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."

Comments

Maybe I read that wrong

[n3tcat]

... but that last part sounded like they were saying "Our opinion matters more because we just don't give a fuck."

Re:Maybe I read that wrong

[KublaiKhan]

Yes, but that's a good thing--because if they don't have a stake in the results, they don't have a conflict of interest, and thus their results will be more trustworthy.

Re:Maybe I read that wrong

[n3tcat]

Why does that make their results any more trustworthy? You mean more trustworthy for me? Or more trustworthy for other people who also don't give a fuck? If you mean the latter, then honestly that sounds like this article is not just unbiased, but also fairly unimportant as it's target audience doesn't even care what they are saying.

Re:Maybe I read that wrong

[KublaiKhan]

More trustworthy than results put forth by a group sponsored by a video game producer or one sponsored by an anti-video-game group.

So more trustworthy for you to consider.

It's one of the things you really want to look for when folks start flinging studies around: who do they work for? Would you trust as accurate a study funded my Microsoft that says that 5 of 6 dentists prefer to use Windows, or would you be more likely to trust as accurate a study funded by some independent group?

Re:Maybe I read that wrong

[n3tcat]

If you think that there are ANY sources without an agenda then I pity you.

Re:I am a researcher in this field

[KublaiKhan]

"Trust me" says the Anonymous Coward pointing to hypothetical results of an unnamed study that may or may not even exist.

"Sure," says I, "When I get bacon delivered through my second-story window fresh off the flying pig."

Re:WHAT?!?!

[Lemmy Caution]

"Personal responsibility" is a code-word for a refusal to look at contributory factors. It's a kind of simple-mindedness. The master-narrative you're playing into is this: social scientists are going to push through a bunch of regulations and restrictions because they correlate some influence with an unwanted behavior, when people should just be held responsible for their behaviors.

That populist sentiment misses a lot of the point of that kind of research. It 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 videogame consoles into the home, or whether someone who is having trouble with violent behavior should be advised to stay away from videogames. That research is worthwhile even if there isn't a direct public policy connection.

I'm all in favor of the more nuanced view of the topic of media effects on behavior, and I think the authors of this book are right on. But the old canard of "what about personal responsibility?" strikes me as anti-intellectual crankiness.

Re:WHAT?!?!

[mdwh2]

"Personal responsibility" is a code-word for a refusal to look at contributory factors.

But how come it's only ever the "unpopular things" that are questionned as to whether they affect behaviour - fictional violence, video games, rock music, Marilyn Manson, porn?

No one questions the violence in religious texts when it turns out a murderer was obsessed with the Bible or killed someone because "God says so". Unless they're a pagan or satanist, in which case, it's back to the "unpopular things" which must be banned again.

I've nothing against providing parents with information, but note that people do use these claims to ban things, even for adults. I think "personal responsibility" is a valid response when the claim put forward is that media alone can turn people into violent criminals.

Re:who cares?

[alan_dershowitz]

as we move it to 3-D and add a bit of blood rather then just random colors it now is violent. Yes. Because when we talk about violence we are not talking about conceptual violence but of depicted violence. Conceptually, Risk is one of the most violent games ever made, but in Quake blood and body parts are flying everywhere among machine gun fire. You can see this borne out in tv and movies where to soften effect, violence is insinuated rather than depicted because actual depiction is far more emotionally disturbing. Conceptually they are equivalent.

On Killing

[Daengbo]

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.

Re:On Killing

[Irish_Samurai]

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. FPS games only address one aspect of combat, multi target awareness. To confuse or obsfucate the issue by conjoining it with PTSD and its relationship with veterans after WW2 does nothing to move understanding forward.

The psychology of war has little to do with the physionomics of war. FPS games nurture the mental aspect attached to the physionomics of warfare - that's it. And while being an aspect of combat, it is far from the core basis of combat.

Psychology deals with the understanding of actions taken during war by the entities who participate. It addresses the mental state of participants pre, and post, participation in wartime activities.

Physionomics investigates how FPS games influence the mental awareness, and possibly the acuity, of recognizing multiple threat targets - and driving engagement until all threats have been negotiated.

The concept of how someone feels about killing another is distinctly removed from how someone recognizes an element they need to kill. Look at the psychology of serial killers.

Re:who cares?

[clarkcox3]

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

We don't, nor should we, punish or legislate fantasy. It is not illegal (or immoral) to fantasize about illegal acts.

Those are NOT the same questions!

[raehl]

* 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.