I like to drink milk. I've never gotten cancer before. Therefore, I can conclude that milk prevents cancer.
Poll: Supernanny takes on video games.
- Thread starter EeveeElectro
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I hold doors open for people all the time, a few times I get yelled at that I'm a sexiest pig, or that I'm trying to steal their handbag and one woman slapped me across the face, got her mobile phone out and said she'd call the police. Thats what you get for being a gentleman kiddies.Irridium said:
Wait only a FEW of the non-violent players picked up the pens, yet they immediately denounce violent video-games as sources for child violence?EmileeElectro said:
That is utter and total bull crap. More importantly that is NOT scientific process. If all the non-violent kids had picked up the pens then they would have had something there. But the fact that only a fraction of the non-violent kids helped pick them up proves that it's a person to person basis.
Ok, it's true that violent video games make people (more often males) get more aggressive, but that's more to the general nature of the xy chromosome, and just because they don't help someone pick up pens that they purposefully knocked over does not count as violent behavior. Kids are smarter than they look. If they see someone in need they will usually help them, but if you knock something over on purpose, they will not help you because that is not a situation that needs helping. It is a situation where you were stupid.
Supernanny, leave the scientific process to people who actually know how to do it, because god knows you sure don't
I laughed at Non-violent football game, there is violences in that game real violences not the fake heads exploding and what not.
Anywas, I don't really see how this experment proves anything at all. She did not have a control group and it does not say if she took already good grade polite kids or if she just took the nastys and had them play games.
Anywas, I don't really see how this experment proves anything at all. She did not have a control group and it does not say if she took already good grade polite kids or if she just took the nastys and had them play games.
There was another test I looked at while doing psychology and studying the effect of videogames on behaviour. It tested levels of agitation after an unnamed sports game as played and after an unnamed FPS was played, and in many cases the sports gamers were more stressed, whereas the FPS players seemed to have vented most of their frustration on the game.
I see where tis study is coming from, but to present it as fact without corroborational evidence, especially if it sounds like the results weren't all that conclusive, is a rather ignorant attitude to take, and is at best scaremongering.
I see where tis study is coming from, but to present it as fact without corroborational evidence, especially if it sounds like the results weren't all that conclusive, is a rather ignorant attitude to take, and is at best scaremongering.
such a test is horribly inaccurate for the reasons you just listed, so don't worry about it. This kind of crap won't catch on, too many adults play videogames these days so I doubt they'll buy into "supernanny" and her pen experiment. Like you said, that was about manners. How does violence relate to manners? It's a flawed experiment from the get-go!
That's not a scientific study in the least. There are so many other variables in that mess that you can't make any correlations there. A better test wold be to do the test sans-games with 100 kids, as well as 100 kids with games, and then repeat the test with the roles of the two groups reversed.
