Money down a holeverbinatorSeptember 15 2006, 13:30:19 UTC
Call me cynical, but I find it hard to believe that the study will resolve anything, even with the CDC involved ... except to provide inconclusive or even humorous data and vague advice.
In the end, we will have once again watched massive amounts of taxpayer money poured into a hole in the ground and all we will have to show for it is the conclusion "Parents should pay attention to what their children watch and play and guide them to make better choices."
There. Study's done. Please send me 9 million dollars in small unmarked bills.
Re: Money down a holeverbinatorSeptember 15 2006, 17:43:53 UTC
My study ... which is already complete and draws the same conclusions is a bargain then! Have the government contact me as to where they can send the cash. They can even take my income tax out of it in advance.
First, I find it interesting that 3 canidates are up for relection on there and beyond those 3, 3 more are presidental hopefuls.
second, as long as it is not like putting former jersey gov christine whitman in charge of the epa, then i have no problem with it. as long as it is a true unbiased science research.
As well respected as the CDC may be, I still take this as a sign for very bad times ahead for the industry. Whenever studies like this are issued, almost nothing good comes out of them in favor of the parties investigated. And right now, the industry's back is against the wall. If some particularly damning piece of evidence comes out, I don't know what else they can do except not make certain types of games, which is pretty much what happened to the comic book industry in the wake of the Comics Code Authority, as Horror comics ceased to exist shortly therafter
( ... )
"Lieberman should just shut up and stop pretending like he still matters. He lost the primary, he's out and it's doubtful he'll still win even if running as a thrid party candidate. Besides, all he really cares about is staying in power anyway, and those are the kind of politicians you want to get rid of."
you know that lieberman (unfortunately) is still up appx 10 points over Ned in the various polls right now? Lamont still can hopefully pull it out, by hammering the same messages that won him the primary, but the odds arent great for him. Lieberman is a spoiler and a poor loser with only his own personal intests in mind (rather thant he interests of his voters or his former party) there is no question of that, but he is unfortunately far from irrelevant, (even though of course his vg positions are hopefully pretty irrelevant to the CT electorate who hopefully are looking at things like his votign record etc ont he iraq war)
I don't have a problem with media research BUT...bigman_kSeptember 15 2006, 14:50:33 UTC
I have no doubt that because this research will come from a source that is being funded by another source (i.e. - government money) with a biased agenda and biased beliefs that the researchers will go into the study with a certain negative bias and when you go into something like a research study with a biased agenda you're almost certain to find something that fits your beliefs no matter how weak, inconsistant, flawed, unsubstancial that finding is. I also agree with the ACLU that this research is being done as a way to come up with evidence in court that would allow the government to further censor Free Speech under the guise of preventing a so-called "harm" or to "protect the young" and not for any sort of legitimate "well intentioned" scientific reasons of understanding human nature or behavior. Personally i don't believe and i am totally against using scientific research as a way to support censorship. I believe that if violent games were really truely harmful to youth we would have found that out by now.
The research is needed, howeverace_of_sevensSeptember 15 2006, 14:55:44 UTC
I am glad to see more research being done in this area. Most previous studies have only studied short term effects, only studied aggression, which isn't necessarily bad, rather than actual violent or criminal behavior and used a test environment that did not reflect the real world.
On the other hand, this seems to be out of the purview of the CDC. They deal with communicable disease, chemical threats, bio-weapons and injuries. Psychology is not their field. This is a rather complicated issue. I hope the CDC has someone who can study it properly and that no political pressure is put on them.
Re: The research is needed, howeverjabrwockSeptember 15 2006, 17:12:34 UTC
On the other hand, this seems to be out of the purview of the CDC.
Although the CDC doesn't have the research facilities to study such effects in detail, I believe they might have the best experience at studying any trends from any research that is done (they run the National Center for Health Statistics & the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System). So they would likely be the best for coordinating what factors and groups to study, as well as assembling all the research data at the end.
The problem is that the US Dept of Health doesn't really have a department specifically devoted to this.
SAMHSA is more for mental illness & substance abuse. NIH is for biomedical research. The Surgeon General looked at video game & media research, but didn't do it's own, merely commented on research done by others.
Comments 32
In the end, we will have once again watched massive amounts of taxpayer money poured into a hole in the ground and all we will have to show for it is the conclusion "Parents should pay attention to what their children watch and play and guide them to make better choices."
There. Study's done. Please send me 9 million dollars in small unmarked bills.
Reply
Reply
Reply
second, as long as it is not like putting former jersey gov christine whitman in charge of the epa, then i have no problem with it. as long as it is a true unbiased science research.
Reply
Reply
you know that lieberman (unfortunately) is still up appx 10 points over Ned in the various polls right now? Lamont still can hopefully pull it out, by hammering the same messages that won him the primary, but the odds arent great for him. Lieberman is a spoiler and a poor loser with only his own personal intests in mind (rather thant he interests of his voters or his former party) there is no question of that, but he is unfortunately far from irrelevant, (even though of course his vg positions are hopefully pretty irrelevant to the CT electorate who hopefully are looking at things like his votign record etc ont he iraq war)
Reply
I also agree with the ACLU that this research is being done as a way to come up with evidence in court that would allow the government to further censor Free Speech under the guise of preventing a so-called "harm" or to "protect the young" and not for any sort of legitimate "well intentioned" scientific reasons of understanding human nature or behavior.
Personally i don't believe and i am totally against using scientific research as a way to support censorship. I believe that if violent games were really truely harmful to youth we would have found that out by now.
Reply
On the other hand, this seems to be out of the purview of the CDC. They deal with communicable disease, chemical threats, bio-weapons and injuries. Psychology is not their field. This is a rather complicated issue. I hope the CDC has someone who can study it properly and that no political pressure is put on them.
Reply
Although the CDC doesn't have the research facilities to study such effects in detail, I believe they might have the best experience at studying any trends from any research that is done (they run the National Center for Health Statistics & the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System). So they would likely be the best for coordinating what factors and groups to study, as well as assembling all the research data at the end.
The problem is that the US Dept of Health doesn't really have a department specifically devoted to this.
SAMHSA is more for mental illness & substance abuse. NIH is for biomedical research. The Surgeon General looked at video game & media research, but didn't do it's own, merely commented on research done by others.
Reply
Leave a comment