EPTOn January 25 2009 04:28 TrainReq wrote:
That could easily be right as well. Regardless, she should probably stop doing what she does.
That could easily be right as well. Regardless, she should probably stop doing what she does.
breathing?
Computer gamers more likely to be drunk self-hater - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Calyx
United States49 Posts
breathing? | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
People who breathe are significantly more violent than people who don't. | ||
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
| ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On January 25 2009 09:50 Jibba wrote: People who breathe are significantly more violent than people who don't. Unless you are counting zombies. | ||
|
Zapdos_Smithh
Canada2620 Posts
On January 25 2009 09:21 Jibba wrote: So you agree with what they reported. Jesus people... whatever happened to TL's 190 IQ. ? No I don't. Stop trying to mix up my words. I disagree with the study, b/c it does not prove anything. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Prof Walker said that it was still unclear whether playing computer games caused other social problems, or were merely a symptom of them. | ||
|
RivetHead
United States842 Posts
| ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On January 25 2009 07:14 Frits wrote: Anyone who thinks this research is useless/doesn't prove anything is clueless about scientific research or in hardcore denial. - did u read the paper? if u did post it, if u didn't you can't claim that... + Show Spoiler + and btw getting peer reviewed and published don't mean shit either, there is a lot of shit for science being peer reviewed and published out there, that journal included - how was the online questionnaire distributed? was it send to all students needing the credits? was it posted at 4chan? u get the point.. depending on whom the questionnaires were sent to, and what questions u address, one can find just about any correlation (click on me if u don't agree).. - on what she said alone in that interview u can definitively claim unacceptable bias, and if it true that the study was based solely on an "online" questionnaire, only "college students" from their own university, only "800" individuals were involved to study highly prevalent behaviors, and college credits were used as incentive to complete the study when they are looking at education itself as part of the study - how can u not say the study is shit for science? - now since none of us actually read the paper we can't really claim squat except that news posters in this case as usual could care less about science but rather sell news lol.. (just j/king) + Show Spoiler + -for Fritz with <3 from physician just for ur enjoyment: http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/2009/01/mormon_scientists_video_games.php some of the comments were pretty funny too, plus the inspiration for a forum OP | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 25 2009 12:01 RivetHead wrote: This study was obviously put together to make gaming look bad. I mean its BYU for christsakes, a university that I wouldn't go to if you paid me (and I would rather go to community college anyways). The fact of the matter is that the faculty who did the study have an agenda and the methods they used to collect the data is suspect and therefore the study is worthless. Say what you want about Mormonism, but criticizing BYU and the professor because she teaches there is simply idiotic. I repeat: you are a fucking idiot. There is actually an indication that she didn't have an anti-gaming agenda, and you are completely unaware of the legitimacy of the data set. Aside from having to sit in classes with 99% blonde, blue-eyed freaks, BYU is an excellent undergraduate school. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
BYU is an excellent undergraduate school. Rofl. Undergraduates are the ones putting out research papers? No? Oh shit!Looks like even your half defense indicates that BYU does fuck all in terms of proper research. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 25 2009 15:51 L wrote: Rofl. Undergraduates are the ones putting out research papers? No? Oh shit! Looks like even your half defense indicates that BYU does fuck all in terms of proper research. BYU is actually highly acclaimed for their undergraduate research opportunities and they've got a very high rating from the Carnegie research foundation. The professor you're questioning got a full academic scholarship to Central Michigan and her Master's and Doctorate from Nebraska, and the other researchers got their PhD's from Minnesota and Maryland. You don't even know what their religious views are. | ||
|
skyglow1
New Zealand3962 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Loanshark
China3094 Posts
On January 25 2009 16:14 Jibba wrote: BYU is actually highly acclaimed for their undergraduate research opportunities and they've got a very high rating from the Carnegie research foundation. The professor you're questioning got a full academic scholarship to Central Michigan and her Master's and Doctorate from Nebraska, and the other researchers got their PhD's from Minnesota and Maryland. You don't even know what their religious views are. That's research for you!  | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On January 25 2009 11:01 Resonance wrote: ? No I don't. Stop trying to mix up my words. I disagree with the study, b/c it does not prove anything. You can't disagree with a study because it doesn't prove anything when it wasn't setting out to prove anything. Are you retarded? | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
 /goes back to watching Starleague | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On January 25 2009 17:00 [X]Ken_D wrote: When you consider the excessive time spent playing games indoor instead of other outdoor activities, then yeah it holds true. The survey is a representative of the average gamers, NOT ALL. TL average is not the average gamer IMO It's not even representative of the average gamer. It's representative of gamers that go to BYU. All this has shown (apparently) is that in the 800 students surveyed from BYU, there is a correlation between video games, and drunkenness, and self-loathing. | ||
|
MaiBoA38
United States108 Posts
On January 25 2009 05:25 MuR)Ernu wrote: Though if you play wow (or some other mmorpg) 24/7 you are pretty likely to do some drugs or alcohol while playing them They are so tedious and most of the time you are bored when you play it. So you might want to get wasted, so its more fun. You are my best friend, congratulations. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On January 25 2009 12:24 Physician wrote: - did u read the paper? if u did post it, if u didn't you can't claim that... + Show Spoiler + and btw getting peer reviewed and published don't mean shit either, there is a lot of shit for science being peer reviewed and published out there, that journal included - how was the online questionnaire distributed? was it send to all students needing the credits? was it posted at 4chan? u get the point.. depending on whom the questionnaires were sent to, and what questions u address, one can find just about any correlation (click on me if u don't agree).. - on what she said alone in that interview u can definitively claim unacceptable bias, and if it true that the study was based solely on an "online" questionnaire, only "college students" from their own university, only "800" individuals were involved to study highly prevalent behaviors, and college credits were used as incentive to complete the study when they are looking at education itself as part of the study - how can u not say the study is shit for science? - now since none of us actually read the paper we can't really claim squat except that news posters in this case as usual could care less about science but rather sell news lol.. (just j/king) + Show Spoiler + -for Fritz with <3 from physician just for ur enjoyment: http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/2009/01/mormon_scientists_video_games.php some of the comments were pretty funny too, plus the inspiration for a forum OP Research in behavioral sciences is bound to strict rules and ethics in western society. You're critizicing the article on methods that are perfectly acceptable among statisticians. Online questionnaires are acceptable within certain rules, rules that a researcher has to abide by. Using just college students is acceptable as well, the researcher is aware of these limitations. It's like you think a researcher can just research whatever he or she feels like without any education and that gamers are the only people who use common sense. And that article about pew research center determines that gaming can include social activity, which we all already know, since we play online. The question is what the quality of this activity is and if it's reducing social interaction in real life. One positive effect does not disprove a negative unrelated effect. There isn't even any determination of correlation in the article you linked it's just a questionnaire that shows how many kids play online. This is what happens when you get overly defensive and biased. On January 25 2009 17:03 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: It's not even representative of the average gamer. It's representative of gamers that go to BYU. All this has shown (apparently) is that in the 800 students surveyed from BYU, there is a correlation between video games, and drunkenness, and self-loathing. You don't think that students from BYU are somewhat representative for intelligent teens across the western world? Until researchers can't replicate these findings I'd say there's a good chance it's representative for other western countries as well, that's just common sense. Besides these findings are based on comparing gamers in BYU with non gamers in BYU, if there's a difference between those 2 groups there's a good chance the difference exists in other populations as well, even if they have a higher or lower average, assuming the difference between gamers and and non gamers only exists in BYU sounds really illogical to me. To everyone who thinks this study is bullshit, do you know 800 gamers and non gamers? Have you compared their drinking and social habits objectively? It's not like 10% is a noticable effect for subjective evaluation and can be disproved with a few anecdotal quotes. You can't say it's bullshit because your intuition says it's not true. Intuition can be subconsciously influenced by what you want to think, not what is objectively the case. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
| ||
| ||
