Quick follow up…

Just read something and thought of the post from yesterday. Specifically my attempt to encourage critical thought and examination. Here is what I read:

Today's scientists know that if strong action to counteract climate change is not successfully achieved, within one generation the world will be a place characterized by intense heat waves, widespread disease, drought, food shortages, and deadly super storms.

Focus on the bolded part. (The statement that scientists know this is irrelevant to my point, but I didn't feel like cutting out part of the sentence.) A critical examination of that sentence will tell you it is a worthless statement because, humanity, Nature and the Earth have already suffered through and survived each of these, long before the temperature anomaly was significantly positive.
A meaningless statement meant purely to evoke an emotional response in people foolish enough to only read words and not consider them.
Another quote from the same item:

The process of peer review invokes critical thinking by competitive, judgmental scientists to gauge the appropriateness of research results to be published for widespread reading.

Again, consider the bolded text. This is an accurate, to my knowledge, description of peer review, but note that it says "appropriateness of research results." Peer review doesn't certify that a study is correct, but that it was done correctly and that the conclusions are supported by the data. If the process did certify a study was correct then we could not have peer reviewed studies being published that have falsified data, but, while rare, it does happen.
(I am not implying that the data for what the item refers to was falsified, in case you're curious or tempted to flame a straw-man.)
A grain of salt a day, keeps ignorance away.

Feel I should add this from the same article:

"Earth's climate has always changed. Modern climate change does not, however, fit geologic history. In the past half century, the rate and extent of climate change has been extraordinary. Despite extensive searching, no known natural processes can account for the present climate trend of extremely rapid warming of the temperature of the lower atmosphere. Furthermore, industrial exhaust, deforestation, and large- scale agribusiness are known producers of heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. It is only logical to hypothesize that there is a strong likelihood that these human activities are causing the extraordinary warming. Vigorous testing of this hypothesis demonstrates that modern climate change is a consequence of human-caused global warming; in fact, among scientists, this has been known for decades."

While I can make certain arguments about this statement, I recognize that they would be bias, so I will not make them. The comment I will make is that it is a good quote. It is not meant to deceive or misinform. Perhaps sway bias, but then what statement does not have that purpose?

Why has 'Appropriate' changed?

Last week I saw two images from NASA that troubled me greatly. One was a graph displaying the data on the temperature anomaly since 1880, from four different organizations with the comment "Some say scientists can't agree on Earth's temperature changes. Here's what "disagreement" looks like." Of course the comment wouldn't make sense if the four lines were not very near each other. The other image is one of a spinning disco ball with the comment "IT HASN'T BEEN "COOL" SINCE DISCO WAS POPULAR," and "The last time Earth was cooler than the modern average was 1976, according to NASA's global temperature record."

Naturally I expect many people to read the previous paragraph as me denying global warming, climate change, or whatever it's being called now. That is not at all the case. The reason these images trouble me is that NASA should not be making them. Well, the graph was fine, but not the commentary. It is purely an inflammatory statement and that is not appropriate for NASA or any other government administration to make! Personally I believe in smaller government, but I do recognize the importance and need for government supported research, but bias representations of research is completely inappropriate. Such organizations should exist purely to generate data for the benefit of the world. They should go ahead and make the graphs and provide information about them, but to tack on a sentiment that clearly colors the interpretation of the data is just wrong. The disco ball image should simply not exist.

Something Philosophical…

…is what I need. I've really not got anything to talk about today. I'm too tired to remember anything interesting that happened this past week to give my perspective on, or I realize it isn't worth giving my perspective on whatever it is I may remember.

So, since this post is completely pointless, I shall label it Not Worth Reading (NWR) and I welcome you to stop reading now, instead of waiting until the period.

Should There Be a National Gamers' Association?

This is something that's been bouncing around in my head for a few days. Despite that though, it's just a half-baked idea, so if you read this, keep that in mind. Really the idea is more of a vent for frustration than a true suggestion for action.

A quick little bit about myself, which I know can be found by reading earlier posts. If I were reading this post though, I wouldn't want to go through the archives to figure out what the writer is talking about, so I'm doing myself a favor, and just explaining it right here. I am a gamer and I read a decent amount of science news. This science news is somewhat limited to my interests, but I still receive quite a variety of topics, including studies on gaming. Obviously these are of particular interest to me, so I read them. My frustration comes from the fact that I read them but it seems the people who can set national opinion do not, and neither do the people behind those talking heads.

In case you have not guessed it already, I am referring to the unending claims that violent video games cause violence, such as some of the shootings to have hit the national news media recently. It seems like every time I hear a report on any shooting lately, the heads discuss how violence in video games and movies caused it. Well, I can't speak for movies as I've not seen that research, but the research I have seen for concerning video games and violence are decidedly against that conclusion.

That's right. Modern research does not support that media-pushed theory. At least not as they report it. Why the reporting is as incorrect as it is, I don't know, but without a doubt it is incorrect. Why is correct then? These points that I have gathered from those news items (I'm not providing links to these items simply because I'm too lazy to search for them at the moment):

• Video games do not on their own lead to violence. Video games may act as an indicator for potential violence, but is no more a trigger for potential violence than a bad home life, a sense of exclusion, and others. That conclusion was directly concerned with bullying (a form of violence I'd argue) amongst middle school students.
• Video games affect people differently. Only games that a person was unable to succeed at would lead the person to anger. Basically the anger associated with games does not come from the game but from the frustration of a seemingly insurmountable challenge. Such challenges are hardly uncommon in life.
• Only those at risk of becoming violent could potentially become violent, due to a video game. Of course this seems to follow from the two points above but as it was also the conclusion of a separate study, I feel it is worth giving its own point.

What does the above mean, when you combine it all together? Violence directly caused by video games is an outlier of all violence. It cannot be predicted and cannot be prevent. Video games can be an indicator of violence, but so are other behaviors, so if you really want to prevent violence, you need to look at more than the controller.

Unfortunately, that is not the conclusion of the opinion setters. They believe that the interactivity of video games causes one to be desensitized to violence. Now, I've not experienced the violence portrayed in video games in real life, but I cannot help but believe that pixels on a screen, and speakers or headphones, and even a rumble pack are in no way a substitute for the smell of gun powder, the kick of a gun, the heat of the gases, the sounds of screams, the stench of blood, and so on. Besides, if one is concerned about people being conditioned by video games to believe that violence is a solution they seem to forget a basic premise of most every video game. You're the good guy and your targets are bad guys. Now, if someone can confuse children with bad guys, there is a greater problem than playtime about.

So, with all that being sad, I'll get to the title of this post. Should there be a National Gamers' Association? Being a gamer I feel like many people are constantly targeting us like some minority to act as a scapegoat. We or our choices for entertainment get blamed and the blame is so pervasive that I suspect many gamers do not want to admit they are a gamer openly, for fear of someone thinking they are violent, and then choosing to dismiss them, in one form or another. Think about it like this; if a gamer goes out on a blind date, do they mention they are a gamer? Doubtful because that pastime is seen as inappropriate for some prejudice reason. The image arises of a person in their underwear sitting on a couch yelling at the TV, or hunched over a keyboard for all hours of the night. The latter scenario is actually ironic because, in my opinion, if a game causes a player to play all night, that's a good thing because that means it's a good game. Yet, that's a negative image.

Eh, I don't know. I just wish there was a large enough and focused enough gamers' lobby that it could actually bring the truth to bear. Gaming isn't a bad thing and can actually be a good thing, even when it comes to violence.

A hospital not long ago did a study where they gave children with anger issues a video game to play. The catch was that the children had their vital signs measured as they played, so if they got angry while playing, they could no longer shoot the enemies in the game. They had to calm down to keep playing. This method of treatment was so effective that they want to expand the technology to be multiplayer and develop a version that can be taken home. Video games to fight violence. Not something you'll see reported on national news.

Quick and Back to Work

Can't remember exactly when I had the idea, but within the past month I had an idea for a new story. On Wednesday I started writing it and already I have over 15,000 words, with many more to go. Shouldn't end up as long as Sci-FU, but I'm enjoying it as much I think.
Now, stepping away from that, I recently did some digging into history. Among the events I read about was the Boston Tea Party and I learned something new! Among the reasons for the party was the fact that the governors of the colonies were not being paid by the colonists. Instead their salaries came from Britain, meaning they were accountable to Britain and not the people they governed. This reminded me of something much more recent. Specifically the executive order that raised the pay of many of our politicians at the federal level: President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives.
Now, ignoring the fact that they are getting a raise (unless they pass a bill to block it) while many, including myself, are unable to find employment, this is still very interesting because it makes you wonder who they are accountable to. I mean, we elect them, right? They are there to represent us, right? So why does the Federal Government, the entity we elect them to, deciding how much they are paid, instead of us? After all, shouldn't they be accountable to us and not the Federal Government, just like those governors should have been accountable to the colonists instead of Britain?
Just something to think about while I get back to work. Stories can't write themselves alone after all.

Another Year, Another Post

Yippee! Recently the Earth completed a full orbit around the Sun, taking just over 365 days to leave and return to an arbitrary point along the orbit! Isn't that exciting? Obviously it's a good reason to declare your intentions to do something specific during this next orbit, such as losing weight.

Yeah, New Year's really doesn't mean much to me because it's a bit too arbitrary. Seriously, why does the calendar reset now? Why not on a solstice or equinox; an actually significant annual point in time? (Actually I think it might have something to do with how leap days did not always exist but I'm not certain and that's not the point of this post.)

What is the point of this post? Honestly I'm not sure…. Not making an resolutions this year since really the only positive ones I can think of either aren't that positive or completely dependent on other people. Such dependency makes my own commitment to the resolution pointless as a failure to achieve the resolution may not be a personal failure, and resolutions are supposed to be personal.

So, what resolutions can I think of? Well, the first one to jump to mind is to get a job. Don't have any control over that though. (If I did, I'd be employed and probably too busy to bother with this blog.) I can apply, restructure my resume, and write new cover letters, but that doesn't mean I'll even hear back from an employer. Quite frustrating really; never hearing back. Nothing I can do about it though but try again, eventually.

Another positive resolution I can think of is to find someone I can actually trust and rely on. Have friends I can trust, but not that I can rely on really. Quite sad, I guess. Kind of hard to be sure though since I've known such unreliable people for many years. To their credit though, it's just when it comes to me that they seem to be unreliable. I'm sure they are reliable when it comes to their work and other important responsibilities of theirs.

Really though, that last resolution is a positive spin on the actual resolution I thought of which is to continue to not trust in the the reliability of humanity and people. Instead I shall trust in chaos, which is a part of reality I made peace with long ago. Once you give up on having faith in plans, hopes, and dreams you can better prepare for failures, and move on from them more quickly. After all, there's always that unknown variable in an unpredictable pattern, so just try to control the others the best you can, and deal with what you can't. Things will just be how they will and should be. It is a stable equilibrium this chaos leads to, in other words.

I'm not the most cheery person, am I? Have a good New Calendar! Maybe it will be better than the last. My bet is the differences will end up neutral.