Posted June 08, 2015
Except you didn't criticize the paper. You called it out merely for the journal it is in and your unproven claim that psychologists agree video games are linked to violence just because of a 2005 APA policy statement. (Note: there is not this substantial consensus you claim and furthermore these experiments are not getting repeated. Primarily because other psychologists want to do their own studies in order to be published).
For proof of a lack of real consensus, here's an open letter to the APA, including a large number of leading psychologists, who are asking for that policy statement to be revisited due to new evidence; both for new studies and the insufficiency of old studies.
http://www.christopherjferguson.com/APA%20Task%20Force%20Comment1.pdf
And here is the APA response...
http://www.apa.org/pi/families/violent-media.aspx
Does not the fact that a new task force is approved at least lend credence to dispute your claim?
Additionally, here's a study showing specifically how psychological data is not as statistically accurate as claimed...
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/11/1359.full.pdf
Edit: And note I'm claiming there is no smoking gun. You are the one claiming it is 100% established there is a causal link. You thus have the burden of proof for your extravagant claim...
For proof of a lack of real consensus, here's an open letter to the APA, including a large number of leading psychologists, who are asking for that policy statement to be revisited due to new evidence; both for new studies and the insufficiency of old studies.
http://www.christopherjferguson.com/APA%20Task%20Force%20Comment1.pdf
And here is the APA response...
http://www.apa.org/pi/families/violent-media.aspx
Does not the fact that a new task force is approved at least lend credence to dispute your claim?
Additionally, here's a study showing specifically how psychological data is not as statistically accurate as claimed...
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/11/1359.full.pdf
Edit: And note I'm claiming there is no smoking gun. You are the one claiming it is 100% established there is a causal link. You thus have the burden of proof for your extravagant claim...
Post edited June 08, 2015 by RWarehall