SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
More than 200 academics have signed an open letter criticizing a controversial new statement [PDF] by the American Psychological Association suggesting a link between violent video games and increased aggression.
The APA writes:
It is the accumulation of risk factors that tends to lead to aggressive or violent behaviour. The research reviewed here demonstrates that violent video game use is one such risk factor.
A positive association between violent video game use and increased aggressive behavior was found in most (12 of 14 studies) but not all studies published after the earlier meta‐analyses. This continues to be a reliable finding and shows good multi‐method consistency across various representations of both violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior.
However, the group of academics said they felt the methodology of the research was deeply flawed as a significant part of material included in the study had not been subjected to peer review. "I fully acknowledge that exposure to repeated violence may have short-term effects - you would be a fool to deny that - but the long-term consequences of crime and actual violent behaviour, there is just no evidence linking violent video games with that," said one.
"If you play three hours of Call of Duty you might feel a little bit pumped, but you are not going to go out and mug someone."
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @06:21AM
Bad science from the social sciences? What a surprise. [arachnoid.com] They often try to measure subjective emotions and come to arbitrary conclusions based on poorly-gathered data. They mix up correlation with causation and overstate their confidence. The studies are rarely replicated, and when they are, the results often aren't even the same. Anyone putting trust in the social 'sciences' is a fool.
The media seems to love it, because it can be used for propaganda purposes. There is plenty of bad science for them to use, so no one can claim their reporting is incorrect, and many people will not question the studies themselves. Conclusions of social science studies can often be used to advocate for government intervention, because they are about the behavior of people. "Violent video games cause people to be more aggressive? We have to ban them!" It's far more useful for propaganda purposes than other fields, which is why bad science can be far more harmful.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday August 18 2015, @08:52PM
psychology is not a social science. that entire link is one long stawman, intentionally defining psychology as something its not.
from the wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
Psychology is the study of mind* [wikipedia.org] and behavior. It is an academic discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases. In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist and can be classified as a social, behavioral [wikipedia.org], or cognitive scientist [wikipedia.org]. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and biological processes that underlie cognitive functions and behaviors.
* Mind:
A mind is the set of cognitive faculties (physical brain structures) that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory—a characteristic of humans, but which also may apply to other life forms.
psychology includes some social science stuff, but it is very much a hard science, dealing with anything that has to do with the brain and nerves and includes all forms of neuroscience and neurology/neurobiology, many forms of pharmacology and toxicology, and lots of other stuff. of the 3 major branches (cognitive, behavioral, social), only the social branch has anything to do with "social science", while the majority is just as "hard" a science as physics and biology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @12:35AM
psychology is not a social science. that entire link is one long stawman, intentionally defining psychology as something its not.
Sorry, but no. You can't look at garbage like what this article is about and pretend there isn't a problem by saying, "Well, technically, psychology covers more than just social sciences..." That's missing the point spectacularly.
psychology includes some social science stuff
Which is what is under discussion. Even brain scans are repeatedly abused to reach arbitrary and subjective conclusions about behavior. The social sciences are just the worst part of it.
while the majority is just as "hard" a science as physics and biology.
Well, thanks for the laugh.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:30AM
there's no "technically" about it, that entire rant you linked is nothing but a strawman because it defines psychology as something its not. since its fallicious from the start, the entire thing is invalid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2015, @11:16AM
there's no "technically" about it, that entire rant you linked is nothing but a strawman because it defines psychology as something its not.
A straw man of who or what? Who specifically is that article straw manning? Or do you just mean to say it is incorrect for defining psychology in that way?
Also, that is "technically". You decide to focus on the inconsequential while missing the larger point. I don't know why.
since its fallicious from the start, the entire thing is invalid.
No, you haven't disproved the conclusion merely by finding what you perceive as a few fallacies.
1 + 1 = 3
2 + 2 = 5
3 + 3 = 6
Despite the fact that the first two are wrong, the third one is still correct. Trying to say that everything about the article is incorrect merely because you believe you've spotted some fallacies is just silly.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday August 20 2015, @09:21PM
the rant in the article you linked is entirely based upon defining psychology as a "social science", which it is not. since it is based on a false premise, the conclusion cannot be trusted to be valid.