Videogames Affirm Violence Among Kids?

Thanks to Mainichi.co.jp for their report on a new Japanese survey claiming young videogame-playing children are more violent. According to the Ochanomizu University study, "The more elementary school students play video games, the more likely they are to get irritated and want to hit others." However, the story also points out that "Another study on British children also released at the International Simulation and Gaming Association meeting gave different results, finding that those who preferred violent games more were not as aggressive in their actual lifestyles", leading to the inevitable conclusion that there's no definite answer - though that Japanese survey did suggest that "In video games it is common for players to be awarded 'points' for violent actions, and there may be aspects in which violence is taken affirmatively."

Comments

The context...

[PaleZer0]

I really think its the context of the violence that needs to be looked at. I for one feel that a game like Wind Waker, or the more gorey Eternal Darkness aren't bad, even though they are quite violent in their own right. I think a 10 year old (if the gore doesn't "damage" them) can play a good violent game in which the violence is a stance against "evil" and come out a better person. Violence in games can help instill morals into youngsters in my opinion. If a video game child is getting beat on, and the human controlled video game hero knocks the crap out of the one hurting the child, i think it does more good for the player than bad. It's needless violence in games that needs to be policed by parents and retailers. NO young kid should be able to play GTA3.

Correlation != Causation

[Joe the Lesser]

Something tells me that these kids have issues, and thus see the violence as a way to express themselves, instead of holding it in.

So the cause of the violence is likely something else, because a healthy child would not be influenced because the child knows how to deal with his anger productivly.

So instead of barring videogames, they might try understanding what haunts their children.

Re:Denial

[Methuseus]

Ok, I've been playing violent games since I was 6. I'm not and never have been a violent person. I still play violent games, and am a nice, happy guy when I'm not playing games.

Are you saying that I'm a figment of my imagination? Or do you think I'm lying? Just curious.

Yes, but...

[Fished]

Let's put it this way: you have two choices:

1. Excessively violent games make kid's violent, so should be banned.
2. Excessively violent kids play excessively violent games, so those who play such games obsessively should be watched.

Somehow, I suspect you would not be comfortable with either conclusion.

Let me put it to you another way: I have four kids under six. Recently, they discovered Tom and Jerry. Since they discovered Tom and Jerry, I've noticed a distinctive change in their play - they've become more aggressive, they've started smacking each other with blunt objects and laughing, etc. Now, there are two possibilities: either Tom and Jerry unmasked latent violent issues already present in my kids, or Tom and Jerry caused them to be violent.

Either way, the cause is "Tom and Jerry" and the solution is to turn off the damn TV. The hell of it is, in my belief system, everyone has violent tendencies to be unmasked. (This belief would also tend to be confirmed by most psychological findings I've seen.) They may be close to the surface, on the surface, or deeply buried, but they're there. Whether this is because we're all neurotic or because we're all victims of sin I'll leave up to you. In either case, anything that brings that latent violence closer to the surface is potentially a bad thing. And, like it or not, violent TV and games seem to unmask latent violence.

Is Tom and Jerry or Grand Theft Auto really too much to give up so my two year old doesn't smack my five year old with a broom? I don't think so. Is Lord of the Rings too much to give up? Hell yes. The difference is that, in one case, violence is put out in a very unrealistic way - no consequences, no real victims. In the other, violence is associated with suffering. In one case, we have art, and in the other we have a kind of macabre, violent masturbation trying to ride on the coat-tails of art. It's like the difference between a great nude photograph and porn - one revels in the beauty of the human body, the other just seeks to possess it.

And, No, I don't have any problem making that judgment. If you do, maybe your palate has been burned off by constant exposure to the esthetic equivalent of MD20/20, and you should try to clear it a bit?

Violence and Media

[neostorm]

Something that everyone is forgetting whenever this topic comes up is that human beings are violent creatures. Not everyone, some more than others, but human beings have an inherent violence within them. We start wars, we rape, we kill... It's an orgy of violence on this planet! (!!!) And that's just reality I'm talking about.

Look, seriously, if I ever have children, they're probably not going to be sleeping with hookers and running people over in showers of blood until they're quite a bit older. However, kids that are more prone to violence will get their violence from books, comics, television (No!), video games (Liar!), or the school playground. Don't you remember that loving voice of your mother when she'd scream "Stop that rough-housing! or "Don't throw that at her!"

We could eliminate every violent medium on this planet, and it would not eliminate violence, because the violence starts with *us*. We're the ones who put the violence in there in the first place, so we're where the solutions have to start.