This argument keeps resurfacing like the killer in an 80s slasher film. I am reminded of Dick Cavett: “There’s so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the streets?”
I’m pleased that Jack Thompson’s site stopkill seems to be gone now (and even more pleased that he was permanently disbarred by the Supreme Court of Florida). The Wayback Machine has it archived, and it was just a mess of stupid. Here was something I pulled:
“The incredibly violent Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, made by Take-Two Interactive of New York City, has caused multiple copyist killings across the country. A recent Gallup Poll found that any American teen who has played this one game is twice as likely to be engaged in an act of violence than those who have not played this one game.”
My research led to two Gallup Polls concerning Grand Theft Auto. The first dealt with how children view restricting access to media. Not what I was after.
The second had a delicious title: “Grand Theft of Innocence? Teens and Video Games.”
The second one must have been what Mr. Thompson was referring to. Upon opening it, this paragraph greeted me:
"It has come to our attention that the public is erroneously relying upon the information included in the "aggression connection" paragraph of a Sept. 16, 2003, article by Steve Crabtree titled, "Grand Theft of Innocence? Teens and Video Games," which Gallup subsequently determined cannot be supported by the properly weighted youth survey data, and thereafter removed from the original article. Gallup now expressly retracts the entire "aggression connection" paragraph that was included in Mr. Crabtree's initial Sept. 16, 2003, article because the data do not support any such conclusion. We regret any confusion that may have been caused by Mr. Crabtree's initial article."
The "aggression connection" paragraph is exactly what it sounds like. A paragraph which posits "mounting evidence of a connection to aggressive teen behavior" in regards to violent videogames. But there wasn’t mounting evidence. There wasn’t any evidence. Hence the retraction.
What makes Mr. Thompson’s statement so laughable is that the poll provides no data at all on how many of the teens that are playing these videogames have committed acts of violence. It simply doesn’t exist.
---
"Each addition to a rapidly growing list of cases of violence in American schools, which now includes a Jan. 15 school shooting at a New York City high school, intensifies the discussion about the potential impact that media violence, and media technology such as the Internet and video games, have on teens. But Gallup poll data suggest that blaming the media for teen crime and violence is not a new tendency. While the public is quick to call for the regulation of violent material at the source, it also believes that the responsibility for teen exposure to violent media rests a little closer to home."
Not a new tendency. Youth culture always has its scapegoats.
In a 1954 Gallup Poll 70% of American adults thought blame for teen-age crime could be placed on “mystery and crime programs on TV and radio.” 70% also said that reading comic books could be blamed.
They blamed Columbine on DOOM and Marilyn Manson.
Dungeons and Dragons was always a popular target. I suppose it’s now been replaced by Harry Potter.
There’s always something to blame. It never seems to be the right thing, though.
---
There was an April 20, 2001 article titled, "Americans Say the Family is the Starting Point for Preventing Another Columbine."
In response to the question, "In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that could be done to prevent another incidence of school shootings by students, like the recent ones in California?"
Here's the number one answer in 2001: 31% said 'Parent involvement/responsibility.'
Only 5% said 'Control media violence/video games/Internet.'
But the overwhelming responses refer back to family and home life. That certainly seems to keep priorities straight.
A June 23, 1999 report titled “Public: Current Efforts to Control Exposure of Children to Violent Entertainment Are Not Enough.”
There is clear data there saying that a large percentage of adults (18 years and older) believe that children's exposure to violent media is a serious problem, and that current information about the content provided by the producers is insufficient.
The issue is not the existence of the violent content, but the information made available to be able to evaluate whether it is acceptable for one’s children. Again, it’s about parenting. And advertising. And game ratings.
But it’s not science. It’s an opinion poll.
---
There's a May 10, 1999 article: "Media Portrayals of Violence Seen by Many as Causes of Real-Life Violence."
There's lots of meat for a firebrand, if you dig a little. For example, 58% said that the federal government should do more to regulate video games. And 49% blamed TV programs, movies and music (though no mention of videogames, odd) 'A great deal' for causing shootings like the one in Littleton, Colorado.
Just ignore the fact that 40% said 'Breakdown of family/Parenting/Poor parenting' caused the Columbine shooting. And that only 4% attributed the tragedy to '[the] Entertainment Industry/TV/Movies/Music'. And definitely don't point out that 51% said Parents were '[a] Great deal' to blame for causing shootings like the one in Littleton (and 33% said '[a] Moderate amount').
Of course, the only thing this poll can actually speak to is perception. How people feel.
---
Jack Thompson again: "The heads of six major health care organizations, including the American Medical, Pediatric, and Psychiatric Associations have all testified before Congress in June 2000 that violent entertainment contributes to teen violence."
They did testify. And they released a statement. They posit that there is “a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children.” They claim there are well over 1000 studies that prove this.
I don’t know where those studies are. I doubt they actually exist. A cursory search of Google Scholar turns up the usual suspects who have been rewriting the same inaccurate and biased research they’ve been spouting for decades. More on that later.
A January 22, 2002 article titled “The Blame Game: Youth and Media Violence” stated:
"Each addition to a rapidly growing list of cases of violence in American schools, which now includes a Jan. 15 school shooting at a New York City high school, intensifies the discussion about the potential impact that media violence, and media technology such as the Internet and video games, have on teens. But Gallup poll data suggest that blaming the media for teen crime and violence is not a new tendency. While the public is quick to call for the regulation of violent material at the source, it also believes that the responsibility for teen exposure to violent media rests a little closer to home."
Not a new tendency. Youth culture always has its scapegoats.
In a 1954 Gallup Poll 70% of American adults thought blame for teen-age crime could be placed on “mystery and crime programs on TV and radio.” 70% also said that reading comic books could be blamed.
They blamed Columbine on DOOM and Marilyn Manson.
Dungeons and Dragons was always a popular target. I suppose it’s now been replaced by Harry Potter.
There’s always something to blame. It never seems to be the right thing, though.
---
There was an April 20, 2001 article titled, "Americans Say the Family is the Starting Point for Preventing Another Columbine."
In response to the question, "In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that could be done to prevent another incidence of school shootings by students, like the recent ones in California?"
Here's the number one answer in 2001: 31% said 'Parent involvement/responsibility.'
Only 5% said 'Control media violence/video games/Internet.'
But the overwhelming responses refer back to family and home life. That certainly seems to keep priorities straight.
A June 23, 1999 report titled “Public: Current Efforts to Control Exposure of Children to Violent Entertainment Are Not Enough.”
There is clear data there saying that a large percentage of adults (18 years and older) believe that children's exposure to violent media is a serious problem, and that current information about the content provided by the producers is insufficient.
The issue is not the existence of the violent content, but the information made available to be able to evaluate whether it is acceptable for one’s children. Again, it’s about parenting. And advertising. And game ratings.
But it’s not science. It’s an opinion poll.
---
There's a May 10, 1999 article: "Media Portrayals of Violence Seen by Many as Causes of Real-Life Violence."
There's lots of meat for a firebrand, if you dig a little. For example, 58% said that the federal government should do more to regulate video games. And 49% blamed TV programs, movies and music (though no mention of videogames, odd) 'A great deal' for causing shootings like the one in Littleton, Colorado.
Just ignore the fact that 40% said 'Breakdown of family/Parenting/Poor parenting' caused the Columbine shooting. And that only 4% attributed the tragedy to '[the] Entertainment Industry/TV/Movies/Music'. And definitely don't point out that 51% said Parents were '[a] Great deal' to blame for causing shootings like the one in Littleton (and 33% said '[a] Moderate amount').
Of course, the only thing this poll can actually speak to is perception. How people feel.
---
Jack Thompson again: "The heads of six major health care organizations, including the American Medical, Pediatric, and Psychiatric Associations have all testified before Congress in June 2000 that violent entertainment contributes to teen violence."
They did testify. And they released a statement. They posit that there is “a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children.” They claim there are well over 1000 studies that prove this.
I don’t know where those studies are. I doubt they actually exist. A cursory search of Google Scholar turns up the usual suspects who have been rewriting the same inaccurate and biased research they’ve been spouting for decades. More on that later.
The same statement does offer this: “We in no way mean to imply that entertainment violence is the sole, or even necessarily the most important factor contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes, and violence. Family breakdown, peer influences, the availability of weapons, and numerous other factors may all contribute to these problems.”
Availability of weapons? What a preposterous notion.
---
Jack Thompson: “The Federal Trade Commission in September 2000 found that big entertainment companies aggressively market adult-rated violent movies, music and video games to American children.”
He’s not wrong. But this has nothing to do with the games themselves. It’s all about the advertisers.
The study itself said: "Although scholars and observers generally have agreed that exposure to violence in entertainment media alone does not cause a child to commit a violent act, there is widespread agreement that it is, nonetheless, a cause for concern."
Parents should be concerned about what their children are watching/reading/playing/hearing. That’s what parents are supposed to do.
The report made several suggestions for media companies to enhance their self-regulatory efforts.
"1. Establish or expand codes that prohibit target marketing to children and impose sanctions for noncompliance.
2. Increase compliance at the retail level.
3. Increase parental understanding of the ratings and labels."
Nary a mention of murder simulators.
He’s not wrong. But this has nothing to do with the games themselves. It’s all about the advertisers.
The study itself said: "Although scholars and observers generally have agreed that exposure to violence in entertainment media alone does not cause a child to commit a violent act, there is widespread agreement that it is, nonetheless, a cause for concern."
Parents should be concerned about what their children are watching/reading/playing/hearing. That’s what parents are supposed to do.
The report made several suggestions for media companies to enhance their self-regulatory efforts.
"1. Establish or expand codes that prohibit target marketing to children and impose sanctions for noncompliance.
2. Increase compliance at the retail level.
3. Increase parental understanding of the ratings and labels."
Nary a mention of murder simulators.
---
A mention of violence and videogames wouldn’t be complete without examining Anderson and Dill’s research. They have a study called “Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life.”
They use something called the General Affective Aggression Model. The model attempts to formulate the way in which individual differences and situational variables can cause cognition, affects, and arousal that would lead to a behavioral choice, specifically fight or flight.
The Lindsay and Anderson paper called “From Antecedent Conditions to Violent Actions: A General Affective Aggression Model” stated: “To date, empirical support for C.A. Anderson’s (1997) General Affective Aggression Model (GAAM) has been piecemeal … Similarly, the preponderance of the evidence also suggests that cognitive cues (e.g., photo primes of weapons, violent movie content) directly activate aggression-related thoughts but have little impact on the affective route to aggression. The one empirical exception to this claim is Bushman’s (1995) finding that violent media can increase hostile feelings for some people under some conditions.”
Some people under some conditions. Being primed with violent images can active aggression-related thoughts. But not lead to aggression.
When the facts don’t fit the model, you have a bad model.
Back to “Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts.”
This was interesting: “However, there is presently no empirical evidence on whether playing a violent video game increases accessibility of aggressive thoughts.”
The paper says, “repeated exposure to graphic scenes of violence is likely to be desensitizing.” Likely. That’s called a guess. It even goes on to say that “the empirical literature on video game violence is sparse.”
The first experiment gathered its data by utilizing self-reporting. Once again we’re faced with an issue of perception. These studies are great at finding out how we see ourselves.
Just one example of a flaw at the center of this paper. They utilize a delinquency scale that requires self-reporting. One example of a question given was “how many times in the past year they have hit (or threatened to hit) other students.” Hitting and threatening to hit are both aggression, it’s true, but they are very different things. They even admit that at least one of the nonaggression items can have an aggression component (destroying property). Aggression is not one thing but a fuzzy continuum.
So what did the study find? “It is interesting to note that exposure to video game violence was more strongly correlated with aggressive delinquent behavior than with nonaggressive delinquent behavior, t(223) = 2.64, p < .05.” And “time spent playing video games in general was also positively related to both types of delinquent behaviors (rs = .20 and .15, respectively) but less strongly than was exposure to video game violence.”
Correlation, not causation. Reliant on self-reporting. No mention of pre-existing aggressive tendencies leading people to seek out violent media.
The main experiment involved actually playing video games. Participants played either a violent game (Marathon or Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent game (Myst) for 15 minutes and completed a questionnaire relating to whether they felt angry or mean. The second game session entailed 15 minutes of game play, then a reaction time study utilizing aggressive words and control words. The third game session consisted of the 15 minutes of play, then a competitive version of the reaction time study. If a participant pushes a button faster than their opponent, then the loser receives “a noise blast at a level supposedly set by the opponent (actually set by the computer). Aggressive behavior is operationally defined as the intensity and duration of noise blasts the participant chooses to deliver to the opponent.”
This seems flawed. Competition increases aggression; in many ways it is aggression. It’s partly natural and partly socialization. There’s also the implicit bias against aggression in general. But aggression can be healthy. We need that forcefulness sometimes to pursue our aims.
The main experiment didn't prove that videogames increase aggression. It proved that competition increases aggression.
The report concludes with a big “if”: “If repeated exposure to violent video games does indeed lead to the creation and heightened accessibility of a variety of aggressive knowledge structures, thus effectively altering the person's basic personality structure, the consequent changes in everyday social interactions may also lead to consistent increases in aggressive affect.”
Basically, if their flawed model is correct and things work the way they think they do then maybe violent video games could lead to more aggressive behaviors. If and may.
---
A mention of violence and videogames wouldn’t be complete without examining Anderson and Dill’s research. They have a study called “Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life.”
They use something called the General Affective Aggression Model. The model attempts to formulate the way in which individual differences and situational variables can cause cognition, affects, and arousal that would lead to a behavioral choice, specifically fight or flight.
The Lindsay and Anderson paper called “From Antecedent Conditions to Violent Actions: A General Affective Aggression Model” stated: “To date, empirical support for C.A. Anderson’s (1997) General Affective Aggression Model (GAAM) has been piecemeal … Similarly, the preponderance of the evidence also suggests that cognitive cues (e.g., photo primes of weapons, violent movie content) directly activate aggression-related thoughts but have little impact on the affective route to aggression. The one empirical exception to this claim is Bushman’s (1995) finding that violent media can increase hostile feelings for some people under some conditions.”
Some people under some conditions. Being primed with violent images can active aggression-related thoughts. But not lead to aggression.
When the facts don’t fit the model, you have a bad model.
Back to “Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts.”
This was interesting: “However, there is presently no empirical evidence on whether playing a violent video game increases accessibility of aggressive thoughts.”
The paper says, “repeated exposure to graphic scenes of violence is likely to be desensitizing.” Likely. That’s called a guess. It even goes on to say that “the empirical literature on video game violence is sparse.”
The first experiment gathered its data by utilizing self-reporting. Once again we’re faced with an issue of perception. These studies are great at finding out how we see ourselves.
Just one example of a flaw at the center of this paper. They utilize a delinquency scale that requires self-reporting. One example of a question given was “how many times in the past year they have hit (or threatened to hit) other students.” Hitting and threatening to hit are both aggression, it’s true, but they are very different things. They even admit that at least one of the nonaggression items can have an aggression component (destroying property). Aggression is not one thing but a fuzzy continuum.
So what did the study find? “It is interesting to note that exposure to video game violence was more strongly correlated with aggressive delinquent behavior than with nonaggressive delinquent behavior, t(223) = 2.64, p < .05.” And “time spent playing video games in general was also positively related to both types of delinquent behaviors (rs = .20 and .15, respectively) but less strongly than was exposure to video game violence.”
Correlation, not causation. Reliant on self-reporting. No mention of pre-existing aggressive tendencies leading people to seek out violent media.
The main experiment involved actually playing video games. Participants played either a violent game (Marathon or Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent game (Myst) for 15 minutes and completed a questionnaire relating to whether they felt angry or mean. The second game session entailed 15 minutes of game play, then a reaction time study utilizing aggressive words and control words. The third game session consisted of the 15 minutes of play, then a competitive version of the reaction time study. If a participant pushes a button faster than their opponent, then the loser receives “a noise blast at a level supposedly set by the opponent (actually set by the computer). Aggressive behavior is operationally defined as the intensity and duration of noise blasts the participant chooses to deliver to the opponent.”
This seems flawed. Competition increases aggression; in many ways it is aggression. It’s partly natural and partly socialization. There’s also the implicit bias against aggression in general. But aggression can be healthy. We need that forcefulness sometimes to pursue our aims.
The main experiment didn't prove that videogames increase aggression. It proved that competition increases aggression.
The report concludes with a big “if”: “If repeated exposure to violent video games does indeed lead to the creation and heightened accessibility of a variety of aggressive knowledge structures, thus effectively altering the person's basic personality structure, the consequent changes in everyday social interactions may also lead to consistent increases in aggressive affect.”
Basically, if their flawed model is correct and things work the way they think they do then maybe violent video games could lead to more aggressive behaviors. If and may.
---
A March 26, 2002 Gallup Poll article titled “These young people today…” has some insight: "American teens can be easy scapegoats for media outlets looking for simple angles on social problems. A new report by the Casey Journalism Center on Children and Families scrutinized TV and newspaper stories regarding children and teens over a three-month period and found that more than 90% focused on the ‘quick-hit’ stories of crime and violence or abuse and neglect among today's youth."
Perception shapes reality. Our search for answers often leads to the easy ones.
---
None of this is to say that media has no effect on human beings. Everything around us affects us in some way. Our emotions are manipulated in millions of subtle ways every day. It behooves us to explore how we are being manipulated.
Videogames deserve scrutiny, not scapegoating.
---
In a July 2001 study by John L. Sherry titled “The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression: A Meta-Analysis” the author looks at data collected from a wide range of studies and extrapolates hypotheses based upon specific methods of joining that data, effectively giving a larger overall sample. While the efficacy of such analyses is difficult to ascertain, there are some striking results.
I found this conclusion of particular interest: "Children and adolescents playing games in long stretches may transfer less aggression from the game playing situation to the external world than those playing for brief periods. Parents' intuitive reaction to limit playing time may actually be counterproductive, pulling the child from the game at a time when the largest aggressive effects are likely."
Also: "For example, there is a small indication that the effect size increases as the subjects get older, controlling for playing time and game type (year of study). This finding seems counterintuitive - we would expect younger children to be more vulnerable to the effects of video games."
---
“Null Effects of Game Violence, Game Difficulty, and 2D:4D Digit Ratio on Aggressive Behavior,” March 7, 2019:
“Researchers have suggested that acute exposure to violent video games is a cause of aggressive behavior. We tested this hypothesis by using violent and nonviolent games that were closely matched, collecting a large sample, and using a single outcome. We randomly assigned 275 male undergraduates to play a first-person-shooter game modified to be either violent or less violent and hard or easy. After completing the game-play session, participants were provoked by a confederate and given an opportunity to behave aggressively. Neither game violence nor game difficulty predicted aggressive behavior.”
---
“Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents' aggressive behaviour: evidence from a registered report,” February 13, 2019:
“Our main interest concerned the relationship between the amount of violent video game play teens engaged in the previous month and the extent to which their parents judged their behaviour as aggressive during this time. In line with this goal, we evaluated a number of confirmatory and exploratory models that tested the prediction that higher levels of engagement with violent games would be positively associated with more aggressive behaviour and less prosocial behaviour in young people. Broadly speaking, findings from our study provided evidence that this was not the case. Said differently, the results derived from our hypothesis testing did not support the position that violent gaming relates to aggressive behaviour.”
---
“The effect of violence and competition within video games on aggression,” October 2019:
“Competitive video game content increased aggressive affect.
Losing in a competitive video game increased aggressive affect.
Violent video game content did not impact aggressive affect.”
Competition again. And failure. Things that would understandably increase aggression.
Perception shapes reality. Our search for answers often leads to the easy ones.
---
None of this is to say that media has no effect on human beings. Everything around us affects us in some way. Our emotions are manipulated in millions of subtle ways every day. It behooves us to explore how we are being manipulated.
Videogames deserve scrutiny, not scapegoating.
---
In a July 2001 study by John L. Sherry titled “The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression: A Meta-Analysis” the author looks at data collected from a wide range of studies and extrapolates hypotheses based upon specific methods of joining that data, effectively giving a larger overall sample. While the efficacy of such analyses is difficult to ascertain, there are some striking results.
I found this conclusion of particular interest: "Children and adolescents playing games in long stretches may transfer less aggression from the game playing situation to the external world than those playing for brief periods. Parents' intuitive reaction to limit playing time may actually be counterproductive, pulling the child from the game at a time when the largest aggressive effects are likely."
Also: "For example, there is a small indication that the effect size increases as the subjects get older, controlling for playing time and game type (year of study). This finding seems counterintuitive - we would expect younger children to be more vulnerable to the effects of video games."
---
“Null Effects of Game Violence, Game Difficulty, and 2D:4D Digit Ratio on Aggressive Behavior,” March 7, 2019:
“Researchers have suggested that acute exposure to violent video games is a cause of aggressive behavior. We tested this hypothesis by using violent and nonviolent games that were closely matched, collecting a large sample, and using a single outcome. We randomly assigned 275 male undergraduates to play a first-person-shooter game modified to be either violent or less violent and hard or easy. After completing the game-play session, participants were provoked by a confederate and given an opportunity to behave aggressively. Neither game violence nor game difficulty predicted aggressive behavior.”
---
“Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents' aggressive behaviour: evidence from a registered report,” February 13, 2019:
“Our main interest concerned the relationship between the amount of violent video game play teens engaged in the previous month and the extent to which their parents judged their behaviour as aggressive during this time. In line with this goal, we evaluated a number of confirmatory and exploratory models that tested the prediction that higher levels of engagement with violent games would be positively associated with more aggressive behaviour and less prosocial behaviour in young people. Broadly speaking, findings from our study provided evidence that this was not the case. Said differently, the results derived from our hypothesis testing did not support the position that violent gaming relates to aggressive behaviour.”
---
“The effect of violence and competition within video games on aggression,” October 2019:
“Competitive video game content increased aggressive affect.
Losing in a competitive video game increased aggressive affect.
Violent video game content did not impact aggressive affect.”
Competition again. And failure. Things that would understandably increase aggression.
---
Gamers like to say that violent games don’t teach violent behaviors. Yet it is widely accepted that games can teach many other skills. How can we live with this contradiction? Do games teach or not?
There is not necessarily a one-to-one relationship between the actions a person makes in a game and the thought patterns that arise from that manipulation.
For example: When I make Mario jump, I’m not learning how to jump better. Nothing in that action prepares me to slam-dunk. I'm certainly not making it more likely that I will increase jumping in my daily life, or that I'll run around trying to smash turtles. What I may be doing is increasing my reaction time to projected sequences in a virtual space. What's commonly called twitch-behavior. I'm also formulating an analysis of how long it takes for Mario to jump in response to my button-press and therefore calculating a general plan of how to react to future threats.
Gamers like to say that violent games don’t teach violent behaviors. Yet it is widely accepted that games can teach many other skills. How can we live with this contradiction? Do games teach or not?
There is not necessarily a one-to-one relationship between the actions a person makes in a game and the thought patterns that arise from that manipulation.
For example: When I make Mario jump, I’m not learning how to jump better. Nothing in that action prepares me to slam-dunk. I'm certainly not making it more likely that I will increase jumping in my daily life, or that I'll run around trying to smash turtles. What I may be doing is increasing my reaction time to projected sequences in a virtual space. What's commonly called twitch-behavior. I'm also formulating an analysis of how long it takes for Mario to jump in response to my button-press and therefore calculating a general plan of how to react to future threats.
Firing a gun in a video game is not at all like firing one in real life.
The first thing we should investigate is: What types of attitudes are games suggesting as valid, what effect does this have on different ages of gamers and what types of behaviors are they adopting in response to those attitudes?
The second thing we should investigate is: What types of general thought processes are utilized/formulated while playing video games and to what degree are they applicable to different real-world tasks?
The third thing we should investigate is: What are the best formats for maximizing retention of information in educational games, and what kind of interactions produce that retention?
The fourth thing we should investigate is: Why can't such seemingly educated people as politicians tell the goddamn difference between correlation and causation, still?
The first thing we should investigate is: What types of attitudes are games suggesting as valid, what effect does this have on different ages of gamers and what types of behaviors are they adopting in response to those attitudes?
The second thing we should investigate is: What types of general thought processes are utilized/formulated while playing video games and to what degree are they applicable to different real-world tasks?
The third thing we should investigate is: What are the best formats for maximizing retention of information in educational games, and what kind of interactions produce that retention?
The fourth thing we should investigate is: Why can't such seemingly educated people as politicians tell the goddamn difference between correlation and causation, still?
No comments:
Post a Comment