stinkychops said:
So are you suggesting that these tests should be done on a person while they play videogames? In which I could easily understand why they would be frustrated. I would expect the same results from a cryptic crossword or a rubiks cube. If not then your saying that playing videogames causes permenant anger. If your saying that after playing videogames people respond to situations more aggressively I would have to strongly disagree with you.
First of all, you are blanketing all videogames togethor, surely Tetris, or the Sims would not result in the same effect as GTA or Left 4 Dead.
Yet again you have cited no proof, and again have attempted to INSULT me, by saying my argument is based on ignorance when in fact I admit my ignorance and was asking a badly phrased question.
I hope your twacher removed marks when you said we understand the mapping of the brain when it is angered, the results from such studies have been inconclusive and have only raised suggestions and probable outcomes. By suggesting that any of your methods could determine someones anger (and you gave no context under which this would occur). the only way we could be certain of these experiments would result in the likely death or brain damage of the patient.
One of your five fantastic suggestions was for the person to rate their mood, this is a heavily biased method, as no-one can accurately recall their prior emotions and as such they would be incapable of accurately comparing their moods. through that statement alone you lost all credibility raised through your prior comments.
I would ask you, for a person with a supposed major in psychology you don't seem to understand how to communicate well with other people and your matter of fact attitude strongly goes against the way science is meant to be viewed. A scientist should always be see things objectively and should be willing to change their view.
I will need to see some citations before I respond to you again because as far as I'm concerned I've wasted enough of my time on some condescending internet troll.
Perhaps you would be better served by a study on convergent measurement?
A good example is if you are able to build two clocks, one which is very accurate, but terribly imprecise, and another which is very precise, but terribly inaccurate. Neither clock will be acceptable in the long term: the inaccurate one will drift due to clock skew and be rendered useless, where as the imprecise one is much harder to use and unacceptable for scientific study. The solution? Use both, and you can make a meta-clock which is acceptably accurate and precise.
In the same way, no one uses self reported ratings alone. However, discounting self reported ratings entirely is just as illogical as using them alone, especially in the presence of technology. While you are right that neuroplasticity means we cannot draw a complete picture of how aggression (not anger) are present in the brain, this does not mean that we do not absolutely know a trigger and flag which we can use for aggression (the amygdala). Furthermore, the brain scans would be completely useless without some measure of self reporting to serve as calibration!
Does this usage of self reporting invalidate the testing methods? Absolutely not! Self reporting is used at every aspect of modern medicine in some form, even surgery. It is used for calibration on everything from brain scans to preliminary exploration. One of the most useful tools for a doctor is if the patient can tell them where it hurts (either through speech or through body language). This is why CIPA, which prevents feeling pain, is very difficult; there may be large amounts of damage done, but the patient can be completely unaware of it.
Now that I have thoroughly discounted that particular nuance, allow me to continue: I did not mean "argument out of ignorance" and "argument out of lack of imagination" as an insult, but rather, to highlight the logical fallacy you are using. That is to say, you deny that there CAN be a way to measure aggression simply because you cannot THINK of one. Do not take this as an insult; you can wiki logical fallacies and find this is a logical and reasonable thing to say, and sufficient as a denial of your argument in any academic arena.
More than this, you have injured me far more grievously than any of my supposed insults on you, by attacking my scientific objectivity. The problem with this attack is that it is simply a categorically misrepresentation of what I have said. I have not put my personal opinions into any of this, beyond needed to express the data, where as you have argued out of your own personal opinions and experience from the get go. I have merely reiterated the scientific data we have gathered over the decades. This is as objective as it can possibly get.
You may disagree with my statements, as is your personal right. But the data is there. As I've stated numerous times, video games cause increased aggression for several hours after play has ended. This is measurable, both in brain scans, in neurotransmitter levels, and in stimulation of the amygdala. To deny this is to deny reality and basic neurology.
As for credible citations, I had prepared a number of them for a similar thread in the same vain, posted by someone in this thread. However, due your inappropriately insulting response, how about I make the following request: before I post citations positing my evidence (of which my name is on two of the twenty papers I have found so far), post your own. I'd like to see the peer reviewed articles that state there is absolutely no connection between video games and violence.
