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."
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.
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.
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!!
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-