Gamers Are More Aggressive To Strangers

TheClockworkSoul writes "According to NewScientist, victorious gamers enjoy a surge of testosterone — but only if their vanquished foe is a stranger. Interestingly, when male gamers beat friends in a shoot-em-up video game, their levels of the hormone plummeted. This suggests that multiplayer video games tap into the same mechanisms as warfare, where testosterone's effect on aggression is advantageous. Against a group of strangers — be it an opposing football team or an opposing army – there is little reason to hold back, so testosterone's effects on aggression offer an advantage. 'In a serious out-group competition you can kill all your rivals and you're better for it,' says David Geary, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Missouri in Columbia, who led the study. However, when competing against friends or relatives to establish social hierarchy, annihilation doesn't make sense. 'You can't alienate your in-group partners, because you need them,' he says."

Comments

So, does Slashdot count as a "game"?

[Rogerborg]

If all y'alls weren't such retards, you'd have asked that question already. Suck it, LUUUUSERS.

Re:So, does Slashdot count as a "game"?

[sopssa]

THATS IT!

If you start fucking with me, you get what you deserve. My SimCity 2000 server is up, join it bitch and I'll crush you!

Re:So, does Slashdot count as a "game"?

[Anonymous Coward]

SimCity is for fags.

Re:So, does Slashdot count as a "game"?

[ZarathustraDK]

(heard in a game of Hearts)

YEEHAAW! Eat that black spade bitch you noob! And here are some hearts to flush her down with!

Anthropogists the world over

[PakProtector]

pause for a moment and say, "And you're just now realising this?"

Re:Anthropogists the world over

[Canazza]

I play with my co-workers at lunchtime. I can tell you I get no satisfaction from killing them... none at all *looks shiftilly around*

*STAB STAB STAB STAB*

Re:Anthropogists the world over

[OverlordQ]

No, it's just news because it finds some way to make video games seem tied to bad behavior.

Re:Anthropogists the world over

[Follier]

I would like to have seen the eyebrow raising when the subjects proceeded to "hump the kill."

"Doctors, I think we're on to something..."

Re:Anthropogists the world over

[PitaBred]

Just keep the teabagging to a minimum to keep everyone cordial ;)

Re:Anthropogists the world over

[V!NCENT]

*STAB STAB STAB STAB*

HUMILIATION!!!!

What? I am not a gamer... Yeah about that knife errrr... everybody knows you run faster with a knife, jeez...

Re:Anthropogists the world over

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's just news because it finds some way to make video games seem tied to bad behavior.

That's the sensationalist headline. The meaning is completely different depending on how you finish the sentence

Gamers are more aggressive to strangers than to friends - This is what the study was about, and is entirely expected behaviour

Gamers are more aggressive to strangers than non-gamers are - This is what the headline suggests, and portrays gamers in a bad light.

Re:Anthropogists the world over

[X0563511]

Real gamers use a gauntlet that looks like the offspring of an arc welder and table saw.

Bad feelings about killing teammates

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I find that I feel bad if I kill someone on my own team by accident.

Then I feel better when I teabag them anyway. Laughter is definitely the best medicine.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[ciderVisor]

First real LOL of the day. How can I ever thank you, BAG ?

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Chrisq]

That's one reason why I probably would not make a good soldier. I once watched a news item about a US pilot who had accidentally attacked British ground troops (I think this was in Iraq). They played a cockpit recording of the incident where the pilot was told to abort a seccond attack. You could tell from the pilots voice he was shaken, he said "my God, what have I done". My first thought was how could he not feel the same way when attacking Iraqui troops too. These would also be men with families, probably enlisted without choice. Many of them would have little interest in the politics of the region. Some wife and kids would be left to grieve. When I said this I found that only one other person present thought they would feel the same way as me (fortunatley that was my wife!). I am not a pacifist but I think that most recent wars are unjustified. Even in necessary defense I would find killing other people very hard.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Chatsubo]

Indeed, ever notice how such a big deal is made over "civilian" casualties, but soldiers, they almost don't even count. Oh well, 10k soldiers died, but HOLY MOLY! You killed a CIVILIAN!!!

I think I'd make just as bad a soldier as you.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing soldiers is considered fair game because they are (or should be) prepared to die. We call those that attack civilians "terrorists": see 9/11. I don't value soldiers' lives less, it's just a different level of wrong.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[PeterBrett]

Killing soldiers is considered fair game because they are (or should be) prepared to die. We call those that attack civilians "terrorists": see 9/11. I don't value soldiers' lives less, it's just a different level of wrong.

You do realise that not so long ago that it was considered normal for soldiers to rape and pillage in conquered lands? Indeed, some have suggested that the coalition's failure to carry out reprisals (e.g. decimation) on civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan suspected of sheltering guerillas is one of the reasons why the insurgents continue to receive popular support there.

I don't agree with them -- I'm pretty certain there are viable alternatives -- but it makes you wonder.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly why wars work for want of a less sick description. You feel solid camradirie with your fellow soldiers on the same side, that's what the leaders want, that's makes it work. I have to agree with what you said, I would never voluntarily sign-up as I couldn't face the fact of killing people and leaving others to face the mess I have made. I find it hard to justify any war, they always seem so pointless, you have a right to defend yourself against attack, but then to go out and find the attacker in their own land and kill them, their comrades, their families anyone they spoke to anywhere else, just seems so childish.

Just like the Peter Gabriel song, world leaders just fighting like kids round a sandpit.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Blue Stone]

Part of military training is to counter people's natural tendency toward empathy. It's no good asking someone to kill another human being when they view them as the same or similar to themselves. Dehumanisation of the enemy is a fundemental requirement when training an army.

It always make me wonder, when I hear people here (in the UK) saying all these ferral youths and ASBO kids would be better human beings if they were subject to National Service, what exactly they think military training is really all about. Like we need kids who can garotte you with their shag-bands.

Then again, when you have governments and societies (like the UK (broadly)) which say that murder is bad, knife and gun crime is a horrendous thing, and that street crime should be stamped out hard, but they also train people to kill other human beings all the while calling them 'Heroes', you can't exactly expect joined-up-thinking.

Kill for yourself, you're a psycho, a murderer, a blight on society. Kill for your government and you're "our brave boys and girls" and a "hero".

Humans are crazy. *tap*tap*tap*tap*

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, there's something rather spooky about the willingness to kill a person you've never even met, simply because you've been told to do so by authority. To blindly accept the "us and them" rationale, to truly believe that all "us" are moral and just and all "them" are immoral and unjust. To ignore the obvious truth that wars are started by the elite who control government, rather than your team who holds the actual weapons, let alone "the people" back home who are barely aware of what's going on.

It's almost un-human. Group think in its most alarming form. Imagine the mental leap one must take to convince himself of the morality of the situation. I suppose the alternative (being a pawn for the wealthy elite) is just too disturbing to even consider.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Anonymous Coward]

I am of similar nature. However, I had been pushed before and exploded in a rage and caused some serious injuries to another. During the rage I didn't think about anything except that I had to hurt him permanently, if not worse. Everyone agrees that he provoked it, but in hindsight, I did go too far. It was only years afterwards that I felt the, "God, what have I done?" feeling. The thing is, even though I realize that I had gone beyond self defense, I felt a certain glee in the damage I'd inflicted. And sometimes I still want to laugh and say that the bastard deserved it. And I think that I'm a modern, civilized human.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Jaqenn]

I find that I feel bad if I kill someone on my own team by accident.

In counter-strike, I used to feel bad if someone killed me and used my old gun to kill my teammates.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Urza9814]

Eh. I agree to some extent, but there is a clear difference. First of all, the soldiers have some expectation that they're going to die. Secondly, the civilians aren't shooting at you. It's the same with police. If the police shoot someone who's aiming a gun at them - no big deal. They're just doing their job. Hell they might even be called a hero and/or given a medal in some situations. But if the police shoot someone who's entirely unarmed, it's fairly big news. They might lose their job over that one.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[nedlohs]

Possibly, that's because the *aim* is to kill the soldiers. If they don't want to be killed they can surrender or just not show up.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[nedlohs]

That doesn't sound "un-human" to me. Sounds exactly how I would expect an animal that spent most of its history in tribal (and family) groups to behave.

The ones who do what they are told by the elite will survive better than those that do not, since even if the decisions aren't optimal the group focusing on on a suboptimal goal will do better than a group pulling in all different directions.

And of course those that kill their own group tend not to have a group that succeeds and multiplies whereas those that kill other groups have less competition and can multiply to fill more space.

Once you get past subsistence survival things change but it's all hard wired by then... Though of course now the people who don't have that "kill or be killed" outlook don't end up getting killed by those that do as much so societies view slowly changes.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Fear the Clam]

You could tell from the pilots voice he was shaken, he said "my God, what have I done". My first thought was how could he not feel the same way when attacking Iraqui troops too.

My first thought was that he was a big Talking Heads fan.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[tibman]

I play DOD:S often as a machine gunner. Anytime my position gets overrun and they take my MG and turn it on my teammates... i feel like i'm somehow responsible for friendly deaths. Should have fought harder!

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[LordLimecat]

Because getting shot at is sort of in the job description of being a soldier, and you cant exactly be an effective soldier if you have a break down every time you fire on an enemy squad?

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Ma8thew]

Civilians, in general, don't volunteer to live in a war zone.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[operagost]

My first thought was how could he not feel the same way when attacking Iraqui troops too.

Because they're trying to kill him?

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[amoeba1911]

recent wars are unjustified.

There's never any justification for slaughtering your brethren or destroying property. There is no victory in war, only degrees of defeat.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[snowgirl]

Indeed, ever notice how such a big deal is made over "civilian" casualties, but soldiers, they almost don't even count. Oh well, 10k soldiers died, but HOLY MOLY! You killed a CIVILIAN!!!

I think I'd make just as bad a soldier as you.

Actually, I'm cool with the differences between civilian and military deaths. Thing is that there are certain people who have consented by Geneva Convention to risk their life in military conflicts. It's the same as boxing. I don't get sad when two boxers fight, and one of them gets beat up. I don't get upset when a football player gets tackled in a football match in a fair play.

I do get upset when a boxer chews another's ear off, because that's not what the other person consented to, and I do get upset if a football player is injured outside of the rules of play.

The whole issue here is consent to harm. A soldier has consented to harm and death, while a civilian has made no such choice. That's why it's reasonable for us to treat their deaths in combat differently. Now, say a group of soldiers step over the line and kill five prisoners of war for no reason at all... the POWs vacated their consent to be killed indiscriminately by laying down arms... they are thus "protected".

It's a sad thing when any human dies, period... however, some people take explicit consent to involve themselves in dangerous activities that may result in their death. If that choice is made willingly, then such be their choice... free-will and self-determination to me is more important than any presumed "sanctity of life".

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Chatsubo]

To all the captains obvious replying... Yes I knew that typing the reply. That is my whole point! No, we shouldn't value the lives of soldiers less because they're "expecting to die". No it's not acceptable just because we've been conditioned to believe it is. The human loss stays just as real, no matter how you prefer to rationalize it.

Ever think think that maybe, had we not put such a low threshold on the value of a soldiers' life, as compared to us normal civilians, that maybe wars wouldn't be fought as easily by the powers that be? In fact, my personal opinion is, those that are in power explicitly lower our perception of a soldiers' worth, or their "expectation to die", or "duty to die" using the terminology and news reporting as stated above, to convince us the loss of human life is acceptable. Would we make a bigger fuss about it to our leaders had we realized the true trauma playing out? No, it's way more comforting to think of soldiers as "volunteers to death" that we can sum up as numbers. What's our number vs theirs? Oh good, theirs is higher, YAY for DEATH! (I'll go out on a karmic limb here and say the opponent's soldier's lives are just as valuable as your sides)

That a soldier is really just a pawn in a game, and expected loss of life calculations don't really reflect the tragedy playing out. If we kill a 100k, and they kill 10k, that's clearly a good thing, go ahead and attack! Right?

I'm also quite sure it's part of a commander's internal rationalization, as much as his populace's, to stop himself from realizing what he's leading his men into.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[kalirion]

You do realise that not so long ago that it was considered normal for soldiers to rape and pillage in conquered lands?

Still happens all over the place, even in the soldiers own lands (see Darfur, Guinea, Sri Lanka, etc.)

And the "civilized" morals change all the time. Not too long ago, it was OK to fire bomb and nuke cities. At some point, slavery was considered just peachy as well.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Bob-taro]

Part of military training is to counter people's natural tendency toward empathy. It's no good asking someone to kill another human being when they view them as the same or similar to themselves. Dehumanisation of the enemy is a fundemental requirement when training an army.

Do you have anything to back up that claim, other than it's plausibility?

Kill for yourself, you're a psycho, a murderer, a blight on society. Kill for your government and you're "our brave boys and girls" and a "hero".

That's a bit of an oversimplification, isn't it? If you take "killing is wrong" as an absolute, then yes, most governments are hypocritical. But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that killing in self defense is justified. War is arguably self-defense on a large scale. I have never been in the military, so I wouldn't know if dehumanization is part of the training. Somehow I don't think it would be necessary. I'm a pretty peaceful person, but if I were thrown into a battlefield with people shooting at me and my buddies, I think shooting back would be a pretty natural response.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[MonsterTrimble]

Indeed, ever notice how such a big deal is made over "civilian" casualties, but soldiers, they almost don't even count. Oh well, 10k soldiers died, but HOLY MOLY! You killed a CIVILIAN!!!

I think I'd make just as bad a soldier as you.

Am I the only one who heard Lewis Black saying this?

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[ShieldW0lf]

Indeed, ever notice how such a big deal is made over "civilian" casualties, but soldiers, they almost don't even count. Oh well, 10k soldiers died, but HOLY MOLY! You killed a CIVILIAN!!!

You don't see a difference between killing someone who is trying to kill you in return, and killing someone who is trying not to get involved?

The big problem with modern war is, the killers come home. If the soldiers who went off to war never came back, we'd be much better off, I think...

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Anonymous Coward]

Reporter: "How do you kill women and children?!"

Soldier: "Easy, I just don't lead them as much."

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Ozlanthos]

Don't want to get shot?...then don't cross my line of fire bitch!

-Oz

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[gad_zuki!]

>A soldier has consented to harm and death, while a civilian has made no such choice.

Historically, soldiers are draftees who server under the penalty of treason, which is traditionally punishable by death. The US's professional military is the exception, not the rule. So when youre shooting Nazis in any of the hundreds of WWII games, you're killing the virtual equivalent of some kid who was drafted by leadership and forced to fight under the penalty of death.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[0xdeadbeef]

Enemy soldiers want to kill you back, and that makes all the difference in the world. No so with civilians or allies.

What is tragic is not that these instincts are natural, they are quite rational when understood in their proper context, but they are exploited by politicians to wage immoral and unnecessary wars. The enemy is the enemy is the enemy, never mind the fact that until some demagogue gave the marching orders, the enemy was just another guy who loves his country and wants to protect his family. Our hostility should be directed toward generals, politicians, and religious leaders, not the guys on the ground.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[dissy]

The whole issue here is consent to harm. A soldier has consented to harm and death, while a civilian has made no such choice.

While your general point is sound, and I even agree, you forgot to take into account that the majority of the soldiers that are in the position to kill or be killed are drafted and also have no choice.

I am from the US, so we are fortunate in that there hasn't been a draft since Vietnam in the 60's, so at least for our soldiers since then you are correct.

Each country goes about drafting differently. A lot of the countries with dictators in control, almost never put their 'higher up' officers in harms way, only the 'grunts' that were drafted (in some cases, drafted right out of bed in the middle of the night at gun point)

Definitely sucks to be those people.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Philip_the_physicist]

The French tried that in Spain during the Peninsular Campaign, and look how well that turned out. Once someone has lost his crops, home, and family, he hasn't got much left to care about, and killing a few of the people that did that to him is going to seem pretty appealing.

The Afghan hill country is ideal for an insurgency, as everyone who has tried to occupy it has discovered. As it is, there is some support for the government and a moderate amount of apathy. If the population was united against the occupiers, they could utterly disrupt ground-based supply lines, by means of sabotage, mines, and direct attacks.

There is a reason we don't use these practices anymore, and that is that they simply aren't effective if you wish to hold the territory.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[screeble]

Wow, an in-context reply with a "Nazi" comparison that doesn't invoke Godwin's Law. I am impressed.

See kids? This is how it's done. Now get off my lawn.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Anonymous Coward]

I *HAVE* been in the military (the U.S. Marine Corps, in a special operations capable expeditionary unit called a "MEUSOC").

Marines are not dehumanized. However, they ARE taught that they are killers. In fact, they are taught that their express PURPOSE is to kill. The speeches given by GySgt Hartman in Full Metal Jacket are actually toned-down versions of the actual speeches our drill instructors give us. The actor who played him, R. Lee Ermey, was once a drill instructor himself.

During rifle training, we are taught that "shots don't count; only hits count" and we are taught to kill with our first shot. Unlike the army, we are taught with competition man-shaped targets on a 500-meter range, and we only make points for hits that would be fatal. (Personal note: I scored 242 / 250 on pre-qual day, and 237/250 on qual day -- I choked under pressure, ha ha).

In a SOC unit, we're taught several ways to kill with our bare hands and with knives. I learned two reliable ways to break a man's neck from behind, two reliable garrotte techniques, and a very reliable knife technique. We learned about booby-traps, too; ironically this was done in our geneva conventions class.

That class was a hoot. The instructor was a Panama veteran. He'd say things like "It is against the Geneva Convention to cut two notches in the end of your rifle rounds, using a small hacksaw, because the bullet may fragment and the copper jacket may come off in your target. You shouldn't cut the notches you see in this diagram, for example. " (everyone was busily writing in their notebooks, of course, with some asking questions like "and how deep are those notches we won't be cutting?").

It's not about "dehumanization". You civilians just have NO IDEA. We're taught that killing is our purpose, unlike those sissy army fags who do all that humanitarian crap. We're taught that fighting is FUN. Beating the crap out of a bunch of guys in a bar is a great Saturday night.

Did you know we're not allowed in the bars on air force bases? At least we weren't when I was in. And the army isn't too comfortable with us around either. I heard a story from an Army medic, who said that two marines came into his base enlisted club and got into a fight with a handful of army dogs. They beat the tar out of them; more army showed up. They beat them too. Eventually the army staff won, but only through force of numbers. The medic told me he never knew why people thought we were so tough until that night; he said "you guys are just plain nuts, and I mean that as a compliment".

So, anyway... Now you know.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, say a group of soldiers step over the line and kill five prisoners of war for no reason at all... the POWs vacated their consent to be killed indiscriminately by laying down arms... they are thus "protected".

Yes, generally POW's are protected. However there are some circumstances where they are not protected, but those are fairly rare.

1) Escape. POW's attempting escape can be shot.

2) Violating the white flag. If a group of soldiers gets the bright idea to pretend to surrender as a ruse and then attacks after having pretended to surrender they are no longer protected if they should actually surrender afterward. Soldiers acting in such a manner can be slain out of hand.

3) Those who slaughter prisoners themselves can expect to be slain if they surrender or are captured. While this is not legal, as the above two cases are, it happens but no one is really going to make a stink about it in any case. One well known example being the Malmedy Massacre. When word of this spread among American troops it was understood that SS troops would not be taken prisoner.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[LWATCDR]

No your probably incorrect. You are no differn't than the vast majority of people that have served the military from the beginning of time. You would probably do exactly what they did and still do in that situation.
My Uncle was the kindest man you would ever want to meet. He got my home town it's first hosptial and they still name a wing after him. He used to throw cook outs for his block and 40 or 50 of his closest friends would come.
He also had a scare from where his watch branded him. His tank was hit in WWII and his watch got so hot it left a burn scare on his wrist.
He was reported killed in action twice in. He had a lot of metals and helped liberate one of the Nazi death camps.
You are not any more enlighted or better than the average GI that can go out and kill. You just have not been forced to because you are sitting safe at your PC feeling smug.
BTW killing for most solders isn't easy they do it because the have too and often pay a price for it for the rest of their lives. That is why you don't send solders into combat for stupid reasons, what they have to do is the reason why we get sit safe at home.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[steelfood]

War's a pretty nasty thing all around. Morals blur in wartime. It's why so many soldiers come out with PTSD. It's not a sane thing, for a person to willingly kill another person.

There is no humanity in warfare. War is humanity as its ugliest, basest, most primal state. We like to think we are better than that, that we are capable of reason, but war is proof that we are not. There is no excuse for killing, because the act isn't excusable. Killing a soldier is no different from killing a civilian. We've used reasoning to convince ourselves otherwise, but I don't think that justification holds up internally.

Even in self defense, it's a terrible thing. Self defense is post-justification. Nobody sane uses it to justify killing beforehand. Yet, that's exactly what soldiers do. They're asked to justify killing the enemy soldiers before actually killing them, but it doesn't make sense to our innate humanity. After all, how can somebody who hasn't made any threatening motions (even if they're carrying a weapon) be threatening?

Various cultures historically have used different means to overcome this hurdle. In particular, the most common thing to do is to paoint the enemy has subhuman, so therefore killing the enemy isn't actually killing another person. In the process, the soldiers subject to this conditioning see everybody on the other side, civilian or military, as less than human, and treats them as such.

And I haven't even begun to talk about when civilian and military lines start blurring a la guerrilla warfare.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[BradleyAndersen]

No Sir!

While I would have a hard time killing someone in the context of a war, that same guy comes to my house in the middle of the night, and goes near my children's bedroom, there will be no ifs-, ands- or buts- only a gut reaction which will result in that man unable to walk out of my house -- if he's lucky enough to survive the hail of gun fire.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Monsuco]

My first thought was how could he not feel the same way when attacking Iraqui troops too.

Simple, the Iraqi troops were enemies fighting his forces. He attacked allied forces accidentally. Many of the Iraqi forces who did not want to fight simply surrendered (so much so that by the end of the invasion, the coalition forces started to just simply disarm, document, and release the lower ranking surrendering forces since they had run out of space for prisoners). A belligerent group can have force used on it, an allied force, a surrendering force, or a non-combatant group cannot. Accidents will occur, but there is a big difference between harming those who are fighting you and harming an innocent.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Chatsubo]

There's a circular reasoning to it too. It's okay for me to kill them, because they're going to kill me. And they're OK with killing me, because I'm going to kill them.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Anonymous Coward]

> you're killing the virtual equivalent of some kid who was drafted by leadership and forced to fight under the penalty of death.

I think for most people the background history is not so important as 'this guy is standing around with a gun and WILL kill me whether he's a draftee or a volunteer'. A 'his-life-or-mine' situation is still his life or mine whether one, both, or neither of us are draftees.

Now if the game was, "here's poor Hans, he got his draft notice in the mail today. Fitfully he sleeps, having bad dreams about the uncertain future. Mission screen: sneak into Hans house tonight and stab him in the face!" I'd expect that one to bother people. If the game were about bombing Dresden, I'd expect it to bother people. But the enemy AI in today's WW2 games generally don't have second thoughts about national socialism and the morality of man killing man, stare longingly at the photo of Helga back home, and go deserter the day before the mission starts; they stand there and try to kill you.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Anonymous Coward]

German troops in WW2 had families, too. Many of them only joined the Nazi party through intimidation. Was that war also unjustified, for those reasons?

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[mjwx]

Historically, soldiers are draftees who server under the penalty of treason, which is traditionally punishable by death. The US's professional military is the exception, not the rule. So when youre shooting Nazis in any of the hundreds of WWII games, you're killing the virtual equivalent of some kid who was drafted by leadership and forced to fight under the penalty of death.

In a "total war" as Clausewitz's described it (der totale kreig) a Civilian is just as relevant a target as a soldier. Remember that in WWII the allies bombed as indiscriminately as the Axis powers, in some ways we were worse in dropping White Phosphorous and Incendiary bombs over German and Japanese cities, the Japanese cities being mainly built of wood were extremely vulnerable to this (and Allied command knew this). Factories filled with civilians were perfectly valid targets by both sides, more bombs fell onto places like Dresden and Canary Wharf then onto actual military hardware but that is the nature of total war.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[mjwx]

You do realise that not so long ago that it was considered normal for soldiers to rape and pillage in conquered lands? Indeed, some have suggested that the coalition's failure to carry out reprisals (e.g. decimation) on civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan suspected of sheltering guerillas is one of the reasons why the insurgents continue to receive popular support there.

Not always and for European powers (lets include the US in this as well) this was not the norm for the last 300 years. War has been "Civilised".

External military powers have never been successful as suppressing a population no matter how many troops they throw at them. The most successful conquers seduced the people by other means, Alexander the Great married his generals off to Turkish and Persian women when they conquered Anatolia and Persia, Julius Caesar went about educating the local tribes in Latin and bringing the culture of Rome to outing provinces, the British set up trade routes bringing wealth and luxuries with them. Lets compare this Strong military conquers, the Mongols got further into Europe then any European got into Asia but their power faded as soon as Genghis Khan died, the Huns managed to sack Rome and made all of Europe fear them but suffered the same fate as the Mongols when Attila died.

There is a point to my rambling, this can easily be summed up in Sun Tzu's fifth and most important key to victory.

4. The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.

Now in order to exert your will over a foreign people you need to gain their support over their local leaders, to be the "sovereign that is imbued with the moral law". You do not do this by oppressing the people as the Mongols or Huns but make your self appear that you are working in the best interest of the people (or actual acting in this fashion would be better). The US killed this advantage in Afghanistan when it went gallivanting around in Iraq where it was impossible for the US to gain this advantage.

Carrying out reprisals on the Afghan population will only give the moral law to the other side thus driving more people to rally against your cause as this is the way that the Taliban paints the US, as warmongers and degenerates. In order to gain the support of the Afghan people we must prove them wrong, more must be done to increase their quality of life in accordance to their wishes, not to force US law upon the Afghans.

We could try marrying off General Petreus to an Afghan woman, but what have the Afghans done to deserve that.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, a hippie.

Will someone give this guy a bag of weed and a guitar so he can get out of here?

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[snowgirl]

I'm aware of the forfeiting of POW protections. That's why I said, "with no reason." Surprisingly, while an escaping POW may be shot, some countries actually impose a duty to escape, in fact it's specifically written that a soldier should attempt to escape whenever possible.

The third point you raise actually can be considered legal, as the Geneva Convention allows an out for people who violate the convention. That is, that when fighting against an enemy that does not adhere to the Geneva Convention one need not necessarily be bound by the Geneva Convention if doing so would be excessively disadvantagous.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Lunzo]

Most of your post didn't surprise me AC. I'd expect marines to be killing and fighting machines. What did shock me was the following comment:

That class was a hoot. The instructor was a Panama veteran. He'd say things like "It is against the Geneva Convention to cut two notches in the end of your rifle rounds, using a small hacksaw, because the bullet may fragment and the copper jacket may come off in your target. You shouldn't cut the notches you see in this diagram, for example. " (everyone was busily writing in their notebooks, of course, with some asking questions like "and how deep are those notches we won't be cutting?").

I'm not surprised that you're encouraged to flout the Geneva convention in this area, more annoyed that command tacitly encourage it. From what I've heard the Australian army is similar. Widespread "manufacturing flaws" *wink* mean that many of their bullets have air pockets in the tips - which is also banned under the Geneva convention. Because their "intention" was to make solid bullets they claim they can get away with it.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[X0563511]

As well, a base component of basic training is to train those responses down/out, so that you can perform your roll as a soldier properly.

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Anonymous Coward]

scare -> scar
metals -> medals

It's not pedantic if your just using the wrong words!

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[rdnetto]

But the enemy AI in today's WW2 games generally don't have second thoughts about national socialism and the morality of man killing man, stare longingly at the photo of Helga back home, and go deserter the day before the mission starts; they stand there and try to kill you.

That sounds like an idea for a really good game...

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, in real war if your position is overrun, remorse is the last thing you'll be feeling...

Re:Bad feelings about killing teammates

[Chrisq]

recent wars are unjustified.

There's never any justification for slaughtering your brethren or destroying property. There is no victory in war, only degrees of defeat.

In the case of WW2 with someone invading potentially the whole of Europe and then exterminating Jews and others I think it was justified. If this happened I would probably volunteer for the medical corps, if you believe that a war is right you should be prepared to put your life at risk as well as others but I would find killing someone myself very difficult.

Fist-Pumping competition?

[Darbacour]

Nowadays, there too many jocks passing themselves off as "Gamers"

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[Phoe6]

Not to mention, how many of them are passing themselves off as "Researchers" doing interesting research on those "Gamers".

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[CarpetShark]

I think you mean that there are too many nerd gamers fantasising about being violent jocks.

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[RobotRunAmok]

Nowadays, there too many jocks passing themselves off as "Gamers"

Huh? Aren't games based on pro sports among the most popular/best-selling video game categories? Would it not stand to reason that the more detailed and realistic these games become, the more interest they will hold for people who play the games in real life?

And come on, let's face it... what does it take, really, to "pass oneself off as a gamer"? Videogames -- and especially casual video games -- have become a multi-billion dollar industry. It's not like it's 1978 and you're meeting in your friend's basement to toss around 20-sided dice; entire Hollywood movie franchises are being built around videogame characters. Face it -- it ain't geekery anymore, it's mainstream... just like pro sports.

But a nerd trying to pass himself off as a jock... Now, That's Entertainment!

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[pjt33]

Would it not stand to reason that the more detailed and realistic these games become, the more interest they will hold for people who play the games in real life?

No. It's at least as reasonable to expect an uncanny valley effect whereby the more realistic the game becomes, the more its unrealistic aspects jar for people who are familiar with it in real life.

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right. The geek/nerd types are some of the most aggressive raving douchebags on the Internet.

I wish I could find that cartoon of the "regular guy" who becomes a lunatic asshole when put in an anonymous situation.

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

As drawn by Penny Arcade: Gabriel's GIFT

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[Steauengeglase]

I was thinking 11-15 year olds living their revenge fantasies.

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like it's 1978 and you're meeting in your friend's basement to toss around 20-sided dice

Speak for yourself.

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[denzacar]

Huh? Aren't games based on pro sports among the most popular/best-selling video game categories? Would it not stand to reason that the more detailed and realistic these games become, the more interest they will hold for people who play the games in real life?

And come on, let's face it... what does it take, really, to "pass oneself off as a gamer"? Videogames -- and especially casual video games -- have become a multi-billion dollar industry. It's not like it's 1978 and you're meeting in your friend's basement to toss around 20-sided dice; entire Hollywood movie franchises are being built around videogame characters. Face it -- it ain't geekery anymore, it's mainstream... just like pro sports.

I've got two words for you: VG and Cats.

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[Kelbear]

Gaming has become more ubiquitous. The title of gamer isn't reserved for pale, lonesome, sickly youths anymore. Everybody's dabbled in games a little bit, some more than others.

And really, since most gamers are 20-30, they're well past the high-school clique classifications. Unless they happen to be one of the few people on a college's sports team, they're probably just another faceless student in the crowd. And in that mass of people, plenty of them make use of the gym in anonymity. The relationship between gaming and athleticism is far weaker than it used to be.

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[ildon]

Eh? I've been playing team-based FPS games since Quake deathmatch in 1996. We took the games seriously enough. Am I a jock now?

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

if this were true, we wouldn't be seeing the mass dumbing down of both gaming 'culture' and the games themselves. This implies that there is a difference between being a gamer and simply owning a console and some sports titles.

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[X0563511]

No, I think we are called dicks now. Dick - DIgital joCK.

Re:Fist-Pumping competition?

[ildon]

Disappointingly unfunny.

It's True!

[dohzer]

I always wondered why I am like that in games.
Time to go grief some more noobs on CS:S.

At least...

[tacarat]

... they infer there have been studies about this regarding male interaction with strangers in other situations (war and sports). I'm curious how the results would have changed if they couldn't have heard their opponents at all. Or perhaps a different game. A PvP situation in an MMO? Maybe hardcore Tetris action. Either way, it's curious if they can work on harnessing these responses as part of a planned anger therapy or some such. Blow off steam nuking folks online to be civil IRL.

Re:At least...

[X0563511]

Blow off steam nuking folks online to be civil IRL.

Lots of us already do that... no need to make it planned.

That said, I do it in ArmA2, which is a lot closer to warfare than that shit like Halo.

Correlation, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'd really like to know is whether the surge of testosterone comes from actually killing someone who isn't a friend, or because you're playing against a relative unknown and you, on winning, gain elation at being greater skilled than them. Perhaps, against friends, people can't really feel they've outplayed them so they don't feel the elation.

Yet when team members played one another, the highest-ranking males tended to produce less testosterone than their defeated teammates.

A real interesting thing would be if one of these testosterone on kill guys gain godmode or play against incredibly dumb bots. See if the fact that it's basically shooting fish in a barrel will cause the testosterone surge to be repressed. It could just be the highest rankers just know exactly how to play against their former compatriots so they don't feel it's much of a challenge thus giving them less testosterone on kills.

Not where i come from

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, when competing against friends or relatives to establish social hierarchy, annihilation doesn't make sense. 'You can't alienate your in-group partners, because you need them,' he says.""

No I beg to differ!! annihilation will show them who is boss!

Remember

[acehole]

strangers give the best candy.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

The kind from vans?

Hold on there...

[GradiusCVK]

I think the conclusions they reached are pretty obvious, but of course "obvious" does not mean "scientifically valid", and I'm finding myself somewhat put off by their methodology here... rather than testing new variables as you suggest, I'd like them to start by eliminating the biggest confounding variable I noticed: is it possible they've just shown that victory as part of a team results in different testosterone levels than victory as an individual? WHY would they mix in such an obvious factor?!? How hard is it to just test both scenarios as 1v1... shooting your friend in the face vs. shooting some stranger in the face.

Re:Hold on there...

[tacarat]

Well, maybe they'll use this study in the next grant application to demonstrate the need to investigate the other variables.

Re:AArgh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm suspicious that the researches doing these studies purposely don't bring up the correlation =/= causation thing because that might lower their pay packets.

Sample Bias?

[TheRaven64]

It sounds like they are counting gamers as 'people who play games online' which naturally biases the sample towards people who enjoy beating strangers. I enjoyed LAN gaming a lot, but never got in to online FPS games because beating some random person who may or may not be a bot (or using various cheats) didn't seem as satisfying as beating someone in the same room (and, conversely, being shot by someone in the same room gave you a chance to express disbelief at their skill, or complain about their camping tactics). People who had the same reaction as me would not have been counted as 'gamers' for this study.

Re:Sample Bias?

[Sparx139]

Why is this funny? Did a mod mis-click, or am I missing the joke?
I have to agree with you. And being able to hit the person next to you for being an asshole (team killing for weapons, etc. The sort of thing that gets you killed and teabagged by everyone else in the game) is another bonus.

Re:Sample Bias?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need XBOX live. Then you can complain to your opponents to your heart's content... at the same time that you hear a 12-year old whine about "nigger faggots". I fear for the future generations. :(

I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how long until we find this study (mis)quoted in another of those 'Video Games Turn Innocent Children Into Violent Killers!' type articles.

Why do so many people...?

[interactive_civilian]

Can I be the first to say:!*(&^$*&^@!(&*)%&*)%&*1!@&
For the love of DEITY$ when will researchers stop doing stupid research!

Am I the only one that hopes you are also the last to say that? You know, for a "News for Nerds" site, there seem to be quite a few people who pop up for stories like this that seem to be against research for the sake of research. You'd think such a thing would be valued on this site. These are people trying to figure out what makes human beings tick, and this research seems to be showing a correlation between the intensity of an unconscious physiological response (hormonal, in this case) to nearly identical behavior (i.e. the game) in differing social situations. That may not be a big deal to you, and in the long run it may turn out to be a very small thing in our understanding, but it still helps to expand our body of knowledge and possibly provide directions to be looking in future research. How can you call such a thing "stupid"?

And here I thought nerds were the type of people who would support the seeking of knowledge and the establishment of data. :-/

Re:Why do so many people...?

[purpledinoz]

I think this research is actually quite interesting. It shows that our aggression is different towards people we are close to vs people who we don't know. This has implications in real warfare.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[Jurily]

And here I thought nerds were the type of people who would support the seeking of knowledge and the establishment of data. :-/

Knowledge, yes. Data, no. Data is something you'll lose if you don't have backup. Knowledge is information you can use to obtain more knowledge or useful things. We don't need research to tell us what we already know, we need research to tell us new things.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

And here I thought nerds were the type of people who would support the seeking of knowledge and the establishment of data. :-/

We do, but this study is neither.

This is a pop/junk science questionnaire with only the filmiest pretense of rigor. Remember, people in the soft "sciences" cannot simply make claims and dress them up with rhetorical argument anymore. They have to be "scientific". This means that they dress up in white coats, conduct "studies" and present a few graphs, equations and/or statistics(Once again see . Apparently, this is enough to convince some that they are in fact contributing usefully to human knowledge. However, in almost all cases, you will find that these studies are politically or ideologically motivated and funded, with the intent to push or "prove" a point of view.

This study has successfully managed to push the point of view that "gamers are aggressive to strangers". This is what is being reported on Slashdot and countless other sites. Do you imagine that the author's are ignorant of this? Do you imagine that they will seek to correct this "misconception". I doubt it. I imagine the entire purpose of the study, from its inception, was to denounce and mischaracterise people who play video games. See how anti-social they are? They are meaner to strangers. This was more than likely the ultimate aim of the study.

Look who conducted this study. And evolutionary psychologist. People who spend their time coming up with all manner of ridiculous rationalisations for how we have "evolved" our various cultural behaviors; a premise logically flawed from its very outset. They are among the worst kind of cargo-cultists, debasing and perverting scientific methods in an effort to gain legitimacy for a field of study on par with phrenology. Sometimes I think that if phrenology has been discovered today, it would likewise be an accepted "scientific" practice.

Granting legitimacy to these people simply because they throw out a smattering of statistics is no better than doing so because they wore a white lab coat. This isn't science. It's science theater. A pantomime whose aim is convince the onlooker that rigor is being applied to the study, not to obtain rigor itself. The lay public is smarter than they are given credit for and legitimizing these studies damages public support for science is the long term. If we ask people to accept junk as science, then we shouldn't be surprised when they conclude that all science is junk.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[interactive_civilian]

Knowledge, yes. Data, no. Data is something you'll lose if you don't have backup. Knowledge is information you can use to obtain more knowledge or useful things. We don't need research to tell us what we already know, we need research to tell us new things.

You cannot do science without data, and by data, I very specifically mean empirical observation. Anecdote has never been and will never be the singular of data. Common knowledge should never be mistaken for data unless it has empirical backing.

As for not needing research to tell us what we already know, I'm sure people said the same thing when Galileo took a heavy object and a ligher object up the tower of Pisa to drop them: "Look, Galileo. This is obvious. We know this. A heavier thing will fall faster than a lighter thing. Why are you wasting your time?" The history of science is filled with people seeking data to show empirically what we "already know" and then finding that what we "knew" was wrong.

I'm sorry if it bothers you or if you think it slows our progress or wastes our time, but we simply cannot draw scientific conclusions or increase scientific knowledge without DATA. Even for things that are "obvious" or things that we "already know".

Re:Why do so many people...?

[boaworm]

I guess that the OP simply thought this should be bleeding obvious to everyone, even without actually doing any research. The alternative/inverse would be that we are as likely to do harm to our beloved/friends as to a complete stranger, and that you "bond" tighter with friends than with strangers.

The Swedish king Karl XI has this figured out already in the 17th century when he organised his forces so that people would fight side-by-side with brothers, cousins and people from the same region as you are from. This improved morale and made people less likely to flee the battlefield as you knew you could depend on, and wanted to support loved ones.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[interactive_civilian]

Wow. Did we read the same article and same abstract? (I admit I have not read the full study because I don't have access to the full text of the paper -- if anyone has access and wants to email it to me, I'd appreciate it) Because you are drawing conclusions that I didn't see, aside from the crap opening paragraph of the article (and I hate how NewScientist often does that -- it's like they are catering to be posted on Fark or something). The talk of the research itself suggested no such thing as "Gamers are mean to strangers", at least based on the abstract. What it seemed to show is that gamers appear to show an increased testosterone response, which may be tied to aggression, when *competing* with strangers. I.e. Gamers are more aggressive in their competition with strangers than with friends and acquaintances. I'm not sure how you or anyone else draws the general conclusion that "gamers are aggressive to strangers" from that, but the authors of the original paper do not appear to draw anything of the sort.

It's interesting how different people draw different conclusions from the same information. If only there were some field of study which might address this. But, no, I guess we have to ignore because it isn't hard science. :-/

Disclaimer: yes, I understand that psychology is often "soft" science and doesn't always have an empirical basis. I also think that people who actually do research in psychology understand this and make their conclusions that much more tentative (remember: all scientific conclusions are tentative). However, to equate it with pseudo-science is a disservice, and with advances in neurology, psychology is getting closer and closer to completely "hard" science every day. In the meantime, those who are studying it do the best they can with the means they have available.

Disclaimer 2: I am not a psychologist. I am a marine biologist with a general interest in all science.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[bluesatin]

I can imagine it's something that's hard-wired into us as living animals, think of it like this:
If you take advantage of someone you know (and will see again), it is likely that it will come back to bite you in the future.

While if you take advantage of someone you will never see again, there will probably be no consequences in the future.

An infinitely better explanation can be seen by Richard Hawkins in 'Nice Guys Finish First': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6rgWzYRXiI

Re:Why do so many people...?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

However, to equate it with pseudo-science is a disservice, and with advances in neurology, psychology is getting closer and closer to completely "hard" science every day.

I disagree. I have seen no reason to believe that any of those professions have made any progress whatsoever towards rigor and objectiveness. In fact, they've probably moved even farther into the depths of pseudoscience as time has gone by. Sloppy studies are still with us, and the softer sciences have done little and less to deal with them.

Ask yourself; how did intelligent design manage to convince so many people that it was a legitimate scientific discipline for so long? The answer is not to be found in fancy PR campaigns, prominent proponents or actual studies done. The truth is, it managed to masquerade as a science for so long because that's just how low the bar for modern science has sunk. This is the path we have set for our society, and when the homeopaths and astrologers start showing up in university departments we will have only ourselves to blame.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[Don_dumb]

The Swedish king Karl XI has this figured out already in the 17th century when he organised his forces so that people would fight side-by-side with brothers, cousins and people from the same region as you are from. This improved morale and made people less likely to flee the battlefield as you knew you could depend on, and wanted to support loved ones.

That's interesting because the British did a similar thing in World War one and it proved to be a disaster. Men from the same communities were encouraged to join up together, in the same regiments, called "The Pals" I believe. The problem was that they were posted to the same parts of the front line. While they got to spend time with their close friends, they all went over the top together and thus an entire village could lose all of its men between the ages of 17-40 in the space of one minute.
This I guess is illustrative of something else that had changed in warfare by 1914.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[Ma8thew]

In much the same way, before we were sequencing DNA, scientists 'knew' that humans had the most DNA, because we're 'clearly the most complex species'. After being sequenced, it turns out we have less bases than rice.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[snowgirl]

I guess that the OP simply thought this should be bleeding obvious to everyone, even without actually doing any research. The alternative/inverse would be that we are as likely to do harm to our beloved/friends as to a complete stranger, and that you "bond" tighter with friends than with strangers.

The Swedish king Karl XI has this figured out already in the 17th century when he organised his forces so that people would fight side-by-side with brothers, cousins and people from the same region as you are from. This improved morale and made people less likely to flee the battlefield as you knew you could depend on, and wanted to support loved ones.

The working into our knowledge is intuitive and obvious... however the actual physiological effect is much more interesting. Explaining WHY and HOW we avoid killing our kinfolk is way cooler than simply knowing that we don't... we've know about that ever since Glug got his first testosterone rush from defending his tribe from Grib.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[snowgirl]

I read an interesting piece somewhere about how a truly skeptical physicist should always be looking up when dropping something, because if the object falls down, then it's boring meaningless data, but if the ball falls up... then that's important.

Like you said... we're full of experiments that prove the nonobvious against the obvious. But even more so... we knew that genetic material was passed from parent to offspring for a long time, but when we found DNA, we learned the mechanism.

This research points out the MECHANISM by which something that we know to be obvious works. I find it as fascinating as DNA.

Of course, now I may just be a girl, and thus interested in the mechanics of social interaction... but I can't believe that boy geeks and nerds have been so abjectly turned off to social mechanics that they don't want to learn about how it works. Here we are, a subculture of people who love to pull things apart and see how they work... but we don't want to pull apart the ephemeral and latch it into concrete physiological responses?

That seems anathema to me...

Re:Why do so many people...?

[LabRat007]

>

The Swedish king Karl XI has this figured out already in the 17th century when he organised his forces so that people would fight side-by-side with brothers, cousins and people from the same region as you are from. This improved morale and made people less likely to flee the battlefield as you knew you could depend on, and wanted to support loved ones.

Gays in the military is sounding like a good idea. Retreat!? We can't abandon Fernando!! I LOOOVES him!

Re:Why do so many people...?

[BobMcD]

Gays in the military is sounding like a good idea. Retreat!? We can't abandon Fernando!! I LOOOVES him!

You don't know how right you are. Except romantic love relationships often end badly. From the divorce rate I'd surmise they end that way more often than not.

The modern military instead instills other kinds of love: brotherhood, patriotism, and pride.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[misexistentialist]

Everyone has a lot more empirical experience of human behavior than of DNA molecules. Those "scientists" making claims about human complexity were analogous to the "doctors" who bled disease out of patients. They were frauds, and not much worse than "psychologists" who test theories that obscure rather than clarify our understanding.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

The problem you point out is more a social problem felt back home than a fundamental failing of the unit. It sucks that a village would become essential broken when that happens, but are you pointing out any flaws with the units themselves?

Re:Why do so many people...?

[Ma8thew]

Empirical experience? You mean anecdotes?

Re:Why do so many people...?

[Don_dumb]

No perhaps not. It was difficult to guage how effective units were or not. As it didn't really matter how effective the units were being as they were walking towards machine guns.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[LWATCDR]

Actually I find this very interesting.
I wounder if domestic violence might be caused by a failure of this? Or bullies?
Or could being the victim of domestic violence cause a failure of this mechanism which then caused domestic violence to propagate in families?

Re:Why do so many people...?

[earthbound kid]

I wish I had mod points now to mod you up. For those following at home: evolution - science; evolutionary psychology - pseudo-science.

Evo Psych is about how our "natural" responses today are caused by the ancestral environment. How do we know about the ancestral environment? Simple, we study our natural responses today. It's totally circular.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[Saysys]

The problem with what you are saying is that there are often multiple "bleeding obvious" answers to a question.

So, yes, a lot of basic research seems like a "I already knew that" conclusion, but the truth is that "common sense" often cuts both ways.

I like your observation of history, taking historical information and adding it to empirical observation is a great way to cross-validate a study... but it does not mean that the original study is without merit.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[Anonymous Coward]

this should be bleeding obvious to everyone, even without actually doing any research.

Is it even really necessary to explain that this statement is an outright rejection of the very concept of science?

Re:Why do so many people...?

[Kelbear]

More importantly, it doesn't matter if the slashdotter thinks it's "obvious". The scientific method isn't waived aside because someone thinks the information is "obvious". It still needs either a proof or a proper study. Plenty of "obvious" facts turn out to be wrong after someone takes the time to check if it's fact or fiction.

Re:Why do so many people...?

[mujadaddy]

Actually I find this very interesting. I wounder if domestic violence might be caused by a failure of this? Or bullies? Or could being the victim of domestic violence cause a failure of this mechanism which then caused domestic violence to propagate in families?

So you're saying that wife-swapping leads to a reduction in wife-beating? I'll buy that. Where is your research published?

Re:Why do so many people...?

[Mab_Mass]

I guess that the OP simply thought this should be bleeding obvious to everyone, even without actually doing any research.

The trouble is that until you have shown a controlled study, it isn't science. All you have is something that a lot of people think is true. Then, if you want to expand on the study to find something more interesting, such as how far different bonds of attachment protect against aggression and the level of familiarity needed to protect against aggression, it is possible for the scientists to point to this study as the beginning of that work.

It may seem like a dumb, obvious result, but sometimes being disciplined with science requires double-checking the basics before launching into a larger, more interesting study.

Anthropological endocrinology?

[interactive_civilian]

And psychologists and endocrinologists are responding to that by saying, "If you knew this, then show us the data you have correlating testosterone response to a near identical stimulus in varying social situations."

I wasn't aware that there were people out there studying anthropological endocrinology. Feel free to link to the studies upon which they base their knowledge. Because otherwise, this "common knowledge" had not yet been established as data, and history shows many examples of common knowledge failing in light of actual empirical observation.

Even if this particular study isn't complete or perfect (I haven't read the actual paper, but only the abstract, so I cannot say), it is a start at establishing data and helping us gain an empirical understanding of how we function.

Re:Anthropological endocrinology?

[mikael_j]

I suspect that while no one has studied gamers for this reason before there have likely been studies showing that among many mammals (including humans) these responses exist in similar situations, just not when playing WoW/Quake/CS/Whatever, and I believe this is what's making everyone "How is this news?".

/Mikael

Re:Anthropological endocrinology?

[thisnamestoolong]

It is still useful to test to see if the same response happens in a different situation. This further establishes the manner in which our brain responds to different stimuli, and again shows that our brain has a degree of difficulty in determining the difference between things actually happening in the real world, and bits of colored light on a screen.

Call it useless all you want, but science thrives on testing every possible angle so as to extract the maximum amount of truth from reality. There have been numerous times in science where things differed greatly from the expectation -- the double slit experiment is a great example of this.

It would have been extremely easy to say that particles behave as waves, end of story, and that obviously our observations will have no impact on it. When we decided to observe the particles as they passed through the slits, however, we discovered that they behaved as point particles again.

Re:Anthropological endocrinology?

[T Murphy]

Slashdot should hire you and the parent to make similar posts every time a study-related story is posted so people might catch on faster.

Re:Anthropological endocrinology?

[mikael_j]

It seems you're assuming that I'm one of those "stop wasting money on pointless research" nutjobs, I'm not.

All I'm saying is that this isn't really news, and it sure isn't "news for nerds" just because the research involved video games. I'm actually fairly certain that, just like with lots of other seemingly boring and uninteresting research projects, these results will be very useful to a small set of researchers but it just isn't very newsworthy (there are tons of studies like this where the results are basically "yup, just as we expected from previous research" and I for one would rather hear about exciting basic research that could be described as "Controversial theory regarding the formation of stars shown to be accurate" but instead we get "psychologists get further proof of previous theory holding water, also here's a story about a phone that you can water your plants with!").

/Mikael (a bit cynical about science/geek news lately)

Re:Anthropological endocrinology?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no no. The GP did not say "anthropologists," he clearly said "anthropogists." These are people who want anthropomorphic waxed cardboard lid guards.

And these people are clearly hostile to strangers, often throwing their pogs at visitors, presenting and shrieking at visitors in an attempt to establish their dominance of their territory.

Gamers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gamers are people without survival instincts... The evolution will catch these guys sooner or later

Re:Gamers...

[Datamonstar]

Yeah, whatever... Take a group of seasoned Pen & Paper gamers and they'll fuck you up with a 10-foot pole and 50 feet of rope.

Internet tough guy

[Anonymous Coward]

http://205.158.108.67/stuff/toughguy_magazine.jpg

Without fear of a retorting beatdown, people get all aggressive. ... jerks

That is why...

[v(*_*)vvvv]

If every soldier got to personally know their enemy, there would be no war.

The lack of communication, and the alienation and dehumanization of the foe are what justifies violent recourse. If only saddam hussein hadn't denied Bush's friend request on facebook...

Re:That is why...

[Firemouth]

Even if soldiers knew their enemy, there would still be war. Soldiers aren't necessarily the ones who decide to fight. Case in point, the American civil war. Families were split on the issues and consequently were on opposite sides of the war when war broke out.

Re:That is why...

[dreamchaser]

Sorry but that's just utter BS. History is filled with examples of people who knew each other going to war against each other. The US Civil War is one good example, as is almost every other Civil War in history. The American Revolution is another. Knowing someone doesn't mean you won't kill them if you are given the chance and situation to do so.

Re:That is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

bah, dueling says otherwise. I know that if it were legal, there are at least 3 people I'd have already challenged. As it is, I had to find other outlets to express my displeasure.....

Re:That is why...

[Nidi62]

Do you know Germany's largest trading partner prior to WWII? How about Japan's? A lot of times, being closer to your enemy just makes you the first target.

Re:That is why...

[solkimera]

And they also say wars between brothers are the bloodiest. Mostly refering to civil wars. They, after all, know most about you, can hit you where it hurts most

Re:That is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

How are civil wars an example for this? Do you know everyone in your country? I certainly don't. I could fight in a war against the next town and never meet an enemy soldier I knew, let alone a war against different parts of the country hundreds of miles away.

Re:That is why...

[simoncpu was here]

Sorry but that's just utter BS. History is filled with examples of people who knew each other going to war against each other:

• Professor Charles Xavier vs. Magneto
• Spiderman vs. Green Goblin
• Superman vs. Lex Luthor
• Batman vs. Catwoman
• Peter Petrelli vs. Sylar
• God vs. Lucifer

Knowing someone doesn't mean you won't kill them if you are given the chance and situation to do so.

Re:That is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the talk of brothers fighting, most soldiers in the civil war didn't know very many people on the other side. In the case of smaller civil wars, it's often that you know them, but you have specifically relegated them to an out-group. Like Democrats vs Republicans.

Re:That is why...

[ZarathustraDK]

Mmm...if those examples are representative of what you truly believe, then I don't "history" means what you think it means.

Re:That is why...

[T Murphy]

There are many stories of soldiers on both sides of the American civil war putting down their guns on Christmas and socializing, just to go back to killing each other the next day. You don't have to know the person as an individual- if you connect culturally you already know them fairly well without having to talk to him.

Re:That is why...

[operagost]

whoosh

Re:That is why...

[amplt1337]

I find it highly unlikely that every soldier in the Confederate Army knew every Union soldier personally.
Obviously, people kill close relatives and loved ones all the time, so familiarity is not sufficient to prevent killing; but it's psychologically a lot more difficult. I've heard (though anecdotally) that in still-existing hunter-gatherer societies, when people encounter strangers, they sit down and try to figure out whether or not they're related and in what way, to decide if they're going to kill each other...

Re:That is why...

[idontgno]

Not just the American Civil War.

World War I, too.

Even with a degree of shared cultural heritage (such as a common religious holiday), soldiers will eventually resume trying to slaughter each other, because that's the primary* way out of the hell of war, win or lose.

*Yeah, "primary", not "only", regardless of what The Brass says. You could desert, but that's pretty traumatic. You could kill yourself, by your own hand or by "suicide by enemy action", but self-destruction is extreme. You could surrender, but a lot of peer pressure is on you to not weaken your team (element, platoon, etc.) by quitting, plus the uncertainties of being a POW in modern warfare.

Re:That is why...

[CrimsonAvenger]

There are many stories of soldiers on both sides of the American civil war putting down their guns on Christmas and socializing, just to go back to killing each other the next day. You don't have to know the person as an individual- if you connect culturally you already know them fairly well without having to talk to him.

World War One as well. The events of Christmas 1914 are something everyone should read about, if you'd like to know more about the nature of humans and war.

Re:That is why...

[steelfood]

There is knowing someone, and then there is knowing of someone. GP is talking about the former, you are talking about the latter.

Knowing a person gives that person's existence value to you. Prior to knowing that person, their existence has no value. Even knowing of that person gives no value, as your only exposure is through anecdotes and stories. But once you've been exposed, and that person has likewise acknowledged you, then that person has value. It's very difficult to do harm to somebody you know, and the better you know a person, the harder it is to do harm to that person. In fact, this can extend to two degrees of separation when you're close to the person. And just as you wouldn't throw your fancy gaming rig out the window for anything but a really good reason, you'd need a really damn good reason to harm somebody you know well.

Most killing falls under crimes of passion. After the act, whether successful or not, the perpetrator is as devastated as the victim (should it be unsuccessful).

There are obvious exceptions. Psychopaths and sociopaths have no such inhibitions. Value does not get created when somebody acknowledges them. Value is created when they affect that person, usually adversely. And that is why they are capable of hurting the people they interact with.

Unfortunately, most political leaders are probably sociopathic to some degree, simply because being sociopathic makes getting to that position so much easier. That, and they're usually so removed from the everyday, average citizen that we're just faceless people to them. And you wonder why politicians can screw us over so easily for some special interest money.

Nonsence

[kbmxpxfan]

Clearly these people have never played paintball with my friends and I.

Re:Nonsence

[weirdcrashingnoises]

You can't alienate your friends.

But you can ANNIHILATE them.

Re:Nonsence

[businessnerd]

They must have played paintball with my friends, then. When I first got into paintball in Jr. High, I played with friends on our own property. We determined the rules, which involved a fair bit of chivalry. For instance, only firing from certain distances and other "don't be a dick" type rules. If you broke those rules, there was usually an argument and if you kept breaking those rules you might not be invited to play next time. We had one "friend" who was a habitual offender (a.k.a. an asshole). We eventually stopped inviting him. But if you go play at a commercial paintball place, it's a completely different story. Yes there are rules, but they are set by the operators/referees. These rules are also much more cut and dry and don't necessarily penalize someone who is just being dick. Also, you have to be caught by the referee. You are usually on the same team as your friends and you are against strangers. If a stranger is being an asshole, your team may bitch about it, but the opposing team will back-up their own player, and there's nothing really to stop that person from continuing to be an asshole if he's not breaking any specific rules. The same goes for online gaming. At a LAN party with friends, you might not take the cheap shots (re-spawn camping) or even cheats, lest you be ostracised from the group. Among strangers, you might take the cheap shots or take advantage of cheats, just because you can. You don't care if you piss off the anonymous opponent, or even anonymous teammate because it has no bearing on your social life.

Re:AArgh

[DragonMantis]

I tend to agree, but it makes some sense about the difference in even a scrimmage for an athletic competition against another team (again, even if it is not an official game) and within the squad. The concept is certainly related.

What about reality?

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Either gamers only play with their friends or they all look like Arnold. But geeks don't have friends and they certainly doesn't look like Arnold! The mystery begins..

So basically same as sports

[Lord Lode]

So it does the same as e.g. football. So it's the same as sports. So computer games are no more or less dangerous than sports in this aspect. So I hope anti gaming advocates don't conclude something to their advantage from this.

Re:So basically same as sports

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree. this would amount to any competition. Even poker most people feel bad for clearing out a friend, as opposed to someone you don't know.

Re:So basically same as sports

[Sulphur]

You could do an experiment; compare fans' driving before and after a race.

--

Avoiding secondhand sigs.

Re:So basically same as sports

[AlpineR]

Oversensitive much? The article explains that researchers wanted to study the testosterone effect from sports. But physical activity itself raises testosterone, so they needed a sedentary form of competition and turned to videogames. The research doesn't remotely say that playing videogames makes you mean to people. It says that humans are mean to strangers and show restraint against non-strangers.

Partly useful

[insomnyuk]

Indeed, very often the thing about good science is that what they discover may seem obvious in retrospect; in this case the notion that in social situations or warfare men treat enemies or strangers differently than friends and family is directly correlated to testosterone levels. Certainly the concept of social cooperation and distinctions are made between different groups of people is not new. However, coming up with data to show a cause for why this is so can be very useful, it can provide a model for making predictions, and can perhaps be applied to other areas of research. I think it's interesting that the video gamer's social interactions through the digital medium were just as 'real' to their bodies as it would have been to someone in a physical setting.

Really?

[UbuntuniX]

I'm guessing the Pure Pwnage crew wasn't the basis of this study.

WTF

[OrangeMonkey11]

This just shows that people are really competitive by nature, but not as much with a group they consider their friends; but even amongst friends you still can have a high competitive nature and a friendly game either it is video games or any regular sports friends can become enemies for a short time; it all depend on how serious the individual and their friends are. This to me just seems like who ever doing this study just like to prove games induce violent nature in people, but to me all it prove is that people are pre-wire to competitive.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

This to me just seems like who ever doing this study just like to prove games induce violent nature in people, but to me all it prove is that people are pre-wire to competitive.

Actually it indicates to me that people are pre-wired for both competition and cooperation. IMHO, serious social and moral problems tend to start when people subscribe to ideologies which take one to the extreme while marginalizing the other. For example, a society created by hyper-individualists would be disfunctional to most people, but so would one created by hyper-collectivists. There must be balance and moderation if society and the people within it are to be healthy and generally content, the extremes are where the madness is found.

Re:WTF

[Kelbear]

I think this study underscores that there should be more co-op games out there. I like to play with my friends, but I don't like playing against them competitively. We end up having to try to squeeze all of us onto the same team, but invariably there's still one of us marooned on the other side. Even if we all successfully join the same team, we end up severely unbalancing the competition since we have a pre-existing foundation in working together.

Cooperative games like Left 4 Dead are a blast, it's shame there isn't more like it.

Re:WTF

[OrangeMonkey11]

Red Faction Guerilla is a really fun co-op game you might want to try. All the different power pack each team member carry can give you an edge over the opposing team if you use them together.

Primal response

[erogenizer]

In war, after you defeat the enemy, you rape the women. It's been going on since the Stone Age. I'd be interested in knowing the pros and cons of why we (men) do that. Also, and I did not RTFA, do women get a testosterone boost too?

so if i sympathize with the zombies

[Col. Panic]

it won't be as satisfying when i blow them to pieces?

dead uncle chester is going to regret leaving me that 12 gauge

Blogging as well

[WindBourne]

On several of the sites that I will post to, I will go nicer on a postback to ppl that I know. If somebody that I consider a friend zings me hard, I tend to assume that they are having a bad day. OTH, if a stranger hits me, OR if I decide to take time and check their history and find out that they are on the negative side, then I hit harder.

My guess is that this is true of everybody here, if they think about it.

Family Kill Fest

[realsilly]

I find this to be quite different. I've watched my husband, nephews, step-sons and brother-inlaws attempt to annihilate each other just for the shits and giggles of it all. Of course the best deaths are the most funny. But they are brutal to one another.

I guess I can chalk it up to that fact that they are a close knit set of men in one family and they are all talking on the XBox head sets when they play together. Interestingly enough though, if you watch the teenage boys who are rather skilled, the general observations is they tend to get mad really quickly if their older less skilled counter-part family members have a good game and kick their butts. That's when I've seen or heard the aggression. They don't like to lose to family.

But when it comes to strangers, I don't often get to observe thatm that much, but what little I have seen is aggression just to win. And when they don't it the language of sore loser that I hear. Rarely do I hear "...that was an awesome match".

Re:Killing people in a game is practice...

[Schadrach]

If you want to be really technical, most current day sports started out as a kind of stylized practice for either war or hunting. It's not something specifically attached to video games, although the testosterone spike is probably easier to measure with video games, because an awful lot of things cause testosterone to go up to varying degrees, and they're easier to control for in that environment.

"Thous" vs. "Its"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this greatly supports some of Joseph Campbell's work where he discusses that it is much easier to kill when we reduce the target to an "it". When we have some sort of connection or reverence for the life of something else it becomes a "thou" and is difficult to kill without somehow justifying yourself. The same thing happens in the media during a war. In order to get people to accept a war you must first turn the "thous" into "its". Does anyone recall the reports of Nazis throwing babies out windows or Iraqis killing Kuwaitis in their cribs. I'm not denying the possibility of these things happening but just saying the reports are necessary in fueling sentiment for the war.

China knows this...

[GigG]

China learned this little tidbit of human nature at Tienanmen Square. The tank unit that wouldn't roll over the guy was a unit made up of troops from Beijing. They've since fixed that by assigning units from the outer provinces to the city.

Re:AArgh

[R2.0]

I coach youth wrestling and see something similar. There are some kids who just cannot take practice against a teammate seriously - they joke around, their attention wanders, and the ADD kids become downright dangerous. But in a match, against a stranger, it's like their doppelganger stepped onto the mat - very focused, executing moved with speed and precision they never showed elsewhere. And the ADD kids change to - now they hyper-focus, which isn't very good from a coaches standpoint.

But then there are the other kids that, if anything, are harder on their friends in practice than they are in a match - they enjoy inflicting pain, but in a match they would be DQ'd. You know - sociopaths. And when you talk to their parents about it, you find out exactly where the kid gets it from.

Re:Killing people in a game is practice...

[nedlohs]

This could be a problem.

Exactly what tile filled future have all these Scrabble games been practice for?

Intresting result

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it very interesting how gamers react so such studies. First they imply the study revealed that gamers are more aggressive, which is no implication of the study. Then they talk like they want to disintegrate these scientists right away (which sounds very aggressive). But I guess the whole thing is, when you loose in a game (online, a offline board game, or soccer/football etc.) you always get a little bit depressed while the winning team will be happy. This is obviously a normal reaction. However, it is not normal to ran than out with a gun and kill some stranger. But this has a complete different cause. Isolation, absent acceptance by society and other species-inappropriate environment settings. And that has nothing to do with the result of the study.

 

Homosexual Lovers Make Better Warriors

[handy_vandal]

The Swedish king Karl XI has this figured out already in the 17th century when he organised his forces so that people would fight side-by-side with brothers, cousins and people from the same region as you are from. This improved morale and made people less likely to flee the battlefield as you knew you could depend on, and wanted to support loved ones.

See also the Sacred Band of Thebes --

"Plutarch records that the Sacred Band was made up of male couples, the rationale being that lovers could fight more fiercely and cohesively than strangers with no ardent bonds .... The Sacred Band originally was formed of picked men in couples, each lover and beloved selected from the ranks of the existing Theban citizen-army. The pairs consisted of the older heniochoi, or charioteers, and the younger paraibatai, or companions, who were all housed and trained at the city's expense."

And let's not forget that it was the death of his "bosom friend" Patroklus that send the sulking Achilles into a murderous vengeful rage ....

Not surprising

[NYMeatball]

I could have told you this for free. Only study required is you to sit in my car while I'm stuck in traffic and make games about how I can "beat" the guy next to me.

My personal favourite is "Change lanes with him every time he tries to pass me"

Re:Not surprising

[justinlee37]

I hate it when people say "that study is pointless, I could have told you that, it's common sense," or something of the like. If we don't constantly re-evaluate and confirm our assumptions we are likely to end up holding a lot of false and contradictory beliefs. If David Hume were alive today he'd give you an internet bitchslap. As it is he's probably rolling in his grave.

another failed "common knowledge"...

[Anonymous Coward]

People also thought it was common knowledge to catch the rhinovirus during the winter, hence its nickname the "cold", but there hasn't been any data to support this claim.

I for one, have a cold as I type this and I live in the very south of the United States where it's in the high 80s during the day :(

A DROP in testosterone?

[yerktoader]

I don't know about you, but I used to love beating my friends at fighting games and FPS's. In fact, there were plenty of occasions we nearly got into fist fights over some cheap move in Tekken or Soul Calibur...

Re:A DROP in testosterone?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are apparently confusing the functions of testosterone, which are the subject of the study, and endorphins which is not. Endorphins are linked to pleasure, not testosterone (which is involved with agression).

So the results don't contradict your feelings of achievement and enjoyment caused by winning against your friends. However, the reduction of testoserone may explain why you did not actually get into fist-fights over Tekken and Soul Calibur, even though there was a lot of animosity generated between you and your friends. This phenomenon would be useful in a group, there still is a reward for competative behavior within the group (the pleasure of winning), but less motivation to take competation too far (which could harm one or more members of the group and thus reducing the group's effectiveness).

Hold on a second...

[silentcoder]

There's a major point hidden in there... we've seen for years politicians arguing that games cause violence and aggression.

Why aren't we seeing those same politicians complaining against sports ? Especially the particularly violent kinds like boxing, wrestling and ice-hockey ?

I mean, if watching a violent movie or playing a violent game is going to turn you into a killer... how is actually beating somebody unconscious better ?
But I guess we haven't seen a lot of convicted killers trying to palm off the responsibility for their crimes on Don King, it's just easier to blame EA maybe ?

Our society actively encourages children, particularly boys, to engage in one form of aggressive, violent and competitive behavior against their peers, and if they think about it at all, believes it a harmless way to burn off rage with fairly little risk of real harm (odd, last I checked you got a lot more sports-field injuries than gaming, and RSI is a much less damaging injury than a broken knee). While another form of harmless acted-out aggression is deemed to somehow worsen those same hormonal and societal stresses ?

Isn't this perhaps the single best argument yet against censoring games ? If we are going to censor them for potentially leading to violence, we must surely ban anybody under 18 from doing wrestling or boxing (or watching matches on TV), and probably American Football, ice-hockey and in fact
any other contact sport while we're at it...
There is no argument about the one that doesn't apply to the other (sports are *more* immersive than games, you are actually DOING it, not just pretending) - so since the very procensorship crowd is the same people who lament that some of us just don't LIKE sports and never did - well it does sort of leave them without a leg to stand on.

Re:Hold on a second...

[Kelbear]

I remember hearing that burning off aggression with physical exertion was widely advocated. Then it was found that it formed a habit of channeling aggression into physical expression.

Instead they advocated suppressing the aggression. Instead of building up a hidden repository of repressed anger as was expected by many, some psychologists showed their subjects were learning to eliminate their aggression instead of storing it up for later.

But I am not a psychologist. I cannot reference the studies. I'm just passing along an interesting point made by my psychology professor (for an intro course I was merely taking to satisfy graduation requirements). There's probably plenty of ongoing debate on the subject, as is often the case in soft sciences.

Re:Hold on a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is sports are far too pervasive in our... well all cultures. A similar complaint was brought up when certain areas of the U.S tried to ban foie gras. Many people asked why the government wasn't also going after other "inhumane" foods like veal, factory bred chicken, etc and the answer was simply, they're too popular. Foie gras on the other hand is just something those wacky foodies eat while also being controversial enough to get people outraged.

Re:AArgh

[lysergic.acid]

A lot of science articles do seem to make that mistake, but this isn't one of them. As has been brought up many times before, correlation doesn't necessarily suggest causation, but strong correlation does often suggest an interaction between two variables. It's through analyzing such correlations that researchers can determine what the exact interaction is. And in this case, they have a logical explanation for the correlation, which happens to be related to evolutionary psychology. This explanation also takes into account what we already know about testosterone's effect on aggression. And from TFA, it seems that the same correlation has also been found in similar studies on other competitive activities, all of which point to the changes in testosterone level being dependent on the subject's familiarity with their opponent. So unless you're suggesting that a.) there's a 3rd independent factor causing these correlations; b.) this is all an incredible series of coincidences; or c.) the players' testosterone level caused their opponents to be friends/strangers; then what TFA proposes seems to be the most plausible explanation.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck...

So please stop mindlessly regurgitating these Slashdot platitudes.

Ah, the physiological basis

[idontgno]

of ganking.

I knew that gankers were compensating.

The north new the south?

[hellfire]

Do you live in the US? The US is a huge mix of people, who all don't really spend time mixing. Going from state to state, to a US citizen, it's often like venturing to a whole new world. Going from the suburbs to the inner cities is night and day. I live in Pennsylvania, and we have an old joke that PA is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between... it's 100% true! Socially and physically central PA is very "country." And to top it all off, we have violent and deep oppositions politically between our two major political parties. These type of differences have existed since 1776.

For most of our history, the US has had deep divisions between difference areas, races, and classes. I contest the assertion that the north "knew" the south and vice versa, and that the UK parliment "knew" the colonies on a personal level, especially since they were separated by such large distances. When it comes to politics, I myself have been annoyed at those "backwards uneducated hick southerners" and I'm sure there are plenty of southerners who are annoyed with "those rotten liberal hippie commie yankee northerners." This is just dehumanizing speech that makes us look at each other as obstacles to a goal rather than as humans with feelings and needs and rights.

We've done it to each other for years and we keep on doing it, because that's the one thing that unites us, our willingness to call each other names for our slanted political ideals.

Hah! The corporate MATRIX has you

[Anonymous Coward]

working at Homo Depot laying tile. Although maybe I'm just over-reacting to your strange post, but I'll vouch for a double-H Wrestling Wildlife Federation beatdown on your Jew donkey.

LATER THAT EVENING, DINNER WITH AGENT SMITH--
Smith: whatever you want, user #1335013.
1335013: and this time I want to be more important than that gay goatse pornstar you idiots shamed me into since failing to capture Gnutella.
Smith: Access codes to gain more modpoints on Slashdot(?)!
1335013: I told you, I don't have them, but I can get you the man that does.
Smith: Malda.
1335013: (!)?

More Evidence for the GIFT Conjecture

[lobiusmoop]

This goes to prove the importance of 'anonymity' in the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory

Re:AArgh

[Anonymous Coward]

I coach youth wrestling and see something similar. There are some kids who just cannot take practice against a teammate seriously - they joke around, their attention wanders, and the ADD kids become downright dangerous. But in a match, against a stranger, it's like their doppelganger stepped onto the mat - very focused, executing moved with speed and precision they never showed elsewhere. And the ADD kids change to - now they hyper-focus, which isn't very good from a coaches standpoint.

Well I guess it's a good thing that I, as a guy with ADD, was on the Debate Team rather than the Wrestling Team in high school.:)

Re:AArgh

[Xaedalus]

I find your story interesting. The 'sociopathic kids', you mention that they're harder on their friends than in actual competition. Would it then be a fair assumption to say that they're in it to inflict pain on their friends rather than compete? And to complete the thought: would they be less interested in competing against strangers because their opponent is a stranger and thus the infliction of pain is less gratifying?

And what exactly do the parents convey that lead you to your assumption? Anything specific? I'm asking because this intrigues me and I'd like to know more about how you arrived at your conclusions.

They weren't on-line gamers before

[AlpineR]

From the article, it doesn't sound like they specifically recruited guys who were already playing online games. They recruited students, and then assigned them to play a multiplayer videogame. And each team sat together within earshot of their opposition.

So I see no reason to dismiss the effect as a selection bias.

Excellent thought that gets ignored...

[Xaedalus]

And there are no responses to this. How sad...

You do make a good point - we as nerds/geeks/freaks/spazoids/trolls/what-in-gawds-name-is-THAT! should be interested in social engineering and organizational theory because we as humans do form uber-organisms (corporations, cliques, fan clubs, etc) and the biology of such gestalt entities is just as fascinating as biology is. However I suspect that underlying currents of materialist-influenced misogyny still pervade the mostly boy-dominated domain of Geekdom, and therefore there will still be the over-emphasis on investigating physical/material-based phenomena with observable results. Too many of my fellow geeks that I know view social sciences and psychology as being voodoo and "girl stuff"

You do realize that if you were right ...

[Xaedalus]

we would all be machines. Same mindset, same rationale, same everything. And you would be completely right in your statement, "I have seen no reason to believe that any of those professions have made any progress whatsoever towards rigor and objectiveness". However, you are wrong. You are displaying sentimental bias towards established sciences with over a century of accumulated data, studies, established rigor, processes, and controls.

The truth is, humans are complicated creatures and consciousness is damn near impossible to quantify. We have egos, subconsciousness, and worst of all - individuality, which makes laboratory-based attempts to quantify, isolate, and predict psychological behavior very difficult. But, social scientists like psychologists and sociologists have contributed greatly to our collective knowledge through rigorous studies with statistical tools that meet very strict guidelines. You are correct in that there are plenty of sloppy studies out there, but bear in mind that the material sciences have plenty of those as well. I'm sure you can find all sorts of sloppy social studies to support your personal bias/belief that social sciences are quackery. But have you ever considered challenging your beliefs and looking at experiments that are rigorous and have been tested and found to be valid and thorough?

Re:Can anyone accept the fact middle-east is racis

[Mister Whirly]

Yeah, but stereotyping the entire middle east isn't racist at all. Good job, I'm sure Jesus is proud of your illogical hatred.

Everyone did know eachother. Revolution is money

[Anonymous Coward]

Revolution prevents a people from paying a valid debt to another, like how Brittain would not assent to the locals in discharging obligations and compensating with interest the properties that are part and parcel and fixture to their ancestry to which Brittain would more to ransom and compete than integrate in kind.

Back in the alleged American Revolutionary War, the Continental U.S. was devaluing currency to use for gaining a controlling interest in the political hegemony inherint in townships and boroughs flying either Royal or statehood flags. In response to the continentals printing money to buy from the Brittish their colonial holds over the many estates among the Several States, the Brittish began seizing anyone violating those original contracts payable in gold. Likewise, the libeled natives (alleged colonists) retaliated to Brittain for not unhanding the peculiar jurisdiction among Americans by vacating the Roman Civil law that tied them together despite 5 months of sea travel. I say "alleged colonists", because America has been around long before the United States (associated and re-associated 1754/1776/1812/1861/1871/1933/1975) and the Brittains ever endured.

It's not difficult to kill family and friends in disputes over property ownership, wearby the subject is critique of holding an artifact or tool, or simply the character of the one so continuing with his interest despite the effects of it upon others (ie radiation, outhouses, red hair...Slashdot, etc).

To debate you further, in the easiest sense of the American Civil War please research Francis Lieber on how both his sons were at eachother's necks in opposite armies on the same field and why Abraham Lincoln chose him to author the Lieber Code concerning martial law conduct that is inherint in the Emergency War Powers Act that drives the United States and Presidential Executive Orders today that can trace the fine red thread back to the screw-ups in the 1776 fiasco.

I didn't know bait could post to Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

50 feet under the boat, on my outrigger. Guess I should troll faster, http://205.158.108.67/stuff/toughguy_magazine.jpg

Re:Killing people in a game is practice...

[kdemetter]

You are joking , offcourse , but i'm pretty sure that , for people who take scrabble serious enough , the same mechanism applies. I mean , even in such games , i'm sure you get the testosterone boost , when beating a stranger.

However , it's also true that if you play it with family or close friends, that feeling is a lot less . It's much more about having fun , and less about winning then. Well , at least for me.

Trolling explained

[spun]

It's called trolling. The troll usually does not believe or care about anything it says. What it cares about is the little thrill of power it feels when it 'makes' someone respond. Its goal was to gain control of someone else, even briefly, to cover up the utter lack of control the troll feels in its own life. It made you angry enough to admit that you are angry.

Your feelings are troll food. YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Re:Trolling explained

[Mister Whirly]

But it can be fun sometimes! And for the record, I am not angry. Sorry, but some ignorant stranger posting as an AC here could not raise my ire to the point of anger. Call it condescending bemusement at best...

Re:Trolling explained

[Anonymous Coward]

You're projecting, you fucking troll.

Illogical hatred? You're one strawman aft another

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you responding to, you character assassin? All those shit countries keep their SUBJECTS in the dark ages to control their indepence from royalty. I have the same to say about Brittain, Congo, Ethiopia, and the chainchinks over on Asia.

What are you trying to say about Jesus that good ol' warlard Mohammed already disclosed as being the bastard child of a whore that 'made it' with carpenters?

Respond to the U.S. Department of Energy on charity towards the middle-east because I tolerate them equaly as they tolerated me when they bounced me through the rape chambers when I was on construction work with a friend that has since left his native land.

Re:Illogical hatred? You're one strawman aft anoth

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, stop huffing paint. Immediately. Oh and BTW, Jesus hates you.

It's all "part of the plan"...

[denzacar]

Hmmm? You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying!
If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan."
But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

Research suggests...

[CarpetShark]

For the love of DEITY$ when will researchers stop doing stupid research!

I suspect that they can and do, and so I'm currently conducting research in the local cemetary to prove it.

Re:AArgh

[R2.0]

"Well I guess it's a good thing that I, as a guy with ADD, was on the Debate Team rather than the Wrestling Team in high school.:)"

I have ADD as well, although it was undiagnosed when I wrestled. I was a fair wrestler; the only affect the ADD had on me in that context was that I hyper-focused during the match. It manifested itself in the fact that I was wholly oblivious to outside stimulus - I didn't hear the crowd, the announcer, or my coach - only the referee's whistle.

In competitive wrestling, that's not such a bad thing. But the kids I coach are in an instructional league - the whole point is to learn. They can't do that if they can't hear the coach telling them what moves to do during a match.

Re:Can anyone accept the fact middle-east is racis

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, sorry. I was the original poster of that stupid message, and I regret it fully now. I admit I only have a 2nd grade education and that daddy used to touch me when I was young. (But secretly, I really liked it!) I actually love the Islam religion and don't know why I was saying bad things about it. I am really messed up and need to see a psychologist. I also drink my own urine, and eat human hair.

Re:AArgh

[R2.0]

"I find your story interesting. The 'sociopathic kids', you mention that they're harder on their friends than in actual competition. Would it then be a fair assumption to say that they're in it to inflict pain on their friends rather than compete? And to complete the thought: would they be less interested in competing against strangers because their opponent is a stranger and thus the infliction of pain is less gratifying?

And what exactly do the parents convey that lead you to your assumption? Anything specific? I'm asking because this intrigues me and I'd like to know more about how you arrived at your conclusions."

The one particular kid I was thinking about would immobilize his opponent and then do something to cause pain to him, but not advance his position. One of his favorites was to lock a kid up and then grind his chin into the other kid's thoracic spine - it hurts a lot. I couldn't really figure out why all the kids complained about him until I watchd very closely. When I saw what was going on, I stopped it and pulled him aside, and asked:

"When wrestling, why do we inflict pain?"
"To hurt the other guy"
"Ok, why would we want to hurt them?"
"To make them freak out and give up."

When I explained that the proper use of pain was to "convince" your opponent to move the way you want him to move, i.e. toward his back, he looked genuinely dumbfounded. Since I know he didn't get his ideas from his coaches, I went to his dad and explained the situation and asked him to try and reinforce with his son that the point of wrestling is not to go out and hurt somebody. His father became immediately defensive, accusing me of telling my own son to go out and beat someone up - it was the tail end of a conversation about self defense with my son when he asked what to do about bullies when all other options fail (The main kid he was talking about was this guy's son!). His general attitude was - "My kid's not doing anything wrong."

The cosmic irony is that the kid was an awful wrestler who got pinned every single match in under 30 seconds. But after my talk with him he started winning - apparently he figured out that he wasn't going to be able to win by focusing on inflicting pain, so he tried a few moves. As a result, he and his father became much more enthusiastic and not only is the son back this year, his Dad has volunteered to coach. Serves me right for trying to help the little bastard.

Harm VS competition

[phorm]

Ah, but there is a distinct difference between harm and competition. I know many people who are *extremely* competitive with siblings, for example. In terms of LAN games, I have friends who prefer the "band together/teamplay" group, whereas others are more of the "prove yourself against your friends/FFA deathmatch" type. The latter - IMHO - seem to be more competitive with friends.

Skipping video-games, the same could be said for the two old codgers who regularly play chess. Competition at some point gets so deep that you'd think that they almost hate each other, rather than being friends outside the game.

Re:Killing people in a game is practice...

[nedlohs]

If I ever manage to win a game I'll know :)

Lies all of it

[genner]

Am I the only person that prefers making their friends cry? It's just not as fun drinking a strangers tears.

Love the shitty Darwinian survivalist tone

[unity100]

... in these researches. you know, the tone that they like to push into everything concerning evolution.

like, the guy doesnt like beating down people from close circle while establishing 'social hierarchy', because he feels he 'needs them'. it cant possibly be because people may not like hurting the ones close to them or making them sad.

impossible. it HAS to be something pragmatic, darwinian survivalist, cutthroat, cold, heartless. there should be NO emotion that has positive undertones involved. for, if there is, then, well, the whole research would be ridiculed and invalidated or something isnt it. people cant have positive emotions. every shit has to be tied into something pragmatic and self serving.

i have two words to say to that :

fuck that.

This is why I stopped playing

[Danny Rathjens]

I used to play Halo with a group of friends during our "Halo Sundays" gatherings and we had much fun killing each other via LAN.
Then Halo 2 and xbox "live" came out and I had the ability play online versus strangers. The increased levels of hormones was very noticeable because I experienced physical effects such as clenching my teeth and simply felt overall quite a lot more aggressive and in a "kill, kill, kill" frame of mind. I didn't like being in that state so I stopped playing. I thought it was just adrenaline, but testosterone obviously makes more sense with the aggression aspect of it.

It took me a half hour on the phone to get them to finally cancel my "live" account.

Re:AArgh

[Xaedalus]

Thanks for telling the story. How much of that, I wonder, is a superiority complex on the part of the father? Completely un-founded and unscientific opinion on my part... I just have to wonder why people take that viewpoint of "my kid's not doing anything wrong" and get defensive...

Re:AArgh

[mujadaddy]

All I know is that the next time I see anyone reading New Scientist, I'm going to kick the shit out of them.

Mystery solved

[betterpc]

That's because most of them live in a dark basements like this.

Warning:

[pugugly]

Does not apply if your name is Stef Murky

Turn it around

[manaway]

Say, for example, the British military came to your town so their government and businesses to take control of your city and natural resource, coal. They shoot and bomb a large number of buildings, roads, homes, and people; all while saying they are only targeting resisters. On the South side of your town the military men rape the women; on the North side of town they don't. If people from a neighboring state came to help you fight the invading military, would you accept their help? Which do you want to attack more, the killer-rapers or the killers?

For bonus points: find 5 issues in the above that are way more important than which soldiers you hate more. Two cent opinion: soldiers in war are not in a "normal" situation, they are in insane circumstances and react accordingly. Their leaders are responsible for the soldier's actions.

You Just Don't Understand

[Krishnoid]

Of course, now I may just be a girl, and thus interested in the mechanics of social interaction... but I can't believe that boy geeks and nerds have been so abjectly turned off to social mechanics that they don't want to learn about how it works. Here we are, a subculture of people who love to pull things apart and see how they work... but we don't want to pull apart the ephemeral and latch it into concrete physiological responses?

Wish I had mod points. Deborah Tannen's 'You Just Don't Understand' does a good job of identifying patterns in social interactions; IMHO, patterns lead to hypotheses, hypotheses to experiments, experiments to data. Frankly, a woman had to mention this book and bring up the topic to me before I was motivated to apply analysis and pattern-matching to social interaction and observation of physiological responses -- so good job bringing up the application of the scientific principle to something traditionally categorized as touchy-feely. Lie to me*, police procedurals, American Scientific Mind and Psychology Today, etc. seem to indicate that this awareness is moving out of the lab and into mainstream society, though.

I modded the GP down

[Anonymous Coward]

I modded the grandparent post down. There's really nothing in the post to "disagree" with, it's just a bunch of empty, stupidly written "fuck the man" ranting. Think of my mod as a way of saying "That's nice, now shut the fuck up."

That said, I routinely downmod posts I disagree with. I use my mod points as I please, and nothing amuses me more than seeing some dicktard get all huffy and self-righteous about "censorship," because his precious snowflake of a comment was bitch-slapped into the minus-one abyss. ^_^

By the way, I've been doing this for years, so it looks like the metamods are on the same page as me. XD lol

True, But Not Completely...

[jstilman]

I find interest in the notion of aggression linked to unfamiliarity. Regarding competitions such as war, athletic events, debates, video games, etc. it would be reasonable to expect that one would feel a sense of reassurance and safety with their team - full of people they know. Along with this, on the other end it would be expected that when emotions of anger are felt, one would more willingly unleash them on a stranger than a friend. This works in MOST cases... Since the main topic in discussion is video games, I'll touch on this there. I think the truth of this notion depends on the type of game in question. Violent games (war games, zombie-hunts, etc...) that evoke less of a friendly-yet-competitive edge and more of a "fight-for-your-life" sort of feel, would make aggression towards enemies or strangers or opposing teams soar to new limits, and likewise bonds between allies. During a football video game however, the attitude changes slightly. In this situation a gamer would be more likely to want to beat his friend and prove superiority and skill, and it would almost be less of a thrill to verse a total stranger. I completely agree with the existence of a connection between these topics, I just question whether its an exclusive connective. I don't think it is.

In other news...

[sw33tjimmy]

in other news: Water is Wet!!!

Re:Killing people in a game is practice...

[4D6963]

Everything you do is practice for your future.

Hmmm, so that must be why I'm watching videos of people having a shower. I'm preparing myself to some time in the future have myself a shower! I don't feel ready quite yet though, I'll think watch some more first.

Science reporting fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The only thing measured was testosterone before and after, not aggression during. Pretending something was measured that wasn't is a no-no.

2) The only people studied were the gaming group. Making the comparison "gamers are more aggressive" when you have nothing to compare to is almost as insulting as it is stupid.

Why is this bad reporting being promoted? Why not just link the original interesting article about the effect of competition on testosterone levels?

Bug in Facebook started Iraq war?

[syousef]

If only saddam hussein hadn't denied Bush's friend request on facebook...

Sorry but that's just utter BS.

So you're saying a bug in Facebook started the Iraq war?