'Boozy Gamer' Researcher Questioned 109
Via GameSetWatch, a Gamespy interview with Sonya Brady, the person who ran the research study we reported on a while back. The one that claimed gamers enjoy getting high, drinking alcohol? From the article: "What kind of feedback have I received? My feedback from research colleagues and other older adults has generally been positive. What I find most interesting is the feedback I have received from adolescents and young adults. Some people are interested in learning more about the research, even if they are skeptical of the results. Other people have been very angry."
angry gamers (Score:2, Funny)
These are the people that would be better off as "boozy gamers" :D
Re:angry gamers (Score:1)
Re:angry gamers (Score:2)
Nah, you got it backwards... (Score:1)
Boozy Gamer? (Score:4, Funny)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:1)
Re:Boozy Gamer? (Score:2)
Re:Boozy Gamer? (Score:1)
Re:Boozy Gamer? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Boozy Gamer? (Score:3, Funny)
Free as in Beer.
Explain to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
And for the question of the year: Who really gives a shit? Come on, young people are demonized as a matter of course, particularly for drinking or doing drugs. Trying to draw a causal link between games and that sort of behavior is unnecessary.
Re:Explain to me... (Score:2)
To the second: You're right, no one should give a shit about it. Such a link, even if it did exist, wouldn't be particularly helpful information to anyone except hand wringers.
Re:Explain to me... (Score:2)
I suppose it's all a matter of perspective, but I wouldn't consider a 16 or 17 year old a "young adult", I'd consider them a teenager. I'd put the "young adult" label more in the 20-25 range than the 16-20 range. So a 27 year old would be pretty close to qualifying.
Re:Explain to me... (Score:1)
Re:Explain to me... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Explain to me... (Score:1)
Re:Explain to me... (Score:2)
Parents who watched Grandma's Boy [rottentomatoes.com] and figured out that Little Johnny's interest in XBox and gaming magazines is going to a lead to a life of boozing, smoking and unsafe sex with grandmothers.
Re:Explain to me... (Score:2)
Yeah. I didn't see the original article, but reading this summary made me think a more accurate title would be "study finds that lifeforms on earth in general enjoy getting high, drinking alcohol."
Re:Explain to me... (Score:2)
I guess with all that time on thier hands, they should be able drive around and find somethign constructive to do like finding new ways to get high and drink.
It is funny when you think about what people might try with information like this. sometimes the
Stupid headline... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupid headline... (Score:5, Funny)
Get drunk. Play a game.
Re:Stupid headline... (Score:2)
Excellent idea!
Re:Stupid headline... (Score:1)
Brilliant!
Re:Stupid headline... (Score:1)
Re:Stupid headline... (Score:1)
Re:Stupid headline... (Score:2)
Games are media (Score:1)
Further research needed (and get better summaries) (Score:5, Insightful)
What if they were made to play other sorts of games? What would be the differences between Katamari Damacy and Tetris, for example.
What if they were exposed to other sorts of things? What would be the difference between playing GTA and watching Casino? Or between watching football and watching fishing.
I think more data is needed to avoid making an oversimplified generalization from these results.
Re:Further research needed (and get better summari (Score:2)
Data??? What have you been smoking?!!?!? No data is needed, sensationalist assumptions based on flimsy evidence is all we need! We've proven it: video games are evil and make kids evil!!!
Re:Further research needed (and get better summari (Score:2)
I think the better comparison would be between Katamari Damacy and
*ducks*
Re:Further research needed (and get better summari (Score:1)
There are enough poorly structured research cases. We don't need more useless data.
Not only is the 'study' putting an illogical spin on the affects of gaming as relating to alcohol and drugs it is adding to the enormous pile of research that reeks of bad journalism, while obviously being bad science.
-ME®
If you don't lime my study, do your own (Score:1)
So if you don't like t
Re:If you don't lime my study, do your own (Score:2)
Umm.... blood pressure? (Score:2)
Re:If you don't lime my study, do your own (Score:3, Insightful)
However, at the same time, it is kind of like asking a WWI General about how the war is going on in the trenches when you are both sitting in a nice French Chateu sipping on noon tea.
Chances are they are quite educated about the analysis and the subject of war fare, but you are going to get quite a d
Going to school to become your own research (Score:1)
I'm stating it because. (Score:1)
2. It isn't education that's worthless, it's attempting to get any help in your education from an institution. I have an associates degree, and my experience from elementary school to college is that the "teachers" are generally useless.
The very fact that you aren't making a dist
What's interesting to me is the bias in slashdot (Score:1)
Re:What's interesting to me is the bias in slashdo (Score:2)
-Rick
People don't like to be questioned (Score:5, Interesting)
Believe it or not young ones but there was a time when some people claimed smoking wasn't just not bad for you but actually GOOD for you. Boggles the mind doesn't it? You can imagine that smokers having grown up with idea that smoking a good thing didn't react all that well when people started telling them how bad it is.
Even worse when smoking parents were being told they were harming their childeren.
It is a sorta holy war. A constant one is the debate as to who is right when it comes to working hours. The americans with long working weeks or the europeans with short ones. Part of the problem is perhaps that their is no right answer but I think the main reason that such a discussion always becomes a flame war is that each side feels themselves being attacked for a fundemental part of their livestyle.
To test the effects of violent games on gamers lets use another hobby but one where we have very clear examples of the violence it generates. Soccer.
I am sure even americans have heard about violent soccer fans (hooligans) that are a major problem in europe and have been since I was a kid. Almost every match needs a sizable and costly police force to keep things under control. Even with this huge cost to the taxpayer it still frequently goes wrong and you the results are very clear closed of city centers that look like a disaster struck and a constant bill for public transport in destroyed vehicles (and a train costs a lot to rebuild).
Now I challenge you with this. You go on public tv in europe and claim that soccer is the cause of this violence and that restrictions should be put in place to curb the violence. Good luck.
The evidence of violence is very clar as is the link. If a hundred hooligans go out of the stadion and on a rampage it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you forbid audiences at soccer matches you would limit the problem.
Hell, even simpler suggestion. Let the soccer clubs pay for the police presence. They make billions they can afford it. Good luck again.
So, nobody likes to be told that their hobby is the cause of problems. Nobody likes to be told what they should do.
So is that strange that gamers react strongly to being told that their hobby is bad and should be regulated or even banned?
It doesn't matter if the accusations hold water. What matters is that your lifestyle is being questioned. The smoker doesn't want to be told to stop smoking, the soccer fan doesn't want to pay for the soccer hooligans and the gamer does not want to be restricted in the games he can play.
Very normal. But is it helpfull?
Smokers have lost, soccer fans hangon because soccer is a billion dollar industry with a wide fanbase. Gamers? Well, we are not exactly popular are we. We don't have the public on our side.
Does it really help our case of "violent games don't cause violence" if we react violently against anyone who claims it? Isn't that rather like claiming "I am peacefull and will kill anyone who claims that ain't so"?
It is easy to feel attacked in your personal freedom but when you attack your enemy for claiming your violent you are only proving his point.
Worse, perhaps we are like those smokers who claim that smoking ain't bad for you. How many gamers are even willing to consider that the link between violence and gaming could exist? Based on past experience, not many. This is another holy war and both sides got their fanatics.
Re:People don't like to be questioned (Score:5, Interesting)
Police forces in Britain already send the football clubs a bill for policing their event. The police don't make a profit but they do recoup a big portion of the costs.
Violence between fans at football matches is very rare these days, due to policing and segregation and whatnot. What violence there is tends to take place away from the football ground itself. If a fight happens between rival fans on a train 30 miles away from a football stadium, how realistic is it to blame the football clubs? Come to think of it, if there is some sort of causing link between gaming and violence, it's likely so subtle and tenuous that you really cannot point any finger of blame at gamemakers, or censor them. You can't say speech isn't speech because if you say something to half a million people, two of them might twist your words enough to use them to kill somebody. Pretty much every preacher, politician or rock star in the land would have to be forcibly silenced if that was the case.
Top football matches in the UK are already rather expensive and the football fans rarely complain, except if venal American asset-strippers happen to take over their club.
I am not from the UK (Score:2)
Oh and a smaller article about 2 ADO fans who were caught trying to set fire to a Ajax clubhouse supposdely in revenge for a group of Ajax fans who attacked a ADO clubhouse and beat up the people inside.
Yeah, that sounds like things being under control.
NOT.
As for the police being sent a bill, good for you. So
Re:People don't like to be questioned (Score:2)
In the U.S., such security is universally billed to the event, including all necessary overtime and equipment. The cost comes out of the ticket prices, and so the cost to the taxpayer is nil. Is this not the way it is done in Europe?
Re:People don't like to be questioned (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but there is a direct connection between smoke and harm. Everyone who smokes harms his health, and the health of the people around them. However, whether the quoted study is correct or not, it only states that gamers are more likely to drink and get high. So while the smoking study says something about ALL smokers, the gaming study says something ab
Re:People don't like to be questioned (Score:2)
"Why would you say that?" | "What makes you think that?" | etc
[answer that allows further discussion]
Re:People don't like to be questioned (Score:1)
Re:People don't like to be questioned (Score:1)
2) Obviously there is/has been violence at football games (but I doubt the causation between the two is 100%).
3) There is no proof that video games cause violence (at least no more of a percentage of causation than simply being alive causes violence).
Therefore, videogamers DO have a right to protest such a horrible unintelligent study.
Re:People don't like to be questioned (Score:1)
We don't know enough about the study (Score:3, Interesting)
I just sent feedback to gamespy.com about their article, as suggested on page 2. Hopefully they'll get back to me, but I'm not holding my breath. Here's what I sent 'em:
Re:We don't know enough about the study (Score:1)
So they chose 100 male undergrads. This demographic has some general qualities that are relevant here. The first is that they often are risk-taking individuals, and this comes from the general mindset of young males out on their own for the first time.
Re:We don't know enough about the study (Score:2)
Re:We don't know enough about the study (Score:1)
Re:We don't know enough about the study (Score:3, Informative)
I mean, c'mon, we are talking about a bunch of immature males that just got asked to play games. I remember when I was in college, I would probably intentionally skew the results if I was in such a study.
Re:We don't know enough about the study (Score:2)
Oh please (Score:2)
Random is random. It's very easy to divide 100 people in two random groups. The exact method is not relevant. Sure, it's thinkable that some mistake was made there, but then you might as well question if they added the numbers correctly, and a hundred different things.
It SHOULD, but only if the sample is large enough. Was it? We have no
Re:Oh please (Score:2)
And I ask again (Score:3, Interesting)
This research is like saying "reading books about food will make people hungry" or "reading a wine tasting magazine will make people more permissive towards alcohol use". Geez!
Re:And I ask again (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And I ask again (Score:2)
Re:And I ask again (Score:1)
Or get shoved in a locker by jocks. Or get beat up for wearing black.
My point only being that I hate sub-cultures being singles out maliciously. Sure I make jokes about Jocks, Geeks and Goths, but lets try not to support those baseless sterotypes that have been spread.
Re:And I ask again (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides these were not younger teenagers, but adults. They are allowed to vote, die for thier country, and depending on age and jurisdiction drink.
Re:And I ask again (Score:2)
Re:And I ask again (Score:1)
Re:And I ask again (Score:1)
Booze and videogames is utterly stoopid. (Score:2)
Re:Booze and videogames is utterly stoopid. (Score:5, Funny)
And if drinking is too hard... Try drugs instead.
Re:Booze and videogames is utterly stoopid. (Score:1, Informative)
For those curious, the effect of drugs on gaming depends largely on the drug(s) chosen. For example:
-Alcohol: Eventually you can't react for shit, and your ability level drops off rapidly. Losing was never so exciting. Neutral.
-Caffiene: Quickening of reaction time, however games can become frustrating because of load times and deaths from over-twitching. Recommended.
-Marijuana: Similar to alcohol, except without the bathroom breaks, and an insatiable hunger. Hide the cheez-its. Neutral.
-Coc
Re:Booze and videogames is utterly stoopid. (Score:1)
Re:Booze and videogames is utterly stoopid. (Score:1)
Re:Booze and videogames is utterly stoopid. (Score:1)
Thats what nintendo revolution will do for you: be able to drink your controller while you use your beer to play...hic!
This guy is off his rocker. (Score:2, Insightful)
Rhetorical (Score:2)
four words (Score:2)
Re:four words (Score:1)
Re:four words (Score:3, Insightful)
But it is a symptom of causation.
What was the research topic again? Was it where a group of 100 was split into two groups, one playing a GTA game and the other playing a Simpson's game, and the GTA players had a higher level of social tolerance to alcohol? If so, a reasonable person can conclude that the Simpsons game reduces the social tolerance for alcohol. While I haven't played the game in question, I do know that The Simpsons TV show ridicules drunks by the portrayal o
Her research is anecdotal at best. (Score:3, Insightful)
So they used 100 guys 18-21, likely most of which were from one geographic area. They also had no control group, so there is no way to prove that Gamers are any different than Non-Gamers, only that 18-21yr old males who play these games have some difference.
"Those study participants who played Grand Theft Auto III had greater increases in diastolic blood pressure from a baseline rest period to gameplay in comparison to participants who played The Simpsons."
Which is much more likely based on the fact that GTA has much more realism and realistic punishments. Death and prison register in our minds as real possible penalties. Death of a cartoon figure registers as little more then a Saturday morning cartoon with little association.
"After gameplay, GTA III players had more negative feelings, more uncooperative behavior, and thought that using alcohol and marijuana was less harmful to their health than players of The Simpsons."
other then being subjective and with out statistical backing, this is a great result. With only 100 people in the pool, any findings could be easily skewed by a few outliers. Also, there is nothing that states the pool sizes. So if the GTA pool had 65 participants and the TS pool had 35, it would be factual to say that the GTA group had more negative feelings. Also, the result is poorly worded, I highly doubt that everyone in the GTA group thought that "using alcohol and marijuana was less harmful to their health." It is more likely that GTP players were "more likely to think that using alcohol and marijuana was less harmful to their health."
"Among those people who grew up in more violent homes and communities... Among those people who grew up in more violent communities..."
So now, out of 100 people they are making conclusions for the entire male 18-21 gaming community based on a hand full of people. Assuming a third of the participants grew up in a violent house hold, another third in a violent community, and the final third grew up in Mayberry, and then each of these groups was evenly distributed between GTA and TS, you're looking at 16 people to base your research off of.
"Consistent with the results of many other people's research"
None of which appears to be sited.
With no statistics posted, this should outright be tossed as a valueless publication. And judging by their claims and process, any statistically substantial findings they made are most likely due to outliers skewing the results.
-Rick
Re:Her research is anecdotal at best. (Score:3, Interesting)
>> Death of a cartoon figure registers as little more then a Saturday morning cartoon with little association.
That one sentence could have (and probably has had) an entire study devoted to it. Presenting assertions like this as facts, without anything to support it, weakens your argument in the exact same way you're trying to weaken the study's.
Re:Her research is anecdotal at best. (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:Her research is anecdotal at best. (Score:1, Informative)
BTW, it's 'cited'[1], not 'sited'[2].
[1] "To quote as an authority or example." http://www.answers.com/cited [answers.com]
[2] "Having a site; situated. [Obs.]" http://www.answers.com/sited [answers.com]
Re:Her research is anecdotal at best. (Score:1)
Poor control - weak conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Where was this published, in the journal "DUH!"? Since when is it a surprise that people reduce their assessment of other risks when confronted with a specific risk? I don't worry about government wiretapping when I'm high off the deck rock climbing. We are, quite simply, wired to deal with the risk we are facing. A real control in this experiment would have put some of these randomly selected students in a risky, blood pressure raising situtaion (climbing could work, ethics guidelines are not likely to allow a simulated mugging), and ask them the same question.
Games like GTA really do induce a "reptile brain" response. I'm 45 years old, and find it kind of scary getting behind the wheel after virtually driving wrong way the length of the Las Veturas strip at full tilt with a mob goon tied to the hood of the car. In that situation, I am hypersensitive to driving risks, and likely not worrying about other things.
Last, somebody needs to point out that you can't reasonably play these games when you are wasted. GTA is freakin hard to play. I assume that computer games provide an alternative to drug use, rather than fostering it as is implied by the headlines.
The next Jack Thompson? (Score:2, Interesting)
No duh (Score:1)
no duh, what if someone did some research and found that people who research the effects of gaming on people were big time drug & booze users?
Would the researchers just sit back and go "yeah he's right, I'm totally a coke feind" or "I love to get loaded before touching those machines" or would they be rather pissed off?
Hell in any relation to anything, would the majority of people feel proud to be called a Boozy high person?
Not advocating, but... (Score:2)
Is that news from Ubuntu ? (Score:1)
The Next Generation (Score:1)
Reasons why the study is flawed (Score:2)
I think these three items speak for themselves, but to make it more plain: her sample does not represent the gaming population at large, nor does it represent the portion of the gaming population for whom we have the greatest desire to shield from violence and permissive attitudes towards drugs: people under the age of majority (i.e., 17 years old and younger).
If I had the time and still ha
maybe i didn't RTFA enough, but... (Score:1)
Re:maybe i didn't RTFA enough, but... (Score:1)
And get this:
I play horde!
I would eat frosted flakes but they're worse for you. Maybe Alliance don't care so much about their sugar intake?