This seems to be the study: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4503401/
Comment on Makes sense to me
VegasVator@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Opinion. Not a “gamer fact”. Screen shot this comment and repost it somewhere else to add to the social-mediacepion.
tja@sh.itjust.works 20 hours ago
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 22 hours ago
The observations are a fact, the 2nd part is a possible explanation that you could call an opinion.
Is it possible the 'higher-skilled", again an opinion, players have a different common factor? Like maybe age.
Ok, but that doesn’t change it
agavaa@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
It’s a study; I imagine they controlled for age and other factors if the article states the study “found”, not “suggested” or similar looser term. It’s not an opinion, but a result of a scientific process. Your dislike for term “gamer fact”, even if it’s a bit cringe, doesn’t change that.
ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml 20 hours ago
I’ve read the study. They didn’t. N=183, all anonymous. In the study they played Halo 3, recorded voice over and measured the reactions (if any), and then correlated the few reactions they got with skill level.
Nothing is know about participants. The gamers gender was determined based on institute of my ass, out of 183 games there were no responses in almost half, and in the Introduction they admit what they’ll manipulate their result to prove.
Oh, and the data collected contains also female negative responses, they were removed from further processing because women good men bad.
Interestingly the female-negative raw data (examples picked by study authors in appendix 2)
Vs male-negative:
Could be my bias, but male-negative from data set sounds significantly less sexists than female-negative. Female negative more often is aggression related to gender, male negative is less personal.