01-25-2018, 04:21 PM | #271 | ||||
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
01-25-2018, 04:50 PM | #272 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
It's likely that availability is part of that. |
|
01-25-2018, 05:06 PM | #273 | |||
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, shouldn't you have written an article about hugs instead? |
|||
01-25-2018, 05:44 PM | #274 |
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
If I wanted to write about hugs then I would have.
|
01-26-2018, 12:13 AM | #275 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
"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 10:07 AM. |
|
01-26-2018, 12:30 AM | #276 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
|
|
01-26-2018, 06:11 AM | #277 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
Quote:
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 10:04 AM. |
||
01-26-2018, 02:20 PM | #278 | |
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
"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. My GURPS blog, Dark Journeys, is here. Fav Blogs: Doug Cole here , C.R. Rice's here, & Hans Christian Vortisch here. Last edited by safisher; 01-26-2018 at 02:50 PM. |
|
01-26-2018, 04:02 PM | #279 | |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
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. |
|
01-26-2018, 07:37 PM | #280 |
Munchkin Line Editor
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Thread closed for off-topic posting. Further sanctions may be forthcoming.
__________________
Andrew Hackard, Munchkin Line Editor If you have a question that isn't getting answered, we have a thread for that. Let people like what they like. Don't be a gamer hater. #PlayMunchkin on social media: Twitter || Facebook || Instagram || YouTube Follow us on Kickstarter: Steve Jackson Games and Warehouse 23 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|