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."
"Get that PSP away from me, I don't want any of your second-hand fragging to endanger my health!"
Yeah. I don't think I'll be hearing that one. Well, maybe from Jack Thompson, but not normal humans.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
They have no right! I'LL KILL THEM ALL!
No, wait...
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
How does this work with the decline in violent crimes through the 90s? How come they don't address the issue that those who were going to commit violence anyway are going to gravitate towards violent games and media? This isn't even original research, just research into the research that's been done. This doesn't add up very well at all.
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.
children who watch violent television shows and who identify with the characters and believe they are real are more likely to be aggressive as adults (from the article, emphasis mine)
Oh, wait... So only the crazy people will become crazy.
There was this healthy guy I knew that started playing violent games and he got lung cancer!
Think of all those dangerous chemicals that are in games. They should be illegal!
My Solution, by the way, is the Nintendo Wii (in part).
Right now, on the American Chart for November at VGChartz, the TOP THREE slots are occupied by family-friendly non-violent games: Super Mario Galaxy, Guitar Hero 3 for the 360, and Wii Sports.
Manhunt 2, the media's punching bag for Hyper-Violent Video Game Paranoia, is only ranked *41st* (and that's just the sales for the top platform, PS2). For every one unit of Manhunt 2 sold for the PS2, approximately 9 units of XBox 360 Guitar Hero 3 are sold. For every one unit of Manhunt 2 sold for the Wii, approximately 20 units of Super Mario Galaxy are sold (think about it: Manhunt 2 Wii has been out for 4 weeks, SMG has only been out for 2 weeks).
If this trend continues, the entire argument against hyper-violent games will be moot, because they will be relegated to the niche market of 17+-year-old males. The younger kids don't seem to care any more. And that's the way it should be.
But, all that said, the most important thing is for parents to A) be more involved in their children's lives, and B) read the ****ing box before buying a game. It has the rating right on there!
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
Exposure to violent movies, television shows and video games significantly increases the risk that the viewer or player will behave aggressively in both the long and short term, according to a new University of Michigan study published Tuesday in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
A link is seen among children who were in the upper quartile on violence viewing in middle childhood, 15 years later:
- 11 percent of males had been convicted of a crime, compared with 3 percent for other males.
- 42 percent of males had "pushed, grabbed or shoved their spouse" in the past year, compared with 22 percent of other males.
- 39 percent of females had "thrown something at their spouse" in the past year, compared with 17 percent of other females.
- 17 percent of females had "punched, beaten, or choked" another adult when angry in the past year, compared with 4 percent of other females.
Source: "The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research," by University of Michigan professor L. Rowell Huesmann.
It's a topic that has been debated extensively, but this is one of the first studies that shows the relation between viewing media violence and real criminal behavior, according to the study's author, L. Rowell Huesmann, a senior research scientist at the U-M Institute for Social Research.
"This is the first study that shows a relation between childhood exposure to violent TV, playing violent video games, seeing violent movies, and behaving violently enough to be incarcerated as a delinquent," said Huesmann, a professor of communication studies and psychology.
Huesmann and his team followed a group of children for three years as they moved through middle childhood. They found increasing rates of aggression for both boys and girls who watched more television violence, even when taking into account initial aggressive tendencies and other background factors. A 15-year follow-up of those children showed that those who habitually watched violent media grew up to be more aggressive young adults.
Huesmann also cited many independent studies and experiments with similar results, stating that the majority of one-shot survey studies have shown that children who watch more media violence on a daily basis behave more aggressively on a daily basis.
In another experiment cited, both children and adults who watched a violent movie showed significantly more aggression than the children and adults who watched a nonviolent movie when playing a physical game immediately after watching the films.
Video games were also addressed in the study, although experiments involving exposure to violent games are not as extensive or long-term.
"Because players of violent video games are not just observers but also 'active' participants in violent actions and are generally reinforced for using violence to gain desired goals, the effects on stimulating long-term increases in violent behavior should be even greater for video games than for TV, movies or Internet displays of violence," Huesmann wrote in the study.
FTFA:
You can chalk it up to semantics, but it sure sounds like these guys went into the study assuming that violent media was already a threat. They set out to measure the "how much," completely bypassing "if" as though it were a moot point.
Ars Technica has a great article on this here.
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.
How does this work with the decline in violent crimes through the 90s?
There is a common belief that the economic prosperity coincides with lower violent crime rates. Though regional influences tend to have more impact than national anything. Compare social/economic conditions in Detroit versus Silicon Valley in the 90's as an example.
those who were going to commit violence anyway
You've made up your mind on that one huh? If only social issues were so simple we could divide citizens into criminal and non-criminal pools at an early age and finally live in a utopia. Where do white collar criminals fit in your magic world? Kids who cheat at board games?
his isn't even original research, just research into the research that's been done.
Yes. It's called meta-study. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-study
There is nothing interesting about the parent's post.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Conduct the same study in any developed country other than the USA (or it's mentality look-alike, Canada).
Try any European country, Australia or NZ, Japan or other Asian countries. Preferably, try several.
THEN Draw your game use vs violence correlations, and see if what's making US kids violent is games, or a mentality that doesn't equip them with the tools required to cope with mature content.
THEN we'll talk. How I love it when American lobbyist groups oversimplify an issue so an uninformed public can be made even more misinformed. Go America.
-
Before I start, no, I don't think that games turn people into criminals. So no need to explain to me that.
;)
That said, there have been a lot of changes since the 80's, and I've heard the correlation between crime decline and X argued, where X was:
- less lead ending up in kids' system (via banning lead-based additives in gasoline, etc.) We already know that lead damages the nervous system, so that correlation at least doesn't trip suspension of disbelief too hard.
- "3 strikes and you're out" kind of laws. Both via taking out the incorrigible recidivists (some people seem to be really that psychopathic and dumb), and by providing a scary escalation level to keep the ones in line who still have at least minimal logic capabilities
- stricter gun control laws
- the availability of porn on the internet. Don't laugh, it has argued that the kind who'd go out and mug or rape someone, is now busy stroking his own wookie in front of the computer.
- widespread availability of violent movies. Apparently the day a new splatter movie hits the cinemas, there's a sharp decline in people actually doing violent stuff. Just because they'll be seated there getting their jollies viewing violence on the screen, instead of out on the street actually doing it. (And I guess then in the same could then be argued about games. If it's the same kind of asshole in both, he can't be out mugging people at the same time as he's online ganking newbies.)
Etc, etc, etc.
Note that I'm not saying that all the above are true. Some probably _are_ bunk. Take your pick which.
I'm just saying that the waters are muddy enough. A _lot_ of things changed at the same time. So, well, how do you know which of them were the ones that actually lowered criminality.
It's easy to pick one factor, let's call it X, out of context, pretend that it's the only thing that changed, and present it as the one thing that's responsible for the whole effect. It's good for political agendas too, so each politician or lobbyist is picking the one which makes his group look good. But how do you know if X is really the one? Maybe X had nothing to do with lowering criminality.
Just as an example, watch me pull a similar maneuver and do the following correlation: use of Linux rose steadily in the late 90's and 2000's, criminality sunk during the same time, hence Linux is singlehandedly responsible for making the world safer. I guess the types which would go out and mug someone are now too busy recompiling all libraries to have any time left to do evil stuff. Or something. Does it sound ridiculous yet?
Or you know what else improved since the 80's? The quality of Japanese game translations. Nowadays you can get them actually translated and voiced by people who know English. As opposed to the traditional "All your base are belong to us" Engrish translations, and voice-overs by people who never actually spoke it and don't even know where the accent is supposed to go. Criminality declined in that time. Hmm, looks like a possible cause to me. I guess the former steady rise in criminality was caused by those Engrish translations driving people homicidal.
No, I don't believe those are the real culprits. It's just supposed to be random ridiculous examples.
To get back to the topic, we don't know if games have anything to do either way with that decline. We also can't use that to claim that games can't possibly cause violence.
For the sake of playing the devil's advocate, if factor X would actually increase criminality, but factors Y and Z lowered it more than X raised it, then you'd still see a decline. Just as a purely theoretical scenario, it _is_ possible that X = video games, while Y and Z are... well, take your pick from the list above.
Just because a function of a dozen variables declined on the whole, doesn't mean that none of a dozen factors would have the effect of rising the result if taken alone.
Just something to think about, if you're bored enough
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I dunno ... given the number of SUV-driving female monomaniacs on the highway these days, I'd say that being feminized won't necessarily reduce violence or aggression.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
We didn't make it to the top of the food chain after millions of years of evolution by being non-violent. We are the result of millions of years worth of selectively breeding the best bad-asses of each generation. The only thing that fools people into thinking non-violence is good is that part of becoming the world's baddest-ass species was learning team violence (us vs. the prey, us vs. them). Seems to me that these games are just sensitizing us to behavior that is always there, just below the surface. Also seems to me that any aggressive team sports would have the same effect (football, basketball, hockey, politics).
I swear I'm gonna kill the next person I hear complaining about violence in the media!
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
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.
In a more serious way, your joke points out the fundamental difference between the two and why it's a bad analogy.
- Smoke does it harm by the simple presence of dangerous chemicals. (Nicotine, free-radicals, and tons of others). Intention to smoke doesn't change the outcome. In fact second-hand smoke is dangerous for the health even in very low levels.
- Whereas games do their evil on people who feel attracted to violence and naturally get interested in enacting such things. They consume violent games, but also violent movies, etc. But there's no such thing as second-hand consumption or effects. You won't become a violent psychopath because someone else is watching TV in the next room. Psychopath don't happen more frequently among workers of those shop who happen to have a software & video games department.
The frequency of bad outcome is also different.
- In the case of smoking-induced* cancer, the danger is stochastic (except maybe for a few special genetic cases). It's like rolling dice. Each time one individual is exposed, there some amount of chance (or maybe "bad luck") that the cancer will start. One my get lucky and roll high scores several time in a row. Similarly some people may smoke for years without having any problem. But overall there's a probability that increases with the amount of exposure. You can make plot of duration of exposure and associated risk, and see some correlation.
In fact the correlation is so good, that you can use a clinical score (based on the duration in years x number of pack per day) to predict risks associated with smoking.
- In the case of violence, the danger mostly depends on a set of pre-determined characteristics. Because of a complex set of circumstance, mostly genetic factors, family history and other childhood experience, there are people who are predisposed to become psychopath and other who aren't. Some (like most
There's no such thing as a "amount of years spent playing" that will predict when someone will snap and start shooting random people.
* : As an example of stochastic risk. There are also other smoking-induced disease, mainly non-cancerous pulmonary disease which have a deterministic distribution. They're mostly linked to the amount of garbage that accumulate in someone's lungs. Past a certain year-packs score, you're mostly sure that the patient will have some form of bronchitis. But those diseases are easy to model.
Where tobacco company managed to stir controversy was about the stochastic risks because not everyone developed them. But in the end, after careful examination, you still can link an increase of risk to duration of exposure. Whereas violence mostly depend on having risk factors, the rest only plays a small role of trigger.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
And to think I was about to stop smoking! Ha, I'll just quit violent video games and call it even.
Too many people were getting killed by second-hand video game playing.
Spelling and grammar mistakes specifically left in to give the grammar and spelling nazis a meaning to their life.
If their argument was that games (violent or not) made kids fat or stupid then I'd buy that and point out that crappy TV does too, but games keep getting more violent and violence keeps going down.
I'm not saying it's good for kids but I'm not sold.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
sensationalism. I am sorry, but even if 100% of the murder crime were committed by stranger (which th4ey are not, there is a good reason the husband/wife/family is suspected first), and even if 100% were committed with gun (which they are NOT), I don't think calling a 900 murder rate for a population of 55.000.000 could be called PREYING in any kind.
The fact is, as it was already discussed in Slashdot , some type of weapon LOWER the barrier to usage. For the same reason police are more readily using a taser than a baton, joe-anybody in a situation where rage/violence escalate will have a lower barrier to violence using a firearm than say, a knive or a blunt object. Any discussion ignoring that fact is doomed to be propaganda. Allowing the population at large to get firearms, don't mean that people will be able to defend themselves better, it means that John & Jane Doe which would normally not have committed a crime because knifing would have been too much for their stomach, would readily take the firearm and fire a bullet from a safe distance.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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?
I'm surprised to see an article that actually says exactly what the problem is. "The need for greater control on the part of parents and society." Parents need to stop being so lax with disciplining their children. A lot of the "problem people" in society right and in the near future will most likely be a result of this. Parent just not doing their job in the upbringing of their children.