Why are college students against gaming?

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

..as opposed to those people who never go to college, who are entirely realistic about their own abilities and competence and never uncritically absorb information from youtube videos or compare adopting a political philosophy to the act of freeing oneself from the Matrix.

The Duning Kruger effect is real, sadly. My experience of HE students (fairly extensive, since I teach them) is that if anything they tend to underestimate the ammount of knowledge they possess. It's particularly interesting that you seem to be implicitly singling out female students here, as they're even more likely to suffer from imposter syndrome than their male peers.

But I guess this stereotype of the arrogant and intellectually superior college student is a useful straw man for the new breed of anti-intellectual culture war mujahideen who we all, for some reason, have to live with now.

A part of the DK Effect with university students might be because the stakes are so much higher. So you check and recheck findings (hopefully). Like when observing shearing effects in the grey-white zone with blast trauma victims of returning soldiers for better diagnostic models to improve medical care and better prognostic determinations. You don't need to examine tens of thousands of instances of it... but you do. Because the information is there and you're guaranteed when cross referencing the medical reports of the event itself to find new ideas and considerations to take into account.

Something that you missed or didn'ttake fully into account might explain in further depths the functions of the brain itself. Like the relationship between cerebellar damages and hypothetical connections to PTSD rates. Something that we could only really sort of guesstimate at right up until the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. And because there's a sudden wealth of information, nobody wants to miss a thing and fail to put their stamp down in academia by missing what is in hindsight possible connections.

Nobody wants to be 'that person' who ends up just making inferences to phenomena based exclusively only on surface level information.

At least not when it's their name plastered ontop of a series of papers...

It's safer to say; "We don't exactly know...." than it is to say; "This."

Though I agree ... the strawman of the egotistical university student kind of needs to die. These people often spend over a decade studying one particular field of academic inquiry ... yeah, they know what they're talking about. But on the flipside, I've met very few that port that sense of authority into other subjects. They themselves recognize how hypocritical that might be.

I will say that because of weakening the socialist argument that education should be accessible by all regardles of socioeconomic standing .... that universities will increasingly become bourgeois institutions solely to maintain that bourgeois social hierarchy.

In which case once it gets to that point, you can level that sort of criticism. After all, back in the mid-19th century the argument of keeping the poor out of education was precisely that. Defending educational privileges of the nouveau riche or industrial family elite. In which case, then it becomes somewhat of a glaring reality of purely materialist preoccupations of status.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Can we please stop bringing up this topic? The forum was burned to the ground already talking about this, maybe wait an entire decade before going through it again?

Burned to the ground? My lad, there are factions out there still bouncing the craters.

Anyhou, since when does one nitwit in a college newspaper=the entirety of the college age scene?

You want a good one? Go check out the League of Legends boards. Dear god it's just as bad as these forums were five years ago, maybe worse since at least people have brain cells here.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

Just checked that survey you mentioned, and no its not considered accurate in any way. First off less that 43% of those asked responded to the survey, meaning there is no way to gauge whether sexual assault victims were more or less likely to respond. Secondly the survey wasn't very clear at differentiating between was was legally actionable as sexual assault, and what was effectively drunk sex. See they survey said that any sexual action taken without consent is sexual assault. And also that any action taken while under the effects of drugs or alcohol was not considered consent. So every time a woman had a few and slept with a guy = sexual assault, regardless if the woman herself believed it so, or with her boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife, or if she regretted it afterwords. A hot woman drunkenly fucks a fat guy? Technically sexual assault, because she can retroactively remove permission. Even if she gave a vocal yes, and is recorded doing so, she can say 'drunk, doesn't count' and the survey counted it, not knowing no court in the Nation would take that case.
In fact the Bureau of Justice Statistics released a much more extensive review, from 1995-2002, rather than the 2007-2007 survey, and found that the actual number is closer to 1 in 40.
Still a horrific number, and utterly shameful and that alone should lead to extensive legal overhaul, but its not the 'look left, look right, one of you will be sexually assaulted' idea commonly believed.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Just checked that survey you mentioned, and no its not considered accurate in any way. First off less that 43% of those asked responded to the survey, meaning there is no way to gauge whether sexual assault victims were more or less likely to respond.

This is a methodological limitation, not an inaccuracy.

If you read the study, you will actually notice they actually carried out extensive response bias analysis, including additional research on non-responding and late-responding participants. They found no evidence that response bias played a role.

Secondly the survey wasn't very clear at differentiating between was was legally actionable as sexual assault, and what was effectively drunk sex.

The study used the legal definition of sexual assault, in which the definition of alcohol or drug (AOD) enabled sexual assault is very clearly defined as the victim being incapable of providing consent due to incapacitation. In fact, the definition of sexual assault used likely underreports the prevalance, since it excludes sexual assault carried out through verbal coercion (which many US jurisdictions do not recognise). The authors of the study acknowledge this as a weakness, but it shows how careful they were to conform to a legal standard of sexual assault.

They actually gathered extensive data on substance use trends, including the prevalance of sexual intercourse while intoxicated (around 40% of participants reported that they had had intercourse while drunk or high).

Although it's not an actual metric, the authors of the study also state that the majority of reported assaults against women involved penetration, so while "1 in 5 women will be raped in college" is a misquoting, it's not actually a very large misrepresentation.

In fact the Bureau of Justice Statistics released a much more extensive review, from 1995-2002, rather than the 2007-2007 survey, and found that the actual number is closer to 1 in 40.

The most recent version is 1995-2013, since the NCVS is an ongoing piece of policy research. The most recent version actually addresses the methodological and data differences between the NCVS and the CSA in its appendix. On one hand, the CSA is a smaller and more limited study which may not be applicable to a wider context (which is not the same thing as being inaccurate) on the other hand, the NCVS is a much broader crime victimization survey and as such relied on self-reporting of sexual assault rather than the more behaviourally specific questions used by more specialised studies into sexual assault, which it acknowledges will lead to less accurate reporting. The NCVS is also a telephone survey, which makes it less anonymous and more prone to interviewer effects (positive or negative) than the CSA, which is internet based.

In short, the NCVS itself makes very clear that it is not a replacement for more specialised research into sexual violence, as it has a completely different methodology and objective. It is not "wrong" to take the data from the CSA as accurate or the data from the NCVS as accurate, it is however very wrong to assume that the NCVS supersedes the CSA.

 

[Satinavian]

Part of it is they've just taken Philosophy 101, and think no one else has ever heard of Plato or the Socratic method, therefore they know how to solve global trade. Another part is they're desperate to belong somewhere, to make their mark, and so are very easily swayed by half-truth and rumors.

..as opposed to those people who never go to college, who are entirely realistic about their own abilities and competence and never uncritically absorb information from youtube videos or compare adopting a political philosophy to the act of freeing oneself from the Matrix.

In my country we don't have colleges. We have one or two more years school and then university (and universities don't have campuses in the same way so students live on their own as regular adults)

Somehow that also leads to not having nearly any of this college-culture that seems so prevalent in the anglo sphere. Students are a tad older and more mature, they are already studying for a certain profession, there is no orientation year before choosing the subjects you actually want to pursue and their private life is not in some sheltered bubble. They are also all legally adult with all rights, responsibilities and privilege that belong to it including stuff relating to alcohol, drugs and sex. As there are no two or four year institutions but only universities offering mostly ~5 year degrees, even aside from the later starting point, the average studend is significantly older than in college as is the average member of every student body, club or organisation.

OTOH those who would be colleges freshmen are mostly still in school and seen and treated as pupils, not as students. They also still tend to live with their parents.

Now i never actually was at a US college. But considering all the crap i hear about them, i cannot stop wondering if most of that is somehow linked to the immatury of the students and their average age and life experience.
But then their are also reports that American children get significantly less freedom than children here and might be less prepared to do stuff on their own but at the same time more eager to explore the new freedom college life allows for.

But back to the OP so this thread doesn't have to be moved to R&P

Is there a culture within gaming that aims to keep the gaming community from being inclusive?

There are lots of credible reports of such a culture, but myself i still have to encounter even one gamer who doens't want to share his hobby with other people. So i can't confirm it but can't really rule it out either.

Do we need a female answer to Zelda? Is Horizon Zero Dawn a good solution to this problem? Is FemShep awesome?

Femshep is awesome and i nearly always use female options when possible. I also don't use consoles, but Horizon Zero Dawn is said to be a good game.

Why are Republicans hard on video games?

Because they are still fishing conservative boomer votes. And boomers like to hear that the youth is doing is wrong and inferior.

They say human lives are trivialized and justice of a cause and patriotism are separated from a war's brutalities.

Can't we have a war themed game that promotes heroism and good vs evil while not glossing over the brutality of war?

Shouldn't the Republicans be supportive of games that promote heroic military values?

While most video game criticism is shit it really has a point.

We don't want to glorify the military for children. We don't want to indoctrinate children so they are more eager to sacrifice their life for the fatherland. And least we finally got child soldiers universally banned but somehow it is still not a problem to advertise a military career at the same age group ?

I had enough of that shit when i was young, even if that was more about fighting evil imperialists and capitalists. Fun activities for children subtly linked to our heroes in the Warsaw Pact forces. I thought this time is over. I feel like vomitting every time a video game "promotes military values"

 

[CaitSeith]

On the Title: They aren't.

Next.

OT:

Is FemShep awesome?

Yes, she is (specially the Vangard Shepard).

Shouldn't the Republicans be supportive of games that promote heroic military values?

It's odd that the U.S. Government isn't. After all, they gave subsidies to movies like Godzilla, Transformers and Man of Steel for including positive military portrayals.

On the other side; I wouldn't feel too happy on having my tax money paying for the next Call of Duty...

 

[Chewster]

Shouldn't the Republicans be supportive of games that promote heroic military values?

It's odd that the U.S. Government isn't. After all, they gave subsidies to movies like Godzilla, Transformers and Man of Steel for including positive military portrayals.

On the other side; I wouldn't feel too happy on having my tax money paying for the next Call of Duty...

I mean, didn't they make America's Army back in the day and didn't it like, work pretty well for recruitment?

 

[CaitSeith]

Shouldn't the Republicans be supportive of games that promote heroic military values?

It's odd that the U.S. Government isn't. After all, they gave subsidies to movies like Godzilla, Transformers and Man of Steel for including positive military portrayals.

On the other side; I wouldn't feel too happy on having my tax money paying for the next Call of Duty...

I mean, didn't they make America's Army back in the day and didn't it like, work pretty well for recruitment?

Yeah, but that was developed and published by the army (aka. the government itself) for recruitment and training purposes (it'd be like complaining about wasting tax dollars on recruitment posters). It wasn't Activision or EA (or other big name private company) being subsidized to include a positive portrayal of the U.S. military in CoD or BF. Not that I'd be fan of it; because Activision and EA already get lots of tax breaks for business reasons (and legal loopholes) alone. It's just weird that the government is not embracing the military message in games the same way as in movies.

 

[Asita]

Is FemShep awesome?

Dunno. I played as M!Shep.

That Manshep was the worst voice actor. Couldn't stand him

I dunno...I was considerably more impressed with Meer's acting chops when I realized that he was also voicing Blasto...and the Vorcha...and Niftu Cal (you know, the "biotic god"). Honestly, even just in terms of Shep, I think both Meer and Hale had moments where their deliveries shone and moments when they fell flat, so I tend to chalk the worst aspects of both performances up to bad direction rather than acting talent.