Slashdot Mirror
Why the Gaming-Violence Connection is So Comforting
Warm Coffee writes "It's is well-established that the science supporting a connection between video game violence and real-world violence is tenuous. A new article at Ars Technica examines why society finds a gaming-violence connection so comforting. From the article: 'Sternheimer suggests that gaming is simply the latest in a long series of media influences to take the blame. "Over the past century, politicians have complained that cars, radio, movies, rock music, and even comic books caused youth immorality and crime, calling for control and sometimes censorship." She terms the targets of such efforts folk devils, items branded dangerous and immoral that serve to focus blame and fear.'"
Various "experts" sell books and make appearances to "explain" how the "problem" was created and what we should do to "solve" the problem.
The names of these "experts" change over the years.
As do their claimed "causes" of the "problem".
But their MO is always the same.
Whoever first corrupted youth with that new fangled "written language" was probably stoned to death and thrown to the lions. So be thankful if the politicians just want to ban your new artistic medium :)
She terms the targets of such efforts folk devils, items branded dangerous and immoral that serve to focus blame and fear.
That's an interesting term for it, but don't folk devils play the fiddle?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
You are preaching to the choir: Cancel or Allow.
The Guide is definitive. Reality is often inaccurate.
"Whatever happened to just fucking CRAZY?!"
----
Heh... posting as AC 'cause I'm at school, just watched "The Shining" in my Kubrick class, and my verification word is "overlook." Sheer awesomeness.
Anyone who interacts with small children -- or even monkeys or parrots -- has seen them imitate behavior. Speech acquisition is imitative, interaction patterns are imitative. It takes no leap of imagination whatsoever to assume, as society does, that propensity towards violence is similarly learned (especially if you believe, as many do, that humans are innately nice and only do bad things because they're taught to.) I think the imitation behavior is so obvious, that the burden of proof is on the people who deny a connection, who say that humans *don't* get more violent from seeing violence. I personally believe that they generally don't because they have the cognitive ability to analyze behavior and decide which is acceptable and which isn't. A lot of people don't believe this, or believe only smart people can do this, or only adults, and they may be right. Forethought, and the ability to predict future events based on current actions, is a hallmark of intelligence. Not everyone has it. I think it's possible the reason the link between video games and violence is 'tenuous' is because for the large majority of people, there *isn't* any link, but for some impressionable, young, or screwed-up people, there *is* a tendency to imitate, because they're not good at separating reality from fantasy. But, really, that's no different than people who hear voices in their heads telling them to burn down churches. We don't blame the voices for the churches being burnt down, we say the people have problems. I suspect it's the same thing with video games. But, for people who dislike technology or new things they don't understand, it's easier to demonize the video game/comic book/whatever than to say that the people involved are the problem.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
The point here is that for as long as we've had civilization, we have had the compulsion toward placing blame for the wrongs of society on some outside force, hence the term, "scapegoat."
Video games are yet another in a long line of popular items to blame the collective wrongs of society upon in order to keep us from having to confront the real problems in society. Whether these problems are those purely indicative of cultural shift over time, or more serious issues like teenagers murdering their classmates, something easy is always found to blame. Nevermind the fact that we live in an exceedingly materialistic culture (that forsakes the bonds of families and friends for monetary gains) or the fact that parents these days don't seem to pay the same kind of attention to their kids that they used to, it's just a lot easier to blame something popular for the decay of society rather than society itself.
Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
enfeebled voice: "Dang kids these days with their... Pong, and... their hula hoops! What's the world comin to, Ethel?"
Your momma!
(meant to be insightful, oh and a little funny too)
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
Video games inspire violence? C'mon -- you guys can do better than that.
I'm no fan of FPS games, but I think that the three major western religions have inspired more violence than video games, D&D, M:tG, G.I. Joe, and toy guns put together. When are we all going to get over this whole "my-God-can-beat-up-your-God-so-nyaaah" thing?? Compared to that, video games don't even merit a mention. They're more likely to keep violent types *out* of trouble, says me...
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
Strangely enough, I can almost understand it.
Our children are ultimately our legacy on this planet. Some people get to be in history books, but most of us don't. Whether or not there is an afterlife is irrelevant, what remains behind are our children and grandchildren.
In effect, many people feel as though their children are the measuring stick of their lives. This may not be concious, but it is there. When you are dead and gone people will look at your children and judge you by them.
Thus, what happens when things go wrong? Even the best of parents can have terrible offspring. Suddenly, good and incompetant people alike are presented with the possibility that their only legacy on this world will be a serial killer, a school shooter, or any other socially damaging aberration.
It doesn't matter whether or not they were loving or negligent, people have an inherently cruel judgement built in. They will see James Q. Killer in the paper, and assume much about Mr. and Mrs. Killer. They could be the sweetest and wisest people in the world, but the callous eye of society will comdemn them with their child.
This principle works even on lesser problems, such as stubbornness, bad grades, and direputable behaviour. Whatever is wrong with a child can gnaw at their parents.
While the wisest and kindest of parents may not turn desperately for a scapegoat, most people aren't that strong. 40-50 years into life, no one wants to hear they've been doing it all wrong. Facing this would mean accepting that, on some level, you've wasted half your years.
And so we have our "Folk Devils". These are comforting because they delude people to the truth and the difficulty of dealing with it. That this doesn't solve the problem means nothing, only that it takes the burden of responsibility off the shoulders of parents.
It's a flawed way of dealing with reality to be sure. The moment one engages in scapegoating, it is inherently admitted that one was never in control. This premise is essential, or else the scapegoat isn't sufficient. With control, some blame still rests on the parents. Without control, are we not blameless?
It also only compounds the problem. Scapegoating isn't a solution. Anything that might actually be causing or contributing to whatever issue there is with the child will remain unchecked. The parents are only concerned with Bad Influence(TM) X.
It's a lie, but a comforting one. To admit the truth is painful.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
All those people who thought stuff like rock n' roll was leading society into depravity were right -- or at least they weren't proven wrong.
Modern society is depraved according their standards. The fact that we don't see it that way makes it even worse.
Maybe the causal relationship isn't firmly established. But if you went back in time to visit somebody who thought listening to black music (rock) would lead to horrible things like miscegenation, and showed him what the future was going to be like, his worst fears would be confirmed.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Gaming and violence satisfy the same instinct. So do games (including chess). While they're related this way, they don't cause each other. Video games are bullied because they're percieved as minority's thing by older or technologically illiterate folks.
Sternheimer suggests that gaming is simply the latest in a long series of media influences to take the blame.
Translation: "We dislike accepting responsibility for behaving like our primate relatives, so we blame it on anything and everything (except ourselves) we can".
Welcome to Darwinian evolution, Reverend. We made it to the top of the food chain by violence and aggression, quite literally killing off the competition. Only cats have us beat for pure love of cruelty, but VERY fortunately (for us) we developed prefrontal cortices first, giving us the edge over them of "strategy".
She terms the targets of such efforts folk devils, items branded dangerous and immoral that serve to focus blame and fear.
Sprenger and Kramer understood that in the late 1400s, and the "War on Terror" almost looks like a modern day adaptation of their playbook, the Malleus Maleficarum. Calling the target of our fears "devils" seems far too apropos for comfort.
Simply blaming games (or, more generally, the media) for our society's problems with violence allows us to ignore the real roots of the problem -- which usually boil down to failures of societies as a whole. Which thought seems worse: "Video games are teaching kids to be violent", or "Our society's methods for protecting the safety and security of its members are insufficient and could fail again any time, and I'm probably part of the problem"?
Basilisk Digital
It's always been easy to place blame on something yes, but it usually involves placing blame on something that isn't well understood, researched or generally accepted by society. Imitating what we see and do is something that exists on the micro level.. yes we've all learnt as a child and we imitate what we see. But you don't see three year olds acting as a leader for groups of people and they probably wont be a factor in changing society as a whole. As we interact and form society's we decide whether or not an action/idea is accepted. What we've learnt through school and personal life lessons often comes from example. As we gather more examples and reasons to support or disprove our beliefs we can enhance our conscience. This can be why we can look at some societies and think "Wow, what the heck are they thinking!? That's so wrong?" But they may look at us thinking the same thing. As we grew up in different societies we were brought up differently, and sometimes there's conflicts of interest as a result. Violence in video games is easy to blame since it's effects are not well understood and more research needs to be done. Yes, some people may feel like they need to act out on violence they see but other people have learnt the difference between fiction and reality. Remember that those we elect also have the ability to relay their message to many people. Many leaders prefer to relay messages that society can relate with so they may stay in power. It's easy to say something people can agree with opposed to a conflict idea. With conflict, those who elected the leader remember it when it's time to vote for a new leader, and it's quite likely they'll remember more of the (bad/conflicting things) than the good. More research needs to be done on video game violence before society as a whole will begin to shift the blame away from it. Did you hear about the study conducted that shows playing first person shooters improves reaction times more than those who play Tetris? Funny how research that shows there's benefits to playing violent video doesn't get as much attention. But that is partly due to it conflicting with society's beliefs that violent games are evil, and as a result companies aren't as willing to fund research that examines the benefits of violent games.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
if she coins the term and a few communities popularize it then maybe we'll see some more enlightenment on the subject. Propagation of ideas has all to do with language.
Humans are predisposed towards cooperation, not screwing each other over. How would a species that fucks itself over evolve in the first place?
The theory I've read is that genetically we have a cooperative side and a competitive side. Most of the time, we operate in cooperative mode. When things get really tight, we switch over to competitive mode.
Around 4500BC, the Sahara and much of Asia went from being grasslands to desert. The people that had settled there faced famine on a scale never before seen, as in times past, hunter-gatherers just picked up and left when things got that bad. With the surplus and organization that agriculture gave us, we had another option for the first time: go to war.
There is no evidence of fortified towns before this. No weapons that were only for killing humans, not hunting. No mass graves. After that, you see a wave of these things in the archaeological record, spreading out from that epicenter of violence.
The problem was that you had a generation of severely Post Traumatic Stress Disordered adults raising a generation of brain damaged children. Starvation means poor myelin sheath formation over nerves, and brain damage.
What happened is that the competitive mode got locked in, long after it was no longer the most efficient strategy. Most of what we call civilization comes either from this PTSD, brain damaged culture of violence, or the reaction to it.
You can still find tribes in the rainforests of the amazon that have not been impacted by this culture of violence and competition. Look for a book called The Continuum Concept by Jean Liedloff. It talks about her time with one such tribe, and the theory of childhood development she came up with. The kids in this tribe never act out, never rebel, and are completely loving and non-competitive towards each other.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
My wife once heard a parent at a school blame the behaviour of an early primary school aged child on the father who played all those violent video games. Of course my wife said, what about my children, their dad plays games like that all the time, and so do they.
Of course her explanation was brushed aside. Since obviously the blame for a ratbag child should be pointed squarely at the computer games, and has nothing to do with parents who refuse to show their children when their behaviour is wrong...
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
This reminds me of something in Bowling for Columbine. When asked what he would say to "the kids at Columbine or the people in that community", he said:
I never much liked his music, but that stuck with me. In all of our rushing around to find a scapegoat, pointing fingers at each other, making political careers out of made-up statistics...
In all of that, what if we would actually take the time to stop, and listen to some kids? Listen to the kids who play these games. Listen to the kids who play with real guns.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Violence appeared long before video games. Pointing at videogames and blamecasting is like sticking gerbils up your butt in an effort to improve your vision. It doesn't amount to an ounce of benefit and somebody gets hurt. Usually the cute furry gerbils. Please, think of the gerbils.
-
This comment has been checked for sanity and been found lacking...
The theory you describe sounds absolutely fascinating. Do you have a source for it that I'd be able to track down?
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
12: ???
13: Profit!
You missed the GP's point. It is not humans who are predisposed to disobeyal, it's kids. Adolescents are quite disposed towards being completely at odds with older generations, and this is quite healthy for a society because it allows quicker evolution. Sorta like not being asexual. Sure, budding will reproduce one's own kind more efficiently, but sexual (i.e., two sources) reproduction leads to more evolution.
First it was books. Then those reading them grew up and, well, you can't blame for violence what was your youth's pastime, right? So it had to be the radio. Then the radio generation grew up, realized they didn't turn out to be full blown loonies and it had to be that swing music. The swing dancers grew up and it had to be TV. Since the avid TV watchers grew up, it must be that devilish rock music. Well, the fans of Ozzi grew up as well and it had to be D&D.
Now the first generation of role players has grown up as well, and guess what? It wasn't that either.
To make a long story short, it's always the same, even though it changes through the years: It is something that fascinates the youth that a fair deal of the grown ups can't understand. And since they don't understand it and they don't see the fascination, it has to be inherently evil, some kind of drug or worse.
It's the easy answer. And a ban wouldn't hurt the ones looking for the easy answer at all, so it's the perfect answer, too.
The problem is, it's the wrong answer. But the right one would first of all be harder to dig out, and it would probably hurt, too. Let's take a look at just WHO the people are who go bananas and shoot people, or rip their heads off, or jump off a cliff, or whatever.
Again, without going into detail, you'll find them in the ranks of the rejects of our society. They don't go berserk because of music, TV, games or the internet, they do it 'cause they hate our society, and mostly 'cause our society gave them a very good reason to do that.
That's where I'd be looking for an answer. But that would first of all be a lot harder, and it would probably be an answer we don't like.
So it gotta be games, music, TV or whatever. As long as the answer doesn't hurt too much.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What you are describing appears to be just competition over a limited resource pool. While the current competition may not be with foodstuffs, the competition is by no means gone. With limited resources, if multiple people are in need/want of said resource (i.e: Jobs, colleges, toys, whatever), any reasonable person will try and get it by hook or by crook. Its our very nature to do so. Without the drive for competition, we (humanity) would not have been able to survive in our younger years against our competitors.
"Why the Gaming-Violence Connection is So Comforting" ?
HI PEOPLE LIKE OFFLOADING THEIR OWN FAILURES ON TO SOMETHING ELSE!
It's not my fault my family starved to death because working in McDonald's is beneath me - it's the fault of those darned Indians!
It's not my fault that server got hacked and millions of credit card numbers were stolen - it's Microsoft's fault!
It's not my fault that we lost every last piece of data because I suck at coding PHP - it's PHP's fault for being insecure!
It's not my fault your toddler is a smear on the pavement, it's his fault for running out in front of my car which was doing 65MPH in a 10MPH zone while I was talking on my cell phone!
It's not my fault I'm a fat piece of shit who eats KFC every day - it's genetics!
It's not our fault Rome is falling because of gross corruption and negligence, it's those damned barbarians!
It's not my fault some loony carpenter's son is being crucified - it's the Jewish priests!
It's not my fault that the world was created, it was that damned Enki making the place out of Tiamat's corpse!
Okay, so the last one's a bit of a stretch, but humans have progressively continued to shrug off personal responsibility. It's been going on since the dawn of time. Is it getting worse? Probably not - it might seem like it, but keep in mind we've gone from blaming our imaginary friend, god, for everything and have turned to suing each other.
Did nobody else read Lord of the Flies? Geez these old paranoid people need to learn to read.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Hello all, it's Pojut once again. I know I have posted this a few times already, but I always do whenever the subject of violence and video games comes up. Enjoy!
I decided to finally write this down in response to some people asking me why I enjoy immeasurably violent video games and movies. This explanation is written using the game "Manhunt" as it's primary example, mainly because of it's subject matter (which can best be described as a "snuff video game"). PLEASE read it in it's entirety before responding, it's easy to think i'm making an uninformed point without reading the whole thing; I explain EVERY viewpoint I express.
Think about this, folks.
This "game" is not about sneakin' around, trying to see what the biggest mess you can make is. It's about much more than that. This game is in direct relation to the JTHM (Johnny the Homicidal Maniac by Jhonen Vasquez, for the uninitiated...) in all of us, the little black beast that we keep to ourselves.
Ever say "I wish he were dead", or "he makes me so angry I want to kill him"? Of course you have. Everyone has. This game is the digital manifestation of those thoughts. It's not about suffocating some guy, or creating the pink mist... This game does one thing and one thing only: it asks you a question. A very simple question to state, and frankly a very simple question to answer:
Is your black beast fictional or real?
Do you have a little playground for the demon inside of you, someplace it can go and harmlessly let out it's frustrations and rage? Or are you so jaded and blind that you cannot discern the difference between reality and fantasy?
Frankly, if you enjoy this game (along with ANY violent video game or movie, regardless of it's subject or presentation) you are not sick. You are normal. You are provided an outlet for the most primal emotions that you, as a human, have. Your most carnal instincts. If you don't like this game because the graphics suck, or the control is wonky, fine. BUT. If you despise this game because you say it's "too violent" and "unneccessary", and "too realistic", and whatever else, guess what: YOU are the sick one. That's not to say that you can't see it as being gross, or that you don't like it because you supposidly don't like violence (then why do you slow down to look at car accidents, hmm?) What it means is that if you say that violent things such as this push sane and "normal" people into being murderers in real life...well, I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
The first step anyone takes to becomming a murderer in real life is not being able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. Manhunt is fantasy. Does that mean something similar has not happend/could not happen? No. But your experience and memories of it happening are. It's a video game. It is designed to be a playground for your little black beast.
If you take it as being anything more serious than that...well, turn yourself in now.
You have to allow the little monster to come out every now and then and release it's frustrations. If you don't, you risk becomming a quivering mass of nervous and dangerous flesh. What better place to do this than in a simulated environment with simulated violence where the only things harmed are your eyes for staring at the screen?
Living With a Nerd
There's a show on Discovery or TLC about feral children, young children that were severely neglected. The show focuses on the language and brain development with age, as several of these children had human contact as they grew from infant to 6 or more years of age. (The oldest was around 12 when she was found).
Despite the show being deeply disturbing, it is also fascinating from a scientific viewpoint regarding social development, language development, and brain function/development.
As it relates to the P/GP, humans apparently learn both to work together and be competitive from their environment. It is based on feedback loops. There was one boy, found at age 3 or 4 in the Ukraine, that lived with a pack of dogs. He'd become adopted because he offered food to a stray, and over time the pack grew, or so the theory goes. He developed the behavioral aspects of a dog for both the competitive and cooperative aspects.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
No, it is not in our nature. We evolved under conditions of local surplus and local scarcity. Under these conditions, cooperation and trade are the most effective strategy. We cooperate with other humans because we must compete with most of the rest of nature.
The "Humans are naturally competitive" idea is no more than a self serving excuse for bad behavior with little explanatory power.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yes, James DeMeo's Book, Saharasia. DeMeo was a student of Wilhelm Reich, who some people think is a nutcase. But along side all the wacky Orgone theory and cloudbusting stuff, Reich did some interesting anthropology research, and DeMeo followed in his footsteps. Reich did a survey of about 300 cultural anthropology studies, and found evidence that the origin of human violence came at a certain place and time. DeMeo expanded that research to a survey of almost 3,000 studies, with an expanded set of questions. He also came up with evidence that tied dramatic climate change to the origins of violence.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Adolescents and children are not naturally at odds with the older generation, that is the major point of the book I mentioned. In tribes that do not artificially distance themselves from their own infants, that does not take place.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I think you mean "betetr resource utilization" and not "more evolution". Since the adolescents cannot determine their own genetic code. The behavior might accelerate selection but "more evolution" isn't the right words.
Traditionally we beleive the teenage rebeliousness trait is a way for the most expendible portion of the pop (young males with no children) to put themselves out for selection and explore new food sorces. It's notable that this age group still has high mrotality rates. As a pop trait it allows quick intergration of new food sources, expansion of terrortory, and quick exposition of potentially useful new phenotypes.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Fantastic. Thanks!
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
Recently, I was listening to a clergyman speaking about ghouls, ghosts and goblins (not the Capcom game). I realized a few things:
1. This guy really believes in the existence of all these creatures, and he releated it to Dungeons and Dragons and basically said that kids were "going insane" because they were contacting malevolent entities. (So, I assume he believes in Gelatonous Cubes and Owl Bears as well as the more traditional creatures). He thought he was among friends, so he didn't spout the pseudo science they usually try to disguise their fear of ghosts in during his screed.
2. He ended his screed fearful about the popularity of XBoxes and "Nintendos."
Basically, this was all scary medieval superstition. I would've interjected, but I was worried it might turn out that I weigh as much as a duck in this hostile environment, if you catch my drift.
I've recently also read about anti-evolution and also, apparently, a resurgent movement towards geocentrism (I expect that in 100 years or less geocentrism will be the new creationism, after intelligent design has become official biological science throughout the US.) These people always couch their ideas in "science," because they realized its the only way to win, but its mostly superstitious nonsense of the kind we all hoped was wiped away by the Enlightenment.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
How would a species that fucks itself over evolve in the first place?
Asexual reproduction?
After all, it's been clearly shown that people who rely on FOX as a main source of information are much more likly to mistake fantasy for reality -- and to vote accordingly.
Bernard Swiss
This controversy over videogame violence is a phase. Before videogames, movies, rock music and comics were blamed for 'corrupting children'. In America, at one point comics couldn't use the word 'flick' in case the 'l' and the 'i' ran together and Spiderman screamed, 'Look out, he's got a fuck knife!' Jack Thompson is simply the new Mary Whithouse.
A man chooses, a slave obeys - Andrew Ryan.
What do you mean, "even" comic books? The backlash against comics in the 1950's was HUGE, and its impact on the industry is still felt today.