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."

Comments

Motherf**king snakes!

[cashman73]

Obligatory: "Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherf**king snakes on this motherf**king plane!"

Crispy bacon

[Anonymous Coward]

I fucking hate it when my bacon's burnt.

Re:Crispy bacon

[fishingmachine]

im a normal human being, and all of this vegetarian condemnation stuff is really annoying. not as annoying as their self righteousness but still annoying. and humans are omnivores, not debatable.

No shit

[Nidi62]

I'd get mad too if someone wasted good bacon by burning it. Hate crispy bacon.

Bacon claim unsupported! News at 11!

[__aaltlg1547]

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.

30 years? try 60

[1u3hr]

Sixty years ago it was comic books. Fifty years ago rock 'n roll music.

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.

Re:30 years? try 60

[alexgieg]

Back in the 1930s I guess it was talkies, so they brought in the Hayes Code.

Actually, the discussion goes back at least 2400 years. It was one of the points of difference between Plato and Aristotle. Plato thought media (theater, poetry and music back then) caused people to emulate what was being presented, while Aristotle was of the opinion it actually helped people release the tension and thus not go around killing, raping and such.

Generation after generation afterwards -- at what amounts to at least 120 generations, give or take -- there have been people arguing for either camps, with no consensual conclusion having ever been reached.

Interesting correlation.

[Sique]

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.

Re:Interesting correlation.

[Anonymous Coward]

And most of them had high levels of dihydrogen monoxide in their body.

Oblig.

[Psicopatico]

"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.]

G.I.G.O.

[SternisheFan]

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.

Re:G.I.G.O.

[Solandri]

The key point isn't whether or not they are influenced by graphic imagery. It's how much they're influenced by it. Even if you assume/accept that young impressionable minds are influenced by violent imagery, if the magnitude of the effect is on the same scale as viewing pictures of bacon, then it's not really a concern.

If the magnitude of the effect of using a cell phone while driving were similar to that of changing the station on the radio, then that's really not worth worrying about. But it turns out the magnitude of the effect is similar to or greater than driving while drunk, which warrants laws prohibiting the behavior.

Article is a far more interesting read ...

[MacTO]

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.

As a socialist

[rsilvergun]

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.

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 /.er's sig here to end: "For every complex problem there is a simple answer that is also wrong".

Re:As a socialist

[clarkkent09]

That's the trouble with socialism. It's the complex answer to a complex problem.
 
No it is not. Socialism means public ownership of the means of production and distribution, i.e. state ownership of the industry and central planning of the economy. That's simply what the word means (look it up in a dictionary) and what that ideology was always understood to represent. Just because "socialists" are embarrassed by the utter failure of their system wherever it was tried, doesn't mean you can simply pretend that a word with a clearly defined meaning now means something completely different. It may be that a complex mix of free market and government regulation is the best way (though I personally disagree) but that is commonly called "mixed economy", not "socialism". Btw. Keynes would be insulted if you called him a socialist to his face, and being and disgusting power-hungry evil bully as he was, it probably wouldn't be a good idea.

Not really...

[rsilvergun]

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.

former hardcore gamer and parent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You're mixing it up

[rsilvergun]

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.

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 /.. Are you an Astroturfer?