. Quote from the abstract of the linked article:

Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.

I guess this kind of general problem applies to any Ask Slashdot, or Wikipedia, or whatever. Just keep doing what you're doing and all that, and it'll even out in the end. We hope.

The self-assessments made by the US and Korean kids shouldn't come as a surprise. According to this study people who aren't good at something think they are better than average, and those who are good at it think they are, well, only better than average.

In short, everyone thinks they are slightly better than the average person at everything, no matter what their skill level. Interesting stuff, but it sounds oversimplified, huh? Try this: Do you feel like you are a better automobile driver than the average person?

Not only was it not a goatse.cz link, it was exactly the papers that the article should have linked to!

Thanks, Lisa, and say, why not get yourself a user account?

I think that link should've been: http://www.apa.org/journals/bne/press_releases/dec ember_2004/bne1186.html