Slashdot Mirror
Violent Games Credited With Reducing Crime Levels
maroberts writes "According to a research paper produced from a collaboration between the University of Texas and the Centre for European Economic Research, violent video games may induce aggressive behavior, but the incapacitation effect outweighs this and produces a genuine reduction in violent crime. This paper was referenced in a BBC news story giving reasons why the US crime rates are falling (at least outside the prisons!)"
in Japan...although it could be due to cultural influences in that case.
Maybe they should have Computers in the prisons, like they do in china. Exchange Virtual Gold for cigarettes ...
Perhaps, but the remaining sex crimes showed increased instances of tentacle use.
less babies and less appetite. I'm gonna go get my neighbor an XBOX...
The study apparently shows that playing violent games makes you more violent, but that overall you spend more time playing violent games than someone who doesn't play violent games, and so have less time to actually commit violent crimes. So if playing violent games take up 10% of my time but makes me only 5% more violent then the violent crime rate as a result of me will go down. I'm not thinking this is a great confirmation of the virtues of violent games, as presumably anything that incapacitates people will work, even if it doesn't make them more violent at all. So for an even better result you might try nonviolent games, free prostitutes, or marijauna (just tie the subjects down in case they experience an episode of reefer madness).
Correlation does not equal causation.
Just because we like the results, doesn't make it true.
They develop violent feelings but they take it all out on their fictional characters. They stop going outside (thousands of years of children spent their days outside because they lacked TV and vidya) so they aren't around other people even if they have all kinds of aggressive hormones flowing to compel them to pick a fight with the next person they see.
The ultimate cause of crime reduction in the U.S. is Roe v. Wade. Abortion selects against poor people, and poor people commit more crimes due to desperation.
That's because tentacle monsters are just visitors to japan and come from a far more sexually repressed society. When they get to japan they just go berserk.
On the other hand, it's well known that permanent resident tentacle monsters in japan are very polite and productive members of society.
Those sex crimes are commonly misattributed.
In America, the women claim rape after being shamefully impregnated during consensual sex.
In Japan, the women claim rape after being shamefully molested by sentient cephalopods.
As usual the politicians are proven wrong and backwards with their attempts at 'curbing violence' by fighting this battle against the imaginary violence in games.
As usual, it is shown that whatever politicians wanted to do was going to have the exact opposite effect, so when they fight imaginary violence in video-games, they would be causing more of the real violence in real world, because now it is shown that violent videogames reduce violence in real world.
Whenever you are in doubt about what the outcome of any law, any bill is going to be in real life, just take the name of that bill and reverse it in terms of its intentions.
So if they want to 'fight poverty', it means they'll create more poverty. If they want to 'fight violence', they will end up creating more violence, etc.
You can't handle the truth.
Correlation is not causation. Right, guys?
Caesar had it all right, with the violent circus games.
We can now achieve this catharsis without spilling blood, thanks to video games!
A lot of the science of the paper is above me but my reading of it is that the research strongly supports the idea that violent games increase violent tendencies but it's just that if a criminal spends all day playing Modern Warfare he won't have time to go robbing banks.
In Fox News terms we are creating a nation of violent psychopaths but as long as they don't come out of Mom's basement we should be OK.
They develop violent feelings but they take it all out on their fictional characters. They stop going outside (thousands of years of children spent their days outside because they lacked TV and vidya) so they aren't around other people even if they have all kinds of aggressive hormones flowing to compel them to pick a fight with the next person they see.
I'm not sure I like this line of the argumentation. To me it's very much like saying: "Drugs actually reduce the crime rate: most of the time a junkie is stoned, so he doesn't have time to do it". (not that I equate violent games with drugs, neither I'm convinced that playing violent games increase the agresiveness in real-life).
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
The population is aging. For several generations, people have been failing to reproduce in sufficient numbers to replace themselves, and the average age of the population is much older than in previous decades. Old people don't commit as much crime.
Of course, video games distract people from breeding, so they certainly are playing their part...
A group swallows research that favors its view whole without questioning while disregarding any research that disagrees with its world view.
My my, did you even read the article or just went "I like this headline, therefor I will accept it as being true".
Don't blame your opponents for swallowing their headlines if you do the same.
Be careful now, this is a very sensitive subject. Please refrain from calling them "tentacle monsters". The preferred nomenclature is "bothria enabled people".
It sounds like Clockwork Orange psychology.
You are not violent if you are vomiting all the time so you cannot fight back.
Not just in Japan, actually. Last I've seen, just about anywhere where they could put some numbers on historical access to pornography, it correlates the same way with a reduction in sex crimes.
I don't think there's all that much cultural about it. A similar effect has been noticed before between splatter movies and violent crimes, for example. When a new one starts in theatres, for the next couple of days you see less less assaults and such. If nothing else, because they're in the theatre instead of on the streets.
Pretty much the same for porn, really. If there's an easier outlet for either sex urges or power over someone fantasies, well, more people take the road that's less risky. Plus, they can't be both at home spanking the monkey and out raping someone.
Makes sense for the games too, if you think of it. As I was saying, the correlation was already noticed for movies.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The reduction of crime is highly correlated with the legalization of abortions (however unpleasant that sounds) and there has been research showing that this is the biggest contributing factor to crime reduction [http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/]
Reducing crime levels should not be the goal. The goal should be to make communities feel safer.
Mass arrests of petty criminals does not make the community feel safer. Arrests of violent criminals makes the community feel safer.
Rather than chasing after meaningless numbers which only mean something to politicians and police chiefs, they should actually communicate with the community they are policing to ask them what they need.
So when you read "reducing crime levels", ask yourself which crimes? Crimes that matter or just a vague abstract "crime" statistic that only matters to the police?
If they were trying to curb violence there would be a war on violence rather than a war on drugs. There are plenty of murderers who get away with it, there is plenty of violence in society. But when you see most cops do you see them investigating homicides?
They develop violent feelings but they take it all out on their fictional characters.
Maybe not. The abstract for the article says:
(Emphasis mine.)
So it isn't necessarily about games inducing violent tendencies and then taking it out on a virtual victim, because the article suggests that playing a game as docile and harmless as, I don't know, Tetris could possibly do the same thing. The conclusions say that:
So it may be more about giving bored, disaffected people with nothing better to do than happy-slap random passers by something else to spend their time on.
Alternate theory. High unemployment means more people are home during the day and it's harder to commit a crime of opportunity.
Wouldn't this be an argument for not going after people for simply watching child pornography? Obviously arrest those who produce it, but I've always felt those who simply downloaded files and watched it aren't doing anyone any harm.
As a few documentaries have pointed out, the reason crime rates are really falling, at least the larger % reason why is abortion, Roe v. Wade, Those 'unwanted children' never born are not there to growup unloved and commit crimes... Now if we can just extend it retro-actively to existing criminals...
RTFA. Srsly.
Both TFA's don't just talk about crime levels, they talk explicitly about reducing VIOLENT crime levels. So, yes, it's a good thing, regardless of how you feel about petty crime.
Besides, I don't think the goal of the police is to worry about people's existential angst. Crime is something that one can objectively measure, while communities' feelings are subjective and unpredictable. You can't say that the police failed to do their job, if some scaremongering politician makes them feel less safe in spite of reduced crime.
Or to quote Dara O'Briain, who puts it the best: "[i]I give out when people talk about crime going up, but the numbers are definitely down. And if you go, "The numbers are down", they go, "Ahh, but the *fear* of crime is rising." Well, so fucking what? Zombies are at an all-time low level, but the fear of zombies could be incredibly high. It doesn't mean you have to have government policies to deal with the fear of zombies.[/i]"
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Similar to how pornography reduced sex crimes in Japan
I think we have to be very careful when comparing crime statistics between countries (a well known problem in criminology) and this is especially true with sex crimes. Crime statistics only reflects what has been reported and processed as an actual crime by the system, depending in which country you live this may accurately reflect reality or be completely off.
Things are getting better now but the police in Japan is know for their very poor handling of sex crime victims. This alone greatly affects how many crimes are being reported. Then there are cultural factors that may also lead victims not to report crimes in order to avoid the social consequences of being victimized. Japan being a more group-oriented society than the west, the incentive not to report to "avoid causing troubles" is also stronger. This is a highly political matter since properly taking care of victims and helping them report abuse will actually make the crime rate go *up*. Which would be a very positive outcome for society but a disastrous one for the politician taking that decision.
Does pornography reduce sex crimes? I don't know. I strongly believe it does, but that's just my sentiment.
Since I was gobbling all day on the screen it suppressed the urge to voraciously feed all day long. Plus the bright yellow may the basement a lot more tolerable.
The last big thanksgiving we had was very quiet. Usually, some kid will break a bone, or come in crying because someone got hit, etc. Now they are all playing modern warfare in their room in front of a TV. Although its peaceful, its kind of eerie.
Crime statistics only reflects what has been reported and processed as an actual crime by the system, depending in which country you live this may accurately reflect reality or be completely off.
Barring some mafia-esque effort to actively reduce crime reporting, it's probably safe that the percentage of a given crime that gets reported remains relatively static. I would expect that, even in Japan, a reduction in the number of reported rapes likely correlates to a real world reduction in actual rapes.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Just a bunch of guesses based on things that they like that have changed. Most notably NOT included is the fact that Concealed Carry permits and handgun ownership is way up... Just as likely to have an impact as any of the other things, but not "academically acceptable" to be included...
Not exactly.
1. They don't say that violent games cause an increase in VIOLENT CRIME, but in aggression. Which is a whole other dish. One can be aggressive in various ways that don't actually involve bashing someone's head in.
The difference is basically like that between feeling horny and rape. Even if, say, pornography makes people hornier, it doesn't also make them go rape someone. I'm using that example because we already have a damn good correlation between access to pornography and a dramatic reduction in rape incidence over the years.
So basically it's not as simple as having a +10% crime safety and a -5% crime safety there to sum up. There is nothing in there that says you actually even have a - at all.
2. On the same note, if it's increased aggression that only happens in games, then who cares? You'd only have a - there if it translates to violence outside the games, which nobody showed yet. In fact even for aggression, nobody showed a longer term effect than the next couple of hours.
Again, I'll return to what we know about pornography and rape. Sure, pornography makes people horny, BUT it also offers the easiest outlet for that. It's easier to just spank the monkey and be done with it, than shut down the browser and go look for someone to rape.
On the same note, if violent games make people aggressive, BUT also offer a more immediate way to vent that aggression, then basically there is no - there at all. There is some increased aggression... in a game. Who cares?
Or to put it in an example less emotionally loaded than pornography, think buying a scratching post for your cat. Sure, it may make the cat scratch more than if it had nothing available, but it doesn't mean more scratching on your furniture. Scratching more on the post, who cares about that?
3. That duality between maybe increased urges, but also a way to vent them, is important when it's not the only way to get such urges in the first place. A way to work out that aggression without actually harming anyone can work not just for aggression from games, but for aggression that was there without games too. And you can't just decree what else should work for venting it.
Basically if someone is feeling aggressive, you can't just tell them to vent it on playing The Sims 3 instead of Call Of Duty. If the game they're allowed doesn't scratch the itch they have, then you don't just have the + without the -, you don't have the + in the first place.
Basically same as it works for the aforementioned pornography correlation. If someone is feeling horny, you can't really tell them to go pray and do wholesome activities and thoughts instead, because it doesn't work that way. We have thousands of years of trying to tell them that, and it didn't work as well as in theory. We tried to preach chivalrous courtly love and non-sexual thoughts, and even threaten people with hell if they don't, but it turns out they still went and raped someone. Then comes an age of just letting them watch porn and spank the monkey, and, what d you know? Something that actually scratches the itch works better than just telling them to pretend the itch doesn't exist.
Or same as the cat and the scratch post. You can't just tell the cat to do something else instead of scratching, because the urge is there anyway. If there is no scratching post or surface, you get scratched carpets and furniture, and that's that. The thing that works is to give it something better than your furniture to scratch.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Because you can reduce hate crimes, that can be objectively measured right?
So its like the death of a thousand paper cuts...but with needle marks?
Of COURSE there has been a reduction in violent crime in the last few years, and it's rather obvious why. Seems someone forgot to take into account the change in the crime "landscape" that the internet brings to the table. Violent games is unlikely the only factor here, or even the main one.
Who the hell robs a gas station or liquor store anymore when you can sit at home and search for credit card numbers and CVV2 codes with Google? Like credit card companies actually dedicate real time and effort investigating credit card theft? Please. They wipe your bill clean, issue a new credit card, and write off the loss, and the thief hardly lifted their hands off a keyboard.
Who the hell steals CDs from a music store anymore when you can torrent the music in less time that it takes to put your shoes on to go rob said music store?
Bitcoin mining? Another shining example of how "theft" has changed from armed robbery to mouse clicks and CPU cycles.
On top of all that, never underestimate the power of pure laziness. We have an entire up-and-coming generation unfortunately "representing" that.
That's because tentacle monsters are just visitors to japan and come from a far more sexually repressed society. When they get to japan they just go berserk.
On the other hand, it's well known that permanent resident tentacle monsters in japan are very polite and productive members of society.
But if you ever see a gang of snorks, fscking run!
Something my grandfather knew and my great-grandfather... Many crimes are crimes of opportunity, usually linked to boredom. There have long been clear statistics that kids who play sports, play an instrument, or have dedication to a hobby are far less likely to be involved in crime. If someone is playing video games... They're not bored, and they're not out finding crimes of opportunity. Keep kids busy and they stay out of trouble.
I truly believe that the concealed carry gun laws are to thank and more people defending themselves. Criminals now fear being shot by armed citizens. It shows that Brady Campaign is wrong. If it were the video games, then crime would be falling in Europe and the world too.
I think it was Alan Dean Foster's "Quozl" in which the traveling aliens have ultra-realistic game setups (not quite a holodeck) in which they can hunt and messily kill their prey from back home. Without that opportunity to drain the aggression from their systems, they know they would turn on each other as easily as on outsiders. Cesar Milan, "The Dog Whisperer", often talks about making sure one uses up a pet's energy for similar reasons. Why should anyone be surprised that humans have the same problem - especially humans who aren't satisfied with just sitting and reading /.?
Yeah, but unfortunately different forums have different ideas about how markup should work. Virtually all the PHP ones use square brackets, for example. Slashdot is just one board out of many for me, and really the one I read the least lately. So, you know, reflexes kick in and all that.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Imagine if they were allowed to show genitalia!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
So video games are just a form of drug that has less side effects?
Doesn't follow - drugs are in limited supply.
Even if gaming were as physiologically addictive as drugs, there is essentially a limitless supply of gaming, obtainable for very small amounts of money, or for free.
Drugs increase the crime rate because there is not a limitless cheap supply, forcing people into criminal interactions with the real world to obtain them.
Right. However, what the anti-correlation does show is that any hypothetical pro-violence effect of video games must be so small that it is utterly swamped by other social and demographic factors that impact violent crime.
Calling it vidya is fucking stupid.
They develop violent feelings but they take it all out on their fictional characters. They stop going outside (thousands of years of children spent their days outside because they lacked TV and vidya) so they aren't around other people even if they have all kinds of aggressive hormones flowing to compel them to pick a fight with the next person they see.
Where I live the children get plenty of outside time at school, although granted there's probably a bit less total outside play/fight time in the evenings or at weekends/holidays than when I was young.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Alternate theory. High unemployment means more people are home during the day and it's harder to commit a crime of opportunity.
Yeah, but there are also more people about with little money and too much time on their hands, so there is more incentive and opportunity to commit crime.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This is common knowledge to gamers or those who know them. I'm no psychologist, but to me, the fact that gamers would rather sit in front of a screen for the majority of their waking existence, and that they focus all their energies towards the game on the screen, tells me that they are a population that is much less likely to commit any sort of crime, let alone violent crime.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Nobody said they're identical, but there is plenty of evidence that people do connect to people in a movie or game in ways that aren't that clearly cut. E.g., seeing some people talking in a movie has been shown to make people less lonely.
You could equally postulate that there is no connection between seeing people in a movie and talking to people IRL, but for the hierarchy of needs the former seems to be enough. The brain can get a need or urge satisfied by just watching other people on a screen.
IOW, such personal postulates are pretty worthless. That's why we make studies, instead of just believing Random Internet Guy #12345678 to know exactly what outlets work for what.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Do we realy need a study showing: "People playing violent video games aren't commiting crimes, they are busy." Without proof, I believe that shooting up a town in a game is a lot easier and funner than real life.
Maybe, but I didn't write that forum software, I just use it. And I have to do what works on those boards, regardless of exactly what the IQ of the people who wrote their forum software was.
If I want to link someone to a mod of mine on the Nexus, I can fuss all I want about how it should be <a href="something">, it won't make their forum software swallow that. Either I write that as [url=something] or I don't have a link.
And, honestly, I kinda outgrew the stage of waging a holy war over such issues. It's just a stupid markup language. Whether it's with square brackets, or angular brackets, or control codes like in the old WordStar, or whatever, who the fuck cares?
The only real difference is that Slashdot doesn't allow editing to fix it if I accidentally used the wrong one.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
You can expect it, but the two are not directly linked. There's other factors you can't know, which means that assuming it is false.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
It is a complete lie. The linked article does *not* credit violent games with reduced crime. It is only one out of ten possible theories that were proposed, and none of them have strong evidence to support them.
So, who modded parent "Insightful...."
Best. /. Laugh. Ever.
sigfault (core dumped)
roe verse wade... that's all im gonna say
Statistics don't indicate anything conclusive. Even if the now-prevalent violent videogames were the actual reason behind the drop in crime rate, it is only a matter of time when this generation gets tired of playing just videogames and get out on the streets for real violence, AGAIN. What is worse is that they'd be equipped with more twisted ideas to cause anarchy.
2. Revival in religion. Yea I know this is Slashdot and a lot of the readers here are Atheists or against religion in one form or an other, but there has been a resurgence in religious people. Which teaches at least to stop people from doing unorganized violence.
Unfortunately, there's at least one study that strongly suggests that atheists are less likely to commit crime than religious adherents.
Yup. That's the problem with monotheistic religion saying there can only be one single unique deity worth worshipping, and that your particular one is *THE* *TRUE* *ONE* deity. Therefore, anyone else believing in anything else is :
- worshipping a false deity and shall be killed because that's a crime in your religion
- is on a false path and should be brought back on the right path even if it takes violence and/or torture.
So although, as GP points out, most religions aren't really supporting acts of random non-organised criminality, religions - specially the mono theistic ones - are quite good at making people kill in organised fashion "IN THE NAME OF deity !!!!". Be it holy wars, genocide of populace with differing believes, or simply stoning by applying some archaic type of justice described in an out-date bronze-age book.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]