Slashdot Mirror
Views on Violence in Video Games
CBS News' GameCore site is running a series of articles discussing the ever recurring debate about video games and violent behavior. They start with prominent anti-gaming lawyer Jack Thompson. From the article: "The heads of six major health care organizations testified before Congress that there are hundreds of studies that prove the link. All the video game industry has are studies paid for by them, which are geared to find the opposite result. Lawyers call such experts 'whores.'" Tim Buckley, of the webcomic Ctrl+Alt+Del, had the chance to put forth an opposing viewpoint on the subject. According to the site there will be more coverage on this topic next week from other gaming community members.
Here's a study that was done...interesting?
Recent medical brain scan studies at Harvard, Indiana University, and elsewhere prove that adolescents' brain functions are damaged by a steady diet of violent images. The heads of six major health care organizations, including the American Medical, Pediatric, and Psychiatric Associations have all testified before Congress in June 2000 that violent entertainment contributes to teen violence. Video games are literally "murder simulators" teaching our kids how to kill.
As time goes by the studies concerning video games and violence will get better and better. We are finally reaching a point where video games with real detail have been around long enough that major studies can be done on them. Studies that have been done in the past are amazingly accurate because the sample size and length of the study can only be so long.
A new study was released yesterday by Tulane Medical which tracked video game users over a 8 year period testing how much the video games they play affect their tendency toward violence. The study found that among those who played games 8% went on to have some form of violence conviction while only 6% of the non-gamers did.
The head of the project though did say that this is something that need a lot more data before any major conclusions can be drawn.
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
But not much can be done about it. Games make money. Lots of money. When there's that kind of power behind an industry, the most critics can do is get warning labels on the boxes.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
Violence must be caused by video games. There was no murder or violent crime before Grand Theft Auto came out and tainted all of the children!!
...what does that make Thompson? Seriously, this guy has his head so far up his ass, he makes Helen Lovejoy sound rational.
English is easier said than done.
These people are retarded. If they want to stop violence then they should just ban killing people instead.
I find it funny that Jack Thompson is calling the experts that don't agree with him 'whores'. Seems like that's a pot-kettle-black issue to me.
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
I'm sorry, I don't understand people who think that you can expose yourself to hours and hours and hours of violence and not become, at least, desensitized to it or, at worst, enticed to it.
It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
Post hoc ergo propter hoc... NOT!
If the view that videogames/television/homosexuality/eating prunes causes violence, then there must be a causitive link. Explain the link. Without an explained link there is no merit for even debating this.
I play violent games all the time and I sick an tired of all the winnies blaming games for violence. If I could just get my hands on one those #$%^ I'd show him what violence really is and it will be nothing like a video game. - BTK
Legalize the killing of retarded people.
From the article: I'm sure that at one point or another a golfer snapped and beat someone to death with a 7-iron.
Let's ban golf, shall we?
Wow, how witty. I completely saw past the simplisticness of the allegory there. My mind sure is made up after that comment! Now just throw in a catchy slogan, and I'm hooked!
-- (Score:i , Imaginary)
That violent games can translate to aggression in young boys I think is fairly easy to illustrate. I don't think that means there needs to be wholesale bans or anything but there should be ratings and limits. We don't allow 12 year olds to see rated R movies (okay, we've all snuck into a movie that aside...). We don't allow them to view porn. We shouldn't allow them to buy violent video games.
A lot of people compare this whole issue to television and movies. They say that violent games are no worse then the violence that kids see every day on the news and in the movie theaters. I disagree with this greatly though.
When I watch a movie it is a fairly passive activety. I sit back, enjoy the flick without much involement. When I play a game though, such as grand theft auto or the like, that is a very active thing. I look for pedestrians to run over, I look for police to beat up. Now, I don't think that this nesassarly translates into violence in real life but it is definetly worse then what you see in tv and movies.
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
and do something about the idiot parents who let their kid hang a swastika in their room and collect empty gas canisters.
Lawyers call such experts 'whores.'
"It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
The heads of six major Video Game Companies testified before Congress that there are "hundreds" of studies that disprove the link. All the health care organizations have are studies paid for by them, which are geared to find the opposite result. Lawyers call such experts "whores."
Shall we insert something on another controversial topic here and continue to use the default template or shall we find a new way to disprove the opposition.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I have no problem with it as long as it's applied to all media such as games, music, books, magazines, movies, TV, spoken word, etc....
------- Code to try when you're bored: qsort( 0, UINT_MAX, sizeof( int* ), IntCompare );
Being an avid gamer and all, I've never ever seen a study published with conclusive evidence linking violence in games to real life. Since supposedly there are hundreds of them I'd imagine stumbling across one would be easy but it is amazing difficult.
With millions of people like myself who play violent video games, why aren't we all mass murderers?
Lawyers call such experts 'whores.'
Takes one to know one, huh?
You can't take the sky from me...
Think about it...of course major health care organizations are going to find some sort of link between video games and violence. Think of the BILLIONS of dollars in potential revenue to be had by "treating" kids who play too many games. Now who's the whore?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Does age or sex play a factor in violent, aggressive behavior?
Sure, the sex and violence centers of the brain overlay one another, which is why the increasing mix of sex and violence is troubling. Armies have been known to go on rape rampages after battles because the violence stimulates sexual aggression. How lovely that GTA weds sex and violence in the same game. We are training a generation of teens to combine sex with violence, just what America needs.
Does this man not understand that in the English language, "sex" can refer to gender? What does he write on forms that ask his sex? "Yes, please?" Probably, "Goodness, no!" actually.
By the way, I'd like to know where these "sex and violence centers of the brain" are. Maybe we could just lobotomize everyone and cure all our ills.
English is easier said than done.
American football is basically gladitorial arena combat (which makes it neat), but nobody complains about the violence it induces in our children.
To the Media: Stop the perpetuation of unfounded fear! It's almost as though they want to keep humanity in constant fear...oh wait, they do.
(\(\
(^.^) INFECTED
(")")
And people will keep on discussing this, until they find another topic to blame on the declining morals of today's youth. Back in the 1950's, we had "Seduction of the Innocent", where the wave of crime that swept the nation in the 50s was blamed on comic books. We still have comic books around, but people don't seem to complain about them much, because they've moved on to different fish to fry.
As a side note, one of the things that is brought up about comic books and censorship is that comic books are often censored based upon their effects on children, even with no proof that children are the main readers of comic books. The same thing with video games: the main market of video games is arguably people who have moved out of their formative years.
Anyway, until someone invents a new shocking form of popular communication (brain broadcasts, anyone?), we are going to have to put up with this.
That being said, I am hungry, so I think it is time for me to go out and turn some monsters into fruit for breakfast.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
I'm sure that many lazy parents are going to be fully in support of the causality link argument, so they can continue to not have to monitor what their children are playing and can point the finger elsewhere and say "it's their fault little Billy burned down the school".
An exaggeration, but still... people need to take some personal responsibility for how their children behave. Linking violence in games to children's actions is beside the point when they should not be playing M-rated titles to begin with.
i hear it's like LSD but with less mind trip...
Any M-rated game has violence levels unacceptable and definitionally harmful to anyone under 17.
What percentage of all games made would you say are violent
GTA [Grand Theft Auto series] has sold 30 million units, with San Andreas expected to hit 20 million on its own.
Is there a correlation between playing violent video games and acting in a violent manner?
Of course.
Is gaming escapism?
Yes, just as Ted Bundy escaped into pornography.
this guy isn't very smart is he?
Has it ever occured to anyone that perhaps people more prome to violent outbursts will be more likely to enjoy blowing people's head off in GTA? That perhaps people whose personalities are already tending towards violence are more likely to play violent games? Seems like a pretty obvious suggestion to me. Even ignoring that, these studys are essentially claiming to show that we have no free will, and are mere puppets with strings connected to the playstation.
If you are constantly exposed to real violence you will become desensitized to it...however if you are constantly exposed to violent video games, you will become desensitized to fake violence...this goes on and on and on...Radio, TV, Video Games...Feed kids crap, send them to boring schools, stuff them full of drugs for every little thing, give them no supervision, let them feel unloved, deserted, and alone, then blame video games for their violence...
so if games do all that.
what does real world war coverage do to people?
those are REAL people dying. not just pixels on a screen.
We better ban war too. its violent.
Thing is, even if they can prove correlation, they havn't proven causation. Could it be that children with crappy parents who don't pay attention to them plop them in front of video games? And then, is it plausible that these same children that arn't being brought up properly by their parents are more likely to misinterpret the fictional nature of the games? Besides, even if video games MADE kids violent, you can't get rid of them. This is a basic freedom of speech issue, and our to lose the basic principles that make our country what it is, over a relatively small issue of safety, is completely ludicrous. It all comes down to some basic parental responsibility.
I often wonder at the application of the scientific method in many of these studies. Kind of difficult to setup control groups, null tests, negative hypothesis, etc. Could there be bias? Did they reframe their hypothesis and test that? What about societal differences? I mean, I for one kind of like the violence in video games. It causes me to not shoot up the office :p
a polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate change.
Certainly it is only a very few that transition for what ever nasty psychological reason from console to school cafeteria, but for those few there is no better way to train for a high body count...
Right. And there were no evil corporations before Microsoft, no lawsuits before that lady spilled coffee on her lap at McDonalds, etc.
Personally, I think there is a link to violent behavior and how we as a society have come to accept it as "normal". Video games are a part of that culture, but they are by no means something you can point at as a single cause. We have a US President that is a war monger. You can see people getting killed all over television, but show a bare breast and the entire country freaks the F out. Over the last 20 years or so, we have been propagating the message that violence is normal and OK. We are a very silly nation.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
From TFA:
Kids took guns to school for 200 years in this country without turning them on one another.
Clearly, I must have been enrolled in the wrong school district... all I got was a few lousy Pee-Chee folders and those pencils that never erase quite right. =/
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Anti-game studies tend to be "We found violent kids in urban areas, do they play video games?" (yes, duh); while pro-game studies tend to be "we took a stratified sample of kids and figured out how many were violent, how many weren't, and which were playing video games." In the end it normally comes out that most violant urban kids play video games, thus video games make kids violent; but video game playing urban kids also exist in the more docile persuasion, and thus we're lead to believe that lurking variables and confusion may be the cause of the percieved link between video games and violence.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I found it difficult to take him seriously after the first question:
Again and again throughout the interview, he basically takes an elitist stance that says "if you don't agree with me you're stupid." Here, if you don't agree that "M-rated means violent" then the implication is that you must be too dumb to accept what "everybody" thinks.
It would have been interesting to see him actually answer the question, as Tim Buckley did. Compare and contrast:
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
I think that after Columbine and the doom thing, its getting all mixed up. Ok if you weak minded maybe a GAME can influence your actions, but ultimely YOU ARE THE PERSON DOING IT. Some of these studes i feel are like lets find kids that commited violent crime. Then they see if the played violent games. Whoa they do. But what about the regular high school/ college student that also play gta, and fps. They dont commit crimes. IMO its like find serial killers and finding they eat a high carb diet. Then atkins says see carbs makes you kill.
Lawyers call such experts 'whores.
I'd like to introduce you to kettle. Kettle, Pot would like to make a humorously ironic statement about your coloring.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
How can they separate causality from correlation?
It certainly would not be surprising if violent people play more violent video games.
The number of rapes in public parks goes up with ice cream consumption; obviously we should ban ice cream.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
I have let me children be raised by TV and video games! Oh no! My son has committed a crime, since I know it couldn't have been me - since I didn't raise them, let's blame everything else.
When these baby boomers get their retirement soothers and afternoon naps, I'm sure they will be in much better moods.
Remeber kids, comics and roleplaying games will turn you into a pagan devil worshipper too, avoid them at all costs!
There has always been violence among adults. I think their point is the effect of watching violence on children. I don't remember as much child based violence when I was a kid (all I had was an Atari).
That being said, I think most of the blame for the increase in child based violence should be on the parents. They're the ones who use video games and DVD players as babysitters.
Some videogames are violent but they are not targeted to children.
Blame the parents that don't care what their children play and just buy videogames because they are cheap "babysitters"
Blame the store employees that sell the game to the children or don't say anything when the parent buys the game just to calm down the crazy kid.
But don't blame the videogames, its like blaming knives for murders.
To the crux of the whole matter, here is his viewpoint:
Q:Is there a correlation between playing violent video games and acting in a violent manner?
A (Buckley): I don't believe so. I think that if someone plays a video game, and then goes out and harms another human being, or themselves because of what they just saw in the video game, they were screwed up in the head long before they got their hands on a controller. In my profession I have met thousands and thousands of gamers, all of whom have played the same type of violent video games that I have, and we've managed not to kill each other.
There you have it. Tim Buckley has rebutted the stance (backed up by various studies, by his own admission) that violent video games correlate with violent actions. He doesn't believe so.
Hopefully in the future coverage we'll get some more objective rebuttals... Perhaps, "I've never seen a case of violence related to video games...", or "Those people who think video game violence correlates to acts of violence are stupid".
Kidding aside, I've never played GTA, but saw clips of it on a news segment on TV (the state is considering a law assigning a certain contributory negligence for crimes committed as a result of watching video games (not saying I'm for that law)). The clips of GTA left me feeling disturbed. I've seen violence in movies and had differing levels of reaction to movie violence, but there may be something to be said about the setting of a movie, and the passive nature of the viewers' interaction with a movie. On the other hand, what I saw with GTA was a young person pressing buttons, using body english and "connecting" with a brutal sequence of shootings, and then a realistic beating of a "prostitute" with a golf club (complete with grunts of exertion from the perp, to screams of pain from the prostitute).
I don't know if this kind of game does have an effect, but I believe it might, and even may have a high probability of having an effect. At least it needs to be studied. I only know anecdotally I came away from only watching clips from the game and had a much more vicarious and disturbed feeling of having experienced violence.
"If video games really had that big an influence on kids, the generation that grew up with Pac Man would be running around munching on pills to a trippy soundtrack."
/ st ory/2610552p-3026993c.html
http://www.yorkregion.com/yr/newscentre/liberal
I have no earthly idea, and no one can guess at that. I can tell you that some crimes would not occur but for the violent entertainment. For the families of the deceased, that is the only statistic that matters.
Francis Schaeffer once said "Art reflects culture". The fact that so many people buy and play violent video games (which is an amazing art form) tells more about who we are as a culture than will the history books. To blame the manufacturers isn't getting to the root of the problem.
I don't know what the answer is. I think there probably is some link between people being desensitized to violent and playing violent games, but I also don't think laws will do anything more than to fuel debate and make lawyers wealthy.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
The Alternative Minimum Tax sucks rocks!
Sure, they may play Grand Theft Auto and shoot at people. But they could just as easily get inspiration from the latest 50 Cent album or even a TIME magazine article detailing the Columbine massacre. Hell, there are enough wackos blaming their crimes on God speaking to them, shouldn't we point the finger at religion too?
The bottom line is that you never know how the mind of a sociopath is going to interpret something - so video games hold no more blame than anything else.
Based on these "findings" (aka lies) this would show that playing a character of the opposite gender would lead to more players wishing for a sex change...
*BAM BAM* *Blood and guts everywhere* Oh, you wanted me to make that triple grande light-foam vanilla latte to be DECAF??? Alright, here ya go!!! *BAM BAM* Violent games helped me release all kinds of stress when I worked in the food service industry. Helped me face my customers with a smile the next day. ;)
The video game ratings system will add a new category to protect children under 10 from seeing certain kinds of violence, the board that administers the system said on Wednesday. The Entertainment Software Rating Board said ``E10+'' would mark games that might contain ``moderate amounts of cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.'' Link: http://virtualkarma.blogspot.com/2005/03/video-gam e-ratings-system-adds-new.html
fuvoo: watch something
My reaction is just to say to look at statistics. Millions upon millions of not billions of people play video games. If their was a "link" even a small one, wouldnt their be a pandemic of obvious video-game-related violence? Instead we get a couple of news pieces a year of teen's lawyers yelling "GTA made him do it!!"
So my kneejerk reaction is just to say, from a broad perspective, that it just doesnt add up.
Despite the contentious issue of violent game playing on player health, I concur with James Gee of UWisc. I'll paraphrase one of his arguments, as I can't recollect which precise article it's in:
While game playing might contain violent aspects, the cognitive engagement is far different than, say, bullying or beating up some poor kid. How the player thinks about their experience - entertainment and fun, for example, rather than punishment or retribution - is important.
Furthermore, some of my own research asks, despite violence in videogames, what do players learn through their playing? The results have, so far, been a surprise. Younger players use the medium for socialization with older players; groups of players focus on teamwork skills (nothing amazing there) and the game environment requires active thinking about strategy for success. My own next step is to explore "gaming clans," and clan players' motivations.
Nonetheless, the question we should all be asking is, given that violence is inherant to our humanistic being, in what modes is it possible a constructive experience, and in what modes is it destructive?
Bandura's social cognititve theory might suggest that the illustration of violence begets further violent behavior. But that we haven't all killed each other, and that we don't punch random stranges on the street, despite having watched violent television programming, indicates a compromise.
More later, this is a wonderful subject! --dave
So is *every* industry full of whores?
I challenge anyone to name a single industry which doesn't conduct "studies" which favour itself.
Nothing's as bad as the pharmaceutical industry. Or how about the world of financial analysis at the end of the 90's? Those were some pretty screwed up "studies".
And now we've got characters like David Lereah (head of the Association of Realtors) on TV everyday screeching "There is no housing bubble" (although he's sounding very depserate lately).
Using the media, the legal system, the court of public opinion, and analysis/forecasting is *how* business is done today. We live in 'spin land'. If you're going to start calling people whores than apparently we're living in one big giant brothel.
Hey... how come I'm not getting laid?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Yes, yes, ban violence in video games! Everyone knows its more Nudity that we need! And who better to advocate this then expert lawyer whores!
(please mod funny)
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
Lawyers call such experts 'whores.'
I call 2000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean 'a good start'!
Take a look :
:
Statistics
from the link
"Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993. "
"Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993."
"Violent crime rates declined for both males and females since 1994. Rates for males and females have been getting closer in recent years."
The last blurb I find particularly interesting.I am willing to bet that most girls DO NOT play violent video games, whereas most males probably do. Perhaps the games are allowing people to work out their aggression in other ways?
This chart is also interesting. Remember DOOM came out in 1993, at almost the peak of the chart.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Everyone who does not want video game censorship will claim they make no difference to societal norms. Or that parental responsibility is the true key. Or that there was violence BEFORE video games, therefore you can't blame video games.
What I would like to see, just once, is somebody who is against video game censorship admit that video games can have a negative effect on some portions of society.
OK, so be it. I'll say it. I think they should be able to make pretty much any kind of video game. I'll also say that some games may have a negative effect on society. I'll finish by saying, that's life.
There are plenty of things that people enjoy that can AND DO AND ALWAYS WILL do harm to certain portions of society. But that's part of what makes life interesting and worth living. It's all part of a vibrant, exciting, life worth living. If everything was made of Nerf and had round edges and there was no negative sides to anything, where would be the fun in that?
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
I've played a lot of mario brothers, but I don't go around punching brick walls.
------
insert sig here,here, and here
How do you get "adversely" influenced by any media?
1: Not being able to seperate reality and fiction. Really rare. Even less rare to result in violence. Could media affect the timing of a violent act? Maybe. But i think it would happen anyway if the person is so "wrongheaded" by upbringing or biology, etc.
2: Video games also have a message to the player. About what is appropriate to joke about, for example. What is good. What is bad. Maybe even about what kind of behaviour is acceptable. Of course, playing a criminal or terrorist doesn't mean that those who made the game think it's a cool thing to do in real life.
I think this "message" influence is more common, but we're not as affected by it since we usually can think critically about it.
As other media, games are part of what defines the society that you grow up with. Parents watch what their children are playing, reading, and gaming, and put it into context for their children. Maybe even censoring some of it.
3: (This is the real doosie:)
Lawyers and parents blaming games for violent behaviour in children/young adults is something reported in the media. Journalists tell stories of how a game was related to a violent act.
People hear about this.
As does those that want to go out and kill somebody.
"Oh, If I get caught -- yeah, like that'll ever happen -- I can just blame it on video games and get less punishment. Perhaps even a lot of money. Neato."
Perhaps these cases shouldn't be reported in the media. Or at least reported as little as possible to those below voting age -- to keep the "secrecy" less democratically.
Can we sue the claims lawyers out of their houses when the next case happens?
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching on magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
It would seem that the banning of first person shooters or other forms of virtual gun usage would be a threat in the same manner that gun control threatens both our civil liberties and national security (but doesn't everything post-9/11 do so).
In fact the pro-control advocates would appear to have even a weaker argument because this crosses over two civil liberties in the bill of rights and doesn't directly endanger others from accidental use or abuse like a real gun can be argued to do.
(Note that I don't own a gun, nor do I play video games made after 1983. I find this an intriguing debate of civil rights that curiously already seems influenced by money and lobbying.)
Any M-rated game has violence levels unacceptable and definitionally harmful to anyone under 17.
What percentage of all games made would you say are violent?
GTA has sold 30 million units, with San Andreas expected to hit 20 million on its own.
Is there a correlation between playing violent video games and acting in a violent manner?
Of course.
Is gaming escapism?
Yes, just as Ted Bundy escaped into pornography.
this guy isn't very smart is he?
STOP IT! We already get that soem groups want to ban games, we hear it every fucking day on Slashdot and everyone wastes mod points on the SAME POSTS!
Games arn't linked to violence
Kids are fucked up, TV would of done the same
Parents today need to smack their kids and sit round a table and eat meals together
Kids need role models
Mod me up and just be quiet about this already. It's bloody ridiclous now.
I like muppets.
These organizations are clueless. Video games beget violent behavior? Riiiiiight.
Like I've ever considered walking into my office with a portable photon torpedo launcher (Elite Force), blown away my boss' office desk, turned on him with a plasma pistol (HALO), shot off his head, walked back into the main office area, put a BFG (Doom 3) round through the cubicle area of my co-workers, walked out of the building, and launched the car, of the fucker in the office next door who insists on parking real close to my driver's door, into the woods with an anti-gravity gun (Half-Life 2).
If anything, video games beget violent thoughts that, sadly, we can never act out upon.
Now back to that prototype rocket launcher equipped assault rifle (Far Cry).
IronChefMorimoto
The only thing this guy says that I can really get behind is that we need to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors. I firmly believe that developers have the right to make games like GTA or Manhunt, much the same way directors have the right to make games like Pulp Fiction or Goodfellas. But I don't believe that minors have any right whatsoever to buy them. I was once the manager at a video store, and I think I was thought of as a ratings nazi, because if you weren't 18, and your parents weren't okay with it, you weren't renting it. Simple.
The problem, of course, is that you can make it absolutely impossible for kids to buy these games and they'll still get them, because the average parent is too damn stupid to know that GTA may or may not be appropriate for their 10-year-old. There is this idea that the over-40 set has stuck in their head that *videogames are automatically for kids*...same way cartoons are automatically for kids. They can't grasp the idea of either one being made with adults as an intended audience. I was working at said video store when GTA:III first came out. I told every parent whose kid convinced them to rent the game for them, whether they solicited my advice or not, that it might not be appropriate. Most were like, "what, is there some swearing or violence in it?" I would reply the same every time: "You can beat hookers to death with a baseball bat to get back the money you gave them to have sex with you in the back of the car, which you stole from an old man who you also beat to death with a baseball bat."
Nine out of ten put it back. Parents just don't get it. Maybe if the game industry had paid whatever the MPAA was more than likely asking to use their ratings scheme it would sink in a little better...parents see an "R" rating and they think 16 or 17 and up. They see "M" and they think 10 or 11 and up. Because again, videogames are just for kids, right?
My opinion is that violent movies can have nearly as much effect on kids as games, but you don't see a push to ban violent movies. It's not hard to figure out why this is, of course...lawmakers actually watch violent movies. They don't tend to play games. I think ten years from now when the videogame generation starts getting elected to office (if they get up of the couch and run, that is!), maybe this will finally become the non-issue it should be...because the people in office will actually understand that videogames aren't much different from movies, and that violent players are the rare exception, not the rule.
On a final note, I am so damn sick of hearing video games being blamed for Columbine. Nobody seems to think that maybe the way kids treat each other, combined with general lack of give-a-damn from parents and faculty, combined with relatively easy access to guns that led to that incident. The video games were just an excellent scapegoat.
These 'studies' are the equalavent of saying that breathing causes heart attacks
Err, no. If you have two similar groups (1 study and 1 control) and you attempt to isolate the behaviour you are studying, then variances, if large enough are not the same as the generalization you mentioned. Assume that they did their study and they found that the difference in those who did violent acts was 50%. To simply say that the data has no value would be wrong. There is obviously a relationship here. Now, what is cause and what is effect can certainly be argued (violent kids tend to play violent video games more vs kids that play violent video games are more likely to be violent). Now lets throw something else into the mix, for those kids that commited violence (violent video game players or not) lets look at previous histories of violence. If those who had previous histories of violence also exhibited future violent behaviour after playing games at a rate higher than those who didn't play violent games could be interesting. Or, if the group that had NO previous history of violence had a rate of engaging in future violent behaviour higher than the control group, then that would be meaningful.
So please keep your oversimplifications to yourself. The numbers can surely be made to represent things that are not there, but by the same token, they can certainly represent things that are there.
Republicans are idiots
They keep kids from going outside and *really* committing violent acts.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
To say these guys are experts is akin to saying Bill Gates is an expert on the impact of software patent law...
These are the heads of organizations (administrators) with more than scientific truth as their primary interests. They probably haven't even read any of the relevant research but have been briefed by aides on what is the best position to take. To be fair, that's partially our fault for wanting everything reduced to 15 second sound bites...
I was just finding it interesting how these debates about violence can get so violent.. I mean, its odd to me that there are so few views that fall in the middle spectrum.. For example: 1) Violent gaming cannot be directly linked to real violence, because people who play violent games are generally smart enough to know real violence is _real_.. but 2) There are lots of studys that show violence gaming does lead to increased tendencies toward aggressive behavior. These don't seem like opposites to me.
I think the next wave of game makers will be making much better games than exist currently. Projectile physics is relatively easy to program, while meaningful content, smart AI, and good interaction is hard.
attempt*
...that a crackpot like Thompson is allowed to practice law.
Hey kettle, you're black.
SEO Firefox Extension
Violent people are more likely to play violent video games.
Other studies have proven that kids that are raised on alcohol and heroin grow up to be druggies.
That's why it's the parents responsibility to keep them out of their hands, not the governments nor anyone elses.
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
When I have one I will think of them, and being the huge gamer I am I know there will be many games my kids won't even see untill I think they're at the age where they can handle them.
I'm just so god damn sick and tired of lazy parents pointing the fingers everywhere else.
*DrugCheese rants*
-Absolutely Fabulous
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Take a random selection of at least 100 people, divide it into two groups of at least 50. Force, and I do mean FORCE one group to play violent video games for a period of however long you think is neccesary to make them violent. 1 year, at 1 hour a day seems reasonable to me. If they don't enjoy playing the game, tough. They have to do it.
Prevent, and I do mean PREVENT one group from playing violent games for the same period.
Compare both groups violent tendencies, IQs, etc. etc. with the people deciding who is "violent" etc. having no idea which group the subjects belong to.
Such studies have been done before. They found ZERO, NADA, NO increase in violent tendencies.
So of course the fools claim "you got the age wrong" or "You didn't force them to play enough" etc. etc. etc.
Not a single study has demonstrated causality. I personally think this is because there is NO causality. People that like violent games grow up to be violent. People that watch violent games think violent thoughts for a short period after (24 hours is the max I have seen tested). But neither of those things means that watching the games makes you act violently.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
My ass, I was ready to go on a fragging spree when Quake 3 came out. Of course then I realized that there weren't any jump pads near my home and no matter how much I looked I couldn't even find so much as a shotgun sitting around unattended much less a rocket launcher.
Then it occured to me that nobody I knew had ever once successfully respawned and I decided that I'd rather do something else.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
One of the most fundamental facts of human behavior is that we are literally shaped by what we choose to put into our minds. We become what we dwell up and it does affect how we act whether you will acknowledge it or not. While I'm not saying that playing a game will make you a killer, it does beg the question... If a 30 second spot can sell you on a product, what can hours upon hours of interactive, life-like entertainment sell you on?
All of the parents who I know who are similar in age to me (mid-30's) played (or had high levels of exposure) video games as children, and violence in gaming isn't something really to get bent out of shape on. The sex still bothers this same group of people to varying levels, but the violence does not, which illustrates our unfortunate Puritan heritage...
He sounds so angry!
Probably because he never found all the packages in GTA:Vice City.
The gamers say: Video games are good!
The anti-vid people say: violence in GAMES makes kids desensitiezed to VIOLENCE
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Violent media does desensitize someone who is still highly impressionable by media to whatever that media is throwing at them. Video games are not all centered around violence. Even the ones that are are very frequently not centered around anything even remotely like realistic violence. Take RPGs. Fighting. Cartoonlike generally, so, who's going to associate that with reality? Right then. Move along.
Also, parents need to fucking watch what their children play. Hello, parenting? My mother wouldn't have let me play GTA of any form, if it was around, until I was at least 16. Good on her. She was paying attention. That doesn't mean she thought I should be banned from all video games, or that video games like GTA shouldn't exists at all. She didn't let me play Duke Nukem 3D until I was 16, for example (by then it was slightly dated, but still). She didn't care that it existed. Just not in her house.
The argument needs some loud moderates.
+1 Rational plz, kthx.
...is really just that there's a large proportion of parents who view video games as children's toys. Either they never saw the attraction, or haven't made the distinction between Asteroids and the new games on the market, or something.
Nobody (or at least very few people) has an issue with adult entertainment in the movie industry, because we've become pretty well accustomed to filtering out R+ rated material from children. The issue is that so many parents are completely unwilling to believe that a new responsibility has been placed upon them with the advent of video games. It boggles the mind to think that these parents MUST be buying these games for their kids without even looking at the box (as the content warning is pretty obvious to anyone who cares to look). The only explanation is that parents either don't realize or don't believe that they should have to look at the box.
Maybe it's time for the video game industry to shell out for some television ads pointing out that video games aren't all for children, and urging parents to pay attention to the content warnings. I have to believe that most parents who are too dim-witted to take a passing interest in what entertains their children probably spend more time watching TV than is healthy, so this measure might in itself be sufficient.
All of these people saying that just because the positive studies were paid for by video game companies doesn't mean that they're invalid, yet what happens when a study paid for by Microsoft states that, for example, Microsoft servers are ultimately cheaper than Linux ones?
Not that I don't agree that Jack Thompson is full of shit, or that I don't have doubts about the Microsoft studies in question, but let's be logically consistent here.
Rob
When I was a kid, watching re-runs of "The Three Stooges", "Batman" and "Tom & Jerry" was considered to be "too violent" for children to watch since they could act out certain behaviors on the playground. Which did happen but my Dad told me that was happening long before TV ever came out.
The only violence I had as a teenager was when someone bashed my head into a sign and fought back. As an adult I have gotten a few fist fights because someone tried to intimidate me with the threat of violence and they were surprised when I fought back in response.
Should I blame the TV shows that I watched, or the country music and talk shows I was forced to listened to as my dad's truck only got two radio stations, in my youth. The Atari 2600 video game console and video arcades in my teenage years? Or should I blame Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 that I play as an adult?
I think the blame still lies with the parents for the home environment they build for the children. My parents were abusive towards each other and alcohol played a big part. My older brother became a drug addict for most of his life. I ended up rejecting all that to become a Christian and living a clean life.
Seems like the responsibility of raising children is everyone's except the parents these days.
-- to keep the "secrecy" less democratically problematic.
I did preview. But apparently, I can't read.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Those were leading questions. Pure. Journalistic. Trash.
Plus, the heads of 6 major health institutes testified to 100's of reports? Notice he didn't actually refer to one, or where these reports were published. And who paid for these studies? Whoever paid for them could have effected their outcome in the same way the industry supposedly does.
This guy is just pissed b/c he missed hte whole technological revolution and doesn't understand how some people can find it enjoyable.
Some background, first. I am a 15-year-old male video gamer. I started playing M-rated games approximately the same time my family got internet access, around the time I was 8. I've had parental permission to buy most M-rated games since I was about 13, although I had to convince them on a case-by-case basis. I've been able to play GTA3, as well as the sequels, since I was 14. I first watched Pulp Fiction when I was... 11, I think, and I own both volumes of Kill Bill, which I watch regularly. Here's the secret: I'm seriously one of the least violent people I know.
I have one friend who's almost completely sheltered by his parents. As a result, he's obsessed with guns and violence, and completely resents his parents. And he has (and knows how to use, which scares me) a butterfly knife. He's the one that's going to kill someone someday. I have another friend who was brought up Christian, and he's far more violent than I am. It's not video games and movies that cause violence.
Here's my appraisal of the situation. Violent people, being violent people, would naturally be attracted toward violent video games. Therefore, all studies would show that people who have committed violent acts have, almost uniformly, played violent video games. The stupid media would misinterpret that as "videogames cause violence" because they have brains that aspire to be the size of a pill. Then, a whole bunch of assholes on the other side would feel self-righteous and say, "I don't allow my child to play violent videogames", and, "You have to raise your child and be involved with what they're doing". Bullshit, you're both wrong. I play as much or as little of any violent video game I want, behind a closed door, in my room. And I'm pretty much the least violent guy that I know.
So I've come to the conclusion that, if you kill someone, chances are you're fucked whether you had violent video games or not. I knew, from the time I started playing violent video games, when I was 8 (and I'm talking about Marathon and Pathways into Darkness), that killing people is wrong. This whole idea that young children don't understand this is a crock of shit. The reason we don't hold children to the same standards as adults criminally is not because they don't know their actions were wrong, but they couldn't see the consequences. That doesn't mean they didn't know it was wrong in the first place. Stop making excuses for crazy, fucked up people, who just happened to play video games. I think you'll also find they drank milk at some point: could that be the problem?
Mod parent down, I screwed up. I reposted this formatted properly.
Aside from the base issue "Does violence in games make kids violent," we need to look at another important issue: Is it a BAD thing to expose children to some desensitizing violence?
Think about the word "innocence." It's used to describe children, and used to justify hiding pornography and violence from them. If you expose a child to sex, he's no longer "innocent" because his mind has been "tainted."
So the little girl is "innocent" and knows nothing about . . . uhh. Man parts. A 15 year old comes up to her after school and messes with her head a bit, gets a hard-on, she sees it in his pants, he offers to show her. Hey, 9 year old's never seen it, sure! Now any social engineer will tell you that innocence and naiivety will give you an easy, direct, and predictable manipulation path; and there will very soon be manipulation. Of genitals. In some 9 year old's mouth.
Imagine this child has been lectured by her parents and explained to what sex is, the basic concerns, moralistic ideas, health, etc. She's been explained why people want it and how they deal with it. Now she's informed enough to make her own decisions. The parents insert into her mind what THEY want her to do. 15 year old approaches her, and . . . "I NEED AN ADULT I NEED AN ADULT!!!" Oops! Kernel panic!
In the same way, if you're shielded from all exposure to violence and depictions of violence, you don't know how to handle it emotionally. It's disgusting, even if you're sadistic it's emotionally distorting until you get used to it. Somebody attacks you or a friend, threatens to stab them, what happens? Do you hide? Do you crawl under a desk somewhere?
Long ago, people used to fight. A lot. Someone tried to kill the man next to you, you didn't beg for your life; you stood up and kicked his ass. This is the world we need to live in, the world we'll always need to live in. If we try to run away from it, then the cutthroats and thieves will rise up and take this world down.
You can't clense everyone's minds and make them zombies, because the same ability and experience that desensitises you to violence is what makes you a leader. When you can stand up and beat the crap out of someone because you know they're bad and they want to hurt people, you're able to lead. When you're afraid of violence, then you're afraid of conflict, because it can lead to violent emotions (anger), which can lead to violence.
If you fear conflict, you do whatever anyone says, just to avoid it; and there will always be somebody who will take advantage of that. It's the nature of everything, and we as humans aren't "better" than animals because we're perfect, God-like beings. We have the same flaws as every lower lifeform on this planet. We have to kill to eat (even the protein suppliments vegitarians get come at least partially from animals; far too expensive to extract from plants, unless you want to pay $300 for a bottle of 30 pills), we have to fight to defend ourselves, and we're infested with people who will cut your throat because they know you won't fight back. Face it, and get over it.
Think about this argument when you think about if violence is bad. Think about it when you think about abolishing the death penalty. Think about it when you're in a martial arts course and your sensei makes you spar with someone 3 belts above you, who leaves you beaten and bruised. Think about it and try to figure out why these things are here and what would conceivably happen if we removed them. Thus is the path to enlightenment.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
COP: "OK so you're all under arrest and... hey what's that?"
GANG MEMBER: "Oh, that's GTA 3"
COP: "What did you do, use it for training?"
GANG MEMBER: "Umm.... yeah! That's it! We used it for training!"
COP: "OK, we're going to need to bring that in, too."
Yeah, when you hand them a perfect excuse they'll take it. Obviously the prosecuters can be sidetracked by it.
Or, it could be that after millions of copies sold there's a good chance that the perpetrators of any crime own a copy. Or that people who are in real life gangs also like to play games with gangs in them.
I bet they had all seen Star Wars as well. OH MY GOD GEORGE LUCAS MUST BE STOPPED!!!
Schnapple
don't be on your team on any game server that has FF turned on and lots of dark areas.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
The chart is interesting. It shows that post-DOOM (1993), and into the 90s, we have less violent crime per 1000 persons than previous decades. In fact, 2003 violent crime rates are less than HALF what existed before that - despite the existence, prevalence, and widespread love of video games.
:) I can show it to my dad now, when he flips out about violent video games :)
Thanks for that link
It sounds as though Mr. Thompson is indirectly suggesting that all that we've been led to believe with regard to the harm drugs cause is also in question--since the majority of evidence suggesting that drugs pose a serious health risk come from studies paid for by government agencies.
Quick somebody make a game where Jack Thompson is the main antagonist!
"GTA: New Jack (Thompson) City"
Instead of cops and bad guys, just have laywers, and lots of cool weapons and bloody head shots, don't forget the head shots! Die lawyer scum!
I don't know. Maybe it's just me. I've played videogames for 24 years of my life now and I've only been in one fist fight, in the sixth grade, over a girl even.
I just don't see the connection. If this nutjob is right, with the staggering success of videogames you'd think you'd see a corresponding correlation in violent crimes. You don't though. If anything, violent crime is down from twenty years ago.
I said "MOST" girls probably do not play
VIOLENT video games. I know there are some. My point is that the Majority of girls do not, while a majority of boys probably do.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Look how many copies of the Grand Theft Auto series have sold. Last year, 5.1 million copies of GTA: San Andreas sold. If even 1% of those people reacted violently as a result, we still should have seen 51,000 instances of video games causing violent behavior.
/rant
These studies are just going to end up showing that "some people are freaking crazy."
What about the more harmful effects of video games, such as making nerds of us all?
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
It's been said before, I will say it again. Video games are blinking lights on screens. If you cannot distinguish the violence in a video game from violence in real life, then you have a serious, serious problem which goes far beyond digital entertainment. Parents should watch their kids. Should an 8-year-old be playing GTA? Probably not. Should a 12-year-old be playing GTA? That depends on the 12-year-old. The ONLY people qualified to know what kinds of games kids should be playing is PARENTS THEMSELVES. Parents should be watching what their kids play. They should know their kids - and if they don't, there sure as hell won't be anyone else able to make that judgement. Demonizing the industry is simply a way to point the blame away from stupid people who don't pay attention.
They chose not to. Mainly because it's very difficult.
First they'd want to have number of different groups to do it right. One where kids played violent games, one where kids watched violent shows/cartoons/movies, one where were sheltered, one where kids were obligated to participate in enriching activities that are non-violent, one where kids are left in their "natural state". And to do it really well, you'd probably want a large enough population that you could vary the amount of exposure over some range of total hours per week. You'd also want enough control that you'd be able to tightly control that exposure, so no violent movie that everyone would see, no xbox Halo 2 bundle for a kid in the wrong group. And you'd want to be able to have a high resolution, so maybe weekly meeting with a psychologist with both the parents and the children, and perhaps access to records of incidents at school to help control under reporting.
These kids which would have to number in a population of thousands, would all have to be sorted for various socio-economic, geographic and perhaps even racial characteristics so that each of your starting groups were very similar to each other (and would stay that way over the course of the study) and representative of the population at large.
After all the numbers had been crunched, with all that variation, you'd be able to say whether violent games increased violent behavior, and by how much in a very general sort of way. The caveat would be that while you could accurately say how many extra violent events would occur because of violent games, you would also likely have to grant that other factors were far more powerful predictors of future violence. Ultimately, one would probably find that if violent gamers became movie-goers to replace their missing content, the results over a country of 300 million would be nominal at best.
Of course there might be surprises in there such as violent gamers might be more likely to be involved in things like simple assaults, which are little more than inconvienent, people who were forcibly sheltered might be moderately more likely to kill someone.
There really *are* more and more studies that show this statistical correlation. Studies where the control group plays a nonviolent game and the experimental group plays a violent one... and then, afterwards, are the various experiments. One involves the subjects leaving the way they came, and seeing a person in pain. The response times to help the person vary dramatically between these otherwise peer groups.
There's not much question that seeing violent images desensitises you to violent images anymore (whether these are lasting is up for debate).
One reason why this isn't taken seriously is because they've been decrying video games since Pac-Man- and earlier studies, IIRC, didn't show much correlation.
The important thing to get out of this is not a bunch of freedom-trashing legislation though: a movie about WWII would cause the same kind of desensitisation. Many things would. Scientists haven't tested for it (and lacking video, the effect wouldn't be as strong probably), but don't you think they could link antisocial / violent behavior to the "wrong" kind of books? Using this logic, why stop at video games?
What we are seeing isn't scientists making interesting notes about how sights, sounds, and thoughts condition us to accept more things *like* those- we're seeing a pack of lawyers circling like sharks to try to attack a group of newly "liable" "perpetrators"- and if they beath the hell out of the first amendment doing so, oh well.
Like all good things done to destroy your rights, this one will be "for the good of the children".
If you back this, just remember it in a few years when they prove the same thing about adults (easy, since conditioning works just as well for both), living with a "more violent than average family" (which will be half of families), or... well... political disagreement.
You either have free speech or you don't. Protecting free speech doesn't mean being able to say that purple is my favorite color: it means allowing speech that everyone disagrees with and may, in fact, be harmful.
Similarly, gun nuts say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and fans of violent movies deny their role.
Are Americans HAPPY with the level of violence in their society, or perhaps accepting of it because it is a necessary trade-off for some other desirable aspect of their culture? Because it's undeniable that compared to other civilized first world countries, the level of violence in America is very high. Yet every interest group insists that their pet recreation has nothing to do with it. If videogames don't contribute to violent behaviour, what IS causing America's disproportionately high levels of violence?
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
The Sims
I played Doom 2, Quake and Half-life -- nothing compared to the sickness of today's games! -- in the 90's endlessly, and really enjoyed it. Never had any problems with it except for occasional dizzyness and restlessness, but it felt good.
The trouble? When a few years later I got really, really sick, I started having incessant, exteremly disturbing nightmares. I tracked some of them to the games -- it's hard to describe, but some images and movements in the nightmares triggered a familiar feeling of living inside those virtual worlds. I didn't even need to sleep to see the horror; often the images would appear just by closing my eyes.
It felt as if my illness brought my shields down and that caused some sewer in a corner of my mind to open and flood the rest. The mind apparently never forgot the abuse it took, and I needed over a year to recover. Needless to say, I never touched horror games again.
From the article:
Is there a correlation between playing violent video games and acting in a violent manner? I don't believe so. I think that if someone plays a video game, and then goes out and harms another human being, or themselves because of what they just saw in the video game, they were screwed up in the head long before they got their hands on a controller. In my profession I have met thousands and thousands of gamers, all of whom have played the same type of violent video games that I have, and we've managed not to kill each other.
Well, plenty of lifetime smokers don't get lung cancer, does that mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer? Everyone has to set aside personal beliefs and ingrained ideas when evaluating claims. Outside the context of experiments, and serious statistical analysis of data, drawing conclusions is pointless and tantamount to opinion. So unless you've done your own study, or know enough to understand the one's that are already done, why do you belief so vehemently that video games can't cause violent behavior? Just because it didn't happen to you? Just because it didn't happen to anyone you know? These are ipso facto pathetic reasons for almost any belief. I would expect more from this readership, which likes to pride itself on rationality and deductive reasoning. I guess when it hits home though, passions arise and it's hard not to draw conclusions when they're unwarranted. Sound familiar?
You know how the US military uses first person shooters and squad command simulators to train fire engagement tactics?
The states should provide those games to the people too, so that the popular militia is properly trained. Include it as an optional part of mandatory "concealed carrying" licence as well.
Of course, real target shooting and basic physical fitnes should be encouraged as well.
If there's ever an invasion from Canada, Mexio, China or outer space, you'll be a nation of geeks armed to the teeth with hours of expreience in infantry tactics. And suddenly missing a game save option.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
A decent response to a rather flawed argument, although he does play some of the same bad logic games, but to a much lesser degree.
Geh, I wonder if people who argue against video game violence just take logic classes to figure out what they shouldn't do, and then do it...
If not, how else to do it than by changing the rules society lives by - otherwise known as laws?
And if changing culture is wrong, should we go back to slavery? Or should we prevent any culture changes by banning immigrants, or making those immigrants that do come live by the preexisting culture?
Simply saying "Art reflects culture" is meaningless. So what?
Bake a death penalty scenario into each violent game. If you blow a level or get caught you receive the death penalty and then the game pauses for 40 years as you await the results of appeals process. The game cannot be restarted until this process is over.
Well this is interesting. Im starting to hallucinate a little. There is, however one major drawback to this drug which I may not have given sufficient thought to. I have vomited twice so far. Fortunately, since I read that vomiting was a possible side effect, all I have in my stomach is some strawberry apple juice from central market that I used to wash the AMT down. It doesn't taste as good going up as it did going down, but still... not bad.
Jack Thompson is a man who really gets my goat. He is so certain that violent video games are incubators for violent offenders. The fact that not one of these studies that notes a correlation can at all prove causation seems to not phase him a bit. He plays so fast and loose with "data" and "studies" that you have to wonder if the scientific method holds any place in this man's stone heart.
What kind of society will we build when we cannot hold people responsible for their own actions? It is not my fault! The game made me do it! I have been playing video games for years and years and none of that has made me violent. In fact, I'm a pacifist, all because of the influence of a single friend.
Jack Thompson wants video games hogtied because violent offenders might possibly have a predilection for the video forms of their existing tendencies, yet in my life it is the individuals I meet that have the most profound influences on me. Why not disallow contact between violent felons and their children and other members of society for all of eternity? They have a far stronger influence on those around them than any video games. But to do so would violate so many human rights.
Bah, enough ranting. This man must be stopped. At all costs, he must be stopped.
After playing a lot of Super Mario Brothers I used to get the urge to jump on people's heads.
The good news is that I've stopped playing SMB and only play non-violent games like Pac Man... which led to my addiction to pills.
Seriously, though, this is a dumb conversation since it all comes back to personal responsibility and parental oversight.
This is also the basis of self-defense training. You practice over and over again what to do when someone pulls their fist back to punch you or what you do when someone puts their hands on your throat. You practice techniques over and over again so that if you need to use them, you don't freeze up and get punched or choked unconscious.
You can describe to someone what to do very easily. However, getting a person to react intelligently that way takes a long, long time.
Also, the goal of modern military training is not to produce soldiers who act like automatons, unthinking, but to act in an intelligent way under stress and to have confidence in their training and skills.
My other first post is car post.
To all those who argue that it isn't proved:
You are correct.
Nevertheless, just like Global Warming, there seems to be a trend. Shouldn't we take action on it and try and identify people who are borderline and will be affected by video games? Are there specific changes that can be made to games that will reduce the problem without compromising the games? As games get more realistic and people are exposed to them from a younger age, the percentage of people who will be adversely affected by them will grow. It only makes sense to work on a solution now.
Those who open their minds too far often let their brains fall out.
That the graphics and events in computer games are perceived as too unrealistic to be confused with reality doesn't matter. Voluntarily or involuntarily, we suspend our disbelief of what our senses communicate to us so that we can either enjoy the story being presented, or else simply somehow make sense of what we are experiencing. This same phenomenon can happen entirely in audio only, over radio, for instance. It's hardly unique to games, videos, or even computers.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
As individuals we can either instictively believe that there is a link between violent entertainment and violent acts or we can believe its all B.S. served up by all the usual suspects.
I've been playing murder simulators since Wolfenstein and Doom. More recently Counter-Strike, in which you're combatting real people, not simulations. Taking pleasure in the kill.
Now, I'm 36 and taking someone out with a headshot, whilst fun and all, doesn't make me want to do it in real life.
But... just because these games don't make you or I want to go postal on the general public doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect on others. The slashdot crowd are mostly a smart bunch - IQs up there somewhere. We're mostly logical, governed by our intelligence, and understand the difference between games and life. That doesn't mean that violent entertainment doesn't have an effect. Violent entertainment. Even the phrase is suspect. Taking joy from violence... from an earlier and earlier age.... it doesn't seem unreasonable that kids, who are behavioral sponges, can be greatly influenced.
There's an opinion that goes something like, "Let's not do anything about games unless we also do something about violent TV, movies and music." That all-or-nothing approach is unrealistic and guarantees that nothing ever changes. Doing something about something is better than doing nothing... as long as what's being done is right, justified and effective.
Do I believe that violent games affect children? I don't think they affect all children, but I think it's reasonable to think they can have an effect.
This is what independent studies are all about (whilst also hard to come by). The smart thing to do is listen to the behavioral scientists. Let them do their studies and publish the data. Let the data be critiqued by other experts. Ignore anything from the game publishers own experts, or from the Christian right (as you would ignore SCO lawyers or Microsoft PR).
Parents can't censor games from their kids. That's totally unrealistic. Kids will play the games they want to play.
Solutions? None here. Let's wait for the science first.
There's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, eh?
6. Audible Alarm (not shown)
-from a Cuisinart product owner's manual.
It really bugs me when someone blames anything for violent destructive behavior unless what they are blaming is the individual behind it. Most of the people I know have played or still play violent video games none of us are violent. However when I was young I was not allowed to play video games when ever I wanted because I had parental supervision. Parents that feel video games cause violence should simply not get violent video games for their children simple as that.
Penny Arcade has a great series on gaming violence
Ripped From Today's Headlines
Stranded.org
To say violent video games are the direct cause of increased violence and aggression is as bad saying there's no correlation or causality of any kind.
From the start of recorded history there were people with enough violent tendencies to commit murder. Since then, we have strived to become better and more civilized. 100 years ago, children were "taught" to respect their elders and to be nice.
I see the pot smoking hippies as parents as the the first openly outward sign that our society has begun to crumble. Now in 2005, the divorce rate is what? well beyond 50%? many single family homes and those homes that still have both parents are now dual income and parents are just simply too busy to raise a child, so the child rearing is deferred to television and the computer.
The kids today no longer have the threat of god looming over their heads and are being raised so permissively it's a wonder things aren't worse than they already are.
Well... I'll be the first to admit it.. I've played GTA. Heck, I've even thrown fireballs at little turtles. I'm a menace to both man and nature. It's quite obvious that, at any minute, I will suddenly start shooting people. Best to lock me up and throw away the key. Sure I don't feel like killing anyone, can't really stand the sight of (real) blood, but that's going to change anyyyyyyyyyyyy minute now....
Another point that seems to be completely overlooked is that violent images have been recorded throughout history. Most of which can be see in one museum or another. As a matter of fact, these are records of actual events where violence was not only thought of, it was executed. What would that say about people who devote entire lifetimes to study such imagery? By the current trend in thinking, one could even propose that these people are all ill due to their interests.
Games, like anything else that starts out as a vision, more closely resemble different types of arts and literature. They are there because someone conceived an alternate reality that you can be a part of for a while. If this reality can influence you to do something violent in the real world, I don't think the game can be the cause. More than likely there already was a tendency for violence to begin with. And even more likely it is influenced by something more immediate. Usually, signs for violence exist for quite a while before any act is committed.
The worst consequence of this is that I have to deal with people that make choices for me. Not that they're bad people or anything, but that's not acceptable. As a person, I wish to maintain a sense that others can trust me, and rely on me. While this doesn't really sound like a big deal, if social structures move to a model that does not trust the people, I doubt anyone will really benefit in the long run.
People can't continue to deny that violence is a part of life. Every time they do, it bites them in the ass. They act all surprised, panic, put a band-aid on and forget something happened. Thats just not good philosophy.
True. Anyone who has read "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" knows all about suggestability and the Werther's effect. The basic concept -- which works for TV, games, books, anything -- is that the more closely someone can relate to what they see, the more likely they are to mimick that behavior. So a little yellow pac man eating ghosts isn't going to influence anyone to eat ghosts, but a bunch of bunch of Burger King ads featuring black males in their 20s and 30s suddenly makes their sales demographic skew toward black males in their 20s and 30s.
This is why when my daughter sees grandparents in a commercial advertising a drug, she doesn't care. But when she sees an ad featuring 3 9-year-old girls fawning over their cool Bratz journal, she suddenly wants one. Her Amazon wish list is almost a perfect mirror of every ad that has appeared on Nickelodeon in the past 6 months. That's not by mistake. When someone targets your demographic, you can be influenced.
Of course, some people are immune to this stuff. Any free-thinking person who is remotely self-aware can sense when their buttons are getting pressed. But it gets harder to sense manipulation when it's not deliberate. I think games are art. As such, they often do nothing more than hold a mirror up to society, possibly to provide a jarring wake-up call. Or possibly just to be jarring. :) But in any case, as they become hyper-realistic, we get pulled in and influenced. For example, I love Vampire: Bloodlines. My wife and kids have called me a vampire for years -- I love the movies, I love being awake at night and sleeping at day, I think the culture is sexy. When I'm in playing that game, nothing breaks the illusion that I'm in that game world. It feels comfortable. The problem? It completely objectifies women, something I do not get in my real-world life. But there, in the game, it's quite nice. How much carries over into my real-life thinking? Enough that I have to check myself. I don't think the game developers intended for that to happen, it just did.
You can take a jab at me and say that I must have a weak mind if I let that affect me. But I don't mind, it IS in fact a defect that I can be so suggestable. And that's the point. These studies are not about strong-willed Slashdotters who have their shit together. These studies are of the huge number of weak-minded people who have no idea that they are internalizing what they see. Those people are a problem, and there are a lot of them.
My wife is a shrink. About half of her clients' problems are simply that they have surrounded themselves with negative influences for so long that they're stewing in it, and can't see what it's doing. For the other half of her clients, she uses these techniques on THEM. In other words, if a 30-something mom is scared of wide open spaces, my wife will show the her videos of 30-something women enjoying the outdoors. For many people, this stuff seeps into the psyche and changes thinking.
In the end, the point I would make is twofold. First, it is nice to see some Slashdotters understanding this finally. Three years ago when this stuff would come up here, it was always 100% rejected as baloney. Second, while our environment influences us, and what we fill our minds with influences us, it is only the extremely violence-prone who are so susceptible to this that they cross a line. So I do not want to be penalized for their mistakes. I don't know how you work that out, but there must be a way. For example, instead of banning something, make it available only to adults.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Actually I had the urge to commit violence and did it. But not by playing a game. I just read a book. In fact I duplicated various human sacrifices mentioned in the Bible. Actually I was playing the game, "The true Bible," and got it from there.
*Not this is not really true but what if someone said that.
** This game does not exist but if it did then it would contain more violence than most movies. If, "The Passion of the Christ," the game came out, that depicts torture, though it was for "good" reasons. Would playing that be a factor? Is it because it is real? Because it is religious or Christian? What about a game where Christians fought back against ancient Romans in the 100's AD? You try to kill as many Roman guards to allow you religion, Christianity, to flourish.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
It seems like both sides just say "There's all this evidence that supports my view", without really explaining what they have. Has there been any real research on this subject, that doesn't rely on presenting correlation as cause? Is there any evidence to support either side that comes from a party without an agenda to push? Both sides seem to be bogged down in worthless statistics and name-calling, and the whole argument lacks the necessary foundations of credible evidence.
Not that any of that is relevant, as the whole argument is pointless. Adult entertainment belongs in the hands of adults, and the industry has already made a good effort of ensuring that their output is suitably rated. If retailers stick to those guidelines, and parents take enough of an interest in their child's development to ensure that they are exposed to appropriate content, then there's no problem here. The entertainment industry will provide content for its entire audience, and that means there will be M-rated games on the shelves along with the E-rated ones. It's up to the parents to make the decision as to which ones will be appropriate for their children, and the retailers to ensure that the parents aren't overruled on this decision by the child.
Beyond that, we just need to fix society so that we don't feel the need to be violent towards each other. I think that might be a tougher problem to crack, though.
This comment was formatted for readability, but I forgot the line break tags
My 11-year olds saw at least one R-rated movie years back. "Waiting for Guffman" was rated R (thanks to the totally surreal fundie/Catholic world of the MPAA's ratings board) but I thought it was watchable for them. Tonight we've got a copy of "The Big Night" from Netflix, and it also has an R, probably for language. I have no trouble letting them see that.
The limits on games right now are advisory, and stores sell according to them basically in order to keep their reputations. That's the way I want it. The power in this situation is with the parents if they will only exercise it. That's as much as we can really hope for.
(In general I think tons of social problems in the US today come down to economic pressures that force both parents to work without giving us as much flexibility as we need to raise families. Nothing against women working, it's not a gender thing -- but kids need adults in their lives, and it's just plain a bad economic situation when there's this much pressure drawing the attention of adults away. Personally, as someone who's benefitted from it, I think flex time is a much more effective solution to a variety of social ills than most of the "scary problem!" legislation that gets suggested.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
In spite of the result of these studies, real world crime statistic disprove their conclusions. Violent crime among the relevant age groups has gone down, it spite of more graphic game and media violence. Cases like Columbine, while tragic, represent a statistical outlier. Such incidents do not represent the violent game playing, media watch populations as a whole.
jack thompson is a lunatic who tried to destroy the reputation of my dad, with no reason he could say
he took id software and others to court after the columbine shootings, and he lost. he's not going anywhere with these cases, because the fact of the matter is that these video game companies aren't responsible.
when i was a child and i watched a movie that scared me, my parents would comfort me. they would tell me that it wasn't real. my parents would draw the line between fantasy and reality.
not everyone's parents are the same and they don't all do their jobs as parents (some just aren't there). but that doesn't give anyone the right to just determine that someone ELSE should be responsible if the child has been deemed as not being responsible for their actions.
-- lol pwned
They once said if you played Roll Playing Games (RPGs) you where going to become crazy.
Just because a few kids play the game 16+ hours a day for weeks on end did some strange things.
I am sure if anyone did any one task for 16+ hours a day for weeks on end they would go a little nuts.
I would tend to think that these individuals that are overly violent or crazy where always going to turn out that way - they just needed something (anything) to start the ball rolling.
Period i'm tired of this..
:-)
Since when are the parents not responsible for raising their freakin children.
I'm tired of reading things like this.
---
lol i did calm down you should have seen what i didn't post
I'll warn everybody now that this is a fairly one-sided view on the whole interview but I'm one-sided on this for a reason. All these are pulled out of the Jack Thompson interview. The shows himself to be a moron...
I am working with an Oakland, CA prosecutor in a murder trial in which the older gang members used GTA 3 to train teens to do carjackings and murders
Yup becasue we all know that the way to highjack a car in real life is to walk up to it an just open the door and get in. Don't worry it will magically start when you get in without any required work.
Are parents paying attention to what their kids play?
Nope.
Gee could that possible be part of the problem?
According to the Center for Child Death Review, 1,242 kids were murdered with guns and 174 children died from accidental firearm-related injuries in 2000. Aside from stories that get covered in the news [like Columbine], there are few, if any, actual statistics that show how many children's deaths are directly linked to video games. Do the facts speak for themselves? Or is it just that nobody is really keeping tabs?
The federal government found that in the school year 2003, there were 48 school killings. The year before that there were 16, and the year before that 17. Something is going on. I submit that the video game generation is coming of age.
Yup because violent video games started coming about right around 2001. We all know there were no violent games before then so there were obviously less school shootings.
(we predicted Columbine on NBC's Today eight days before it happened)
And you didn't do something about it before people died? You should be locked up in that case.
You see, the industry is selling these games to kids whose parents are reckless. How is that Joe Jame's fault? We need to punish the industry and the parents who are putting innocent people in harm's way
Ah so now video game companies are suppose to monitor every family in the world and prevent parents who do a bad job at parenting from buying their video games. Well that sounds simple enough.
This guy really did a good job at coming off as a complete zealot. Tim on the other hand was able to remain level headed and present some actual non-zealoted opinions.
Yeah. That was mostly just me and my etherkillers. You take that out of the scene and the gamer numbers go down to 2%.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
I hypothesize the exact opposite of what the critics are yelling about. Violent video games provide an outlet for anger and violent tendencies, and so DECREASE violence. Personally if i was forced to work and not play such games i would feel increasingly frustrated to the point of releasing it in a nice AK-74 test at my local gang infested school.
A new study was released yesterday by Tulane Medical which tracked video game users over a 8 year period testing how much the video games they play affect their tendency toward violence. The study found that among those who played games 8% went on to have some form of violence conviction while only 6% of the non-gamers did.
Correllation does not prove causality. Consider, for example the following hypothetical statistics:
Now we conduct an omnipitant study of 1 million people. Results show:
Now a study committed by mere mortals that looks only at the numbers and doesn't look deeper would show:
Both of these studys show a strong correlation between playing violent games and committing crimes. But in reality, the violent games have actually eliminated 60,000 violent crimes and the availibility of violent games have reduced the amount of violence by 30%.
There are many other reasons for violent crime. There is a statistical indication that the drug war may have doubled violent crime (not even counting the crimes perpetrated by the government) just as prohibition did. There is considerable violence against racial and sexual minorities. The poor are increasingly desparate in our rich get richer, poor get poorer economy.
Someone was pointing out to me, that in an area of the city where I live, that there has been a substantial outbreak of armed robbery. This followed a recent crackdown on dope dealing. Possible cause: the remaining dope dealers have decided that it is safer to commit armed robbery and split than to wait around long enough for both drug buyters and police to find them.
Wow, Thomson is totally innumerate. He's asked about a percentage, and he replies with raw numbers about one game ... without giving a total number of games sold! Maybe he's right about the percentage, but he hasn't shown it. Oh, wait, he's wrong about that
Actually, it seems a bit more likely that he's just dishonest.
The federal government found that in the school year 2003, there were 48 school killings. The year before that there were 16, and the year before that 17. Something is going on. I submit that the video game generation is coming of age.
That doesn't match the numbers I've seen. Plus, there's the causation problem. It could just as well be that kids are influenced by the Iraq war.
Not a single law on the books to stop the sale of murder simulators to kids
Sure, because every time they get put on the books, they get struck down (follow the link to the opionion for more cases).
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Kids took guns to school for 200 years in this country without turning them on one another.
Can anyone who grew up in the 50's tell me what percentage of children brought guns to school?
GTA... GTA... GTA...
I wasn't aware this comprised the entire video game industry...
If the GTA series is somehow eliminated, will Jack Thompson have a reason for living?
I have some thoughts posted below about some question in the article. I am not saying the video games casue these problems, they are mearly counter point and thought.
For the record I have started to believe that it is possible to create a media that is so emersive it can cause people to loose strack of reality, and cuse someone to loose touch with societle values.(killing stealing, etc.) We can all agree that a child who watches too much TV is effected by that. I would think it would also apply to video game(or any other media.)
"Do you think the interactivity of game violence makes it different than violence on television, which is passive?
I think that violence is violence, and that if someone doesn't have the capacity to differentiate between real life and fiction, that they have a problem that precedes their exposure to violence in the media. "
But it begs the question:
"Can a media get so imersive it begins to make it difficult to differentiate between real lif and fiction? AKA "Cyberpsychosis"
I belive some studies are begining to find this to be true.
then there is this poor pesponse:
"Do you think that video games are similar to sports? There are much-touted statistics that link aggression levels to video game playing, but isn't that precisely what happens in any kind of competition?
The goal of any competition is to win.
We hear stories about football players getting drunk, doing drugs, raping girls at parties, injuring people in bars, etc. But I don't hear anyone suggesting that we ban high school football. Aggression is part of competition sometimes. Most people can separate competitive aggression from using aggression to solve trivial problems. Some people can't, and you'll find these people in any hobby imaginable, not just video games. I'm sure that at one point or another a golfer snapped and beat someone to death with a 7-iron.
Let's ban golf, shall we? "
ok, lets point at someone else, say 'look it's bad overthere'. This in no way invalidates the question of the effects of video games(if any).
also, I noticed there where no counter points to the findings of independant studies.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"I am a bad parent."
Set a freaking example. Read with them. Buy them books. Get them hooked on rockclimbing or yoga or the drums. Have them join choir or band or football or the school play to get them doing something and keep them focused for the few hours after school.
Much as I love me some video games, developing kids need to do productive activities with adult guidance.
You, Mom and Dad America, are lacking.
Share and Enjoy!
A search on google finds: ESRB Game Ratings - Game Rating & Descriptor Guide
But what happens are these ratings aren't enforced during purchase. I have here an article: Minors Buying M-Rated Games
Just like if the theaters don't enforce the rating, children can sneak in or in this case purchase video games that weren't intended for their age.
HD Trailers
By the way, I'd like to know where these "sex and violence centers of the brain" are. Maybe we could just lobotomize everyone and cure all our ills.
Well doctor, I'd take the "violence" cure only please.
I've both designed and coded a videe game cart and now decades later see my own kids play GTA III.
There is no question that kids have more difficulty than adults distinguishing real from play stimulus, especially presented in immersive animation.
To this extent, video games are teaching them racism, sexism, violence and obscenity.
Looks like they will fit right in with Bush's world-view when they reach majority.
More seriously, I spend a lot of time with the kids and correct them immediately if the game "spills out" into real life in any way.
My goal is to help them participate in fictional worlds while re-chalking the bright line between those worlds and our mundane one.
Ahh, the old double standard. Usually, the groups that push to get rid of violence in video games and movies, are the same groups you could catch pledging full support of war (any war, take your pick). God forbid, a video game corrupt the mind of an innocent child, but they'll be damned if they're going to let some pinko commie stop their war efforts.
I think the problem with these people is that they don't play enough violent video games. Therefore, they're feeling violence-starved and decide to take out their aggression by sending some 18 year old kids (who, hopefully, weren't brought up on violent video games!) to go kill some people for them so that they can get off on it when they watch the evening news.
And this is one of the many things I despise about conservatives: They'll go to church, pray that our kids are not affected by violent video games/movies, they'll lobby for censorship... And then they'll pledge complete and utter alliance to a president who gets the kids they're trying to "protect" killed.
Disclaimer: If you're conservative and do not fit this description, do not waste time telling me about it. If you don't fit the description, I'm not talking about you.
I believe adults have the capability to discern between games vs. reality. On the other hand, kids do have a broader more accute imagination. Violent games could fuel this imagination. It all depends on the emotions that are generated by the games. Do I really need to see someone's head being blown off. No. I don't find that amusing or enhancing my enjoyment of the game. It's how our minds frame this voilence and associates it into a context of pleasure or disgust.
http://herbopen24hours.blogspot.com or http://tolietman.blogspot.com
But ever lawyer does not have the right to a client. I think lawyers looking for a lawsuit help make them--which is accessory to the crime/incident.
However, in any legal case that uses expert studies or testamonies, the ones unfavorable to the side being argued are immediately thrown out. The bias of plaintiff or defendant forces non-scientific results from scientific studies.
Still, the interview is great!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectI D=10113639
"A Rotorua man who kidnapped and robbed a terrified Auckland teenager told police it was like playing the PlayStation game Grand Theft Auto."
Now I'm sure that playing the game didn't make him go out and do it, but you've got to wonder if he did get the idea from the game. Most healthy, sane individuals will see the line between fantasy and reality, but for someone like this who obviously has issues to deal with, you wonder whether it is such a good idea to present crime as a fun, rewarding, good thing to do?
I wonder whether he'll be convicted of GTA?
dumbshit.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
culture can reflect art.
Don't believe me? How man cultural trends have been created by TV and Music?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Why its "bad" to play a video game where you shoot your friends buts its OK to play cops and robbers (as in outside with toy guns) where you shoot friends?
Nope, he's right and you're wrong. The point which he describes is not the average, but the median. As IQ is normally distributed (well, it's designed to be), it's symmetric about 100, so that its median and average (mean) are the same.
IQ tests are normalized based on scads and scads of results for lots and lots of people. A test taker is given a score of 100 because half of the people who took it in the calibration group scored higher, and half lower.
So, while the mean isn't necessarily the median, it sometimes is, and you won't always score cheap points by saying it isn't.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
BTW, I'm referring to American football.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
however, he gets closer with his Mario Brother example, which is violence as well. Point in fact, threatening somebody can be an act of violence.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
I hope our man Jack receives at least 10,000 handwritten emails for this.
Along with social retardation, it is games that say it's ok to be the bad buy that corrupts not the actual violence. Real life soldiers go to war and return better behaved than us civilians. Says it all really. Nothing like a good shoot up to release some pent up anger, just as long as you're taking the moral high ground on the battlefield.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
2 and a half decades ago they weren't nearly as submersive as they are not.
Comparing Pong to GTA is a big mistake.
I have played Video games for 3 decades, but my mind was well developed before games becames as visual, and auditoraly(sp?) realistc as they are now.
My point is, don't jump tp a conlusion that reinforces the thought that no media could ever influence a persons action, or inaction.
Also, since you are using yourself as a pojnt of reference, how do you know you're not the unusual one?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In every generation, we have some idiots running around trying to blame some aspect of youth culture for the fact that teenaged boys are, on average, more violent than grownups.
The fact that violent crimes, and even violent crimes by young people have steadily declined as games have become both more violent and more realistic proves that any possible pro-violence effect of games is statistically negligible relative to other social and cultural factors.
The possibility that violent videogames actually decrease real world violence cannot be excluded, and is consistent with the data (although one can think of many other explanations--perhaps the decrease in violence is due to violent movies, rather than violent games, or to easier availability of pornography, or liberalized abortion laws).
Experimental studies that attempt to correlate "violent behavior" with gameplaying (or violent TV, for that matter) are pretty much crap. I've read a number of these studies, and they either confuse aggression with serious violence (a boy pushing or hitting another kid is not the same as a serious attempt to kill or maim) or fail to properly control for overall excitement (there would have to be a control stimulus that is equally exciting, confirmed by heart rate measurements--a sports match, perhaps).
Studies that track kids and try to relate their violent behavior with their taste in media are also pretty worthless, because they are not randomized (that is, they don't pick a bunch of kids at random and force them to play games several hours a day whether they want to or not). As a result, you can't distinguish between the hypothesis that kids with a propensity for violence like violent entertainment and the hypothesis that violent entertainment causes real violence.
What is the ulterior motive of the people who fund and conduct these pseudoscientific studies? Are they going to use their "findings" to lobby for Big Government legislation and work to choke the videogame industry with bureaucratic red tape at the federal level?
Why doesn't anyone conduct a fMRI brain study on these hysterical soccer moms and ambulance-chaser lawyers?
National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation: ... are you?
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one,
teach your kids fucking proper English!
"thEn that"?! Were you raised in a barn?
Now, to avoid the flames, I will not argue his position (even though I could). But, a lot of things he says are just plain stupid. For example: "Do you think that video games are similar to sports? There are much-touted statistics that link aggression levels to video game playing, but isn't that precisely what happens in any kind of competition? I'm sorry, but a basketball games goal is to score more points, not maim the other player. That is where sportsmanship comes in. There is no sportsmanship in any GTA game. None." Right here, he's dodging the question. He said GTA, not games in general. And Jack may not know this, but there is plenty of sportsmanship in gaming-unwritten rules to be obeyed. (No screen-peeking, don't talk about stupid stuff on your headset, don't be a n00b, etc.) Now this isn't THAT stupid, but let's continue... "Different mediums, as they've come along, have had their share of controversy. From pulp horror and graphic novels, to movies, music and television; is this part of a cycle? Yes, it is the last cycle. These are murder simulators. Manhunt has been called the video game equivalent of a snuff film. I am working with an Oakland, CA prosecutor in a murder trial in which the older gang members used GTA 3 to train teens to do carjackings and murders. The Army uses these games to break down the inhibition to kill of new recruits." Last cycle? Ffft. There will always be something else people blame, deserving or not. The GTA games were BASED on gang violence, not the other way around. And the Army has always used games. Assuming he's right, isn't it a GOOD thing to break down the inhibiton for soldiers to kill. Assuming he's wrong, the Army makes these games for training purposes, NOT for psychological purposes. (They have FOX News for that.) Now, here's a statement that is logistically flawed, and very stupid because of it. "Is the self-imposed rating system for video games enough? Is the ESRB working? What is the relevance of a rating system for video games if the powers that be will black-list certain games because of their graphic content? No, of course it's not working. Senator Lieberman and Dr. Walsh just had their latest "Video Game Report Card" news conference. Underage kids can buy the most violent games half the time. I just successfully sued Best Buy and compelled them to institute a new nationwide policy. They will now ID anyone appearing to be 21 or younger to make sure no one under 17 buys M-rated games. This is a huge development. You really need to report that. It is an industry first." INDUSTRY FIRST!? Nearly every chain has had that policy, at least unofficially, for YEARS. Kids buying violent games is part parents, part shady dealings, part pawn shops, part friends, and part piracy. I'm suprised he could get away with the suit, myself. It's just so flawed in conception, that it would be dismissed in any other court. That's America for ya. More flawed stupidity: "According to the Center for Child Death Review, 1,242 kids were murdered with guns and 174 children died from accidental firearm-related injuries in 2000. Aside from stories that get covered in the news [like Columbine], there are few, if any, actual statistics that show how many children's deaths are directly linked to video games. Do the facts speak for themselves? Or is it just that nobody is really keeping tabs? The federal government found that in the school year 2003, there were 48 school killings. The year before that there were 16, and the year before that 17. Something is going on. I submit that the video game generation is coming of age." I remember there being violent games in 2002 and 2001, myself. And it's kinda hard for school-age children to "come of age". Now HERE'S a huge nugget of unforgivable stupidity. "Do you think the interactivity of game violence makes it different than violence on television, which is passive? Of course, as you actually grow neural pathways called dendrites that enable you to perform more easily the physical acts of violence. Plu
I must have missed the memo on the problem video games represent. All I've heard is that some people who don't like them keep trying unsuccessfully to manufacture a study linking them with violence.
Feeling ALOT better now. No longer nauseus at all, and enjoying my trip.
There is only one snag... Ever notice how smoke detector batteries go out at exactly the wrong time? Its either at 3am when you are trying to sleep, or 3pm when you are tripping balls. In either case there is no fucking way I'm going to the store to buy a battery. How can you tell if a smoke detector battery has gone out? Simple. It will beep at you. Once. Every 3 minutes. God damnit I hate smoke detectors!! Leave me alone. Damnit! where is the fucking snooze button on this thing!!
From the article:
Yes, it is the last cycle. These are murder simulators. Manhunt has been called the video game equivalent of a snuff film. I am working with an Oakland, CA prosecutor in a murder trial in which the older gang members used GTA 3 to train teens to do carjackings and murders. The Army uses these games to break down the inhibition to kill of new recruits.
Older gang member: So what went wrong, bizatch? Why'd you let that ho get away in her ride?
new recruit: Ease up, T-man. I done been lookin' for the triangle button, but it ain't been nowhere to be found. What up with that shiznit? I thought you say GTA be teachin' me everything I need to know.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Will that reduce the number of deaths in Iraq?
Will that reduce the likelihood of U.S. troops opening fire on a convoy carrying recently freed Italian journalists?
Focusing on video games to reduce violence is like trying to cut down trees that matches are made of in an attempt to reduce the number of smoking-related cancer deaths.
... studies paid for by them, which are geared to find the opposite result. Lawyers call such experts 'whores.'"
Actually, lawyers also call such experts frequently. Everyone does.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
For example:
"Do you think that video games are similar to sports? There are much-touted statistics that link aggression levels to video game playing, but isn't that precisely what happens in any kind of competition?
I'm sorry, but a basketball games goal is to score more points, not maim the other player. That is where sportsmanship comes in. There is no sportsmanship in any GTA game. None."
Right here, he's dodging the question. He said GTA, not games in general. And he also said basketball, not sports in general. And Jack may not know this, but there is plenty of sportsmanship in gaming-unwritten rules to be obeyed. (No screen-peeking, don't talk about stupid stuff on your headset, don't be a n00b, etc.)
Now this isn't THAT stupid, but let's continue...
"Different mediums, as they've come along, have had their share of controversy. From pulp horror and graphic novels, to movies, music and television; is this part of a cycle?
Yes, it is the last cycle. These are murder simulators. Manhunt has been called the video game equivalent of a snuff film. I am working with an Oakland, CA prosecutor in a murder trial in which the older gang members used GTA 3 to train teens to do carjackings and murders. The Army uses these games to break down the inhibition to kill of new recruits."
Last cycle? Ffft. There will always be something else people blame, deserving or not. The GTA games were BASED on gang violence, not the other way around. And the Army has always used games. Assuming he's right, isn't it a GOOD thing to break down the inhibiton for soldiers to kill. Assuming he's wrong, the Army makes these games for training purposes, NOT for psychological purposes. (They have FOX News for that.) Now, here's a statement that is logistically flawed, and very stupid because of it.
"Is the self-imposed rating system for video games enough? Is the ESRB working? What is the relevance of a rating system for video games if the powers that be will black-list certain games because of their graphic content?
No, of course it's not working. Senator Lieberman and Dr. Walsh just had their latest "Video Game Report Card" news conference. Underage kids can buy the most violent games half the time. I just successfully sued Best Buy and compelled them to institute a new nationwide policy. They will now ID anyone appearing to be 21 or younger to make sure no one under 17 buys M-rated games. This is a huge development. You really need to report that. It is an industry first."
INDUSTRY FIRST!? Nearly every chain has had that policy, at least unofficially, for YEARS. Kids buying violent games is part parents, part shady dealings, part pawn shops, part friends, and part piracy. I'm suprised he could get away with the suit, myself. It's just so flawed in conception, that it would be dismissed in any other court. That's America for ya.
More flawed stupidity:
"According to the Center for Child Death Review, 1,242 kids were murdered with guns and 174 children died from accidental firearm-related injuries in 2000. Aside from stories that get covered in the news [like Columbine], there are few, if any, actual statistics that show how many children's deaths are directly linked to video games. Do the facts speak for themselves? Or is it just that nobody is really keeping tabs?
The federal government found that in the school year 2003, there were 48 school killings. The year before that there were 16, and the year before that 17. Something is going on. I submit that the video game generation is coming of age." I remember there being violent games in 2002 and 2001, myself. And it's kinda hard for school-age children to "come of age".
Now HERE'S a huge nugget of unforgivable stupidity.
"Do you think the interactivity of game violence makes it different
Broadcast media slams games. They have since they first began to show up. They do it now. They always will.
Their newsrooms hype every study purporting to show a connection between violence and games (while simultaneously burying any making the same connection between violence and TV). Ditto between anything else bad and games. (Low test scores, low income, alcoholism, etc.)
Their made-for-TV movies have main plots or subplots slamming games. Their sitcoms have episodes on games. Their commedians make cracks about games.
They did it to RPGs and the did it to video games. They do similar things to home computers, computer programming, and a number of internet activities (blogs, news outlets, mailing lists, online entertainments, file swapping, social contact facilitating 'ware of every sort, etc.).
Why do they do it?
Because it's their COMPETITION!
Video games and RPGs compete for eyeball time against their shows. This costs them advertising revenue. Online entertainment ditto. Social networking also takes time away from viewing, AND may lead to other non-TV-watching activities far beyond the time spend in front of a screen.
Network news outlets and news-related blogs scoop theirs regularly and expose their errors and malfesance. This reduces both their audience-related revenue and their effectiveness as a political tool.
TV networks are part of media conglomerates. So online "content" production/distribution tools (in addition to the "piracy" issue) pose a threat to their own offline operations.
And so on.
So when you hear them claim things are bad you need to consider the source, and dig down to the underlying meat, to discover whether there's anything behind the hype - or whether it's just something that either matches their current templates for an eyeball-attractor or promotes their own interests by slamming their opposition.
Which is, of course, what we're doing here. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
And here they are, bombing nightclubs and running planes into buildings. Same thing with the Columbian drug cartels when they chop people up and dissolve the body in a barrel of acid. Efficiency is one life for 100 lives.
It's the culture.
American culture is just like that. I don't have time to worry about which Senators and Representatives support the MPAA/RIAA. I don't have time to pay attention to the budget and deficit. I don't have time to think about which which mutal funds support Walmart/RIAA/MPAA/Monsanto/Microsoft, in Bush's "privatization" plan. I don't have time to sit there and talk with my kid about the bullies at school and the pecking order and responsible sexuality.
I just want a beer. My fucking boss pisses me off, all day. I need a break.
Here. I got you a Nintendo and some games. Keep the sound down.
I found the snooze button on my smoke detector. Turns out it was Winamp. 2 birds. one stone. w00t.
On a related note, the debate over violence and the demon weed also continues unabated.
Not every argument requires reduction to absurdity.
"You are always going to have people who cannot distinguish between make believe and reality. We should commit these people, not punish the sane people."
So are people arguing that all the violent behavior in the world is because of the inability to tell make believe from reality?
Second, mechanism of violence. How do people think children learn about violence, and is it a process that's peculiar to one particular activity?
Or maybe we're just naturally violent, in which case nothing external is to blame.
riding in a car DOES increase your risk of being in a fatal accident.
If I had mod points, I would give this something like a +3 Insightful. I mean, it's true, why would the report favorably on something that takes away viewers?
Of course, the fact that I replied to your comment would have taken away any points I would have given you anyway, but that's life.
"What effect it has outside I bet is largely determined by the teachings of the parents."
I find it interesting in all these discussions, on how capable children are of being influenced by one's external parental unit, but utterly incapable of being influenced by an external video game?*
*Let alone when the discussion blames other external sources, other than "those things we like, so don't mess with them" video games.
Article by Sirlin, a game designer
This article may be somewhat outdated as it refers to the senate hearings initiated by Senator Joseph Lieberman. However, it addresses the violence in video game issue very well.
So, everyone who doesn't understand what I'm getting at, write your congressman the following letter:
Dear Mr. Congressman,
I'm a shitty parent who does not pay attention to what my kid does. Instead of me actually admitting I have no interest in my child's intellectual/social/physical development, I'd rather just blame something else. Please ban video games, and while you're at it please ban sex ed classes because we shouldn't be teaching kids how to have sex anyways. Also, no one should be able to know how a gun works or how the holocaust happened, because they might replicate what happened in their daily lives. To prevent a holocaust from happening right now, please ban video game violence.
My logic is infallible.
All your base are belong to us.
A quick search on Bureau of Justice Statistics for 2003 finds that the average number of homicides at school per year from 1992 to 1999 was 32. While there was a dip in homicides in 2000-2001 trying to claim the increase in 2002-2003 was due to video games is just wrong. It took me less than 15 minutes to find these numbers. Here is a quote from the Indicators of School Crime and Safety:2004 from the NCES "No difference was detected in the percentages of students ages 12-18 victimized at school between 2001 and 2003. However, the percentage of students who reported being victims of crime at school decreased from 10 percent to 5 percent between 1995 and 2003. This included a decrease in theft (from 7 percent to 4 percent) and a decrease in violent victimization (from 3 percent to 1 percent) over the same time period." The guy is just trying to further his agenda by playing a shell game with the statistics. Censorship is bad and is no substitute for good parenting.
It was made clear to video games publishers that if they didn't regulate themselves, then congress would have to do something. So the industry came up with this self-regulating, voluntary scheme so that they wouldn't have to deal with a law.
So as it stands now, there is no legal penalty for a store that sells M-rated games to 12 year olds. There is just bad publicity, and the threat of actual laws if the idustry doesn't follow its own rules.
In the linked article, there was another link to the previous article where the same interview questions were asked of a big anti-violent gaming activist lawyer. He said that he sued Best Buy into creating a new policy to card anyone under 21 trying to buy an M-rated game. Now I don't know, but I think he probably didn't have any real chance of winning a suit against Best Buy for not following a voluntary policy. I think they probably just wanted to settle and avoid bad publicity.
By the way, I don't think we need more laws either, but you asked to be corrected if you're wrong, and you are.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
.... the argument from individual self-determination. Yep -- moral principle. I know it rankles a lot of you pragmatists, but justifying freedom in terms of "public good" or "benefits to society" has just about run its course on this one.
First Tim Buckley says:
"Nobody is born knowing right from wrong. That is something that is taught. Parents either teach it to their kids the right way, or ignore their kids and let television and video games do it for them."
He is then asked:
"Is there a correlation between playing violent video games and acting in a violent manner?"
To which he responds:
"I don't believe so."
Hasn't he just contradicted himself?
If a parent neglects their parental duties and does instill a proper sence of right and wrong in their kids, and, as Mr. Buckley puts it, "let[s] television and video games do it for them," then aren't those kids going to be directly influenced by the games they play? Wouldn't that be more than correlation? wouldn't it then be the root of the problem?
I think Mr. Buckley should either revisit his argument, or realize that he has no ground to stand on.
"Violence in movies can almost compare to real life but still its fake and you know it. Seeing the real thing is a whole different experience. And there is no other like it, you can't simulate it."
Not yet. And when we can, we all will still be putting the blame elsewere. After all what WE like is good (video games), while what everyone else likes is bad (music sux, TV sux, SUV sux, sux, sux, sux).
There's no real debate over that. Any M-rated game has violence levels unacceptable and definitionally harmful to anyone under 17. The industry will rue the day it accepted this labeled scheme. Starcraft is rated M for mature. That game has completely screwed up my life. I mean whenever i see an intercepter, i immediately look for the carrier instead to get 8 kills at once. I mean seriously do these people know that an IQ of 90 at least gives them the ability to rationalize what violence even is, because these morons obviously dont know. Not one of these guys probibly even played a video game to see what violence is. five bucks says if they play everquest they will completely change sides.
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye
"...the only effect that videogames have had on my morals is deciding what weapon I would kill someone with if I did"
quote from bash.org
Did anyone else find it interesting that Jack Thompson spent a majority of his interview speaking as an expert about the brain? A lawyer was talking about how neural pathways are formed and the overlapping areas of the brain. I'm not saying his statement were incorrect but IMHO he's trying to pass himself off as a brain expert when in all likelyhood he's not a brain expert. He's a lawyer. This would seem to be a way to divert attention from his case. He also only references GTA as an example of violent video game. Tim Buckley talked about several games and used examples to highlight his points. While Jack Thompson only discussed GTA which could means to me he's being a little dishonest and inflamatory. As a gamer I admit to being a bigger believer in Buckley's point of view. But IMHO Jack Thompson doesn't really come off believable or honest in his discussion. I'm probably stating the obvious.
Does that mean I'm likely to pick up roadkill and eat it?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I think your first sentence is trying to say that violence exists throughout society and therefore it is pointless to analyse and manage violent activities in the real world. That's just plain fishy logic, and hardly insightful.
Your second sentence makes no sense so we'll just ignore it.
My question is this: at what point would YOU accept that shoot-em ups have become so realistic, and so violent that they should not be made. There has to be a line that will eventually be crossed, won't there? Let's say from now until the point where you can switch on a VR chip stuck in your head and *really* go and strangle, rape, and dismember people in full glorious virtual reality. Surely there has to be a point where SANE people start to realise that we don't need studies to tell us these games aren't contributing to healthy mental activities.
I used to have the same teen-gamer attitude as you, and scoff at any notion that there are ill effects from these games. But after seeing my 13 year old cousin showing how he can shoot and hack and dismember people in such vivid, realistic ways I was really stunned. Sure the kid isn't going to turn into a serial killer, but is it really contributing to his development as a happy, peaceful, and non-aggressive soul?
It has nothing to do with rights. Let's all get that straight. It's not like a bunch of teenagers have been lobbying congress for increasingly violent video games and taking to the streets to get their voices heard. As if this is a battle for freedom. Quit with that malarky and join real battles like www.nosoftwarepatents.org. Leave the sane ones among us to reflect to some extent on whether it is a good idea to have our children spending hours a week engaging in ever more realistic bloodshed.
It's the year of Linux! To celebrate I have x free hotmail accounts to give away
is that if Oprah teaches empowerment in ones self and most murderers need some sort of empowerment to overcome that moment-of-truth before firing the gun, than we should ban Oprah? Ok you heard the man...
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye
I simply can't believe that we are still having the debate of whether or not video games influence child behavior. If a child plays video games for 2+ hours a day OF COURSE it influences their behavior. Children are like sponges; they soak up whatever they experience; our brains are designed to do this as we are growing up.
/. crowd vastly overestimates the number of gaming minors who have the technical savy to find the image, butn it and mod their playstation or whatever console to play it. 25% at most. So the law would not be completely effective, but what law is?
The real question is to what lengths should we go to shield children from things which would influence their behavior negatively. Personally I have no problem with an enforced ratings system.
The two counterarguments to this are:
a) Kids will burn copies anyway and play it.
Response: Yes, some, but I think the
b) This should be the job of the parent.
Response: Perhaps, but the reality is we aren't living in a world where there is a parent watching their child 24/7. Many more families these days either have only one working parent or two parents working fulltime. This just isn't realistic to demand that parents monitor their kids activities 24/7 (not to mention how terrible of a parenting method that would be). Besides, mandatory ratings actually encourage the parent to get involved; if the child wants a game rated M or whatever he/she can attempt to convince the parent he/she is mature enough to handle it. The choice now rests on the parent.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
found some really good post from november article "Game Industry Derided For Mature Content"
"What about the children?"
It's the rock and roll music in the games that leads to violent behavior.
However the problem is all they do is establish a weak case for correlation. The usual method is to take kids that exhibit violent behaviour and see if they are drawn more to violent games. The answer is yes they generally are. However that's a pretty weak case in general, and all it hints to is correlation, not causation. That I've never seen tested. An equally good, in fact I'd say better, hypothesis is that violent people like violent media more than others, but that media doesn't make one violent.
For those that remember life before the microwave oven, look at your behavior now. You can't stand to wait a few moments. Long ago, you accepted waiting. Remember old-style TV, before MTV changed it all? Camera cuts were rare, keeping the stimulus level low.
Now you don't need an attention span... except when forced to deal with your fellow human beings.
So yeah, video games cause violence. The choice of video game probably doesn't matter. You fail to develop proper interpersonal skills when you spend your days in front of some high-stimulus electronic box.
So Batman fanatic Jack Thompson is crusading against video games now? This is the same guy who went after 2 Live Crew back in the early 1990's, but since they are currently residing in the 'Where are they now?' file Thompson needs a new target, I guess.
Is it really so surprising that violent people have usually played violent video games? That's like saying "The vast majority of people who play games that display females in a sexual manner are young men that go on to have sexual relations with women. Therefore, those games must make most men straight and interested in sex."
Does anyone else see the problem with this logic?
On a more personal note, I usually avoid FPS-style games (I find them way too boring), but found GTA a lot of fun. The few times I've played the game, I went around killing as many pedestrians as possible and taking their stuff... so I suspect that puts me squarely in the category of people that is supposedly made violent by video games. Interestingly enough, even though the games that I have played have probably desensitized me to animated blood and gore, I'm extremely squeamish in real life. I actually switched over from biology to computer science this past January in part to get away from dissection... I just can't handle cutting apart a living (or recently-living) thing, even if that thing is just a crab or worm or something. Hell, I even feel bad flushing an amoeba down the drain because I'm afraid it will suffer.
I also can't stand hurting people. A few years back, I took kendo lessons for a few months and found that despite all the anime/movies/games I'd been exposed to where sword fighting was glorified, the whole idea of running at a guy and hitting him with a big stick really wasn't easy for me. There were other reasons why I quit, but that was part of it.
"A signature always reveals a man's character - and sometimes even his name" - Evan Esar (1899-1995)
I've been playing Quake2 and games similar to it for a very long time and never once have I had an urge to kill because of it. Hell, I can't even bring myself to punch somebody in the face in a fight. I hate bringing pain to others, but I know that in a game it's not real. If some people are influenced by these games they should not be playing them and they should quit making it my problem. I don't know what the purpose of these studies are. It's not as if they can stop violent games from being produced.
Wrong thought leads to wrong action.
The ridiculous golf example is intended to point out the absurdity of Thompson's own argument. It's intended to be ridiculous and over-simplified.
yes and no, these games have been the best stress tool every for me, and yes i am desensitized, go ahead give me a gun, i would have no problem shooting someone.
Artsy montages evolved to purposeful elements of cinematography. It was experimented with before Michael Mann, but he made it 'cool'. It also grew to shaky handcam shots and various derivative quick cuts to draw the viewer in to the scene. That was when Donkey Kong and the latest Pacman variation were hot.
I am unsure why you attack music videos, but there was a time when they were an easy way for artistic film makers to get paid doing art. I guess it must relate.
TV/Film changed, but it only got smarter at keeping the audience compelled. Only recently have video games had effective similar elements to draw players in to stories(proper perspective, sound effects, etc.). It has much to do with keeping people, any type of people, interested and little to do with the current level of video game action.
Announcer: Your cable TV is experiencing difficulties. Please, do not panic. Resist the temptation to read or talk to loved ones. Do not attempt sexual relations, as years of TV radiation have left your genitals withered and useless.
Wiggum: [checking under the covers] Well I'll be damned
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
from TFA:
Is there a correlation between playing violent video games and acting in a violent manner?
I don't believe so. I think that if someone plays a video game, and then goes out and harms another human being, or themselves because of what they just saw in the video game, they were screwed up in the head long before they got their hands on a controller. In my profession I have met thousands and thousands of gamers, all of whom have played the same type of violent video games that I have, and we've managed not to kill each other.
causation vs correlation... even this guy doesnt understand. i think taking two basic stats classes should be a prereq to getting a drivers license, being a republican, and ever publishing anything on the internet where i may be able to read it. that would dramatically be conducive to improving the quality of my life.
teenagers learn how to get laid by playing Japanese dating sims.
Not sure if this has been posted already, because I couldn't read all 600 comments, but Gabe and Tycho touched on the same subject today on Penny Arcade, and provided excellent links to a number of blogs on the same subject. The upshot is that Johnson's argument is the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo procter hoc. Association doesn't equal causation. Unfortunately, most people believe everything they hear on the news.
The universe is made of atoms and empty space. All else is speculation. --Democritus of Abdera, 435 BC
When you see someone dancing in a movie, you think about dancing for a couple of minutes, maybe try out a few steps. But the movie will NOT turn you into a dancer, nor will it make someone that does not really like dancing start to like it.
You watch Fred Astaire tap dance in an old black and white movie and you're reasonably entertained. Enough to try a few steps when your alone. But pretty soon that same song-and-dance is "played out". It's going to take something more intense, more extreme to garner the same positive response (and actually get you to try a move or two). This progresses until only hardcore breakdancing offers the equivalent entertainment value as the first time you saw Fred bust out a move. Not only this, but you're poppin' and lockin' yourself, doing the robot and windmill and whatever else. Why? Progressive overload I suppose, or a more appropriate word for it (when in the context of violence) is desensitization.
And that's the problem with children being subjected to death and violence on tv and videogames - they become accustomed to it, jaded even. And maybe they see something and they want to "try out a few steps" as you say. What would trying out a few steps be to an impressionable child? Pointing a loaded gun at a friend (the gun they found in their daddy's drawer) and pulling the trigger? A flying eldow into the spine of their baby sister?
The child is only mimicking what they saw in the videogame or movie, "trying out a few steps" as you say.
Children are highly impressionable. They mimic adults, and this is the primary way they learn to socialise in the world. Violence begets violence, gurps. Nothing "casual" about it.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
All that aside, the sheer fact that we as a society find simulated violence entertaining just shows that we have not progressed as a species (technology aside) much over the past few thousand years.
What makes the prospect of someone being shot, someone suffering or people being blown into little pieces attractive and entertaining to us? Why do we find that appealing? The romans had gladitorial games which in some ways were worse (they were real people), but if you are sitting up in the grandstands of the roman colossium - someone getting stabbed was probably a lot less up close than watching someone chainsaw off someones head in a movie. Heck with HDTV its now JUST LIKE BEING THERE :)
Do I think games cause people to kill people? No, I don't think they do - after seeing thousands of acts of simulated violence over the course of a lifetime has to affect the mind somehow though. Enough to start killing? In some addle brained people, maybe thats enough.
My point is that we enjoy the act of killing, we love watching it and we love acting it out in video games. We love watching shows that highlight tragedy and human suffering. Why?
The aspect of death and killing has infused our entire culture. Its in the way we talk "Drop dead date", "killing projects", etc, etc. How often do we mutter that "I am gonna kill him/her" even jokingly. Why is that acceptable as a joke even? For example, we don't jokingly say "I am going to shit in his mouth and piss on his face", even though it would probably be a good alternative to being killed. We have socially accepted killing - the image of killing someone is more acceptable. If you say that the otherwise is just disgusting, why would killing someone be less disgusting?
Like I said, I watch all this stuff and don't think that I am better or anything. Its just something to think about, or not.
AMT: Not worth vomiting.
There are things in life worth throwing up for. AMT is not one of them.
Shortly after ingesting the drug I threw up twice. By itself this would not earn a 2 thumbs down rating.
As a psychadelic it was ok. Kinda neat I guess. As a recreational drug it certainly failed. Just wasn't that much fun.
On the slightly more interesting saga of my smoke detector battery: I finally went to Walmart to get a few 9 volt batteries. When I got home I noticed something was terribly wrong. There were only 2 smoke detectors set aside for battery replacements. I have 3 smoke detector attachments in my apartment. That meant the unthinkable: a smoke detector hidden somewhere in my apartment beeping every 3-15 min.
I don't know if it was the drugs or the beeping (probably the beeping) but I started going a little crazy. I dug through everything I had ever stored a smoke detector in - my minifridge, the large fridge, container bin. nothing.
I started thinking about tonight, whenever I do start to fall asleep. beep. damnit. beep. shit! what do I do now?
Being a computer science major I started working out a search algorithm to find the errent smoke detector. I kept a stack of postit notes and a sharpie in my pocket at all times. Whenever I heard a beep, wherever I was, I would lay a postit not with an arrow pointing in the direction I thought I heard the beep. The arrows started pointing toward a common direction: my roommate's room. I'm normally don't go in his room when he is not around, but seing as how he just left for a week for spring break, screw it. I decide to lay down for a while and wait for the next beep. If I don't hear one in half an hour it must not be there. I was just starting to get confortable in hes bed when I heard it. Beep(louder than before). Ive got you now! It came from the direction of his bathroom. I opened all the cabinets, and there, in the cabinet above the toilet, was my adversary, the smoke detector. I guess my roomate had his go off at 3 am too. heh.
Words can not describe how great it was to finally find this thing. Finally putting a stop to that beep felt better than any drug I have ever done, and way better than amt.
Do you think the interactivity of game violence makes it different than violence on television, which is passive?
Of course, as you actually grow neural pathways called dendrites that enable you to perform more easily the physical acts of violence.
Um...I'm not a neurologist, but doesn't that have to do with muscle memory for things like learning to ride a bike? Or, for example, learning how to move your mouth to make certain syllables? I mean, even if you did play a game long enough for your brain to be hard-wired like this, it seems like those pathways would dead-end if there wasn't a controller in your hand.
A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
The standard deviation is supposed to be twenty, if I remember correctly. So a negative IQ would have to be... five sigmas out. Ignoring that the testing methodologies don't even provide for this, what sort of proportion does five sigmas make for? Is it more or less than one in six billion? Anyone remember how to do the math for that?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Those kids who executed several their classmates definitely had to be retarded. With the amound of planning they did and the sheer range of weaponry and firepower they should have killed FAR more kids. If anything, video games should be blamed for poor planning in their case.
note the OBVIOUS sarcasm.
Homer: "Ohhhh, I'll never eat chili again" [Opens refrigerator, excited] "OOOH, CHILI!"
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
why is it that games make killer how about killers play game did you figure that one out yet?
everyone has meesed up the whole cause and effect thing just because someone does something that doesnt mean they they are more prone to something it just means that some people who do the same thing do something else that the rest of the population dont do as much as those people
What if we left the violence, the blood and the gore, out of video games?
Would that give gamers the false idea that shooting or stabbing or hitting a person has no violent consequence?
If so, then violence in video games should NOT be masked at all.
Let's all demonize the new guy for all the social ills.
This is why parenthood should require a license.
I think desensitization to violence and training to kill might be good things. Everyone should have some training in violence to make them stronger and more capable of defending themselves. Martial arts and real firearms experience would be more effective than video games, but video games are better than nothing. Otherwise, the kids would just play outside, beat each other up, and use real violence against the weaker kids.