5 ms·

I have noticed that many social science articles posted on Hacker News bring out critical comments about study design, doubts about the strength of the study's

by yazboo 6y ago

I have noticed that many social science articles posted on Hacker News bring out critical comments about study design, doubts about the strength of the study's conclusions, that kind of thing. This submission, on the other hand, is a link to some kind of gaming news website, which links to an abstract for an article in a Cyberpsychology (?) journal which costs $60 to access, and there is widespread and uncritical agreement with its supposed conclusion.

FeepingCreature 6y ago
Free on sci-hub.
- vlz 6y ago
  https://sci-hub.st/10.1089/cyber.2020.0049 https://sci-hub.st/10.1089/cyber.2020.0049
umvi 6y ago
It's probably confirmation bias. Same reason a study with positive outcomes about coffee/alcohol/gay parenthood/gender reassignment/<insert issue> are not criticized as much as a study on the same topic that had negative outcomes. We want certain things to be true so we (consciously or not) avoid criticizing studies bolstering what we want to be true and harshly criticize studies we want to be false. I like to think science always prevails in the end (like with tobacco), but it can take half a century or more to converge on the truth.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  I mean, part of this is probably also some degree of us intuitively knowing the answer. If you have a friend group of 10 people, 4 of which regularly work out. You will probably notice that those 4 friends have less body fat and are more toned than the other 6. At that point, if a study came out saying that working out had no impact on body physique, you'd reflexively question the results. That might sound ridiculous, but lots of people here grew up playing "violent" video games through the 90s-00s, and had large friend groups who did the same. And it's pretty likely that, for most of us, none of our friends ended up with violent or aggressive tendencies. Anecdotes are not scientifically rigorous, but they aren't completely useless either. If violent video games caused measurable increases in aggressive behavior, people who were around a large cohort of people playing these games would notice this fact in action. Just like they'd notice that friends who eat a lot of cake tend to be larger than the one who don't.
  - umvi 6y ago
    There's some truth here, but it's important not to use anecdotes too much to guide intuition because the sample size is often too small and too biased. For example, I have a group of 10 friends. All 10 of them (including myself) got covid, and we all agree it is no worse than the flu. I mean, yeah, we couldn't smell or taste for a few days, but we all recovered within a week. Therefore... I should reflexively question covid studies saying how dangerous it is because in my own experience it's not even worth making a fuss over? Maybe to some degree, but the fallacy I committed by relying on my anecdote to guide my intuition is that me and all my friends are young, fit, healthy people. My group of friends didn't include the elderly or immunocompromised or morbidly obese, etc.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      To put it a different way, the people who grew up to be violent individuals are probably not posting on HN, nor working at companies with people who post on HN, so the fact that everybody on HN isn't violent, despite playing violent video games is only weak evidence against there being a correlation. In fact, I would be surprised for there to be zero correlation (even assuming there is no causation), as it is a reasonable assumption that naturally violent people are more likely to play violent video games.
      - tomp 6y ago
        > as it is a reasonable assumption that naturally violent people are more likely to play violent video games. It's also a reasonable assumption that people who naturally want to avoid actual violence play violent video games instead. This paranoia against violent video games was obviously fake from the start, and such a typically American thing - in line with the American puritan view that blowing up people in films or broadcasting police car chases is a-OK but (female) nipples or saying "fuck" is a big NO NO.
        skrebbel 6y ago
        > a typically American thing Not only. Eg in Germany there's long been an enormous stigma against violent video games. I haven't talked with German gamedevs for some years so maybe this loosened up since. But basically, if you worked in gamedev you preferred to tell your neighbours and acquaintances that you work "in IT". If they would find out you work on video games they'd pretty much fully cut you out of their lives. (Note, to my anecdotal experience this is a purely German thing. I don't know other European countries where the same stigma exists)
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  H.N. is also a place where one will simply be downvoted for criticizing the methodology, even if the post reveal nothing about whether one support the conclusion or not. But any place with “votes” has such effects.
AtlasBarfed 6y ago
Didn't we just have a HN about a depressing amount of food studies being sponsored by food conglomerates?
- nelsonenzo 6y ago
  no one outside of the video game industry would waste their time with this study because they already know the outcome from having passively observed several hundred million children not become violent from video games. Video games do not make people violent - and based on my observation of at least several thousand peers - it actually has the opposite effect. The truth is video games are a healthy outlet, as well as self train an individual to deal with defeat over and over and over again. I bet if you took groups of individuals whom played sports for X hours a week, and compared them to an equivalent number of individuals whom played video games for X hours a week, the sports group would have more violent tendencies. This isn't just hyperbola, after observing as many humans as we have in both these activities, it's practically self evident.
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    It's pretty dishonest to put all kinds of video games in the same bucket and then make sweeping generalizations about their health impact.
    - hombre_fatal 6y ago
      I don't understand what you're implying except that you think that there are violent video games that can affect behavior, something that the paper set out to test by comparing 789 games ranging from Boggle to Gears of War. When I was a kid in the 90s, Oprah claims that Dungeons and Dragons caused Satanic worship and Grand Theft Auto groomed children for larceny. That's where our culture is coming from.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
CodeGlitch 6y ago
Perhaps it's because it's confirming something that we all knew anyway? I'm sure most of the HN crowd have played all sorts of video games, and we lead pretty non violent lives (I have to assume).
- XorNot 6y ago
  Also because it's been shown time and time again in study after study.
- Bodell 6y ago
  I think maybe there is some discussion to be had about the difference between personal violence, such as a particular person carrying out a violent crime, and the general acceptance of violence as a viable solution to a myriad of problems. I both do not know any violent criminals personally, and have witnessed a rather staggering amount of acceptance of violence in our culture. I’m reminded here of when the director of communications at Lockheed Martin responded with the following when asked about a possible connection between Columbine and the manufacturing of Triton missiles just down the street (Lockheed being a major employer of many parents in the area): “I guess I don't see that specific connection because the missiles that you're talking about were built and designed to defend us from somebody else who would be aggressors against us.” We also accept violence in the criminal justice system even to stop non-violent crimes. We also support wars, see it’s approval rating of post 9-11. I’ve had many a person tell me the solution to some Perceived racial problem was to “wipe them out” and only one of them physically assaulted me. So it seems to me that we are okay with violence but often do not like carrying it out ourselves in personal disputes. Yet this may only be detoured but the treat of violence being carried out on us if we were to. Unless of course we are in the military and have been told/trained to carry out violent activities with impunity. All in all I am not convinced we are a peaceful nonviolent civilization, quite the opposite. Nor am I convinced that seeing accepted violence everyday on your T.V. Screen, be it video game or otherwise, does not affect this pervasive psychological mindset, agin the opposite.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  It's funny how some folks have been trying to prove there's a link for 30 years now? And every step of the way there's really nothing to show for. Reminds me of the Dungeons and Dragons moral panic of the 80's [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/when-dungeons-dragons-set-off-a-moral-panic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/when-dungeons-dragons-...
andrewla 6y ago
Yes, I think that confirmation bias is very strong here. My rule for analyzing social science articles is pretty simple: If the study contradicts your intuition or understanding of human behavior, it is likely that it does not support the conclusion because of extensive methodological errors or statistical skullduggery. If, on the other hand, the study confirms your intuition or understanding of human behavior, it is likely that it does not support the conclusion because of extensive methodological errors or statistical skullduggery.
- dolni 6y ago
  More important than that is the result of the Grievance Studies affair. When there is such heavily biased review of social science papers, it calls the legitimacy of all of them into question.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  My rule for analyzing social science is: “it's bullshit till proven otherwise.”. The simple fact is that I cannot ever think of any solid methodology to investigate a “link” between these two things and that the man who devises it would deliver a rather groundbreaking idea. How would a study such as this even work?; it's all Quatsch.
  - andrewla 6y ago
    The only difference between your view and mine is this: > till proven otherwise It's still bullshit even if proven otherwise. If I roll my magic dice and determine that it's going to rain tomorrow, and it ends up raining, this in no way validates my methodology.
eivarv 6y ago
You're very right; it's probably a combination of confirmation bias and the fact that this has been result has been shown by just about every serious study on the subject so far. Besides: claims of a link between violent video games and aggressive behavior was never backed by anything other than assumptive moral arguments, much less studies (or even coherent reasoning and valid logic).
claudiawerner 6y ago
It's entirely confirmation bias; try posting a study or meta-analysis showing the inverse, or - and I think this will fare even worse - a meta-analysis of the effects of pornography on attitudes or sexual aggression. The literature on pornography is more mixed and contentious, though. On violent video games and "gaming addiction", there seems to be less and less going for the hypothesis that they cause violence or aggression. However, from what reading I've done, you will find that longitudinal results in porn and video games are dissonant with experimental results in lab settings. This suggests that while there are effects, they do not persist to the level thought. More complex models (such as the confluence model in porn effects research) which try and explain apparent hidden variables are also gaining steam. There are actually only four or five major contemporary figures in porn effects research; Wright and Tokunaga finding that porn has negative effects on everyone; Hald and Malamuth finding that the main or only worry only lies in those low in agreeableness and predisposed to aggressive behaviour. To a bunch of gamers and porn-users (including myself in both of those categories), these things are either things we spend a lot of time doing (for a portion of HN, I suspect their entire leisure time is taken up by video games), or they are very personal and private. Nothing is more personal than what we get off to, so any analysis of porn tends to be taken as an assault on sexuality itself (though interestingly, much as with advertising or propaganda, the very same sexuality cultivated by porn consumption). I've tried discussing the literature on video games, porn, violence, aggression, and morality before on both HN and Reddit, and the discussion is either ignored or shot down with downvotes because any discussion at all feels like a personal attack. I'd recommend for anyone interested in the topic of video games and aggression or behaviour, and indeed the hot topic of "video game addiction" to check out the papers by CJ Ferguson, who has a positive view on video games. At the same time, check out the people he replies to and the people replying to him. It's ridiculous to draw any conclusion from a study that happens to reach the top of HN.
mc32 6y ago
Here’s a test: Design this game with negative stereotypes and see how many people suddenly flip on how they think about the influence of the in-game social and anti-social aspects.
- friendlybus 6y ago
  Hatred came out in 2015, and was effectively banned in some regions. A true test on this topic will never happen in the public, Adults Only rated-games only get so far. "Mike Splechta of GameZone questioned the game's timing and how it could become the "next scapegoat" in a climate that already held video games responsible for school shootings and other violence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred_(video_game)#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred_(video_game)#Reception
  - dleslie 6y ago
    The thing with Hatred is that it isn't all that good of a game; so it doesn't make for compelling critical analysis of social response. It has detractors but lacks many supporters, and so it was easily swept aside. Presently we are seeing significant alarm raised by media over the content, not bugs, within Cyberpunk 2077; accusations have been raised by major outlets that it includes bias in support of law enforcement, a transphobic setting, and bog standard sexism. But despite its severe bugs and missing features, it's enjoyed three solid weeks as a top seller on Steam and easily made back its expenses through PC pre-orders. For all the flak it gets, the game has an enormous and happy fanbase. What I see happening is a bifurcation in game players: those who reject the gamer label and reject moral terpitudes, and those who embrace the gamer label and tolerate or enjoy moral terpitude. I expect that in ten years we'll see an industry with healthy diversity in players and content; divided into their separate groups and with stores that have adapted to cater to specific groups. A hundred years ago there was the Bay and Sears, and now those have been superseded by a large variety of clothing vendors. I don't expect to buy a cardigan and leather bdsm mask in the same store, right?
ineedasername 6y ago
Probably because it's a 10 year longitudinal study, which is significantly better than the endless stream of small sample limited observational studies. Also without the full contents and methodology, we can't acty evaluate the study very well. Thise leaves bias from confirmation of existing beliefs along with more anecdotal evidence not directly connected to videogames, such as decreasing crime rates over the period of time that videogames have become more violent. However relying on that correlation alone is a post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy. In short, we simply don't know enough about the study to overcome comment with substance, at the same time that the study corresponds to conclusions based on similar research. I'm hesitant to declare "confirmation bias" though when it does ostensibly confirm other research, though it's not really a replication, so I'd withhold final judgement.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
The biases of the tech crowd, and HN specifically, wouldn't be half as bad if they occasionally showed a willingness to investigate them, instead of continually insisting their reasoning is uniquely based on "logic" and "science".
ajuc 6y ago
It's hard to avoid confirmation bias when it comes to things everybody experience in their everyday lives. Almost everybody games at some point in their lives. Everybody know people who play video games for significant percent of their free time. If the link was significant we would've noticed by now. It's very hard to argue video games and crime are linked when the curves are: https://i.imgur.com/hSHDyoH.png https://i.imgur.com/hSHDyoH.png https://cdn.statcdn.com/Statistic/190000/191219-blank-355.png https://cdn.statcdn.com/Statistic/190000/191219-blank-355.pn... Of course it's possible that the link is small and other factors overpower it. But it's unlikely, and given the everyday experience with people who play games and people who are violent - there's very little evidence of any link. So indeed we fail to the confirmation bias. Or, said in other words: "ordinary claims require very little evidence".
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
We're all bayesians in some sense. If you show me weak evidence for what I alreaddy believe, I'll just believe it even more strongly. I'll argue for it, but mostly based off my prior belief. If you show me weak evidence for what I don't believe, I'll adjust my disbelief of it just a little downwards. I'll argue against it, but mostly based off my prior belief. I think you're seeing an important difference between acceptance of a conclusion versus agreement with it. I doubt this study is changing anyone's minds.
belorn 6y ago
There has historically been fairly consistent and repeated claims that teens and young adults are influenced by fictional media into anti-social behavior, despite the lack of strong evidence. There has also been consistently a strong need to explain divergent and deviant behavior, and a desire to stamp it down. So since we have learned that violent song lyrics does not cause anti-social behavior in teens, nor that of violent movies, it seems as a good default stance that neither does violent video games. I would also default the same stance to porn consumption, based on the same logic. I would prefer if we got a final study that gave a definitive answer if consumption of fiction causes anti-social behavior. It seems to me that fiction is simply an medium for which people can safely explore cultural norms, but in terms of causing anti-social behavior we would need to look at social environment and biochemical triggers for social behavior.
damla 6y ago
I observed this phenomenon in a few other subjects too, like articles about benefits of certain supplements or substances, that praise some parenting styles, etc.
jchw 6y ago
The assertion that violent video games cause violence is pretty non-sensical to begin with given that violent media already existed before video games. It’s just another way to push censorship. You see a lot less criticism when the same thing is done for pornography and eroticism, even though there is no real hypothesis for why it would be any different.
- nindalf 6y ago
  While I don't think violent video games cause violence, it's not a completely ridiculous premise. Interactive video games require you to take and execute the decision yourself, putting yourself in the shoes of the player character. If you've played the Last of Us 1 or 2, you know what I'm talking about. If you saw it, it would affect you deeply. But actually doing those things hits so much harder. Is it possible that has a deeper effect on us compared to a movie? I don't know, but it's not a ridiculous proposition.
  - jchw 6y ago
    Film was scary too at one point. And before that, books. The media became more sophisticated over time, and the moral panics always followed. Yes, this “new” media is interactive and immersive, but there has never been that much compelling evidence that increased immersion actually changes matters that much. I think VR may be an interesting test case in the near future as it is immersive enough to potentially be more traumatic and more unsettling... but that still doesn’t mean playing GTA or Doom increases your odds of going on a shooting spree. The fact that you can make potentially more impactful stories using more modern media seems neutral to me. But to be frank, you really desperately do not need modern technology and fancy graphics to make an incredibly emotional, impactful game. Just look at indie games like Undertale and Celeste.
    - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
      > Film was scary too at one point. And there have been many film-inspired murders. the mass shooting inspired by the Dark Night. John Hinckley’s assassination attempt on Reagan ( inspired by Taxi Driver ). John Lennon’s murder was inspired by The Catcher in the Rye! Here’s a link to some: https://www.newsweek.com/nine-horrible-real-life-crimes-were-inspired-movie-or-novel-583828 https://www.newsweek.com/nine-horrible-real-life-crimes-were... And remember, not all such incidents are famous. So doubtless there are more. There are sick people in the world who are indeed influenced by all sorts of media. this was the key idea behind A Clockwork Orange. Whether such media influences “healthy” people is another question.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rriepe 6y ago
Hacker News users aren't smart, we just type good
- iso8859-1 6y ago
  Wouldn't it be better to use an adverb here?
  - rriepe 6y ago
    My bad. Message should read: Hacker News users aren't smartly, we just type good
SkyBelow 6y ago
No surprise. Even among scientists there is an issue where the level of critical review a paper gets is largely dependent upon how agreeable the findings are to the person reviewing it. This is a reason that even science isn't fully trustable in areas where personal beliefs are very strongly held. For one fun field, look at the level of criticism papers in parapsychology (the study of the paranormal) and compare it to if they get more criticism or not than the average paper in psychology. There is a particularly fun study (which I do not recall the name of) where two scientists teamed up, one who thought parapsychology was a true field and one who thought it was fake. They worked together on the same experiment and each produced results that agreed with them, but neither could find a flaw in the other's methodology or results (other than they disagree with their own results).
blululu 6y ago
There is certainly bias, however it is worth pointing out that the cited research is not rejecting the null hypothesis. Issues around sample size, methodology and study design are much more serious when a study claims to reject the null hypothesis where the burden of proof is considerably high. Furthermore, it was an almost universally accepted truth in the 90's that violent video games would lead to the total collapse of civil society (a claim that was asserted with no real evidence). The fact that a large number of people grew up with violent video games as children and now lead totally peaceful lives means that the result of this study is really not that shocking in light of people's priors.
lordCarbonFiber 6y ago
Link to the paper for anyone that wants to look more critically at the study. https://sci-hub.do/https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/cyber.2020.0049 https://sci-hub.do/https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.10...
lr4444lr 6y ago
You are not wrong generally about potential HN bias, but to be fair, the onus is on the people who believe video games are causative factors of violent behavior to first show correlation. If they can't even do that, then we are under no obligation to throw away the null hypothesis.
nathias 6y ago
I don't need a study to know that's true.
mattmaroon 6y ago
Even though I think there’s probably no causal link between video game violence and real violence, I feel I can safely condemn this study to the trash heap without reading it. There’s no chance it is at all scientific or ever had any chance of changing the minds of the people who ran it.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Relevant comparison: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25575971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25575971

by yazboo 6y ago

FeepingCreature 6y ago

Free on sci-hub.

vlz 6y ago
https://sci-hub.st/10.1089/cyber.2020.0049 https://sci-hub.st/10.1089/cyber.2020.0049

umvi 6y ago

It's probably confirmation bias. Same reason a study with positive outcomes about coffee/alcohol/gay parenthood/gender reassignment/<insert issue> are not criticized as much as a study on the same topic that had negative outcomes. We want certain things to be true so we (consciously or not) avoid criticizing studies bolstering what we want to be true and harshly criticize studies we want to be false. I like to think science always prevails in the end (like with tobacco), but it can take half a century or more to converge on the truth.

mywittyname 6y ago
I mean, part of this is probably also some degree of us intuitively knowing the answer. If you have a friend group of 10 people, 4 of which regularly work out. You will probably notice that those 4 friends have less body fat and are more toned than the other 6. At that point, if a study came out saying that working out had no impact on body physique, you'd reflexively question the results. That might sound ridiculous, but lots of people here grew up playing "violent" video games through the 90s-00s, and had large friend groups who did the same. And it's pretty likely that, for most of us, none of our friends ended up with violent or aggressive tendencies. Anecdotes are not scientifically rigorous, but they aren't completely useless either. If violent video games caused measurable increases in aggressive behavior, people who were around a large cohort of people playing these games would notice this fact in action. Just like they'd notice that friends who eat a lot of cake tend to be larger than the one who don't.
- umvi 6y ago
  There's some truth here, but it's important not to use anecdotes too much to guide intuition because the sample size is often too small and too biased. For example, I have a group of 10 friends. All 10 of them (including myself) got covid, and we all agree it is no worse than the flu. I mean, yeah, we couldn't smell or taste for a few days, but we all recovered within a week. Therefore... I should reflexively question covid studies saying how dangerous it is because in my own experience it's not even worth making a fuss over? Maybe to some degree, but the fallacy I committed by relying on my anecdote to guide my intuition is that me and all my friends are young, fit, healthy people. My group of friends didn't include the elderly or immunocompromised or morbidly obese, etc.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    To put it a different way, the people who grew up to be violent individuals are probably not posting on HN, nor working at companies with people who post on HN, so the fact that everybody on HN isn't violent, despite playing violent video games is only weak evidence against there being a correlation. In fact, I would be surprised for there to be zero correlation (even assuming there is no causation), as it is a reasonable assumption that naturally violent people are more likely to play violent video games.
    - tomp 6y ago
      > as it is a reasonable assumption that naturally violent people are more likely to play violent video games. It's also a reasonable assumption that people who naturally want to avoid actual violence play violent video games instead. This paranoia against violent video games was obviously fake from the start, and such a typically American thing - in line with the American puritan view that blowing up people in films or broadcasting police car chases is a-OK but (female) nipples or saying "fuck" is a big NO NO.
      - skrebbel 6y ago
        > a typically American thing Not only. Eg in Germany there's long been an enormous stigma against violent video games. I haven't talked with German gamedevs for some years so maybe this loosened up since. But basically, if you worked in gamedev you preferred to tell your neighbours and acquaintances that you work "in IT". If they would find out you work on video games they'd pretty much fully cut you out of their lives. (Note, to my anecdotal experience this is a purely German thing. I don't know other European countries where the same stigma exists)
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
H.N. is also a place where one will simply be downvoted for criticizing the methodology, even if the post reveal nothing about whether one support the conclusion or not. But any place with “votes” has such effects.

AtlasBarfed 6y ago

Didn't we just have a HN about a depressing amount of food studies being sponsored by food conglomerates?

nelsonenzo 6y ago
no one outside of the video game industry would waste their time with this study because they already know the outcome from having passively observed several hundred million children not become violent from video games. Video games do not make people violent - and based on my observation of at least several thousand peers - it actually has the opposite effect. The truth is video games are a healthy outlet, as well as self train an individual to deal with defeat over and over and over again. I bet if you took groups of individuals whom played sports for X hours a week, and compared them to an equivalent number of individuals whom played video games for X hours a week, the sports group would have more violent tendencies. This isn't just hyperbola, after observing as many humans as we have in both these activities, it's practically self evident.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  It's pretty dishonest to put all kinds of video games in the same bucket and then make sweeping generalizations about their health impact.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    I don't understand what you're implying except that you think that there are violent video games that can affect behavior, something that the paper set out to test by comparing 789 games ranging from Boggle to Gears of War. When I was a kid in the 90s, Oprah claims that Dungeons and Dragons caused Satanic worship and Grand Theft Auto groomed children for larceny. That's where our culture is coming from.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- boomboomsubban 6y ago

CodeGlitch 6y ago

Perhaps it's because it's confirming something that we all knew anyway? I'm sure most of the HN crowd have played all sorts of video games, and we lead pretty non violent lives (I have to assume).

XorNot 6y ago
Also because it's been shown time and time again in study after study.
Bodell 6y ago
I think maybe there is some discussion to be had about the difference between personal violence, such as a particular person carrying out a violent crime, and the general acceptance of violence as a viable solution to a myriad of problems. I both do not know any violent criminals personally, and have witnessed a rather staggering amount of acceptance of violence in our culture. I’m reminded here of when the director of communications at Lockheed Martin responded with the following when asked about a possible connection between Columbine and the manufacturing of Triton missiles just down the street (Lockheed being a major employer of many parents in the area): “I guess I don't see that specific connection because the missiles that you're talking about were built and designed to defend us from somebody else who would be aggressors against us.” We also accept violence in the criminal justice system even to stop non-violent crimes. We also support wars, see it’s approval rating of post 9-11. I’ve had many a person tell me the solution to some Perceived racial problem was to “wipe them out” and only one of them physically assaulted me. So it seems to me that we are okay with violence but often do not like carrying it out ourselves in personal disputes. Yet this may only be detoured but the treat of violence being carried out on us if we were to. Unless of course we are in the military and have been told/trained to carry out violent activities with impunity. All in all I am not convinced we are a peaceful nonviolent civilization, quite the opposite. Nor am I convinced that seeing accepted violence everyday on your T.V. Screen, be it video game or otherwise, does not affect this pervasive psychological mindset, agin the opposite.
908B64B197 6y ago
It's funny how some folks have been trying to prove there's a link for 30 years now? And every step of the way there's really nothing to show for. Reminds me of the Dungeons and Dragons moral panic of the 80's [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/when-dungeons-dragons-set-off-a-moral-panic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/when-dungeons-dragons-...

andrewla 6y ago

Yes, I think that confirmation bias is very strong here. My rule for analyzing social science articles is pretty simple: If the study contradicts your intuition or understanding of human behavior, it is likely that it does not support the conclusion because of extensive methodological errors or statistical skullduggery. If, on the other hand, the study confirms your intuition or understanding of human behavior, it is likely that it does not support the conclusion because of extensive methodological errors or statistical skullduggery.

dolni 6y ago
More important than that is the result of the Grievance Studies affair. When there is such heavily biased review of social science papers, it calls the legitimacy of all of them into question.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
My rule for analyzing social science is: “it's bullshit till proven otherwise.”. The simple fact is that I cannot ever think of any solid methodology to investigate a “link” between these two things and that the man who devises it would deliver a rather groundbreaking idea. How would a study such as this even work?; it's all Quatsch.
- andrewla 6y ago
  The only difference between your view and mine is this: > till proven otherwise It's still bullshit even if proven otherwise. If I roll my magic dice and determine that it's going to rain tomorrow, and it ends up raining, this in no way validates my methodology.

eivarv 6y ago

You're very right; it's probably a combination of confirmation bias and the fact that this has been result has been shown by just about every serious study on the subject so far. Besides: claims of a link between violent video games and aggressive behavior was never backed by anything other than assumptive moral arguments, much less studies (or even coherent reasoning and valid logic).

claudiawerner 6y ago

It's entirely confirmation bias; try posting a study or meta-analysis showing the inverse, or - and I think this will fare even worse - a meta-analysis of the effects of pornography on attitudes or sexual aggression. The literature on pornography is more mixed and contentious, though. On violent video games and "gaming addiction", there seems to be less and less going for the hypothesis that they cause violence or aggression. However, from what reading I've done, you will find that longitudinal results in porn and video games are dissonant with experimental results in lab settings. This suggests that while there are effects, they do not persist to the level thought. More complex models (such as the confluence model in porn effects research) which try and explain apparent hidden variables are also gaining steam. There are actually only four or five major contemporary figures in porn effects research; Wright and Tokunaga finding that porn has negative effects on everyone; Hald and Malamuth finding that the main or only worry only lies in those low in agreeableness and predisposed to aggressive behaviour. To a bunch of gamers and porn-users (including myself in both of those categories), these things are either things we spend a lot of time doing (for a portion of HN, I suspect their entire leisure time is taken up by video games), or they are very personal and private. Nothing is more personal than what we get off to, so any analysis of porn tends to be taken as an assault on sexuality itself (though interestingly, much as with advertising or propaganda, the very same sexuality cultivated by porn consumption). I've tried discussing the literature on video games, porn, violence, aggression, and morality before on both HN and Reddit, and the discussion is either ignored or shot down with downvotes because any discussion at all feels like a personal attack. I'd recommend for anyone interested in the topic of video games and aggression or behaviour, and indeed the hot topic of "video game addiction" to check out the papers by CJ Ferguson, who has a positive view on video games. At the same time, check out the people he replies to and the people replying to him. It's ridiculous to draw any conclusion from a study that happens to reach the top of HN.

mc32 6y ago

Here’s a test: Design this game with negative stereotypes and see how many people suddenly flip on how they think about the influence of the in-game social and anti-social aspects.

friendlybus 6y ago
Hatred came out in 2015, and was effectively banned in some regions. A true test on this topic will never happen in the public, Adults Only rated-games only get so far. "Mike Splechta of GameZone questioned the game's timing and how it could become the "next scapegoat" in a climate that already held video games responsible for school shootings and other violence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred_(video_game)#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred_(video_game)#Reception
- dleslie 6y ago
  The thing with Hatred is that it isn't all that good of a game; so it doesn't make for compelling critical analysis of social response. It has detractors but lacks many supporters, and so it was easily swept aside. Presently we are seeing significant alarm raised by media over the content, not bugs, within Cyberpunk 2077; accusations have been raised by major outlets that it includes bias in support of law enforcement, a transphobic setting, and bog standard sexism. But despite its severe bugs and missing features, it's enjoyed three solid weeks as a top seller on Steam and easily made back its expenses through PC pre-orders. For all the flak it gets, the game has an enormous and happy fanbase. What I see happening is a bifurcation in game players: those who reject the gamer label and reject moral terpitudes, and those who embrace the gamer label and tolerate or enjoy moral terpitude. I expect that in ten years we'll see an industry with healthy diversity in players and content; divided into their separate groups and with stores that have adapted to cater to specific groups. A hundred years ago there was the Bay and Sears, and now those have been superseded by a large variety of clothing vendors. I don't expect to buy a cardigan and leather bdsm mask in the same store, right?

ineedasername 6y ago

Probably because it's a 10 year longitudinal study, which is significantly better than the endless stream of small sample limited observational studies. Also without the full contents and methodology, we can't acty evaluate the study very well. Thise leaves bias from confirmation of existing beliefs along with more anecdotal evidence not directly connected to videogames, such as decreasing crime rates over the period of time that videogames have become more violent. However relying on that correlation alone is a post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy. In short, we simply don't know enough about the study to overcome comment with substance, at the same time that the study corresponds to conclusions based on similar research. I'm hesitant to declare "confirmation bias" though when it does ostensibly confirm other research, though it's not really a replication, so I'd withhold final judgement.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

The biases of the tech crowd, and HN specifically, wouldn't be half as bad if they occasionally showed a willingness to investigate them, instead of continually insisting their reasoning is uniquely based on "logic" and "science".

ajuc 6y ago

It's hard to avoid confirmation bias when it comes to things everybody experience in their everyday lives. Almost everybody games at some point in their lives. Everybody know people who play video games for significant percent of their free time. If the link was significant we would've noticed by now. It's very hard to argue video games and crime are linked when the curves are: https://i.imgur.com/hSHDyoH.png https://i.imgur.com/hSHDyoH.png https://cdn.statcdn.com/Statistic/190000/191219-blank-355.png https://cdn.statcdn.com/Statistic/190000/191219-blank-355.pn... Of course it's possible that the link is small and other factors overpower it. But it's unlikely, and given the everyday experience with people who play games and people who are violent - there's very little evidence of any link. So indeed we fail to the confirmation bias. Or, said in other words: "ordinary claims require very little evidence".

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

We're all bayesians in some sense. If you show me weak evidence for what I alreaddy believe, I'll just believe it even more strongly. I'll argue for it, but mostly based off my prior belief. If you show me weak evidence for what I don't believe, I'll adjust my disbelief of it just a little downwards. I'll argue against it, but mostly based off my prior belief. I think you're seeing an important difference between acceptance of a conclusion versus agreement with it. I doubt this study is changing anyone's minds.

belorn 6y ago

There has historically been fairly consistent and repeated claims that teens and young adults are influenced by fictional media into anti-social behavior, despite the lack of strong evidence. There has also been consistently a strong need to explain divergent and deviant behavior, and a desire to stamp it down. So since we have learned that violent song lyrics does not cause anti-social behavior in teens, nor that of violent movies, it seems as a good default stance that neither does violent video games. I would also default the same stance to porn consumption, based on the same logic. I would prefer if we got a final study that gave a definitive answer if consumption of fiction causes anti-social behavior. It seems to me that fiction is simply an medium for which people can safely explore cultural norms, but in terms of causing anti-social behavior we would need to look at social environment and biochemical triggers for social behavior.

damla 6y ago

I observed this phenomenon in a few other subjects too, like articles about benefits of certain supplements or substances, that praise some parenting styles, etc.

jchw 6y ago

The assertion that violent video games cause violence is pretty non-sensical to begin with given that violent media already existed before video games. It’s just another way to push censorship. You see a lot less criticism when the same thing is done for pornography and eroticism, even though there is no real hypothesis for why it would be any different.

nindalf 6y ago
While I don't think violent video games cause violence, it's not a completely ridiculous premise. Interactive video games require you to take and execute the decision yourself, putting yourself in the shoes of the player character. If you've played the Last of Us 1 or 2, you know what I'm talking about. If you saw it, it would affect you deeply. But actually doing those things hits so much harder. Is it possible that has a deeper effect on us compared to a movie? I don't know, but it's not a ridiculous proposition.
- jchw 6y ago
  Film was scary too at one point. And before that, books. The media became more sophisticated over time, and the moral panics always followed. Yes, this “new” media is interactive and immersive, but there has never been that much compelling evidence that increased immersion actually changes matters that much. I think VR may be an interesting test case in the near future as it is immersive enough to potentially be more traumatic and more unsettling... but that still doesn’t mean playing GTA or Doom increases your odds of going on a shooting spree. The fact that you can make potentially more impactful stories using more modern media seems neutral to me. But to be frank, you really desperately do not need modern technology and fancy graphics to make an incredibly emotional, impactful game. Just look at indie games like Undertale and Celeste.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    > Film was scary too at one point. And there have been many film-inspired murders. the mass shooting inspired by the Dark Night. John Hinckley’s assassination attempt on Reagan ( inspired by Taxi Driver ). John Lennon’s murder was inspired by The Catcher in the Rye! Here’s a link to some: https://www.newsweek.com/nine-horrible-real-life-crimes-were-inspired-movie-or-novel-583828 https://www.newsweek.com/nine-horrible-real-life-crimes-were... And remember, not all such incidents are famous. So doubtless there are more. There are sick people in the world who are indeed influenced by all sorts of media. this was the key idea behind A Clockwork Orange. Whether such media influences “healthy” people is another question.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rriepe 6y ago

Hacker News users aren't smart, we just type good

iso8859-1 6y ago
Wouldn't it be better to use an adverb here?
- rriepe 6y ago
  My bad. Message should read: Hacker News users aren't smartly, we just type good

SkyBelow 6y ago

No surprise. Even among scientists there is an issue where the level of critical review a paper gets is largely dependent upon how agreeable the findings are to the person reviewing it. This is a reason that even science isn't fully trustable in areas where personal beliefs are very strongly held. For one fun field, look at the level of criticism papers in parapsychology (the study of the paranormal) and compare it to if they get more criticism or not than the average paper in psychology. There is a particularly fun study (which I do not recall the name of) where two scientists teamed up, one who thought parapsychology was a true field and one who thought it was fake. They worked together on the same experiment and each produced results that agreed with them, but neither could find a flaw in the other's methodology or results (other than they disagree with their own results).

blululu 6y ago

There is certainly bias, however it is worth pointing out that the cited research is not rejecting the null hypothesis. Issues around sample size, methodology and study design are much more serious when a study claims to reject the null hypothesis where the burden of proof is considerably high. Furthermore, it was an almost universally accepted truth in the 90's that violent video games would lead to the total collapse of civil society (a claim that was asserted with no real evidence). The fact that a large number of people grew up with violent video games as children and now lead totally peaceful lives means that the result of this study is really not that shocking in light of people's priors.

lordCarbonFiber 6y ago

Link to the paper for anyone that wants to look more critically at the study. https://sci-hub.do/https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/cyber.2020.0049 https://sci-hub.do/https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.10...

lr4444lr 6y ago

You are not wrong generally about potential HN bias, but to be fair, the onus is on the people who believe video games are causative factors of violent behavior to first show correlation. If they can't even do that, then we are under no obligation to throw away the null hypothesis.

nathias 6y ago

I don't need a study to know that's true.

mattmaroon 6y ago

Even though I think there’s probably no causal link between video game violence and real violence, I feel I can safely condemn this study to the trash heap without reading it. There’s no chance it is at all scientific or ever had any chance of changing the minds of the people who ran it.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

Relevant comparison: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25575971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25575971