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.

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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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!

[Cornflake917]

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

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

[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.

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!!

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.