Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher
The APA does not say there is _no_ evidence, in fact they say the opposite --
they say there is "a strong association." They recommend in 2015 very specific policy actions because there is such an association. The 2017 version of their report says: "we found that _violent video game exposure was associated with_: 1) an increased composite aggression score; 2) increased aggressive behavior; 3) increased aggressive cognitions; 4) increased aggressive affect, 5) increased desensitization, 6) and decreased empathy; and 7) increased physiological arousal." That is, there is EVIDENCE of violent video games having a negative effect on humans.
They say "Our task force concluded that violent video game use is a risk factor for adverse outcomes," and then they say "but found insufficient studies to examine any potential link between violent video game use and delinquency or criminal behavior." Which is to say, IT IS A RISK. We don't know how this works yet because there aren't enough studies. Which is to say, in due time we're confident we'll find out more.
Now, let me be clear here for you because this seems to be hard for you to understand, but a strong association is very strong language in such a study. A position paper from a mental health association -- at all -- is a strong statement in their confidence in their conclusions. That is not dismissable simply because they don't yet have _enough studies_ to link directly to criminal behavior. All they are saying is there is "a strong association with" them and we are advising you to take this as a warning.
In due time, because this is a new area of study, one can suspect one of two things. They might, based on their body of work, find the direct link -- maybe tomorrow, maybe next month, maybe next year, or a decade from now. And they might not ever find a direct link. But even if they don't, it might be for a number of reasons, including ethical constraints of research and the difficulty of the subject methodology. One could say right now "Ah! that means they are wrong, wrong, wrong" about violent video games, but you'd be ignoring their direct policy warnings and you'd be ignoring the very explicit association of these games with all the 7 indicators above. So a fair reading of this can't really come down the side of there's nothing here to worry about. If it were lead paint or vaccinations, people would be a lot more concerned.
Frankly, I'm not even interested in these warnings or the fact that these video games might make some portion of society a bunch of raving psychopaths. I just can't stand by and let someone so blatantly misrepresent the truth. I'm not even sure it's intentional, . . . I just think you have a hard time being fair-minded.
|
once again from their own summary paper:
"Finds insufficient research to link violent video game play to criminal violence"
That directly answers the claim made.
Yes maybe in the future they will find enough evidence to prove the link, or maybe they won't. Because finding out more in due time can work both ways here.
But appeals to what might happen in the future in either direction are still not facts that support a theory now. Similarly excuses like Oh this subject's inherent obstacles and complex methodologies is too hard to allow for proof, or attempts that would allow it would be unethical to undertake, also don't wash. Because once again yes the realities of subjects like this can make proving things hard, but well research is often hard. If you can't do the research that you think will show what you want, you find another way to show what you want to show. But you don't say "oh well I'm sure the research I couldn't actually do would have shown it, so job done, theory proved"
Again as per umpteen earlier posts if you don't have the proof,
then you don't have the proof. Excuses for why you don't are not the same as having it. You say I'm finding it hard to understand things, but it seems you keep missing this basic and fundamental point:
If there is not sufficient proof to prove your claim, than you have not proved your claim.
And no pointing that out is not being unfair or blatantly miss-representing the truth, rather the opposite in fact*.
And so partly due to the above points about the complexity of proving stuff yes of course the APA uses careful and precise language, it's just a pity Grossman doesn't and that's what we're talking about here not the various straw men you seem keen to introduce in your defence of him.
But the thing about careful and precise language is that you actually have to pay attention to what's being carefully and specifically said and not said, and not what was the term you used earlier to
join up the dots, or your attempts to conflate what Grossman has claimed and what the APA have supported.
e.g "negative effects" or "adverse outcomes" (which if you actually look at the research is defined by lots of precise and careful language) vs. increase in violent crime. Or criticising Grossman's specific claims vs. nothing to ever worry about regarding letting kids play violent video games.
*sorry not wanting to come off as some crusader for truth, those were your words. Just making the point that this is basic premise stuff.