Slashdot Mirror
Videogames Really Are Linked to Violence
ahoehn writes "Amanda Schaffer has written a refreshingly balanced piece about the connection between video games and violence. Instead of regurgitating the typical reactionary voices in this debate, she looks at what scientific studies suggest about the issue. From the article: 'Pathological acts of course have multiple, complex causes and are terribly hard to predict. And clearly, millions of people play Counter-Strike, Halo, and Doom and never commit crimes. But the subtler question is whether exposure to video-game violence is one risk factor for increased aggression: Is it associated with shifts in attitudes or responses that may predispose kids to act out? A large body of evidence suggests that this may be so ... Given this, it makes sense to be specific about which games may be linked to harmful effects and which to neutral or good ones. Better research is also needed to understand whether some kids are more vulnerable to video-game violence, and how exposure interacts with other risk factors for aggression like poverty, psychological disorders, and a history of abuse.'"
I'm not a scientist, but I've played one in a video game.
I like how the blurb says absolutely nothing new about the topic.
Suck a lemon?
But what is important is, which one of them is the major culprit in the process of "farting".
with the fantastically loose relation-establishing logic of this article, correlation between snooker, billards and 3-pool and violence can be established too. But, we then need to discern which of these billards game types are a major factor in committing violent crimes.
Read radical news here
We've known from past studies that gaming is one of many, many factors influencing aggressive behavior. The extremely limited extent of this effect, and the fact that it's far more subdued in the vast majority of the population makes it a non-issue.
A decent ratings policy, combined with enforcement for some of the more mature games w/ younger children should suffice...
Anyhow, today I did two things apart from study: play counter-strike, and play tennis. I have to say, I was *far* more ready for a throwdown after playing in 15-30mph wind for a few minutes. Stressors happen. So do idiots who blame them for everything.
... is a study that can differentiate between videogames increasing the violent tendencies of the player and increasingly violent people playing violent videogames. Anything else is just trying to translate correlation into causation with a lot of handwaving.
Can videogames affect the mindset of people? Sure - I'm sure I'm not the only one who, after a particularly intense multi-player session of burnout ponders the best way to force the slowpoke ahead of you off the road. But I'm also sure that I'm not the only one who has realized that this is not the proper way to deal with a slowpoke ahead of you blocking traffic. What I'd like to see in one of these studies is the establishment of the direction of the link, and whether the increase in violent thought patterns translated into action. If someone can actually show that, I'll be all on-board the "violent videogames are bad for you" band-wagon. Anything short of that, and I'll fight for my right to play the latest Doom-incarnation without censor interference.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
...but maybe not. All of these studies are by the same researcher, a guy named Craig Anderson, who has been pushing his conclusion long before he had any data for it. There is a strong confirmation bias at work here. His latest study argues that people who play games like Halo are more aggressive at the end of the school term than people who play something like Myst.
But here's the complication. Myst appeals to casual gamers--people who play games in their spare time. Halo appeals to hardcore gamers, who do it as a hobby. That means they make time for it. Given that the time they make for it may be time taken from their studies, and their work load may be piling up, is this result due to the aggressive influence of gaming, or due to the impact of the stress of having their workload pile up at the end of the term? Too much work, and too little time to do it, will make anyone irritable, impatient, and aggressive. All he has demonstrated here is that the people who play Myst are different from the people who play Halo. Duh! The industry could have told him that years ago.
Recent research into human behaviour finds too main causal factors: genetic predisposition (measured in twin studies), and peer influence (for example, why do children speak with the accent of their peers and not that of their parents.) These probably account for as much as 90% of variance. The remaining 10% includes parent, teachers, life experience, and all media. So how much influence is left for video games? Not a lot.
Millions of people but some of those people , conclusion why should we be worried again?
i play CS:Source almost every day and i'm NOT FUCKING VIOLENT oke??? I will CRUSH YOUR HEADS if you ever bring this topic up again.
The study in TFA basically compares the way players of Myst and Wolf 3-D treat each other. Amazing! In a game that deliberately increases adrenaline through various means (play Wolf 3D if you haven't, you'll jump out of your skin in some places even though the graphics are really low-tech), players show aggressive behaviour toward one another. I bet we'd see this effect in other competitions that are heavy on the adrenaline, such as football or hockey.
Myst, on the other hand, does not involve anything of the sort, focusing instead on intellectual puzzles. There's no real time pressure except for the other players. An RL analogue I suppose would be Chess. Not surprisingly, highly intellectual activities where the players are not directly competing with each other leads to a more patient sort of competitive behaviour. Less adrenaline means more reasonable discourse.
The question, of course, is whether activities that cause high adrenaline actually do cause violence. I'd say yes, though in many cases the violence is contained to a particular activity, say sacking the quarterback. I'd say I'm a violent, aggressive person. However, I'd also add that I try to keep those tendencies away from places where it's not appropriate. I love a good adrenaline rush, and I'd rather not take cocaine or meth to get one. Just because WoW and football bring out my overly dominant tendancies doesn't mean that WoW and football are bad, nor WoW players and football players.
For some real news, try finding a causal link between people who have high-adrenaline outlets (don't forget competitive sports!) and violent criminals (as determined by conviction rate). I doubt that we'll find anything significant there.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
How is this any different than Joe Six-pack who gets pissed off after his team looses on Monday Night Football and decides to beat his wife to take out his frustrations, or the guy that has a bad hole on the golf course and wraps his driver around a tree? There have been losers like that since Ally Oop lost 20 clams on a Mastodon race, went back to his cave and clubbed his wife. Some people just can't handle things not going their way. If there was a way to screen them and take them out of gene pool I'd be all for it, but to try and point the root cause to some external influence is just shifting the blame. The problem isn't that Johnny plays counterstrike; it's that Johnny has a violent temper and lack of self control. You can plug any anything in place of video games, the stock market, sports even jobs, basically anything that can involve a positive or negative outcome can lead to violence in a person inclined to be violent.
Two of the studies use kids - who the entire video game industry agrees shouldn't play violent games, and to that extent has developed a rating system to help *parents* control this.
The third study simply says that the college undergrads were more aggressive after engaging in a mentally stimulating activity. People tend to be more aggressive right after watching sports too. We've known this for years.
So, what we have here is two studies that have very low validity because they have nothing to do with reality and one that's deliberately designed to come to the conclusion 'video-games make people aggressive'.
Can we have some real science now, please?
If videogames cause violence, why have the years that have whitnessed the birth and rise of videogames seen the sharpest drop in violent crime rates. Particularly when something which has been acknowledged to increase crime, wealth disparity, has grown so profoundly. Looking at these trends I'd be tempted to conclude that videogames confer a protective effect.
Video games cause violence? PFFFFFFFT! I'll meet any m+f-er who tries to pry my controller from my fingers with a hail of bullets.
;-)
A m-f-ing hail, my bitches. Of bullets. That's right.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
There are a lot of various diseases and psychological states that have a medium-to-long list of risk factors. Who says that violent video games CAN'T be one?
For example, risk factors for a heart attack include high blood pressure, a bad diet, family history, and lack of exercise. Obviously, having any one of those isn't necessarily a bad thing by itself. It's when you combine a whole bunch of them that you need to be worried.
I mean, all the people who buy Grand Theft Auto can't be all psychopaths. But a few might be... and more than likely there are a bunch of other signs that the rest of those buyers aren't going to share.
And a new study conducted by me says everyone is unique in their own way and reacts differently to different situations.
Yay, I saved billions in research, someone send me a new gaming rig, my old P4 is showing it's age.
(If you don't, I'll play a few levels of Doom at you.)
Given that violent crime dropped dramatically from the mid-90s on (during the same time period in which the first generation to grow up with violent videogames came of age) the burden of proof for this lies on the side that proposes a link between videogames and violence. Unless there is really clear proof that violent crime would be even lower than it already is, I don't see much of a positive correlation between the two in the real world.
I haven't seen any studies that indicate one way or another whether violent books contribute to violent behavior. Why is nobody concerned about this?
That's rhetorical... the answer is that video games are new and scary to a large group of relatively influential people. In a few decades, nobody will worry about this issue at all.
And, as another poster mentioned, how about the catastrophic number of injuries and deaths throughout the nation caused by sports? Why aren't people enacting panicked legislation banning sports? It's because they are familiar with sports, they played sports when they were young.
All we have to do is fight a delaying action... stop as many inane laws as possible for another 10-20 years. After that, nobody will care.
Football, baseball, hockey, basketball, dodgeball, foosball, ping-pong, bocce ball, lawn darts, beer pong, soccer, racing, raquetball, handball, volleyball, wrestling, javelin and frisbee golf have been linked to violence.
This can mean only one thing! Video games are at fault! Down with teh gory bits! Er.. wait...
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
I really like this topic. So I am wondering if I should use my 4 remaining mod points or post something here... Any thoughts?
:)
Ahh.. damn.
But seriously. We've known there's a link to pretending to do something and actually ending up doing it. Look at the prisoner vs. guard studies in that college of which the name I forget... Basic idea: normal people pretended to be prisoners and other normal people pretended to be guards. After a while, the people who were pretending to be prisoners actually FELT like prisoners (even though they could leave whenever they wanted in reality) and the Guards.. oh man the guards... they started getting violent and abusive. We're talking college students.. I mean, they're the epitome of maturity, I don't understand how this could've happened
Ok so that wasn't entirely serious. Let me try again. People who like violence will play violent video games. This does not mean the game turned them violent. It was already in them. It's human nature. Really.
TLF
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
So I take it "reactionary" is one of those terms that is going to lose any useful meaning because everyone uses it wrong, like what happened with "begs the question". Oh well, language sucks anyway.
Can you regurgitate a voice? That sounds like some kind of spiritualist trickery.
Duh.
The reality is that people who commit acts of violence can be shown, either by previous diagnoses or by forensic analysis to have very severe personality disorders. Those personality disorders can develop due to a variety of causes, physical/sexual abuse are strongly implicated, as is poverty and a number of other situations, there may even be genetic predisposing factors. These people claiming a causative link between between playing games and the development of the kinds of personality disorders linked with violent behavior. Pointing out that guy who went on a killing spree played Counterstike, when he also had a long history of Schizophrenia and Antisocial Personality Disorder just isn't going to cut it.
In every one of these events there are warning signs, which often are ignored by family, peers, and educators (or as was the Case in the VT shooting, botched by the piss poor mental health system in the United States, the shooter had been previously committed, I think they clearly failed to make sure he was stable and on an adequate treatment regime before release.) Show me even one, ONE, case, where a kid is perfectly normal, without clear predisposing factors, and then discovers games and becomes a violent sociopath. Until that happens I remain convinced that Videogaming is no more harmful than a heated game of Checkers or Battleship.
Those that don't want violence in video games should just start producing non-violent ones. With all the violent games out there, you would guess there is quite a bit of a market left for non-violent onces, but except a little sports game here or a mini-game there, the market is mostly ignored by the developers/publishers. Where are the non-violent triple-AAA titles?
Does everyone who has violent tendencies who does not play video games go out and commit murder? No.
Does everyone who has violent tendencies who does play video games go out and commit murder? No.
Sometimes they do though. Who is to say that running over a hooker in GTA4 to get their money back did not push them over the edge? One could also argue that if running over the virtual hooker did not make him "snap" something else would have. You could also argue that being able to run over virtual hookers may have stopped him from "snapping" sooner. The possibilities for debate for this topic are endless but what it really comes down to is the person who does the act.
Take me for example. I have not gone on a killing spree but I have picked up smoking recently. I'm 23 years old. Both of my parents and all my family members smoked or dipped and have for all of my life. Out of the dozen or so close friends I have all but two smoke habitually and the other two will do so on occasion. Did this make me predisposed to smoking? Perhaps. Did my friends and family strap me in a chair and force me to smoke cigarettes until I was addicted? Of course not. I made a decision to smoke knowing full well the consequences that could come from my actions. If I were to go pick up a gun today, point it at someone and fire it would be decision I made for myself. I can fool myself into thinking I can get away with it just as I could fool myself that I was not going to get addicted to smoking cigarettes but the issue still remains: I pulled the trigger. Whatever mind tricks I played on myself would be because I knew I was going to get caught.
As far as being insane goes, I know if for whatever reason I did kill someone I would plead insanity and do whatever I could to pull it off. I'll take heavily medicated and alive over the needle any day. I'm sure some people who do plead insanity really are but I'm sure most are just smart enough to know how to stay alive.
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
The only thing that I've learned from the debate is that studies are a primary cause of conflict.
Scientific debates always seem to end with a bunch of guys in nice outfits yelling at each other until their faces turn red.
Clearly, we need to ban science.
The author of this article fails to reference a recent study that reaches completely different results.
f fected-by-violent-games/2007/04/01/1175366055463.h tml
An Institute in Australia studied 120 11-15 year-olds and concluded that violent games did affect children who were already predisposed to violence and aggression, but children who were not violent to begin with were unaffected.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Most-kids-una
I think we should probably be careful about hanging our hats on the argument that video games are completely innocuous, because I think there's going to be a mounting accumulation of evidence linking games to violent behavior.
Here's what we know from a neuropsych framework:
1) Impulsivity and aggression are linked to activation of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) (the "fight or flight" part, if you remember your basic psych). The more the sympathetic system is activated, the more likely we are to make rash, impulsive decisions. The racing-heart/sweaty/stressed feeling you get when you lose your temper? That's the sympathetic nervous system talking, hopping you up on adrenaline. (And noradrenaline, et cetera) Think of how much more likely people are to make stupid, impulsive decisions when they've lost their temper than when they're thinking "rationally". (e.g., road rage or bar fights)
2) Video games, exciting movies, gambling, and the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers (if you're five) all activate the SNS. We know this from measuring galvanic skin response, looking at pupillary reflexes, or simply measuring the level of cortisol in the bloodstream.
3) It could be inferred, then, that video games are likely to increase your arousal which will then make you more likely to cut that guy off when you're driving home from the LAN match or escalate the trash talk into something physical. AS COULD ANYTHING ELSE EXCITING. We've seen this, somewhat less conclusively, from behavioral observations. Five-year olds are more likely to karate-chop the dog after some Power Ranger action. People are more likely to drive recklessly after playing a lot of Gran Turismo or watching Oceans Twelve.
In short, video games *do* change the brain... and that's why we like them. We crave excitement and novelty. We like being surprised; we like scary movies; we like jumping out of planes; we like gibbing people in Quake. We *like* jacking up our SNS.
I think we, as gamers, are setting a trap for ourselves when we say that video games have no impact on our cognition. Of course it does. Everything does. Claiming there's no mental impact of gaming is a foolish position, and when you lose this argument, it makes it that much harder to win the subsequent arguments. A more interesting question is whether games go behind the simple modulation of arousal levels. Are games fundamentally different than sky-diving, for example? I don't think so, but honestly, the jury is out. I can see the other side, too. We tend to play games for nine straight hours, when it's a rare person who sky-dives that much. When we're gaming, we actually envision ourselves in the role of Kratos, God of War, while we don't usually have that involvement with action movies. Maybe games *are* different.
Of course, the *real* question is how much this matters. Even if there were a well-controlled, randomized study showing that the amount of game time played directly correlated with the likelihood of a violent crime, is that enough cause to ban games? I think not, but, then again, I prefer not living in a nanny-state.
Anyway, just some thoughts... (and yes, I am a neuroscientist. And a gamer.)
I like how the title of the article is so definitive, when really there is still a big ol' question mark. Yes, I suppose video games are linked to violence in as much as a correlation exists. Whether or not that correlation actually means anything has yet to be proven. Similarly, the decline in pirates over the past couple hundred years correlates well with the rise in global average temperature... as I'm sure you're all aware!
The author's comment about how video games aren't proven to "cause" violence is true. That she dismisses that the lack of causality or even correlation is suspect. Essentially, what she's saying: If even the most creative manipulation of numbers doesn't give you the statistics data you want, then throw it all out because the issue is more complex.
Many other countries with violent video games do not have the high crime rates we do. As the number of violent games increases, violent crime decreases. This is a real statistical trend the author failed to address. In fact, it was only after the war in Iraq, that the 10-year decline in violent crime started to rise again in the United States. Surely war can't induce children to crime, so the cause must be video games.
Like all bogus supposed causes of violence, video games will eventually cease to be blamed. Once upon a time, books were banned for fear of inciting the youth. Dancing was also prominently feared. Holding hands, rock and roll music, and even dating were declared to be ultimate demoralizers of society. Time has shown all of this to be wrong.
Some people will always lie and cheat in order to impose their will on others. These people NEED prohibition of the things they don't like. They are the same people who want to burn books, censor speech, and only care about the freedoms they themselves enjoy. Anything is fair game in a witch hunt, so I propose blaming witchcraft for the decay of society. It's been done before, so it can happen again.
It's disgusting that in this day and age, "not ridiculous" is equated with "refreshingly balanced." Yes, this piece isn't as bad as Jack Thompson tripe, but it's still shite. It's a meaningless feel-good piece (closes with "Meanwhile, how about a game in which kids, shrinks, and late-night comics size up all these factors and help save the world?") that has no substance and simply says "stuff is complicated and linked together and stuff."
Life sure is complicated, but that's not what psychology or any of the social sciences are about. They're about reductionism, about finding the identifiable and predictable patterns and elucidating them. They're about linking independent and dependent variables, not as cleanly as physics, but as best as you can manage. And this "link" between videogames and violence is about as tenuous as the link between, well, *anything* and violence. Breathing is linked to violence, reading is linked to violence, sliced bread is linked to violence, *society* is linked to violence, but that doesn't really tell us a damned thing now does it?
Overt violence and sexuality in media + Japanese kids = fetishist weirdos
Overt violence and sexuality in media + white kids = raving, opportunistic, self-righteous, violent assholes
I was waiting for her to accuse video games as being a front for IBM
Make SELinux enforcing again!
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/censorsh ip.html
You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
I think that the point is that /nothing/ shows that violent video games are a major contributing factor. At least nothing resembling an actual scientific study. And this one is no different than any other.
As someone has said above, one must move to prove an actual causal link and not just a simple correlation.
...cheeseburgers make you fat, smoking rots your lungs, and drugs are bad, m'kay?
In general society, there may have been something other than the prevalence of videogames that has changed between then and now. That's what experiments are for- to try to set up an environment that ensures that the only systematic differences between the different groups you want to compare are those predictors that are interesting to you.
Uhhh.. *cough* Nintendo *cough*
Unless cartoonish violence doesn't count as non-violent, but then most sports games wouldn't count either, what with all the hitting and injuries.
To add on to your argument, the birth rate has risen exponentially in recent years... and so has the death rate! Clearly we can conclude that babies kill people!
" Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
Actually, the exact opposite is true (or, more precisely, the same is true in the inverse). There has been a HUGE increase in the number of pirates in the last few decades, you know.
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
I don't think anyone here denies that young kids playing violent video games may cause them to be more violent. The question is whether the games do more to cause violence than watching violent tv and movies, reading violent books, or playing potentially violent sports. These studies quoted do nothing to show that or if they did, the article does not mention it.
Also, we still have to question how/why these 3rd and 4th graders in the last study got the violent games. Well, no, we know how and why but I'm sure you know what I mean. Sure, perhaps the game did cause them to be more violent overall, but guess what, the game was clearly fucking marked as being something they weren't supposed to be playing in the first place. Again, nothing learned. Mature games may not be good for young kids to play, which is why they are marked as being for 17+.
Then of course there is the type/level of violence. The article did mention this, which is good. There is a big difference between the increased vulgar language, trash talking someone you are in competition with, shooting extra long in a game, and even punching someone and the much more violent action of grabbing a gun and shooting someone in an attempt to kill them.
So basically, they've done a bunch of studies that when combined together suggest what we already know. Violent games may or may not cause extra violence if played by young children who the game is clearly marked as not being for. Way to go.
No one blames the Bible for David Koresh. Why is that do you think? It seems pretty obvious to me: Koresh was a crazy loser and if he hadn't picked the bible as his poison, he'd have just picked something else. That's what crazy losers do: they latch on to something and turn it destructive.
The Bible is not causitive to insanity. And regardless of how you may massage the numbers, its not correlative either. Neither are slasher flicks, ghost stories, football, rock and roll, cops and robbers, or, yes, video games. Got it?
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
First, I want to establish something: I am not in favor of censorship in this area, ever. In fact, I'm not in favor of pretty much any kind of censorship, even kiddie pr0n -- go after the psycho who made it, not the pervert with a stack of DVDs.
No matter what the effect of a piece of information, it is the effect that should be policed, not the information. In other words, if violent video games cause people to be violent, then police those people, not the violent games themselves. A game can't make you violent unless you let it.
With that out of the way...
Videogames have not made me more violent, measured in acts of violence. I'm actually not that aggressive. But violent games, anime, and movies probably have given me more of a capacity for violence.
For example: I am completely desensitized to the games I play: Counter-Strike: Source, Quake 3, etc. CS:S, for example: I can shoot a fairly realistic-looking human in the face, watch them crumple to the ground, blood splattered on the wall behind them, and feel nothing at all. I can do this all day -- in general, games, especially multiplayer ones, do not give me any kind of adrenaline rush.
I've also been to the arcade, so in a basic sense (Time Crisis 2, House of the Dead), I know how to pick up a gun, aim, and fire.
I do occasionally listen to the news, and oddly, I felt worse for certain characters who die in certain movies (Serenity, spoiler alert, etc) than I did when I heard about the Virginia shooting. I'm talking purely on a feeling level here -- the movie almost brought me to tears, but the news simply made me go "meh" or "wtf". Intellectually, I understand that one is real and the other isn't, but I think I would have to know the kids who died to be able to mourn for them.
Still, I can't say that it's fundamentally changed me. If I was the kind of person who would solve problems by punching someone, well, I now know how to point and shoot, and clean up after. But I'm not that kind of person -- sure, it does occur to me that it might be easier if I could just spray an Uzi across the room, but I choose not to.
So it comes back to, guns don't kill, people do. The videogames and guns may have enabled that student, but they weren't the root cause. Certainly, we could react by tightening gun laws, or tightening security at schools, but we should also be trying to create a world where, given the choice, people won't choose to kill each other. On an individual level, especially -- were that kid's parents there for him? Anyone in his dorm?
Stupidly idealistic, I know. But it's a start, I hope.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The number of video games was essentially constant. The number of copycat shootings increased in proportion to news coverage. Why? The number of nutjobs inclined to think they could get their story on NBC increased. These nutjobs think violence is the answer. why? The news is constantly telling us that violence is the answer, that terrorists are heroes. These guys think that the media will treat them with similar respect, and apparently they are right.
He hit me.
There you are, the direct link between people being annoying bastards and violence. I mean playing video games.. yeah.
I love these studies by ignorant assholes that have never been even close to the subject matter.
This has been a "subject matter" since society has been able to define the problem.....nothing new to see here for the past 12 centuries...Yes, you have outsmarted yourself beyond redemption...jack-off and cut your own carotid....it's the only way to redeem yourself!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Ok, simple logical question: Do video games cause violence, or do violent people seek out video games? Which is the cause and which is (an) effect? So numerous studies show that people who commit major crimes statistically tend to play violent games. How do we know that they didn't play the games because they enjoyed (or were obsessed by) violence a bit more than average? People enjoy violent entertainment. Violent stories through oral tradition, Punch and Judy, violent books, violent movies, violent games on the playground, etc. It's part of being human. We like things that are exciting. Maybe some people enjoy video games because they're dynamic and exciting, and some people like them because they want to harm something and society won't let them? Something tips them over the edge til the consequences are not real (since they plan to kill themselves) and they kill people because they're angry, sadistic, selfish bastards? Maybe being one of those people makes team sports not so much of an option and they end up playing first person shooters because people don't want to interact with psychopaths, sociopaths and malcontents? Just a thought. Your politician may wish to boil the whole situation into a 20 second sound byte that drastically oversimplifies everything. Be warned. I'm not an expert in ANYTHING.
The story is simple. People are hardwired to climb up the social ladder, men more so than women. Both sexes dig folks at the top of social ladder, and women do so in sexual context. When we make another step - win, kill, debase someone - the instinct that makes us climb up the social ladder makes us feel good, it rewards us. Naturally, we try so supress dangerous ways to satisfy this instinct with cultural indoctrination. When you win a chess game, or kill an opponent in video game, or beat the crap out of a real person - it's all the same to your instincts. If you've been brought up properly, you'll also feel bad in a later case (overall, there'll be a mixed emotion), because you've been trained to. Idiots who "think of the children" fall for the similarity betweed how the brain works in both vidiogames and real violence. Chess are out of the picture because they're either too stupid to play, or too stupid to win. Those few who can cannot influence the crowd. Feel free to forward this text to those morons, if you wish. May be some less brain damaged of them will stop fighting what is hardwired into the brain, and concentrate on proper bringing up - the only way to control the monkey in you.
I have been reading this thread for less than 5 seconds and I know much more than the people who have been studying for 9 years. Trust me, I'm not the dumb one here.
...Don't even bother replying... I watched MacGyver man, don't mess.
I also believe I can fix all the terrorist and intelligence problems the U.S. has, plan a national attack, develop nuclear weapons, and fix your car, I have watched two episodes of "24" and I know Jack!
I would like to see other activities analyzed. What about playing football? Does it make kids more aggressive? Do the percentage of violence perpetrated by members of the football team is higher? If its the case, should then Football be banned?
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
...which is that aggression can be a good thing. After all, this is why we teach kids to play football, because we want them to learn how to tackle.
But she dismisses this idea in a 3-sentence paragraph:
"Critics counter that some kids may use games to vent anger or distract themselves from problems...but other studies suggest that venting anger doesn't reduce later aggressive behavior, so [i'm still right, let's move on.]"
Overall this article assumes that aggression==crime, and that's an axiomatic flaw. Agression is the extent to which people try to get what they want; some people try too hard, some people not enough.
So basically your whole confirmation there is that you, yourself, were _worried_ that you _might_ drive aggressively.
First of all, that doesn't say anything about actually driving aggressively, it just says you had a thought about it. I thought "heh, if this were City Of Heroes I'd jump out the window instead of taking the stairs" but it doesn't mean I'd actually do it. If anything, all that _really_ proves is that you've been influenced by the media/peer hype, not by the game itself. You were told that games might affect you and you proceeded to worry.
Even if you said "I noticed that I'm more aggressive", that's still flawed. That's self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias most of the time. People notice more whatever supports their pre-conception, and conveniently skip or forget that which doesn't. E.g., if I wanted to believe, say, "I'm teh greatest fps player ever", I'd notice every time I won or shot someone, but promptly forget every time I got pwned badly. Even a thoroughly mediocre player can feel great that way, and is one reason why competitive games are popular. The same here: if you worry enough about driving badly, you'll notice and blow out of proportion stuff that happens daily to non-gamers too.
I.e., the only way to really know if you were driving more aggressively, is if people who don't know about your gaming started noticing that you drive aggressively. Otherwise, it could be all in your head.
It gets funnier when you're the actor too, because you can often just fulfill your own prophecy. If you think you must fail an exam, it's often an easy way out to actually fail it. If you think you have to have an accident, you might subconsciously go ahead and just cause it. Etc.
And finally, I don't know if you realize it, but in the end what you say there is: so you're actually a more careful driver, then. I don't know if it's the games or your natural temper, but what you're saying there is that you actually worried about driving too aggressively, and tried not to. Right?
That's head and shoulders over some non-gamers I know, for which driving is a penis size thing. They don't just drive to get from point A to point B, they drive to prove that they're Real Man. They drive with the aggressivity of someone who thinks that if, god forbid, they're doing less than 120 km/h in a 100 km/h zone, the next day the Manhood Police will show up at the door with some big scissors and revoke their right to pee standing. But I digress.
At any rate, from what I gather, (A) it made you try not to, and (B) even believing that such an influence existed, it went off after a short break, right? I mean, otherwise there would be no point in waiting a bit. That's a far cry from the premeditated murders that get blamed on gaming. It seems to me that even if violent games affected moods that way, after a round of quake, you might similarly (A) worry about being too aggressive and take a break while adrenaline wears off, and (B) by the time you went to school/work tomorrow the whole thing would have died down anyway. You don't end up shooting the school or office because of what mood you had yesterday.
Especially point A tells me that games would actually make you a better person, or made you a better driver, if games are really the cause there.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I've never played a scientist in a video game but in my 1st life I do research and a couple of years we looked at this by wiring ecg (ekg) monitors to groups of people playing a LAN game FP shootem-up and collecting their spit for hormone levels before and after. We had done a fairly long winded personality and mood profile on them too. (The control was watching a video of video game walkthroughs) The results? Violent people play violent games violently, dump loads more cortisol and have higher more variable heart rates and feel more tense and wound up afterwards. It seemed to us that the effects of the game playing depended on the personality and mood at the time of the person playing the game. This piece of work reminded me of 'research' that proves putting shampoo into rabbit's eyes gives them sore eyes. We moved on.
we are all cosmic nuclear waste
The correlation between video game violence and real violence is like the correlation between a hotdog eating contest and cannibalism. ...wait, that last one might have something going for it, it shows promise.
Or being a chef and being a mass murderer.
Or being a vegan and being someone that cuts down rainforests.
Or writting a report on how video games produce a more violent society and being an idiot.
Thesis: Videogames don't cause violence, but are rather a indicator of tendancies.
/will/ correlate to violence and crime.
1) Get a group of people that don't normally play much in the way of video games.
2) Perform a psychological analysis on the people, and split them into three categories:
[A] nonviolent, [B] intermediate, [C] violent tendancies
3) Find a number of games, and fit them into the three categories that the people were in.
4) Split each of the three groups up into sets:
[a] Control set - they are simply observed
[b] This set is introduced to nonviolent games, and required to play 4-6 hours a week.
[c] This set is introduced to intermediate games, and required to play 4-6 hours a week.
[d] This set is introduced to violent games, and required to play 4-6 hours a week
[e] This set is introduced to all games, and required to play 4-6 hours a week, the categories and amount of play from those categories will be recorded.
Preiodic pyschological analysis will also be done (once every one to six months, to be determined at the time of the experiment)
The researchers will examine the criminal records of the subjects for the duration of the experiment, and a total of 10 years afterward.
Prediction:
A) No correlation between type or lack of game play, and violence.
B) The type of game chosen by members of set [e]
A: true
B: true
This will indicate that violent games do not cause volence, but rather are an indicator of a person predisposition towards violence. This is the expected outcome.
A: false
B: any
This will indicate that type or lack of game play does influence violent tendancies in individuals.
A: any
B: false
This will indicate that type of game play is a poor indicator of violent tendancies.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Growing up, stressed out, I used to stare at walls. In between gaming sessions. After a bad game of poker, I snapped my phone in half. After 4 deaths on 2 different boss fights in FF3 DS, I dang near snapped my DS in half. It's a bit more expensive then my cell phone however. I don't think I'd be that angry if not for all the games I've played in the last 10 years. I don't think I'd be this smart if not for all the puzzle games I've played either. (Pardon me while I laugh at myself.) I think they need to look at outside factors more then just a straight 1:1 ratio of games to violence. When my DS nearly suffered? I was drunk. When my cellphone cried? Same thing. When I played Myst, 7th guest, or close to hundreds of other puzzle games? If I was drunk, the game taught me that I'm not going *anywhere* at that time. Sure I wanted to break it, but I knew if I did, I couldn't try with a clear mind tomarrow. (I bring those up since I had just turned 21 at the time. Recent example? Puzzle Quest. grrrrr.) I think researchers need to look at more then one correlation before they start pushing blame around. I'm living proof. (And maybe, I'm not as dumb as I feel when I'm drunk. Haha.)
The article is NOT balanced. All of the sources that it mentions are from Craig Anderson who has never met a medium that he didn't think caused "agression." The problem with Anderson is, at least in the Anderson studies I've read, he never defines what "aggression" is. In one study he gives the example of saying something mean as being aggressive. So for Anderson aggression can mean anything from killing someone to saying, "You suck!" Regardless of the type of media he has studies Anderson has consistently found what he says is a correlation between media and violence. He uses his own techniques and standards as if they were seen as common, valid, and reliable within the field and yet I've not been able to find anyone else that uses them. Now I'm not an expert in psychology by any means so maybe there are people using his techniques and maybe in some article he defines his terms, but I've read a few articles co-authored by him and I've searched for people using his techniques and came up empty.
Without citing studies by people not associated with Anderson the article isn't much more than a step above Jack Thompson (and it does include the notion that Lee Malvo played Halo which was started by Thompson and I've never been able to find any solid evidence that it was true.).
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
If the studies in TFA are not enough for you, are you asking for scientists to generate a homocidal maniac? Is that the only proof you'll accept?
'm sure I'm not the only one who, after a particularly intense multi-player session of burnout ponders the best way to force the slowpoke ahead of you off the road. But I'm also sure that I'm not the only one who has realized that this is not the proper way to deal with a slowpoke ahead of you blocking traffic.
This smacks of "user error" syndrome. A bad programmer writes an app with an unintuitive user interface, and when users mess up he blames them.
Any good programmer will indulge in user-oriented design. He would assume the user might hit Ctrl+F on autopilot, expecting a search box to pop up, so he wouldn't use Ctrl+F as the keycode for formatting the PC's hard drive and wiping all data.
You acknowledge that playing games makes you want to drive faster and more aggressively, and accept that this probably goes for others, but you say it's down to the user to control his urges and absolve the designer of all responsibility.
I sick fed up of people blaming the users.
Oh, and I don't believe that you keep all those negative feelings completely in control on the road. You must recall hearing of studies that show that people just off driving games end up driving closer to the car in front than they would otherwise...? And you know what? they aren't even aware they're doing it.
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
This is ridiculous. I can't believe it's making a headline. Of course playing aggressive video games can contribute to aggressive behavior. This is the same thing that has been scientifically shown with violent TV.
I can't recall the name of the study, but the control group watched shows like Teletubbies, and the experiment group watched shows like Power Rangers, and guess what? By the start of the very next day, the kids who watched the violent TV show were more aggressive on the playground.
This is not news.
Don't cry "Oust Bush," cry "Restore Freedom!" Don't support a candidate who isn't doing anything to unravel Bush's web.
I would also like to see some of these studies take into account the effect on the losers. I have a friend who gets extremely mad when he loses at anything. Videogames, racketball, or even when I would do better on a college exam then him. When I was a kid I also knew people who broke controllers for their nintendo when they would lose.
These things may have been the trigger, and I'm not the same way, but it doesn't mean those triggers should be changed, it just means he has to learn to not take it so personally.
But I wonder if the studies show that winning reduces that violent tendancy, it certainly does in my friend.
Sorry, you're wrong. TFA described a controlled experiment, where the FPS and Myst players didn't choose what to play. They were assigned their game randomly. There are different ways to criticize their conclusions, but yours misses the point.
There is a big problem with this article and others like it. It is very difficult to get reasonable results out of them. There is no single causational trigger for violence. If there were, we'd see armies of 28 days style zombies everywhere.
The evidence pretty clearly indicates that all media has a weak influences on violent behaviour whether it be comics, novels, newspapers, music, movies, television, or video games, but real life has the largest impact. The violence we witness or participate in is more important than any other factor.
For young children, parents tend to play the pivotal role in their development. The parent's reaction to violence can be more important than all of the media that the child consumes. But a parent actually has to be there. They have to talk to their children. They have to make sure that their children are understanding the context of what they see and hear.
I think the "protect the children" crowd has it terribly, terribly wrong. They want to protect children from seeing the consequences of violence. That might be worse than teaching children self-confidence instead of knowledge, which everyone should know by now was disastrously bad. Children learn from what they see and hear, when violence is portrayed as having no consequences they learn that violence has no consequences.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
There is another and more logical reason for the army to have it's soldiers practice shooting at targets and that is to become better at hitting their targets. I'm guessing that is why it is called "target practice" and not "desensitisation drill".
Actually they call it "marksmanship training", "target practice" is for your local civilian range. Also, there is a VERY STRONG desensitation element. They do not use round bulls-eye targets like a civilian range, they use human silhouette targets. Furthermore, these human silhouettes are then made to move, pop up and drop down as if taking cover, and fall over when hit like human beings; not remain static like in target practice. Even hunters use static target, they don't (well are not supposed to) take a shot while an animal like a deer is moving. Finally, some training is going digital and are effectively serious video games. These simulation allow for even more realistic movement and situations. We have moved beyond desensitation and have moved into stimulus/response and muscle memory, things that formerly had to be learned in the mud not in front of the computer.
The military believes in desensitation. In a ROTC class we were shown color combat footage shot by Navy combat camermen who went ashore with Marines during the invasion of the island of Tarawa. Numerous Navy cameramen were killed, they were in the middle of this assault. Think of the opening scene in Saving Private Ryan, now think more graphic, more blood. Now dwell on the fact that it was real. We were told that the purpose of these training films was desensitation. That we weren't immunized in any way, that the goal was to shorten the duration of the initial shock of combat should we find ourselves in such circumstances. Now keep in mind that this was a passive activity. A video game is interactive, you participate, your actions have results - this have even greater effect for desensitation.
All that said, we have the right to play a violent video game just as we have the right to read a violent book or watch a violent movie. In defense of these rights, do not undermine your credibility by dismissing desensitation, it is real.
Counterstrike is NOT that violent. Yeah you can unload a gun pointblank into a "persons" face BUT the effect is cartoonish. They just crumple to the floor with fake and totally unconvcing blood and a fully intact body (unless new damage modelling has been added).
Soldier of Fortune and a game I don't remember had location damage. Shoot someone in the groin and they react to that.
In Mafia death was far from instant. People would fall to the floor and attempt to crawl away begging for their life.
In CS your kills are mainly enemy soldiers. In SoF I believe there were civilians but they were NOT your main target. In Mafia they often were.
So wich game is the more violent? You could play Mafia nicely offcourse but shooting an unarmed innocent women who is begging for her life trying to scramble to safety is a tad different from shooting an enemy soldier carrying a loaded weapon in combat.
You could see SoF just as realism, you don't HAVE to go for the most painfull shots that a sure the most prolonged death struggle.
And that is what I think sets violent gamers apart from gamers who play violent games.
Do violent games make you violent? Offcourse not. Porn does not make you horny, nobody listens to mood music and we don't read a fun novel to perk ourselves up.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm not a scientist, but I've *killed* one in a video game...
The most likely truth would be that it increases aggressive tendencies but lets this aggression be let out in a harmless fashion. It's not like it has to be only one or the other.
People get way too defensive about this. I mean, really, is there any doubt in any other sphere or life from driving to watching sports to riots to shopping on the day after Thanksgiving that when people are exposed to competitive and violent stimulus, they themselves become more aggressive? Why should violent video games and movies be different in any way?
The question which hasn't been solidly answered is whether or not the increased aggression boils over into other forms of interaction.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
They say people who watch wrestling are more likely to be violent.
I ask, is it not the other way around?
Perhaps people who are naturally violent are more likely to watch wrestling?
The answer, which most people don't seem to see, is that it's both. Watching aggressive stimulus makes one more accustomed to aggression, and aggressive entertainment makes aggression seem more entertaining. Those who are used to finding aggression entertaining seek out stronger aggression for entertainment and many settle on wrestling.
Very, very few relationships in life are one-way. Human behavior is very often tied to feedback loops and reinforcement.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
We just take for granted that desensitization to violence is a bad thing. I'm not so sure that I agree. Do we ever question a war veteran's character, because his war experience may have desensitized him to violence?
People make the mistake of thinking that desensitization implies apathy. It does, indeed, imply that one has a less visceral reaction to violence. But, is a visceral reaction to violence necessary to make appropriate moral judgements, or to take action when it must be stopped? I think a visceral response may, in fact, be detrimental. I would venture to argue that when people ignore violence in front of them, it's usually not apathy that keeps them from intervening. No, it's a deep, old dread. It's the adrenaline gnawing at their stomachs. It's their senses of self-preservation kicking in. Their hands are stilled not by apathy, but by fear.
When we are in crisis situations, we need to keep a level head and take action. When confronted with a mass shooter, would you choose to be the person petrified by fear, or would you choose to be the person heroically barricading the doors?
We are civilized, but our world is still dangerous. People are still sent to war. People still face crime. People still face domestic violence. These threats aren't going away anytime soon. We can't afford to be shocked when confronted with danger. We have to be prepared to act with courage and strength of purpose.
Incidentally, I don't think the classical supply/demand stuff you're talking about really applies when the cost of shipping and reproducing goods is sufficiently minimized - as for example in electronically distributed media. I believe that relationship describes lack of producers or distribution creating a lack of physical product.
I remember some findings by a Professor Harold Hill of Gary, Indiana that showed that Pool caused a great deal of trouble in River City, Iowa. If I recall correctly, this was evidenced by the fact that Trouble starts with a capital T which rhymes with P and that stands for Pool.
They rarely ever consider the effects on people outside the US. For example, why is the rate of violence in Japan so much lower than in the US when children in Japan have more access to violent video games and other forms of entertainment? Could it be that we have a culture that continues to glorify war and promote aggression as the most effective means of solving problems? Our history to this day is centered around war and being some kind of hero and our government is the strongest supporter of this. Americans including kids were aggressive long before video games were all that realistic. The fact that our video games are violent is more of a biproduct of the way we are, not the cause of what we have become. The late 80s and early 90s were the most violent for kids in the US, yet most of the games people were playing weren't that realistic when it came to violence. Doom was great but your average kid was playing a 3rd person 2d game on NES. The music was pretty violent but that was after it was influenced by violence in gang and drug infested communities. In the end most kids that are hardcore gamers(the ones that would be most influence by their games) don't have time to go outside and commit real world violence. Real world violence would just be seen as a hinderance to game playing.
I have very little doubt in my mind that video games and media can affect behavoir in certain ways. Most of the time the affect is countered by the mind of the viewer even when that viewer isn't mentally stable. This is mostly done through fear of punishment in real life, which doesn't really happen in places like the internet or video games. Anyway to get back on track I don't see why violent games are even an issue. It's not like there's been a giant upswing in violent crime, or that we're raising a generation of violent kids. Personally if you ask me kids today are wusses compared to other generations. The only time the games (or media) and violence even comes up is when some psychopath goes on a rampage. Those situations are pretty much unpredictable and there's really no direct cause. Sometimes it's GTA, sometimes, it's Taxi Driver, sometimes it's Catcher in the Rye, and sometimes it's the neighbors freaking dog. I suggest you stop finding the scapegoat accept the situation as an tragic accidenct, and go on with your lives the best you can.
Beware for irritating other people it may lead to people yelling...screaming...and can lead to violence...perhaps more.
So are we going to stop irritating other people? Is this a factor as well? Could this be a bigger factor then violent video games? Are we going to do anything about it?
You FOOL, you always lose points or fail mission objectives when you kill scientists!
Perhaps it's not the violent content that makes gamers violent. Maybe it's the isolation that the gaming activity increases. What's important is to look at the social structure around these violent people as well as their habits. Video games don't make people violent. People are violent. Societal structure keeps them from acting their violence out.
studies (I'm sure google will help you out) show that more liberal porn laws result in less sexual assaults.
Why should video games / movies be any different.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I think the media making a HUGE deal about all of the shootings causes people to want it to do it more for recognition when they feel as if nobody pays attention to them. How would you become known and show EVERYONE that you're pissed, than to go kill a few people. It's not like it hasn't happened since the beginning of time... serial killers.. suicide bombers.. shooters.. all before realistic shooter games came about.
I think that your ratio for kids that get picked on in school HIGHLY outweighs the ratio of those playing video games. MAYBE they should think about paying attention to the people who started fucking with these kids in the first place, rather than how they vent their aggression.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
We all know violent crime is on the increase, so what's causing it?
Oh, wait, violent crime isn't on the increase. That's just a false assumption based off people believing what a sensationalist media feeds them. Violent crime has actually experienced a MASSIVE downturn since Doom, Mortal Combat and Grand Theft Auto all came out.
Take one look at the DOJ's serious violent crime figures.
From a peak at the end of the last Republican government (Clinton took power in early 93), violent crime dropped from aout 4,000,000 cases per year down to well under 2,000,000 cases per year when he left power (in early '01). Since then, the drop off has ceased but the fluctuation has still stayed relatively level.
It's remarkably convenient to talk about how violent computer games are training the hundreds of violent criminals on our streets and certainly gets your columns attention... yet it ignores the simple fact the numbers of violent criminals on our streets have actually had a massive downturn since videogames became available as a healthier focus for people's frustrations.
Now, I won't claim videogames deserve all of the credit. A period of relative prosperity and the greater social equality of a more centerist government, along with plenty of other factors, may have had much more to do with it...
Still, it is utterly falacious to look at what causes the terrible violent crime wave we're under when, in fact, we're experiencing vastly less of it than any time in the 35 years the records go back.
"Some people just can't handle things not going their way. "
"The problem isn't that Johnny plays counterstrike; it's that Johnny has a violent temper and lack of self control. "
Please! This whole thread reads like a bunch of idiots who once got bullied at school and need to take revenge. The studies are worthless because they are hunting the wrong question. Violence is a human quality. History tells us that much, and there weren't any Romans running around with Pacman hidden away in the sleeves of their tunics. Violence is not linked to video games any more than it is to reading horror stories or watching movies.
Any human, including yourself, can be brought to the point where he will act violently. It just depends on the right conditioning and environment. And yes, certain violent video games will definitely certainly augment his finger skills, train his nerves, improve tactical reasoning. That's why they were built.
What brings people to commit the act, though, is something completely different. I'll leave it to your wild imaginations what that something could be, but no video game ever gave any gamer the incentive to commit killing or violence. They'll definitely be better at it, but it's not the reason.
And, as someone else noted, there is a serious bias as to the sources of the material that was used to write the article. Mental note: Refreshingly balanced pieces require rigorous inspection.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
"This work suggests that kids who are more immersed in violent video games may be more likely to get into physical fights, argue with teachers, or display anger and hostility"
May be more likely to get into physical fights? This tells me nothing. Are these kids becoming bullies that go around and beat up everything, or are they standing up for themselves and others more often? People sometimes need to stand up for themselves and others, if games are influencing kids to do such, then they should play more violent games.
More likely to argue with teachers? So what? Maybe the teachers are wrong, in which case someone should tell them, rather than eat the crap that is being force-fed to them.
Displaying anger or hostility? OMGOOSES! You mean kids who play violent video games express themselves? I displayed my anger proudly every time the faculty at my school did something stupid, because I WAS ANGRY!
It seems to me that this article is asumming all of these things are bad qualities, but I happen to find them all to be perfectly healthy...more healthy than a kid who avoids physical violence rather than defending himself, a kid who follows a teacher blindly, or a kid who fails to express himself because he is afraid of what someone else will think.
I have always played violent video games since I was a kid. Back in Jr. High, I was picked on alot by three particular people. I wasn't small or a geek, I was simply quiet and read alot. I didn't fall into geekdom until later in High School. I put up with it for a while, and eventually decided "ENOUGH!". I put one's head through a window, got one down on the ground and started punching him in the face repeatedly while his two friends were punching and kicking me, and pushed the other down some bleachers after he kicked me in the back of the head. None of them bothered me again, and niether did anyone else from then on through High School. I have actually never been in another fight since and am not a fan of real world violence. Sure, that all sounds harsh for a guy who doesn't like violence, but so was putting up with all their crap for so long, sometimes all a bully needs is to get his ass kicked hard once or twice to help them realize what kind of pain and suffering all of their petty little crap day after day adds up to.
Many of my teachers hated me, but I wasn't a troublemaker. I was the kid who pointed out when they said something that was incorrect during class, or asked why I was forced to work problems a certain way when I had another way that was much more efficient and ultimately got me to the right answer. I was the kid who wrote reports on American "heroes" that told the truth about them, rather than portraying them in the light that a teacher would have liked me to. I was the kid who asked about lies that we were taught in American History. For all of this, I was punished during Jr. High and High School. When I started college I was commended for these traits by nearly every one of my professors, why? Because questioning things is a good quality, I for one will not follow anyone blindly. So yeah, I argued with my teachers ALOT.
When the faculty at my school made a stupid decision against me or anyone else, I was mad, and I expressed ANGER. When one of my friends got into more trouble for defending a poor fat kid than the guy who was giving him crap, I got mad. I expressed ANGER AND HOSTILITY towards the teacher who made that decision. I was not ashamed to act out on how I felt, nor should anyone be, because I was right. Today when I read a news story about a kid being arrested for making a map for a video game or writing a paper, I still get angry, and were I face to face with the people who carried out such an arrest I would likely get hostile, because they are America's worst enemy. While everyone else is worried about America's enemies overseas, I am worried about the freedom haters right here in America because they have already infiltrated us, and are right here on our homefront. If we co
Although Final Fantasy 7 and even Super Mario 3 (I'm mostly thinking of shooting fireballs) are somewhat violent, the overall point stands. Mainstream gaming is generally non-violent. The big sellers on PC are likewise stuff like The Sims, Civilization (sort-of violent) and Myst.
of video games.Hell I thought it was bread that caused problems. here the stats:
A recent newspaper headline read, "Smell of baked bread may be health hazard." The article went on to describe the dangers of the smell of baking bread. The main danger, apparently, is that the organic components of this aroma may break down ozone. I was horrified. When are we going to do something about bread-induced global warming? Sure, we attack tobacco companies, but when is the government going to go after Big Bread? Well, I've done a little research, and what I've discovered should make anyone think twice....
THE FINDINGS
1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average person eats more bread than that in one month!
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after only two days.
PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS
Most bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling. In light of these frightening statistics, we propose the following bread restrictions
1. No sale of bread to minors.
2. No advertising of bread within 1000 feet of a school.
3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
5. A $40.2 billion fine on the three biggest bread manufacturers.
REMEMBER: "Think globally, act idiotically."
I have testified in a court case where the totality of the evidence against the defendant was a single .jpg on a computer that was in a publicly accessible room in a shared house (the defendant's ex-wife almost certainly planted it, and called the cops too). The police had a warrant in less than 24 hours based on the tipoff and they cuffed the defendant before they even started searching.
Your description of what you think would happen is extremely unlikely. Most likely you'd be convicted, unless a very creditable eyewitness actually saw the evidence being planted and was able to identify the culprit in a lineup. If you survived prison you'd be permanently tagged as a sex offender and child molester and your neighbors would be notified where ever you moved.
That's how it works in the USA. Feel free to do some research and verify this for yourself; don't take my word for it.