aspè aspè...pensavi che con "tu" mi riferissi a te? no ma complimenti per la capacità di comprensione del testo, e io che mi metto pure a risponderti
Movimento contro la disinformazione sui videogiochi
- Autore Discussione bad_hunter
- Data d'inizio
Bè se tu mi quoti la risposta utilizzando il "tu" mi sembra normale che abbia avuto una comprensione sbagliata del testo, comunque se le cose stanno così ti chiedo scusa :shy:
La prossima volta fai un esempio, non avrei compreso male solo io anche altri lo avrebbero fatto
Ultima modifica da un moderatore:
Gamesource Staff
Well-Known Member
Ecco un mio video in cui parlo in maniera chiaramente scherzosa,satirica ed ironica sui videogiochi:
[YT]3imxavmZr2Q[/YT]
[YT]3imxavmZr2Q[/YT]
Teocida
Oltreuomo
Tranquillo Orlando, il superdirettoremegagalattico di Gamesource, direttamente da Nippolandia e guidando il suo mecha "Ferrari One" comprato con i soldi del sito, ti impedirà di uccidere il capodirettore delle pubbliche relazione di Gamesource, in verità il suo amante segreto.
Klaus Necryar
Nuovo utente
Salve a tutti, sono entrato nello staff da poco tempo. Sono totalmente d' accordo con i post di queste pagine. C' è ormai urgenza di un ricambio generazionale nelle alte sfere, e non solo per quanto riguarda il modo di pensare sui videogiochi. finché l' Italia continuerà a essere retta da una classe privilegiata di dinosauri, il cui massimo divertimento era giocare a biglie, non dobbiamo stupirci che i videogiochi vengano additati come la causa di ogni traviamento possibile.
Saranno ormai 10 anni che lavoro nel campo del giornalismo, e ne ho viste di cotte e di crude. Molti pseudo-colleghi dei vari Tg male informati, non potendo accanirsi sui veri problemi del nostro paese, per ragioni politiche o ideologiche, o semplicemente di comodo, non trovano di meglio che prendersela con il primo capro espiatorio a portata di mano. In questo caso i videogiochi. E' una storia che va avanti sin da quando i primi Atari e C64 vari emettevano i loro primi "bip". Chi si ricorda le vergognose crociate contro il primo resident evil? O lo scandalo fumoso montato attorno a Rule of Rose? E' una battaglia disperata. Ogni volta che la gente seria, come molti di coloro che scrivono in questi forum, cercherà di far capire che i videogiochi non traviano le giovani menti (a meno che uno non sia già psicotico per conto suo), ci sarà sempre un parruccone finto-giornalista o un dinosauro-politico pronto a dimostrare il contrario, servendosi di teorie campate in aria.
Vero. Quando uscì Rule of Rose alcuni giornali gridarono allo scandalo, tirando in ballo presunti traviamenti lesbico-pedofili contenuti nel gioco (che tristezza). Risultato? Un gioco tutto sommato abbastanza mediocre vendette molte copie proprio grazie allo scandalo montatogli attorno.
Ultima modifica da un moderatore:
Gamesource Staff
Well-Known Member
Io sono convinto che l'esposizione a materiale eccessivamente violento(non solo videogiochi ma anche film e cartoni animati) possa influenzare negativamente anche persone mentalmente sane lasciando dentro di loro un piccolo lato oscuro che può venire a galla in momenti di debolezza(per esempio momenti di forte rabbia verso qualcuno).
Inoltre per quanto riguarda le giovani menti esiste il PEGI,il quale andrebbe rispettato scrupolosamente.
Ho usato il condizionale perchè è un dato di fatto che ci sono genitori che non lo rispettano quando i loro bambini giocano con alcuni videogiochi.
Comunque forse vi potrà interessare questo libro che ho intenzione di acquistare il mese prossimo:
Videogiochi violenti. Effetti su bambini e adolescenti
Ultima modifica da un moderatore:
Teocida
Oltreuomo
Di uno degli autori del libro ho potuto trovar questo che può esser interessante
--------------------------------------
Myths and Facts
Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).
Myth 2. The studies that find significant effects are the weakest methodologically.
Facts: Methodologically stronger studies have yielded the largest effects (Anderson, in press). Thus, earlier effect size estimates -based on all video game studies- probably underestimate the actual effect sizes.
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).
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.
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.
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).
Myth 7. Violent video games affect only a small fraction of players.
Facts: Though there are good theoretical reasons to expect some populations to be more susceptible to violent video game effects than others, the research literature has not yet substantiated this. That is, there is not consistent evidence for the claim that younger children are more negatively affected than adolescents or young adults or that males are more affected than females. There is some evidence that highly aggressive individuals are more affected than nonaggressive individuals, but this finding does not consistently occur. Even nonaggressive individuals are consistently affected by brief exposures. Further research will likely find some significant moderators of violent video game effects, because the much larger research literature on television violence has found such effects and the underlying processes are the same. However, even that larger literature has not identified a sizeable population that is totally immune to negative effects of media violence.
Myth 8. Unrealistic video game violence is completely safe for adolescents and older youths.
Facts: Cartoonish and fantasy violence is often perceived (incorrectly) by parents and public policy makers as safe even for children. However, experimental studies with college students have consistently found increased aggression after exposure to clearly unrealistic and fantasy violent video games. Indeed, at least one recent study found significant increases in aggression by college students after playing E-rated (suitable for everyone) violent video games.
Myth 9. The effects of violent video games are trivially small.
Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass. Furthermore, the fact that so many youths are exposed to such high levels of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this risk factor (Rosenthal, 1986).
Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.
Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing.
Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b) youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.
Theory
One frequently overlooked factor in this debate is the role of scientific theory. Pure empirical facts often have relatively little meaning and are seldom convincing. When those same facts fit a broader theory, especially one that has been tested in other contexts, those facts become more understandable and convincing. Recent years have seen considerable progress in basic theoretical models of human aggression (for recent integrations see Anderson & Bushman, 2002b; Anderson & Huesmann, in press; Anderson & Carnagey, in press).
Most such models take a social cognitive view of human aggression, integrating social learning theory, advances in cognitive psychology, script theory, developmental theories, and biological influences. Using such general models, media violence scholars now have a clear picture of how media violence increases aggression in short and long term contexts. Immediately after exposure to media violence, there is an increase in aggressive behavior tendencies because of several factors. 1. Aggressive thoughts increase, which in turn increase the likelihood that a mild or ambiguous provocation will be interpreted in a hostile fashion. 2. Aggressive affect increases. 3. General arousal (e.g., heart rate) increases, which tends to increase the dominant behavioral tendency. 4. Direct imitation of recently observed aggressive behaviors sometimes occurs.
Repeated media violence exposure increases aggression across the lifespan because of several related factors. 1. It creates more positive attitudes, beliefs, and expectations regarding use of aggressive solutions. 2. It creates aggressive behavioral scripts and makes them more cognitively accessible. 3. It decreases the accessibility of nonviolent scripts. 4. It decreases the normal negative emotional reactions to conflict, aggression, and violence.
---> L'articolo completo qui: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx
Oppure compratevi il libro suggerito da Orlando, ma sappiate che pare sia in stampa un suo "update" (come si nota dalle fonti dell'articolo)
--------------------------------------
Myths and Facts
Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).
Myth 2. The studies that find significant effects are the weakest methodologically.
Facts: Methodologically stronger studies have yielded the largest effects (Anderson, in press). Thus, earlier effect size estimates -based on all video game studies- probably underestimate the actual effect sizes.
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).
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.
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.
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).
Myth 7. Violent video games affect only a small fraction of players.
Facts: Though there are good theoretical reasons to expect some populations to be more susceptible to violent video game effects than others, the research literature has not yet substantiated this. That is, there is not consistent evidence for the claim that younger children are more negatively affected than adolescents or young adults or that males are more affected than females. There is some evidence that highly aggressive individuals are more affected than nonaggressive individuals, but this finding does not consistently occur. Even nonaggressive individuals are consistently affected by brief exposures. Further research will likely find some significant moderators of violent video game effects, because the much larger research literature on television violence has found such effects and the underlying processes are the same. However, even that larger literature has not identified a sizeable population that is totally immune to negative effects of media violence.
Myth 8. Unrealistic video game violence is completely safe for adolescents and older youths.
Facts: Cartoonish and fantasy violence is often perceived (incorrectly) by parents and public policy makers as safe even for children. However, experimental studies with college students have consistently found increased aggression after exposure to clearly unrealistic and fantasy violent video games. Indeed, at least one recent study found significant increases in aggression by college students after playing E-rated (suitable for everyone) violent video games.
Myth 9. The effects of violent video games are trivially small.
Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass. Furthermore, the fact that so many youths are exposed to such high levels of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this risk factor (Rosenthal, 1986).
Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.
Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing.
Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b) youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.
Theory
One frequently overlooked factor in this debate is the role of scientific theory. Pure empirical facts often have relatively little meaning and are seldom convincing. When those same facts fit a broader theory, especially one that has been tested in other contexts, those facts become more understandable and convincing. Recent years have seen considerable progress in basic theoretical models of human aggression (for recent integrations see Anderson & Bushman, 2002b; Anderson & Huesmann, in press; Anderson & Carnagey, in press).
Most such models take a social cognitive view of human aggression, integrating social learning theory, advances in cognitive psychology, script theory, developmental theories, and biological influences. Using such general models, media violence scholars now have a clear picture of how media violence increases aggression in short and long term contexts. Immediately after exposure to media violence, there is an increase in aggressive behavior tendencies because of several factors. 1. Aggressive thoughts increase, which in turn increase the likelihood that a mild or ambiguous provocation will be interpreted in a hostile fashion. 2. Aggressive affect increases. 3. General arousal (e.g., heart rate) increases, which tends to increase the dominant behavioral tendency. 4. Direct imitation of recently observed aggressive behaviors sometimes occurs.
Repeated media violence exposure increases aggression across the lifespan because of several related factors. 1. It creates more positive attitudes, beliefs, and expectations regarding use of aggressive solutions. 2. It creates aggressive behavioral scripts and makes them more cognitively accessible. 3. It decreases the accessibility of nonviolent scripts. 4. It decreases the normal negative emotional reactions to conflict, aggression, and violence.
---> L'articolo completo qui: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx
Oppure compratevi il libro suggerito da Orlando, ma sappiate che pare sia in stampa un suo "update" (come si nota dalle fonti dell'articolo)
Gamesource Staff
Well-Known Member
Ho appena trovato un simpatico video satirico in cui si fa notare come nessuno pensa alla morte e alla sofferenza dei personaggi videoludici:
[YT]EuBQ_Mof5Q4&feature=related[/YT]
Interessante la descrizione del video:
ogni giorno muoiono milioni di personaggi dei videogiochi e nessuno si oppone a questa crudeltà! Come è possibile? Perchè nessuno fa nulla? E'possibile giustificare tutta questa violenza solo perchè loro non esistono? Non è più divertente picchiare vecchietti?
[YT]EuBQ_Mof5Q4&feature=related[/YT]
Interessante la descrizione del video:
ogni giorno muoiono milioni di personaggi dei videogiochi e nessuno si oppone a questa crudeltà! Come è possibile? Perchè nessuno fa nulla? E'possibile giustificare tutta questa violenza solo perchè loro non esistono? Non è più divertente picchiare vecchietti?