Slashdot Mirror
Research Credibility In the Video Game Violence Debate
An anonymous reader writes "Two researchers who have a history of publishing studies that claim violent video games lead to violence have now published a new study claiming that they've come up with an 'objective' way to measure why violent video games lead to violence. They've taken the names of people who signed an amicus brief on the upcoming Supreme Court case on an anti-violent video game law in California, and decided that if you added up the number of publications by each side the ones who supported 'video games lead to violence' had more publications, and thus that was 'proof' that they had more credibility. Yes, quantity is more important than quality. The fact that the researchers who published this 'study' also wrote the amicus brief that supported the same claim seems to call their objectivity into question as well."
As someone growing up watching The Three Stooges back in the 70's, I can't fathom why all the school kids didn't poke each others' eyeballs out, tear each others' hair out, etc, etc, etc.
You can't canny get more violent than that.
I guess our parents told that stuff in films . . . shouldn't be carried out in street fights . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
That links violent literature, film, music, and other such media to violent behavior? The earliest "videogames" came about in the late 40's depending on such a definition. Other media, and violent people, have been around much longer. Why do we blame video games now?
Let's assume video games are to blame for all of the anger issues young people exhibit today; why aren't the shop keepers, parents and other such "guardians of merchandise" to blame for essentially enabling the behavior? A 10 year old kid shouldn't be able to walk in and buy the latest blood and gore exhibition from any reputable game store. Don't try to trash the gaming industry. Instead, throw the parents/guardians under the bus. They're responsible for letting the child play the game. They don't monitor the kid's behavior and correct them when they are out of line.
They might desensitize people to some forms of violence (though I doubt many people would still be able to react normally in the face of such if it happened to them in real life). But what does it matter? That just means that they'd be more calm in said situation, not that they'd begin voluntarily participating in violence. I'd say it's a good thing if people react more calmly.
Also, a lot of people claiming something is true does not make it so. The validity of the studies must be questioned, as well as what the studies really prove, if anything. Many of them merely link violent entertainment to temporary aggressive thoughts, from what I've seen. Those aggressive thoughts likely disappear soon enough, and almost never amount to anything.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I saw an essay once by a anthropologist who made the claim that video games and sports do not increase violence. His argument in a nutshell was the humans like all mammals have a very deep seated sense of play vs serious business. even though play often has mock violence aspects is isn't the same thing. Children and teenagers, like dogs, instinctively understand the difference between the two.
So it's like goatse -- you aren't shocked anymore to see a stretched anus on the screen, but you still aren't inclined to stretch your anus in front of other people or cameras?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
from here
"The data for the study came from the PsycINFO database, which provides more than 3 million references to the psychological literature from the 1800s to the present, including peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters or essays, and books."
Something's wrong, I think. 3 million references is a lot!
I wonder what the violent video games from the 1800s looked like.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
After playing Portal2, I'm finding myself having increasingly more violent confrontations with automated turrets throughout my workday. I fear this may lead to workplace violence against them.
Had this been studied prior to Portal2 release, I may have rethought my purchase in order to avoid this type of aggression against turrets.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I saw an essay once by a anthropologist who made the claim that video games and sports do not increase violence. His argument in a nutshell was the humans like all mammals have a very deep seated sense of play vs serious business
I can tell you authoritatively that guy in an idiot.
Most professional athletes got where they are specifically because their play is a "serious business." There are many a player who have no problem breaking your arm so they can make that catch. They justify it as the risks of playing the game and a risk you willingly accepted when you started playing.
The simple fact is, people perceive the world in different ways. For some people, a silly, friendly game is just that. For others, that same game is a means of proving they are better than someone else and they'll do anything they can make that statement. Its not really a question of games, its a question of the person.
Certain people in our society can rationalize anything or have little concern for the societal fallout. In many cases, these people go on to become sports stars, successful businessmen, or serial killers.