Matri Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Understanding the 62% Violent Pac-Man. Seriously, I'm afraid for the future now. What kind of quack degree did she get anyway?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullAuto Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 That's utterly idiotic. How can you express violence as a percentage? Which member of the mentally unexcellent club though that up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Gringo Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 I guess brains do fart.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matri Posted August 17, 2006 Author Share Posted August 17, 2006 That's utterly idiotic. How can you express violence as a percentage? Which member of the mentally unexcellent club though that up? That would be Dr Kimberly Thompson who is, believe it or not, a Harvard alumni. Here's an excerpt from her "study": "Parents and physicians need to recognize that M-rated video games popular with children and adolescents contain a wide range of often unlabeled content, exposing young people to messages that may negatively influence their perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors," said Thompson, Associate Professor of Risk Analysis and Decision Science at HSPH. HELLO?? It's an M-rated game! Young children aren't supposed to be playing it in the first place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Gringo Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Not Risk Analysis/Management again! It is good as a tool in foreseeing eventual problems in a project. But it should not be used as a way to view every little aspect of life and thereafter blurt something out about it is a risk while not mentioning how big or small risk it is. Those people turn everything into numbers and are even worse the economists (No offense, Slaughter).And Doc Thompson there is risk analysing public health....'If this 12 year old child buys this M-rated game called (insert any M-rated game name here) then how big is the risk of him becoming a (porn star, serial killer, guntoting maniac....Generally speaking a 'menace' to society) and not a healthy (both mental and physical) and productive member of society.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomb Bloke Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Was the purpose of Thompson's studies to point suggest that PacMan have a more mature rating...? I some how get the impression that some words are being twisted here... I also feel that pointing out that M rated titles aren't suitable for a young audience isn't a stupid comment. Many parents these days are quite happy to let the youngsters play GTA, if it shuts them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jman4117 Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 oh dear God...so a little yellow circle going around eating ghosts and pills is going to make me more violent now? XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Gringo Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 I guess it all depends on how the 'researcher' defines violence....Animate and inanimate objects being harmed (slashing/bashing/stabbing with a meele weapon, jumping on top of it, eating it, blowing it up, shooting it with a ranged weapon....To be continued in my never to be released book: 'The ways that animate and inanimate objects can be or get harmed'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uriaheep Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 It's just another case of someone with a H&S job trying to justify it. In a world where children give birth to other children and have drug habits and kill each other the odd video game won't hurt. What have I said? H&S will now claim that watching video games have caused this....... Wrap the children in cotton wool? No give the children guns and decrease the surplus population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Gringo Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Overprotection gone awry I'll say.Pre-emptive strikes against all potential threats against your physical and mental well-being are a double-edged sword. Some turn out good and some turn out bad while others are ignored.Our beloved mother nature tries to keep our growth in check in various ways but we adapt, improvise and overcome the challenges that there is thrown at us. Even if it means loosing some humans in proces.Trial and error is one of the ways that humans learn. In overprotecting the human in telling them what they mustn't do you take away their own trial and error experience which has various outcomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uriaheep Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 It's what I call "The Kitten and the Candle" theory. The kitten tries to smell the flame, burns it's nose but then knows that the flame hurts. There is no candle anymore because health and safety people put a cage around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now