Slashdot Mirror
Research Credibility In the Video Game Violence Debate
An anonymous reader writes "Two researchers who have a history of publishing studies that claim violent video games lead to violence have now published a new study claiming that they've come up with an 'objective' way to measure why violent video games lead to violence. They've taken the names of people who signed an amicus brief on the upcoming Supreme Court case on an anti-violent video game law in California, and decided that if you added up the number of publications by each side the ones who supported 'video games lead to violence' had more publications, and thus that was 'proof' that they had more credibility. Yes, quantity is more important than quality. The fact that the researchers who published this 'study' also wrote the amicus brief that supported the same claim seems to call their objectivity into question as well."
As someone growing up watching The Three Stooges back in the 70's, I can't fathom why all the school kids didn't poke each others' eyeballs out, tear each others' hair out, etc, etc, etc.
You can't canny get more violent than that.
I guess our parents told that stuff in films . . . shouldn't be carried out in street fights . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I saw an essay once by a anthropologist who made the claim that video games and sports do not increase violence. His argument in a nutshell was the humans like all mammals have a very deep seated sense of play vs serious business. even though play often has mock violence aspects is isn't the same thing. Children and teenagers, like dogs, instinctively understand the difference between the two.
So it's like goatse -- you aren't shocked anymore to see a stretched anus on the screen, but you still aren't inclined to stretch your anus in front of other people or cameras?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.