Views on Violence in Video Games 626
CBS News' GameCore site is running a series of articles discussing the ever recurring debate about video games and violent behavior. They start with prominent anti-gaming lawyer Jack Thompson. From the article: "The heads of six major health care organizations testified before Congress that there are hundreds of studies that prove the link. All the video game industry has are studies paid for by them, which are geared to find the opposite result. Lawyers call such experts 'whores.'" Tim Buckley, of the webcomic Ctrl+Alt+Del, had the chance to put forth an opposing viewpoint on the subject. According to the site there will be more coverage on this topic next week from other gaming community members.
violent games (Score:2, Interesting)
Recent medical brain scan studies at Harvard, Indiana University, and elsewhere prove that adolescents' brain functions are damaged by a steady diet of violent images. The heads of six major health care organizations, including the American Medical, Pediatric, and Psychiatric Associations have all testified before Congress in June 2000 that violent entertainment contributes to teen violence. Video games are literally "murder simulators" teaching our kids how to ki
Re:violent games (Score:5, Insightful)
You are always going to have people who cannot distinguish between make believe and reality. We should commit these people, not punish the sane people.
Re:violent games (Score:5, Funny)
Therefore, eating bread leads to murder.
Re:violent games (Score:4, Informative)
Re:violent games (Score:3, Funny)
Ok, just a bad joke
Re:violent games (Score:3, Insightful)
So how about combat flight simulators ? Gratuitously destroying lives by being better at dynamics and balance than your opponents ?-)
Also, in very few violent video games killing is truly gratuitous. They are, with very few exceptions, about protecting the gameworld from some horrendous evil. You aren't going to some innocent beings
Re:violent games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:violent games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:violent games (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a term in psychology where basically, bad things that happen to me are attributed to external causes, and good things that happen to me are attributed to internal causes.
For example, if I do well on a test, it was because I studied hard. If I didn't, then it's because the teacher failed me or didn't like me for some other reason, or because I was tired.
Being a parent myself, one of the last things I would want to do is admit I'm a bad parent. If my son went off and killed some people, it would be very difficult for me to admit that it was my bad parenting that caused it.
Because I tend to be more open minded then the average Joe in America, I think I would admit it eventually.
But someone like Jack Thompson is just another ambulance chaser. He just aggrivates the situation the parent is going through by telling them that their kid killing some people isn't their fault, it's the video games' fault. Everyone is prone to Fundamental Attribution Error, and Jack Thompson is just helping that process along. When you're in a state or mourning, it's easy to not see the truth clearly.
Re:violent games (Score:5, Funny)
Quite simply, games teach kids to kill.
Re:violent games (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, most frag-fests tend to glorify the headshot and the absolute wasting of ammo. Part of why I don't like them. They do teach scanning for targets, however. Now actual light-gun type games can teach a bit of pistol marksmanship...I'm still convinced I learned everything I needed to know about firing a pistol from Time Crisis. I used to play gun games in the arcade every now and again, and having never fired any firearm in my life, I hit 20 out of 20 targets my first time shooting a pistol in the army. Went on to shoot best in my company in basic as well. But if you're doing your aiming with a mouse or controller, I can't imagine you're really getting all that much from it.
But, even assuming a game can teach a kid how to kill more efficiently, what society should really be looking into is what is making them *want* to, dontcha think? Side note: For those thinking that I would have been firing a rifle rather than a pistol in basic training, I was in the one enlisted specialty (Armor Crewman) that I know of that qualifies on M9 pistol rather than M16 rifle (some others do both). I was in the army for 3 years before I ever fired a real bullet from a rifle. And I sucked at it.
Which brings up an additional point...if we want to ban video games because they can make kids more effective killers, shouldn't underage hunting go with it? That teaches kids quite literally how to kill, and vastly improves their marskmanship as well.
trained 'killers' (Score:4, Funny)
National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation: ... are you?
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one,
Re:violent games (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are going to use a term like literally then you need to include accurate statements.
Video games have nothing to do with murder. Violent video games might.
Violent video games, do not teach kids how to kill, only to be more used to violents.
Grand Theft Auto never taught me how to kill someone with a chainsaw, only that it was possible. As if I needed to realize that.
I think that it makes children less sensitive towards violence, in video games.
What effect it has outside I bet is largely determined by the teachings of the parents.
Re:violent games (Score:3, Funny)
Re:violent games (Score:3, Funny)
And what they fail to take into account is that all the video-game addicted fat little teens/tweens with atrophied muscles who can't bear daylght aren't exactly capable of chasing you down while wielding a heavy object.
Sneaking up on you in your sleep is a different matter, tho. Which would explain the raging success of the "Pillow Snuffer" series of games.
Re:violent games (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:violent games (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely disagree. There is a huge difference between viewing simulated violence and real life violence. I have been playing so called violent video games for a long time now. Yet a while back I witnessed the direct aftermath of a horrible accident on an expressway that turned my stomach. A guy on a motorcycle wiped out after a car had side swiped him. The sight was one that I cannot forget. The blood pouring out of him like the Nile River only made the hunk of ground meat that used to be his head stand out from his white undershirt now half soaked with blood. And I can tell you there is a big difference between virtual bloodshed and the real thing. If I was desensitized to violence and bloodshed don't you think I would have just shrugged it off? And have you ever been in a bar and a fight breaks out? Witnessing someone getting cracked in the face and smash there head on a tile floor and convulse from the concussion is very unsettling. Think about it, how real are GTA/Quake/Doom/Half-life etc.? Even with the half-life 2 physics engine a shotgun blast to the head doesn't shred it to bits splattering brains, skull fragments and blood all over with real life detail. Go to rotten.com and look at what real life violence looks like. No matter how much counterstrike I play those pictures still disturb me.
And my good friend just returned from Iraq just a few days ago says he doesn't even think that all those hours spent playing quake 2 online help one single bit. The shit he saw there doesn't compare to what we see in movies or games. One thing that disturbed me was his recollection of an incident when a rebel popped out from behind a building holding an RPG. He was on the gunner's position of a hummer with the m240 bravo 7.62MM machine gun. He says it was slow motion as he paused and squeezed the trigger of the gun and lit the guy up. The blood spray and spatter from the bullets punching holes through the unarmored rebel was less disturbing then the guys' actual body motions as he danced around with about a dozen holes in him then doing a 180 and dropping like a sac of potatoes to the ground. That guy was his first kill.
Violence in movies can almost compare to real life but still its fake and you know it. Seeing the real thing is a whole different experience. And there is no other like it, you can't simulate it.
Re:violent games (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, to prove the concept you have to do the following:
One take a random selection of at least 100 people, divide it into two groups of at least 50.
Force, and I do mean FORCE one group to play violent video games for a period of however long you think is neccesary to make them violent. 1 year, at 1 hour a day seems reasonable to me. If they don't enjoy playing the game, tough. They have to do it.
Prevent, and
Re:violent games (Score:4, Insightful)
One day, while out with "the crew", two of the guys decide its a good idea to steal a couple of handguns from a small mom'n'pop gun store we were driving by. Sure I listened to violent music, had an odd fascination with pimps and ho's, and all that shit, but as soon as it came down to these guys ready to steal a couple of handguns, my better instincts took over.
We all listened to the same music, so by this logic we all should have been piling into that gun shop stealing what we could. Instead, only 2 guys did, and the rest of us got the hell out of there. I attribute this to good parents that gave me the right tools and skills to handle random situations in life (and I am eternally grateful). It was plainly obvious to me even then that those two guys came from some severely f'cked up homes.
I wish parents would do more to take personal responsibility for their kids, instead of trying to place blame elsewhere. I know I am.
Re:violent games (Score:5, Informative)
This [theesa.com] is the only one that comes to mind quickly, but many may argue that a trade organization representing video game mfgrs is biased. But, some facts are impossible to ignore.
Re:violent games (Score:3, Informative)
Re:violent games (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.pafko.com/wayne/docs/media_effects_vid e o_games.pdf
They list several studes, some of which showed a DECREASE in violence.
I just picked 100 as a sample number. Do it as large as you want to.
Note, there are LOTS of studies where the Authors "Conclude that violence was caused by video games". But NONE of them I have ever seen succesfully show indicate causation of actual violence.
What the tons of "anti-video game studies consistently prove is that:
people that play violent video ga
Re:violent games (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolen c e/youvioreport.htm
But, what does he know, so I figured the Washington State Dep't of Health may know better: http://www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/Videoresearch.doc
Again, they're probably just wrong, so I checked the Journal of American Medicine, and wouldn't you know it... A researcher from John Hopkins University had this to say:
Re:violent games (Score:3, Interesting)
When kids hit and kick, it is aggression, but it is not serious violence. Kids know that they aren't strong enough to cause serious harm to one another by hitting or kicking, so they have few inhibitions about fighting than adults. That doesn't mean tha
Re:violent games (Score:4, Funny)
Re:violent games (Score:3, Informative)
Re:violent games (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly, I don't know the specifics of the other studies, but the study done at IU Medical was 1) funded in part by The Center for Successful Parenting [sosparents.org] which already beleives that media can lead to violent actions and is simply looking for support for their beliefs which makes the findings suspect in my opinion.
2) according to the press release [indiana.edu] for the IU study says that the kids didn't ev
New Study, More Time (Score:4, Interesting)
A new study was released yesterday by Tulane Medical which tracked video game users over a 8 year period testing how much the video games they play affect their tendency toward violence. The study found that among those who played games 8% went on to have some form of violence conviction while only 6% of the non-gamers did.
The head of the project though did say that this is something that need a lot more data before any major conclusions can be drawn.
Re:New Study, More Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:New Study, More Time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, if the group that had NO previous history of violence had a rate of engaging in future violent behaviour higher than the control group, then that would be meaningful.
The most interesting thing to know would be how they selected the two groups. If there was any self selection involved, it's just as likely that those with a latent tendancy towards violence will tend to self-select to play video games at a slightly higher rate than those without the tendancy. Do you have a link to the study?
Other factors could also come into play. For example, kids with less parental interaction will be more likely to sit in their room playing video games. It could just as easily be the parental interaction that matters.
Given that it's an 8 year study, I imagine that the two groups were, in fact, self selected.
Re:New Study, More Time (Score:5, Funny)
50% of the population has an IQ of 100 or below.
There are so many stupid, unknowingly-ignorant, and easily-manipulated people in the world that it makes me want to execute a stealth kill on them, jack their car, and use it to drive to the Covenant mothership where I will lay enough waste to become the most legendary sentient-being-slaughtering machine of all time.
Re:New Study, More Time (Score:3, Funny)
So does having a low IQ make you stupid, or do stupid people just tend to have low IQs? I'm thinking it's a coincidence.
BZZT. (Score:3, Informative)
IQ tests are normalized based on scads and scads of results for lots and lots of people. A test taker is given a score of 100 because half of the people who took it in the calibration group scored higher, and half lower.
So, while the mean isn't necessarily the median, it so
Re:New Study, More Time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:New Study, More Time (Score:2)
Sloppy studies of this annoy me, partly because it stigmatizes an activity that I enjoy, and partly because I really want to know the extent of effects, if any, that exposure to violent media has befo
Re:New Study, More Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Ooops... could it throw off their theory/lame hypothesis etc etc.
Re:New Study, More Time (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re:New Study, More Time (Score:5, Informative)
Most people can play videogames and not think that the room-mate who refuses to do the dishes needs to be fragged. It's those sad sacks who can't, and their parents (who in all likelyhood are just as responsible for Junior being a clue-impaired moron) who should be held responsible, not the game companies.
Parents need to actively involved in raising their kids, not letting the TV or the X-Box do it for them. Buckley hit the nail on the head with that one.
Kierthos
Re:New Study, More Time (Score:5, Interesting)
There likely is a small but significant correlation between video games and increased violence, but this will likely not be any greater than if they properly controlled for other means of aggressive expression, like playing football or rugby or simply getting into fights. Properly controlled studies will also have to control for drug and alcohol abuse.
Re:New Study, More Time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:New Study, More Time (Score:3, Interesting)
How so? Because you seem to contradict yourself in the next sentence.
The training you went through was designed to not only desensitize you to the idea of killing another human being but also to instill a second-nature reaction so you could effectively defend yourself.
Look. The idea of a soldier, particularly a Marine, is to kill if necessary. As it was explained to me,
Re:New Study, More Time (Score:3, Insightful)
No. The question is: Did your extremely thorough, and well planned psychologically effective training in the military desensitise you to violence enough to lower your self control and cause you to commit violent acts in normal social settings?
If not, then why are you willing to ascribe the lack of self control and tendency for violence in children who have not undergone nearly as psycologically intense and focused training on their gaming?
If your training and deliberate desensitisation isn't causing yo
Study proves nothing (Score:3, Informative)
A new study was released yesterday by Tulane Medical which tracked video game users over a 8 year period testing how much the video games they play affect their tendency toward violence. The study found that among those who played games 8% went on to have some form of violence conviction while only 6% of the non-gamers did.
Correllation does not prove causality. Consider, for example the following hypothetical statistics:
They can debate this to death... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They can debate this to death... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is enough money in the industry to pay off any politician who wants to seriously restrict smoking though.
Video games make big money too, but they don't kill one person for every two players...
Nevertheless, how long till we see the minimum age for gaming raised above smoking?
There was no violence before video games... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There was no violence before video games... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There was no violence before video games... (Score:2, Funny)
We are a silly nation (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. And there were no evil corporations before Microsoft, no lawsuits before that lady spilled coffee on her lap at McDonalds, etc.
Personally, I think there is a link to violent behavior and how we as a society have come to accept it as "normal". Video games are a part of that culture, but they are by no means something you can point at as a single cause. W
Re:There was no violence before video games... (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I want to see these studies that show there is or isn't a link between game violence and real violence. I've never heard of such a study either way.
Re:There was no violence before video games... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There was no violence before video games... (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny how the anti-violent-game folks fail to bring up that particular statistic...
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
If the experts are whores... (Score:5, Funny)
Woah (Score:4, Funny)
Lawyers & Whores (Score:3, Insightful)
Violence (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Violence (Score:2)
If people cannot mak
Re:Violence (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Violence (Score:2)
I enjoy bloody games - FPSs specially. I love action / gore movies. I practice kickboxing. And you won't see me killing people a-la-GTA3 any time soon.
Re:Violence (Score:5, Insightful)
I love violent games, I've been playing them as long as I can remember. I've boxed, wrestled, competed in jiu-jitsu and submission wrestling tournaments. Those may be sports, but they're as violent as sports get.
I just love the visceral feeling I get when I blast an imp that jumped out of the shadows and scared the crap out of me. I get a similar visceral feeling when I land a nice punch or tap out an opponent.
All of that being said, these are just games. Repeat after me: "IT IS JUST A GAME".
I absolutely detest "real" violence. Every time they showed people in the comforts of their middle-class existance cheering as bombs went off in Iraq I felt sick to my stomache. I am not desensitized whatsoever.
If people didn't have games to blame things like this on, they would just find something else.
The overly simplistic comment threw me off (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's ban golf, shall we?
Wow, how witty. I completely saw past the simplisticness of the allegory there. My mind sure is made up after that comment! Now just throw in a catchy slogan, and I'm hooked!
Age is the key (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Age is the key (Score:4, Insightful)
You made the causality error. The question you have to ask yourself is which came first - the violent tendencies or the games. It is without question that people that enjoy violent games usually grow up to be more aggressive/violent than people that do not enjoy violent games. It is even without question that people that like those games act more violent within an hour after playing them. But despite MULTIPLE attempts, not a single study has ever conclusively demonstrated that if you expose a person to violent games/tv, they will become a more aggressive/violent person.
You are right that violence is like porn, but both porn and violence are also like dancing. When you see someone dancing in a movie, you think about dancing for a couple of minutes, maybe try out a few steps. But the movie will NOT turn you into a dancer, nor will it make someone that does not really like dancing start to like it.
There is no reason to outlaw or regulate violent games, anymore than there is to regulate porn - only the people that dislike these things try to stop others from enjoying them.
P.S. I don't play ANY video games. My porn colletion is none of your business.
Re:Age is the key (Score:3, Insightful)
If there is no causal relationship between violent games and violence, then restricting the games will do nothing.
Actually, we have no reason to believe that. It could easily be the case that the games act as an outlet that prevents a less appropriate violent acting out. Consider the following scenerio for the study which is intirely possible:
Start with 100 kids. 50 of them choose to play video games. 25 have latent violent tendancies. 6 of them for various reasons don't like games. The other 19 kids
Re:Age is the key (Score:3, Insightful)
Same old line: parents ultimately make this work (Score:4, Insightful)
My 11-year olds saw at least one R-rated movie years back. "Waiting for Guffman" was rated R (thanks to the totally surreal fundie/Catholic world of the MPAA's ratings board) but I thought it was watchable for them. Tonight we've got a copy of "The Big Night" from Netflix, and it also has an R, probably for language. I have no trouble letting them see that.
The limits on games right now are advisory, and stores sell according to them basically in order to keep their reputations. That's the way I want it. The power in this situation is with the parents if they will only exercise it. That's as much as we can really hope for.
(In general I think tons of social problems in the US today come down to economic pressures that force both parents to work without giving us as much flexibility as we need to raise families. Nothing against women working, it's not a gender thing -- but kids need adults in their lives, and it's just plain a bad economic situation when there's this much pressure drawing the attention of adults away. Personally, as someone who's benefitted from it, I think flex time is a much more effective solution to a variety of social ills than most of the "scary problem!" legislation that gets suggested.)
Much Worse then TV and Movies (Score:4, Insightful)
When I watch a movie it is a fairly passive activety. I sit back, enjoy the flick without much involement. When I play a game though, such as grand theft auto or the like, that is a very active thing. I look for pedestrians to run over, I look for police to beat up. Now, I don't think that this nesassarly translates into violence in real life but it is definetly worse then what you see in tv and movies.
Re:Much Worse then TV and Movies (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps they should quit attacking the authors... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm... Lets switch some words around... (Score:2)
Shall we insert something on another controversial topic here and continue to use the default template or shall we find a new way to disprove the opposition.
Hundreds of studies? (Score:2, Insightful)
With millions of people like myself who play violent video games, why aren't we all mass murderers?
Effects of Media Violence on Society (2002) (Score:2)
You know Jack... (Score:2)
Takes one to know one, huh?
Re:You know Jack... (Score:4, Funny)
Health Care Orgs are Even *More* Biased in This (Score:4, Insightful)
English (Score:5, Interesting)
Does age or sex play a factor in violent, aggressive behavior?
Sure, the sex and violence centers of the brain overlay one another, which is why the increasing mix of sex and violence is troubling. Armies have been known to go on rape rampages after battles because the violence stimulates sexual aggression. How lovely that GTA weds sex and violence in the same game. We are training a generation of teens to combine sex with violence, just what America needs.
Does this man not understand that in the English language, "sex" can refer to gender? What does he write on forms that ask his sex? "Yes, please?" Probably, "Goodness, no!" actually.
By the way, I'd like to know where these "sex and violence centers of the brain" are. Maybe we could just lobotomize everyone and cure all our ills.
Utterly Ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)
American football is basically gladitorial arena combat (which makes it neat), but nobody complains about the violence it induces in our children.
To the Media: Stop the perpetuation of unfounded fear! It's almost as though they want to keep humanity in constant fear...oh wait, they do.
Ever recurring, until we find another hot topic (Score:2)
And people will keep on discussing this, until they find another topic to blame on the declining morals of today's youth. Back in the 1950's, we had "Seduction of the Innocent", where the wave of crime that swept the nation in the 50s was blamed on comic books. We still have comic books around, but people don't seem to complain about them much, because they've moved on to different fish to fry.
As a side note, one of the things that is brough
Moot point (Score:2, Insightful)
An exaggeration, but still... people need to take some personal responsibility for how their children behave. Linking violence in games to children's actions is beside the point when they should not be playing M-rated titles to begin with.
Clips from the interview (Score:2)
Any M-rated game has violence levels unacceptable and definitionally harmful to anyone under 17.
What percentage of all games made would you say are violent
GTA [Grand Theft Auto series] has sold 30 million units, with San Andreas expected to hit 20 million on its own.
Is there a correlation between playing violent video games and acting in a violent manner?
Of course.
Is gaming escapism?
Yes, just as Ted Bundy escaped into pornography.
this guy isn't ver
Reversing Causality (Score:2)
Good training (Score:2)
hahah what now? (Score:2)
Kids took guns to school for 200 years in this country without turning them on one another.
Clearly, I must have been enrolled in the wrong school district... all I got was a few lousy Pee-Chee folders and those pencils that never erase quite right. =/
The studies (Score:2)
Kneejerk attorney (Score:5, Informative)
I found it difficult to take him seriously after the first question:
Again and again throughout the interview, he basically takes an elitist stance that says "if you don't agree with me you're stupid." Here, if you don't agree that "M-rated means violent" then the implication is that you must be too dumb to accept what "everybody" thinks.
It would have been interesting to see him actually answer the question, as Tim Buckley did. Compare and contrast:
Problem is Internal, not External (Score:5, Insightful)
Francis Schaeffer once said "Art reflects culture". The fact that so many people buy and play violent video games (which is an amazing art form) tells more about who we are as a culture than will the history books. To blame the manufacturers isn't getting to the root of the problem.
I don't know what the answer is. I think there probably is some link between people being desensitized to violent and playing violent games, but I also don't think laws will do anything more than to fuel debate and make lawyers wealthy.
Video games can be a catalyst...like anything else (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, they may play Grand Theft Auto and shoot at people. But they could just as easily get inspiration from the latest 50 Cent album or even a TIME magazine article detailing the Columbine massacre. Hell, there are enough wackos blaming their crimes on God speaking to them, shouldn't we point the finger at religion too?
The bottom line is that you never know how the mind of a sociopath is going to interpret something - so video games hold no more blame than anything else.
Ahh! Game studies! (Score:3, Informative)
While game playing might contain violent aspects, the cognitive engagement is far different than, say, bullying or beating up some poor kid. How the player thinks about their experience - entertainment and fun, for example, rather than punishment or retribution - is important.
Furthermore, some of my own research asks, despite violence in videogames, what do players learn through their playing? The results have, so far, been a surprise. Younger players use the medium for socialization with older players; groups of players focus on teamwork skills (nothing amazing there) and the game environment requires active thinking about strategy for success. My own next step is to explore "gaming clans," and clan players' motivations.
Nonetheless, the question we should all be asking is, given that violence is inherant to our humanistic being, in what modes is it possible a constructive experience, and in what modes is it destructive?
Bandura's social cognititve theory might suggest that the illustration of violence begets further violent behavior. But that we haven't all killed each other, and that we don't punch random stranges on the street, despite having watched violent television programming, indicates a compromise.
More later, this is a wonderful subject! --dave
Whores? (Score:3, Insightful)
I challenge anyone to name a single industry which doesn't conduct "studies" which favour itself.
Nothing's as bad as the pharmaceutical industry. Or how about the world of financial analysis at the end of the 90's? Those were some pretty screwed up "studies".
And now we've got characters like David Lereah (head of the Association of Realtors) on TV everyday screeching "There is no housing bubble" (although he's sounding very depserate lately [freep.com]).
Using the media, the legal system, the court of public opinion, and analysis/forecasting is *how* business is done today. We live in 'spin land'. If you're going to start calling people whores than apparently we're living in one big giant brothel.
Hey... how come I'm not getting laid?
Perhaps we need MORE violent video games? (Score:5, Interesting)
Statistics [usdoj.gov]
from the link
"Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993. "
"Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993."
"Violent crime rates declined for both males and females since 1994. Rates for males and females have been getting closer in recent years."
The last blurb I find particularly interesting.I am willing to bet that most girls DO NOT play violent video games, whereas most males probably do. Perhaps the games are allowing people to work out their aggression in other ways?
This chart [usdoj.gov] is also interesting. Remember DOOM came out in 1993, at almost the peak of the chart.
What problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that violent crimes, and even violent crimes by young people have steadily declined as games have become both more violent and more realistic proves that any possible pro-violence effect of games is statistically negligible relative to other social and cultural factors.
The possibility that violent videogames actually decre
Other Studies: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why it's the parents responsibility to keep them out of their hands, not the governments nor anyone elses.
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
When I have one I will think of them, and being the huge gamer I am I know there will be many games my kids won't even see untill I think they're at the age where they can handle them.
I'm just so god damn sick and tired of lazy parents pointing the fingers everywhere else.
They make no attempt to prove Causality at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a random selection of at least 100 people, divide it into two groups of at least 50. Force, and I do mean FORCE one group to play violent video games for a period of however long you think is neccesary to make them violent. 1 year, at 1 hour a day seems reasonable to me. If they don't enjoy playing the game, tough. They have to do it.
Prevent, and I do mean PREVENT one group from playing violent games for the same period.
Compare both groups violent tendencies, IQs, etc. etc. with the people deciding who is "violent" etc. having no idea which group the subjects belong to.
Such studies have been done before. They found ZERO, NADA, NO increase in violent tendencies.
So of course the fools claim "you got the age wrong" or "You didn't force them to play enough" etc. etc. etc.
Not a single study has demonstrated causality. I personally think this is because there is NO causality. People that like violent games grow up to be violent. People that watch violent games think violent thoughts for a short period after (24 hours is the max I have seen tested). But neither of those things means that watching the games makes you act violently.
This can't be wished away. (Score:3, Interesting)
There's not much question that seeing violent images desensitises you to violent images anymore (whether these are lasting is up for debate).
One reason why this isn't taken seriously is because they've been decrying video games since Pac-Man- and earlier studies, IIRC, didn't show much correlation.
The important thing to get out of this is not a bunch of freedom-trashing legislation though: a movie about WWII would cause the same kind of desensitisation. Many things would. Scientists haven't tested for it (and lacking video, the effect wouldn't be as strong probably), but don't you think they could link antisocial / violent behavior to the "wrong" kind of books? Using this logic, why stop at video games?
What we are seeing isn't scientists making interesting notes about how sights, sounds, and thoughts condition us to accept more things *like* those- we're seeing a pack of lawyers circling like sharks to try to attack a group of newly "liable" "perpetrators"- and if they beath the hell out of the first amendment doing so, oh well.
Like all good things done to destroy your rights, this one will be "for the good of the children".
If you back this, just remember it in a few years when they prove the same thing about adults (easy, since conditioning works just as well for both), living with a "more violent than average family" (which will be half of families), or... well... political disagreement.
You either have free speech or you don't. Protecting free speech doesn't mean being able to say that purple is my favorite color: it means allowing speech that everyone disagrees with and may, in fact, be harmful.
If not the vids, what is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Similarly, gun nuts say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and fans of violent movies deny their role.
Are Americans HAPPY with the level of violence in their society, or perhaps accepting of it because it is a necessary trade-off for some other desirable aspect of their culture? Because it's undeniable that compared to other civilized first world countries, the level of violence in America is very high. Yet every interest group insists that their pet recreation has nothing to do with it. If videogames don't contribute to violent behaviour, what IS causing America's disproportionately high levels of violence?
True. But don't punish me for it! (Score:3, Interesting)
True. Anyone who has read "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" knows all about suggestability and the Werther's effect. The basic concept -- which works for TV, games, books, anything -- is that the more closely someone can relate to what they see, the more likely they are to mimick that behavior. So a little yellow pac man eating ghosts isn't going to influence anyone to eat ghosts, but a bunch of bunch of Burger King ads featuring black males in their 20s and 30s suddenly makes their sales demographic skew toward black males in their 20s and 30s.
This is why when my daughter sees grandparents in a commercial advertising a drug, she doesn't care. But when she sees an ad featuring 3 9-year-old girls fawning over their cool Bratz journal, she suddenly wants one. Her Amazon wish list is almost a perfect mirror of every ad that has appeared on Nickelodeon in the past 6 months. That's not by mistake. When someone targets your demographic, you can be influenced.
Of course, some people are immune to this stuff. Any free-thinking person who is remotely self-aware can sense when their buttons are getting pressed. But it gets harder to sense manipulation when it's not deliberate. I think games are art. As such, they often do nothing more than hold a mirror up to society, possibly to provide a jarring wake-up call. Or possibly just to be jarring. :) But in any case, as they become hyper-realistic, we get pulled in and influenced. For example, I love Vampire: Bloodlines. My wife and kids have called me a vampire for years -- I love the movies, I love being awake at night and sleeping at day, I think the culture is sexy. When I'm in playing that game, nothing breaks the illusion that I'm in that game world. It feels comfortable. The problem? It completely objectifies women, something I do not get in my real-world life. But there, in the game, it's quite nice. How much carries over into my real-life thinking? Enough that I have to check myself. I don't think the game developers intended for that to happen, it just did.
You can take a jab at me and say that I must have a weak mind if I let that affect me. But I don't mind, it IS in fact a defect that I can be so suggestable. And that's the point. These studies are not about strong-willed Slashdotters who have their shit together. These studies are of the huge number of weak-minded people who have no idea that they are internalizing what they see. Those people are a problem, and there are a lot of them.
My wife is a shrink. About half of her clients' problems are simply that they have surrounded themselves with negative influences for so long that they're stewing in it, and can't see what it's doing. For the other half of her clients, she uses these techniques on THEM. In other words, if a 30-something mom is scared of wide open spaces, my wife will show the her videos of 30-something women enjoying the outdoors. For many people, this stuff seeps into the psyche and changes thinking.
In the end, the point I would make is twofold. First, it is nice to see some Slashdotters understanding this finally. Three years ago when this stuff would come up here, it was always 100% rejected as baloney. Second, while our environment influences us, and what we fill our minds with influences us, it is only the extremely violence-prone who are so susceptible to this that they cross a line. So I do not want to be penalized for their mistakes. I don't know how you work that out, but there must be a way. For example, instead of banning something, make it available only to adults.
Game from Bible (Score:4, Insightful)
*Not this is not really true but what if someone said that.
** This game does not exist but if it did then it would contain more violence than most movies. If, "The Passion of the Christ," the game came out, that depicts torture, though it was for "good" reasons. Would playing that be a factor? Is it because it is real? Because it is religious or Christian? What about a game where Christians fought back against ancient Romans in the 100's AD? You try to kill as many Roman guards to allow you religion, Christianity, to flourish.
Broadcast media newsrooms will ALWAYS slam games (Score:5, Insightful)
Their newsrooms hype every study purporting to show a connection between violence and games (while simultaneously burying any making the same connection between violence and TV). Ditto between anything else bad and games. (Low test scores, low income, alcoholism, etc.)
Their made-for-TV movies have main plots or subplots slamming games. Their sitcoms have episodes on games. Their commedians make cracks about games.
They did it to RPGs and the did it to video games. They do similar things to home computers, computer programming, and a number of internet activities (blogs, news outlets, mailing lists, online entertainments, file swapping, social contact facilitating 'ware of every sort, etc.).
Why do they do it?
Because it's their COMPETITION!
Video games and RPGs compete for eyeball time against their shows. This costs them advertising revenue. Online entertainment ditto. Social networking also takes time away from viewing, AND may lead to other non-TV-watching activities far beyond the time spend in front of a screen.
Network news outlets and news-related blogs scoop theirs regularly and expose their errors and malfesance. This reduces both their audience-related revenue and their effectiveness as a political tool.
TV networks are part of media conglomerates. So online "content" production/distribution tools (in addition to the "piracy" issue) pose a threat to their own offline operations.
And so on.
So when you hear them claim things are bad you need to consider the source, and dig down to the underlying meat, to discover whether there's anything behind the hype - or whether it's just something that either matches their current templates for an eyeball-attractor or promotes their own interests by slamming their opposition.
Which is, of course, what we're doing here. B-)