Slashdot Mirror
Violent Games 'Almost' As Dangerous as Smoking
Via Voodoo Extreme, a Reuters report on some very 'interesting' research into violent games. A study out of the University of Michigan has apparently found that 'exposure to violent electronic media' is almost as dangerous to our society as smoking. "'The research clearly shows that exposure to virtual violence increases the risk that both children and adults will behave aggressively,' said Huesmann, adding it could have a particularly detrimental effect on the well-being of youngsters. Although not every child exposed to violence in the media will become aggressive, he said it does not diminish the need for greater control on the part of parents and society of what children are exposed to in films, video games and television programs."
It is worth noting that the "research" here consists of basing new views on long-term effects on old research in short-term effects. In other words, no actual new data has come in, and the data cannot be used to support the conclusions. Besides, it comes from known anti-gamers, often shown to be greatly biased in their "research".
" it does not diminish the need for greater control on the part of parents and society of what children are exposed to in films, video games and television programs."
WTF does society have to do with this? if you dont want your kid watching scooby-doo because you think shaggys a bad role model, thats your idiotic problem. Please dont foist it on the rest of society, we have bigger fish to fry.
So tired of people trying to legislate good parenting.
The problem isn't the violent games, or the violent TV shows, or even the violent peer-groups.
The problem is, quite simply, absent and detached parents.
They basically came to a conclusion based on reviewing studies. There's no clear indication whether the studies were cherry-picked for one reason or another (like, say, anti-video game being a safe bandwagon to appeal for funding). There's also the question of whether the studies that they read were conducted scientifically.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
...is that violent video games kill 440,000 Americans every year?
Because wow, I'd have quit playing video games long ago if I knew that they had a 1 in 2 chance of killing me.
I suppose the other (albeit less likely) possibility is that this respectable and unbiased researcher may have accidentally used hyperbole in an accidental attempt to drum up fear in support of his findings... And in all fairness, he technically says that smoking is a "slightly larger" danger, so maybe violent media only turns 45% of its viewers into murderers.
Might as well get rid of:
G.I. Joe
Army Men
Toy Guns
Sports (Football, Hockey, etc..)
and the list goes on...
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
Everyone here seems to be strongly opposed to the idea that video game violence may be related to violent behavior.
However, it seems pretty clear to me that it must in some form. Play throughout the animal kingdom is basically simulation training. We play to unintentionally practice skills. Video games that involve explicit simulation of violence must be exercising something related to violent behavior. I'm not saying a video game "causes" a kid to do something violent or that parenting and personality don't interact, but it seems inconceivable to me that it has no effect.
Lets see, violent crime in the UK is pretty steady at 650-900 homicides a year for a country of 55 million. The recent trend has been sharply down despite 52 homicide victims of 7/7. Of those the vast majority are domestics, killing sprees are pretty much a once a decade affair.
I don't think that you could honestly attribute more than 50 or so homicides a year to the effects of computer games in the UK if you took the most liberal interpretation imaginable.
Smoking causes about 110,000 deaths a year according to the leading anti-smoking campaign.
Allowing for the fact that ASH might well overstate the case somewhat the fact is that we don't have a single UK case where computer games are confirmed as a major factor. So I would be pretty confident in stating that smoking is at least a thousand times more dangerous than video games and the evidence points to the difference being more like a hundred thousand.
So let us imagine what the difference between the UK and the US could be. Oh yes the fact that you let every loony and criminal arm themselves to the teeth with cheap firearms. The fact that this is not even mentioned as a possibly significant issue in the article kinda shows that the entire study is worthless. Or is the idea here that controlling fictional materials in which guns play a role is somehow more politically practical than controlling actual guns?
You can tell that its a fit up job in the first sentence "After reviewing more than 50 years of research on the impact of violence in the media,". In other words this is not an objective study, its a fishing expedition through existing research. Lets take a look at his bibliography. Does not exactly look like the guy is a disinterested party here.
Sure lets talk about controlling violent video games, right after the US adopts the UK gun control laws.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Like the millions murdered under Stalin ... ... ...
The >.5 million in Darfur
The >.5 million in Rwanda
1 million Armenians under the Turks
Oh wait, they didn't have video games...
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Most of the victims of those genocides weren't helped by front and side airbags, either.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
The response would be to ignore the study. Can you think of any other reason that alcohol is widely available and smoking a reefer can get me tossed in the clink?
Death is bad for society when it takes forever and costs billions in health care at the taxpayers expense. It can also be bad even when its quick and free, but require further stipulations.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Oh yes, because all the people dying from AIDS and other STD's don't count. Sex is natural, violence is natural, the gothic obsession with sex and violence in certain parts of human society (read: America today) is both unnatural and disgusting. Violence is necessary and combat is instinctively pleasurable.. why do you think those games are so damn popular? It has strong links with male ego and probably evolved as a motivation to maintain dominance over resources and courtship to females. That's why females will take a warrior over a wimp - they too have instinctive attraction to the alpha male who will give them healthy children and security. He does not have to be violent, he only has to have the potential to be violent if needed.
:)
And that's how we should raise kids. If I ever have a son, I don't want him to be a bunny rabbit. Children should know the value of being gentle and sweet, but must be strong as well. Today's world is every bit as dangerous and violent as the ancient one, and it is rather sad that only the military are given "survival skills". And yes course they don't get these things from video games - video games pale in comparison.
As for pr0n, it is much less threatening to society then chaotic sexual relationships yet it's objectification of women is far more of a psychological impact than any game. Kids raised in a "healthy way" will not have a whole lot of time for either video games or pr0n, but games come out being more... tasteful as a form of entertainment
Natural is a word with no well-defined meaning, it's a completely relative term. If you try to define it as anything that is done naturally by creatures then that includes every act ever performed, as humans are creatures too, and trying to define them out of the picture means it's no longer that which is done in nature, but that which is done in nature by creatures other than humans. Well you know what? School's unnatural then, name one animal that sends it's young off to another parent to learn math? Math's unnatural too, and so is Physics and, well, just about everything else. No matter how you define natural you'll end up either stating that most of human behavior is unnatural, or it's all natural (if you try to say 'done by a significant number' then you have to define significant, and you'll end up either defining perfectly normal behavior as unnatural or all behavior as natural).
Violence is just as natural as Sex. There, I said it, bring on the hating. Plenty of predators kill other creatures, even if they have no intention to eat the carcass. There's little difference between that and human violence, or at least human violence isn't anymore unnatural than that.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
I don't think it really matters what you use: video games, religion, television, books, or just casual conversation. Any of these are capable of taking people who are predisposed towards violence and pushing them to actually taking action. In all of my years of dealing with any of these, I don't think any of them have ever pushed me towards committing violent acts. I've never had a problem distinguishing between a video game or movie and reality and have always felt that my religious beliefs are my own and don't need to be forced upon anyone else. Reading a good book or listening to a motivated speaker has stirred up strong feelings inside of me, but no message has ever made me more prone to commit a violent act.
I and millions of other people are able to clearly draw the line. There are some people who aren't very good at that, however, and when they are exposed to a violent message, regardless of the medium, they become more aggressive and violent themselves. You could suggest that none of this should be allowed because some people won't be able to handle it, but I don't think that's the right way to go. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and if some person feels that such material affects you in a negative manner, then perhaps that person shouldn't consume that content.
Regardless of what you believe, humans are a violent animal and it's a big part of our history. I don't think that ignoring the problem is somehow going to solve it. If you think that any of the recent video games, movies, books, etc. are overly violent, just look at some of the ancient methods of torture on Wikipedia or other web sites. They tend to make anything you see in Manhunt or Hostel seem fairly tame by comparison. The big difference is that the movies and games are just imagination whereas these methods of torture were actually used.
How about for once trying to approach this subject in a more mature way? It is so easy and so common to simply misinterpret something you don't like in way that makes sound like it is obviously crap, so you can just dismiss it, but that doesn't do justice to the subject, the people who have don'e actual, serious research into it, or to yourself and your own intelligence. Listening and understanding is not going to hurt, really.
This research is not saying that this or that individual will necessarily be more violent after having played a video game; but it says that there is a measurable effect on average. The article doesn't detail what research method was used, but it could be something like comparing a group of people, who play violent games with a group who don't. And of course, one might question whether the interpretation of the results is correct; but jeering stupidly is not the way, I think.
I think the reasoning behind is quite sensible: You can train your responses to situations in a simulator - this is used in many places, not least the military. So in a violent game you learn to respond with violence to certain situations; also, when you do something often enough, it becomes routine, and you feel less emotional impact from what you do. Wouldn't it be reasonable to suspect that playing violent video games might harden people against the consequences of violences to others? To most this will not be an issue, but there is a frighteningly large proportion of the normal population whose grasp on reality is not very strong - they are not very far away from a mild form of actual psychosis, one might say, and those people will be less able to distinguish between what happens in a game and what happens in reality. I don't know actual numbers, but there are more than most think. On that backkground, isn't it reasonable to research the subject of violence in the media question whether we, as a society, would not be better off there was less of it?