FoxNews bashes Bulletstorm (LOL)

[chris89300]

Not too long ago, I saw a mom in her mid-30ties getting the latest GTA for PS3 for her 6 or 7 years old boy. Needless to say she should have been hanged in the supermarket, because she's one of the idiots that complain about their kids playing violent video games WHEN THEY'RE THE ONES BUYING THE GAMES FOR THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Also, I see kids playing outside at 11pm, in the dark, when the city lights are already off all the time. I mean, WTF?!


Therefore, if people can't be bothered to look after their own kids, they shouldn't be allowed to have them, cuz I sure as hell won't look after other people's kids.



I say it's time to impose a licencing system for having kids. If you're too much of a moron and fail the mandatory test and still have kids, you will be publicly executed.

Hey, public executions worked for hundreds of years and no one ever complained.

 

[Tartarga]

You know what Fox News? Maybe you should teach Bill O'reilly how the tides work and how the moon got where it is before you make statements about things you know nothing about. How is it these guys haven't been taken off the air for false advertising yet? Fair and balanced my ass.

 

[X10J]

You know what Fox News? Maybe you should teach Bill O'reilly how the tides work and how the moon got where it is before you make statements about things you know nothing about. How is it these guys haven't been taken off the air for false advertising yet? Fair and balanced my ass.

No.1 Hahahahahahaha. ahhhhh Bill O' Riley.

No.2 "How is it these guys haven't been taken off the air for false advertising yet? Fair and balanced my ass." I ninja'd you on that. ;-)

 

[X10J]

What you're talking about seems like psychoanlysis, which is rare and widely unaccepted today. Most psychologists don't agree with Freud.

That's certainly not he impression I got from my psychology teacher. Her class made me do a complete 180 on the entire idea of it tbh.

That sucks. I mean sure some of his therputic techniques are used, but most of the psychologists I know don't agree with most of it. Now I'm curious, do you remember more specificaly what she said.

It was on the first day. She asked the class if we knew any famous psychologists or any popular tests or theories ect.

So I said the first two that sprang to mind. Pavlovs dogs and Freud's Oedipus complex.

She said good, I then proceeded to give her my evaluation of Freud. That he was a severely disturbed individual who pushed his own problems onto everybody else in an attempt to validate his... conditions with research. Trying to prove it wasn't just him.

She told me not to be so ignorant and that I wouldn't last long in her class with that attitude.

We were at odds for the entire year. She basically tried to poke a hole in everything I said and I made it my missions to make her class as awkward as possible.

I dropped the class after we had an inevitable massive argument at the end of the year.

I would have let it drop. But practically every study she showed me just made me lose more and more interest in the whole subject. It was just full of people making wild assumptions whilst drawing conclusions from inconclusive findings.

It really soured me on the whole subject.

Can you name any particular study, and/or names. This seems interesting. While I don't think that Freud was necisarrily "pushing his own problems onto everyone else" I, and many others, believe that his explanations were "flawed"(moronic if you ask me). Did she realy defend them?

 

[Solo-Wing]

People are just trying to see how far they can go before the controversy stops them. Thats it just push the envelope till some idiots fuck it up for all games, gamers, and game developers everywhere.

 

[bobfish92]

What you're talking about seems like psychoanlysis, which is rare and widely unaccepted today. Most psychologists don't agree with Freud.

That's certainly not he impression I got from my psychology teacher. Her class made me do a complete 180 on the entire idea of it tbh.

snip

Can you name any particular study, and/or names. This seems interesting. While I don't think that Freud was necisarrily "pushing his own problems onto everyone else" I, and many others, believe that his explanations were "flawed"(moronic if you ask me). Did she realy defend them?

I studied A-Level psychology too, and whilst Freud was wrong with a lot of things, there are aspects he did get right and it is rather ignorant to dismiss all of his findings because of his flaws, as the only way psychology will advance is if we learn from previous theories and find whats true in them and whats false, my own personal opinions on psychology are a cherry picked assimilation of a variety of theories with those that make sense to me and have had conclusive research to back it up. The problem with the supposed psychologist in this article is that she provides no research whatsoever and I know most research ends up being rigged, either consciously or subconsciously (the reason we have peer review), but for this "psychologist" to make such a statement without even bothering to do research - Hell, not even bothering to fake research or rig it? Its downright lazy and insulting.

 

[X10J]

What you're talking about seems like psychoanlysis, which is rare and widely unaccepted today. Most psychologists don't agree with Freud.

That's certainly not he impression I got from my psychology teacher. Her class made me do a complete 180 on the entire idea of it tbh.

That sucks. I mean sure some of his therputic techniques are used, but most of the psychologists I know don't agree with most of it. Now I'm curious, do you remember more specificaly what she said.

It was on the first day. She asked the class if we knew any famous psychologists or any popular tests or theories ect.

So I said the first two that sprang to mind. Pavlovs dogs and Freud's Oedipus complex.

She said good, I then proceeded to give her my evaluation of Freud. That he was a severely disturbed individual who pushed his own problems onto everybody else in an attempt to validate his... conditions with research. Trying to prove it wasn't just him.

She told me not to be so ignorant and that I wouldn't last long in her class with that attitude.

We were at odds for the entire year. She basically tried to poke a hole in everything I said and I made it my missions to make her class as awkward as possible.

I dropped the class after we had an inevitable massive argument at the end of the year.

I would have let it drop. But practically every study she showed me just made me lose more and more interest in the whole subject. It was just full of people making wild assumptions whilst drawing conclusions from inconclusive findings.

It really soured me on the whole subject.

Can you name any particular study, and/or names. This seems interesting. While I don't think that Freud was necisarrily "pushing his own problems onto everyone else" I, and many others, believe that his explanations were "flawed"(moronic if you ask me). Did she realy defend them?

Oh yes. She defended them.

I couldn't name studies off the top of my head. This was 4 years ago. And I've not spent a great deal of time trying to remember them.

If memory serves... The issues I had were not particularly with the studies. It was the wild conclusions that the teacher seemed to draw from them. As if a test done on 4 monkeys or on 20 people was proof positive of something.

I remember one study I took real exception to. They measured stress levels of different individuals. And because the 3 or so people with the highest stress levels all had factory jobs they concluded that they must be the most stressful types of jobs to have.

It's really the whole work ethic I had an issue with. The studies never seemed broad enough or they seemed to neglect certain variables ect. Yet each time, they drew what they referred to as definitive conclusions. It really began to nark me off, pretty soon on.

It was probably because it was very early stage Psych stuff. Introduction to it. But I'd rather they would have started with the more interesting, less biased stuff.

I'm not one to insult somebody, I try to respect everybody, but she seems to suck at psychology.

"I remember one study I took real exception to. They measured stress levels of different individuals. And because the 3 or so people with the highest stress levels all had factory jobs they concluded that they must be the most stressful types of jobs to have."

That was correlational research. The number one rule of correlational research is that correlation =/= causation. That's pretty much the psychological equivalent of dividing by zero. No, just no, you can't do it.

Psychologists take great measures to reduce bias. Its one of the biggest priorities.

I'm growing a grand distaste for your psychology professor.

 

[X10J]

I'm not one to insult somebody, I try to respect everybody, but she seems to suck at psychology.

"I remember one study I took real exception to. They measured stress levels of different individuals. And because the 3 or so people with the highest stress levels all had factory jobs they concluded that they must be the most stressful types of jobs to have."

That was correlational research. The number one rule of correlational research is that correlation =/= causation. That's pretty much the psychological equivalent of dividing by zero. No, just no, you can't do it.

Psychologists take great measures to reduce bias. Its one of the biggest priorities.

I'm growing a grand distaste for your psychology professor.

Thank god I wasn't the only one. The thing that baffled me most, was that no one else in the class seemed bothered by this kind of reasoning.

It's like they just lost all sense of rationality and just parroted whatever the teacher told them. As if it was innate fact without having to be proven.

As I said. The class did a complete 180 on my feelings towards psychology as a subject. I lost all interest because from an outside perspective. I viewed everything that I was shown as inconclusive and pretty much pointless.

Now don't get me wrong. I've read a few really good articles since then. Mostly on behavioural psychology. especially behaviour of the masses. I still however hold strong against psychology being able to decode the human condition. I think it's useful to measure reactions and learned behaviours. I don't think it's a particularly good approach for mental illness, sexuality ect ect ect.

It's mostly his explanations to which I take issue. Id, subconscious, The idea of drives all fine and good. It's the explanations; the anal retentive, every dream revolves around sex, infact everything is sex. Again, it's primarily the explanations to which I take issue.

 

[Soluncreed]

"The increase in rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of [sexual] scenes in video games," she said.

Um, have they ever looked at Japans statistics? Tons of Sex games, but remarkably low rape incidences.

 

[X10J]

I'm not one to insult somebody, I try to respect everybody, but she seems to suck at psychology.

"I remember one study I took real exception to. They measured stress levels of different individuals. And because the 3 or so people with the highest stress levels all had factory jobs they concluded that they must be the most stressful types of jobs to have."

That was correlational research. The number one rule of correlational research is that correlation =/= causation. That's pretty much the psychological equivalent of dividing by zero. No, just no, you can't do it.

Psychologists take great measures to reduce bias. Its one of the biggest priorities.

I'm growing a grand distaste for your psychology professor.

Thank god I wasn't the only one. The thing that baffled me most, was that no one else in the class seemed bothered by this kind of reasoning.

It's like they just lost all sense of rationality and just parroted whatever the teacher told them. As if it was innate fact without having to be proven.

As I said. The class did a complete 180 on my feelings towards psychology as a subject. I lost all interest because from an outside perspective. I viewed everything that I was shown as inconclusive and pretty much pointless.

Now don't get me wrong. I've read a few really good articles since then. Mostly on behavioural psychology. especially behaviour of the masses. I still however hold strong against psychology being able to decode the human condition. I think it's useful to measure reactions and learned behaviours. I don't think it's a particularly good approach for mental illness, sexuality ect ect ect.

Yea well, she's the teacher. They're supposed to trust her lessons. But I think that both of my professors would have failed her if she took their classes.

Yea, I like behavioural psychology. And you seem to be one of those people that think that you should only study what you can measure, kind of like some of the early behavioral psychologists. Part of me likes the idea of being able to "unravel the human mind" if you will, while another part finds comfort in the idea that we're too complicated to do so. On the other hand I think that there are somethings which are pretty much "unravled". So it seems like a moot point.

 

[Senaro]

A nine-year=old child should not be fucking playing this game!

Jesus, these people don't get it do they...

They're also going to assume this 9 year old walked into a store and bought this game by himself, and the clerk probably gave him a free lollipop and told him to go home and watch some porn.

 

[Hader]

Lol, Fox News, you so crazy.

 

[Zaik]

Million-seller confirmed.

Sometimes I wonder if this isn't some kind of stealth maketing. Slip Fox a few hundred thou to drum up some fake outrage, watch the sales rack up... I mean, it's not like Fox has any intergrity.

I was JUST thinking this as I was reading it, it would be a great way to do some really sneaky advertising.