That's great and all, but I'm guessing you didn't bother to look at or read the study?
I have now, beforehand I read cliffnotes. Nothing that'd disprove anything I've said.
They didn't specify what "game" they played or tv/dvd they watched.
And...? That's not what the study was testing - the study was testing whether watching TV and playing video (electronic) games has any impact at all.
Could have been pong or leapstar or mathblaster.
You can get equally frustrated by "Call of Duty" and "Leapster". Besides, we have PEGI and ESRB ratings for a reason. Content classification is not what the study is concerned with.
Seriously, you're insinuating this has something to do with violent video games.
I'm insinuating nothing - not once have I brought up the classification of content - you have.
Please at least put forth an effort to bother reading the bloody thing before you start touting it as proof that there are no negative effects.
...but you're putting words in my mouth, quite literally.
Even if you're right there are no negative effects, this is NOT evidence of that. If you want to make a strong case for violent video games, this is not how you do it.
There are no negative effects of playing videogames as an activity.
>5 year olds and 7 year olds were tested
Which part of the word "children" in the thread's title seems to be confusing to you?
>was comparing and contrasting to TV viewing
Which gave certain results that we're talking about here.
>what was watched/played wasn't documented
Because it's irrelevant - we're talking broadly about video games as a medium.
>not a study on video games and their effects so much as media on small children
...video games are also media. Your point?
>other scientific things that will probably not be terribly understood in this discussion
That's not my fault.
http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/21/archdischild-2011-301508.full.pdf html