Moar anti-gaming propaganda !

Grumpypants

Right I must get up there is a building across the road that needs scaling

Mindkiller

God, I really wished I had a reverse time button. And an invisibility cloak. And force powers.

Retr0gamer

Grumpypants wrote: »

The researcher done it as a light hearted study though not as a games are bad one, he even slags of the idiot reporters for misrepresenting it. Reading the report it really does come across as a "its funny the way people think" study rather than a this is harming our kids one. He even said his own 7 year old plays games but knows the difference between reality and fiction.

It's still pretty bad that he's passing it off as proper research and charging for it. He knows what he's doing and making money from it. Very poor form from an academic. Whatever way you look at it, without proper control groups it's absolutely worthless.

Elrollo

Alfie Binyon:
I was badly addicted to GTA and people would ask me what I did today, I would think I've been out but I've been sat in at home. The problem got worse when Call of Duty Modern Warfare came out, spent a total of 32 days playing it and lost touch with reality.

My response to this hero

hooradiation

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's still pretty bad that he's passing it off as proper research and charging for it. He knows what he's doing and making money from it. Very poor form from an academic. Whatever way you look at it, without proper control groups it's absolutely worthless.

This is not true - it's perfectly valid to do research like this as a start to a theory. It helps to form the hypothesis.
If he was saying that this was conclusive proof of something, you'd have a point. But he's not.

Retr0gamer

Why publish a hypothesis though based on flakey research other than to generate controversy and get your face in the limelight? He's just trying to get some publicity and it's ethically wrong. You don't publish poor research like that, it's not even enough to be a communication.

Fnz

It's currently a 42-person study, limited to 15-21 year olds. Would be more interested in a larger study that includes participants in their 50s... what's the age of the average gamer, 38?

penev10

n0irin wrote: »

Actually there are a lot of people doing research on addiction to games, and it does seem like quite a real phenomenon in *extreme* cases. I mean, if you can get addicted to gambling, then why can't you get addicted to a game? It's not chemical addiction as it would be to drugs, but it's still addiction. .

Depends on your definition of addiction I suppose.There's a lot of debate on the nature of addiction and an over-willingness to medicalise the problem thus exhonerating the "victim".

I've seen studies that try to tie addictive behaviour to anything that stimulates certain pleasure centres in the brain! Tomato Kethcup is addictive allegedly!

n0irin wrote: »

In South Korea, there are plenty of rehab centres which deal with gaming addiction, as it's pretty common there..

There are methadone clinics all around the globe without a shred of credible evidence that such an approach treats heroin addiction.

There is also a clinic in Holland which purports to be leading the way in treating "video game addicts". Counselling teenagers with social and behavioural is only to be admired but claiming it treats a problem that doen't exist is ridiculous.

Retr0gamer

I think videogame addiction could definitely be legit. Stuff like the levelling up in CoD or WoW target people with OCD tendencies and addiction can be linked to the release of dopamine and adrenaline which can happen while playing an intense game. It's no secret that the big games companies have psychologist consultants to help make their games more addictive, although they'll never admit that it's what they are there for. You can see a lot of tactics used in the gambling industry making their way into games like CoD and Wow.

BrerWolf

I'm a BIG fan of games (mainly console, but I go back to the PC for serious ones...) but I have to admit that Games can be addictive.


Just like TV, sweets, exercise and anything else.

Setting up specialised game-addiction clinics is going too far, but pretending/insisting the problem doesn't exist is going too far in the opposite direction.

reallyrose

I completely believe that computer games are addictive. I guess I think that there are levels of addiction. I'm addicted to caffeine but if I had to go without it, I wouldn't be clawing the walls or robbing money from old ladies to buy coffee. However, without it I'm grouchy, unhappy and get headaches.
There's addiction and dependancy maybe?

A-ha! I found my point. Eventually.
"Addiction is not about what you DO, but what you DON'T DO because of the replacement of the addictive behavior."
If you don't cook yourself a nice dinner, or go out with your friends or go home from work early so that you can play computer games; that's a level of addiction. I'm not talking about the "omg, new game so awesome" effect. Everyone does that. I'm talking about continual behavior change because one is playing games.


Read more: 5 Creepy Ways Video Games Are Trying to Get You Addicted | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted_p2.html#ixzz1YgfX9bQV


Anyhoo, this is good reading. Scary reading too!
http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html

penev10

I know what you mean Retro but, and maybe I'm being too pedantic for this forum, if someone becomes obsessed by a game (or a game mechanic) it doesn't mean they're addicted to it.

This piece by Extra Creditz makes a nice differenciation between Compulsive and Addictive Gameplay:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/game-addiction-pt.1

hooradiation

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Why publish a hypothesis though based on flakey research other than to generate controversy and get your face in the limelight? He's just trying to get some publicity and it's ethically wrong. You don't publish poor research like that, it's not even enough to be a communication.

Why would you spend the time, effort and money to do a more studies to investigate the hypothesis further without being able to demonstrate that there may be something there to begin with?

And seeing as he's now spent time trying to put right some of the misconceptions that have arisen from articles that have mangled his findings I can't really put much stock in you constant claims that "he's being unethical!"

Retr0gamer

You present a hypothesis to funding agencies to get funding for further studies. You don't go giving it to the daily mail and other such papers to get yourself publicity to get funding since the papers will and have in this case presented your hypothesis as a well documented study when in fact it's nothing but a hypothesis. That's what makes it unethical. He released this to the papers to get publicity to try and further his plans to get funding and is now on damage control. It's his own fault his findings got mangled. I never heard of someone putting his hypothesis alone up on the university network or in the library and charging for it and I don't see how the papers got wind of it unless he purposefully told them about it. It's his own fault his findings got mangled from the press but sure that's the reason why you don't present a flakey hypothesis to the press. I hope the university ethics commitee go to town on him.

marco_polo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You present a hypothesis to funding agencies to get funding for further studies. You don't go giving it to the daily mail and other such papers to get yourself publicity to get funding since the papers will and have in this case presented your hypothesis as a well documented study when in fact it's nothing but a hypothesis. That's what makes it unethical. He released this to the papers to get publicity to try and further his plans to get funding and is now on damage control. It's his own fault his findings got mangled. I never heard of someone putting his hypothesis alone up on the university network or in the library and charging for it and I don't see how the papers got wind of it unless he purposefully told them about it. It's his own fault his findings got mangled from the press but sure that's the reason why you don't present a flakey hypothesis to the press. I hope the university ethics commitee go to town on him.

It was a pilot study published in the Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning. In all fairness there wouldn't be too many scientists left if university ethics commitees went after every one who studies were misreported by the Daily Mail.

Mr.Saturn

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think videogame addiction could definitely be legit. Stuff like the levelling up in CoD or WoW target people with OCD tendencies and addiction can be linked to the release of dopamine and adrenaline which can happen while playing an intense game. It's no secret that the big games companies have psychologist consultants to help make their games more addictive, although they'll never admit that it's what they are there for. You can see a lot of tactics used in the gambling industry making their way into games like CoD and Wow.

Microsoft's studios test their games like they're trying to make Captain America, vibration-measuring jelly (eeww-arrr), players hooked up to a
plethora of machinery scaling their blood pressure and brain activity at certain parts. Like you say, it's an industry built around turning people
into crack-addicts for months at a time. Somewhat hyperbolicly put.

Retr0gamer

marco_polo wrote: »

It was a pilot study published in the Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning. In all fhere wouldn't be too many scientists left if university ethics commitees went after every one who findings were misreported by the Daily Mail.

Ah I see it was published in a crappy journal. Explains a lot. I still don't think such a poor study that didn't have any control groups and even the sample group was questionable should have been published at all but if you plumb the depths of academic journals you can get anything published it seems. I wouldn't be surprised if the journal leaked it to the papers to try and raise it's impact factor

deathrider

AnCapaillMor wrote: »

It's just the 2000's version of hidden messages in songs, the media is making us so paranoid on everything.

If you play your games backwards, you hear satanic messages :P

Anyways, I usually dragon punch people I meet on the street. Does this count? :pac:

o1s1n

deathrider wrote: »

Anyways, I usually dragon punch people I meet on the street. Does this count? :pac:

Only if they're children. Because we have to think of them.

hooradiation

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You present a hypothesis to funding agencies to get funding for further studies. You don't go giving it to the daily mail and other such papers to get yourself publicity to get funding since the papers will and have in this case presented your hypothesis as a well documented study when in fact it's nothing but a hypothesis. That's what makes it unethical. He released this to the papers to get publicity to try and further his plans to get funding and is now on damage control. It's his own fault his findings got mangled. I never heard of someone putting his hypothesis alone up on the university network or in the library and charging for it and I don't see how the papers got wind of it unless he purposefully told them about it. It's his own fault his findings got mangled from the press but sure that's the reason why you don't present a flakey hypothesis to the press. I hope the university ethics commitee go to town on him.

Ahh, so you've already decided that it's unethical and that's that.
Fair enough.

Retr0gamer

I'm more surprised and disappointed now that such terrible work can get published in any journal.

hooradiation

Edit - ohh fuck it, whatever. I don't have the strength.

Retr0gamer

Well you don't publish a hypothesis without any decent results toback it up. As I said this isn't even a communication. It's garbage. It's in a journal with only 3 issues and no impact factor so they will publish any old crap. I'm disappointed that something this bad could get published in a peer reviewed journal considering it doesn't have the necessary results to consitute a paper let alone a communication. Until this professor ponys up some real research it's nothing but a hypothesis based on some flakey statements. It does cast the industry and hobby in a negative light but with no proper research behind it to back it up which is why it shouldn't be published unless there is concrete evidence.

Raze_them_all

Thanks to gaming I've saved earth numerous times from shao Khan, though no matter how many fatalities I use on him he always come back in the next tournament. Really getting me down!



Seriously whoever writes this can suck my left one, and whoever buys this ****e can attach their lips to the right one.

deathrider

o1s1n wrote: »

Only if they're children. Because we have to think of them.

But my mind is stuck in video game mode, so I'm expecting all kids to be indestructable.

Raze_them_all

deathrider wrote: »

But my mind is stuck in video game mode, so I'm expecting all kids to be indestructable.

play dead island.....

Mark Hamill

hooradiation wrote: »

Edit - ohh fuck it, whatever. I don't have the strength.

I'm curious, hooradiation, do you have any experience with peer review and the scientific process at all? Because it doesn't look like it.
For all we know, the author emailed 42 of his friends on Facebook with a questionnaire and is just publishing the coallated results. That he might just be trying to justify his hypothesis is ludicrous, as justifying testing a hypothesis by testing a hypothesis poorly with a view to testing it properly is nothing if not moot (its also possible, especially in the case of behavioural studies, that the poorly tested results may bias future tests participants). Also its not like he is trying to develop a new technology, and so needs to publish a communication to make sure he is known as its first inventor (not to mention that if bad studies could be used as justification for anything, why would we need good studies?).

How anyone could look at this papers situation and not think its junk is beyond me.

Hercule

I have written about 5 posts and then deleted them all - this article is drivel and there is nothing more to be said about it

Potential-Monke

How about we put this to rest for once and for all?

(Cyber)Hands up anyone who has woken up and believed that they were still in the dream...

hooradiation

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm curious, hooradiation, do you have any experience with peer review and the scientific process at all? Because it doesn't look like it.

As it happens, I have a little, but even if I didn't why would that matter?

We're on the games fourm where people with no idea how the games industry works or how games are made regularly pontificate about things they know nothing about.
Actually knowing what you're talking about around here is not a requirement.