We've all read the headlines. "Video Games Lead To Violent Behaviour." "Video Games Cause Immoral Behaviour In Teens." "Video Games Lead To Aggression." The question is, are the conclusions drawn in these reports backed up by the science they are reporting on? My contention is that they absolutely are not and I will use a recent study to demonstrate where they are going wrong.
The study in question, conducted in Italy and published in the online journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, looked at how violent video games influenced post play morality in teenagers. The researchers recruited 172 high school students (aged thirteen to nineteen) and separated them into two groups. The first group was tasked with playing a violent video game. The second group was given nonviolent games to play. After both groups played the games, they were directed to complete a logic test, and every time they achieved a correct answer they were allowed to remove a raffle ticket from a bag. The teens were left alone in a room to do this, and upon completion of the study the researchers found that those who had played violent video games prior to taking the logic test were eight times more likely to remove more than the one raffle ticket from the bag when they correctly completed a section on the logic test.
The authors noted that the teens who showed signs of 'moral disengagement' were the most affected by playing violent video games. Moral disengagement is the ability to remove oneself from the normal rules of morality in certain situations because, in the view of the people who show this trait, morality does not apply in certain situations. The teens with this trait were much more likely to steal after playing a violent game. A nonviolent game did not trigger as large a discrepancy between the two groups.
A study like this is perfect fodder for one of those media frenzies mentioned earlier. According to the study, the teens, especially those who score highly on "moral disengagement" scales were more likely to take extra raffle tickets; to steal, essentially. At the very least, to cheat. Not good, right? Obviously the violent video games are having a negative effect, one that was not seen to the same degree in the group that played non violent games. Seems like an open and shut case on the face of it. Except it's not. At all.
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Friday, February 14, 2014
The Problem With Media Reports On Video Game Violence Studies
We've all read the headlines. "Video Games Lead To Violent Behaviour." "Video Games Cause Immoral Behaviour In Teens." "Video Games Lead To Aggression." The question is, are the conclusions drawn in these reports backed up by the science they are reporting on? My contention is that they absolutely are not and I will use a recent study to demonstrate where they are going wrong.
The study in question, conducted in Italy and published in the online journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, looked at how violent video games influenced post play morality in teenagers. The researchers recruited 172 high school students (aged thirteen to nineteen) and separated them into two groups. The first group was tasked with playing a violent video game. The second group was given nonviolent games to play. After both groups played the games, they were directed to complete a logic test, and every time they achieved a correct answer they were allowed to remove a raffle ticket from a bag. The teens were left alone in a room to do this, and upon completion of the study the researchers found that those who had played violent video games prior to taking the logic test were eight times more likely to remove more than the one raffle ticket from the bag when they correctly completed a section on the logic test.
The authors noted that the teens who showed signs of 'moral disengagement' were the most affected by playing violent video games. Moral disengagement is the ability to remove oneself from the normal rules of morality in certain situations because, in the view of the people who show this trait, morality does not apply in certain situations. The teens with this trait were much more likely to steal after playing a violent game. A nonviolent game did not trigger as large a discrepancy between the two groups.
A study like this is perfect fodder for one of those media frenzies mentioned earlier. According to the study, the teens, especially those who score highly on "moral disengagement" scales were more likely to take extra raffle tickets; to steal, essentially. At the very least, to cheat. Not good, right? Obviously the violent video games are having a negative effect, one that was not seen to the same degree in the group that played non violent games. Seems like an open and shut case on the face of it. Except it's not. At all.
The study in question, conducted in Italy and published in the online journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, looked at how violent video games influenced post play morality in teenagers. The researchers recruited 172 high school students (aged thirteen to nineteen) and separated them into two groups. The first group was tasked with playing a violent video game. The second group was given nonviolent games to play. After both groups played the games, they were directed to complete a logic test, and every time they achieved a correct answer they were allowed to remove a raffle ticket from a bag. The teens were left alone in a room to do this, and upon completion of the study the researchers found that those who had played violent video games prior to taking the logic test were eight times more likely to remove more than the one raffle ticket from the bag when they correctly completed a section on the logic test.
The authors noted that the teens who showed signs of 'moral disengagement' were the most affected by playing violent video games. Moral disengagement is the ability to remove oneself from the normal rules of morality in certain situations because, in the view of the people who show this trait, morality does not apply in certain situations. The teens with this trait were much more likely to steal after playing a violent game. A nonviolent game did not trigger as large a discrepancy between the two groups.
A study like this is perfect fodder for one of those media frenzies mentioned earlier. According to the study, the teens, especially those who score highly on "moral disengagement" scales were more likely to take extra raffle tickets; to steal, essentially. At the very least, to cheat. Not good, right? Obviously the violent video games are having a negative effect, one that was not seen to the same degree in the group that played non violent games. Seems like an open and shut case on the face of it. Except it's not. At all.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
First Gene Therapy Successful Against Aging-Associated Decline
"A new study consisting of inducing cells to express telomerase, the enzyme which -- metaphorically -- slows down the biological clock -- was successful. The research provides a "proof-of-principle" that this "feasible and safe" approach can effectively "improve health span."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120514204050.htm
For the lazy, researchers in Madrid have successfully "demonstrated that the mouse lifespan can be extended by the application in adult life of a single treatment acting directly on the animal's genes." What they have done is injected telomerase enzymes into adult mice (they used a virus that acts on DNA as a base but replaced the viral genes with those of the telomerase enzymes) and they report that the enzymes have taken effect to the point where they not only repair shortened telomeres (the ends or 'caps' of chromosomes that protect the cell and allow it to divide- when telomeres become shortened to the point of no longer being useful, the cells stop dividing and ages/dies) but they were actually rebuilt. Thus, they end up with rejuvenated cells and an increased lifespan (13-24% depending on the age of the treated mice).
This is AMAZING!
Now, I wonder if they could engineer a way to inhibit telomerase so as to limit cell division ....bye bye cancer?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120514204050.htm
For the lazy, researchers in Madrid have successfully "demonstrated that the mouse lifespan can be extended by the application in adult life of a single treatment acting directly on the animal's genes." What they have done is injected telomerase enzymes into adult mice (they used a virus that acts on DNA as a base but replaced the viral genes with those of the telomerase enzymes) and they report that the enzymes have taken effect to the point where they not only repair shortened telomeres (the ends or 'caps' of chromosomes that protect the cell and allow it to divide- when telomeres become shortened to the point of no longer being useful, the cells stop dividing and ages/dies) but they were actually rebuilt. Thus, they end up with rejuvenated cells and an increased lifespan (13-24% depending on the age of the treated mice).
This is AMAZING!
Now, I wonder if they could engineer a way to inhibit telomerase so as to limit cell division ....bye bye cancer?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Video Game Addiction: Is it Real?
In this article I aim to take a modestly comprehensive look at the notion of video game addiction, and try to get to the bottom of the hype. Is video game addiction real, or not? Is it fact, or fiction? Truth, or Lie? Is it a reality facing gamers today, or a total myth? Is it a symptom of some other problem (perhaps an impulse control disorder), a condemnation of 'too much time' spent on a hobby unbecoming of an older teenager or even adult (as judged by a non gamer, usually issued forth through the cavernous maw that is a generation gap), a cultural phenomenon, perhaps the manifestation of an attempted escape from too much educational pressure put on the youth, or something else?
And if it is indeed real, are the video games an outlet for an addicted personality, or are they a causal factor? Does that distinction even matter? And, lastly, if it is indeed real, if there are people out there who seem to be addicted to video games, what does the research say regarding incidence rates, severity, and treatment outcomes? Is the media reporting this fairly, not taking it seriously enough, or blowing it way out of proportion?
These questions and more are going to be addressed as I tackle the issue of video game addiction. Is it fact or fiction?
And if it is indeed real, are the video games an outlet for an addicted personality, or are they a causal factor? Does that distinction even matter? And, lastly, if it is indeed real, if there are people out there who seem to be addicted to video games, what does the research say regarding incidence rates, severity, and treatment outcomes? Is the media reporting this fairly, not taking it seriously enough, or blowing it way out of proportion?
These questions and more are going to be addressed as I tackle the issue of video game addiction. Is it fact or fiction?
Labels:
b.s.,
bias,
bullshit,
control,
cultural,
disorder,
fact,
fiction,
generation gap,
hypocrisy,
impulse,
magx01,
myth,
real,
research,
the thoughtful gamer,
thethoughtfulgamer.com,
video game addiction
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
New Research: Atheists 'just as ethical as churchgoers'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7189188/Atheists-just-as-ethical-as-churchgoers.html
Few excerpts:
People who have no religion know right from wrong just as well as regular worshippers, according to the study.
People who did not have a religious background still appeared to have intuitive judgments of right and wrong in common with believers, according to the findings, published in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
The team looked at several psychological studies which were designed to test an individual’s morality.
Dr Hauser added: "The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments
You can read more at the link I posted above.
To this, I think the only thing I can say is, "duh!" To any reasonable person, this is quite obvious. However, unfortunately, there are many people out there who feel that someone such as myself, has no moral compass.
They could not be more incorrect. Hopefully now, at least a few of these people will be stripped of such notions. The notion that one needs religion to be a moral person is incredibly outdated and misguided, and it's time to put it to rest.
Few excerpts:
People who have no religion know right from wrong just as well as regular worshippers, according to the study.
People who did not have a religious background still appeared to have intuitive judgments of right and wrong in common with believers, according to the findings, published in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
The team looked at several psychological studies which were designed to test an individual’s morality.
Dr Hauser added: "The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments
You can read more at the link I posted above.
To this, I think the only thing I can say is, "duh!" To any reasonable person, this is quite obvious. However, unfortunately, there are many people out there who feel that someone such as myself, has no moral compass.
They could not be more incorrect. Hopefully now, at least a few of these people will be stripped of such notions. The notion that one needs religion to be a moral person is incredibly outdated and misguided, and it's time to put it to rest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)