A study, with so much bluster, and they studied just 94 people. Chuck a couple of zeros on that, then perhaps you have the makings of a worthwhile study and not just an anecdote.
Ugh. Not another math illiterate person complaining about the sample size. For the last time, your intuitive notions of statistics are worthless. The gamer study had a lot of people repeating this stupid objection too.
I am increasingly sick of these kinds of studies that use a sample pool so small as to be statistically irrelevant.
No, it's just that your intuitive ideas of what kind of sample size is statistically relevant are invalid. I am sick of how many people keep saying this even though it was addressed in an earlier post http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1341207&cid=29120539
Also, the complaints about the sample size being restricted to Seattle are probably unwarranted. The sample size is large enough to provide a 95% confidence level for a reasonably small interval, and it would be highly unusual for such a general result that's true in Seattle to be significantly different for other cities.
It would imply that there was some confounding variable that's exclusive to Seattle that modifies the characteristics of gamers, which is an absurd assumption, and the only reason you would think so without other evidence is if you just didn't like the results of the study.
extremely fragile it being at the limits of it's tenuous exitence after a long space journey.
This is completely unjustified. Might be true in a few special cases but no reason to assume it in general.
when your alternative is wage parity with taxi drivers, not such a bad choice. Rail on you rebel you.
Which taxi driver makes over 100K? He is a tenured professor. The point of tenure is that you can say what you think is right without being worried about your salary/livelihood.
"Never face facts; if you do, you'll never get up in the morning." -- Marlo Thomas