Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 5:01 AM
Sat Nov 21
50 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us: tips@kotaku.com
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
Email | AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
Email | AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
Email | AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/04/09
Regardless, what a brief overview given at the university website says is that he applied what is known as instrumental variables to the statistical regression. (IV as it is better known is usually used to combat random processes in data, or you could think of it as trying to control for bad data by using 'instruments' or proxies to adjust his figures.
However whilst the method can be used for good it depends very strongly on what proxies you utilise, and whether it makes sense to do so and works. There is a possibility that this is just a spurious relationship, (and his university really has no incentive to not promote his research, since it generates controversy and notoriety for them) Since applying a regression you essentially assume that there is a relationship between the two and that the relationship follows the causality of the specification.
Also he doesn't have a PhD he's only an undergrad. So take his work with a big grain of salt.
Also i wonder if there is a certain amount of self selection in his sample...
Anyway the key is to find his paper, then we can see whether it is a solid relationship or just an amusing regression. #money
11/03/09
1) A can cause B
2) B can cause A
3) A and B can be caused by outside variable C
4) A and B can be coincidentally similar in pattern but not actually linked
What I think we have here is a case of #3. It's likely that those who have lower paying jobs tend to have more time for games. As well, they would most likely be less educated as there is a known causal effect between education and income, thus they would likely spend less time reading.
It should also be noted that he himself states that women do not seem to be affected, seemingly showing a lack of a direct link between the two and suggesting an indirect link found in men. The boy needs to put down the controller and do his reading. #money
11/03/09
Stop finding a way to paint video games in a bad light. #money
11/03/09
11/03/09
Seems to me that they're picking on video games for no real reason when it's hobbies in general that have this same effect. Then again, I might be missing the point completely and maybe I just made a fool out of myself <_< #money
11/03/09
250 minutes = 100% decrease in income.
Welp, better quit my job! :V #money
11/03/09
So instead of furthering a project that could potentially provide us with a small income (I'm thinking a few dollars a month), we choose to have fun instead.
Who would have thought, people opt for a leisure activity in their spare time.
Of course, gaming doesn't effect my normal income in the slightest. I have a decent (if dull) job and easily manage to keep what I do in my spare time separate from what I do at work.
Aside from spending hours on Kotaku instead of working... #money
11/03/09
11/03/09
'Opportunity cost' is the term, when talking economically something doesn't cost you only the amount you spend on it, it also costs you the money you could have earned by depositing it on the bank and other implicit costs.
In this case it's about the person's time so yeah since you are playing games and not working your opportunity cost is equal to that money you'd be getting if you were working so say you'd earn 10 bucks an hour, you spend 3 hours playing videogames everyday so your opportunity cost would be 30 bucks therefore your income is being "reduced" by 30 bucks every day.
There's more to it but due to language limitations and time I won't go in-depth :P #money
11/03/09
News Flash: Doing things that don't earn you money, doesn't earn you money.
Whoa, thanks, labcoat guys!
11/03/09
Put all of the world's economists into a room and don't let them out until they figure out what exactly a credit default swap is and how it is valued. They will all die of old age first.
Yes, I get bitter about arcane derivative products. #money
11/03/09
The implied correlation is definitely that people who spend a lot of time playing video games wind up earning less money. Further implied studies might be, "Is this because gaming hurts academic grades?" or "Is this because gamers are more naturally escapist and therefore do not like to face up to the hard reality that you need to get off your couch and make some money?"
The counterarguments are all about taking personal responsibility and not "blaming games." I have a lot of gamer friends who make plenty of money and live fairly good lives. But I have a lot of gamer friends who do not live very good lives, and while it's not "the game's fault," video games do seem to play a role in their unwillingness or inability to fully enter adulthood.
I learned the hard way that I cannot take MMORPGs, the way some folks can't hold their liquor. I still play video games. A lot. But I don't touch MMORPGs because once I start, I can't stop.
What this study suggests to me is that there are a lot of people who don't have the self-control to prioritize education and employment above gaming--people who may not be able to admit that they have a problem. And you can say that, and take a lesson from it, without "blaming" games for anything. #money
11/03/09
Can speak from first hand experiences...... #money
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09
11/03/09