Read an article on NYT, about an old question . The article seems to hint, which is not quite a direct connection, но если задуматься, then some ideas are striking in their clumsy. Timely identification of clumsy thoughts / arguments can save you from many other investment decisions, therefore, once again training the brain is useful.
For example, one of the research methods – playing a game of violence, then we measure aggression with some kind of test and instrument. Everything is good at first glance. But let me, my blitz chess is more aggressive, than cs ever caused :). Remembering youth, I remember well what attacks of aggression caused collective games in fifa. There may be a parallel between games in which there is direct violence and aggressiveness, this is only a subtype of communication: games causing adversarial emotions and aggression?
If you go further, then who even said, that the two indicators are the number of hours spent playing violent" and 'aggressiveness" must be in the same causal team. Why not assume, that the ode to the phenomenon is a consequence of something third? In this case,, hours spent in a meaty shooter – this is not a reason for future violence, a symptom of the presence of behavioral (social) Problems. Yes, it's counterintuitive, but this is exactly what most facts of this kind are.
You can go even further. There is such a counterintuitive thing too.: if you quit smoking (substitute another habit you get rid of), then contrary to popular belief, if at the moment of the rush you will imagine the process of smoking a cigarette, then the chances of calming the impulse are much higher, than if you try to block all thoughts of a cigarette. Following the analogy, what if violent computer games can calm aggression and make our world, vice versa, safer?
In confirmation of that, that I am not the only skeptic about questions I practice :)
Violent video games are almost entirely irrelevant to rampage shootings and other kinds of real-world violence
— Steven Pinker (@sapinker)
