Slashdot Mirror
Long-term Study Finds No Link Between Video Game Violence and Real Violence
SternisheFan sends news that a study has been completed on the long-term effects of violence in movies and video games on violence in real life. A researcher at Stetson University found no link between the consumption of violent media and an increase in societal violence. The study was published in the Journal of Communication. From the article:
"Entertainment Software Ratings Board ratings were used to estimate the violent content of the most popular video games for the years 1996-2011. These estimates of societal video game violence consumption were correlated against federal data on youth violence rates during the same years. Violent video game consumption was strongly correlated with declines in youth violence. However, it was concluded that such a correlation is most likely due to chance and does not indicate video games caused the decline in youth violence. ... Previous studies have focused on laboratory experiments and aggression as a response to movie and videogame violence, but this does not match well with real-life exposure.
What?
So what you're saying is that humans can tell the difference between reality and video games??
Of course not. Now that they've ruled out video games causing violence we have a new crowd attacking games from a different angle. Now Grand Theft Auto doesn't make gamers into violent crooks, it makes them in misogynists because the game contains hookers. Princess Peach isn't just a pointless bit of story to explain why you're crushing mushrooms and turtles, she's "teaching boys to keep women in the kitchen."
So conservatives may have finally moved on, but a new group is attacking video games as being "bad for us" from a completely different angle. So be prepared to hear even more about that. And once people prove that isn't true, I'm sure the goalposts will be moved yet again.
New group? It's the same group: prudes.
I would actually have expected a reverse link -- violent video games having a cathartic effect.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
but Anita Sarkeesian swears it does!
Oh, wait, no, that's sexism, not violence. I'm sure it's completely different.
The blame game has always been popular. It is always some made up bullshit excuse instead of finding & treating the root problem. One small set (or sect/group/cult) of society tries to blame an inanimate object for all of society's woes and spreads their propaganda to anyone who will listen.
Every "next technology" is always scapegoated.
1900 Film
1920 Prohibition (Alcohol), Phonographs
1930 Jazz, Movies
1940 Radio
1950 Dancing
1960 Psychedelic Drugs, Sex
1970 Rock n Roll, Movies (again)
1980 MTV, DnD, Heavy Metal
1990 Computer Games
2000 Internet and "strangers online"
2010 Guns
Then you have idiot psychiatrists like this who say 20+ year olds playing computer games is not "normal."
http://www.destructoid.com/pla...
To which I'll counter:
1. Hey fucking retard -- the medium is irrelevant.
Why is playing a card, board, or sports game like poker, go, chess, or baseball / hockey / basketball / etc. considered "normal", yet playing a digital game isn't normal??
2. Well guess what -- all these people were not normal as well:
Leonardo da Vinci was not normal
Isaac Newton was not normal
Charles Darwin was not normal
Albert Einstein was not normal
Stephen Hawking is not normal
Normal people don't do exceptional things.
The real issue is:
Are _you_ balanced in your daily activities, responsibilities, and hobbies?
> In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.
This is a nice kafka trap because you can't deny it without making it appear true. That leaves you with science vs. rhetoric and, well, let's just say that rhetoric tends to win even if it shouldn't, logically speaking.