Violence in Video Games
From Uncommon Descent: Woke Wars: When Psychology Blew Clear From Science
People usually find out accidentally when the Woke have moved in. They don’t believe the warnings. But then they discover how deep it is:
My concern is that the APA no longer functions as an organization dedicated to science and good clinical practice. As a professional guild, perhaps it never did, but I believe it is now advancing causes that are actively harmful and I can no longer be a part of it.
I originally became engaged with the APA in a futile effort to “fix from within.” Much of this focused on the APA’s deeply misleading policy statements in my own area of research: violence in video games. The APA maintains a policy statement linking such games to aggression, despite over 200 scholars asking them to avoid making such statements, a reanalysis of the meta-study on which the policy was based finding it to be deeply flawed, and the APA’s own Society for Media and Technology asking them to retract it. Other policy statements related to research areas I’m familiar with such as spanking appear to be similarly flawed, overstating certainty of harmful effects.
In the clinical realm, the APA’s advice has similarly been questionable. A 2017 recommendation highlighted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT; in which I am myself primarily trained) as treatment of choice for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It remains in effect despite several meta-analyses subsequently finding CBT has little benefit over other therapies. More controversial were practice guidelines for men and boys which drew deeply from feminist theories, dwelled on topics of patriarchy, intersectionality, and privilege, and arguably disparaged men and families from traditional backgrounds. This guideline is actively harmful to the degree it both misguides therapy in favor of an ideological worldview and likely discourages men and families from more traditional backgrounds from seeking therapy.Christopher J. Ferguson, “My APA Resignation” at Quillette (December 31, 2021)
In so many disciplines, it is coming down to: Do you want to be science or Woke?
Prediction: Most Big Science will buckle and agree to be Woke in defiance of fact. Real science will increasingly depend on the rebellious outliers. Happened before.
Hey Christians! Guess who the rebellious outliers are going to be this time.
Like all the other times.
…I can here the prophets sigh all the way from here, across time and space…
But their sighs, and ours, don’t really matter. The work MUST be done, the truth MUST be upheld, and WE are the ones called to do it.
Every Christian must carry his cross.
The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) touted the results on its website, proclaiming, “‘No evidence’ that talcum powder causes ovarian cancer new review finds.” But for reasons that I will never understand, American websites remain wishy-washy. The American Cancer Society, for instance, says that the evidence is “less clear.”
That is a travesty. Trial lawyers looking to make a buck (or, in this case, billions of bucks) use scientific uncertainty to score jackpot lawsuits. In situations like this, the scientific community must speak loudly and clearly: “No. Baby powder does not cause cancer. End of story.”
Once again, it’s sort of pathetic that we have to rely on British scientists and medical doctors to defend American companies. What’s the point of organizations like the FDA if they sit on the sideline while American companies are subjected to blatant highway robbery by unscrupulous lawyers?
As usual, the lawyers win. They always win. And because Johnson & Johnson will continue selling baby powder in the UK and everywhere else, the rest of the world wins. But science, common sense, and American consumers lose.
Note that I support the jury trial process: the population should determine how the law applies on their own soil. The Jury Trial is the strongest barrier we have to the grinning, self-satisfied Rule of the Certified Master-Class: so it must be protected, even strengthened.
That being said: if the jury gets it wrong, we should say they got it wrong. Even if our words can’t change a thing legally, speaking the truth is what God expects of us.
From the comments:
If “the lawyers always win,” wouldn’t you expect Johnson & Johnson to win? They have virtually unlimited resources and can hire armies of the best lawyers to defend them…
Josh Bloom Mod Tort Reform Richard Juries hate big companies. There are parts of the south where class action suits are brought, regardless if the damage took place there. 60 Minutes actually uncovered jury payoffs in the Wyeth Phen-Fen trial 20 yrs ago.
That cost me dearly.
I sympathize with the Southern hatred of the major corporations.
However: there is only one standard of justice, for the big and the small.
Moreover, perfect justice is unattainable in this life.
Sometimes, the only lawful course of action is that no one should pay. Or at least, we humans – not even the State – have the lawful right to make someone pay.
It is a (small) beginning to even bring up this issue. As to why the “scientific community” doesn’t stand up for truth and reality–that’s easy. They too are a bunch of cowards and whores. No one seems to remember back in the early 1960s, when St. Rachel Carson was spreading her absolute BS about DDT, the ONLY voice against her was the president of American Cyanamid.
Not a peep from the legions of pampered, useless academics in your “scientific community.” Ditto for BPA. And that goes double for the craven and pointless American Chemistry Council. I was on a panel years ago, assembled by ACC, dealing with journalists and others on BPA.
One of the points I raised was that BPA is probably the most studied chemical on earth, and more than 6,000 studies have been done on it. How many more, I mused, would be necessary? Or even better, why replace it with something that has not been studied at all? Not surprisingly, that struck a chord.
However, not ten minutes after this webinar was over, I got a phone call from ACC, reaming me a new one for being “too harsh.” It was a good long time before they ever asked me to join another panel. Then I realized the game: They “fought” to fight again, but never to win. In fact, only days after that fiasco, a movement was put together to form an alternative to ACC.
There was plenty of interest, including from ExxonMobil (major producers of BPA), but just as this effort was gaining traction, it fell apart. Surely by coincidence, one of the leaders of the group had just gotten a big job with another lobbying organization. Ironically, ExxonMobil was pretty silent publicly about BPA.
And here’s the best part: Ever heard of Joe Schwarcz, Director of the McGill Office for Science and Society? He’s the supposed go-to guy to give the straight scoop on all things “Science.” In a separate encounter, he and I had a somewhat public online discussion about BPA, and I mentioned the 6,000 articles, suggesting that the chemical was safe. His reply? “We still haven’t proven that it’s safe. That will take further research.” Spoken like a true feckless academic.
With friends like that…
Some scientists are disgusting.
Perhaps not as repulsive as the most disgusting priest or pastor: secularist scientists at least spare us from the revolting, blasphemous claim that God approves of his evil.
But still: disgusting scientists do exist.