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.'"

Comments

How about a study on the parents?

[bobsacks]

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.

Re:How about a study on the parents?

[nwbvt]

Yeah, whenever someone blames parents for the crimes their kids commit, they point their fingers at the video game industry. A debate on whether or not parents should take some responsibility turns into a rant about video games and music and violent movies. Whats up with that? I mean supporters of video games would never try to turn the discussion on the impact of video games into a debate on whether or not parents should be blamed.

What were we talking about again?

Re:How about a study on the parents?

[bigmouth_strikes]

> kids who commit crimes that are supposedly caused by video games

I guess you were in such a hurry for an early post that you forgot to read the article... It doesn't have anything to say about crimes "supposedly" caused by video games. It deals with how violent video games make players more violent. Regardless of their parents.

Re:How about a study on the parents?

[neo]

Freakonomics does a pretty interesting job of explaining crime rates and a direct connection to parental investment.

Basically if you wanted the kid and care about them, they commit less crime than if you didn't want them or care about them.

Re:How about a study on the parents?

[Crixus]

How about a general study on family environments?

  I used to be a very angry person, but due to an unusual epiphany 3 years ago, I've learned to deal with it. But what this experience taught me is that there are a LOT of angry people in this country.

    I think a better study would try to get to the bottom of that. I saw a film that touched on this topic briefly a year or two ago, but didn't delve deeply enough.

    That being said however:

    Angry people are going to commit acts of violence whether there are video games or not.

    This sounds like another time when we're treating the symptom, and not the disease.

Re:How about a study on the parents?

[nomadic]

How about a general study on family environments?

Uhhh...huh? There are probably tens of thousands of such studies. There are entire journals dedicated to such studies. Thousands of sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and psychiatrists who have dedicated their careers to doing such studies. Why do you and everyone else here who has posted the same accusation assume that just because one study is about video games they all are?

Re:How about a study on the parents?

[ImaLamer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Windows

That is basically true (or suspected) across many boundaries. Hell, I've always known deep down that if people tell you they don't care about you and what you do - you'll never care about them either. And isn't that were violence happens? I had to do a report on school violence and found that as more was done to "lock down" a school the more violent the kids became. When given an old grandmother type to be a "security guard" the kids acted more respectfully and were more likely to discuss their problems instead of using violence.

I'd say that using video games (TV, movies, drugs) to placate your children makes them realize you don't care.

I shudder when I see how kids are being raised today (and I'm only 25!). How much has changed over the past 15-20 years? My mother would have never used TV or video games to keep me "entertained" even though we both enjoyed them together from time to time. I guess that is one reason I'm totally non-violent and never wish my enemies *real* harm (although in jest I've been known to "damn" a few people by name, politicans mostly).

Yes, they keep saying this.

[ucblockhead]

And it make sense, because it explains why the rise of videogames correlates with a drop in violence among teens.

Er...wait a minute...

Re:Yes, they keep saying this.

[Shky]

Does the U.S. Department of Justice count? Because it appears that youth crime has been declining since 1993. But I suppose I'm an amateur without knowledge of statistics...

Re:Yes, they keep saying this.

[MP3Chuck]

Correlation != Causation

Unemployment in the UK has been declining since 1995. Video games have been rising in popularity during those years too. So the rise in video games has caused a decline in unemployment.

Or not...

Re:Yes, they keep saying this.

[Sycraft-fu]

True, but you are commiting even a worse scientific error, trying to use that to prove the negative.

The theory was that violent video games lead youth to be more violent. Ok, fine, now generally the first step when trying to support a theory is to find stastical evidence, generally a correlation. So we know that video games are getting more popular, and that there are more graphic ones available. This is a simple stastical matter. Thus, if there was a causal link between kids playing these violent video games and being more violent, we'd expect to see an increase in youth violent crime.

Well we don't, in fact we see the opposite trend. Well guess what? If you can't even find a weak correlation to support your theory, your theory is probably wrong. This isn't proof positive it's wrong, of course, but it's a serious blow. If the games cause children to be more violent, why don't we see the stastical effect of it?

Remember: Generally the first step is to show a correlation, then you go on to perform more robust tests to prove causation. If there's not a correlation, then you are probably not going to find what you are looking for. To say that X causes Y when there's not even an indication that X and Y are related is taking a long step on a thin limb.

Re:Yes, they keep saying this.

[westlake]

So we know that video games are getting more popular, and that there are more graphic ones available. This is a simple stastical matter. Thus, if there was a causal link between kids playing these violent video games and being more violent, we'd expect to see an increase in youth violent crime.

The questions are anything but simple.

These sophisticated, visceral, video games which draw the player deep into street level violence and celebrate a gangster life-style are something new.

There is historically a tendency for americans to romanticize their criminal sub-cultures, and middle class kids can be among the most naive and suggestible.

The social divide between players and non-players of these games is deep and dangerous. Mrs Clinton is a centrist politician by american standards, with important consistencies and contacts in both the inner city and the suburbs. That ought to have been taken as a warning.

You can't look at these games as descendants of Doom or Half-Life, and I suspect you cannot even place them on the same plane as the morally ambiguous stealth shooters pioneered by Rouge Spear.

Re:Yes, they keep saying this.

[Shaper_pmp]

Not to go too far off-topic, but my favourite example of this is the arguement that marijuana is a "gateway drug".

The argument goes "almost every heroine addict started off smoking pot, so smoking pot leads to heroine addiction".

Next time you hear this, try swapping "smoking pot" with "drinking breastmilk", and get them to explain why breastmilk isn't a gateway to heroine addiction, homosexuality, violent crime and paedophilia.

Stats.

[Shky]

A further study, released some time ago, suggests that there are "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Re:Stats.

[badasscat]

A further study, released some time ago, suggests that there are "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Well, in this case, I'd say the study released today is closer to the truth than the study that it supposedly "contradicts", because this study is a study of studies. It's a look at the preponderence of evidence in all studies done up to this point.

It would be analogous to saying violent crime is down 10% this year, although this is "contradicted" by the fact that there was a murder just down the street last night. Well, no, there's nothing contradictory about that. That murder goes into the set of statistics that are then compared with the same set of statistics from last year. One does not contradict the other, because one is the whole truth and the other is just a part of the data.

The study that's being talked about today went back and examined the findings of all the studies done up to that point, and found that the vast majority of them indicated that violent games lead to an increase in aggression. They did note that "a few" said the opposite. The point is the prevailing view provided by all the research that's been done is that violent games do lead to increased aggression, irrespective of a few individual studies that came to different conclusions.

I know what people here want to believe, but at some point you have to look at it and say "well, 85 or 90% of all studies say one thing - doesn't that probably indicate that something's there?" I mean it seems like a stretch to suggest that all of the studies that indicate increased aggression were somehow flawed while all of those on the other side were not. There are probably flaws on both sides, but if you toss out the flawed studies the total result would likely be exactly the same.

Re:Stats.

[mahniart]

It's a resolution from a committee. The committee mostly referenced their own work (example, Anderson and Singer - heavily cited). Note how not one study that did not show an effect of exposure to video games on violence (or some other harmful factor) is cited. So not a true meta-analysis of the literature, and not unbiased.

Also, look carefully at the studies. A large portion of them are not specific to video games, they about television violence.

If you didn't think these academics (and the private practitioner) had an agenda, I'd say that would be naive... as they are citing their own research, mostly about television, applying it to video games (when it's mostly just Anderson and Dill's work that applies) to make a "statement".

You can't say this resolution that is selectively citing past research - only *some* of it related to video games (and most of that only from a few researchers) - is "closer to the truth" than another study. This is not new research - it is for another purpose.

With every study they do

[nlawalker]

...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.

Re:With every study they do

[Space cowboy]

I think you're missing the point - it's not that you ought to be keeping your kids away from pop culture or violence in games, or whatever. The point is you ought to be being parents! No-one said it was going to be easy...

*You* have a responsibility to raise your kids. It's *your* values that they will start with, if you can be arsed to get off your backside and teach them. Sure they'll rebel (it's part of growing up), but what is learned early is learned best. Give them freedom to choose their actions from an early age, and give them the consequences of their actions as well. That simple lesson is what is missing in most kids that have "gone off the rails".

Actually I think it's just as negligent to keep the kids away from bad influences (to a certain degree anyway). If you don't let them make mistakes when the consequences are small, they'll make the same mistake when the consequences are large, because they'll know no better.

It's a bit like when children grow up in antiseptic conditions - smothered by well-wishing parents, they never cut themselves, never get dirty, etc. They grow up with a significantly-impaired immune system, subject to allergies for the rest of their lives. The time put-aside by nature for "learning" things was wasted, and the nascent adult suffers because of it.

Simon.

Re:With every study they do

[fermion]

Which is the old simple pat answer, but now we know it is more complicated. Most children will be able to play violent video games with little negative effect, but some won't. Since such video games are everywhere, it makes little sense to forbid the child to play such games, unless one is going to create a entire environment in which the games are not present. If the family has a history of violence, or, if the child has experience and access to the tools that might allow him to kill 20 people in under an hour, it might be a good idea to monitor the child closely to insure that he knows that is a bad thing to do.

It is like alchohol. If the family drinks, and the child is going to be around people who drink, allowing that first drink to occur as some middle school party is probably counter productive. if the family has a histry of drug abuse, then the child should probably be taught strategies to overcome the situation. Some of it genetics.

So the parent not only has to make a decision about exposure, which must be made on broader terms than personal belief, but must use appropriate intervention strategies. It is really too much to expect of the average parent, which is why it is in societies interest to streamline the process.

Re:With every study they do

[Concerned Onlooker]

The point is you ought to be being parents! No-one said it was going to be easy...

In fact, it may not even be possible. Parents don't have as much control over their kids as most would like to believe. You can go on and on about how you need to instill good values in them, but then there's American Pop Culture coming at them from every angle, every day that probably has a much stronger influence than anything the parent's can dream up. Parents have been teemed up against by a slew of advertising and pop media that are constantly putting out the message that life is all about money, sex and power. And perhaps fearing that germs might reside in your toilet.

So no, no one said it was going to be easy to be a parent. They also never said the deck would be stacked against you either.

It probably does

[Monkelectric]

But can they prove that "agressive thoughts" are harmful? Porn increases "sexual thoughts". Could watchin Bill O'Reilly increase my "complete asshole thoughts?"

Yes everything you see and do influences you to some degree. Unless you're crazy to begin with, you won't act on them.

Re:It probably does

[uighur]

I completely agree. Being inundated with violent behavior through TV/video games could definatly increase violent thoughts. But until there is some link between video games and an increase in actual violence, I could care less.

Re:It probably does

[Avast Yee]

How do psychologists control studies like this? It seems to me that video games would score fairly low in influencing kids as opposed to being inundated with real-world violence. Example, from the article:

Showing violent acts without consequences teaches youth that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict.

Not to bring politics into this too much, but isn't that exactly the example that the President of the United States set, violence as an acceptable means to getting your way?

So, do the psychologists study violent behavior in a group that does not have access to violent games and then compare the levels of aggression between the two? I guess parents should grow some spines and set acceptable boundaries for their kids. Another poster said it right, study the parents and you'll find conclusive results.

Also from the article: Williams and Skoric also concede that because their study didn't concentrate solely on younger teenagers, 'we cannot say that teenagers might not experience different effects.'

Do psychologists ever come up with hard facts about behaviour, or are their careers built around speculating about what may or may not have an effect on people? All I ever see in the media is a group of psychologists publicly speculating on research that contradicts what another group spoke about last week.

Ill KILL the bastards!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If they try to take my violent video games away, i will throw barrels at them until they run out of lives!

Re:Sun continues to rise daily

[Gherald]

> Sun continues to rise daily, what else is new?

Ah, the old rise/set debate. Scientists continue to invistigate which happened first...

Makes sense to me

[nmoog]

After a couple of hours of GTA I always want to punch someone. And I'm a reasonable, dweeby, pacificist nerd.

Re:Makes sense to me

[Anne Thwacks]

I find that 2 minutes of watching a politician on TV makes me want to punch someone - generally, a politician. 10 minutes of watching politicians on TV makes me want to punch a whole government.

I'd like to see the actual study

[Pluvius]

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

Re:I'd like to see the actual study

[nwbvt]

"The American media is run by big business, so its intrinsic purpose is NOT to report news like in some places, or be a mouthpiece for the government in some other places. Its purpose is to make money, like all big businesses do, and they do it by reporting news and generating ad revenue."

Are you trying to imply that non-"big business" media outlets (like for instance /.) never sensationalize news?

Re:I'd like to see the actual study

[superyanthrax]

No, I'm not implying that. Everyone reporting news has his own agenda. For example, a totalitarian state will warp battle reports to seems like its army was winning great victories every day. Slashdot has its own agenda of promoting technology and "freedom" (this can apply in many senses so I'm leaving it in quotes), and so it may for example sensationalize stories of people getting prosecuted for IP/DRM violations. However, it is clear that the American media is driven by profit, so its reports will be sensationalized to make more money.

Re:I'd like to see the actual study

[ray-auch]

Kids ? GTA ?

GTA was never (even before someone found some sex in it) rated for kids (at least in US or UK).

So how the f*** would kids be playing it ?

Oh, right, they're breaking the law, and/or being looked after by adults who break the law. And they have more agressive thoughts than kids who don't. No shit. Next week news that kids who break the law also tend to have less respect for authority...

Maybe we should ban kids from playing these games. Oh, wait...

No, second thoughts, maybe we should ban "psychologists" from pretending to be scientific researchers if they don't understand that self-selecting case/control groups invalidates any statistical results.

aggressive thoughts?

[Blaaguuu]

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.

Re:aggressive thoughts?

[superpulpsicle]

You might very well have the best post here. That's true all the damn statistics think you stick with 1 thought until you go confess in church.

Statistics tell us exactly what they want them to

[thatedeguy]

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?

GTA and driving.

[neo]

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.

Re:GTA and driving.

[techno-vampire]

I've never played GTA, but I did play Carmageddon for a while and noted the same tendancy to want to crash into other cars if I got behind the wheel just after a game. It can take a few hours to let your habits go back to normal.

Re:GTA and driving.

[Apotsy]

Some coworkers and I used to play multiplayer Carmageddon after hours. One guy forced himself to go through a mandatory one hour "cooling off" period for that very reason.

Re:GTA and driving.

[mojotooth]

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.

I agree with the point of the parent. Just wanted to make a comment on the above statement. I also had a similar problem after a recent trip to a indoor go-kart track. It has nothing to do with video games, it's just an adjustment to your frame of reference. For that matter, sometimes after I've played only ice hockey and not roller hockey for a while, I'll get out on the ice and just about break an ankle trying to stop in a way that only works on ice. It's just that we have to adjust our frames of reference, which sometimes is difficult when the previous frame of reference is quite similar to our current one.

Make Love, not War!

[HRbnjR]

Heh, well, maybe if they put more sex into video games, all those kids would instead decide they want to make love, not war :)

Re:Make Love, not War!

[Ironsides]

Heh, well, maybe if they put more sex into video games, all those kids would instead decide they want to make love, not war :)

It's called a Dating Sim. They are from Japan. See also H Games.

There are far too many busybodies in this world...

[Space cowboy]

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 -

The vigilantes are on their way back, with prime-time fight the good fight

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

Guess what? Games press did some research...

[stonedonkey]

...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 : /

And yet.....

[Beebos]

......violent crime is at all time lows, though you wouldn't know that by watching the U.S. media.

"Save our Children"

[MosesJones]

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"

Re:"Save our Children"

[samureiser]

there is nothing in Doom III worse than the violence of Tom and Jerry or Roadrunner

I don't remember Wile E. Coyote using a sawed-off shotgun on the RoadRunner, whose entrails would smear across the walls with each successive shot...

But yeah, video games are just this genetation's rock and or roll / rap / etc.

Re:"Save our Children"

[frinkacheese]

Notice also that since the 1950s violent crime has increased, single 13year old mums have grown in numbers, kids now go and shoot other kids in schools, in the UK kids hang around in groups and mug old people, kill other kids, mug other kids, kick people to within an inch of their lives whilst recording it on their phones.

So, do you see the relationship here?

It is fairly obvious that exposure to sexually explicit material, violant video games, horror movies and some of the kind of lyrics in rock music will affect people, especially young people who are still developing their brains and the bits that help them control this stuff.

Re:"Save our Children"

[MosesJones]

It is fairly obvious that exposure to sexually explicit material, violant video games, horror movies and some of the kind of lyrics in rock music will affect people, especially young people who are still developing their brains and the bits that help them control this stuff.

Of course the stats are WAY down on the victorian era where child prostitution was common and violence against children and by children was an everyday occurence.

You might as well say that all this new information is leading to less world wars.

Re:"Save our Children"

[msobkow]

Of course it's all different now. Instead of turning to child prostitution, kids join gangs and sell drugs to make money.

Instead of prostitution leading to broken families, it's the 2-3 job parents who are never home leading to broken families.

If you think there is "relatively little severe poverty in the West", I invite you to visit a few inner cities in the US and Canada. You'll find the drugs, the guns, the prostitution, and the property crimes are all high in those areas.

And guess what? Most of those kids can't afford a computer or game console, yet they're the ones most likely to be in gangs and trying to kill each other over turf.

Re:"Save our Children"

[frinkacheese]

OK, I agree that video games are not the sole cause. But exposing influenceable children to violence does not help. Family breakdown is, I'd say, the main cause of the breakdown of society.

I live in the inner city in London in one of the poorest areas in the UK, we have drugs, celibrity murders, the lot. This is not severe poverty. These people are housed, they have food and get medical treatment if they need it. Goodle for London poverty int he 1800s especially around spitalfields in London, thats real poverty.

scientific method

[handy_vandal]

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

Re:There are far too many busybodies in this world

[TheRaven64]

Not any one of those people has turned out to be a non-productive member of society... some are lawyers

I can't help feeling that there's something of a contradiction here...

Just wait...

[ImaLamer]

One day I'll get my hands on the person who started this debate and KILL THEM!

Re:Just wait...

[st0rmshad0w]

No doubt after a marathon session of Pong I'd imagine...

Art Reflects Culture

[SumDog]

...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.

BLAME CANADA!!!!

[infonography]

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?

Re:BLAME CANADA!!!!

[Shaper_pmp]

"What's Next on the calender? Meth? Rock Music, Dancing? Pool Halls? Bowling?"

Meth? That's "Drugs" - already done that. Rock Music? Never stopped (Elvis, 80s Metal, gangsta rap, Marilyn Manson, Eminem). Dancing? That's so 50s.

Pool Halls and Bowling? Nope, because parents are used to them - they aren't new, and hence scary.

Seriously - every new technology is the focus of loudmouth moralist hysteria. Seriously - the board of Eton college wouldn't let the first robber-baron train magnates lay railway tracks across any Eton-owned property. Not because they didn't want a station near the school, but because they feared (and I quote) "the railway may corrupt the morals of the boys" in some undefinable way. Just worried about those well-known 1800s "Ale 'n' Whores" trains, I guess.

Look at any new technology - popular music, radio, television, the internet, the web - the one thing they all have in common is that they were once new, and they (or the pace of change they implied) scared the shit out of luddites.

And in our molly-coddling society anything that frightens people without real justification has but one battle-cry - "think of t3h kids!!!!11!!1!one".

Notice how worries about the real concerns (war, famine, genetic engineering, the DMCA, economic collapse, the ongoing "difficulties" of the US democratic system) are never framed in terms of children. War is obviously bad - no-one needs to start invoking "the kids" to push buttons and get everyone on-side.

As Bill Hicks famously said, just wave a foetus at people and you can lead them on whatever crusade you like.

In fact, it's getting to the stage where the second a new technology sparks fears which involve kids, I come down bang in favour of it. If it had a real danger the irrational luddites would publicising that - the fact they're relying on ill-supported, zero-evidence emotive bullshit like imagined, potential effects on "the kids" is just evidence there's nothing, in fact, to be worried about.

Is this a cause, or is it a symptom?

[7Prime]

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.

Sports=Death?

[spineboy]

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".

Re:Sports=Death?

[jtwJGuevara]

Disclaimer: This post is backed by nothing more than my unqualified opinion.

In my experience there is no correlation in what you said about football. Football just happens to attract alpha males who have inferiority complexes and decide to take out their aggression on others to hide that complex. If you look outside of the majority of high school football players and a few binge drinking college players you will find a quite benevolent group of people. Just look at the number of college and pro football players who work through and support charities. Football itself is not a cause of violent behavior. It just happens to be a preferred medium of extra curricular activity for some who are already inconsiderate and pugnacious fools who feel they have to prove themselves on a stage and flex their supposed superiority on others who appear lesser than themselves.

Re:Sports=Death?

[cowscows]

Just as an interesting aside that your comment reminded me of, I was watching Real TV, or at least a similar show, basically video clips of crazy stuff happening. Anyways, there's one of a teenage ice hockey game going on where a fight breaks out. Big brawl, involving a number of players from both sides. One kid out there thinks that the fighting is stupid and a waste of time, so to protest and stop the fight, he takes his shirt off, and drops his pants, while skating around the rink.

That probably wouldn't have been my first idea had I been in his case, but people started cheering for him, and everyone stopped fighting to see what was going on. So his plan worked. What made it more interesting, however, was that someone in the stands didn't approve, and called the cops. And the cops arrested him for indecent exposure, and took him to jail.

I'm not anti-sport, or even anti-violent sports like hockey and football, but I think that it's amazing that in the midst of all that fighting, the guy that goes to jail is the pacifist who felt like taking his clothes off. It wasn't really lewd or sexual(unlike the infamous superbowl incident). He caused a fight to stop. He stopped people from trying to hurt each other. And someone found that offensive enough to call the cops. That just, to me, says something very strange about our culture.

More Post Hoc BS

[Temsi]

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.

Re:More Post Hoc BS

[Temsi]

I've heard your point many times... and it's still wrong - but I do understand it.

Violence only works if it's in response to violence, and even then it's just a temporary fix, not a solution. Remember, I was talking about 'solving' problems, not just making them go away for the night.
Using violence as the means to an end just generates more problems.
It can be beneficial in the short term, but in the long term, it always fails. The problems caused by the use of violence are usually worse than the problem fixed by violence, simply because it creates more violence.
You get upset with someone, you hit them. It may stop the argument, and you may feel you've won. But that 'victory' only lasts until they find a way to get back at you - and if history has taught us anything, they always will, and then you will too. Violence begets violence.

The problems in the middle east are caused by violence (at some point, one side started it, now it goes on forever - as someone said "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind") and people have been fighting for so long they don't really know what they're fighting for, all they know is, the other side is evil and must be stopped at all cost.

The only problem bigger than violence, is people who think of violence as a viable option to get things done. Violence should always be the very last resort and only in self defense, and not as the means to an end.

Re:More Post Hoc BS

[Chandon Seldon]

Our entire society is built on the threat of violence.

The power of government is based in having a monopoly on violence. If you don't follow the rules, we have governmental agencies that exist to kidnap you and lock you away. If you don't play along, you'll be shot.

Re:More Post Hoc BS

[learn fast]

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?"

RTFA and you won't have to make up straw men like this.

In this case, it's not your fault because the summary doesn't actually link to a description of the study. I found it here.

According to researchers Jessica Nicoll, B.A., and Kevin M. Kieffer, Ph.D., of Saint Leo University, youth who played violent video games for a short time experienced an increase in aggressive behavior following the video game. One study showed participants who played a violent game for less than 10 minutes rate themselves with aggressive traits and aggressive actions shortly after playing. In another study of over 600 8th and 9th graders, the children who spent more time playing violent video games were rated by their teachers as more hostile than other children in the study. The children who played more violent video games had more arguments with authority figures and were more likely to be involved in physical altercations with other students. They also performed more poorly on academic tasks.

Furthermore, violent video game players "tend to imitate the moves that they just 'acted out' in the game they played," said Dr. Kieffer. For example, children who played violent karate games duplicated this type of behavior while playing with friends. These findings demonstrate the possible dangers associated with playing this type of video game over and over again.

Your objections might apply to a survey correlational study. This was not the design of this experiment.

If you like, you can criticize the study based on the generizability of the findings. So, you could question whether or not this experimental result would extrapolate into the real world. There, there's a valid objection you could have and it would actually be based on the study in question and not on how you imagined it would be. FYI

This is not "new" research -

[mahniart]

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?

Original Articles

[drphil]

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.

Are you a Wumpa Lumpa?

[hackwrench]

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!

Re:But is violence really NEEDED in games?

[svkal]

Well, no. But by that argument, is violence necessary in movies? Even though excellent movies can be made without anything we'd perceive as objectionable violence(Citizen Kane, Donnie Darko), that doesn't mean that filmmakers should stop making violent movies entirely. We'd lose masterpieces like Pulp Fiction, to take a relatively uncontroversial example.

Generally, I think it's a bad idea to put absolute restrictions on art, or to employ self-censorship to such a degree that the restrictions are practically absolute. And even though most video-games are rather low-brow entertainment at the moment, they very obviously are a form of artistic expression. If I want to make a videogame out of some inherently violent scenario, shouldn't I be allowed to make and distribute that game(to an appropriate audience)?

To revisit the original question - whether or not violence is needed in games - even that isn't as easy to answer as it seems. Because it's a game, it has to be played - i.e. the player has to take part in some kind of conflict. If we assume that we don't want to abstract that conflict(which can be a legitimate artistic choice - abstraction generally kills off emotional responses rather effectively), we have to portray some kind of conflict that parallels an aspect of the real world. Sports, economics and military strategy(ironically) are real-world conflicts that generally produce games that are perceived to be non-violent(think Capitalism and Civilization). However, direct, physical conflict lends itself very well to a game which is based on similar direct conflicts(generally action games of various kinds), and so war, crime and other violent settings become appropriate to a large number of genres. How would you make a basically non-violent fighting game? Or a first-person shooter? Or would you have to "kill off" these genres entirely?

Now, you can of course "cartoonise" this violence if you want to(you won't necessarily degrade the quality of the game, but you'll limit yourself to certain settings), but that really isn't the point. Mario throwing a turtle shell at his enemies is - in principle - violent, in much the same way that, e.g., superhero cartoons meant for children are. Arguing that the theme should be kept cartoonish, simply because that is one possibility, is overly limiting to game creators, especially because the "adult" themes lend themselves so well to certain popular types of gaming.

Re:Statistics tell us exactly what they want them

[Ironsides]

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.

"America's Army" Videogame

[billstewart]

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....

as opposed to...

[timmarhy]

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.

Getting to the root of the problem

[stox]

I have found that exposure to politicians increases aggressive thoughts, aggressive behavior and angry feelings along with substantial loss of mass in my wallet.

Ok , I f I accept that then ...

[allenfr]

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.'

Re:What can they do?

[westlake]

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?

You bet it can.

The Hays Production Code (ca 1930) was adopted by all the major studios and rigidly enforced for twenty years. Production Code.

Pre-Code films played on infatuation with the gangster culture of Prohibition and the sexual license of the 'twenties, but tended to spin out of control, like Hollywood's real-life scandals of the era.

The Great Depression made the past decade look not only frivolous but malign and the studios had to respond, and respond quickly, to the change in atmosphere.

Whenever I read articles critical of video game...

[Hamster Lover]

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?

Not original research.

[bigbigbison]

I took about five minutes and went to the APA's website and found that this great new study isn't based on original research, but, according to the APA's press release is simply a review of the research. So this "news" isn't anything new at all. And, if you bother to read the subtitle of the press release, it says, "Boys Play Games Longer and May Be More Vulnerable to Increases in Aggressive Behavior." Note the use of the word "may."

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

"The bottom line is we see three things," Kieffer tells WebMD. One is short-term change toward more aggressive behavior. Two, there are gender differences: Boys play more often and they are more likely to be at risk of behavior changes. And three, some more vulnerable kids are drawn to these games -- kids who are already more violent, and those with low self-esteem."

...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:

Committee on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media: Elizabeth Carll, PhD, and Dorothy Singer, EdD co-chairs; Craig Anderson, PhD, Brad Bushman, PhD, Karen Dill, PhD and Lilli Friedland, PhD.

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.)

It's irrelevant

[Decessus]

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.

only violent games?

[daspriest]

"...video games increases aggressive thoughts, aggressive behavior and angry feelings..."

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.

Junk science

[tgibbs]

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.

Big Fucking Deal...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

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!

Re:All thoses studies, journals, etc, have in comm

[soft_guy]

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.

Re:All thoses studies, journals, etc, have in comm

[belarm314]

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.

50 years ago...

[markass530]

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!!!"

or it could be...

[Quixadhal]

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.

Ok, so let's see the study then

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:All thoses studies, journals, etc, have in comm

[SQL Error]

What's more, many of them were once children themselves!

Well, even then

[Moraelin]

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.

Kind of thin on the details

[Moraelin]

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".

RTFA

[Moraelin]

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

Re:RTFA

[learn fast]

No. This is a different study we're talking about now.

The researchers reviewed several different studies, some of which were experimental, some of which were correlational. Since we had been talking about correlations, I quoted the correlational one. Your quote refers to one of the experimental ones.

Here we go:

[experimental] According to researchers Jessica Nicoll, B.A., and Kevin M. Kieffer, Ph.D., of Saint Leo University, youth who played violent video games for a short time experienced an increase in aggressive behavior following the video game. One study showed participants who played a violent game for less than 10 minutes rate themselves with aggressive traits and aggressive actions shortly after playing. [correlational] In another study of over 600 8th and 9th graders, the children who spent more time playing violent video games were rated by their teachers as more hostile than other children in the study. The children who played more violent video games had more arguments with authority figures and were more likely to be involved in physical altercations with other students. They also performed more poorly on academic tasks.

Most of your criticisms result from switching the results of the experimental study with the correlational one.

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.

Obviously they did not measure these things as one variable. If they did you would have seen the clue word "or". As in, "had more arguments with authority figures OR were more likely to be involved in physical altercations." They probably measured a dozen variables, some of which correlated significantly and some of which didn't.

It's not something that's become the One Truth, to be carved in stone, and that noone should dare question.

I'd like to introduce you to my friend, the Straw Man. Perhaps you'd like to attack him?

I'd be interested by whom. The tobacco companies "there's no correlation between smoking and lung diseases" studies, or the oil companies' "there is no global warming" studies are also peer-reviewed... inside the same organization.

The American Psychological Association is putting it's credibility behind this. If the APA can be bought like a Washington DC think tank, then we're all in serious trouble.

Control groups for parenting styles, anyway

[ianscot]

As a starting point, hopefully we'd put work out control populations on these studies so as to see whether X set of kids (whose behaviors, thoughts, etc. are affected by the games) also correlate with a certain set of parents. Not that it's easy to objectively categorize "parenting styles" so as to apply those controls, but c'mon -- do some reasonably exhaustive interviewing of the parents to see what their attitudes are toward the games themselves, at the very least. The correlations would be at least as meaningful as those between the kids and the games, surely.

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.

When did we have that one about the parents?

[ianscot]

A debate on whether or not parents should take some responsibility turns into a rant about video games and music and violent movies. Whats up with that?

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."