Slashdot Mirror

Also let me ask the obvious question : what would it take for you to change your mind about this ?

Evidence. Nice, simple, evidence. You continue to say that I'm disagreeing with long accepted theories, that "majority of studies" find "significant increases in violent behavior". Yet you continually have no evidence to back up your claim. You are convinced that games definitively do increase violence yet have provided not a shred of evidence. The people who performed the study this article is about claimed that they only saw an increase in competitive aggression, and it was not limited to the violent games. Now you say the study itself is not freely readable. Well, then I'll take their word for the results of the study and not yours, if you don't mind.

Then please explain why you know better than 40 years of psychological research.

I never said that I did. I only said that after that 40 years of psychological research, the people who are performing the studies STILL don't agree with each other. Some remain steadfast that they increase violent behavior, others don't.

You disagree with long accepted theories, without any explanation, and without doing any research of your own (and despite agreeing that "there is an effect" whatever you mean by that).

What long accepted theories am I disagreeing with? I'm merely agreeing with one set of studies, and you agree with a different set of studies. The fact that so many studies can have such wild variety in results when studying the same thing means someone is making mistakes somewhere either in interpretation of results, methodology, or whatever. But what it does mean, is that there is no "accepted" theory yet. There are merely a few different theories that each have their own following of small numbers of people. I've done research of my own! :)

There's two studies here, complete with hypotheses tested, studies carried out, etc. The first study was to determine whether short-term aggression in a laboratory environment could be replicated for violent vs non-violent games (hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar). They determined that males were more aggressive than females. However ther was no evidence to suggest that people who play and prefer violent games are innately more aggressive than those who do not, aside from the biological effect of males being more aggressive than females. The second study examined whether video game violence exposure retains a predictive value regarding violent crime (controlling for family violence exposure, trait aggression and gender). Turns out it doesn't.

Here's a lovely paper about the overinterpretation of these "studies" and the myths about video game violence.

This one is a meta-analysis of a few different studies, showing some flaws in both the methodology, conclusions, and how these could be fixed to get better, more accurate studies. In addition, adequately explaining certain variables and theoretical questions that need to be addressed before any study could adequately explain the effects of violent video games.

I can provide more if you like. If you'll actually read them or care what they say. Essentially, there's a publication bias to keep producing studies and papers that claim video games cause violence. While there's also a publication bias to keep producing studies and papers that say they don't. So far neither side has conclusively proved anything. This one covers that angle and also talks about the limits to the ability of actually testing and measuring violence and aggression caused by video games.

Your move, if you decide to respond. I've provid

hi dave
do a google search with the phrase:
"is ploygraph testing valid?"
the first page pretty much blows your comments
right out of the water.

aint google great regards,
mike

From the first page in a Google query for "is polygraph testing valid?"
http://www.psychologymatters.org/polygraphs.html

Some confusion about polygraph test accuracy arises because they are used for different purposes, and for each context somewhat different theory and research is applicable. Thus, for example, virtually no research assesses the type of test and procedure used to screen individuals for jobs and security clearances. Most research has focused on specific incident testing. The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives).

I don't see how a polygraph can't help someone questioning a subject. Maybe you misunderstand how they are actually used. You should be more worried about the examiner than the machine, it's just a tool, but he has many more tricks to make you trip up. Remember, a machine can't say you're guilty (or lying), but it can help someone catch you.

Even polygraph tests are subject to considerable controversy, yet they are still considered in a ruling.

The problem is, how do you know its the parents making that decision?

You don't. And you don't need to. It's none of your business, and most certainly none of the government's.

You either think that this law forbids the USE of these games by minors or you like red herring.

Neither. You simply keep mischaracterizing others' arguments via gross distortion. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and assume you're not doing it on purpose.

Either way, all this law would do is make it so the parent gets to decide if their child should play these games or not. By removing these laws, you are taking that responsibility AWAY from the parents and giving it to their kids!

Nonsense. Parents already have the final say over what games the kids can play without these laws in place (remember, none of them have survived court challenges or even been enforced). Putting the law in place, on the other hand, puts an undue burden onto the government and the retailers to play backup parent. The only thing a parent gains from these laws is a convenience to which they are not entitled.

Uh, I'm afraid you are wrong here. This law would do exactly that! While it is not perfect, it does ensure that kids are not out buying games without parental knowledge. I did stuff my parents didn't know about. Didn't you?

A kid might be able to BUY a game without his parents' knowledge, but he can't PLAY the game without their knowledge. A parent who doesn't monitor what their kid is playing (whether due to laziness or perceived maturity of the child) isn't going to care what games they're buying. But even if that weren't so, the state governments have repeatedly failed to show that there is any good reason why they should keep kids from buying games.

Right! Rational people do NOT ignore scientific research. So if scientific research says that violent video games are harmful to children, then the government is completely within their right to ban the sale to minors, right? OK, how's this:

An early study on the effects of video games on children found that playing video games had more positive effects on children than watching television. A conference sponsored by Atari at Harvard University in 1983 presented preliminary data which failed to identify ill effects. More recent research, however, has begun to find connections between children's playing of violent video games and later aggressive behavior. A research review done by NCTV (1990) found that 9 of 12 research studies on the impact of violent video games on normal children and adolescents reported harmful effects. In general, while video game playing has not been implicated as a direct cause of severe psycho-pathology, research suggests that there is a short-term relationship between playing violent games and increased aggressive behavior in younger children (Funk, 1993). Because it is likely that there is some similarity in the effect of viewing violent television programs and playing violent video games on individuals' aggressive behavior, those concerned with the effects of video games on children should take note of television research. The consensus among researchers on television violence is that there is a measurable increase of from 3% to 15% in individuals' aggressive behavior after watching violent television. A recent report of the American Psychological Association claimed that research demonstrates a correlation between viewing and aggressive behavior (Clark, 1993).

and HERE: Fifty years' of research on violent television and movies has shown that there are several negative effects of watching such fare (see http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.htm l). Because video games are a newer medium, there is less research on them

An early study on the effects of video games on children found that playing video games had more positive effects on children than watching television. A conference sponsored by Atari at Harvard University in 1983 presented preliminary data which failed to identify ill effects. More recent research, however, has begun to find connections between children's playing of violent video games and later aggressive behavior. A research review done by NCTV (1990) found that 9 of 12 research studies on the impact of violent video games on normal children and adolescents reported harmful effects. In general, while video game playing has not been implicated as a direct cause of severe psycho-pathology, research suggests that there is a short-term relationship between playing violent games and increased aggressive behavior in younger children (Funk, 1993).

Because it is likely that there is some similarity in the effect of viewing violent television programs and playing violent video games on individuals' aggressive behavior, those concerned with the effects of video games on children should take note of television research. The consensus among researchers on television violence is that there is a measurable increase of from 3% to 15% in individuals' aggressive behavior after watching violent television. A recent report of the American Psychological Association claimed that research demonstrates a correlation between viewing and aggressive behavior (Clark, 1993).

and HERE:

Fifty years' of research on violent television and movies has shown that there are several negative effects of watching such fare (see http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.htm l). Because video games are a newer medium, there is less research on them than there is on TV and movies. However, studies by psychologists such as Douglas Gentile, PhD, and Craig Anderson, PhD, indicate it is likely that violent video games may have even stronger effects on children's aggression because (1) the games are highly engaging and interactive, (2) the games reward violent behavior, and because (3) children repeat these behaviors over and over as they play (Gentile & Anderson, 2003). Psychologists know that ea

An early study on the effects of video games on children found that playing video games had more positive effects on children than watching television. A conference sponsored by Atari at Harvard University in 1983 presented preliminary data which failed to identify ill effects. More recent research, however, has begun to find connections between children's playing of violent video games and later aggressive behavior. A research review done by NCTV (1990) found that 9 of 12 research studies on the impact of violent video games on normal children and adolescents reported harmful effects. In general, while video game playing has not been implicated as a direct cause of severe psycho-pathology, research suggests that there is a short-term relationship between playing violent games and increased aggressive behavior in younger children (Funk, 1993).

Because it is likely that there is some similarity in the effect of viewing violent television programs and playing violent video games on individuals' aggressive behavior, those concerned with the effects of video games on children should take note of television research. The consensus among researchers on television violence is that there is a measurable increase of from 3% to 15% in individuals' aggressive behavior after watching violent television. A recent report of the American Psychological Association claimed that research demonstrates a correlation between viewing and aggressive behavior (Clark, 1993).

and HERE:

Fifty years' of research on violent television and movies has shown that there are several negative effects of watching such fare (see http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.htm l). Because video games are a newer medium, there is less research on them than there is on TV and movies. However, studies by psychologists such as Douglas Gentile, PhD, and Craig Anderson, PhD, indicate it is likely that violent video games may have even stronger effects on children's aggression because (1) the games are highly engaging and interactive, (2) the games reward violent behavior, and because (3) children repeat these behaviors over and over as they play (Gentile & Anderson, 2003). Psychologists know that ea

I'm aware there are video game ratings. Maybe you missed the part I wrote where I said, "holding vendors accountable for sales according to those ratings."

Actually, no. Your knowledge of such issues seem to be about as dated as your lack of knowledge of the fact that the ESRB has been around since 1994.

Really? Here are the first handful of hits in Google when you search for "are video games harmful?":

http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers /freedman.html

http://www.psychologymatters.org/videogames.html

http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.htm l

http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/familyresources/a /vidgameviolence.htm

http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/research/vgviolen ce.html

You'd better get back to class there, professor.

I'm aware there are video game ratings. Maybe you missed the part I wrote where I said, "holding vendors accountable for sales according to those ratings."

Actually, no. Your knowledge of such issues seem to be about as dated as your lack of knowledge of the fact that the ESRB has been around since 1994.

Really? Here are the first handful of hits in Google when you search for "are video games harmful?":

http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers /freedman.html

http://www.psychologymatters.org/videogames.html

http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.htm l

http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/familyresources/a /vidgameviolence.htm

http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/research/vgviolen ce.html

You'd better get back to class there, professor.

These brain-scanning technologies are far from ready for forensic uses