Gaming & Levels Of Aggression - Help Please

[Tyrath]

We've already established that you don't understand the difference between what your posts say and the accompanying internal monologue that none of us can hear. People are holding you responsible for what you post, but we'll be sure to check in with your brain in the future.

And weren't you done with this? Don't deprive us of that pleasure.

[BaneTheBrawler]

on the subject of wonky surveys: i've done a lot of research studies as a participant, and every survey ive ever taken, including this one, has at least some pre-canned questions not intended for that specific subject matter, but borrowed anyway. in fact, in the trials, the surveys were identical, regardless of the company. and many of the questions were pretty fucking stupid to be asking someone with a chronic illness. for example: "Do you feel like you get sick more often than other people?" and "Do you feel like your health is worse than most people's?" Since both of those are demonstrably, objectively true, why the fuck are you asking me? And no, they're not actually asking about my physical health. Both of these questions are buried in the pre-canned mental health survey. They also have some ass-backwards ways of asking shit. For example, in the physical health portion, asking "how often you're embarrassed by" certain aspects of your illness (farting, shitting yourself, etc) instead of just asking how often it happens. Bitch, I've had this shit for 9 years. I had it as a teenager in High School. There is nothing this disease can do that will embarrass me anymore.


so, yeah. pre-canned surveys (even in chunks) are dumb. OP, you should tell your fiancee to just write her own survey from scratch next time, so she'll know the questions make sense in the context of the survey. If that's allowed. It probably isn't, though. Academia can be stupid.

[Sonomaa]

wut is going on in this thread

[quannum]

wut is going on in this thread

ksan needing to win an internet argument, nothing unusual.

[Ksandra]

We've already established that I don't understand the difference between what your posts say.

ftfy

I can understand you misunderstanding my post. I can't understand you misunderstanding it, me explaining it, and then you insisting my explanation is wrong. Again I never said "entire" that's your word not mine.

[Tyrath]

You're an idiot if you think saying "the field is going to utter shit" needs the word entire in it to mean the same thing. I'm just gonna chalk it up to the fact that you need to have the last word. So last word away after this one.

[Blubbartron]

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.

I have quite a lot of the symptoms of ASD, and people do bring up my anti-social behavior rather frequently, but I've never been officially diagnosed.

That said, and your lengthy response notwithstanding, psychology still isn't a real science. In real science you follow the scientific method (create hypotheses, design highly controlled experiments, perform them and analyze results), but in Psychology there's no such thing as a highly controlled experiment. All you can do is give surveys and try to observe people. The number of variables is practically limitless, and effectively impossible to control. The more uncontrolled variables there are, the less useful the results of the study are, and psychology can't even fucking define all the variables (granted, nothing can yet, but I guarantee you psychology won't achieve it first - neuroscience will).

Yes, there are overlapping branches of real sciences with these soft sciences. I haven't investigated much about cognitive neuroscience, but my hunch is that neuroscience expanded to the limit of its understanding/technological ability and had to fall back to a soft science to even attempt continuing to advance. It's a stopgap, essentially. I imagine it to be similar to how computer science and psychology intertwine, such as in the field of human-computer interaction. The end goal of science is to have a bi-directional interface directly between brain and computer. Human-computer interaction will never be able to achieve that because it's working from the psychological (soft) side of the problem instead of the scientific side of the problem. We don't need to understand why people think what they do if we simply understand how information is stored in the brain, and create a method of storing precise information using electronic signals.

Also, don't even get me started on that PPT you linked. What a load of garbage that is. Trying to justify psychology as a science by analyzing how many other psychologists are citing published psychology papers? The premise is bogus. And the researchers part was even more hilarious. Correlating people being researchers in various fields with whether or not their father is as well? LAWL. And if the IQ of the people doing the research determines whether or not what they're doing is science. Fucking please.

If that's the best argument you can come up with, there's no point even talking to you. You're clearly intelligent, but obviously misguided and lacking a basic ability to think scientifically (big shocker there, considering your field!).

[Jefe]

Max, is that you?

Anyway, answered as best as I could but I have a feeling the wheels came off when I only had one favourite game (w/e) <_<

[Moss]

"U guys just don't understand my definitions of 'all kinds of retarded' and 'utter shit.' Clearly the problem is your reading comprehension lolz."

[wipers]

wut is going on in this thread

Nothing of value was said.

[Oreth]

Sorry been busy last day or two. Really appreciate all the surveys taken and my Fiancee sends on her utmost thanks.

[Skyylya]

The real study was seeing how gamers aggression, stubbornness, and need to be right played out in this thread. The Survey was just the bait.

Fun read.