Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-25-2018, 05:21 PM   #271
safisher
Gunnery Sergeant,
 Imperial Marines
Coauthor,
 GURPS High-Tech
 
safisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
You haven't really addressed the big problem, where are these roving gangs of sociopaths?
LOL! I didn't know I had to solve this problem! The whole juvenile justice and mental health systems are asking these questions. They have some ideas, but there's nothing definitive.

Quote:
Why don't the crime statistics show an increase in violent crime where you see an increase in video game culture?
There might be a lot of countervailing societal influences in a post 9-11 world. More parental supervision, better policing, more or less incarceration, better schooling policies, better-protected schools, economic factors, generational attitudes, etc.

Quote:
Why do we, in fact, see the opposite? I think that it should be quite clear that Grossman's prediction of groups of sociopathic gamers hasn't manifested at all.
It seems like we have deadlier school shootings now, for one, if not more of them. And we have significantly more protected schools, as well. Armed cops at most schools, more school drills for active shooters, and so forth would tend to suppress violence, etc. of all types. In other words, from the late 1990s to now the social environment is radically different. Apples and oranges.

Quote:
Where is this going anyway? I suppose that if we are to take On Killing at face value, and apply it to the OP, and get back on topic, the answer is "No weapon, because you shouldn't be playing violent games."
The op was asking about guns, and I wrote an article on that. I've done my work for that aspect of his question.
__________________
Buy my stuff on E23. Fav Blogs: Doug Cole here , C.R. Rice's here, & Hans Christian Vortisch here.
safisher is online now  
Old 01-25-2018, 05:50 PM   #272
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
LOL! I didn't know I had to solve this problem! The whole juvenile justice and mental health systems are asking these questions. They have some ideas, but there's nothing definitive.
Still, it's a sign that violent video games either aren't an influence, or are a relatively minor one. It's worth asking what activity the video games displace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
It seems like we have deadlier school shootings now, for one, if not more of them.
It's likely that availability is part of that.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now  
Old 01-25-2018, 06:06 PM   #273
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
There might be a lot of countervailing societal influences in a post 9-11 world. More parental supervision, better policing, more or less incarceration, better schooling policies, better-protected schools, economic factors, generational attitudes, etc.
There was violent media before September 2001. I also suspect that the Al-Queda leadership wasn't really spending a lot of time playing Counterstrike either.

Quote:
It seems like we have deadlier school shootings now, for one, if not more of them.
Apparently they weren't uncommon in the 19th century, but schools were smaller and violent crime was more widespread so they got significantly less media attention.

Quote:
The op was asking about guns, and I wrote an article on that. I've done my work for that aspect of his question.
So question answered, and we are free to go way off-topic?

Besides, shouldn't you have written an article about hugs instead?
sir_pudding is offline  
Old 01-25-2018, 06:44 PM   #274
safisher
Gunnery Sergeant,
 Imperial Marines
Coauthor,
 GURPS High-Tech
 
safisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
Besides, shouldn't you have written an article about hugs instead?
If I wanted to write about hugs then I would have.
__________________
Buy my stuff on E23. Fav Blogs: Doug Cole here , C.R. Rice's here, & Hans Christian Vortisch here.
safisher is online now  
Old 01-26-2018, 01:13 AM   #275
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
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.

Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-26-2018 at 11:07 AM.
Tomsdad is offline  
Old 01-26-2018, 01:30 AM   #276
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
Less of a tangent than fMRIs and publication citations.

Reluctant Killer says it applies to deliberate attacks on people. Anthony's post about the riflemen has them shooting horses. Ergo, it is actually irrelevant whether Grossman is correct in this setting or not.
Yeah sorry again I was thinking more about RL not the GURPS Ads/disads
Tomsdad is offline  
Old 01-26-2018, 07:11 AM   #277
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
...
It seems like we have deadlier school shootings now, for one, if not more of them. And we have significantly more protected schools, as well. Armed cops at most schools, more school drills for active shooters, and so forth would tend to suppress violence, etc. of all types. In other words, from the late 1990s to now the social environment is radically different. Apples and oranges.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
...
Apparently they weren't uncommon in the 19th century, but schools were smaller and violent crime was more widespread so they got significantly less media attention.
...
Quite, and even if it's shown that mass shootings in school are indeed proportionally greater now (once we take into account differences in population and population concentration, school attendance and umpteen other things including the change in physical practicalities of mass shootings). Not to mention that they are still one of the least common instances of violent crime, and causal linking wide spread general stuff to uncommon and extreme events is inherently tricky

There's still the little matter of isolating that violent video games are a significant driving force for that within the incredibly wide range of reasons for why people do things.

And of course there's the point that there seems to be a bit of a built in assumption in these kind claims that there was no* exposure to violence until modern media came along and exposed people to violence. Wearas as people have been exposed to violence in many different ways and to different extents at different times in both personal and social history.

Of course safisher is right the social environment 1990's to now is different (as is pretty much true of any two decades you care to mention of course), and yeah one of those differences may well be the prevalence of violent media (although I seem to remember violent media and violent computer games in the 90's and judging by the earlier links there was certainly research into it, hell I remember the "video nasty" scare in the 80's). But that wasn't the only difference so again narrowing down the effects of one variable in a sea of other variables is kind of tough to do, especially when trying to assess it's overall net effect as part of the greater whole.




*or that type 'X' of violence exposure is somehow inherently and especially corrosive compared to others, or that previous methods of exposure were some how less bad or at least more healthy internalised within society (and the inplication is that modern media is inherently less able to be healthy internalised).

It's kind of similar to that old claim that having a TV in the front room stops family conversation as we all sit zombie like staring at the gogglebox as our ability to socialise and engage in discourse withers. Which of course was rubbish, those of us who talked just also talking about what we were watching as well, and there was plenty of ways to not talk to each other before the invention of the TV (see also the internet will turn us all into shut in basement dwellers, with a hatred for fresh air and physical interaction or even activity)!

Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-26-2018 at 11:04 AM.
Tomsdad is offline  
Old 01-26-2018, 03:20 PM   #278
safisher
Gunnery Sergeant,
 Imperial Marines
Coauthor,
 GURPS High-Tech
 
safisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
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.
From the report:
"However, ethical constraints in exposing participants, especially children and teens, to harmful stimuli, difficulty in controlling exposure due to the widespread nature of modern media, difficulty offering meaningful levels of exposure in laboratory settings, and the ever-present challenge of obtaining large samples limit the feasibility of randomized clinical trials in this domain. Given the ethical and pragmatic realities, it is unlikely that it will be possible to conduct definitive studies that can establish causality. This is similar to the limitations on other research addressing violence and abuse as well as other harmful behaviors such as smoking tobacco. Moreover, randomly controlled trials may suffer from limitations such as selection bias. We must, therefore, ask what we might expect and find useful for inferring causality. ___>Convergence of results across multiple methods, multiple samples, and multiple researchers, creating a collective body of scientific inquiry yielding similar results, is an accepted method for inferring causality in behavioral science<____."

Huh.
__________________
Buy my stuff on E23. Fav Blogs: Doug Cole here , C.R. Rice's here, & Hans Christian Vortisch here.

Last edited by safisher; 01-26-2018 at 03:50 PM.
safisher is online now  
Old 01-26-2018, 05:02 PM   #279
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by safisher View Post
From the report:
"However, ethical constraints in exposing participants, especially children and teens, to harmful stimuli, difficulty in controlling exposure due to the widespread nature of modern media, difficulty offering meaningful levels of exposure in laboratory settings, and the ever-present challenge of obtaining large samples limit the feasibility of randomized clinical trials in this domain. Given the ethical and pragmatic realities, it is unlikely that it will be possible to conduct definitive studies that can establish causality. This is similar to the limitations on other research addressing violence and abuse as well as other harmful behaviors such as smoking tobacco. Moreover, randomly controlled trials may suffer from limitations such as selection bias. We must, therefore, ask what we might expect and find useful for inferring causality. ___>Convergence of results across multiple methods, multiple samples, and multiple researchers, creating a collective body of scientific inquiry yielding similar results, is an accepted method for inferring causality in behavioral science<____."

Huh.
The cancer statistics track very closely with smoking.

But maybe we should just report this thread for promoting violence and leading to the fall of civilization. It apparently isn't ever going back on topic.
sir_pudding is offline  
Old 01-26-2018, 08:37 PM   #280
Andrew Hackard
Munchkin Line Editor
 
Andrew Hackard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Thread closed for off-topic posting. Further sanctions may be forthcoming.
__________________
Andrew Hackard || Munchkin Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games

Twitter: @SJGames || Facebook: SJ Games and Munchkin || Medium: @SJGames
Instagram: @stevejacksongames || YouTube: Steve Jackson Games

New Munchkin player? Visit our Munchkin 101 forum!
Andrew Hackard is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.