RWarehall: You have still not proven a casual link to violence from video games, because such has not been proven at all.
People are just supposed to take YOUR word on it.
Are you claiming that all these researchers who claim there has been no conclusive proof are wrong?
And what qualifies YOU to make that determination?
You claim there are no long-term studies, but you are wrong. You just want to throw out any study which you don't agree with. Studies have been done which track video game usage with violent crime and they are finding no correlation. Studies have tracked spikes in usage finding no spikes and general long-term trends. In fact, violent crime in the US has dropped precipitously since about the start of the video game generation.
And let's not go into funding and potential political motivations in this process. How studies are funded to find results, and those who continue to find results get the funding for the next.
So far you have shown in these conversations an inability to read a dictionary but now you claim to be some super-scientist. Your claims are just silly that boycotters "have no power" thus can't be a cause for censorship. Everyone can see what happens when the media picks up on it. They clearly have power then. Why do they do it, if they have no power to change anything?
I am not a super scientist. I never claimed to be. I have a masters of engineering in computer engineering and computer science. Which means I have training on how to find and evaluate research that I want to build upon. I would not go looking in a journal dedicated to security to find recent articles on compression. I would prefer to find papers that have been cited by others, and I would look in top tier journals. I would want cooberation of the research, otherwise I would first try to reproduce it as part of my research. All of this is considered when you apply to a funding body for a research grant.
The article you are so stuck on has none of this. In terms of citations it has nothing. In CS circles, that would be extremely suggestive that something was flawed with the research.
Furthermore, the decline in crime in the US since the early 1990s has its roots in the fact that 1 in 30 us residents are currently in the corrections system, and unwanted pregnancy is dramatically down due to abortion and access to better means of birth control. Which has a confounding effect on correlational studies of the crime rate over time. That isn't even getting into generic statistics being a poor thing to attempt to correlate to.
Here, let me post what I originally said.
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.
Read it. Are you sure you understand it? I specifically acknowledged the type of studies you are talking about. I even mention that crap article published in a second tier non psychology journal before you even trotted it out as proof for your point. If you'd bother to look at the research behind the APAs statement on media and violence, you would see that there is a vast body of research that shows that causal link. I specifically say the effect of violent media on individuals long term (not populations, individuals) is unknown. I still say its unkown, despite the fact you linked to a study that showed it does have an impact.
The only reason I continued to reply to you is because I want others who are capable of grasping it to realize the problems with seizing on one or two articles as proof of something. I mentioned it earlier, but here is a study that shows chocolate helps you lose weight no matter what. [url]
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17511011[/url]. You can find this article mentioned hundreds of times. Unfortunately, the press did not have the training to assess the validity of the research. I looked at the journal it was published in, and my opinion was to hold off eating chocolate until it had been reproduced. It never was, because the paper was rightly completely ignored by the medical research community. It wasn't worth their time to even acknowledge it.
Then, just a few weeks ago, the author of the study wrote this io9 article.
http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800.
In this instance it was deliberate. Scientists are human, and can make mistakes. They can also be so certain of their position they are blind to the flaws in their methodology. This is why it is hard to get papers published in good journals. There is rigorous review, where the reviewers will demand answers or clarification added to the paper before they publish it. It is also why you don't look at a single study when forming an opinion.
On the other side of your argument is the opinion of the APA. That resolution they are reviewing isn't going to change very much, if at all. It also will not affect previous resolutions on violence in the media in general.
It's funny you attack my reading comprehension. I'm not the one who blindly cited the study I was critical as proof to me of my ignorance. Who doesn't understand the basic tools when evaluating unfamiliar research. Who didn't understand that 275 members of the APA was a vast minority. Who gave links providing evidence opposite of their own argument. That thought the APAs statements on violence after viewing media was based on a single study. Who was incapable of understanding that the study they cited did not measure what the article headline claimed it did by the co-author's own words. Who doesn't understand the reason why googling for sensationalized newspaper articles and linking them as evidence of anything is a really disingenuous way to argue.
The APAs professional finding is that there is a link, and you keep pointing to a correlational study by the chair of a small private school in florida I'd never heard of, published in a second tier journal for an unrelated field as concrete proof the APA opinion is wrong.
Its funny, you say I haven't proved anything. My position, that a long term real life causal link between video games and violence had not been determined. You provided research for, and you acknowledged research against the real life link. By demonstrating that there was some contention (no matter if the contention is real or not), you proved me right. The issue has not been determined and is (perhaps) unsettled.
The short term causal link between observing violence and behaving more aggressively really isn't up for debate. Especially in children. That's settled, and if you want to argue with someone about it, take it up with the APA.
Edit:
I also forgot the part where you said the author of that paper sent it backwards in time from 2014 to trigger a scientific review in 2013.