Violent Video Games Only Affect Some People 236
An anonymous reader writes "The media would have you believe that violent video games will be the downfall of our civilization and the cause of moral decline in young people. A recent study suggests that most people aren't so easily influenced by the violence; instead, just a few bad apples are likely to react poorly, with everyone else showing little or no effect from playing these games."
The American Psychological Association has posted the academic paper (PDF) as well, in addition to a few related studies. One examines how games can be a force for good (PDF), and another looks at the motivations behind children playing such games (PDF).
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Violent video games only affect the kind of people who kill small animals just to see what it feels like. It's a similar rush, just from different things. If you're predisposed to this kind of violence, watching Robocop probably has the same likely hood of pushing you over the edge as a videogame does. As much as people talk about how we're desensitized to violence from movies and videogames, the second a normal person sees someone shot or seriously injured in real life their stomach usually turns.
Let me guess ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop legislating for society's fringe elements (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't universally ban/restrict alcohol because SOME people will become alcoholics.
You don't universally ban/restrict violent video games because SOME people will become more hostile.
You don't universally ban/restrict hand guns because SOME of the population breaks the law.
etc...
We could add the same common sense reasoning to other recreational drugs, like tobacco and marijuana, or to books, and on and on.
Eh? But we do (Score:2, Insightful)
All underage people are banned from drinking alcohol because some have problems with it.
All unrated games are banned in Australia because some have problems with it.
All handguns are banned in the UK because someone went on a killing spree with it.
AND the last one has worked because nobody has used a handgun since to go on a killing spree. The next one used a shotgun. The one before the handgun used an automatic rifle which have also been banned and since then nobody has used one either.
Hard to argue that it doesn't work, when it does.
Re:It's not violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone bring back common sense.
Depressingly obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
FTFA:
“Previous research has shown us that personality traits like psychoticism and aggressiveness intensify the negative effects of violent video games and we wanted to find out why,” said Markey.
So psychos act like psychos after playing video games? WHAT A SURPRISE!
There should be a hefty fine levied against all the "news" outlets that have whipped up this "games make people psycho" meme in the last decades. Their fear mongering is NOT harmless, and they should be held accountable.
Wrong correlation (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether someone is violent (or likely to be violent) has no correlation with his consumption of computer games. A person who has a "reason" to be violent (please don't expect a logical, reasonable reason. We're talking psychology here, or, in other terms, stuff that deals with people's emotions) will be violent. Game or no game. Do they enjoy playing those games for the same reasons they, say, kill kittens or torture their schoolmates? Most likely. Do I enjoy playing those games for the same reason that I enjoy other games that challenge my ability to react quickly and make swift decisions? That much I know for sure.
Both, that violent bully and I, play the same game. But we do so for different motivations and for a different gratification. For him, it's the blood and gore splattering across the screen. For me, it's the reward that I played better than someone else (either a real player or at least some script). Mowing down a few hundred zombies is for him a great rush because of the blood and guts spewing everywhere on screen. For me, it's the challenge that I have to get them down before they reach my character and end my game, and the rewarding experience that I could pull it off, even though the amount of enemies made it seem impossible.
But do we want to base a legislation on how someone feels about a product in question? Again? As if certain porn laws (that depend on how a judge "feels" about certain displays) were not enough bullshit littering our laws...
Re:islamic radicals (Score:3, Insightful)
i bet those islamic radicals in the middle east and east africa never played a video game in their lives and they are among the most barbaric and violent peoples this century.
Don't forget that 900 years ago we did the same thing with the Crusades, the Ottoman's did it, the Byzantine's before them, Holy Roman Empire before any of them... Holy crap, you'd think that humanity had been killing each other in the name of religious ideals for millenia!
It just so happens that we're apparently civilised now, and no longer foist our religion upon others. Give the Middle East a few more hundred years and they'll expand, stagnate, and be destroyed like the rest were. Then they can start with a civil civilisation. God knows where the Western world will be then, though.
Re:Parents? (Score:3, Insightful)
Video games are baby-sitter substitutes, just like the Cartoon Network.
Re:I always say.. (Score:2, Insightful)
...and all kinds of contact sport gets softened up and dumbed down,....
Softened up - yes. Dumbed down? I think that's always been the case.
Re:Eh? But we do (Score:5, Insightful)
All handguns are banned in the UK because someone went on a killing spree with it.
AND the last one has worked because nobody has used a handgun since to go on a killing spree. The next one used a shotgun. The one before the handgun used an automatic rifle which have also been banned and since then nobody has used one either.
Hard to argue that it doesn't work, when it does.
Actually I'd argue that what you described shows that banning guns doesn't work. One guy used an automatic rifle, so they banned it. The next guy used a handgun, so they banned that. The next guy used a shotgun, so they banned that. What's next a guy using a butcher's cleaver so they ban that?
You can always find a way to cause physical harm against another person ranging from string, table legs, anvils to guns. Should we ban all those when a single person miss uses them? Washington DC has one of the strictest gun control laws in the US, and one of the highest crime rates (not counting political crimes, which would really skew the numbers). I'd say at least in the US, banning things when a very small subset of people miss use them doesn't work. If you want a historical example, look at prohibition which caused more harm then good to the country.
A Closer Analysis of Your Axioms (Score:3, Insightful)
We could add the same common sense reasoning to other recreational drugs, like tobacco and marijuana, or to books, and on and on.
So I think the key difference with your analogy here is whether or not there is a victim. And by 'victim' I don't mean any of that protect-the-citizen-from-themselves-crap but instead someone who suffers a loss of life, liberty or pursuit of happiness without participating willingly in it. So let's start with an easy one: murder. Murder is banned pretty much all over the United States except in very special circumstances (capital punishment). The reason is obvious, someone's dying and they almost always don't want to.
... and it's gotten much better since the 1990s. You can't say that the handgun laws were the only factor in this but I think a lot of residents do believe this.
Handguns are a bit trickier. When the case of handgun related murders or injuries rises to a high enough point then places like DC, NYC, Chicago, LA, etc do have to universally ban or heavily restrict handguns. Rifles and shotguns seem to be another issue as they're not exactly designed to be concealed and used at short distances but I know in DC you must have a permit for a handgun and you must store it field stripped. If you have a handgun stored assembled in DC, you're breaking the law.
Alcohol saw a similar situation during prohibition. Drinking to destroy your liver minimally harms society if you don't have good health insurance. Drinking and getting behind the wheel can very much injure members of society. Drinking and going home and beating your wife or child again very much so scars them and halts their pursuit of happiness. So what are the true frequency of these things? If it's too high, you need to look at universally banning or restricting alcohol. Or the populace will run fear campaigns and demonize them like they did and have done with absinthe.
Now on to violent video games. Okay, so I don't agree with this but it seems that in Australia the majority of the populace (or a few very fascist leaders) have the opinion that violent video games provide too much of a harm to society in too high of a frequency. I could claim my teddy bear collection told me to go on a shooting rampage but that's not going to get teddy bears banned because the frequency is one in four hundred million (and if you start counting historically the number of people exposed to teddy bears is much much larger). You know, in the United States this would never fly but your set of "you don't universally ban/restrict" axioms is a bit unresearched at least in the states. We have had those experiments and we continue to have those experiments with handguns in very high population areas. DC used to be the murder capital of the world
Re:It's not violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Bemusing really, isn't it. To objectify the taking of life is commonplace in cinema and literature, but its creation is taboo.
Put like that it sounds a bit silly, but the reality is that most people are more affected by watching sex than by watching violence. All other things being equal, there is a higher chance of you feeling like wanting sex after watching people doing it than the chance of you getting bloodlust after watching violence.
I'm not saying that the reaction is a basis for banning one over the other, but I think that you are over simplifying.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Although part of the problem is that supporters of censorship laws already use the argument "Even if it only affects some people, even if there's only a small chance, we should ban it ... even if it only saves one life". (This isn't a straw man - e.g., it was an argument made by the UK Labour Government recently when criminalising adult images, and also by supporters of that law, Section 63.)
It's a poor argument of course. One can easily put out the opposing hypothesis that at least some people might be less likely to turn to violence as a result, claiming that no matter how small the chance is that it's true, it's worth it if it only saves one life. There's also the opportunity cost of passing and enforcing such laws - money that could be spent on hospitals, and therefore we could save just one more life by not spending money on dubiously made laws.
Unfortunately, reason and logic doesn't rank highly on supporters of such laws, in my experience.
Re:islamic radicals (Score:3, Insightful)
i bet those islamic radicals in the middle east and east africa never played a video game in their lives and they are among the most barbaric and violent peoples in the world.
They probably have a high level of exposure to violence though.
Re:Eh? But we do (Score:2, Insightful)
The next guy used a shotgun, so they banned that. What's next a guy using a butcher's cleaver so they ban that?
If he'd used a butcher's cleaver, he'd have been stopped earlier. Three police officers saw him kill, but didn't do anything because police batons don't stand much of a chance against someone with a firearm. They'd have done fine against someone with a cleaver, however.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
When kids went off to war in Europe in the 40s, a good portion of their parents or grandparents were from the countries we were fighting in, they grew up in German or Italian neighborhoods, and were basically fighting family. Fighting in Vietnam is a more like fighting the Japanese (pro tip: they used Japanese-looking dolls to train bayonet tactics, even for the kids going off to Europe). Not saying its right, just saying its easier to rationalize killing people you have less of a connection to, and it always has been for all of human history.
Re:Eh? But we do (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad parent poster is wrong.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/12-dead-in-uk-killing-spree-460161.html [breakingnews.ie]
This guy would have lasted about 3 minutes in my neck of the woods, where quite a few *law-abiding* citizens have legal concealed carry permits. Do you realize how many times you have to reload to kill 26 people with a standard 12ga shotgun?
Re:It's not violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Bemusing really, isn't it. To objectify the taking of life is commonplace in cinema and literature, but its creation is taboo.
Put like that it sounds a bit silly, but the reality is that most people are more affected by watching sex than by watching violence. All other things being equal, there is a higher chance of you feeling like wanting sex after watching people doing it than the chance of you getting bloodlust after watching violence.
Agreed. I don't think either topic in general reaches the level of 'taboo'. That said, claiming that 'creating life' is the taboo subject ignores both that the content we're talking about is casual sex that doesn't result in reproduction, and that the intent is to limit childrens access to the content (since it's undesirable physiologically and financially for 14 year olds to be pregnant).
That said, at least we KNOW sexual content affects people and makes them want to engage in sexual activities (as anyone who has seen pornography will attest to), while we also know that violent content does not make the vast majority of people want to engage in violent activities (as all of us who played Doom but didn't go on a violent rampage can also attest to). At least if we're going to regulate who can view a type of content, it might as well be the one that actually affects our behavior.
Re:Eh? But we do (Score:1, Insightful)
But as they say,
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
And I'm not sure you want to live in a world where the police are always only seconds away.
Re:Eh? But we do (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a lot of power both ways with the threat of violence without even using the tool though.
Police do actually get people to stand down by drawing a gun and telling them to give up.
Restricting arms in any way really only stop random acts of violence with those kinds of arms.
Premeditated acts can still be done with them because if someone wants it enough they're not going to abide by those laws so much.
You don't ban guns to stop an organized criminal organization because they'll still get them and then your defensive force is under armed to handle that threat.
Re:It's not violence (Score:5, Insightful)
>Agreed. I don't think either topic in general reaches the level of 'taboo'. That said, claiming that 'creating life' is the taboo subject ignores both that the content we're talking about is casual sex that doesn't result in reproduction, and that the intent is to limit childrens access to the content (since it's undesirable physiologically and financially for 14 year olds to be pregnant).
Talk about intent failing due to ignorance then... study after study have proven that the younger teenagers (And this is doubly true of girls) start masturbating the OLDER they tend to lose their virginity. Girls who own vibrators and (are encouraged by their parents to) watch porn tend to wait even LONGER.
Simple really - if you know how to deal with your OWN hormones, you don't HAVE to rely on boys to do it for you... and then you can actually choose who you have sex with on more than just "I'm horny right now and I can't control the need" because you've previously learned how to deal with that need on your own, it's not so overwhelming to be near orgasm when you've been past it a few thousand times already.
In short... basically it seems to have the OPPOSITE affect. Honest sex-ed that admits sex is fun, often engaged in for that purpose and can be almost as MUCH fun by yourself is known to reduce pregnancy and STD rates, denial and "condoms break" and "never ever tell the poor mite she has a clitoris" is known to lead to MASSIVE spikes in pregnancy and STD rates...
Of course adding insult to injury for the moral brigade... during the Bush years' insistence on repeating the old abstinence-only sex-ed model (despite it's persistent faillure in the past) it was found by one study that more than 70% of the teenagers who abstained from penetrative sex as a result of those programs practised both oral and anal sex on a regular basis, usually without protection.
"I'm saving myself for marriage, fuck me in the ass instead"...
What can I say, I guess the moral brigade has an easy task - they want to stop teenagers from having sex, well that shouldn't be so hard. it's not like teenagers are horny after all... oh wait... remember what it was LIKE to have puberty's hormone levels ?
Best thing we can do is give teenagers information, and ACCESS TO RELIEF WITHOUT GUILT... and then let them make their own informed choices.
How many more times must society SEE how every other approach fails disastrously before we figure this out ?
Media (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Eh? But we do (Score:3, Insightful)
Does the alcohol ban prevent all kids from accessing alcohol? Or just the ones who are well-adjusted enough to follow the rules? Can you categorically state that because of the ban, there is no problem with underage drinking?
Does the game ban keep all unrated games out of AU? Or just those that an enterprising young kid doesn't download?
Does the handgun ban keep all handguns out of the hands of criminals? Or just out of the hands of law-abiding people whose legitimate right to adequate and reasonable self defense has been abrogated by the state?
By your logic, and the logic of nanny-state politicians, the rights of many responsible people can and should be restricted to the level of the least responsible members of society. Should all right to free speech be curtailed because some small number does not exercise it responsibly?
AND the last one has worked because nobody has used a handgun since to go on a killing spree.
How nice. Have handguns been used in any non-spree killings? Perhaps other crimes, like robbery or rape? If so, the criminals are winning, and your ban only makes honest people more vulnerable.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All this research seems stupid to me (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you just stated everything that can be learned from such a study... all the learning we do is about those *doing* the study. :/