It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionThe #Gamergate news thread(8424 posts) (8424 posts) 
(8424 posts) 
Pages:
1
100
200
248
249
250
251
252
400
500
562
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 07, 2015
avatar
walpurgis8199: Yes, a lot of people know about games reviews being influenced by the marketing budget of the company selling the game. That frustration has been growing for years. Then the some of the games press started in a new direction. They started promoting games of people they liked (usually indie) and they also started attacking their audience for largely being male and liking things that males like. That frustration started to grow.

Then the Zoe Quinn thing broke. Some of games press decided to respond to it by deleting threads discussing the drama, by encouraging other gaming press or sites to stop discussion on their message boards, and then they wrote the gamers are dead articles. They basically said that the only reason for the backlash is misogyny. It was the response by the games press that really caused this thing to grow as large as it has.
avatar
Darth: Some Games reviews were influenced by advertiser money, the most notable example being the Kane and lynch 2 review from Gamespot and Jeff Gertman's firing, and guess why reported on that being bullshit at the time? Other games sites. It's like they've known and been complaining about this for ages.

Game sites promoting indie games because they like them, proves what exactly?

Do you have any proof that they were attacking their audience for being largely male? I mean actually attacking their entire audience indiscriminately, because they're the wrong gender, not attacking the "boys club, eww girls have cooties" of some segments of the gaming population hold (the biggest example being the dude bro douche bags that plagued xbl back in the day)

The Zoe Quinn thing "broke" you mean Zoe's X posted a thing and the internet shitbags that already had an axe to grind with her (Which I still don't understand, I mean I don't expect everyone to like everyone but why the internet picks certain targets for concentrated harassment/trolling confuses me) started posting their hateful bullshit and certain sites weren't having it.

The Gamers are dead articles, have you actually read them? They don't claim misogyny as the cause.

but I'll agree with you on one point, the Games media did handle this poorly, you don't feed the trolls, and you check your sources, if they'd done that Gamergate could've dead back in August and we could be living in a better world.
1.Individual journos promoting games of friends and co-workers and roomates WITHOUT DISCLOSURE isn't ethcial.

2.What do you mean attacking? Physically assaulting? The question is not whether they attacked because the majority were males. The question is that media and journalistic organizations shamed and defamed their audience. Why they did it is not as important as the fact that they did indeed do it.

3.What about the doxxing of lizz or SWATing attempt at the first amendment lawyer? Harassment has been given more to the proGGs than antis. ProGG has a troll patrol to find and ban doxxers. AntiGG leader themselves doxx other people and encourage it.

4.But claims of misogyny were ripe from even before ZQ's drama.
Posted June 07, 2015
low rated
avatar
Darth: Some Games reviews were influenced by advertiser money, the most notable example being the Kane and lynch 2 review from Gamespot and Jeff Gertman's firing, and guess why reported on that being bullshit at the time? Other games sites. It's like they've known and been complaining about this for ages.

Game sites promoting indie games because they like them, proves what exactly?

Do you have any proof that they were attacking their audience for being largely male? I mean actually attacking their entire audience indiscriminately, because they're the wrong gender, not attacking the "boys club, eww girls have cooties" of some segments of the gaming population hold (the biggest example being the dude bro douche bags that plagued xbl back in the day)

The Zoe Quinn thing "broke" you mean Zoe's X posted a thing and the internet shitbags that already had an axe to grind with her (Which I still don't understand, I mean I don't expect everyone to like everyone but why the internet picks certain targets for concentrated harassment/trolling confuses me) started posting their hateful bullshit and certain sites weren't having it.

The Gamers are dead articles, have you actually read them? They don't claim misogyny as the cause.

but I'll agree with you on one point, the Games media did handle this poorly, you don't feed the trolls, and you check your sources, if they'd done that Gamergate could've dead back in August and we could be living in a better world.
avatar
Shadowstalker16: 1.Individual journos promoting games of friends and co-workers and roomates WITHOUT DISCLOSURE isn't ethcial.

2.What do you mean attacking? Physically assaulting? The question is not whether they attacked because the majority were males. The question is that media and journalistic organizations shamed and defamed their audience. Why they did it is not as important as the fact that they did indeed do it.

3.What about the doxxing of lizz or SWATing attempt at the first amendment lawyer? Harassment has been given more to the proGGs than antis. ProGG has a troll patrol to find and ban doxxers. AntiGG leader themselves doxx other people and encourage it.

4.But claims of misogyny were ripe from even before ZQ's drama.
1. How is saying you like something someone you know made unethical in any circumstance? Journalistic disclosure doesn't apply to stating an opinion "I like this" or listing of facts "these games came out today" it does certainly apply to games reviews, news stories, advertising, and similar possible conflicts of interest, but very few if any examples of that stuff have been dug up.

2. No they didn't. No site ever attacked or defamed their audience unless you cherry pick and creatively interpret articles to change them from "this set of people is doing something bad" to "all gamers are evil nazis"

3. He was referring to how gamergate started, so I was talking about how gamergate started. but ok sure "AntiGG" has done bad shit, so? that doesn't in any way validate or excuse anything GG has done. "AntiGG" also isn't games journalists, so I fail to see how it proves anything about corrupt games journalist money hatting propaganda whatever whatever. The only real dirt there is was the narrative that GG is a misogynistic campaign out to attack women because they're women. I can't even fathom the sheer stupidity it took to come to that conclusion, but it still doesn't render the pro GG narrative credible.

4. No, claims of large swaths of the gaming sphere being unfriendly/uninviting to women were rampant before the ZQ thing, and while you can have a discussion about how much was substance compared to propagation of outrage, flatout claiming it's 100% untrue is a lie.
Posted June 07, 2015
avatar
Shadowstalker16: stuides have proven games don't cause violence, sexism or any other of the buzzwords.
This isn't true. The studies you are probably referencing have only found there is no correlation between violent crime rates and depiction of violence in large populations. Interestingly, they did not account for the soaring incarceration rate starting in the 1970s. There were several other problems with the study that was published in the journal of communications. Real causal studies of individuals can only measure short term aggression, which does demonstrably spike. What that means over a person's life? That is an unknown. So studies have shown nothing about how violence in media affects individuals over the long term. It's still an unknown we can only hypothesize about.

Anyone else spend more time talking about crap on the internet than actually playing video games?
Post edited June 07, 2015 by keyvin
Posted June 07, 2015
avatar
RWarehall: The "Hooker Trick" doesn't make those statements more true and less deceptive, and as I pointed out before, most of the mentions of that "trick" talk about gaining health. Some actually discourage you from killing them, some say its only an option. So, this hooker trick you speak of, is paying money to have sex with them for health....it doesn't involve killing.
avatar
Fever_Discordia: If the player chooses to use a prostitute, the player gets charged $1 / sec for the service, which gains them health
This is quite a hefty charge, especially early in the game
However, if the player chooses to kill the prostitute afterwards she drops not just the normal pedestrian prostitute amount but the full amount charged

Therefore the player is financially incentived to kill the prostitute, the only reason not to is moral - some of the GameFAQs walkthroughs discouraged killing the prostitute on moral grounds even though there is no in-game advantage to this and its 'only a game'. Others presented killing the prostitute as the natural, 'spike', game theory 'optimal / correct play'
There is also the kill alert range is higher for the prostitutes than it is of the others and if I am right it when caught auto gives you 2 stars.
Posted June 07, 2015
avatar
Shadowstalker16: stuides have proven games don't cause violence, sexism or any other of the buzzwords.
avatar
keyvin: This isn't true. The studies you are probably referencing have only found there is no correlation between violent crime rates and depiction of violence in large populations. Interestingly, they did not account for the soaring incarceration rate starting in the 1970s. There were several other problems with the study that was published in the journal of communications. Real causal studies of individuals can only measure short term aggression, which does demonstrably spike. What that means over a person's life? That is an unknown. So studies have shown nothing about how violence in media affects individuals over the long term. It's still an unknown we can only hypothesize about.

Anyone else spend more time talking about crap on the internet than actually playing video games?
Another uninformed fool. There have been studies attempting to correlate violence and other behaviors to media for almost 50 years. In all general cases, they have found no detectable correlation, meaning if there is a link, it is very very small. So what you are talking about is something that at best affects fractions of a percent if at all.

Instead, you site one flawed study, which purportedly produced "violent" effects for a whole 20 seconds after viewing the material.

Here's a link to a more recent article about another study with comments about how flawed the study you reference is....
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/longterm-us-study-finds-no-links-between-violent-video-games-and-youth-violence-9851613.html

For those with a problem following links...
In a press statement Ferguson notes that the media narrative surrounding violent video games and youth violence may be due to the “limited amount of resources and attention” that society can devote to “the problem of reducing crime”.

He adds, however, that if the wrong problem is identified, it may "distract society from more pressing concerns such as poverty, education and vocational disparities and mental health."

Ferguson writes: "This research may help society focus on issues that really matter and avoid devoting unnecessary resources to the pursuit of moral agendas with little practical value."
Post edited June 07, 2015 by RWarehall
Posted June 07, 2015
I think killing hookers is more a consequence of having a sandbox game than intentional game design. The only way to keep players from killing prostitutes would be to take them out of the game. You could make the exact same argument about skyrim encouraging you to kill your wife to get out of an unhappy marriage by not having a divorce option.
Posted June 07, 2015
avatar
keyvin: This isn't true. The studies you are probably referencing have only found there is no correlation between violent crime rates and depiction of violence in large populations. Interestingly, they did not account for the soaring incarceration rate starting in the 1970s. There were several other problems with the study that was published in the journal of communications. Real causal studies of individuals can only measure short term aggression, which does demonstrably spike. What that means over a person's life? That is an unknown. So studies have shown nothing about how violence in media affects individuals over the long term. It's still an unknown we can only hypothesize about.

Anyone else spend more time talking about crap on the internet than actually playing video games?
avatar
RWarehall: Another uninformed fool. There have been studies attempting to correlate violence and other behaviors to media for almost 50 years. In all general cases, they have found no detectable correlation, meaning if there is a link, it is very very small. So what you are talking about is something that at best affects fractions of a percent if at all.

Instead, you site one flawed study, which purportedly produced "violent" effects for a whole 20 seconds after viewing the material.

Here's a link to a more recent article about another study with comments about how flawed the study you reference is....
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/longterm-us-study-finds-no-links-between-violent-video-games-and-youth-violence-9851613.html

For those with a problem following links...
In a press statement Ferguson notes that the media narrative surrounding violent video games and youth violence may be due to the “limited amount of resources and attention” that society can devote to “the problem of reducing crime”.

He adds, however, that if the wrong problem is identified, it may "distract society from more pressing concerns such as poverty, education and vocational disparities and mental health."

Ferguson writes: "This research may help society focus on issues that really matter and avoid devoting unnecessary resources to the pursuit of moral agendas with little practical value."
That short experiment has been reproduced numerous times. In different settings, in different cultures. It shows a causal link. You cited the exact same study I was critical of (as proof of my ignorance) that was correlational and didn't control for several important factors in the decline of violence in general post 1990 (abortion, incarceration). The journal of communication is not a respected psychological journal, there are several good criticisms of the statistical methodology used to conduct the study, and it was a correlational statistical experiment. He didn't answer the question of whether watching violence could cause violence. He attempted to answer the question "Is there a detectable price to society because of violence in media".

I'm not sure you understand how peer reviewed research works. Just because something is published in a journal doesn't mean it is accurate or true. There was a scientific troll that devised a bad experiment that would always show eating chocolate helped with weight loss. He submitted it to a bad journal, it was published. Then there was a flurry of articles telling people to eat chocolate to lose weight. Now there are people that tell others to eat chocolate to lose weight.

You are taking one psychologist's opinion on the subject, backed up by questionable statistical methodology and presenting it as an outright fact. That's not how science works, especially outside of the natural sciences. You are right that the studies on aggression are short term. I stated that. I maintain my stated position - that we do not know the long term effects of violence in the media on individuals (nor, I would argue, do we know the effects on large populations) .

Good job linking to the exact study I was directly critical of as proof of my ignorance on the subject though.
Posted June 07, 2015
avatar
keyvin: snip
You claim a causal link? I cry bullshit...
Read the damn study. The whole first half of the study goes into why all the studies you are claiming to be the good ones are problematic...
Here's a direct link since so many can't seem to follow article links....
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12129/full

Evidence from experiments
Much of the discussion of whether media violence does or does not contribute to societal violence has focused on laboratory based studies of aggression. Most such experiments have focused on lesser aggressive outcomes ranging from filling in the missing letters of words through delivering nonpainful noise bursts to a consenting opponent. These measures of aggression and their ability to inform about real-world violence have been controversial (Kutner & Olson, 2008). Some authors have argued that intercorrelations between these aggression measures demonstrate conceptual utility (Anderson, Lindsay, & Bushman, 1999) although more recent reanalysis of this work has been less sanguine (Mitchell, 2012). Other scholars have indicated that these aggression measures are often used in an unstandardized way, with even the same labs sometimes extracting aggression differently between studies from a single measure (Ferguson, 2013) and that such unstandardized aggression measures can cause spurious effect sizes (Elson, Mohseni, Breuer, Scharkow, & Quandt, 2014).

These issues of validity aside, results for media violence effects in the laboratory have been mixed (Savage, 2008). For both movies and videogame violence, some studies find evidence for effects on increased aggression (e.g., Ivory & Kaestle, 2013; Turner & Berkowitz, 1972), null effects (Ramos, Ferguson, Frailing, & Romero-Ramirez, 2013; Tear & Nielson, 2013) or even reduced aggression (Feshbach, 1961; Mueller, Donnerstein, & Hallam, 1983; Shibuya, Sakamoto, Ihori, & Yukawa, 2008; Valadez & Ferguson, 2012). Overall, making clear, declarative statements from this body of work is difficult. Other research has indicated that laboratory exposures to violent content do not match well with real-life exposure. For instance, Krahé et al. (2011) found evidence for small associations between exposure to media violence in the laboratory and mild aggression tasks, but real-life exposure did not predict aggression in the laboratory.

The degree to which laboratory studies faithfully capture the media experience is also debatable. Many such studies provide exposure to only brief clips of media, rather than full narrative experiences, in which violence exposure is outside of a narrative context. The resultant aggressive behaviors are also outside a real-world context, in which the aggression appears to be sanctioned by the researchers themselves, who provide the opportunity for aggression. The close pairing of clips of media violence with sanctioned aggression asks may also set up demand characteristics that may explain the small effects typically seen from such studies. The degree to which such studies, regardless of their inconsistent results, can be generalized to societal aggression remains debatable (Savage, 2008).
And if you really knew anything about scientific studies, you know you'd find correlation necessarily wherever there was causality...
Correlation shows two things rising or falling at the same time, while causality is showing that one of those things is the root cause of the increase or decrease of the other...
Post edited June 07, 2015 by RWarehall
Posted June 07, 2015
avatar
keyvin: snip
avatar
RWarehall: You claim a causal link? I cry bullshit...
Read the damn study. The whole first half of the study goes into why all the studies you are claiming to be the good ones are problematic...
Here's a direct link since so many can't seem to follow article links....
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12129/full

Evidence from experiments
Much of the discussion of whether media violence does or does not contribute to societal violence has focused on laboratory based studies of aggression. Most such experiments have focused on lesser aggressive outcomes ranging from filling in the missing letters of words through delivering nonpainful noise bursts to a consenting opponent. These measures of aggression and their ability to inform about real-world violence have been controversial (Kutner & Olson, 2008). Some authors have argued that intercorrelations between these aggression measures demonstrate conceptual utility (Anderson, Lindsay, & Bushman, 1999) although more recent reanalysis of this work has been less sanguine (Mitchell, 2012). Other scholars have indicated that these aggression measures are often used in an unstandardized way, with even the same labs sometimes extracting aggression differently between studies from a single measure (Ferguson, 2013) and that such unstandardized aggression measures can cause spurious effect sizes (Elson, Mohseni, Breuer, Scharkow, & Quandt, 2014).

These issues of validity aside, results for media violence effects in the laboratory have been mixed (Savage, 2008). For both movies and videogame violence, some studies find evidence for effects on increased aggression (e.g., Ivory & Kaestle, 2013; Turner & Berkowitz, 1972), null effects (Ramos, Ferguson, Frailing, & Romero-Ramirez, 2013; Tear & Nielson, 2013) or even reduced aggression (Feshbach, 1961; Mueller, Donnerstein, & Hallam, 1983; Shibuya, Sakamoto, Ihori, & Yukawa, 2008; Valadez & Ferguson, 2012). Overall, making clear, declarative statements from this body of work is difficult. Other research has indicated that laboratory exposures to violent content do not match well with real-life exposure. For instance, Krahé et al. (2011) found evidence for small associations between exposure to media violence in the laboratory and mild aggression tasks, but real-life exposure did not predict aggression in the laboratory.

The degree to which laboratory studies faithfully capture the media experience is also debatable. Many such studies provide exposure to only brief clips of media, rather than full narrative experiences, in which violence exposure is outside of a narrative context. The resultant aggressive behaviors are also outside a real-world context, in which the aggression appears to be sanctioned by the researchers themselves, who provide the opportunity for aggression. The close pairing of clips of media violence with sanctioned aggression asks may also set up demand characteristics that may explain the small effects typically seen from such studies. The degree to which such studies, regardless of their inconsistent results, can be generalized to societal aggression remains debatable (Savage, 2008).
avatar
RWarehall:
You understand, again, this is one psychologist, cherry picking papers that support his opinion. Published in a non psychological journal. That part alone is pretty damning. Either the paper had been rejected by psychology and sociology journals, or the author didn't like his chances and went with a journal that would be more receptive.

The consensus view of psychology is that exposure to violence leads to more violent behavior in the short term. There is also a consensus view that exposing children to violent media is harmful. These views were formed on the bases of reproducible laboratory research.
Posted June 07, 2015
avatar
keyvin: You understand, again, this is one psychologist, cherry picking papers that support his opinion. Published in a non psychological journal. That part alone is pretty damning. Either the paper had been rejected by psychology and sociology journals, or the author didn't like his chances and went with a journal that would be more receptive.

The consensus view of psychology is that exposure to violence leads to more violent behavior in the short term. There is also a consensus view that exposing children to violent media is harmful. These views were formed on the bases of reproducible laboratory research.
So you claim, yet there are many studies which dispute that including part of psychology.
Funny how you seem to think you have the right to "cherry-pick" this study as bad and all the ones which you claim to provide a consensus as good. Yet, you fail to address the specific concerns linked to and cited in this article.

Instead your only "counter-evidence" seems to be the fact this was published in a non-psychological journal...
Posted June 07, 2015
avatar
RWarehall: Another thing about censorship that gets lost is that in many cases, it is accepted. Public television edits out content of movies all the time. Pornography is obviously limited. There is a lot of art considered unsuitable for children and this is generally accepted as a good thing.

But then you have censorship through "outrage". One of the links I posted above spoke of the Smithsonian and a LGBT art display which had a movie censored because it depicted a cross and Christian groups got "offended" by it. I mean seriously, how many of these Christians were going to this LGBT art exposition to even be "offended" by it?

But that's the whole problem with this video game censorship lately. GTA V needs to be removed from Targets and K-Marts in Australia because feminists might be "triggered" by it, as if now adults need to be protected for their sensibilities and as if these feminists were actually really going to buy GTA V anyway.
avatar
Fever_Discordia: But GTA V IS "art considered unsuitable for children", hence the '18' badge on the front of the box and, as I've previously shown, Target were marketing it children...
Which is actually illegal if true. Selling mature games to children carries some hefty penalties.
avatar
RWarehall: Another thing about censorship that gets lost is that in many cases, it is accepted. Public television edits out content of movies all the time. Pornography is obviously limited. There is a lot of art considered unsuitable for children and this is generally accepted as a good thing.

But then you have censorship through "outrage". One of the links I posted above spoke of the Smithsonian and a LGBT art display which had a movie censored because it depicted a cross and Christian groups got "offended" by it. I mean seriously, how many of these Christians were going to this LGBT art exposition to even be "offended" by it?

But that's the whole problem with this video game censorship lately. GTA V needs to be removed from Targets and K-Marts in Australia because feminists might be "triggered" by it, as if now adults need to be protected for their sensibilities and as if these feminists were actually really going to buy GTA V anyway. Or Pillars of Eternity needed to have that limerick removed because trans people might be "offended". Heck, it was the straight Casanova which was dumb enough to kill himself over it. Wasn't that saying more about him? Yet no, somehow we now need to protect the "sensibilities" of other adults. But I don't see many social activists caring about Christian sensibilities, nor Christians caring about LGBT sensibilities. Nope, they only care about their "own" sensibilities...

Tell me the real difference between Christians being "offended" by how that crucifix was treated vs. LGBTs being offended by comments in Christian media about what God thinks? Is the difference, your side is right whichever side you are on? When one interest group gets to censor the content of others for being "offended" where does it stop? Should Russians be able to censor every video game that has American soldiers implying they are the bad guys? Or visa versa? How many games would be left that don't offend anyone anywhere? And certainly don't tell me any of them would have any kind of narrative, because the more text, the more chance for offense...

Even all this said, it doesn't mean certain games might not cross the line. I don't hear many serious complaints about the censorship of Rapelay. I didn't hear a whole lot of outrage from anyone when the "Kill the Faggots" game was removed from Steam. Some games really cross the line.

But generally speaking, unless the concept is nearly universally deplorable, I support artistic choice. You might not like the concepts of prostitutes or strippers depicted in video games. Eye candy for males might be a turnoff such as "boob armour". Or you don't like that one can kill civilians in Hatred. Or you don't like torture scenes or the sight of a lot of blood. But are any of these things "so offensive" that "no one" should be allowed to buy that game or else the game "has to" be changed? Because be careful what you wish for, else something you like will be edited for "offending" someone else.
avatar
SusurrusParadox: That.. Australia thing is kinda a storm in a teacup.
Wasn't it just the one store or something?
(I feel like some of these 'stories' are people grasping for anything and everything that might support their narrative.)

Also I was/am a Project Eternity backer and agree fully with the bad poetry being removed.
It relies on a shitty premise, and reinforces it even whilst it mocks those that believe in it.
(Which applies to some in this very thread. If you're agreeing that transphobic BS and disrespecting the identity of trans women is bad then you've actually managed to score approval.)
.. tbh there are a lot of 'backer messages' that aren't any better though.
I take slight issue with the way it was handled too. Like, I don't think the writer intended for it to come off as reinforcing transphobic tropes, but then the way he responded.. didn't really help..
(Usually, mistakenly hurting someone is followed with "Oh, shit, sorry" rather than "UGH. You just don't GET it. Why are people so OFFENDED?" and mocking whoever was hurt. Usually. Ideally.)

... do you realise your solution to "people get pissy about poor representations" is actually just better representations?
There is no need for this weird slippery slope of increasingly narrow restrictive non-narratives when one could just.. have.. better stories? Better writing, better characterisation, more interesting (ie: diverse) casts and plots?

... okay so you get weird.
On the one hand, you're getting pissy at activists for.. being activists and speaking out and protesting things they don't like.
On the other, you're.. supporting the notion of censorship having value and people being allowed to express themselves.
So.. where's the line?

(Also yeah, the problem with depictions of sex workers is usually the lack of respect and the shitty representation.
Like, things are less of an issue with diverse representation that shows an entire spectrum of people in a certain role or from a certain background.
When representation is limited or is overwhelmingly of one particular type, that dominance being a negative reflection isn't that great.)
[Sort of how there are so few trans characters in anything that shitty portrayals can easily make things worse or reinforce awful harmful notions. Applies to other things, but that's the best example, I think.]
{Usually the argument against shitty 'eye candy' portrayals is poor characterisation. The 'Sexy Lamp' effect.
Or the fact that the men get to wear proper armour and things.
It's the sexism and imbalance more than the concept of sexualisation itself.}
Axe Battler and the chubby bosses from Golden Axe would like to have a word with you.
Post edited June 07, 2015 by LiquidOxygen80
Posted June 07, 2015
Christopher Ferguson
Associate Professor and Chair of Psychology

Christopher Ferguson holds a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Central Florida. He has clinical experience particularly in working with offender and juvenile justice populations as well as conducting evaluations for child protective services. In 2013 he was awarded a Distinguished Early Career Professional Award from Division 46 (media psychology and technology) of the American Psychological Association. In 2014 he was named a fellow of the American Psychological Association through Division 1 (General Psychology, effective January, 2015).

Published works include:
Perspectives on Psychological Science
International Journal Of Mental Health And Addiction
Encyclopedia of Mental Health (2nd Edition)
Psychiatric Quarterly
Psychology of Popular Media Culture
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
British Journal of Psychiatry
The Psychologist
European Psychologist
American Psychologist
Frontiers in Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma
Clinical Psychology Review

So we are supposed to take YOUR word that this man is unprofessional and should ignore this study of his?
And you claim he cherry-picks, but many of the pro-violence studies cited in his review...
He cities everything from pro, neutral to con. How is that cherry-picking exactly?
Oh, I get it, he was supposed to throw out all the studies that show no link or reverse correlation, that's right!
Post edited June 08, 2015 by RWarehall
Posted June 08, 2015
avatar
keyvin: I think killing hookers is more a consequence of having a sandbox game than intentional game design. The only way to keep players from killing prostitutes would be to take them out of the game. You could make the exact same argument about skyrim encouraging you to kill your wife to get out of an unhappy marriage by not having a divorce option.
thank the lord GabeN for mods. There actually is a divorce mod.
Posted June 08, 2015
avatar
keyvin: You understand, again, this is one psychologist, cherry picking papers that support his opinion. Published in a non psychological journal. That part alone is pretty damning. Either the paper had been rejected by psychology and sociology journals, or the author didn't like his chances and went with a journal that would be more receptive.

The consensus view of psychology is that exposure to violence leads to more violent behavior in the short term. There is also a consensus view that exposing children to violent media is harmful. These views were formed on the bases of reproducible laboratory research.
avatar
RWarehall: So you claim, yet there are many studies which dispute that including part of psychology.
Funny how you seem to think you have the right to "cherry-pick" this study as bad and all the ones which you claim to provide a consensus as good. Yet, you fail to address the specific concerns linked to and cited in this article.

Instead your only "counter-evidence" seems to be the fact this was published in a non-psychological journal...
I'm not cherry picking as bad, I'm saying it goes against the consensus and it was published in a journal where the tangential relation is a matter of ethics, not science. I'm not a psychologist. I'm using my scientific training to discern if this is a ground breaking paper that poses a real challenge to the current consensus. I primarily see several meta studies used as proof of his argument. Meta studies that use research that did not address the effects of incarceration and abortion on the crime rate. He cites some papers that support his opinion that you don't need to worry about it, but those studies don't provide any kind of direct proof to his hypothesis.

If he had published in a top five psychology journal, I would be more inclined to further look into the studies he cites countering the consensus view. A peer reviewer would have decided that they were reasonable studies to include to support such an opinion.

You have to understand, this paper will not be seriously considered by research psychologists because of his choice of journal. You do not publish a paper you want your peers to look at in a journal few research psychologists follow. That means it is likely no one is even going to take the time to write a paper criticizing it or countering it. Doing a citation search just shows news articles, no other journal citations. I do not have lexis nexus, so it may have been cited and I do not have access to it.

avatar
RWarehall: Christopher Ferguson
Associate Professor and Chair of Psychology

Christopher Ferguson holds a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Central Florida. He has clinical experience particularly in working with offender and juvenile justice populations as well as conducting evaluations for child protective services. In 2013 he was awarded a Distinguished Early Career Professional Award from Division 46 (media psychology and technology) of the American Psychological Association. In 2014 he was named a fellow of the American Psychological Association through Division 1 (General Psychology, effective January, 2015).

Published works include:
Perspectives on Psychological Science
International Journal Of Mental Health And Addiction
Encyclopedia of Mental Health (2nd Edition)
Psychiatric Quarterly
Psychology of Popular Media Culture
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
British Journal of Psychiatry
The Psychologist
European Psychologist
American Psychologist
Frontiers in Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma
Clinical Psychology Review

So we are supposed to take YOUR word that this man is unprofessional and should ignore this study of his?
And you claim he cherry-picks, but many of the pro-violence studies cited in his review...
He cities everything from pro, neutral to con. How is that cherry-picking exactly?
Oh, I get it, he was supposed to throw out all the studies that show no link or reverse correlation, that's right!
I never criticized the scientist, I criticized the paper.

Edit:

You realize it takes months to properly peer review a paper. You have to look at the citations, look at the citations of the citations, where they were published, etc. The more prestigious the journal, the more liklihood of a thorough review. The more seriously the paper will be taken.
Post edited June 08, 2015 by keyvin
Posted June 08, 2015
Most of all, I'm criticizing your use of the paper as an authorative source on absolutely anything.
Pages:
1
100
200
248
249
250
251
252
400
500
562
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionThe #Gamergate news thread(8424 posts) (8424 posts) 
(8424 posts)