Professor, ECA Dispute Video Game Aggression Study 78
Earlier this week, we discussed research which linked aggression in children with video games. The Entertainment Consumer Association responded with a statement criticizing the research, as did Christopher Ferguson, a professor at Texas A&M. PCWorld sat down with Ferguson for a more in-depth discussion of the flaws with the study. In addition to bringing up the correlation vs. causation fallacy, he notes:
"Even if you took it at face value, which I don't, video game violence overlaps somewhere between, based on their own statistics, a half a percent to two percent, with a variance in aggression. If you woke up tomorrow and you were half a percent more aggressive than you were today, would you notice that? It's just not much of an effect. If the author said look, there's a little effect here, maybe video games increase aggression a tiny bit, but it's not going to make anyone into a serial murderer, yeah, alright, we may argue a little bit over the methodology, though I'd still say they should've controlled for other stuff. "
Re:CmdrTaco sucks nigger dicks for fun and profit (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Super Mario (Score:3, Insightful)
my opinion from anecdotal evidence with my kids is that even bejeweled will cause violence if they spend too much time at it. It's the heightened awareness and ultra-focus on twitching the buttons that causes the problems. Because any game is so much cooler than real life, it's hard to get them out to play or read. While video games burn time and get kids hyped up, they don't create the calorie burn down and "happy" hormones that running and playing for a while do.. so they are mentally tired but physically racing to do something.
Re:Gotta wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
As with so many correlation is not causation issues, people who jump to use that line don't seem to understand it.
Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Correlation DOES mean there is a link, though it may not be direct.
For example, playing violent games may not increase violent tendencies. People with violent tendencies may play violent games more by choice. Fine. That's a very reasonable alternative. But, either way, if little Johnny likes beating up virtual hookers sixteen hours a day, his parents might be wise to keep a close eye on him.
Re:Gotta wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
Correlation DOES mean there is a link
Not necessarily true.
Correlation merely means correlation.
Unless of course pirates absorb greenhouse gases [seanbonner.com]
Re:Gotta wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless of course pirates absorb greenhouse gases [seanbonner.com]
... well, that's obviously not the only interpretation to walk away with there. Another would be that some of the same changes that drove piracy down, like using internal combustion engines to power boats that would then go faster, decreasing the efficiency of hijacking a boat on the open seas, also may have been putting out more greenhouse gasses.
Correlation does not mean DIRECT causation, but it's often hard to rule out indirect causation.
Anyway, his point was right. People here pull out that trite bit of fortune-cookie wisdom every time two things happen, even if an argument of causation is made. Stubbornly refusing to admit the possibility that A and B are at all related just because a direct link has not been shown is not very logical either.
In this case, people are quick to point out correlation does not mean causation maybe because they like videogames and don't want any possibility of seeing games blamed for any real problems and censored. I don't think denying the truth, if this is true, is the best way to guard against censorship. I think we need to continue to argue that the responsibility to control oneself is on the individual, if some kids become violent after playing games, the obvious solution would be to not let them play games. Barring that, lock them up or sedate them. I really don't care, but you're not taking my gaming options away just because of bad parents.
Re:Gotta wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
The correlation is due to the time dependence of the data. You'll always find a correlation between any two time series that increase or decrease over time.
In a sense, they do share an indirect causal link: the passage of time.
Re:Gotta wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
No, he's right, and you're wrong. The "correlation" of sea pirates with greenhouse gases is there only because the statistical sample is too small to be significant, and because you choose to ignore previous periods with higher concentrations of CO2 that are not linked with sea pirates. In other words, there is no correlation between pirates and greenhouse gases: the statement is fraudulent, put forth only by people with no understanding whatsoever of science or logic.
This is the case: there is a 1:1 correlation of yapping about "correlation is not causation" as if it were a profound insight and being an idiot, and while the correlation is extremely strong, only a different idiot would claim the yapping is what causes idiocy. And vice versa: idiocy takes many forms, and not every kind is correlated with the "correlation is not causation" meme, so idiocy alone doesn't cause this intellectual failure.
Re:Gotta wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
With the introduction of steam ships, pirates began to have problems. They could not catch a steam ship in a wind-powered ship. If they switched to steam, they had big infrastructure dependencies (coal, engine maintenance, and so on) that made it easier for the authorities to find and kill them.
In short, the industrial shift towards combustion engines caused both the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and the decline in piracy. Similarly, pre-existing violent tendencies might make someone favour violent games and committing assault.
Re:About Damned Time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About Damned Time. (Score:3, Insightful)
have you read what it says?
from Part 1 of the interview:
all he plainly states is that this study found a correlation in their data. that is an indisputable mathematical observation. he's simply being an objective and open-minded researcher here. but he's arguing that even if you accept their premise (the correlation found in the data), their logic is unsound. so he is skeptical about their conclusion, which he is clearly refuting.
i think you should re-read the portion of interview in which he says that even an undergrad should understand correlation != causation. heck, re-read the entire thing, since you clearly missed his point:
i mean, you seriously need to work on your reading comprehension skills if what you took from the interview is that Christopher Ferguson thinks video games cause aggression.