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.'"
... 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.
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.
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.
Strange, according to the **AA there has actually been an increase in the number of pirates. So do pirates cause global warming? Sounds like an argument the **AA would have a field day with.
First post = troll. Cleverly worded post designed to enrage others = flamebait.
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.
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.
You know, the whole "video games desensitizes players to violence" arguement never really made to sense to me. Would you be completely comfortable if you watched some one get shot in the face in real life? I've been playing Counter-Strike and other violent fps's for the better part of my life, and I still feel faint at the sight of signficant amounts of blood. I know if I personally saw someone get shot in the head, I would probably pass out. I've seen real people getting shot and killed on videos before, and I didn't like it one bit, and I got sick to my stomach.
Maybe some people who aren't sane enough to realize the difference between fantasy and reality will be affected by video games, but I have yet to see proof the video games actaully desensitizes us to actaul real-life violence.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
"People who like violence will play violent video games."
/vast/ majority don't want to pay it.
That statement is fine, but I'd also like to add that people who like games will also play violent video games. There's two attraction factors being addressed here. Violence, and gaming. The vast majority is being drawn by gaming. The goal in Counterstrike is to win, or get points. Violence is just being painted over what is really just people playing a form of "tag" at a distance...virtually. The violence is hardly worth mentioning, and goes unnoticed by a player, but is readily apparent to an observer. The observer isn't seeing the game, the player is all about the game.
That said, even if people could die from violent video games, that still doesn't mean we shouldn't get to play it. People die from freedom, computers, security, movies, books, sports, etc. These are all things we can jettison from our lives to preserve the lives of others. It's simple to see how you can reallocate the resources expended on these things to save a life. Hell, a fistula costs what, a few hundred USD? This computer alone costs more(and yours too probably). But the fact is that we're ok with not spending that $200 on a fistula. How much in your life would you trade to save a life? How much of a society's life would you trade to save a life? How much should the world be willing to sacrifice to save 1 life? How about 2? A million dollars? How about 100 million? A billion? Or on a personal level, how much poverty are you willing to endure to save a life? Anyone can find the few hundred dollars necessary to save a life but they haven't paid that money out. There is a price tag on lives and the fact is that the
And here's the extreme statement with respect to the above. Even if Columbine's primary and sole source of motivation was a video game...I'd be ok with it. Virginia Tech had nothing to do with games at all, but if it did? I'd still be ok with it. That says something about my morals with respect to the things I'd rather have instead of a life being saved. But so do our cars, vacuum sealed foods, computers, pretty much everything makes a similar statement.
So who gets to decide where the cut-off point is in terms of morals for luxury? Who is the man without sin who gets to cast the first stone? Because I'm damn sure anybody who qualifies is already too poor to have even heard anything about videogame violence controversy.