Science says: FPS players enjoy getting shot

And yes I'm talking about in a game. If I knew that the CPU in single player on hardest difficult were being controlled by another person. I would kick their ass. (also I would do that in real life too if someone shot me, but who wouldn't?)

Actually, scientific studies in themselves are generally fairly unbiased. Assuming we're talking about genuine ones (ie. following the scientific method, not of the biased industry-sponsored variety), they will provide a procedure, hypothesis, etc, and the data. They may draw some conclusions from the data, but they're usually of the less sensationalist type (in other words, there is a correlation between higher scores and the psychosis test and less anxiety vs. those who felt less anxiety were psychotic).

What usually happens is that the media takes the summary of the data, and draws unfounded conclusions for a better story. It just doesn't look quite as good to have a bunch of observations that are in no way, shape, or form conclusive. Instead, things are blown way out of proportion; causation (x causes y) is substituted for correlation (x is seen at the same time as y), and sensationalist lines like "playing Halo makes you psychotic" are born (speaking of which, the other summary of the study that I've seen makes no mention of this little attention grabber).

Now, I'm not saying that real scientists don't make exaggerated claims in order to get more money. In any profession, you're going to find people who mix in a little marketing where it doesn't belong. However, consider this before you make sweeping statements about science: you've just read a summary of a summary of a summary. The actual research isn't even available for free. I'd be willing to bet that if you go into the conclusions of the scientist, they never say anything that is quite as sensationalist. It's more likely that they make some tenuous arguments that is based on the data, which in turn was taken by the media, who drew its own paper-selling (or eyeball-grabbing, depending on your style) conclusions. Once again, the report isn't available for free, so if you happen to have access, feel free to correct me. Otherwise, stop making wild claims based on limited knowledge of the case at hand.

A very fair point. I assume I have again fallen victim to media distortion and sensationalism. However, I cant help thinking that scientists sometimes pick their research topics and make conclusions that lend themselves to such wild misinterpretation. Why did they study video games in the first place? The title of the study seems pretty baited: "The psychophysiology of James Bond: Phasic emotional responses to violent video game events." It just seems completely loaded and attention seeking.

Of course, it could all just be terrible journalism, which I do not doubt for a second.

Wow, how did "sylables" come out when I meant to say "synonyms"?

I guess I'm the dumb one afterall...

synonyms* not syllables

Learn 2 spell, noob

Completely agree. But now not only we know, but the scientists know.

Doesnt that make you feel a little like the monkey in a lab cage. "Of course I like bananas! These dopes just spent half a million dollars figuring out that I like to eat bananas and scratch my butt."

Except we are of the same specie and they could have just asked.