Yali,
The information you forwarded was compelling. In light of the studies detailed in the paper, my assertions are far too broad and sweeping, as relates to the nature of the research. There are dozens of articles and scholarly papers asserting an opposing view, and I am inclined to agree with some of the research that questions the impact of the demand factor in these studies, but I have to admit, you make a really good case against my points. I appreciate your comments.
Yali,
Thanks for the reference material. I definitely plan to read it through. I want to share this letter with you, written by professors with the Expression Policy Project that more directly challenge the methodology and findings of some of these studies:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02882.html
It doesn't go into a high level of detail, but it questions analog studies in particular, some of which have been specifically referenced by media attention to the issue. I doubt either of us will be convinced to abandon our opinions on the validity of lab research to measure real world impact, but I sincerely appreciate your attention to the topic.
Hi svkal,
Your rebuttal to my article is solid and well thought out. I appreciate that you read through the article. I admit to having written it in a casual, non-scientific style, and even to choosing a fairly simplistic title. The main point I should have made more clearly is that I dismiss testing desensitization to experience A, by simulating the experience under conditions dramatically different from the experience being studied.
An action known by the participant to be acceptable to the officials in the room (the folks in the lab coats) and known to cause no lasting harm to anyone is not, to me, a fair measure of whether or not a participant has been nudged across a line into desensitization to actual violence. Honking a horn might test something, but it does not test a person's willingness to risk their life, break the law, and irreversibly do harm to another human.
I understand that researchers must use alternatives for ethical reasons, and I'm glad there are no mad scientists using real guns on people. But when the causal link being studied deals with such a big guess (watching a story while wiggling your thumbs leading to serious violent actions against all social norms), I can't accept virtual results as definitive.
Not being a psychologist, I will never create a definitive study that proves that video games do not cause violence. There are other psychologists and crime statisticians who would and do take issue with the studies I pointed to in the article. I can't know who is right, yet, but I can refuse to accept causal links until they are proven with more than a few flawed studies.
I agree with you that anecdotes prove nothing definitively. I used them as talking points to get people discussing the topic. 18 years of life may be anecdotal, or at the least narrowly empirical, but I have known enough thugs and murderers, and nerds and nice guys to know that it takes a lot to drive a person across that line, even when the very real pressure to do so is intense.
I respect your perspective, but I want to clarify my point in the article. The appropriate mirror argument is not are games fun, but: Do videogames CAUSE fun in society? Without video games would people just float about without even the knowledge of fun? To continue with the mirror: people had an impulse to find fun before video games, and use the games as an outlet for an impulse that exists on its own. The games reflect a need, a history and a social awareness of fun. The game developers do not invent fun, but comment on and draw from an existing continuum of fun. A person who buys a game does not suddenly discover that there is such a thing as fun (except maybe with Dig Dug in 1982;-)... they bought the game specifically to serve the impulse that already existed.
Taking this back to violence, the point is: Some critics are, in fact, trying to argue that video games spur people to act out violence because the games confuse the players as to the consequences. The "proof" as presented is a tangential link that cannot be shown to be causal. Killer owned game, game is violent, game encouraged killer... without game, we will all be a little bit safer. That is the idea behind the legislation to tone down or regulate game violence.
Slashdot Mirror
Yali, The information you forwarded was compelling. In light of the studies detailed in the paper, my assertions are far too broad and sweeping, as relates to the nature of the research. There are dozens of articles and scholarly papers asserting an opposing view, and I am inclined to agree with some of the research that questions the impact of the demand factor in these studies, but I have to admit, you make a really good case against my points. I appreciate your comments.
Yali, Thanks for the reference material. I definitely plan to read it through. I want to share this letter with you, written by professors with the Expression Policy Project that more directly challenge the methodology and findings of some of these studies: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02882.html It doesn't go into a high level of detail, but it questions analog studies in particular, some of which have been specifically referenced by media attention to the issue. I doubt either of us will be convinced to abandon our opinions on the validity of lab research to measure real world impact, but I sincerely appreciate your attention to the topic.
Hi svkal, Your rebuttal to my article is solid and well thought out. I appreciate that you read through the article. I admit to having written it in a casual, non-scientific style, and even to choosing a fairly simplistic title. The main point I should have made more clearly is that I dismiss testing desensitization to experience A, by simulating the experience under conditions dramatically different from the experience being studied. An action known by the participant to be acceptable to the officials in the room (the folks in the lab coats) and known to cause no lasting harm to anyone is not, to me, a fair measure of whether or not a participant has been nudged across a line into desensitization to actual violence. Honking a horn might test something, but it does not test a person's willingness to risk their life, break the law, and irreversibly do harm to another human. I understand that researchers must use alternatives for ethical reasons, and I'm glad there are no mad scientists using real guns on people. But when the causal link being studied deals with such a big guess (watching a story while wiggling your thumbs leading to serious violent actions against all social norms), I can't accept virtual results as definitive. Not being a psychologist, I will never create a definitive study that proves that video games do not cause violence. There are other psychologists and crime statisticians who would and do take issue with the studies I pointed to in the article. I can't know who is right, yet, but I can refuse to accept causal links until they are proven with more than a few flawed studies. I agree with you that anecdotes prove nothing definitively. I used them as talking points to get people discussing the topic. 18 years of life may be anecdotal, or at the least narrowly empirical, but I have known enough thugs and murderers, and nerds and nice guys to know that it takes a lot to drive a person across that line, even when the very real pressure to do so is intense.
Hey yali,
;-)... they bought the game specifically to serve the impulse that already existed.
I respect your perspective, but I want to clarify my point in the article. The appropriate mirror argument is not are games fun, but: Do videogames CAUSE fun in society? Without video games would people just float about without even the knowledge of fun? To continue with the mirror: people had an impulse to find fun before video games, and use the games as an outlet for an impulse that exists on its own. The games reflect a need, a history and a social awareness of fun. The game developers do not invent fun, but comment on and draw from an existing continuum of fun. A person who buys a game does not suddenly discover that there is such a thing as fun (except maybe with Dig Dug in 1982
Taking this back to violence, the point is: Some critics are, in fact, trying to argue that video games spur people to act out violence because the games confuse the players as to the consequences. The "proof" as presented is a tangential link that cannot be shown to be causal. Killer owned game, game is violent, game encouraged killer... without game, we will all be a little bit safer. That is the idea behind the legislation to tone down or regulate game violence.