How long until he says something like "The APA knows there is a causal link. They've been bought out by Rockstar, Take-Two and Blank Rome. APA, do your damn job and admit there is a causal link or else." Any takers on long it'll take for him to say something like this?
And speaking of JT, whatever happened to GP's live, 25-hour, 8-days-a-week coverage of JT's every action? I leave for a few months and barely find any mention of the man who takes games and politics and mashes them together until it's impossible to tell the dfference between the two?
I know it's not because he hasn't done anything newsworthy. At least by the way most gaming sites define news.
There was a lot more coverage of him back when he basically took over the entire site for himself. It got to the point where he was insulting and antagonizing the commentors on a daily basis. We hear a lot less of his crap since he was banned. If you would like to see some of his crzy, go check out Joystiq. He leaves some pretty memorable responses there.
This is not the first time...soldatlouisfanSeptember 19 2006, 12:46:47 UTC
...that research is seriously misinterpreted.
Remember the statement that "70% (or 85%) of games are violent" ? In fact, such reports don't say that so many games ARE violent, but CONTAIN some violence (no matter the degree of violence, actually). Which is VERY different.
Also, remember the statement that "videogames desensitize" ? In fact, the report (Anderson's one) doesn't say that GAMES desensitize, but that "VIOLENT" videogames desensitize CONTRARY TO "non-violent" ones. And, by "violent" videogames, the report means games whose main characteristic is violence (in theme, gameplay and graphics). The four "violent" games cited by the report are Carmageddon, Duke Nukem, Mortal Kombat and Future Cop.
Here is how research is used to make misinformation "scientifically approved".
Dear english languageenmitywithinSeptember 19 2006, 14:11:12 UTC
Due to recent stirups involving wordplay and how words are used in your language to understand thought, I have come to only one conclusion mr english language.
Well there we have it...bustermanzeroSeptember 19 2006, 14:31:47 UTC
Corellation. That's no where near as concerning as causation. I mean, if it was a cause, then banning games or having government censorship would probably make sense (though I still dislike censorship). But this puts it on the same level as almost any activity where there is the possibility for frustration. Its ranked higher than TV or reading, but probably not quite as as bad as real sports since if you feel like taking out any built-up aggression normal people are right there.
Comments 61
Chew on that, JT.
Reply
Reply
It's probably happened already.
And speaking of JT, whatever happened to GP's live, 25-hour, 8-days-a-week coverage of JT's every action? I leave for a few months and barely find any mention of the man who takes games and politics and mashes them together until it's impossible to tell the dfference between the two?
I know it's not because he hasn't done anything newsworthy. At least by the way most gaming sites define news.
Reply
Reply
Correlation never equals causation.
Funny, I can hear the Metropolitian Moron of Miami crying from here in Houma.
Reply
Remember the statement that "70% (or 85%) of games are violent" ? In fact, such reports don't say that so many games ARE violent, but CONTAIN some violence (no matter the degree of violence, actually). Which is VERY different.
Also, remember the statement that "videogames desensitize" ? In fact, the report (Anderson's one) doesn't say that GAMES desensitize, but that "VIOLENT" videogames desensitize CONTRARY TO "non-violent" ones. And, by "violent" videogames, the report means games whose main characteristic is violence (in theme, gameplay and graphics). The four "violent" games cited by the report are Carmageddon, Duke Nukem, Mortal Kombat and Future Cop.
Here is how research is used to make misinformation "scientifically approved".
Reply
DIE PLZ
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment