Slashdot Mirror
Looking at Video Games and Violence
rootrider writes "Mark Rahner of the Seattle Times has written a great article discussing the recent trend here in the US to outlaw the purchase of violent video games by minors. I'm sure articles have been written in the past that refute the idea that video games lead to violence, but this is the first mainstream article I've seen that details the issue and does it well." The trend isn't really that new. In the past, Ozzy Osbourne and Dungeons and Dragons have been favorite scapegoats, and when I was in high school it was gangsta rap music. I can't wait until we can attribute violence to the nightly news.
Behind every kid who "plays too many games for their own good" is a shitty parent. I think the mediamorons and other general arsholes are confusing the symptom with the cause.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Not me at all, I'm ganking asshole terrorists left and right in Raven Shield every night.
A game is a game. War is war. They are separate.
Actually, you ask an interesting question: what is the influence of news reporting when it comes to violence?
I see two kinds of influence:
* News reports may create copycats out of weak minds. Let's say you catch some cretins throwing rocks on cars from bridges over freeways. If you make too much publicity of the case, you'll have imbeciles doing the same thing all over.
* More importantly, news reporting may alter the way people perceive the world and human interactions.
Let us take international relations. If you're brought up in the idea that your country is the best in every domain and the rest of the world is just made of jealous jerks, you obviously have a different outlook on violence - specifically, you may not be reluctant to approve the use of violence by your government.
I love how the article says that the Beltway Snipers supposedly practiced with Halo. If they said that or not... I don't know, but either way, even if they DID... how the HELL is a game any good practice for a real sniper rifle. True, you get hand eye coordination, or adjusted vision for it... But you don't line a target up in sights in the game like you would with a REAL gun in your hand. If Halo had a sniper gun attachment which you played with (Like Time Crisis' pistol), then maybe.... but not with that GIANT xbox controller.
I don't put much stake in the whole "violent video games makes you eeeevil" thing either. It's sort of another source for ideas. Just how many murder mystery books have "inspired" murders? Think "Basic Instinct."
But kids don't read these days, so there've been fewer book-burnings...
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
However, I do myself play Soldier of Fortune II and so I can understand that some might be concerned that kids playing a game all day long that involves shooting your opponent might somehow be predisposed to shooting someone in real life.
But training, as the D.C. snipers have suggested? That's crazy. Even after playing so much that my right wrist aches, I can't imagine that I'm now more capable with an AK47 than I was before SOFII.
Furthermore, when I was a kid, trying not to get eaten by Tyrannosaurus Rex, we actually ran around outdoors with fake guns or BB guns and stalked each other. Those low-tech methods were surely more effective at grooming future killers than the sit-on-your-ass and get fat video alternatives.
Since the average gamer, apparently, is 28, whose at fault for that? Themselves, or their parents?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
As long as RC tanks, tinsoldiers and other war toys are banned as well, banning violent videogames is just hypocritical activism.
and I'll believe this bullshit that somehow games teach kids to kill. People in the media (and our our own representatives) claim that these games are "murder trainers" but they can't even teach you to hold a gun properly. How to aim a gun. In the games, you don't even have to look down the sights on the gun to aim!
Thats just the starting point. The fact is, the only person who makes you do anything is YOU. I grew up on good ol' PBS. Monty Python didn't turn me into a drag racing nun. Or a nude pianist. Red Dwarf didn't turn me into a cat. The Red Green Show didn't make me very handy (I wish it had though, I'm not all that handsome). And that was all before I became a teenager. Add in the Atari 2600 I swapped in for a Nintendo in my 6th grade year, and later for a super nintendo, and according to these idiots, I've turned out to be some kind of saint or something since I haven't shot anyone or tried to fry them with Street Fighter 2 moves.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
#1, The government should have no say in what I buy /. land,
for my children, this is just rediculous. #2, Most
of the games I bought for my Playstation/Computer
were bought with the mindset I want something I'll
like just as much as my son will. So does this
mean that me buying resident evil and such and then
letting my son play make me a bad father?? I don't
know how many of you have kids out there in
but the ones who do I think will agree that kids now
don't quite fit into the old catagories. I mean my
son (age 6) already has better views on life, and
understands a lot more than most people that are
older than me. I don't think it's the fact that
video games teach them anything, I think it's the
fact that most parents buy kids video games to
"keep kids out of thier hair". I mean you take
the whole colombine shooting, these kids had all
kinds of stuff in the basement (pipe bombs/whatever),
so that just shows how much attention the parents
were paying to them. I think the parents of these
kids that go on shooting sprees just don't want to
admit that they weren't doing thier job, or that
maybe thier kids had some real issues. It's just
easier to blame a game company, and not to mention
that if you actually do win a case against a game
company you get a pretty good payment. These
people need to worry more about talking to thier
kids and less time trying to take thier rights.
Just my opinion
Scoobywan
were allowed to discipline their children every once in a while without being subject to the child abuse mogals, then perhaps children would actually grow up to know what's right and wrong.
Aside from that, most children do know the difference between fiction and real life, sometimes more so than adults...... That's just my experience....
Look, I'm as liberal-hippie-pinko-commie-fag as they come, but I'm sick to death of people defending the manufacturers of ultra-violent media as if they were struggling artists in need of protection. It's easy enough to point an accusing finger at the parents for not insulating their children from the evils of the world (especially when the finger-pointer is not a parent), but the truth is that it takes a village to raise a child, and we all bear some responsibility for what our children grow up believing is acceptable bahaviour. If we bombard them with this dreck day in and out (and I'm not just referring to MA games, but all the other pointlessly violent garbage that Hollyweird shovels down our throats by the truckload), it seem to me to be rather obvious that this will have an adverse influence on their perception of violence. I find it ironic that the media is always the first to wave around stacks of studies that demonstrate no connection between media violence and human behaviour, yet turn around and spend millions every year on advertising...presumably because of it's ability to influence human behaviour.
A lot of the assumptions made in this particular article were clearly innacurate (anyone who has spent five minutes in an Electronic Boutique knows that the average age of a video game purchaser is less than 28) , and it struck me as simply another knee jerk reaction to protect our freedom to sell crap to kids. The media corporations rallying behind the banner of free speech could not give two bits for our freedom. They are simply defending their market.
Will it make kids killers? No. Evolution made us killers. Civilization is what keeps us from killing eachother.
Let's try to be more civilized.
So, Shock and Awe, the Sony videogame, will be responsible for corrupting youth, but Shock and Awe, the GWBushCorp's real-world enterprise of death and conquest is what, exactly? A beautiful inspiration of courage and restraint, suitable for the instruction and edification of all children? Please. We need to set up a detox center for all the people with Lee Greenwood-addled brains.
I think the cart has been put before the horse here. Instead of saying that the games inspire the violence, perhaps it is accurate to say that those with violent tendancies are attracted to these games. It sounds logical since only a small number of people/kids who play them participate in real-life violence. Of course, further conclusions can be drawn about other influences, i.e. parents' roles, etc. Saying the games inspire the violence is like saying masturbating causes rape.
amen.
I watched thousands of Tom and Jerry cartoons as a kid but have never hit anyone in the face with a frying pan.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
I suppose they'll go back to talking to real life recruiters and finding out...
America's Army was nevery about replacing real life recruiters. Think of it more as a movie trailer. You see it and think, "Wow that looks cool. I think I'll go see the movie." But you still need to go and buy tickets, show ID (for kids trying to go see R movies), and buy candy and popcorn.
All the trailer does is get you interested. I think it is a really great idea overall. Mostly becuase kids now tend to spend more time surfing the net and playing computer games than watching television (making the television ads less effective). Not only that, but all they need to do is develop the game once and post it for unlimited downloads. It is much more cost effective for the Army and allows them to start being noticed by younger children who are not yet interested in military service but will remember the game when they are older.
But, even the best computer game in the world won't replace the recruiter. The potential recruit still needs someone to walk them through the process, show them where to sign and send them off to basic training.
This is unreal. As if the fact that the United States Army employs a video game in order to lure youngsters into its ranks isnt enough evidence.
Have you guys EVER studied behavioral sciences at ALL?
How is it that you people feel you are apt to comment on such a complex issue as learning and attitude formation?
Theres a reason movies have ratings. And its not because kids cry. Developing minds are extremely susceptible to suggestion. Attitudes and emotions are extremely fragile.
There is a concept in behaviorism called association, best described in 1898 by Thorndike as the Law of Effect: "Behavior leading to satisfactory states is likely, behavior leading to unsatisfactory states, less likely."
There is a difference between consciously engaging the lyrics of a song or words in a book and actively reliving experiences (remember, observations and sensations are experiences) involving violence and death.
You internalize (naturalize) the behavior and the resulting states of mind that occur. It will NOT affect your conscious thought. You will not suddenly be overcome with a desire to kill. That is just sillyness.
Instead, your thoughts and actions will be characterized by these associations you have made in your mind. They will evoke a reflexive, emotional response. your attitudes will be underlined by the extreme levels of violence you are submerged in.
Its great for the warmongering USA, thats why the law will never pass. A nation whose attitudes are stereotyped by violence will not object to : War in Vietnam, War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq again, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on your fucking mind. Even if war after war after war after war after war FAILS TO ACHIEVE THE STATED OBJECTIVES.
think about it.
before you speak.
-- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau
Again, another person appears to think that behavior is governed by rational (ie conscious) thought.
Do you have any idea what it does to your brain to associate killing and the sounds of killing with RELAXATION?
Wake up computer guys: there are things called attitudes and emotions. Those are what propaganda uses to get you to buy/think stuff.
-- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau
Some people say the the problem is that parents arn't paying attention to what games the kids are playing.
I think the problem is that the parents arn't paying attention to the kids at all.
Yeah, it's just too bad that anyone who didn't already agree with his agenda will never bother to see it.
"To save the planet, I had to go to the worst spot on Earth, and that was Philadelphia." -- Sun Ra
I'm not anti-American; I've got numerous American friends and colleagues, I've worked in the US for a while, I was in New York last January and will come back to the US for business purposes at least once more this year.
Of course, my message was alluding partly to the American media. My opinion on these is that even alleged serious newspapers such as the New-York Times have degraded standards when it comes to international news. All too often, the international news articles would be more appropriately moved to a "commentary" or "opinion" section.
One troubling fact, for instance, is that all too often these articles dwell on alleged motivations, often implying that actions by foreign people or leaders are motivated by anti-Americanism or envy. Let me given you an example: in a recent article commenting on the opposition from several judicial bodies to a proposal to change French criminal procedure to include plea bargain, the journalist commented: "In France, perceived concessions to English-American forms of law, no matter how slight, have run into strong resistance.". Now, of course, this implies this resistance is motivated by anti-Americanism, ignoring real concerns about constitutional rights such as the right to a fair trial. In short, the journalist attributes motivations to people who cannot defend themselves. Is that reporting, or partisan comment?
I won't even mention the moral judgments routinely doled out as facts. The point is that such so-called reporting is bound to shape the impressions of the reader in a certain direction, in this case to believe that any opposition to the policies of the United States government is motivated by dubious issues.
Now you can understand better what happens in countries such as Saudi Arabia. In those countries, the media and the education system are even more biased. People are taught from their infancy that, say, the Jews are cunning liars. They are taught about the moral superiority of their religion compared to the "immoral" West.
The parallel is striking. Self-righteous biased reporting replacing facts and objective analysis. Of course, the situation in Saudi Arabia is far worse than in any Western countries, but still one should always pay attention to the agendas of the media outlets.
The link to violence? Why do all these people sponsors terrorist groups through so-called "charities"? Where do they find the terrorists? Part of the explanation seems to be that prejudice ingrained from infancy breeds violence.
It's only dangerous if 'weird' kids listen to it. Same deal with Dungeons and Dragons, and Ozzy Osbourne. Weird stuff generates paranoia, when there are kids out there who draw pictures of Iraqi's/Saddam getting slaughtered in detail, and their teachers and friends commend them for it, calling them patriots. Kids go around beating the shit out of weaker kids, and the weaker kids go into stuff like D&D, or violent videogames, and suddenly the parents think they're gonna shoot up the school. Perhaps they should try solving the problem at the root. If anything, violent videogames are good, because they help kids vent. I had times in high school where I was pissed off and instead of trying to go and beat the crap out of someone, I would sit down and play Doom or Half life, and bam, all my problems would die down. But does the older generation understand? No... they love demonizing the children's generation so they can take away from their own faults. */rant*
Whenever I see those reports about video games/D&D/gangsta rap, etc making teens violent, etc, I often wonder why it is that the people that say this (i.e. my parents, grandparents, etc) are not so messed up & violent.
Let's go back one generation (relative to me - I'm 24 years old, my father is 53). Many of the people my father knew were in the military fighting in Vietnam (he joined later and was posted in Germany). A good part of society thus experienced and were exposed to REAL violence. Not only that, they were also TRAINED to effectively kill & destroy as well as to blindly follow orders. Hmm... my father and his friends are not going around killing people or blowing up bridges.
Same thing goes with the generation previous to my father - my grandparents. They were part of a much bigger, worldwide war (WW2) that not only focused entire countries to supporting the war effort, but also sent massive numbers of people to fight. Most of these people managed to reintegrate into society and lead normal, non-violent lives.
Today, my father reads war/military books and watches war movies. This is his virtual world that he finds interesting; it's just an escape from reality. He might even dream, in his mind, of being in those situations and it might involve very violent actions. But, like any sane person, he can distinguish between reality and the imaginary and, as such, it's harmless. Living out parts of the imaginary is also perfectly fine since he, like everyone else, is aware of what is acceptable in society and law.
Same goes with computer games. Whenever we play a computer game, we are experiencing the imaginary world created by the game developer. What we do in this imaginary world may be of some use in the real world but, for the most part, it remains in the imaginary (Rainbow 6 does not make me an anti-terrorist specialist - nor would I ever concede myself to being one!). If we choose to live out part of the imaginary, virtually all people will do so in a way that is acceptable.
The very rare cases involving people that don't have this moral compass or cannot distinguish between reality - they are the people that give the rest of us a poor image. Specifically, it's the fault of the media for grossly oversimplifying the subset of society that we make up (i.e. all computer game users are violent).
The good news? As we get older, we will be the ones that control society. Computer games and their ilk are not going away either - infact they are getting more common & widespread (it's not just the domain of geeks). As such the nutcases today can say whatever they want today because in the future people will (hopefully) disregard their message since we know it's a load of crap.
Fin.
Right wing think tanks, which most academics I've met rate somewhere around creationism in the legitimacy stakes (ie zero)
Now, as a conservative, I COULD take what you said wrong. But I won't because Im not a knee jerk kinda guy, and I see the validity in your statement, even if I think the target is a bit broad. There is a difference in people who are 1) conservative (me) and 2) Religious Right Dogmatist (not me).
Your main point is right on the money. Not only do so many expect kids to grow up too fast by subjecting them to all this war violence, but then underestimate them by thinking they cant tell the difference between real and pretend.
The problem is NOT the kids, its the adults that forget the difference. Unfortunately, many people forget how to pretend and just "play" somewhere along the way. TV and game violence is not a good mental diet if its the main thing a child (or adult for that matter) see, but we ARE preditory carnivores (PETA be damned) so the idea of certain violence is pretty normal. Cowboys and Indians (oops, native americans), soldiers, cops and robbers, etc. have been a natural part of a child's existance since time began. Its a natural part of growing up. In moderation, its perfectly normal and healthy, unless we want to raise a generation of mindless goobs. Showing REAL violence on TV, such as the newsflash during cartoons, is NOT. This also takes away a parents right to decide if their child is ready to see this or not, by simply imposing this information on them.
And thats the rub. Real violence causes real problems, while 'pretend' violence only leads to 'pretend' problems.
But as usual, some feelgoodnicks will worry about petty shit, like games, instead of the real problems. Its like the minority of COPS who won't chase a guy with a gun, but will jack up a pot smoker, because "pot smokers don't shoot back". They get to "feel good that I made a difference" while not actually risking anything. Its a form of social masturbation, where they are more concerned about LOOKING important, and having something to brag about at cocktail parties.
They might as well march on DC with signs that say "Crime is Bad!". Well duh, but this cures nothing but their own desire to be self important.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I want to make one more point that was implicit in my last post: Thought and behavior are two seperate and distinct things. The way you think and the way you behave can be divergent. (if they are too divergent you get what Leon Festinger calls Cognitive Dissonance, a distressing and anxious mentality arising from the incongruency. In my opinion our entire society has suffered from it since World War I, to be excaberated greatly by World War II and the holocaust)
-- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau