Violent Games As Great Teachers

Gamepolitics and the site Physorg have an in-depth look at a study (pdf) done on the educational nature of violent games. While the implications of the study reinforce the old 'games lead to violent kids' saw, the authors of the research stress that they're more interested in talking up the benefits of games in education. "When considered in the light of what is known to be the "best practices" of education, violent video games appear to be exemplary teachers of aggression ... It should therefore be no surprise that video games are excellent teachers, both of educational content and of violent content... The fact that learning occurs regardless of whether the effects are intentional or unintentional is irrelevant, and should make us more thoughtful about designing games and choosing games for children and adolescents to play."

Comments

The Typing...

[jesdynf]

... of the Dead.

Further comment seems superfluous.

Re:The Typing...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

So where do I get a BFK9000? Or is that just a Model M?

Re:The Typing...

[twistedsymphony]

I actually have that game for Dreamcast along with the Dreamcast keyboard. It's surprisingly fun and just as good in any party situation as Guitar Hero or Wii Sports.

At for games as teachers... of course they're good teachers, they're interactive. Unlike the classroom where you're expected to sit an absorb information to either be regurgitated verbatim on an exam or never actually applied games give you little nuggets of info that you need to apply immediacy.

Edutainment isn't difficult but the way it's implemented in most cases is mostly useless as most educational games I've seen are lame platformers or side shooters with education haphazardly slapped in there in a way that doesn't really utilize the game mechanics to reinforce the lesson.

Typing of the dead is a fantastic example of edutainment done right, the game mechanics directly relate to the lesson. Similarly BrainAge/BigBrain Academy have the game mechanics directly related to the lessons.

There's no reason a history lesson couldn't be thoughtfully added to an RTS game, or math and sciences used in challenges presented in an adventure/puzzle game, etc. Though it seems that those interested in making educational games are not good at making games in general, and those that are good at making games have little to no interest in making them educational.

Typing of the Dead anyone?

[PrescriptionWarning]

Shoot zombies and learn to type words like "Macabre" and "Fleshrotten" to raise your Word Per Minute! For some reason i also just thought about those Number Muncher and Letter Muncher games. Eating letters and words may not be quite as violent, but it was still fun stuff :)

aggression?

[Joe the Lesser]

I've killed many a simulated human being in my video game days. That teaches me about warfare and violence. However, I don't think linking teaching how to do violence to 'aggression' makes any sense. Why would playing fun war games make me angry?

What makes me want to hurl the tv out the window is throwing an interception in Madden '08. I've never had that feeling when playing Day of Defeat though, even when I get bazooka'd, which is pretty embarrassing. Perhaps when the server drops my connection though.

So video games may increase interest and understanding of violence and war, but if someone's having a good time, I don't think it is promoting 'aggression'. The anger is probably already there with or without video games. Unless it's Madden and the damn wide receivers won't fight for the ball.

Re:aggression?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think Bully or Grand Theft Auto, not alien shoot-em ups. Not saying they effect every kid, but I could certainly see GTA making some kids think they can out-run cops in order to get out of a speeding ticket.

Nice time to mention one of my favorite sayings too:
"While I'm all for porn and violence, lets not pretend they somehow build character and prepare you for life"

Re:aggression?

[happyemoticon]

Psychologists beat this dead horse because it grabs headlines. Professors at research institutions, unless they are very lucky, are under constant pressure to publish, and sexy research gets more grants and publication deals than boring research. Seriously, if you were one of these publishers, what would you rather publish: a paper which tells Middle America that their children are little shits because of an across the board decrease in hope, parental involvement, social mobility, and community strength along with an increase in consumerism, political cynicism, chemical mood intervention and isolation - or a paper which tells them to grab their pitchforks and march on game developers?

For the record, I'm aware that this is an ad hominem argument, but I just cannot see this as anything but reactionary fearmongering. Every time society changes in any way and someone happens to perish in relation to it, people want to hear about how that change definitely and directly precipitated that death, ignoring completely the presence of far more onerous factors such as mental illness. It's just easier to look for easy scapegoats such as rock music, heavy metal, dungeons and dragons, e-mail, usenet, cartoons, movies, anime, video games, MySpace. You could practical make a book of madlibs out of it.

Re:aggression?

[pushing-robot]

I could certainly see GTA making some kids think they can out-run cops in order to get out of a speeding ticket

If kids think that, they haven't played GTA much. Cops respawn every quarter mile or so when you have a wanted level.

On the other hand, GTA taught me that auto detailers are convenient, quick, and the single greatest threat to the criminal justice system.

Re:aggression?

[happyemoticon]

Generally speaking, people who do stupid things as a result of of undue influence from things under the broad category of "new media" are mentally or emotionally abnormal.

Let's use the example of Megan Meier, that 13-year-old girl who committed suicide after an imposter on MySpace she'd known for six weeks spurned her. She was clinically depressed. Now, last I remember (which wasn't TOO long ago), being a teenager really, really sucks, and even normal teenagers are incredibly fragile and self-conscious by adult standards, and are often genuinely shitty to each other - often enough that some kind of emotional crisis occurs on an almost weekly basis. Given this, it seems to me that the primary reason she killed herself was because she was emotionally disturbed, and that sooner or later something just as trying would have come along which put her over the edge. Or, one would only hope, she would develop to the point where she wouldn't do something like that.

That's my opinion. Plug in whatever mental condition, trigger and abnormal reaction you like, I think these kids are just sick.

Re:aggression?

[Anonymous Coward]

"While I'm all for porn and violence, lets not pretend they somehow build character and prepare you for life"

Yeah, because we all know real life doesn't have any violent or pornographic situations in it. Zero exposure to the real world is always the best way to build character and prepare you for life.

Re:aggression?

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, you're right! Just the other day, I killed a bunch of people and got away with it, then blew up a government base, and then I went to the grocery store and the cashier wanted to have sex with me right there on the scanner!

Re:aggression?

[Al Dimond]

Counterpoint: are you likely in real life to encounter situations in real life where the best solution is similar to the solution that pornography or violent media shows as successful? Such media tends (I'll certainly grant exceptions, particularly in pornography, which is extremely diverse... much of it is overtly demeaning, though) to show success coming from aggressive behavior, through defeating an opposing force or subjecting a sexual partner through some form of domination for one's own satisfaction. How often in reality is any problem you face going to be solved by reverting to vigilante-ism? And how often will a healthy sex life be based on what's seen in mainstream pornography? Not very often. Especially not when dealing with people in a society.

Moreover, much of our media is focused on victory or closure, as the culmination of a struggle. Killing the final boss in a video game, the orgasm in pornography, sure. But many films and novels end with a victory as well, a victory as earned reward for overcoming some conflict. Or grades in school: solve some canned problems without making too many mistakes, get an A. This really isn't a realistic depiction of how our lives work. The important events in determining Iraq's future happened after the President declared victory. The most important parts of a relationship happen after the wedding. When you do a project in real life, it is important to do something with feedback received from your boss or people that use it, and not just "accept your grade". Victories and defeats are ongoing. And this is often poorly represented in our media (though certainly there are exceptions).

So I'd say you can play lots of games, read books, watch films, with any subject matter you'd like, and not get an ounce of reality. How about that?

Re:aggression?

[aichpvee]

Forget that shit, if you want to learn aggression pick up a copy of Cookie & Cream for PS2 and try playing through it with a 6-year-old. If that doesn't teach you aggression after a couple of hours nothing will.

Re:aggression?

[Anonymous Coward]

In support of the parent poster,

I began playing incredibly violent video games (Doom, Wolfenstein 3D) when I was 4 years old. I've been playing video games in general obcessively ever since. I play currently on 3 "for-money" first-person shooter online teams - and a LAN team. I subsidize part of my income by attending LAN's and killing my way to the top amongst the best in the region. It's no exxageration to assume I'm probably the most "hardcore" gamer responding to this Article. I was one of the best bard's in EverQuest 1 which I played for 6 years - and since then I've played just about every other MMO out there (if I tried listing all the ones I've played I'd forget them). One would think - that a guy who became so good at games like Quake III, Counter-Strike 1.6 and Source, that none of the local gamers will even play me at any of them for the past few years - would be the PRIME example of the 'Violent By Video Games' claim. Here I am, I'm your proof. With more than a decade of hardcore MMO'ing behind me I should have the most skewed beliefs on reality in the room as well right? I should have no quarrel with pvp'ing my fellow man?

So who is behind the moniker?

A 21 year old University student studying Philosophy (specifically: Morality and Ethics), and Politics (where Morality and Ethics are applied IRL). I converted from Christianity to Buddhism when I was 8 against my parents wishes because of my understanding of the history of Christianity and the principles I had learned of Buddhism - specifically on the subject of pacifism. (albeit - I don't believe Buddha was a God - but really I think that idea is just a Hindu spinoff so they could tie him into the reincarnations). 4 years after I had entered the Strogg War (Doom Reference) and had been killing demons and other marines alike for years. Strange morality for a virtual mass murderer no? I cook, I exercise, I meditate, I listen to indie music (indie Death/Doom/Heavy/Goregrind Metal) and I frag a whole hell of a lot of people on a daily basis.

So how much violence have I committed in real life in the course of my life? One time in Kindergarten a kid was being a dick to me for no reason, and then he punched me in the eye, so I broke his nose. One time when I was in about grade 9 a pack of older kids tried to beat me up, I took most of the beating myself but I gave the alpha male a black eye and sprained one of the other ones wrists - not very buddhist of me, I know. One time my sister was drunk but was acting like she was on coke - I carried her outside and told her to calm down but then when I went to close the door on her she ran at it - and hit it after it closed and fell down the three stairs up to it and split her lip. Not really my fault at all but considering how short the list is I figured I'd start giving accidental involvement too.

Sorry to dissapoint - but while I should be the holy grail of "holy shit video games are bad for our youth!", I think I look like a fucking saint on record. You want to have a real dataset? Work me in there please - I'd like to throw your results for you. Also, in my travels to LAN's, in my epic journeys online, I come across a lot of other gamers and yet - despite that I cant seem to think of anyone I've ever met on there who I'd even remotely consider violent. In a real study - I would be less surprised to hear the opposite of your findings is true - that gamers are LESS violent than non-gamers. In my opinion your study hold less weight than the paper it is written on.

Stupid shrinks.

[SatanicPuppy]

If violent games lead to violent kids, then why has there been no upswing of violence in that demographic since the advent of violent games? Violence has actually declined and while that has nothing (provable) to do with video games, it sure as hell puts paid to any notion that violent games create more violent kids. Kids were more violent 20 years ago.

This is the huge problem with sociology. Put 1200 kids through a test where they're reporting their own answers, and then make blanket assertions about the world. If the world doesn't agree, must be a fluke, right? Their numbers, if real, would have to be reflected in actual numbers...The percentages are statistically very significant.

Goes without saying that they got the results that supported their initial hypothesis.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[LWATCDR]

Funny but does it seems that people want it both ways.
I have seen time and time again about how this book or this movie has changed someones life. I have seen people say that religious movies, books, and or teachings in general barin wash people.
So why is it that people are willing to say that violent media doesn't have an influence on people?
I have a friend that will not allow his kid to see "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" and edited out the religous content of veggie tails videos but at the same time states that violent video games have no effect on people.

Do can media have an effect on people or not?

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[SatanicPuppy]

I think there must be some effect; goes without saying that if you spend hours/weeks/years of your life doing something, it must have an effect, right? On the other hand, if your mind is so weak to be converted by Veggie Tales, you've got problems (as an aside, I think raising a kid with no religious experience is a good way to get a born again kid in later life...they won't have any background to reject it).

I go to church with my wife and kid, because it's important to her, and hell, I was raised religious and the only thing it did for me was make me less patient with the whole nonsense. Sit through the sermons every Sunday, and what does it do for me? Nothing. I have no more desire to do the religious thing now than I did on day 1.

So I'm not saying there is no effect, I just don't think the effect is what they think it is. I learned aggression from video games...Because just sitting around will get you shot. That doesn't make me go out and shoot people, but it does make me more forward, and more conscious of opportunity.

A game may refine what's already there, or give you an idea your mind was already receptive to, but I don't think it creates anything out of whole cloth. Humanity is a violent species...Seeing an increase in some types of aggression when they're doing aggressive things with a large portion of their time seems normal...The fact that it doesn't really translate to anything other than a blip on a survey suggests to me that the new aggression is significantly weaker than their social conditioning, and therefore, not much to worry about.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[Retric]

That was a well done straw man argument.

Do can media have an effect on people or not?

Is not the question. The question is "Do video games that are not designed to increase violent behavior increase violent behavior?" The single most obvious reason they would reduce violence is they take up significant quantities of time leaving time to be violent.

PS: I suspect video games reduce real world violence and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[SatanicPuppy]

I don't think it's a strawman so much...May be a little off topic, but as far as I'm concerned violent games/violent movies/violent books/etc are all of a piece, so it's acceptable to call into question the whole concept of non-interaction.

My gut feeling, is that violent games reduce violence in society by providing a safety valve. I doubt that is as significant, however, as the fact that most people aren't all that prone to violence in the first place. We're less and less the sort of society where going out and getting into a scrap in a bar is acceptable, and as that sort of culture fades, so does the violent crime that goes with it.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[LWATCDR]

"PS: I suspect video games reduce real world violence and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary."
Do you have any evidence too prove it?
Let's face it if someone said that "I suspect video games increase real world violence and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary." I bet you would call them an idiot.
I see a HUGE case of people believing what they want to believe on this issue.
Everything from, "I play violent video games all the time" which is right up there with. "I smoke three packs a day and I don't have cancer."
To your statement that you believe that violent video games reduce violence because you have seen no proof the the contrary.

I doubt that violent video games can make a none violent person violent. Could they help make someone that has violent tendencies more violent? I don't know and I doubt that you know the answer to that question.

So why dismiss a study just because you don't like the result?
That is the exact opposite of the being rational and scientific.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[hey!]

it sure as hell puts paid to any notion that violent games create more violent kids

Hardly. You can argue, for example, that abortion and contraception has resulted in fewer unwanted children over the same period. Or, if you prefer, that the end of the lifetiime welfare entitlement "did the trick".

You can argue into or out of any conclusion you want using crude, aggregated figures, just by introducing or discounting factors to suit your tastes. You have to put a little more effort into disproving a theory like this.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[LWATCDR]

What I find funny is that I am not trying to make the argument one way or the other.
My post was more about how people that in their heart feel that they are critical thinkers are willing to toss it away in a second when it suits them.
They know that in this came violent video games are harmless and will toss away any study that goes counter to that belief.
I don't think that violent video games can make a none violent person in to a mass murder. I am just willing to look at research that says that it may have a negative effect on people.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[SatanicPuppy]

Either way it's all about Correlation != Causation.

My argument against games making people more violent would be more historical. Lot's of things have, historically, been said to make people more violent, and this tends not to bear out in the real world. Marijuana was once thought to induce psychosis and violent behavior, and while we may or may not agree on whether or not marijuana ought to be legal, most people do acknowledge that it doesn't exactly make you violent. The same arguments were applied to movies, rock music, sports events, and comic books...Anything that might make the kids into ravening monsters. It just tends not to happen.

On top of that, there has been no increase in violence since the advent of truly violent gaming. It's pretty widespread now, so you'd think that any actual upswing in violence would stand out against the preceding decades, but there isn't anything like that in the data.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[Retric]

"Recently, the offending rates for 14-17 year-olds reached the lowest levels ever recorded."

This is not a scientific study but see: http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames

If you look at the way gamers spend their free time they are often spending 30+% of their free time playing games. So among that group of people they would have to be 30% more violent in the rest of their life to make up for that gap. Which does not seem to be happening.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[SatanicPuppy]

Not at all. If I argued that some societal factor increased the numbers of children on welfare, and no such increase actually exists in the world, then surely my conclusion must be false, correct?

If I argued that games decreased violent crime based on the fact that violent crime has decreased over the last ten years or so, I'd be falling into the trap you're accusing me of falling into...That decrease could have been caused by anything, and there is absolutely nothing to relate it to gaming.

However, for them to suggest quite blatantly that gamers are far more violent than non-gamers...That runs afoul of the fact that there is none of the increase in violent crime that must follow an increase in violent behaviour among one of the most violent demographics...Men aged 16 to 30. According to the DoJ, the percentage of violent crimes perpetrated by minors has dropped 61% in the period between 1993 and 2005.

How can that possibly correlate with what they're describing as a near universal phenomenon? There are a lot of gamers out there, far too many for there not to be a significant upswing if games really fed the violent tendencies as this research claims they do.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[LWATCDR]

Again you fail to notice that I am not drawing any conclusions as to video games causing violence or not causing violence.
I am commenting on how people that are so sure that they are rational and open minded are willing to toss away there open mindedness when it threatens something they believe is true.
In this case that belief is that violent video games are harmless.
The same people that are dismissing video games I am sure can list some book or movie that they feel "changed" or "influenced" there life.
As I said I am not really trying to draw any conclusions on video games. I am pointing out an observation about people on Slashdot.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[4D6963]

If violent games lead to violent kids, then why has there been no upswing of violence in that demographic since the advent of violent games? Violence has actually declined

Well while the evolution of violence doesn't prove that violent video games made people more violent, it doesn't disprove it either, unlike what you seem to suggest, as violent video games could have very well participated to increasing violence, while for unrelated reasons crime would have dropped. In other words, this doesn't prove anything at all.

That's what I think misleads people, even well educated ones, when it comes to statistics. We tend to think intuitively that a statistic most likely signifies something (for example thinking that a drop in the number of arrests by the police means that less crimes are committed, as it really doesn't mean much at all) as we really can't say it does. Politicians love to exploit this.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[hey!]

Not at all. If I argued that some societal factor increased the numbers of children on welfare, and no such increase actually exists in the world, then surely my conclusion must be false, correct?

It depends on what you mean by "increased the numbers". If you mean "resulted in a number that is higher than at the start of the period studied" it is as you say.

If you mean "resulted in a number that is higher than it would have been in absence of the factor" then it does no good to compare the current number to the number in the past; you need to compare the number to the number in a hypothetical current world where the factor is absent.

However, it would be silly to phrase the idea this way. What you'd want to say is "children exposed to factor X show more of phenomenon Y than children not exposed." It is reasonable, although not necessarily in an empirical sense, to suppose that in a hypothetical current world without factor X we'd see less of phenomenon Y, ceteris paribus.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[soren100]

If violent games lead to violent kids, then why has there been no upswing of violence in that demographic since the advent of violent games? Violence has actually declined and while that has nothing (provable) to do with video games, it sure as hell puts paid to any notion that violent games create more violent kids. Kids were more violent 20 years ago. There are different kinds of violence -- some are very obvious such as the murder and beatings you mention, but there are other kinds of violence as well, that are more insidious.

For example, which do you think is worse -- having someone beat you up, or cheat you out of $100,000 or even $10,000? The bruises would heal in weeks, but the financial damage could take much longer to heal. What if you got cancer and the insurance administrator got paid a bonus to disqualify you from treatment? What about the executives at Enron that cheated their employees out of their life savings? What about cheating with other people's spouses? There are many ways that people mistreat each other every day in many ways that make people suffer far morse than physical beatings ever could, and even make people wish that they were killed instead.

So a game where people actively work against the best interests of other people and delight in their misfortune does not have to literally produce murderers to have negative effects in society. Just training generations of children to laugh at the pain, suffering and misfortunes of others can slowly leach away at the humanity in our society, teaching people to be more cruel and to cheat others more.

The violent effects of video games don't even have to be confined to this country. For example, when Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, most people I know were in favor of the invasion -- it was treated like another video game. The massive human cost of the effects of the war didn't even enter into the minds of most Americans I talked to, even though it's inevitable.

Most networks treated the start of the Iraq War as just another "Superbowl" type event, and very few Americans had the heart to even imagine the vast devastation the war would wreak on both Iraq and the US. Americans should have been horrified at the idea of attacking a defenseless country, but they cheered instead.

I am not saying that violent video games caused the Iraq war, or that they should be banned. I have enjoyed many fragging sessions with co-workers and would still enjoy it. But I also think every action has an effect, and those effects should be thought about. In a day when massive fraud of all kinds is causing the sub-prime mortgage market to fail, taking along banks and threatening our economy, and when our the best and bravest of our country are killing and being killed abroad, and coming home to commit suicide here at far too high rates, one of our biggest problems seems to be a lack of concern for how our actions affect other people. America is still a great country filled with great people, but our position in the world is changing, and we have a lot to think about.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[flayzernax]

My background in the military had more of a difference on my "aggression level" then any amount of video games, movies, or books did.

Some books/novels have had a greater affect (or is it effect?) on my view towards violence, pacifism etc... then any video game ever could.

The point is, this. Our society is hung up on controlling what people do, read, see and hear. We have become a nation of intolerant bigots and single minded fanatics. Peoples jobs, entire sections of the government are now devoted to controlling "What you know" and "How that knowledge effects you" this is in direct contention with our FIRST AMENDMENT. Video games are just data. Video games don't kill people, people do.

Have a nice day.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[Retric]

The part of your statement that I take issue with, is "people who say video games don't increase violence must think they do nothing."

There are a lot of options: Video games might make people non violent, smarter, thin, happy, or whatever. Or some video games like Doom could increase violence where realistic games like counter strike might decrease it. Or some video games like Doom could decrease violence but realistic games like counter strike might increase it. etc.

My point is people who want to demonstrate that some type of video game increase violence need to show this while taking into account what people would be doing if they where not playing games. Aka a true double blind study for some reasonable length of time.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[tieTYT]

Meyers: I did a little research and I discovered a startling thing...
There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.
Kent: I see. Fascinating.
Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance.
Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went
on for thirty years.
Kent: And this was before cartoons were invented?
Meyers: That's right, Kent.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[Natty P]

Violent video games are a *symptom* of this - not the *cause*. 'Financial damages' have been perpetrated for as long as there have been finances - it didn't require a video game - just greed. Wars and dehumanizing and demonizing opponents has been the norm long before video games. The Germans didn't need video games to coin the word 'Schadenfreude'. I also agree that 'every action has an effect, and those effects should be thought about.' - but I think violence in video games is a very minor 'cause' of the 'effects' you mention - and in many (if not most) cases isn't a 'cause' at all - just a symptom of the 'effect'.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you _seriously_ suggesting that American people being pro-war and not caring about enemy casualties is somehow an indicator of some change in western society? I think almost everyone alive has been prone, at some point in their life, to a bit of "us vs them" thinking and not caring about the damage done to other people who are different. It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. People in your tribe are more likely to be related to you, or just share some of your genes, than people in the neighbouring tribe. Even if you do get to an enlightened stage where you see the whole world as one people, if one group starts to act as if they don't care about your life, this can make you considerably less charitable.
Hence, the fear of terrorism and the reported ideas that Islamic nations proclaim western society as evil, are very likely to make Americans feel less inclined to worry about civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia or wherever next.
Seriously, there's nothing new about this. Also there's nothing new about false nostalgia skewing people's perception about how society has changed. (e.g from Ecclesiastes (bible) - "do not ask why things were better in the old days. It is not an intelligent question.")

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[LWATCDR]

"Aka a true double blind study for some reasonable length of time."
That is IMPOSSIBLE!
To do a double blind study the subjects must not know there is any difference! Just what placebo could you provide for video games?
Double blind studies are great when you can do them. For most behavioral studies that is impossible.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[Retric]

"In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group."

Expensive example: Setup 100 after school programs with video games and other activities. Randomly assign some centers with violent game X and others with popular non violent games. See what happens. The researchers at each center would not need to know which the experimental group was. You could even do the classic method of doing some false research to aka does diet soda influence violence.

PS: Yes good science costs $$$. Look at what it takes to run ITER and then get back to me with how unreasonable this would be.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[LWATCDR]

"Expensive example: Setup 100 after school programs with video games and other activities. Randomly assign some centers with violent game X and others with popular non violent games. See what happens. The researchers at each center would not need to know which the experimental group was. You could even do the classic method of doing some false research to aka does diet soda influence violence."
How would you prevent them from playing violent video games outside of the after school programs?
You just can not do a true double blind test for this problem. You would have to restrict the access to violet media for an entire childhood. Just really isn't possible.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[Retric]

How would you prevent them from playing violent video games outside of the after school programs?

IMO: There is no need to do this.

The larger and more random the sample the less outside factors are important. It's true that 6 +/- hours a week for a few years might not be significant but that's still useful information. The simple truth is science works in the real world. So if you can't test a theory then it's meaningless.

EX: In theory you could setup a million fake families on some islands in the south pacific and test how this works but if the effects are so week you need to go that far then IMO it's insignificant. Workable theory needs to clearly rise above the random chaos or it has no predictive value. Real theory needs to predict a direction and magnitude of effects. Statements like "Video games increase violence" have no predictive value because they can be true if 1 act in the universe per trillion years or 1 act per person per second. But hey Think of the children whatever that means.

PS: At this point it seems like your trolling, but I have nothing better to do so whatever.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[LWATCDR]

Okay should I have just said that their is not practical way to do a double blind test of this. I just get tired of people with people that read one issue of skeptics magazine start talking about doing a double blind test of this or that when it is impossible.
The best practical way to do this test would be a single blind test. Even then you couldn't prove causality. It is possible that people violent people might like violent video games. So they would tend to play them more than people lacking those violent tendencies. Kind of the same problem that you have with porn. Sex offenders tend to be read a lot of porn. That doesn't prove that Porn causes sex crimes.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[Retric]

Ok, I think I understand your issue is practicality. And I think causality is important. IMO you could do a great study for around 20-30 million that would just about kill off most debate on this issue. But, how would you fund such a beast? (Ok, you might be able to interest the DoD as they are interested in violence, but it would be a touchy subject.)

Anyway, if you read a study conducted using the basic methods I originally suggested would you feel it said something meaningful about this subject? If not can you think of some study in that price range which would work in your opinion? Now compare your idea with the BS study's that many sociologists use and see why I might take issue with the quality of work up to this point.

I don't care if it's hard. There is no point to doing a study that will not demonstrate any meaningful facts.

PS: I have never read skeptics magazine, but the last study I did used over a million data points over 10 years so I might have unreasonable expectations.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[LWATCDR]

Actually I really don't think the first study would solve the issue. The lack of controls with the after school program would the number one issue.
You might prove that violent video games do not cause people without violent tendencies to become violent. I think that is almost a given.
Your study would tend to give skewed results on a number of ways. One extreme acts of violence are very rare to start with. How would count the acts of violence? What would be an act of violence? Would you rank the severity of the violence or would you only rank acts that where considered crimes?
My experience of being a child was that truly violent acts didn't tend to be caught. The playing around and rough housing did and got punished.
Next you have the outside of the study influences. When the kids go home would they play violent video games or watch violent movies. Even with massive numbers the lack of control on this part of it would make the study suspect.
Finally you have the influence of the parents. Since this would probably be a voluntary study the parents of children that started to have behavioral problems would hopefully intervene.
I think the problem is way to complex for any one study to find the answer.
Dropping the scientific theory for just a moment I know that I fined extremely violent images disturbing to me. They tend to be even more disturbing to my wife. My upbringing was not sheltered yet I know that images do have an effect on me. I know that driving a formula Malibu car tended to make me a more aggressive and intense driver for about half an hour after the race. Of course that is a sample of one and self observation so yes it proves nothing.

Take a look at combat solders. We know that exposure to combat often has a profound effect on people. As games get more an more immersive and are played by children could they have a similar effect?

I think and interesting study would be to look at the physiological impact of simulation. Record the vitals of pilots and tank crews In combat and then compare them to crews in simulators. Does simulation cause the same kind of effects as the real thing? If so what would the effect of several hours of simulated violence be on a young person?

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I have seen kids get frustrated over games as well as older people get frustrated over sports. I have seen both yell and scream at the TV, computer, extra. I have seen people through pillows, controllers, and other stuff as well. But, I do not see games or sports encourage this behavior or even training them to do this. I see it more as a lack of control and sometime a release of frustration/tension/other. In the end, as long as no one gets hurt then I dont see the problem. However, I do feel that this behavior should be discouraged, but again others might not agree. In any case, games have rating on them and as such they should be followed and the parents should take the reasonability to learn and pay attention.

On a side note, this study could work for sports instead of video games. Lets regulate the possible effect of watching sports might have on people when one person takes the game a little too serious, or does sports encourage aggressive behavior, or does sports teach people to hurt other, or does sports teach you extra.

Personally, it seems like someone or a group wants to place blame on video games. Possibly because they dont understand it or dont like it; this seems to fit better then other beliefs.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[trytoguess]

It's more like while folks in places like here and gamepolitics acknowledge games affect people, they don't think games makes people more violent. Afterall while many would say they've been "changed" or "influenced" by a book/movie/game how many would say they've been influenced to be more violent?

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[plague3106]

There's quite a leap from "having some kind of effect" to "playing violent games WILL cause you to become a violent person."

At any rate, does Die Hard have an effect on your life (other than being entertaining)? I highly doubt it. OTOH movies like Fight Club or Terminator 2 can make you think about things a bit deeper besides being entertainment. I'm sure there are better examples, they just aren't coming to mind at the moment.

Its the same for all media; people said the same thing about "romance" novels when the printing press was first invented. Some books were just entertaining, others had deeper meaning. None turned anyone into a psychopathic killer or huge stud.

Re:Stupid shrinks.

[Retric]

You are falling into the classic trap of trying to make the data fit your assumptions not your assumptions fit the data. Let's say drug X causes 1% of people do die in 10 years and doubles the life expectancy of every one else would you take it? You will probably live much longer in great heath but you might just die so is it worth it? And what's the point of this?

Well most people focus on uncommon events. In the US there are around 4 violent crimes (Assault, rape, murder etc) per 1000 people per year. This might seem rare but with ~300,000,000 people that's around 1,200,000 per year. This is a fairly large number with numbers that large rare events are less important. The only meaningful way to talk about that many people is average behavior. One on one specific reactions are meaningful but you don't understand how 300 million lives interact so you need to look at the averages. And on average we are becoming less violent.

Anyway, people tend to investigate why a person becomes violent, but once you start talking about millions of people you need large samples sizes. A few people might come back from war and get extremely violent but the more important piece is what the quiet majority do. Studying the violent tells you nothing about the average. And my point in all of this is on average video games don't increase violence by an order of magnitude so if you really want to say they increase violence in the population at large you need to build a study that can look measure a weak interaction on an uncommon event.

PS: Real life is not the same a simulation which is not the same as video games. So to understand video games you need to study them and how people play them not real life or simulations.

This is absolutely true!

[eln]

My son is in 3rd grade and plays violent video games almost constantly. He's struggling in math and reading, but he's killing at an 8th grade level!

Re:This is absolutely true!

[Applekid]

He's struggling in math and reading, but he's killing at an 8th grade level! So, I presume he's in public school?

Re:This is absolutely true!

[stoolpigeon]

That is excellent - I can't wait for the bumper stickers - My kid pwned your kid in halo3.

Re:This is absolutely true!

[Cornflake917]

I would totally buy that bumper sticker, and I don't even have kids.

Re:This is absolutely true!

[pyro_peter_911]

That is excellent - I can't wait for the bumper stickers - My kid pwned your kid in halo3.

I'm giving my 4 year old daughter a classical education. - "W3ndy gibbed stoolpigeon with the rocket launcher!"

Peter

Learning a violent act != being more violent

[Bryansix]

Yes, I might learn how to clear a room in an fps, or how to manage my various spells in a fantasy RPG or how to drive fast in a driving sim but that doesn't mean that I will then somehow be a more violent person. Also, the same games that teach violent skills may also teach problem solving skills. The Tomb Raider and Half Life series of games both teach problem solving/puzzles.

Re:Learning a violent act != being more violent

[moderatorrater]

Reflexes from the driving sim plus some knowledge of physics and traffic laws/layout, not to mention spatial memory. Memory, spatial awareness and reflexes in an fps. Managing various spells is cost/benefits analysis and also optimal configuration of complex mechanisms in a fantasy rpg. Let's not forget either that these children are subconsciously learning that any problem which is given to them can be solved with the given resources, or if not, that the resource exists to solve the problem. They also receive a sense of achievement/ability and a feeling that they can affect the world as a whole.

Re:Learning a violent act != being more violent

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the same games that teach violent skills may also teach problem solving skills.

Oh absolutely! Once I applied the lessons I learned in Half-Life to real life things have been so much easier.

Sure, carrying a crowbar, .357 Magnum, and a shotgun everywhere does draw a few odd looks but if I bang the crowbar against the wall or floor a few times most folks stop staring right away. If they don't I just wildly brandish the .357 a bit and most of them start scurrying off.

Now and then Dr. Breen sends some of those guys in the gas masks but the shotgun works wonders on them.

Gotta run! Looks like Dr. Breen is at it again. I don't know what his problem is but once I find him I'm sure I can solve it.

Re:Learning a violent act != being more violent

[alan_dershowitz]

There have been media studies that have shown that watching violence on television increases aggressiveness in the short and long term. This is not directly a study about video games, but it is counterintuitive to think that video games where you actually participate in onscreen violence would have a lesser effect than television.

At the very least it is a fact that kids will imitate violent behavior they see. This is the reason that you don't see cartoons anymore with Daffy Duck being shot in the face, Porky getting his head snapped in a suitcase, or Sylvester getting hit in the head with a frying pan by Tweetie Bird: Because kids did these things to their siblings after seeing it on television. Obviously a kid isn't going to have a laser gun or a katana or something like in a video game, but instead he's just going to whip a cup or rock at his brother and yell ZAP.

the game doesn't even have to be culturally unacceptable violence. Studies have shown that even things like watching a football game on television has the same effect. I'm not saying it's turning them into little killbots, but there is evidence that onscreen violence does increase aggressiveness.

Re:Learning a violent act != being more violent

[Bryansix]

Because kids did these things to their siblings after seeing it on television.

Ya, if the kid is three. I play with my younger brother (He's 9) and he doesn't imitate what is on the screen. You can't just lump "kids" in one big catagory.

Re:Learning a violent act != being more violent

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to play this great old game called Betrayal at Krondor, based on a series of books which I had already read. There were these chests with good items in the game, that would have a riddle as the combination to open them. Each letter position had one of 4 possible letters. I wrote a program to decode them using the Unix words file. That taught me about recursion.

I have officially learned something important from a video game.

HA!

I can just see the GTA classroom now

[Anonymous Coward]

Jonny: "Teacher, what happens when you shoot a hooker in the face?"

Teacher: "Jonny, didn't you do your homework? You get to take the money that you just gave her back!"

Study is bullshit, and here's why:

[Anonymous Coward]

In the study, they attempt to examine confounding variables (which they call "controlling"), but they don't take the most basic step of running a controlled experiment. There is no control group!

The proper way to run this experiment is to have two groups of children, have one group play violent video games during a specified time for several months, and have another group of kids of the same age and from the same distribution who are engaging in another activity for the same duration of time. Then one can compare the differences in the violent behavior between the two groups! This would actually provide a meaningful result which properly controls for the effects of both natural changes in the children and the children's reactions to being experimental subjects.

Don't read too much into this study, and wait for someone to do it properly.

Re:Study is bullshit, and here's why:

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd also have to research how the increased aggression, if any, affected the lifes of the kids, preferably over a period of, let's say, 20 years. I know it wouldn't hurt me to be a little more aggresive at times.

'goes back to playing pac-man'

Re:Study is bullshit, and here's why:

[xouumalperxe]

actually, either you can come up with some activity that undeniable has zero effect on character, or you need at least one more control group with a designated activity orthogonal to the first two, so that you can tell if differences in violent behaviour are due to violent games making them more violent, or the other activity making them less so.

Hangman

[bi_boy]

According to this rational hangman is a pretty fucked up game.

Pfft..

[Selfbain]

I've been playing violent video games since I was a little kid and I'm probably one of the most non violent people you will ever meet AND I WILL VIOLENTLY DISEMBOWEL ANYONE WHO CLAIMS OTHERWISE!!

Hitman

[Szeraax]

Yeah, the violent games generally have more to offer than just violence and blood. Hitman comes to mind; it is a big puzzle game that so happens to have fighting and blood. The games that are plain blood and violence are the ones that really aren't fun...

Sperm Wars!

[Anonymous Coward]

enough said.

Half Life

[danbert8]

If I ever get trapped in an underground bunker, I'll know to cut the crap and head straight into the vents. Only after I've grabbed my crowbar of course!
 
And don't even get me started on my ladder climbing education...

Here's what I've learned:

[Trojan35]

I play violent video games all the time.

I played Oregon Trail.
I learned that Dysentery is a bad thing and can kill me and wreck my trip.

I played Doom.
I learned that you can modify things you buy to make them more fun, like Barney. I learned how to use my computer to modify the aliens into Barneys, and now I use computers every day in my job.

I played Warcraft.
I learned that the key to winning games is not how hard you fight, but how great of control you have over your resources. This is true in games, war, politics, and business.

I played Grand Theft Auto.
I learned that if I steal cars, cops will come. If I shoot at them, they will get mad and I will eventually die to a tank.

I played Socom.
I learned that if I was in the Army, I'd die. I learned that a lot.

I think games reinforce the reality of this world, and individuals that do not let it impact their academic/professional lives benefit greatly from them.

aggression? Pacifist?

[Anonymous Coward]

"So video games may increase interest and understanding of violence and war, but if someone's having a good time, I don't think it is promoting 'aggression'. The anger is probably already there with or without video games."

The flip side Mr insightful about your position is that if games have no influence in a negative sense? Then they can't have a positive effect either. All those slashstories about storytelling and are games this or that are out the window because all games can be are neutral artifacts.

Games do have an influence

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

It's true. I've been playing violent games all my life and last week someone stole my parking space, so I went bezerk and got to my trunk and took out my shotgun, 50 round of shotgun shells, my M16 with 20 clips, my rocket launcher and 50 rockets, my chainsaw, 50 handgrenades and my kevlar vest. Well, to cut things short, my doctor said the hernia in my back will probably heal within a few months...