Slashdot Mirror
Violent Video Games Only Affect Some People
An anonymous reader writes "The media would have you believe that violent video games will be the downfall of our civilization and the cause of moral decline in young people. A recent study suggests that most people aren't so easily influenced by the violence; instead, just a few bad apples are likely to react poorly, with everyone else showing little or no effect from playing these games."
The American Psychological Association has posted the academic paper (PDF) as well, in addition to a few related studies. One examines how games can be a force for good (PDF), and another looks at the motivations behind children playing such games (PDF).
It's sex people get really pissy about.
Violent video games only affect the kind of people who kill small animals just to see what it feels like. It's a similar rush, just from different things. If you're predisposed to this kind of violence, watching Robocop probably has the same likely hood of pushing you over the edge as a videogame does. As much as people talk about how we're desensitized to violence from movies and videogames, the second a normal person sees someone shot or seriously injured in real life their stomach usually turns.
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
If you can't separate the violence in a video game from real life then maybe you shouldn't be playing the game in the first place and should be looked at by someone. At least that's what I think, then again I'm no doctor but come on how does shooting an alien translate to shooting a school? The problem has never been the video games, it's the kids who are to screwed up in the head to figure out that life and video games are two very separate things.
So does this mean I can't use GTA as an excuse as to why I robbed my neighbor anymore?
Feel free to mod me down, just know that unlike some Anonymous Cowards I'm not afraid to express my views as myself.
To buy this game you must be 37 agreeable or above.
The only thing that's weird is the game modding link, but my guess is that that variable is confounded with some other facto that they didn't correct for. They also noted men like to mod much more than women.
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
...something like a video game cannot turn a normal person violent. The tendency has to be there already. You could argue that without violent games and movies these tendencies would not be realised, but I think that is a very naive notion. I think violent games for adolescents/adults are a good thing for society. In this castrated western world where two dudes wanna get drunk and fight each other are both reprimanded, and all kinds of contact sport gets softened up and dumbed down, it is natural to seek other means of expressing a competitive/violent yearning.
I don't have children, but when the time comes I will not ban them from all violent games (like my parents did) but rather let them play them as long as I am satisfied they understand the context, that there is a difference between movies and games and the real life.
I feel like we have this same discussion at least 100 times a year. In the end, its generally different strokes for different folks, and at the end of the day it is the extremes that the lobbyist argue, while reality is a grey area. The thing is, grey areas don't pass bans and don't suffice as lobbyist ammunition. One study will be inconclusive, the next will be clear and cut confirmation of correlation. The title really summed it up best "[insert stimulus here] Only Affect Some People." Now can somebody tattoo this on every think-of-the-children-ban-crazy-iron-fist congresslobbymancritter.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
i bet those islamic radicals in the middle east and east africa never played a video game in their lives and they are among the most barbaric and violent peoples in the world.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
... the people who react poorly to violent video games are the ones who are likely to exhibit violent behavior even without any video games?
read my subject... i've gone too tired of this to continue...
or wait...
virtual reality has more chances to offer for young people than physical reality which is controlled by the political class... now they try using the old media to bitch their way into virtual reality too because they come to realize that it is the place where the youth these days is hiding from them and their zeitgeist..
Here in South-Africa violent crime is a major problem.
wonder how many robbers, murderers and rapists spend their days fragging geeks and their nights robbing, murdering and raping...?
You don't universally ban/restrict alcohol because SOME people will become alcoholics.
You don't universally ban/restrict violent video games because SOME people will become more hostile.
You don't universally ban/restrict hand guns because SOME of the population breaks the law.
etc...
We could add the same common sense reasoning to other recreational drugs, like tobacco and marijuana, or to books, and on and on.
I really have to remind myself I'm not playing Burnout when I'm stuck in a traffic jam. You know, since a video game is so close to how it is in real life.
All underage people are banned from drinking alcohol because some have problems with it.
All unrated games are banned in Australia because some have problems with it.
All handguns are banned in the UK because someone went on a killing spree with it.
AND the last one has worked because nobody has used a handgun since to go on a killing spree. The next one used a shotgun. The one before the handgun used an automatic rifle which have also been banned and since then nobody has used one either.
Hard to argue that it doesn't work, when it does.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What happened to blaming the parents? I don't believe you can send a child out to do anything independently and expect them to just turn out ok. Someone with the ability to reason (not all parents) should be interacting with the children to ensure they are developing desirable social and behavioral skills. This should be true for whatever children are doing, not just video games. Think about the children!
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
This is a great demagoguing opportunity.
FTFA:
“Previous research has shown us that personality traits like psychoticism and aggressiveness intensify the negative effects of violent video games and we wanted to find out why,” said Markey.
So psychos act like psychos after playing video games? WHAT A SURPRISE!
There should be a hefty fine levied against all the "news" outlets that have whipped up this "games make people psycho" meme in the last decades. Their fear mongering is NOT harmless, and they should be held accountable.
You can't take the sky from me...
Whether someone is violent (or likely to be violent) has no correlation with his consumption of computer games. A person who has a "reason" to be violent (please don't expect a logical, reasonable reason. We're talking psychology here, or, in other terms, stuff that deals with people's emotions) will be violent. Game or no game. Do they enjoy playing those games for the same reasons they, say, kill kittens or torture their schoolmates? Most likely. Do I enjoy playing those games for the same reason that I enjoy other games that challenge my ability to react quickly and make swift decisions? That much I know for sure.
Both, that violent bully and I, play the same game. But we do so for different motivations and for a different gratification. For him, it's the blood and gore splattering across the screen. For me, it's the reward that I played better than someone else (either a real player or at least some script). Mowing down a few hundred zombies is for him a great rush because of the blood and guts spewing everywhere on screen. For me, it's the challenge that I have to get them down before they reach my character and end my game, and the rewarding experience that I could pull it off, even though the amount of enemies made it seem impossible.
But do we want to base a legislation on how someone feels about a product in question? Again? As if certain porn laws (that depend on how a judge "feels" about certain displays) were not enough bullshit littering our laws...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As someone who played it a lot said one:
"I quit because I've had a pedestrian in front of my car on a small, twisty street and for a moment I wanted to hit it".
By what I know, he never played Carmageddon again.
This is getting more and more retarded, psychology at its finest..
We could add the same common sense reasoning to other recreational drugs, like tobacco and marijuana, or to books, and on and on.
So I think the key difference with your analogy here is whether or not there is a victim. And by 'victim' I don't mean any of that protect-the-citizen-from-themselves-crap but instead someone who suffers a loss of life, liberty or pursuit of happiness without participating willingly in it. So let's start with an easy one: murder. Murder is banned pretty much all over the United States except in very special circumstances (capital punishment). The reason is obvious, someone's dying and they almost always don't want to.
... and it's gotten much better since the 1990s. You can't say that the handgun laws were the only factor in this but I think a lot of residents do believe this.
Handguns are a bit trickier. When the case of handgun related murders or injuries rises to a high enough point then places like DC, NYC, Chicago, LA, etc do have to universally ban or heavily restrict handguns. Rifles and shotguns seem to be another issue as they're not exactly designed to be concealed and used at short distances but I know in DC you must have a permit for a handgun and you must store it field stripped. If you have a handgun stored assembled in DC, you're breaking the law.
Alcohol saw a similar situation during prohibition. Drinking to destroy your liver minimally harms society if you don't have good health insurance. Drinking and getting behind the wheel can very much injure members of society. Drinking and going home and beating your wife or child again very much so scars them and halts their pursuit of happiness. So what are the true frequency of these things? If it's too high, you need to look at universally banning or restricting alcohol. Or the populace will run fear campaigns and demonize them like they did and have done with absinthe.
Now on to violent video games. Okay, so I don't agree with this but it seems that in Australia the majority of the populace (or a few very fascist leaders) have the opinion that violent video games provide too much of a harm to society in too high of a frequency. I could claim my teddy bear collection told me to go on a shooting rampage but that's not going to get teddy bears banned because the frequency is one in four hundred million (and if you start counting historically the number of people exposed to teddy bears is much much larger). You know, in the United States this would never fly but your set of "you don't universally ban/restrict" axioms is a bit unresearched at least in the states. We have had those experiments and we continue to have those experiments with handguns in very high population areas. DC used to be the murder capital of the world
My work here is dung.
The problem I find with all this research on violent video games is that it all seems to assume that video games have an effect that matters. Well, how about we study that first? Back when I learned about scientific research, especially as it applies to people, you go and do some observational research first, see if there's a trend. Only if there is do you bother with experiments.
In this case compare the violent crime rate for people who play video games as well as people who do not to the population at large. Unless you see an increase, there really isn't anything else to study. Trying to measure the effect of a videogame on an individual is going to be much harder and more error prone than evaluating statistical data. So, let's do that first. Unless there is a statistically significant difference in the rate for violent crime between the population at large and the subset that likes violent games, I don't see why further study is warranted.
Now I realize that there could potentially be other, more subtle, effects. However why do we care? Does it matter if playing violent video games causes people to get excited, or release more adrenaline or the like? Might be mildly interesting as a general psychology/physiology study, but nothing worth reporting on or making policy on. The only concern in terms of that would be if violent videogames make people more likely to commit crimes.
I'm going to say they don't just based on the fact that violent crime has been dropping for around 30 years and what do you know, video games have been increasing for around 30 years.
There just aren't enough "Harvest Moon" modding communities out there. That's the real problem.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
So does this mean I can't use GTA as an excuse as to why I robbed my neighbor anymore?
There's always Heavy Metal Music, Porn, and the internet to blame. Why, Ozzy just came out with a new album. That's a few robberies worth of excuses right there!
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
...drugs sends some people schizo yet most manage just fine. I could've told them this for a lot less than this study probably cost.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I have it on good authority that comic books are to blame for the decline of our youth. Did you know that since 1994 (coinciding with the comic book market downturn of the mid-90's), juvenile crime has dropped by 47%? And now, with the comic book industry returning strong, juvenile delinquency is once again on the rise. We must put an end to this prurient influence on our youth!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Negative effects from computer games and media are simply an extension of a classic problem. We know that certain people will suffer disaster if exposed to alcohol. It is biological and not a moral or control issue. Even tobacco is selective in who it destroys. Serve a tomato or have a bit of fish oil in a dish and a few people will die from it.
Society has not responded well to this type of situation. Obviously the world can not be run according to the defects in individuals. And in the case of video games we have no way to crunch the numbers. Alcohol and tobacco ruin too high a percentage of users to really be allowed at all. But trying to take a guess at violence caused by games and movies is not reliable at all, not large at all, and worse yet we have no way to consider the secondary effects either. For example if murders are done it may partially rest upon the fact that other people are committing murders which can make the idea of murder more common and more acceptable. So if we were to suppose that 1% of all serious crimes related to video games and films we might find that the influence or atmosphere created by those crimes kicked off behavior in others who did not watch films or play video games.
All in all it may be best not even to worry about things like video games as we can be certain that the run away cause of all crime comes back to drugs. Get rid of drugs and 90% or more of all crime will vanish.
If everyone plays, some react badly but some don't. But, on average we're worse off. Just like if some drink alcohol, some handle it badly but some don't. So the average doesn't improve.
Yes, I understand that we're not getting rid of guns, alcohol or computer games anytime soon. And I'm not advocating legislating them away, either. I'm just saying that if some are unaffected, but some are hurt, aren't we worse off on average? When do we quit thinking like we always have, and start asking what we can do to make things get better on average?
So I suppose non-violent video games only affect some people too? Only a small minority of people feel non-violent after playing Wii Bowling. The rest go to bowling alleys and kill people using only pairs of stinky rental bowling shoes.
. . . by the time I completed Barbie Wild Horse Rescue, I wanted to kill someone!
... which recently passed a law prohibiting violent videogames... to anyone. Yes, it doesn't matter if you're an adult, you don't have the maturity to know that killing people is something you're not supposed to do in real life.
The "great" thing about this law is that you can get 3-5 years of prison. I'm pretty sure you'll come out perfectly fine and not violent at all after those years behind bars...
P.S: We're not sure which games are actually banned, aside from the obvious ones. Some stores are refusing to sell Mario games because they're supposed to be among those banned. Yes, Mario games, which are among the most family-friendly games ever. I guess Mario promotes goomba cruelty, or something.
At the risk of re-posting: where is the news in this? Hasn't modern psychology already established that it's disturbed or otherwise challanged individuals who turn to devient behavior? No matter if it's crime, "special" sex or what have you. It wasn't Marilyn Manson's music, although some of it might drive you to suicide, that made Klebold and Harris go shoot-em-up at Columbine High. It wasn't whatever the heck Kretschmer was doing while playing Far Cry 2 the night before going to Winnenden school. They were messed up people who would have done dumb shit no matter what they did before snapping. My $.02, but this just does not seem like news...more of a confirmation, I suppose.
Every time the media reports on violent video games they drag out the stock footage of Doom.
Maybe there is some truth in the story, I stopped playing doom in 1998 and haven't killed anyone since.
I really feel as though the reason the media harps on video games is because they are still under the assumption that video games are made for kids and teenagers. Key demographics these days are probably closer to the 20-30 year old range. I would argue that it's probably not the greatest thing for a kid to be playing GTA IV, but that's just one man's opinion. When I have kids, I will use the ratings system as a suggestion on what to purchase for them, the same as I would do for movies or any other media.
They just don't want to admit that video games do NOT encourage violence. So they find a bunch of people predisposed to violence, then note that after they play video games they become violent. Cripes man, will they ever admit they were WRONG
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The fact that only a few "bad apples" are affected by violent games won't stop the anti-freedom crowd. They can always trot out the "if it just saves one child, it will be worth it" hyperbole as long as we allow them to. After all, only a few "bad apples" cause harm with guns or other weapons: that doesn't stop the gun control crowd. How much freedom are we willing to give up? Eventually, all of it will be sacrificed on the altar of the state.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
everyone else showing little or no effect from playing these games?
That's bs. The competitiveness of online gaming (typically, the competition is much more impressive than your local group of friends) and spatial awareness required to play these games surely have a tremendous effect on people's regular lives. Personally I've noticed improved awareness when driving, as I scan potential targets on sidewalks and cross streets. I anticipate more. I also have a greater understanding of war and violence from a more hands-on experience, simulated it may be.
Not to mention I am gaining valuable skills to help my country spread freedom by flying a drone or controlling a humanoid robot in future wars of liberation.
Only some people are serial killers.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
I once read a great article that described this phenomenon of wanting to hold new forms of entertainment accountable for complex social problems. It's something that happens time and again. The same arguments applied to video games today were previously used against (and in some cases, still are):
Television
Music
Radio
Novels
The recurring theme of course is that people fear change, older people most of all. When you grow up with something, it is familiar. When you first encounter it as an adult, it is not so.
Video games are like anything else: potentially harmful to a select few that have deeper issues, and quite therapeutic and harmless to those that know how to enjoy them responsibly.
After playing TW golf, how many study subjects expressed an urge to defile a mistress?
False choice. The alternative to "killing for religion" is not "killing for atheism". It could well be "killing for money and power in the name of religion".
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
... make me want to kill someone.
Have gnu, will travel.
Killing for dogma.
Imagine having to fill out a Psych Evaluation Form to verify that you aren't the crazy type every time you download a new game. The EULA will morph into a questionnaire about how you perceive reality. I've never heard of rape resulting from people that play Leisure Suit Larry. Or white collar crime caused by Farmville. Although technically if you are at work and playing games then you are stealing from your employer.