Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42
  1. #21
    Lesser Hivemind Node Keep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Library Bar
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by DSVella View Post
    we as a group
    Are we?

    (Stupid ten character limit...)

  2. #22
    Network Hub Taidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by sockeatsock View Post
    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.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  4. #24
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Drake Sigar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Jolly Ole England
    Posts
    2,975
    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.

  5. #25
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus sinister agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    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?

  6. #26
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by Taidan View Post
    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.

  7. #27
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by sinister agent View Post
    "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.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  8. #28
    Activated Node Krans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Taidan View Post
    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.

  9. #29
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    282
    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.

  10. #30
    Lesser Hivemind Node Keep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Library Bar
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by Inverselaw View Post
    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.

  11. #31
    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.
    Last edited by Tom OBedlam; 09-11-2011 at 06:04 PM. Reason: Typo
    “Technology is a bad thing, people”
    - Wizardry

  12. #32
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Keep View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom OBedlam View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Nalano; 09-11-2011 at 07:00 PM.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  13. #33
    Activated Node Krans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    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.

  14. #34
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Krans View Post
    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.

    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.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  15. #35
    Network Hub Taidan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    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!

  16. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom OBedlam View Post
    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?

  17. #37
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    251
    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, 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. 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.
    Last edited by Zetetic; 10-11-2011 at 12:04 PM.

  18. #38
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Drake Sigar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Jolly Ole England
    Posts
    2,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    Murder her reputation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    Murder her
    Much better.

  19. #39
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Drake Sigar View Post
    Much better.
    With a four-foot purple dildo bat, a la Saints Row!
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  20. #40
    Lesser Hivemind Node Keep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Library Bar
    Posts
    607
    @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").

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •