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."

6 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. Motherf**king snakes! by cashman73 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  2. Crispy bacon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I fucking hate it when my bacon's burnt.

  3. Interesting correlation. by Sique · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
    1. Re:Interesting correlation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. As a socialist by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  5. Re:30 years? try 60 by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.