Violent Video Games Protected Under First Amendment :: EverQuest

Quote Reply

#102 Jul 19 2011 at 4:10 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

7,881 posts

Kachi wrote:

You're prone to the same error as gbaji: a failure to accept that someone else might know better.

How can that be if I admit to being an entry level researcher? The bottom line is that you're wrong and don't want to admit to it. If you're being corrected, then it is what it is. I'm not pretending to be all knowing. I might joke about it, but that's not the case.

Kachi wrote:

What the world wants to know isn't the issue. The question is what the researchers wanted to know

False. In the smaller picture, yes. In the bigger picture absolutely no. In order to even get a PhD, you have to defend your dissertation with a panel. It's not what YOU think is important, but the value in society. No one is going to pay you money to research personal problems.

I'm sorry if you think other wise.

Kachi wrote:

Point being: it's usually the journalists who misunderstand and misrepresent findings, not stupid scientists who worked their brains off for their PhD, but then suddenly couldn't tell their feet from their ass when trying to investigate a simple matter.

In the words of Wu-Tang, "C.R.E.A.M"

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#103 Jul 20 2011 at 12:32 AM Rating: Decent

Kachi

Scholar

9,846 posts

Quote:

The bottom line is that you're wrong and don't want to admit to it.

Well then let's try again. What am I wrong about? And keep it short this time unless you're afraid that I'll take you up on your pointless offer to show you why you're wrong.

Quote:

False. In the smaller picture, yes. In the bigger picture absolutely no. In order to even get a PhD, you have to defend your dissertation with a panel. It's not what YOU think is important, but the value in society. No one is going to pay you money to research personal problems.

See, this would be an example of why I don't consider you a worthy adversary. You don't even seem to understand the scale on which most science seems worthless to the general population. We're not even talking about the same thing. I'm saying that what the general population thinks is important isn't necessarily consequential to a scientific discipline or particular research project. You're then making the very basic statement that research must have a justified purpose (which it doesn't even have to have if there's no risk to the subjects beyond what would be encountered in ordinary daily life).

Just a single demonstration of how vastly you underestimate the gap between us... you actually have the audacity to think that you know something important about research methods that I don't.

I guess you'll learn how little you know as you learn it, but I wonder at what point you'll realize that you'll always have much more to learn and demonstrate some appropriate humility. The key difference between us being that when I talk like I know something, it's because I actually know it.

____________________________

Hyrist wrote:

Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

▲ Page top

#104 Almalieque, Posted: Jul 20 2011 at 10:57 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Uhhhh... Do you not know the difference between the "small picture" and the "big picture"?!?!?!.. It appears that you're the one underestimating me. I'm not going to get in a Intellectual pissing contest, because you're flat out wrong and the "Vast gap level of intelligence" will not and can not change that fact.

Quote Reply

#105 Jul 21 2011 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent

Kachi

Scholar

9,846 posts

Quote:

People PAY researchers to research stuff beneficial to them. That's different than personal research. You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that every research needed a purpose. I said that no one is going to pay you to solve personal problems. That's not what people care about. A poster said that we don't care about if Timmy gets an increase of anger (or whatever emotion) when playing video games. What we care is if that emotion is the cause of certain behavior. You claimed that to be false and you're simply wrong.

That's exactly what people want to know, the so what. Your personal research can have as little to no purpose in it as you see fit. That doesn't take away from the research, but the second your research is being published, it has to have meaning to the outside world. Else, WTFRU publishing it?

Ah, I see. So you obviously don't understand academic research at all. What academic researchers study seldom has anything to do with what the general population cares about. Flip through a legitimate peer-reviewed journal sometime.

____________________________

Hyrist wrote:

Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#106 Jul 21 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

7,881 posts

Kachi wrote:

Quote:

People PAY researchers to research stuff beneficial to them. That's different than personal research. You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that every research needed a purpose. I said that no one is going to pay you to solve personal problems. That's not what people care about. A poster said that we don't care about if Timmy gets an increase of anger (or whatever emotion) when playing video games. What we care is if that emotion is the cause of certain behavior. You claimed that to be false and you're simply wrong.

That's exactly what people want to know, the so what. Your personal research can have as little to no purpose in it as you see fit. That doesn't take away from the research, but the second your research is being published, it has to have meaning to the outside world. Else, WTFRU publishing it?

Ah, I see. So you obviously don't understand academic research at all. What academic researchers study seldom has anything to do with what the general population cares about. Flip through a legitimate peer-reviewed journal sometime.

I have, that's why I know you're full of BS. Remember, I had access to the ACM library.

No one is going to pay you to research something that only benefits you, PERIOD. If someone does, it's definitely the minority. Give it up, you're wrong.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#107 Jul 21 2011 at 10:05 PM Rating: Decent

Kachi

Scholar

9,846 posts

Do you honestly not understand that there's an entire WORLD of research (specifically, most of it) between "what the general population cares about" and "what one individual and nobody else cares about" (and speaking of which, name any issue out there that nobody but one researcher cares about)?

You realize that nearly every PhD in this country (of which there are nearly 3 million) researches what is personally interesting to them, even if 99.999% of the country couldn't give a sh*t about it? Professors get paid to publish pretty much whatever they can, and it takes virtually no proof of benefit or general interest in a subject to get it approved for research, even publication.

Hell, right now I'm studying people who play roleplaying games with a professor from Stanford. Explain to me how that fits into your conception of research... even I probably won't buy it.

You're wrong, and you're possibly the only one who doesn't know it.

____________________________

Hyrist wrote:

Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#108 Jul 22 2011 at 4:57 AM Rating: Default

Almalieque

7,881 posts

Kachi wrote:

Do you honestly not understand that there's an entire WORLD of research (specifically, most of it) between "what the general population cares about" and "what one individual and nobody else cares about" (and speaking of which, name any issue out there that nobody but one researcher cares about)?

You realize that nearly every PhD in this country (of which there are nearly 3 million) researches what is personally interesting to them, even if 99.999% of the country couldn't give a sh*t about it? Professors get paid to publish pretty much whatever they can, and it takes virtually no proof of benefit or general interest in a subject to get it approved for research, even publication.

Hell, right now I'm studying people who play roleplaying games with a professor from Stanford. Explain to me how that fits into your conception of research... even I probably won't buy it.

You're wrong, and you're possibly the only one who doesn't know it.

I'm sorry it was TL:DR.... J/k

Do you honestly not understand the concept of C.R.E.A.M? Of course people get PhD's in what satisfy them, why wouldn't you? That doesn't disqualify it from being beneficial to society.

I think you're confusing "what the people are interested in" with "beneficial in society". I explicitly said the latter, which holds true for interest as well. Most "people", in the general sense, have never heard any of the stuff in any given dissertation, that doesn't change it's relevancy of the research.

You can live in a fantasy world all you want, but the simple fact that grants have to be "granted", dissertations have to defended, etc. is all the necessary evidence to support the reality that published research isn't about you.

Your study of those people yield results in the effect of people playing role playing games. That can easily be considered a benchmark for other studies to reference, but since you don't understand the concept of referencing, I guess this eludes you as well. Anyone who plays RPG's can benefit from your research.

Now, if those people were the only people in the world who plays video games, then you would have more of a point. I"m not saying that type of hypothetical research doesn't exist, just the minority.

Again, it's very simple. C.R.E.A.M.

Edited, Jul 22nd 2011 1:00pm by Almalieque

Edited, Jul 22nd 2011 1:02pm by Almalieque

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#109 Jul 22 2011 at 9:52 PM Rating: Decent

Kachi

Scholar

9,846 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Kachi wrote:

What the world wants to know isn't the issue. The question is what the researchers wanted to know

False. In the smaller picture, yes. In the bigger picture absolutely no. In order to even get a PhD, you have to defend your dissertation with a panel. It's not what YOU think is important, but the value in society. No one is going to pay you money to research personal problems.

I'm sorry if you think other wise.

Almalieque wrote:

I think you're confusing "what the people are interested in" with "beneficial in society". I explicitly said the latter, which holds true for interest as well. Most "people", in the general sense, have never heard any of the stuff in any given dissertation, that doesn't change it's relevancy of the research.

Look at these quotes in the context of the original study, and maybe you'll see how completely stupid you've been about all this. My point the whole time was that "what the general population is interested in" is not the same as "what the researchers are interested in".

tl;dr
Everyone thinks you're retarded, and they're right.

____________________________

Hyrist wrote:

Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#110 Jul 23 2011 at 4:01 AM Rating: Excellent

Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major

Soulless Internet Tiger

34,007 posts

Kachi wrote:

Everyone thinks you're retarded, and they're right.

If you don't stop replying to him, you're going to end up the same way.

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#111 Jul 23 2011 at 5:51 AM Rating: Default

Almalieque

7,881 posts

Kachi wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Kachi wrote:

What the world wants to know isn't the issue. The question is what the researchers wanted to know

False. In the smaller picture, yes. In the bigger picture absolutely no. In order to even get a PhD, you have to defend your dissertation with a panel. It's not what YOU think is important, but the value in society. No one is going to pay you money to research personal problems.

I'm sorry if you think other wise.

Almalieque wrote:

I think you're confusing "what the people are interested in" with "beneficial in society". I explicitly said the latter, which holds true for interest as well. Most "people", in the general sense, have never heard any of the stuff in any given dissertation, that doesn't change it's relevancy of the research.

Look at these quotes in the context of the original study, and maybe you'll see how completely stupid you've been about all this. My point the whole time was that "what the general population is interested in" is not the same as "what the researchers are interested in".

tl;dr
Everyone thinks you're retarded, and they're right.

I acknowledged that difference from the start. I wasn't countering that fact. I told you that in the small picture, it is all about what the researcher wants to know, but not in the big picture. This is in reference to your quote below.

Kachi wrote:

Elinda wrote:

The study was about aggression, not violence. Again, that's an important distinction in psychology that laymen and journalists generally fail to appreciate.
Except that the world doesn't want to know that playing Star Wars made billy a more aggressive football player. People want to know if the boys of Columbine had become mass-murderers because they'd been playing Grand Theft Auto.

What the world wants to know isn't the issue. The question is what the researchers wanted to know.

And that's completely false. In the bigger picture, it's exactly what the world wants to know, not you. You are the SMALLER picture. That doesn't contradict the fact that there's a difference between what the researcher wants to know and what the general population wants to know. However, it does contradict the notion that a publication has nothing to do with the public. And yet again, you seem to not understand the C.R.E.A.M concept.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#112 Jul 24 2011 at 11:42 AM Rating: Decent

Kachi

Scholar

9,846 posts

And you don't understand that tenure exists exactly so CDREAM.

____________________________

Hyrist wrote:

Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#113 Jul 24 2011 at 3:05 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

7,881 posts

Kachi wrote:

And you don't understand that tenure exists exactly so CDREAM.

Uh no..

The only thing that could possibly outweigh CREAM is OPP.

▲ Page top

Violent Video Games Protected Under First AmendmentFollow

ZAM Network

Game Sites

Addon Sites

Community

ZAM General