Slashdot Mirror
Violence in Video Games Debate Continues to Rage
ubermiester writes "The Washington Post is reporting on a newly released study by the American Psychological Association, claiming that 'exposure to violence in video games increases aggressive thoughts, aggressive behavior and angry feelings among youth.' This partly contradicts another study released a week before by a University of Illinois Professor claiming that 'game violence does not prompt players to project violent tendencies into real life.'"
What else is new?
How about someone does a study on the parents of the kids who commit crimes that are supposedly caused by video games. I bet you would get some conclusive results from that one.
Er...wait a minute...
The cake is a pie
sending them to Iraq will most certainly have a calming, spiritually-enlightening effect...
--- blackironprison, where ignorance is bliss....
A further study, released some time ago, suggests that there are "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
I've played violent games all my life, and it lets me vent my frustation of the world into the game. 50 frags is better for me then a cigarette.
...they refine the answer we've had for years, which is:
"It depends on the individual, which means the responsibility falls on the parents or guardians to ensure that their children aren't being exposed to something that is going to alter their behavior in a negative way."
Figure it out, people.
that it's not exactly contradictory... If one study say it leads to aggressive thoughts, behvior and angry feelings, then it's not necessarily contradictory if the other says that it doesn't increase violent behavior. Aggressive behavior isn't necessarily violent behavior. That's how they could be both right. And at the same time, any psych major knows that the studies could be severely flawed to say the least. Flame away.
this is complete BS. anyway.. i gotta go.. busy day ahead of killing cops, jacking cars, banging hookers, and doing drugs...
:(
(and i was doing all that WAY before i played mario btw.. smashtv did it
I dont care if a kid plays GTA one day and does car jacking the next. I dont care if parents blame the game and see there son repeatedly convicted. Fry u compensation seeking bastards!
Yes everything you see and do influences you to some degree. Unless you're crazy to begin with, you won't act on them.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
If they try to take my violent video games away, i will throw barrels at them until they run out of lives!
I rather kill Pixis all day than just lose it, get a gun, and take out my co-workers. Sorry, if I can get my fustrations out in a game I think that game is good for it. You can only take so much Mario before just losing it.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
exposure to violence in life increases aggressive thoughts.
In other news, it is reported that cats need a heart to live.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
After a couple of hours of GTA I always want to punch someone. And I'm a reasonable, dweeby, pacificist nerd.
claims that , , however, claims that this is simply not true.
This bullshit can go on until the end of time, bottom line is nobody knows enough (or cares enough, or whatever) to ban them outright. So all these people who think they're gonna shock the world with their brand new insight can go fuck themselves on a bench in switzerland, because nobody gives a shit.
The media is notorious for reporting things like this completely incorrectly.
The thing I most want to know is whether or not there were controls in place to weed out the influence of children who are more likely to be violent anyway (e.g. kids from broken homes). If not, then there's no way to separate causation from correlation.
I also have to wonder about possible bias. The APA funded this study, and it wouldn't exactly be surprising if an association of psychologists (i.e. people who get paid to cure insanity) wanted to suggest that a fairly popular hobby like playing video games turns children into sociopaths.
Oh, and what video games did they play? The GTA series most certainly portrays consequences for violent behavior, for instance.
Rob
I read a study previously taht came to the same conclusion, that playign violent video games led to more aggressive thoughts and tendancies... while, and immediately after playing the games. thre was nothign to show tht these effects continued mroe than a few minutes after playing the game. which is pretty pointless. ofcourse people are going to have agressive thoughts while killing people in a virtual world. but that doesnt mean those thoughts will continue through the day.
My hand touched her hand. Her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I got some boob! Algebra is awesome!
Some could argue that voilent video games could be used as a law enforcement tool. Law enforcement researchers could perform studies where prisoners play a game vs a normal control group. Using neural nets or some way of generating a player's profile, a model is made to differentiate how violent criminals play vs normal players. Once the game is released to the public, if a player gets flagged as a potential criminal, the police are dispatched.
BTM
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
I would insist on seeing the actual journal article to check the sources of funding and methodology for this research.
Anyone who has taken even a beginners course on statistics knows that statistics can be distorted to tell any tale that you want. This follows the same line as the whole bit about how gun owners are more likely to commit a gun related crime. Well, shiver me timbers. Thats a novel concept. Whats the numbers on knife owners? All construed to tell us the tale they want to tell. And where are their parents?
A Linux flavor for every Month!
I remember vividly the first time I played a marathon session of GTA and then got behind the wheel of a real car. I had to force myself to acknowledge red lights when there were no other cars around. This was after training myself NOT to stop for them in GTA because the cops didn't care.
Now this is a small example of how you can train or untrain yourself to certain stimulus, but I never beat anyone with a bat, or rigged a bomb to anyone's car. Perhaps because no one was offering me the jobs.
We are obviously affected by what we see and hear. We learn from our environment and observations what is acceptable and what isn't.
Movies, books, conversations, music and games are all ways that ideas get past from person to person. The message can sometimes get confused by the messenger. How many people have refused to read Lolita because they think other people would think they were pedophile?
As a parent, it's your job to isolate your children from input that might alter their psyche. You don't show 3 year olds Faces of Death.
Should the industry have some part in that? Yes. They should certainly give a relatively detailed list of the content. But should games be MORE responsible than other industries, like Movie Makers and the Book Industry? No.
I wrote a letter to The Times about this (the en-GB one, not the New York one). Let's hope it gets published.
Heh, well, maybe if they put more sex into video games, all those kids would instead decide they want to make love, not war :)
There's a line from Latin Quarter's "America for beginners" that's more in reference to right-wing politics, but it fits pretty well here -
I've been playing role-playing games since I was 11 (D&D, AD&D, Runequest, MERP, Traveller, etc..). I can't say I've ever tried to translate those fantasies into reality. Because these are social games, I know a *lot* of other people who play them. Not any one of those people has turned out to be a non-productive member of society... Some now work for the M.O.D, some for NASA, some in government, some in companies, some are lawyers, the list goes on... I would say I know (personally) well over 70 people who role-play. All of them are model citizens.
Perhaps the vigilantes ought to choose a different fight... For every perceived problem ("violence in games"), there is a solution ("ban them") that is simple, obvious and wrong. (With apologies to whomever's quote I've just mangled).
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Kids doing bad things is nothing new. //end tin foil hat
I knew people who shot at cars with BB guns and threw rocks and snowballs at buses many years before GTA existed. As far as I'm concerned, make ready the tin foil hat, all the hype about GTA being the direct cause of those violent actions was a publicity stunt part of someone's plan for a big class-action lawsuit against video games, then the politicians got involved and the media circus.
It probably started with a parent or random person in some small town in the middle of no where blaming a kid's "bad" behavior on a video game(GTA), lame excuse for 'kids will be kids' to a local reporter during a slow news week. Then the comment got picked by another station/paper and got put on the AP wire and the story got loose. And somewhere it was accepted as truth and became popular and used by kids trying to get off easy for something they did, having nothing to do with the game. This could be something for Mythbusters or Penn & Teller
I can remember sitting around playing Goldeneye on random weekend nights after a couple hours of playing football or whiffle ball in the middle of the street. I'm sure playing that FPS kept us off the streets and out of trouble at night.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
...And youth violence has been on a steady and significant decline since about 1997. Around when the PlayStation 1 launched, coincidentally.
Check it out here.
Of course, you can use statistics to say anything you want... unless the figures are as obvious as they are here. Difficult to tweak for that daily anti-GTA propaganda : /
......violent crime is at all time lows, though you wouldn't know that by watching the U.S. media.
Unless, of course, Mario throwing a turtle shell at his enemies is violent.
Frankly, at 23, I don't care whether a game is violent or not. Unfortunately, a lot of others do. If it isn't violent, or filled with sex, it's not "mature" for them.
I've had this discussion with a lot of people, who say games like Mario are only for kids. Since when is violence necessary for a fun game? Looking through my library of 26 gamecube games, the most violent one is probably Metroid Prime... but that's a sci fi game where you're fighting aliens. Unless aliens invade the Earth, I don't think that's going to inspire kids to become violent.
So, even though I've been against censorship in video games my entire life, I now realize... is it really necessary?
...and they're directed at the politicians who focus on the hot topic of the month instead of the important issues.
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children -- Never gets old, especially when said in that whiny Mrs. Lovejoy voice
Back in the "old days" it was the Waltz, then there was the Tango, the Charleston and then...
1950s OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS OVER, Rock and Roll... our children are being corrupted
1960s OH MY GOD, ELVIS is such a good boy, but those BEATLES
1970s TV is KILLING my Children
1980s HORROR MOVIES are KILLING my Children
1990s NIVARNA are forcing Children to top themselves
And of course now its Video Games which are forcing Children into a life of violence.
This is just another great "Aunt Sally" for politicians and "academics" to debate and get money from. If it wasn't this they'd be battering on at Cartoons for glorifying violence (there is nothing in Doom III worse than the violence of Tom and Jerry or Roadrunner). The young are ALWAYS being corrupted in the minds of the elders, and what corrupted them in their youth is now seen as innocent.
And have you noticed... its always the over 40s who start wars... something must be making them do it.... I blame mugs of hot chocolate.
And lets not forget when Marge banned "Itchy and Scratchy"
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Can't we solve this debate using rigorous scientific methods?
* Expose the test group to violent videogames.
* Expose the control group to non-violent videogames
* Compel both subject groups to commit a series of brutal murders
* Autopsy the brains of both subject groups.
The answer should be right there, in the brain autopies.
-kgj
-kgj
I'm not saying some games don't lead to aggression, but I am saying the data are not there yet.
I'm not saying that apparant plant growth is caused by invisible gnomes that rip up all the plants in the world every few seconds and replace them with slightly larger ones when you aren't looking, but I am saying that the data are not there yet.
before they even existed?
Video games make an excellent scapegoat - they are a modern-day babysitter these days, and someone's gotta be the fall guy for the goals of a bunch of random beaurcrats.
The key is - you have to know more than whether or not someone plays a violent video game to know if they go whacko and shoot up a classroom. There are a TON of other variables - whether or not they were bullied, their home situations, mental and psychological history - these and many others all play a big factor into whether or not violence results.
But it's a lot easier to attack video games and censor them "for the children" then it is to explore other reasons why the violence occurs
My MythTV HowTo
I can't help feeling that there's something of a contradiction here...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Well, it's always been my understanding that the inferences one gains about sampled populations using statistical methods are fairly rock solid. The "statistics" themselves cannot be distorted.
What is frequently distorted, however, is the pollster's and/or news organization's reporting on what qualities of those populations were actually being tasted. Studies can also be methodologically flawed. In political polling or sociological research, for example, researchers will ask leading questions, getting an answer they wouldn't have if they'd used more nuetral wording
One day I'll get my hands on the person who started this debate and KILL THEM!
Get your Unix fortune now!
...and in Europe their TV has lots of playful nudity, but they are very anti-violence, whereas here we have lots of violent stuff on basic cable, but no nudity...
Still you have Japan which has lots of both and even erotic adult cartoons, yet their crime rates are lower...and their suicide rates are higher
So what does it prove? Absolutely nothing. Come on people, think! Art reflects culture, our culture does not rise from art.
If violent games and porn are high selling items, it is because our culture wants it. Could pushing such media make people want it more? Maybe, but that doesn't change that is it because the culture brings it about.
If we really want to stop violent crimes, hate, etc, we need to attack the real problems. Attacking video games, art, etc. is a way to push the focus away from the real problems because its much much easier to boycot a game then try to give low income families the support they need to put their kids through college and pay their medical bills.
I'm sorry - is it that
Violence (in the Video Games Debate) Continues to Rage
or that
the Violence-In-Video-Games Debate Continues to Rage
Either the scientists are trading blows (now that's a story!)
or it's business as usual.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
War in Iraq by the world's most dangerous and illiterate "leader" .
Remember, friends don't let friends vote Redubyacan.
Thanks in advance,
K. Trout, C.E.O.
[grin] perhaps... The lady I'm thinking of is Queens Council. Perhaps barrister would have been a better term.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Okay, but what can they do? With the first admendment in place all they can seemingly do is pressure retailers? I'm sorry, but with the most violent games getting the best sales can this really effect the market long term?
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
Sheila: Time's have changed
Our kids are kids are getting worse
They wont obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!
Sharon: Should we blame the government?
Liane: Or blame society?
Dads: Or should we blame the images on TV?
Sheila: No, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their beady little eyes
And flappin heads so full of lies
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Ok, I won't any farther with these lyrics but I am sick of these distracting campaines. What's Next on the calender? Meth? Rock Music, Dancing? Pool Halls? Bowling?
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Well, duh. Of course he is. You have seen the title of the site, yes ? "News for Nerds", all single-syllable words, you ought to be able to understand them...
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that calling someone a 'nerd' is somehow derogatory... That may be true in the schoolyard my fine redneck friend, but once your balls have dropped, it's pretty useful! We get all the great (as in: fun) jobs, we get paid *really* well, we drive flash cars, and live in beautiful houses. Life is good.
Still, I'm sure there's *some* job satisfaction in clearing away in the greasy-spoon cafe. Enjoy your pitiful lifestyle as best you can.
I can't remember who it's from, famous mathematician, who said, "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
A corrolation in data doesn't mean causation. Even an 80% corolation isn't enough to say A causes B. And even if you get 98%, you still haven't explained why.
Honestly, I do agree that violence (not sex) in games AND IN FILM does highten our appathy toward violence in life. And not just in kids, I think kids are really no more malliable than adults in this case, but it's the adults doing the study, and they want their violent TV, so whatever.
But I think the more pressing concern is the fact that American video game companies are profitting off the bigger issue, one we seem to refuse to look in the eye: that our society is completely infatuated with voilence, and to the point where children would rather spend their money on a game that's violent as apposed to one that's not. GTAIII was, if I remember correctly, the best selling game in the US, outsellng The Sims and Myst (the two next best selling games at the time). THAT'S something to be alarmed at, the fact that people are screaming for it, not that it's available.
We always blame the Media and Entertainment industries when all they're doing is giving us what we want. Our first mistake is in our thought-processes behind the blaming of enetertainment. We only get worried, and start making acqusations, after a person has crossed the threshhold and committed a violent act, and then we hide behind a curtin with claims like, but I can distinguish fantasy from reality”. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. These are NOT copy-cat crimes, these are not adults and children who are dillusional about reality. These are children who are being told by everyone in their lives: from the things they see on TV, from the other children they see beat up in school, from their parants fighting, even from the the rising tension due to polarized politics in our country (children aren't stupid), from ALL of these things, it's no wonder they get the impression that violence is just a way of life, because to a certain extent, in our country, IT IS.
Let's quit with all the studies being used to put the blame on everything but our own violent lifestyles, it just allows people to project their own problems on everything else. America has the highest crime rate of any fully industrialized nation, these games are marketted everywhere (and usually flop), as is hollywood, so it's time to wake up, and face the reality that it's our way of life that's causing the problems, and not our entertainment.
When Mommy get's a big SUV because it makes her “feel” more secure, and Daddy buys a pistol because he feels he needs to protect his family from the outside world, little Billy's gonna get the impression that fear is a healthy, normal part of life.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Well, then what about sports - i.e. football, lacrosse, hockey. They all involve hitting people, fairly hard too. I can think of many more high school/college jocks that beat up people, than other people who were playing vid games. Let's ban football - oh wait, that would be "unAmerican".
..........FULL STOP.
Basically they are saying, since we know that violent media inspires violence, and video games are media then violent video games must inspire violence.
This seems to be the actual document they are all referring to http://www.apa.org/releases/resolutiononvideoviole nce.pdf
Quantum Physics a.k.a. sub-molecular statistics
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Comes after therefore caused by.
A common fallacy in many, many arenas, not just this one.
Studies such as these forget to examine other factors, such as "are violent kids more likely to play violent games?", and "are there violent kids who get their aggressions out through video games?", and "what in the kids upbringing or social situation could contribute to their violent behaviour?", and "do calm and non violent kids get violent or aggressive after playing the games?", and most importantly "what is the responsibility of the parents in each situation?"
I grew up watching violent movies. Did it make me a violent person? No, quite the opposite. I detest violence. Why? Because I had a mother who actually gave a shit. She cared about what I was watching, and always made a point to tell me that it wasn't real, that it was make-believe, and that there was always someone behind the camera. She also made a point of telling me that violence didn't solve any problems, and she even made me watch movies that showed the effect of war and violence on people, such as In Cold Blood and The Deer Hunter.
If violence in video games and movies was the real cause, we should be able to compare the amount of violence in the US with that of another country and see a direct correlation with the rate of violent crimes. In Japan, movies and games are far more violent than they are here in the US. Yet the rate of violent crime is dramatically lower, and gun violence is only a tiny fraction of what it is here.
Anyone who points to video games and movies and says 'this is the cause' has not only failed to do their homework, they've completely lost sight of the issue and are just looking for an easy scape-goat.
-- This sig for rent.
cause if I didn't have video games I'd be bombing oil rich countries...
Actually, from what I've experienced in real-life, LOSING in a game makes people go ballistic for a moment (not VIOLENT, but 'louder' and so on).
:) because I couldn't pass a level in logic and platform games ("Another World" being a good example :), etc. Coworker broke a keyboard because he couldn't beat my record in Minesweeper.
Hell, I've destroyed joysticks and keyboards (Kempstons, if I remember correctly - ah old Amiga days
What's violent in those games?
I had a "heated debate" with my girlfriend about the subject of computer games and children this evening. Before you ask, we are not married (we don't even live together) and we don't have children. She is vehemently opposed to children using computers at home, even though I am trying to tell her that there are benefits. She feels that to many kids are sat in front of their Playstation playing games when they could be playing more interactively with other children.
The problem is with games like San Andreas, who could blame her for thinking in this way? Far too much publicity is placed on "Action" games where the consequences of you actions are not felt, and the press is to blame for both glamorising and complaining about violent games. Perhaps if the games were not prompted at all, then there would be little interest in them, as they would not be seen as cool.
The problem is that consumerism as taken away the right of childhood. These days everybody must have the right clothes, gadgets, vehicles, food etc... and they are being targeted at a younger audience than ever before. It is no wonder then that children now take to violent computer games, especially as there is a lot more violence on TV.
Some people would like to "Blame it on the Parents", but in many respects that is only part of the problem. The problem is that peer pressure (from other children) has a far greater impact, especially if some of the children are bombarded with hours of endless junk on TV. As a child, you want to feel belonging, especially at school, and if one child starts telling all the other children about some thing have seen/possess/played/eaten, then there is a good chance that other children will want to follow. The popular Cartoon Series "South Park" (which is definitely for adults) and "The Simpsons" have had episodes which have shown this problem of children copying children, and has anybody taken the slightest bit of notice of their observations of children at play?
The bottom line is that it is all too easy to blame a single factor for the problems in society. Yes I think that the Hot Coffee mod in San Andreas is very very sad, and is aimed at young teenage lads that need to be dealing with their problems and not venting them out in computer games and on other people.
Can anybody please tell me if there is anything good about using computers these days? Nothing was this violent in the days of the Sinclair Spectrum and Commodore 64 back in the 1980's (except I suppose for the odd alien being blasted).
Well, I WIIL TELL YOU BUNCH OF JERKS!!!! I play QUKAE and I DO NOT GET ANNOYEWD OR wOUND UP! IT's GOT NOTHING tO DO WITH COMPUTER GMAERS!! HUH...
Maybe violent videogames make kids violent, I don't know.
But what about movies/series/cartoons? there is way too much violence in them. You have to reach pre-school cartoons to find non-violent stuff. I know because I have a 3 year-old nephew, and I've seen lots of cartoons lately, out of curiocity.
And even if movies/series/cartoons do not portrait violence, they are very stressful. They are very fast, with very sharp images and cameras changing rapidly, so rapidly in fast as to induce vomiting. The same goes for video clips: I can barely see the faces of the dancers anymore.
What is the message to our children from letting violent and stupid stuff like Power Rangers free on air, while we condemn video games? I'll tell you what it is: hypocricy. The young people see that they are allowed to see a violent movie, even a gruesome one, but grownups have second thoughts for videogames.
It's not a good sign.
So lets ban it.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Well, it's from german-bash.org, actually:
<Lorien> I think I'll defragment my harddrive, throw away all my cds and install The Mickey Mouse Club, Teletubbies, Pokemon etc. on my PC. Then I'm gonna run amok. That'll give them psychologist something to think about!
... but these studies never have a valid control group.
Here's a hint: the control group shouldn't just consist of kids that aren't playing video games. It should consist of kids that are playing dodgeball, football, and "Cowboys and Indians." Otherwise, you aren't proving a damned thing because you can't differentiate play in general from play that happens to involve a CRT.
Basically, these studies fall into the category of studies that prove that studies without alarming findings don't lead to further research grants. Just more junk science. Move along, nothing to see here.
Fox News meteorologist:
Whats the debate for? It doesn't matter if it increases aggressiveness or not. Freedom of speech includes this one, so screw off. Even if it turns out it DOES increase aggressiveness...there's NO WAY it can possibly increase aggressiveness as much as highschool football or any other competition. I hate these people!
Well, there's me feeling a fool. Just the other day I saw someone I didn't like the look of and tried to cast Magic Missile at them...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I play Quake3 once in a while, mainly for stress relief. If I'm working on writing some program and I get struck and frustrated with some problem I can't seem to overcome, I usually launch quake a frag a few bots for 5-10 minutes, then go back to work. It normally works wonders.
I suspect some people here may be using such video games for similar purposes, but violent games producing violent behavior is pretty ridiculous; if it does exist I would expect (study or not) that it's minimal.
... got this reaction to videogames, doesn't mean anyone else will.
Not to troll, as there are people who are just more prone to freak out (read: take M16 to schoolcamp) on minor things.
This could be inspired by videogames, but could also be inspired by the sadness of a family loss (a soldier, perhaps?), an article in the newspaper, or something on TV.
Is it just to protect a minority of people (that do this kind of thing) against a minority of possible causes (videogames) that the industry should be involved in this ?? Then we better censor ourselves in the brains not to talk about violence, stop making guns, etc. etc.
Not hoping that we don't, but realistically: have another cookie.
From Acts of Gord, The Book of Annoyances, Ch. 23:
"We would like a quote for the front page of the newspaper talking about videogame violence, and it's possible impact on society."
"Video games don't make people more violent, and I'll kill anyone who disagrees."
<dramatic pause>
"I don't think we can print that."
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
'exposure to violence in video games increases aggressive thoughts, aggressive behavior and angry feelings among YOUTH.'
^^^^^
Last time I checked the M stood for 17+
My own anecdotal experience:
My fourteen-year-old son normally is so mild-mannered that he objects to my killing a fly or a spider and has even cried when it's time to throw out the Christmas tree because he feels sad for it.
But let him play Metroid Prime for a few minutes and it makes him so frustrated that he will lash out and smack or kick his sisters if they get too close. After time to calm down, though, he usually becomes mild-mannered again.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
which is cost me $.05 says that the parents are the root cause. Now speaking of media using the violent video game ride. A few weeks ago in Vancouver there was a fight in a pool hall where a younger male was killed by a bunch of masked guys. The Province had a write up on this and in the write up they mantion that the pool hall also has Vary Violent games and named them. On their website they didnt mention this but only in theri paper edition. Well I guess video games are a no no but watching grusome wars on news tv is ok. And we all know that hatered towards anybody who looked liek and Arab didnt rise after 911 and Iraq.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
It's a new resolution from the APA. Here's the link to the pdf of the resolution: http://www.apa.org/releases/resolutiononvideoviole nce.pdf
If you take a look you will see that much of the research cited was related to aggressive behavior and Television.
To summarize:
Link between agressive behavior and television (not video games)
Link between child development and media (not video games or electronic media except Singer 2005 - it's mostly television)
Link between aggressive thoughts and violent media (half Television and half Video Games - but Anderson's research is not new)
Lack of "Punishment" for violent actions in media (Television only)
Link between video games and agressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, decreased helpful behavior, and increased physio arousal (Anderson - not new and *only* Anderson et. al. studies cited)
The cited studies of video gaming sexualized violence are video game specific
The other citations are to support general learning theory / repetition arguments - but not citing specific experimental findings unless arleady noted above.
Their last point (before resolving that video games are teh evil) is that "studies on media literacy demonstrate when children are taught to view television critically... there is a reduction of television viewing... a clearer understanding of messages... children feel less frightened... can learn to distinguish between fantasy and reality... and can identify less with aggressive characters"
Questions: Since this isn't new research (just a new resolution from the APA)...
1) Why didn't they make the same resolutions for all violent media (including television)?
Is it because the rating system is failing in terms of video games? Would that fix it? Is the APA making a public policy recommendation because there is some need (current policy is broken for this specific media)? That is, the media is no worse, it's just that the safeguards in place don't work as well as others (TV, Movies)?
2) Why make this resolution now?
If there is no new research and much of the research relates to television? Could some recent events be behind it?
Nobody's surprised, nobody said they were surprised, nobody appears surprised, and the only purpose your post serves is to let people chain onto your post to get their posts in front of the moderators. Hope you're happy.
The violence in society is not the result of violence in vidoe games, it is unfortunately the inspiration of violence in video games.
I see more violence and destruction on the evening news than in video games. I live just outside NYC, probably the same in&near every urban area. Everyday there's coverage about someone getting shot, stabbed, mugged, store or home robbed or burned, someone shooting a cop or getting shot while attacking the police, etc. In the 1920s in Chicago there were drive-bys with full automatic weapons.
How about a GTA: Chicago 1920s, a historical fiction where you take orders the likes of Al Capone and other mob bosses. Or GTB(oat) where your a modern day pirate seizing ships in the seas off Southeast Asia.
The best way to have violence in video games and not attract attention is to not have it in (almost)real places in the current time period. Liberty City is NYC, Vice City is Miami and San Andreas is LA and they've all happened in the last 20yrs. There's nothing wrong with massacring thousands of Covenant Aliens, but don't shoot humans when playing a human character.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
For those with a brain who like to read the original sources instead of the popular media's hack job of the summaries here are (I think) the two opposing studies.
Dmitri Williams (University of Illinois, Urbana)
"Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an Online Game" Communication Monographs Vol. 72, No. 2, June 2005, pp.217-233, (this is a pdf) which says there's no link
AND in the other Corner
Well, no one paper, actually. The APA "Committee on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media" appearently did a metastudy of several papers on the topic and come up with a resolution (pdf) and press release. At the end of the resolution is a bib of the papers taken into consideration. I certainly don't care enough to plow through all those - but William's paper isn't in the bib. I suspect there was lots of group thought going in that committee -lots of the papers were written by members of the committee.
I suspect that you can't make a blanket statement on video games. Folks with a predisposition for violence might be pushed over the edge to real life violent acts from habitual video play; whereas there are, I'm sure, many more level-headed people who understand this is all fantasy and escapism and can easily dissociate the video playing with real life. At least I hope so. Otherwise you all better run away from me. Fast.
What is the message to our children from letting violent and stupid stuff like Power Rangers free on air, while we condemn video games? I'll tell you what it is: hypocricy. The young people see that they are allowed to see a violent movie, even a gruesome one, but grownups have second thoughts for videogames.
And let's not forget the six o'clock news...
"Scientists says that video games cause violence and parents are calling for a ban on video games. Now, we bring you gruesome video footage of the war in Iraq!"
Is this you?
;)
Couldn't help it since it's the next thread down.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Yes, somebody should do a study on the parents of the kids who commit crimes that are supposedly caused by video games. Everybody here knows that already. This guy gets a 5 Insightful? Please!
I have done a six-sigma green belt course as part of my job in the aerospace industry. I have also recently read the book "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.
What the course and the book have both taught me is that statistics are not politically correct and do not meet up with some kind of moral background. These are useful tools in finding a root cause to a problem by predicting an outcome based on data that has already been captured. Understanding statistics is really not that difficult, the problem is that it isn't normally taught to a level that gives an appreciation on the subject, and people let themselves go blind by being scared of the maths.
When somebody comes up with the figure that says xx% of people are likely to die of new fangled method of dying, I will always question whether the data is correct as there does not appear to be any supporting data. The statistic might actually relate to people dying by fangled new method of dying in the next 100 years, a fact that is probably utterly meaningless unless you think you are going to live that long. Until you have the full information, you don't really know what you are looking at, and even then you need to understand how data analysis is carried out.
A corrolation in data doesn't mean causation. Even an 80% corolation isn't enough to say A causes B. And even if you get 98%, you still haven't explained why.
Apparently there is a pretty good correlation between the stock market and how high womens skirts hemlines are. The higher the hemlines, the better the market.
No one is stating that that one causes the other, but it is thought that the emotions behind a lower stockmarket cause more conservative wear to be worn.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
There is no way that showing violent acts without consequences teaches youth that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict because a resolved conflict would be a consequence.
Perhaps the vigilantes ought to choose a different fight... For every perceived problem ("violence in games"), there is a solution ("ban them") that is simple, obvious and wrong. (With apologies to whomever's quote I've just mangled).
For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. - H. L. Mencken
I have a refrigerator magnet of this quote I keep at my cubicle at work.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
This opinion piece applies the term "object oriented parenting" to denounce many of the points in the study. Everything may not be as agreeable, but it was a fun and enticing read.
is wet... Let's face it the most violent things in video games was a yellow ball eating blue ghosts and a giant monkey throwing barrels at an Italian plumber!
Certainly *some* people in the US government are all in favor of *some* videogames increasing American youth's aggressive behavior, interest in violence, alignment with one side in conflicts and belief that the other side is evil and should be killed....
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Of course the finding of the study is not appreciated by most of the slashdot readers, because most of you play violent games and do not want to feel 'accused' (because you want to feel ok and righteous). However it's true nonetheless.
Videogames do not promote violence. They are a safe outlet for violence. Divert your pent-up anger into dumb machines instead of other people.
And if somebody is the kind of person who would kill another person? His brain was most likely broken long before he touched a videogame. Maybe the videogame pushed him over the edge - but it could just as easily have been a violent movie, or a bad relationship, or somebody denting his car.
There are a few people who are broken, and there are a LOT of people who play videogames. Statistically, of course there's gonna be overlap. But I side with Bruce Schneier; generally, as long as it's still newsworthy, it's not worth worrying about. Stuff that happens so often it doesn't make the news, stuff like automobile fatalities: that's the stuff you need to start worrying about.
qntm.org
I haven't RTFSed (read the f'ing study), but I am strongly inclined to believe that they're correlating two things but drawing a false conclusion about their relation.
The most likely explanation is that the teenagers who tend to play games like GTA are more likely to be in a mindset anyway. Wimpy pacifist teenagers like me are more likely to play Pacman or Tetris. (Though the former arguably encourages violence against tiny bitmapped ghosts, it isn't particularly graphic.)
If someone told me to play GTA for a while, I probably wouldn't enjoy it, because I don't like violence. It certainly would not make me into a violent person. I'm not suggesting that everyone who plays these games is already predisposed toward violence, but most likely, a statistically larger portion of them are so than the general population. And that would fully explain this correlation.
Signature.
when i played army as a young kid and would pretend shoot all my friends - OH WAIT ITS THE SAME THING! morons that thing video games change anything need to be the victim of some violent crime of their own.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
My favorite was one I studied in my Probability I class sophomore year -- the same logic used to show that "marijuana is a gateway drug" (in actuality the statistics show that "people using marijuana are more likely to do "harder" drugs) can be used to show "water is a gateway drug" (people drinking water are more likely to do "harder drugs" than those who don't drink water). Classic example of confusing causation and correlation.
Excellent. I'm going to start day trading tomorrow. You should too...
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions. Evan Esar (1899 - 1995), Esar's Comic Dictionary It's very true. I'm sick of statistics, and I'm sick of these people trying to blame video games for what kids do. There's this whole psychology that everyone has in the modern age where "people aren't bad, it's just what happens to them that MAKES them do bad stuff". Well people are bad, and they would do these things regardless of what games they play. It is even said in the Bible, "it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out". I'm pretty sure that youth have been acting up since the beginning of time.
I have found that exposure to politicians increases aggressive thoughts, aggressive behavior and angry feelings along with substantial loss of mass in my wallet.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Perhaps these people should look at themselves.
The morality clubs of America using the disguise of Christian think or politically correct, have done more harm to America in lives and consequence, then any war or natural disaster in our history.
A public service would be done by... errr nothing
Is there any reason these studies are conducted other than because of the existence of certain socialist lawyers who are itching to start frivolous lawsuits?
--at the push of a button --replay it can make you feel like some GI JOE while sitting in the confines of your basement. I bet most of the gamers haven't seen the real world from outside. I've sailed for 9 years. I've had a bazooka pointed at my face at point blank range while in sleep. I've been in fights. And I'll tell you, I don't wan't any of that to be replayed. Motto: Techno blood spalshing tastes a lot different than that ferrous taste in your mouth when you're punched right in your face.
Java Oracle Linux Enthusiast
I haven't played many violent games in years. I prefer stuff like Mr Driller.
It does make me want to throw breaks around and go apeshit with a pneumatic drill... which is a big problem to the guys digging holes to fix the sewers outside my house.......
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I once saw a drawing of a man jamming a screw driver into his skull, shabbily written by a 10 year old kid. Then I read a story about a man who jammed a screw driver into his skull. Finally I actually saw a man jamming a screw driver into his own skull - in person. Would you say that all the three experiences had equal effects on me? Would you say that eating a mushroom in 2d super mario, playing D&D and chasing and shooting a real looking person at 1280x1024 resolution have the same effect on a person?
Another note: the study, that said video games do not cause violence, made people play an MMORPG, Asheron's Call 2. I haven't played it myself, but I'm assuming it's not completely like an FPS.
In other news, General Francisco Franco is still dead. News at 11.
A guy walks into a bar... well, I forgot the joke, but the punchline is that he's an alcoholic.
Ok, if I accept that , then can I apply it equally to politics?
'exposure to violence in politics increases aggressive thoughts, aggressive behavior and angry feelings among youth.'
Actually, AFAIK, the "nerds" become wage workers desperately in search of a new job every week or so to keep themselves from looking anorexic, whereas the "jocks" do MBA, get the high paying management jobs and continue to boss around the "nerds" - but only now the "nerds" can't complain to the teacher or the parents. Thats how it works, man, ask any slashdotter about "survival of the fittest".
That study was trying to link violence using ASHRON'S CALL 2????
Ok, I'm sorry, but that's just silly. Do the same test with Quake, and see if you have the same result.
ahh all these priceless gems so easily blaming movies and games..
where were these games and movies during the roman empire and all the violence associated with that period...
i guess hitler mustve loved doom 3 too back in the day...
ridiculous..
These sorts of studies are great - one big problem is that they don't apply to everyone. Some kids are affected by the violence in video games, and some are not. It should be up the parents to decide if they should ban their children from playing video games. The problem is that parents aren't doing this so now we have to suck on the teet of the government to help us decide what is right and what is wrong.
For the three of you who don't know, the Army game is particularly bad on that last point, because you're _always_ playing as the Army.
There are several reasons I can think of to explain why this was done. What would the public/Congress/Army higher-ups think of a game made by the U.S. Army wherein where you can be rewarded for killing U.S. Army soldiers? On the game level, there're also balance issues and some realism concerns (do the Bad Guys organize their forces exactly the same as the US? do they need to model that behavior?), but it's predominantly the first effect, I think.
The side effect, of course, is that no matter what you're doing, you're doing it for the Army, and you're always in the right.
There's a little "indecency" moral trigger that most people have in them. Most people trigger on violence, vomit, porn, that sort of thing. The trigger for nudity is pretty clear, while in a hockey match the trigger for violence is muddled.
Imagine kids playing, let's say, Magic: The Gathering in the streets, and a big, bloody brawl breaks out. Most people would probably call the cops in that case. What about on a basketball court? Probably the cops would be called. Hockey match? I guess not.
Now imagine in any of those situations some kid running around naked in the middle of it all. Independent of the violence, some people will see the naked kid and a their little trigger will slam home right away--genitals + butt - clothing = indecency. That's the kind of math that anyone can do.
In Destruction Derby, a game for PS1 that was pretty popular, the best way to rack up points was to T-bone someone in the front or back of their car and the announcer screams,"Threeeeee six teeeee.". You normally didn't have much time to veer your car into the proper angle while you were going fill speed, so the decision was one of opprotunity. You see the stimuli, then you immediately react. Well I played the game for 6 or 8 hours straight and was driving home. Anyway someone was backing out of their driveway and the first thing that went through my head was,"If I tag him right on his bumper, he'll do a 360! Wait I'm driving for real."
God spoke to me.
How complicated does this have to be?
After a few hours of SA, I want to move back to Cali so I have some decent scenery around which to ride my bicycle (like the computing museum).
THEY ARE FSCKING BULLSHIT.
Every one of thousands of sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and psychiatrists who have dedicated their careers to doing such studies have created utter crap. They write these things to get out of doing real work.
Most Child "Psychologists" never even meet real children. They write theories and apply for research grants from other dimwits who think these studies will change something. If your not willing to get your hands dirty actually solving the problems of one child then you should go get a job in a 7/11 and stop wasting everybody's time.
This is all part of the cycle of 'I don't care about you kid' in the school, programs, Mega Churches, FOX NEWS, CPS, and foster homes. Kids turn bad because they don't feel wanted. And everybody in the argument has as much to blame has a pimp or crack dealer using kids to make money. I see little difference, except the pimp or dealer is a bit more honest.
However, claims about the so called youth problem is way out of proportion. As the band Suicidal Tendencies advises (I am paraphrasing), Give the kid a freaking Pepsi and let him figure it out for himself.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Obvously you have not been reading Your Onion Lately.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
violence it just makes me so angry that I want to turn off GTA: 3, put down my controller and punch them in the head!
I mean really, where's the god damn corrolation?
But he and Skoric concede that other types of games and contexts might have negative impacts. 'This game featured fantasy violence, while others featuring outer space or even everyday urban violence may yield different outcomes.'
Outer space violence may yield different outcomes? Yeah, I guess kids could be influenced to steal the space shuttle with their phasers.
At least it's good to know, that social "scientists" have proven WoW won't make me stand in my front yard for weeks at a time killing bugs and bunnies.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
I think you're trying to make a counterpoint to my argument, but I'm not sure because you seem to be making my point exactly. There *is* a world of difference between actually experiencing someone jabbing a screwdriver into their skull, than having some 2nd-hand experience of it via some character when you know it's not real.
If you think the difference between a RPG and a FPS game are significant, you're a little behind the times my friend, at least as regards this discussion. Most RPG's now are full 3D immersive worlds. For a pointer to how this one looks
Let me ask you this: if (while you're playing a RPG or FPS game), I say "I'll give you $1000 (real cash) if you make your guy jump off that cliff and die", would you do it ? Well perhaps you would and perhaps you wouldn't, I guess it depends on your character and where you are in the game. If, however, I take you to the top of the Empire State Building and offer you the same cash to jump off (payable afterwards, of course), I very much doubt you would jump.
So, you can make the distinction between harm in a game to a character (which is just a software construct) and harm to yourself. If you can't make the same distinction between the software construct and harm to another, it is a more fundamental problem with your personality than anything to do with video games.
I *really* wish I'd written this before, I think it sums up everything.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
I see more violence on mainstream tv than I do in video games. There are violent movies. Violent movies that can provoke a person just as much as a video game can.
If you read through the press release, we find that the lit review is presented by "Jessica Nicoll, B.A., and Kevin M. Kieffer, Ph.D., of Saint Leo University." Those in academia know that it is kind of unusual for a prof to collaborate on a paper with an undergrad. Looking at his webpage I didn't see any paper that seem remotely close to violence or media effects stuff. THe press release says they are from St. Leo, so a search of their website finds that on April 21, 2005 Jessica Nicoll gave a paper called "Violence in Video Games: A Review of the Empirical Literature" (page looks like ass in Firefox). That panel was chaired by Dr. Kevin Kieffer. So, unless the paper underwent serious revision between then and when it was given at the APA, this is really Jessica Nicoll's paper.
That's right, this paper that is getting a press release and all sorts of media attention is the work of an undergrad. While it is wrong to judge the quality of the paper without having read it, it seems safe to say that *gasp* just maybe this is being blown out of porportion a little bit...
This seems especially true when WebMD quotes Kieffer as saying ...none of which sounds all that groundbreaking to me and pretty tame.
Furthermore, this post links to the APA's "Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media." If you look at the press release about that resolution you will see that at the bottom is states: As this post points out, If you look at the resolution's references we see 3 papers authors by Elizabeth Carll, 4 by Dorothy Singer, 6 by Craig Anderson, 5 by Brad Bushman, and 2 by Karen Dill. OF all the people on the committee, Lilli Friedland is the only one that has not listed as a reference for the ill effects of videogames. One more cynical than I might think that these people have an agenda or something... (And this doesn't even mention that they start the resolution stating, "...decades of social science research reveals the strong influence of televised violence on the aggressive behavior of children and youth.." as if were a given fact that too much tv makes you violent.)
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Hey, maybe its total lack of parental involvement, no parents at home, parents working longer, value shift towards material goods, increased stress in everyones lives and increased competition all across the board? no, its the fucking video games apparently. Just like it was the rock music and the "talkies"
How can people be so stupid. Islamic terrorism? religious extremism @ home? rampant corporate evil, gov't corruption? These are nothing. Ignorance will be our undoing.
BRING BACK THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS. DEATH TO STUPID PEOPLE.
It doesn't really matter whether or not violent video games lead to aggression. It is not the governments job to be the parent to the nations children.
Games have a clearly marked label on them that tells what age they are appropriate for. I understand that once kids reach a certain age, they cannot be watched all the time. However, if parents get involved with what their kids are doing, support their children in a loving environment, and show the necessary dicipline when required, then ninty-nine percent of the time, any influence that a video game may have will be cancelled out.
If Hillary Clinton, and Jack Thompson, and every other person out there who feels the need to point fingers at the video game industry really want to accomplish something, then they should direct their efforts to educating the public on what it takes to be a parent, instead of wasting taxpayer money on useless legislation.
funny thing is, the violent video games never brought out those feelings in me, it was usually the (non-violent) puzzle type games that required a specific sequence of 25+ movements/actions or you would have to start over again from the very beginning that would increase my aggressive thoughts and angry feelings, especially when a mistake was made at the end of the puzzle and I would have to start again through the whole thing again.
So, I wondered what the hell you were on about until I hit the 'parent' link...
Man, you need to get yourself a better *quality* of nerd - at risk of seeming to *be* the AC, my position is close to his/hers. You need to show some management skills, and become a lead on a team, then move on up into technical management - there's loads of companies (I work at one) which promote technical people into technical management via an Architect position. Two or three years at that, and you're looking at a directorship, then a VP position. All of this presupposes you're capable, of course...
The crucial thing is to find the right company, and to bargain like hell when you first join - that's one of the few times when they haven't got all the cards. You know your worth (or you should) and if your idea doesn't match with theirs, either accept and put up with it, or move on. If you keep on moving on, perhaps it's time to lower your expectations, but so far *I* have bargained and won. It's expensive (in terms of time for personnel) for a company to hire... In the past I've asked for 1.5x the initial salary offer, and settled for 1.3x with some additional perks...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
You can find a study proving just about anything you want to if you look hard enough. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
It is instructive to read some of the actual studies on which these conclusions are based. Every one I've looked at has been utter garbage. The most common errors are:
1) No proper control. Games are exciting. So if you are looking for a specific effect of games, you need to control for nonspecific effects of general excitement. It is fairly obvious how to do this--you need another stimulus, perhaps a film of a sporting even that is equally exciting, and you have to verify that the control stimulus is indeed equally exciting, say by measuring change in pulse rate.
2) Conflating aggression with violence. Violence is often associated with aggression, but aggression is not violence. One can be verbally aggressive, for example. In circumstances--a sporting event for example, or a lawyer making a case--a certain amount of properly channeled aggression is appropriate and advantageous. So studies that measure aggression rather than violence are meaningless. It is crucial to verify that the method of evaluation is able to distinguish between aggression and violence.
3) Confusing rough play with violence. Fantasy play may involve miming of violent actions, but it can be distinguished from real violence in that serious injuries are rare. A common error is to characterize play as violent, even when there is no clear intent to cause harm. Scoring of actions as "violent" must be carried out by observers who are "blind" as to whether the subjects were exposed to the video game stimulus or the control stimulus (see #1).
None of this is rocket science--just obvious, minimal criteria for a valid study. Amazingly, most of the studies that I have read do not meet even these minimum standards.
Do sports (American football, ice hockey, rugby, soccer, etc) increase aggressive thoughts and actions?? Of course they do. But you don't read articles about the evils of sports. What a load of horse shit.
Go and drive on the freeway at 80 miles an hour for a couple hours, then get off on to city streets. See if you aren't tempted to speed. Normally, you drive around at 35 and it seems reasonable, after doing those speeds for a long time it seems like you are crawling.
So people get aggressive when playing videogames. GEE GOLLY WIZ BEAVE... Who would have thought that when you're playing a GAME, you become aggressive? Apparently not the sciencetists.
;)
And who the fuck are the Who the Fuck are the American Psychological Assosiation? Who do they represent? Who funded the study? My friends and I can call each other the "American Patriotic Institute of violent and Aggressive Studies" and then i can release some bullshit statement as well.
Lets save the world a whole lot of money and lay it out for everyone to see...
Football is aggressive.
Skateboarding is aggressive
Inline Skating is aggressive
Baseball is aggressive
Basketball is aggressive
Driving is aggressive
Swiming is aggressive
Racing is aggressive
Playing poker is aggressive
Hockey is aggressive
Tennis is aggressive
GOLF is aggressive, YES EVEN FUCKING GOLF.
Politics is aggressive
Argueing is aggressive
Fighting is aggressive
Excersizing is aggressive
Rugby is aggressive
Soccer is aggressive
Field hockey is aggressive
Boat racing is aggressive
Flying planes is aggressive
RC cars are aggressive
Guns are aggressive
Music is aggressive
BEING A FUCKING MALE is aggressive
BOO FUCKING HOO world... Aggressiveness is a part of life. It's what fucking formed capitalism along with greed.
It's what GOT US TO TEH FUCKING MOON.
ITS WHAT FUELS OUR EXISTANCE AS HUMANS. We strive to better ourselves than we currently are, and to do so... we must be aggressive. That is the nature of a GAME. The nature of a game is to strive to out perform the opponent, that means to better yourself.
Yes... it takes aggressiveness.
Dam bible thumpers and the uptight mothers of the world. We're men, we play hard, we build buildings that reach the sky, and we build space ships that go to fucking Mars.
And yes... we play videogames and any of the other many aggressive activities... AND THAT INCLUDES FUCKING OUR UPTIGHT WIFES!
Study this!
Find most violent city.
Map with violent crimes pin pointed in red dots.
Map with drug crimes pin pointed in black dots.
Map with video game console population indicated by shade.
Map with population in poverty indicated by shade.
I suggest someone does this, puts it in image format, and then links to it everytime someone tries to claim that video games cause violence. Perhaps something like:
Video games cause violence?
Pictures.
Shut the fuck up.
Then everytime this argument gets brought up we have a single link deal closer to make our argument for us.
Doesn't that make Americans more ignorant? Yes, Americans were already pretty ignorant before Fox News, but boy look at 'em now!
They see some natural animal sexual reproductive behaviors as wrong, but hey, it's ok to have automatic weapons and destruction?
Maybe hippies will come back in style, as a backlash against all the high tech violence.
]]] Peace - the greatest weapon against totalitarian facists. [[[
It would be nice if the linked article or the AP summary it cites related any of the actual facts of the APA study. Here's their own assessment.
Here's the APA press release which provides some instructive details.
To summarize: two studies. First study, they interview a bunch of college kids. In a nutshell they found a statistical correlation between playing violent video games and a measurement of "trait aggressiveness" as well as actual aggressive behavior. All the usual issues of advocacy research here: they ignore whether video games cause their definition of aggression or vice versa, or if both are increased simultaneously in individuals by another unknown factor. Or if self-reporting of aggressive behavior and thoughts might be greater in video game players for some unknown reason. The question of what kind of bias might exist in the metrics developed is wide open as well.
Second study - hell, this one is such a beauty I'll just give you the quote:
In the second study, 210 college students played either a violent (Wolfenstein 3D) or nonviolent video game (Myst). A short time later, the students who played the violent video game punished an opponent (received a noise blast with varying intensity) for a longer period of time than did students who had played the nonviolent video game.
Invite a person to engage in an artificial act of aggression against a person with whom they have been placed in an adversarial relationship (the subject is described as an "opponent") immediately after engaging in: scenario A, an intrinsically adversarial game, scenario B, an artistic, environment-centered puzzle-solving game. Clearly, the video game has made this person aggressive.
The bias the APA shows in presenting these two studies side by side is a totally separate line of fruitful inference. But I imagine there's good money in generating garbage research like this in this hysterical age.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I played a game as a youngster in which the main character savagely EATS his nemesis down to nothing but his EYES! I learned that this is the best way to deal with a nemesis.
The game was Pac Man, by the way.
People seem more than willing to ignore the sudden rise in 'pwnage' and 'l33tism' which is an even more disturbing trend, IMO!
I halfway suspect that you are trolling with that inaccurate information. Sure, it is a Bad Idea for young people to play a game like GTA, but it isn't against any law.
There is no law or ban against 5-year-old kids playing GTA. The game industry has a policy in place that says that the stores won't sell to kids who aren't old enough for the rating, but it is self-enforced.
And obviously if you weigh the risk-benefit for the store (losing a sale if they follow the policy or possibly making some parents angry) they should be breaking the rule with impunity.
Movie ratings work the same way.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
You are absolutely right... I didn't drop out of high school because I was bored. I was depressed, not getting dinner, lunch and breakfast regularly, my mom was throwing wild parties with people my age, giving blow jobs in front of me, and begging me to get drunk, have sex with her coworkers, and smoke some pot. It had nothing to do with the fact I played DOOM on my pc. Hell I think DOOM helped me get anger out on virtual people instead of real ones! (yes i got a ged and later an associates degree, got married an live sort of normal now) It only took getting away from my mother!
I still enjoy a game of Enemy territory and WoW from time to time.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
Welcome to slashdot! Where nobody reads the article, because that would interfer in first prost bragging rights. However on the other hand, it's likely a Dupe anyway so we may have already read/argued about it anyway.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Most Child "Psychologists" never even meet real children.
This is totally untrue. I am not a child psychologist, but I do have an advanced degree in Psychology and I know many child therapists and researchers in the field and they have all met children before.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
The APA did not release any new research, whatsoever pertaining to electronic games and violence. If you read their own press release, it is quite clear that the APA adopted a resolution based on previous research by others.
Remember the classic line
:)
Guns don't kill people
People kill people
Don't hide behind a video game because you can't seem to teach your child right from wrong, reality from fantasy, and good people skills.
PS: ironically, the simpsons episode where Maggie hits Homer with a mallet was on a couple nights ago
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
I aimed my controller at a young kid and mashed my buttons at him violently.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Wasn't it aggressive thinking that built the Verranzano Narrows bridge and the Empire State Building?
tone
I believe the GP was using a type of speech known as "hyperbole." It would have been much more comforting if you had said of your child psychologist friends "they work with children frequently," rather than simply informing us that they had, at one time or another, seen one of these mythical small people.
When moderating, assume I have not yet had my coffee.
On the General stores "Thumbtack Message Board" "Recent study suggests link between playing the games of "Cops & Robbers" and "Cowboys & Indians" leads to violence in your children, confiscate your kids cap guns today!!!"
It might just be the increasingly stressful environment that today's youth are subject to, where they can look forward to having to find work in a depressed economy, dealing with inflation as gas prices continue to soar (and thus drive transportation costs up, which increases the cost of ALL goods), or having the next 10 to 20 years to enjoy a war which we didn't need and can't afford to enjoy?
Add onto that the fact that today's youth have very few role models to look up to, and lots of people telling them they can't state their opinions because it isn't politically correct.
And let's not forget that one of the new non-destructive outlets they have, playing video games, is now under seige as well.
Answer me this... if kids can't kill things in video games to work off their aggression, do you honestly believe they'll become placid, malleable little zombies that society can mold into productive worker drones? I doubt it.
Kids don't form gangs to beat people up... they form gangs to relieve boredom and give themselves a sense of self-worth. Right now, many of them are in online gangs (called guilds) in MMORPG's... if you stop that, they'll switch to real-life gangs. Then instead of raiding the elf n00b zone and killing people, they'll hang around town and break stuff, or bully people.
Why is it, every time the issue of psychological gaming violence on our youths is raised the majority of the responses are finger pointing? Don't you realize that when you attempt to shift the focus of a problem all you really do is establish an evasive response? Which only shows the lack of a sound argument. The possibilities of violent behavior directly linked to the impact video games are having on our growing youth is a serious issue to all who are in a position to care. Whether we like it or not, subjecting young developing minds to a barrage of emotional and visual patterns of violence over time does promote the development of neighboring psychological dependencies. Taking the fact that most adolescents lack the necessary experience and development to make sound decisions for themselves, this leaves the responsibility of our governing adults to intervene and do whats best to protect the younger generations. I sincerely doubt that scaling back video game violence will harm anyone. There seems to be infinite headroom in the video game industry to maintain an interactive entertaining game-play without riding on the message that shooting peoples heads off is entertainment.
I have a lot of questions. Here's the top three I can think of off the top of my head:
--Were the control and experimental groups properly established? By that I mean did they measure a basline for the children's behaviour, then have some of them play games and see how their behaviour differed? If not, there's no evidence of causation, it might be that naturally more violent kids like games like that, and they have no effect on their behaviour.
--Provide context on the "physical altercations" and "arguments". Did the kids actively seek out violent encounters, or are they simply more assertive, and unwilling to let other trample on them? Many children are bullied and simply meekly accept it.
--What kind of home life do these kids live? That they play violent video games may imply parents with poor parenting skills, as most games of that type are rated for 17 and up. Was any testing done to control for or examine the effect of home life?
The point is that one study does not prove a theory, it doesn't even come close. I'll bet you if I had a copy of the study, I could point out severe flaws in their methodology. They managed to find a correlation, how strong of one who knows, that doesn't mean anything. The person that stred this little subthread was pointing out that there is a very large negative correlation, that of youth violent crime and the rise of video game popularity.
You seem to be commiting the common fallacy of finding a study that supports your view, and assuming that proves it true. That's not at all the case. In science we don't prove thing true, we show that they are very likely not false through a long series of tests. We test alternate hypothesis, and each time we falsify one, we become more certian our hypothesis is true.
To find a simple correlation is only the very first step. That just lets us know that there might be something worth looking at, that our theory isn't mere speculation. Once we've found that, it's a long road of testing to ensure that our hypothesis really is the correct explanation of what is happening.
Sir Humphrey: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.
[survey two]
Sir Humphrey: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
[does a double-take]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, however, there is.
Make sure you are paying attention to what people are saying. "exposure to violence in video games increases aggressive thoughts..." Sure, violent games increase violent thoughts. You have to think about killing a player before you do it.
However, aggressive thought does not always equal aggressive behavior. How many times have you thought about hurting someone but did not? Maybe teens today can control their aggressive thoughts and restrain themselves better then those of the past. Thoughts != Actions
What's more, many of them were once children themselves!
I've been playing video games now for over 20 years. I have never been in a fight, attacked anyone, abused animals, etc... Why is it that video games become the scape goat? Is it because parents cannot accept the fact that they failed at raising their child so they must place blame elsewhere? Why is it that 16 and 14 year old children take shotguns from their parents houses, go up to a hillside, fire upon passing traffic, kill two motorists in the process, and it's GTA's fault? Maybe those kids should've had 1) better adult intervention and supervision, 2) a better grasp on reality, 3) if they don't understand reality, then maybe psycho-therapy should have been sought, 4) not having such readily available firearms in the house, 5) an ass-whipping once in a while to teach them right from wrong. But like I said, it's the video games' fault. Because I always imitate what I see in video games. Just the other day I thought my town had turned into zombies and I was the only survivor. Oh wait, I was passing by a George Bush rally, guess it really did happen.
Even then, you can actually string together something that at least looks (semi)intelligent as an explanation.
E.g., the UK produces more games and sells more copies than the USA. That's a bit surprising, but it's a fact. So one could explain it as, basically, with the rise in video game popularity, more money were earned from games, which meant bigger budgets for games (again, it's a fact: a game today has a much bigger budget than in '95), which means more people employed in the game industry.
So while video games obviously can't account for _all_ the jobs created in that interval, they did however create a few of those.
The "games cause violence" can't even show that kind of effect. You'd expect to see _some_ correlation before proclaiming causation like they do.
Unlike game employment in the UK, with games we're talking a major population segment. There _millions_ of people playing games, and increasing each year. We're talking some tens of millions of current-generation game consoles alone sold in the USA, so a _major_ segment of their youth has at least one of those. Even poorer people have those: a recent study linked-to on Slashdot said that blacks and hispanics actually play more.
So if such a large segment of the population, maybe even the majority, were subject to such a constant pressure towards violence, I'd expect to see _some_ correlation. Maybe not a nation-wide increase, but ffs, then show me something else, like that areas/groups who play more showed less of a decline in violence.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
you all got it wrong - it's INTELLIGENT RISING, silly. such a majestic event could not just happen by itself. tsk tsk tsk. when will you people see the light? /ducks for cover
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
My own questions are:
1. Which kind of physical altercations? No, seriously. There is a _major_ difference between being the aggressor and the victim.
Children get bullied for being "nerds" and "dorks" every day. So any study that just takes a blanket "involved in physical altercations" category, is from the start including the victims in that category.
Can you really say that games made someone violent, when they were the one beat up? By WTF of a definition of becoming violent? "Yeah, he violently had his face in front of someone's fist."
2. In the rare cases when a nerd does attack, in how many cases they were in fact provoked? Because that's the more common link that the politicians love to ignore: someone was tormented every day, and finally _that_ is what made them snap and fight back.
E.g., Columbine, as an extreme case, was not just a case of two happy kids that just got corrupted by video games and turned into killers. We're talking people who got bullied day after day, into desperation and beyond. And they finally snapped. Happens to non-gaming adults too: you give someone continuous stress, they eventually snap. Look up "postal" on wikipedia someday.
So if you bully someone every day, and they finally fight back, by WTF of a definition it's the games alone that caused that?
3. Arguing with "authority figures" instead of being sheep is already a different category, so I'm not even sure by WTF of a stretch of the meaning it's lumped together with "violence". Disobedience is quite different from beating someone up.
4. On the "autority figures" topic again: what is the cause and what is the effect there?
Because for example a common group that's having problems with authority figures _and_ with bullies, which is what gets them often bullied, are Asperger's Syndrome sufferers. The inability to distinguish body language can get one in all sorts of trouble of exactly that kind.
Incidentally Asperger's Syndrom also makes one more likely to like computers instead. Either programming or video games, stuff that's on a computer tends to be stuff that you can do/play on logic alone.
So what is the cause and what is the effect there? Are games _really_ the cause there, or are we talking two different effects of autism. Until they actually separate those in a different category, for a segment of their study they're basically pulling a "A => B and A => C, therefore B => C".
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
just pisses me off and makes me want to hurt people after I play Counter-Strike Source!
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
Have these folks forgotten free will? Having violent thoughts is not the same as being violent. They're seperated by a conscious ethical choice. These "morality advocates" are in fact trying to circumvent morality at all.
... for just proving the point of that article.
Grandmaster of the Revolutionary Order of the Forty-Two Fish
There are many possible factors that would result in same behavior how did they exectly isolate video games? Coming from statistical background I see absolutly no way to structure a valid study on this subject.
VPS hosting Guide
One is about violent feelings, the other about violent behaviour.
The two results don't contradict eachother, combined they merely state "Violent games cause violent feelings which do not turn into violent behaviour".
Anything conclusion based on these two studies other than the above is mere speculation.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
From TFA:
" "Research indicates exposure to violence in video games increases aggressive thoughts, aggressive behavior and angry feelings among youth, the association said in a statement issued Wednesday. In addition, the APA statement said, this exposure reduces helpful behavior and increases physiological arousal in children and adolescents. "
So:
A) While they might have measured _some_ correlation (more about that later), what they present it as is causation. Sorry, there's no other way to read that.
It doesn't say "we found some correlation between violence in school and the fact that some people involved were playing games." It goes on and on about how it _makes_ you violent, makes you think violent thoughts (although even as a correlation, that appears nowhere in their actual study), makes you refuse to help other people, teaches you that violence is _the_ solution, teaches you that violence doesn't have consequences, etc. That's all one big lump that's presented as a clear cut cause-effect issue, not just as a correlation to base future studies on.
B) Even as a correlation, they just didn't measure that, any way you want to slice it.
If you look at what they measured, it's not even measuring one variable, it's lumping together such disparate issues as being an aggressor, being a _victim_, and questioning authority. E.g., if you're a gaming nerd and a jock (who doesn't play games) beats you up in school, congrats, according to them you're part of the "games cause violence" sample.
The whole thing is a textbook example of a Verbal Fallacy: they switch between two very different meanings of "violence". They use one definition in their sample (basically "any kind of physical conflict"), and another definition in their conclusion (basically "aggressor"). _And_ if that wasn't enough, they include stuff in the sample that doesn't fit either one.
"In any event, that variable could interact in that it enabled the relationship or made the relationship stronger, but it cannot somehow unmake this correlation as some people seem to think."
Again, you miss some points:
1) Again, it was presented as causation, not correlation. They presented it as: games _make_ you violent, less helpful, etc. And that can very well be "unmade", if another issue is the dominant cause.
2) In fact there isn't even that much to "unmake", since there was no "make" to start with. They haven't made a point, they just took a big leap of faith that isn't supported by _any_ logic or data. So there isn't anything to "unmake".
Even if I was to accept that correlation (although it's bullshit anyway), from there to the causation they present, it's just one big leap of faith. There's a whole big pile of work to be done in between finding a correlation between A and B, and concluding that A _causes_ B. Work which involves precisely separating all those other variables and their own influence on the measured result.
It's the kind of leap of faith like starting from "I've noticed a correlation between being thin and tall and being a maths nerd" (hey, that's the kind of maths nerds I've met in school), and extrapolating that going on a diet will improve your maths grades. Sorry, no. There is nothing to "unmake" there, since the whole "make" part between that correlation and the conclusion is just completely missing.
"So why bother doing studies at all?"
Definitely not to take them as more than just that: one correlational study, which says nothing about cause-effect. The study does raise some questions and can serve as a base for further studies on the topic, yes. But that's about it. It's not something that's become the One Truth, to be carved in stone, and that noone should dare question.
"This study presumably was peer reviewed, by the way."
I'd be interested by whom. The tobacco companies "there's no correlation between smoking and lung diseases" stud
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Violent games reduces youth crime by giving the players an out-let for there negative urges in the same way porn can releave sexual fustration.
On a side note if you do not want your childred play unsuitable games/watching unsuitble video then please exercise your perental rights and not buy/confiscate them from your childred. (okay I'm not a parent ect, ect but I was raised well)
Alot of people today seem to be scared of acting the bad guy with there kids and I think this is leading to some of the issues we face; Many parents will not spank there kids and will try to negotiate with them, now there is nothing worng with this at first but eventualy a line must be draw elivating parents above children (we are not equal and kids need to be set certain boundries) and a swift slap on the backside/back of the legs is an effective way of controlling an unruly kid (worked on me and my brother and my friends).
So wehn tring to enforce the law and they are kicking up merry hell because you've said GTA is not suitable for a 6 year old draw the line and say NO!
Finaly keep talking to your children so that you can gauge where they are in terms of development you may find that they are ready for such things befor they are at the age the box says and read the games magaziens too they are a useful insight.
This is TW, Guildford -England sigining off, gods bless.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
Disclaimer: This post too is backed by nothing more than my unqualified opinion.
"Football just happens to attract alpha males who have inferiority complexes and decide to take out their aggression on others to hide that complex."
I won't disaggree with that assessment, because it closely mirrors my observations in computer games. Games based on conflict and aggression tend to attract a lot more people who are, basically, aggressive.
E.g., going from CS to Sega's Phantasy Star Online (a strictly coop game) on the Dreamcast, or later revisiting UO's strictly non-PK facets after they were re-introduced, was like going to a whole different world. It's not just that it wasn't the same "ur a faggot" crowd, that people were really _nice_.
I've had perfect strangers stop by and lend my newbie character their magic sword on UO so I can finish an ogre I was fighting, or taking my newbie character to their castle so I can get water from their fountain to bake bread. The "going above and beyond the call of duty to help a total stranger" kind of nice. (I guess I see why PK-ers call us "carebears", and wth, I'll wear that badge with pride.)
Still, football does attract a _lot_ of assholes. And I mean also among the most rabid fans, not just among the players. A football player might be a hard-working athlete who supports charities, but a thousand of his fans will go beat someone up (e.g., their wives) to either celebrate a victory or to vent frustration for a defeat.
Presumably because it's _based_ on conflict, and tries to hype its fans like for a war. E.g., my brother was remarking a couple of months ago about how here they use the word "kampf", i.e., "fight", for any football event. They don't say "team A _played_ a _game_ against team B", they say quite literally "team A _fought_ team B". And that's just one of the combat metaphors used. Some days, if you deleted all names, it would be hard to tell if you're reading about a football game or another offensive in Iraq.
I'm not saying that all football fans are assholes, nor that football made them so. But if you took an already violent and complexed guy, chances are he'll be more attracted to football than to, say, chess.
So basically correlation could be made between football and violence, that's vastly better than the one between video games and violence. Yet noone tries to ban football.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Because that too was the subject of a "waah, think of the CHILDREN" bullshit, complete with government investigations and all, long before Rock and Roll, horror movies, D&D, and now games got the end of that exact same stick.
Thing is, back then most people didn't even believe that comic-books were to blame. They had a survey which already pretty much told you what the surveyor wants to hear (a known factor in getting skewed results: people tend to give the answers that they subconsciously think you'd like.) And in this case they wanted to hear, among other things, which juvenile crimes can you blame on comics, if you try really hard to make a connection.
Yet about 60% felt that there was no link, and about 70% that regulating comics would have no effect on crime.
Not that something like that would stop a bullshit politician from making even more noise about it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
...nobody wants to face the fact that the United States is an extremely brutal society. Yes, we have a "democracy": but it is built on violent revolution against a colonial power, native genocide, slavery, civil war, subjugation of third world laborers, blah blah...
Big deal, a kid "wastes another ho" in a fantasy world and suffers no legal consequences. Another old lady has a heart attack when NYPD bursts into the wrong apartment (again) and throws a flash-bang grenade. A family is blown to bits by a smart bomb somewhere near the Caspian Basin Oil reserves. Another homeless person dies on the street and no one notices.
Moral of the story: Violence is a fundamental aspect of our culture, it permeates our media, entertainment, government, and our psyches.
The main reason people choose to focus on the violence in video games is that there is no "justification" for the violent acts in the games, it is seen as "gratuitous". Whereas bombing civilian populations into submission, bulldozing people to their deaths in their own homes, and torturing people and confining them in cages are generally acceptable violence because a sophisticated media system justifies and legitimates it. Brazil!
Studies like this just piss me off.
www.beyond7.com www.staplebenchcomputers.com
-FL
Remember in the USA we are prudes so that violence isn't so bad, but nudity, damn, call the cops! You got to help the childern!
-Xen
It would interest me to know how many parents are really the utter zombies I seem to see around at the mall. Just basic checks getting at "Are you making conscious choices at ALL?" might show a shocking level of apathy. (Apathy like that in, oh, American voters?)
My 12-year-old boy/girl twins both play video games, and I'm pretty attentive about which ones but I'm cool with that. I'm also pretty easygoing about half of what gets an R rating for movies -- the kids see little violence, but skin I think they are familiar with seeing as how they have some, so that doesn't bother me as much. The basic deal is that you have to be making conscious choices about what to expose your kids to.
The advocacy groups who object most vociferously to video games aren't about those conscious choices at all. They're about arbitrary standards, imposed by some sort of body of authority. I don't trust that impulse a bit.
The question has never been "Can stuff kids play with affect their attitudes toward the world?" Duh, yes it can. The question is whether video games are somehow the pervasive, destructive influence that luddites and a weird mixture of nannystaters and "social conservatives" think they are. Or are they just a form of media that parents need to keep an eye on, like -- duh again -- everything else including TV? I'm a reasonable parent, and personally I think MTV (for one example) is a much more corrosive presence in kids' lives. It's a nakedly brazen front for all things consumerist and sexist. Video games don't have nearly the same cultural weight behind them. Where game writers are mostly just trying to make a buck building something fun, advertizers are actively, consciously doing everything they can to exploit my kids and brainwash them to spend a lifetime thinking about nothing but products and money. There are whole academic fields -- "advertizing psychology" -- in support of that effort.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Your ironic turnaround would make so much more sense if that initial debate about "whether or not parents should take some responsibility" was really taking place.
And I mean a real debate about, for example, the effects of an economy that essentially requires two working parents on our children. I'm no "social conservative" and it seems to me the only people who're bringing that up just now are the fundies, who obviously have their own ideological axes to grind and who are more interested in manipulating people's anxieties than in allaying them.
If Americans are especially conscious of how parenting has changed in just my lifetime, I think they're trying not to admit it to themselves. If anything they're pushing their anxieties about the changes into red herrings like "video games are responsible for all our problems."
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Additionally I am certain some of this violent ACTIONS are linked to the lack of parents putting their kids in check. Case in point, that 'sweet 16' show on MTV. It shows 15-to-be-16 year olds having massively extravagant (to the tune of $80,000+) birthday parties. These kids are all massively aggressive, which is just fueled by their parents bowing to ever whim of the kid. One girl waxed about how much fun it was to have "power over" her classmates by dangling an invitation in front of them. It seems the lack of direction or understanding the rules of normal civilization allow kids to act with out care for consequences.
Cause and effect are great to teach, but if you don't stress effect modifies (read: consequences), then the kid will pick which effect causes the greatest self satisfaction.
I sprung fully formed from the forehead of my thesis advisor, you insensitive clod!
Most studies done on violence and video games support the conclusion that violent video games can increase aggressive behavior in children and adolescents, especially boys, researchers said on Friday.
...
...
...
...
"The majority of the studies would suggest there are effects," said Jessica Nicoll of Saint Leo University in Saint Leo, Florida, who worked on the study.
the economist's cover story on the 06aug05 issue talked about the earlier illinois study. it's a good read -- sounds a lot more confident in its speech and a little less like someone's over dramatizing a weak case. And who exactly is this lady that says the studies "would suggest" that there are effects? and what did she do while "working on the study"? spelling and grammar checking? did she print it out? or is she some kind of licensed professional that actually studied something?!
One study showed that children who played a violent game for less than 10 minutes and then took a mood assessment test rated themselves with aggressive traits and aggressive actions shortly after playing.
now that's some convincing facts! these kids rated themselves?! and what were the doctors doing? oh! they were probably on their way to the bank w/ their checks from whoever asked them to rig up this study!
i could continue quoting this article and questioning its accuracy and worth, but i think i'm preaching to the choir. so i'll wrap it up: if you boil down this article to the only thing that sounds solid, you get one line:
The APA also encourages parents, educators and health care providers to help youth make more informed choices
which we should all be doing for our children anyway, shouldn't we?
i'm a father and a gamer from back in the day. i will always play games w/ my kids, and i will always talk to them about what's right, what's wrong, what's real, and what's not. the same goes for the tv and movies they watch, the books they read, and the music they listen to. i'm involved in their lives! go figure!
that violent video games have no effect on anybody, but then I would have to accept that nobody is affected by the violent rhetoric coming from the politicians and religious radicals either. Or that people will always follow their leaders' examples despite all the fancy philosophy.
What?
"at least, I would have, until you asked me to prove that the rest of the universe didn't rotate around the earth. wow.. just. wow. I presume you realize the earth isn't flat, and not on top of a pile of turtles all the way down, right?"
;-)
;-).
;-)
;-p
;-)
My apologies - my hypothetical scenario wasn't intended as solipsism, but as a serious philosophical/scientific point. Oh, ok, and out-pedanting the pedant
"we can prove the earth revolves around the sun (as opposed to the other way around) fairly conclusively based on seasonal weather patterns"
I don't mean to sound patronising, but I don't think you understand the basic idea.
Basically, according to special relativity perfectly uniform motion in a uniform direction is experimentally indistinguishable from standing still - no additional forcess are acting on you. As long as everything is moving at the same rate as you, there's no way to prove if you're moving at all. Likewise, even if everything appears to be moving, there's no way to tell you aren't static with regards to a greater reference-frame.
The usual example given is if you travelled (eg, in a plane) around the earth's equator against the direction of earth's rotation at exactly the speed it revolves. If you measure yourself relative to the ground, you're moving at about 1038 miles per hour. Measure yourself relative to the sun (a wider reference-frame), and you're basically standing still.
(Ok, there are some complications in practice due to things like the earth's precession, its rotational velocity compared to its orbital velocity and the earth's imperfectly-spherical shape, but you get the idea.)
Likewise, although earth appears to be moving relative to everything we can see, it's entirely possible that (allowing for a reference frame greater than the universe) we're actually the oly thing in it that's truly stationary (relative to that frame).
As I said, I'm not seriously suggesting that that's really the case, but it's a fall-out possibility from special relativity that it's impossible to disprove (well, without looking outside the universe, and even then there might be a larger reference frame containing that
Given that, I was out-pedanting you by proving you couldn't know the earth was moving and the sun wasn't, since you couldn't prove the entire universe wasn't moving in such a way that the earth was the only truly static thing in it. Of course, this presupposes there is a greater reference frame relative to which the earth could be said to be static, but since you'd made the assertion all I had to do was disprove it, not offer a disprovable hypothesis myself
"*but* of course, this is a discussion about videogame violence, and not a flamewar on astrophysics, so i'm going to shut up now. hopefully, you'll take my initial snarky concept as it was intended, and get back onto the subject at hand"
Again, my apologies - I wasn't reading this as a flamewar, more an amusing intellectual sparring match between pedants. Actually, I was quite enjoying it
" that can be easily summarized in one brief phrase: Jack Thompson is an opportunistic asshole."
Indeed. On that, there's no disagreement
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
Well, yeah, I'd like to hope most child psychologists have been to a zoo, amusement park, etc. Though...all the screaming children might affect their proposed treatments somewhat...
...seeing soldiers all over the world kill each other leads to more violent thoughts...
Mmmmmmm... autopies.
Like floor pie, but in a car.
-kgj
-kgj
...until it proves something you don't want to hear, then suddenly all studies are flawed and all science is bullshit.
It doesn't help to have the people who like games get defensive about the reality that 20 years of research has proven, over and over again. No one is disputing that movies and TV have similar effects--that's been proven, too--and no one is saying that there aren't other ways to become violent as well. (Studies of abused children and children who live in violence-filled neighborhood have shown this.)
Gamers should be coming out to say, "Duh, that's why we have a rating system. That's why we encourage parents to get involved" rather than, "No, our cigarettes don't cause cancer like the rest of them!"
This is from someone who works in the game industry and loves GTA just as much as everyone else does.
What are you, some sort of AC astroturf poster in support of the next Zorro sequel?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
wanna try for three?
As a parent of 3 children who all play violent video games with me on our LAN, I have some first hand knowledge of this subject...
I review all games before letting my children play them, if I deem it appropriate I let them play...
I would say from my "studies" of their behavior first hand, I don't think it's the games making kids violent, if anything it is an outlet for them to develop problem solving skills within the confines of the tools the games allow them to use.
Meaning, the only thing they are learning is how to interact within the game using the game's rules for the world it represents.. they definitely understand while it might work out fine to hit someone with a bat and steal their car in GTA3, it definitely doesn't work in the real world...
The reason they can understand the difference is because if they do this in a game they get a free car, if they try and do this around my house they get a smack on their butt and a free vivist to their room for the rest of the night, it's called parenting, which is sadly seemly lacking nowadays (asi constantly see when at the mall or at a movie).
So sense in the game they are able to see there is a cause an effect at work, they are able to apply this to real life and observe the same effect, even though the outcomes might be different (games vs real life) the principal is the same.
The other day this really hit home, as my children sat at the dinner table, one of my kids took the last dinner roll, instead of immediately being stabbed in the eye (which would have had a real world consequence) the other child complained to a authority figure (me) seeking resolution.
Later that night, one of my children did not respect the 10 minute no rushing agreement in our game of starcraft, this was soon dealt with by the offended child quiting the game for breaking the agreement and a subsequent building of a fort in the bedroom with a "no brothers allowed" notice on the outside of the fort instead of a bat upside the head as these studies would have you believe (turtling and then a massive build up of protoss carriers would have also been acceptable IMO).
So in both cases the resulting method of dealing with a problem was dealt with within the rules that are defined in both worlds.