Ah, the Internet. If there's a study agreeing with what it has already deemed Truth, the study is perfect, the case is closed, and it is a waste of money because anybody
could have told you that. If there's a study disagreeing with Truth, it must be flawed in all ways and the researchers must be biased.
I'm exaggerating, but I see it all the time on reddit and, to a lesser extent, here. Skepticism is great, but a lot of the time it comes across as poopslinging trying to find something
disagreeable, anything to discredit the paper and/or authors.
Originally Posted by superstition222
Can anyone post a bullet point summary of all the dismissal points (why it's worthless/wrong) regarding this research, and similar research?
Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie
Here is a perspective.....
As a Father of a child with Autism, my wife and I found he is most comfortable playing video games and drawing. As compared to going out and running around as much as the other kids. While he does join the others outside, he spends more time with video games and drawing than the others.
The problem with studies like this is it makes it easy to point to video games as a cause of behavior, when it isn't, thus leading to unaddressed issues. It was several years of multiple specialists to get our son the help he needed.
Reports like this just need to be careful, as they could lead to exclusion of activities that are helpful to many. Be it games, painting, singing, Yo-Yos.
The paper itself (or at least the parts available for free...) doesn't seem to insinuate that media is a cause, but it's found a statistically significant association. A sample size of 876 is pretty good, and I'd assume there's at least 400 males being studied. That's enough to make a conclusion within a few percentage points. Genres of games aren't listed, sure, but does that matter? There's obviously a link whether Australian boys are playing Candy Crush or GTA. A more detailed breakdown would be interesting, but the results overall are clear.
Now, the HuffPo article? I'm not clicking it. It's trash, I'm sure. That goes for most science reporting in the media, but especially when anything remotely political can be tied to it.
Originally Posted by Mookster
This study makes no sense, though. You can't test the effects of gaming on behavior of children this age, by testing children this age who are already playing video games. This is like testing the behavior patterns of book readers who have already taken it upon themselves to read books.