4 ms·

I've read this study before and I couldn't analyse it in the detail it probably warrants - but I couldn't help but think that this meta study deliberately ignor

I've read this study before and I couldn't analyse it in the detail it probably warrants - but I couldn't help but think that this meta study deliberately ignores that teenage boys going through puberty may correlate with these changes. If you don't consider something that's been understood for thousands of years its probably disingenuous.

pygy_ 15y ago
I can't read the article either, but you make a lot of assumptions here. One of them supposes that the authors are idiots, and another one is simply wrong. Whatever the design, studies without proper control groups are useless. People who do and review meta-analysis are very aware of methodological pitfalls, and the likelihood of seeing a meta-analysis based on such papers is extremely small. The abstract also mentions that there is no gender effect, barring the "boys" part of your "teenage boys" argument.
- greendestiny 15y ago
  No I mean I have read the article, I just didn't go that into depth. And it very explicitly points out that there is a gender effect. The author has made a career being the academic against violent games - you don't need to be an idiot to have an agenda.
  - pygy_ 15y ago
    Edit: a link to the full text is posted in this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2880901 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2880901 -- The paper reports no significant sex effect: -- There was no evidence that the VGV effect on aggressive behavior differed for males and females (ps .10). The VGV effect was slightly larger for females in experimental and longitudinal studies and was slightly larger for males in the crosssectional studies, but none of these differences were significant. -- The age effect is only borderline significant: -- Average age of the participants was not significantly related to the VGV effect sizes in experimental or longitudinal studies ( ps .50). However, it is important to note that there were no longitudinal studies on participants older than 16. For crosssectional studies there was a marginally significant effect of age (b .005, Z 1.82, p .07). Studies with older participants tended to yield slightly smaller effect sizes than did those with younger participants -- Anyone with a dash of understanding of the human mind wouldn't find these results surprising, BTW. Even if you're able to make the difference between real life and games, acting violently in virtual environments trains your brain to react more violently in general. BTW, I don't have any personal bias against violent video games. -- Initial post, before the editions: Indeed, then, and I'm a bit surprised that the peer review accepted an abstract that contradicts the content of the paper. Is the journal also biased against violent games?
    - greendestiny 15y ago
      I think peer review is a very basic hurdle in the research process. The results are then up for review - and that's what we're doing here in a minor way. In the section that really matters, violent behaviour, results seem massively skewed in favour of results from cross-sectional studies. Experimental and longitudinal studies showed strong sex differences. All non-experimental (and no doubt some of the experimental) studies were strongly subject to self-selection. None of the longitudinal studies were done on subjects over 16. Just because its a meta-study doesn't mean it isn't subject to massive flaws. Does anything in there reliably address the issue of correlation versus causation. Most people play video games - if I was a violent person surely that would be my entertainment of choice right?

pygy_ 15y ago

I can't read the article either, but you make a lot of assumptions here. One of them supposes that the authors are idiots, and another one is simply wrong. Whatever the design, studies without proper control groups are useless. People who do and review meta-analysis are very aware of methodological pitfalls, and the likelihood of seeing a meta-analysis based on such papers is extremely small. The abstract also mentions that there is no gender effect, barring the "boys" part of your "teenage boys" argument.

greendestiny 15y ago
No I mean I have read the article, I just didn't go that into depth. And it very explicitly points out that there is a gender effect. The author has made a career being the academic against violent games - you don't need to be an idiot to have an agenda.
- pygy_ 15y ago
  Edit: a link to the full text is posted in this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2880901 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2880901 -- The paper reports no significant sex effect: -- There was no evidence that the VGV effect on aggressive behavior differed for males and females (ps .10). The VGV effect was slightly larger for females in experimental and longitudinal studies and was slightly larger for males in the crosssectional studies, but none of these differences were significant. -- The age effect is only borderline significant: -- Average age of the participants was not significantly related to the VGV effect sizes in experimental or longitudinal studies ( ps .50). However, it is important to note that there were no longitudinal studies on participants older than 16. For crosssectional studies there was a marginally significant effect of age (b .005, Z 1.82, p .07). Studies with older participants tended to yield slightly smaller effect sizes than did those with younger participants -- Anyone with a dash of understanding of the human mind wouldn't find these results surprising, BTW. Even if you're able to make the difference between real life and games, acting violently in virtual environments trains your brain to react more violently in general. BTW, I don't have any personal bias against violent video games. -- Initial post, before the editions: Indeed, then, and I'm a bit surprised that the peer review accepted an abstract that contradicts the content of the paper. Is the journal also biased against violent games?
  - greendestiny 15y ago
    I think peer review is a very basic hurdle in the research process. The results are then up for review - and that's what we're doing here in a minor way. In the section that really matters, violent behaviour, results seem massively skewed in favour of results from cross-sectional studies. Experimental and longitudinal studies showed strong sex differences. All non-experimental (and no doubt some of the experimental) studies were strongly subject to self-selection. None of the longitudinal studies were done on subjects over 16. Just because its a meta-study doesn't mean it isn't subject to massive flaws. Does anything in there reliably address the issue of correlation versus causation. Most people play video games - if I was a violent person surely that would be my entertainment of choice right?