Slashdot Mirror
If Video Games Make People Violent, So Do Pictures of Snakes
New submitter phenopticon writes with this nugget from an intriguing piece at Gamasutra that adds another voice to the slow-burn debate on the psychological effects of video games: "For nearly thirty years we've been having this discussion, asking the question: do violent movies, music or video games make people violent? Well according to Brad Bushman and Craig Anderson of Iowa State University, yes. Based on the results of their research they concluded in 2001 that video games and violent media can make people aggressive and violent. Based upon their data and their conclusions, however, it's safe to say that photos of snakes, crispy bacon, or a particularly rigorous game of chess can also make people aggressive and violent."
Obligatory: "Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherf**king snakes on this motherf**king plane!"
I fucking hate it when my bacon's burnt.
I'd get mad too if someone wasted good bacon by burning it. Hate crispy bacon.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I checked the original article. It doesn't support the claims about bacon. I guess it's still safe to eat breakfast. At least, safe for my family and friends. Maybe not so safe for my heart.
Back in the 1930s I guess it was talkies, so they brought in the Hayes Code.
Whatever is the "new" media" is assumed to be evil and corrupting.
It might be, but you do have to prove it.
90% of all violent perpetrators ate carbohydrates the day before their killing spree. And 95% of all violent perpetrators consume caffeine at least once per week. 99% have been moving on public roads recently.
"If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
(Kristian Wilson - Creator of Pac-Man - 1989)
[I know this quote is a comedina joke and not an original one, but whatever it expresses exactly my tougths on the subject.]
Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
For impressionable minds, GIGO applies, Garbage In, Garbage Out. To have a a young mind exposed to images of violence and expect that they aren't influenced by it would be a ridiculous arguement, imo.
The fact that we're still arguing about this is kinda depressing. I admit that there are some violent, awful games, but I personally could state a list of incredibly good games, games which carry a more powerful message than a lot of books or film, and simply could not achieve that without being at least a little violent and visceral.
This article does bring up the interesting point, that violent media has equal potential to make people violent, no matter what form of media it is (the 2-minutes hate from 1984 springs to mind)
But that said, the debate is still ridiculous because Video Games fall under free speech, and therefore should not be banned, whatever their content, just like we treat books, movies, and tv.
-1 Comment Contains Portal Reference
The article is a far more interesting read than the misleading headline and summary. A lot of it focuses on the idea that the "... discussion should not focus upon violent video games or violent visual media, it should focus on risk factors that might cause media to affect different people in different ways."
Unfortunately the social sciences are incredibly complex. There are a multitude of variables that are incredibly difficult to control, and any effort to control those variables would be shot down by ethics or create a significant bias in the experimental sample.
While things such as the physiological response of game players is interesting, I would be far more interested in learning about the long term impact on attitudes and behaviours. Alas, the studies that I have seen in the media have not really addressed those issues. As such they tend to be divisive among the general public, who tend to interpret the results on way or another based upon their personal beliefs.
I would also be interested in seeing meaningful longitudinal studies. Yet those have major issues because of the dynamics of technology and society. Even the most graphic violence of video games in the 1980s would border on the implicit violence of modern video games. Part of that relates to the inherent graphical and storage space limitations of the past (restricted storage space limited the ability to tell a story). Part of that relates to the more mature subjects of modern games as the demographic has expanded from children to adults.
The difference is that video games don't kill people and guns do. Regardless of what the 2nd amendment folks say, the reality is that guns are more likely to be used to kill the owner than anybody else and that banning them would result in a decreased death rate from them.
I'm not saying that we necessarily want to go that route, but it's more a penis size issue than legitimate defense issue as there's no way in hell you'd be able to overthrow the government with the weapons that are generally accepted to be covered by the 2nd amendment. Nor are you likely to ever need one for self defense if you're not doing stupid things.
Nor are you likely to ever need one for self defense if you're not doing stupid things.
Facts. Guns are used for self defense about 989,000 times a year around the year 2000 in the US. Guns are used for murder about 10,000 times a year. Don't make up statements that the facts clearly show are wrong.
This is EXACTLY my point, hedwards is litterally making stuff up to deamonize law abiding citizens and claiming they should have no right to protect themsleves. This is the reason the NRA is attacking video games and the movie industry, but people are demanding something gets done and the NRA is providing the least resistance and most likely to be held up in court. They can back up their claims about self defense with guns with decades of facts, but the video game industry has no such history or facts.
I take offense. Genuine offense too, not silly slashdotter offense. I do not believe "the government knows better than you". I believe you by yourself are simply too weak and ineffective to stand up to corporate oligarchy. I believe power naturally accumulates into the hands of a lucky few as it's passed down generation to generation. I believe that the dark ages are a think to be feared, and that Keynesian economics, which have been proven time and again, are a better answer than the writings of a fellow from the 1800s who couldn't imagine a telephone much less global communications.
/.er's sig here to end: "For every complex problem there is a simple answer that is also wrong".
It's not that the government knows better, it's more complicated than that. That's the trouble with socialism. It's the complex answer to a complex problem. Libertarianism is the simple answer, the easy one. Simple answers always sound better, but I'll steal a fellow
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't see much grand standing going on. Nobody runs on gun control. It's a losing issue. Google Bill Clinton and gun control and you'll find him talking about how he lost congress over it. Pro-Gun people are single issue voters. Ironically you could take away every real freedom they have and so long as you left their guns alone they're OK (that's what it means to be a single issue voter, btw).
The anti-gun lobby is not gunning (pun) for power. They genuinely believe gun control will help. Socialized medicine and treatment for the mentally ill would help more, but they lost that battle when the health insurance lobby spent over a billion dollars to convince you the that health care was a limited resource because, hell, it's not like we couldn't train a 100,000 doctors a year for the price of America's private jets (you do the math, that's what I came up with using very, very conservative numbers).
So the people that want the shooting to stop gave up on treating the mentally ill and they're trying to just control things. I think they'll lose, but on the plus side it's put the corporate bastards on the defensive. I'll take what I can get.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Seriously, that's what you think those words mean? I suggest you read more. The AC you replied to is wrong too of course, so you at least have a point. Globalism and socialism are not opposites, although for some usages of the word globalism they can be opposed.
The thing about the use of guns for self-defense, additionally, is that there is the possibility of a snowball effect. If the possibility of victims being armed deters crime (the thesis of the gun-rights crowd), then even unarmed people benefit from their peaceful neighbors being armed. I used to live in a shitty neighborhood in Baltimore (and, before that, a shitty neighborhood in Washington); I don't own a gun and don't have the experience necessary to carry one safely, but I would have been happier if some of my neighbors were armed.
I'm from the generation that first got called to task for violent video games... Mortal Combat, Splatterhouse, Doom, etc...
I continued on and love to play intense games even today.
Once you have kids, you view of these things change,however.
Some people will change less, some more, but it affects you. You can see it happening inside them. Distancing themselves from consequences. Making aggression be the first response to a situation. In most kids, their response is subtle, and they can "handle it", but the question is should you glorify it?
Video games are an escape... this is true. It is fine for you to escape from consequences, and enjoy fantasy, but it's what you take back to the real world that defines whether you can handle it or not.
Many games are about being a hero and doing the right thing and there happens to be gore and violence along with it. But you are not behaving violent to celebrate it. Your character is being violent because he must to accomplish the task, save the girl, save the planet etc.
Games that turn this on its head are entertaining to those who understand the escape it provides ( who didn't love GTA when it came out? )
However if you are too young and don't have the life experience or morality to offset it, these games server to numb children to violence and do not give them the right skills to manage real world scenarios. It only confuses them.
You may think I am overreacting here, but please read this with a tone of reason. I am not saying violent video games should be banned, or anything outrageous. I do say, however that people should use good judgement and never assume that children are little adults. They do not function or learn the same way as adults. They do not have the maturity to understand and it will affect them.
More studies should be done about this, and I think that the video game industry should continue their classification system and encourage parents to take ti seriously.
I rambled a bit there, but hopefully someone takes something good away from this.
In real world, libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. A natural result of liberty is inequality. If you agree with that obvious truth then you have to accept that any system that enforces equality is not libertarian. How do you have equality without transferring wealth by force from one person to another? Now, if you have this idea that all people are the same in terms of ability and that without, as you probably imagine, collusion of evil corporate oligarchs, greedy banksters, corrupt politicians and "1 percenters" in general, everybody would naturally do about the same amount and quality of work, save and invest the same and end up more or less equal in terms of wealth then I would suggest that this is a psychological problem, not a philosophical one.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
with Communism. Again that's where complexity comes in. You're free to own the means of production, but you will pay to maintain a society that can use and enjoy that production.
/.. Are you an Astroturfer?
You're also using a personal attach on Keynes to discredit his economic theories. That's is actually a very sophisticated rhetorical technique for a silly message board like
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/