backtop


Print 221 comment(s) - last by Jem.. on Jan 28 at 10:25 PM

A new study claims to have found modest links between video game play and poor relationships

Video games are either the scourge of the Earth or a great way to spend some time with friends and family as well as an outlet for aggression depending on who you speak with. There have been many studies that have looked into the effects of video games on behavior and the studies have come down on all sides of the issue.

A new study claims to have found modest links between video games and poor relationships with family and friends. The study is from Brigham Young University undergrad student Alex Jensen and his faculty mentor Laura Walker. The results of the study were published in the January 23 issue of the Journal of Youth and Adolescence.

The study was based on the responses and information collected from 813 college students across the country. The study results reportedly found that as the time spent playing video games goes up, the relationships with peers and parents went down.

Walker said in a statement, "It may be that young adults remove themselves from important social settings to play video games, or that people who already struggle with relationships are trying to find other ways to spend their time. My guess is that it's some of both and becomes circular."

Jensen says he hoped to find justification for playing Madden NFL and Walker said the study results didn’t stand in the way of her family getting a Wii. The pair points these facts out as a way to show they are not anti-video game one could assume.

A statistical analysis also revealed that young adults who play video games more frequently also tend to undertake risky behaviors like drinking and drug abuse. Young women who play video games were also found more likely to have lower self-worth.

Walker says, "Relationship quality is one of a cluster of things that we found to be modestly associated with video games. The most striking part is that everything we found clustered around video game use is negative."

Video games and their link to violent behavior is one of the favorite study topics. A study from November of 2007 found no link between video games and violent behavior.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No credibility.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/23/2009 10:10:22 AM , Rating: 4
The university and its students have an agenda. If you don't know what I mean, look up Brigham Young University on the web. I've met and known several graduates from there and can safely say the agenda seems to be universal.

While I see their thinly veiled attempt to justify they aren't anti-game, their study and their comments in regards to it makes it blatant they do not approve of it. Not surprising when you consider where the student body and faculty are from.

I've no problem with them personally, but I don't like it when groups stack the deck and make reaching conclusions to support their agendas.




RE: No credibility.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/23/2009 10:13:09 AM , Rating: 4
Here's what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_Univers...
Read the first 2 paragraphs. 'nuff said.


RE: No credibility.
By TSS on 1/23/2009 10:48:47 AM , Rating: 3
looking at the page i was more struck by one of the unofficial motto's:

"Enter to learn, go forth to serve"

bootcamp sprung to mind.

in any case, it's not so bad. atleast nowerdays this study won't be taken up by jack thompson who spreads his face all over the news.


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/2009 11:38:55 AM , Rating: 1
So i suppose anyone wanting to serve man-kind should be feared and miss treated and spoken against ehh?

How about finding out how many awesome things have been invented LDS people or had LDS people on the research teams. Do you like potatoes? All modern farming techniques for them were invented by LDS farmers. They also came up with numerous new methods for dry-land farming and irrigation.

Since when is wanting to be a service to the human race rather than a drain on society that leeches of the system a bad thing?

Please loose your anti-LDS notions. You've probably never done anything so much as accepted as fact the hearsay that has been preached against us to you your whole life. What the heck is wrong with you that it is alarming to you that people should want to be helpful and useful? *That* is the disturbing thing.


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 11:58:07 AM , Rating: 1
Please prove your extraordinary claims. The potato has only been in European hands for around 450 years, I think the Chileans figured out a few things about potatoes being that they come from there. Even if it is truth, should we attribute the many things discovered in the past to Christians and Catholics because the people who made these discoveries happened to be of one of those faiths?


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 2:27:03 PM , Rating: 4
I suggest you provide proof for your claim or blow it out your rectum. Also, try answering the question I put forth, as it was not rhetorical.


RE: No credibility.
By borismkv on 1/23/2009 5:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt the Chileans developed the modern Irrigation and farming techniques that are used in Potato farming today. But if you have a Time Machine I'm sure we can go check.


RE: No credibility.
By BrockSamson on 1/23/2009 7:02:37 PM , Rating: 5
I love the internet. Where else can an article about video games and their possible connections to real life relationships turn into personal attacks about peoples knowledge about the history of the potato and methods of farming it. This is awesome.


RE: No credibility.
By xeutonmojukai on 1/23/2009 11:20:25 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. This is absolutely an example of a red herring fallacy at its most blatant. Well done. As a tutor for a logic and critical thinking college class, I will be sure to refer my students to this site.


RE: No credibility.
By Cuhulainn on 1/25/2009 9:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
I don't recommend it, they may be overwhelmed by the scope and scale of fallacy and broken logic employed by so many here.

Video games are bad, mmmkay?
You are a mormon, so you don't count.
But we farm potatoes!


RE: No credibility.
By MrPoletski on 1/26/2009 3:18:45 AM , Rating: 2
well its all tit for tat really.
(..groan)


RE: No credibility.
By borismkv on 1/23/2009 5:48:49 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously, dude, you should have gone with the Television. Philo T. Farnsworth was a Mormon, educated at BYU.


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By borismkv on 1/23/2009 7:22:04 PM , Rating: 3
Yes you do. I have video to prove it :P


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/2009 11:09:23 PM , Rating: 1
I could have also gone with Quadraphonic sound.


RE: No credibility.
By bubbastrangelove on 1/23/2009 12:59:37 PM , Rating: 4
No offense but claiming farming techniques for potatoes as being a lofty contribution to mankind is kind of like going around saying you invented the spoon.

We wouldn't all be nose deep in a bowl of chicken noodle lapping it out if it weren't for your marvelous revelation.

BTW - irrigation techniques have been around since early Sumerians.


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By barjebus on 1/23/2009 3:33:36 PM , Rating: 5
I looked up dry land techniques and the only things I've found were references to Russian Mennonites around the early 1800's. Was your religion even made up, er, I mean, "discovered", yet?

I would actually suggest that the Jews are the ones who are the major innovators when it comes to farming land that wouldn't normally yield edible crops since they have spent vast amounts of money, time, and research converting their deserts into arable land.

In that case do we start praising the Jewish people for all their inventions (and ludicrous numbers of Noble Prize wins?). As someone stated earlier, do we now thank Christianity for all the inventions of the Middle Ages, or the Muslims for their advances in medicine before the Christians stole those ideas during the crusades?

If I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, and I invent something amazing, does my religion gain credibility?

Nope.


RE: No credibility.
By bubbastrangelove on 1/23/2009 3:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
Where exactly did I say you claimed something else besides dry-farming?


RE: No credibility.
By zsejk on 1/26/2009 7:39:08 AM , Rating: 2
You said

quote:
Do you like potatoes? All modern farming techniques for them were invented by LDS farmers.


Note the word "all". Or are you going to now finally expand further on what "modern" entails exactly?

But by the gods... I do hope someone else didn't point this out below or above yet... it would immediately discredit me.

;)

-zsejk


RE: No credibility.
By Crysalis99 on 1/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: No credibility.
By ninjaquick on 1/23/2009 1:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
too late?


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By Vanderoh on 1/23/2009 2:05:40 PM , Rating: 5
You need to relax.

Go play a video game.


RE: No credibility.
By Crysalis99 on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 2:36:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I agree they do mix. I belive in the theory of evolution AND creationism, both to some degree. Do I believe the earth is merely 6-7 thousand years old? Do I believe that the universe was created in just 6 days (our time)? No! But do I believe the earth is six thousand years old in God's time? Do I belive the earth was created in 6 days, God's time? Yes!


Don't know the book very well do you? You can claim "god time" for the first few "days", but that all goes out the window when he clearly sets reference for night and day by Earth's standard, which is 24 hours. Also says he created man and beast at the same time, so clearly it is an amazing book.

quote:
I believe that everything is true.


Obviously. Try only accepting things with evidence or proof, you get a lot farther in life. You don't need to believe in evolution any more than you need to believe in addition or gravity. You are not a factor in whether they exist or not, don't be so self centered. Honestly it sounds like you smoke a lot of pot and come up with hair brained silliness. What if god caused the big bang? Then what caused god? A deity is not needed in our equations, so no need to shoe horn him in there my apologist friend. Also, why would a deity need evolution if he created everything perfectly? He created man in his image, even though original man looked much different? Why are neanderthals never mentioned? Why would he never bring up the transition through evolution? Or the crossbreeding that happened between our early ancestors and apes? Interesting indeed.

As for the rest, yes, he is completely full of it and the Mormons have brainwashed him to think they invented all this amazing stuff.


RE: No credibility.
By Crysalis99 on 1/23/2009 3:47:03 PM , Rating: 2
You're forgetting one key point though. The Bible was written by man. While the over all message of the good Book is the Lords, the writing is mans. And besides, I have always felt, since I grew to the age of reason, that the Bible was not meant to be taken as literal as most tend to see it. A helluva lot of the stuff in there really is open to interpretation.

But to what you said...you're telling me its ok to kill in the name of God (everything from Christian Crusades to current day fanatics) when one of the 10 commandments is even thou shall not kill while when God says but when God says there are an exact amount of time in a day, we need to obey that? What if God said that it took 2 cyclyes of night and day to equal one 24 hour period?

Also another thing, God is infinite. Time has no meaning to God. Perhaps he said those things just so we could wrap our heads around it, untill we were able to derive the truth for ourselves at least.


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By Parhel on 1/23/2009 4:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
Your 100 post per day crusade is starting to get pathetic. Don't you have anything else to do?


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By Crysalis99 on 1/23/2009 8:41:34 PM , Rating: 1
I have nothing better to do. Then again, I was just laid off a week and a half ago, so go figure.

On topic, personally, I feel the Book is just one big metaphor for doing what is right, believing in some higher power of goodness. For all we know, God could be gravity...

I also feel, sometimes, that ALOT of ORGANIZED religon is nothing but pure mind control. Telling you what you can do, when you can do it and with whom you can do it. GLBT's should get the same respect as any hetrosexual and any other racey issue along with that.


RE: No credibility.
By stonemetal on 1/23/2009 8:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you miss the part about it being god's word? If you take it figurative, how do you know what to take figurative and what to take literal?


Here is a hint, go read the first four books of the new testament. The part where Jesus dies. Pay attention to detail, time of day who was present the order in which things happen. Have fun reconciling the literalness of the bible since no two accounts are the same(In fact one of them doesn't even mention his death.)


RE: No credibility.
By ekv on 1/24/2009 4:41:56 AM , Rating: 2
Four different authors. The "synoptic" gospels, of course, present a synopsis of Jesus Christ and his ministry here on Earth.

I'm curious, are you suggesting that because 4 different people give 4 different accounts that somehow the event -- the crucifixion of Jesus Christ -- did not occur?


RE: No credibility.
By wordsworm on 1/24/2009 8:01:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Bible was written by man. While the over all message of the good Book is the Lords, the writing is mans.


That's just because God is illiterate. If only Jesus had known how to read and write, how differently the Good Book might have been!

But seriously, that book is so filled with things that we would abhor in a modern society - Christian or not. Christians simply cherry pick the things they want to follow and ignore the rest.

The real issue that the article refers to, that of people being poor socially as a result of video games cannot really be studied properly. We do not know how social or anti-social these people would have been had these games not existed. It could equally be suggested that these people might not have wanted to socialize at all, for whatever reason(s), and that games in fact make them far more social than they would have been otherwise.

We could take another activity, such as study or writing, and suggest many of the same things. People who study tend to live in books, those who write often live in the library, at home or in public, then pen their thoughts and imaginations on paper. Perhaps a study of these kinds of people would reveal a similar conclusion. Emily Dickinson would be an extreme example of someone who scarcely ventured out of her home. Her writing made her famous only posthumously. What would her life have been without her writing? She lived in the fiction that she wrote. Would she, having no paper or pen to apply her art to, have simply vegetated in her home otherwise? If she were around today with all these modern contrivances, perhaps she would have found greater social through gaming and all the other many forms of social networking that exist. Perhaps she may have occasionally ventured out of her home more, we simply cannot understand fully if there's a negative or positive effect on the social habits of those who play games. But will BYU or any university come out and say that studying is antisocial?

BYU has an agenda: videogames are damaging their congregations. They promote non-Christian beliefs.

What gets me about Moronism is that it hates literature and music except for its own warbled hymns or propaganda scheme. You want to talk about damage that Moronism has done to the world? Let's talk about the fact that the drug war started in Utah and the Morons. Because of this, the genesis of what would become the most expensive infringement against a person's own control over their own body was begun, trillions in taxes have been spent in the modern day witch hunt. That they promote "One nation under God," which is certainly extremist and no different than any extreme out of Islam or other zionistic religion.


RE: No credibility.
By lecanard on 1/26/2009 3:30:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What gets me about Moronism is that it hates literature and music except for its own warbled hymns or propaganda scheme


Wow, I had no idea that Shakespeare plays, Harry Potter books, and PC Magazines and all the other things the Mormons I know like to read were part of our "propaganda scheme". Or that the music we like by, for example, the Beatles, REM, Muse, and Beethoven were our hymns. For that matter, how is does going door-to-door and proselyting amount to a scheme exactly? We walk around and talk to people about our beliefs. Whoever misinformed you on our taste in literature and music, or how to spell Mormon for that matter, is the one who is scheming.


RE: No credibility.
By lecanard on 1/26/2009 4:27:05 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, my other post was a bit sarcastic. I don't want to make fun of you, just point out that your information on Mormons is incorrect.


RE: No credibility.
By wordsworm on 1/26/2009 9:05:50 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not bothered. You do know it was Utah that started the war on drugs which has turned the US into the country with the most people in prison per capita?

Do you also not accept the fact that BYU had an agenda in its study, and that perhaps studying itself might lead to all the same conclusions as they did on gaming?

All Puritanical religions are problematic for freedom and are responsible for many of the problems in the world. A lot of folks I've met through LDS are white supremacists in all but name, sharing many of the same values.


RE: No credibility.
By Vanners on 1/27/2009 12:45:08 AM , Rating: 2
So the law against growing hemp wasn't a ploy by the cotton-growers to remove the competition like I had been informed? Well, ya unlearn something every day!

Did I miss the connection where someone studying at BYU needs to have an agenda (or needs to be a Mormon for that matter)?

Funny how the papers I wrote at Curtin University were not criticised for having a religious agenda - I guess they just don't think that way in Australia.

I'm a Mormon, I live the religion and also spend significant amounts of my spare time playing computer games - so do my wife and kids. <sarcasm>But don't let my bishop know, he may excommunicate me!</sarcasm>

Seriously, an agenda? Give me a break!

I agree in critisising the paper he wrote. The cause and effect are highly suspect, and it does not appear the online community was looked at as being part of the social network and therefore a positive contribution, but from what I gather he's an undergrad so I'm not expecting great things from his paper - give him a break and critique his findings, not his lifestyle.

Also, please note the difference between freedom and anarchy - imposing a penalty for negative behaviour is not limiting freedom but raising the stakes of bad choices to a point where individuals might recognise a personal risk in the choices they are making (and will continue to make, the law notwithstanding).


RE: No credibility.
By wordsworm on 1/27/2009 1:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
If a Nazi wrote about the evils of Jews, I would say that the study is suspect because of his beliefs. If a Mormon writes a paper about games, I say it's suspect because of his beliefs.

"Also, please note the difference between freedom and anarchy - imposing a penalty for negative behaviour is not limiting freedom but raising the stakes of bad choices to a point where individuals might recognise a personal risk in the choices they are making (and will continue to make, the law notwithstanding)."

So how about outlawing Mormons and their churches? Why not ban religion altogether? Certainly more people have died fighting over religions than by using drugs. Talk about negatives... or, how about we form a tolerant society where you can have your church, not go to jail, and I can order an ounce of MJ to be delivered to my door and smoked in my house without fear of police? If you should have rights protecting you, why not the same for me?


RE: No credibility.
By KashGarinn on 1/26/2009 3:36:22 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also another thing, God is infinite.


I think you mean God isn't real, same as santa claus and the easter bunny. Thought I'd correct ya there ol' buddy.

The sooner we remove "God" and accept that it is we who decide what arbitrary morals to follow, it is we who decide to help each other, and that it is we who mold our future, the better.


RE: No credibility.
By tim851 on 1/26/2009 11:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have always felt, since I grew to the age of reason, that the Bible was not meant to be taken as literal as most tend to see it.


For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

-- Revelation 22:18,19

Now tell me that's not saying you should take it literally. And it might only apply to the Book of Revelation, but if you can the Gothic stuff in there for real, the rest should be a breeze.


RE: No credibility.
By foolsgambit11 on 1/23/2009 4:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, of course. True religion and true science mix perfectly, since they're both the same thing. That thing is called 'science.'


RE: No credibility.
By Shining Arcanine on 1/23/2009 2:14:04 PM , Rating: 4
I really think that science and politics do not mix well and that religion and science have far more in common, but that is just my opinion.


RE: No credibility.
By Crysalis99 on 1/23/2009 2:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
I agree wholeheartedly. I just said that because the first time someone brings *God* into the picture, people tend to get up in arms against Bible Thumpers. At least God still has a home in politics, even if it is diminishing these days due to seperation of church and state.


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 2:39:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
At least God still has a home in politics, even if it is diminishing these days due to seperation of church and state.


Legally he doesn't, according to that little thing we call the Constitution. But, religious people have been wiping their ass with that for years. You do remember the part of the bible that clearly states to follow the law of the land, right? Well the law of the land here in America is separation of church and state, so lets keep it that way.


RE: No credibility.
By Reclaimer77 on 1/23/2009 2:47:08 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong again.

The Constitutional separation of church and state was to prevent the government from setting up and running a national federal church. Because there was a Church Of England and our Forefathers wanted NONE of that nonsense over here.

It has nothing to do with prayer in federal buildings or paintings of Jesus on courthouses. And if you honestly thought the Forefathers had or would have a problem with these, then you don't really have the chops to bring up the Constitution.


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 2:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong again.


I would say the same to you. Thomas Jefferson came up with the idea and the letter he wrote stated he wanted "a wall of separation" between church and state. Seems pretty straight forward, don't you think? James Madison stated "a total separation of the church from the state". So, as you can see, a total separation was desired.

Now, does that mean they can't practice wherever they please? No, I was merely stating they cannot use government as a funnel for their religion. No state lead prayer, no government funding, no nativity scenes that were funded by the state and if they have them up they must allow anyone else to do the same or allow none.


RE: No credibility.
By Reclaimer77 on 1/23/2009 5:11:51 PM , Rating: 3
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

From the first Amendment. The words 'separation of church and state' never actually appear in the Constitution.

We could argue about this until we are blue in the face. I notice every time someone brings up their faith here, Gzus, you jump on them like they are the biggest scum on the earth. And while I am not Christian myself, I never understood why someone felt the need to bash them or make them feel small. If it offends you so much that someone can believe in something bigger than themselves, without your vaunted "proof", then I guess you missed the whole point of faith.

What we are seeing today, and what you support, is nothing more than the use of the Supreme Court to constantly "interpret" the Constitution and make judgments for purely political reasons. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it state you have freedom FROM religion. You have the freedom OF religion. And nowhere does it state a separation of church and state. ALL that is stated is that the Government would not set up and fund a church.

I don't know exactly when it started, but over the past few decades I have noticed people have somehow gotten this idea in their heads that they have a RIGHT to not be offended by something. Wrong.


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 5:31:46 PM , Rating: 1
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_ind...

It is about.com, so I would hope you would have no objections.

As for being offended, I'm not. Why does arguing with someone and asking for things to be fair mean I'm offended? As stated, I have no issues with people practicing their religion or doing what they want to practice it as long as it doesn't involve government funding or try to take away my rights by pushing religious ideals.

But as stated, don't expect freedom from ridicule for having those beliefs. I would never want them to be forced to not have their beliefs or have laws introduced as such, but I will present the reasons the belief is silly as clearly atheists have got the short end of the stick for a long time and it is about time they had a bit of their own medicine. But instead of burning them at the stake or having an inquisition like the barbarians that they are, we respond with words.


RE: No credibility.
By borismkv on 1/23/2009 5:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
You need to read the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Also written by Thomas Jefferson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_...


RE: No credibility.
By foolsgambit11 on 1/23/2009 5:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
O. M. G. I agree 100% with Gzus666! I thought this day would never come.

To add some more information to this back and forth, the insertion of religion into government really started wholeheartedly in the early 20th century. Before that, there wasn't much use for God in government. So this idea of 'removing' religion from government may be accurate on a short enough time line, but isn't very accurate in the long view. For instance, Lincoln didn't have an invocation or benediction at his inauguration. It just wasn't what was done in the 19th century. "In God We Trust" was added to a few coins in 1864, but the movement to put it on all currency didn't pick up steam until around 1938, during the 'modern' Christianization of U.S. government. "Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954 (although, to be fair, the pledge wasn't the official national pledge until a decade earlier).

Like Gzus said, there are plenty of references to national leaders of the first century of American government supporting that religion be a private and not a public affair.

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." - James Madison

And if we need any more proof that America isn't a Christian nation, we need look no further than the Constitution - which states, in Article VI, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". Not the Bible, or any religious text. The Constitution, the laws, and all treaties made in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. One of those treaties is the Treaty of Tripoli, from 1797, ratified by the Senate and signed by John Adams, which states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". So while we can talk about oblique references to God, religion, or the Trinity, we cannot deny the harsh clarity of these words, signed into law within the first decade of our country's founding.


RE: No credibility.
By Reclaimer77 on 1/23/2009 6:22:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Like Gzus said, there are plenty of references to national leaders of the first century of American government supporting that religion be a private and not a public affair.


Yes, most of those are letters written to friends and family and other framers. While I will admit these can be revealing, those letters however are NOT the Constitution or any legally binding document. Also the letters are often taken out of context. You have to keep in mind that these were men who had just escaped the horrors of the Church Of England, among other things. They were adamant about that not happening here.

What is actually IN the Constitution, however, is very clear.

My problem with the whole issue is it's roots. It's basically the same reason we have people suing shopping malls and schools for using the word "Christmas". The issue is about people being offended by others faith. It honestly has nothing to do with the Constitution or what is right.

Again, nowhere is it stated you have a right to not be offended by something.


RE: No credibility.
By foolsgambit11 on 1/23/2009 7:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
And that's why people don't sue shopping malls. Come on. A shopping mall is a privately-owned public space, not the State. Now public schools are part of the State, and so they are subject to the Constitution. And no parent wants their child to be indoctrinated in a different faith. I don't want my kids taught that God exists any more than you want your kids taught that Mohammad is the Seal of the Prophets. It's not about hate or being offended. It's about fairness and equality.

And you're absolutely wrong that what is actually in the Constitution is very clear. If it were, we wouldn't need Supreme Court judgments to clarify its meaning. What is abundantly clear, though, is that Christianity is a religion, and that claiming that our government is Christian, or that it should conform to Christian doctrines, or that it should prefer Christianity to any other faith or unfaith, would be arguing for the government violating the 1st Amendment, as currently understood, and as it was understood when ratified. That's called original intent, by the way. Because Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion (Christianity is a religion. Giving preference to the Christian Faith establishes it in law.). The 1st Amendment does continue on that Congress can't prohibit the free exercise of religion, either. So don't worry - government can't stop you from practicing your faith.

If Congress cannot promote or prohibit religion, then the President, who is simply the executor of the Law, cannot either. And even if you don't accept the incorporation doctrine, you would have to accept that Congress could give no money to a State that established or prohibited religion, since Congress would by extension be violating the 1st Amendment. Therefore, since it would be in Congress' power, they would be obliged to enforce the 1st Amendment with any subordinate governing body they did business with, in order to prevent themselves from violating it.

------

And while most of the references to faith and government among the Founding Fathers are in private correspondence, you cannot deny that the Treaty of Tripoli is a government act denying that America is a Christian nation.

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, who asked him to explain the meaning of the 1st Amendment, says that it was intended to create "a wall of separation between church and state". While that may not be a purely public arena, it is far from 'private correspondence'. It was an entire congregation asking for advice specifically on the Amendment's meaning. He also says that "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Alexander Hamilton argues in the Federalist papers that the President of the United States has "no particle of spiritual jurisdiction." Any action by government - which must by definition be executed by the executive branch - that gave preference to religion would be attempting to execute power outside of the President's jurisdiction.

And finally, what does it matter where the Founders proclaim their understanding of the Law they had created? To acknowledge that the Founders didn't trust the masses to make the right choice would be restating the obvious. But we talk about Founders' intent, not mob intent, when talking about the meaning of the Constitution. The same way we talk about legislative intent today. And private letters are the best way to understand their intent, much better than their public statements, which are colored by political expediency.


RE: No credibility.
By Reclaimer77 on 1/23/2009 8:13:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And you're absolutely wrong that what is actually in the Constitution is very clear. If it were, we wouldn't need Supreme Court judgments to clarify its meaning.


/rolls eyes

You are one of those 'living document' people obviously. Let me tell ya bud, we DON'T 'need' the Supreme Court to clarify the Constitution. If you can't see that every so called 'clarification' has been for purely political reasons, then you are blind.

The Constitution set up a way to have legal, I stress LEGAL, changes made to it. It's called Amendments. Supreme Court decisions change the way the legal system views the Constitution, are by definition, illegal.

You want to change it, fine, there's a way to do that. You don't use out of touch liberal judges that can't be removed to do it. But that's exactly what has been happening for far too long.


RE: No credibility.
By glheathen on 1/23/2009 1:23:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
wanting to serve man-kind
quote:
Do you like potatoes?
!?!

I knew it! I always suspected that the Mormons were aliens with a taste for Human Flesh :)!


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By noirsoft on 1/23/2009 10:14:56 AM , Rating: 5
What? a Mormon school might have an agenda other than pure knowledge? Say it ain't so, Joe!


RE: No credibility.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/23/2009 10:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
Well I think quite a few people didn't pick up on the name of the school or don't know its a privately owned and funded religious school for the Mormon community.


RE: No credibility.
By Ratinator on 1/23/2009 11:16:27 AM , Rating: 1
Suprisingly it was the first thing I noticed as soon as I read the article and I am from Canada, Lutheran by birth and agnostic by choice. Then again, maybe the red flags came up considering my best friend married a mormon and I have seen first hand what that cult....i mean religion is all about.


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By MrBlastman on 1/23/2009 11:28:26 AM , Rating: 3
I sense a little Mormon in you after that post...


RE: No credibility.
By Ratinator on 1/23/2009 12:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
As do I


RE: No credibility.
By Swamp on 1/23/2009 1:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
I have did research papers for my religion classes on Mormonism, trust me, when that guy said CULT it is. Wife has family members that are Mormons. So i see first hand how they are. Do some research on it first, then tell me its not a cult after. But all religions are a form of a cult. They all believe or do things that are off the wall and crazy.


RE: No credibility.
By othercents on 1/23/2009 5:04:55 PM , Rating: 3
Believing in something that YOU consider off the wall crazy doesn't mean it is wrong or untrue, nor does it make it a CULT. The Wright brothers both believed in something that was considered off the wall crazy, but in reality they became the pioneers for something that everyone else thought was impossible.

Mormonism is as much of a CULT as the hyper vocal gym rats at my local gym. Both of them believe something so much that they will do everything possible to help you understand their truth and be one of them. This really happens everywhere with everything and we accept it because we want to believe in something and have a goal to obtain it. Otherwise we are just anti-social gamers that don't care.

Other


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 5:17:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Believing in something that YOU consider off the wall crazy doesn't mean it is wrong or untrue, nor does it make it a CULT. The Wright brothers both believed in something that was considered off the wall crazy, but in reality they became the pioneers for something that everyone else thought was impossible.


You are insane, sorry, but you are.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

It clearly mentions religion multiple times, kinda hinting at something. Gym rats that are nuts about it could be considered cultist and you are more than welcome to label them as such. The difference of course is Mormons (and all other religions) believe in something with no reason or proof, gym rats believe in it with obvious results and proof that it works. So less of a "belief" and more of a cause and effect type thing. Most people understand that when you work out, you will build more muscle. Depending upon their further understanding, they know absolutely why and how it happens.

As for the Wright brothers, they didn't believe in it, they knew it was possible, they just had to figure out how. That is called an observation, watch birds, figure out why it happens, try to make it happen. It is becoming more and more clear people will try to draw parallels to anything they can to justify their insanity.


RE: No credibility.
By foolsgambit11 on 1/23/2009 5:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
Right, the difference between religions/cults and the Wright brothers is that the Wright brothers ideas could be proven or disproven. That's what makes them scientific.


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 5:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right, the difference between religions/cults and the Wright brothers is that the Wright brothers ideas could be proven or disproven. That's what makes them scientific.


In a nut shell. Also the initial idea made more sense too, cause they had a precedent set by birds and other flying creatures.


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By acase on 1/23/2009 1:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
A slang term?!?!? Then why is it the Book of Mormon? Is it like a black thing where only you freaks can say it?


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By foolsgambit11 on 1/23/2009 5:58:02 PM , Rating: 3
Mormon is not a slang term. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints holds that the term Mormon can be applied to its members (and its members alone), although it prefers the term Latter-Day Saints. I'm sorry if I'm not going to call you a saint, though.

"When referring to Church members, the term 'Latter-day Saints' is preferred, though 'Mormons' is acceptable"
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/style-guid...


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 11:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
What cult would that be? Agnostic? Agnostic is "Without Knowledge" from Greek there champ. Also cult clearly states religious worship as one of the definitions.


RE: No credibility.
By Ratinator on 1/23/2009 12:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
Since when is being agnostic considered being a member of a cult? Sure I went to church when I was a kid because my parents sent me there. As of the last ten years I don't belong to any religious denomination. You might want to look up the definition of agnostic.


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 12:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since when is being agnostic considered being a member of a cult?


It isn't, the guy is a moron (so close to Mormon, coincidence? I think not).


RE: No credibility.
By Ratinator on 1/23/2009 12:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I forgot to turn the sarcasm switch off after that comment :-)

Seeing he probably won't look it up, I will explain to him what being agnostic is: I don't believe any religion has or will truthfully explain the existence of a god if one even exists. At this point in time we don't understand enough to even define what god is. References in relation to the existence of God are merely stories handed down generation to generation and usually result from a misunderstanding in what truly happened (remember the earth used to be center of the universe and flat).

That is not to say we can't develop certain morals from teachings such as the 10 commandments, but the existence of a god is, well, not real.


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By Ratinator on 1/23/2009 1:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
So because I put a term to my belief I am now part of a cult? Part of the definition of cult is that there is some doctrine behind it defining it. Being agnostic there is no doctrine and no requirements to follow or believe. If there was no religion there would be no ideal to go against it. It would be non existent. There is no one dictating my beliefs or telling me what they should be. If merely having an ideal is considered a cult then all of us are part of one - it is called civilization. We follow rules of law and government (though some may consider government a cult too :-). We follow basic moralities such as do on to others as you would have them do on to you. By your statement, then we are all part of a global cult called humanity.

You can't say someone is part of a cult when they are not part of anything. We can call it the cult of nothing if you want.


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/2009 1:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
People like to use the term cult because it generally has a very derogatory and negative connotation with it, despite the fact that the term can be applied to their own faith as well. I don't think the catholics would like it if they were referred to as a cult(specifically to be a negative). Nor the Lutheran or Baptists. Or any other faith. So to single out our faith to be the negative one is very offensive. To be try and belittle the faith of a people who do more good around the world with their humanitarian aid programs than anyone who isn't a part of the faith, or works closely with us on a regular basis, would ever realize is appalling. I would like it is people would actually learn about something before spouting off at the mouth the drivel they've been spoon-fed all their lives. I want people to show a little respect and not act like insufferable curs.


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 2:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
We don't have to show your religion or you any respect. Welcome to America my friend. You have the freedom to practice your religion, we have the freedom to laugh at it, ridicule it, poke fun at it and anything else we would like to say about it. You have no freedom from being offended, get over it. It is a cult as is every other religion according to the definition which specifically points out religious beliefs.


RE: No credibility.
By lucre on 1/25/2009 5:51:55 PM , Rating: 3
wow gzus. You couldn't be more right. We absolutely have the right to say and think what we want about mormons. Personally, I think it is a foolish belief system and a foolish organization. Furthermore, one side of my family is mormon and I have first hand experience with how ridiculous they can be (I have 4 cousins on one side, 53 on the mormon side). Unfortunately for bigots, how you exercise this right reveals a lot about who you are and how much integrity you have. Maybe his religion is a cult and he has been lured into what I call a foolish belief system, that doesn't mean they are stupid or deserve to be ridiculed. We got the point. The study is CLEARLY, clearly fatally biased. Everything after that point is bigotry and shows a regrettable lack of maturity and understanding. Have some original thought and realize that there is more than one way to think. Jesus Christ... how can anyone take you seriously when you so blatantly attack people with no more than a basis of About.com, dictionary.com and a MASSIVE dose of ignorance.


RE: No credibility.
By sgw2n5 on 1/23/2009 2:00:56 PM , Rating: 3
Did you read that off of the magical golden tablets?

Dum dum dum dum dum.


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/2009 2:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
Grow up please.


RE: No credibility.
By sgw2n5 on 1/23/2009 2:47:33 PM , Rating: 1
Don't be mad at me because I'm not as easily duped as you are...

Besides, I haven't any invisible sky wizard father figure that expects me to pay tithe each week to stay in his good graces, nor do I hang out with a cult that tells me exactly what to think/do/say while gladly taking 10% of my income.

How do you expect me to "grow up" when there is so much missing in my life?

Joseph Smith was a scam artist (a hugely successful one), get over it. I put him in the same boat with Ron Hubbard and Joel Olsteen.


RE: No credibility.
By Suntan on 1/23/2009 5:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one that appreciates the scenario where someone calling themselves a “Poo Burner” tells someone else to grow up?

-Suntan


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 5:48:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Am I the only one that appreciates the scenario where someone calling themselves a “Poo Burner” tells someone else to grow up?


Honestly every Mormon I have encountered has had the mind of a child, so I kinda expected it.


RE: No credibility.
By surt on 1/23/2009 12:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 10:29:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'm glad you pointed this out, I didn't realize they were a Mormon school. Why don't they point that out when they talk about this stuff? "Mormon school says stuff, no one cares cause they are a Mormon school." Whoa, a Mormon school said it, we should totally listen cause of their awesome track record of being rational.


RE: No credibility.
By SandmanWN on 1/23/2009 12:38:13 PM , Rating: 5
Whether or not it came from a Mormon University there is some merit to the study, although it lacks focus.

There are those that go to the extremes, say like the Korean kid that died while his parents were playing WoW. I might qualify that as a small damper on their relationship skills.

I find that playing video games has little to no effect on relationships until a certain point has been reached.

The problem was the point of the study was the video game when it should have been focused on the real culprit addiction .


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 12:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem was the point of the study was the video game when it should have been focused on the real culprit addiction .


OK, how about people who spend all their time studying? Einstein was extremely anti-social towards the end there. Studying can produce wonderful results as can reading. It can easily conflict with your social life. Work can do the same. Are these things suddenly the cause or is it truly the drive to do something else or just generally not be social? There are so many loose ends in this study it is insane. They are trying to do a cause and effect with any real evidence (a religious school doing things without evidence? NO WAY!).


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 12:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are trying to do a cause and effect with any real evidence


With should be "without".


RE: No credibility.
By SandmanWN on 1/23/2009 1:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree with the study in its entirety but I did find merit in its realization.

The point of the study was the effects on relationships. Your example of Einstein only proves the point. What I am trying to point out is the error in the study. The cause that they related to was an object(video games) as you also made the same mistake with your study and work examples.

The cause is a social disorder called addiction. Addiction cannot be blamed on the object of the obsession. The cause exists elsewhere, probably in childhood or a trauma situation.


RE: No credibility.
By Reclaimer77 on 1/23/2009 2:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I mean, what came first the chicken or the egg here ?

Is it that games CAUSE poor relationships ? Or people WITH poor social skills are drawn to games probably for an escape ?

I happen to believe it's the latter.


RE: No credibility.
By ekv on 1/24/2009 4:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
I find merit in the study.

I've heard the link tween excessive (video) gaming and addiction before. The cause can be due to some earlier trauma or perhaps some stressful situation, say, at school or work.

It raises some good questions. Difficult questions. Questions I don't necessarily like, especially since I'm trying to start a video game dev business. Hmmm.


RE: No credibility.
By ninjaquick on 1/23/2009 1:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
You know, studies show that alcohol is social lubricant. anything else does not promote building of relationships since 99% of humans are selfish and self destructive so, I propose a study to prove how Human life is bad for relationships.


RE: No credibility.
By metasin on 1/23/2009 2:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
If one would examine the vast amount of useless data derived from horribly designed and poorly interpreted studies there would be one major connection and it would not be a religious one. The number of ridiculous studies that come out of all institutions of higher learning is astounding. That goes for secular schools as well as religious schools.

To believe that only religious schools turn out studies that agree with some obvious agenda is naive at best.


RE: No credibility.
By AntiM on 1/23/2009 10:51:21 AM , Rating: 4
Yes, research results can always be skewed in order to further an agenda. I could just as easily conduct a study that concludes that people who spend 3 or more hours per day reading the Bible (or the Book of Mormon) have poor relationships, and maybe even worse relationships than those that play video games.


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 10:53:32 AM , Rating: 2
I think we should do that study. Little taste of their own medicine.


RE: No credibility.
By Ratinator on 1/23/2009 12:14:04 PM , Rating: 3
“Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.” Homer Simpson


RE: No credibility.
By snownpaint on 1/23/2009 1:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA>... 14% hahaha.. That made me laugh.
Its the simple things.

"For One Day Only, Your life will be changed forever."
Simpsons.

"I'd give it all up, for a little bit more" M. Burns


RE: No credibility.
By MPE on 1/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By MPE on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 12:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't come out and say it was absolutely false, he just said there was no credibility to the university and gave reasons why. Other people have shown the faults with this study, so no need to go back to them.


RE: No credibility.
By MPE on 1/23/2009 12:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
But credibility through character in a TECH/SCIENCE forum?
Come on. There is no undergraduate in the world, let alone a graduate, would take that seriously.

That is a pedestrian line of thinking.


RE: No credibility.
By snownpaint on 1/23/2009 1:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
I walk to school.. Whats wrong with my thinking?
hehe


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/23/2009 11:39:57 AM , Rating: 2
The statement was the religious community, it has nothing to do with the crazy state of Utah. Your implying something that was not said.


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/2009 1:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
No, your statement wasn't clear in the slightest.


RE: No credibility.
By ninjaquick on 1/23/2009 1:32:34 PM , Rating: 4
Your statement sucked balls, a 7.5 on the sucksballs scale.


RE: No credibility.
By ekv on 1/24/2009 5:21:00 AM , Rating: 2
I have trouble with what was said, implying that the research done on video games is poisoned because it comes from, rather, it potentially comes from the LDS tainted tree.

I'm not LDS. I believe Jesus Christ was, well, IS, a real historic figure and He is who He says He is. [Wow, that was cool to write that 8]

I'm just getting this image of Hillary getting on the morning news so she can talk about "the vast right-wing conspiracy". To bring LDS into this is kind of Hillary'esque on your part, though valid, IF you want to examine the researcher's presuppositions. Was that your intent?


RE: No credibility.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/23/2009 1:00:03 PM , Rating: 1
Just because some people in a group have stupid ideas doesn't mean they all do.

That group follows the words that written down on gold tablets that only one person could see and never had any sort of verification. Verification meaning more then one person saw the same thing… He could not even read the same story twice.

I do have the story correct, yes?


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/2009 1:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you don't. You will find in the front of every copy of the book the witness of 11 other people who both saw and handled the plates. And they aren't the only ones who saw them either. There were others, however they weren't called on to share their witness with the world.

That no one ever saw them is the kind of fallacy that sticks around forever and everyone tries to throw around without actually knowing a thing about that which they speak.


RE: No credibility.
By acase on 1/23/2009 1:14:49 PM , Rating: 3
Oooooooh. So the proof that the book is truth is in the book. That just makes it undeniable fact then.


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/23/2009 2:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, when the people were alive they testified to it in person to people. We figured we would excuse them now that they are dead.

Also, the point he tried to make was that no one had ever seen them. I correct that point. The truth of the book was not brought up (as such). If you want proof of the truth you can do what everyone else has ever done. Set aside your bigotry, preconceived notions, and hate; Read the book; Pray to God and ask Him about it with real intent to act on the answer he gives. If you do that He will let you know.


RE: No credibility.
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 2:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, when the people were alive they testified to it in person to people. We figured we would excuse them now that they are dead.


I can get 30 people to say they talked to god and said Mormonism is wrong, does that convince you?


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/25/2009 4:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
Where in my post did i say that they or I would convince you? I believe i directed people to the only being who could actually convince anyone that He was real. This is hard for some people, though, because it actually requires effort on their part to seek Him out, and then to be humble enough to listen to Him once they know He is there. The submitting of one's will to God is often the hardest part. Hence many are called (read:everyone), but few are chosen (because few choose Him.).


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/25/2009 4:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
Also, i doubt you could get those 30 people to testify to that for the rest of their lives, even when threatened to death if they did not deny it, even when they are not on good terms with you and have separated themselves from you, and with all of that you not ever paying them one cent or putting them in a position of power.

So to recap, if you could get someone to be willing to testify to the world:
1) without paying them
2) without giving them power
3) have them willing to give their life for that witness
4) have them still do #3 even if the 2 of you have had huge disputes and they now consider you an enemy (as was the case with a few of the witnesses. All of whom upheld their witness as being true till the day they died.)

If you could accomplish that then you might be able to talk.


RE: No credibility.
By sgw2n5 on 1/23/2009 2:13:54 PM , Rating: 1
No offense, and I only ask out of curiosity, but why on earth would you believe in such an absurd story? Did your parents force you into the religion?

Do you reeeaaaaally believe that Joe Smith had magical golden tablets that only he could read out of a magic hat with a magic seers stone or some such nonsense? And that Native Americans are actually one of the lost tribes of Israel (even though genetic evidence thoroughly disproves that notion)?

Just for kicks, figure up how much you and your family have paid in tithe in the last 10 years.

Religion is the perfect union of scam artists and cultists.


RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/24/2009 1:56:44 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry, but where in the explanation did i talk about magical golden tablets? Such are the things of prejudice lies made up to slander the faith. Keeping records on metal plates was not an uncommon thing back then. There were even copper scrolls found with the dead sea scrolls. Why is it so hard for people to think that an ancient people kept their records and that those records were translated? And a magical hat? Where do people come up with this stuff?

Also, the so called genetic evidence has been disproven as a valid study for over 30 years, so we can drop that one too. And i believe that the lost tribes of Israel are found in most cultures. But here is a better question: Say that you had the original plates in front of you. If you asked to see them and we took them out and showed the world: Would you believe then or would you still call it nonsense and demand more proof? I've never heard anyone say that would believe, so why God allow such proof to be shown if all it would do is lead to the person's damnation? By removing faith and giving sure knowledge it removes a persons choice in whether to believe or not. It removes their agency and has become more of a strong arm situation where the person is forced. At least without sure knowledge God can grant mercy to people because then they weren't in direct defiance doing something they knew full well they weren't supposed to.

Also, the scam artist thing doesn't make any sense due to the fact that the church has a lay ministry. EVERYONE in the church is volunteers. No one is paid. Instead the tithes are used to help people (the way that it's supposed to be used). Like the fact that 70% of the cost of going to BYU is covered by the tithing funds (and anyone can go to BYU if they wanted to, it's not like it's a members only thing). Not to mention all the aid that is provided when there are natural disasters, the countless relief programs, and other such things. It's used to pay the power bills and to build new chapels. No one is paid, so what would be the point of the scam? It's all used to help the poor and less fortunate. So what is the church, Robin Hood? (generally considered to be the good guy). I know exactly where all my tithing has gone, and if i wanted i could get a detailed report for every last cent. A scam? Psh.


RE: No credibility.
By acase on 1/23/2009 1:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, that's about it.


RE: No credibility.
By bighairycamel on 1/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: No credibility.
By ThePooBurner on 1/24/2009 2:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
God has always had a law of health for his people. It has varied at different times. And the reasons for it have always been, and always will be 1) To help us be healthy 2) To see if we'll do it. What is faith if it isn't tested? It's like a muscle that is never used. It atrophies and disappears.

However think of it this way: I am free to do whatever i want. I can break any commandment i want at any time. However, with said break comes a consequence. As for where it comes from, it comes from the same place that God's instructions to man-kind has always come: the prophet. He's always worked through prophets, and the current prophet has always been the most important one to listen to. When Isiah was prophet he was the one that Israel needed to listen to the most because he was the mouth piece for God. And that things now are different than they were back then is no different than when things were different for the saints after Christ fulfilled the law of moses. Christ being the one who makes the rules is free to change them however He sees fit.

Also, i'm not sure where the LDS you know got the idea that inter-marital sex for non pro-creation isn't allowed. The church's policy has always been that what happens in the bedroom is between the man and his wife and is none of the church's business (with the exception of abuse, which isn't tolerated. Something most society agrees with).


RE: No credibility.
By Dharl on 1/23/2009 12:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A new study claims to have found modest links between video games and poor relationships with family and friends.


Such a ridiculous study...

I guess people such as myself (and many others like me) are walking enigma's to this study... much like the Duckbill Platypus was to Biological Classification.


RE: No credibility.
By snownpaint on 1/23/2009 1:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
What I thought when I first heard about this College,
Bring-'em-Young University.. Yeah.. Young Naive minds. yeah, good stuff..

Then I learned it was a Mormon School. Up tight and conservative. Call it what you will, but that is the short and cut version.

I can tell you my wife and I never fight while were playing separate video games. Its only when we get together outside of that, that we want to torment and tear at each other.. hahahaha.. J/K..


RE: No credibility.
By Hyraxxx on 1/23/2009 2:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
Just because they have an agenda doesn't mean their data is wrong. Just look at global warming run by environmental cooks. THey have a very clear and transparent agenda, but that doesn't discredit their findings.


RE: No credibility.
By borismkv on 1/23/2009 5:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
The LDS church has never made an official stand on video games. It's not against religious belief to play video games. The most the leaders of the church have stated is that it's not good for one's physical, emotional, and spiritual welfare to spend countless hours playing video games.

So tell me. How is this furthering an agenda?


RE: No credibility.
By Exirtis on 1/23/2009 5:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. That's quite a reaction to a study that talks about "modest links" in the first place, and only makes claims of correlation -- not causation -- in the second place.

Considering I know many people who've gone to BYU, not all of whom are Mormon by the way, I can decidedly say from personal experience that neither the school nor its students as a whole have an agenda against gaming.

I'm sure that individuals there probably have a prejudice or two, just like you'll find individuals with idiosyncratic prejudices anywhere (do all DailyTech editors get along and agree?), but the school and its students are not anti-game, nor is their religion itself anti-game.

How do I know this? I'm a resident of Salt Lake City, where less than 50% of the people are LDS (Mormon). Here's a reference substatiating that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_lake_city (8th paragraph under 'Demographics')

There are plenty of game players in the community, Mormon and otherwise, so I guess I'm just at a loss at where the conclusion that a study with such mild wording supports an anti-game agenda, just because it comes out of BYU.

Seriously, what's that based on?


RE: No credibility.
By borismkv on 1/23/2009 6:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking prejudice.


RE: No credibility.
By Purp on 1/23/2009 6:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
This is my understanding, as well. In fact, I found this article about the study:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,70527968...

If anything, it would appear that at least one of the authors of the study wanted it to turn out differently than it did. Science is about challenging assumptions. There is nothing about coming to a conclusion based on a faulty assumption, especially when that assumption could have been easily verified through a simple question or google search.

It seems that several people here, in an effort to either explain away a study they don't agree with (or don't understand) have decided to assume that the Mormon church has an agenda against video games, an assumption which seems to be patently false. I suppose it is easier (or more convenient) to attack an entire religion than to do a google search. Classic cognitive dissonance.

Others have made valid arguments explaining how the study may not be valid, but using the "agenda" reasoning seems to be nothing more than an excuse to attack a religion according to their preconceived notions.


RE: No credibility.
By Purp on 1/23/2009 6:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
Second paragraph, second sentence should have started, "There is nothing scientific about . . ." Sorry.


Give me a f*cking break
By chdude3 on 1/23/2009 10:03:06 AM , Rating: 4
These "researchers" are pretty goddamned stupid if they STILL have not learned that CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSALITY!

There may indeed be a link between people who play games and people who have poor relationships. In the same vein, I can completely believe that there is a link between people who have violent tendencies/behaviour and people who play violent video games.

That does NOT mean one causes the other! Way for DailyTech to perpetuate such crap.




RE: Give me a f*cking break
By Titanius on 1/23/2009 10:19:57 AM , Rating: 2
This is exactly what these kinds of studies are, they determine that something causes one time while the opposite can also be true...remind me of Confusius in a way: "What came first; the chicken or the egg?"


RE: Give me a f*cking break
By Proxes on 1/23/2009 10:29:35 AM , Rating: 2
The chicken. Being precedes becoming.


RE: Give me a f*cking break
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 11:01:16 AM , Rating: 2
DING! Give this man a prize. Why do silly statements like that still propagate as deep questions? Not to discount Confucius, he has plenty of good thoughts, but really with this? Reminds me of this crap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_...

Yes, yes it does make a sound. There is entirely too much time and thought wasted on such silliness.


RE: Give me a f*cking break
By Steve1981 on 1/23/2009 12:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well if we stick only with a chicken and a chicken egg, I'd argue that the egg came first.

If we take the theory of evolution as a pretty good indicator of how things came about, then at some point, something that wasn't quite chicken produced the first chicken egg.


RE: Give me a f*cking break
By foolsgambit11 on 1/23/2009 6:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
Only if we assume that chickens can only come out of chicken eggs. If a human egg were fertilized (with human sperm, of course) in a test tube and implanted in a gorilla, the animal that came out would be a human. Same with the chicken. In other words, the egg laid by the proto-chicken could have been a proto-chicken egg, from which hatched a chicken, who would go on to lay chicken eggs.

Although the reverse is possible (from a thought-experiment standpoint) as well. The proto-chicken could have had an egg identical to a chicken egg. Therefore it is a chicken egg. But proto-chickens hatch from it, generation after generation.

If you accept any of several creation myths (including the Christian one) which say that the animals were created. Then obviously the chicken precedes the egg, since the first generation came from nothing, or mud, or whatever.

But a real, definitive answer would require some sort of time machine, or an incredibly dense fossil record. Or at least agreement on what a chicken is, and what an egg is.


RE: Give me a f*cking break
By Steve1981 on 1/23/2009 8:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only if we assume that chickens can only come out of chicken eggs.


Admittedly, I assign ownership of the egg to the creature that inhabited it :)


RE: Give me a f*cking break
By ekv on 1/24/2009 5:54:16 AM , Rating: 2
The question posed by Bishop Berkeley was "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it really fall?"

He was a rather odd man, but intellectually curious. The problem he was trying to solve was with John Locke's primary and secondary qualities. Empiricism has certain difficulties in life.

Bishop Berkeley's fascinating question really digs into perceptions and epistemology. If no one is around to perceive the tree falling, then the empirical answer is "no." There is a caveat though....


RE: Give me a f*cking break
By nixoofta on 1/23/2009 1:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
yeah,..no one wants to do it with the egg.


RE: Give me a f*cking break
By foolsgambit11 on 1/23/2009 6:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry? That was imminently unhelpful. Firstly, quoting a philosophical concept doesn't help us gain traction on the question, since every philosophical concept is very debatable (that's what makes it philosophical, after all), and being versus becoming is no exception.

Also, your use here of the Aristotelian concept of being preceding becoming overextends the argument Aristotle was trying to make, if I understand it correctly. Firstly, the being that of necessity precedes any and all becoming is the unmoved mover, not a chicken (at least, I don't think the god of Aristotle is a chicken - do you?). Secondly, you've assumed that the chicken is the being and the egg is the becoming. Whereas, if you consider the design and purpose of the chicken to be that of creating eggs, isn't the chicken the becoming, and the egg the being? Now I'm getting all ontological on your *ss.


RE: Give me a f*cking break
By Loveless on 1/23/2009 11:44:07 AM , Rating: 2
All that is indicated in this article is that the study claims a modest link between video games and poor relationships. No where is there mentioned that it is a causal link. As such, I don't see what the basis is for your complaint.


RE: Give me a f*cking break
By IckesTheSane on 1/23/2009 12:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
How about the title?
"Study: Video Games Lead to Poor Relationships "
If it had been "Linked to" or "Associated with", that would have been different.

The article itself was fairly neutral in the causality of it, the title was not.


RE: Give me a f*cking break
By Suntan on 1/23/2009 12:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
Take a breather there buddy. Daily Tech throwing up overly sensational titles to attract readers is nothing new.

If you look at the source article that is linked, you will see that the title of that article makes no such claim.

-Suntan


Interesting
By Steve1981 on 1/23/2009 10:52:06 AM , Rating: 2
I love blanket statements.

Clearly playing Dance Dance Revolution with my fiance on a regular basis is ruining my relationship with her, and making it more likely that we will both partake in drugs.




RE: Interesting
By strikeback03 on 1/23/2009 11:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say no on the relationship and yes on the drugs.


RE: Interesting
By Suntan on 1/23/2009 12:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well that is actually an argument *for* the study…

If my wife had told me she wanted to play Dance Dance Revolution prior to us getting married, it would have been called off right there.

-Suntan


RE: Interesting
By Steve1981 on 1/23/2009 12:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
Hah.

Lets put it this way: if you and your loved ones enjoy playing a game together, be it a video game or going outside and playing catch, I fail to see how that game harms your relationships with one another. When it becomes a solo activity for an extended period of time, then I can see the problem. However, a blanket statement saying "video games are bad for relationships and people who play video games often do drugs" seems a bit silly.


RE: Interesting
By Suntan on 1/23/2009 12:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a blanket statement saying "video games are bad for relationships and people who play video games often do drugs"


I took a minute to skim the linked article, I don't believe they ever made a claim like that. You are reading that into it on your own.

-Suntan


RE: Interesting
By Steve1981 on 1/23/2009 1:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Relationship quality is one of a cluster of things that we found to be modestly associated with video games," Walker said. "The most striking part is that everything we found clustered around video game use is negative."


Seems a bit sensationalist to me, what can I say.

Admittedly they do end the article with this:

quote:
And despite heavy involvement with the research, Jensen does not admit the results to his own family. For now he holds out hope that future research will exonerate consoles or games designed for multiple players.


However, that begs the question of why they didn't try to differentiate among the types of games out there in the first place, instead of saying "everything we found clustered around video game use is negative".


RE: Interesting
By Suntan on 1/23/2009 1:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
That satatement intrigued me too, but then I haven't read the "actual" report that they published. Just a website article about it.

Perhaps after looking over all of their published findings I would agree with the statement.

In any case, my own personal experinces aligns with some of their findings, and I haven't read anything quoted by them that leads me to believe they are intentionally trying to prove a certain a priori outcome.

-Suntan


RE: Interesting
By Steve1981 on 1/23/2009 1:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
What can I say, I'm cynical. I just can't help but shake the feeling that their "research" was akin to walking into a casino to see if playing cards had a negative impact on your wallet.

I mean, there is nothing groundbreaking saying "spending time alone playing video games doesn't help your social life", much like there is nothing groundbreaking saying "playing poker in a casino is a good way to lose money".

It becomes a problem though when you use your limited research to say "everything we found clustered around video game use is negative" or "all research indicates that playing cards causes people to lose money", as if you did exhaustive and complete research on the subject.


RE: Interesting
By Suntan on 1/23/2009 2:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
So go read their actual published report if one comment they made in an interview bothers you so much. Maybe then you will have a better understanding why they made the statement.

-Suntan


RE: Interesting
By Steve1981 on 1/23/2009 3:10:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So go read their actual published report if one comment they made in an interview bothers you so much.


Unfortunately, it wouldn't appear to be free, and I'm cheap. In either case, I can live with people saying practically whatever they want. My world won't end.

quote:
Maybe then you will have a better understanding why they made the statement.


I fully expect that the data they gathered backs up their statement. My objection has to do with 1. methodology: they don't appear, based on the information I have, to have asked what kind of video games people played, just how often they played and 2. making a broad sounding statement based on the limited research they did do.


RE: Interesting
By Steve1981 on 1/23/2009 3:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
To clarify:

I think its pretty poor research to delve into a topic as diverse as video games, ask how often people play but not inquire as to *what* they're playing, and then make a generalized statement about video games.


RE: Interesting
By Suntan on 1/23/2009 5:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think its pretty poor paste to make generalized statements about someone's research when the person admits they are too cheap to read said published research.

-Suntan


RE: Interesting
By Steve1981 on 1/23/2009 6:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think its pretty poor paste to make generalized statements about someone's research when the person admits they are too cheap to read said published research.


Good for you.

If the researchers did ask what was being played, then great. However, the article didn't indicate they did as evidenced by these quotes:

quote:
For now he holds out hope that future research will exonerate consoles or games designed for multiple players.


quote:
Study participants reported how often they play video games. They also answered a battery of questions measuring relationship quality, including how much time, trust, support and affection they share with friends and parents.


In either case, somebody flubbed. If its eurekalert.org, shame on them. If its the researchers, shame on them.


NO!
By FITCamaro on 1/23/2009 10:00:28 AM , Rating: 5
Spending time playing games instead of with family and friends makes you have a poorer relationship with them? You don't say! Where do they get these genius ideas?!




RE: NO!
By pomaikai on 1/23/2009 10:09:49 AM , Rating: 5
Or could it be that unhappiness in life is driving them to video games, not that video games is causing the unhappiness. People gravitate towards being happy, video games, drinking, etc are all an escape from reality. Fix reality and the escapes start to fade. Stop running and figure out what is causing the unhappiness and put forth effort to change.


RE: NO!
By BansheeX on 1/23/2009 1:05:30 PM , Rating: 4
I hate these papers by bored academics that tell people how many relationships they should have, how to know when they're healthy, and make obvious observations that anything in excess can make you irritable or stupid. I see people who play no games, but they spend all of that time drinking or maintaining hundreds of shallow relationships on facebook with people they barely even know. Is that healthy, spending all your free time talking about Brangelina and American Idol? Madoff was purported to be one of the most amiable people on earth, but was just a self-important bastard who ran ponzi schemes. Most politicians are the same way. They own the "schools" that peddle this nonsense. Guess what makes people unhappy? Spending assloads of time and money on stupid classes taught by graduate students you have no interest in but are required to take to get a piece of paper that assures you just enough more salary to pay off the debt you incurred obtaining it within 30 years.


RE: NO!
By MightyAA on 1/23/2009 10:12:39 AM , Rating: 2
That's what I was thinking too.. And also that there's no way college life and leaving your parents nest would have any impact either.. Genius indeed! Give this undergrad a doctorate right now!


RE: NO!
By rburnham on 1/23/2009 10:12:45 AM , Rating: 5
In their next study, researchers find that studies about obvious things are easy.


RE: NO!
By kelmon on 1/27/2009 8:06:02 AM , Rating: 2
+1 to you, sir!

This report can further be generalised to say that spending time away from friends/family damages relationships. Playing video games is one way to achieve this but certainly isn't the only one. Anything whereby you effectively turn yourself into a hermit (and this can be done indoors or outdoors) is bad.

Still, I can't say that video games are good for society, particularly compared with "real" games and that parents should limit their children's exposure to them, particularly given their addictive nature.


Breaking news!
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/23/2009 10:48:08 AM , Rating: 4
A recent study shows that 90% of nowadays undergrads' projects fail miserably because they still can't spot the difference between cause and consequence.

Also a serious statistical research institute stated that worldwide stupidity seems to be growing higher. A clandestine idiot-manufacturing facility is suspected to be running full time on the research labs of some colleges, as a result of some smart guy's plans to take on the world.




RE: Breaking news!
By thinkthis on 1/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Breaking news!
By Hieyeck on 1/23/2009 12:56:03 PM , Rating: 4
A recent study has concluded the internet is serious business.

Also, it's a known fact 85% of all statistics and percentages are made up on the spot.

In all seriousness, I shall now show how I arrive at my conclusions about how you're just too stupid to notice the cause.

-Gamers tend to be more understanding of technology than non-gamers. This can be easily seen by how most gamers build their own computer systems cause they're smart enough to follow the f--ine manual. Pick any number you want for a percentage, but it's apparent a majority of the population in the developed world cannot figure out the right side up to a USB key let alone build a computer.
QED: They have a higher understand of technology.

-People with higher understandings of technology actually USE the internet. I'm not talking about barely scraping by with email. I'm talking about the percentage of users which ISPs claim that use 90% of the bandwidth. Most ISPs give a percentage anywhere between 5% and 15%. These people know how to use IRC and newsgroups to steal their music. Torrents are too slow.
QED: we now have an industry estimate of population percentage - 5% to 15% of the 21.9%(2007) of households with broadband (http://www.internetworldstats.com/dsl.htm)

From these demonstrations, we see that gamers alone are 2% (median of 10% of 21.9% = 2.19%, roughly 2%) of population who are smarter than ALOT of other people. Now this is not to say they are smarter than the other 98% of the population. So how much smarter are they really? Let's do a guess. 'Gaming' really took off almost 30 years ago, with the birth of Pacman. Gaming is usally targeted at teens - for the purposes of this study, I define teens as up to the age of 17. That would mean gamers could be as old as 47. Now 30 years ago, it obviously wasn't as readily avaiable, so we should take that down to the advent of the affordable Home PC - about 15 years ago. That's still about 30 years old. The average life span of a person in NA is about 80 Years. We can now safely extrapolate that 5/8 smart enough to be gamers aren't gamers. So to account for the missing 5/8th's born before gaming, we need to reduce by 3 times to reach the common denominator of 1/8 and multiply by 8 to reach the final number. This means our number multiplied by 8/3. Gaming penetration within the elligible population is about 50% (the younger generation is higher, the older generation is lower, but I'm taking this number for simplicity) so we need to further doubled our number:

2% * 8/3 * 2 = 10.666...% (Let's say 15% to account for errors and simplicity's sake.)

Gamers are therefore amongst the 15% of the population smarter than the other 85%. IQ is most importantly, a relative scale, making it the perfect comparison - the top 15% of the population have an IQ roughly 120.
QED, gamers have an IQ of 120 or higher. If I used the figure of 10.666%, that's closer to an IQ of 125. If the errors were in the wrong direction, it'd be closer to 6%, which is a IQ of 130 or higher.

The average human has an IQ is 100, since 100 is ALWAYS the average. as IQ - as previously stated - is a relative scale. Great apes have an IQ between 70 and 80 on the human scale. A gamer talking to the average human is like the average human talking to an ape. It's no fun, and it's why we don't do it.
QED, gamer's "introversion" is therefore more often than not a misdiagnosis. We just don't want to talk to the other 85% cause they're too stupid.


RE: Breaking news!
By Hieyeck on 1/23/2009 1:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
I just realized I was in error using the US number as the average. To take an average amongst the most developed nations, 25% is closer. The math should therefore work out to 13.333%. Still within my fairly large and probably unreasonable margin of error.


RE: Breaking news!
By ninjaquick on 1/23/2009 1:30:42 PM , Rating: 3
thats so true tho.. noobs and their not knowing anything.


RE: Breaking news!
By Jem on 1/23/2009 3:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.


RE: Breaking news!
By Alexstarfire on 1/23/2009 4:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
Of this I can certainly agree highly. I've stopped talking to two of my friends, guess they are really ex-friends now, since I got tired of all the crap they spouted from their mouths. It's not that they were dumb, because they were certainly knowledgeable about some things, but they were really stupid in things they weren't interested in. I'm not saying I'm a genius by any means, but if I'm really not sure about something I let them know that it could be false information. Though more often than not I'm correct.

I would also highly agree with your first couple of paragraphs. People not being able to hook simple things like printers and such makes them look like dumb blonds. I can put together far more complicated things when I read the manual, which actually helps believe it or not.


RE: Breaking news!
By nixoofta on 1/23/2009 1:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
Forrest says~

"Intranet is as Intranet does"


RE: Breaking news!
By Jem on 1/23/2009 3:05:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A recent study by me has concluded that there is a strong correlation between stupid and all of your comments.


I am in agreement, and bonus points for wit.


Bogus
By fishbits on 1/23/2009 10:25:22 AM , Rating: 5
For every gamer out there with a poor social situation, there are many more who are doing quite well. Like me and the level 23 Night Elf Druid I'm married to online.




RE: Bogus
By xti on 1/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Bogus
By Entropy42 on 1/23/2009 10:37:14 AM , Rating: 5
I'm also married to a level 23 Night Elf Druid... I think we are being duped. Does she have long, pointy ears and off color skin?


RE: Bogus
By fishbits on 1/23/2009 1:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
Whoa, she does! What a coincidence. But my in-game wife is named Shayanna Silvermoon, and we're totally committed to each other. I'm going to be grinding this weekend to save up gold for her epic mount!


RE: Bogus
By LostInLine on 1/23/2009 10:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'm 23 Night Elf Druid and I though you two were the SHE?

I think I'll just have to quit playing video games and become social again.


RE: Bogus
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/26/2009 7:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
And I socialize quite a bit with every piece lying inside my computer's case.

With limited devices like an HDD, I can't obviously have a profound conversation, but I can always say something like "you idiot mechanical bastard, thanks to your laziness the RAM has fallen asleep and the CPU thinks it's taking some vacation in BUSland... Like that fan taking the heat off you? Then do pump me up those darn bytes before I fire you off this sacred case you're living in without even paying me a damned rent!".

With the CPU I can have long conversations, though (they have to be long because saying things in binary takes me 8x the characters for every word said!)


A case-study in pseudo-science
By Jem on 1/23/2009 2:52:25 PM , Rating: 3
This type of "research" is produced constantly and the onus is on the journalist to select what is fit for publishing.

I am absolutely shocked that this would be posted as news here (or anywhere), because sensationalist journalism never seemed to be DT's style. At the very best, this article is only that, sensationalist. At the worst, it is designed to incite argument. Most importantly, between those extremes there is pseudo-science and, in turn, no real value for any of the readers here. Even if the study is scientifically sound, the writing here destroys all credibility.

If it is crucial to post this kind of nonsense, at least avoid getting yourself dirty. There is no need to rewrite and prop up claims, regardless of what they are. A sound study will defend itself. The first mistake was just rewriting the original article, but this is to be expected in blogs (unfortunately).

Allow me to illustrate with an example how misleading this article really is:

From original article (eurekalert):
"For young women, self-worth was low if their video game time was high."
This is implying causality, a classic argument flaw. Consider: For young women, video game time was high if their self-worth was low. CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSALITY.

DT rewrite:
"Young women who play video games were also found more likely to have lower self-worth."
What? It was already a fallacy and then you assumed even further?

This happens more than once in the article. I hope your whole staff feels ashamed for this garbage and avoids it in the future, but I somehow doubt it will make any difference.

I created an account just to post this. Don't expect to see me again if this type of journalism continues.




RE: A case-study in pseudo-science
By bety on 1/26/2009 3:26:39 AM , Rating: 2
Allow me to illustrate with an example how misleading this article really is:

From original article (eurekalert):
"For young women, self-worth was low if their video game time was high."
This is implying causality, a classic argument flaw. Consider: For young women, video game time was high if their self-worth was low. CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSALITY.

DT rewrite:
"Young women who play video games were also found more likely to have lower self-worth."
What? It was already a fallacy and then you assumed even further?


Allow me to illustrate your lack of comprehension. Neither of the two statement you quoted imply causation.

"For young women, mitten usage was low if their short skirt usage was high."

"young women wearing mittens were also found likely to not be wearing short skirts."

These are simply statements based on a correlation. Any causal relationship you perceive is a product of your own embelishment.

Much more telling, is your clearly emotional reaction to this study and the many contradictions inherant in your post. True, shoddy reasoning, is admitting that the research may be valid, yet proclaiming it "nonsense" and "pseudoscience".

You also say that a sounds study will speak for itself yet suggest the journalist should not even publish it.

Clearly we're dealing with another mind rendered unsound by video games.


RE: A case-study in pseudo-science
By Jem on 1/27/2009 3:29:05 AM , Rating: 2
It seems that, if anything, what I posted was beyond your comprehension.

You attempted to make my examples seem insignificant by replacing the concepts with trivialities, but the causal implication remains. The framework of my argument relies on some understanding of the scientific method and research methods, specifically the conservative approach to causal statements. Since it was above your head, let me explain.

In the source example, the word "if" incriminates the statement. It is likely that within the paper, the researcher used a comparison, which is key to showing the relationship and not assigning cause. It is also necessary to justify the significance of a finding such as this. Something like "young women whose time playing video games was high had lower self-worth than young women whose time playing video games was low" would be a balanced and appropriate statement.

The DT writer removed if from the statement, and modified the statement to make it imply a unidirectional relationship (main fault being with more likely), but made it worse by removing the qualifier of "high video game time."

Thank you for resorting to insults and assumptions in the end of your posting. It makes no difference if you intentionally rearranged my ideas to make them contradict, or simply don't understand. Let me put it back together for you.

quote:
Any causal relationship you perceive is a product of your own embelishment.

I didn't claim to see any causal relationship. In fact, my main argument was that the article should not claim a causal relationship. There are two Ls in embellishment.

quote:
Much more telling, is your clearly emotional reaction to this study and the many contradictions inherant in your post.

First, your previous statement was not at all 'telling,' it was you blindly assuming something about me.
Second, how is my reaction "clearly emotional"? More importantly, how is yours any different, and thus also "much more telling"?
Third, I think you meant to say "truly shoddy reasoning..." You then maligned two seperate concepts, attempting to make it appear as if I contradicted myself. I said that the research may be valid. I said that the article is nonsense and pseudoscience. The entire paragraph describes the article. There is no 'A' in inherent.

quote:
You also say that a sounds study will speak for itself yet suggest the journalist should not even publish it.

Again, two seperate ideas, attempting to put words in my mouth. The journalist should not have published this article as it is written here. I never said that the study should not be published.

quote:
Clearly we're dealing with another mind rendered unsound by video games.
Childish. Discrediting. It's hard to gauge if you are serious about this statement... Why would someone accuse another person of biased and emotional reaction and then commit the very act they accuse of? Is your claim that minds can be "rendered unsound by video games" excused from the scientific ideals you just attempted to lecture me about?


RE: A case-study in pseudo-science
By bety on 1/27/2009 8:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
You attempted to make my examples seem insignificant by replacing the concepts with trivialities, but the causal implication remains.

Incorrect. I hoped the trivialites would allow you to see past your emotional biases. As you point out the causality remains the same. e.g. there is NONE.

The DT writer removed if from the statement, and modified the statement to make it imply a unidirectional relationship (main fault being with more likely), but made it worse by removing the qualifier of "high video game time."

No. Once again, your emotional bias rears it's ugly biass. There was nothing wrong with the term "more likely". It is more likely, as shown by the correlation. Again, as any first-year University student SHOULD understand "more likely" implies no causality when used in a phrase like this. People who are wearing mittens are more likely to be wearing boots The statement is correct and non-causal.

quote:
Any causal relationship you perceive is a product of your own embelishment.

I didn't claim to see any causal relationship. In fact, my main argument was that the article should not claim a causal relationship. There are two Ls in embellishment.

LOL. Once again, you have a ersious problem with reading comrehension. Making snide comments about spelling won't hide that. We all know you claimed that the article implied a casual relationship. It didn't. Again, the causal relationship you allege does not exist. I am sure the "trivial" examples (that was the point!) made it quite clear for all. "Peddle" your knee-jerk reactions somewhere else!


PS. Good luck with the Psych degree, but don't try to run with the big boys, you aren't ready. You are a plucky one though.


RE: A case-study in pseudo-science
By Jem on 1/28/2009 10:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
The title of the article is "Study: Video Games Lead to Poor Relationships" but you continue to re-iterate that no causal relationship was implied. If the title saying A leads to B does not register as a causal statement, then there is no point in arguing with you.

PS. Good luck with acting more qualified than you really are. My spelling tips might help you with this.


To be honest
By Suntan on 1/23/2009 12:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest, I don’t think what they are saying is all that far out. Saying that gaming can modestly reduce interaction with other people is true.

As a person that has been gaming for the best part of the last two and a half decades, it’s perfectly clear to me that if you go down to the basement right after you eat supper every night to play video games, you’re not really interacting with your family.

Of course it depends on what games you play, and how you play them. A room full of guys enjoying watching a good sports game competition between two players can be a social event just as much as sitting round debating the merits of some Proust novel. But then that also leads to the statistics about alcohol… …as anyone that has ever been a part of a good round of Drink-Techmo-Bowl can attest to.

-Suntan




RE: To be honest
By Gzus666 on 1/23/2009 12:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To be honest, I don’t think what they are saying is all that far out. Saying that gaming can modestly reduce interaction with other people is true.


So can whacking off, TV, reading, or any most singular activity. It seems like the cause is not the activity but the person not really enjoying or having the skills to interact.


RE: To be honest
By Suntan on 1/23/2009 12:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
I didn’t see where they claimed that the video games “caused” the behavior. Admittedly, I didn’t read any of the links (and I didn’t read the actual article all that closely either.)

However, I agree with you, if you’re taking 5 hour showers so you can just whack your pud all night long, that’s antisocial too…

-Suntan


RE: To be honest
By UNHchabo on 1/23/2009 6:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think if anything, what you can probably say based on this study is that people who have poor real-world social skills are drawn to video gaming because they're better able to interact in that environment.


Welp!
By Quiescent on 1/23/2009 5:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
Hey! Let's blame something else other than ourselves for our bad relationships!

I'm into psychology and I can say that these are external variables that make a person who they are. You might as well say that someone's addiction to a food causes bad relationships.

Internal variables are what make these people have bad relationships. Don't blame games on them. Maybe they have issues and they aren't being dealt with properly. This is like saying people with bi-polar who are addicted to drugs have bi-polar because they're addicted to drugs. Sure the drugs make them worse off, but that doesn't mean they DON'T have bi-polar without the addiction or drug abuse.

I think of people who have bad relationship because of games of having other problems other than obsessing over a game. These are symptoms rather than the core problem, and people are again putting the blame on the symptoms, and not the core problem.




RE: Welp!
By Exirtis on 1/23/2009 6:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
This study didn't seem to be assigning blame, actually, just citing one of several factors that can come into play regarding the quality of relationships.

The study itself states that the causation is not clear and that this was only a look into a single aspect and how it might influence things.

quote:
It may be that young adults remove themselves from important social settings to play video games, or that people who already struggle with relationships are trying to find other ways to spend their time.

This is hardly inflammatory or sensationalist language. Seems like most of the reactions here are a bit more reactionary than the study itself. :-P


RE: Welp!
By Quiescent on 1/23/2009 8:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
I was commenting as a whole to this whole situation with video games. They have been blaming video games for everything ever since the late 1990s. They have been blaming everything except themselves for everything since as far as I remember, the late 1990s.


RE: Welp!
By Hieyeck on 1/25/2009 4:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
It's the new TV (see 70/80s) and radio/rock (see 50/60s).


Not true
By noirsoft on 1/23/2009 10:11:06 AM , Rating: 5
playing video games ause me to have excellent relationships. In fact, I'm off to go spend some quality time with my friends Mario, Lara and Nathan Drake pretty soon.

Chris




RE: Not true
By danz32 on 1/23/2009 10:53:00 AM , Rating: 2
Also, what about when real life relationships can increase from video games? I recently moved away from where I go to school for an internship and I play World of Warcraft with my friends. We stay in touch and keep our friendship going. And, only a true friend will tank for you :P


Ex Wife..
By whirabomber on 1/23/2009 10:20:05 AM , Rating: 2
The ex wife and I had a great relationship for the most part because we would play video games together. Of course, her mother made the whole thing ungreat.




RE: Ex Wife..
By Loveless on 1/23/2009 11:33:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
ungreat.

Be careful, or next they will come out with a study linking video games and poor English.


RE: Ex Wife..
By ekv on 1/24/2009 6:18:08 AM , Rating: 2
Here, here, Winston! That ought to have been ++ungreat. [read "double plus ungreat"].


I defend the study
By schwerwolf on 1/23/2009 10:46:02 AM , Rating: 3
Someone should defend these guys.

Of course they have a bias (so do I)- but that does devalidate the research. I'd look at the study closely before making any judgements in that regard.

The statements regarding causation were given as hypotheses, and should be interpreted as such. I've seen far worse in studies advocating the consumption of wine and chocolate.

Gathering from the vitriol associated with the topic, I would suspect at least some of their findings must prick a well-protected nerve.




RE: I defend the study
By Suntan on 1/23/2009 12:42:35 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed.

Further, I always enjoy how people fly off the handle in disgust at other people that make casual assumptions based on the evidence available to them. Even though it is the main tool every human brain uses to function on a daily basis and the reason the human race has evolved as it has.

Problems don’t arise because a person makes assumptions. Problems only arise when people happen to make the wrong assumptions.

-Suntan


Poor title
By ET on 1/23/2009 12:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
A poor title and people not reading the full article results in lots of irrelevant posts.

The study just shows a link, and the faculty mentor is quoted saying that the link could go both ways. The title just tries to be sensationalist and succeeds, sadly.




RE: Poor title
By LumbergTech on 1/23/2009 3:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
have you not actually READ some of the comments by the users? that university is known to have a bone to pick with video games


RE: Poor title
By Purp on 1/23/2009 5:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
I have read all the comments, and I really don't have any desire to get involved in the religion bashing debate above, but is there a credible source (i.e., not an internet forum or message board) for your statement that the university in question is known to have a bone to pick with video games? I may not be an expert on Mormonism, but I have spent plenty of hours playing Halo 3 with friends who are active in that church, some of whom graduated from BYU.


What a Load of ....
By hrishi2das on 1/26/2009 3:11:29 AM , Rating: 2
Me and the Girlfriend spend some good quality time playing Horde on Gears of War 2 and Split screen Co-op :)

Its really enjoyable...





RE: What a Load of ....
By zsejk on 1/26/2009 8:03:17 AM , Rating: 2
Hear hear!


RE: What a Load of ....
By metaltoiletry on 1/27/2009 5:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
Also,

"A statistical analysis also revealed that young adults who play video games more frequently also tend to undertake risky behaviors like drinking"

Since when is "drinking" such a... bad thing?

Video games + friends + drinking = FTW


its pretty accurate
By ninjaquick on 1/23/2009 1:15:08 PM , Rating: 3
I am an avid gamer.. no really, I am. But part of why I played games in the first place is because I have always had socialization problems. Also, while gaming, I have found that gamers become irritable.

Anyways, for the most part the game ends when it is shut off, and it is by no means a permanent change. Just put the shoes on and go chill with friends.

As far as drugs and alcohol... i believe that the majority of college students tend towards those, not just in gamer circles. If anything most my gamer friends stay away from drugs, tobacco. Alcohol though, that's something everyone is into....




RE: its pretty accurate
By superflex on 1/23/2009 2:34:03 PM , Rating: 1
I disagree. I rule Guitar Hero when I'm stoned. I also.....shit, forgot what I was gonna say


Relationships?
By SlipDizzy on 1/23/2009 10:03:19 AM , Rating: 2
What relationships?




Of course..
By excelsium on 1/23/2009 10:07:37 AM , Rating: 2
People who are predisposed to escapist activities (drug users, the socially inept etc) are more likely to play video games.




Sigh.
By FaceMaster on 1/23/2009 10:44:27 AM , Rating: 2
People are bullied because they have low self esteem.
People have low self esteem because they're bullied.

People have poor social skills because they play games.
People play games because they have poor social skills.

Is it the cause, or a symptom? Surely people who are less involved in relationships would spend more time on their own? Just because they aren't going out clubbing and meeting loads of people, it doesn't mean it's a bad thing. You can't do both and from my experience with girls, computer gaming is far more fun. And I've done lots of things.

To put it another way, people who spend more time on Daily Click spend less time on the Daily Mail website and vice versa.

I'm just saying that they're saying this stuff about computer games as if it's a bad thing and that they should be banned in order to make the world a better place. If I had my way I'd get everybody to play computer games and those who don't are obviously not enjoying it as much because they're too occupied trying to improve real life relationships. Stop this madness!




Me
By ashegam on 1/23/2009 11:22:19 AM , Rating: 2
Me and Jimmy can't be any happier and I game all the time.




Brodie said it right...
By joemoedee on 1/23/2009 11:38:01 AM , Rating: 2
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for Sega"




Maybe too broadly stated...
By praktik on 1/23/2009 11:46:20 AM , Rating: 2
...since I would say that among videogames, Civilization IV is horrible for relationships. Flashback to my addicted days:

"Hey, sorry babe but I'm really not feeling too well..."
"No man, can't hang out tonight, hanging out with the girlfriend..."

Night cleared for 12 hours of marathon civilization!

For those still caught in its grips, there's hope. You can only stop playing when you want to stop playing: www.civanon.org




What the...
By Hieyeck on 1/23/2009 11:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Study: Video Games Lead to Poor Relationships

quote:
The study is from Brigham Young University undergrad student Alex Jensen and his faculty mentor Laura Walker .

The implications are staggering. I'm just surprised no one else has noticed.




Couldn't disagree more!
By jadeskye on 1/23/2009 12:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
My fiance and I have played videogames together since we met and our relationship has lasted 8 years so far ^_^




Wrong way
By dgingeri on 1/23/2009 12:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
They are associating things the wrong way. It is not that people who play video games on a frequent basis get poor relationships in return. It is that those people with poor relationships get away from people by playing video games.

I know this first hand. I have always been a social outcast, ever since I was 6 years old. People just don't like being around me. (Then again, I hate being around stupid people, so it fits.) So, I play video games for my own form of stress relief and to get away from people.

The people who do these stupid studies are stupid themselves. Of course, they are catering to the stupid people, so it fits. If it didn't give me such trouble, I'd ignore them. I hate stupid people. I wish they'd stop messing around with my video game time just because they don't want to put in the effort to actually think.




Control By Stats
By ph0ed1n on 1/23/2009 5:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, statistics. Just say no to video games, because 100% of people who play video games are going to die.

Is it fair to conclude that statisticians are people who ignore the principle that gives us the Butterfly Effect?

They are "scientists" used by the powerful people to justify their agenda against the unalienable right to liberty.

Stay vigilant, video game fans, or your activity will go the way of marijuana.

Use is not always abuse. May the average person finally understand this for peace sake.




By Chernobyl68 on 1/23/2009 6:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
...people who drink water also breathe air.




By initialised on 1/23/2009 8:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
Or more simply do games make people socially inept or do games attract the socially inept?




Incredibly short-sighted.
By xeutonmojukai on 1/23/2009 11:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
There is no percentage mentioned, nor is there any definition of the testing method used.

There is no mention of the attitude people in these relationships have with the testees.

There is no description of the type of college students polled, nor of the types of games they played.

And most importantly, they released personal information to explain the background of beginning the study, which is not only incredibly protective and therefore suspicious, but also unnecessary, as it is not bias that they are guilty of, but incompetence.

If the teacher still bought a Wii for her family, then it is doubtful that she held much regard for the results. What better to show that there are flaws in the study?




By frozentundra123456 on 1/24/2009 2:05:12 AM , Rating: 2
As someone who works in research, I find the article meaningless without true statistical data. What does cluster and "modestly associated with" mean. Is the data statistically significant or not and what statistical tests were used? To really analyze the data, one would have to know the sample size, how it was selected (was it a random sample), and what the strength of the statistical correlation was. Based on the link provided, the article provided none of this data.
That said my feeling is that there probably is a correlation between playing some types of video games and lack of social interaction. As others have stated, video games are a way to escape from the unpleasant realities of real life, so it would make sense that those who have problems would use gaming as an escape.




It's the other way around.
By LatinMessiah on 1/24/2009 4:04:40 AM , Rating: 2
Those with poor relationships play video games.




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini