Douglas, I've been searching for answers to these questions since the wee age of 4. I'm so glad I finally have a chance to present them to someone of your mystical magnitude.
Who put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop?
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
This article (the one/. linked to, not the actual APA article) is a classical example of bad journalism. Obviously whoever wrote it doesn't know squat about either social psychology or logic and deduction in general.
The APA articles cites two very distinct studies. One shows are "positive relation" between violent video games and delinquency and violent behavior. Not exactly a shocking find that violent people are attracted to violent activities. Not a word here about people being MADE violent by video games.
The second part of the study's conclusion is consistent with the GAAM, much in the way chocolate chip cookies are consistent with a heliocentric solar system. The GAAM is a theory thats been around for a while that merely states that frequent participation in aggressive activities increases accessibility to aggressive behavior scripts. Scripts are basically preset patterns of behavior frequently accessed and used mindlessly (for example a grocery shopping script or a going to the bathroom script).
Is there anything wrong with this? Take someone who studies martial arts. A big part of that is to increase your own scripts for self defense. To be able to defend and counterattack with learned techniques without thinking. This is the entire point and there's nothing wrong with it.
These studies have to be taken as saying a lot less than journalists and lay readers think they do. Usually its quite right to think that it proves the obvious. Aggressive behavior leads to arousal and to aggressive thoughts..well duh...its not going to lead to thoughts of teddy bears and fluffy kittens. This study is a long long way from asserting anything like a causal relation between violent video games and violent behavior.
I played Gemstone III an online RPG for about 3 years, before that I spent my childhood years playing Magic the Gathering when it first came out. Yes I was a total dork as a kid, but what do I have to show for it now? Well I've made about $800 selling magic cards I bought for about a buck, and about $700 selling Gemstone items and characters, that I had fun acquiring. People buy characters because they don't want to go through the effort of developing little runt characters before they have a modicum of power. Simple need, and simple demand, nothing wrong with that. Where it gets screwed up is when GMs with huge power over the game create items use that to sell it for money, favors and sex. I've seen it all done. I can't blame Sony for passing a law like that, it probably won't stop behind the scenes transfers, but it'll curb it. I'm just glad I took the money and ran. To think the only thing I might have had to show for my childhood was a moldy old football jersey and jockstrap instead of this nice new Dell laptop.
I find this story offensive to all women. I demand that it be removed. I really wish some people would learn the difference between an opinion and a fact. You can't find a story offensive to all women the same way you can't find a burrito too spicy for all Americans. Unless of course there's some sort of borg-like universal instant communication channel all women have, in which case, I apologize. And by the way "Chickclickers" was coined by a woman, its in the article. Honestly, I don't find this article the least bit interesting, but if you're going to flame it at least do it for the right reasons, like maybe content not language.
Slashdot Mirror
Who put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop?
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Thanks!
The APA articles cites two very distinct studies. One shows are "positive relation" between violent video games and delinquency and violent behavior. Not exactly a shocking find that violent people are attracted to violent activities. Not a word here about people being MADE violent by video games.
The second part of the study's conclusion is consistent with the GAAM, much in the way chocolate chip cookies are consistent with a heliocentric solar system. The GAAM is a theory thats been around for a while that merely states that frequent participation in aggressive activities increases accessibility to aggressive behavior scripts. Scripts are basically preset patterns of behavior frequently accessed and used mindlessly (for example a grocery shopping script or a going to the bathroom script).
Is there anything wrong with this? Take someone who studies martial arts. A big part of that is to increase your own scripts for self defense. To be able to defend and counterattack with learned techniques without thinking. This is the entire point and there's nothing wrong with it.
These studies have to be taken as saying a lot less than journalists and lay readers think they do. Usually its quite right to think that it proves the obvious. Aggressive behavior leads to arousal and to aggressive thoughts..well duh...its not going to lead to thoughts of teddy bears and fluffy kittens. This study is a long long way from asserting anything like a causal relation between violent video games and violent behavior.
I played Gemstone III an online RPG for about 3 years, before that I spent my childhood years playing Magic the Gathering when it first came out. Yes I was a total dork as a kid, but what do I have to show for it now? Well I've made about $800 selling magic cards I bought for about a buck, and about $700 selling Gemstone items and characters, that I had fun acquiring. People buy characters because they don't want to go through the effort of developing little runt characters before they have a modicum of power. Simple need, and simple demand, nothing wrong with that. Where it gets screwed up is when GMs with huge power over the game create items use that to sell it for money, favors and sex. I've seen it all done. I can't blame Sony for passing a law like that, it probably won't stop behind the scenes transfers, but it'll curb it. I'm just glad I took the money and ran. To think the only thing I might have had to show for my childhood was a moldy old football jersey and jockstrap instead of this nice new Dell laptop.
I find this story offensive to all women. I demand that it be removed. I really wish some people would learn the difference between an opinion and a fact. You can't find a story offensive to all women the same way you can't find a burrito too spicy for all Americans. Unless of course there's some sort of borg-like universal instant communication channel all women have, in which case, I apologize. And by the way "Chickclickers" was coined by a woman, its in the article. Honestly, I don't find this article the least bit interesting, but if you're going to flame it at least do it for the right reasons, like maybe content not language.