Poll: Supernanny takes on video games.

[impirion]

I didn't see the show, read the article, or pages 3-6 of this thread, but it seems to me like a lot of the people here are not much better than SuperNanny. Yes, the experiment appears flawed. And it definitely cannot say that videogames are responsible for impoliteness, because there was no control group. However, it does appear to be the case that shooters might make children less likely to pick up the pens than football games do. Perhaps the sample is too small to say this with statistical significance, but it is at least an indication that shouldn't be dismissed so readily. "I play violent videogames since the day I was born and I've never killed anyone / not picked up pencils" is not in any way a good argument. Maybe you're an outlier. Basing conclusions on one person's behavior (your own) is a lot worse than basing it on what the baheviors of 20 people suggest. Also, "it's not the (violent) video games' fault, but the parents'" is a little bit shaky if the kids were randomly assigned to the conditions, because it is unlikely that all the polite kids will get assigned to the same condition. Randomisation also helps against the "correlation does not equal causation" argument. Perhaps more test subjects were necessary, so without statistical significance I can understand why some people would doubt the conclusions. However, they should realize that it's pretty much their (probably unproven) gut feelings against a (more or less) scientific indication to the contrary.

Now I'm not saying this is good research. I'm just saying it shouldn't be dismissed so readily with arguments that are even more stupid than the experiment itself.

I agree completely with the sentiments of this. Sure the experiment was deeply flawed but just because this one was flawed does not mean that there isn't some link. I actually believe that video games can have both good and bad effects. Good in that FPSs have been shown to improve coordination skills and I believe that puzzle and strategy games improve your ability to make a plan and execute it. On the other hand, I do believe that for some more suggestible people it may be a factor in making them believe violence is an okay solution to certain problems.

 

[RanD00M]

20 children is not a representative sample at all. Why does this rubbish get aired?

Because T.V. stations are run by corporate idiots that know that trash talking video games will get them good ratings.

 

[Jordi]

For me it's another sigh moment, as i've gotten used to bollocks like this over the years. For me, if they took just 20 lads and split them, doing this test, then you can't ever get an accurate result to the initial question. Even if they took hundreds and thousands of boys and did the same thing I'd still have no faith in the test.

Everyone is different, so you can never come to such a vague result, the only thing you can do is test a large number of people and come up with some numbers: the amount out of the total that became impolite and the amount out of the total that did not become impolite.

I play a ton of violent games, non-violent games and countless others, yet I do have manners (towards people that deserve it) and I have not become an angry zombie.

So what you are saying is that you don't believe in science if it doesn't suit your views? I understand that if they would prove (with thousands of test subjects) that shooters cause children to be less polite than football games do, it doesn't necessarily mean that you/Billy/everyone who played a shooter is now less polite. But you can say that such a game appears to have an effect on a significant amount of people. Almost nothing is true for everybody, so science just tells us that "if all else is equal/unknown, it is more likely that someone is more polite after playing a football game". That is, off course, if you're willing to accept that picking up some pens is a good indicator of politeness.

I didn't see the show, read the article, or pages 3-6 of this thread, but it seems to me like a lot of the people here are not much better than SuperNanny. Yes, the experiment appears flawed. And it definitely cannot say that videogames are responsible for impoliteness, because there was no control group. However, it does appear to be the case that shooters might make children less likely to pick up the pens than football games do. Perhaps the sample is too small to say this with statistical significance, but it is at least an indication that shouldn't be dismissed so readily. "I play violent videogames since the day I was born and I've never killed anyone / not picked up pencils" is not in any way a good argument. Maybe you're an outlier. Basing conclusions on one person's behavior (your own) is a lot worse than basing it on what the baheviors of 20 people suggest. Also, "it's not the (violent) video games' fault, but the parents'" is a little bit shaky if the kids were randomly assigned to the conditions, because it is unlikely that all the polite kids will get assigned to the same condition. Randomisation also helps against the "correlation does not equal causation" argument. Perhaps more test subjects were necessary, so without statistical significance I can understand why some people would doubt the conclusions. However, they should realize that it's pretty much their (probably unproven) gut feelings against a (more or less) scientific indication to the contrary.

Now I'm not saying this is good research. I'm just saying it shouldn't be dismissed so readily with arguments that are even more stupid than the experiment itself.

I agree completely with the sentiments of this. Sure the experiment was deeply flawed but just because this one was flawed does not mean that there isn't some link. I actually believe that video games can have both good and bad effects. Good in that FPSs have been shown to improve coordination skills and I believe that puzzle and strategy games improve your ability to make a plan and execute it. On the other hand, I do believe that for some more suggestible people it may be a factor in making them believe violence is an okay solution to certain problems.

Thanks for agreeing with me!

I actually agree that this experiment isn't really saying much, but it is because I don't think picking up pens is not a sufficiently good indicator for politeness, and because I have my doubts about the independent variable being the violentness of games. The change in behavior may very well be caused by fatigue, due to one game being more tiring, engaging or even fun than the other. Also, something in one of the games that has little to do with their violent character may have primed the behavior. For instance, thinking about your hands, or stuff you can do with them, makes people faster at recognizing hand-related words. If you would make two groups memorizing a list of words for some minutes, one hand-related and on foot-related, it wouldn't surprise me if the hand-related people would be more eager to pick up pens with their hands afterwards. If that's the case, the behavior change may simply do to the fact that shooters are more hand-focused and football games are more foot-focused. Of course, I'm just guessing here, but this is just one of the many factors that does not seem to have been accounted for.

 

[teutonicman]

20 boys, that's a pretty small population.

 

[EeveeElectro]

They should have added some more things like, offering them a sweet or walking into the room last to see if they held the door open or politely declined or accepted the sweets.

 

[nickachu]

Wow this is nearly as bad as that newspaper article a while ago that looked at 20 men aged in their 20s I think and because they all watched porn, the "scientists" concluded that All men watch porn.

Surely this experiment has no grounding to be real research, kids are kids, some are going to be little ****s and some aren't, playing computer games isn't going to affect them that much. It's mainly down to the actual parenting more than anything which is why some kids are bad and some are not.

 

[D.L.390]

Videogames have become like Nazis among non gamers. Easy to put shite on them, and (usually) no-one to argue a counterpoint.


It's simply a jealousy and misunderstanding thing. They're jealous they can't figure out how to work a toaster (due to their own stupidity), and they don't understand why we like them.

It's also funny how violent videogames get such a bad rap considering they're an excellent stress outlet. And, unlike all the anti-game BS you see in the "news", that's PROVEN.

 

[DC_Josh]

Snip.

AHH FLAME HIM AHH! HE IS NOT CONFORMING!

I agree with the Yahtzee quote, as you get older it's like, "Dude... we all play COD, we don't care you got a head shot."
The experiment would be different if they used females. Usually (but not always) females are the politer sex. It all comes with being 'lady-like.'
They shouldn't be exposing children that young to video games like that anyway, I'm sure there's a few parents writing in, using their angry pen of rage.

It is true in many cases that females are found to be more empathetic in general. I'd like to study the gamers of both genders to understand the prefrences of both. And yeah, there will be some angry parents- but also if you recall they had the parents permission first before the experiment began so what they did could be considered ethical.

 

[driveBYargument]

This isn't even proper scientific method. Much less its an ambiguous result that doesn't really prove anything. Therefore I reject not only their thesis but the Supernanny as a rational human being.

 

[richasr]

For me it's another sigh moment, as i've gotten used to bollocks like this over the years. For me, if they took just 20 lads and split them, doing this test, then you can't ever get an accurate result to the initial question. Even if they took hundreds and thousands of boys and did the same thing I'd still have no faith in the test.

Everyone is different, so you can never come to such a vague result, the only thing you can do is test a large number of people and come up with some numbers: the amount out of the total that became impolite and the amount out of the total that did not become impolite.

I play a ton of violent games, non-violent games and countless others, yet I do have manners (towards people that deserve it) and I have not become an angry zombie.

So what you are saying is that you don't believe in science if it doesn't suit your views? I understand that if they would prove (with thousands of test subjects) that shooters cause children to be less polite than football games do, it doesn't necessarily mean that you/Billy/everyone who played a shooter is now less polite. But you can say that such a game appears to have an effect on a significant amount of people. Almost nothing is true for everybody, so science just tells us that "if all else is equal/unknown, it is more likely that someone is more polite after playing a football game". That is, off course, if you're willing to accept that picking up some pens is a good indicator of politeness.

I didn't see the show, read the article, or pages 3-6 of this thread, but it seems to me like a lot of the people here are not much better than SuperNanny. Yes, the experiment appears flawed. And it definitely cannot say that videogames are responsible for impoliteness, because there was no control group. However, it does appear to be the case that shooters might make children less likely to pick up the pens than football games do. Perhaps the sample is too small to say this with statistical significance, but it is at least an indication that shouldn't be dismissed so readily. "I play violent videogames since the day I was born and I've never killed anyone / not picked up pencils" is not in any way a good argument. Maybe you're an outlier. Basing conclusions on one person's behavior (your own) is a lot worse than basing it on what the baheviors of 20 people suggest. Also, "it's not the (violent) video games' fault, but the parents'" is a little bit shaky if the kids were randomly assigned to the conditions, because it is unlikely that all the polite kids will get assigned to the same condition. Randomisation also helps against the "correlation does not equal causation" argument. Perhaps more test subjects were necessary, so without statistical significance I can understand why some people would doubt the conclusions. However, they should realize that it's pretty much their (probably unproven) gut feelings against a (more or less) scientific indication to the contrary.

Now I'm not saying this is good research. I'm just saying it shouldn't be dismissed so readily with arguments that are even more stupid than the experiment itself.

I agree completely with the sentiments of this. Sure the experiment was deeply flawed but just because this one was flawed does not mean that there isn't some link. I actually believe that video games can have both good and bad effects. Good in that FPSs have been shown to improve coordination skills and I believe that puzzle and strategy games improve your ability to make a plan and execute it. On the other hand, I do believe that for some more suggestible people it may be a factor in making them believe violence is an okay solution to certain problems.

Thanks for agreeing with me!

I actually agree that this experiment isn't really saying much, but it is because I don't think picking up pens is not a sufficiently good indicator for politeness, and because I have my doubts about the independent variable being the violentness of games. The change in behavior may very well be caused by fatigue, due to one game being more tiring, engaging or even fun than the other. Also, something in one of the games that has little to do with their violent character may have primed the behavior. For instance, thinking about your hands, or stuff you can do with them, makes people faster at recognizing hand-related words. If you would make two groups memorizing a list of words for some minutes, one hand-related and on foot-related, it wouldn't surprise me if the hand-related people would be more eager to pick up pens with their hands afterwards. If that's the case, the behavior change may simply do to the fact that shooters are more hand-focused and football games are more foot-focused. Of course, I'm just guessing here, but this is just one of the many factors that does not seem to have been accounted for.

No, i'm saying that so called 'tests' like that will always leave me thinking the same thing: that it's not a fact, it's merely the most frequent outcome within the test parameters. It doesn't matter what the test is concerning or whether I agree with the results or not, just that the test is quite irrelevant in my mind.

 

[Klarinette]

Didn't bother picking up knocked-over pens = less polite; cause = violent video games.

Um... no. Just no. Ridiculous. *sigh* If people want to pick on violent entertainment, then they should also think about action figures, Nerf guns, and the little green army dudes. At least the video games are all simulated, whereas the kids get to act out the violence with the other toys, you know? Not that that's any less stupid to blame.

Besides, if you're kid's a rude little bugger, it's not Gears Of War's fault--it's your lazy-ass, piss-poor parenting.

 

[blobby218]

who the hell says gaming is bad on a gaming forum?

 

[DJude]

I wonder if she knows that most kids arent just mindless drones that are easily programmed by whatever piece of media you put in front of them?

 

[The DSM]

That knocking over the pens thing is pure B.S, theres no way that can be considered evidence.

I was raised well but I wouldnt pick up those pens, they knocked them over, they pick them up.

 

[presidentjlh]

I used to be one of those people that thought violence in video games was the major cause for school shootings and such.

Then, I played one of the games. I noticed no change in my actions. I didn't want to hurt anyone in real life.

And, so, I came to the correct conclusion that it's not video games that are the cause. It's parents who don't think and just let their kids do whatever they want. Is it smart to let a 6 year old play GTA IV? No, that's stupid. But if that happens, what the kid does in the future can't be blamed on the game: The blame lies on the parents who didn't put limits on what their kids can do.

If violent video games are bad, I guess kids playing "cops and robbers" or "war" is bad too.

Oh, wait, I've seen a number of "experts" say kids shouldn't play "cops and robbers" or "war" because it teaches them that "violence is okay".

No it doesn't, you morons. I played "cops and robbers" and "war" as a kid, and I played a lot of video games as well. I had great grades, I was active in extracurriculars, I played football in high school, and I graduated high school with an IB (International Baccalaurete) diploma. I'm currently in college, and am planning to go to law school after I graduate.

Suck it, "experts". Real life: 1, Correlation without causation: 0.

 

[presidentjlh]

The only thing that would have lended some credibility to the "research" is if all the kids that played violent video games (and only those kids), took the pens and tried stabbing others with them, while the kids that played non-violent games formed a circle and sang "Kumbayah".

 

[DJude]

who the hell says gaming is bad on a gaming forum?

Trolls?

 

[Kinichie]

Just want to point out something for Super-NaughtyStep-Nanny.

When I was 9 I had Fifa 96 on the Sega Mega Drive. My favourite thing to do on this game was hack peoples shins and cut them up by horribly tackling them (In comical 16-bit fashion). Usually injuring the player and getting a red card.

Football games arn't nice at all. They ARE violent if you make them. Almost any game can be violent if you want it to be. It is all part of the imagination.