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

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?

[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?

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.

[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.

Hangman

[bi_boy]

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

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.

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.