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."
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.
...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.
... the people who react poorly to violent video games are the ones who are likely to exhibit violent behavior even without any video games?
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.
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.
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 this century.
Don't forget that 900 years ago we did the same thing with the Crusades, the Ottoman's did it, the Byzantine's before them, Holy Roman Empire before any of them... Holy crap, you'd think that humanity had been killing each other in the name of religious ideals for millenia!
It just so happens that we're apparently civilised now, and no longer foist our religion upon others. Give the Middle East a few more hundred years and they'll expand, stagnate, and be destroyed like the rest were. Then they can start with a civil civilisation. God knows where the Western world will be then, though.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Video games are baby-sitter substitutes, just like the Cartoon Network.
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.
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!
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.
They probably have a high level of exposure to violence though.
> You don't universally ban/restrict child porn because SOME people will become paedophiles.
You do universally ban child porn because ALL children are incapable of legally consenting to it.
> You don't universally ban/restrict drink driving because SOME people will cause accidents.
You do universally ban drunk driving because ALL people who are legally drunk have impaired reflexes.
Smoking is banned in some specific public or semi-public locations because ALL people in the immediate area would have no choice but to breathe the fumes. The same restrictions would be likely if marijuana were made legal.
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.
. . . by the time I completed Barbie Wild Horse Rescue, I wanted to kill someone!
Even wars that are fought in the name of religion are usually fought in reality for land, money, power, and revenge. Just like all the other wars.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
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.
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.