Poll: Supernanny takes on video games.

[EeveeElectro]

I don't know if any of you watch the show Supernanny (UK)
But today's episode (which has finished, catch it on 4oD if you're interested in watching it) Supernanny took part in an 'experiment' (I only caught the last few minutes, but got the gist of what they were doing) where she separated 20 boys. One half played a violent War game and the other half played a non-violent football game. After they played for a while, they were taken to a separate room individually to be interviewed. The interviewer purposely knocked some pens over to see how the children reacted. She wanted to see if the children who played the violent games were polite and kind enough to pick up the pens. None of them did, but a couple of the non-violent players did, so they concluded that playing violent war games influences children to be less polite.
I just don't understand.
Surely, parents have the most influence over the children? I was brought up to be polite as I'm sure many of you were, so I don't understand why they are purely blaming video games. Why not music? Or TV?
It actually angered me; I may be saying this as a gamer,but if they changed it to "shoe shopping makes children violent" or something I equally hate, I'd still be ranting about it.
So I ask you, do you agree with this? Or are they just out to scare the parents and stop kids playing video games? And if you pay violent games yourself, do you become influenced by them? Have you became a less polite person because of it?
I personally think it's down to parenting as the child as an individual.

This is the only article I can find on it

First childcare megastar Dr Tanya Byron came to the earth-shattering conclusion that "violent videogames are harmful to children, but it's the parents fault they've got them in the first place" and tomorrow night, Supernanny Jo Frost will also tackle the thorny subject of kids and videogames - and how to limit Little Johnny or Jenny's intake to acceptable levels

 

[Amnestic]

I don't know if any of you watch the show Supernanny (UK)
But today's episode (which has finished, catch it on 4oD if you're interested in watching it) Supernanny took part in an 'experiment' (I only caught the last few minutes, but got the gist of what they were doing) where she separated 20 boys. One half played a violent War game and the other half played a non-violent football game. After they played for a while, they were taken to a separate room individually to be interviewed. The interviewer purposely knocked some pens over to see how the children reacted. She wanted to see if the children who played the violent games were polite and kind enough to pick up the pens. None of them did, but a couple of the non-violent players did, so they concluded that playing violent war games influences children to be less polite.
I just don't understand.

God if that's what passes for 'science' in these shows I'm glad I don't watch TV anymore.

 

[BolognaBaloney]

People are always looking for scape-goats, gaming just happens to be an incredibly convenient one. No link has ever succesfully been established between violent games and detrimental effects on the human psyche. But alas, people will always jump on the band wagon.

 

[AdambotLive]

People still trust that........beast?

 

[JRCB]

How about they reverse the test now? I have the non-violent game players switch to the violent game, and vice-versa.

As well, did all of the non-violent game players pick up the pen?

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

It obviously proves war games are more interesting than football games.

Desensitised? Perhaps. I mean I wouldn't cry for the fallen pencils when I've lost so many good troops on the battlefield.

And remember Mario the football-playing kid? That didn't end well...

 

[Jaranja]

I don't know if any of you watch the show Supernanny (UK)
But today's episode (which has finished, catch it on 4oD if you're interested in watching it) Supernanny took part in an 'experiment' (I only caught the last few minutes, but got the gist of what they were doing) where she separated 20 boys. One half played a violent War game and the other half played a non-violent football game. After they played for a while, they were taken to a separate room individually to be interviewed. The interviewer purposely knocked some pens over to see how the children reacted. She wanted to see if the children who played the violent games were polite and kind enough to pick up the pens. None of them did, but a couple of the non-violent players did, so they concluded that playing violent war games influences children to be less polite.
I just don't understand.

God if that's what passes for 'science' in these shows I'm glad I don't watch TV anymore.

That is a bullshit experiment. It's not even an experiment. If you're going to make a massive generalization like that; you need a hell of a lot more participants. The extraneous variables here affect the results in such a manner that I don't even think this experiment counts at all, even with more participants.

P.S. Sorry for awful typing.

 

[wooty]

Maybe the ones playing the sports game were brainwashed into being more active, the violent ones probably just thought the pens would respawn back on the table after being downed.

 

[LordMoose]

wait wait wait.
This is Her 'experiment'
if they'll pick up some knocked over pens, and then Blames the VIDEO GAMES she had them play for i dunno, 10 minutes? That incessant cow better have made sure the kids were befitting the right age group of the game or else she's just circumventing the issue, and letting 10 yr olds play MW2, like they shouldnt be!

God knows its not the YEARS of teaching and guidence that the parents that raised those children to teach them to politely pick up the pens.

its just stupid trying a test on that scale, with some kids she found(kidnapped)

 

[EeveeElectro]

How about they reverse the test now? I have the non-violent game players switch to the violent game, and vice-versa.

As well, did all of the non-violent game players pick up the pen?

They didn't show all of the children, but the first one looked at the pens, and when the interviewer bent down to pick them up he said, "Do you want a hand?" so Supernanny said, "he had to be prompted, that's not right."
The second one just looked at them, looked back and carried on talking. And the third one jumped out of his seat straight away to help. I just put that down to good parenting if your child is that helpful, that's something I would so.

 

[baboon 101]

People said the same thing about comic books 50 years ago.

 

[LordMoose]

Oh oh oh, and

Ramirez!
Pick up those pens!

 

[Ken_J]

I would have picked up the pen because my parents tought me better. I'm not going to except an experiment about 'if violent games makes children violent' from a nanny

 

[FactualSquirrel]

I don't know if any of you watch the show Supernanny (UK)
But today's episode (which has finished, catch it on 4oD if you're interested in watching it) Supernanny took part in an 'experiment' (I only caught the last few minutes, but got the gist of what they were doing) where she separated 20 boys. One half played a violent War game and the other half played a non-violent football game. After they played for a while, they were taken to a separate room individually to be interviewed. The interviewer purposely knocked some pens over to see how the children reacted. She wanted to see if the children who played the violent games were polite and kind enough to pick up the pens. None of them did, but a couple of the non-violent players did, so they concluded that playing violent war games influences children to be less polite.
I just don't understand.

God if that's what passes for 'science' in these shows I'm glad I don't watch TV anymore.

That is a bullshit experiment. It's not even an experiment. If you're going to make a massive generalization like that; you need a hell of a lot more participants. The extraneous variables here affect the results in such a manner that I don't even think this experiment counts at all, even with more participants.

P.S. Sorry for awful typing.

Yeah, this isn't even close to science. It's one of the reasons I don't watch TV anymore, that most of the stuff on there is bullshit. That woman quite obviously has never heard of science, as a control group of 10 with no pretests results in wildly inaccurate results.

 

[Richard Hannay]

Social science does not work that way!

 

[Zedzero]

What happened to reason? Why do most gamers seem to be the only ones left with logical thinking, and since when is football non-violent?

 

[Sahasrahla]

The experiment doesn't do anything for establishing a control group of kids who played no video games, nor does it account for the individual proclivities of the children (for example, some kids have politeness like that pounded into their heads from birth, others do not). Furthermore, it sounded like they were intentionally giving the second group a game which is rated far outside their age group in order to support their feelings about the issue. There really isn't a shred of credibility to this whole spurious experience.

 

[Travis Austin]

It's the parents job to teach their kids manners and to be polite.
Many kids are not polite and are selfish, so I doubt that the violent games had a lasting impact.

 

[Jaranja]

I don't know if any of you watch the show Supernanny (UK)
But today's episode (which has finished, catch it on 4oD if you're interested in watching it) Supernanny took part in an 'experiment' (I only caught the last few minutes, but got the gist of what they were doing) where she separated 20 boys. One half played a violent War game and the other half played a non-violent football game. After they played for a while, they were taken to a separate room individually to be interviewed. The interviewer purposely knocked some pens over to see how the children reacted. She wanted to see if the children who played the violent games were polite and kind enough to pick up the pens. None of them did, but a couple of the non-violent players did, so they concluded that playing violent war games influences children to be less polite.
I just don't understand.

God if that's what passes for 'science' in these shows I'm glad I don't watch TV anymore.

That is a bullshit experiment. It's not even an experiment. If you're going to make a massive generalization like that; you need a hell of a lot more participants. The extraneous variables here affect the results in such a manner that I don't even think this experiment counts at all, even with more participants.

P.S. Sorry for awful typing.

Yeah, this isn't even close to science. It's one of the reasons I don't watch TV anymore, that most of the stuff on there is bullshit. That woman quite obviously has never heard of science, as a control group of 10 with no pretests results in wildly inaccurate results.

Exactly, I'm glad you agree and understand my typing. I zoned out a bit.

 

[Sun Flash]

Meh, even though the science behind it was questionable (read: bullshit), her main point was that not all games are suitable for children and parents should pay attention to the age rating.

plus she was sceptical of the whole pen thing.

Nice to see someone not pouring scorn on games for once.