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).
It's not violence (Score:3, Interesting)
It's sex people get really pissy about.
I always say.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't have children, but when the time comes I will not ban them from all violent games (like my parents did) but rather let them play them as long as I am satisfied they understand the context, that there is a difference between movies and games and the real life.
Carmageddon (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone who played it a lot said one:
"I quit because I've had a pedestrian in front of my car on a small, twisty street and for a moment I wanted to hit it".
By what I know, he never played Carmageddon again.
All this research seems stupid to me (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem I find with all this research on violent video games is that it all seems to assume that video games have an effect that matters. Well, how about we study that first? Back when I learned about scientific research, especially as it applies to people, you go and do some observational research first, see if there's a trend. Only if there is do you bother with experiments.
In this case compare the violent crime rate for people who play video games as well as people who do not to the population at large. Unless you see an increase, there really isn't anything else to study. Trying to measure the effect of a videogame on an individual is going to be much harder and more error prone than evaluating statistical data. So, let's do that first. Unless there is a statistically significant difference in the rate for violent crime between the population at large and the subset that likes violent games, I don't see why further study is warranted.
Now I realize that there could potentially be other, more subtle, effects. However why do we care? Does it matter if playing violent video games causes people to get excited, or release more adrenaline or the like? Might be mildly interesting as a general psychology/physiology study, but nothing worth reporting on or making policy on. The only concern in terms of that would be if violent videogames make people more likely to commit crimes.
I'm going to say they don't just based on the fact that violent crime has been dropping for around 30 years and what do you know, video games have been increasing for around 30 years.
Re:Depressingly obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
So psychos act like psychos after playing video games? WHAT A SURPRISE!
If you hand someone over to a psychologist, plenty of us have some sort of traits. Unless you completely lack a "fight or flee" response you probably have some aggressiveness, for example. It's a huge difference between these people being psychos before, playing the game and still being psychos and someone with tendencies to become a full-blown psycho through playing video games.
Imagine what the treatment would be for someone with trouble connecting to other people's emotions and conflict resolution without resorting to violence would be. Then realize that a FPS deathmatch where your kills is objectified to a score and where the goal is to kill everyone is pretty much dead opposite of that. Most of us just aren't very affected by that anti-treatment.
I'd seriously worry about someone who obsessed over FPS games, both for the long term effect and because you read a lot of these psychos that go nuts have been "working it up" by intensely playing for hours then go out, adrenaline pumping and play it "live". I've seen people get emotionally involved in a film but never like the rage from being pwn'd in a video game. Some really can't handle it, which si so sad for the rest of us.
Re:It's not violence (Score:4, Interesting)
While if you sucumb to "feeling like wanting sex" doesn't usually harm others, sucumbing to "getting bloodlust" is highly likelly to harm others.
The GP point still stands: sex (which harms nobody) is taboo while violence (most definitely harmful) is commonplace in cinema and literature.
Even if seeing sex in movies is more likelly to make you want to have sex than seeing violence is likelly to make you want to go on a rampage, that is not a reason to not show sex on movies while still showing violence since even frequent mass-orgies after movies would harm less people than a single individual going on a rampage.
Re:It's not violence (Score:3, Interesting)
While if you sucumb to "feeling like wanting sex" doesn't usually harm others, sucumbing to "getting bloodlust" is highly likelly to harm others.
But without specific numbers, you can't say with certainty which is worse. One is commonly found but often causes minimal harm, the other is unlikely but often causes significant harm. It could be a 90% probility of 1% harm (sex), versus a 0.01% probability of 99% harm (violence), in which case sex would be worse in aggregate at 0.9% versus 0.0099% (numbers are complete fabrications, of course).
The GP point still stands: sex (which harms nobody) is taboo while violence (most definitely harmful) is commonplace in cinema and literature.
Even if seeing sex in movies is more likelly to make you want to have sex than seeing violence is likelly to make you want to go on a rampage, that is not a reason to not show sex on movies while still showing violence since even frequent mass-orgies after movies would harm less people than a single individual going on a rampage.
I don't think taboo is the correct word. Taboos are prohibited even from mention, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It's just considered 'inappropriate'.
That said, the majority of the lobby against sex in movies is only concerned about showing it to children. It's not about removing sex from movies, it's about rating the properly. Same with violence, though again the sex is considered more likely to provoke imitations.
Re:It's not violence (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Please explain to me why the USA, being such a puritan country, ranks a lot worse [wikipedia.org] in teenage pregnancy that European countries, that have a very liberal vision regarding sex education of teens. I mean, you teach stupid things like abstinence (that is considered ridiculous by most normal Europeans) instead of teaching contraception, then your results are so bad, and you still think your way is better? How about some rational behaviour, for a change?
A few bad apples (Score:2, Interesting)