Slashdot Mirror


Professor, ECA Dispute Video Game Aggression Study

Earlier this week, we discussed research which linked aggression in children with video games. The Entertainment Consumer Association responded with a statement criticizing the research, as did Christopher Ferguson, a professor at Texas A&M. PCWorld sat down with Ferguson for a more in-depth discussion of the flaws with the study. In addition to bringing up the correlation vs. causation fallacy, he notes: "Even if you took it at face value, which I don't, video game violence overlaps somewhere between, based on their own statistics, a half a percent to two percent, with a variance in aggression. If you woke up tomorrow and you were half a percent more aggressive than you were today, would you notice that? It's just not much of an effect. If the author said look, there's a little effect here, maybe video games increase aggression a tiny bit, but it's not going to make anyone into a serial murderer, yeah, alright, we may argue a little bit over the methodology, though I'd still say they should've controlled for other stuff. "

8 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't it obvious? by Aphoxema · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course violent video games cause violence. I played GTA the other day, then I went out and stole a car, then I ran some people over, then I did some missions, got a rocket launcher and blew some stuff up, then I had 4 stars above my head and I knew I had some problems. The police came and killed me even though I totally loaded up an armor and life and all the weapons.

    Fortunately I came back to life and appeared in front of the hospital, yet my sins felt strangely unforgiven.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    1. Re:Isn't it obvious? by RuBLed · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think you missed some very important stuff. While you are thinking about it, I gonna get myself some coffee...

  2. Super Mario by coren2000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I dont like what you say... Dont make me take mushrooms and jump on your head motherF#cker!

  3. Re:Gotta wonder by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As with so many correlation is not causation issues, people who jump to use that line don't seem to understand it.

    Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Correlation DOES mean there is a link, though it may not be direct.

    For example, playing violent games may not increase violent tendencies. People with violent tendencies may play violent games more by choice. Fine. That's a very reasonable alternative. But, either way, if little Johnny likes beating up virtual hookers sixteen hours a day, his parents might be wise to keep a close eye on him.

  4. Re:Gotta wonder by plasmacutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Correlation DOES mean there is a link

    Not necessarily true.

    Correlation merely means correlation.

    Unless of course pirates absorb greenhouse gases

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  5. Re:Gotta wonder by philspear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless of course pirates absorb greenhouse gases [seanbonner.com]

    ... well, that's obviously not the only interpretation to walk away with there. Another would be that some of the same changes that drove piracy down, like using internal combustion engines to power boats that would then go faster, decreasing the efficiency of hijacking a boat on the open seas, also may have been putting out more greenhouse gasses.

    Correlation does not mean DIRECT causation, but it's often hard to rule out indirect causation.

    Anyway, his point was right. People here pull out that trite bit of fortune-cookie wisdom every time two things happen, even if an argument of causation is made. Stubbornly refusing to admit the possibility that A and B are at all related just because a direct link has not been shown is not very logical either.

    In this case, people are quick to point out correlation does not mean causation maybe because they like videogames and don't want any possibility of seeing games blamed for any real problems and censored. I don't think denying the truth, if this is true, is the best way to guard against censorship. I think we need to continue to argue that the responsibility to control oneself is on the individual, if some kids become violent after playing games, the obvious solution would be to not let them play games. Barring that, lock them up or sedate them. I really don't care, but you're not taking my gaming options away just because of bad parents.

  6. Re:Gotta wonder by NonSequor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The correlation is due to the time dependence of the data. You'll always find a correlation between any two time series that increase or decrease over time.

    In a sense, they do share an indirect causal link: the passage of time.

    --
    My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
  7. Re:Been playing violent games since I was 3... by Thiez · · Score: 3, Funny

    > Starting with Wolfenstein on my 386, and the usual collection of shooters from then on. I've never even broken my own nose before, let alone performed any act of aggression against any person.

    Same for me, but that is irrelevant. Maybe you feel the need to speak up because the link videogames-violence does not apply to you (thus making you think it is bullshit), and the 1000 people who turned into crazy murderers after playing tetris are to embarrassed to speak up.

    We're all biased :(