Gaming & Levels Of Aggression - Help Please

[Uzor]

I filled it out too. I agree, some of them was a bit weird, why have a list with 1-7 on the last page instead of following the same format previous ones did with boxes etc.?

[Mina]

I filled it out as well.

I think though a lot of my psychological problems sprout from my family and what was done to me as a child and not so much video games lol.

[SephYuyX]

If you're trying to link vidyas and aggression, this is probably the wrong forum lol.

Most the people on here will list FFXI as their #1; After hunting kings, and other shitty dynamics for over 10 years, we have learned patience and how to deal with getting shit in the face in a semi-calm manor.

1) FFXI
2) Phantasy Star Online
3) Ragnarok Online
4) Worms Armageddon
5) Unreal Tournament 2K3

[wipers]

damn I was hoping you had ragequit problems

This I am disappointed.

[Mina]

After hunting kings, and other shitty dynamics for over 10 years, we have learned patience and how to deal with getting shit in the face in a semi-calm manor.

This post pretty much sums up what I was thinking as I was doing the test, lol.

[Senji]

Totally thought this was a "Halp me BG with my domestic abuse problems" thread all the way until the thesis bit.

[Ksandra]

But as i mentioned she didnt pick the individual questions herself it was put together from previously published surveys that have been used for other students PHDs / published papers etc. As this is only degree level that is the way it is done from what she tells me. Over here anyways.

And this is why psychology is all kinds of retarded lol.

I get the feeling this is how they come up with the whole "VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES MAKE VIOLENCE" stuff, when correlation =/= causation.

I would say video games tend to relax me, any of the questions dealing with arguments has more to do with my love of debating politics rofl.

But there's no way for them to get that from the survey.

[Blubbartron]

And this is why psychology is all kinds of retarded lol.

I get the feeling this is how they come up with the whole "VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES MAKE VIOLENCE" stuff, when correlation =/= causation.

I would say video games tend to relax me, any of the questions dealing with arguments has more to do with my love of debating politics rofl.

But there's no way for them to get that from the survey.

This is exactly why all of the soft sciences are bullshit. Science wants to quantify, group, calculate, etc, but Sociology, Psychology, Economics, etc are dealing with people and people are not easily grouped or quantified. People are complex. They're trying to take 100% subjective (and incomplete) data and use it as if its objective and complete.

You can use the data to make probabilistic statements with a decent level of accuracy, but nobody wants to read headlines like "60% chance of middle-aged white male who plays in excess of 5 hours per day of competitive video games becoming so enraged he breaks things from time to time". They want to read the headline that says "middle-aged white gamers are extremely violent".

[Cliron]

Great review of the science of Psychology. Judging the entire science based on a poorly constructed final year thesis.

What fallacy is that again? Composition/division?

[Mina]

What fallacy is that again? Composition/division?

Can be. It hits a lot of different fallacies depending on the way you look at it.

Also depending on how this is used in the thesis it could be a faulty/hasty generalization which is where I am assuming this is going to lead up to. Still I was honest in all my answers although I think my responses will prove unfruitful for anyone.

[Ksandra]

Great review of the science of Psychology. Judging the entire science based on a poorly constructed final year thesis.

What fallacy is that again? Composition/division?

You must be a psychology major.

[Xajii]

Great review of the science of Psychology. Judging the entire science based on a poorly constructed final year thesis.

What fallacy is that again? Composition/division?

yeah, no offense, but the issue here isn't that psychology is bullshit, it's that this is a really badly designed survey.

some constructive critique:

1. so many repetitive questions, and you give the subject the opportunity to contradict themselves a ton, rendering collected data useless
2. absolutely nothing about this survey will do anything to repel the simple fact that correlation does not imply causation
3. really awful way of collecting data on gaming habits - name your top 5 games ever played then tell me how often you've played them in the last year, then only describe 2 of them (with different criteria lol)
4. making the survey so awfully formatted to cause aggression in the person taking it doesn't help
5. depending on where else you solicited from, there could be some major selection bias

[Cliron]

You must be a psychology major.

Actually I work in psychology research. The NIH (National Institute of Drug abuse specifically) funded study I'm working on is improving the efficacy of office-based buprenorphine treatment for people with opioid addiction.

I also work on other projects that look at behavioural/cognitive changes to increase medication adherence.

But yeah, increasing cancer survival rates, or decreasing the spread of tuberculuois (because there are many subjective complicated factors that are involved in medication adherence), all the while trying to decrease cost on your health system (less people in hospital, less people needing more than one transplant because they aren't adherent enough to their immunosuppresent medication)...."is all kinds of retarded lol".

[Omniyoji]

God so many wasted hours in FFXI and it's not even as much as most people's playtime...

[Blubbartron]

Great review of the soft science of Psychology. Judging the entire soft science based on a poorly constructed final year thesis.

What fallacy is that again? Composition/division?

Fixed that for you. Psychology isn't real science.

Actually I work in psychology research. The NIH (National Institute of Drug abuse specifically) funded study I'm working on is improving the efficacy of office-based buprenorphine treatment for people with opioid addiction.

I also work on other projects that look at behavioural/cognitive changes to increase medication adherence.

But yeah, increasing cancer survival rates, or decreasing the spread of tuberculuois (because there are many subjective complicated factors that are involved in medication adherence), all the while trying to decrease cost on your health system (less people in hospital, less people needing more than one transplant because they aren't adherent enough to their immunosuppresent medication)...."is all kinds of retarded lol".

As I stated in my previous post, the data can be used to make probabilistic statements, which could then be used to make percent-based improvements in the things you mentioned. However, as I've noted several times now, Psychology is a soft science and therefore provides no answers. It doesn't tell us why we do things, and therefore can't be used to change what things we do with certainty. It takes massive amounts of data, analyzes the hell out of it, and then makes claims that are misunderstood by the vast majority of people because the vast majority of people don't understand the bullshit that is statistics.

Neuroscience is an actual science that will be infinitely more valuable than Psychology as the field grows. Eventually we'll have mapped the brain so well, and have such advanced imaging techniques that we'll be able to literally watch a decision being made in someone's brain. Beats the shit out of "why don't you tell me how you feel?"

[Cliron]

Not to suffer from 'ad hominem' but are you on the Austim Spectrum Disorder spectrum?

Because if so, I'll understand that it would take a huge amount of work to try to show to you that things aren't just black and white.


"Psychology isn't real science": Please explain to me how this is the case. Things are rarely black and white. The sciences lies on multiple spectrums based on how you categorise them. E.g. Math is generally known as the 'purist' science...but there is huge differentiation between math and say biology.

Specific to psychology, there was this amazing graph (that it is killing me that I cant find) that clearly showed where comparative place to other sciences based on things like (laws vs theories, peer evaluated articles, dependence on citation etc etc). The graph showed that psychology is closer compared to other STEM disciplines than other social sciences.

I quickly found a link to a pdf deck that provides data on the issue (although its a horribly constructed presentation)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...60444564,d.aWc

If that doesnt work try googling (Is Psychological Science a STEM Discipline?) its a presentation from psychology.ucdavis.edu.

So yeah, psychology = science.

Unfortunately psychology suffers from a rich history of pseudoscience and questionable ethics. This has had a lasting effect on how people construe psychology (you'd be surprised with how many people think that Freudian based practices are still wide spread). The domain of psychology is broad, with many sub disciplines (as the study of behaviour and mental processes of humans, its going to be varied; just as biology is broken up into its relevant domains).

Now. Often people might join these two things together in some way to come to a negative generalised understanding of what psychology is. E.g. "Well, like, I met this paranormal psychologist, who was also really interested in Freud's theories and like, and I once heard that like, one psychologist named zimbardo did some fucked up studies......I think psychology is a load of shite, its not a real science'.
Another example would be 'I played Final Fantasy X-2. The storyline sucked and the job Thief sucked too. Therefore, I hate all Final Fantasy games/ All RPGs/ etc'

You quoted my post, and then wrote alot about percentage based gains and then said..."It doesn't tell us why we do things, and therefore can't be used to change what things we do with certainty."

I really don't know what to say to this except, durh? As you mentioned humans are incredibly complex, of course there is going to be variance. Does it make it any less legitimate to study something that doesn't have certainties? If you are looking to understand the complexities of behaviour in yes or no/ black or white you aren't going to find it, and as a discipline psychology doesn't claim to answer such things in such a manner.

I personally find it exciting to try to consider the different variables involved in complicated behaviours (such as drug abuse, or non-optimal medication adherence). For example, today I'm looking into how prior buprenorphine treatment experiences may influence current or prospective buprenorphine treatment outcomes. E.g. How does having experience of using the drug and going through the treatment process effect how you will go through it again.


I'd also wonder about your understanding of what neuroscience is. Psychology and neuroscience aren't either/ or. Within Psychology (or within Neuroscience) there are overlapping branches (Cognitive neuroscience for example).

I'd posit that you saw the word 'neuro' and the word 'science' and came to the conclusion that it must be a really good science because it has the word neuro in it.

[SephYuyX]

Not to suffer from 'ad hominem' but are you on the Austim Spectrum Disorder spectrum?

Because if so, I'll understand that it would take a huge amount of work to try to show to you that things aren't just black and white.

OH SNAP SON
He just straight up dissed yo ass, with fake science.

[Ksandra]

Actually I work in psychology research.

All we needed to know.

[Tyrath]

And this is why psychology is all kinds of retarded lol.

This is the single most uninformed comment I've read on BG this week. Which is saying something seeing as Blubbartron posted in this thread.

Someone is doing it wrong and I don't understand it. The whole field must be retarded.

[Cliron]

All we needed to know.

http://static.existentialcomics.com/...allacyMan1.jpg

Way to be mature enough to make idiotic comments about something you apparently don't know too much about then, when being made aware of them to find fault with the author.

I suppose you're haughty argumentative skills were expended when people were talking about undermining your husband's livelihood in the google glass thread. You were very vocal then.

Tres distasteful.