http://www.sync-blog.com/sync/2009/08/c … essed.html

Here we go. Bullshit, or not? How do you feel about this?

Depressed.

Like most statistical studies nowadays, this one seems long on wishy-washy language ("weighed more on average", "greater levels of depression [than the other members of the study]", short on data (if we take this (admittedly also statistical-and-therefore-suspect) study at face value, the CDC's study is using 0.00032489699823425543% of the U.S. gaming population to extrapolate for the whole), and wide on scorn ("digital self-medication...and self-distraction," insinuating that games themselves are an abusive substance - and the article-writer's choice of picture is also telling). But as one of the commenters on the articles states, correlation does not imply causation. So this is junk science, really. Activism in a lab coat easily boiled down into a hyperbolic newsbite on a CNN crawl, and waiting to be disproved by another study funded by a group with a different, equally cynical agenda to tell us how wonderful games are.

That probably came out more bitter than it did in my head. Sorry about that.

Not that I want to lump boardmembers here into the same category, but aren't at least half of the Americans fat anyway, regardless of their feelings on gaming? I think someone has problems distinguishing a cause from symptom.

Besides, what's their definition for gamer? These days it's not overly peculiar to have a console or two in the household, so I don't really understand what defines a gamer anymore from their viewpoint.

Haha, I've never seen you so bitter before, SonicPanda. Did the article hit a little too close to home?

Not really. Using a relatively small sample to draw broad, generalized conclusions is a very common method in behavioural science (and many other sciences as well), I'm pretty sure this study counts as "real" science. Not that that means anything in itself though, there's tons of "real" science out there that is complete crap and has very little relation to reality (in that sense I agree with you that the study is junk - its just not "junk science", as its most probably methodically valid and correct).

Welcome to planet Earth.

As for the study itself (or rather the summary of it that the article makes), yeah, the people responsible probably had some agenda (most do) and its probably a bunch of bull, but... I still think they're pointing to something relevant (but not very surprising or groundbreaking). I especially like this part:

LOL, seriously, this is news? Games are very effective means by which to escape reality, and in that sense very potent (and addictive) drugs. As most longtime gamers who've tried to "quit" can tell you, its not a habit easily shaken.

If I grasp it correctly, this survey claims games are even fatter!

I'm keeping my BMI around 20 so hard but I think people need to realize obesity is also a congenital matter. Some people love junk-food but gain little weight!

at 35 (the average age group of that study),, im just as skinny and obnoxiously manic as i was during my gaming peak in the SNES / PS1 era...

my addiction drug of choice is flying... after taking a 7 year break,, i started up again this month.. im so psyched!! I wake up every day with morning wing again.

For some reason, I read that as "morning wind."  Which I guess doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but my mind is still putting a flatulent spin on it.

See, I knew it was probably overboard, but I mostly stand by my criticisms. In full disclosure, I'm a bit paunchy and definitely socially awkward, but I'm not thin-skinned about these things (easy joke opportunity). My issue is that it's awfully cynical science at work here, and too easy to press into a damning indictment of a particular hobby and those who enjoy it. The study isn't concerned with 'why' these conditions coincide, it simply takes the meager data assembled and assumes the fact that they coincide IS the reason. At the very least, they should assemble a series of studies nationwide before they claim that the data represent the bigger picture.

Right, that's what I meant, sorry.

Yeah, but that's too true about a lot of things. There are a lot of people out there looking for easy answers to what they fear or don't understand. Unfortunately, scientific data can be just as easily used as religious or political doctrines to further whatever goal. If there are people willing to swallow it to get their prejudices confirmed, you can bet there'll be business for people who produce, frame, and distort such results. A lot of people just believe what they want to believe, and are thus just as ready to embrace studies they feel support their views as they are to dismiss/ignore studies that contradict their views.

I bet you're not nearly as socially awkward as you think (at least that is my impression from reading your posts here). Don't underestimate yourself.