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.
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!
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'.
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.
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.
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.
It's the battle of the minds, and everyone's unarmed.
Another recent study shows that 90% of Serial Killers ate a bread product within 24 hours before commiting murder.
Therefore, eating bread leads to murder.
DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
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!
Video games don't teach kids how to kill. Absent parenting combined with social retardation (as in the case of Columbine)lead kids to kill. Bad parenting or no parenting is behind most if not all teen murderers.
As a disclaimer, I must first state that I have had no direct interaction with either profession, however it is my understanding that whores provide a pleasurable, possibly valuable, service in exchange for money. I am fairly sure that lawyers do not, and so any analogy between the two is misleading at best, and insulting to whores at worst.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
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.
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
I love violent games, I've been playing them as long as I can remember. I've boxed, wrestled, competed in jiu-jitsu and submission wrestling tournaments. Those may be sports, but they're as violent as sports get.
I just love the visceral feeling I get when I blast an imp that jumped out of the shadows and scared the crap out of me. I get a similar visceral feeling when I land a nice punch or tap out an opponent.
All of that being said, these are just games. Repeat after me: "IT IS JUST A GAME".
I absolutely detest "real" violence. Every time they showed people in the comforts of their middle-class existance cheering as bombs went off in Iraq I felt sick to my stomache. I am not desensitized whatsoever.
If people didn't have games to blame things like this on, they would just find something else.
Give credit where it's due
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
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!
Video games are literally "murder simulators" teaching our kids how to kill.
If you are going to use a term like literally then you need to include accurate statements.
Video games have nothing to do with murder. Violent video games might.
Violent video games, do not teach kids how to kill, only to be more used to violents.
Grand Theft Auto never taught me how to kill someone with a chainsaw, only that it was possible. As if I needed to realize that.
I think that it makes children less sensitive towards violence, in video games.
What effect it has outside I bet is largely determined by the teachings of the parents.
http://use.perl.org
Look, to prove the concept you have to do the following:
One 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 tested). But neither of those things means that watching the games makes you act violently.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Yes, thanks to my training with "murder simulators", I am quite skilled at approaching pedestrians on the street and pressing R1, Circle, Circle, Circle.
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
Just hold down circle, you don't need to keep pressing it.
I disagree, All video games *are* murder simulators. Every time I play Tetris, I just wanna go out and pop a cap in someone's ass, muthaf*&#ah! And Super Mario Kart makes me violent towards women, too.
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
You first said "teach" and then "lead". Teach they do - they teach kids to not waste ammo, to aim for the body center and to keep scanning for new targets quickly. They do teach how to kill more efficiently.
Actually, most frag-fests tend to glorify the headshot and the absolute wasting of ammo. Part of why I don't like them. They do teach scanning for targets, however. Now actual light-gun type games can teach a bit of pistol marksmanship...I'm still convinced I learned everything I needed to know about firing a pistol from Time Crisis. I used to play gun games in the arcade every now and again, and having never fired any firearm in my life, I hit 20 out of 20 targets my first time shooting a pistol in the army. Went on to shoot best in my company in basic as well. But if you're doing your aiming with a mouse or controller, I can't imagine you're really getting all that much from it.
But, even assuming a game can teach a kid how to kill more efficiently, what society should really be looking into is what is making them *want* to, dontcha think? Side note: For those thinking that I would have been firing a rifle rather than a pistol in basic training, I was in the one enlisted specialty (Armor Crewman) that I know of that qualifies on M9 pistol rather than M16 rifle (some others do both). I was in the army for 3 years before I ever fired a real bullet from a rifle. And I sucked at it.
Which brings up an additional point...if we want to ban video games because they can make kids more effective killers, shouldn't underage hunting go with it? That teaches kids quite literally how to kill, and vastly improves their marskmanship as well.
By "social retardation" do you mean "emotional abuse at the hands of their peers"?
Back when I was a young lad, I went through a "white boy being a G" phase. This involved a strong appreciation for Snoop Dogg, NWA, Fuck The Police, etc. I dressed up more like these guys, talked a cracker-assed form of ebonics, and hung around with the like crowd.
One day, while out with "the crew", two of the guys decide its a good idea to steal a couple of handguns from a small mom'n'pop gun store we were driving by. Sure I listened to violent music, had an odd fascination with pimps and ho's, and all that shit, but as soon as it came down to these guys ready to steal a couple of handguns, my better instincts took over.
We all listened to the same music, so by this logic we all should have been piling into that gun shop stealing what we could. Instead, only 2 guys did, and the rest of us got the hell out of there. I attribute this to good parents that gave me the right tools and skills to handle random situations in life (and I am eternally grateful). It was plainly obvious to me even then that those two guys came from some severely f'cked up homes.
I wish parents would do more to take personal responsibility for their kids, instead of trying to place blame elsewhere. I know I am.
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?
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.
The problem isn't so much bad parenting as it is Fundamental Attribution Error.
This is a term in psychology where basically, bad things that happen to me are attributed to external causes, and good things that happen to me are attributed to internal causes.
For example, if I do well on a test, it was because I studied hard. If I didn't, then it's because the teacher failed me or didn't like me for some other reason, or because I was tired.
Being a parent myself, one of the last things I would want to do is admit I'm a bad parent. If my son went off and killed some people, it would be very difficult for me to admit that it was my bad parenting that caused it.
Because I tend to be more open minded then the average Joe in America, I think I would admit it eventually.
But someone like Jack Thompson is just another ambulance chaser. He just aggrivates the situation the parent is going through by telling them that their kid killing some people isn't their fault, it's the video games' fault. Everyone is prone to Fundamental Attribution Error, and Jack Thompson is just helping that process along. When you're in a state or mourning, it's easy to not see the truth clearly.
This is the only one that comes to mind quickly, but many may argue that a trade organization representing video game mfgrs is biased. But, some facts are impossible to ignore.
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.
The most interesting thing to know would be how they selected the two groups. If there was any self selection involved, it's just as likely that those with a latent tendancy towards violence will tend to self-select to play video games at a slightly higher rate than those without the tendancy. Do you have a link to the study?
Other factors could also come into play. For example, kids with less parental interaction will be more likely to sit in their room playing video games. It could just as easily be the parental interaction that matters.
Given that it's an 8 year study, I imagine that the two groups were, in fact, self selected.
Ardente veritate incendite tenebras mundi
Video games do indeed teach people to kill. There was the Mario Killer, who killed 13 interns by jumping on their heads. Then, there was that soldier over in Iraq who, when his unit encountered a minefield, tricked some of his comrades into crossing by erasing some sevens and drawing in ones. There was the construction worker who destroyed a couple floors of the building he was working on while his coworkers were inside by dropping properly shaped girders in the right places. There was that guy with the spikey yellow hair who tried to attack people by hidding them with an 8 foor long, 400 pound sword, and gave up and just knifed them. And then there was that guy who had his X-wing shot down the other day...
Quite simply, games teach kids to kill.
Clean coal harnesses the awesome power of the word 'clean'.
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,
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
Violent video games, do not teach kids how to kill, only to be more used to violents.
I completely disagree. There is a huge difference between viewing simulated violence and real life violence. I have been playing so called violent video games for a long time now. Yet a while back I witnessed the direct aftermath of a horrible accident on an expressway that turned my stomach. A guy on a motorcycle wiped out after a car had side swiped him. The sight was one that I cannot forget. The blood pouring out of him like the Nile River only made the hunk of ground meat that used to be his head stand out from his white undershirt now half soaked with blood. And I can tell you there is a big difference between virtual bloodshed and the real thing. If I was desensitized to violence and bloodshed don't you think I would have just shrugged it off? And have you ever been in a bar and a fight breaks out? Witnessing someone getting cracked in the face and smash there head on a tile floor and convulse from the concussion is very unsettling. Think about it, how real are GTA/Quake/Doom/Half-life etc.? Even with the half-life 2 physics engine a shotgun blast to the head doesn't shred it to bits splattering brains, skull fragments and blood all over with real life detail. Go to rotten.com and look at what real life violence looks like. No matter how much counterstrike I play those pictures still disturb me.
And my good friend just returned from Iraq just a few days ago says he doesn't even think that all those hours spent playing quake 2 online help one single bit. The shit he saw there doesn't compare to what we see in movies or games. One thing that disturbed me was his recollection of an incident when a rebel popped out from behind a building holding an RPG. He was on the gunner's position of a hummer with the m240 bravo 7.62MM machine gun. He says it was slow motion as he paused and squeezed the trigger of the gun and lit the guy up. The blood spray and spatter from the bullets punching holes through the unarmored rebel was less disturbing then the guys' actual body motions as he danced around with about a dozen holes in him then doing a 180 and dropping like a sac of potatoes to the ground. That guy was his first kill.
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.