PDA

View Full Version : A decision that we as a group may need to make



DSVella
08-11-2011, 04:51 PM
Before I begin can I just say Bravo to Mr John Walker for a wonderful piece today about Baroness Greenfield's latest writings.

Now to begin:
During my time as a gamer I have found that there is a worrying trend occurring. People like Fox news, Jack Thompson and now Baroness Greenfield seem to be bringing some seriously shocking claims into our space. For some reason (less so with fox news) they have gained media attention.

I am worried that as we respond to these claims we could be doing ourselves harm. My thinking is this; when these people state their claims and we respond to them (be that random yelling to reasoned responses like John's today) we give these claims validity, we give them traction which in turn damages our position as the general public look upon these claims as reasonable.

I am wondering if we should start thinking about a more 'ignore them and they will go away' approach.

However, if we do take this approach we loose the ability to defend ourselves and it may look as though the people making these claims have won by default, which is an equally scary thought.

After writing this I am not sure how we can proceed so I would love to hear your opinions.

Joseph
08-11-2011, 04:59 PM
My general reaction to anyone's belief that video games have a detrimental effect on people is pretty much "Oh".
Someday people will get over it and find something else to have a whinge about and until then I'm more than happy to be ignore them.

metalangel
08-11-2011, 05:06 PM
This is nothing new. Night Trap and Mortal Kombat are the first instances of stupid media attention I can remember, but I'm sure there were some before that.

sinister agent
08-11-2011, 05:14 PM
I think it would be irresponsible to let blatant lies and propaganda go uncriticised. They need to know that people will call them on their bullshit. Even if they don't admit it, they'll be more wary. Yeah, people say all kinds of garbage anyway, but it would be even worse if absolutely nobody spoke up when they did.

Drake Sigar
08-11-2011, 05:44 PM
Dungeons & Dragons, rock & roll, comics, and now video games. It always begins with some hack scientist/writer/professor twisting the hobbies of the most harmless people in the world (aka: geeks). That little snowball keeps ploughing along until it's picked up by the media, who prey on their audience of old aged pensioners by appealing to their feelings of isolation in the ever changing world in which we live in. Sometimes it makes me give in and cry, why can't they just live and let die?

arienette
08-11-2011, 05:49 PM
This is hardly anything new. But you're more likely to give legitimacy by not responding. Being vocal is how you get your views known in the first, and yeh, given enough time this is probably going to go away. But we can make it happen sooner. Nothing ever changed by people sitting around content with a bad situation.

Kodeen
08-11-2011, 06:34 PM
I think the main divide between both sides of the argument is age, specifically whether or not video games are a thing you grew up with and which are, for you, an accepted cultural norm. Now some people may be able to cross that divide, but video games are such a new and radically different thing, and culture being such an important and personally ingrained thing, that I think it is difficult for the older generation to ever approach games in the same way that they do.

At that point all we can really do is to sit patiently and wait for that dividing line to bubble to the top through the years, or to put it bluntly, wait patiently (but not earnestly, for that would be psychotic) for the members of the other side to die. I don't think we'll be having these arguments 50 years from now.

Nalano
08-11-2011, 06:54 PM
People like Fox news

Wut.

But seriously, defining scapegoats for cheap political gain has been a tried and true practice since time immemorial. If your group can be considered fringe or minority, expect to get blamed for every social ill imaginable.

Ignoring them doesn't really work. Fighting fire with fire sometimes does, but no long-term solution will manifest without heavy reliance on universal education.

thegooseking
08-11-2011, 07:02 PM
The thing is, the short-term victor in clashes like these is rarely the one with the best argument. We have a culture that fetishises the dumb, loud and sensational. Hell, a lot of the anti-video-game crowd are proud of how little they know about it. You can't be loud and sensational without being dumb; then you just come across as arrogant, which weakens your position (this is what's happened to Richard Dawkins, for example). By default, we do have a culture that confers an advantage to stupidity. It's not just Fox News. It's endemic throughout pretty much the entire mainstream media. That's a much bigger issue than how video games are portrayed, and it's something I for one don't really understand in its entirety. It's just too big.

In the long-term, cooler heads will prevail. When the furore dies down, the people who think video games are evil will be seen as nothing more than fringe lunatics, much like the people today who think Dungeons & Dragons is evil. I think that's already started happening, but it is a process, and it can't be rushed.

Nalano
08-11-2011, 07:18 PM
The thing is, the short-term victor in clashes like these is rarely the one with the best argument. We have a culture that fetishises the dumb, loud and sensational. Hell, a lot of the anti-video-game crowd are proud of how little they know about it. You can't be loud and sensational without being dumb; then you just come across as arrogant, which weakens your position (this is what's happened to Richard Dawkins, for example). By default, we do have a culture that confers an advantage to stupidity. It's not just Fox News. It's endemic throughout pretty much the entire mainstream media. That's a much bigger issue than how video games are portrayed, and it's something I for one don't really understand in its entirety. It's just too big.

In the long-term, cooler heads will prevail. When the furore dies down, the people who think video games are evil will be seen as nothing more than fringe lunatics, much like the people today who think Dungeons & Dragons is evil. I think that's already started happening, but it is a process, and it can't be rushed.

I was going to make a point about how the Baptist and Catholic churches share this "why should I bother learning about it? I already know it's evil!" hangup, but that'd probably hijack the thread.

At any rate, being the level-headed guy doesn't work: Just watch as level-headed guys get eaten alive on network TV. Be an even bigger asshole, go for the ad hominem; out-shout the shouter. It's not as if reasoned debate would have happened, anyway.

pakoito
08-11-2011, 07:26 PM
"Videogames harm children" "Have you played any to know?" "HELL NO"

Mohorovicic
08-11-2011, 07:51 PM
What's this we you speak of?

thegooseking
08-11-2011, 09:06 PM
The trouble is, we can't be angry. For all that the media fetishises the dumb, loud and sensational, they themselves are pretty clever; they've caught on to the idea that making gamers angry is a good way to justify their bullshit that games make people aggressive.

But seeing it for what it is, like that, it's like high school bullying. Needling someone along until you provoke a reaction. It's clever, but also kind of childish and pathetic. And I wonder if somehow highlighting how pathetic it is isn't maybe the best way to undermine them.

Nalano
08-11-2011, 09:15 PM
The trouble is, we can't be angry.

Because god forbid a right-wing pundit gets mad. Then he loses all credibility, right?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XcLJqZsrnJA/TU6h_kxtlyI/AAAAAAAADto/zAEr-3Jt6bs/s1600/Bill+O%2527Reilly.jpg

Inverselaw
08-11-2011, 09:20 PM
I cant think of any false belief that has gone away because people ignore it.

After all if all the people who know that something is wrong ignore it then the only people listening are those that don't know any better.

Now mockery however, that different. Can you imagine something worse for someone called Baroness Greenfield then to not be taken seriously?

thegooseking
08-11-2011, 09:42 PM
Because god forbid a right-wing pundit gets mad. Then he loses all credibility, right?

This is true. They paint the picture that their anger is righteous indignation, but the anger of gamers is obviously because games elevate aggression.

But it also wouldn't be the first time hypocrisy's come out of the mouth of a right-wing pundit, and yet somehow it doesn't stick to them.

Nalano
08-11-2011, 09:47 PM
This is true. They paint the picture that their anger is righteous indignation, but the anger of gamers is obviously because games elevate aggression.

But it also wouldn't be the first time hypocrisy's come out of the mouth of a right-wing pundit, and yet somehow it doesn't stick to them.

Yes, when right-wing protesters openly carry loaded guns to Town Hall meetings, it's a suitable expression of their rights.

When left-wing protesters beat drums in public parks, the police break out the tear gas and rubber bullets.

Point being, holding yourself to their rules never works out for you, because they want you to die and have invented the rules so that the only legitimate thing you can do is die. So stop worrying about how they define you, and if you want to do more than ignore them, then pay evil unto evil.

Krans
08-11-2011, 10:32 PM
I was going to make a point about how the Baptist and Catholic churches share this "why should I bother learning about it? I already know it's evil!" hangup, but that'd probably hijack the thread.

I'm a Catholic who knows plenty of Catholic priests and religious who enjoy playing computer games. Since you'd be talking utter rubbish, it's probably for the best that you refrained from making your "point". :-)

Nalano
08-11-2011, 11:01 PM
I'm a Catholic who knows plenty of Catholic priests and religious who enjoy playing computer games. Since you'd be talking utter rubbish, it's probably for the best that you refrained from making your "point". :-)

Because the Catholic church has never pressed doctrine in the face of science, right?

I'll make whatever point I damn well wish.

sockeatsock
08-11-2011, 11:44 PM
Because the Catholic church has never pressed doctrine in the face of science, right?

I'll make whatever point I damn well wish.

And gamers have never been ignorant fools who enjoy playing games about killing small children, right?

I really think the best approach to this kind of antagonism is to ignore it.

Keep
08-11-2011, 11:50 PM
we as a group

Are we?

(Stupid ten character limit...)

Taidan
09-11-2011, 12:20 AM
stop worrying about how they define you, and if you want to do more than ignore them, then pay evil unto evil.

You watch too many Cowboys movie! You go watch Gandhi movie! Very good movie! Ben Kingsley only do good, win Oscar!

. . .

You're absolutely right in this case, though.

Best way to deal with that Baroness Greenback character would be to attack her credibility over and over, and to keep throwing mud while we're at it to see what sticks.

We're already halfway there, as her complete lack of scientific method and the fact she's clearly only in it to sell books make her an easy target. Just gotta keep repeating that over and over.

Also, Amazon-Bomb the living f**k out of her book when it's released with articulate, intelligent and fair, one-star reviews. The classics are always the best.

Nalano
09-11-2011, 12:28 AM
And gamers have never been ignorant fools who enjoy playing games about killing small children, right?

Of course they have. Anybody who's ever been in an FPS's VoIP for one game knows that.

Drake Sigar
09-11-2011, 01:26 AM
On a lighter note, I agree with John's support of research into the danger's of gaming. The methods used in making online games more addictive for example (lose something if you don't log on often, small but frequent rewards, etc), can be insidious and downright creepy.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a date with Gandalf.

sinister agent
09-11-2011, 02:01 AM
Yes, when right-wing protesters openly carry loaded guns to Town Hall meetings, it's a suitable expression of their rights.

When left-wing protesters beat drums in public parks, the police break out the tear gas and rubber bullets.

Point being, holding yourself to their rules never works out for you, because they want you to die and have invented the rules so that the only legitimate thing you can do is die. So stop worrying about how they define you, and if you want to do more than ignore them, then pay evil unto evil.


"Left wing" typically indicates being socially liberal, which would in fact support less restrictive gun laws.

See what happens when you turn politics into a dichotomy?

archonsod
09-11-2011, 03:06 AM
Best way to deal with that Baroness Greenback character would be to attack her credibility over and over, and to keep throwing mud while we're at it to see what sticks.


No it wouldn't. That's precisely what psuedo-scientists want you to do. The more attention they get, the more copies they sell. That's kinda the point - they're aiming for that idiotic/contrarian portion of the population who will pay up money to see what all the fuss is about. The best response is to simply ignore them. If nobody draws attention to the book it'll simply vanish into obscurity.

Nalano
09-11-2011, 04:21 AM
"Left wing" typically indicates being socially liberal, which would in fact support less restrictive gun laws.

See what happens when you turn politics into a dichotomy?

Social liberal != libertarian.

Krans
09-11-2011, 11:00 AM
Best way to deal with that Baroness Greenback character would be to attack her credibility over and over, and to keep throwing mud while we're at it to see what sticks.

We're already halfway there, as her complete lack of scientific method and the fact she's clearly only in it to sell books make her an easy target. Just gotta keep repeating that over and over.


The problem is that she actually did some very serious, important and widely used research earlier in her career (before she apparently lost her marbles). And there will likely be parts of the research in question that have been carried out correctly, albeit either with incorrect assumptions made or inferences drawn from the results. Don't fall for the trap of "this is obviously bollocks, lol" -- make sure that you attack the actual flaws.

Inverselaw
09-11-2011, 02:54 PM
Also, we are not the center of the universe, If we ignore her that dosent mean everyone else will.

I say it again, no wrong idea was ever destroyed by people just ignoring it. If no one disagrees with an opinion the people who dont know any better will just assume that its right.

Keep
09-11-2011, 03:49 PM
Also, we are not the center of the universe, If we ignore her that dosent mean everyone else will.

I say it again, no wrong idea was ever destroyed by people just ignoring it. If no one disagrees with an opinion the people who dont know any better will just assume that its right.

You're conflating how to deal with the person, and how to deal with her ideas.

Tom OBedlam
09-11-2011, 05:38 PM
I wonder if this strawmanning, on both sides, doesn't rather miss the point?

Certain games DO contain hugely violent material that is inappropriate for children. So inappropriate is this material that it is not incorrect to say that children should not play them.

That's not to say that these games will make a child pathologically violent, any more than movies, comic books or that new fangled rock and roll will. We should be insuring that children do not play 18 certificate games for the same reasons that we don't show them Cannibal Holocaust or call them "cunts".

I'm a teacher and I frequently endure eleven year olds, who have discovered that I am a gamer, telling me about their kill streaks and, after MW2 came out, about "this great level where it's really easy to shoot the baddies because they don't have guns". Not that these games shouldn't exist but that age certificates ought to be taken far more seriously.
The problem is that a lot of parents do not appreciate the fact that these games are 18s for a reason. Instead of investigating what the game is and playing it first, they don't because "games are for children, what could possibly be so terrible?". This was certainly the case when I was young and my mother bought me Soldier of Fortune, despite the large red circle on the box cover.
Stemming from this problem is another, far greater one: that more parents than would ever admit to it treat their child's console as a childminder.

These are the issues of the debate, as I see it. It's easy for those who are deliberately ill informed to point at a few ghastly cases of individuals that have done terrible things and have played games, and vilify the medium. It's equally easy for gamers to scorn those who have the audience to be stupid at high volume. What is far harder is to encourage parents to pay attention to their kids, what they're playing and getting them to take games seriously.

Nalano
09-11-2011, 07:54 PM
You're conflating how to deal with the person, and how to deal with her ideas.

Murder her reputation. Reasoned arguments as to why her ideas are bad will fall on deaf ears.


I'm a teacher and I frequently endure eleven year olds, who have discovered that I am a gamer, telling me about their kill streaks and, after MW2 came out, about "this great level where it's really easy to shoot the baddies because they don't have guns". Not that these games shouldn't exist but that age certificates ought to be taken far more seriously.

As I run the school network, I noticed one day last spring that a lot of the students had taken it upon themselves to install a mobile version of Halo on the network drive and run LAN games during the last class of the day.

So, I ran it, joined their game, kicked their asses with a 30:2 kill ratio using the sniper rifle, and then proceeded to boot them all off, log their accounts, and hash ban on the installer file. Ten minutes later, I walked into the computer lab where they were bewildered about who 'Rott635' was, and told them that clearly they were Xbox gamers because they couldn't aim for shit.

So awed were they that I've never had problems with them since.

Krans
09-11-2011, 10:22 PM
Murder her reputation.

So, a nobody school network admin is going to murder the academic reputation of a highly influential and acclaimed female scientist, whose previous research is widely considered to be authoritative in her field and who was elevated to the peerage on the grounds of her academic achievement?

Yeah, I think you've got some way to go with that.

Also, showing that her research was incorrect is the way to murder her academic reputation.

An interesting aside: I was discussing this with a colleague. She works on biomimetic robots which use a neurotransmitter-like feedback mechanism, and is very interested in neuroscience. (She's also a keen BFBC player who's been eagerly awaiting the release of BF3). Anyway, she had a brief read of the original article, and is of the opinion that it's not totally batty -- as in, the actual science seems to make sense; the problem might not be with the research, but the media interpretation of and spin on the research.

Nalano
09-11-2011, 11:20 PM
So, a nobody school network admin is going to murder the academic reputation of a highly influential and acclaimed female scientist, whose previous research is widely considered to be authoritative in her field and who was elevated to the peerage on the grounds of her academic achievement?

Yes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/03/01/video-gamers-offended-by-rape-claim-drop-an-amazon-bomb/).

Fer chrissakes, have you a single hour of cable news? So many level-headed, accolade-infused experts who speak with the facts on their side are destroyed by spectacle. Facts don't work. This isn't about who's right, this is about who's seen as right.

Taidan
10-11-2011, 01:06 AM
This isn't about who's right, this is about who's seen as right.

Aye, but it doesn't hurt that we are actually right in the case. ;)

Now we, as gamers, just have to make the rest of the world see that. By fair means or by foul, it matters not.

I - Don't like your tweed, sir!
Will - Teach you the professor's ready!
Not - Let's see who strikes the loudest!
Lose - Put on my fighting trousers! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iRTB-FTMdk)

Mohorovicic
10-11-2011, 10:35 AM
Certain games DO contain hugely violent material that is inappropriate for children. So inappropriate is this material that it is not incorrect to say that children should not play them.

That's not to say that these games will make a child pathologically violent, any more than movies, comic books or that new fangled rock and roll will.

Yeah - watch someone do something violent, do something violent yourself - what's the difference?

Zetetic
10-11-2011, 12:56 PM
I think that the problem of paying attention to people like Greenfield is far more insidious. It increasingly radicalises those who don't believer that games have the capacity to cause harm, drawing them into the world of the ideologue. I don't think our own John Walker escapes this. Turning to this recent article (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/08/baroness-greenfield-nonsense/), he does tackle Greenfield and her point of view perfectly well - barrel, fish, blam, blam. But early on in the article he says something which I found profoundly worrying.


I have said this before, and I will likely say it every time: Neither I, nor RPS, are dismissive nor hostile toward research into the dangers of gaming. In fact, we enthusiastically encourage it, because as gamers, we have a heavily invested interest in being informed about such matters.So far, very good.


If gaming is proven as harmful (which will admittedly come as something of a surprise, what with the ubiquity of gaming and the lack of demonstrated widespread harm)And then he pisses that away with the weaselly phrase "demonstrated widespread harm". Why do I think that this is weaselly - and that John, being a man who is from stupid, should realise this? I'll try to bring this out below:

The effects are likely to differ enormously from game to game. Acknowledging this, it's clear that to make any real headway, we have to produce some kind of taxonomy of games (at least in principle, by having some kind of valid criteria). This is difficult - even for the common distinction of 'violent' and 'non-violent'. If you don't believe me, consider the unending arguments on here and elsewhere about where games fit into the genre taxonomy (and indeed what the genre taxonomy looks like!). Given that difficulty, even if we can bring out that some games do cause harm, we're still going to struggle to type them in such a way that a clear causal process can be suggested.

The effects are likely to differ enormously from person to person. Individual differences - personality - is more than likely to interact very strongly with any kind of 'harmful' process. It seems highly unlikely that any harmful effect is going to be ubiquitous.

Even where a harmful change in cognition has been brought about in a number of people, it's liable to be expressed in a great variety of behaviour from individual to individual with that group. Trivially, we can point to schizophrenia - where we can point to common neurological and cognitive differences - and see that the expression of the disorder varies enormously, from situation to situation, from individual to individual, and arguably from culture to culture.

So. It's going to be difficult to demonstrate any kind of link. We're going to have decide what games to look at. We're going to have examine personality variables; indeed if we're doing to study in the wild, we're liable to faced with issues of direction of causality - do certain types of people prefer violent games, or do violent games nudge (some?!) individuals towards being of a certain type. We're going to have to deal with proximal effects - the environment of gameplay, and the subsequent environments in which we're trying to examine any behavioural changes. We're going to have to tie any observed behavioural changes together by adverting to cognition.

What the sensible psychologist is looking for is very subtle indeed. I'm certain that John knows this. That's why I find that phrase worrying, and even a little upsetting. Because he's set himself up against people like Baroness Greenfield and, yes, her ill-informed rhetoric does need to be tackled publicly - but I fear that's producing a false view of the real, reasonable issue. Even if it's not, it seems to have lead him to say something quite lacking in thought.

I'd add to this that there very much is evidence out there for the capacity of violent media to cause harm. But there's also a decent load of evidence against that. Combined with the points I've made above, I don't think anyone should be surprised at the claim that some games might be 'harmful'. Particularly not someone who recognises the power of games to affect us emotionally and change the way we think about the world.

Disclosure:
Sad though this is, I'm still a bit disappointed in John, for reasons relating to an article he wrote in May 2010 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/05/27/two-hours-of-gaming-the-same-as-cocaine/). Originally the article included this parenthetical claim:

(There is scant evidence, and no direct studies have been performed, that extreme sports can lead to the release of endorphins, dopamine and norepinephrin that may lead to some form of addiction – the notion that gaming releases an equivalent amount of such chemicals as jumping out of an aeroplane seems deeply implausible, but again, there’s no data.)I sent John an email which contained the following:

Which is at best incorrect and at worst misleading. There most certainly is data on dopamine's relationship with gaming, either directly (e.g. Koepp et al. (1998). Evidence for striatal dopamine release during a video game. Nature, 393, 266-268) or indirectly (e.g Han et al. (2008) Dopamine Genes and Reward Dependence in Adolescents with Excessive Internet Video Game Play. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 1, 133-138). I found these articles with very little difficulty in a very short period of time.

There are good reasons to criticise such studies in themselves (e.g. Koepp et al.'s involved a monetary reward for performance in-game), and the demonstration of the involvement of dopaminergic reward systems certainly isn't ground for decrying gaming as a widespread addictive hazard to global youth; nevertheless, it's a bit off for you to claim that there's no investigation and no data on the issue.And some bits saying how worthwhile I thought the article was and thanking him for RPS in general (because it's true and because as you can see, the above might have come across as a bit bitchy). John said "thanks" and deleted the bit I quoted to prevent the article getting any more complicated.

That John didn't find these papers isn't a huge failing by anybody's measure. And giving any kind of useful review to them - although I did pick papers from eminently reputable journals on purpose - isn't trivial. Still, at the time and today I don't think that a deletion in the name of simplicity was the answer - I realise that the journalist writes to an audience, and that a narrative is required, but if the science is complicated then I believe you should admit that. You decry fools like Steve Pope in part precisely by showing that the real work is nuanced and hard.

I didn't talk to him at the time about this, and I should have done.

Some kind of conclusion and why I'm picking on John
I don't want to pick on John, but I feel I have to. There's one reason behind all of that sentence - I think John Walker is a good man and a good journalist. He writes well and, it seems to me, almost without exception with utter integrity. I think that he's genuinely concerned with the truth, even though he has a great attachment to gaming and letting kids game. I know I'm being a bit over-sensitive, but I feel a little like he needs to step back a bit from the abyss of ignorance occupied by those like Greenfield and Pope. We shouldn't have to lose him to this shouty nonsense.

There's a secondary issue for me as well, and that's freedom of expression. Personally, I worry that a defence of gaming predicated on the basis that it doesn't cause harm is a troublesome one. Practically, it might one day come to bite us in the ass; arguably it is already doing so, in places like Germany and Australia, although these are fairly untroubling in themselves.

I don't think we should ignore the "Baroness Greenfield"s. When they put themselves out there, it does need to be made clear that they're not arguing from an evidential basis but instead from their own speculation and biases. What I would like to see happen is a shift in the basis of the 'pro-gaming' argument and perhaps an acknowledgement that the data is certainly not conclusive either way (and the conclusion being reached for isn't that clear either!), but that this isn't the core of the issue of distribution. But, I appreciate that's an argument from my own commitments to freedom of expression. There are plenty who'd disagree with me for that alone.

Drake Sigar
10-11-2011, 01:10 PM
Murder her reputation.


Murder her
Much better.

Nalano
10-11-2011, 09:02 PM
Much better.

With a four-foot purple dildo bat, a la Saints Row!

Keep
10-11-2011, 09:19 PM
@Zetetic - I don't blame John for stepping back from it. I hadn't realised the subject was that dense, so your point about "if the science is complicated then I believe you should admit that" is an important one.

But what's the best way - given the complexity - to make that clear? It's no good asking John to catch up with the research. Nor is it any good that he just says "Actually I'm quite ignorant about this topic" (because that could easily be misread as "I am more ignorant than Baroness Greenfield on this topic").

acidtestportfolio
11-11-2011, 12:19 AM
here's how we respond to them:

with lots of fucking scorn

Zetetic
23-11-2011, 05:53 PM
But what's the best way - given the complexity - to make that clear? It's no good asking John to catch up with the research. Nor is it any good that he just says "Actually I'm quite ignorant about this topic" (because that could easily be misread as "I am more ignorant than Baroness Greenfield on this topic").
Well, I didn't reply to this at the time because I kept turning it over my head and didn't settle on anything; I appreciate it's hard. But, thankfully Nature's review of the literature, did allow John to catch-up by deferring to considered expert opinion (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/23/natures-neuroscientific-review-of-game) of the current state of things. And I think he has written, overall, a very good and very relieving article. I'm still a bit worried by an underlying bias, which I still insist he doesn't need if he appeals to freedom of speech, but it's a excellent sign and I'm very glad he wrote it.