Nigel, check this out.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Not a big fan of Penn & Teller, but this is worth watching all the way through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaF9nbLo8as

Because, you know, the kids are alright.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Kickass! I'm gonna watch this in the morning.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm about halfway through it and so far it's just irritating the shit out of me. It's just a bunch of appeals to emotion and anecdotes using images of marginally credible nutjobs with boners against video games in order to make fun of them. Like almost all Penn & Teller routines, their approach undermines their credibility. But I guess it is meant to be entertainment. I did like the actual serious researchers they brought in halfway through, though.

Fact 1: There are an ass-ton of studies showing a strong link between exposure to violent media and an increase in aggressive behaviors immediately afterward.

Fact 2: There is exactly zero evidence to indicate any link between violent media and an increase in real-life youth violence. 

In my opinion, the link between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior immediately afterward is pretty simply explained by increased adrenaline and cortisol levels immediately after being stimulated by an exciting, engaging or thrilling scene or game. It's pretty straightforward. You see the exact same thing after a sports game or a race or any activity that stimulates the sympathetic nervous system.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I did like the actual serious researchers they brought in halfway through, though.

The two that they refer to as the "husband and wife" team are the two I was interested in.  Out of EVERYONE, they seem to be the only two that are interested in the science, instead of proving one side or the other. 

An interesting thing is that military personnel are more likely to fire on an enemy in combat these days (WWII it was about 20%, by the second Iraq war it was 95% of people willing to shoot).  This is attributed both to different training techniques in the military (human-shaped targets, etc), and also to media conditioning (video games, movies, television).

On the other hand, juvenile crime can be shown to have decreased, per the graphs here:

http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05261

What Penn doesn't say is that he picked the high point of juvenile crime as his starting point.  Crime had risen from 1986 to 1996, and the fall in crime that he suggests brought it to just below 1986 levels, though the trend seems to indicate that it is continuing to fall.

I think they have a valid point concerning video games being over-hyped as causation for violence.  In the 1980s, Dungeons & Dragons was shown in many studies to cause psychotic breaks and violent behavior...While in reality, the average D&D player is no more or less prone to violence when stacked against their peers.  The studies back then were agenda-driven by the religious right, and I suspect that some of the studies now may be the same way.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah, I think that there's a lot of agenda-driven research going on, and that's never very useful from an objective standpoint. I'm glad the researcher couple pointed out that the "brain areas light up" correlation is 100% pure bullshit and not indicative of much of anything. I am so fucking sick of hearing  that touted as some kind of scientific evidence of something. It's pseudoscience and as soon as someone trots it out I'm done taking them seriously.

I also think that exposure to extreme violence at a young age isn't healthy.

I think that Penn & Teller's use of crime statistics was disingenuous, because there are so many confounding factors it's impossible to say whether video game violence is contributing to youth crime. Violent crime is now at it's lowest point since the 1960's and is still on the decline, but who's to say it wouldn't be declining faster, or slower, in the absence of violent media? There's no evidence either way.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What I found fascinating was that both sides - as represented - were using junk science and confirmation bias bullshit, and those two scientists seemed shocked and disgusted by both Penn and the dingbats he chose as the opposition.

And that is his biggest sin, here.  He went out and found the worst nutcases he could, instead of talking to mainstream researchers.  A lawyer is not a researcher, assholes.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What I found fascinating was that both sides - as represented - were using junk science and confirmation bias bullshit, and those two scientists seemed shocked and disgusted by both Penn and the dingbats he chose as the opposition.

And that is his biggest sin, here.  He went out and found the worst nutcases he could, instead of talking to mainstream researchers.  A lawyer is not a researcher, assholes.

That's "reality" teevee for ya.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What I found fascinating was that both sides - as represented - were using junk science and confirmation bias bullshit, and those two scientists seemed shocked and disgusted by both Penn and the dingbats he chose as the opposition.

And that is his biggest sin, here.  He went out and found the worst nutcases he could, instead of talking to mainstream researchers.  A lawyer is not a researcher, assholes.

That's "reality" teevee for ya.

Seriously, watch it again...Just that part, where the woman begins to have this look of horror on her face, as it gets weirder and weirder.  Given that it's not shown live, and she probably had to do that scene a few times, imagine what she must have looked like the first time around.

The ONLY saving grace here is that Penn allowed their comments that failed to support him to stay in.

The kid crying at the end deal was just ghoulish.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What I found fascinating was that both sides - as represented - were using junk science and confirmation bias bullshit, and those two scientists seemed shocked and disgusted by both Penn and the dingbats he chose as the opposition.

And that is his biggest sin, here.  He went out and found the worst nutcases he could, instead of talking to mainstream researchers.  A lawyer is not a researcher, assholes.

That's "reality" teevee for ya.

Seriously, watch it again...Just that part, where the woman begins to have this look of horror on her face, as it gets weirder and weirder.  Given that it's not shown live, and she probably had to do that scene a few times, imagine what she must have looked like the first time around.

The ONLY saving grace here is that Penn allowed their comments that failed to support him to stay in.

The kid crying at the end deal was just ghoulish.

The whole thing was ghoulish. Penn and Teller are culture predators.