Slashdot Mirror
Don't Study the Video Game, Study the Gamer
rrossman2 writes with this quote from a USA Today article about research recently presented to the American Psychological Association: "Video games — especially violent ones — are constantly under scrutiny from parents concerned about negative effects. Now, research suggests that those worries should focus more on the player's personality rather than the content of the games. 'If you're worried about a video game turning your son or daughter into a killer, don't worry about that,' says psychologist Patrick Markey of Villanova (Pa.) University. 'But is your kid moody, impulsive, or are they unfriendly? It's probably not the best idea to have that child play violent video games.' ... Markey found slight increases in hostility for those with certain personality traits: extremely high on neuroticism and extremely low on agreeableness and conscientiousness. ... 'We found — irrespective of violent content — the two highly competitive games produced more aggressive behavior than the two less competitive games,' [Markey said.]"
Children's violence is actually the fault of the child and his parents. News at 11.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
There are no games which are not violent.
There's plenty of non-violent games. Unfortunately, kind tend to think shooting is more cool than leading some ball around, building a city or solving various logical puzzles. Also, non-violent games are usually involve more thinking, which is frowned upon in modern society, even more so among children.
Off the top of my head: Portal, SimCity, various Tycoon games, Neverball, Bejeweled, Tetris
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Portal? That game where the psychopathic robot end boss tries to kill you by pumping a nerve toxin into the facility, having stated that the first bit blown off it was a module installed to stop it from pumping a lethal nerve gas into the facility?
Where you defeat the boss by using portal mechanics to direct its own explosive munitions back at itself?
Where you are frequently set upon by static turret pods with automatic weapons?
That game where you have to drop the only item your character is supposed to have an emotional attachment to into an incinerator?
Where you are almost burned alive by aforementioned psychopathic AI?
But wait, yeah... You don't get a gun, so it's totally not violent.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Yeah, and many children form a "gun" with their hand, point it at someone else and say "bang, you're dead". Few of them become killers.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
In a way, SimCity is violent. Or at least brain-washing, which is the precise default we hope violent games don't have.
I'm not talking about the disasters (earthquakes, etc.) the player can unleash. For a SimCity game, one thing matters over everything : your bank account. You want to build this stuff? You need money. You want to change the landscape? You need money.
Having a positive balance may requier for the player to diminish stuff like hospital subventions, etc.: the kind of stuff that can cause more deaths in reality is here rewarded.
SimCity is extremely pro-capitalist (may seems unimportant in US, but many people in other countries don't have the same view about economy).
There is a huge gap in what you'ld expect of a good mayor, and what SimCity teaches.
Tetris isn't very violent. But anyway, you're doing the right thing. I don't think it's useful for kids to grow up in an environment with zero exposure to violence. Kids that are over-protected can be just as maladjusted as the ones that get no adult supervision at all.
Pacifist Protester: Name one situation where violence is the answer!?
Ali G: A violent situation.
I once went to the house of a teacher at the school where I worked, to do an IT job for them. Their child (7/8 years old) was home and playing on the console while I sat at the PC.
It wasn't until *I* mentioned it that she realised that the South Park videogame they were playing lets you launch dildos at the other players. At first, she thought I was joking, then she thought it was just us mis-interpreting it, then she read the instruction manual.
Then she started to actually WATCH South Park with her child and realised that it wasn't just a cartoon for kids. Bear in mind that she would spend every working day herding children and making sure they didn't say anything untoward, or see anything they shouldn't, and she hadn't noticed even though she'd bought the games the kids asked for after seeing the cartoon on TV and they'd been playing them for months.
A lot of parents are fecking idiots. Sure there are some that are deliberately liberal and accommodating, but there are a lot that just don't care / know what their kids are doing. And, no, a violent video game, or even a sexually explicit one, isn't going to harm your child. But the lack of parenting that can result in them doing those things you never realised were available to them can and will harm your child.
That's where the link is - not the games making your child violent or unsociable - its the laxity of parenting that can often result in both things appearing at once. If you're really just buying games for your kids with no question of their content despite their age ratings, that's a parenting problem.
But hell, when I was younger I would watch 18-rated films with my parents - they were never "scary" because it was only a film (i.e. not real life) but it's only my upbringing that taught me that, and when I was that young my parents would *know* what I was watching because they'd have seen it first or had a rough idea of the content of it before they watched it with me.
Game ratings are as useless as film ratings. They only work if the parent is so lazy that they rely on them exclusively. If they are just a lazy parent, they won't even bother to check the age. If your parent knows what they are doing, the age-rating is neither here nor there - they will decide whether or not you get to watch it and not have to read a box on the back of the DVD case, and 99.9% of the time will let you watch it when you are younger than it says.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a well-brought-up child of 11 playing an 18-rated game, or watching an 18-rated movie. So long as they are mature enough to handle it and you KNOW that's what they are doing.
The worst of modern diseases is having no idea what your kids are doing, and not caring even when you do. I bet a lot of those parents that whine about their children becoming violent after playing GrandTheftAuto never bother to mention that their kids were allowed out until all-hours anyway, that they never knew where they were, that they didn't know where the games (or the money to buy them) came from, etc. that the kid has all the latest games consoles but plays in no team sports, etc.
Today, other people are the perfect targets to play for YOUR bad parenting. If you tell your kid to be home at 8, they are home at 8. There is no "but what if" they don't turn up. They *WILL* be home at 8. It's very simple. But nobody bothers to enforce the little things until the big things have already bred in habits.
What? You mean that you don't want GlaDOS as role model for your kid?
But is your kid moody, impulsive, or are they unfriendly?
Seriously? Isn't this the definition of every single teenager that exists, has existed and will exist? Myself included back in the day of course.
Who need's speling and grammar?
"I disagree with how this video game simulates reality" is not the same thing as "this video game is violent"
Likewise, that your choices in a video game may lead to some virtual deaths is not the same thing as violent.
In a way, SimCity is violent. Or at least brain-washing, which is the precise default we hope violent games don't have.
I'm not talking about the disasters (earthquakes, etc.) the player can unleash. For a SimCity game, one thing matters over everything : your bank account. You want to build this stuff? You need money. You want to change the landscape? You need money.
Having a positive balance may requier for the player to diminish stuff like hospital subventions, etc.: the kind of stuff that can cause more deaths in reality is here rewarded.
SimCity is extremely pro-capitalist (may seems unimportant in US, but many people in other countries don't have the same view about economy).
There is a huge gap in what you'ld expect of a good mayor, and what SimCity teaches.
SimCity has recently been accused of being to environmentally based as well.
I actually think it is just trying to be realistic. We live in a world where money matters more than everything, so Sim City would be utter rubbish if it did not mirror this to a certain extent.
Also, you sat people in many other countries don't have the same view of economy, did you have any in particular in mind? I am from the UK by very left leaning parents who considered themselves socialists. I was encouraged to play SimCity as a kid as a way to learn about economics and the results of your actions.
I would say that SimCity can be used to encourage left leaning thoughts in children. In the example above you give about hospitals as far as I remember if you skimped on things like healthcare and education people started leaving your city in droves to go and live somewhere nicer. If you just followed purely capitalist rationale for your decisions you would build lots of oil or coal fired power plants, but the resulting pollution also made people leave your city. People leaving meant you got reduced tax revenue, so that made it harder to balance the books in future. While the game might revolve around economics, economics is not a subject studied solely by people who are pro-capitalist.
Many lefties also study economics, they just approach it from a different point of view. Interestingly here in the UK both of our main parties (conservative and labour) are riddled with people who all studied the same thing at the same university: Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Oxford. In my case this was also what my mother studied, then later taught at university.
Economics is not just the domain of capitalists, we could all do with learning about it. Ultimately, even without the existence of money economics would still be about how you allot resources.
I dont read
I really don't think we need to worry about any kids growing up with "zero exposure to violence". I don't see how it's even possible, since nature is chock full of violence.
On the other hand, my daughter has studied martial arts seriously since she was very young (Iaido, Hsing I and now Muay Thai). She has seen me practicing Chinese martial arts since she was little. She's the most peaceful, non-violent person you could possibly meet (though I pity anyone who would be crazy enough to mess with her). And yes, we play Street Fighter IV and Fallout 3 and Borderlands, but we're pretty aware that they are not real. Even Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare 2 Part II (or whatever it's called) is not real. Realistic is not real.
I think when it comes to children, teaching them morality and honor and respect is more important than trying to hide from them the fact that the world is a violent place.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I know this may come as a surprise given the stereotype, but Americans don't actually hand AK-47s to children just before they get on the schoolbus.
Also, shotguns are guns too, you know. The first time I met my friend's Welsh husband, he made a remark about Americans and handguns. Then, not two minutes later, mentioned something about his grandmother shooting rabbits in her front yard with a shotgun. She did not live in the country. He was not making a joke. I don't know where you're from, but if I walked outside with a BB gun right now and started popping off at squirrels, police would be called, and I would be hauled off for a serious talking-to.
My father was a deputy sheriff and a gun nut, and from the South, and so I grew up surrounded by guns. Loaded guns, in fact, because an unloaded gun isn't much use if someone's breaking into your house. I first shot a gun when I was 12, but knew about guns from about six. The first thing I learned about guns was that they are incredibly dangerous, and are not toys. Practically from the time I could walk I was taught to respect guns, to never point a gun at someone (even a toy gun) unless I was going to shoot them, to assume all guns are loaded, and knew where every gun in the house was, hidden or not. I also listened to death metal, industrial, was goth, and watched horror movies all the time. I did drugs, was dumped by girlfriends, and had problems with authority. To date, I have never shot anyone.
Parenting makes the difference. Taking guns out of the equation just means that Junior Sociopath will start googling "fertilizer explosive".
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
"moody, impulsive, unfriendly (to adults)" describes, like, 90% of teenagers, with the exception of the student council types.
It's because it's a tested, re-tested, re-verified and oh yes double-blind checked observation that video games increase violent behavior, in the short term, in the long term, in little kids, in big kids, in young adults, in middle aged people, older people and pensioners.
Except not a single one of these studies have proven that. In fact, they are closer to proving that competition irrespective of violent content, is the main motivator for aggressive, not violent behavior. Holy crap, people who play competitive games (sports, video games, board games, whatever) are sometimes aggressive about their competitiveness. Hmm...perhaps competitive people play competitive games. Considering that the only thing that has been shown is a correlation (to aggressiveness, not violent behavior) claiming that they cause violent behavior is a flat out lie.
So can we now please please grow up and assume that, yes, 40 years of testing the same thing (20 years for video games), with every honest psychologist coming again and again to the same conclusion did not result from a desire to steal your tv/video games ?
If you read what the studies actually say, the honest psychologists never claimed that violent media caused violent behavior, only that there is a correlation. The honest ones also showed that video games are not alone, all violent media has roughly the same effect. Games (video, card, board, sports, etc.) are only different in the existence of competitiveness. When it comes to the violent imagery, they are no different that tv, movies, books, comics, etc. Maybe the reason why we've been testing the same thing for 40 years is because everyone THINKS that they must cause it (because they don't want to take responsibility for raising their own children) and they keep re-testing it because they haven't gotten the answer they want yet. Nah, that couldn't be it.....
Note that the actual study indicated that people are very much affected, specifically made violent, by these video games. What the study mostly claimed is that some types of imagined violence had more of an effect than others (big surprise : convincing violence, preferably with some sort of consequence on a real, human, victim, even if it's just a number on his/her screen, evokes more violence than what amounts to showing a picture of some blood).
Except the study said no such thing. The study actually explicitly stated that the violent content in the games doesn't do anything unless you have specific personality traits that could be affected. Newsflash! If your kid has trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality, don't let them play a violent game. If your kid is already aggressive, violent and moody, don't let them play a violent game. It has nothing to do with the video game causing anything, it just reinforces a pre-existing issue with the person. Violent games will not cause a perfectly normal person to become a violent person. It just doesn't happen and it's not possible. The study actually stated: "We found — irrespective of violent content — the two highly competitive games produced more aggressive behavior than the two less competitive games." So the factor is competitiveness, not violence. And the result is aggressiveness, not violence. Holy crap, people who play competitive games will become aggressive because they are competitive! I never guessed that! Maybe they want to win or something?
This is THE way to politicize science.
Politics refuses to accept the answer that media (whether it's movies, video games, punk rock, comic books, etc.) is just not as influencing of behavior as they like to believe. People need to be able to blame something other than themselves for the perceived "immorality" of young people today. Every time some new media comes around, it is vilified and eventually proven to not be the cause of all of life's woes like people claim. Your post i
I've been saying for a while that the whole "video games cause violence" idea has causality wrong. If you're a happy, perfectly well adjusted person, then playing DOOM won't turn you into a killer. However, if you have mental/emotional problems that make you potentially violent and homicidal, you might be very likely to seek out means to play out those desires, which may include violent games.
If you want to prevent the next school shooting, don't bother censoring video games. Seek out the troubled kids and try to help them.
The real problem here isn't the video games. The real problem is high school.
Parenting makes the difference. Taking guns out of the equation just means that Junior Sociopath will start googling "fertilizer explosive".
It's far easier for a troubled kid to pick up, say, dad's irresponsibly handled guns, than it is for that same kid to build a fertilizer explosive capable of doing significant damage completely undetected.
No reasonable person would argue that "kid can't get a gun" implies "kid can't hurt or kill anyone". There's a big difference between that (flawed) argument and the argument that "kid can't get a gun" means "kid more likely to be caught before he hurts or kills someone" and "kid able to kill or hurt fewer people than if he had a gun".
I am officially gone from
Someone had a different experience of playing monopoly and cards than I did with my siblings.
If you were to read the actual study (not publicly accessible), you'd see the EXACT experiment done :
Well, until I read the study, I'm not just going to take your word on it.
Observation violent behavior increased, except in the case of "marble blast ultra".
How was 'violent behavior" measured? One of the biggest problems with many of these studies is that the "measurement of violent behavior" is often ridiculous, convoluted, and stupid. Many times they are measuring aggression not violent behavior, but calling it violent behavior anyway. Giving someone "explo_e" and seeing who puts a "d" for explode versus an "r" for explore doesn't measure anything, yet there was a study that used that as part of its measure of "aggressive thoughts."
Note that this experiment *does* prove causality, if it sufficiently excludes other influences between steps 1 and 3. It is not mere correlation (you're only stuck with correlation if you can only do passive experiments. This is an active experiment : you actually influence those people)
Really? What was the control group? You listed four experimental groups. If there was no control group then this can't prove causation because it did not sufficiently exclude other influences. Also, how did they chose who got to play which game? Did the subjects know specifically what they were being tested for? Do they account for this? How do they explain the studies which don't show this increase for violent video games? You want to back the study off your own interpretation of what things mean, answer the questions.
the game "Fuel" was more effective in creating violent responses than Left 4 Dead 2 (but what was left out is that there are 2 possible allowed tactics : either you race, or you try to destroy your opponents). But "Mortal Kombat" took the crown spot, and left 4 dead 2 still increased violent responses.
Racing and running an opponent off the road or causing him to crash is just not comparable to shooting/gore/beating up/etc. Unless the racing game in question is arming the cars with guns and explosives, I would not call it a violent game. Aggressive perhaps, but not violent. If the scientists who ran the study didn't consider it violent, then either you're calling into question their methodology at which point all of the results are suspect and need to be gone over again, or you're wrong.
Politics refuses to accept the answer that media (whether it's movies, video games, punk rock, comic books, etc.) is just not as influencing of behavior as they like to believe. People need to be able to blame something other than themselves for the perceived "immorality" of young people today ...
Cute, very nice way of throwing in the assumption that games don't have any effect. Nicely done. Of course, the position of psychology science is just the opposite, so isn't your response a very good example of letting your politics override your common sense ?
Hmmm, nice way of twisting my words around. I stated that they are just not as influencing of behavior as people like to believe. I did not state they "don't have any effect." I did however state they have no greater effect than that of movies, books, comics, etc. To which you had no response. I also gave you the example that the position of Psychological studies is not settled. There is no consensus by psychologists that video games do or do not cause violent behavior. There are many who believe it does and there are just as many who believe it does not. There are flawed studies that attempt to show video games increase violence and there are flawed studies that attempt to show they do not. Do not go around stating the falsehood that it is settled and agreed by psychologists that violent video games cause violent behavior. You are attempting to claim that it's "common sense" that violent video
My opinion is extremely clear.
Violent video games do not cause an increase in violent behavior in someone who does not already have a problem with violent behavior.
They can however, as do movies, books, comics, music, and basically all other media (not restricted to violent) cause an increase in aggression temporarily. Not permanently, and not significantly.
However this is my opinion based on my interpretation of the many studies I have read, and the results they have found. I would not presume to state that my opinion is the "settled" opinion of the science by psychologists, because there is no settled and agreed opinion that violent video games do or do not cause violent behavior. Which is the point I've been saying all along. You are claiming that they "definitely cause violent behavior" and that it is "settled science" and anyone who disagrees with you is "ignoring common sense". All of that is completely wrong.