Tracking the Harm Games Do 118
Every so often, video games are accused of causing all sorts of negative behavior in children, teens, and adults. These accusations are typically predicated on statistics that sound much more damning than they actually are. In that vein, gaming website Rock, Paper, Shotgun did their own tongue-in-cheek statistical analysis, complete with pretty charts and graphs. Quoting:
"As part of my research I thought to compare the sales of each GTA game with what the divorce rate must have been when each came out. As you can see each new GTA game has been directly correlated with an increase in divorces. ... An often ignored statistic (and you have to ask why it’s being ignored by the games media, don’t you?) is the sheer volume of PC games being released. We’ve all noticed the British population is abandoning the church, turning instead toward shopping, DVDs and knife crime. But few have thought to check for a connection between PC sales and the numbers of people attending their local Church Of England church on a Sunday. When you look at the data there’s little doubt left that as the publishers continue to release more and more PC games each year, our nation’s faith is being increasingly eroded. And at what cost? If only a graph could tell us that."
Re:Correlation doesn't imply causation. (Score:1, Informative)
Also, tongue-in-cheek means it's satirical or sarcastic.
Further, satire is making a mockery of something with prose by use of irony or sarcasm.
Irony is a way of conveying a meaning opposite to the the literal meaning of the statement.
To convey is to communicate or impart knowledge to another person.
Knowledge is facts gained through study or investigation.
I'm just trying to clarify things here, just like the parent.
Eh (Score:4, Informative)
There is actual research on the subject [umich.edu], if you are interested.
Here's the abstract:
Numerous studies have shown that exposure to media violence increases aggression, though the mechanisms of this effect have remained elusive. One theory posits that repeated exposure to media violence desensitizes viewers to real world violence, increasing aggression by blunting aversive reactions to violence and removing normal inhibitions against aggression. Theoretically, violence desensitization should be reflected in the amplitude of the P300 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP), which has been associated with activation of the aversive motivational system. In the current study, violent images elicited reduced P300 amplitudes among violent, as compared to nonviolent video game players. Additionally, this reduced brain response predicted increased aggressive behavior in a later task. Moreover, these effects held after controlling for individual differences in trait aggressiveness. These data are the first to link media violence exposure and aggressive behavior to brain processes hypothetically associated with desensitization.
Doesn't seem so far fetched.
Funniest popup in a while (Score:1, Informative)
"You need Adobe Flash Player 8 (or above) to view the charts. It is a free and lightweight installation from Adobe.com. Please click on Ok to install the same."
(Emphasis mine.)
Violent games VS Amount of pirates in the world (Score:2, Informative)
Everytime a game like GTA comes out there are less pirates in the world. Graph please!!!
Also, I'm almost sure that every time a violent game comes out, God kills a kitty, but I would also need a graph to be sure.
Re:There is also a correlation (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Church of England (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah the CoE broke off from from the RC Church under Henry VIII, but it was really under Elizabeth I that it became a separate church. She made a lot of changes and made it a protestant church, with priests allowed to marry, the removal of confessions and indulgences, etc. So the reasons for the CoE is the same reason for the reformation in the rest of europe, with a bit of nationalism thrown into the mix (it is called the Church of _England_ after all).
The reason for having a King? In feudal times, the most powerful warlord became the King. His subjects didn't have a choice in the matter. In modern times its because, for some reason, people like the whole pomp and circumstance and all the ceremony that goes a long with it. In the US, the President has to do all the ceremonial stuff along with actually running the executive branch. In England the Queen does all the ceremonial stuff while the prime minister can focus on actually running thing. Sort of a an extra branch of government... you got the judicial branch, legislative branch, executive branch and ceremonial branch.
For example some people in the US are now bitching over how Obama didn't make an appearance at some boy scout meeting. This is the sort of thing you have a king or queen for.