You are talking about a hypothetical disease from a not quite ready product and use it as an argument as to why it shouldn't be used. Great logic. By the same logic, let's assume the synthetic meat not only is cheaper to produce, it also tastes better and since it has less fat in it, is healthier. Now you get something that is both healthy and reduces the need to kill cows. Now people need to choose between dying of malnutrition or living a life without hunger. And you get ethical treatment of cows as a by-product. Sounds great!
The fact of the matter is , there is no finished product yet, but since we are talking about taking meat from cows, culturing it and getting much more meat, I don't see why it should harbor some mystical cancer in it. Guess we should just wait-and-see.
It all depends on when you are driving. During the daytime, you mostly see distracted driving problems. If you drive during the night (esp. at the wee hours), I bet your statistics will be different.
Well, according to this, about 32% of all car accident-related deaths are due to drunk driving. That means, that 68% are due to non-drunk driving! People, if you want to lower the number of people killed in traffic accidents, start drinking, because the sober people are more dangerous.
A cadaveric valve lasts for about 8 years, give or take. I didn't see anywhere the engineer's age, but I can assume he is somewhere in his 40's or 50's. That means he will have to replace the valve about 4-5 times, assuming he reaches 80. I myself wouldn't like the idea of another 4-5 open heart surgeries in my lifetime. OTOH, at an older age, the valve may last longer (10-15y), and thus there might not be a need to replace it. Today a biological valve is usually reserved for older patients, while younger ones get a mechanical valve.
I'm not a doctor, not a physicist and not an engineer, but... Wait, I am a doctor... and I like physics, although I'm not a physicists. And what does an engineer do? What was I saying? damn
When you transplant an organ, it is connected to blood vessels and thus is exposed to the immune system. When you put in biologic valves, no blood vessels are connected and there is no immune rejection. We do not understand completely why they are not rejected, because obviously they do get some blood, since they aren't ischemic, but I believe it has to do with the lack of good blood supply. BTW, as far as I know Porcine valves also do not need immunosuppresion, same as corneal implants.
First of all, I was talking about "violent behavior". Granted, some of the studies were regarding "violent cognition", but it's a valid first step in researching the issue, even if we assume that there is a big difference between thoughts and action (an assumption I share with you). Second, regardless of the above point, I was discussion of whether violent games cause a violent change in people, be it cognitive or in action. The post I replied to changed the focus to what causes said change and whether the effect is large enough to require action by law makers. Both of these points are valid, but it is important to differentiate the issues.
Maybe if we took a random group of people, X percent will be violent. If we add video games, X+Y% will be violent. How large is this Y? I don't know, and I suspect it's not much (in comparison to X), but that doesn't mean Y is 0. Probably video games pushed those who have a borderline tendency towards violence, a bit over the border.
That seems, to me, a good explanation why only a subset of violent video game players become aggressive.
In your reply you shifted the argument from "do violent games promote aggressive behavior" to "why do they cause aggressive behavior and what is the magnitude of the phenomenon?". Those are important questions, and I agree with you that if the effect is small, there might not be a need for such drastic actions as TFA suggests. However, most people on this thread are still debating the first question. Only if we agree that the answer is "yes", can we move to the second set of questions.
My father is not overweight, he exercises regularly and doesn't eat junk. However, he still has Diabetes. Does it mean obesity, lack of exercise and bad diet are not risk factors for Diabetes? Anecdotal evidence does not disprove this theory. We can look at video games as risk factors for violent behavior. I am not saying violent games will turn everyone into a blood-thirsty maniac; or the converse, that playing "The Funny Adventures of the Care-Bears" will make everyone nice and cuddly. I do say, that the mass of evidence is in favor of the theory that violent video games have some effect on people's behavior. Maybe if we took a random group of people, X percent will be violent. If we add video games, X+Y% will be violent. How large is this Y? I don't know, and I suspect it's not much (in comparison to X), but that doesn't mean Y is 0. Probably video games pushed those who have a borderline tendency towards violence, a bit over the border.
Oh, and regarding Cain, I think his excuse was not enough attention from his mother. I can't comment on the other two.
While I generally think the same as you (i.e. "...video games and other media not as a cause of violent behavior, but merely a catalyst"), some of the studies are not just correlational, but, like I mentioned in my OP, also experimental. For example:
Two studies have examined the effect of video game violence on aggressive cognition. Calvert and Tan (1994) randomly assigned male and female undergraduates to a condition in which they either played or observed a violent virtual-reality game or to a no-game control condition. Postgame aggressive thoughts were assessed with a thought-listing procedure. Aggressive thoughts were highest for violent game players. Although this supports our GAAM* view of video game effects, we hesitate to claim strong support because it is possible that this effect resulted from the greater excitement or arousal engendered by playing the game, rather than the violent content of the game. More recently, Kirsh (1998) showed that 3rd- and 4th-grade children assigned to play a violent video game gave more hostile interpretations for a subsequent ambiguous provocation story than did children assigned to play a nonviolent game. This also supports GAAM.
* GAAM - General Affective Aggression Model As I said earlier, it's easy to just continue on saying "correlation != causation", and other great-sounding slogans, but isn't it time we took a more level-headed look at the issue?
P.S. And no, I'm not part of the "think of the children" group. I think parents should take care of their children, not the government. That doesn't mean parents shouldn't have all the relevant information at their disposal.
A quicksearch shows many articles on the subject. While I didn't read all of the, a quick look showed that many are observational, prompting the famous "causation != correlation" argument, but some are intervetional and show a causative link between video games and aggressive behavior. On/. there have been a few articles on the subject, manyshowingpositive correlation, but some didn't show a connection. As someone wrote before me, given so much evidence, can we still cry vehemently against the "weak science" regarding video games and violence? Aren't we better than other groups that do not let evidence stand in the way of a good argument?
Perhaps readers may find it ironic that PLoS ONE, first dismissed by Nature as an 'online database' 'relying on bulk, cheap publishing of lower quality papers to subsidize its handful of high-quality flagship journals' seems to be setting the standards for 'a new era in publishing.'
So you are the fabled "Woman on Slashdot"? I heard legends about you, but I didn't believe they were true. Thought they were as likely to be true as the leprechaun over the rainbow. Nice meeting you:)
So I think the following would be a good summery: Deaf people spell very good words they know, but have a hard time spelling new words. Grammer is a weak point for most deaf people... And UK education sux:)
Reminds me of a joke: I'm an orphan, my father is an orphan, my mother is an orphan. Even my children are orphans!
Well, that'll teach me not to trust hearsay again. Just checking: I was talking about spelling, not grammar. Is the situation with spelling the same? Sign language has a different grammar and thus deaf people have problem with English (or any other spoken language). Also, what age-group are you referring to? Deaf children have better spelling than older people because of the different education they are getting (more bilingual education).
I agree with most of your post. However, you need to make a distinction between deaf people who weren't given access to the primary spoken language in their country (e.g. English) as children and those that were raised in a bilingual environment. The former group have limited comprehension of the spoken language and their grammar is so removed from ours as to make their writing nearly incomprehensible. OTOH, the latter group (mostly deaf people in the last decade or two), learned the spoken language from an early age (in addition to sign language) and they usually have a good grasp of the language. Their grammar is better and they, according to my teacher who works with deaf a lot, have very few spelling mistakes.
Again, I agree with all the rest of what you wrote.
And of course, we have all the symbol-based languages, most notably those from the Far-East. Since they aren't based on a phonemes, they have virtually no connection between how a word is written and how it is pronounced.
Slashdot Mirror
You are talking about a hypothetical disease from a not quite ready product and use it as an argument as to why it shouldn't be used. Great logic.
By the same logic, let's assume the synthetic meat not only is cheaper to produce, it also tastes better and since it has less fat in it, is healthier. Now you get something that is both healthy and reduces the need to kill cows. Now people need to choose between dying of malnutrition or living a life without hunger. And you get ethical treatment of cows as a by-product.
Sounds great!
The fact of the matter is , there is no finished product yet, but since we are talking about taking meat from cows, culturing it and getting much more meat, I don't see why it should harbor some mystical cancer in it. Guess we should just wait-and-see.
It all depends on when you are driving. During the daytime, you mostly see distracted driving problems. If you drive during the night (esp. at the wee hours), I bet your statistics will be different.
Funny anecdote, in Israel we had a doctors' strike in 2000. During the strike, the national death rate went down! True story.
You do realize I was joking, right?
Well, according to this, about 32% of all car accident-related deaths are due to drunk driving. That means, that 68% are due to non-drunk driving! People, if you want to lower the number of people killed in traffic accidents, start drinking, because the sober people are more dangerous.
As Walter Sobchak said to The Dude: "I did not know that".
Thanks.
A cadaveric valve lasts for about 8 years, give or take. I didn't see anywhere the engineer's age, but I can assume he is somewhere in his 40's or 50's. That means he will have to replace the valve about 4-5 times, assuming he reaches 80. I myself wouldn't like the idea of another 4-5 open heart surgeries in my lifetime. OTOH, at an older age, the valve may last longer (10-15y), and thus there might not be a need to replace it.
Today a biological valve is usually reserved for older patients, while younger ones get a mechanical valve.
I'm not a doctor, not a physicist and not an engineer, but... Wait, I am a doctor... and I like physics, although I'm not a physicists. And what does an engineer do?
What was I saying?
damn
When you transplant an organ, it is connected to blood vessels and thus is exposed to the immune system. When you put in biologic valves, no blood vessels are connected and there is no immune rejection. We do not understand completely why they are not rejected, because obviously they do get some blood, since they aren't ischemic, but I believe it has to do with the lack of good blood supply.
BTW, as far as I know Porcine valves also do not need immunosuppresion, same as corneal implants.
Hey, it could be worse.
...and the next thing you know ice cream is illegal. That is a very slippery slope to be messing with.
Whenever you start messing around with ice cream, you might get a slippery slope... and sticky fingers.
First of all, I was talking about "violent behavior". Granted, some of the studies were regarding "violent cognition", but it's a valid first step in researching the issue, even if we assume that there is a big difference between thoughts and action (an assumption I share with you).
Second, regardless of the above point, I was discussion of whether violent games cause a violent change in people, be it cognitive or in action. The post I replied to changed the focus to what causes said change and whether the effect is large enough to require action by law makers. Both of these points are valid, but it is important to differentiate the issues.
In another post I wrote:
Maybe if we took a random group of people, X percent will be violent. If we add video games, X+Y% will be violent. How large is this Y? I don't know, and I suspect it's not much (in comparison to X), but that doesn't mean Y is 0. Probably video games pushed those who have a borderline tendency towards violence, a bit over the border.
That seems, to me, a good explanation why only a subset of violent video game players become aggressive.
In your reply you shifted the argument from "do violent games promote aggressive behavior" to "why do they cause aggressive behavior and what is the magnitude of the phenomenon?". Those are important questions, and I agree with you that if the effect is small, there might not be a need for such drastic actions as TFA suggests. However, most people on this thread are still debating the first question. Only if we agree that the answer is "yes", can we move to the second set of questions.
My father is not overweight, he exercises regularly and doesn't eat junk. However, he still has Diabetes. Does it mean obesity, lack of exercise and bad diet are not risk factors for Diabetes? Anecdotal evidence does not disprove this theory.
We can look at video games as risk factors for violent behavior. I am not saying violent games will turn everyone into a blood-thirsty maniac; or the converse, that playing "The Funny Adventures of the Care-Bears" will make everyone nice and cuddly. I do say, that the mass of evidence is in favor of the theory that violent video games have some effect on people's behavior. Maybe if we took a random group of people, X percent will be violent. If we add video games, X+Y% will be violent. How large is this Y? I don't know, and I suspect it's not much (in comparison to X), but that doesn't mean Y is 0. Probably video games pushed those who have a borderline tendency towards violence, a bit over the border.
Oh, and regarding Cain, I think his excuse was not enough attention from his mother. I can't comment on the other two.
While I generally think the same as you (i.e. "...video games and other media not as a cause of violent behavior, but merely a catalyst"), some of the studies are not just correlational, but, like I mentioned in my OP, also experimental. For example:
Two studies have examined the effect of video game violence on aggressive cognition. Calvert and Tan (1994) randomly assigned male and female undergraduates to a condition in which they either played or observed a violent virtual-reality game or to a no-game control condition. Postgame aggressive thoughts were assessed with a thought-listing procedure. Aggressive thoughts were highest for violent game players. Although this supports our GAAM* view of video game effects, we hesitate to claim strong support because it is possible that this effect resulted from the greater excitement or arousal engendered by playing the game, rather than the violent content of the game. More recently, Kirsh (1998) showed that 3rd- and 4th-grade children assigned to play a violent video game gave more hostile interpretations for a subsequent ambiguous provocation story than did children assigned to play a nonviolent game. This also supports GAAM.
* GAAM - General Affective Aggression Model
As I said earlier, it's easy to just continue on saying "correlation != causation", and other great-sounding slogans, but isn't it time we took a more level-headed look at the issue?
P.S.
And no, I'm not part of the "think of the children" group. I think parents should take care of their children, not the government. That doesn't mean parents shouldn't have all the relevant information at their disposal.
A quick search shows many articles on the subject. While I didn't read all of the, a quick look showed that many are observational, prompting the famous "causation != correlation" argument, but some are intervetional and show a causative link between video games and aggressive behavior. /. there have been a few articles on the subject, many showing positive correlation, but some didn't show a connection. As someone wrote before me, given so much evidence, can we still cry vehemently against the "weak science" regarding video games and violence? Aren't we better than other groups that do not let evidence stand in the way of a good argument?
On
Wikipedia and Google Google to the rescue: Public Library of Science.
Internet, use it!
Perhaps readers may find it ironic that PLoS ONE, first dismissed by Nature as an 'online database' 'relying on bulk, cheap publishing of lower quality papers to subsidize its handful of high-quality flagship journals' seems to be setting the standards for 'a new era in publishing.'
Yes! It is ironic.
So you are the fabled "Woman on Slashdot"? I heard legends about you, but I didn't believe they were true. Thought they were as likely to be true as the leprechaun over the rainbow. :)
Nice meeting you
Let's see you balance an egg on its head?
Hint
So I think the following would be a good summery: Deaf people spell very good words they know, but have a hard time spelling new words. Grammer is a weak point for most deaf people... And UK education sux :)
Reminds me of a joke:
I'm an orphan, my father is an orphan, my mother is an orphan. Even my children are orphans!
Well, that'll teach me not to trust hearsay again. Just checking: I was talking about spelling, not grammar. Is the situation with spelling the same? Sign language has a different grammar and thus deaf people have problem with English (or any other spoken language). Also, what age-group are you referring to? Deaf children have better spelling than older people because of the different education they are getting (more bilingual education).
I agree with most of your post. However, you need to make a distinction between deaf people who weren't given access to the primary spoken language in their country (e.g. English) as children and those that were raised in a bilingual environment. The former group have limited comprehension of the spoken language and their grammar is so removed from ours as to make their writing nearly incomprehensible. OTOH, the latter group (mostly deaf people in the last decade or two), learned the spoken language from an early age (in addition to sign language) and they usually have a good grasp of the language. Their grammar is better and they, according to my teacher who works with deaf a lot, have very few spelling mistakes.
Again, I agree with all the rest of what you wrote.
And of course, we have all the symbol-based languages, most notably those from the Far-East. Since they aren't based on a phonemes, they have virtually no connection between how a word is written and how it is pronounced.
Real ironic or Alanis ironic?