And the new version of Windows would be laughed at by non-IT consumers. "Why would I upgrade to the new Windows when all of my stuff doesn't work?" This is part of the argument against Vista, and why some people can't see past the need to break backward compatibility to do things "the right way".
Raise your hand if you have any "Linux games" by Loki.
Not one single tear was shed for me. Not even by me.
Compare this to linux, where the interfaces haven't changed that much, and when they do, depreciated means "We're going to remove this in a year or so and we mean it."
That's because when Linux deprecates an interface, it doesn't put anyone out of a job.
Windows "backwards compatibility" is therefore welfare for lazy programmers -- welfare which puts all Windows users at risk.
I don't think that your child should play GTA. In my initial post, I was clear to state a young enough child will simply imitate what is done on the video game. What I am saying is that in my view (as a student in progress to becoming a scientist), the results are inconclusive as to whether or not aggressive behavior can stem from violent video games. I have yet to see a decent controlled experiment that has lasted up to a year (though in my opinion it should last decades to be 100% conclusive) that has many different conditions to rule out any other factor (as well as a control) that hands down points in one direction. To be fair, I haven't looked, but my psychology teacher (who agrees with me) keeps me posted on these kinds of things, and brings up interesting experiments quite frequently into conversations.
I understand you, and I think it's fair to be skeptical. That said, go to the APA site and type in "video games" into the search box. They seem pretty one-sided on this issue. Do you think that carries any weight?
Either way, we are not at a point where we can start allocating tax dollars on this crap. Also, we're not at the point where we should be sewing companies based on this (my main source of anger at these experiments), especially not when it is the responsibility of parents to control what influences their children, and I think we can both agree on this.
You and I are in complete agreement. If video games can have harmful effects on the psychology of children (and I think you and I agree that they can, given that you agree with me that my elementary school child should NOT play Grand Theft Auto), then parents ought to know about it. This is an issue of education, not tax dollars and definitely not lawsuits. But as long as it's an issue of education, I can't stand idly by while people say "playing GTA is harmless". I'm not looting anyone's tax dollars or suing anyone, and I strongly oppose anyone who wants to do that.
And, yes, I'm a little freaked out by lazy parents who don't give a shit and let their idle sons play games like "Grand Theft Auto". My son knows what it is and would *love* to play it, but he knows very well that I don't approve of him playing violent games or drawing violent pictures or engaging in violent play. A few years ago he found porn on DVD at a friend's house and watched it. (It belonged to his friend's dad.) And while I bemoan the fact that my son's innocence was taken away all at once and so quickly, I don't think that is nearly as harmful as my son being exposed to a video game like Grand Theft Auto, where you rack up points for kidnapping and murdering people in very life-like situations.
All of which are desirable traits needed to become successful in modern society.
There's no doubt that my life has been enhanced by my choosing to help people, and I have been helped by people who cared for me. Likewise, I have been harmed by psychopathic people whose behavior you would cynically call "successful in modern society".
If you really do have such a pessimistic view of life, then please keep it far away from me. I try to keep my life filled with people who love life and are positive, not people who are negative and who suck the life out of people around them.
But why is violent crime going down all throughout the western world? Gaming have risen by probably thousands of percent and still violent crime is decreasing.
The answer is politically-incorrect regardless of your political stance.
The realisation came from finally being fed up with going over and over everything that was bugging me so I decided to look around and see what others were doing. Upon beginning said observation I realised that 80% of them did anything that I briefly mentioned would be a good idea. They seem to have taken any of my shrugged-off suggestions as instructions on what to do.
The most revealing was that this wasn't happening just with my peers, but with my boss, coworkers and so on. So I took the clue and started working on my socialising skills
So are mine. I have many more lessons to learn. But one of the most valuable things I realized is that simply by being assertive I could get my way. Many people choose to be passive. Not merely polite, but passive. The difference is subtle but crucial. Many people, when they're not suspicious, are waiting for other people to tell them what to do.
Additionally, I found out that if I didn't feel confident all I had to do was pretend, and it was just as good as the real thing.
Not buying it. If maturity were *solely* about "how you look at and treat people", then how do you square that with your valuing of "intellectualism"? Meaning, do you think that those with college degrees are more "mature" than those without?
I'm not referring to "intellectualism" in terms of degrees. I'm talking about intellectualism as the capacity and willingness to learn and change your beliefs based on new information.
Those who do not are immature.
So, in other words, maturity is not *solely* defined by how you look at and treat people, but ALSO by your capacity and willingness to change your beliefs based on new information?
Is there anything else you left out of your definition of maturity?
(I appreciate your de-linking of college degrees with intellectualism.)
Your derision against people who are working menial jobs while trying to advance their careers is rather hypocritical considering the traditional conservative "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality. So which is it? "enjoy your sucky life" or "pull yourself up by your bootstraps"?
Aren't those the same people whom you called "dittoheads" and who are "spewing bigoted nonsense, pseudo-intellectual fallacy, or living in their own dream-world"? That's derision. Then again, maybe derision is acceptable for those who are sufficiently intellectual.
Um, i'm referring to the GP poster (justsomeguy), who turns around and hypocritically and ironically spews invective about people who are doing exactly what conservatives predominant in the heartland keep spewing on and on about.. They're working to advance their careers.
How do they find the time to do that? I mean, one would thing they were pretty busy "spewing bigoted nonsense, pseudo-intellectual fallacy" while they are "living in their own dream-world". Am I completely missing the alleged "compassionate" and "understanding" side of you? To me, you come off as a pompous and excoriatingly-critical person.
A book I'm positive you would enjoy is "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" by Thomas Frank. It's probably already on your bookshelf! It's a tremendous apologetic for the contempt/compassion hypocrisy that enlightened intellectuals have towards the backward poor.
You mean a rabid frothing piece of sophistry designed to mischaracterize the compassion and understanding with which the enlightened, many of whom have actually been the "backward poor" approach sociopolitical problems.
No, it's a liberal book, written for liberals. It's not a conservative hit-job book. My recommendation was sincere. I think it would be the kind of book that, for you, would confirm all the things that you know are True(tm).
To be fair, I examined a "con" link, one that you would favor. The page is here:
http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html
And PBS claims:
2. (myth) Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression.
(fact) Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, "media effects." This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds. In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand. Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played. Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. That's why the vague term "links" is used here. If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences â" which can contribute to anti-social behavior. But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer.
There are many things to say about PBS's critique.
1. PBS says, "Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, 'media effects.' This research includes some 300 studies of media violence."
PBS calls it "relatively narrow" as a comparison to other fields of study, but it's really a way to spin the body of research as small and insignificant. But 300 studies is 300 studies. How many studies did PBS conduct?
2. PBS says, "But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds."
Which studies? On what grounds? On what basis does PBS say that they are "inconclusive" when the APA's conclusions are plain for all to see? PBS does not say. This is a sweeping judgment of a body of research that comprises 300 studies.
3. PBS says, "In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context."
And what psychological effect would that have? PBS does not say. And which studies does this apply to? PBS does not say.
4. PBS says, "Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand."
Media is frequently "consumed" by people who would not "normally consume" it. Furthermore, on what psychological basis "understanding" media, specifically as it relates to witnessing acts of violence, germane? PBS does not say.
5. PBS says, "Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played."
The APA says:
Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).
Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have the same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).
6. PBS says, "If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences â" which can contribute to anti-social behavior."
I think the APA's consensus is pretty clear. Go here:
Type in "video games" and see what comes up.
7. PBS says, "But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer."
This is called "Moving the goalposts". The "myth" that PBS is trying to discredit is "Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression." Now they've changed it to be about turning otherwise normal people into killers.
I understand the bias of PBS. They are a media company and thus critical of people who would claim that media is culpable for influencing others into unsavory behavior. (Did "Triumph of the Will" have any effects on people, good or bad? Any at all?)
And I have no problem sharing my own bias as well. I'm a parent of an elementary school child. I think allowing him to play "Grand Theft Auto" would be very irresponsible. I think it would teach him ways of being cruel and aggressive toward others. I'd love for you to tell me why you think it's totally safe for me to let my elementary school child rack up huge rewards by murdering people in a very, very lifelike video game.
Actually the results of studies linking video games and aggression have been posted on Slashdot (you can find a lot of studies wit Google). Also I'm not biased, I clearly said it pointed both ways and I obviously mentioned that there is a chance that a child that is too young will imitate what is seen on any media. Also, I speak from personal experience (both with knowledge of psychology/statistics and my own observations). One thing I have noticed is that the "aggression" in video games is caused by loosing. When football fans show violence, it's not because violent media has a direct play in it, it's because the ref made a bad call, or some player made a dumb move.
I took your advice and googled it, and the first hit which came up was from the American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html
I want to counter what you wrote with what the APA says.
You wrote: "Experiments have pointed both ways"
The APA says:
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. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).
You wrote: "many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation"
The APA says:
Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.
You wrote: "the 'aggression' in video games is caused by loosing"
The APA says:
Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.
You wrote: "this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data" And then you also wrote: "I'm not biased". In other words, you're completely objective, but anyone who disagrees with you is biased?
I'm completely willing to accept that there are studies which refute a theory that you hate. But you need to pony up those studies and explain to me why the APA disagrees with you so strongly. It seems to me that you are in the weaker position, especially given these psychological facts:
1. Humans ape behavior that they see other humans perform (modeling).
2. Humans will perform a behavior more often if they are rewarded for it.
3. Violent video games ever more closely approximate humans performing violence on humans and reward players for doing so.
This isn't about depriving you of your favorite shooters. This is about behavioral psychology. And what I'm asking you for is accuracy and candor. Don't say, "you can find a lot of studies with google" and then say, "That's a bunch of crap" when the very first link that comes up blows a cantaloupe-sized hole right the heart of your claims.
Yeah, it hurts.
It's very human to compare ourselves to other people. We don't have an objective standard to measure ourselves against, and we are social creatures, so we look at those around us and judge ourselves based on whom we perceive. It is unfair that the undeserving are rewarded. Your feelings of outrage are justified.
And those feelings will continue to hurt you because it never will be fair. Freedom from the pain you feel will not come from enacting justice (because it never will be just), but from accepting that you are good the way you are and that the measure of your worth will come from the strength of your spirit. Then when elitists look down on you or when the disadvantaged look at you with envy you will not be troubled. Nor will you need to compare yourself to anyone else for envy or shame. What I'm describing is your birthright.
Google "Invictus" by William Ernest Henley. Read it for strength, and may your pain diminish.
It's not too much chatter. I didn't know what a "/b/tard" was, or even what 4chan was, until I read your post and performed the obligate googling. So you get +1 Informative in spirit. Additionally, I like you.
Yes, it's a shame the way that self-esteem has been demeaned to the point of mockery. Your eye-rolling at its use is completely understandable. I hope that my sincerity in using it the correct way is recognizable.
I think some
I'm aware of furry drama. I have a friend who is a furry and he lives communally in an apartment with other furries in which the roommates rotate every three months or so. Drama city, according to him.
There's no reason to put scare quotes on self-esteem. Self-esteem is the value you place on yourself. Having none of it will make you feel worthless, good for nothing, broken, flawed, a drag. People react to that in ways that hurt other people, by either latching on to people and draining them of life, or by becoming a "radical loser" by projecting their feelings of worthlessness onto others.
A high self-esteem, which is to say happiness, is the birthright of every single* human being. If I were to truly express how strongly I felt that, it would split the Earth right in half. Sometimes I think that people with no self-esteem choose to revel in their misery (does "misery loves company" ring true to you?) and I think that's harmful. It is grossly cruel the way people treat furries (and emos).
*Except psychopaths. www.hare.org
I'm familiar with baby-furs and plush, both of which I would consider to the be zeta end of furries. I don't consider any of this behavior harmful. Rather, I consider it symptomatic of a destroyed self-esteem. It's a coping mechanism, in other words -- a way for abused people to find *neccessary* companionship in a world that has rejected and despised them for a long, long time.
I think it takes a great deal of maturity to view all of this as a humanitarian cause. The impulse is to mock and humiliate furries, and furries will typically oblige by taking the victim stance. If I hadn't been a member of a church (another love fest) during my no-self-esteem years, then I would have been an furry abuser, or maybe even a furry.
Following the little warning, it should read, Warning: this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data, as well as lack of scientific analysis. Experiments have pointed both ways (yet we have cherry picked this one) and to this day, many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation.
You're obviously biased one way, and that's fine. Furthermore, it may be confusing cause and effect, something people haven't don't seem to have put much thought into. I have no doubt that psychopaths will enjoy violent video games.
That said, can you cite the studies you reference? I'm very curious.
I'm old enough to remember feeling peeved that the Cristian Right was coming down on Dungeons and Dragons for "encouraging Satanism". I was an Christian-scented agnostic at the time and certainly had no belief in Satan, so the whole thing struck me as stupid busybodies taking away something that I loved for an incredibly stupid and false reason. I have never forgotten that.
That said, is it true that children who play very violent video games (such as Grand Theft Auto, where psychopathic behavior is rewarded) will become more aggressive? If it is true, then how true is it?
(Do I forbid my elementary-school-age child from playing Grand Theft Auto? You bet your ass I do.)
We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission
