Slashdot Mirror


Video Gamers From the '90s Have Turned Out Mostly OK (arstechnica.com)

A study reported on by Ars Technica indicates that video games, much ballyhooed (alleged) source of mental, physical and psycho-social ills for the kids who spent a lot of time playing them, don't seem to have had quite as big a negative effect on those kids as the moral panic of the past few decades would have you believe. Instead, There didn't seem to be an association between the number of games the children reported owning and an increase in risk for conduct disorder. When examining depression among shoot-em-up players, there was evidence for increased risk before the researchers controlled for all the confounding factors, but not afterwards. Of course, there's a lot of data to go around in the several studies referred to here, and the upshot seems to both less exciting and less simple than "Video games are good, not bad!"

34 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Paging Jon Katz... by Etcetera · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In regard to social issues, I do like that Slashdot is getting back to its roots at least! :)

  2. Surprise by Mantrid42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just like the kids who grew up on metal, and comic books, and rock 'n roll, etc.

    1. Re: Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The ones who don't turn out okay are mostly the kid who was not loved unconditionally and comforted in times of distress.

    2. Re:Surprise by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly.

      When examining depression among shoot-em-up players, there was evidence for increased risk before the researchers controlled for all the confounding factors, but not afterwards.

      This makes it sound like playing lots of video games is a effect of depression rather than the cause. Which sounds just as plausible to me than it being the other way around. Just like people already at risk of social withdrawal, for them video games can be a great time killer.

    3. Re:Surprise by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yup, it is funny how every "next technology" is always scapegoated by the last generation. I've pointed this out in the past:

      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, Comic Books
      1990 Computer Games
      2000 Internet and "strangers online"
      2010 Guns

    4. Re:Surprise by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Since when are "guns" a "next technology" when they've been around for hundreds of years.

      Besides, the great Satan these days is social media.

      If they actually targeted guns as a problem with the same vitriol, they might do some good for once.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  3. Groundwork for future research by Soulskill · · Score: 4, Informative

    Full study here.

    Pretty tame conclusions, but I'm glad they're still doing research into this. I'm actually really curious to see what kind of psychological effects show up (or don't) as graphics technology gets ever closer to perfect fidelity. Not in the moral panic or "we must legislate this" sense, but just to understand whether and how a technology is capable of damaging us. VR is right around the corner, and game developers are focusing constantly on immersion -- this makes me wonder whether a sufficiently advanced game could cause PTSD, or a similar condition. I suspect not now, and not soon, but it'll probably be an issue some day.

    1. Re:Groundwork for future research by aethelrick · · Score: 2

      (In my humble opinion) I think the key difference between response to a game and response to reality is the fact that the player knows one is make-believe before they engage in it. This fore-knowledge that you're in a simulation coupled with a desire to be there goes a long way to blunt the response your mind has to the input.

      If it's possible for games to cause PTSD, then I imagine it would be possible to get PTSD from film and books as well. I'm not suggesting that this isn't the case however; But I do think it likely that people who are prone to being overly stressed by experiencing traumatic events would be more likely to try to avoid them. This leads me to suppose that someone avoiding violent games/books/films etc won't be traumatised by them in a PTSD sort of way because erm... they're avoiding them. If on the other hand we force everyone to experience all the hard core violent games/films/books out there then maybe we would be able to traumatise a few of them. We probably shouldn't do this :)

  4. Re:Kinda dissagree by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have read about people neglecting their kids to play farmville, I have even done a few nasty binges where I would swear to "stop by midnight" only to look outside and see that it was dawn.

    The big kerfuffle in the 90's wasn't that games were addictive, it was that they were violent and that we were going to turn into desensitized savages who want to dismember people. Basically this article is about kids that grew up on Mortal Kombat.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  5. Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Kunedog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a reason people dismiss claims of IRL "harm" the from Tipper Gores or Jack Thompsons or Anita Sarkeesians of the world. The burden of proof is always squarely on them, they almost always fail to meet it, and years later we (as often as not) get scientific evidence showing the opposite.

    1. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anita's butt video is a fine exercise of cherry picking and insane conspiracy theory nonsense. Nobody actually holds a board room meeting conspiring how to hide male butts, I'm pretty sure that the decision of giving Batman his cape was due to the fact that he is a character who is iconic for having a bloody cape but don't quote me on that. Not to mention that one of the DLCs for the very same game does give quite nice view of his ass. Her argument completely jumps the shark once she starts talking about how hard it is to see his ass, as if she doesn't understand how capes work.

      There are many male characters across many video games who do have prominent tight-fitting clothing and many female characters who do wear capes or less form-fitting clothing. Just in the superhero genre, you have most X-men, Spider-man, Green Lantern, Captain America, the Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer, etc...

      I'm not even going to get into the whole deal of how real-life females do tend to wear more form-fitting clothing than males and how one should control for the influence of gender dismorphism when it comes to portrayal of human characters, suffice to say that Anita offers to argument there because she tends to exercise the academic rigor expected of middle school students.

    2. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      She has some very good points though. It's funny to watch the videos with all the male characters having strategic butt coverings, but not female characters.

      You have a problem with a work of fiction presenting an idealised version of a woman? Those very same games present idealised versions of men as well - why is one a problem but not the other?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    3. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well considering she's the one claiming it's 100% one way. Never mind all those fashion magazines, or romance novels either. She's just another scam artist, the fact that she refuses to debate anyone even when offered 5 figures or the donation of that money to the charity of her choice should tell you a lot. Even Jack Thompson would debate people after he was called out. He looked like an idiot, but that's more then what she's done.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by tburkhol · · Score: 2

      There's a reason people dismiss claims of IRL "harm" the from Tipper Gores or Jack Thompsons or Anita Sarkeesians of the world.

      It's because every generation remembers something that their parents were absolutely certain was making the younger generation into terrible people. Facebook. Video games. Rock-n-roll. Jazz. Newspapers. There's a dozen quotes from notables stretching back to 2000 BC expressing the same, "Kids these days..." sentiment, all based on nostalgia for their own half-remembered, half-fantasized childhood.

    5. Re: Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by LaurenCates · · Score: 2

      One could make a case for Roosh V being a misogynist (and this coming from someone who takes him at his word that the piece he wrote about legalizing rape was supposed to be satire. It's wasn't good satire, but unless there are women coming forward to accuse him of rape, I see no reason to say he's guilty of anything but exercising his right to free speech, and I'm compelled to defend especially the ugliest of free speech on principle), but I'd like solid evidence of Thunderf00t being a misogynist and/or "hate-filled" because he happens to not agree with Anita Sarkeesian and Atheism+.

      If being critical is your sole criteria for that, then every single person on this board is guilty of hate-speech.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    6. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wish people would watch Sarkeesian's videos (or read the transcripts) before making assumptions about what she says.

      You mean the part where she says that "everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic" or the part where she starts whining because it doesn't cater to her political ideology and she gets upset over it and goes running to the UN?

      Yeah, she's no different then Jack Thompson...except for her gender. Which get's her a free pass where any criticism is labeled has harassment.

      Note that she doesn't need to offer "proof" for her opinion that portraying women (and men) better in games is the right thing to do. She is a feminist, her position is backed up by decades of feminist theory, and you can debate it all you like. She isn't making a falsifiable hypothesis, she is stating an opinion based on a large body of widely accepted philosophical work.

      No, she needs to offer proof. The second she claimed she wanted to make the series to be included in the classroom and for educational purpose. And the second she decided that she wanted to go speak before crowds. She's wants to spew her stuff, but doesn't want anyone to turn around and call her out on her bullshit.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The problem with six second YouTube clips is that they don't offer a lot of context. What she actually said was that when you first start learning about feminism it might seem like "everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic", but as you learn you grow out of it and start to be more productive.

      In other words, she is saying the exact opposite of what that clip makes out she is. She is saying she doesn't believe that.

      Full transcript for reference: http://lybio.net/anita-sarkees...

      And the second she decided that she wanted to go speak before crowds. She's wants to spew her stuff, but doesn't want anyone to turn around and call her out on her bullshit.

      So, you are saying that someone must provide proof of their opinion before speaking in public to a crowd of people, just in case anyone disagrees with them and wishes to construct a detailed rebuttal based on their body of work. That's not how public speaking works I'm afraid, in fact it's always accepted to be an abridged summary without background information because you time is limited and that's what books are for.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Unearned Platforms Given to Moral Guardians by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      For the most part I'd agree with this, but you might be underplaying her skepticism a little by saying she isn't arguing "poor representations of women in games make people harm women in real life".

      She certainly is arguing that poor representations of women in games contributes to general atmosphere that ends up resulting in tox... uh, I better avoid academic jargon that's widely (deliberately?) misunderstood here.. behaviors by many that are harmful to women. She also points out I believe that such tropes tend to put off many women, who would otherwise be much more confortable dropping $60 on your latest blockbuster, but feel excluded from the non-casual space as a result.

      But Sarkeesian is also clear that a few sexist tropes in games are not solely responsible for harm done to women, that they don't exist in a vaccuum, and that it's entirely possible to enjoy a game and find a few tropes in it a little dubious.

      The biggest point I'd make to people who think, after being told by numerous YouTube "personalities" that Sarkeesian is an advocate of censorship, is that Sarkeesian's criticisms are constructive criticisms. She's not demanding bans or boycotts, she's saying "Hey, game developers, here's a few things you might want to avoid", and telling players "Listen, I know you love this game, just be aware of these issues when you play it."

      (Game developers actually love her videos in my experience, which tells you all you need to know.)

      Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where nuanced comments that are neither "BAN THIS!" nor "WE WANT MORE OF THIS!!" are understood. Most people seem to think that every argument has two sides, no more, no less.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  6. Re:Video games are great by DragonTHC · · Score: 4, Informative

    or you could play the masterpiece, Portal 2. And actually get smarter while you play. So says Stanford et al. http://www.fastcompany.com/303...

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  7. Results are skewed? by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They didn't even get to ask the ones who are dead or still in prison did they? What happened to the other 2/3 when they started the study? Even with the people that did respond there is a clear pattern of puzzle games being increasingly more popular over violent types as the person's education level rises.

    I am not sure what to make of it all but I am still glad I installed these games on all the machines on my LAN, http://www.chiark.greenend.org...

  8. I definitely didn't turn out OK... by tlambert · · Score: 5, Funny

    I definitely didn't turn out OK... in fact, I died of dysentery.

    1. Re:I definitely didn't turn out OK... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      Your family should totally sue the makers of Oregon Trail for making you think that you could safely ford that river.

  9. Re:Video games are great by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Funny

    or you could play the masterpiece, Portal 2. And actually get smarter while you play. So says Stanford et al. http://www.fastcompany.com/303...

    The wait for Portal 3 is driving me insane.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  10. Re: Video games are great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why do you need Portal 3, aren't you already smart enough from Portal 1 and 2?

  11. Me as an example by future+assassin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm doing ok, I got a successful retail business and I got pretty straight morals, yes I've done things as a teenage that makes my kids and others go WTF? But that's another time and place in history.

    We use to play TONS of video games, believe it or not we actually walked in snow and -10+ temps for 30-45 min each way to the closest video game rental place (Overwaitea Food). One day a few buddies of mine came over and asked me to stash some Nintendo machines and box on top of boxes of games. I sure as hell didn't mind as my eye and thumbs twitches at the gloriousness that will be happening to me in the next few week of my teenage life. I truly had a Nintendo thumb and 3 hours of sleep for weeks. Well it turned out fine for me and majority of my friends.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  12. Re:Relativism by arth1 · · Score: 2

    What has this got to do with video games? Who knows? But we must understand that this generation is one of the most mentally fucked up generations to have ever walked the face of the earth. So, saying 90's vido gamers turned out 'ok', is clearly bullshit.

    I think the idea is that they turned out okay compared to non-gamers from the same time period. Although it's next to impossible to exclude other correlating factors, because those who played games likely had more similar demographics than compared with those who didn't.

    As for speculations of why the late 30 early 40 somethings of today are so fucked up, I would guess that the conservative resurgence and Mrs. Reagan and "no child left behind" is part of the problem. A coddled generation taught to rote learn and not to think, and that the grown ups would do all the thinking for them. Not a good recipe for brilliance, in my opinion.

  13. Possible issues by symes · · Score: 2

    There are games and there are games. And my guess is that games that map onto the real world more closely may have more intrusive effects than others. How could PacMan realistically affect real world functioning? You are guiding a blob of pixels around a maze, there are no real world corollaries to this. However, interacting with with photo realistic others in simulated environments could have a very positive impact. Take as an example some vulnerable kids who have learned to deal with others with aggression, then expose them to a simulated where game play success is only achieved through appropriate interactions, we might see positive effects in real world behaviour. At least this is the thinking of some developmental behavioural scientists... whose names and work I cannot at the moment find.

  14. Re:Except the Gamergators, MRA's and PUA's by Hashead · · Score: 2

    Adult children who live in a deluded world view where women are either villains, trophies, and the reason women won't have sex with them is entirely because they're disgusting. How much of that is from video games? It can be argued that the degrading treatment of women in the games played a role, but it could also just be that they don't get out of their moms basement to see the world isn't the awful place that they think it is.

    As opposed to adult children who live in a deluded world view where women are perpetual victims of a mysterious and mythical patriarchy?
    The worst thing video gamers have become is skeptical of feminism? Yeah, that's a result of not just listening and believing, but of actually employing healthy skepticism. Modern second wave feminsm does not hold up to such scrutiny, so it can safely be dismissed as false. Thankfully, more and more people are doing this, and feminism true nature is becoming clear to more and more people. Hopefully this cancer will be gone from politics and academia in a decade.

  15. Re:Kinda dissagree by RogueyWon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's complex. I've known two people who have seriously messed up their lives as a result of excessive gaming and one who came close (but pulled back at the last minute). I've known a lot more people who fouled up their lives for other reasons.

    The two I knew who seriously messed up their lives were friends from my university days who managed to get so heavily into the QuakeWorld/Quake 3 online scene that they failed their exams at the end of their second year and were thrown out (my university didn't "do" second chances). One of them went into the workplace without a degree (and is doing more or less ok now, almost 15 years later, though probably not in the field he wanted to be in) while the other enrolled at another university and came damned close to flunking out a second time (but scraped graduation and is now a teacher, so draw your own conclusions).

    The near-miss was more recent. A friend I've known for about a decade got so heavily into an MMO last year that it started to affect his attendance and performance at work. A few of us spotted what was happening and did a bit of an "intervention" (god, I hate that term, but I can't think of a better one). The immediate result was a week long sulk - but after that, he realised the danger he was in and pulled back from the edge.

    Thing is, though, I'm not ultimately convinced that "gaming" was a unique factor in either of those cases. In both cases, I think the social obligations that existed around gaming were a bigger factor. The Quake-pair weren't just playing the game; they were heavily involved in the competitive scene and had weekly practice and event schedules imposed on them by their clans. They both knew (one more than the other, perhaps) that they should be playing less, but didn't have the experience or maturity to tell their clan-mates when enough was enough. The MMO-player was, as he later admitted, more or less hating the game, but was so bound into his guild's hierarchy and structure that he felt he couldn't stop playing (or even cut back) for fear of letting other people down. So it wasn't so much video-game addiction as it was a kind of social entrapment.

    Thing is, I've also seen people mess up their lives even more spectacularly for non-gaming reasons. In my first "grown up" job, one of my colleagues was into mountaineering. Seriously so. He'd take months of unpaid leave each year to go on expeditions. He'd done a couple of Himalayan 8,000ers as well as a whole load of peaks in Alaska and the Andes. And over time, it destroyed his life. His marriage fell apart, he lost contact with his son and, when redundancies came around at the office, he was the first one out the door; his lengthy absences meant that people had gotten used to doing without him, so he wasn't able to pull the "look indispensable" trick.

    Another guy I was at university with ended up not just flunking out of his course but also winding up tens of thousands of GBP in debt. How? Poker. He convinced himself that as an "elite" maths student, he would be able to clean up. Turns out he couldn't. He ended up hopelessly addicted and throwing good money after bad.

    I've also seen people wreck their lives through mundane and even unpleasant stuff. One guy I worked with got so drawn into work for the building management committee for the apartment block he lived in that it took over his life to the point he was spending most of the working day on it - and again, he was out the door at the first whiff of redundancies. He always told people that he was only doing it because he felt people were depending on him...

    People are remarkably adept at finding ways to wreck their own lives and will use any tool at hand to do so. Games can be one of those tools and there certainly seem to be some people with a high general propensity to addictive behaviour who will be especially prone to gaming addiction. But for those people, I can't escape the view that if it wasn't gaming that brought them down, it would just be something else.

    As for gaming and violence, whi

  16. Re:Kinda dissagree by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2

    I don't remember anyone really talking about video game addiction until Everquest.

    I remember talk about video game addiction back in the 80's when you had to go to an arcade. There was even a short about it on HBO about a guy whose wife and kids left him, but he didn't care because all he needed was another round of Galaga.

  17. Re: Video games are great by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

    He's referring to the well-known fact that Valve is less capable of counting to 3 than Arthur, King of the Britons, is.

  18. Re:Kinda dissagree by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

    You're exactly right that those things have nothing to do with games. People have been failing out of school for a long, long time, for reasons that had nothing to do with video games. In fact, of my high school friends circle, the people who failed out were the ones who weren't hardcore video gamers. They instead "partied themselves out" the old fashioned way, with women and alcohol.

  19. Re: Video games are great by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 2

    "So in summary psychos play video games. Video games don't make you psycho."

    I approve this message, at least pslytely.

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  20. Re:Regulating Games was Never About Violence by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    It isn't only about money.
    Due to the insane blame culture is US society, there is a LOT of parents that think whenever their little darlings do something bad it must always be someone elses fault, and video games have always been an easy target.