Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[qwints]

Good point on the competition versus violence aspect - the study you cite contrasts Fuel with Left for Dead 2, showing that the non-violent but competitive game had a larger effect on behavior than the violent but less competitive game. For the sake of completeness, I would like to see you analyze that studies methodology since I don't think you should only critique the methodology of studies you agree with.

On the other study, you're wrong. First, reviewing the literature in a field is standard - studies that disagree with Anderson, like the meta-analysis I posted earlier, also discuss his work. That discussion informs their study construction because they use it to conduct a study designed to address a gap in the research (as they also do in teh second study you cited.) Second, this was a longitudinal study and they were not using one cohorts grade 11 results to control for another cohorts grade 12 results. Rather, they used grade 11 results to examine the same cohort's grade 12 result*. Finally, while it's true that the unstandardized coefficient of both methods of causation was the same in magnitude, only violent video games** association with aggression was statistically significant, not the other way around.

*It's worth noting that they found violent video games associated with aggression in the next year but not the other way around for 2 of the 3 years. There was no association between violent video games in grade 10 and aggression in grade 11, unlike the other two transitions.

**Specifically, they compared "action and fighting games" with "puzzle, art, building model worlds and quiz games." Obviously this plays into the next study since the latter are both non-violent and fairly non-competitive in contrast with a racing game like Fuel.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Good point on the competition versus violence aspect - the study you cite contrasts Fuel with Left for Dead 2, showing that the non-violent but competitive game had a larger effect on behavior than the violent but less competitive game. For the sake of completeness, I would like to see you analyze that studies methodology since I don't think you should only critique the methodology of studies you agree with.

I neither agree nor disagree with the second study. I've not read it. I'm not claiming anything about the results.

First, reviewing the literature in a field is standard - studies that disagree with Anderson, like the meta-analysis I posted earlier, also discuss his work.

I didn't say they discussed it, I said that they based their research off it.

Second, this was a longitudinal study and they were not using one cohorts grade 11 results to control for another cohorts grade 12 results. Rather, they used grade 11 results to examine the same cohort's grade 12 result*.

I didn't say they did. I said that they took the grade 11's results and used them to examine the grade 12's results. That tells you what the relationship is between two different groups of people, not how two different aspects of one group of people evolves over time.

Finally, while it's true that the unstandardized coefficient of both methods of causation was the same in magnitude, only violent video games** association with aggression was statistically significant, not the other way around.

You're right, I misread that.

I'm still not entirely sure that it's a valid comparison, though. Nobody claims that aggressive behaviour over time causes people to seek out more violent video games. Why would it? That doesn't mean that aggression is caused by violent video games, rather than an aggressive nature being the cause of playing violent video games.

 

[WillyWonka]

If anything atheismplus.com has resulting in me having less empathy and less sympathy for self-identified SJW folks than I had before. The levels of narcissistic self-enabling reached heights that I honestly thought were only possible in fiction. There are people that, apparently, have such a delicate disposition that their internet access probably should be supervised or restricted in some way for their own health.

I did learn what kinds of language to look out for that will tell me the train is about to leave the station for crazytown, so that was a very useful lesson. Anytime I see "privilege" come up in a non-academic context I'll know it is time to ask for the check and vacate the premises.

I have the same feeling. They are mostly about victimhood and not been understood by the world.

Interestingly, in their thread about how to change the justice system, there were no discussion or even an interesting suggestion on how to do it. Only Lovely stating that you should put in prison any man where a woman is claiming rape; trial optional. They also suggested to muzzle journalists in using words like "allege". I would have though that "oppressed" people would have lots of ideas on how to change the system, but, no, it must be so much easier to complain.

 

[Edx]

Only Lovely stating that you should put in prison any man where a woman is claiming rape; trial optional. .

Thats not just a view restricted to AtheismPlus, sometimes they don't even realise what they are saying themselves. Remember this picture that was going around not a long time ago? So they judge them all guilty by default.

 

[Quinn]

If anything atheismplus.com has resulting in me having less empathy and less sympathy for self-identified SJW folks than I had before. The levels of narcissistic self-enabling reached heights that I honestly thought were only possible in fiction. There are people that, apparently, have such a delicate disposition that their internet access probably should be supervised or restricted in some way for their own health.

I did learn what kinds of language to look out for that will tell me the train is about to leave the station for crazytown, so that was a very useful lesson. Anytime I see "privilege" come up in a non-academic context I'll know it is time to ask for the check and vacate the premises.

I'm pretty sure that's not what they mean when they say that.

But seriously, seconded on all counts. I would also add kyriarchy, erasing (when describing something done to a person rather than a computer file or pencil drawing), spoons (when used to describe a level of personal ability rather than cutlery) and sawcasm (when not a typo) to the list of quick indicators that the discussion has achieved escape velocity from reason.

 

[Joe Random]

I'm pretty sure that's not what they mean when they say that.

But seriously, seconded on all counts. I would also add kyriarchy, erasing (when describing something done to a person rather than a computer file or pencil drawing), spoons (when used to describe a level of personal ability rather than cutlery) and sawcasm (when not a typo) to the list of quick indicators that the discussion has achieved escape velocity from reason.

Don't forget the various versions of 'splaining'. Don't feel like taking the time to show the flaws in someone's argument? Why then just tell them they're not entitled to an opinion on the subject by simple virtue of who they are! Try this magical phrase on for size : "You can stop <rnd>splaining to me now.".

 

[Mr. Scott]

Also, I think it was amazing that they considered people with mental health problems an underprivileged minority that needed protection from discrimination. So much so, in fact, that they were elevated to special snowflake status such that people with mental health problems were given positions of power in their hierarchies (see my sig). I'm sorry, but this is disastrous policy. People with mental health problems need to be kept out of positions of power over other people (history has shown they can work against the common good), and treated for their problems.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Also, I think it was amazing that they considered people with mental health problems an underprivileged minority that needed protection from discrimination. So much so, in fact, that they were elevated to special snowflake status such that people with mental health problems were given positions of power in their hierarchies (see my sig). I'm sorry, but this is disastrous policy. People with mental health problems need to be kept out of positions of power over other people (history has shown they can work against the common good), and treated for their problems.

I think that's a little sweeping and stereotyping. How, exactly, are you defining "mental health problems", and can you provide evidence which conclusively demonstrates that people with mental health problems being put in positions of power over those who don't have mental health problems is inevitably a bad thing?

 

[SimplyAghast]

I think that's a little sweeping and stereotyping. How, exactly, are you defining "mental health problems", and can you provide evidence which conclusively demonstrates that people with mental health problems being put in positions of power over those who don't have mental health problems is inevitably a bad thing?

You make a good point. There are folks with Twitter-induced PTSD who are shining lights of this skeptical community and do sooooooo much good for the field.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You make a good point. There are folks with Twitter-induced PTSD who are shining lights of this skeptical community and do sooooooo much good for the field.

Yeah, that helps, thanks.

FWIW, people who, by Mr. Scott's post, should not be put in positions of authority over others include Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr.

As I said, it seems a rather sweeping and stereotyping statement. There's enough social stigma around mental illness as it is, without the idea being perpetuated that all people with mental health issues are dangerous to be around, or that their thoughts and ideas are necessarily worthless.

 

[dasmiller]

I think that's a little sweeping and stereotyping. How, exactly, are you defining "mental health problems", and can you provide evidence which conclusively demonstrates that people with mental health problems being put in positions of power over those who don't have mental health problems is inevitably a bad thing?

Gonna go with Squeegee here. It's certainly easy to come up with disastrous job/diagnosis combinations (a sociopathic paramedic, perhaps, or an agoraphobic lineman), but in other cases, the problem doesn't significantly impact ones work.

AFAIK, hoarding can be a very serious problem, but a lot of hoarders have successful careers, and their coworkers have no idea about their hoarding. This is probably true for a lot of forms of OCD.

I had one coworker who was pretty far along the autism spectrum, but was the right guy to lead a project because he was the only one who could understand all the depths and subtleties of the problem they were working. True, his people skills weren't great (nor were they disastrous), but I suspect that if he'd been more 'normal,' he would have lacked the near-superhuman focus that the problem required.

Etc, etc.

I certainly wouldn't celebrate mental illness, and I'm all for treating it when possible. And A+ was . . ummm . . . probably not where I'd look for positive examples of people functioning effectively despite mental health problems.

But for the general question about whether it's necessarily a bad thing for someone with mental health problems to be in a 'position of power,' I'd say we have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Dissolution]

Well put, Dasmiller.

 

[Mr. Scott]

But for the general question about whether it's necessarily a bad thing for someone with mental health problems to be in a 'position of power,' I'd say we have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

Cool, I'll agree with that.

 

[WillyWonka]

Don't forget the various versions of 'splaining'. Don't feel like taking the time to show the flaws in someone's argument? Why then just tell them they're not entitled to an opinion on the subject by simple virtue of who they are! Try this magical phrase on for size : "You can stop <rnd>splaining to me now.".

Another one is "trigger". You do not get your A+ gold badge without having at least 5-6 triggers that nullify all your spoons and leave you in a state of total disarray.

In the complaining thread, Mocha wrote:

<<
complaining TW: TSA [ Hide ]
I'm leaving to visit my family today, which requires going on an airplane for fast enough travel to make the trip possible. This means I have to get a TSA feel up. I can't go through the full body scanners because they will fry my cyborg parts.

I hate the screening. I always feel so triggered afterward. But, because I'm doing it of my own free will, I somehow lose my right to complain or be triggered according to everyone who isn't in the loop on SJ stuff (AKA friends and family). So I get to be triggered in silence.

...

It was terrible and I ended up crying (and I still am) and they took away my medically necessary fluids.

>>

 

[squealpiggy]

Another one is "trigger". You do not get your A+ gold badge without having at least 5-6 triggers that nullify all your spoons and leave you in a state of total disarray.

In the complaining thread, Mocha wrote:

<<
complaining TW: TSA [ Hide ]
I'm leaving to visit my family today, which requires going on an airplane for fast enough travel to make the trip possible. This means I have to get a TSA feel up. I can't go through the full body scanners because they will fry my cyborg parts.

I hate the screening. I always feel so triggered afterward. But, because I'm doing it of my own free will, I somehow lose my right to complain or be triggered according to everyone who isn't in the loop on SJ stuff (AKA friends and family). So I get to be triggered in silence.

...

It was terrible and I ended up crying (and I still am) and they took away my medically necessary fluids.

>>

Just got back from a trip overseas. The most distressing part of the screening process is that you have to take out your laptop and tablet and cables while holding boarding cards and passports and all that mucking about.

I didn't cry. I just sent bitchy texts to my wife about how I was annoyed.

 

[gentlehorse]

... has achieved escape velocity from reason.

A+ in a six-word nutshell--

 

[Edx]

I think that's a little sweeping and stereotyping. How, exactly, are you defining "mental health problems", and can you provide evidence which conclusively demonstrates that people with mental health problems being put in positions of power over those who don't have mental health problems is inevitably a bad thing?

I think you're asking the wrong question Squeegee. Their entire perception of "privilege" is what the problem is.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think you're asking the wrong question Squeegee. Their entire perception of "privilege" is what the problem is.

The problem I was addressing was the post that Mr. Scott made. He has since implicitly backed down from it so, as far as I can see, problem solved.

 

[Joe Random]

The problem I was addressing was the post that Mr. Scott made. He has since implicitly backed down from it so, as far as I can see, problem solved.

Polite, rational resolution of a disagreement triggers me. You've got me shaking with rage right now. Thanks for erasing what few spoons I had left. I feel like I've just been gaslighted again by a heteronormative, cisbinarypriviledraperaperaperrorerrorerror(@^+9nLI#$(=,c
.
.
.
.
NO CARRIER

 

[Brainache]

The problem I was addressing was the post that Mr. Scott made. He has since implicitly backed down from it so, as far as I can see, problem solved.

That's enough Politesplaining out of you!

BANNED!!!