Originally posted by inimalist
I'd say some form of blocked, repeated-measures design, so that you can measure within-subject rather than between. 4 conditions: control, gun, weapon, object. Very strict counterbalancing, so the study would need a significant amount of people.you would then need to pick something that you think is a valid representation of real world violence that isn't actually real world violence. Here is the amazing kicker (and why I'm having trouble not being entirely glib): Even if you did the study in the middle of a crowded place and were getting the person to be violent against complete bystanders, it is STILL a laboratory measure of aggression. The person knows they are being tested, and the situation is not a real life situation. There is just a purely methodological issue IF you are of the mindset that only real world violence can represent real world violence, and that is a standard that a) you don't apply to everything else, b) no real scientist expects and c) is impossible anyways.
No. That is not what I was saying about that study.
There's plenty of evidence throughout my posts that indicate that I don't think it is purely translated into the perception of real world violence…when a gun is involved.
In fact, I've indicated, just in my previous post alone, that closer to reality is a spread of "real world" actions with some at poles and others unrelated, and still more mixed.
This is the problem I have with the study: where is the evidence that shows that the data collected from the individuals translates to real world results.
You can't conclude, based on the data collected, that guns make people definitively violent, without also showing that the responses are strongly correlated to violent behaviors.
You must prove that the conclusion is backed by another study that the conclusions are sound.
How do you KNOW that those thoughts and "feelings" translate to real world violence?
Where is the study that says "thoughts x with arousal y can be adequately correlated with action x, based on data pool z."
Where is that? That's what I'm looking for. You haven't presented it. I am not as well versed in these things as you are, so I would need something to connect the dots. You may be able to adequately connect the dots, but I cannot.
On top of that, there are inherent problems with the study. The lab environment for the study is too dissimilar to real world. The questions are posttest, not during. Retrospection can taint the sample. Also, did a person ask the questions? If so, that could change the data, as well, depending how they went about things. Simply answering the questions directly to a person can change the results, even if slightly. I think this is called the Hawthorne Effect. Don't you think the test would have been more solid if they had the computer ask the questions, between "simulated items"...and keep the questions few or randomize the questions enough so that (I don't know the name of the effect, but it's where you ask the person too many questions and the results become less "good" after so many are asked) you don't get waning question effect going?
To me, that would improve the test just a little.
Also, how were the questions asked? It can be assumed that there has to be a degree of social desirability bias from the samples. Agreed? But, you may say that my saying that misses the point of the test because part of the results is the expectations of social desirability because any situation that results in violence by a normal person will have that person contemplating the social desirability of those actions with various opinions and actions based on their perception of that "desirability."
I dunno. The test still seems too far removed from reality to be anything other than interesting. I need further information to move beyond interesting to awesome. (Yes, those are scientific words. 😠 )
Originally posted by inimalist
so, pretend we overcome that hurdle, you would need to run people through each condition and see if there are significant differences in violent actions, compare the results of each individual to their own results in the other conditions, try to find patterns.
That would taint the “samples” though, as the individuals would adapt to the test or change reactions. On second thought, that may be acceptable.
On another note, we could also randomize the groups of types.
Originally posted by inimalist
Since these studies have been done for decades, have stood up to huge scrutiny and have been consistently replicated in every way with the exception of "real world violence", I would say the answer is pretty easy.
You’re now lumping this one particular study, which you yourself criticized in similar ways that I have, with the large body of psychological studies. But now, the study stands up to “rigorous standards of scrutiny”? Not all studies are created equal, even the ones that can be replicated and go through peer reviews, are good studies. Odd, isn’t it, that I would say something like that? How many studies stood the test of time and were later thrown out? I read about them all the time, as I’m sure you do to. (However, mine are more medical. Since psychology, as you put it, is a nascent study, you’d think that there’d be more studies with valid criticisms than say, the medical field, right?)
Originally posted by inimalist
there is microevolution, but not macroevolution
I see what you did there. You’re either being a smartass (probably) or you’re making a point that agrees with what I’m saying. (Unlikely)
I submit to you that my reasoning is legit, especially when it comes to specific behaviors. Yes, some behaviors can be mapped to lab tests and readily so. Some cannot. I’d like to say that I agree with this study. You don’t even agree with lots of things about it and even almost went into a book length diatribe about what was wrong with the test.
In retrospection, I think we are on the same page, yet again, but arguing different perspectives on the same damn thing.
The difference this time is my ignorance of psychology, or rather, my inability to jive with psychology.
Originally posted by inimalist
you have the chain of causality mixed up. Social cognitions do not precede biological arousal
No, the damage to the ego, that I presented, is partially independent of this violent arousal you spoke of. It can be a contributing factor and is a contributing factor, especially when one is teabagged repeatedly, in front of his fellow gamers.
Biological response exacerbates the swift violent response to the one with the damaged ego.
Agreed? If not, we are doomed to argue this forever so lets end with a “dadudemon is too ignorant to get it” until I get 4+ years of education to have a valid conversation.
Originally posted by inimalist
no offense, but for someone who doesn't understand experimental psychology, thats a fairly ignorant statement
No offense, but I don’t think you understood it.
And, I told you that psychology is my weakest subject, only because I disagree so much with how things are done. I am missing the 4+ years required to be in a position where I can be in an understanding of these things as you do.
Originally posted by inimalist
guessing?should we go over the reactions of people to non-confirming evidence under cognitive dissonance? or is that also just a guess?
What’s wrong with designing an experiment that has a goal, has null hypothesis (and others), and allows a conclusions to be drawn from observations that are not part of the scope of the study? It’s like revisiting a study to draw conclusions that were not accounted for initially. (that type of retro-analysis has a name, but I can’t remember it.) This is what could be done .We could look for and extrapolate data that we couldn’t have predicted by null hypotheses or alternative hypotheses. That’s what I was referring to.
Originally posted by inimalist
the movie, Das Experiment, made about the stanford prison experiments, A MOVIE ABOUT A PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT, was wrong. movies will sacrifice scientific accuracy for entertainment.
Sort of. It wasn’t about Stanford prison experiments, per se, it was bout the MKULTRA tests.
They also involved drugs as a catalyst for actions: the movie did not.
Originally posted by inimalist
Further, you are questioning research science because of a movie done by the same guy who did the Texas chainsaw massacre prequel?
Uh. No. Not even close.
I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion, but I can now tell why you have such animosity towards it and myself.
I am simply trying to get you to actually watch the film. That’s it. I find it interesting and had less mistakes that most other films, something I feel you would enjoy.
And, the make-believe never going to happen study that I proposed is based, in part on the things MKULTRA looked into. It just so happens that it is similar to the one done in The Killing Room…which was similar to the one in MKULTRA, ergo the connection I made. This is a movie forum and similes will be drawn to films, often.