FF/RPGs/Gaming Demographics (Split from the other thread)

[Slothy]

Because again everyone knows that online surveys can easily be suayed to get the results you want to get.

I've only got a few minutes so if someone else doesn't decide to address your questions regarding the validity of the data sets I will be happy to do the research later and post it here for you since you seem too lazy to do the job of digging into it yourself for the purpose of proving it unreliable.

But in the short time I have to make this post I want to ask you a question. Why would the ESA, as in Entertainment Software Association, is a group who's members include a large number of companies in the industry, hire an independent consulting firm to perform surveys for the sole purpose of making the data show the average age of gamers to be in their thirties even when it's not the case? Where is the value in providing false demographic information to their members who rely on that information for making decisions which cost millions of dollars?

You claim they're making the data say whatever they want to say, but you aren't even explaining why they want it to say that. Where's the benefit to them? And moreover, if they are faking the data for their own benefit, then why does the NPD agree with them. And before you start going through all kinds of mental gymnastics explaining how the NPD is in it with the ESA to mislead everyone for some nefarious purpose, why does the CDC back them both up? Really, where is the incentive for a government organization interested in human health to falsify their demographic data in their own studies so it matches the others? There's no profit motive for it. The government doesn't have a pony in this race. Hell, if anything, politicians would rather the average age of gamers be under 18 so they could better try to justify censoring and banning them.

So government has incentive to do the exact opposite of agree with ESA and NPD data, but they don't. Yet they're all just making the data say what they want?

Sorry, but not smurfing likely.

[darkchrono]

Because again everyone knows that online surveys can easily be suayed to get the results you want to get.

I've only got a few minutes so if someone else doesn't decide to address your questions regarding the validity of the data sets I will be happy to do the research later and post it here for you since you seem too lazy to do the job of digging into it yourself for the purpose of proving it unreliable.

But in the short time I have to make this post I want to ask you a question. Why would the ESA, as in Entertainment Software Association, is a group who's members include a large number of companies in the industry, hire an independent consulting firm to perform surveys for the sole purpose of making the data show the average age of gamers to be in their thirties even when it's not the case? Where is the value in providing false demographic information to their members who rely on that information for making decisions which cost millions of dollars?

You claim they're making the data say whatever they want to say, but you aren't even explaining why they want it to say that. Where's the benefit to them? And moreover, if they are faking the data for their own benefit, then why does the NPD agree with them. And before you start going through all kinds of mental gymnastics explaining how the NPD is in it with the ESA to mislead everyone for some nefarious purpose, why does the CDC back them both up? Really, where is the incentive for a government organization interested in human health to falsify their demographic data in their own studies so it matches the others? There's no profit motive for it. The government doesn't have a pony in this race. Hell, if anything, politicians would rather the average age of gamers be under 18 so they could better try to justify censoring and banning them.

So government has incentive to do the exact opposite of agree with ESA and NPD data, but they don't. Yet they're all just making the data say what they want?

Sorry, but not smurfing likely.

Please respond to why one of these surveys you have been posting had an average age of 18 when you have continued to say they have been consistent with saying they all are mid 30's. And why in the world are you posting that second link when that second link makes a complete joke of gamers.

[Madame Adequate]

Wait which survey is this? All the ones I can see say it's 30 and up.

[darkchrono]

Wait which survey is this? All the ones I can see say it's 30 and up.

Look at post #6 under the first link that says 'this'.

If that one says an average age of 18 how many other surveys are going to say 18. And if that link that vivi posted that made complete fun of gamers how many other surveys are going to make complete fun of gamers as well saying they are fat, unhealthy, introverts or something like that.

[Madame Adequate]

Well they've made an error somewhere because in that same paragraph they say "Thirty five percent of game players are usually under eighteen years, and 65% of game players are over eighteen years old." which does not make for an average of 18 unless the ones on the under-18 side are radically lower.

Also go back and read Vivi22's posts again: The fact that there are some outliers among a large number of surveys doesn't actually nullify the value of those surveys!

[darkchrono]

Well they've made an error somewhere because in that same paragraph they say "Thirty five percent of game players are usually under eighteen years, and 65% of game players are over eighteen years old." which does not make for an average of 18 unless the ones on the under-18 side are radically lower.

Also go back and read Vivi22's posts again: The fact that there are some outliers among a large number of surveys doesn't actually nullify the value of those surveys!

Considering that there are a lot of 7,8,9 and 10 year olds who play games (and more than likely even younger) I'd say that there is a good chance that there statements came out exactly as they wanted.

Vivi doesn't know what he is talking about anymore than you do. He just likes to make long posts. He obviously was not even looking at the articles he posted and was just looking at the titles if he went ahead and posted that link he did.

[Slothy]

Well they've made an error somewhere because in that same paragraph they say "Thirty five percent of game players are usually under eighteen years, and 65% of game players are over eighteen years old." which does not make for an average of 18 unless the ones on the under-18 side are radically lower.

Also go back and read Vivi22's posts again: The fact that there are some outliers among a large number of surveys doesn't actually nullify the value of those surveys!

This essentially. Even if there was some fundamental issue with that study, I still posted links with regard to two others performed by groups independent of the ESA who came to roughly the same average age. But I guess the CDC wouldn't know anything about getting a random sample or calculating simple averages.

And if that link that vivi posted that made complete fun of gamers how many other surveys are going to make complete fun of gamers as well saying they are fat, unhealthy, introverts or something like that.

How much an article about a study hurt your feelings isn't relevant to the topic at hand, nor the questions I asked you. I'd appreciate if you'd go back to my last post and answer those questions instead of trying to dodge them by bringing up things which aren't relevant. I'll reiterate the question again: what possible benefit do these three, completely independent and separate, organizations gain by lying about the average age of gamers? What motives could possibly lead a large government organization, with no stake in the gaming industry, to lie about their data for the purpose of publishing a study with an average age of gamers which closely matches the average age published by the ESA and NPD.

If you're going to maintain that all of these organizations are basically lying and making the data say what they want, then you need to explain why they could possibly want the data to say what it does. But I strongly suspect that the answer isn't that they're making the data say what they want. It's that you're trying desperately to ignore it because it doesn't say what you want it to. The fact that you would rather dodge direct questions and make unsupported allegations that the entire field of statistics is nothing but lies and misdirection only further supports this conclusion.

Considering that there are a lot of 7,8,9 and 10 year olds who play games (and more than likely even younger) I'd say that there is a good chance that there statements came out exactly as they wanted.

I don't think you understand how statistics work. If only 35% of gamers were under 18 and 65% are over 18, either that under 18 portion would have to skew significantly towards ages under 10 years old or the over 18 portion would have to be skewed somewhere under 20 years old or some other equally ridiculous number, or both, to come out to an average of 18 years old.

The idea that any one of those is true is patently absurd.

Vivi doesn't know what he is talking about anymore than you do. He just likes to make long posts. He obviously was not even looking at the articles he posted and was just looking at the titles if he went ahead and posted that link he did.

Now this one really gets my goat, and I'm probably going to stop being quite so polite here: if you're going to question my knowledge on the subject, or how much of the articles I actually read then you back it the smurf up with examples and you explain to me, in detail, what it is you think I don't have a clue about.

Because if we're going to get into a discussion of who doesn't have a smurfing clue, it's laughable that the guy who thinks the entire field of statistics is bulltrout and all studies are worthless is claiming I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Your ignorance is staggering, your unwillingness to defend your positions is a waste of everyone's time, and your insulting me rather than engaging in thoughtful debate is down right offensive.

If you're not prepared to back up your position then I'll end my part in this conversation because you'll have proven that debating with you is a complete waste of everyone's time, and certainly not worth having to listen to you blatantly and baselessly insult me.

Either engage in a civil, reasoned debate or don't.

[darkchrono]

Well they've made an error somewhere because in that same paragraph they say "Thirty five percent of game players are usually under eighteen years, and 65% of game players are over eighteen years old." which does not make for an average of 18 unless the ones on the under-18 side are radically lower.

Also go back and read Vivi22's posts again: The fact that there are some outliers among a large number of surveys doesn't actually nullify the value of those surveys!

This essentially. Even if there was some fundamental issue with that study, I still posted links with regard to two others performed by groups independent of the ESA who came to roughly the same average age. But I guess the CDC wouldn't know anything about getting a random sample or calculating simple averages.

And if that link that vivi posted that made complete fun of gamers how many other surveys are going to make complete fun of gamers as well saying they are fat, unhealthy, introverts or something like that.

How much an article about a study hurt your feelings isn't relevant to the topic at hand, nor the questions I asked you. I'd appreciate if you'd go back to my last post and answer those questions instead of trying to dodge them by bringing up things which aren't relevant. I'll reiterate the question again: what possible benefit do these three, completely independent and separate, organizations gain by lying about the average age of gamers? What motives could possibly lead a large government organization, with no stake in the gaming industry, to lie about their data for the purpose of publishing a study with an average age of gamers which closely matches the average age published by the ESA and NPD.

If you're going to maintain that all of these organizations are basically lying and making the data say what they want, then you need to explain why they could possibly want the data to say what it does. But I strongly suspect that the answer isn't that they're making the data say what they want. It's that you're trying desperately to ignore it because it doesn't say what you want it to. The fact that you would rather dodge direct questions and make unsupported allegations that the entire field of statistics is nothing but lies and misdirection only further supports this conclusion.

Until you prove that these surveys did a good job of finding their sample pools then you don't have anything more to say. You have been avoiding that and instead just decided to start asking me questions. All you know how to do is make long posts.

Prove to me that they actually did a good job of finding their pools. But I don't think you can do that because you don't know how they found their pools.

If you can however prove that they did a good job of finding their pools then I will answer your questions that you asked after I had already asked you that question first.

[Slothy]

Until you prove that these surveys did a good job of finding their sample pools then you don't have anything more to say.

Here's the fun thing about the burden of proof: I don't have to prove that their methodology wasn't flawed. If you're going to make the positive claim that they screwed up their studies in some way then you have to find where they detailed their methodology and prove it, or link us to studies which detail their methodology, where that methodology is sound, and where the results contradict those of the information posted. If you can't do any of that, then your claim that the studies aren't reliable isn't valid because you have no evidence to contradict their claims.

You have been avoiding that and instead just decided to start asking me questions.

Those questions were directly relevant to your argument that these groups are falsifying data to make it say what they want it to. If you can't explain what possible motive they have for falsifying data, then your argument is worthless. Nobody just goes around lying, or presenting false study results for the sake of lying. Either they benefit from getting a certain answer or they don't bother. So explain why three separate groups chose to perpetuate the same lie which none of them would actually benefit from, or move on because you can't even come up with a simple motive to justify your ludicrous stance.

All you know how to do is make long posts.

Kindly refer to the edited portion of my previous post to find out just how little I care for your pathetic attempts to insult me rather than either back up your position or argue against mine.

[darkchrono]

Until you prove that these surveys did a good job of finding their sample pools then you don't have anything more to say.

Here's the fun thing about the burden of proof: I don't have to prove that their methodology wasn't flawed. If you're going to make the positive claim that they screwed up their studies in some way then you have to find where they detailed their methodology and prove it, or link us to studies which detail their methodology, where that methodology is sound, and where the results contradict those of the information posted. If you can't do any of that, then your claim that the studies aren't reliable isn't valid because you have no evidence to contradict their claims.

You have been avoiding that and instead just decided to start asking me questions.

Those questions were directly relevant to your argument that these groups are falsifying data to make it say what they want it to. If you can't explain what possible motive they have for falsifying data, then your argument is worthless. Nobody just goes around lying, or presenting false study results for the sake of lying. Either they benefit from getting a certain answer or they don't bother. So explain why three separate groups chose to perpetuate the same lie which none of them would actually benefit from, or move on because you can't even come up with a simple motive to justify your ludicrous stance.

All you know how to do is make long posts.

Kindly refer to the edited portion of my previous post to find out just how little I care for your pathetic attempts to insult me rather than either back up your position or argue against mine.

Answer the gosh darn question vivi. Your attempts to try to turn things around without having to answer that question aren't going to work. Quit making your long posts that say absolutely nothing at all and actually answer the question.

[Quindiana Jones]

Hey look! Phoenix Rising's back!

I don't understand why you lot are wasting your time trying to explain simple concepts to him when he's shown that he has no understanding of any part of this thread. Started out interesting enough, but you know a debate is doomed when a person buries their head in the sand out of denial when faced with conclusive evidence showing that he is wrong in every regard.

darkwhatever, the first step if you want to continue this discussion is to spend ten minutes learning what the burden of proof is. Then adhere to that rule. Failure to manage even that shows a concerning lack of intelligence, and effectively signals the end of this thread.

If only pg were here...

[Pike]

If only pg were here...

There isn't enough Ron Paul and/or racism in this thread for PG to care

[Slothy]

Quit making your long posts

I'm sorry for my long posts. They sometimes happen when someone is making a point and backing it up with a reasoned argument. I can see why that might bother you.

I don't understand why you lot are wasting your time trying to explain simple concepts to him when he's shown that he has no understanding of any part of this thread.

Don't worry. I'm officially washing my hands of the whole thing.