UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:Is this close enough to tick one of your boxes?
Originally posted by HCH:
It seems to me things could get worse. It is easy to imagine games based on:
...
--- triage in an emergency room
...
Some of these are worse than others (Macy's! high school!) and some may already have been invented.
quote:As an avid console and recently a PC gamer and one time game tester, I recall a console game that came out in the 2000's that stirred up a lot of controversy, wasn't a very good game and bit the proverbial dust rather quickly. It was so unpopular that I can't remember the name of it but you were a soldier fighting the "gooks" in Vietnam. You had to go and burn villages down and kill the Vietcong. Gosh, what a great idea! My partner plays a lot of console games about World War II. She takes great delight in killing Nazis. I wonder why it's okay to kill Nazis but not so acceptable to kill V.C.?!
Originally posted by HCH:
It seems to me things could get worse. It is easy to imagine games based on:
--- escaping slaves (from either POV)
--- shopping at Macy's after Thanksgiving
--- gang life in any of various cities
--- triage in an emergency room
--- a suicide bomber (achieve the maximum effect)
--- the Inquisition (how long can you hold out?)
--- the sinking of the Titanic
--- surviving a day of high school
--- buying drugs without being cheated or arrested
--- survival in Rwanda or Sierra Leone, etc.
--- the Dust Bowl in 1930s Kansas
Some of these are worse than others (Macy's! high school!) and some may already have been invented.
quote:In some ways, this has already been done. It's called Flight Simulator. You are meant to avoid the buildings, take off and land safely, but there's nothing to stop you aiming at tall buildings.
Originally posted by no prophet:
What if someone made a game about the twin tower, 11 Sept attacks? At what point is it too much?
quote:The simulator used by pilots isn't a game - it's a flight simulator.
Originally posted by Jane R:
And Flight Simulator is used by many airline pilots to practise flying into airports they are unfamiliar with. Isn't it better for them to practise with a computer game, when hitting the Golden Gate Bridge or overrunning the runway will not kill anyone?
quote:What's the difference?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:The simulator used by pilots isn't a game - it's a flight simulator.
Originally posted by Jane R:
And Flight Simulator is used by many airline pilots to practise flying into airports they are unfamiliar with. Isn't it better for them to practise with a computer game, when hitting the Golden Gate Bridge or overrunning the runway will not kill anyone?
quote:A flight simulator does everything, motion, visuals, the lot.
Originally posted by Amorya:
quote:What's the difference?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:The simulator used by pilots isn't a game - it's a flight simulator.
Originally posted by Jane R:
And Flight Simulator is used by many airline pilots to practise flying into airports they are unfamiliar with. Isn't it better for them to practise with a computer game, when hitting the Golden Gate Bridge or overrunning the runway will not kill anyone?
Amorya
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:A "flight simulation" computer game such as Microsoft Flight Simulator or one of the many others is designed for entertainment, to give a fun experience that is a little bit like flying and to have pretty graphics which look good on a home computer. You get a very average jack-of-all-trades approach that includes simplified controls and performance, and usually very inaccurate scenery and airport layouts that don't include the details a real pilot would use for landmarks when flying low. The level of detail is so low that there are whole companies which make their living from selling packages of better graphics for the ground and better models of aircraft to use in the games.
Originally posted by Amorya:
quote:What's the difference?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:The simulator used by pilots isn't a game - it's a flight simulator.
Originally posted by Jane R:
And Flight Simulator is used by many airline pilots to practise flying into airports they are unfamiliar with. Isn't it better for them to practise with a computer game, when hitting the Golden Gate Bridge or overrunning the runway will not kill anyone?
Amorya
quote:I am aware of the difference between games and (real) flight simulators, thanks. However, I am reliably informed (by a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society) that Microsoft's game 'Flight Simulator' IS used by many commercial pilots to study the layout and approaches to airports they are unfamiliar with. Presumably they also fly in with someone who does know that airport the first couple of times, but the more practice (real, game, or simulated) they have, the better. IMNSHO.
The simulator used by pilots isn't a game - it's a flight simulator.
quote:It's interesting that your wording is "you torture a man". For me, playing through that scene, it was Trevor torturing the man. Not me. Same as when I watch Jack Bauer torturing someone in 24.
Originally posted by Hawk:
Yet in GTA V there's a scene where you have to torture a man to get information from him. The character you play is a psychopath and you have to pick between using pliers, wrench, waterboarding or electric clips and actively torture the man four seperate times to get information while he screams and pleads for mercy. There's no way to skip the scenes, or choose not to torture the man. This is in comparison with Modern Warfare where you chase a suspect through a favela to capture him but the subsequent torture for his information takes place off-screen and you don't see or take part in it.
quote:Never.
Originally posted by no prophet:
At what point has a video game gone too far?
quote:Yes, for example the Anne Frank game noted above struck me as horrific... until I read the link and realized it sounded a lot like some of the things you will find in a well-designed interactive museum like the Holocaust museum. Whether or not they do it well, I couldn't say, but the intent seems to be to build empathy rather than undermine it. (Note that your first person experience is as Anne, not a Nazi).
Originally posted by Jane R:
And Flight Simulator is used by many airline pilots to practise flying into airports they are unfamiliar with. Isn't it better for them to practise with a computer game, when hitting the Golden Gate Bridge or overrunning the runway will not kill anyone?
The medical triage game might exist, too - for training triage nurses.
It's not as easy to draw the line as you might think.
quote:I have the same concerns. I have them about television and the movies as well. I work with kids who have severe behaviour problems. Over the last few years I've been more and more convinced that a lot of these kids don't have that inner knowledge of "real" vs "fantasy." They seem to see, for example, GTA, as art imitating life, and they take it very seriously, much more seriously than I ever would (yep, I've played it and enjoyed it). For me, its a game. For them, its training.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That being said, unlike other posters here, I have serious concerns about video game violence. I believe we are seeing effects here in the US. I think lines should and do need to be drawn, and am attempting to draw them with my own children. At the same time, I won't pretend that drawing the lines will ever be neat and tidy.
quote:yes. All that.
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
quote:I have the same concerns. I have them about television and the movies as well. I work with kids who have severe behaviour problems. Over the last few years I've been more and more convinced that a lot of these kids don't have that inner knowledge of "real" vs "fantasy." They seem to see, for example, GTA, as art imitating life, and they take it very seriously, much more seriously than I ever would (yep, I've played it and enjoyed it). For me, its a game. For them, its training.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That being said, unlike other posters here, I have serious concerns about video game violence. I believe we are seeing effects here in the US. I think lines should and do need to be drawn, and am attempting to draw them with my own children. At the same time, I won't pretend that drawing the lines will ever be neat and tidy.
Its an interesting change for me, because when I worked for the censorship office 10 years ago, I was very against the censorship of games. Now I've seen the effects of the increasing violence of TV/movies/games on vulnerable young people, I'm not so convinced.
Its also an area in which I don't trust the research at all, since it is almost all highly polarised (effects all good, all bad).
quote:Ditto, but the key word is "kids".
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
yes. All that.
quote:If you count tabletop RPGs rather than computer games that's variously:
Originally posted by HCH:
It seems to me things could get worse. It is easy to imagine games based on:
--- escaping slaves (from either POV)
--- shopping at Macy's after Thanksgiving
--- gang life in any of various cities
--- triage in an emergency room
--- a suicide bomber (achieve the maximum effect)
--- the Inquisition (how long can you hold out?)
--- the sinking of the Titanic
--- surviving a day of high school
--- buying drugs without being cheated or arrested
--- survival in Rwanda or Sierra Leone, etc.
--- the Dust Bowl in 1930s Kansas
Some of these are worse than others (Macy's! high school!) and some may already have been invented.
quote:There are two problems with the ratings systems:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:Ditto, but the key word is "kids".
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
yes. All that.
There is absolutely no way that kids should be playing these kinds of games, just as they shouldn't be watching similar films.
BBFC makes the ratings but there is very little done to enforce them. Exposing kids to games and films like this when they're too young is utterly wrong. IMO there's a lot more than needs to be done in terms of education and policy. For example, if a teacher finds out a primary school kid is watching and playing 18 rated material, there should be a call to Social Services. Problem is, a the moment that would probably mean visits to half the parents of the kids in the class in some schools. Might not be a bad thing, though...
And then there's the issue of how screwed up the rating system has become as well... Many ratings are way too low.
quote:Agree - computer games are just another art form, and the fact that they are newer than films or books doesn't of itself make them any better or worse.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I don't like these films, and I wouldn't be surprised if they have harmful effects, but we seem to tolerate them. So I expect we will just tolerate games of this nature as well.
quote:Couldn't have said it better myself, Eliab. You'd think we'd be past the pearl-clutching stage on this, but apparently not!
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Never.
Originally posted by no prophet:
At what point has a video game gone too far?
It's a game. Not real life. Fantasy. Made up. Pretend.
If you find a game that happens to push your buttons the wrong way, don't play it. If you find a game which encourages you to fantasise in ways you find uncomfortable, don't play it. Those are matters of personal taste and personal responsibility, and provide no grounds for drawing some ethical line around games which no one should be allowed to play.
quote:...and that's fine for responsible adults, although for some people 'don't play it' might be easier said than done. I shouldn't waste time posting on the Ship when I ought to be doing something else, but I find it hard to stop myself.
If you find a game that happens to push your buttons the wrong way, don't play it. If you find a game which encourages you to fantasise in ways you find uncomfortable, don't play it. Those are matters of personal taste and personal responsibility...
quote:Just a question, why would we draw the line at just these sorts of media, what about books? I mean, once you go down the slippery slope type of reasoning - what prevents you from banning anything that is even vaguely questionable (which pretty much where a lot of fundamentalists would stand).
Originally posted by Jane R:
However, I share cliffdweller and Arabella's concern about the effect of very violent games, TV and films on children. They don't understand the difference between reality and fantasy as well as an adult.
quote:[Not all of my post was in response to you - I brought up the links because I felt it was interesting in the context of the entire subject.]
Originally posted by Jane R:
What Arabella said.
Oh, and I do understand the difference between playing an RPG or video game and doing this sort of thing in real life. There are people out there who don't, though. I'm surprised you haven't met any of them.
quote:Ah, the slippery slope argument.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Just a question, why would we draw the line at just these sorts of media, what about books? I mean, once you go down the slippery slope type of reasoning - what prevents you from banning anything that is even vaguely questionable (which pretty much where a lot of fundamentalists would stand).
Originally posted by Jane R:
However, I share cliffdweller and Arabella's concern about the effect of very violent games, TV and films on children. They don't understand the difference between reality and fantasy as well as an adult.
quote:Yes, and I'm sure most of us - whether parents or not - make the same sorts of calculations all the time. Including the exceptions on both sides of the line (which incidentally indicates how difficult this sort of thing to legislate).
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, we all agree that "drawing the line" is going to be difficulty, messy, and possibly unfair at times. I have to "draw the line" with my kids all the time, and haven't found that easy to do. I start with some broad guidelines (no R movies, for ex.) and then make exceptions on both sides of the line (there are R movies I'll allow, and PG13 I won't).
quote:Absolutely, and on a personal level each of us will make a similar set of calculations for either ourselves or our families. On a societal level there are already age related classifications for things like video games. So other than a general moral concern, I'm not sure what more should be done.
It's not easy, but the fact that something is hard, that it doesn't lend itself well to black-and-white solutions, that it can be misused, is no the same as saying it's not worth doing.
quote:I would agree with you to an extent. OTOH I'm sure there are plenty of people for whom reading 'The Fountainhead' at 13 would ultimately be more morally corrosive than playing GTA V - and I know some of them too.
I'm concerned about all forms of violence in media, but from my own non-scientific observation, I'm more concerned about first-person video games than I am about literary media.
quote:Agh, good point!
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I would agree with you to an extent. OTOH I'm sure there are plenty of people for whom reading 'The Fountainhead' at 13 would ultimately be more morally corrosive than playing GTA V - and I know some of them too.
quote:As a general principle, I think that is entirely untrue.
Originally posted by Jane R:
However, I share cliffdweller and Arabella's concern about the effect of very violent games, TV and films on children. They don't understand the difference between reality and fantasy as well as an adult.
quote:Now you're just making shit up.
So they learn a) that it's OK to beat people up or even kill them to get what you want and b) that you can do stupidly dangerous things and survive unscathed. Then they go to school... or the park... or cross the road...
quote:I think it more important to help children form characters that are resilient enough to cope with unsuitable material than to shield them from it. Censorship might be part of that process but it is a means to an end. Responsible parental censorship should work towards its own abolition - the aim is to produce children who don't need it.
Of course responsible parents will try to keep unsuitable material away from their children
quote:There's two questions here - one is whether certain ideas in entertainment ought to be illegal or banned. And then there's whether enjoying thinking about certain things is morally wrong in itself.
Originally posted by Eliab:
The question in the OP is whether there are ideas that we shouldn't be allowed to make part of our play - that is things we shouldn't be allowed to enjoy thinking about.
quote:OK, my turn to call BS.
Originally posted by Eliab:
But all that is beside the main point. The question in the OP is whether there are ideas that we shouldn't be allowed to make part of our play - that is things we shouldn't be allowed to enjoy thinking about. Fuck that. I remember the joyless shits of the church of my childhood arguing that people like me shouldn't be allowed to play D&D, for exactly the same reasons that today's joyless shits give for video games. It's not about protecting children. It's resentment of other people's love of frivolous pleasure. Since frivolous pleasure ranks amongst the very greatest achievements of our species, opposition to it is simply inhumane.
quote:Possibly there are things that it is (sometimes, for some people, in some contexts) to enjoy thinking about. I just don't think that it's anyone else's business.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's two questions here - one is whether certain ideas in entertainment ought to be illegal or banned. And then there's whether enjoying thinking about certain things is morally wrong in itself.
quote:Children inappropriately accessing adult material is no reason to stop adults from accessing adult material. Violent video games are adult material, period. The fault is not with the games makers, but with the parents who allow their children to play them. It also sounds as if the children you mention need help with their emotional intelligence, something which is also not the problem of people who make adult material intended for use by adults.
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
quote:I have the same concerns. I have them about television and the movies as well. I work with kids who have severe behaviour problems. Over the last few years I've been more and more convinced that a lot of these kids don't have that inner knowledge of "real" vs "fantasy." They seem to see, for example, GTA, as art imitating life, and they take it very seriously, much more seriously than I ever would (yep, I've played it and enjoyed it). For me, its a game. For them, its training.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That being said, unlike other posters here, I have serious concerns about video game violence. I believe we are seeing effects here in the US. I think lines should and do need to be drawn, and am attempting to draw them with my own children. At the same time, I won't pretend that drawing the lines will ever be neat and tidy.
Its an interesting change for me, because when I worked for the censorship office 10 years ago, I was very against the censorship of games. Now I've seen the effects of the increasing violence of TV/movies/games on vulnerable young people, I'm not so convinced.
Its also an area in which I don't trust the research at all, since it is almost all highly polarised (effects all good, all bad).
quote:I don't think that you're a joyless shit. The criticism wasn't made at you.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I can't speak for the folks, joyless or otherwise, at your church growing up, but I will say that for most of us, particularly most of us parents, engaging in this conversation, it is very much about
protecting children. It is ALL about protecting children.
quote:Protecting kids from what? The wrong sort of fun?
So please stop creating a strawman by misrepresenting the motives of those who disagree with you and stick to debating whether or not some degree of censorship of video games does or does not help them reach their goal of yes, "protecting children."
quote:I tend to agree with your sentiments - though I also agree with Eliab that it's often new forms of things that come under suspicion.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That doesn't mean me-- or "they" (others who might draw lines differently)-- aren't wrong. That's entirely possible. But even if we or others are going about it in entirely the wrong way and causing more harm than good
quote:Yes, that's a sound and compelling argument of the core OP question of whether some sort of limits/ censorship is effective/ appropriate. That's the sort of discussion that is helpful
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:I don't think that you're a joyless shit. The criticism wasn't made at you.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I can't speak for the folks, joyless or otherwise, at your church growing up, but I will say that for most of us, particularly most of us parents, engaging in this conversation, it is very much about
protecting children. It is ALL about protecting children.
quote:Protecting kids from what? The wrong sort of fun?
So please stop creating a strawman by misrepresenting the motives of those who disagree with you and stick to debating whether or not some degree of censorship of video games does or does not help them reach their goal of yes, "protecting children."
Children don't live in a moral vacuum. Children's TV, films, books, lessons at school, are crammed with 'morals'. Children are exposed to moral teaching all the time. The pro-censorship side conveniently ignores this, apparently supposing that they get all their ethics from Grand Theft Auto. It always picks new technologies to criticise as pernicious. It used to be going to the cinema that would destroy the morals of our nation's children (now grandparents and great-grandparents). Then it was TV. Role-playing games had their moment in the spotlight, before computer games became the new season's villain.
Children (or, at least, a lot of them) have a healthy appreciation for the exciting, the macabre, the rebellious, the daring, the inappropriate and the outrageous. This is A GOOD THING. It means that they are people, that they are human, that they have independent, working minds. The pro-censorship side don't get that, and have never got it. They pick on stuff that's new, that they find uncomfortable, that they don't understand. What the fuck are they protecting children from? From thinking.
I hate it. I loathe the whole fucking disrespect for children that tries to protect them from their own minds. I despise the blanket condemnation of this or that sort of entertainment that denies personal and parental individual responsibility.
Without wanting to impugn your personal motives (seriously) I do think that anyone who takes the view that a sort of entertainment that they themselves don't like is therefore morally unacceptable for everyone has gone badly wrong. I don't like it when people (generally very ignorant of what I enjoy about them) tell me that my hobbies are immoral. I should not follow their example in relation to things that I don't much enjoy.
quote:
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx
Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior.
quote:So this suggests that some games are probably bad for at least some children, and this is based on their individual differences in personality, but probably affects all children in some general ways, just like eating lots of sugar is probably bad for all children but particularly bad for this who are prone to diabetes and associated conditions like metabolic syndrome.
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/06/violent-video-games.aspx
video game violence can increase aggression in some individuals, depending on their personalities.
quote:If this is really what you think of my reasons for concern about violent computer games, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. But just for the record, I have played RPGs myself (though Ars Magica rather than D&D); I'm not arguing from a position of complete ignorance, as you seem to imagine.
I remember the joyless shits of the church of my childhood arguing that people like me shouldn't be allowed to play D&D, for exactly the same reasons that today's joyless shits give for video games. It's not about protecting children. It's resentment of other people's love of frivolous pleasure.
quote:Well that is a steaming pile of reasoning, yeah?
Originally posted by Eliab:
I remember the joyless shits of the church of my childhood arguing that people like me shouldn't be allowed to play D&D, for exactly the same reasons that today's joyless shits give for video games. It's not about protecting children. It's resentment of other people's love of frivolous pleasure. Since frivolous pleasure ranks amongst the very greatest achievements of our species, opposition to it is simply inhumane.
quote:If rape is immoral, then a rape scene played for fun is as well. You may argue the censorship line, but your moral reasoning is inconsistent.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I wouldn't say that a film with a rape scene is for that reason immoral.
quote:It is not respect to treat them no differently than adults, it is ignorance.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I hate it. I loathe the whole fucking disrespect for children that tries to protect them from their own minds. I despise the blanket condemnation of this or that sort of entertainment that denies personal and parental individual responsibility.
quote:That's part of what I hate about the censorship argument. It treats statistical influences on behaviour as causes. They aren't. It's nonsense to suggest they are. People - children included - make choices. They have a degree of responsibility. If you want to stop a child being aggressive, you need to engage with that child as an individual.
Originally posted by Jane R:
As no prophet has pointed out, there is some evidence to suggest that video game violence is very bad for some children and may affect the behaviour of all of them.
quote:I am a bit dubious about the 'I don't think it's anyone else's business'.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Possibly there are things that it is (sometimes, for some people, in some contexts) to enjoy thinking about. I just don't think that it's anyone else's business.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's two questions here - one is whether certain ideas in entertainment ought to be illegal or banned. And then there's whether enjoying thinking about certain things is morally wrong in itself.
quote:It was entirely about denying people something which was known to be fun, based the assumption that something which was new, and not really understood, was therefore bad. A mix of malice and self-delusion. Just like the video games argument. It's exactly the same shit we've heard before.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'd argue while the arguments behind adult condemnation of D&D was were not based on reality, it was not about denial of pleasure. All I've read was about Satanism, in the case of Christians and disassociation with reality, in the case of others.
quote:What?
If rape is immoral, then a rape scene played for fun is as well. You may argue the censorship line, but your moral reasoning is inconsistent.
quote:Up to a point. But the differences between how individuals respond to various media are greater than just a binary division between 'adult' and 'child'.
Children do not reason identically to adults. This is science. Children are not merely adults with fewer experiences, their brains function differently.
quote:I'd be very interested to see the developmental psychology literature which told you this. Because it is manifestly not correct. We make all kinds of decisions about children, such as when they're allowed to drink alcohol, drive cars, make independent decisions etc. The similarity between children regarding brain development is more similar to other children than it is with an adult. The nervous system of adults changes but does not grow the same way as children experience. Simply reflecting on the ease with which children learn languages and can speak without accent would provide some pretty clear info about that. Neuroplasticity is much greater for children and a search regarding that and/or brain development versus adults will inform.
Originally posted by Eliab:
But the differences between how individuals respond to various media are greater than just a binary division between 'adult' and 'child'.
quote:Even if your generalization was entirely true, as it may be for some of the critics, your conclusion does not follow. If people "assume something is bad"-- even falsely-- it does not follow then that they are acting out of malice, or even self-delusion. They may be acting out of ignorance, but that is not the same as malice by a long shot.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:It was entirely about denying people something which was known to be fun, based the assumption that something which was new, and not really understood, was therefore bad. A mix of malice and self-delusion. Just like the video games argument. It's exactly the same shit we've heard before.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'd argue while the arguments behind adult condemnation of D&D was were not based on reality, it was not about denial of pleasure. All I've read was about Satanism, in the case of Christians and disassociation with reality, in the case of others.
quote:I'm with LilBuddha on this. If rape is immoral, then the depiction of rape for the sole purpose of entertainment (allowing that there may be other purpose for depicting rape in other contexts) is also immoral. It is a different degree of immorality, just as punching someone is wrong to a lesser degree than murdering them would be. But it is still immoral and unethical.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:What?
If rape is immoral, then a rape scene played for fun is as well. You may argue the censorship line, but your moral reasoning is inconsistent.
How?
Why?
Surely what is immoral about rape is that it hurts people? That would be a pretty major moral difference between a rape and a rape scene, surely?
Now for me, and probably for you, rape is so distasteful, a frivolous portrayal of it is also distasteful, but that doesn't make it immoral. There's nothing inconsistent about saying that. [/QB]
quote:As noted above, the research does not support your thesis.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Up to a point. But the differences between how individuals respond to various media are greater than just a binary division between 'adult' and 'child'.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE]Children do not reason identically to adults. This is science. Children are not merely adults with fewer experiences, their brains function differently.
quote:Which is why precisely NO ONE here has argued that.
Originally posted by Eliab:
And it simply isn't the case that games are the only influence, or the most important influence, on behaviour.
quote:You seem to fail to understand the whole notion of child and adolescent development. All of those things you want to nurture-- which, by the way, we want to nurture as well-- are developmental. They are learned developmentally. Which is why we don't hand toddlers the car keys. All those things are learned through a process of gradually letting go. We begin with near-total control of an infant-- we control virtually ALL aspects of their lives-- when they will eat, where they will sleep (well, where they'll lie down at least). We gradually give them more and more autonomy as they grow and mature. Giving them absolute autonomy and free choice over every aspect of their lives, including but not limited to media, at as a pre-teen is no more responsible or effective than controlling them and keeping them confined and isolated well into young adulthood would be.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Encouraging responsibility, discernment, common sense and self respect is much more important in education. Those things are inconsistent with censorship. You can't simultaneously build someone up to be a responsible adult and tell them that they are so morally immature there are fucking gamesthey aren't allowed to play. Censorship is a surrender of moral aspirations. It says that people can't be trusted to make their own decisions, and that is disrespectful.
quote:That can be shown to be obviously false by the simple observation that there is no binary point at which a child becomes an adult. Even in you're argument 'child' has an elastic meaning. The 'child' you're talking about that naturally learns language with vastly greater facility than an adult is very much younger than the 'child' who's development is sufficient to play Grand Theft Auto.
Originally posted by no prophet:
it is manifestly not correct. We make all kinds of decisions about children, such as when they're allowed to drink alcohol, drive cars, make independent decisions etc. The similarity between children regarding brain development is more similar to other children than it is with an adult.
quote:Because films don't always engage on a moral level at all. Sometimes they do, and (IMO) the best films generally do, but not always. There are other ways that they can entertain (or fail to). I don't imagine that people for whom comedy rape scenes work approve of real life rape any more than I do - they just aren't engaging their moral disapproval where doing so would spoil the joke. If the question gets asked, obviously the character's behaviour is reprehensible, but it would be possible (just not possible for me) not to ask the question. I don't think the film-maker had it in mind as the point of the scene – it's just something that I can't help but bring to my response to it. I don't have any problem with someone who can watch the scene for unreflective entertainment doing so.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now, you say that The Boat that Rocked uses a bed trick. It assumes that the implied reader will not have any moral objections that spoil the comedy for them, and that implies that the implied author and implied audience must to some degree endorse the above principle. So why should it's not anyone else's business work there?
quote:Which is precisely the point you are ignoring. Yes, there is no "magic point" when a child becomes an adult. Which is precisely why your no-holds-barred, treat-children-as-adults argument is ludicrous. Children and adolescents go through a process of development. What is an appropriate limitation at one point is an unreasonable limitation at another. What encourages critical thinking and decision-making at one stage would be irresponsible neglect at an earlier stage. Your entire argument ignores this obvious truth. Setting reasonable limits that reflect the reality that children grow in their ability to do a number of things-- not just process language, but also process ideas, media, abstract and representational thinking, empathy is something that reasonable, reflective adults do not out of a malicious desire to rob them of their joy or keep them from becoming autonomous, but rather for precisely the reverse.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:That can be shown to be obviously false by the simple observation that there is no binary point at which a child becomes an adult.
Originally posted by no prophet:
it is manifestly not correct. We make all kinds of decisions about children, such as when they're allowed to drink alcohol, drive cars, make independent decisions etc. The similarity between children regarding brain development is more similar to other children than it is with an adult.
quote:I don't see that at all.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm with LilBuddha on this. If rape is immoral, then the depiction of rape for the sole purpose of entertainment (allowing that there may be other purpose for depicting rape in other contexts) is also immoral. It is a different degree of immorality, just as punching someone is wrong to a lesser degree than murdering them would be. But it is still immoral and unethical.
quote:See above reply to no_prophet. Obviously the world does not divide neatly into 'adult' and 'child'.
As noted above, the research does not support your thesis.
quote:No one's dumb enough to say that, but the assumption that we could significantly reduce violence by banning some violent video games, universally, without reference to important individual differences; rather than by encouraging responsible person and parental decision (which requires freedom) making amounts to the same thing.
quote:Which is why precisely NO ONE here has argued that.
Originally posted by Eliab:
And it simply isn't the case that games are the only influence, or the most important influence, on behaviour.
quote:On the contrary, I'm arguing emphatically for a developmental understanding. I'm arguing that an individual's developing characteristics and personality are of absolutely crucial importance in judging the effect that various media are likely to have on them. I'm arguing that smart parental controls take all that into account. I'm arguing for knowledge – not merely a generalised knowledge of how 'children' on average respond to stimuli, as if they were lab animals, but for relational knowledge of how this particular child behaves and plays and thinks and has fun, as if he or she were a (developing) human being.
You seem to fail to understand the whole notion of child and adolescent development. All of those things you want to nurture-- which, by the way, we want to nurture as well-- are developmental. They are learned developmentally.
quote:That's not my argument. It's never been my argument. It's almost the opposite of my argument.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, there is no "magic point" when a child becomes an adult. Which is precisely why your no-holds-barred, treat-children-as-adults argument is ludicrous.
quote:OK, I had to scroll back several posts to see where you said that. Sorry-- sometimes in the give-and-take I forget who said what. Yes, in that earlier post-- some 3 or 4 ago-- I agreed with the majority of what you said about individual differences and the gradual developmental process which children undergo. But then in your last several posts you seem to be arguing much more flatly, at least as I read posts such as this:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:That's not my argument. It's never been my argument. It's almost the opposite of my argument.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, there is no "magic point" when a child becomes an adult. Which is precisely why your no-holds-barred, treat-children-as-adults argument is ludicrous.
Treat children as 'individuals', yes, I said and meant that. Treat them as 'people', yes, I implied that, too. That you somehow manage to hear those things as if they meant treat them as 'adults' is, I think, more revealing of your underlying assumptions than it is of mine.
quote:Overall it seems to me your argument is one that parental controls are good, because a parent can know their individual child and what is/is not appropriate for this child at this time, whereas any sort of broader societal censorship is going to be arbitrary and fail to take into account those individual differences. (You also seem to be arguing vs. blanket censorship including banning certain things from adults which I don't think anyone here is really arguing for.)
Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb]It was entirely about denying people something which was known to be fun, based the assumption that something which was new, and not really understood, was therefore bad. A mix of malice and self-delusion. Just like the video games argument. It's exactly the same shit we've heard before.
...And it simply isn't the case that games are the only influence, or the most important influence, on behaviour. Encouraging responsibility, discernment, common sense and self respect is much more important in education. Those things are inconsistent with censorship. You can't simultaneously build someone up to be a responsible adult and tell them that they are so morally immature there are fucking gamesthey aren't allowed to play. Censorship is a surrender of moral aspirations. It says that people can't be trusted to make their own decisions, and that is disrespectful.
quote:Not going to quote you this time. But you are factually incorrect. I should probably let you know that yes, I do know something about this. Professionally since the late 1970s. And personally, my kids are grown.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:So we can say clearly that neurological development is not complete until well into the teens. If you have a chance, reading about fMRI research (functional MRI, which means the brain as it actually is processing information) is really informative about the differences in brain function in not fully developed brains, which for some functions are not actually the same as fully mature brains into their early 20s.
Wikipedia, your friend sayeth:
Using MRI, studies showed that while white matter increases from childhood (~9 years) to adolescence (~14 years), grey matter decreases. This was observed primarily in the frontal and parietal cortices. Theories as to why this occurs vary. One thought is that the intracortical myelination paired with increased axonal calibre increases the volume of white matter tissue. Another is that synaptic reorganization occurs from proliferation and then pruning....
The rise and fall of the volume of grey matter in the frontal and parietal lobes peaked at ~12 years of age. The peak for the temporal lobes was ~17 years with the superior temporal cortex being last to mature.
quote:The thing is GTA V has already been given an an 18 rating in the UK by the GRA and an M rating in the US.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would agree with you that individualized parental controls are the better way to go-- in an ideal world. In an earlier post I talked about the messy process by which I make similar sorts of messy imperfect judgments with my own kids-- e.g. some PG13 things disallowed while some R ratings are.
But I'm also aware that this is an imperfect world. In the US, "leaving it up to the parents' choice" is practically enshrined in the constitution.
quote:I can think of 3 films which use rape and humour together, and I think it's hard to draw the line on whether something's solely for entertainment or there's something more.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If rape is immoral, then the depiction of rape for the sole purpose of entertainment (allowing that there may be other purpose for depicting rape in other contexts) is also immoral.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Given that I've said at least 3x now that drawing lines will be messy, complicated, and difficult, that doesn't surprise me.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:I can think of 3 films which use rape and humour together, and I think it's hard to draw the line on whether something's solely for entertainment or there's something more.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If rape is immoral, then the depiction of rape for the sole purpose of entertainment (allowing that there may be other purpose for depicting rape in other contexts) is also immoral.
quote:It's a pity you didn't quote what you think you were replying to, because if you had, there's a small chance you would have read it.
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:Not going to quote you this time. But you are factually incorrect.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Good for me then.
Argumentation only works when the data agrees with your arguments.
quote:That is, if you want to try to guess what effect a violent film, game, book, whatever will have on me, you would benefit from having a lot more data than just whether or not I am over 18.
Originally posted by Eliab:
But the differences between how individuals respond to various media are greater than just a binary division between 'adult' and 'child'.
quote:And it's possible - is it not - that playing difficult problem solving computer games can improve brain power, concentration, hand-eye coordination etc?
Originally posted by Eliab:
Which is to say, there is brain development in both childhood and adulthood, but (periods of) childhood where development occurs most.
quote:Many schools in South Australia have experienced great success with using certain specifically selected computer games as part of teaching numeracy, social studies and so on.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:And it's possible - is it not - that playing difficult problem solving computer games can improve brain power, concentration, hand-eye coordination etc?
Originally posted by Eliab:
Which is to say, there is brain development in both childhood and adulthood, but (periods of) childhood where development occurs most.
Maybe the benefits outweigh the damage?
quote:Sure, but all those games have ratings associated with them that would prevent them being sold directly to minors.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Many schools in South Australia have experienced great success with using certain specifically selected computer games as part of teaching numeracy, social studies and so on.
Somehow I doubt that GTA, Just Cause or The Last Of Us are among those games though.
quote:I am pretty sure that playing GTA (a lot) helped my son to get through the assessments to train as an airline pilot.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Many schools in South Australia have experienced great success with using certain specifically selected computer games as part of teaching numeracy, social studies and so on.
Somehow I doubt that GTA, Just Cause or The Last Of Us are among those games though.
quote:More data is usually better than less data, yes.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm arguing that there are significant differences within the class of 'children'. I'm hardly likely to find a link which sets out specific and significant differences within the class of 'children' to be a devastating refutation of my position.
...if you want to try to guess what effect a violent film, game, book, whatever will have on me, you would benefit from having a lot more data than just whether or not I am over 18.
quote:The best, as in most convincing to me, accounts of how fiction works don't work quite like that. We don't disengage our moral judgements entirely. Pretty much all fiction requires us to engage at least some interest in the characters and to empathise with their hopes and fears, and it's hard to be interested in characters without bringing moral judgements into play. There's no clear dividing line between ethical judgements and other judgements. (Besides we're talking about a Richard Curtis film - I can't imagine he's not going to turn on the sentiment tap at some point. He can't get away with arguing that he wants people just not to care. But that's a bit ad hominem.)
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Because films don't always engage on a moral level at all. Sometimes they do, and (IMO) the best films generally do, but not always. There are other ways that they can entertain (or fail to). I don't imagine that people for whom comedy rape scenes work approve of real life rape any more than I do - they just aren't engaging their moral disapproval where doing so would spoil the joke.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now, you say that The Boat that Rocked uses a bed trick. It assumes that the implied reader will not have any moral objections that spoil the comedy for them, and that implies that the implied author and implied audience must to some degree endorse the above principle. So why should it's not anyone else's business work there?
quote:I'm not aware of any data that support the position. Personality assessment of children is sparse, partly because the diagnostic processes suggest that personality isn't to be diagnosed for those under age 18. I have not seen any data to suggest that basic temperament, e.g., any of the 5 factor model of personality (which is highly research and statistically based) shows (1) consistent differences within a developing child (2) shows differential response to video representations among children.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:More data is usually better than less data, yes.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm arguing that there are significant differences within the class of 'children'. I'm hardly likely to find a link which sets out specific and significant differences within the class of 'children' to be a devastating refutation of my position.
...if you want to try to guess what effect a violent film, game, book, whatever will have on me, you would benefit from having a lot more data than just whether or not I am over 18.
But if I'm reading your posts correctly (having already demonstrated that I'm having trouble doing that) you are arguing that, when it comes to exposure to media violence, the differences within/ among children are greater than the differences between children as a whole and adults as a whole. I'm not at all sure that is true.
quote:I'm not sure if you're arguing my point or Eliab's? I'm arguing that the difference between a child's learning/ development and an adult's is greater than the differences within the group of all children. If I'm reading him correctly, Eliab is arguing (I believe) the reverse. If I'm reading you correctly (why am I having so much trouble comprehending-- or communicating???) you are arguing Eliab's point, not mine-- yes?
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:I'm not aware of any data that support the position. Personality assessment of children is sparse, partly because the diagnostic processes suggest that personality isn't to be diagnosed for those under age 18. I have not seen any data to suggest that basic temperament, e.g., any of the 5 factor model of personality (which is highly research and statistically based) shows (1) consistent differences within a developing child (2) shows differential response to video representations among children.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:More data is usually better than less data, yes.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm arguing that there are significant differences within the class of 'children'. I'm hardly likely to find a link which sets out specific and significant differences within the class of 'children' to be a devastating refutation of my position.
...if you want to try to guess what effect a violent film, game, book, whatever will have on me, you would benefit from having a lot more data than just whether or not I am over 18.
But if I'm reading your posts correctly (having already demonstrated that I'm having trouble doing that) you are arguing that, when it comes to exposure to media violence, the differences within/ among children are greater than the differences between children as a whole and adults as a whole. I'm not at all sure that is true.
There are other variables, such as amount of vid/comp game exposure and parenting. But Eliab wants to argue something about which there is a relative absence of data. Please provide a data source for your contention of differences between children. I am thinking you'd have to show that some children's brains have developed to resemble something other than a child's brain frankly.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by 'children as a whole' and 'adults as a whole'. The 'typical' adult/child? A sort of notional average of all adult/child responses?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But if I'm reading your posts correctly (having already demonstrated that I'm having trouble doing that) you are arguing that, when it comes to exposure to media violence, the differences within/ among children are greater than the differences between children as a whole and adults as a whole. I'm not at all sure that is true.
quote:Would that it were true indeed.
Your position also, again, seems to presume every child has a knowledgable, involved parent able and willing to correctly assess their child's ability to process different media at any particular point of time and make (and enforce) valid and accurate parental decisions on what to allow/ disallow. Would that that were true.
quote:There's an important distinction to be made there. I'm arguing about responses, not about development. Children are (almost by definition) growing physically in a way that adults are not, brains included. Clearly there's going to be a difference in development (between children and adults, and between children at different stages of growth). The important question for me is what does that mean in practical terms for attitudes and behaviour: and that's simply not something you can read off a growth chart. Individual differences really do count here.
I'm arguing that the difference between a child's learning/ development and an adult's is greater than the differences within the group of all children. If I'm reading him correctly, Eliab is arguing (I believe) the reverse.
quote:Link.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Please provide a data source for your contention of differences between children.
quote:Why on earth would I? Neither of those reports contains anything inconsistent with anything I’ve said.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are referencing one example within this thread?*
Here is one study. And another. Fully prepared to view any data you might have to indicate a contrary position.
quote:no_prophet has said that. Look:
*BTW, no one is saying there are not differences between individual children, only that there are greater between children and adults.
quote:I’m not sure how else to read that than as a denial that there is (or, at least, a denial that there is evidence of) “differential response to video representations among children”.
Originally posted by no prophet:
I have not seen any data to suggest that basic temperament, e.g., any of the 5 factor model of personality (which is highly research and statistically based) shows (1) consistent differences within a developing child (2) shows differential response to video representations among children. [ …] Please provide a data source for your contention of differences between children.
quote:I’m not sure whether I’m disagreeing with you, because of course I didn’t switch off my ethical judgement, and my consequent ethical response did spoil both the intended joke, and what there was to be spoiled of the rest of the film.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The best, as in most convincing to me, accounts of how fiction works don't work quite like that. We don't disengage our moral judgements entirely. Pretty much all fiction requires us to engage at least some interest in the characters and to empathise with their hopes and fears, and it's hard to be interested in characters without bringing moral judgements into play. There's no clear dividing line between ethical judgements and other judgements. (Besides we're talking about a Richard Curtis film - I can't imagine he's not going to turn on the sentiment tap at some point. He can't get away with arguing that he wants people just not to care. But that's a bit ad hominem.)
quote:Huh? This strikes me as absolute nonsense simply because you nowhere tell us what sort of response you are measuring, how, or by whom on what scale. When what we've been talking about here is a whole range of responses that would be measured (with some difficulty) on different scales-- including empathy and various aspects of aggression. So whatever research you're alluding to can only be describing one aspect of a much broader range of things under discussion.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by 'children as a whole' and 'adults as a whole'. The 'typical' adult/child? A sort of notional average of all adult/child responses?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But if I'm reading your posts correctly (having already demonstrated that I'm having trouble doing that) you are arguing that, when it comes to exposure to media violence, the differences within/ among children are greater than the differences between children as a whole and adults as a whole. I'm not at all sure that is true.
If you mean either of those things, then yes, obviously, the differences between children will be greater. Necessarily so, since both are skewed distributions with the same lower limit.
The range in variation between children's responses is between 0 (no discernible adverse effect – or “Boogie's son”) and whatever the most extreme reaction is – call that 10. The typical or average child is somewhere between those two. I think it'll be closer to 0 than 10, since I'm sure we all know many more pretty much innocuous kids than we do monsters, but that doesn't actually have to be true, provided there is at least one Boogie's son in the world.
The range of adult variation also starts at 0 (you can't get lower than no discernible adverse effect), and since the whole rationale for the adult/child split is that children are more affected than adults, the number it goes up to is at least no higher than 10. The typical or average adult is therefore also somewhere between 0 and 10.
The difference between two numbers both of which are greater than 0 and less than 10 must be less than the difference between 0 and 10.
quote:I don't know if I'd say more important, but yes, definitely many factors-- and the measurement of that adverse effect will involves several different sorts of scales, not a single score.
Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]I think the best way to express my view is that there are more important things to know than age, when evaluating whether violent media will have an adverse effect on behaviour.
quote:Well I was trying to make some sort of sense out of a point you made, which I didn't think especially meaningful. If you tell me how you would measure the range of different reactions within the group 'children' and meaningfully compare it to differences between the adult and child groups as a whole, then I'll say whether I think one is likely to be greater than the other (if I have an opinion at all, that is).
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Huh? This strikes me as absolute nonsense simply because you nowhere tell us what sort of response you are measuring, how, or by whom on what scale.
quote:But all those things would be true of say, heart disease-- multiple causes, effecting different people differently in such ways that it's impossible to say to what degree any one individual will be impacted by smoking, stress, heredity, etc. Yet we have (at least in US) warning labels on cigarettes and bans on selling them to minors, simply because they are clearly a contributing (but far from only) factor in a number of health issues. The studies previously cited would seem to suggest the same is true of video game violence.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Well I was trying to make some sort of sense out of a point you made, which I didn't think especially meaningful. If you tell me how you would measure the range of different reactions within the group 'children' and meaningfully compare it to differences between the adult and child groups as a whole, then I'll say whether I think one is likely to be greater than the other (if I have an opinion at all, that is).
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Huh? This strikes me as absolute nonsense simply because you nowhere tell us what sort of response you are measuring, how, or by whom on what scale.
I fully agree that reactions will be varied, complex, and based on multiple influencing factors, whatever group we're looking at. That's part of the reason why I think impersonal censorship foolish. We are not all seeing the same thing when we watch the same film or play the same game.
quote:Games which his Mum seriously dislikes and wouldn't even look at herself, never mind play. The alternative - prohibition - was worse in my opinion, as it would have changed and spoiled our relationship, which was/is one of trust.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Boogie’s son – fan of violent video games, now non-aggressive well-adjusted adult with a highly skilled and responsible job.
quote:Not true. Upthread you will find links showing a relationship. What we don't know is how much of an impact any particular movie, game, etc. will have on any particular child, or how much a particular child's behavior has been influenced by media exposure vs. other sorts of influences. Which is precisely the case with smoking (although the causal link is most likely stronger)-- you can't say to what degree smoking or at what level caused any particular person's cancer/ heart disease/ etc., or which smokers will get lung cancer & when-- but that doesn't stop us from warning people about the link.
Originally posted by ken:
We know smoking is damaging. We don't know that about films, TV, games and so on.
quote:But what determines your culture? One might say one is British or American or Canadian, etc. But, within those general categories are divisions of class, profession and recreation. Cricket player? Goth? Trekkie? And how much does this affect one? Is it casual or everyday?
Originally posted by rolyn:
Violence is culture based .
quote:No, upthread we find some innumerate unscientific propaganda supported mainly by anecdote.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Not true. Upthread you will find links showing a relationship.
Originally posted by ken:
We know smoking is damaging. We don't know that about films, TV, games and so on.
quote:No Prophet's links (which is what I was alluding to) were from the APA, considered by most to be the leaders in assessing this sort of data and it's effects on children. Certainly not "e innumerate unscientific propaganda" nor was it anecdotal research.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:No, upthread we find some innumerate unscientific propaganda supported mainly by anecdote.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Not true. Upthread you will find links showing a relationship.
Originally posted by ken:
We know smoking is damaging. We don't know that about films, TV, games and so on.
quote:Actually doubt has been cast on that paper (which was published back in 2003), including the methodologies, the data sets and the conclusions drawn:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No Prophet's links (which is what I was alluding to) were from the APA, considered by most to be the leaders in assessing this sort of data and it's effects on children. Certainly not "e innumerate unscientific propaganda" nor was it anecdotal research.
quote:OK, that's a valid critique. Much different than calling the APA "unscientific propaganda".
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Actually doubt has been cast on that paper (which was published back in 2003), including the methodologies, the data sets and the conclusions drawn:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No Prophet's links (which is what I was alluding to) were from the APA, considered by most to be the leaders in assessing this sort of data and it's effects on children. Certainly not "e innumerate unscientific propaganda" nor was it anecdotal research.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelvenables/2013/10/02/why-two-hundred-twenty-eight-scholars-cautioned-american-psychological -association/
quote:Those weren't my words, and I can't answer for ken. I would note however that the critique is fairly strong - and to me the tone doesn't seem that much different. The claims were that the conclusion of the APA had no real evidence to back it up (and thus unscientific).
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
OK, that's a valid critique. Much different than calling the APA "unscientific propaganda".
quote:You are overstating the article. There was an official statement approved by the APA-- an organization with thousands of members. A small but significant minority of their membership objected to the language of the statement which implied a consensus which they felt did not represent their views. I would agree that's a "fairly strong critique", but that doesn't render the earlier decision of the majority of APA members "unscientific". Nor does the letter anywhere say there was "no evidence"-- rather it said that later studies were inconclusive, suggesting more research was needed. This is what the scientific community does-- engage in debate, continue to research key questions and re-evaluate conclusions based on new data. The fact that all of this happened in an open and transparent process so that an outside entity (Forbes) is able to report on it demonstrates that is happening within a peer-review scholarly atmosphere.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Those weren't my words, and I can't answer for ken. I would note however that the critique is fairly strong - and to me the tone doesn't seem that much different. The claims were that the conclusion of the APA had no real evidence to back it up (and thus unscientific).
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
OK, that's a valid critique. Much different than calling the APA "unscientific propaganda".
quote:That the APA has thousands of members is irrelevant in this context - the statement wasn't endorsed by thousands of members. The APA publishes position papers all the time that actually represent the position of a small number of researchers in a particular field.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You are overstating the article. There was an official statement approved by the APA-- an organization with thousands of members.
quote:Actually, the statement also said that the evidence the APA had based their own conclusions on was also inconclusive at best:
Nor does the letter anywhere say there was "no evidence"-- rather it said that later studies were inconclusive, suggesting more research was needed.
quote:I'd agree - but the purpose to which it is being put to use in this thread is a polemic one.
This is what the scientific community does-- engage in debate, continue to research key questions
quote:I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between my statement that the later evidence is "inclusive" and yours that both earlier and later data is "inconclusive at best." It is, of course, different from my earlier statement, which is why I accepted/acknowledged your correction.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Actually, the statement also said that the evidence the APA had based their own conclusions on was also inconclusive at best:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Nor does the letter anywhere say there was "no evidence"-- rather it said that later studies were inconclusive, suggesting more research was needed.
quote:Yes. Because this is not a peer-review scientific journal, but rather a free-flowing debate forum. The rules and expectations are different.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I'd agree - but the purpose to which it is being put to use in this thread is a polemic one.
This is what the scientific community does-- engage in debate, continue to research key questions
quote:Sure, but let's be clear. The scientific evidence in this thread has consisted of a couple of studies from the same scholars (rather than a majority opinion of everyone in that particular field) which exhibit fairly serious methodological flaws.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. Because this is not a peer-review scientific journal, but rather a free-flowing debate forum. The rules and expectations are different.
quote:Again, I think that's an overstatement when it comes to the APA statement, even as I acknowledge the caveats you supplied. It still remains the posted statement of THE major scholarly community doing research in the field.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Sure, but let's be clear. The scientific evidence in this thread has consisted of a couple of studies from the same scholars (rather than a majority opinion of everyone in that particular field) which exhibit fairly serious methodological flaws.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. Because this is not a peer-review scientific journal, but rather a free-flowing debate forum. The rules and expectations are different.
quote:No. It really isn't. It's a professional body that professionals working in a particular field can all join, which provides multiple functions.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, I think that's an overstatement when it comes to the APA statement, even as I acknowledge the caveats you supplied. It still remains the posted statement of THE major scholarly community doing research in the field.
quote:Which, in my amended statement, I did not say. What I said (above) was that the major recognized scholarly group doing research in this field still presents this as their position paper, even if there is serious disagreement within the community. You are quite right to want those objections from within the field noted-- and I've done that. At the same time, you are overstating nature of the dispute.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:No. It really isn't. It's a professional body that professionals working in a particular field can all join, which provides multiple functions.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, I think that's an overstatement when it comes to the APA statement, even as I acknowledge the caveats you supplied. It still remains the posted statement of THE major scholarly community doing research in the field.
Presumably it has some kind of board which appoints various study groups to report back on various things. Usually such study groups would cover the 'official FooBody position on Education' or something relatively non controversial. Even so it would be inaccurate to characterise these as 'the opinion of the majority of professionals in this field.
Any more than any statement by EAUK formed study group represents 'the opinion of the majority of Evangelicals in the UK'. Especially when the study group appears to have suffered from group think.
You really can't characterise this as a position supported by 'THE majority of the scholarly community'.
quote:I would go along with that view to a degree . The same as we used to think TV affected our behaviour, in that it was always believed people copied what they saw .
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To say playing a violent game will directly cause violence, on its own is ridiculous. To say it has no factor is equally ridiculous.
quote:We can never be sure as to what exactly feeds, or triggers a person's potential to commit a violent or harmful act. In the past many of Britain's notorious killers did not suffer bad parenting as such .
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
All the assumptions on this thread presume good parenting.<snip>
How sure are we that these games aren't feeding into the violence that characterises the London Gang culture?