Slashdot Mirror
BBC Argues Games Don't Cause Violence
RandBlade writes "BBC News has an article on the argued link between violent games and real violence. It examines both scientific evidence, different theories and the facts in order to conclude 'that it is trite and irresponsible of ill-informed commentators to claim that games like Grand Theft Auto are central to terrible crime.'" It's good to know that gamers are not all killing machines lying in wait, or that E3 is not the most potentially dangerous convention ever.
Of course games dont cause violence. Man do I want to kill those people who think it does....
Itchy and Scratchy and Marge already covered this:
Meyers: I did a little research and I discovered a startling thing...
There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.
Kent: I see. Fascinating.
Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance.
Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went on for thirty years.
Kent: And this was before cartoons were invented?
Meyers: That's right, Kent.
-- `Smartline', ``Itchy and Scratchy and Marge''
"These media types make us out to be dangerous, violent, ready to snap and kill people on a daily basis; which is just a damned, nasty lie - I haven't killed anyone in weeks."
violent games and the statistically insignificant, high-profile gamer-related violent crime are very popular scapegoats.
think of the children! especially the ones we don't want to take responsability of raising!
Scientific theories and evidence have never been any good in convincing the hysterical please-think-of-the-children crowd. These people have already made their minds and nothing will change their position.
The owls are not what they seem
The people you kill in videogames are not real.
The danger arises when something goes wrong in someone's mental development and that person comes to believe that people's lives *in reality* are worth nothing, just like in videogames.
This "sliding" of definition (imaginary people = real people = ok to kill) is NOT caused by videogames. Someone who is mentally unstable enough to kill over a videogame would be triggered as well by violent movies, books or his own violent mental imagery.
You often hear people claiming that games/films influenced their actions but at the end of the day its a cop out for taking responsibility for their own actions.
People have been taking inspiration from Art for years - whether film, books, or in more recent time you could claim video games. No one forces people to read these books, watch these films or play these games - they choose to. If someone decides to go nuts, its their own personal decision - a game doesn't make that decision for them. Now the manner in which they go nuts - thats a different story.
[ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
C'mon. If you're a gamer, Linux is the last platform you look to, right after Windows, consoles, handhelds, cards, dice, and watching paint dry.
Games do not cause violence but they do desensitize children to violence and they don't take crimes of violence serious. When they play wrestling games they usually will imitate the wrestling moves and hurt someone without realizing it.
MonkeysKickAss
the big problem is no one wants to take responsibility for their actions, and some parents don't want to take responsibility for not teaching their kids well. The easiest thing for these people to do is blame someone else....and video games are just really convenient.
A Smith & Wesson beats four aces -- Murphy's Law of Poker
Columbine anyone?
Okay you named one tragedy in the last 20 years. Name a couple more. Name some till it rises to the level of crime on a daily basis in the inner city.
In fact if you read the article, the author only takes the controversial stance that more study is required, and no conclusion can be reached yet.
Basicly the guy says that there is no clear winner in the evolution vs enviroment debate. Then he uses Canada and Japan, where violence in games is common but murder is much more rare than the US, as an example to counter the situation in the U.S. It's a much more reasoned article than the sentationalistic headline would lead one to believe.
Download my free songs!
There is a well-documented connection between actual guns and violence. Yet many would prefer to regulate simulated guns and simulated violence.
Despite studies of this nature, I worry that there will continue to be resistance (in the Western US at least) to *any* type of regulatory initiative directed at actual guns, no matter how reasonable.
Its also troubling because regulation of simulated violence presents a greater burden and risk to principles of free speech and expression --- without any corresponding social benefit except for those who object to the content of the games being regulated.
I'm laughing at clouds.
Solitare for years. No violence to date.
"There's so much comedy on television.
Does that cause comedy in the streets?" -- Dick Cavett
> I've herd these arguments all my life and I just have one question. What video game did Hitler or Stalin play ?
Panzer General.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I admit I did not rtfa, but I already believe games are not to blame for violence in this country. Why? Well we hear it all the time in the mainstream news -heavy metal music is making kids kill each other, Grand Theft Auto is making kids kill each other, freely available handguns and high-power firearms is why kids kill each other, violence on TV and in movies is what makes kids kill each other, the broken marriages, high divorce rates and single-family homes are robbing kids of the stability at home and thus they grow up insecure and want to kill each other, ......
The interesting thing is this:
- the United States is not the only country with alienated youth, check out Japanese kids (in Japan) or countires throughout Europe. In fact, isn't it part of growing up to be alienated and not fit in? Most of us didn't fit in when we were growing up, but who cares?
- the divorce rate in the U.S. is not the highest in the world, Brittain is higher. But we don't see the Brits killing each other left and right, or blaming everyone and their dog for why the other is so violent.
- mainstream music and movies can't be blamed, because they are ALL available in other countries, and in some cases might even be "taken more seriously" by foreigners who idolize the American way of life, so how can we blame movies, TV and music?
- the availability of guns in this country isn't totally to blame either - look at Canadians, they've got millions of guns throughout the country, but we don't see the Kanucks blowing each other's heads off.
I never really had a cohesive perspective on this stuff until I watched Bowling for Columbine. This is exactly what the movie is about - investigating why this country is so obsessed with violence. The answer, according to Michael Moore (and I totally agree with him), is that we live in a society that thrives on fear.
We're afraid of being robbed, insulted, embarassed... We're afraid we'll get too fat, or get too thin, or be unhealthy about our diet.... We're afraid we won't fit in, or won't get laid this weekend, or can't get a promotion at work, or might get fired, and what the hell am I gonna do when I retire? and how are my kids going to possibly afford college on their own?! and jesus what is up with social security?....
It just goes on and on, and we finally get to fear over our kids, and that's where all the blame lands on TV, movies, music, and video games. If the average parent would spend real quality time with their kids instead of plopping them in front of the fucking television night after night, things in this country might start turning for the better.
I wrote about this on my blog when I saw the movie a few months ago. For any interested parties, here's a link to The Charlie Rose Show where Michael Moore was interviewed.
I grew up in a pretty conservative family that tends to respond to this type of hysteria, so I understand what's necessary to make these people to reconsider their ironclad position.
I've gotten a lot of milage out of the following teenage homicide graph (other violent crime trends are similar).
DOJ Homicide Trends by Age
I would like you to note the trend from 1993 to today. Please note that it wasn't until around 1993 that the most violent 1st person genre took off.
In fact, if you continue to reseach the DOJ's site, you'll find that our crime rates are comparable to the more "innocent" times (50's, 60's) of the last century, where our war on drugs in the late 80's and early 90's reflect similar crime rates to that of the prohibition.
Surely wishy-washy attempts to trace cultural influences of violence ignore the basic evidence that the human male character and physique have been selected for violence amongst other traits, and this for at least millions of years.
I've seen violent behaviour in children from the ages of 7 up, and it is not influenced by watching others any more than children who doodle patterns in the sand are influenced by watching art.
From watching people, I would say violence is latent in most young men (and the occasional woman, but it's much rarer) especially between the ages of 16 and 25. You can definitely shift these limits - see child soldiers who kill at the age of 7 and up. But violence is almost never random and spontaneous, except in sick people. Violent behaviour is almost a predictable and (from the individual's point of view) a rational response to an environment where it's the best strategy for success.
In other words: place a normal young male in a social setting where violence is the best route to success (which simply means reproductive success through whatever short or long-term route), and you will see a violent young male emerge. Place the same male in a setting where intellectual and commercial ambition are better strategies, and you will see a young man who puts his energies into those directions.
There are extreme cases - people who are violent in most settings, and people who are not violent in most settings - but we're talking about mass influence here, right?
Video games are in no possible way a factor in deciding how to proceed in life. They are fantasy, and even a six-year old child can maintain totally coherent fantasy worlds that do not affect their real life.
So the debate about video games is on the wrong track entirely... we can solve problems of violence in youth only by changing economics of behaviour so that non-violence works better. It's quite possible that suppressing violent video games could even increase violent tendencies, since they provide an avenue for expression of violent nature, in the same way as porn provides an safe avenue for sexual fantasy.
Luckily the formula for reducing violent behaviour seems clear: a stable system of government where long-term good behaviour is rewarded and short-term bad behaviour is suboptimal.
Modern societies are incredibly pacifistic compared with historical ones. The USA may seem violent compared to Switzerland, but it's a haven of peace and calm compared to most places on earth.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I've seen many parents in articles and on TV talking about violent video games and saying such things as "I never knew that game was violent" and then complain that stricter labeling or even removing them from some stores is needed (thus barring legitimate adults from easily purchasing them). While ironically Sam Goody now has a large DVD porn section with only cute opaque plastic slips with playboy bunnies on them in front of the first DVD to hide them.
The other day I was at a Gamestop (getting Gothic II), and there was a mother there with her two little boys. Her little boys kept looking at games and saying, "Mommy, get me that one, and that one." To which she was very acquiescent. She was there purchasing a few new memory cards for the Game Cube. When the clerk said, "Okay, here are two Game Cube memory cards," she said, "Game Cube? I need memory cards for the Nintendo." Meanwhile in the background, the two little kids were in fact discussing GTA... and acting it out against each other. It was.... disturbing. But more than anything, it made me rather angry. If this woman wasn't even too clear about what console she was buying memory cards for, you can be sure as hell she has no idea about the content of the games she buys for them, and didn't really seem to care either. I've seen similar sights before too. It seems people like her are using games as a proxy for parenting, keeping the kids quiet and out of their way. I admit, I was playing Doom with my dad as a middle schooler, but it wasn't a substitution for parenting. I may have played games like that with their knowledge, but I had the parents who demanded to know who I was with, where and why 24/7 and any applicable contact info. My parents called the shots.... nowadays it seems the kids themselves are.
So to those who say that violent games do not cause violence, then what does? Was that person born evil?
Oh, I dunno, maybe being slapped around a lot? Maybe watching daddy punch and push mommy 'till she's on the floor?
I was the nicest sweetest kid until I went to school, there I met kids who weren't the nicest and sweetest they could be. I learned violence at school: ban the schools.
I think the relationship between violent games and violence is like the relationship between carcinogens and cancer.
And I think the relationship betwee violent games and violence is like the relationship between made-for-tv movies about cancer and cancer.
You can't take the sky from me...
The most extreme defenders of the 'video games cause violence' theory are those that believe a perfectly normal and good natured young person can be corrupted simply by playing a violent video game. They see the kids that commited these crimes, from columbine to the recent highway shootings, as victims, and video games as the 'trigger' that set them off.
A comparison to another nation is indeed a valid point in favor of videogames as a cause of violence. The videogames are a constant, as is the majority of the human mind. If a child in Tokyo plays violent video games and is not at all violent, while a child in Idaho plays those same violent video games and goes on a killing spree, then it would seem to me that the environment or personality of the child is a more likely cause than the game.
As to your views on players being 'evil' in games; calling someone sick for choosing dialogue option 2 instead of 1 and then changing the "is_Alive" bit from 1 to 0 for a database entry represented by a humanoid coloud of polygons seems rather self-righteous.
There were also very few 'innocents' in Knights of the old republic. The primary component of the Dark side is selfishness; killing others to lessen risk for yourself, or for a monetary reward, or for the thrill. Yes, these are all evil and twisted paths of thought, but they are my characters, not mine. Accusing me of personfying myself in an evil video game character is rather hypcritical when you admit to playing the game yourself. It would be rediculous to accuse you of being a crazy person that belive himself to be a Jedi out to save the galaxy.
And what of the scripters that designed those numerous choices of light versus dark? Are they enablers for giving you access to those evil "is_Alive" bits? Perhaps they are the most evil of all, ensaring unqitting players into the folds of the dark side. Right...
I am not an evil or sadistic person. Honestly I have trouble killing things larger than dimes, even painlessly. But I have no problem fragging you online, or setting my character loose on an unsuspecting crowd, because they are abstractions; graphical representations of game data. They do not live, they do not think, they do not care. When the game is reset they are reborn, when the game is turned off they cease to exist.
The only thing that shows how people act in real life is life itself. Interactions between real people, not their respective visual abstractions. When you play chess with an englishman and take his queen, you are not making threats against the Crown of Britain. You are playing a game. Is the piece captured, imprisoned, killed? No, it is set on the side of the board, because it is a game, and there are rules, and removing pieces from the board is part of the game.
If you don't want to, you can avoid taking pieces; you will lose, but then that is your perogative. You can play the game how you choose, and the only thing it says about how you act in real life is how you play chess. Because it is only a game; nothing more, nothing less.
So... two kids, out of the millions in this country that play video games, shoot up their school. Tens of millions of kids play violent video games every day. Two have actually commited real violence. Sure seems like these video games cause problems! Let's just ignore the fact that these kids might have been really fucked in the head.
Furthermore, my college campus - a place with lots of "spoiled middle class kids" - is the safest campus in the country. 90% of the kids here play video games at least three or four hours a day. Where's all of our crime? If the middle class kids are the most dangerous, why am i not running for my life from crazed GTA players?
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
But you forget that children aren't people so they can't choose anything. They're just some weird cross between pets and property until they turn 18 and then they magically become human beings with the capability of sentient thought and equal rights... unless they're gay. Oh and they can't drink... or get a credit card... or rent a car... and have to pay outrageous insurance rates. But other than that they've got the same rights as everyone else under the constitution once they've passed the arbitrary temporal threshold without regard for physical, mental, or emotional maturity or capability.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!