I do not believe there is a sufficent ammount of data available for either the political candidates or those among the technology community to make a definitive answer to the question regarding what violent games do to the minds of children or adults.
Having read the Slashdot articles about gaming and the political pandering of George W. Bush, I have noticed there are some "felt" similarities between George W. and earlier politicians who fought against a new music style "Rock and Roll". Their efforts were futile and in vain, the more they fought, the more the youth at that time fought to keep the spirit alive. Though not indicative of the 50's when this was taking place, the movie "Footloose" is a clear indicator of what unknowing politicians will do to keep something they are uncomfortable with down.
George W. may have been playing the very distinct role of Professor Harold Hill declaring that pool halls are the work of the devil and that the boys in town need something to occupy their time. Is he trying to win enough votes to make a "real" bid for the presidency? Yes and he won many from parents that want their children to be safe.
About the time that Rock and Roll was making its way onto the popular music scene and big bands were being forced out, the school systems had a different form of problem they were being forced to deal with. The problems were things like gum and talking back in school. Gangs of that era were poor in comparison to what we consider a gang today and would not have lasted one bout. I am old enough to remember when having my shirt untucked was a major issue, and swats were permissable under the law and allowed by my parents (read encouraged).
Things have changed drastically since then.
High Schools today no longer look at chewing gum as a high priority in the disciplining of the youth. Walking into a high school there are metal detectors and limited access. Drug dogs are brought through periodically and without warning, to find illegal narcotics. In some places children are required to have mesh, or clear, backpacks so that all they are carrying can be seen (is this appropriate under the current laws and the 4th ammendment).
The number of injuries involved in an altercation will come when the largest group of individuals with the highest ammount of stress are brought together and are forced to get along. In situations where they are not stopped, some people fearing for their personal safety, may carry guns or knives to school. I did occassionally, but because of a belief that I should have the personal right to protect myself and not because of a fear for personal safety. In a High School, children are being affected by friends, sexual drives, hormones, stress, possibly homework, making the grade, getting along and trying to fit into whatever niche they feel they belong. This has not changed in 50 years and will not change because of computers or the Internet.
By adding these factors, we merely add an additional "click" of kids that have to be considered.
We watch the political debates, we hear George W. talk about the scandalous nature of children and violent video games and the immediate assumption is that places like Columbine were caused by teenage boys sitting in the dark and playing violent games.
As a boy and a child, I was encouraged to play with my brothers. One of the games we often played, and partially as a result of what my father did for a living, was "Cops and Robbers". This, along with "Cowboys and Indians", is a violent game. People are supposed to die and often we played with toy guns that looked rather real. There was no blood because of the guns we used.
Games, today like Doom, Diablo II, Unreal, Quake, the list gets bigger and bigger, are violent games blood splatters when you kill and body's fall apart. I will contend that they do desensitize people from the violence that takes place within and further, make it more acceptable to see blood and gore while covnersely watching a massacre take place. There are reasons why the networks broadcast war torn areas and it is not because we are as interested in foriegn politics as it is because we are interested in the blood and death involved.
Do these games cause children to want to go out and kill other people? I don't have an answer for that. I do believe there is enough data that an argument can be made either way in regard to the issue. But I will not be the one to make that argument for anyone else.
There are still some factors involved in where these games may affect the outcome of a childs ability to determine reality compared to the fantastic worlds they provide. A popular malady for children today is ADD (attention deficit disorder). As a result of not wanting children to be children, doctors and teachers encourage parents to place their kids of Ritalin. Ritalin is a mood alterring drug (it is legal to give this out???) that makes the child's temperament more even. The result is that we have a generation of children that suddenly don't feel.
The question is forced: Where do the feelings go?
Couple this with an ever increasing number of children who are left alone or in day care with their parents not having enough time to invest in the children's immediate future, and we have another lack of understanding when it comes to the proper method of disiplining children and helping them to become members of society.
As a result of the trends in child raising, we can see a distinct number of "incidents" involving children and violence. Give them drugs to alter their moods and stop them from having the ability to defend themselves (which also means we theoretically stop them from having the ability to attack others) and the over-all numbers of murders and violence decreases.
The real issues may not be in the numbers involved within the related articles, but rather, in the ways we have stopped children from being able to express themselves when angry or happy.
Of all the trends that have taken place in my lifetime the coupling of Ritilan with removing tha parents from the home and allowing children to find out on their own that a violent end is an acceptable alternative to a confrontation is a possible reason for the violence we do see. Any one factor does not allow for the outbursts to take place, but by muliplying the factors, we multiply the end result of the outcome, with violence being the only means this can take place.
Does George W. realize this? or does he choose to merely state, ignorantly, that it is computers, the internet and video games that cause violence? The man is not stupid; but he does need more information especially in an age where electronic communication allows us to transfer more factual information quickly and to more people.
First, the definition of Operating System (OS) has been altered to accomodate the running definition in the Mac article. An Operating System is the core set of processes and code that allows the rest of the programs to operate. The purist "geek" is probably very accurate in stating that Unix, in purity, is still an OS.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not believe there is a sufficent ammount of data available for either the political candidates or those among the technology community to make a definitive answer to the question regarding what violent games do to the minds of children or adults.
Having read the Slashdot articles about gaming and the political pandering of George W. Bush, I have noticed there are some "felt" similarities between George W. and earlier politicians who fought against a new music style "Rock and Roll". Their efforts were futile and in vain, the more they fought, the more the youth at that time fought to keep the spirit alive. Though not indicative of the 50's when this was taking place, the movie "Footloose" is a clear indicator of what unknowing politicians will do to keep something they are uncomfortable with down.
George W. may have been playing the very distinct role of Professor Harold Hill declaring that pool halls are the work of the devil and that the boys in town need something to occupy their time. Is he trying to win enough votes to make a "real" bid for the presidency? Yes and he won many from parents that want their children to be safe.
About the time that Rock and Roll was making its way onto the popular music scene and big bands were being forced out, the school systems had a different form of problem they were being forced to deal with. The problems were things like gum and talking back in school. Gangs of that era were poor in comparison to what we consider a gang today and would not have lasted one bout. I am old enough to remember when having my shirt untucked was a major issue, and swats were permissable under the law and allowed by my parents (read encouraged).
Things have changed drastically since then.
High Schools today no longer look at chewing gum as a high priority in the disciplining of the youth. Walking into a high school there are metal detectors and limited access. Drug dogs are brought through periodically and without warning, to find illegal narcotics. In some places children are required to have mesh, or clear, backpacks so that all they are carrying can be seen (is this appropriate under the current laws and the 4th ammendment).
The number of injuries involved in an altercation will come when the largest group of individuals with the highest ammount of stress are brought together and are forced to get along. In situations where they are not stopped, some people fearing for their personal safety, may carry guns or knives to school. I did occassionally, but because of a belief that I should have the personal right to protect myself and not because of a fear for personal safety. In a High School, children are being affected by friends, sexual drives, hormones, stress, possibly homework, making the grade, getting along and trying to fit into whatever niche they feel they belong. This has not changed in 50 years and will not change because of computers or the Internet.
By adding these factors, we merely add an additional "click" of kids that have to be considered.
We watch the political debates, we hear George W. talk about the scandalous nature of children and violent video games and the immediate assumption is that places like Columbine were caused by teenage boys sitting in the dark and playing violent games.
As a boy and a child, I was encouraged to play with my brothers. One of the games we often played, and partially as a result of what my father did for a living, was "Cops and Robbers". This, along with "Cowboys and Indians", is a violent game. People are supposed to die and often we played with toy guns that looked rather real. There was no blood because of the guns we used.
Games, today like Doom, Diablo II, Unreal, Quake, the list gets bigger and bigger, are violent games blood splatters when you kill and body's fall apart. I will contend that they do desensitize people from the violence that takes place within and further, make it more acceptable to see blood and gore while covnersely watching a massacre take place. There are reasons why the networks broadcast war torn areas and it is not because we are as interested in foriegn politics as it is because we are interested in the blood and death involved.
Do these games cause children to want to go out and kill other people? I don't have an answer for that. I do believe there is enough data that an argument can be made either way in regard to the issue. But I will not be the one to make that argument for anyone else.
There are still some factors involved in where these games may affect the outcome of a childs ability to determine reality compared to the fantastic worlds they provide. A popular malady for children today is ADD (attention deficit disorder). As a result of not wanting children to be children, doctors and teachers encourage parents to place their kids of Ritalin. Ritalin is a mood alterring drug (it is legal to give this out???) that makes the child's temperament more even. The result is that we have a generation of children that suddenly don't feel.
The question is forced: Where do the feelings go?
Couple this with an ever increasing number of children who are left alone or in day care with their parents not having enough time to invest in the children's immediate future, and we have another lack of understanding when it comes to the proper method of disiplining children and helping them to become members of society.
As a result of the trends in child raising, we can see a distinct number of "incidents" involving children and violence. Give them drugs to alter their moods and stop them from having the ability to defend themselves (which also means we theoretically stop them from having the ability to attack others) and the over-all numbers of murders and violence decreases.
The real issues may not be in the numbers involved within the related articles, but rather, in the ways we have stopped children from being able to express themselves when angry or happy.
Of all the trends that have taken place in my lifetime the coupling of Ritilan with removing tha parents from the home and allowing children to find out on their own that a violent end is an acceptable alternative to a confrontation is a possible reason for the violence we do see. Any one factor does not allow for the outbursts to take place, but by muliplying the factors, we multiply the end result of the outcome, with violence being the only means this can take place.
Does George W. realize this? or does he choose to merely state, ignorantly, that it is computers, the internet and video games that cause violence? The man is not stupid; but he does need more information especially in an age where electronic communication allows us to transfer more factual information quickly and to more people.
First, the definition of Operating System (OS) has been altered to accomodate the running definition in the Mac article. An Operating System is the core set of processes and code that allows the rest of the programs to operate. The purist "geek" is probably very accurate in stating that Unix, in purity, is still an OS.