Slashdot Mirror
Another Study Attacks Violent Video Games, Claims To Be "Conclusive"
Killer Orca is one of many to tell us about a new study on the effects of violent video games on kids. The latest meta-study that analyzed research from 130 different reports claims to have "conclusively proven" that violent video games make more aggressive, less caring kids. "The team used meta-analytic procedures — the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous, related literature -- to test the effects of violent video game play on the behaviors, thoughts, and feelings of the individuals, ranging from elementary school-aged children to college undergraduates. [...] Anderson says the new study may be his last meta-analysis on violent video games because of its definitive findings."
This reminds me of the TV version of this anti-violence crusade in the 80s and 90s.
One thing that always stuck out in my mind about that last round was how the talking
heads of that movement would take things out of context and then whine about them. I
knew this because I watched the stuff they were whining about. They would show you a
little 15 or 30 second bit and then criticize it and leave out ANY of the context.
People can abuse information in any way that suits them.
Disraeli probably didn't even say it first.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You can see the study author's bent in this quote:
"It's now time to move on to a more constructive question like, 'How do we make it easier for parents -- within the limits of culture, society and law -- to provide a healthier childhood for their kids?'" But Anderson knows it will take time for the creation and implementation of effective new policies.
Um... is it the government's job to make parenthood easier? I thought they put the kids in front of the glowing screen in order to give themselves (the parents) a break from parenting.
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
How did they rule out that humans by nature are violent animals?
Oddly enough violent crime has been decreasing since 1992, and is now at 1960 levels. Ergo another possible conclusion: Video games decrease overall societal violence level.
Consider that the first generation of videogame kids became old enough to start committing violent acts readily in the early 90s.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Note to parents: this also puts the lie to "we must keep our kids inside all the time, since it's a scary world out there".
Yes, I'm a parent, and yes, I'm thinking of my children!
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
You know, psychology has shown that "letting it out" doesn't in fact result in your become calmer. It does rather the opposite.
I don't really think that engaging in videogame violence is anywhere near the real thing, I'm just saying that if that's your reasoning, it's flawed. If that's your excuse for playing videogames, why don't you just admit that you enjoy them, and leave it at that?
It's not my excuse...at least, not any more. There was a time (early teens) when I had an absolutely horrendous temper. I'm extremely laid back now, but back then my anger was sometimes nearly uncontrollable (seriously...there were times when I literally felt like I almost couldn't control myself. It was bad. Real bad.) Weightlifting and violent video games were the only two things I found that I could focus on rather than lashing out. In a way, violent video games were part of the reason I DIDN'T become dangerously violent in real life...they provided me with a safe way to live out the violence I wanted. To me, it wasn't venting...it was "good enough", as opposed to going through with the real thing.
Interestingly, as I've gotten older (one month shy of 26 now) and chilled out, I find myself playing violent video games less. I still enjoy them, but they are no longer therapeutic...I would rather play a game with a good story instead of, for example, taking a chainsaw to the Locust. ::shrug:: Don't know if violent video games were part of the cure, or if it was age, or maturity...but whatever it was, just about any violent emotion and feeling is completely gone in me. I'm as harmful as jello at this point (although I'm still kinda built like a 5'7" linebacker, lol)
Naturally, YMMV, this is just my own experience, etc applies.
Living With a Nerd
Anyone remember when the far right religious wing started saying that playing D&D turned people into Satanists who then ritually killed people? Same stuff, different decade. Believe it or not, Ann Coulter of all people even called this type of reasoning BS when she said, "Consider the harmless fantasy game, Dungeons and Dragons -- which happens to be played almost exclusively by young males. When murders were committed in the '80s by (1) young men, who were (2) Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts, some people concluded that factor (2), rather than factor (1), led to murderous tendencies."
Just taking the viewpoint that the majority of comments will probably not take.
I'll bite. I'll come out and say it - I think it *is* correct. Playing an action game, or watching an action movie, gets blood pumping and adrenaline flowing. (for the more imaginative, so does reading a good book.) During adolescence this is especially likely to have a measurable effect on behavior, as these chemicals are flooding bodies at rates that are never again quite equaled except in the most extreme of circumstances. (Both as a result in changing physiology and maturing psychology.)
How many here did not go and half-pretend to beat the crap out of friends after watching a kung fu movie? Anyone else have memories of playing Contra and finding themselves jumping off of garages while pretending to shoot their neighb... erm, skip it, that last is probably just me.
By constantly throwing up the "correlationisnotcausation" attitude whenever a study like this comes along, we do two things. First, we say that we're sticking our fingers in our ears and refusing to listen. Second, we're letting everyone slide on the assumption that if there *was* aggression, it would be a Bad Thing.
By refusing to hear that there might be causation, we don't ask the next logical question. What does it matter? What are the harmful effects? Some rough-housing? Is that really a bad thing, or is it a fairly healthy reaction? In the absence of any real-life examples where such aggressiveness lead directly to real-life consequences, perhaps we should stop focusing on whether to games-aggression connection exists, and instead look at whether it's actually as harmful as everyone assumes it must be.
The truth is that aggression is a perfectly natural response -- "fight or flight" is built into us, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about 8-bit nintendo games or the quadrillion-poly games of tomorrow. But there has been no time spent focusing on the significance of this - instead we all loudly proclaim that no, there's no possible way we'd have a physical response to a simulated stressful activity. Until we get past the latter, we won't be able to learn the answers to the former.
Try seeing the comment above yours. They comment:
The way I like to think of it is like cake. No one would argue that cake isn't a causal factor in obesity. Likewise no one would argue that a healthy child can't have any cake.
Same basis applies. Many case studies have been done on serial killers, who tend to have a "trigger" that causes them to pick their targets. The trigger is often something very random and something which would cause no normal, sane person to decide to rape/assault/murder anyone, but for these psychopaths, the combination of something triggers them and they compulsively go into killer mode.
If someone is predisposed to be violent, they will find an outlet in society. It will feed off itself (anyone wonder about Mike Tyson, perhaps?) The same influences to which a normal, sane human could be exposed with no trouble, will cause problems for them. Alcohol addicts are warned to avoid not just alcohol, but situations in which they normally would drink. People trying to quite smoking are advised similarly. Violence, in the context of an addiction, is the same way. They get a thrill that a normally functioning brain wouldn't get, they crave more of it, and it's a loop. A normal, sane person would not fall into the loop, but they do because they're abnormal.
There is nothing new to what I am saying, by the way. This one area has been extensively covered. I will not claim the science is conclusive since research is ongoing, but it is a very, strongly working model for many, many cases and seems quite relevant to the question at hand.
That's because the article you are reading is NOT written by a scientist-slash-researcher but by some idiot journalist who (I hope) interviewed a scientist-slash-researcher. I can't say I myself have bothered to read the whole paper
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/10ASISBSRS.pdf
... but from the abstract: "The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior". This is a strong but not unusual kind of statement, meaning they are sure of themselves. The word "conclusive" is not used once (if Adobes search function is accurate). It also annoys me that the journalist turned "causal risk factor" into "causes", but then again perhaps people in general are just too stupid to understand anything more complicated than "A causes B".
What really bugs me though is how /. users eagerly discard scientists as having a "hidden agenda" based only on someone elses lay review, without having the decency to actually read the publication. Don't forget that there is often a distorting layer between what you read and the real stuff.