mornelithe said:
Well, we should be clear here, scientists posit all sorts of theories, not very many of which ever make it past the peer review phase. The problem arises when you have peers who are just as narrative focused as you are, and are simply blind to (or intentionally overlook) serious weaknesses in your methods/argument. There's a very real issue with journalists not being very diligent in researching both sides of a claim, in things they report. The result is a huge internet/public outcry/outrage over X issue, before anyone has a chance to actually analyze the methodology, which usually turns out to be either terribly biased, or not nearly in-depth enough to draw any conclusions from. It should also be mentioned that every form of entertainment in history, has been subject to these types of attacks. Movies, books, comics, cartoons, and music have all been blamed for every ill that society has ever suffered, and the arguments and data have always failed when subject to any kind of scrutiny. |
This. People will always try to find a scapegoat. And it usually is aimed at something the researchers personally dislike or just don't understand. People need to realized that the people who are doing these sutdies either never got into video games or are not young enough to grow up playing them. I think in another 30-40 years, these scientists will be looked at as foolish as those who felt Elvis music caused juvenile delinquency.
