Another Study Attacks Violent Video Games, Claims To Be "Conclusive" 587
Killer Orca is one of many to tell us about a new study on the effects of violent video games on kids. The latest meta-study that analyzed research from 130 different reports claims to have "conclusively proven" that violent video games make more aggressive, less caring kids. "The team used meta-analytic procedures — the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous, related literature -- to test the effects of violent video game play on the behaviors, thoughts, and feelings of the individuals, ranging from elementary school-aged children to college undergraduates. [...] Anderson says the new study may be his last meta-analysis on violent video games because of its definitive findings."
Same sh*t, different decade. (Score:4, Interesting)
This reminds me of the TV version of this anti-violence crusade in the 80s and 90s.
One thing that always stuck out in my mind about that last round was how the talking
heads of that movement would take things out of context and then whine about them. I
knew this because I watched the stuff they were whining about. They would show you a
little 15 or 30 second bit and then criticize it and leave out ANY of the context.
People can abuse information in any way that suits them.
Disraeli probably didn't even say it first.
Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists (Score:5, Interesting)
You can see the study author's bent in this quote:
"It's now time to move on to a more constructive question like, 'How do we make it easier for parents -- within the limits of culture, society and law -- to provide a healthier childhood for their kids?'" But Anderson knows it will take time for the creation and implementation of effective new policies.
Um... is it the government's job to make parenthood easier? I thought they put the kids in front of the glowing screen in order to give themselves (the parents) a break from parenting.
Re:"not huge effects" (Score:3, Interesting)
How did they rule out the possibility that children who are prone to violence might also be prone to playing more violent video games?
That is a common point my wife makes whenever we have this conversation with someone. None of these studies look at whether or not violent people are attracted to violent entertainment (which, logically, they most likely are). Also, violence has different effects on different people. In my case, playing violent video games and watching violent movies as a kid has desensitized me to violence in such a way that I don't flinch from it. I don't engage in it, I'm just able to view it objectively and react with a clear head.
This has come in handy in many instances...the best example being when I worked as a mechanic and a buddy had one of his fingers lopped off by a metal radiator fan (the clutch in the fan was seized, so the normal "deadning" of the fan didn't occur when his finger hit the blade.) I was able to keep my cool, get his finger in the freezer, AND clean/bandage his wound until the paramedics arrived.
Re:"not huge effects" (Score:4, Interesting)
How did they rule out that humans by nature are violent animals?
Violent crime descrese after first video game (Score:4, Interesting)
Oddly enough violent crime has been decreasing since 1992, and is now at 1960 levels. Ergo another possible conclusion: Video games decrease overall societal violence level.
Consider that the first generation of videogame kids became old enough to start committing violent acts readily in the early 90s.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Note to parents: this also puts the lie to "we must keep our kids inside all the time, since it's a scary world out there".
Yes, I'm a parent, and yes, I'm thinking of my children!
Min
Re:I'm dubious (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the real kicker. Metanalysis doesn't work by magic. All it does it attempt to lump together different studies to see if a statistically valid correlation can be found in the data. One hopes that by having larger numbers, you get better statistical power than was available from smaller studies.
The validity of these studies is critically intwined with quality of the individual research. If all they did was lump everything together, you're going to get a lump of garbage. Interestingly, TFA doesn't mention any statisticians as authors. I would have serious doubts that psychiatrists or psychologists would have enough of a background in statistics to create a quality analysis.
And the fact that he is enough of an egotistical jerk to suggest that he has "definitively" proven anything in psychiatry leads me to believe that this is just part of the 94.277% (P less than 0.001) of all research that is crap.
Re:As always... (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, psychology has shown that "letting it out" doesn't in fact result in your become calmer. It does rather the opposite.
I don't really think that engaging in videogame violence is anywhere near the real thing, I'm just saying that if that's your reasoning, it's flawed. If that's your excuse for playing videogames, why don't you just admit that you enjoy them, and leave it at that?
It's not my excuse...at least, not any more. There was a time (early teens) when I had an absolutely horrendous temper. I'm extremely laid back now, but back then my anger was sometimes nearly uncontrollable (seriously...there were times when I literally felt like I almost couldn't control myself. It was bad. Real bad.) Weightlifting and violent video games were the only two things I found that I could focus on rather than lashing out. In a way, violent video games were part of the reason I DIDN'T become dangerously violent in real life...they provided me with a safe way to live out the violence I wanted. To me, it wasn't venting...it was "good enough", as opposed to going through with the real thing.
Interestingly, as I've gotten older (one month shy of 26 now) and chilled out, I find myself playing violent video games less. I still enjoy them, but they are no longer therapeutic...I would rather play a game with a good story instead of, for example, taking a chainsaw to the Locust. ::shrug:: Don't know if violent video games were part of the cure, or if it was age, or maturity...but whatever it was, just about any violent emotion and feeling is completely gone in me. I'm as harmful as jello at this point (although I'm still kinda built like a 5'7" linebacker, lol)
Naturally, YMMV, this is just my own experience, etc applies.
Re:I'm dubious (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the real kicker. Metanalysis doesn't work by magic. All it does it attempt to lump together different studies to see if a statistically valid correlation can be found in the data. One hopes that by having larger numbers, you get better statistical power than was available from smaller studies.
The validity of these studies is critically intwined with quality of the individual research. If all they did was lump everything together, you're going to get a lump of garbage. Interestingly, TFA doesn't mention any statisticians as authors. I would have serious doubts that psychiatrists or psychologists would have enough of a background in statistics to create a quality analysis.
And the fact that he is enough of an egotistical jerk to suggest that he has "definitively" proven anything in psychiatry leads me to believe that this is just part of the 94.277% (P less than 0.001) of all research that is crap.
A distressingly large number of psychological/sociological studies (I agree with your 94.277%) have deeply flawed statistics and/or experimental design. This meta-analytical study starts by assuming the validity of the conclusions from these broken studies and then adds another layer of potential statistical and design mistakes on top of that.
In such a fuzzy field, it would be much more useful to move in the other direction: rather than looking at tons of other studies from high overhead, very carefully examine one at a time to determine how valid it is.
The D&D effect (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Same sh*t, different decade. (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember when Columbine happened - i was in the den with my mom and we where watching the news.. they showed this "Violent GAME" that the kids had played - and it was the original DOOM - now my mom had remembered me playing that and looked at me odd when i started laughing..
i then explained. - this "Expert" on ABC was showing this "Violent GAME" which allowed kids to go around killing everything without any remorse or consequences..
what was on the screen was the starting level - he was running around with the rocket launcher and gold eyes (aka god mode)
so he had to cheat at the game to get the skewed point of view he wanted across
Re:Violent crime descrese after first video game (Score:1, Interesting)
Freakonomics provides a better correlation between the legality of abortion and a decrease in violent crime. The authors looked at other countries beyond the U.S. and saw a similar correlation, including a rise in violent crime several years after abortions were banned.
I think the population size of video gamers in the 90s (and possibly even until a few years ago) was too small to have any affect one way or the other.
Re:As always... (Score:1, Interesting)
This is the catharsis myth. It's not true.
http://devoidarex.newsvine.com/_news/2006/02/28/112741-the-myth-of-catharsis-maybe-you-ought-to-leave-that-pillow-alone
Re:Same sh*t, different decade. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep, the context here is important. Which is worse, a parent who plays CoD with his kid, explains to him the difference between reality and games, takes the opportunity to explain some things about politics and war and maybe even a little history, in the process actually developing a relationship with their kid, or a parent who just says "no violent video games!" and sits little johnny in front of the TV?
Re:As always... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Maybe he's right. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Maybe he's right. (Score:4, Interesting)
Just taking the viewpoint that the majority of comments will probably not take.
I'll bite. I'll come out and say it - I think it *is* correct. Playing an action game, or watching an action movie, gets blood pumping and adrenaline flowing. (for the more imaginative, so does reading a good book.) During adolescence this is especially likely to have a measurable effect on behavior, as these chemicals are flooding bodies at rates that are never again quite equaled except in the most extreme of circumstances. (Both as a result in changing physiology and maturing psychology.)
How many here did not go and half-pretend to beat the crap out of friends after watching a kung fu movie? Anyone else have memories of playing Contra and finding themselves jumping off of garages while pretending to shoot their neighb... erm, skip it, that last is probably just me.
By constantly throwing up the "correlationisnotcausation" attitude whenever a study like this comes along, we do two things. First, we say that we're sticking our fingers in our ears and refusing to listen. Second, we're letting everyone slide on the assumption that if there *was* aggression, it would be a Bad Thing.
By refusing to hear that there might be causation, we don't ask the next logical question. What does it matter? What are the harmful effects? Some rough-housing? Is that really a bad thing, or is it a fairly healthy reaction? In the absence of any real-life examples where such aggressiveness lead directly to real-life consequences, perhaps we should stop focusing on whether to games-aggression connection exists, and instead look at whether it's actually as harmful as everyone assumes it must be.
The truth is that aggression is a perfectly natural response -- "fight or flight" is built into us, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about 8-bit nintendo games or the quadrillion-poly games of tomorrow. But there has been no time spent focusing on the significance of this - instead we all loudly proclaim that no, there's no possible way we'd have a physical response to a simulated stressful activity. Until we get past the latter, we won't be able to learn the answers to the former.
Re:As always... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As always... (Score:4, Interesting)
Try seeing the comment above yours. They comment:
The way I like to think of it is like cake. No one would argue that cake isn't a causal factor in obesity. Likewise no one would argue that a healthy child can't have any cake.
Same basis applies. Many case studies have been done on serial killers, who tend to have a "trigger" that causes them to pick their targets. The trigger is often something very random and something which would cause no normal, sane person to decide to rape/assault/murder anyone, but for these psychopaths, the combination of something triggers them and they compulsively go into killer mode.
If someone is predisposed to be violent, they will find an outlet in society. It will feed off itself (anyone wonder about Mike Tyson, perhaps?) The same influences to which a normal, sane human could be exposed with no trouble, will cause problems for them. Alcohol addicts are warned to avoid not just alcohol, but situations in which they normally would drink. People trying to quite smoking are advised similarly. Violence, in the context of an addiction, is the same way. They get a thrill that a normally functioning brain wouldn't get, they crave more of it, and it's a loop. A normal, sane person would not fall into the loop, but they do because they're abnormal.
There is nothing new to what I am saying, by the way. This one area has been extensively covered. I will not claim the science is conclusive since research is ongoing, but it is a very, strongly working model for many, many cases and seems quite relevant to the question at hand.
Re:Just like porn "conclusively" creates rapists (Score:5, Interesting)
That's because the article you are reading is NOT written by a scientist-slash-researcher but by some idiot journalist who (I hope) interviewed a scientist-slash-researcher. I can't say I myself have bothered to read the whole paper
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/10ASISBSRS.pdf
... but from the abstract: "The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior". This is a strong but not unusual kind of statement, meaning they are sure of themselves. The word "conclusive" is not used once (if Adobes search function is accurate). It also annoys me that the journalist turned "causal risk factor" into "causes", but then again perhaps people in general are just too stupid to understand anything more complicated than "A causes B".
What really bugs me though is how /. users eagerly discard scientists as having a "hidden agenda" based only on someone elses lay review, without having the decency to actually read the publication. Don't forget that there is often a distorting layer between what you read and the real stuff.
Re:As always... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As always... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So does living in New York (Score:0, Interesting)
Well, only in America... in countries with, dare I say, more socialist values, it's more difficult for people to slip through the cracks and become homeless. Mental problems? Healthcare. Can't afford rent? Government housing and unemployment benefits. Sure, you have enough freedom that if you're really crazy enough to reject all this social assistance, you can go live in the street if you really want to.
Some countries aren't afraid for resources to be allocated to those in need, without them paying for it.
Re:As always... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Metastudy" is another way of saying "we had 1000 studies to pick from, so we picked the ones we agreed with and then wrote that the data and conclusions match our carefully picked sampling bias."
I looked through the study. He very carefully picked only studies that agreed with his conclusion, and it's a small and not at all representative sample of the body of work regarding "violent" play.
Re:As always... (Score:2, Interesting)
In your situation you were releasing anger in a positive act of helping to rebirth a social centre, that is turning a domestic residence into a spiritual centre. You were helping a group of people to do this positive thing. When you went home at the end of the day the house was a little bit more dead and that meant the spiritual centre was a little bit closer to being alive.
What you did was a physical demonstration of how anger energy can be turned into a positive expression that speeds up the natural cycles of life. You were mentally participating in those cycles and the process itself commented upon the fact that death is a part of life and even when a house is derelict life must go on.
The act of renewal, especially when placed in such a spiritual context, can be viewed from a deep and subtle perspective that easily explains why it released so much aggression and refreshed your psyche.
Punching a bag full of sand repetitively by yourself achieves nothing and shows little. If you are mentally in a state where such exercise is about discipline and physical improvement then this is not a problem. Using it as a valve for pent up emotion is unsatisfying and more likely to lead to frustration.
How does this inform the video game violence question? Simple a video game should not be used as a crutch for emotional release. They can clean the mental screen through simple, repetitive, action-reward cycles that may not be available in the wider world. If you sit down with a video game just to relieve the very particular frustration of feeling stuck in a rut, or not getting any where it could be quite therapeutic, but trying to cope with deeper anger issues this way is not appropriate.
A subtlety I doubt is addressed within any report on violent video games as we tend to view all "anger" as the same "anger" irrespective of its source. Its been documented a couple of hundred times how social and psychological experimenters tend to find whatever it is they're looking for in any given study and yet no major collapse or resolution in their questionable methodology is implemented because it would require an academic perspective too radically different from any remembered in the majority of human culture. So I don't expect it to change any time soon.
I give any sociological report the respect it deserves. None. And less than that if it claims to be conclusive.