Slashdot Mirror
Gaming Damages Violence Inhibitions
Next Generation reports on another study that finds a link between videogames and violent tendencies. From the article: "The men were also invited to play simple games against opponents in other rooms. Winners were allowed to send an unpleasant, loud blast to their defeated opponents. Game players were more likely to make their foes suffer than non-game players. It may be worth noting that very similar studies have produced the opposite conclusion. In one such study, violent-game players and non-gamers each issued noise blasts at people. In that study, the gamers administered the lowest intensity noise blasts."
So how does giving someone a "noise blast" make you a more violent person? This type of study seems so flawed that its humorous.
Of course, that's not going to stop headline writers, politicians and Jack Thompson from ignoring any other findings and just going to shock value.
I would suggest trying the experiment with happiness as a condition versus just gaming. People who are happy have a tendency to do all sorts of things that don't involve critical thinking, so it's possible that this would also modify their tone choosing ways.
=Brian
There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
It may be worth noting that very similar studies have produced the opposite conclusion.
If the same test performed twice shows opposing results, the only valid conclusion is that these tests were obviously not controlled enough to enable people to draw valid conclusions from their respective outcomes. Or, maybe the researchers are trying to find a connection between "games" and "violence" (as defined by the test) where there is none (or at least none perceivable by means of this test).
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
unpleasant, loud blast
Sounds like me after a hearty lunch of Mexican food....
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
Doctors, police or soldiers would probably also show less reaction to violent images, so that part is unrelated to videogames specifically and more exposure to violence in general. The second shows more about competition and violence than violence and videogames. I'm betting after a round of ping-pong or pool people would be more violent too. I'm actually going to researching in ISU's media Research Lab next semester and so it'll be interesting to see how that is explained.
I'll share something I normally don't share.
When I was younger (I'm nearing thirty now), I was a wrestler. I was also very successful in judo and soccer, but wrestling was my focus for more than a decade. I won plenty of state and national championships. I never lost a single grecco match in my life. Wrestling, though something I excelled tremendously at, was a sport I was forced into by my step-dad. I'm not unique. Many kids are forced into their parents' sports or endeavors and many sports - especially in environments where a parent is likely to seek some form of retribution against you if you aren't perfect at it (such as hours and hours of being yelled at or being physically abused nightly for "poor" performance in practice) - will induce poor attitude and self-control as a result.
I can tell you that as a kid, I would never turn down a fight. I would never START a fight, but if you picked on my enough or tried to gang up on me with your friends, I would beat you into a bloody pulp. When I was ten, I gave an 18 year old kid down the street 17 stitches across his skull for jumping me (with his friends) in the pitch black dark on my way home one night.
Fortunately, once I was out of that situation (the step-dad), I spent what was left of my childhood living with my grandfather who was a peacemaker. He was a pacifist of sorts who served his country and was a stand-up guy that nobody in the world had a bad thing to say about. I didn't even start playing videogames until long after he started taking care of me. And you know what? With good "parenting", all the videogames in the world won't change you. Nor the books nor the movies or music. But with bad parenting, your children will be prone to act out and be violent and physical and let things affect them in a much harsher way.
Videogames don't make you impatient. Videogames don't make it hard for you to understand, deal with or cope with people. Videogames don't make you react to bad situations with physical solutions. Poor upbringings and role models do. I'm proud to be an adult who, though I could stand up for myself in any fight with any person(s) at any time anywhere, has not been in a fight in over a decade (and not at all in my adult life). I play a sick amount of videogames and watch terrible movies and read horrible books - but I still somehow know that it's not that difficult to diffuse situations or take a supposed momentary hit in pride to avoid having to hurt someone (I never liked hurting people when I got in fights anyway and I felt sick to my stomach afterward - but it was a matter of beat the shit out of them or get the shit beat out of me when I got home and my step-dad found out that I didn't beat the shit out of the person who did me wrong).
I'm so fucking tired of hearing everything blamed but the parents. If you live in the ghetto and are raised by parents who are seldom there, are violent and loud amongst each other, aren't loving or close and treat you more like a posession or obligation than a family member and don't know how to reason things out without fists and arguments - chances are you will be that way too. Chances are videogames will instigate that violent impulse you already have - but just about anything else that gets your blood pressure up and riles you will cause you to return the same response - not just video games.
Well, being able to gloat in the context is PRECISELY why I play video games that feature COMPETITION. "I'm better than you aren't lolol", is all.
Betcha a gamer that only likes Tetris clones and Brainfood would be the most nonviolent ones compared to MMO and Duke-like Griefers, Gankers, Looters, PK's, LPB's and Snakers (of which I am a proud member!)
I fail to see the relevance of this experiment. Football (soccer if you either hate or worship your president) fans are renowned the world over for being fair players and fair losers, eh?
And taunting never existed before videogames, either.
So how does giving someone a "noise blast" make you a more violent person? This type of study seems so flawed that its humorous.
I'm not sure. That may be more competitive in nature. The gamers get the options to punish his opponent much like they would punish people online (like killing someone in hand to hand in Counter Strike or DoD... it is just embarassing to die like that).
But would playing video make you immune emmotionally to gun fire, burning flesh, blood, guts, people screaming and crying. The only way to tell would be have them compete while flashing violent images (i'm mean faces of death) while the smell of burning meat is being pumped into their rooms with screams of the dying.
Many hardend war veterns don't even truly get over what they have seen in real life. I doubt video games would fix that either.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
What I find interesting between the two studies mentioned is that, apparently, gamers are liable to send more frequent blasts but with decreased intensity. To me this signals increased competitiveness rather than violence or hostility. Taunting is frequently seen in sports or activites that involve players squaring off against one another, but this doesn't nessecarilly mean those players are more violent.
Personally, as a gamer, I can see myself possibly barbing my opponents with more frequency than others might. I can definitly see the reduced intensity though, as the best barbs are subtle and infuriating, rather than overstated and forceful. I think this is because frustrating or irritating your opponent to the point where they quit is self-defeating (within the context of a game). Prodding them just enough to encourage more attacks or perhaps more reckless attacks, however, is to invite more opportunities to win, and thus, more fun.
So perhaps the only thing these studies are proving is that gamers enjoy playing more games... ?
Just a thought.
These were competitive games, which raise the blood pressure and natural desires of humans to dominate. What if they were single player games, without human competitors? I'm curious if that would have any difference on their actions.
free online diet tracking.
I'm not a psychologist, but there seems to be a huge distinction between air horning and stabbing someone.
People who enjoy delivering sound blasts in this experiment could at best be diagnosed as antisocial. This can't be compared to psychopaths whose affinity to violence have long since plagued humanity prior to the existence of videogames.
The article concludes two things about gamers: They react less to graphic images and are more likely to send a loud sound to the loser.
Being "used to" and less affected by violent imagery is not an increase in violent tendencies. That's an improper conclusion. Someone who doesn't react as much to graphic imagery is the type of guy/gal you want by your side when something horrible happens. These are the people who will retain their cool and be able to minimize damage and save lives. These are the people that make great emergency response professionals like police, fire department, and ambulance workers.
Making your opponents suffer from a loud sound after losing a round of whatever is not a violent act. It's an act of ego and competitiveness. Let's face it, if a game has no penalties for losing, the game is BORING! Verbal taunts, visual sneers, cat calls, and even those horn-blasters you hate at football games are meant to "up the ante," make winning worth something, and make losing just a tad more humiliating. With these things in play and taken to heart, the game being played will have more of a "rush" and the competition will be just plain better.
The problem with the referenced study in the referenced article is that you can't go beyond the initial two conconclusions without taking more studies based on the assumptions that are made from the conclusions of the original study. Both of my explainations also assume a lot and would need more study to prove.
Guys have been loud and obnoxious to opponents over sporting events for decades. It doesn't have anything to do with games and everything to do with society. We like to stroke our egos when we do well. It's PEOPLE that are retarded, not games.
No sig for you!!
Isn't this the sort of experimental set-up that invites demand effects?
Fox News jumps on a chance to give us gamers some negative publicity. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178130,00.html
it makes me so mad that I want throw down my controller and punch them in the face!
That's not a study.
That's a young assistant professor creatively rehashing something like a "Clockwork Orange" point of view and putting on a straight face for the media while feeding his view to the masses as a "discovery".
By "associating" a relative concept about human behavior that can be applied to any situation with a popular interest such as gaming he conjured "news", discovered a capacity for showmanship and a vehicle to further his academic career + prestige.
Here's a fine exmaple of how lame the "study" was:
"allowances to send an unpleasant, loud blast to their defeated opponents." was suggested as an option for behavoir within the instance of the research.
Preperations were obviuosly made to make this possible. The article exludes if this was an idea initaited by the Gamers.
Gaming doesn't make one more prone to become violent.
People have been throwing stones for ages!
-Fiend-
I think it is stupid to just say "games don't affect you", as it would be equally stupid to say that a good book, or a good movie, a good class at school, or playing on a sports team doesn't affect you. They are all experiences in your life.
A game is an experience, and all experiences affect you, good or bad.
Now, do games make you violent? No. Do games let you experience violence? Yes. Does that experience affect you. Of course. Does it affect you badly? Depends on who you are. If you are normal, the experience is probably just plain ol' fun shooting up some monsters in a fps. If you have problems, the experience could give you a road map on how to run, duck and cover (much like a flight sim teaches you to fly) and yes, may not be the best thing for you. And, if you are pacifist by nature, the experience could be upsetting and make you even more of a pacifist.
So that's it. I love games, but I hate hearing people say that they don't affect you. I know Civ 3 taught me a good deal about trying to take over a city when the people don't want you to take it over. I know Mario Kart taught me how to take corners so I don't slow down. And yes, I know that many many hours playing Quake deathmatch gave me some sort of simple understanding of close combat warfare.
For a new fad to come up and blow away all this "controversy" surrounding videogames. It's always the same.. "TRAVELING ON THE TRAIN WILL MAKE YOU MAD, THE SPEED WILL MESS UP YOUR BRAIN FOR GOOD!!" or "MICROWAVE OVENS CAUSE BRAIN TUMOUR!!" with every single new thing that comes up. I'm not even defending idiotic video game violence, I'd be more than happy to play the game Valve suggested.. (building stuff with people sounds interesting although not new. Ludocraft of Oulu, Finland (of Airbuccaneers-fame) created an Unreal mod called TeamGame back in 2002 in which people had to solve problems together, and I'm sure other folk have done it before too. .. but back to the topic)
There might be a connection to connection to violence. For myself, ever since the first Doom whenever I play fps-games I calm down. It's a good way to get rid of aggression by beating someone IN A GODDAMN GAME. And by beating them I mean besting them at something, not the mauling-to-pieces part. If people get aggressive with fps or other games it's either because of a game bug, losing to someone badly or playing with cheaters. IMHO, if you're gonna go blasting people away it's not because of the games. It's because you're just born insane and anything will trigger it. These people would have been considered prime soldiers a few hundred years ago.
I don't know anyone who has become more violent due to games. And I've been playing these horrible mind-twisting evil murder-trainers since I was 7 years old. When Doom came out I was 10-11 and had a blast with it with my friends. I've never hit anyone. And I'm pretty sure my friends haven't either.
Sure, put the school massacres on videogames or whatever. I call bullshit and bad parenting. It's not that hard to get a gun or other means of killing anywhere in the world and the only other school killing that I'm aware that didn't happen in the States is the one that happened in Germany. Oh, and they blamed it on Counter Strike. I'm thinking there's something else wrong in your country. Your culture is so overwhelming that even here in my small country called Finland we play the same games you do, made and published mostly by American corporations, and see the same tv-shows and movies and read the same books as you guys. And still kids here don't go blasting away each other.
All I'm saying is the same many other have said before and will say again: Stop finding outside reasons to blame for things that are caused by bad parenting and pre-existing mental disorders. Spend more time with your kids and get to know them. When I'll have kids I won't let them play violent games too young. I'm not stupid and as I said before, I'm not defending game violence itself. I think it can be harmful if parents don't tell kids what violence truly is (the basic stuff: people die and it's not fun, hitting others hurt them etc). Not in the sense that they'll go and killing people later on but in that there are better things for kids to do, like doing things with theirs friends and playing outside developing social and verbal skills.
End of transmission -- incoherent_rant.txtI don't think that it so much a matter of punishment but the equivalent of a victory dance. And taking a victory in hand-to-hand is simply boasting, saying "see, I don't even need weapons to win you".
No, this wouldn't work either. Modern humans, having grown up in the middle of media, have learned to differentiate between imaginary and real violence very well. Simply playing death screams to them is not going to have any effect, since they know that those aren't real death screams, that no one is actually getting killed.
And I dunno about you, but I got to smell a lot of burnt flesh when I was learning to cook ;(.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Winners were allowed to send an unpleasant, loud blast to their defeated opponents.
:P
Usually Halo night with my friends would involve some sort of chemical warfare among us in the form of victory farts.
But then it could have been the Taco Bell / Burger King / Pizza Hut / etc that we ate between rounds too..
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
When it came time to dole out the pushups, the teacher asked each winner for a number from one to three. Every one of the winners chose to make the other kids do three pushups. Nobody said "one" to make friends, nobody chose the middle route with "two." All the kids went for as much punishment as they could inflict.
I blame Grand Theft Auto, of course.
(What does it say about my son that he said he'd deliberately stopped balancing because he wanted to do some pushups? Too much "Animal Crossing"?)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Why hasn't there been a study comparing people that play videogames vs. people that play football, baseball, or basketball? You know, the sports where people actually DO go out of thier way to hurt eachother. I seem to remember that the violent people in my high school weren't the geeks and gamers, they were usually the baseball players. The football players seemed to have a better handle on thier aggression, possibly because of a form of release?
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
what about:
football/soccer/hockey hooligans that berate the other team for no apparent reason ("my arbitrary geogsocial location is better than your arbitrary geosocial location! Shelbyville sucks, Springfield rules!"), and run around town smashing stuff when their team does OR doesn't win. I'll take some ribbing from MrFr4gs4Lot any day over ridiculous macho redneck physical sports fans.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?