Slashdot Mirror
Congressman Wants Health Warnings On Video Games
An anonymous reader writes "California Rep. Joe Baca has proposed a bill which would mandate placing health warning labels on any video game rated T (13+) or higher by the ESRB. The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009 would require a cigarette pack-like label that reads, 'WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.'"
Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect. Well done, Joe.
go get it
Warning: Poor parenting leads to disaffected members of society.
Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect.
But did you really think about that? Sorry, I'm not convinced.
That warning might make sense, if if it were true that video games actually caused aggressive behaviour. As it stands, there has been no conclusive proof that video games actually do cause aggressive behaviour, and thus this label is actually just a deceptive, nanny state tactic.
Web Hosting: Unlimited storage and bandwidth: $5/month
"Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior" Except that it hasn't been.
I haven't followed the research enough so I could be completely wrong but isn't the reason why cigarettes can have the Surgeon General's health warning on them because the statement has been clinically proven. Has there been any consensus on video game violence and violence in teens.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
Psychologists have shown that, in fact, there is virtually no connection between playing violent video games and increased violence, so the Congressman from California has it exactly wrong:
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/05/17/the-link-between-video-games-and-violence/
I'm all for research supporting reasoned legislation, but in this case, it is ignorance and misconceptions supporting "feel good" government nannies.
--
Yes, the answer is no.
I'm lobbying to get a mandatory message printed on all cell phones, that reads: "WARNING: cell phone usage has been linked to the collapse of honeybee populations".
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
The American Medical Association urged the FDA to tattoo a warning label on the forehead of all elected federal officials that states 'Listening to this individuals' logic has been linked to violent and aggressive behavior towards others.'
WARNING: Excessive exposure to warning labels and messages may make you less likely to pay attention to them, and prevent use of brain from exercising common sense and personal responsibility.
Correlation does not mean causation. I guess I've been playing too many video games
If they insist that such warnings be placed on the entrances to religious institutions (like churches, mosques and synagogues) then I might think this idea is more than just political gainsaying.
Wikipedian Protester.
Mess not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
Congressman Joe Baca's brother Chew is known to be quite agressive.
She made the willows dance
Thanks for the link. From your article:
Surprise, surprise! People who may already exhibit signs of anger or aggression may be drawn to such games. The games don't cause the anger or aggression. Such people may also be at greater risk for showing increased anger or aggression.
That's from a psychologist. Why can't the lawmakers figure it out?
WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior
Citation needed.
The anti-gunners honed this strategy years ago. Remember how stupid it looks when your elected officials try to use it elsewhere/everywhere.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Let California stack up a bunch of feel-good legislation like this, so the rest of us can point to them as an example of a failed nanny state.
Anyone suggesting this in the face of a $44 billion budget deficit should be run out of town.
"Joining the military may be hazardous to your health."
"Progress is the opposite of Congress."
"Paying your taxes subsidizes stupidity."
"Voting is an endorsement of the status quo."
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
http://www.apa.org/releases/resolutiononvideoviolence.pdf
I especially like the part where R-rated movies were included in the bill based on the conclusions of similar dubious studies. Oh, wait, they weren't. Wonder why that is?
Parents by and large realize the government is not going to raise their children. They would like you to stop blaming the entire parent population for the political aspirations of a small minority of self-righteous idiots.
How fitting that his name means "stupid" in Japanese...
Labels could include:
And for the bonus round:
Q: What do you call 1,000 politicians buried up to their necks in sand?
A: Not enough sand.
Kevin Smith on Prince
If Congress passes this, I am buying a roll of stickers saying "[citation needed]" and visiting local video game stores.
Warning: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Warning: Power attracts the corruptable.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The word "Baka" (romanization) in Japanese means "Idiot".
...and other violent media...
Yep, so you go ahead and try to get the same message printed on all movies, too, and we'll see just how long you're representing California.
Drop the diseased liver. If you want to discourage drinking (and you shouldn't; nor smoking. people know they're bad, and these warnings and gross pictures are nothing but a waste of time) -- put pictures of the direct result of drinking on the bottle.
that's right.
fat chicks. in YOUR bed.
that'll stop ya.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
This isn't really that weird for CA, they put warning labels on everything. You can find a "Warning [whatever we're labeling] is known to the state of California to cause [some really random condition]." Parking lots, food at the grocery store, beach water, you name it, CA slaps a warning label on it.
I say let them do it.
They did it with music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_Advisory) and the sales sky rocketed.
"This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence"
Just when I thought maybe elected officials could earn some modicum of respect. Well done, Joe.
I don't really care how they make the package look so long as they still let me buy it. Thats my concern. I don't think its quite a slippery-slope argument to say that this type of action may lead to bans or restrictions in the future. And that would suck... I like my freedom.
I just wrote an exhaustive essay on the so-called effects of video game violence. I'm really looking forward to any feedback you may have about it. For the record, I'm on the side of video games. http://www.digital-us.org/video-games/2008/11/27/violent-video-games.html
I'd like to see a warning label affixed to every ballot that says: "WARNING: Electing politicians has been linked to recession, higher taxes, and war."
"WARNING: Excessive exposure to politician's speeches may lead to nausea and vomiting!"
And of course the ever popular "WARNING: Excessive exposure to XXX DVD's may cause carpal tunnel and other Repetitive Stress Injuries!"
A multitude of studies have linked cigarettes and lung cancer -- how many valid scientific studies have proven a causal relationship between video games and violence?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The first step to get people to agree to something they might not otherwise have agreed to (like banning video games) is getting them in the right mindset. As a good example, you'd never have gotten away with outright banning of cigarette smoking in private establishments 20 years ago, and we're at the point now where there are people who would ban smoking entirely, even in private residences and private automobiles. I had a ridiculous argument with someone that argued the government ought to be able to ban ANYTHING they know to be unhealthy (including cigarettes, soda, pizza, and bungee jumping) and even require people to exercise.
The first step they took to being able to get the public to accept smoking bans were laws requiring the labeling on the packs of smokes, and the frankly overstated arguments about second hand smoke. Now, I'm not saying second hand smoke is not dangerous (and I don't smoke, and I honestly think smoking is pretty stupid and annoying), I'm saying there is a lot of evidence to show the claims were exaggerated. Now there actually exist people that would ban smoking in your own homes.
Now, this guy I was arguing with seemed like a complete moron to me, but nevertheless... there are people like him.
So... not saying this will lead to a ban on some types of games, but you might as well nip stupidity in the bud. The games already got a T or M rating, that's quite enough.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Warning: Excessive exposure to Big Macs may cause a fat ass.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
... that the relationship might be reversed, and that it's developmentally aggressive tendencies that DRAW PEOPLE TOWARD the violent games in the first place? The games aren't CAUSING the aggressiveness, they're a REFLECTION of it.
Following the little warning, it should read, Warning: this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data, as well as lack of scientific analysis. Experiments have pointed both ways (yet we have cherry picked this one) and to this day, many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation. You can however have faith in the fact that if your children are young enough, they may be as stupid as the chain of idiots who have wasted your tax money on this crap. This entails that, like lemmings, without proper guidance/responsibility, they will most likely attempt (and fail) to pick up a hooker and shoot her in the face to avoid paying the fees, following an uninterrupted session of GTA. If they get closer to success than desired, no matter how hilarious it may be, it is YOUR responsibility, not the source of this media.
Help fight spam
Joe Baca is generally a problem. He was influential in getting new regulations passed to make it easier for lower-income families to get loans, and now his district is one of the highest, if not the highest, foreclosure rates in the nation. He has steered PAC money to his sons' election attempts when the use of that money explicitly conflicted with the guidelines for their use. His election to head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was a public one when the Caucus is supposed to hold private votes. When Rep. Loretta Sanchez -- also a Democrat, Hispanic, and from the same state -- pointed this out and called for a new, secret ballot, he called her a whore.
Even for a Washington politician, Baca is quite capable of some low deeds.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
So you're countering one slippery slope argument with another?
Slapping a warning label on a product will increase the likelihood of that product being banned as much as playing violent video games will increase the likelihood of committing violent acts.
If you say you aren't afraid of violent video games influencing people to cause violent acts, then you shouldn't be against a warning label out of fear that it might influence people to want to ban a product.
Also, cigarettes are a completely different beast. Wear a fishbowl on your head and smoke a cigarette in that, and you could smoke indoors, outdoors, wherever the hell you wanted.
Just trying to nip stupidity in the bud.
The problem is, that cigarettes (not pure tobacco. cigarettes!) are more addictive than heroin. That's no joke. Look it up. Most people think it's just a light drug, because of the weak effects it has, compared to other drugs. But it's just that cigarettes have an extremely bad addictiveness/effect ration, because of the 600+ substances that intentionally got added to the tobacco, to make it impossible for you to stop.
I say there's no right more fundamental, that the right to do with your own body as you please. But the second most important rule of a society is, to do no harm to others. And that's exactly what making tobacco so addictive, while keeping quiet is. It's tricking you into dependence on their product. So we should forbid that exact behavior. And punish the one who decided it in exactly one of two ways (in that order): A) Expel them, and disallow them any direct or indirect relationship to this country, while explaining very clearly what is non-acceptable behavior in this society. That way he has to deliberately continue despite knowing that we don't want it, to reach... B) If that does not help: Get your agents to shoot them.
Plain, simple, fair.
Unfortunately the government, and companies like that, are largely the same thing nowadays. So the government are the people that should be punished by (A), or (B) if really necessary.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
'WARNING: Excessive exposure to politics and the media has been linked to mental disease.'
Something else to point out is this type of warning label wouldn't affect online sales. Physical retail stores will start looking like death dealers though. Parents will see the labels as proof that it causes violence and warm up parents to idea that banning games is good.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Yeah, they more or less told people who didn't know better which artists were willing to swear and thus the kind of music that they might like in addition to what section of the store it was in. Games already have that. Now we know which games are willing to show blood, body, and language that is representative of the world we live in. It's all in that little label on the front already. This won't change anything except taking up more space on my cool box art.
Why isn't "Warning: the swearing in this CD may cause you to swear" or some other such made up lies on that CD you bought?
Warning: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Warning: Power attracts the corruptable.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
- Jimi Hendrix
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
To begin: I am against banning things. At least banning people from doing something to themselves. I don't smoke (except 2-3 good cigars per year) and I understand the risks of most things I do. Your claim that the danger of second hand smoke have been exaggerated are however probably untrue. The latest research actually seems to suggest that the dangers are way underestimated. That's based on some pretty big datasets from places where smoking in public has been banned for some time now. Even better datasets will be available in 5 to 10 years. It's especially the risk of heart problems that seem to have been underestimated.
Power corrupts
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Petty power corrupts all out of proportion to the real amount of power.
Politicians are endowed with a special mix of petty and absolute power such that they are all 100% corrupt while not being absolutely powerful.
If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
The median IQ is 100. There are over 400 congressmen, is it any wonder that half of them are dumb as boxes of rocks?
Note this dimwit merely wants warnings. Its legislation hasn't been passed, and I doubt it will, considering that no study has ever showed what this idiot congressman thinks.
Do we have the new Jack Thompson here? people in California, please get rid of this retard next election!
Free Martian Whores!
Warning - banging hookers in GTA may impair your ability to bang hookers in real life.
Free Martian Whores!
Actually the results of studies linking video games and aggression have been posted on Slashdot (you can find a lot of studies wit Google). Also I'm not biased, I clearly said it pointed both ways and I obviously mentioned that there is a chance that a child that is too young will imitate what is seen on any media. Also, I speak from personal experience (both with knowledge of psychology/statistics and my own observations). One thing I have noticed is that the "aggression" in video games is caused by loosing. When football fans show violence, it's not because violent media has a direct play in it, it's because the ref made a bad call, or some player made a dumb move.
I took your advice and googled it, and the first hit which came up was from the American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html
I want to counter what you wrote with what the APA says.
You wrote: "Experiments have pointed both ways"
The APA says:
Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).
You wrote: "many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation"
The APA says:
Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.
You wrote: "the 'aggression' in video games is caused by loosing"
The APA says:
Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.
You wrote: "this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data" And then you also wrote: "I'm not biased". In other words, you're completely objective, but anyone who disagrees with you is biased?
I'm completely willing to accept that there are studies which refute a theory that you hate. But you need to pony up those studies and explain to me why the APA disagrees with you so strongly. It seems to me that you are in the weaker position, especially given these psychological facts:
1. Humans ape behavior that they see other humans perform (modeling).
2. Humans will perform a behavior more often if they are rewarded for it.
3. Violent video games ever more closely approximate humans performing violence on humans and reward players
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
To be fair, I examined a "con" link, one that you would favor. The page is here:
http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html
And PBS claims:
2. (myth) Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression.
(fact) Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, "media effects." This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds. In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand. Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played. Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. That's why the vague term "links" is used here. If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences â" which can contribute to anti-social behavior. But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer.
There are many things to say about PBS's critique.
1. PBS says, "Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, 'media effects.' This research includes some 300 studies of media violence."
PBS calls it "relatively narrow" as a comparison to other fields of study, but it's really a way to spin the body of research as small and insignificant. But 300 studies is 300 studies. How many studies did PBS conduct?
2. PBS says, "But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds."
Which studies? On what grounds? On what basis does PBS say that they are "inconclusive" when the APA's conclusions are plain for all to see? PBS does not say. This is a sweeping judgment of a body of research that comprises 300 studies.
3. PBS says, "In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context."
And what psychological effect would that have? PBS does not say. And which studies does this apply to? PBS does not say.
4. PBS says, "Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand."
Media is frequently "consumed" by people who would not "normally consume" it. Furthermore, on what psychological basis "understanding" media, specifically as it relates to witnessing acts of violence, germane? PBS does not say.
5. PBS says, "Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played."
The APA says:
Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).
Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have the same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).
6. PBS says, "If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences â" which can contribute to anti-social behavior."
I think the APA's consensus is pretty clear. Go here:
http://search3.apa.org/
Type
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I don't think that your child should play GTA. In my initial post, I was clear to state a young enough child will simply imitate what is done on the video game. What I am saying is that in my view (as a student in progress to becoming a scientist), the results are inconclusive as to whether or not aggressive behavior can stem from violent video games. I have yet to see a decent controlled experiment that has lasted up to a year (though in my opinion it should last decades to be 100% conclusive) that has many different conditions to rule out any other factor (as well as a control) that hands down points in one direction. To be fair, I haven't looked, but my psychology teacher (who agrees with me) keeps me posted on these kinds of things, and brings up interesting experiments quite frequently into conversations. I'll make sure to inquire if anything new has come up, but I doubt it. Either way, we are not at a point where we can start allocating tax dollars on this crap. Also, we're not at the point where we should be sewing companies based on this (my main source of anger at these experiments), especially not when it is the responsibility of parents to control what influences their children, and I think we can both agree on this.
Help fight spam