Every gaming article in mainstream media sources that I've had the displeasure of reading lately has inserted numbers to make a point. Percentages, averages, ranges- all meant to support their argument and color their article with the indisputable truth that is connoted by the presence of numbers. Would you believe that newspaper writers are 400% more likely to die by choking on rubber chickens than anyone else? Why wouldn't you? I put numbers in there! And because the number is so high there must be a rubber chicken choking epidemic, right?
Lately, in all the hubbub surrounding GTA IV, some writer for the newspaper here in Minneapolis (I won't even link to it, for fear of encouraging more traffic for their site) used the statistic that the average gamer is a male between the ages of 29 and 32. Wow, that fact is just tinged with all sorts of fun. Firstly, "average" does not equal "predominantly". If other statistics are to be believed, males aren't much more than half of the gaming audience and I doubt that they all fall in the 29-32 age range. Secondly, that statistic is used for that article because the author wants to make women and men of that age feel guilty for either being that guy playing GTA IV or being married to that guy playing GTA IV (doubly ashamed if they have children) and she doesn't make any mention of women playing the game (because women gamers don't exist for her purposes). She uses numbers to make her illogical and self-righteous point about GTA IV being morally corrupting garbage ruining the men and general youth of America. (Coincidentally, she pretty much argues that patriarchy, sexism, and violence are having ill effects on our culture, but instead she chooses- poorly -to focus on one piece of media which can hardly take all the blame she flings at it.)
There was a study I ran into as well that said teen girls who played "a lot" of M-rated titles were up to three times as likely to say they had destroyed property just for fun. I am extremely skeptical of this "fact" because they never say what type or amount of damage would be seen from the most violent of these girls who supposedly play these M-rated titles. Perhaps the worst thing any of them did was carve in or write on their school desks, but who's to know that if the writers let you assume that they make bombs in their garages and spray paint crude words on ambulances. In the next paragraph, the researcher reminds the reader that "...the actual number of kids who do these things is pretty low", which attempts to put these numbers into perspective without giving away exact calculations or insight. I can still see how people would take the "facts" from this article and use it to speak out against teens playing video games though the incidents of violence are very few and there's nothing in this study that says video games influence or cause this 'property damage'.
It's bothersome to see numbers being thrown around. Statistics like those above are naturally misleading if no context is given as to the sample size or other factors of the study. Personally, it's very annoying to have averages and percentages used in a way which is disproportionate and exaggerated, making the numbers work toward some motive which they do not necessarily support if examined properly.
Just wanted to say a quick word about that.
2 comments:
Who HASN'T destroyed something for fun at some point in their lives? It's an uninteresting question without considerations of the value of what was destroyed, whether or not the person destroying it was the rightful owner of it, how frequently the person does such things, how recently they've done such things, and so on. Someone who destroyed stuff all the time as a kid and doesn't anymore as an adult would obviously not be a good data point for someone arguing that playing games as an adult has made them more destructive.
As a statistics major using these statistical concepts every day as a part of my job, I'd like to make the not-too-obvious statement that correlation does not mean causation. The best example of this principle is that shark attacks always seem to rise with ice cream sales. Does this mean the sale of ice cream causes shark attacks? Heck no. Obviously, they both coincide with Summer.
The same can be said of these statistics. Violent, destructive people are more likely going to play violent, destructive video games. However, one doesn't cause the other. I think the obvious cause in this cause would be shitty parenting. Which is where the responsibility should always lie with minors.
On a side note, the columnist Kersten is an inflammatory, right-wing, bible-totin' biotch who just likes to rile up the public. Nearly half of all letters to the editor are refuting her ridiculous claims. In the article you referenced, she even painted a picture of how GTA could lead to the holocaust. If her article ticked you off, check out what Glenn Beck has to say about GTA IV.
Post a Comment