ummmmm hello?!?!

This myth is actually ridiculous to me. People actually thinking that there are no studies that link video games to violence?! That is kind of like saying, there are no studies proving that eating McDonalds all of the time will make you fat, or saying that doing drugs can harm you. This is such an ignorant myth! First of all, through my research I have uncovered probably about three different methods in merely testing this! Not only are their results, but there are so many different ways that this theory is tested and proven. Now this is not to say that EVERY person on the face of the earth is affected in a negative way from playing violent video games but there definitely have been cases where that was the case.

As always, I continued to search the American Psychological Association website in regards to this issue. Myth six below shows us what some people believe in regards to this. But yet again, the APA corrects any misguided assumptions. I always assumed that the people most susceptible to an actual change in behavior from playing violent video games might have been elementary or middle school aged kids. I thought this because most of them are still in the growing and development process and this might affect this in someway, (behavior-wise). The fact presented to us in relation to the myth states that students have been reported to become violent at school because changes in behavior. So, this proves my assumption in that it does in fact affect school aged children, even though a specific age was not mentioned.

Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).

more myths, facts, and video games!

I am so uninformed about this topic, and I really think looking at different facts and myths is broadening my horizon in the world of video games!

Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.



I feel as if I keep reiterating the same things, but every study should be taken into consideration! In order to accurately talk about this myth and fact I got a little bit of background information on what a correlation study actually consisted of, rhather then basing the blog off of my ignorance! On the IBM website, (http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/db2luw/v8/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.db2.udb.doc/admin/c0006909.htm), it actually explains what a correlation study is.

"Use the Correlation transformer to determine the extent to which changes in the value of an attribute (such as length of employment) are associated with changes in another attribute (such as salary). The data for a correlation analysis consists of two input columns. Each column contains values for one of the attributes of interest. The Correlation transformer can calculate various measures of association between the two input columns. You can select more than one statistic to calculate for a given pair of input columns.

The data in the input columns also can be treated as a sample obtained from a larger population, and the Correlation transformer can be used to test whether the attributes are correlated in the population. In this context, the null hypothesis asserts that the two attributes are not correlated, and the alternative hypothesis asserts that the attributes are correlated."

From this, I gathered that basically the person doing the test makes a hypothesis; (which is pretty standard in most testing, no matter what type). You create a table with 2 different sides. Its basically a test that makes a comparison between to different subjects. So for example, perhaps one side of the table could represent changes in behavior, whle the other side represented changes in the video game. The test will be able to accurately show how these 2 "subjects" related to each other. It is extremely important to see how these 2 things relate to each other in this study because it is exactly what is being tested! This test would definitely be successful, because it would make the 2 different sides more clear especially since they are easliy seperated and can be compared more clearly.

Another week...

Another week has passed...and I feel absolutely frazzeled. I feel like I can't keep up! Everything is due, and I kind of want to rip out my hair even though I like it. Regardless, I feel I have continued to be productive and stay on time with everything in my Flash games class. In Flash, we have been working this week on "Imagining our Games". I partnered up with Bruno, and we came up with a concept involving water which was talked about in "Animal Vegetable Miracle". My team still needs to come up with all of the fine details in the game, but it is certainly a work in progress. In the book, the author talks about water sources and how not all water sources are actually healthy; even those people are expected to drink from! Now, I don't know about you, but I like to know what im drinking. I was once told that you should read the first few ingredients on a food label and if you can't pronounce them, then don't bother buying them.....the same goes for water!!! We want to create a fun and informative game so that players can be more aware of water, and what makes it clean and unclean. I feel like I have accomplished a lot this week in coming up with game concepts and such, but Team Pup and Suds still has a longgg way to go!

Week of Feb 15

This week has been very productive. I learned how to make a Mini Game this week in Flash, and I'm pretty excited that I actually understand what I did after I did so! I followed the Globaloria directions and created a Mini Game, where a little bunny goes after a carrot. Everything the bunny "eats" the carrot, or basically collides with it, you get a point. I was able to successfully execute; game control looping, collision detection, keeping score, keyboard control, an intro into Action Scripting, and I was able to work with movie clips. Most of the directions were very clear, only a few confused me. I'm pretty excited that I created this game, even if it is for beginners.

"When genetically modified plants go wild"

*What is the main objective of the online resource?

The main objective of this article is to better inform people of how GM's crops are at times contaminated, and that their "experimental" crops are hazardous. The article states; "Clearly this shows that the companies and the government don't have as much control over experimental crops as they need to have". Some of the experimental crops contain differnent chemicals and other un-natural substances which are harmful to the body and I feel that GM needs to pay more attention to this issue.

**What are one or two of the main messages conveyed in this resource?
I feel that the main message is about the different contaminated crops that are being produced through GM. I'd like to be more aware of what I consume, and I had no idea they are lax about this situation...

***Briefly describe a game you could create to teach these messages.
I could make a game that teaches the students what different crops are, and what might be used in them as a contaminate. For example, a student could choose between drinking regular milk with all of the chemicals and hormones in it, or organic milk which is more natural.

Week 4!

Every week I discover more and more in regards to this sensitive subject. What measures must we take in order to determine the truth behind this theory? Last week, we looked at the myth in regards to "laboratory experiments being irrelevant". I came to my own conclusion that they are in no way irrelevant because I feel that one taking the proper steps to uncover this should look at it from every angle.

(http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx)

This week's myth from the American Psychological Association, explores a different type of irrelevancy, which revolve around field experiments rather than laboratory experiments. Myth number 4 that the APA uncoveres reads below:

"Myth 4. Field experiments are irrelevant (aggression measures based either on direct imitation of video game behaviors (e.g., karate kicks) or are normal play behaviors.

Facts: Some field experiments have used behaviors such as biting, pinching, hitting, pushing, and pulling hair, behaviors that were not modeled in the game. The fact that these aggressive behaviors occur in natural environments does not make them "normal" play behavior, but it does increase the face validity (and some would argue the external validity) of the measures."

Continuing from last week, I feel that all measures should be taken. Laboratory experiments, and field experiments. Just because a select few may think that either of these ways are irrelevants, they are both relevant in some way or another. How can it be irrelevant for someone to test the aggression level of a person who is imitating the movements they witnessed first hang in a video game? Maybe when the person being tested performs these type of movements, they become extremely violent or more aggressive than usual. Perhaps this has something to do with them seeing it in a video game? I feel that the tester would be more successful if he/she did participate in field experiments.

tbc...

Playing to kill?

VG & Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity). Violence???

Week 3 of discorvering the truth behind video games and violence brings us to myth and fact 3 as well.

"Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).

Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have the same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997)."

I can see again why this is a myth as well. I feel, that the people who are studying this, and the affects video games have on people should take all of the necessary/proper measures. Regardelss to whether the people being observed in their homes or in a lab setting, I think the results would most likely be similar. There may bea few slight discrepancies, but nothing too skewing. For example, I believe if people were tested and monitored at home while they were playing these games that they may be a little more relaxed then they would if they were in an actual laboratory. But, I think once they started playing the games, they would probably "get in the zone" (if you will), and clue into what they were playing rather than where they were.

If the poeple being monitored came into the testing in the lab, there is a slight chance that they would be nervous, and that may skew the test results slightly, but I do not think it would be bad.

My Blogroll

I decided to follow these different blogs because they all fed into my theme of video games and violence, and all are coming from different angles. I really like the blog i found which is based on psychology. I like this, because most of my research come from the American Psychological Association website. I like how the website talks about every aspect of video games and violence, including the research of it. I enjoy this area of research because there are soo many different opinions on the topic! Does violence really affect the way people interact with others? I think that it is better to follow blogs of people that are either professionals, like the psychological blog, or people that actually play video games. I think so because people that actually play video games have 1st hand experience, probably know people that may or may not have been affected by violent video games, know the most about video games in general, and are probably more likely to know more about which video games are the most violent and have been said to affect people the most.

Progress

I totally love my Flash Games course so far. I love learning new software, and from this class I have already started working with two new programs, Adobe Flash, and Illustrator. I am completely new to both of these programs, but seem to be catching on... I am a very visual learner, so I like how my teacher shows us how to work the software before we execute. We are reading a book called "Animal Vegetable Miracle", and we are everntually going to produce flash games from different themes in the book, so right now we are working on creating different fruits and vegetables in Adobe flash. I struggled at first, but after practicing, I was happy with the fruits and vegetables I created :). With our fruits and veges ready to go, we learned how to animate them. I liked doing this process...even though it took awhile for me to figure out, I feel like everytime I practice, I get a little bit better! I hope to create some more fruits and vegetables!

Animal Vegetable Miracle

In the beginning of the book, the woman talks about the water source they had in Arizona. The books states that since the main water source was virtually disappearing, that they had to get a new one. Once turned on, people of Arizona were encouraged to drink it, but dont put it in fish bowls, because it would kill the fish. Now, I dont know about you, but I wouldnt want to have anything to do with that foul water! We could possibly create a game that teaches about different water sources, determines the pros and cons of those sources and then make it fun, but having the student dictate the water flow or something like that.

Another game could be based on the different healthy food groups. Most students learn about the different food groups from boring books and the same pictures over and over. Why not interact with them? Perhaps the students could learn about different grains, and vegeatbles and fruits and meats, and put them in the different groups. Although this may be an easy game, it will reiterate where the foods go, and why they are so important.