Slashdot Mirror
New Book Cuts Through Violent Video Game Myths
Terry Bosky suggests a recent interview from Game Couch with one of the authors of an upcoming book which fights the "myths and hysteria" surrounding violent video games. Dr. Cheryl K. Olson explains how many of the studies linking aggression with video games were flawed or misguided, and she discusses some of her own findings. Quoting:
"Until now, the most-publicized studies came from a small group of experimental psychologists, studying college students playing nonviolent or violent games for 15 minutes. It's debatable whether those studies are relevant to real children, playing self-selected games for their own reasons (not for cash or extra credit!), in social settings, over many years. But media reports and political rhetoric often ignore that distinction. Also, the most-published researchers have built their careers around media violence. Their studies were designed under the assumption that violent video games are harmful, which dictated the questions they asked and how they framed their results. Media violence is just a small part of what we do, so we could look at the issue with fresh eyes and no agenda."
... but that last part sounded like they were saying "Our opinion matters more because we just don't give a fuck."
this article makes me so mad at the biased video game researchers. i need to go down to my local ammunation, get strapped, and start taking them fools out.
This article is preaching to the choir - it is a great interview - sounds like a the begin of a crushing blow to the likes of JackT - too bad the only the people who will pay any attention to this are those who don't have a preset agenda. As good as it is, I don't think this will fix anything. There is too much power & money at stake to FUD on games.
This book makes me so ANGRY!!! I just want to launch a plasma grenade at this 'doctor'!!!!!!
But seriously, folks, it's about damn time someone stepped up to the 'personal responsibility' plate and didn't get hit in the head by the ball (man, I pwn'd that metaphor). I grew up in the age of violent video games, as did most people here... come on, this website's name involves SLASHING people. My favorite movies growing up were Beverly Hills Cop and Aliens (I was all of six years old for those), and not once did I feel the urge to be more violent, or to shoot anyone. I thought "Wow, those movies are an awesome escape from boring reality. I'm gonna go read some Calvin & Hobbes now, maybe eat a cookie."
Yes, this is anecdotal, but if ten million people have (and apparently do) have similar anecdotal stories, that adds up, and this book is just the long-overdue sober second look at a popular, convenient myth.
PS: Jack Thompson needs to be clubbed with this book.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
From TFA: "Our survey involved over 1200 kids in two states"
I am not versed in acceptable survey sampling standards, but given the 100's of 1000's (if not millions) of gamer-kids all across the country, this seems small to me. Just an uneducated observation....
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
doesn't make you want to go have lots of sex.
And eating Habaneros no longer burns your a**hole.
More at 9.
-AC
I object to saying that video games are getting more violent. Think of say, Space Invaders, the concept was simple: Shoot Aliens. However with better graphics such as Quake with the same objective the game suddenly becomes violent. Technology has evolved and what people mostly say is they don't object to bad graphics aliens being shot but as soon as we move it to 3-D and add a bit of blood rather then just random colors it now is violent.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
Not violence in games specifically, but I have done original research on behavior and its relation to violent video games. My results show a temporary increase (lasting around 15-20 minutes) in violent behavior after playing a selection of video games with varying types of violence. Some of these are first person shooters, some are fighting games, etc.
Now, before you naysayers get your panties in a bunch, keep in mind, we are professionals. No one in my group had any agenda apart from doing good research. We had no stake in the outcome, and were not funded by anyone who would be able to influence our results. We controlled for all the variables you can think of and plenty you can't.
The results are good, and I trust our conclusions.
And if even one of you tries that "correlation is not causation" thing you love I'll scream, especially since it doesn't even apply to our study.
People are always concerned about what the effects of playing violent video games might be, but nobody seems to question whether there are any undesirable effects of programming these games. I imagine that a programmer, stressing out to meet the game's shipping deadline in the face of a show-stopping heisenbug somewhere in the code, might be more inclined to do something violent during a particularly frustrating midnight debugging session, such as take the computer up to the roof of his company's 12-story office building and then drop it to the ground whilst yelling profanities at the top of his lungs.
I think there should be a law that people have to pass a background check before being allowed to program violent video games.
When it comes to self-selected behavior like what movies people see, what games they play, what drugs they partake of, etc., it is very difficult to determine cause and effect.
If people who watch R-rated games tend to be more violent than those who don't, are the movies making them more violent than they otherwise would have been? Maybe, but determining a "yes" or "no" answer is far from easy and far from certain.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
That gives lazy politicians something to do! Lets save our children from the violent video games! Instead of, oh, I dunno, managing tax reform, social problems, basically stuff you were elected to do.
Violent media has been around since the dawn of time, in the form of TV, books, sports etc etc etc. Its not going anywhere, kids, so don't worry about it. Wherever there is a market, the product will get served.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
Its about time something like this came out. It is about parents raising their children properly, not the games they play.
Tech/Reviews blog
[[ not once did I feel the urge to be more violent ]] I was thinning my old books recently, and just could not throw out "The Anatomy of Motive" by John Douglas, one of the first FBI "profilers". A lot of the insights mention something like 'precipitating stressor'. The deep point is that we ALL have the ancient emotional brain in addition to our sophisticated fore-brains - the emotional brain functions much more primitively, and via the so-called "Amygdala Hijack" our brains are so architected that the ancient emotional brain is SUPPOSED to TAKE CONTROL when we *FEEL* threatened. So the question is not about your urges during normal everyday life. The question is, what will be your instinctive response should be in the case that whatever the foundations-of-your-security may be, they are THREATENED. Say by job loss or someone steals your sex partner. The idea is that your EMOTIONAL brain is learning, that the appropriate response is to just go out and shoot the threatening person.
Won't somebody think of Jack??????????
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I've developed violent tendencies towards zombies, trolls and robots.
I don't really recall saying "trust me" anywhere, if I did, I apologize. I have no desire to convince anyone of anything, so the animosity you're exhibiting is uncalled for. I simply told you what I do and what our research has shown, and that I am confident in the results. You're free to do whatever you like with that information.
As I said, I expected a reaction like yours. I have to wonder though, why you chose to attack me rather than ask me questions and educate yourself.
When I got stabbed, I didn't stab back.
When I got dumped several times, I didn't lash out.
When I got fired because someone ELSE was stealing money, I didn't even raise my voice.
When I got hit by a car, I didn't get angry.
Tell me again what my 'emotional brain' is learning?
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
I don't know if it was the case in the US, but in France, when cell phones became popular, they were mostly used by teenagers. And there was a lot of FUD, about how that would make them antisocial, or stupid, or unaware of the outside world, etc.
Mostly it came from people (and journalists) ranting because they found teens phoning on the street obnoxious.
Then all of a sudden, it stopped. Why? because then the amount of 60+ old people owning a cell phone had risen to 70% !
It's the same thing with video games; now they're becoming a common thing among adults, ie those who vote, buy newspaper and work as journalists.
That's all.
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
Are you serious?
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
I killed 15 people, 11 stray dogs, two parakeets and one goldfish after playing violent video games. And that was just last week. I blame it all on high resolution 3-d graphics putting thoughts in my head.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
We're currently preparing the data, we haven't published yet, and it hasn't been independently verified. Which is why I said "I'm confident" and not "it's been independently verified". Again, I don't know why you attack me when you could have gotten that answer simply by asking like a civilized person.
No mater how hard someone doing a study tries, there will be some bias and it may be completely unexpected.
That's OK. that's why studies are done open, done many times, and looked at.
Certainly who sponsored the study is something to look at, but it doesn't automatically mean the study is flawed. It's especially important when a study goes against previous studies.
So stop with the 'study is biased ' crap. Of course it is. Look at the result and see if it skewed the data, or id the study used bad techniques.
For the topic at hand, It is clear that violent games have a short term effect.
Adrenalin, acting out violent behaviors are all common to some degree.
It will go on for as long as the adrenalin is their system, and/or until it stops being funny.
I think there can be a point where the game can cause problems. We're not there it technologically, but it doesn't mean we won't cross the threshold.
If someone had a holodeck, could playing war games cause someone to be shell shock? desensitize someone to violence? I don't know and i hope not. That doesn't mean we shouldn't study it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I object to your objection :)
Between space invaders and today's 3d there has been the time where blood could be drawn but mostly wasn't. Designers weren't using random color as soon as xevious, around '82. Drawing blood was technically possible and in topic in commando or green beret. And it would have impressed people, because we were impressed by VG graphics. We were impressed by marble madness fake 3d, or pole position fast sprites. Also, Video games were politically incorrect at least with leisure suit larry. It's not a matter of "we would have done it if we could".
Do VG mirror society or influence it? I guess it's kind of a feedback loop.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Just as those with an agenda to push became convinced that pornography leads to rape, today's overwrought "think of the children" hysterics attack video games. If video games truly were a starting point for murderers and thugs, we'd see a sharp increase in said crimes as video games became more popular. In fact, the reverse is true, and according to the Wiki article on crime in the U.S., 2005 was the safest year overall in the last thirty.
People relentlessly analyze everything that offenders do, searching for something to blame. But the confusion of correlation with causation is perhaps one of the stupidest mistakes researchers (and the public) can make.
I wish we could stop focusing on silly issues like whether the new Halo game is offensive to members of the Flood or whether the main character in Grand Theft Auto kills hookers. We've got people suffering and dying all over the world, and bored biddies would rather censor our PlayStations than do some actual good. I suppose the lure of controlling others' lives is stronger than helping people.
No amount of studies will convince the anti-video game people they are wrong. They ALREADY KNOW they're wrong. The reality is that they're either front groups for religious organizations trying to get donations by focusing on the "hot button" issue of video game violence, or they're front groups sponsored by television and film groups afraid of the competition. They exact same thing played out with comic books and roleplaying games.
Religious organizations pretend they're "fighting" X to solicit donations so they can get rich/spread their religious ideas. Nobody involved cares about kids at all.
It is in the summary, we need to look at the issue with NO AGENDA.
Be honest, how many of us does that rule out?
If have undergo military training in the past, and looking back, I know that through carefull management of my emotions I was being trained to be a killer. I really didn't notice it at the time, but training like that is designed to make you feel part of a group and you want to protect and fight for that team and kill those who are not in the same colors.
So I KNOW you can be manipulated.
Are claims that violent games decensitize you to violence then really that odd?
I noticed something, the same people who scream that goverments are training killers are the same who say that violent games have no influence on people. The two don't add up.
Any normal person can be influenced by media. A simple experiment, play the theme from love story and the theme from jaws over the same scene, wanna bet you look at each clip with a different heart rate?
But it doesn't really matter if the influence is there or not, first we got to accept that scaremongering politicans and selfish players are NEITHER suited to give an unbiased opinion on this subject. What next, we ask smokers about the danger of smoking or the tobacco industry? No, we ask doctors who are supposed to start each study with an open mind.
It is sad to see so clearly that this hasn't happened when it comes to games BUT this by no means proof that games are harmless. We really need independent study in this area AND then IF games are shown to have an influence, ask ourselves wether the influence is worth basic freedoms. For instance, we know drinking is bad for you, but we still allow it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I think he missed the point entirely. I wonder whether the "FBI Profiler" had some hidden agenda?
.
We haven't published yet, and we haven't had our results verified, which is why I said I'm confident, not "we've been independently verified".
And as someone else with a more advanced grasp of the process has posted, most people in my industry don't openly discuss specifics before publishing. The publishers don't really like that. While I understand your skepticism, I find that the repeated attacks (in your case veiled but still obvious) stem more from a lack of knowledge about the process than anything else.
I was foolish to phrase my comments with "your", although "one's urges" sounds stilted it is less personal and I am not interested in personal attacks, just trying to play "Wise Person". From the above "When I" history, you definitely have better emotional control than I do. Sorry, PG
Lets do a comparison or three: If you play with cap guns, it is generally considered not violent if you pretend to shoot someone and they play dead. It may even be called cute. If you shoot a paintball gun with red paintballs it looks more violent, especially since the projectiles actually make an implact on their target and it leaves a red bloodish looking substance. But this example is no more violent than the capgun example. Now if you acutally shoot someone with a gun, it looks more violent still because they are writhing in pain, screaming and spewing blood everywhere. But we know that it actually isn't more violent even though it only appears more violent.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
I wasn't taking it personally, just saying... where's the proof my emotional brain is learning anything "socially unacceptable" that automatically kicks in when horrible stuff happens to me? I suppose it's possible that it's all a matter of self control (there's that pesky personal responsibility again!) and I can ignore my emotional brain when I need to, and the people who go to school and shoot twenty people don't.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
""Trust me" says the Anonymous Coward pointing to hypothetical results of an unnamed study that may or may not even exist."
Don't be an ass, researchers don't talk about their results before they publish. That's probably what's happening here.
If people who watch R-rated games tend to be more violent than those who don't, are the movies making them more violent than they otherwise would have been?
It's not impossible, or even overly difficult, for egghead researchers to answer this question...but it IS more work. Besides, a mere correlation seems to be all that is required for making voter-friendly knee-jerk policy, so very few people or institutions ever request or fund the extra work required.
Playing violent games (or watching violent films or whatever media you're consuming) does not cause violent behaviour...it IS violent behaviour. I don't think it matters if you kick your neighbour's dog, drown your sister's cat, stab some random person you've picked a drunken fight with at the local pub or blew the head off of some virtual being in a video game...it's the same kind of violent behaviour on different scales. There are laws concerning all these violent behaviours and it ultimately doesn't eliminate them.
As such, I think that the heavy consumption of violent video games and other media, beyond some reasonable level, is more a symptom of psychological issues rather than the cause of anything. I think that in large part that is because children's upbringings are more institutionally-influenced than ever. When I was growing up we were just starting to see the "latch key kids" phenomenon come to the forefront, where both parents worked and were not home for a couple of hours after kids got home from school. It was still commonplace for one parent to be home, or at least stay home until the kids were old enough to be "latch key kids". The community was more friendly too--more people were at home during the day, you knew more neighbours, kids ventured outside and interactions were more personal...and so on. Kids were brought up, at least in the early years, by PARENTS and by the immediate community.
Today, people feel entitled to more luxuries than ever before, governments feel entitled to be bigger and to have more of your tax money than ever before and the marketplace feels entitled to more of the rest of your money. As a result both/all of the adults in a family feel it is required of them to work as much as possible. As soon as parental leave is over it's back to work and put the baby in a daycare. The daycare worker raises the child for the bulk of the day...then the teachers. Extra-curricular activities are super-structured (school-programmes and such), and otherwise activities are passive and institutional. "Professionals" like coaches and programme managers and TV writers are too often the only influential people who shape young minds as parents all too often get self absorbed in furthering careers, financing giant houses with upside-down mortgages, making payments on the new car and so on.
Some people subscribe to the "Lord of the Flies" view, that left morally unguided humans will create a chaotic and violent society. I think that "institutional guidance" is even worse than total non-guidance in some ways. Perhaps we are inherently selfish, but with child care and educational professionals all espousing "child centric" theories and methods we seem to be ENCOURAGING this selfishness to the point of breeding little sociopathic tyrants. It's all about what the child wants and fulfilling all the child's desires and instilling any sense of empathy or concern for others of any kind is seriously neglected. Most kids can cope but there is a segment of the population, whether through a bad home environment or some peculiar wiring of the brain, become DANGEROUSLY sociopathic and tyrannical.
As such kids grow up they evolve from being selfish in the pursuit of gratification to being gratified at the expense of others. They get high off feeling superior. Kids these days can use some monstrously cruel emotional torture along with the escalating physical violence. I think that addiction to violent games is one step on this path, just like bullying peers or torturing animals. It is just as futil
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
[[ where's the proof MY emotional brain ]] Did you catch the article on Wim Hof the 'Iceman' today on Abcnews, it includes comments by Dr. Kamler - his "Surviving the Extremes" is a great book, I flagged many pages. On the usually automatic nature of emotional response, I found the scenarios in Gonzales' "Deep Survival" to be enlightening, although a few but not the majority of Amazon reviewers have a lower opinion on that one. Obviously there are genes and epi-genes related to emotional control - like "Wim Hof", some have the right stuff, others don't.
We were impressed by marble madness fake 3d,
I'm glad you were. I was too busy losing all the time. I still can't finish the last level, and getting through Silly (I think that was the name of it; the reversed gravity level) is still a bitch...
I'd be more apt to believe her study was approaching the subject with new eyes, if the words she chose didn't make it sounds like she was specifically out to "prove past research wrong". THAT, is the very essence of an "agenda", whether paid or not, whether backed by someone else or not, she's out to prove someone else wrong ... rather than taking the neutral position of determining which of the many possible conclusions might be the right one.
It could be argued that graphic and non-graphic violence is fundamentally different because someone who feels that it is necessary to present or watch acts that are not socially acceptable (like rape or murder) are fantasizing about those acts, rather than being interested in the consequences of those acts. And that is where the problem may lay.
The sample size isn't the issue (it's a pretty good sample size, as surveys go). Rather, it's that the researcher is proposing to throw out a large body of research including randomized experiments and longitudinal followups, in favor of her own one-time survey study.
It's almost as though "you can't show cause-and-effect with a one-time survey." Wait a minute, where did I get that quote? From Dr. Cheryl K. Olson, quoted directly from TFA. It's almost unbelievable that she's apparently saying it with a straight face while asking us to draw causal conclusions (null ones) from her one-time survey.
The mass of evidence still favors the link. http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html answers some of the present study's objections. One study using somewhat different methodology doesn't suddenly invalidate the bulk of research - that's not the way statistics works.
Also, Dr. Olson doesn't strike me as completely impartial, based on the tone of her writing. It's one thing to point out how you believe your study is superior; another to impute biased motivations to other researchers (e.g. "the most-published researchers have built their careers around media violence"). Clearly to me she's to some degree part of the political war here.
Here's another example of this kind of reasoning:
On the topic of gaming violence, Slashdot overwhelmingly publishes items that scoff at the idea of a link between gaming and violent behavior, as opposed to items that support a link. Gee, I wonder why that is?....because the Slashdot readership is generally 12-35 year old males with a strong interest in computers and playing video games, the exact hormone-engorged demographic the violent crap is marketed to?
Not quite. Big surprise to hear of a gross generalization on slashdot. Let me set you straight. As soon as we move the games to being life-like then people object. 3D and a bit of blood does not make a game life-like but those are properties of a life-like game. And maybe it's just my perception but we seem to have moved away from using aliens as targets and use humans more often in video games. All those different games based on war come to mind (Call of Duty, Medal of Honor and Metal Gear series). Using humans as targets intead of non-existent aliens brings the experience of the game that much closer to real life.
Of course, most children know it isn't right to shoot humans in real life but not all seem to realize that. Those who do I think are just brought up that way to not care about human life and video games are just another way to lash out at society and serve to only practice their shooting spree plans. Banning video games isn't the answer to that situation just like banning cars isn't the solution for minority of the population who drink a lot and on occasion decide to drink and drive and kill people.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
It terrifies me that this was modded informative.
It terrifies you that people recognize a fact? Being scared of the implications of facts is one thing; being afraid of the truth is quite another.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
It's really quite simple - violent people like violent video games. This does not mean that games make people violent.
Think of it this way - there is a stereotype that coders drink a lot of coffee. This does not mean that drinking coffee is going to make you into a coder.
This is going to be one of those really unpopular posts where I get modded to hell, so I'll just say what I need to and get out.
Maybe ten years ago, I read On Killing, written by a psych professor at Westpoint, the U.S. Army Academy. The book was not about video games: it was a study of how the U.S. Army had successfully changed its effective fire ratio from 10% in WWII to over 90% in the Vietnam war, and how those 80% who got psychologically "tricked" into killing people they weren't prepared to kill were the ones who got extremely ill after the war. These people were trained to easily go past the non-violence barrier that most people have.
There is, however, a short chapter near the end of the book where he warns that the elements FPS games are functionally equivalent to the training methods the Army used,teaching players to go across that barrier, too.
Whether you agree or disagree, he still knew a lot about war and psychology.
Put identity in the browser.
I actualy don't doubt your results (depending on what you mean by "violent behavior") but I hope that you went beond what other studies did.
The study that I am most familiar with went something like this.
It compared what people were like after playing two different games. It did show an increase in "arousal" in the group playing the violent (shooter) game immediatly after, but the description of changes sounded a lot like adrenaline rather than some sinister corruptive force. And the "Control" game? Myst. Yes they were playing a glorified slide show.
So what that study told you was:
*Playing a fast paced and exciting game will leave you with more adrenaline right after than a PowerPoint presentation
Not very suprising
What did it NOT tell you:
*If you got a different respose from a shooter/fighter vs another fast paced game such as a racing or sports
*Is there a difference between playing a violent game vs watching boxing, an action film, or high school football
*Is there a cathartic effect on someone who was angry BEFORE playing the game
*If the measurable effects fade in under an hour, does that mean we don't need to worry about long term effects
I would find answers to those questions much more interesting.
Assuming you did not actually kill 15 people, the tag "informative" might suggest a grave misunderstanding.
Assuming you did... well, then that terrifies me even more.
Won't someone think of the children?
Um why was he modded "Informative"? It was obviously a joke... I hope...
New Book Cuts Through Violent Video Game Myths
Meh. I would've written it as "New Book Rips, Tears, and Slashes Violent Video Game Myths Then Spatters Their Guts All Over The Place While The Other Myths Look On In Horror, Paralyzed With Fear"
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
Interesting that you mentioned space invaders. From wikipedia:
I wonder why he wanted the enemies to be airplanes... sentiments regarding WWII and the nuke, perhaps?
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
There's a much bigger difference... Space Invaders is just made up of pixels and looks nothing like real life. If you add blood, life-like models, and... all in all just make it more "lifelike", then you've got an increase in violence. If I saw a 2d guy shoot another 2d guy in the face I'd have much less of a reaction than if I saw the same thing happen with readable facial expressions, realistic blood, and realistic sounds.
My two sons have been playing games , mainly violent on all platforms since they were about 5 years old (they are now in their early 20s). They also take still part in Counterstrike tournaments. They are about the most non violent people you would ever meet. They also play soccer in the real world....never any incidents there despite provocation at times. I have not read the book but I agree there is no connection between game violence and the real world except when the person is already violent in which case when the person brings his real world violence to the game in a gratuitous manner.
Look, I love video games. I've been playing them for years. COD is currently my favorite addiction.
Today, video games look pretty much like video games. You can tell you are not watching something real, though single-player COD is getting pretty photo-realistic. Flying bodies, spurting blood. But it's still cartoonish. Cartoonish enough that you know it's a game.
What happens when the game becomes indistinguishable from reality? When it becomes photo-realistic? We know that people can become desensitized to stimuli by constant exposure.
If we had games that simulated warfare like, say, a "holodeck", would there be any debate as to the harmful effects it would have on the psyche of the players? Would we not see traumatic stress issues?
If you agree that we would see such problems with hyper-realistic games, then I think it is reasonable to debate and discuss what happens as we approach that level of realism. At what point does the game become realistic enough to start being harmful?
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
* Do you believe in the killing of unborn children?
* Do you believe you have the right to tell a women whos been raped that she has to carry to term the resulting fetus?
There are lots of unborn children who are not being carried by rape victims.
The whole problem with the 'abortion debate' is that the extreme participants argue under the assumption that if you are not universally pro-life, you must be pro-abortion, and if you are not universally pro-choice, you must be pro-government-control of bodies.
That's not the way reasonable people think.
I think abortion is bad *AND* I think the government telling a woman what to do with her body is bad.
On top of that, I realize that not all abortions are equally bad - aborting a one-cell fetus is not even in the same realm of bad as aborting a 38-week-old fetus. And telling a woman who is pregnant as a result of sex she agreed to have that she can't have an abortion is not as bad as telling a woman who never consented to the sex that led to pregnancy that she can't have an abortion.
Now, there is going to be a lot of variance in where most reasonable people decide the 'badness' of allowing women to choose to abort their pregnancies is less bad than forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Most reasonable people are going to agree that the death of non-differentiated fetuses is a very small amount of bad. And most reasonable people are going to agree that the death of a fetus that is, but for a few inches of position, about to be a live birth as extremely bad. So most REASONABLE people support *BOTH* abortion *AND* limits on choice.
6 weeks pregnant because you were raped? Abort if you want.
38 weeks pregnant because you were raped? Sorry, too late.
A debate about whether abortion is OK or not is stupid. A debate about government intervention in a woman's choice is stupid. There is no debate - both are bad. The debate needs to be about at what point a woman's control of her body is outweighed by the interests of the fetus.
So back to your original questions:
#1) Sometimes.
#2) Sometimes.
paintball
"Methodology" in the GP's sense is perfectly acceptable. From the OED:
Originally: the branch of knowledge that deals with method generally or with the methods of a particular discipline or field of study... (more generally) a method or body of methods used in a particular field of study or activity.The word has followed a pattern that many words of the form "x"ology follow. "Psychology," for example, originally meant (and still does mean) the study of the "psyche" (spirit or mind). But in later usage, the word describing the study of the object often comes to stand for the object itself, e.g., in uses like "reverse psychology." Basically, "x"ology does not always mean "the study of x."
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I agree, this book has been long overdue. I have always believed that the studies that have "linked" violent media and violent actions have been faulty at best and fraudulent at worst. If there was any link, wouldn't violence OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES be elevated too? Seriously, some of the stuff that the "Freedom of Speech" United States has for violent media is MEGA TAME compared to things outside our borders.
For example, I know that nudity and graphic violence exists in Japanese television... Yet remember the debacle that occurred after Janet Jackson's "Wardrobe Malfunction" in the Super Bowl? (To be fair, I know some Slashdotters don't watch sports and I was playing an MMO at the time while the show was happening. Thank [Fill in your deity here or leave blank if you are an atheist] I missed it because I would have plucked my eyes out!) Or remember the "Britney Spears Kissing Madonna" incident and all the hellfire that came with it? (And can anybody remember the total FORGETTING that Madonna kissed CHRISTINA AGULARA TOO?!) I know that these examples deal primarily with sex and over dramatization of the pop culture and such, but the United States culture tends to want take a hypocritical "Moral High Ground" about what is on TV, Music, and Games. This (in a sentence) means that it's ok to show graphic violence on media... as long as there is no sex. Meanwhile in other countries, seeing a boob or somebody get decapitated is no big deal and no public outcry ever comes out of it.
I guess it is because mostly these people that have made a career out of these "studies" want to use violent media and such as a scapegoat to the problems of our society or to explain the unexplainable. Take for example that Virgina Tech Shooting. Almost immediately, there were some (*cough* Jack Thompson *cough* "Dr." Phil *cough*) people that began to blame violent media... However, after a REAL investigation and interviews were done, it was discovered that:
1) The shooter was shithouse-rat insane. Probably more insane than everybody's favorite nutter Jack Thompson.
2) Series of attempts to take preventative actions were either not taken or only suggested to be taken voluntary BY THE SHOOTER. Now seriously, that is almost like asking a criminal to just get in his car & drive himself to prison and walk in after being found guilty of a crime.
3) After numerous interviews by the staff and people close to the shooter, it was discovered HE DID NOT PLAY VIDEO GAMES. Now it was discovered he very seldom played Sonic the Hedgehog. However the shooter didn't run around with a saw blade on his back and spin around in a circle to kill people, did he?
Now the people that were the first to scream that violent media got some much needed egg (read = shit) on their face and showed clearly that violent media had no connection to the tragedy that unfolded. Granted Cho did watch some movies made in Korea that were violent, but the fact of the matter was none of them were any simulation or even close to what transpired that sad day. The point here is that when it comes to violent media, it usually is first to be called for blame when some nut bag goes crazy. Nevermind the fact the nutter isn't playing with a full deck of cards and only watched Barney the Dinosaur... the real truth will come out later after something totally irrelevant is blamed.
The point here I am trying to make is that violent media really has no solid link between it and real life violence. These studies were just an attempt to make some shaky connection between the two. Its about time that these get debunked and maybe shed some light on how using scapegoats solve nothing.
For the lack of a better sig.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
But what if the group funding the study wants to know who is the preferred candidate among young Hispanic males, or any other demographic group? You could select those out of your original survey group, but then the margin of error is going to be rather larger.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Even if I did, why should I believe somebody ignoring one simple fact : in nearly all western country where video game boomed (and thus violent one too), juvenile violence went down.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
At my school, the University of Michigan, two years ago. They had me play Quake 2 (ah the memories) for about ten minutes and then had me unscramble words. The thing is, each string of letters could form either a word with violent or nonviolent connotations. Presumably, if the virtual violence affected a player's actual state of mind, he'd make out the hostile words over the innocuous ones. I got paid $10 for my time. So if you were wondering how they really worked, that's how.
You were not there man. You just didn't see it like I did.
Ohh... the horror of it all. He didn't just kill them He was like a Rever from Firefly/Serenity. He Rasped, Killed and Ate them. In no particular order. The people and dogs really had it bad, but the Goldfish... I'm... sorry. I'm crying again just remembering what he did to that poor goldfish.
I have to stop here. My therepist has been on speed dial since the post video game masacre of last week and now his phone is just ringing. Is he in the bathroom? has he left it at home? Need that paper bag now...
Where is my PAPER BAG ????
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Because it was too contrived to be funny?
"t may not have much to do with "banning" anything at all, but, for example, giving parents information that will help them decide if and when to bring video game consoles into the home, or whether someone who is having trouble with violent behavior should be advised to stay away from video games. That research is worthwhile even if there isn't a direct public policy connection."
You seem to criticize the "personal responsibility" mantra, but in doing that you ignore the reality that studies of this sort by definition are political in nature. There are large interests at stake in deciding whether video games are harmful or not. And politicians will latch onto this because taking a position and gaining constituencies is a major part of politics.
I'm all in favor of more information, but it's naive to think that this information won't be used to shape the passage of laws. Because that's the other part of what politicians do.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
It's a lot easier to make humans look good, and interesting, in the age of modern graphics; probably cheaper too. Aliens was fine when it was sprites drawn pixel-by-pixel, but it's hard enough to find decent skin textures even for humans.
I am trolling
LOL, ya. what else would you blame it on? Certainly not any outlying social issues...No, must be the video games!
The humanity! and don't even start about what he did to the pumpkin!
Not until we reach Matrix or at least Holodeck level, anyway. Because you can watch all the movies you want featuring death, but they aren't going to do a thing to prepare you for when you first lose a parent to cancer or diabetes. You can watch all the martial arts movies you want, but they wont do a thing to prepare you for a real fight and real pain when you are punched or kicked.
Real life has real consequences. Video games and movies don't.
The whole problem with the 'abortion debate' is that the extreme participants argue under the assumption that if you are not universally pro-life, you must be pro-abortion, and if you are not universally pro-choice, you must be pro-government-control of bodies.
There are astronomically more people that believe life begins at conception than believe that abortions two minutes before birth are hunky dory. No one wants abortions - not NOW, not Planned Parenthood. They just want the option to be legally available.
One giant problem is how the anti-abortion movement is tied at the hip to the Republican party, which is equally dedicated to eliminating social programs. It is asinine in the extreme to use the power of the state to force women to carry a fetus to term and then do nothing to support that child once it's born. When Johnny is a fetus made up of a dozen cells, he is of sacrosanct importance. Once he's born, he can go screw himself.
6 weeks pregnant because you were raped? Abort if you want.
38 weeks pregnant because you were raped? Sorry, too late.
And what if it took said rape victim 38 weeks to save up money (because she has no insurance and we have no single payer health care) and make travel arrangements because the nearest abortion clinic is 300 miles away? And once she gets to the clinic, she has to go through a waiting period and being pressured into other options.
It is reasonable to say there should be limits on late term abortions, but it is not reasonable to put up roadblocks at the same time.
I'd actually say the Metal Gear Solid particularly does quite a bit to depict the negative aspects of violence and their effects. Snake is shown as somewhat damaged by his killing, and the game system is designed to reward avoiding any needless bloody encounter. Stun techniques and drugged darts are often offered up as well, and even without them, you can hold up a guard, then knock him out; they act like people, not some kind of killing machines you feel nothing when you kill. In many cases, you are given plot reasons to feel genuinely bad about the killing you ARE actually forced to do, with only a couple exceptions, even your most violent and dangerous enemies are sympathizable. You are even chided in game for being a killer. The games themselves portray Snake's espionage missions as an alternative to a much more violent, much higher body count direct military resolution. I personally feel damn proud of playing with a near zero kill count in that series.
And what about Civ, where you sometimes get to annihilate whole countries??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Video games are the highest form of art because they have everything other media has, plus they are interactive. Y
If you put someone into a situation where a steady diet of violence is present and on some level they are going to walk away thinking that some level of violence is acceptable. I mean, if we are not allowed to make video games glorifying Fuhrer with racist praise for genocide, (just look at the terms of service regarding posting racist content for any ISP), then shouldn't it follow that video games glorifying violence might have some impact?
It seems to me that the people who don't believe the media can provoke violence or other destructive behavior are just hiding their heads in the sand in the face of common sense.
This is my sig.
"then only defending "
THAT appears to be the problem, you think you deserve a satisfactory defense, when the reality is you're just some fucking guy on a web board and you don't deserve a fucking thing.
Did you not see the post where he said something like "I have no interest in defending..."?
Read that until you get it then you'll know why you're the problem.
Hmm I had a whitty gamer joke involving the use of 'pwned', but decided against it.
I guess this idea explains why there are so many 'save the president' games.
Jeruvy
[[ where's the proof my emotional brain is learning anything "socially unacceptable" ]] "GROK" - from Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" "you must research this deeply" - typical English translation from Musashi's "The Book of Five Rings" What a synchronicity-full time to be chatting about emotional IQ. With his INTELLECTUAL brain: Spitzer was a stellar law school grad - great exam scores. Beyond school, "in real life" he Really Did "Have It All" But, *Spitzer's* Emotional Brain.... My personal archival Google query on this is (( Eliot Spitzer McGreevey Shakespeare Held )) - it brings up the very nice ABCnews chat with some shrinks "Spitzer Shares Arrogance of Other Powerful Men - In Fall Worthy of Shakespeare, Gang-Busting Governor Entrapped in Sex Scandal". "Dina Matos McGreevey, whose husband left the New Jersey governorship in shame and a marriage in shambles after admitting an affair with a gay aide" - gives the article the victim's perspective from a similar case.
Disagreement doesn't warrant negative moderation, but merely a rebuttal of opinion. Violence in gaming is one of the most misrepresented issues in this country. It is no different from blaming Marilyn Manson's and Slayer's music for the Columbine tragedy. People that are capable of ruthlessly killing their peers don't need to play a game to realize their potential. All they need are distracted parents, lack of affection, and an increasingly isolated feeling about the world. It's the same recipe for every kid. The gaming is the common denominator in all of it, but so is the deplorable state of their social life. Blaming video games for your messed up kids is just a lot easier than realizing you've failed them as a parent.
ROTFLOL!!!
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?