Brain Changes When Viewing Violent Media

Ponca City, We Love You writes "Scientists at Columbia University have used Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to show that a brain network responsible for suppressing inappropriate or unwarranted aggressive behaviors became less active after study subjects watched several short clips from popular movies depicting acts of violence. These changes could render people less able to control their own aggressive behavior. Although research has shown some correlation between exposure to media violence and real-life violent behavior, there has been little direct neuroscientific support for this theory until now. 'Depictions of violent acts have become very common in the popular media,' said researcher Christopher Kelly. 'Our findings demonstrate for the first time that watching media depictions of violence does influence processing in parts of the brain that control behaviors like aggression.' The full research paper is published on the The Public Library of Science, a peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication, that publishes all its articles under a Creative Commons Attribution License."

Comments

surprising

[jadrian]

So passing a visual stimulus that is interpreted by the brain as violent affects the corresponding area of the brain...? Who would have guessed that...

Re:surprising

[AndersOSU]

Also, passing a visual stimuli of bunnies, dancing animated popcorn, and a documentary on FDR's PWA each either suppressed or excited certain areas of the brain responsible for various emotional responses. Researches indicated that these changes could effect people in some way.

Re:surprising

[leenks]

That's the point - lots of people did indeed guess that. This is one of the first decent experiments that goes some way to proving it.

Re:surprising

[ArcherB]

So passing a visual stimulus that is interpreted by the brain as violent affects the corresponding area of the brain...? Who would have guessed that...

Evidently, not many people who read /. Go back and read any of the summaries that deal with violent video games and look at all the people who say that video games have no effect on the minds of children. Take THIS one for example:

Firstly, the ratings are knee-jerk reactionary mostly meaningless bullshit. kids aren't as stupid as we make out, and know the difference between cartoon and computer game versus real life violence. Or THIS one:

http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=275887&cid=20322901 And finally, THIS one and it's response:

There are exactly zero, none, studies/experiments/research papers that have been able to support the theory that violent video games have an adverse affect on children. I'm afraid it's not quite as obvious as you would think.

Re:surprising

[Skrapion]

Researches indicated that these changes could effect people in some way. We all know there's only two things that effect humans: alcohol, and expired condoms.

Re:surprising

[miceyman]

Oh God, the irony. Is there really only two things? Pirate grammar nazi says "ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRE."

Re:surprising

[geekoid]

Not only are they wrong, they overlook a critical piece of information. Games have been becoming more and more realistic.
so when they look back and say "When I was a kid, nobody went crazy" it doesn't exactly apply to current games, Also anecdotal evidence is almost always wrong.

Re:surprising

[NeutronCowboy]

I'd like to make a distinction between violent games causing a specific area in a brain to lit up or dim, and violent games turning kids into sociopathic mass murderers.

I always thought that was the real meat of the discussion, not whether playing Burn Out causes me to think about ramming cars into the railing during my next commute. The difference between fantasy and reality, you know?

Re:surprising

[Clandestine_Blaze]

So passing a visual stimulus that is interpreted by the brain as violent affects the corresponding area of the brain...? Who would have guessed that...

Evidently, not many people who read /. Go back and read any of the summaries that deal with violent video games and look at all the people who say that video games have no effect on the minds of children. Take THIS one for example: If you're looking for scientific evidence about video games having an effect on the mind of children, you're looking at the wrong one, as the mean age in the experiment was 25 +-4.8 years. That does not diminish the findings, but there should at least be a comparative study with children as well.

I could be mistaken, but you're making a huge leap from violent media creating a stimulus in the brain to video games turning children into killers. There can be other issues that occur in the child's life that may contribute to violence:
- Bad upbringing
- Peer influence (drugs, violence)
- Abuse
- Negligent / deadbeat parents
- Genetics

And the paper agrees with this. From the discussion section of the paper:

Although these results are suggestive, further data will be required to assess the specific effects of these functional changes on behavior. Because numerous studies have already linked exposure to violent media with an increase in aggressive behavior [6], it seems reasonable to consider the effect observed here as a plausible component of a mechanism; however, it is important to note that in an otherwise pacific individual, it is very unlikely that these exposure-related changes are a sufficient catalyst for the emergence of criminal aggression. The strongest evidence for this claim is the fact that, although many individuals watch violent media, relatively few go on to commit criminally violent acts. Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement, but from my understanding, the stimulus that we receive and what we do with the stimulus that we receive are two completely different things. The article and the published scientific findings do claim that the portion of the brain network that suppresses violent behavior becomes less active after repeated exposure. But it doesn't go so far so to discuss what happens afterwards. Does the brain recover? Will repeated exposure cause our brains to permanently inhibit its ability to suppress violent behavior? Furthermore, did the scientists screen the volunteers to see if they were predisposed to violence in their lives?

And maybe that's not what you're saying either. Correct me if I'm wrong. :)

Or THIS one:

http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=275887&cid=20322901 I don't see what this has to do with the discussion. The poster that you referenced seemed to be making a compelling argument that the parent should be the ultimate authority in what games their children plays, and not a group of politicians. These are two completely different discussions - one is within legal boundaries and the other is within scientific ones. Your arguments in that thread, by the way, were also interesting. I'm not claiming either one of you were right or wrong, just that it's legal vs. scientific.

Re:surprising

[PachmanP]

Also anecdotal evidence is almost always wrong.

Well unless you can cite me a study, it would appear that your posit is anecdotal. That would mean that based on your statement, your statement is wrong which of course would mean that your statement is right which would mean that your statement is wrong...

Re:surprising

[Belial6]

Not to mention that the areas that are assumed to suppress violent behavior, may not do that at all. We know very little about what actually happens in the brain. It is entirely plausible that the reason researchers think that region of the brain is used to suppress violence is because it become active during violent scenarios.

To pull an equally reasonable hypothesis out of my ass, maybe that region of the brain is used for the purpose of AVOIDING violence. As people are exposed to violent images in media, they start to become clearer and clearer on the difference between pretend and real violence, thus having the effect that we get less violent kids the more they are exposed to violent images in the media. Heck, the dropping rate of youth violence even supports this hypothesis.

Re:surprising

[Pav]

Yes, we are changed by what we see, but are we negatively changed? If this is an argument for packing people in cotton wool I don't buy it.

    I'm sure there could equally be an argument against tear jerker movies ie. that they make people depressed, and there's a link between depression and suicide... but I don't like where that line of logic leads.

    Movies are just another life experience, albeit merely voyeuristic. I believe movie violence and tears are preferable to sterile bubblegum, and probably do more good than harm. It prepares peoples minds for extreme situations. It's the individuals responsibility to deal with "input", or else avoid it. It should be societies responsibility to provide some support if the individual processes movies or life experience negatively.

    Sure, minors should be protected to some extent... but overprotection leaves people unable to deal with life. Its an urban legend that girls raised strictly are more likely to become prostitutes, and when a (female) friend delivered a pizza to a local brothel she asked around... mostly catholic school girls! (Disclaimer : I went to a catholic primary school).

Re:surprising

[spicate]

Also anecdotal evidence is almost always wrong. You forgot to cite your source!

Re:surprising

[ArcherB]

I could be mistaken, but you're making a huge leap from violent media creating a stimulus in the brain to video games turning children into killers.

I never said that. All I really said it is not obvious to some people that those who are see violence often tend to become desensitized to violence.

Let's take your average undertaker. The first few mangled bodies that come into the morgue are probably going to make him sick. However, after about 10 years on the job, that mangled heap of body parts is just another customer. Sure, some of the more hideous bodies will always affect him, like children, for example, but not like it did that first day.

I don't see what this has to do with the discussion.
the line I meant to paste in there was this one:

Alcohol has proven, objectively demonstratable harmful effects. Video games do not, as every single judge in these cases has noted. According to this, and several other studies I linked to later in that discussion, he was wrong.

I agree with you that your average meeky mouse type person is not going to play a round of GTA and then suddenly go shoot up a mall. But as I mentioned in another post, for those that are right on the edge, this may be enough to push them over it.

Re:surprising

[ArcherB]

To pull an equally reasonable hypothesis out of my ass, maybe that region of the brain is used for the purpose of AVOIDING violence. As people are exposed to violent images in media, they start to become clearer and clearer on the difference between pretend and real violence, thus having the effect that we get less violent kids the more they are exposed to violent images in the media. Heck, the dropping rate of youth violence even supports this hypothesis.

Well since we are removing stuff from our rectums...

Maybe there is a drop in violence because these kids are too busy playing GTA to actually go out a beat up some ho's. I'm willing to bet you will find a similar correlation with the decrease in the number of kids playing pick up football and the releases of Madden.

Re:surprising

[geekoid]

sigh. Which part of almost don't you understand?

Besides, if you are curious, there are volumes of studies on how memory work that prove that memories are mailable and not reliable.

Re:surprising

[sankyuu]

Games have been becoming more and more realistic. so when they look back and say "When I was a kid, nobody went crazy" it doesn't exactly apply to current games

Simulated violence provides the exhilarating stimulus without the consequences. One can get away with or even be rewarded for robbery, war, destruction, sex and extravagance. And it is indeed entertaining to do so.

The problem starts when one loses empathy and carries such behavior into the real world. If you haven't been robbed, beaten or abused, it is hard to understand the actual consequence, and thus carry on the dysfunctional behavior.

A possible solution is for kids to get off their asses at least once in a while and join a sport/activity (real-life xp) to remind them how fragile themselves and other people are in real life.

/ok, enough of the sissy talk and back to killing em weakling newbies :)

Re:surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in other words, you wanted to bring up a bunch of arguments you couldn't win the first time even though they aren't really on topic.

Firstly, the ratings are knee-jerk reactionary mostly meaningless bullshit. kids aren't as stupid as we make out, and know the difference between cartoon and computer game versus real life violence.

Except the study does not touch on whether children can differentiate between reality and fantasy.

There are exactly zero, none, studies/experiments/research papers that have been able to support the theory that violent video games have an adverse affect on children.

And there still aren't. This study shows the brain reacts to violent imagery in specific ways. Going directly from there to 'adverse affect [sic] on children' is skipping quite a few steps.

Re:surprising

[halycon404]

RTFA, your mis-interpreting this study, in light of those comments. The study doesn't say that violent media have an adverse affect on people. It says violent media HAVE AN AFFECT, period. Those are two totally different things. Watching porn probably has an affect on the area of my brain involving sex drive, this doesn't make me want to have... wait.. it does.. but! I've never gone out and raped someone after watching porn. Maybe after watching porn, and violent media back to back in a burst.. wait.. nope nope.. did that too, still haven't ever went out and raped anyone. Um.. well, crap. Evidently while both forms of media had an effect on my brain, it wasn't an adverse effect, or something bad would have happened.

Re:surprising

[Clandestine_Blaze]

I could be mistaken, but you're making a huge leap from violent media creating a stimulus in the brain to video games turning children into killers.

I never said that. All I really said it is not obvious to some people that those who are see violence often tend to become desensitized to violence. Ah, thanks for the clarification - sounds like I made a big leap with what you were saying as well. :) But back to your point, I can see what you mean now, and it really should be evident that constant exposure to violence would bring about some form of desensitization. Almost like the quote "nothing shocks me anymore." And that leads me to ask - how did societies cope during violent eras of rape, pillage, and burn? I remember reading descriptions of the Crusades as streets having rivers of blood. At least in most parts of the world, we really never see that, though those that served during the first and second world wars would beg to differ. How about in societies where a public beheading is quite the norm?

Let's take your average undertaker. The first few mangled bodies that come into the morgue are probably going to make him sick. However, after about 10 years on the job, that mangled heap of body parts is just another customer. Sure, some of the more hideous bodies will always affect him, like children, for example, but not like it did that first day. Good example. Another good example are ER doctors. I remember having to do a project in my high school biology class that required me to shadow a doctor for almost a month. I was able to get permission from the local hospital to follow an ER doctor around, and on my first night there, we had some woman who overdosed on ten codeine pills. She had her stomach pumped and seemed to look like she would make it, but her liver failed and she died three days later. Anyway, I was completely sickened by the noises coming out of the ER room (they had me wait outside the door as they couldn't have too many people in there.) but the doctor I was shadowing had seen and heard that stuff so often that it didn't even phase him.

I agree with you that your average meeky mouse type person is not going to play a round of GTA and then suddenly go shoot up a mall. But as I mentioned in another post, for those that are right on the edge, this may be enough to push them over it. And for this reason, I really wish that there would be a chance at a real study on long-term effects. It's such a political issue though that I can imagine getting real results like the ones in this study would be like pulling teeth. It's an interesting theory though as I have always wondered what the triggering mechanism is in those that suddenly go postal. What are they thinking and feeling the moment that they do? And would the adrenaline rush coming from a violent game or movie ever be enough to push them if they were already on the edge? Perhaps so - I've heard of people snapping for less severe reasons.

Well, thanks for the response.

Re:surprising

[thegsusfreek]

I know! Can you believe it?
</homestar runner voice>
(Judging from comments and articles I've seen on here and on other blogs, it seems like a lot of people can't. :)

Re:surprising

[ravenshrike]

Did you read that last quote there sherlock? Adverse effect. The scientists have yet to prove the effect is adverse or not. I'm gonna guess certain other parts of your brain, the ones concerned with sexual inhibitions are also depressed when watching porn. Likewise, when watching opposite areas of entertainment, one would expect that there would be more activity in these areas. They have yet to prove a long term change on any of this. To do that they would need to monitor over the course of several years, some children who are forced to watch primarily veggie tales(of many different temperaments), and other children who are forced to watch things like power rangers, etc.. etc..(also being of many different temperaments). They would then have to give sub-batches of these kids pretty much the exact same upbringing otherwise. Only then could they claim any real damage.

Re:surprising

[phlinn]

I'm wasting a mod point doing this, but something occured to me. If images of violence prompt violent behaviour, wouldn't we WANT people to become desensitized to it, so that it is less likely to trigger an actual violent response?

I'm curious what it would look life if they measured aggressive behaviour in a group, then exposed them to violent images daily measuring behaviour both before and after, and then measured it at the end. I suspect it would be a downward treading sawtooth.

Re:surprising

[vimh42]

They should have mirrored the study with one using sex and one using music/art (not that Porn can't have great music and 'art'.

Re:surprising

[ArcherB]

I'm wasting a mod point doing this, but something occured to me. If images of violence prompt violent behaviour, wouldn't we WANT people to become desensitized to it, so that it is less likely to trigger an actual violent response?


I see where you are coming from, but the problem is that when we see something horrific, it registers a negative response. We get the same response when we think of doing something horrific ourselves. If we become desensitized to seeing violence, we also become desensitized to committing those same acts.

"So I put a cap in his ass. I see people get caps in their asses every day. Whats the big deal?"

Re:surprising

[virtcert]

> Also anecdotal evidence is almost always wrong.

That's what I heard.

Re:surprising

[seebs]

I heard that anecdotal evidence could be pretty good sometimes.

BTW, I didn't see anything saying that only "realistic" media had this impact.

Hmmmm

[scubamage]

So maybe they'll stop glorifying war, violence, and all of the blood battered details of the latest shoot-em-up rampage on the evening news? Nah, why would they do that when they can blame video games instead. Sigh.

Re:Hmmmm

[east coast]

Hey now, banning video games is done for the good of the children who play them, stopping the nightly news from showing you broken and bloodied bodies is stepping on their first amendment rights.

Re:Hmmmm

[scubamage]

Oh yeah, I forgot! Thanks for clearing that up. Also, did you ever notice that in the US its ok for prime time tv to show someone's bullet riddled corpse, but its not ok for two people to be shown having sex, or even showing nudity? Its like the act of procreation and creating life is taboo, but the act of ending life isn't - and we wonder why we have issues with violence in our nation. Hell, its considered distasteful to even show things like "The Miracle of Life" without it being in a highly academic context.

Re:Hmmmm

[daninspokane]

I'll be honest, sometimes I wonder to myself how I ever got so desensetized. When I can watch a video of a prisoner in iraq get his head sawed off and not blink an eye... maybe that means I should cut down on the violence... Screw it, time to go beat up some GTAIII hookers for cash.

Re:Hmmmm

[ArcherB]

Hell, its considered distasteful to even show things like "The Miracle of Life" without it being in a highly academic context.

Well, there is a difference between "The Miracle of Life" and Ross dogging Rachel from behind while she gives him a "Reach-Under" with Chandler screaming, "Could that BE any freakier?".

Re:Hmmmm

[ECMIM]

Wait, you mean we don't have sex, err, uh, thrust at us from every possible angle of every hour on every day as it is? And you need more on TV? Have you heard of this thing called the Internet...

Re:Hmmmm

[morgan_greywolf]

Hey now, banning video games is done for the good of the children who play them, stopping the nightly news from showing you broken and bloodied bodies is stepping on their first amendment rights. Right. Because all we all know how the first amendment doesn't apply to video games. Why, if video games were protected by the first amendment, you'd be able to copyright them....oh wait...

Re:Hmmmm

[east coast]

Also, did you ever notice that in the US its ok for prime time tv to show someone's bullet riddled corpse, but its not ok for two people to be shown having sex, or even showing nudity?

This certainly isn't limited to the US. While the contrasts of these sex and violence is easy to see on US TV, this is probably more common than most people think.

Part of what is at issue is the business aspect of TV. Why challenge the FCC and community standards when what is being produced today is selling just fine? The only time most businesses rock the boat is when profits are in question. If the audience would turn their back on TV you might see action but, IMHO, I have to wonder the value that would be gained from being washed in violence to being washed in sex.

Re:Hmmmm

[xtracto]

did you ever notice that in the US its ok for prime time tv to show someone's bullet riddled corpse, but its not ok for two people to be shown having sex, or even showing nudity?

You see... it is a matter of national security. Imagine if you showed people all that nudity and libido waker sex material, you would get into an overpopulation problem. Instead, you show only media which makes people kill each other and with that (and the war of course) you keep your population from growing!

BTW. In "media" every type of it should be included, games, movies, radio, pictures, etc. It is wrong to blame only TV as it is wrong to blame only videogames. All of them incide in violent behaviour :)

Re:Hmmmm

[timeOday]

On the other hand, the legal punishment for murder (up to and including death) is far worse than for fornication (none). That means your analysis is missing something about how the US perceives the relative seriousness.

Re:Hmmmm

[TimothyDavis]

Hell, its considered distasteful to even show things like "The Miracle of Life" without it being in a highly academic context.

I think there is a strong correlation to people having seen "The Miracle of Life", and abstinence.

Re:Hmmmm

[Hatta]

I have to wonder the value that would be gained from being washed in violence to being washed in sex.

Seems pretty obvious. More sex, less violence. It's a win-win situation.

Re:Hmmmm

[sm62704]

and we wonder why we have issues with violence in our nation

Yeah, there's all the lynchings, salloon gunfights, everyone walking around with guns strapped on, or swords, there's crucifictions, burning at the stake...

Wait a minute, what century am I in again?

-mcgrew

She gets in the car. "Go! Go! Go! before my boyfriend sees me!" I swear, one of these guys is going to put a bullet in my brain.

Re:Hmmmm

[SevenHands]

In other news, Slashdot posts are plummeting...

Re:Hmmmm

[Beardo the Bearded]

So the DVD is worth getting?

Re:Hmmmm

[sorak]

On the other hand, the legal punishment for murder (up to and including death) is far worse than for fornication (none). That means your analysis is missing something about how the US perceives the relative seriousness.

That is an interesting point. I think that our desire not to legislate morality is also a factor. Murder is taken far more seriously because it deprives us of our right to life, but fornication, not depriving anyone of any right, is seen differently.

Could it be that viewing death has not been seen traditionally as a temptation? That pornography "tempts" one to commit "fornication", but that witnessing depictions of murder do not give us a comparable and immediate urge to go out and kill people?

Re:Hmmmm

[scubamage]

Hmmm, the highest crime rate in a first world nation, not to mention the highest gun crime rate of any industrialized nation. Your sarcastic comment is closer to the truth than you think. As much as I shudder to mention it (I'm a liberal, but I despise sensationalism), you may want to check out "Bowling for Columbine."

Re:Hmmmm

[mdigiac1]

So we can show people being shot in afganastan or god knows where but give them a controller and a game and all of a sudden the rules change. Most of the times kids will see worse on television then ever in a game. I am sure seeing reporters on the 8 o'clock news getting their head blown off is much tamer then a video game. Times change and we must adapt. There are people getting dismantled in third world countries and those world helth organizations showind starving people that you can no longer sweep it under the rug. People are so nieve education is more powerful then saying no.

Re:Hmmmm

[Planesdragon]

Its like the act of procreation and creating life is taboo, but the act of ending life isn't Pretty much -- so long as you add in the key phrase "discussion of."

We as a society don't want to see your sex life. We have our own, and we're quite happy with it -- more so when we don't have to internally compare ours with yours.

Violence, on the other hand, can never be out of the public forum. If you shoot someone, society DEMANDS that you say why.

Re:Hmmmm

[Jugalator]

Agreed about the weirdness about that (that is probably largely to thank religion for). I'd really like to know how society would change with a more open mind about nudity and even sex on TV. I'm not talking about rape scenes or whatever feminists use to provide as examples of "typical pornography", but more regular softer stuff where both the man and woman is treated well.

Re:Hmmmm

[Kingrames]

in criminal courts.

Re:Hmmmm

[moosesocks]

On the other hand, the legal punishment for murder (up to and including death) is far worse than for fornication (none). That means your analysis is missing something about how the US perceives the relative seriousness.

No. All it does is prove that we've got a double-standard in place.

Re:Hmmmm

[bvimo]

If you believe the data in 'An Inconvenient Truth' then this plan is working and your population is stagnating.

Re:Hmmmm

[deepestblue]

Why one or the other? Why not do both? Why should we stop blaming video games just because news media doesn't stop glorifying violence?

Re:Hmmmm

[mollymoo]

We as a society don't want to see your sex life. We have our own, and we're quite happy with it -- more so when we don't have to internally compare ours with yours.

Who made you spokesperson for the society? You certainly don't speak for me. I don't mean that I especially want to know about your sex life or that of the GP of course, but I find the repression of discussion about sex, erm, repressive. We'd all have better sex and feel better about it if it was more openly discussed and more truthfully represented in the media. Surely comparing sex lives with normal people is more healthy and less likely to lead to negative comparisons than comparing it with the main source of detailed representations of sex in our society - commercial porn. I talk to people about how I fix my car and put up shelves and they reciprocate. In turn we both learn something and get better at fixing cars and putting up shelves. Why not do the same for sex? It's not just about learning to have more fun, there are social benefits to being open about sex too, for example countries where sex is more openly discussed (scandinavian countries spring to mind) have lower rates of teen pregnancy.

Re:Hmmmm

[MrKaos]

Also, did you ever notice that in the US its ok for prime time tv to show someone's bullet riddled corpse, but its not ok for two people to be shown having sex, or even showing nudity?

Interesting, if showing heaps of violence on TV leads to violent brains and people carrying guns and shooting people, I wonder if the reverse is true? hmmmm, If showing heaps of sex and nudity on TV leads to sexual brains more interested in sex than violence? hmmmm.., sounds pretty good to me.

It's kinda like getting confirmation of the DUH moment.

Just sayin, ya know.

Re:Hmmmm

[MrKaos]

Dammit, such simple wisdom why isn't it understood?

It's like billions of minds suddenly went, "DUUUUUH" and then were suddenly silenced.

Mod parent up.

Re:Hmmmm

[Lunzo]

I object to all this sex on the television! I keep falling off!

From Monty Python I think.

Re:Hmmmm

[ravenshrike]

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html Ohhh yeah, REAL educational film you got there. And you're not a liberal, you're a progressive(who either is ignorant of the actual definition of liberal, or intentionally attempts to deceive). Get it right. If you were a liberal you might bother to research in depth about the issue, instead of taking the word of a fat socialist weasel.

Re:Hmmmm

[MrKaos]

Most of the times kids will see worse on television then ever in a game. I am sure seeing reporters on the 8 o'clock news getting their head blown off is much tamer then a video game.

It begs the question, Is the brain in a different "mode" when playing a video game than when watching a movie? Like comparing witnessing to participating?

If a movie is good I get wound up and involved, when I play a video game it's like an outlet for aggression - for me anyway.

Re:Hmmmm

[edunbar93]

Relative seriousness?

I dunno man...

How many billboards do you see discouraging youths from shooting each other?

And there have been plenty of laws in the US against having sex before marriage, after marriage with someone else, or involving organs other than the vagina. Many of those laws have only very recently been repealed. Oh yeah, and then just today I read this little tidbit, which covers having sex with *yourself*.

I swear, if it didn't mean the end of humanity, sex *would* be illegal in at least 23 states. Since basically all non-procreative sex has indeed been illegal in those states.

Re:Hmmmm

[smaddox]

Well, one reason might be that the world population is so large already, that we need to decrease it.

However, I'm not really sure discouraging depictions of sex really accomplishes that. It seems to me that it would do the exact opposite.

Re:Hmmmm

[vegiVamp]

Well... if they were to show as much sex on tv as they're showing violence, maybe we'd get random wild orgies instead of school shootings.

Re:Hmmmm

[sorak]

Which isn't a moral statement?

More importantly, it is a right defined in the constitution. The US government is very concerned about protecting citizens from each other, which could be argued as part of their stated goal of creating a more perfect union. "I don't wanna die" is not a moral statement.

Re:Hmmmm

[sm62704]

I saw it. It was a good flick. Farenheight was better IMO.

Most of the prisoners here are political prisoners, incarcerated for victimless crimes (mostly drugs). Take away the crimes that should not be crimes and our crime rate wouldn't be any worse than anyone else's.

We have the best politicians money can buy.

-mcgrew
Today's journal is NSFW

Re:Hmmmm

[cmarkn]

witnessing depictions of murder do not give us a comparable and immediate urge to go out and kill people?

But this is exactly what the article claims happens - that viewing violent movies does cause violent acts.

It's true.

[grub]

After watching violent movies I beat my wife much worse than usual.

Re:It's true.

[log1385]

Maybe you should let our wife pick the movies you watch.

Re:It's true.

[Faylone]

Well, either you have multiple accounts for your different personalities, or that's illegal in most countries.

Re:It's true.

[quarterbrain]

Brokeback Mountain to the rescue!

Re:It's true.

[Explodicle]

I don't think your comment is funny at all. Considering how people are the victims of such behavior, and the traumatic and painful emotional experience it is, would someone please mod this as ignorant and insensitive. It's called "black comedy". You'll understand when your humor chip is installed by means of brutal ear rape.

Re:It's true.

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

You may joke. I remember one time my wife asked me a question while I was playing Warcraft II years ago. It was a perfectly innocent question but I turned round and shouted at her horribly. It took me a few seconds to realise what had happened. I was on an adrenaline high. The game was fantasy, but the adrenaline was real. (And probably someone had just ogre rushed me...)

Re:It's true.

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> then you really do need a shrink (like coping with mmmm...

I don't think there was anything deep going on here. Extended playing of violent games pumps up the adrenaline levels. Of course it does, your adrenal system is working exactly like it might in a real threat situation. That's what makes these (types of) games fun. You just have to remember to come up for air from time to time. (I play DS games for a few minutes at a time these days, life's way too busy.)

Re:It's true.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Black comedy? Some of my best friends are black people, and they do /not/ have a tendency to find humor in the macabre you insensitive clod!

Re:It's true.

[tobias.sargeant]

Interesting point, and relevant to the interpretation of this study as well. The big question is whether that kind of reaction becomes entrenched as a result of playing games, and, indeed, whether this is not just an example of a more general phenomenon to do with learning. A very similar effect is seen when driving safety is assessed immediately after playing a car racing game - and there's no evidence that that's a long term effect. The study didn't (and couldn't) examine long term effects of viewing violent material.

Re:It's true.

[patternmatch]

After watching violent movies I beat my wife much worse than usual.

Don't worry, you'll get better with practice.

Re:It's true.

[Heir Of The Mess]

I've had related experiences. After watching porn on my computer I suddenly feel like I want to have sex with my wife. Seems there is a serious issue here with computer media affecting us.

Re:It's true.

[MrKaos]

I watched a documentary about the brain recently, and this trait was addressed specifically - and you can change it. The aggressive reaction was a trait left of from post puberty teenage brain development while the amygdala was learning coordination of the varying areas of the brain.

According to the documentary you can condition yourself out of the behaviour by developing a reaction that takes you out of that moment, e.g when you were playing warcraft by programming your self to say "one moment" calmly as a reaction to any interruption.

Adrenaline may have been flowing but you should still be able to exert control, and thats a lot better than yelling at your wife dood.

Re:It's true.

[vuffi_raa]

shut up and quit beating your wife or I'll beat your ass.....
(now I gotta get back to my segal marathon while I play gta)

Re:It's true.

[aadvancedGIR]

When I had a bad day at work, I usually play one hour of metal slug or diablo-like in hard mode (or other kind of fast action with no advanced reasonning). While playing, everything is intense, up to the point of actually feeling physically endangered, but after that, I can spend a quiet and resting evening, having totally forgoten/forgiven everything that went wrong during the day.

On good day or weekend, I almost always play quieter and more brain consuming games, so I think that's my version of punching somethink or having a drink to clear the stress of the day. I'm not saying these kind of activities are good, but somehow, our primitive instincs just need some sanity time off to prevent us from becoming insane full time.

Re:It's true.

[bcattwoo]

Given the second part of his post, why would you even bother responding to the first? He is obviously an idiot.

Re:It's true.

[The Queen]

You've made a very important distinction there. It's not WHAT we're playing so much as HOW.

Case in point: I recently introduced my mother to Guitar Hero (she was a whiz at Atari back in the day) and she loved it. Now, whereas when I mess up, I cuss and sweat, when mom messed up, she laughed. Different mindsets, different reactions...further on this point - one day as I was playing GH with my bf's young daughter, she was talking a mile a minute (as kids are wont to do) and it was affecting my concentration to the point that I started messing up really bad. I yelled at her. I NEVER yell at her. The game was not violent (unless you count the destruction of guitars) but the reaction it brought out in me was. (Before anyone calls social services, yes, I apologized to her afterward.)

So while I do agree that bloody video games (and TV and movies) can desensitize one to violence, I think the correlation between them and violent behaviour is tenuous at best. You can become just as evil playing something 'innocent' like GH or Pokemon cards or whatever.

Re:It's true.

[CFTM]

Holy shit, if you put someone in a stressful situation, which playing GH can be when you're pooching the boot, they react to that stress! That's earth shattering :)

Oh but it must be the psuedo-violence depicted on the screen and not our bodies reacting to the stress of attempting to complete a task that causes this change!

Oh and we've been so civilized for so long, but these damn video games are making us soooooooooooooo violent.

Please. Natural selection requires violence; look at nature its vicious, violent and without any moral compass. What occurs is simply the species most capable of surviving, survives whatever way it has to and if that means being extraordinarily violent than so be it; it is the collective imperative of life developed through evolution.

The violence of video games is nothing new and we as a species are incredibly violent; why do you think this stuff sells in the first place?

How long does it last

[TheLostSamurai]

Our findings demonstrate for the first time that watching media depictions of violence does influence processing in parts of the brain that control behaviors like aggression.
Okay, but how long does it last? Given the fact that I am not very likely to take off my shoe and bludgeon the person in front of me in the theater to death, how does this effect my likelyhood to do the same thing after the movie when I see someone I am not fond of?

Re:How long does it last

[d34thm0nk3y]

Okay, but how long does it last? Given the fact that I am not very likely to take off my shoe and bludgeon the person in front of me in the theater to death,

I know, that is so ridiculous!

It is the ass behind me kicking my chair that I am going to bludgeon to death.

Re:How long does it last

[MBCook]

That's my question. The finding isn't that surprising. If you are standing in a crowd and someone is running around bashing people's skulls in... it makes sense that you be more prone to violence so you can defend yourself with all necessary force. Seems like a sane evolutionary adaptation.

However, this finding implies(or at least in the media's reporting of it) that violent games will cause kids to be more violent. If a kid plays a violent game, does that make them more violent in 5 minutes? 2 days? 2 weeks? 6 months? The first isn't that surprising, it's the others that are important. Does the effect last, and is it strong at that point?

Re:How long does it last

[geekoid]

actually it says that the part of the brain that suppress violent becomes used less.

This is different then 'make kids more violent'.

Re:How long does it last

[silvertear72]

Okay, but how long does it last? Given the fact that I am not very likely to take off my shoe and bludgeon the person in front of me in the theater to death, how does this effect my likelyhood to do the same thing after the movie when I see someone I am not fond of?

I don't know about you, but I'd say that the likelihood of me bludgeoning the person in front of me in the theater to death increases depending on how loudly the person's phone rings during the movie, as well as how long the person talks.

Re:How long does it last

[Sancho]

Right. You'll be bludgeoning the person behind you who won't shut up during the whole thing.

Re:How long does it last

[mollymoo]

Is it? In practice, with all else being equal, I mean. I can't say I've ever actually wanted to kill someone, but I do know that there's a part of my brain which has repressed the urge to punch someone in the face at times. If that part of my brain stopped working there would be a few people out there with bloody noses; I would be a more violent person (well, a violent person - I've not hit anybody in anger since I was about 10).

Re:How long does it last

[Floritard]

Given the fact that I am not very likely to take off my shoe and bludgeon the person in front of me in the theater to death So you missed Wing Commander in it's theatrical run?

Re:How long does it last

[Dhalka226]

I suppose it depends on how one defines "violent person."

"X makes you more violent" implies that you have some level of violence to begin with, and more after X. "X reduces your inhibition toward violence" implies you have some level of violence to begin with and an identical level after X, but may be less likely to resist.

In other words, if you want to hit somebody, are you already violent regardless of whether or not you do? Is it the act or the desire?

There's obviously some tipping point; if you're "more violent enough*," you're going to act violently in the same way as if you're "less likely to resist violence enough."

Sidetrack... as I wrote that I began to wonder if there is a difference in triggers. It seems like somebody who has more violence (however defined) would be more likely to become actually violent over things that did not deserve it, kind of like how we think of bullies and punks, where any perceived slight is grounds for inflicting pain. Is that true with a reduced inhibition to violence as well, or would it still require something we consider to be a justifiable trigger? Does it shift the goalposts of what constitutes a justifiable trigger or just make it more likely that if we see one we act violently?

* These are obviously useless terms, because they're undefinable and would likely vary person to person anyway.

Bull I play video games all the time.

[LWATCDR]

And it doesn't make me violet and well beat the crap out of the anyone that says different.

So here is a question. How does it effect younger people?
Or what is the effect if the media is interactive in nature?

I am just waiting to see what excuese the "Video games don't contribute to violence" lobby will have to say about this.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

And it doesn't make me violet and well beat the crap out of the anyone that says different. Violet? You're turning violet, Violet!

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[einhverfr]

One of the real problems that you have is that violent crime rates (robbery, murder, rape, etc) have been dropping for a long time. There is a real question of whether or why one should be overly worried about violent video games/movies/etc. when we are generally doing pretty well as a society. At some point we as a society have to be able to choose freedom to have some slightly self-destructive habits if we are to remain a free society.

At some point the video game violence issue is the same as whether we as a country should have laws banning homosexual activity, and whether we should ban alcohol consumption. Do we want freedom or an authoritarian state?

Note that alcohol consumption contributes to a *lot* more harm every year than video games and I support the right to consume alcohol.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[Obyron]

So here is a question. How does it effect younger people?

It could only "effect" younger people if watching violent makes people get pregnant and have babies. The word you're looking for here is "affect." For what it's worth you got it right in your second question though.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[Gideon Fubar]

They'll say 'video games don't contribute to violence any more than other violent media, so if you're going to restrict sales of video games to minors on those grounds, you'd better do it with movies and tv shows as well.'

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[LWATCDR]

Hummm so you are perfectly willing to state the result of an experiment before that experiment is conducted. Do you work for the Creation Science Institute?

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[LWATCDR]

"At some point the video game violence issue is the same as whether we as a country should have laws banning homosexual activity, and whether we should ban alcohol consumption. Do we want freedom or an authoritarian state?"

Umm... We restrict the sale of alcohol to minors don't we?
That Freedom or an authoritarian state line is just over the top. So you DON"T want the research done because you may not like the answer...
How open minded and scientific.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[einhverfr]

I never said the research shouldn't be done. I think research should always be done.

But you asked about lobbying which concerns how that research is used to steer public policy. The public policy questions are different. Research is only a small part of that discussion and that is how it should be.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[s20451]

And it doesn't make me violet and well beat the crap out of the anyone that says different.

This is kind of like arguing that you smoked a cigarette once and didn't get cancer, so they must be safe.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[Gideon Fubar]

Umm what?

Seems like you're jumping to conclusions a bit yourself... but i can't be sure.. are you saying that i can't speak for those people? Or did you think that by (speculatively) quoting them that i was one of them?

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[LWATCDR]

I am saying that you are stating a result of an experiment that hasn't been done. And that you are selecting that result based on your desire. In other words anti-science.
I am interested in what the results would be. Is a very realistic simulation of violence going to have a greater impact than abstract violence?
So maybe Daffy Duck getting his bill blown off by a shotgun blast has less of an effect than watching Saving Private Ryan.
Or does watching Saving Private Ryan have less of an effect than playing Call of Duty?
Or does Call of Duty have less of an effect than playing Doom3?
And are teenagers which have been shown to have a more impulsive nature than adults more affected?

To say that you already know what the result is as I said anti-science.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[Gideon Fubar]

Again, you're missing the point.

i answered the question you asked. Sure, i'm being anti-scientific in that i can't read the minds of others, but i'm willing to bet that's the argument they'll use.

if you want to go into details on this (again, speculative) we could talk bullshit about it all day.. I have no problem playing devil's advocate, I'd just like you to know that your attack on my argument is not an attack on my beliefs. :)

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[LWATCDR]

And if the results of the study are that violent media is harmful then why not restrict young people's access to it just like alcohol and tobacco?
People say that parents should control what there kids watch and play but then why restrict tobacco and alcohol? Shouldn't parents control what kids drink and smoke?
The media companies don't want any real restrictions because just like the Tobacco companies all they care about is money. Any pretense that they care about freedom is just spin.
Hey I like to play Quake just as much as the next person but how the fanboys on Slashdot fall for media compaines freedom flag waving for profit just makes me nuts.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[LWATCDR]

I have no idea what your beliefs are so no it isn't an attack on your beliefs.
I attack creation science based the fact that it is really bad science and full of lies.
I find them really disturbing because I am a Christian and go to church every Sunday. One of my deepest beliefs is only the truth serves the Lord and all lies are evil.
Except if your wife asks if that dress makes her look fat. Then LIE if needed. Of course I never need to.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[LWATCDR]

You need to develop a sense of humor.
or to put it simply DUH!!!!!
"And it doesn't make me violet and well beat the crap out of the anyone that says different."
I was making a joke. I made the statement that I played video games and that they didn't make me violent... Then I say that if you disagree with me I will take a violent action...
It was a joke and a comment that many people will say that because they play Doom or Quake that they can dismiss this study. Which is as you stated simply not true.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[einhverfr]

First, kids are pretty resourceful. I have been brewing beer since I was 16. Probably legally at first, since it was in my parents' house with their permission (BTW, I am not and have never been much of a drinker, but I *do* enjoy brewing). Later when I moved away to college it was suddenly illegal. Did I stop though? Why should I? It is not like there is any law in my state against selling brewing equipment to people under 21 (and it is strange to me that it would have been legal for me as a minor but illegal for a few years as an adult).

I have never known a kid who couldn't have figured out how to buy tobacco either.

So have you ever known a kid who couldn't get his hands on booze or smokes if he/she wanted? What do you expect to accomplish here?

The only argument for alcohol laws regarding minors is that it allows an additional charge of minor in possession to be made for underage persons with such beverages. Are you prepared to do the same with video games?

Secondly restricting sales of video games (which are nonconsumable) is very different than restricting sales of alcoholic beverages. If my friend gets his parents to buy some violent video game, he gains more by sharing it with me than by using it all himself. This is very different than alcohol where the good in question is *gone* after it is used. So how do you expect to enforce this? Make it a crime for kids to play such video games with eachother (just as with alcohol)?

Hence this isn't just a matter of parental control. The only way such a thing can work is if there are *legal consequences* to exposing minors to such material which makes it a case far more like the question of pornography than like alcohol. Do you really want our society to have crimes like "exposing a minor to violent depictions in movies?"

Finally, I would say that neurological information gleaned from these reports is important, but you can't get from it any information which suggests that there is a sufficient social harm to abridge the freedoms we hold dear in ways that would actually make such measures have any real teeth.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[Gideon Fubar]

I'm sure your wife is svelte and attractive.. what exactly was this argument about?

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[Abcd1234]

And if the results of the study are that violent media is harmful then why not restrict young people's access to it just like alcohol and tobacco?

Then do that. Because, to date, no one has (and no, a slightly higher proclivity toward violent behaviour immediately involving exposure to such materials does not constitute "harm"... and certainly not the kind of long-term harm that would warrant government intervention on behalf of public health or safety). Until such harm has been proven, the government can stay the fuck out.

Meanwhile, violent crime statistics and their general downward trend demonstrates that, whatever the thinkofthechildren crowd would have you believe, violent media seems to have little effect on actual rates of violence, especially when you compare it to factors such as income, education, health and nutrition, etc.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[LWATCDR]

Okay what about the limitation of minors owning guns? Minors driving? And I am not limiting it to just games but also movies. The current system in theaters is really a bad joke. There are also limits on things like playboys and other adult maqs.
What is funny is people seem to say that if it doesn't stop everyone it isn't helpful.
Well murder, rape, and breaking and entering are also illegal and they all still happen.
As for busting kids for a copy of Quake? No but then I don't think kids should be busted for position of alcohol or tobacco.
I think any store caught selling alcohol or tobacco to a minor with out asking for an id should be fined $10,000 for the first offense. For the second offense they loose the right to sell any tobacco or alcohol at that location for one year. Third offense is 10 years.
The stores are committing the crime IMHO not the minors. The law should prohibit the supplying not purchase of.
Trust me if they made those laws it would be really hard to find a store that would sell to a minor.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[LWATCDR]

"(and no, a slightly higher proclivity toward violent behavior immediately involving exposure to such materials does not constitute "harm"... and certainly not the kind of long-term harm that would warrant government intervention on behalf of public health or safety)."
That is called an opinion.
Such a discussion should then shift to the benefit to risk values.
Just what benefit does unrestricted access to violent media to minors offer? Well profit to the media companies, lower cost of violent media to adults. I do think that if an Adult wants to buy it for their kid that should be legal like it is fine to take a child to an R movie.
BTW in the UK and many places in the EU violent video games are illegal.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[geekoid]

The lowering of crime rates has many factor and people should use cation when using it in comparison.
Smoking has been banned in more and more places, and violent crime has dropped. Therefore smoking bans make people safer.

"Note that alcohol consumption contributes to a *lot* more harm every year than video games and I support the right to consume alcohol."
Another poor comparison. The effects of vidio games. if any, aren't as direct as drinking alcohol. So what is the effect of long term exposer? Ity is very difficult, at this time, to even trend game effects over a long period of time.

Interesting note: crime dropped significantly during during prohibition. I can't help but notice that papers during that era lost a lot of ad revenue for alcohol ads, and that every crime the involve 'gang' activity was on the front page.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[einhverfr]

In the cases of restricting driving, etc, owning guns, etc....
1) There is a *clear* question of harm which is easily quantified and analyzed.
2) The restrictions are a lot less intrusive to civil liberties in general than controlling portrayals of violence in art and exposure of children to these (whatever you do, don't read The Song of Roland to a minor!)
3) I think the question of adult mags is an interesting one. The argument is that children shouldn't be exposed to sexuality first by things outside a parent's control. However, a lot of parents are afraid that if they talk about these sorts of things with their children that they will start being sexually active. However, this generally results in the teens learning about sex from other teens. In general, I think it would almost be better if pornography wasn't regulated because it would provide less of a false sense of security to parents who want to hide their heads in the sand.

However violence in art (games, movies, books) doesn't provide an argument along the lines of pornography. Unlike sexuality, children are confronted at an early age with questions of physical violence and how one deals with the impulse to be violent. This comes from parents even before a child knows what a video game is, so.....

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[einhverfr]

My argument is one of how much harm reduction we actually expect from regulating violent video games, movies, theater plays etc. (Why should violence in a movie version of MacBeth be any different than a play?) vs the cost to our civil liberties.

We all know that art work can cause people to do destructive things. I am not even questioning that. For example, there was the rash of suicides in Germany linked to the publication of Die Leiden des Jungen Werther in the 19th century. But nobody suggests that regulating the sale of depressing literature to minors is a good idea.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[geekoid]

Thats a good question. I wuold like more studies so we can help find that point.

Maybe "Die Leiden des Jungen Werther" should have been regulated? Will we get to a point where we can tell the effects on something that precisely? probably, just not for another 10 years.

It is an interesting thing to think about. I am not worried about my children, because I monitor what they do and control what they see. But I am concerned about what happens to them if it turns out people are significantly impacted by long term effects of violent exposer. I don't control other peoples children. I know kids that spend 4 hours every week night and every weekend be exposed to violent games and movies. If there is a 25% chance that children will grow up and be more violent I want to know.

yes, I pulled 25% out of my ass for the point.

What I want is more good studies. I want to know what is happening. I hope these effects are limited and we all have a nice laugh in 25 years while playing "WoW: Fully immersed edition". I am not willing to base that on anecdotal evidence.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[einhverfr]

I think there is a pretty clear set of scientific knowledge which suggests that reading portrayals of suicide, particularly in literature, makes one more likely to contemplate suicide. May be should start banning all sorts of subjects in books...

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[rhakka]

I'm sorry... when did a "benefit" have to be proven to keep something from being made illegal?

What's the benefit of different clothing styles?

What's the benefit of 99% of all entertainment media out there today? Sitcoms? Kids' shows built around product sales?

What's the benefit of Candy?

Seriously... something HAS to be healthy or constructive to be legal now?

How about simply, it's enough that young boys like to play "war", and will, whether with a toy gun or with pointed fingers, until time comes to an end. Violence is a part of our psyche, and allowing people the freedom to explore all aspects of life and their psyched however they, or their parents if they are a minor, see fit is a fundamental part of allowing people to determine for themselves how to live?

Or is it just more important now, that everyone's actions are "correct" by some median, centralized, normative standard?

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[tgibbs]

The lowering of crime rates has many factor and people should use cation when using it in comparison

Doubtless. But what the statistics do prove is that any hypothetical violence-inducing effect of videogames must be so small as to be swamped by other social and demographic factors affecting crime rates.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[syousef]

It may be media company leveraged spin to say they care about freedom, but if you really do want to be able to play Quake without someone raiding your house and throwing you in jail for doing it (or for owning the game) then there is a genuine freedom issue too. Hey if you don't like violent games there are still other games that could be banned on the basis that they could be used for violence. eg. Imagine a ban on civilian flight sims because they've been used to train terrorists.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[LWATCDR]

"Seriously... something HAS to be healthy or constructive to be legal now?"
No the harm of something should out way the benfit of something for it to be restricted.
And what makes me crazy is that no one is talking about making violent media illegal. I simply said that more research should be done and if it is proven to be harmful then it may be wise to impose restrictions to limit children's exposure to it.
I never said it should be illegal for adults.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[LWATCDR]

You are using the slippery slope argument which just isn't valid. We don't let kids own guns, drive cars, sign contracts, buy tobacco, buy alcohol, go to strip clubs, or any number of other activities that adults do.
I don't see how enforcing the rating codes we already have is any different or any more of a threat to liberty.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[rhakka]

but, according to who? Using what standards? To what end goal?

What if I live in a tough neighborhood, and I WANT my children to understand violence, because they have to live with it?

that's just a random example, but the point is... harmful or not, unless the harm is both obvious and overwhelming (not just "outweighing"), restriction shouldn't even be considered.

Temporary increases in violent feelings I don't think qualify by themselves. If a clear causal relationship between playing Doom and beating your wife is found, that's another thing entirely of course.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[Shotgun]

One of the real problems that you have is that violent crime rates (robbery, murder, rape, etc) have been dropping for a long time.

In what age group.

There was a big stir at my younger son's middle school because of some gang violence. The same day, there was a stabbing at my older son's high school. Many parents kept their high-schoolers at home today, because there were some rumors going around that there was going to be a shooting. (My son was leaving early, because the wrestling team had an out of town tournament, so I let him go.)

I personally don't think the statistics show a rise in juvenile crime, but I don't think the statistics of overall crime apply as much as the specific category.

Re:Bull I play video games all the time.

[syousef]

I don't see how enforcing the rating codes we already have is any different or any more of a threat to liberty.

Then you're blind since the ratings allow a game to be banned altogether.

Great!

[F-3582]

I wonder how long it takes science to figure out that spending time in the army leads to aggressive behaviour, as well.

Re:Great!

[scubamage]

Actually they've done studies which showed a correlation to many things involving the military and violence. For example, soldiers are taught to literally drive through crowds in war situations. Strangely enough, areas around military bases have an abnormally high number of automobile collisions, and pedestrian fatalities. I wish I still had access to academic databases and could cite the studies. Similarly, soldiers who've spent time in warzones appear to have an increased tendency towards violent behavior. Go figure, right? Obviously you can't infer causation, but the correlation does seem to be pretty scary.

Re:Great!

[qbzzt]

This is the reason military training includes a huge component of impulse control - the point is to train soldiers to be violence when appropriate.

Re:Great!

[mr_mischief]

Considering we have an entirely self-selected military, you'd have to do some serious investigation into before and after to get more than correlation. Self-selection into the military could be based largely on the traits that the military trains people for. Careful, bicycle-riding, peaceful, pacifists don't generally volunteer to be taught how to shoot at gun-wielding teenagers from other countries.

Also, since our military is comprised mostly of people who have barely made the age of majority (and mostly men), you'd be comparing their auto collision, domestic violence, disorderly conduct, and aggressive tendencies to high school boys who are placed close together in large groups.

I think the actuaries at any auto insurance company could tell you that if you put 12,000 teenage boys on a campus and keep them almost constantly occupied you're going to have a huge number of auto incidents and accidents when they leave the campus. It doesn't necessarily make a lot of difference if it's a school or a military base. You'd have to control for things like that.

Re:Great!

[mr_mischief]

I don't have the statistic, and I wish I did. I'm not sure anyone would have thought to compile it. I wonder, though, just what percentage of those auto accidents are officers, NCOs, and civilian personnel vs. junior enlisted.

It's also good to remember that bases could have an impact on traffic simply by being there. When you put 4,000 - 25,000 people in a smallish area which interconnects with public roads and most of the drivers are not locals you're bound to raise accident rates. Shopping malls, race tracks, ballparks, and university campuses probably have higher accident rates too.

I agree about the men in groups idea. Men tend to form a pack. Mild aggression within the group is even a sign of acceptance and sometimes affection. A bunch of arm-punching, wrestling, back-slapping guys in one place can be fun or it can become trouble. I think it's a wonder the military does such a good job, considering all that.

Clockwork Orange

[psychicsword]

This seems like something coming straight out of clockwork orange.

Re:Clockwork Orange

[wattrlz]

Not really. Now if they were studying what would happen if the subjects were subjected to unpleasant stimuli like nausea or electric shocks while watching violent images, now that would be interesting.

Re:Clockwork Orange

[techpawn]

Right right little Alex. Just without the medication and surgery...

OK... but

[MozeeToby]

There's no discussion of how long these effects last. Of course our brain is going to prepare us for violence when we witness violence. If it didn't, you'd probably get killed in your first violent confrontation because you wouldn't be prepared to fight back. The question is, does viewing violent media today make me more likely to go kill people tomorrow.

Did it ever occur to anyone

[LM741N]

That the brain may be showing that it is repulsed? Instead they just blindly assume this activity is excitement. So the assumptions of the researchers determine the outcome. Junk science.

Re:Did it ever occur to anyone

[spyrochaete]

I'm sure everyone responds differently, but what we all have in common while viewing violent images is empathy.

Re:Did it ever occur to anyone

[aadvancedGIR]

No, some people can't for various reason (mental disease or trauma), an that makes them far more likely to be dangerous than the average person.

Re:Did it ever occur to anyone

[spyrochaete]

True enough, some people are sociopathic and do not empathize. I'm not a psychologist but I believe that is the one and only exception to this rule.

Re:Did it ever occur to anyone

[Larry_The_Canary]

The article isn't claiming increased activity anywhere in your brain. It claims less activity in an area of your brain known to suppress aggressive behavior. I know this is slashdot so I can understand not RTFA but at least RTFS!

That said...

[jesdynf]

It's a damn shame Jack's disbarrment hearing wraps up today. The only thing funnier than Jack getting planked is Jack getting planked even though he was right* all along.

* Still a liar too stupid to be an effective bully. But right.

Re:That said...

[ubrgeek]

Along the same lines, I was wondering how long this becomes the 21st Century version of the Twinkie Defense? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense/

Re:That said...

[geekoid]

No he wasn't. This study in no way backs what he was saying.

Oh yeah?

[log1385]

Anyone who tells me that movie violence changes my behaviour can meet me outside right after I watch Gladiator.

Oh shit, here it comes..

[R2.0]

The twin battle cries:

Making the laws:"We must ban these images...Think of the Children"

Enforcing the laws:"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is innocent of assault because the violent videogame he played has been scientifically proven to have reduced his capacity to control his impulses."

Re:Oh shit, here it comes..

[LWATCDR]

"Making the laws:"We must ban these images...Think of the Children""
Yea looked what happened with tobacco...
A bunch of nut jobs decided it was harmful now a 12 year old can't legally buy a pack of smokes.
And if studies show that excessively violent media is harmful to children should it just be ignored?

Re:Oh shit, here it comes..

[lorenlal]

And if those studies are fundamentally flawed, but cause a firestorm to get some attention?

Remember, smokes are dangerous for *everyone* but adults can still buy them. We're assuming that parents can't control what their kid watches. To some extent, that's true. That's where parents come in and say "That's not right." Most of us do. Hooray.

The article makes me think something a bit more obvioius than what the writers are indicating. I thin kafter watching something, you think about it. Woah! I know that's rocking some people's worlds... But whenever I watch something, I spend a little time mentally digesting it.

I'll bet after watching a comedy, the humor centers light up in those people too.

I'd also be willing to bet that if you compare the scans after a day, week, or month, you won't find any real difference at all from the initial scans. Unless the person is *messed up to begin with.* Feel free to define that however you wish.

Just someone trying to scare us into thinking "WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM *EVERYTHING!* OMG!" If you let this article scare you into thinking that you need to further shelter your kid, I'll sell you a personal bubble so you can keep all those nasty bugs and diseases from them too.

Re:Oh shit, here it comes..

[LWATCDR]

If you read the article you will see that the change was in the part of the brain that controls the inhibition of violence. It is also not the first study that has show a connection between violent media and aggressive behavior.
So you feel that study is flawed because you don't like the results.

Re:Oh shit, here it comes..

[Lillesvin]

I don't think the GP thinks that the study is flawed, but merely that other conclusions can be drawn from it (or that some are left out).

I took a quick look through TFA and found myself wondering if this "change" was permanent or temporary. I'll bet you, that if someone walks up to you and, for no apparent reason, slaps you square in the face, then you probably won't need an fMRI scanner to spot a change in the part that controls the inhibition of violence in your brain... But will that incident make you a more violent person permanently or just temporarily?

fMRI scans are meant to register and locate reactions/actions in the brain - and I think that's what they mean by "change", mainly on the basis that I've been in a scanner myself as part of an experiment to figure out which parts of the brain were active when lying. The "changes" there were activity in the brain - not permanent changes.

It wouldn't surprise me the least that people's reaction to violence is measurable precisely in the part of the brain that controls the inhibition of violence. As others have pointed out - it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. Or would you rather have people not reacting to violence at all?

Re:Oh shit, here it comes..

[nunyadambinness]

If you read the article you will see that the change was in the part of the brain that WE SUSPECT controls the inhibition of violence.

Fixed that to make it accurate.

So you feel that study is flawed because it makes assumptions that professionals in the subject do not agree with

Fixed that to make it accurate too.

Re:Oh shit, here it comes..

[LWATCDR]

"It wouldn't surprise me the least that people's reaction to violence is measurable precisely in the part of the brain that controls the inhibition of violence. As others have pointed out - it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. Or would you rather have people not reacting to violence at all?"
But that doesn't mean that it is a good thing.

I wonder about the physical as well as they emotional impact of some of the latest and greatest video games.
Being put under constant stress is harmful to both physical and emotional health. Simulations can cause the same physical effects that real life does. Talk to any pilot that has flown in a good simulator.
So what is the effect of constant simulation of stressful events on children?
To not look at these questions because you may not like the answers is not good science or even logical.

Re:Oh shit, here it comes..

[jonas_jonas]

The things is:

Stress has both sides - a stressful situation can make you feel bad and (if it lasts for too long) can make you ill, but to get through a stressful situation with a good result makes you much more healthy. (eustress and distress)

Re:Oh shit, here it comes..

[mdwh2]

And if studies show that excessively violent media is harmful to children should it just be ignored?

I don't care what happens for children, but the problem is politicians trying to criminalise images for _adults_ (which is an issue here in the UK).

Efficient brain function...

[sweet 'n sour]

If the subject knows that the violence they are watching is fake then the brain wouldn't have to worry about filtering out violent behavior because it is not violent behavior. Perhaps the brain is just being efficient.

I'd be more interested in seeing the results of people watching real violence on T.V and knowing it, or seeing the results of a child who doesn't know that fake violence in a movie is not real.

Re:Efficient brain function...

[The Underwriter]

If the brain were "just being efficient", then porn wouldn't be the biggest thing on the internet. Your statement phrased ANOTHER way...

"If the subject knows that the sex they are watching is fake then the brain wouldn't have to worry about filtering out sexual behavior because it is not sexual behavior. Perhaps the brain is just being efficient.

"I'd be more interested in seeing the results of people watching real sex on T.V and knowing it, or seeing the results of a child who doesn't know that fake sex in a movie is not real."

Though knowing whether its real or not may intensify the response, people still "get-off" on soft porn, action flicks, sitcoms, soap operas, etc. The id can't distinguish between fantasy and reality.

Re:Efficient brain function...

[berashith]

Thanks, you just explained why I prefer the homemade amateur stuff so much better.

Re:Efficient brain function...

[mr_mischief]

As long as you're bringing this to a psychological level as opposed to the neurochemical level, I have a few questions about the validity of some conclusions from that perspective. Isn't the id always a base sort of thing, and isn't it necessary to have an active id to get by? Aren't the ego and superego supposed to balance out the id and keep us from doing antisocial things under normal circumstances?

Having an impulse -- even a strengthened impulse -- and not being able to control that impulse are, after all, two very different things, aren't they? Or is this greater activity of baser impulses actually negating our ability to control ourselves, as the summary implies? We are, after all, not beings of pure id.

Next logical step

[Coward Anonymous]

They should now make the obvious follow-up study and let their subjects watch select porn and measure its transformative effect on the brain.
Of course, the results probably wouldn't be as popular or easy to write a press release about - porn makes people happy!

Re:Next logical step

[wattrlz]

The analogous study would be more along the lines of, " Does porn make people less inhibitted/more horny?" . Which, I think, would be quite an interesting study.

What they proved...

[king-manic]

The brain reacts to violent imagery, may affect impulse control after

What they didn't prove:

Violent imagery makes you violent.

Most of the studies present a violent image and ask you questions after. Partly because it'd be unethical to show them imagery and then attempt to induce violence. Thus they must use proxies which only prove a relationship from the imagery to the proxy.

Common Study:
Show a 3 min clip from bioshock - ask "are you feeling more or less violent" or "please push this button as hard as you want" and then write a conclusion " Bioshock makes you violent".

I doubt violent imagery has no effect on you, it likely agitates the flight or fight response but I am skeptical on whether it can induce violence in a normal/average person. I dislike how media and various groups try to portray a stronger relationship. Doom 3 has not made me a serial killer, it's highly unlikely doom 6 will make my children serial killers, and if it does it's probably partly mine and my communities fault. It my kid does end up being a serial killer there is most likely a biological factor too. Media alone does not make a killer.

Re:What they proved...

[PainKilleR-CE]

It doesn't really matter anyway. All of our grandchildren will grow up in padded rooms. There will be no violence in the media, and the government will no longer fear the people, as they'll have managed to remove the brain's capability for violence, as well as the means to produce violence action.

Of course, watching kids' TV shows and listening to XMas music incites me to violence, so you never can tell with some people.

Re:What they proved...

[Chosen Reject]

I doubt violent imagery has no effect on you

Imagery of all kinds, be it violent, pornographic, or of pretty flowers in a field, has effects on people. That shouldn't be the question. The question is does it make you more prone to act on that imagery.

Some examples:

• Surgeons are desensitized to blood, but they aren't looking for people to cut up
• Garbage men are desensitized to the smell, but they aren't looking for cologne that smells the same
• Morticians are desensitized to corpses, but they don't go out every night killing people just to have more

I'm sure you could think of other examples. Just because we become desensitized to something, doesn't mean we are more likely to act out on it. Some people will, that is for sure. Then again, some people were violent long before we even had media (including cave drawings).

Re:What they proved...

[yali]

Most of the studies present a violent image and ask you questions after. Partly because it'd be unethical to show them imagery and then attempt to induce violence. Thus they must use proxies which only prove a relationship from the imagery to the proxy.

Are you suggesting they should have tried to measure actual violence inside an MRI scanner?

Or are you speaking more broadly about research on media violence in general? Because plenty of studies have randomly manipulated media exposure and then measured real physical aggression. Check out this comprehensive review (pdf warning) of the research literature and see for yourself. The linked article notes that there have been (at least) 71 randomized studies of TV and movies which measured actual physical violence as an outcome; they overwhelmingly show a causal link. (There have also been similar studies on video games, though fewer.) The fMRI study, one presumes, is trying to help explain that causal process.

A lot of civil-liberties-minded folks get uptight about research on media violence, because they think it will lead toward government control. But that doesn't have to be the case. Research can help people make more informed, personal decisions about what media to consume and how to raise their kids, even while society still zealously guards the right to free speech. If you are worried about an erosion of rights, then your quarrel is with overreaching policymakers, not scientists.

Re:What they proved...

[Cassander]

I doubt violent imagery has no effect on you, it likely agitates the flight or fight response but I am skeptical on whether it can induce violence in a normal/average person.

I am skeptical as well about the ability of violent imagery to induce violence.

I think witnessing any form of violence/dangerous situation definitely activates an instinctual response to prepare for said situation. I bet if you took a group of research subjects, showed them movies of people fighting for 20 minutes, and had them brawl with the "control" group who had just been watching movies of fluffy kittens for 20 minutes, the violence-watchers would win. (Of course, we can't do *that* study... grumble grumble...) I bet you could even demonstrate that people who are already agitated are more likely to go "over the edge" after watching appropriately violent stimulus (and less likely after KittenVision[tm]).

However, I still firmly believe in personal responsibility. Nothing can induce violence but your own damn brain, making the decision to be violent. Please, everyone, hold people accountable for their own actions, and don't censor *my* entertainment just because it might inspire some other asshole to be more of an asshole than he already is.

Re:What they proved...

[alan_dershowitz]

What you said:

What they didn't prove: Violent imagery makes you violent. What the summary said:

Although research has shown some correlation between exposure to media violence and real-life violent behavior, there has been little direct neuroscientific support for this theory until now. While it isn't _proven_ that exposure to violent imagery leads to more aggressive behavior, the correlation had already been established. The question isn't whether exposure to violent media makes ordinary people into serial killers, it's if it makes ordinary people more violent than they were. Serial killers are statistical outliers, I don't think they are testing for that anyway.

Re:What they proved...

[king-manic]

While it isn't _proven_ that exposure to violent imagery leads to more aggressive behavior, the correlation had already been established. The question isn't whether exposure to violent media makes ordinary people into serial killers, it's if it makes ordinary people more violent than they were. Serial killers are statistical outliers, I don't think they are testing for that anyway. Is more aggressive behavior violence? I am aware of the correlations with "violent image" => "more aggressive thoughts" but thus far "violent image" !=> "will murder or maim people". In a more general social context in the last 25 years violence in society has declined while violence in media has increased. Thus either media isn't a big factor, there is no direct causation between real violence or violent images, there is a reverse correlation.

The second problem is that people will use these studies to assert claims far beyond what they say ala "Doom is a murder trainer".

Re:What they proved...

[synthespian]

What they didn't prove:

Violent imagery makes you violent.

I don't think you understand the scope of this research. It shows that the neurological correlates influencing violent behaviour are affected.
Get it? If it's happening on the brain and it's showing up on the functional imaging exams they did, it's pretty much the real deal.
This isn't a game of words - which is what you're doing.

Furthermore, there are studies with children (where the control group is not exposed to violent media) that clearly indicate increase in violent behavior - real violent interaction (e.g., on playgrounds).

I know violence is very much glorified in US American culture (*) (and sadly, it's an export product of the US, via games and morbid TV shows, e.g., CSI (**)), but it's time people stop getting defensive about the accumulating body of evidence.

(*) A thing that very much impressed me were the young tank soldiers in Michael Moore's movie, describing the actual slaughter of people in Iraq as a thrilling video game scene. Wow, talk about being indoctrinated into violence.
(**) Somebody explain to me why cadavers are entertainment. This clearly can only be appreciated by people who've never felt the stench of a decomposing corpse - the worst smell one can feel in life.

Re:What they proved...

[jagdish]

Yes, but Duke Nukem Forever will definitely make your great grandchildren violent. (If they manage to release it on time.)

Re:What they proved...

[hurfy]

Can the control group be dog owners who are allergic to kittens?

Please?

Will that be on pay-per-view or do i have to go to the 'House of Fury' at the local Indian casino to see it?

Re:What they proved...

[Anonymous Coward]

It shows that the neurological correlates influencing violent behaviour are affected.
Get it? If it's happening on the brain and it's showing up on the functional imaging exams they did, it's pretty much the real deal.

What it shows is that a region of the brain which is active during the suppression of certain behaviors is less active after viewing violent media. This is a correlation with a causation. There is a correlation between activity in a region of the brain and the suppression of violent behavior, and watching violent media then causes reduced activity in this part of the brain.

This does NOT, however, show that viewing violent media induces violent behavior, or more importantly, induces a sustained pattern of violent behavior. Showing activity in a region of the brain is not "the real deal", because the brain is an extremely complex network of interactions which are very poorly understood, and you cannot consistently take activity in only one region and deduce the behavioral consequence of that.

it's time people stop getting defensive about the accumulating body of evidence.

The ACTUAL evidence is perfectly fine. People are disturbed by the extravagant conclusions being extrapolated from the evidence. There are a large volume of people who want very much to prove that violent movies and games cause people to become violent criminals, and so they try to accumulate evidence which proves this point. However, there is currently NO evidence which supports this conclusion. There are only pieces of evidence which demonstrate transient emotional effects and correlations of preferences. You cannot go from transient emotional effects to "violent media causes violent criminals", nor can you go from preference correlation to "violent media causes violent criminals".

Somebody explain to me why cadavers are entertainment. This clearly can only be appreciated by people who've never felt the stench of a decomposing corpse - the worst smell one can feel in life.

So what you're basically saying, is sensory exposure to death has turned you off to violence, but sensory exposure to death has turned others on to violence. The variable which changes in these two conditions is the individual. Think about it.

Same shit, different day

[dgr73]

If you exercise a muscle, will it not grow stronger? If you watch or play violent media and get violent impulses, will you not exercise your impulse control.

Do some people get heart attacks at the gym? Yes.
Do some people crack when exposed to too many violent impulses? Yes.

Should this stop the healthy majority from exercising their muscles or their impulse control? Perhaps, if you want to have a country full of flabby people with little self-restraint.. oh wait..

I nominate this for the...

[Schnoogs]

"No duh" award of 2007.

Is there any stimulus interpreted by the brain that doesn't change it one way or another? There are literally 100 million gamers world wide that have played violent video games. What percentage goes onto mow down their classmates?

Re:I nominate this for the...

[digitrev]

More importantly, compare that percent to the percentage of non-gamers that mow down their classmates.

Re:I nominate this for the...

[Schnoogs]

I think it's safe to say that every kid who has committed such an act has played video games. It's hard to find kids these days that hasn't played them or enjoys playing them. Thats almost like saying 100% of school shooters drinks water.

Extra background

[brewstate]

http://www.killology.com/bio.htm

Re:Extra background

[Broken scope]

Grossman is full of shit, these guys atleast did what appears to be a decent study.

Research? We don't need no stinking reasearch

[dkixk]

/. loves violent games and we are, obviously, well adjusted. This is #$!@ ridiculous. Frag those fscking eggheads. How dare they question my favorite &!#$%! passtime. Taste my steel, Care Bear!

Nothing new

[Itninja]

When any game (video or otherwise) rewards a player for brutalizing a passive, non-threating character, I think it's reasonable to call that a desensitization device. Once someone become desensitized to something considered by all modern cultures to be objectionable, they are more likely to react the same way to similar real-world stimuli.

Just like therapists use certain interactive video imagery programs to help people with extreme phobias. If you have severe arachnophobia, but spend several hours every day interacting with realistic spiders in an simulated environment, you will be less likely to have a panic attack when confronted with a real-world spider. This is a long-documented psychologically valid method.

Re:Nothing new

[PainKilleR-CE]

--When any game (video or otherwise) rewards a player for brutalizing
--a passive, non-threating character, I think it's reasonable to call
--that a desensitization device

Now, if only there were some examples to go with here... Maybe I'm slightly behind the times here, as I don't have any of the current consoles (though I have all 4 of the last generation consoles (PS2/XBox/GC/DC)), but I haven't played many (if any) games that reward players for brutalizing passive, non-threatening characters. Even in the most publicized cases of people trying to censor and ban violent video games the games themselves attempted to punish players for doing so, or simply didn't present such characters to begin with.

Re:Nothing new

[VorpalRodent]

When any game (video or otherwise)
I'm particularly interested in this "otherwise" category. What (non video) games out there will reward me for beating upon someone who isn't remotely a threat?

Monopoly: Mob Edition - when someone lands on your space, you walk over to their side of the table and "collect rent" by any means necessary. Alternately, you may choose not to injure them, in exchange for protection money.

Re:Nothing new

[Itninja]

From what I've observed watching games like GTA, this is not that uncommon. Like, beating a random pedestrian to death with a baseball bat, while he begs for mercy, and then having your skill points increase. I don't know if that's a perfect example, but I have definitely seen this type of model in some games.

Re:Nothing new

[HertzaHaeon]

More interesting and relevant here, I believe, would be a reversed effect -- does watching spiders turn people into arachnophobes? It seems rather unlikely.

Re:Nothing new

[PainKilleR-CE]

That's a flawed example because it is not the case in that specific game. In GTA if you beat a random pedestrian with a baseball bat, you will very likely call attention to yourself and have the police after you in short order (much more quickly than you likely would if you did the same thing in real life, and with a much better chance of the police being able to identify you as the person that committed the crime in question). I'm not sure if GTA games after III and Vice City have skill points are not, but up to and including those games they did not, and it's hard to argue that you wouldn't become more skilled with a baseball bat by using it, even against defenseless victims.

Re:Nothing new

[munch117]

... I haven't played many (if any) games that reward players for brutalizing passive, non-threatening characters.

I thought that was the whole point of GTA?!

Re:Nothing new

[Itninja]

I agree that playing a violent game won't make a passive, non-violent person into a monster. But I am talking about, not making people into things they are not, but desensitizing people to certain types of behavior. Hours spent focusing on brutally violent actions will eventually do one of two things (even to a teddy-bear of a person):
1) You will eventually get disgusted by the actions or imagery and stop playing the game.
2) You will become desensitized to it, and eventually begin to crave the game.

Re:Nothing new

[ArsonSmith]

You draw one conclusion where I seem to draw a nearly opposite one. Perhaps desensitization to it will make it less likely to cause violent outbursts due to the fact that if you are in a situation that someone not desensitized would lose control and possible have a minor stent of temporary insanity. Where as someone who has been desensitized to it wont care and things would be less likely to escalate.

Re:Nothing new

[ArsonSmith]

no no you got it wrong.

If watching violent content makes you a violent person,

does watching spiders make you a spider person?

I for one welcome our new eight legged Beowulf Portman goatse first post

Re:Nothing new

[StormReaver]

"Just like therapists use certain interactive video imagery programs to help people with extreme phobias."

Yes, because we all know that being cured of an irrational fear is the same thing as being turned from a naturally caring member of society into a raging psychopath. [eye-roll]

That's even assuming that the methodology and conclusions of the study are correct. Psychological studies are notorious for the great distance between their conclusions and reality. The complexities of human behavior can be complicated enough to evade understanding for thousands of years. Take the results of these short term studies that defy logic with a galaxy-sized block of salt.

Re:Nothing new

[PainKilleR-CE]

Generally the point of GTA is brutalizing aggressive, threatening members of opposing street gangs and/or stealing items in their possession. Even under those circumstances you can draw the attention of the police and have some trouble getting rewarded for doing so. Brutalizing the passive, non-threatening characters is possible simply because the game tries not to restrain your actions, but it does not go out of its way rewarding you for doing so.

Personally, I've spent a lot of time playing the game for the sake of the freedom to run around in the environment and doing a great deal of damage, but while I enjoyed the challenge of fending off the highest levels of government intervention it would throw at me, I never found it interesting to play this way for long, as the reward system was not in the game itself to encourage this activity, the game actively resists users taking this action (but does not prevent them completely from doing so).

Re:Nothing new

[Fallingcow]

The GTA series does, kind of. Killing innocent pedestrians will normally get you a tiny amount of cash (presumably from the person's wallet, though it just shows up "powerup"-style on the ground). Of course, doing so too much (maybe 3-4 kills) or anywhere near a cop will increase your "wanted" level and get you shot at by police officers, so it's not that useful if you're actually playing the game to advance the story, aside from maybe very early on, when you have little money.

So, I don't know that I'd say it "rewards" the player, though it does allow you to do that. The earlier, 2D top-view GTA games on the PC did reward you, though the violence was about as realistic-looking as an NES game. In that one, running people over and hitting other cars would boost your score. Hitting a line of joggers got you a bonus. Those are the only games I've seen that really reward killing innocents, and the GTAs from GTAIII on are more like Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout I&II, etc., in that they allow killing innocents but don't particularly encourage it (most of the time).

Re:Nothing new

[Itninja]

I am talking about interacting violently, not simply observing. But basically yes; if a person spends significant time interacting with spiders they will eventually come to either enjoy them or stop interacting with them.

Re:Nothing new

[Itninja]

All able-minded humans have an inherent aversion to harming other people for no reason. In order to get someone to hurt and/or kill a non-threatening person, they must be desensitized to that action. A person who's gets cut-off in traffic, insulted, or otherwise angered (but not threatened) may want to hurt the offender but will most-likely restrain themselves because of their nature aversion to violence.

If the same person has spent 100's of hours simulating brutally violent reactions to non-threatening stimuli, they would be more likely to ignore their aversion to violence and follow through on their initial urge to hurt someone.

Re:Nothing new

[Chaset]

I'm only guessing, since I've only read the descriptions (and haven't played the games), but "Postal" and "Carmageddon" were supposed to be like that.

Re:Nothing new

[Cctoide]

I think the problem here is that GTA has gotten so much press (good and bad) that a lot of people have no idea, or a warped idea, of what the game is about. Going just on press coverage and never having played the game, you might think people were paying $50 for a game where you get to beat up pedestrians, with no story or whatever.

Personally I finished the story mode and then I'd pick it up every so often to go on cheat-assisted rampages, but the thing is that it gets boring after a while - cars exploding and hordes of people flying through the air gets boring after you've reached six stars for the two hundredth time.

While I don't "feel" more violent after playing games like this, I do feel like I take a different attitude towards games like GTA than I do towards more immersive FPSs - when playing GTA, I'm usually aware that I'm just manipulating a character around in a virtual environment, and I don't really go "into" the world; on the other hand, when playing FPSs like Halo or Battlefield 2/2142, if I play for long enough, after a while I begin to mesh with the game - aka "zone out" - and I've noticed that if I stop playing and get up while in the zone, I tend to act... differently. Not "jump around the corner and whack someone on the head" different, but rather, I start sneaking around and peeking around corners, etc. as if I was still in the game. This usually goes away within ten minutes, but I found it interesting.

Re:Nothing new

[ArsonSmith]

f the same person has spent 100's of hours simulating brutally violent reactions to non-threatening stimuli, they would be more likely to understand their desire for violence and restrain the urge to hurt someone.

There corrected that for you.

Re:Nothing new

[Itninja]

You are confusing simulation with education. All the simulation in the multiverse will not help you 'understand' anything. Crack a book, look it up, and site your sources if you disagree.

I'm not worried about becoming violent...

[Johnbd66]

The money/resources that they wasted on this study should have gone towards serious research into problems such as dementia. But I guess, since they still will not understand dementia by the time I get it, I will forget all of the violence that I've witnessed and become complacent once again

I am ...

[kryten_nl]

I am Jack's desensitization to violence.

Possible Explanation

[Tony Freakin Twist]

I would propose that perhaps the age-old argument for the presence of violent media - that it mitigates real violence by offering a release valve - would be the explanation here. I'm not a neuro-scientist (IANANS), but wouldn't less activity mean that that portion of the brain is not working as hard at blocking violent impulses, maybe because there are fewer of these impulses?

In Other News

[sexconker]

Watching cute bunnies and teddy bears has the same exact effect.

Re:In Other News

[MsGeek]

Watching cute bunnies and teddy bears has the same exact effect.

Well then, I suppose you've never seen the Happy Tree Friends, then.

Sickening

[spleen_blender]

This kind of garbage has more in common with phrenology than it does real scientific research. We try to think we understand how the brain works, but news flash... WE DON'T.

There are so many theories on intelligences (Jeff Hawkins personally has my favourite ideas and his book On Intelligence is a great gateway to Cognitive Science) and none of them are right, or else we could have converted it into an algorithm and have AI. That being said, anyone who says anything more than "duh" to these conclusions is either trying to be manipulative for their own gain, or an ignorant slave to the ideas of others.

Make love, not war

[iamacat]

How much more scientific evidence do we need to convince people that watching adults having consensual, mutually enjoyable sex is better for teenagers than watching people killing each other?

Re:Make love, not war

[lorenlal]

Woah there chief. That hippy stuff doesn't fly around here. Everyone knows that the true American way is to strictly adhere to our 2nd amendment rights to the point where you're gagging on your gun! We have to keep our strict Christian values, while maintaining our seperation of church and state!

Remember! Don't get down! Get up and fight some terrorists!

Hoorah!

-FCC

Re:Make love, not war

[theelectron]

So, is the true American way to shoot first and have sex with the corpse later?

violence is catharsis

[circletimessquare]

the issue of unwanted expression of violence isn't that you can't suppress it, but that you have too much rage. it doesn't matter if your ability to decipher right and wrong is pristine when you are in a fit of madness: the gates of reason may be strong, but the flood can be worse

therefore, a superior way to prevent spasms of violence in real life is to allow for some way to express violence in harmless ways

such as violent videogames

what gets released harmlessly on a keyboard or joystick is that which will not be released in real life situations

it's not like the violent videogame creates violence. what made the ancient romans violent? violent is inherent to human nature. look at a roomful of 4 year olds if you don't believe this. a violent videogame can only catalyze the release of violent potential that is already in the person

so certainly, if someone is already unstable, a violent videogame could serve as the flashpoint which makes a previously unstable person blow up. but this still isn't a ding against violent videogames, since something else would have eventually set an unstable person off

by and large, violent videogames reduce violence in society

the daily friction of life creates a build up of rage. the question is how is that rage released. a violent videogame provides that release, in exaclt the mechanism described above. but it's not like that rage has anywhere else to go were it not for violent videogames

i think we as a society should play more violent videogames to reduce real world violence

i am not in the least joking

there are unstable individuals who can't differentiate from reality who should not play them, sure. as if the existence of violent videogames or not makes them any more or less unstable

Re:violence is catharsis

[ChrisMP1]

the shift key is to the left of the z
the period is to the right of the comma, under the l

Re:violence is catharsis

[alan_dershowitz]

it's not like the violent videogame creates violence. what made the ancient romans violent? violent is inherent to human nature. The fact that humans are naturally violent doesn't negate the possibility that video games create violence. Humans have to be socialized to suppress their violent nature, and it could be argued that media violence is anti-socialization, desensitizing one to violence and encouraging one to act out on their violent fantasies and explore them rather than suppress them. I am not convinced that acting out violence is the solution to reducing violence, rather it creates acceptability and familiarity. There are other, vastly superior ways to sublimate violent tendencies, like sports or exercise (in my experience, anyway.)

Re:violence is catharsis

[AgentBif]

the issue of unwanted expression of violence isn't that you can't suppress it, but that you have too much rage [citation needed]

a superior way to prevent spasms of violence in real life is to allow for some way to express violence in harmless ways

such as violent videogames [citation needed]

what gets released harmlessly on a keyboard or joystick is that which will not be released in real life situations [citation needed]

by and large, violent videogames reduce violence in society [citation needed]

the daily friction of life creates a build up of rage. the question is how is that rage released. a violent videogame provides that release, in exaclt the mechanism described above. but it's not like that rage has anywhere else to go were it not for violent videogames [citation needed]

i think we as a society should play more violent videogames to reduce real world violence

i am not in the least joking

there are unstable individuals who can't differentiate [editorial: fact?] from reality [irony noted]

Re:violence is catharsis

[thefinite]

And let me be the first to say, "What a load of crap."

First of all, you clearly missed the outcome of the research if you consider violent video games harmless, because it indicates that to some level such games are not harmless in that they inhibit a person's ability to filter aggression in real world circumstances.

Secondly, you are making a huge and flawed assumption that natural tendencies toward violence require violent expression to be properly resolved. Extending that logic, a person with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism would be best served by drinking! The reality about violent emotion is that it can be very effectively managed through conflict resolution skills and establishing habits of kindness to other people. Instead of floodwaters needing to be slowly relieved, think of infections that should be fought off. For those with uncontrollable violent tendencies, they often suffer from chemical imbalances or bad habits, not poor release mechanisms.

My personal experience is that describing violent behavior as a necessary human condition is usually just an excuse for someone's preference for violence as a form of entertainment. You are entitled to like violence as entertainment, but don't try to excuse it by saying that everyone needs to express violence to be healthy. Violence needs to be resolved, not expressed.

Re:violence is catharsis

[robot_love]

Thanks for posting that. As I read the Catharsis post it was rumbling around in my head that the idea of catharsis was bunk but I couldn't remember where I heard that.

Re:violence is catharsis

[DNAtsol]

+2 from me dude. Hilarious humour.

Well...

[Kjella]

Perhaps because it's a way to release aggression in a safe way? I mean how often do you say "I just want to punch something" and you would take it out on a punching bag, but not on a person? I'm certain that if I did I would temporarily lower my own inhibitions, just like a meditating man can slow his heartbeat. Why? Because I know it's a punching bag I'm punching, so I can just let go, let the adrenaline flow and punch the shit out of it. Which pressure cooker would you have, the one with or without a vent?

Re:Well...

[squiggleslash]

Have you tried a peaceful alternative? Since getting the Rabbids 2 game, my wife and I, whenever we're really, really, angry, just go to the Wii, shake the controller as hard and quickly as possible, and destroy Paris with the resultant burps.

Wait, no, that's destructive too. Does burping count as violence if it's destructive? Or, say, if you've eaten Thai food?

Re:Well...

[jockeys]

+1 I use this method of anger-management frequently, and have found it to be quite effective. Yeah, while you're whaling away on the bag, your heart is pumping and you feel pretty murderous, but once you're done, you settle down and feel calmer. (if a bit sweatier) I've always thought of FPS games as a sort of virtual punching bag, at least in this context.

Re:Well...

[rsadelle]

You may want to rethink that strategy. This study (pdf) found that people who vented their anger on a punching bag were more angry and acted more aggressively afterward than those who didn't. In fact, the best results (less anger and less aggression) were for those who did nothing.

Re:Well...

[Trogre]

I mean how often do you say "I just want to punch something"

Never. Is something wrong with me?

fMRI Studies are like...

[wo234lf]

Sledgehammers. They provide gross oxygen levels provided by the blood in particular brain regions. A good control has to be given to subtract the actual data recordings from - because the brain is constantly activated all over, and constantly provided blood. If the controls are wrong, the study is usually not proving anything, though sometimes the reader has to figure it out. That said, fMRIs also assume that in different people, the brain is organized EXACTLY the same, which just isn't true - if it were, then among other things, we'd all have the same memories.

So, let's find another source before we believe anything an fMRI study suggests.
And don't even get me started on which brain region "does" what. Because even that isn't exactly well established. For example, how is this possible: http://www.eurekalert.org/images/release_graphics/pdf/brain.pdf (PDF warning).

Re:fMRI Studies are like...

[DNAtsol]

While in principle you are correct and everyone has different neural networks, there is an amazing amount of redundancy in the brain. The hippocampus is always located in the same place in every person. so too is the thalamus, the substantia nigra, visual cortex, somatosensory cortex etc. These structures also have very conservative pathways (that is, the connections between structures are also highly conserved and the same in every person). So while each person will have somewhat unique areas of activation/deactivation they overlap considerably (and I do mean considerably) across individuals. We might like to think we are unique but we not. The only thing unique is how our eninvornmental stimuli fine tune these highly conserved brain pathways.

Re:fMRI Studies are like...

[DNAtsol]

Looked at the suggested PDF. Hey look! There's the foramen, and the hippocampus and the cortex and the..... just where they should be relative to one another. Sure the structures are squished together due to the enlarged ventricles but it not like the hippocampus is now on the surface and the cortex is next to the ventricular space. It's just distorted.

Cumulative

[iknownuttin]

There's no discussion of how long these effects last.

In America, everything we watch has violence. You can't get away from it - go ahead, try to! (God forbid if a women's nipple is shown! Think of the children! It's OK for them to see someone get shot, though.)

What I'm trying to say is, we're constantly seeing violent images. Yeah, if you just saw that one movie or played that one game and then went into a monastery, sure the effects may not last that long. But I think that the researchers are confusing long term effects with cumulative effects.

Let's face it, we're in a violent and hostile society. The signs are all over the place: road rage, shootings, media content - violence sells after all!, how people interact in everyday situations, etc...

Re:Cumulative

[hoggoth]

> In America, everything we watch has violence. You can't get away from it - go ahead, try to! (God forbid if a women's nipple is shown! Think of the children! It's OK for them to see someone get shot, though.)

This bothers me. I'd much rather have my children see a nude person than an act of violence. Censors are ok with decapitations, but won't allow a breast to pop out. Are they nuts?

Recently I showed my kids 'Clash of the Titans' and I found it refreshing that it showed a beautiful young woman walking nude. It was appropriate for the situation; There was nothing wrong with it. My kids didn't seem to find anything notworthy about it. I don't think that would pass today.

Re:Cumulative

[notagain.was.notagai]

It's not only violent imagery, but it's "safe" violent imagery - it doesn't actually result in physical suffering, which should kickback with some negative feedback (and thereby suppress that system).

And we know it's cumulative - just look at the anthropological literature on the introduction of TV and movies. Whenever a community first sees a western - even an old, 50's style western - they generally run in horror. They haven't been desensitized yet, so the violence produces the real fear that real-life violence should produce.

On top of that, it's disconnected from social events - where in pre-movie societies you only saw that violence when you had already been worked up, so it was "appropriate" for war or local rioting, now it's completely individual and unrelated to what everyone else is doing.

So how does that explain...

[SendBot]

So how does that explain why playing quake 3 arena makes me comfortable and sociable while watching an episode of full house makes me want to invade iraq?

I didn't rtfa, but I would think their explanation would have something to do with empathizing with the (real people) characters on a sort of might-makes-right thing.

Link Broken

[pragma_x]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense

FTFY.

Or ...

[GrEp]

Another conclusion is that after viewing violent media the brain knows it doesn't want to copy this behavior so it goes into a "yeah whatever" mode. This might have a negative impact on learning soon after watching violent media. They should test this.

When are these jerks going to learn

[Anonymous Coward]

playing games doesnt make you a serial killer. look at me. I play tons of games, halo, counterstrike, quake, doom, world of warcraft, all of it. have been for years.

these eggheaded self righteous mamas boy luzer idiots need to understand something. i am not a freaking serial killer. playing games doesnt make me aggressive. IM NOT a god da@#$ AGGRESSIVE PERSON, YOU FREAKING JERKS.

When are these IDIOTS GOING TO GET IT THROUGH THEIR DA-- SKULLS, WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO, BEAT IT INTO THEM?!?!?
I CAN PLAY AS MANY DAMN GAMES AS I WANT AND ITS NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY AFFECT ON ME. IM NOT A CRIMINAl. IM NOT
VIOLENT. I DONT HIT ANYBODY! I WOULDNT HURT A FLY, AND IF THESE RETROGRADE HOBTWATTLING SLOPE BROWED BUFFONS WOULD FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO DO WITH THEIR TIME WE MIGHT HAVE A CURE FOR CANCER NOW

MORONS. MORONS ALL AROUND.

-the not at all violent or aggressive gamer.

Hmmm.

[lorenlal]

That'll explain why after I play GTA3 for 4 hours:
1. I'll go out and think to myself, "Hm. That car looks nice, I'll jump in that one till I can find a miata.
2. I scan the city for police bribes in the street.
3. "Ooo, if I run through that crowd, I'll be able to hide behind that building till the tank arrives!"
4. "How do I start vigilante mode in this car?"

Re:lowers inhibitions

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose all those violent movies I watched as a kid are the reason I am today a peace-loving vegetarian hippy.

"Lowers inhibitions" does not move you to some absolute state. It moves you down from wherever you would have been otherwise. In short, you may have downgraded yourself from a zen master to a hippie by corrupting your mind with those movies.

dang hippys / neo-cons

[Rooked_One]

when will people realize video games don't cause violence? They cause people to show up to work late, neglect real life issues and revert to a hermit-like state.

But not violence... nosiree

I'm tired of this war on aggression

[mdarksbane]

Controlled and focussed aggression and competition are at the heart of our survival as a species and our great works of civilization. Its importance is shown in our old sagas and stories of heroes, in our current movies and books, in the games we play, in the glorification of sports players.

Every study or report that says that such and such "increases aggression" as though it is the more horrible thing in the world disgusts me. They would have as living as women were once forced to live in our society - as meek, childlike creatures with no independence or strength of their.

I'm not saying that uncontrolled violent behavior is in any way a good thing - but neither is passive acceptance and docility. The current brand of civilization would never let any of us grow into men and women, but stay as helpless children.

Re:I'm tired of this war on aggression

[geekoid]

Society is changing so the VIOLENT behavior isn't needed as much for survival. OTOH, people see more violence now then they ever had through the history of mankind.

This is about violent behavior, not about aggressive behavior.

Re:I'm tired of this war on aggression

[mdarksbane]

I would argue that the capacity for violent behavior is still completely necessary in today's society. Not in a "start some stuff" sort of way, but in a "end what someone else started in your favor" sort of way. People aren't going to stop robbing others just because they aren't watching video games or listening to rap music.

Re:I'm tired of this war on aggression

[Paul Fernhout]

"Controlled and focussed aggression and competition are at the heart of our survival as a species and our great works of civilization."

Not really. See the writings of "Alfie Kohn".
    http://www.alfiekohn.org/

Like _No Contest: The case against competition_.
    http://www.amazon.com/No-Contest-Case-Against-Competition/dp/0395631254
"Contending that competition in all areas -- school, family, sports and business -- is destructive, and that success so achieved is at the expense of another's failure, Kohn, a correspondent for USA Today, advocates a restructuring of our institutions to replace competition with cooperation. He persuasively demonstrates how the ingrained American myth that competition is the only normal and desirable way of life -- from Little Leagues to the presidency -- is counterproductive, personally and for the national economy, and how psychologically it poisons relationships, fosters anxiety and takes the fun out of work and play. He charges that competition is a learned phenomenon and denies that it builds character and self-esteem. Kohn's measures to encourage cooperation in lieu of competition include promoting noncompetitive games, eliminating scholastic grades and substitution of mutual security for national security."

What the glorification of violence and competition may do is supply a justification for a small number of people to have most of the wealth in society though a form of "Social Darwinism".

Re:I'm tired of this war on aggression

[mdarksbane]

But cooperation to do what - compete against the environment, against an external force.

Arnold J. Toynbee - A Study of History
http://www.amazon.com/Study-History-Abridgement-Volumes-I-VI/dp/0195050800/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197032602&sr=8-2

Studies the rise and fall of most of the major civilizations of the world. In all cases some external pressure (often an invasion) forced a young society to reinvent themselves and by responding aggressively raise their place in the world.

In the absence of competition, there is no innovation, no discovery, no drive. In the absence of aggression there is no competition.

I'm not saying that everything needs to be dog eat dog and every man for himself - we are social animals - generally aggression drives societal groups to work together against a common enemy, be it a foreign invasion or environmental catastrophe. Aggression is at the heart of what keeps us pushing forward instead of just sitting down and waiting for something to happen. Thousands of years of human history have repeated that meme. Only when living in a stable society built by those men have people had time to sit back and think "well, maybe we could all just be nice to each other all the time."

Clockwork

[GreatRedShark]

This isn't news,
A Clockwork Orange proved this point ages ago!

B A Lony

[Orig_Club_Soda]

These guys are going to try and advocate a course of action to reduce aggression in society via censorshop.

Who is justified to say when aggression is inappropriate and too much. How the aggression manifests in individuals is unique to the individual. Some people use aggression to pursue goals and positive results.

Worse, visual stimulation makes people dance!

[ashitaka]

When Shall we Dansu was playing, patrons were seen ballroom dancing out of the theater.

I would say any visual stimulation that invokes strong emotions be they violent or exuberant will have an after effect on some people.

Nothing to see here, etc.

Nonsense

[StormDragoness]

Scaremongering What happens when the person is returned to a normal non-violent environment.

Old news!

[B3ryllium]

Heh, old news - I cited this last week in a research paper.

I also managed to work in a citation of the Desert Bus for Hope fundraiser for the Child's Play charity, as a bit of a contrast.

The brain learns by imitation

[dave562]

Language is the perfect example of the brain learning by imitation. This research is common sense. If the brain/mind is exposed to a lot of a particular stimulus, it will associate with that stimulus as being okay and worth mimicing. A lot of it probably has to do with survival. If you see everyone around you drinking water, it probably makes sense to drink water. Conversely if you see everyone around you avoiding poisonous berries, you probably want to avoid the berries too.

Re:The brain learns by imitation

[Strofcon]

Great point, except that the brain -doesn't- learn everything by imitation, it learns it by simple cause and effect at first, with reasoning following soon after. The language example was a good one, except that the brain initially has to make the decision that learning the language is necessary. An infant would never learn to talk if, for some reason, it never thought, "hey, these people make noises toward one another, and get what they want, make things happen. I should make those noises!"
Then the imitation kicks in.

The water example was poor simply because, well, you're brain screams for water when you are dehydrated, because it knows you'll die without it, so it doesn't care if other people are drinking water.

The berry idea is more of a "passed down knowledge" issue. It seems to me that the more likely scenario would be along the lines of, "no one else eats these berries, but they look really good. Oh well, their loss," assuming there as no interference or guidance from another person.

In regards to games, it seems to me that the brain's reasoning capabilities are what cause us to refrain from imitating what we see. The brain is smart enough to realize that the game isn't real, and performing the in-game acts in real life on real people is not going to bring about the same result as it did in the game.

Re:The brain learns by imitation

[dave562]

I agree that the mind is smart enough to realize that the game isn't real. I'm of the opinion that the violent behaviors come out in stressful situations where there isn't time to consciously reason out the "appropriate" or acceptable. I think that people are instinctively violent. When a threat is perceived we want to destroy it and make it go away. It is only through the process of becoming civilized that we supress those base emotions, but they are simply supressed, not done away with. My own experience comes from training martial arts. It wasn't until I really started sparring and going head to head with people who have trained to hurt each other that I realized how easy it is to really get hurt and to hurt other people. Until I had that real life experience, I kind of dismissed how dangerous a fist fight really is. I think the same thing goes for games and movies. When you see people getting beat up all the time, although you might consciously realize "There's no way anybody can take as much of a beating as the main character does in an action movie." ... you won't be aware of just how quickly you can lose your life or become permanently disabled by going up against someone with a few years of focused training. This point goes back to your statement about simple cause and effect. If the only cause an effect that the mind has been exposed to is, "I see people fight, then I see them being okay and a little sore afterwards.", the brain on a primative, instinctive level will start to believe that is really all that happens. Because of that simple association, it becomes more acceptable to fight because the real reprocussions of doing so aren't represented in a realistic way. And before you say, "Well, I watch UFC and I don't want to fight." UFC isn't even a real fight. Those guys are following rules. They aren't gouging eyes, collapsing wind pipes and all sorts of other brutal stuff that happens in every day street fights.

Re:The brain learns by imitation

[Oligonicella]

Your opinion would be based on what, other than your -- opinion?

You are absolutely wrong about people's instincts. We are notable in that we have virtually none. As to instincts -- it's flight or fight.

If the only cause an effect that the mind has been exposed to is, "I see people fight, then I see them being okay and a little sore afterwards.", the brain on a primative, instinctive level will start to believe that is really all that happens.

Except, of course, that virtually 100% of the population has been in fights as kids and knows from personal experience it's more than 'a little sore' afterwards.
By the way, almost forty years martial arts here.

Re:The brain learns by imitation

[Abcd1234]

If the brain/mind is exposed to a lot of a particular stimulus, it will associate with that stimulus as being okay and worth mimicing.

Except, of course, that we spend the vast bulk of our time being taught that violence is something that needs to be controlled and/or suppressed. The idea that watching a few hours of fictionalized violence on TV could somehow undo all that social conditioning is, frankly, a bit absurd.

Hell, I would argue that violent competitive sport, among other things, would be a far stronger contributor to anti-social behaviour, in that it actively encourages violent behaviour while providing real, tangible reward for being successful. Of course, a smart person would argue that context is everything... ie, people understand that acceptable violence, in one context, is unacceptable in another.

Interestingly, I would say the same thing is true for fictionalized violence in media or videogames.

Re:The brain learns by imitation

[dave562]

Except, of course, that virtually 100% of the population has been in fights as kids and knows from personal experience it's more than 'a little sore' afterwards.

And following that logic, 100% of battered kids who are abused by their parents wouldn't turn around and beat on other people, or beat on their own children. Yet for some reason, children of abusers are much more likely to end up being abusive themselves.

The point that I'm trying to get across is that unless the mind has intimiate first hand exposure to an experience, it will search through all available data to construct the appropriate what-if scenario. If that library of potential experience includes one bad playground experience when a kid was eight, followed by fifteen years of seeing violence being applied as a means to a "positive" end, then common sense would dictate the mind would go with the overwhelming body of evidence that concludes violence is an acceptable means to an end.

Conditioning isn't logical. It doesn't make sense. It goes into the very base of the mind, the subsconsious. Perfectly "logical" people do stupid things all of the time. It takes a moment or two to think and act rationally. It takes a split second to respond with an instinctive reaction.

Violent video games and television programs allow the mind to create an association with what is going on. Take the example of a romance novel for a second. Women read those things because they can read the words, and in their own mind, associate with the situation to the point where to a certain extent, they are experiencing the described event. They can have physiological responses to the words and the images created by those words. The process of reading about something is rather slow compared to the speed with which the visual mediums can be used to saturate the conscious mind to the point where it gives up trying to follow and everything simply slips into the subsconsious. I'm not saying that the association with violence is being formed at a conscious level in the person playing the games or viewing the media. The association happens at a deeper level to the extent that the viewer is able to empathize with the actor or the situation that the actor is in.

Re:The brain learns by imitation

[lessthan0]

The technical term for this behavior is "monkey see, monkey do".

Re:The brain learns by imitation

[dave562]

Except, of course, that we spend the vast bulk of our time being taught that violence is something that needs to be controlled and/or suppressed.

We do? I think that there are a whole lot of messages out there that tell us violence is okay. Look at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at the way police deal suspects. If anything, we are simply cautioned that violence leads to consiquences. Take a look at the news over the course of any given week. If you were to base your opinion on that, you'd reasonably conclude that violence is common place.

The idea that watching a few hours of fictionalized violence on TV could somehow undo all that social conditioning is, frankly, a bit absurd.

Okay, consider this similar example. You go out to a party with some friends. Assuming you're at least passably social, you spend a good portion of the time talking to other people. When you first get there, it's kind of awkward to get the conversation going. By the end of the night you're at the point where you're the one welcoming people to the party. You go out to a restaurant after the party. At the restaurant, you try talking to the people in the booth next to you and they look at you like you're from another planet. You get the point, your mind clicks back into "public mode" and you stop trying to talk to everyone around you because in the environment you're in, it isn't "acceptable" to do that.

Watching some violence on TV isn't going to completely undo acceptable social conditioning any more than going to a party is going to completely undo your restraint to talk to everyone around you in the library. Yet exposing the mind to extensive amounts of a particular stimulus will incline the mind to continue contemplating that stimulus. If you've ever worked on a problem all day, then gone home and tried to go to sleep only to be kept awake by the problem even though you weren't at work, then it should be pretty obvious how naturally inclined the mind is to hold onto things.

Hell, I would argue that violent competitive sport, among other things, would be a far stronger contributor to anti-social behaviour, in that it actively encourages violent behaviour while providing real, tangible reward for being successful.

I completely agree with you. Just the other week I was watching the Green Bay, Dallas football game. About half way through the second quarter it was obvious to me that Dallas was going to win so I said, "This game is obviously over." The guy on the couch next to me who I'd barely known for fifteen minutes said to me, "When was the last time you got your ass kicked?" In a tone serious enough that the guy who invited him over to the house had to tell him, "Calm down. You don't want to get violent with Dave." Violent sports embellish the message that it is acceptable to be violent to the people on the other team. Hell, just look at war... look at our foreign policy. Violence is an acceptable tool for Americans.

biology != morality

[christian.einfeldt]

This news actually can be helpful to gamers, and should NOT be used as the basis for any Jack Thompson-like legislation. Guess what!! Sexy women make me hot! But that does not mean that I have the moral imperative to make inappropriate advances toward women, nor does it warrant laws requiring women to wear chaste clothing in public, as long as the clothes pass basic obscenity laws, at least in secular societies like the US (no offense intended toward countries following Sharia laws). In other words, humans can develop a moral imperative that is independent of our more base (and fun) impulses. Certainly that is true of adults, and should be expected of them.

Proponents of greater restrictions on gaming for kids are missing the point that the best form of restriction on gaming is an opportunity for the parents to be more involved in their kids' lives. A blanket ban on violent games is not narrowly tailored to suit the problem; whereas parental involvement in kids' lives is both narrowly tailored to suit the problem AND a part of what we should expect of parents: know your kids. Spend time with your kids. Don't try to legislate away your role in shaping your own child's skills at impulse control, which is a basic skill for success in any civilized society.

Re:biology != morality

[geekoid]

Wow, not only is that impractical, but the amount of time you would need to spend with your kids to ensure your goal would be unhealthy.

You would need to be with them every minute. I mean the literally.

I spend a lot of time with my kids, but I also recognize they need to deveolop into there own person. I raise my kids, spend time with my kids, play with my kids and guide my kids. I don't do any of that with the 700 other kids they go to school with.

So while parental involvement is important, it is not the only factor.

Re:biology != morality

[Paul Fernhout]

On parents teaching their own, google on: "unschooling".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=unschooling

But agreed, there are many influences.

If the rest of the culture is very messed up (obsessed with competition and violence) then it is hard to raise a kid who is not.
For that, google also on: "Alfie Kohn".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=alfie+kohn

Why doesn't it affect everyone?

[192939495969798999]

If this was the case, then why doesn't every boxing match break out into 50,000 individual boxing fights? Apparently it only affects people who would not only reenact something that on the surface is dangerous, but also explicitly says "DONT DO THIS" in effort to dissuade people from ... trying to do it.

Re:Why doesn't it affect everyone?

[Shotgun]

Dude, you ever been to a WWF Smackdown event?

I tagged this story ClockworkOrange

[Wooky_linuxer]

but perhaps I should've used !clockworkorange, since in the movie (never read the book) being exposed to violence had a different effect than what this research seems to imply.

Re:I tagged this story ClockworkOrange

[digitrev]

You forgot the part where he was pumped full of pain inducing medication, which caused him to associate pain with violent thoughts.

Interaction leads to conditioned behavior

[AHumbleOpinion]

Or what is the effect if the media is interactive in nature?

Then you are being conditioned to respond to stimuli in a certain manner. It's like law enforcement and military training. Repetition to develop a reflex response and muscle memory. The correct stimuli triggers the reflex. As a matter of fact elaborate video games are being used to train troops. The simulation's imagery is projected onto a wall and an individual soldier or squad responds to the situations with realistic but simulated weapons. I believe the Marine Corp has determined that their pilot program has shown positive results, that skills developed in simulation are showing up in the old fashioned in-the-mud training exercises.

So video games can function as training simulators, but what does that mean for the kid at home with his XBox? Well, when a zombie surprises him on the street he will press A A B RightTrigger without thinking about it. A video game can teach and condition you to kill if it is a military grade simulation with replica weapons. Playstation, XBox, Man Hunt, Grand Theft Auto, gamepads are far far from such simulators. They are closer to kids running around the woods with old golf clubs as pretend rifles.

PloS ONE is not peer reviewed

[Per Abrahamsen]

Not in the traditional sense. It is much more similar to how /. works. PLoS ONE accept articles from all branches of science and medicine, and the articles are deemed "worthy" of publication by the editorial board mostly on technical issues (necessarily so, since no editorial board can cover all branches of science). Like /., the *real* "peer review" is done after publication, by comments and annotations.

This is quite unlike traditional scientific journal (and unlike all the other PLoS journals which are quite traditional apart from being Open Access) where an article is reviewed anonymously by peers (from the same discipline) before publication.

It is actually quite nice that PLoS, apart from pioneering Open Access, also experiments more fundamentally with the scientific process, by adapting techniques from sites like /..

But it is misleading to state that the article has been published in a peer reviewed journal, as it means something different in this case. It would be more correct to say that it has been published for peer review in a journal. At the time I'm writing this, no peers have yet to review the article.

Most scientist would hesitate publishing in PLoS ONE simply because it does not have an impact factor rating, which is very important for how valuated when seeking grants etc.

Re:PloS ONE is not peer reviewed

[geekoid]

"This is quite unlike traditional scientific journal (and unlike all the other PLoS journals which are quite traditional apart from being Open Access) where an article is reviewed anonymously by peers (from the same discipline) before publication."

Traditionally, Publication is the beginning of peer review.

It almost all fields, it is impossible to get all the experts to review and critique before publication.

Re:PloS ONE is not peer reviewed

[Per Abrahamsen]

> It almost all fields, it is impossible to get all the experts to review and critique before
> publication.

Not all, but but all journals that are considered peer-reviewed by the organization that matters to scientists (that is, those handing out grants) get one to three peers from the same field to review the article before publication.

For most articles, this pre-publishing review is by far the strongest review they get.

Re:PloS ONE is not peer reviewed

[Coturnix]

Actually, PLoS ONE is peer-reviewed in a traditional way. Many manuscripts have undergone 2-3 rounds of revisions. Most manuscripts are sent out to external reviewers (whenever no member of the editorial board is an expert in the narrow field of the manuscript). The distinction is that the reviewers are not supposed to make decisions in regard of "newsworthiness" of the paper, just the correctness of science and presentation of it. Thus, papers that are earth-shaking and revolutionary are evaluated the same way as papers that just add another piece of the puzzle. Also, 30-40% of the manuscripts are rejected (much harsher than most small society journals) which is another indication that a true peer-review is going on at PLoS ONE. But you are right about the post-publication peer-review as well. This is something that the scientific community will have to learn to do. Publication of the paper is not the end of the process (pop open the champaign and move on to the next project), but the beginning of it, as the authors respond to commentary of their peers (and lay public). So, while there are more than 300 comments here at Slashdot, why are there still no comments on the paper itself? Don't you all want to engage the authors, ask them additional questions, demand clarifications? They will not come here, but you can go there and use the feedback tools that the TOPAZ platform of PLoS ONE provides: discussions, annotations, trackbacks and ratings. There, the authors will be happy to answer your (politely worded) questions and comments.

Next on /.: Commercials make you want stuff

[Phy6]

"Scientists at McDonald's University have used Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to show that a brain network responsible for suppressing hunger or compulsive behaviors became less active after study subjects watched several short clips from popular commercials depicting acts of eating. These changes could render people less able to control their own hunger. Although research has shown some correlation between exposure to media food advertisements and real-life consumption, there has been little direct neuroscientific support for this theory until now. 'Depictions of steaming hot food have become very common in the popular fast food ads,' said researcher Christopher Kelly. 'Our findings demonstrate for the first time that watching media depictions of food does influence processing in parts of the brain that control behaviors like hunger.' The full research paper is published on the The Public Library of Science, a peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication, that publishes all its articles under a Creative Commons Attribution License."

Drawing conclusions

[edraven]

If a suppression network is less active, isn't it perhaps just as reasonable to presume that it has less to actively suppress than that it has things to suppress but isn't doing its job as well? It certainly makes sense that as we carry around these violent impulses all day we constantly restrain ourselves from acting upon them, but entertainment depicting scenes of violence provides a harmless, vicarious release. It seems to me this research found the conclusion it was looking for with the facts it had on hand.

concur

[thegnu]

Yeah, my first thoughts were:

Bull fights
Lynchings
Public Executions
Soccer Riots
Good Old Roughhousing
War

I think overall, movies are just replacing other violent and dangerous activities. Are spaniards more violent than Americans? I noticed in Mexico that while you were a little more likely to get in a fight, you were far less likely to get shivved. Not that I've ever been shivved in the US, but just statistically.

The brain research here is assuming that we know exactly what occurs afterwards. Does the lower inhibitions while the video is running, and the brain readjusts? Did they test the people a week later along with a control group? Is this one of those videos from Youtube?

No shit huh?

[aztektum]

I would imagine there is an intrinsic response built in to us to switch into a more aggressive mode as a defense mechanism. I would imagine the changes disappear more quickly in people based upon their past and current lifestyle. This is almost seems like simple deductive reasoning to me.

Re:No shit huh?

[aztektum]

Oops! I meant as a defense mechanism when faced by the potential of violence. "Well adjusted" folk who recognize or are able to keep in mind it's fake would shake off the effects quicker/more easily.

Military training should define upper bound

[AHumbleOpinion]

There's no discussion of how long these effects last.

The military considers combat conditioning, decision making and reflexes, to be perishable skills.

The question is, does viewing violent media today make me more likely to go kill people tomorrow.

Probably only if you were willing and able to kill in the first place.

I'm not sure why this is such a mystery. Are military veterans who never saw combat more likely to commit murder? Are combat veterans more likely to commit murder? Surely such training and possibly experience exceeds whatever a video game offers and would define an upper bound on the statistics.

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY!?!

[icedcool]

Reminds me of when my dad told my grandpa he got his yelling from him,

D: "I think I got my yelling from you..."

G:" I DONT YELL!!!"

Yea...

Mirror Neurons

[CODiNE]

Basically when we observe the actions of others we mentally mimic it in order to understand what we're seeing. So in a sense when you see someone commit a violent action a small part of you shares with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neurons

I know it disagrees with the politics on gaming and how many simply are unwilling to accept the idea of outside factors influencing our minds, but this seems to be a basis for the idea that repeated exposure to violent materials can have some effect on us. The question is of course how much effect it has on each person, if there will be any changes to behavior and who is more susceptible to it than others. (Notice I never said ban violent video games nor movies)

Censorship is counterproductive.

[pclminion]

Censorship only serves to INCREASE the amount of "illegal" content by spreading awareness of it. How do you censor something without first telling everybody precisely what they are NOT allowed to say?

How do you prevent the spread of "violent images" when nobody knows what a "violent image" even is? You have to first give an example, which means you are spreading the very images you are trying to restrict. Perhaps in N. Korea there is a law saying, "You may not refer to Kim Jong Il as a Big Fat Poopoo Head." But by the very act of censoring this statement, you broadcast it far and wide.

How can you command someone "Do not say 'X'" without first saying 'X' yourself? The only way to eradicate unpalatable ideas is to ignore them, ignore those who speak of them, and allow them to die out. Banning the idea does nothing except spread it further, to people for whom it may not even have occurred to say 'X', but they're sure as hell thinking about it now that you've told them not to say it.

i wrote this paper

[Chris Kelly]

I'm the author of this paper from Columbia. I'm happy to answer any serious questions about it if people are interested. I can tell you a few things right off, though: 1) We are not advocating censorship of any kind, nor will we participate in any effort that does. This sort of research exists for the sake of being informed, as well as being educated about how the brain works. 2) If you read the paper, we clearly state that these changes in neural processing are not sufficient on their own to make a normal individual become a rabid killer. That would be absurd, and it would totally contradict everyday life. Without a doubt, the observed neural changes must interact with other factors and circumstances that are still being identified. 3) PLoS One is peer-reviewed (or, at least, we were), so I'm not sure where that comment came from suggesting that it wasn't. 4) I assure you that no money was taken away from cancer or dementia research for the sake of this study. 5) Although some people feel the conclusions are obvious (i.e. that the brain is affected by what it sees), assuming something is probably true does not equal scientific evidence.

Re:i wrote this paper

[MsGeek]

And 6.) You've been Slashdotted. I'd love to see your research, but I can't get to it.

Oh well, have a nice day.

Re:i wrote this paper

[funwithBSD]

I read your paper (well, parts of it were above my head, to be honest) and I had one question:

Were the sources of images (violent stimula)from media representations of real violence or dramatized violence?

I wonder if it makes a difference: real vrs. depicted violence.

Re:i wrote this paper

[Chris Kelly]

If you're asking whether the movies were depicting things based on real events or fiction, it's mostly the latter. Our only major criterion for inclusion was that the scenes show violence that could theoretically happen in real life -- i.e. shooting, stabbing, etc. but no Alien v Predator or anything like that. We verified that having seen any of the clips before, i.e. in the subject's own movie-viewing life, did not have a confounding effect on the variables of interest. You can see screenshots from all of the movies we showed our subjects at the following link: http://tinyurl.com/28fc3d

Re:i wrote this paper

[funwithBSD]

Yes, that was what I was asking. Looks like it is all "movie" violence

So, having experienced both serious real violence and cinema there is a significant difference in my reaction to violence when I observe it.

Images of real violence repel me. I react understanding this happened to a real person and having some idea of what they are going through.

Media violence rarely produce that reaction. My guess is my reaction would be much like what you found in your study. I certainly did not come out of, say, 300, feeling bad about what happened to those people. No, I was pumped up, aggressive even.

So would your study using images of real violence done to real people have the same effect? I think it would make an interesting study, my own reaction is only anecdotal.

No, prohibition doesn't work

[nunyadambinness]

And if the results of the study are that violent media is harmful then why not restrict young people's access to it just like alcohol and tobacco?

Prohibition doesn't work.

Hey I like to play Quake just as much as the next person but how the fanboys on Slashdot fall for media compaines freedom flag waving for profit just makes me nuts.

It's not the media companies "freedom flag waving", it's FREEDOM, PERIOD. That you aren't smart enough to understand that doesn't change it.

Re:No, prohibition doesn't work

[LWATCDR]

"Prohibition doesn't work."
Funny it seems that it works pretty well for Tobacco. Not perfectly and it took restricting advertising as well as sales as well as education about the dangers of smoking.
I think you will find that it isn't perfect but it does help when you are talking about minors.

"It's not the media companies "freedom flag waving", it's FREEDOM, PERIOD. That you aren't smart enough to understand that doesn't change it."

Hook, line, and sinker.. And the drones do exactly as expected...

Re:No, prohibition doesn't work

[bigstrat2003]

Hook, line, and sinker.. And the drones do exactly as expected... God forbid we have opinions that happen to agree with the industry viewpoint. That makes us drones.

...wait. No it doesn't. You're just being an ass. I can apply your same logic to YOUR position, and say you're a drone for believing what the nanny-state government wants you to believe. It'd be ridiculous, of course, and it's ridiculous when you make that argument as well.

I know it's probably somewhat OT, but..

[Gideon Fubar]

What are the implications of your research, in terms of anger management or biofeedback training? :)

Go tell the Athenians

[Kupfernigk]

In the classical tragedies (Aeschylus, Euripides) all the violent action takes place off the stage. It was considered too upsetting to show it on stage. But most of the men in the audience would have been involved in at least one war. (it's well known that a philosopher like Sokrates could afford a hoplite panoply and had been in battles.)

I wonder if there is in fact a connection. The kind of short term warfare in the Classical period did not lend itself to desensitisation. The audience had probably seen arrows and spears sticking in people they knew. They knew what war was about, and they did not need or want a graphic representation in a tragedy.

If this bit of cod philosophising is right, then perhaps violent games do have a desensitising effect similar to that experienced by real soldiers in prolonged wars.

If so it is worrying, because desensitisation is part of the military process of overcoming the reluctance of citizens to be soldiers. (This is necessary to keep soldiers alive on the battlefield. My father had the job of landing boatloads of Canadians on the beaches on D-Day. When I asked what happened to them, he simply looked very miserable and said "They were too nice", and would not be drawn further.) Perhaps the US Government is covertly keen on the idea of producing a large pool of potential killers without the expense of all that military training. But the worry must be that after a period in which violence in society has in general been in decline, as the violent game generation grows up it may start to rise again. The corollary of which is that the research needs to be done, and the opposing sides need to do what comes so hard to bigots, which is shut the fsck up and pay attention to the results of that research, wherever it leads.

Re:Go tell the Athenians

[geekoid]

If that is true then they are failing.
It has become observational apparent that people who play video games are harder to train to kill then people who played football.

OTOH, people entering the military now were playing games that were a lot less realistic then they are now when they were preteen. When them brain is still developing.

So what they are saying is...

[Chris whatever]

Dont have a chainsaw handy when viewing Texax chainsaw massacre, you just might want to use it?

This just in..

[hax0r_this]

A new study has shown that free speech can lead to dangerous behavior. For your safety the government will now regulate all media.

We appreciate your cooperation in this matter, please have a safe life and report any suspicious activity to your local Privacy Invasion Squad. -Your Government PS: Watch out for terrarizts!1

Try watching a leaf fall

[Spinlock_1977]

Your brain 'changes' when you watch a leaf fall too - we just don't have the delicate instrumentation to detect it.

Re:Try watching a leaf fall

[geekoid]

In what way does it change? Which part, if any, becomes more active? less active? What change takes place is the question.

Re:Try watching a leaf fall

[Spinlock_1977]

It's pretty hard to tell what changed when we lack the devices to measure it!

Re:Try watching a leaf fall

[geekoid]

We do have machines that measure it. It's called an fMRI.
Did you read the article?

Re:Try watching a leaf fall

[Spinlock_1977]

My point is that such technology (fMRI) has limits and is thus unable to detect events below those limits. Did you read my post? ;-)

Re:Try watching a leaf fall

[DNAtsol]

Every measuring tool has limits. The key is to use different tools that compensate for the weakness of otherS and study the same question. When you find similar results with different tools that is called convergent evidence and greatly increases the probability that your conclusion is accurate. You are correct to be hesitant to accept the results of a single study but remember this study is in the context of many others (i.e., the cited references) and while it may not be the final piece of the puzzle it does fill a gap and add further converging evidence. It's called the scientific method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment .

Re:Try watching a leaf fall

[Spinlock_1977]

Watching someone *really* get murdered causes the brain to change. Watching gore & violence causes the brain to change to a lesser amount. Watching a child receive a mild spanking results in less change. Watch a leaf fall causes even less. It's called extrapolation, a bedfellow of The Scientific Method.

Re:Try watching a leaf fall

[DNAtsol]

Granted, however, of the two the scientific method (SM) is more powerful. One is deductive (SM) while the other is inferential (extrapolation). While extrapolation has it's uses, it also has limits. Ask the engineers of the Tacoma Narrows bridge. They were extrapolating common accepted bridge engineering principles beyond what had been empirically tested. Sometimes it works, othertimes it doesn't and requires a complete rethink of the problem. While, observing real violence can produce a longer lasting cortical change than cartoon violence or VG violence there are SO many variables that need further investigation (duration, intensity, frequency, personality, cultural ....) that this is a situation where extrapolation, inference and commonsense would not be a productive approach. I'll stick with the scientific method.

So what? It's a matter of responsibility

[OrangeTide]

Individuals are still responsible for their own actions, that has not changed.

Ages?

[adnausium]

Has anyone poured through the full report to find out the ages, races, sex of the test subjects yet? I will eventually check for myself but I thought I'd ask...

the grammar nazi

[circletimessquare]

is under my boot

Nope, you're wrong again, and not too smart

[nunyadambinness]

Funny it seems that it works pretty well for Tobacco

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39868

So, no, it doesn't work. Nice try though.

Hook, line, and sinker.. And the drones do exactly as expected...

What can I say, I understand my rights. If that makes me predictable, then I'll take it over the fascist you are.

Re:Nope, you're wrong again, and not too smart

[LWATCDR]

You better read more.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39871
It does mention the FAILURE of carding for selling tobacco as a major problem. And it shows a drop in tobacco use since stronger restrictions on tobacco advertising kicked in the mid 90s. Of course it would be interesting to see what the tobacco use was when there was unrestricted advertising.
"What can I say, I understand my rights. If that makes me predictable, then I'll take it over the fascist you are."
No you are being a mindless drone.
I am not saying that adults should be restricted from access to violent media so I am not taking away any adults rights. If it is proven scientifically that it is harmful then I don't have problems with stronger controls on violent media. Hardly a fascist stance. No more fascist than requiring that children get there parents permission to go on a field trip, get a tattoo, or surgery. And no different that restrictions on minors buying firearms, ammunition, alcohol, or tobacco.

As far as being a fascist well I would say that you don't know what fascist is.

Uh oh...

[defro]

Jack Thompson's head just exploded.

Astonishing Era of Scientific Discoveries

[zentronium]

Brain also changes when viewing porn.

This one just adds up to other surprising discoveries made previously...
We need like another Renaissance... sigh....

Re:Astonishing Era of Scientific Discoveries

[geekoid]

What we need is people like you to actually think before the respond. Or at least furrow your brow in an attempt to understand.

How does viewing porn change your brain? which parts become active, less active, etc?

I thought so

[Trogre]

Does this mean we can stop a lot of this silly "think of the children"-bashing now?

Sorry to get deconstructive . . .

[ndansmith]

Brain changes when sensing *

If there were no change in the brain, you would not be experiencing any sensations, would you?

beggin for innovation

[White Yeti]

The next step is for someone to develop (and patent, of course) a system or method by which the relevant brain pathways could be "set right". Theater patrons exiting movies rated PG-13 and above will be funneled through a special hallway where they will be subjected to calming music and images. Every theater that DOESN'T install this technology will be picketed by angry mothers and crime victims.

doh

[AgentBif]

[editorial: fact?]

Should be "opinion?"... serves me right for trying to be so smug.

circletimessquare (444983), your post suffers from too many (IMO wild) opinions voiced as if they were common sense fact. Please back up your assertions with something credible.

ok, sure

[circletimessquare]

are you providing me with a masters degree at the end of the effort?

welcome to the comments section of slashdot. it's not peer-reviewed journal, sorry you had that mistaken impression

Re:ok, sure

[NeMon'ess]

You could at least offer a credible link or something. That's common on slashdot too.

so the solution is everyone play football?

[circletimessquare]

please to be telling the trench coated emos who shoot up schools and malls, that they just need to hang out with jocks more, they'll be very understanding to your thesis about sports being a better way to relieve asocial violence instincts

yes, videogames desensitize you to asocial violence

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT

then, there is catharsis IN THE VIDEOGAME, a release

ta-da, the dump drunk of the mind has been emptied

you are refreshed, rejunvenated

now you can go out back into the real world, no need to do in real life what you just did on a video screen

that's the whole point

violent videogames do NOT create violence. they merely uncap what is already there, and release it harmlessly on a keyboard

Re:so the solution is everyone play football?

[alan_dershowitz]

please to be telling the trench coated emos who shoot up schools and malls, that they just need to hang out with jocks more, they'll be very understanding to your thesis about sports being a better way to relieve asocial violence instincts Nice strawman, you don't have to hang out with jocks to jog or lift weight or play tennis with your friends. Anyway, they are abnormal, which is why they end up shooting up schools in the first place.

Anyway, all you did was promote your theory. Internally consistent though it is, it's contradicted by this and other studies. The study didn't say seeing violence turned kids into killers, it said it made them more aggressive. At best, studies like this are only tangentially related to why kids go on shooting sprees.

only a game?

[Frozen Void]

Do it cause violence in mice? Why doesn't anyone expiremented? Do violent games cause people to expirement in small animals? Do violent games cause global warming due more people buying more expensive computer parts(which are produced with extensive pollution)?

Its called thinking.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Yes it shows brain activity! woooooooooooooo.. Its called thought and response.

It doesnt mean its negative or positive response, that would still be up to the individual.

MOD PARENT UP - survival value

[CustomDesigned]

Good point. There is a big difference between Bugs Bunny violence and hyper realistic violence - whether movies or todays super 3D performance video games. There would also seem to be some survival value in the response. If there is a lot of violence going on around you, you need to be ready to respond in kind (or find a good hiding place).

Why is it always a negative response thats linked?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Why is it that we're always presented research that tries to prove that violent (and sexual) entertainment are some how causing this negative effect on our brains.

They always sight very vague evidence such as imaging to show that "look see... its a negative effect"

Its just an MRI. It doesn't show response, or thought. It doesn't prove that it is a negative response or a positive response.

So back to my original question... Why is it that these "news reports" always try say viewing violent material is a negative thing?

Certainly it can be... But we all already know this...

The problem is, we keep trying to prove it for some fucking political reason... when the truth is... Exposure to violence can have a negative or a positive response.

For example.

Witnessing violence in a film, or videogame can be used in a positive manner AND NO.. it doesnt have to be structured just in the "witness" role.

You could watch a film, where the main character is slaughtering hundreds of people.... Is he a hero or a villain? Well that depends on the story now doesnt it? So how do you respond to such a film? Well that depends on the story doesnt it?

Why is story so important? It fullfills fantasys we all have. Some of us want to be heros, and others are pissed off at the bullies at their highschool. Is it the violent game that inspires those kids to go to school with guns and shoot everyone dead? Or was it how they were treated as human beings... IN THE REAL FUCKING WORLD.

Stories are stories. They are fantasy.

Real life violence causes either reaction. Sometimes negative, where you go into depression, or you get violent yourself.... sometimes positively... such as never ever wanting to cause harm to anyone, or to desire to end starvation.

There is REAL violence... and there are a myriad of responses one can have to it, based on its CONTEXT... and STORY. NO fucking MRI is ever going to be smart enough to describe exactly how we respond to violence. Its a fucking magnetic picture, not a mind reader or a fortune teller.

I think as people we should be far less concerned about violent entertainment, and more so the actual injustices of real life. Starving people become violent, people that lose their jobs so the ceo can make another million... makes people violent... or at least mad.

You see VIOLENCE is just an extreme value on the emotional meter. If people are mad, or feel wronged, insulted, embarrased, and dehumanized, they're leaning towards the angry side of our emotional meter.

A movie in your living room, is not enough to push you over the edge, because it is NOT REAL. Wake up folks... its NOT REAL.

And perhaps that is the problem, not the entertainment... but the fact that we so rarely deal with the REAL these days, versus the virtual. You're not your fucking bling bling, "You're not your fucking khakis" :)

Come on folks, we all saw fight club didnt we? Did it fall on deaf ears or what? Maybe we're just too dumb

Re:lowers inhibitions

[q-the-impaler]

I didn't RTFA either, but did it take into consideration the time for the effect of those images to wear off? Did the brain normalize after a period of time or was it burned indefinitely? Obviously the answer is the former or I'd have killed someone by now.

In other news...

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Research subjects who'd just watched 5 minutes of porn were horny.
Research subjects who'd just watched 5 minutes of the Food Network were hungry.
Research subjects who'd just watched 5 minutes of Lifetime hated men.

I mean, Jesus, talk about "no shit" conclusions. Seems like pretty basic stimulus and response here. People watch these movies BECAUSE of the adrenaline rush, to get "pumped up."

I'd say the more interesting question is what types of long-term effects are involved.

But what about other content?

[oki900]

I guess the real question is weather watching childrens shows that annoy the crap out of you (barny for example) have the same effect.

Bah!

[Urza9814]

To quote something that I don't quite remember:
"If videogames had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around dark rooms munching pills and listening to repetitive music." (Pacman for any of you that don't get it)

Re:Bah!

[DanJ_UK]

IIRC - "Computer games don't affect kids. If pacman affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."

Also

[Sycraft-fu]

Sounds like they said that what happens is your suppression mechanism in the brain starts to fire less. Well, maybe that's because you are used to the game now and don't get as amped? I've certainly noticed a trend like that in myself and others. When you first start something highly competitive in a new game, you get an adrenaline rush. I remember playing my first battleground in World of Warcraft and I was actually having some shakes from all the adrenaline at the end. It was a competitive, stimulating situation where I was having to learn things on the fly. Now however, it is no big deal. I play all the time, so it doesn't really get me going unless it is a close game or something like that.

I'm willing to bet if you mapped my brain in an MRI, you'd find some real changes in how it reacted. However, I also bet you'd find the same thing every time I went and did a new game like that. I was the same thing when I did Quake Team Fortress. Real adrenaline rush at first, calm and collected after doing it 1000 times.

I don't know that it is so much a particular reaction to videogames, or even violence, simply a reaction to a situation where you are competing for something, especially when you don't know all the rules. It would thus be no surprise that the way you processed things would change once it has become routine to you.

It's not so simple

[JavaRob]

It's not about somehow brain-washing everyone watching/playing extremely violent video or games, or even influencing *most* people to do anything violent. Anecdotal evidence is pretty useless when you're talking about something that won't significantly mess up the majority of people.

No one sensible would argue that a video game *by itself* will turn a kid into a sociopathic mass murderer. But it's not hard to understand how watching a lot of real or realistic violence, and/or playing a game that simulates violence realistically, will affect you.

At a bare minimum it will attenuate the automatic revulsion we have for violence. For most people, this won't result in violent behavior. For other people who are already stewing with impotent rage, frustration, etc., it might make a significant difference.

We don't know how much of a difference it makes yet -- agreed. This study is just a beginning, a pointer to brain reactions with suggestions for further research. And there's also the *huge* discussion of what to actually do about it; rushing in with laws to stop anything "bad" doesn't always work out as planned.

(heh.. I illustrated a point with a webcomic)

I am looking at my brain...

[Undead Ed]

I am looking at my brain right now and I don't see any difference.

Ed

The way to a man's heart is through his sternum.

So look at the statistics

[tgibbs]

Not only are they wrong, they overlook a critical piece of information. Games have been becoming more and more realistic.
so when they look back and say "When I was a kid, nobody went crazy" it doesn't exactly apply to current games, Also anecdotal evidence is almost always wrong.

So let's forget about anecdotes and look at the statistics. What has happened to rates of violent crimes as games have gotten more and more realistically violent? They've dropped. What's more, they've dropped most dramatically in the very demographic group that plays these games. That doesn't necessarily prove that games prevent violence, but it does prove that the pro-violence effect of games (if there is any at all) is so small as to be utterly swamped by other social and demographic factors affecting rates of violence.

As for brain scans, you can be sure that pretty much any activity that people enjoy and like to do repeatedly alters brain activity, but the interpretation of these changes in blood flow over rather large regions of the brain is still pretty much at the level of "Just-So" stories. At this point, it's a lot more speculation than science.

Re:So look at the statistics

[spicate]

Studies have suggested that the decline in violent crime is pretty much a result of locking up almost everyone that might step out of line. Some people won't be satisfied until all violence has been suppressed (except, of course, violence done by the state or their subcontractors). I don't expect reason will be an impediment to their agenda.

Re:So look at the statistics

[tgibbs]

Studies have suggested that the decline in violent crime is pretty much a result of locking up almost everyone that might step out of line. Some people won't be satisfied until all violence has been suppressed (except, of course, violence done by the state or their subcontractors). I don't expect reason will be an impediment to their agenda

"Suggest" is science-speak for "I don't actually have any convincing evidence, but this is what I think."

Re:So look at the statistics

[Free_Meson]

Studies have suggested that the decline in violent crime is pretty much a result of locking up almost everyone that might step out of line. Some people won't be satisfied until all violence has been suppressed (except, of course, violence done by the state or their subcontractors). I don't expect reason will be an impediment to their agenda.

More importantly, if you lock up violent offenders early and inadequately document their violent crimes while in prison then your crime rate has a huge selection bias problem.

Re:So look at the statistics

[LKM]

No, "suggest" means "I have evidence, but no proof," which makes sense since it's pretty much impossible to find proof for something like this. What are you going to do, run a study with a control group which is never exposed to violent media, but otherwise lives normal lives? It's impossible.

Re:So look at the statistics

[plague3106]

Other studies have pretty conclusively shown that as poverty declines, so does violence.

In other news...

[das_magpie]

Scientist also found watching the very same violent clips whilst listening to Ludwig Van had the complete opposite effect.

Re:Why is it always a negative response thats link

[geekoid]

In this case they weren't looking for violent effects, per se. They were looking at a more precise effect on the brain when people viewed violence.
A step to understanding how the brain works. This was not designed to determine if people become more violent.

Your arguments are not based on any science, just what you 'feel' is right.

I don't know about you, but I deal with real everyday, as does everyone I know.

I find it ironic after ranting about a movie not being real, you reference 'fight club'.

"So how do you respond to such a film? Well that depends on the story doesnt it?"

These studies are starting to show that the brains responses may NOT depend on the story. More studies will be needed.

So does the brain know the difference between watching a guy get shot in a movie, and a guy getting shot shown on the news? What if you have no context?

I think once video game characters get passed the uncanny valley, it will be very interesting to see how the brain responds.
really, it will be interesting no matter how the brain responds, even if the response is zero.

Is there a difference between killing a character that is 8 bit, versus one that is truly life like? time will tell.

The good ews is, if crossing the uncanny valley does cause problems, we won't have to worry about games being banned, only a limit one how realistic the people look.

Re:No Way!

[mollymoo]

I'll tell you, if Kryten or another polyhedrally-headed entity walked past just after "Dr Kawashima" made the same joke about the weather for the sixth day in a row and made me do some more acrostics before letting me get on with my training or sudoku, that unlucky fucker would see some violence. Oh yes.

Not junk science.

[geekoid]

the study was "Is there an effect of the brain." Using an fMRI they detected an effect.

"In a paper in the Dec. 5 on-line issue of PLoS ONE (published by the Public Library of Science), Columbia scientists show that a brain network responsible for suppressing behaviors like inappropriate or unwarranted aggression (including the right lateral orbitofrontal cortex, or right ltOFC, and the amygdala) became less active after study subjects watched several short clips from popular movies depicting acts of violence."

That's not junk science. IT's saying "Is there an effect, and if so what is it?"

They know a lot about what the brain does. the fMRI in it self is amazing. for example, limited studies have shown it to detect when people are lying 100% of the time. Pretty cool stuff. The next question, does that hold for a larger pool of people. If it does work, is it considered self incrimination? or is it physical evidence?

Any ways, the mysteries of the brain are starting to unravel in some very unexpected ways.

This study seems good. certianly good enough to warrant a better study with a larger pool of people.

Re:Not junk science.

[Nunster]

It's definitely not junk science, but come on, how much of this study is something really ground breaking? Visual and Audial Input Causes Reactions in Brain!!! News at 11! Of course when we see violence our brain reacts to it. When I watch a sad movie I can cry, when I watch a funny comedian I can bust out laughing, when someone yawns, I yawn back. When I see starving kids in third world countries my brain tells me that I'm hungry... When I watch pr0n... nvm.

There are several reactions one may have to seeing violence. When I watch violence like the opening scene in Saving Private Ryan I feel despair. When I see it in a scene in Starship Troopers it's more in a positive light. Kill the bugs! Save Humanity!. In GTA it's humor. Kill the Cartoon people to unlock the next level! This study has an agenda behind it, and I don't like the agenda.

Wrong.

[geekoid]

You seem to think the individuals can control how their brain responds, and that is not true. They do control, and our responsible for their actions.

It is very precise brain activity.

"Columbia scientists show that a brain network responsible for suppressing behaviors like inappropriate or unwarranted aggression (including the right lateral orbitofrontal cortex, or right ltOFC, and the amygdala) became less active after study subjects watched several short clips from popular movies depicting acts of violence."

suppressing behaviors is not a response you can control while watching these violent clips.

They are NOT saying "violent images turn you into a raging maniac."

And In Even Other News...

[pandrijeczko]

...the non-scientists in the rest of the world have responded by saying that scientists at Columbia University probably need to go and get laid occasionally.

common problem in psychology lab work...

[big_paul76]

The question is, how does this translate into any situation _outside_ the lab?

They may be able to show this or that brain state change, but does that actually translate into behavioral changes? Not sure how you'd test that.

Personally, I think that this sort of technology (fMRI) is being very much oversold, and the people doing the selling are implying that we have a much better understanding of the brain then we actually have.

We can say that violent images correspond with changes in the brain that are associated with this or that behavior, but this kind of study is similar to how we get dumb ideas like "smoking pot is a gateway drug". (Yes, the vast majority of hard drug users smoked pot before trying pcp/crack/heroin/etc, but at the same time, 80% of those who smoke pot never try anything harder.)

These studies are only a little bit better than correlation studies in social sciences. And as somebody pointed out above, the fact that violent crime rates are dropping everywhere suggests that there isn't a problem.

Maybe not games

[einhverfr]

What about books? What did the author say about the copycat suicides? "My...friends thought that they must transform poetry into reality, imitate a novel like this in real life and, in any case, shoot themselves; and what occurred at first among a few took place later among the general public..."

The fact is-- we all know or should know that there is an effect. The real question is whether we are prepared to ban books, video games, movies, etc. in order to prevent poetry and art from influencing people. I think that at least here in the US, that would be a blatent attack on the Constitution.

Re:Maybe not games

[geekoid]

What about books?
Does reading a book invoke the same reaction in the brain as this study seems to show violent video does?

Well no one knows, but I would like to see that study done! It would be interesting.

I am not saying anything should be banned, I am saying we should see were the science goes.

I suspect that books / movies / video game invoke different responses.

Re:Maybe not games

[einhverfr]

There is a pretty convincing body of evidence which suggests that the "Werther" effect is in fact real. I.e. that reading about a sympathetic character who commits suicide makes one more likely to do the same. So yes, I would say that reading does invoke the same effect.

Here is an interesting link for you: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Conf/MemePap/Marsden.html

Re:Maybe not games

[edbles]

But I feel that those sympathetic character situations only affect people who are already on an edge condition. Someone in a rational healthy state of mind is not going to be driven away from that by playing one violent video game or reading about a suicide. But it could be the stray that breaks the camel's back, however all of these actions come back to personal responsibility, why are people so desperate to avoid it? When things or people break in difficult to fix ways it tends to be because several things have gone wrong at once. And as much as anecdotal evidence is supposed to be flawed I don't understand why our responses to these attacks are so intellectualized. Why don't people ever just tell the hysterical mothers (sorry I know I'm being sexist but my archetypal image for the honestly motivated as opposed to the money driven i.e. Jack Thompson campaigning against violence in video games is and always will be Tipper Gore and Hillary Clinton) that it's just like when they really sad Oprah book, yes reading sad things makes them sad, but because their entire family didn't go through a long bout with terminal illness it's not a permanent or lasting sadness. Yes people walk away from violent movies or video games having been overstimulated, but much like a children's birthday party induced sugar rush this passes within a few hours after the inevitable adrenaline/sugar crash. What I'd like to see is a study of whether or not playing violent video games over the long term increases socially detrimental aggresive behavior. As opposed to socially tolerable aggresive behavior like fighting for that promotion. I'd also like to see the people who go through this process being given periodic psychological reviews along with an entry level interview so that the study doesn't can differentiate between video games making people go crazy, and crazy people seeking out video games like manhunt and postal. Because hey they could be right maybe we should be regulating games the way we regulate drugs and alcohol.

Laughable example

[geekoid]

First, statistics like these are marginally more helpful the anecdotal evidence.
Second, perhaps you should have clicked on the chart and gotten more current information?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/4meastab.htm
That shows that crime rates are INCREASING since 2003

There are to many factors.
1) Maybe violent crime caused by long term exposer to video game has been increasing, but not enough to overtake other factor limiting crime?

2) Maybe the realism need to begin to cross the uncanny valley?

3) Maybe there is no long term effects.

4) that study goes to 2003. People are a lot more realistic in games now then they were before 2003.

I suggest you read up on fMRIs and the current understanding of the brain. It's mind blowing amazing.

I am not saying this study is proof of any long term effect of violence. I do want more and better studies done.

More statistic fun:
More people are being killed by unknown people.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm

Hmm, it seems the trend is changing:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

According to that chart the homicide rate stopped dropping in about 2003.

It probably has more to to with economic factors and political factors.

Historically, crime rises when the economy isn't doing to well.

Re:Laughable example

[tgibbs]

That shows that crime rates are INCREASING since 2003

And 2005 is lower than 2000. But this kind of data snooping is meaningless. If you cherry-pick at these little year to year fluctuations that are down at the level of the statistical noise, you can rationalize any kind of claim you want. I'm not talking about the small and obviously statistically nonsignificant fluctuations over a year or two. With this sort of statistics, only large, consistent multiyear trends are meaningful. And the clear trend over the period when videogames have been increasing in popularity has been downward.

There are to many factors.
1) Maybe violent crime caused by long term exposer to video game has been increasing, but not enough to overtake other factor limiting crime?

Which merely restates my point--the pro-violence effect of videogames if any is negligible relative to other social and demographic factors impacting rates of violence.

2) Maybe the realism need to begin to cross the uncanny valley?

As for the "uncanny valley," the term was coined to account for the fact that people find state-of-the art humanoid computer graphics in multimillion dollar movies where each frame can take minutes to render to be eerie, rather than convincingly human. Are you seriously arguing that the much less sophisticated graphics in games have crossed the valley?

3) Maybe there is no long term effects.

4) that study goes to 2003. People are a lot more realistic in games now then they were before 2003.

This is sheer rationalization. Over the period when games have gone from blocky 2D cartoon characters to 3D human-looking characters with simulated blood and gore, the only clear trend is downward. So you are arguing that it is just about to start trending upward "real soon now?"

I suggest you read up on fMRIs and the current understanding of the brain. It's mind blowing amazing.

I am a neuroscientist, and have been following such studies for years. I stand by my assessment. These blood flow measurements are intriguing, and can tell us a lot about which parts of the brain are being activated under particular circumstances, but we are a long way from understanding what that means in terms of human thought, emotion, and behavior. It is still very much speculative.

According to that chart the homicide rate stopped dropping in about 2003.

Still doesn't looks like an upward trend, though does it? If anything, it seems to have stabilized, and at a much lower level than before videogames became popular. Obviously, a downward trend cannot continue forever, or criminals would at some point be resurrecting the dead. Currently, we aren't that far above the levels that prevailed in the '50's. If videogames had such a powerful pro-violence effect--one sufficient to justify all of this concern and investment in research, then shouldn't there be a clear upward trend?

Re:Laughable example

[inline_four]

I think when we're talking about crime statistics, we need to be very careful with what we control for. I'm no statistician, but I understand the basics. There's a good example of how to set up controls in "Freakonomics", where they attempt to establish causality between various hypothetical factors and violent crime. It's very tough, but they make a good case for the sole important factor being police presence per capita. To arrive at that conclusion, they had to control for geography, economics, demographic changes, and legislature, among other things. Here, I think it's obvious that we have 2 huge factors that may be skewing results that we'd have to find a way to control for before any conclusive statements can be made:

1. Baby boomers are getting older, population on the whole is getting older, and so there is a vast number of people that are "retiring" out of violent crime age.

2. The possibility that propensity to violence may not manifest until later in life. Suppose exposure to violent content does increase one's propensity to violence. If we believe kids are affected by this, it's entirely plausible to expect those people to be more violent 10 or 20 years down the road, not within a year.

Additionally, I did not read this to suggest that it must automatically apply to kids as a long-term effect. My first thought is that this might be acting like a drug, where any person feels its effects for a period of time. Long term effects may still be there, but we're a long way from establishing that.

Re:Laughable example

[tgibbs]

I think when we're talking about crime statistics, we need to be very careful with what we control for. I'm no statistician, but I understand the basics. There's a good example of how to set up controls in "Freakonomics", where they attempt to establish causality between various hypothetical factors and violent crime. It's very tough, but they make a good case for the sole important factor being police presence per capita. To arrive at that conclusion, they had to control for geography, economics, demographic changes, and legislature, among other things. Here, I think it's obvious that we have 2 huge factors that may be skewing results that we'd have to find a way to control for before any conclusive statements can be made:

You can still make the statement that I made: Any pro-violence effect of videogames (if it exists) is swamped by other social and demographic factors affecting rates of violence.

1. Baby boomers are getting older, population on the whole is getting older, and so there is a vast number of people that are "retiring" out of violent crime age.

However, this one can be excluded out of hand as a potential factor obscuring a hypothetical pro-violence effect of videogames. If you look at the violence statistics broken down by age, you will see that the fall has been particularly prominent among young males--precisely the demographic most likely to engage in violent crime, and also the major consumers of violent videogames.

2. The possibility that propensity to violence may not manifest until later in life. Suppose exposure to violent content does increase one's propensity to violence. If we believe kids are affected by this, it's entirely plausible to expect those people to be more violent 10 or 20 years down the road, not within a year.

And this one is so implausible on its face that it surely qualifies as special pleading. Essentially, what you are proposing is that videogames do not increase violence over the age range at which people are most susceptible to committing violent crimes, but somehow do increase violence at a later age (conveniently, with a delay long enough not to be reflected in the statistics) at an age when (as you put it) people are "retiring out" of violent crime.

Re:Laughable example

[sabt-pestnu]

Obviously, a downward trend cannot continue forever, or criminals would at some point be resurrecting the dead. Surely you have heard of resurrectionists? Or frankenstein? Just dig deep enough, and you're bound to come up with someone... er, something.

Re:Laughable example

[inline_four]

2. The possibility that propensity to violence may not manifest until later in life. Suppose exposure to violent content does increase one's propensity to violence. If we believe kids are affected by this, it's entirely plausible to expect those people to be more violent 10 or 20 years down the road, not within a year.

And this one is so implausible on its face that it surely qualifies as special pleading. Essentially, what you are proposing is that videogames do not increase violence over the age range at which people are most susceptible to committing violent crimes, but somehow do increase violence at a later age (conveniently, with a delay long enough not to be reflected in the statistics) at an age when (as you put it) people are "retiring out" of violent crime.

Why is it improbable? PTSD can have delayed manifestations. Why not this?

Re:Laughable example

[tgibbs]

Why is it improbable? PTSD can have delayed manifestations. Why not this?

Post-traumatic stress symptoms may persist for years, but symptoms typically manifest a few months after the trauma, so for there to be no effect at all for a decade or more, and for effects to conveniently pop up just late enough to be beyond the horizon of the violence statistics is very contrived. Moreover, it seems quite unlikely that there would be no increase in violent behavior during the time of life when people are most susceptible to committing violent crimes, with a propensity for violence suddenly popping up later at an age when people are less susceptible to engaging in violence.

Needless to say, there is no evidence whatsoever for any such "time bomb" effect. Even the studies that purport to show a pro-violence effect do so in the relatively short term, not after a delay of many years.

Re:Laughable example

[inline_four]

I agree with your general take on this, but I can absolutely see that an individual would run into trouble at a different stage in life, while still exhibiting signs of problems. I have no horse in this race -- I really don't have any kind of preconceived notion regarding this issue. But you can't dismiss the possibility that there is no problem that's difficult to see in statistical samples until people exposed to the violence grow to a certain age simply on the basis that it's preposterous is not especially scientific. If we had better long term studies, it'd be a different matter, but such studies are nearly non-existent.

On the Bright Side

[happy_place]

...okay, so violence is out... but on the Bright Side, now that we know that games can affect brain activity, perhaps we can start researching means to create games that actually improve our brain's abilities, in a positive direction... --Ray

Re:Why is it always a negative response thats link

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

You find it ironic that mentioned fight club? Why? Its a commentary on contemporary life. Surely you recognize that art often speaks on life itself. Come on man, if you want to pick apart what i said, be honest about it.

I wasnt speaking about what i "feel" is right. I'm speaking about humanity. Humanity is many things. It is not "what i feel", It is what we are. If you think some MRI is going sum up the effects of violence on the brain... then you're just fooling yourself. I, WE all know far more the effects of our own emotions on each of us far greater than any MRI will ever tell us. WE KNOW what sad is, what anger is... etc. We are familiar with those emotions and we know from our own experience and history itself, what humans do under many situations and there is no ideal situation to describe the specifically what violence does to you, me, or anyone else... because it is a myriad of effects that run the gamut.

As far as your question on context... REAL LIFE is context. Everything can be taken out of context, but real violence in front of you, performed on you... is all the context you need to differentiate FAKE violence from real violence.

Your thought about wondering if graphic quality matters in a game, in terms of the effect of violences on a human is a question tahts been around for a while... You almost could wonder, maybe if the graphics were life like, would we be more effected.... I say no. It is still a videogame, it is still fake, you are safe in your chair in your house... It is not real. You have context. Real life vs entertainment.

Re:lowers inhibitions

[DaedalusHKX]

"Normalize"??

WTF is normalize. Normal means Norm, means average. Betcha if we were not a bunch of sheepified weaklings unworthy of surviving and passing on our genes, we might actually be a bit more aggressive.

I got to read a short ad in the paper (story, whatever you call it) about some college chick that got punched in the face downtown by a big homeboy in "white thsirt and faded jeans" at 3 past midnight, and he stole her purse and ran off while she went to the doctor with a bloody nose.

I give kudos to the homeboy for not dragging her off and raping her!!! I give her my utmost disdain, because she's another member of the human race that truly isn't worthy of breeding and passing on her genes.

Aggression is part of what made mankind the apex predator, and to pretend that the docile defenseless sheep of today are the best man has to offer is to basically say that not only does mankind deserve oblivion, but is actively grooming itself for it.

After all, no other animal in nature is so completely helpless that it asks its predators to be merciful and perhaps not go for the throat. "Normal" as you put it, is nothing more than the enforced submissive state in which the brains of 99% of the human race spend their entire docile, passive existences. The few who can still unleash the beast that man is, are a force to be reckoned with. Those who can actually CONTROL what they unleash are the leftover apex predator that put man on top of the food chain. They are often feared, and well they should be, as there is little most of us can do to resist them...

Perfect example. Reading socialist/fascist/collectivist/docile sheeple propaganda inhibits the parts of my brain that feel pity. Hence why I've not pitied any of the sheeple in a LONG time, regardless of whether they vote collectivist/authoritarian right or collectivist/authoritarian left. It's all the same coin, just different sides.

Gawd...not again....

[tumblebug]

Everytime I see a story like this appear I cringe 'cos I know what will happen when slashdotters get a hold of it - you get one side saying "its all bull...games never changed me" and the other side saying "i knew it!! violent games are evil and must be destroyed". Reading the article I dont think they are saying anything definative like "violent games make you violent" - they are pointing out that there seems to be a correlation between brain function in a certain area of the brain known to control certain behaviours, and the function changing after viewing violent images. They do say that more reasearch is needed. Anyone using a study like this to bash gamers or the industry is very misguided.....as are those who call these research findings "bull". There is certainly not enough information in the article to say one thing or the other. Alot more this type of research HAS to be done so there is some solid, verified facts behind this subject. I do not have a beef with companies making violent games, nor with the people who play them - I've played alot of games myself growing up. I think alot of responsibility needs to lie with parents being aware of what is going into their kid's brains. While I do not think it is right that a 6/7/8 year old should play, or see, a game like Manhunt being played because alot of the concepts required to UNDERSTAND the game are not really within their grasp (yes major generalisation), allowing a 13/14 year to play should require a discussion between parent and child so the parent is ok with the child playing hte game...or the child understands why the parent does not what them to play the game. This would require the parent to be familer with the game's content...and THIS is where the game companies could REALLY help out about being more completely upfront about concepts appear in their game as someone plays it, instead of the parent relying on the short description on the backcover of the game and/or the rating on the cover.

Re:Gawd...not again....

[DNAtsol]

Excellent point! I too read the paper and the inferences fellow /.'s are making are WAY beyond what the authors discuss. As mentioned above, pretty much any external stimuli will effect a change in brain activity and it is not really that surprising that watching violent images activates or inhibits the networks associated with aggression. I thought the paper was pretty cool and a nicely designed scientific study with lots of potential for interesting follow ups. For example, how long did this change last? They tested participants immediately after the experimental manipulation but it is well known that that change can return to normal within a few minutes (if not less) and has no long term affect on an individuals behavior. Don't dismiss or embrace the results just because it fits with your pre-conceived notions. Read it, understand it for what it IS not for what it MIGHT mean. This is truly a clever experiment with lots of potential for further research that actually SPECIFICALLY addresses the "do violent games cause violent behavior or does voes violence on TV cause or increase the probability of violence in real life" question. This study did not, but it did suggest a new perspective on how we might actually learn more about this issue.

Oh joy....

[DiEx-15]

Great, now the anti-violence posse have some ammo in their fight to "protect the children" (read: Destroy the First Amendment) I guess our days of Halo 3 and Tabula Rasa are over now because brain scans prove something... Never mind the fact that 2+2 still doesn't equal 12!

Ok it is like this - Just because something happens in the brain when it is exposed to violent media DOES NOT MEAN that violent tendencies will be acted out. If this were the case, then everybody that exposed to violent media would be going bonkers. Yet I, and the rest of the world for that matter, have yet to see this happen. Why is that?

One simple word - MORALITY

A normal individual is taught at birth that certain actions are acceptable and others are not. A common lesson is that we are not to harm others. Look all over the world - it is usually taught to people. Granted some are taught to harm non-believers of their chosen faith, BUT they are taught not to harm those of THEIR faith. Problems begin when an irrational mind begins to believe the only way to solve issues or make a point is to harm another individual. This too is validated by various studies and examples.

Take a person who abuses his/her significant other. The abuser for some reason is unable to control their violent impulse because of factors such as psychological (past abuse to the abuser) or physiological (an underlying brain disorder). The same is true for those who do violent acts such as the Columbine HS Shooting (Harris had signs of being psychopathic, Klebold had depression) or this recent shooting at the Omaha Mall. While it cannot be said truthfully that violent media had direct/indirect involvement, we CAN say that these events were caused by people that had diminished mental cohesion because of an underlying problem.

The whole point is that violence in media does not cause underlying problems. If we look at history and all the statistics, we can see that these atrocities are the exceptions not the rule. Even if we rid the world of violent media, we would still have the problems. We would just have one less scapegoat to blame our woes on.

so let me get this straight

[circletimessquare]

you are unable to evaulate the veracity of my thesis on your own, you need a crutch?

say i do provide a link. and? what does the link say in terms of how believable or unbelievable my thesis is?

you need to use your own mind to evaluate if what i say is pure bullshit, vaguely redeemable, or golden truth. why is it my responsible to hold your hand and patronizingly spoonfeed you?

providing pretty linkies to various pieces of information that don't add up to the whole truth of my idea is trafficking in half-truths, propaganda. gun control advocates/ detractors and abortion rights advocates/ detractors have legions of pretty links, "solid irrefutable scientific evidence". as if any one of those actually proves the larger belief. some of those links are hold cold facts. and yet still people have different interpretations. it's all useless, it's all propaganda

you need to reason, evaluate, and form an opinion on what you hear, on your own. the existence of a pretty link or not has no bearing on the veracity or lack thereof as determined by your mind, and if it DOES, then you are easily swayed by facts out of context, facts that don't add up to a whole, and other forms of propagandistic influence

use your mind, think, form an opinion. no crutch for you

who would have guessed: violence begats violence.

[lpq]

...who would have guessed that? ... Certainly not the "loudest" /. posters on the subject ;-/

What happens to one's brain...

[macosxaddict]

when viewing Windows Vista? Seems like that might have similar effects.

Re:lowers inhibitions

[chaoticgeek]

Ya... This seems kinda stupid to me. I mean why have we evolved and progressed from Neanderthal men just to kill the weak while we can have complex emotions about some other crap in our life even though it is "basic" for us to kill? I know I'm no scientist or an expert in the field of humans but it seems kinda pointless to evolve and become radically different from Neanderthal men to just say all we want to do is accomplish the same task as they did.

IMO we evolved to our current state to escape from the "basic instinct" that people normally talk about to the more scientific mind that we posses now to do more than just kill the weak or what ever you want to call it.

technically

[misanthrope101]

Technically, everything we experience or think causes changes in the brain, because all brain activity is electrical or chemical activity. And though I'm not a gamer, I'm less concerned about gaming violence than I am the effects of everyday TV. I'd rather my kids kill zombies in a game than sit on the couch and watch 24, where they're given an intellectual framework where torture is rationalized into normalcy. I don't "get" why videogames are so fascinating, but I detest TV. At least games require problem-solving skills and mental interaction. Heck, my kids play DDR 2-3 hrs a day sometimes, which probably burns as many calories as running a couple of miles.

"direct neuroscientific support"

[l3v1]

direct neuroscientific support

My problem is with the very high level of simplification this suggests. I mean, the human brain is much much more complex than that, i.e. watching violent scenes and becoming violent. When someone sits down to watch a movie with violent scenes in it, or plays a game with violent elements, (s)he knows what (s)he's doing, i.e. (s)he didn't sit down there with the intent of later becoming violent, but to see a movie or to play a game. What I - fairly foggishly, sorry - try to say is that the brain isn't some pipeline where only one course of action can follow, and which action is influenced or caused only by one actual event. How many people have you seen coming out from an action movie and starting to beat each other up ? :)

I'd say that anything - be that watching violent scenes or else - influences the brain some way. But I still think that this type of violence to cause anything "bad" one has to be in such a state of mind to be extremely sensitive to violence, be it caused by bad experiences, some illness, or something else.

Probably we could be fed so much violence that the respective part of the brain couldn't go back anymore to a normal state, yet I doubt that movies or games can take an average person to such levels.

And still the nagging doubt remains...

[niktemadur]

While testifying in front of Congress, in the decency/censorship hearings triggered by Tipper Gore back in the eighties, Frank Zappa said:

"Well, I once wrote a song about dental floss, and I don't recall anybody's teeth getting any cleaner".

So far, that's been my belief. I've watched tons of cinema of all kinds, from Disney to the latest batch of Japanese and French ultra-gore films, and the more films I watch, my outrage at real-world violence remains just as intense. It's one thing to think violent thoughts, which we all have all the time, it's a completely different monster to act out on them.

Buttons are pushed when watching scenes of violence. So what, buttons are pushed when thinking violent scenarios.

Any nut (back in fashion after the latest US shooting) will cling to anything to justify an act of violence. What was the excuse of the man who shot John Lennon, something Chapman or other? "Catcher In The Rye" by J.D. Salinger. Name me an act of physical violence in that book.

In a Roddenberry future, the fucking holodeck will be blamed in some Kansas study, never mind there were Virtual Reality, Video Game, Television, Radio and Literature precedents for the same kind of behaviour.

I will draw the line, though, when the gun is in the mind as opposed to when the gun is within arm's reach.

I'm a pretty good shot (especially with a .42 for some reason), yet I will never own a gun. I will never, through momentary mental confusion, allow bullets to fly across the room to defend a TV and/or the contents of a wallet. I'd be yet another twentieth century fucking barbarian if I did. Premature death is no prize of any kind.

Curiously enough, it was the barbarians to the north who could carry their fortune as jewelry with no fear of being robbed. It was the "civilized" romans who institutionalized greedy violence in that corner of the world.

Re:lowers inhibitions

[DaedalusHKX]

And yet the whole of mankind, that collectivist organized society that is the whole of mankind, is kept running by the endless bloodshed and use of force.

Sure, the leaders have made sure to breed out that instinct out of the general populace, and made sure that those who retain even a little of it make their way into the enforcement arms. Thus we have a docile populace that finds any reason to justify the abuses it suffers at the hands of the police and army class.

"That's just the way it is."

Indeed. And that's the fun part. Just deserts! Reap what you sow, and all that.

Re:lowers inhibitions

[Hyperspite]

Well it makes sense. If I see a fight going on in a hallway, am I more inclined to resort to violence if need be? Hell yes. It doesn't mean I will, but if you see a fight, it makes good sense to drop your inhibitions against committing violence against someone for your own and others sakes. Obviously, when you walk away, you'll be on guard for a bit with continued decreased inhibition. Then your inhibitions reestablish, most likely with a small drop in the average inhibition level.

If you are constantly in areas where fights are going on, the inhibitions are going to tank until there is a counteracting stimulus over a prolonged period of time to reestablish a high baseline inhibition level. This is common sense people.

Re:lowers inhibitions

[Flaming Foobar]

Aggression is part of what made mankind the apex predator, and to pretend that the docile defenseless sheep of today are the best man has to offer is to basically say that not only does mankind deserve oblivion, but is actively grooming itself for it.

That kind of thinking is simplistic.

People aren't where they are because of aggression and violence, but because we once upon a time learned to work in groups, and have since evolved into forming huge, complex societies. Granted, there are always some people who have difficulty finding their place in life, but for the most part, societies work best when everyone plays their part in cooperation with the others, and let law enforcement and military take care of any distortion.

This reminds me of one of the recent school shootings. At least in one of the manifestos, the idiot talked about "devolution" and other similar rubbish, and decided that due to his 'superiority' he was entitled to kill a handful of people who had never harmed anyone. In the end he was taken down by the police, so the society which he labeled so weak won again.

As an aside, in any given situation, one should always choose the lesser of two evils. In a lot of cases giving up is better than fighting. For example, it's better to get mugged and battered than to get mugged and die. It's just an intelligent decision (aka common sense) not to put up a fight if you are unlikely to win.

Two Words

[kneemoe]

Mirror Neurons are they supposed to function only IRL and not when the same thing is presented 'virtually?!' this 'finding' is common sense, except for all ya'all out there that just can't come to grips with reality. next!

Nope, you're still wrong and really stupid

[nunyadambinness]

It does mention the FAILURE of carding for selling tobacco as a major problem.

Which wouldn't even be an issue without prohibition. So that's a moronic attempt at rebuttal.

And it shows a drop in tobacco use since stronger restrictions on tobacco advertising kicked in the mid 90s

Which wouldn't even be an issue without prohibition. So that's a moronic attempt at rebuttal.

No you are being a mindless drone.

You said that already. Have I so totally rebutted you that you sink to repeating yourself? Don't pretend being ignorant of your rights AND responsibilities makes you anything but "mindless", so accusing me of that is ironic.

As far as being a fascist well I would say that you don't know what fascist is.

Apparently you do though, as you play the part to perfection.

Re:lowers inhibitions

[q-the-impaler]

The vast majority of society does not walk around in a fight-or-flight state waiting to kill the weak. "Normal", as I put it, is the society you live in today, whether you like it or not.

The few who can still unleash the beast that man is, are a force to be reckoned with.

Society has laws against the actions of these people. This view is very self-centered and would be fine if there weren't approximately 4 billion other people on Earth. What is funny to me is that my prior experience in the military taught me to be a soldier, similar to what you describe, and I've spent a fair amount of effort trying to become "normal" again. The life you describe is very stressful, and I would argue that stress is a disease that is more deadly than having to worry about getting a cap popped in your ass (at least in civilized society). But don't get me wrong, laws or none, if you hurt anyone in my family the Beast in me would put a quick end to your suffering on this planet with all of these feeble minded sheeple. And I would expect to pay for that as society's laws protect you from such a response.

So, back to my point in my OP, it is apparent that going into the fight-or-flight mode is short term, otherwise people would be murdering each other all the time. Which is to say, "don't ban violence in media just because some scientists showed a short term rise in some brain waves."

Re:lowers inhibitions

[q-the-impaler]

And yet the whole of mankind, that collectivist organized society that is the whole of mankind, is kept running by the endless bloodshed and use of force.

No, it really isn't.

Re:lowers inhibitions

[DaedalusHKX]

But don't get me wrong, laws or none, if you hurt anyone in my family the Beast in me would put a quick end to your suffering on this planet with all of these feeble minded sheeple.

And if I ever did something like that (highly in the realm of improbability) I would expect you to respond as you stated you would. The problem, as I see it, is that it required Army conditioning to get you to be fully capable of fighting.

And I would expect to pay for that as society's laws protect you from such a response.

That's what I'm complaining about. You should have the right to defend those you love and most importantly yourself (regardless what you say, if you're disabled or dead, those you love are minus whatever you brought to the table, plus they have to maintain you or bury you.)

Which is to say, "don't ban violence in media just because some scientists showed a short term rise in some brain waves.

Bingo.

PS - it isn't "fight or flight", anyone who's trained will tell you, its "fight flight or freeze". Lack of training, in a traumatic situation results in freeze, deer in the headlights style. By the time the victim unfreezes, the victimizer has had plenty of time to do whatever he/she pleases.

Re:lowers inhibitions

[DaedalusHKX]

Yes, in the end he had to be taken down by the "police" because his victims were just that... sheep waiting to be slaughtered. Idiots that snap are part of the first group I mentioned, those who unleash the Beast but cannot CONTROL it. You won't know if you can control the beast until the day you have the motive, the means and the way to kill another in rage, and then pull back from the threshold consciously. At that time, congratulate yourself, you've become a fully capable human. Refinement and diversification is your option but at least your instincts are fully functional.

Applying this to the sheeple who get butchered by the psychos each time a "school shooting" occurs. If they had the aggressive instinct that fully healthy humans (albeit rare) possess, they would've reacted LONG before he could've killed a whole bunch. If you've hunted you know that animals in general don't just drop dead, unless you hit them with a bullet capable of doing lots of damage AND you put that bullet in the right place. Humans are also animals and it takes a lot more than an arm shot to kill you. I have friends who went through vietnam, were shot with 9mm or 7.62mm (AK ammo) (one fellow was peppered 7 times, chest and belly, another was shot farther out 5 times chest) several times (still have the scars and medical reports) and still had it in 'em to kill the VCs that did it and live long enough to get back to base to get bandaged up. Speaking of which, I've heard of guys hitting a deer squarely with a big softpoint bullet (180 grain, 30 caliber, kind that kills deer quick) and the thing ran off and not only did they never find it, but they eventually lost the trail (bleeding stopped.) An animal, human or otherwise, that wants to live, and has a strong will to do so, will survive unbelievable amounts of physical damage.

Those who die in school shootings die for two reasons. Hollywood conditioning (1 shot in the shoulder or hip kills in movies, so the subconscious believes what it is programmed to believe) and the second reason is societal conditioning... i.e. "don't acquire the means and mindset to defend yourself, because it is *bad*". And thus most people in school shootings are preconditioned to be victims and then disarmed by the lawmakers to assure that they are successful as victims. And accordingly the freshly minted victims act their part whenever a victimizer shows up. It only takes one individual to stand up and break the killer's streak, but that individual must be armed with the aggressive mindset, not only the physical means to defend himself/herself and his or her peers.

It might not cause but can help

[gowakuwa]

Games and observation are an evolutionary(or IDed :)) device to help training behaviours that will be used as an adult.
Normal people will not kill indiscriminately even if they have undergone military training. However in unbalanced individuals, training can help.
Playing games won't be as effective, but you can learn a whole lot on killing people with good realistic fps's. Online fps's also train you to hate an enemy based only in uniform color. An enemy which is a human in the inside after all.
Movies work with the learning by example method. By the end of Dogsville(Nicole Kidman), most people in the movie theater were OK with murdering bad or just obnoxious people. People actually stood up and applauded the ending.
I enjoy fps's and movies but I understand why they can turn an imbalanced kid into a killing machine. Of course the kid being born in the US or other trigger happy countries might help too.

And what happens after the peek?

[dindi]

After drinking coffee you are hyper, then you clill down (more down).
After sugar intake and insulin spike and sugar high you collapse (kinda)

After many drugs the effects are reversed amphetamine->hyper->sleep, opiated->happy/no pain -> pain, depressed ....

So why isn't this stud look at what happens after I have this uncontrollable rage watchin MR&MS Smith shoot the crap out of the department store, or during playing COD4/RS Vegas/GRAW/GTA for 4 hours straight.

Aren't we supposed to actually regain more control after we lose it?

I love violent movies, and I exclusively play violent games (OK some racers too occasionally).I play paiontball, and ride offroad/enduro.

On the other hand I do yoga, and when not trashing myself playing violent games/sports I like to go diving. Besides the fact that where I go mostly is loaded with sharks it is a rather relaxing activity.

That is how I balance it out.

But then again, while we live in a sociaty when (sick bastard) people would say "I go out in style" and then walk into a mall and shoot 12 people I guess we need these studies. But still I need they are too one-sided.

On the latter: please when you want to be "going out in style" with a display just jump off a bridge, or ride a bike into a cement wall ..... or wait ... do something good, then kill yourself...

Re:lowers inhibitions

[q-the-impaler]

The problem, as I see it, is that it required Army conditioning to get you to be fully capable of fighting.

Sorry; that's bollocks. I knew how to fight, they just trained me to be efficient with the execution of it. But the military does foster "do as your told without questions." Sure, they hold you responsible if you do something that is considered morally wrong even under orders (which is a gray area), but for the most part they would like trained monkeys. The main thing I learned from the military was how to entertain myself for hours without external entertainment. But I emerged with a degree of apathy for others which I considered to be unhealthy.

I think we agree on the ideas we're discussing, but differ on the degree of which it is carried out. I believe that a person you may consider weak still has value. Each person has his own strengths and are important if he chooses to use them.

Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange

[kj_in_ottawa]

When reading through this I kept flashing back to Alex being subject to the Ludovico technique of aversion therapy.

What about real clips?

[visible.frylock]

The list of clips they used is here [PDF]. As said in the summary, they were all from movies.

What would be interesting to me is to have an experiment with real clips. If you know you're watching a movie with actors, you realize no one's really getting hurt.

I've seen some disturbing things on the net myself, and there's a big difference between hollywood violence and watching someone be shot in the head for real, or having their arm snapped in two.

Re:lowers inhibitions

[DaedalusHKX]

As humorous as this conversation has been, I differ. I've seen little from the east side of europe to the west side of the USA that leads me to believe mankind has evolved. Individual humans, sure, some of us. But the vast majority are mere sheep waiting to be sheared or butchered (and generally being sheared every day and butchered every so often) and they only notice when its their turn.

As to your other post, we do agree. I never said those sheep don't have value. I've met several women, some of whom I dated, some of whom I didn't, who were scared of their own shadows. With the proper instinct and response training (notice I don't say "react" which is a conditioned response to a stimulus) they became able to handle themselves in situations both expected and unexpected.

Funny, of these girls I mentioned (ladies even) are now competent in some form of armed or unarmed self defense (one whipped my butt at the local bowling pin shoot and packs a Colt Commander in her purse), one is studying Jeet Kune Do in her spare time, and the last few are no longer afraid of guns or knives or big mean thugs or dark parking lots. In fact, I downright pity the fool who gets frisky with them in a dark parking lot. Funny how only a few years back these ladies were mere sheeple demanding someone else save them or escort them to their cars, etc. Now, if they request such a thing, it is mere good manners or an excuse to carry on a conversation, rather than a fear or concern for their safety.

Long way indeed. A sheeple need not remain what has been forced to be through lack of experience and lack of education. I do agree about the military, however... I once considered joining, but I could not shut my conscience up. Obedient puppet is not my way of being :)

Replied elsewhere.

[DaedalusHKX]

Check previous reply to your posts.

There is a difference in being able to fight consciously or fight desperately. A desperate fighter is dangerous, but has low chance of surviving past that one fight, regardless of what the movies depict.

Re:Replied elsewhere.

[q-the-impaler]

Look, I've fought and killed. It would be great if I could be proud of the fact that I was the stronger being and lived in that conflict. But the truth is I know those people were bigger than the sum of gun + finger = killer. Even though they wanted to kill me, they still had loved ones, ideas, skills, talents, etc. I have my own personal struggles with that moment in my life, and I've come to the conclusion that it is better to appreciate the sheeples than to be the lone wolf. We're all going to die like animals, but we don't have to live like them.

Re:Why is it always a negative response thats link

[tgibbs]

Why is it that we're always presented research that tries to prove that violent (and sexual) entertainment are some how causing this negative effect on our brains.

They always sight very vague evidence such as imaging to show that "look see... its a negative effect"

Its just an MRI. It doesn't show response, or thought. It doesn't prove that it is a negative response or a positive response.

Very perceptive comment. In fact, the science does not exist to characterize this as a positive or negative effect--it's spin, not science.

I would also add

[einhverfr]

We also know that certain kinds of literature can promote suicidal tendencies in minors. One of Goethe's classics showed this so well that the correlation ("The Werther Effect") was named after the protagonist in one of his books.

Shall we start maintaining a list of literature which minors are banned from purchasing as well because of the documented tendency for more suicides? It seems that the case for censorship of literature is probably stronger than the case for censorship of video games, but probably only because we have more information regarding history of literature and its effects on society.

Life imitates art. But if we value freedom of artistic expression, that is not sufficient grounds in my mind for censorship.

Re:I would also add

[tgibbs]

We also know that certain kinds of literature can promote suicidal tendencies in minors.

How well documented is this? I can certainly imagine that a very depressed person might be triggered to commit suicide at a particular time by a particular book. But some fraction of those would probably have found some other trigger if that particular book was not available. So is the book causing suicides or just redistributing them in time?

Re:I would also add

[einhverfr]

A listing of peer reviewed studies relating to suicide rates in the wake of stories on TV, newspapers, etc can be found at http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Conf/MemePap/Marsden.html

Re:lowers inhibitions

[Skrapion]

Imagine this scenario:

You've volunteered to work as a farm-hand. The job they tell you to do is to shovel shit. You aren't doing a very good job, and you're told that if you don't shape up, you'll be fired. Are you suddenly inclined to work harder, so you can spend even more time shoveling shit?

I enjoy being violent and aggressive about as much as I enjoy shoveling shit. If my life expectancy drops because I'm not willing to learn how to be violent and aggressive, that doesn't matter to me. I'd rather live a short life that I enjoy than a long life that I don't.

(And for what it's worth, I doubt my life expectancy will drop.)

Worrying about delayed effects

[tgibbs]

I agree with your general take on this, but I can absolutely see that an individual would run into trouble at a different stage in life, while still exhibiting signs of problems. I have no horse in this race -- I really don't have any kind of preconceived notion regarding this issue. But you can't dismiss the possibility that there is no problem that's difficult to see in statistical samples until people exposed to the violence grow to a certain age simply on the basis that it's preposterous is not especially scientific. If we had better long term studies, it'd be a different matter, but such studies are nearly non-existent.

Certainly not. For that matter, I can't "dismiss the possibility" that it could have delayed effects in the second or third generation down the line, I just think that it's pretty improbable.

A lot of things are possible. Once you are willing to accept notions that are not supported by any kind of scientific data, the worries become virtually endless. Obviously, this applies not merely to violent games, but pretty much everything in the modern world. How about light pollution in cities messing up sleep cycles? Additives in food? 60 cycle noise from electrical wiring interfering with brain rhythms? Choose anything about the modern world that you personally don't like. Sure, we see no evidence of any serious harm now, but maybe it's just about to happen. Can you dismiss the possibility?

Frankly, I think that we have enough to deal with worrying about things where there is some evidence of harm before we start worrying about things where the statistical evidence is going in the opposite direction from that predicted by the doomsayers.

What do you expect to accomplish here?

[jotaeleemeese]

At the very least to make sure a youngster is fully conscious he is doing something illegal, this should make most sane people question themselves why they need the stuff in the first place.

It is horrible....

[jotaeleemeese]

... because it is senseless.

Most games reinforce the attitude that violence is the first port of call when you have a problem.

No violent game I have seen advocates controlled violence, in the contrary, they often advocate a kill first ask questions later attitude.

Glorifying violence as an advancer of civilization is a bit rich. Entire cultures have been wiped out violently, and I don't need to go down the path of Godwin's law on this thread to make my point. In some situations violence may create civilization as a byproduct, but it is never the major contributing factor. As a matter of fact civilization is mostly created during peacetime or relatively stable historical periods (think: when are people more likely to advance civilization: when they are under siege worrying about their next meal or their own lives or in a situation in which their own existence is not been threatened?).

Even if violence was a creative force, would civilization be worth the pain and suffering that violence carries with it? As a thinking animal, that can make moral judgments against my natural instincts, I believe it would not be worth it.

That actually happens quite often.

[jotaeleemeese]

SO it is a pretty bad example of what you are trying to defend.