Keith Vaz’s Face Prevents Humans Feeling Charitable: Science

This morning, I wrote a little report about Keith Vaz MP requesting debating time to discuss the “harmful effects of violent video games”. He wanted the UK’s legislative assembly to dedicate some of their valuable time (paid for with our increasingly less valuable money), to talk about negative aspects of games. The study he used as reasoning for why this was relevant again was the recent findings of Indiana University School of Medicine’s Dr. Yang Wang.

Dr. Wang concluded that, after his short term study of just 22 people, videogames had “a long-term effect on brain functioning”. That’s science. Oh, in the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that Dr. Wang’s totally scientific investigation was funded by a campaign group that takes an explicit stance against videogames.

So, in the interests of furthering scientific discovery, I asked for people to fill out my own little psychological test which is about as watertight a method of clinical evaluation as you’re ever likely to encounter. At the time my intense study yielded this initial report, I’d had 46 respondents. That means that my study is officially two-and-a-bit times more scientific than Dr. Wang’s. There’s bound to be a scale or something to prove that claim and if there’s not, I’ll just draw one in MS Paint.

Here are my results:

So there you have it: Keith Vaz’s handsome smiling visage is very good for political reform but not so good for charitable donations. Sorry, charity, you’re bang out of luck.

Just so we’re clear, my own scientific study was conducted without any outside funding whatsoever and I didn’t even pay much attention to it all morning. I just clicked into the relevant tab on my web browser, posted a forum thread and sent a couple of tweets. It’s irrefutable science, though, I think we can all agree on that.

Disclaimer: Obviously, this is just a bit of fun rather than actual science. Please don’t quote my “results” anywhere, unless it’s on a funding application for further research. Or if Mr. Vaz would like to use a quote for his CV, perhaps?



  1. I played Rayman and now I want to punch him in the face. Related? 22 people say “yes”.

  2. Surprised you didn’t go with “Keith Vaz’s face makes more than 52% of people want to hurt others or themselves.”

  3. Lullaby & flowers in my hair. Vaz doesn’t have enough hair for this. I felt mocking him was the appropriate action.

    • Brilliant. Just as the article itself.

  4. Good article, I like it, but trust me, you don’t want funding to actually compile full research into this, or any other matter. The money would be nice, but then you’d have to actually do the research, and that would be a complete nightmare, as all research is.

  5. i giggled uncontrolably at the fact his face could make you self harm amazing!

  6. Keith Vaz… There are many like him presiding over constituencies that would elect a vegetable if it was wearing the right coloured rosette.

  7. I hate that smile…

  8. ‘Dr. Wang’

    Tehe :)

  9. deffo options 5 and 7.

  10. As a psychology major, I know that most of my professors would say that study wasn’t reliable in the least. 22 participants is something that an undergraduate would get for a last minute experiment. Since that study was actually funded, it’s pretty unacceptable that it even stands a chance at being taken seriously by anyone. Video games have been shown to lead to SHORT TERM aggression, but not necessarily violence. The biggest evidence for video games not causing violence would be to look at the millions of gamers out there who AREN’T being violent as apposed to the .01% that are.

    • ‘ The biggest evidence for video games not causing violence would be to look at the millions of gamers out there who AREN’T being violent as apposed to the .01% that are’

      Yeah, but that would make video games look GOOD! We can’t have that! :P

Comments are now closed for this post.