Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
PC Games (Games) Entertainment Games

Video Games Linked To Child Aggression 500

the4thdimension writes "CNN is running a story this morning that explains new research showing a correlation between video games and aggression in children. The study monitored groups of US and Japanese children, asking them to rate their violent behavior over a period of several months while they played video games in their free time. The study concludes that it has 'pretty good evidence' that there is a link between video games and childhood aggression." Stories like this make me want to smash things.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Video Games Linked To Child Aggression

Comments Filter:
  • by jcr ( 53032 ) <> on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:29AM (#25612561) Journal

    What's wrong with parents these days?


    • I tried but I couldn't reach him, and we were about to beat the crap out of Illidan. Illidan for god's sake!

    • by TheSovereign ( 1317091 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:58AM (#25613143)
      In all seriousness the Wussification of the American male has to be discussed, in my youth we would go at it like a mongoose and cobra at the drop of a hat, whenever we felt threatened. The winner walked away proud and the loser walked away bloodied and humiliated but a little wiser for the wear. Now the world of filled with "emo" cry babies who demand attention by shooting up their schools and whatnot. obviously the aggression hole in these kids lives is not being filled. To quote someone famous "testosterone causes homicide." if that is true then we have to work the aggression out of these people before they grow up and become repressed fiends hell bent on vengeful murder. Let them play the damn games. Let them get into fights. Let them fall off their bike. when its all said and done. tell them to walk it off and accept life. I swear to you. if people thought about this before the hijackers took those planes, 9/11 would have never occurred. because i know that if the people on that airplane hadn't been wussified no idiot with a box cutter would have stopped a mob of angry passengers. -TheSov
      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03, 2008 @12:07PM (#25613331)
        The antidote to stupidity is not a different kind of stupidity.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Well in the real world, I think you're going to find that giving an accurate definition of stupidity is a very hard thing indeed. There isn't a single act or course of action that is always stupid, there isn't a single one that is always smart.

          This goes into extremes : killing can be stupid, not killing can be even more stupid.

          Working to your own advantage is, in reality, not something humans do. Instead they imitate others. Since the only ones you see in the street and around you are people that are actual

      • by Ethanol-fueled ( 1125189 ) * on Monday November 03, 2008 @12:11PM (#25613403) Homepage Journal
        I wouldn't call it wussification, and it applies to both males and females; each gender manifests their symptoms in their own ways.

        It may be attributed to the wussifications of parents in general. My pappy once whooped my ass I put my hamster in a bowl of water and when I shot my sister in the ass with my slingshot.

        Up to a certain age, spanking(used sparingly as appropriate) shows the misbehaver that savage behavior will be responded to with savage behavior.

        Later on in life hitting becomes excessive and redundant so other measures(i.e. grounding or taking the car away) should be implemented.

        It seems that, recently, parents will do whatever they can to shift the blame away from them and their children, and that's why being an educator for 12th grade and below sucks - teachers are expected to be babysitters as well as educators(my dad has been teaching high school for over 20 years), and they're expected to do it with one arm tied behind their back due to spineless administration living in fear of frivolous lawsuits from "Power Parents" who breed latchkey kids who do whatever they want without supervision because the old folks are too busy with their careers and trying to relive their own youth.
        • by internerdj ( 1319281 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @12:50PM (#25614227)
          Don't you know that using violent discipline teaches your kids violence is ok? I fear for the generation whose first responders who faint at the sight of blood, because they probably will be responding to my generation.
          • by Ethanol-fueled ( 1125189 ) * on Monday November 03, 2008 @01:04PM (#25614451) Homepage Journal

            Don't you know that using violent discipline teaches your kids violence is ok?

            No, as I said above, physical discipline when used sparingly as appropriate sends the message that sociopathic acts will be not be tolerated and will be responded to in kind. I was spanked when I soaked my hamster(cruelty to animals) and when I shot my sister in the butt with my slingshot(assulting my kin with a projectile weapon).

            Now, if my parents smacked me everytime I brought them a warm beer or when I had my hand in the cookie jar before dinner, then okay, that's unacceptable and would teach me that I can beat on people to get what I want. My parents' physical punishment was reactive, not proactive. If I messed with somebody, I'd be punished. If I didn't do harm to living creatures, then I'd be verbally scolded at most. The key is knowing how to spank effectively in moderation and there are so many variables involved in rearing a kid that it can be tough. But it can be done right.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by internerdj ( 1319281 )
              Sorry I lost my sarcasm tags. I do actually worry our anti-agression/violence campaign will undermine our ability to deal with horrific situations on an individual level. Think about how a small child deals with a scraped knee. What happens if you grow up never desensitized to that emotional reaction? What happens when you are in an awful car accident and need to free your family? What do you do if you want to be a medical worker?
            • by MaxwellEdison ( 1368785 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @07:05PM (#25619381)
              Thank you for specifying why soaking your hamster or shooting your sister were considered wrong. Due to the amount of time I've spent playing Fable 2 and Fallout 3 this week, I can't tell right from wrong unless I see a glowing icon or a message telling me I've lost karma. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go force my dog to kill a homeless man so I may feast on his flesh and gain his power. Ta ta!
          • by Aereus ( 1042228 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @01:26PM (#25614851)

            If spanking is such a violent discipline that breeds violence -- then why is it only in the last 10-20 years that school violence has reached unprecedented levels? Lack of discipline from both parents and what is allowed for teachers I see as a major reason why.

            Why didn't students bring guns to school and shoot them up 50+ years ago then?

            • by Shotgun ( 30919 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @01:45PM (#25615191)

              They did.

              The violence has always been there. What is missing now is respect for authority. The respect was what kept a lid on the violence and kept it hidden. You used to have to isolate someone in a bathroom. Now you can just beat the shit out of them in the halls.

              My son got suspended when a group ganged up on him. Non of the gang-bangers were punished. He said something they didn't like, so he was being 'disrespectful'. The lesson there was that it is ok to force your will on someone, as long as you can demonstrate that they did something you didn't like.

              • by aztektum ( 170569 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @05:18PM (#25618153)

                That means you get to go beat up the gang right? I mean they were being disrespectful to you by beating up your son. Eye for an eye.

                Seriously though, you did talk to an attorney over this right? I'd be running for school board to get the fuck of a principle fired.

                I'm amazed that somehow it's OK to react with physical violence when someone says something you don't like. Free speech and all that. How that shit has become to universally tolerated is beyond me.

                • by lmnfrs ( 829146 ) <lmnfrs@gmail. c o m> on Monday November 03, 2008 @06:02PM (#25618599) Journal

                  I have no idea why it's like that. I was in school about 10 years ago, and the rules were made very clear. Every act of aggression is equal, including not only retaliation but self-defense, too.

                  If a bully attacks you with a bat you should take it. You won't be punished (except for being beaten with a bat). If you try to defend yourself both of you will be given equal punishments. Even if you get hit in the face but are able to push the person over and run like hell, that's somehow as bad as the initial attack.

                  I have no idea why people think crazy kids and school shootings are the result of videogames, and ignore the principals that order children to succumb to violent attacks because the authoritative figure said so.

                  ..also, I would venture a guess that this may have something to do with the lack of respect for authority.

                  • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                    by LingNoi ( 1066278 )

                    Sorry but that's the dumbest thing I have ever heard, you sit and take getting beaten by a bat or you will get punished? What the fuck?!

                  • by russotto ( 537200 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:16PM (#25621659) Journal

                    I have no idea why it's like that. I was in school about 10 years ago, and the rules were made very clear. Every act of aggression is equal, including not only retaliation but self-defense, too.

                    If a bully attacks you with a bat you should take it. You won't be punished (except for being beaten with a bat). If you try to defend yourself both of you will be given equal punishments.

                    It was the same when I was in school 20-odd years ago. I tested that rule exactly once. Turns out they lied about even that. Even if you just curled into a little ball and took it (fortunately no bat involved), you STILL got suspended for participating in a fight. One good outcome did come of that test, though: it cemented my parents' disdain for the administration, as they admitted to my parents my only part in the fight was as a victim.

                    (BTW, I posted this before and I swear the post disappeared. )

                • by Shotgun ( 30919 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @06:08PM (#25618691)

                  Did talk to an attorney. He told me that he could take my money if it would make me feel better, but nothing would change.

                  My son repeated something he heard from a black comedian. The principal was black. The gang-bangers were black. Ipso-facto, by the powers of politically-correct magic, physical violence was justified.

                  By my twisted logic, the BET channel is now banned in my house.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by kikito ( 971480 )
              1. Discipline != Beating up
              2. It happened too. It is just that it didnt get the same media coverage it gets these days. Or do you think men did not kill their wives back then?
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Blakey Rat ( 99501 )

              If spanking is such a violent discipline that breeds violence -- then why is it only in the last 10-20 years that school violence has reached unprecedented levels?

              You have to prove that assertion before your question is valid.


              This site indicates that school violence is going down since the early 90s, drastically.

      • by TheCarp ( 96830 ) * <[ten.tenaprac] [ta] [cjs]> on Monday November 03, 2008 @03:24PM (#25616823) Homepage

        I had a martial arts instructor once who said it best "We don't hit people in our everyday life because it gets us into trouble. Most people aren't as open minded about it as we are here."

        As I grow older I find my views refining, and its taken me a while to see this but, I blame the human minds own inability to properly assess complex risks at the heart of much of this "wussification" as you see it.

        The creation of television has taken these little embers of a problem, and poured gasoline all over everything!

        Its like Bruce Schneier pointed out: If its in the news, its probably not an issue. Car accidents are too common to make the news except for big ones that are local. Heart attacks? You never hear about them on the news. Its just too common.

        Murder? Rape? Hey, if it bleeds it leads! Child kidnapping. How many kids were kidnapped last year by strangers? I can tell you its not many, how do I know? Because its on the news. Though look at parents...ask them to rate how big of a risk that is.

        SO year after year, we have a feedback loop thats throwing our perceptions of danger further and further out of whack, and we create laws. Some girl gets raped in some horrrible way... we pass a law. A few years down the road, something else happens, we pass another law....

        next thing you know, we have signs by the highway, alerts going out in txt messages.... im not saying finding kidnapped kids is bad, or that its a horrible waste of money.... but.... in the grand scheme of problems in our society.... it was never that big of a rational concern.

        Is it stupidity? I don't think so. Its far worst. Its simply a matter of skewed perception. Its a matter of people failing to do something that people really are not very good at, and doing it on a massive scale.

        I would be willing to bet, dollars to donuts, that if you took all of the money spent on amber alerts, and used it to fund better in school education on nutrition and healthy eating.... it would have a far greater impact on far more childrens lives.

        However, fat doesn't bleed, so it doesn't lead.


        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheCarp ( 96830 ) *

          BTW to answer my own rhetoric.... the numbers:

          The link quotes another article:

          In its front-page coverage of the Carlie Brucia murder, the St. Petersburg Times included this sidebar inside the paper, under the headline "A rare crime":

          According to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 58,200 children in the United States were abducted by nonrelatives in 1999, the most recent data available. In the vast majority of ca

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by twosmokes ( 704364 )

        Let's not confuse two kids fighting out an argument with systematic bullying. Many kids get beat up and the only lesson to be wiser on is "I shouldn't have looked at him" or "I should bring more money to give him next time". Most kids haven't been bred to stand up in a fist fight. Especially when many bullies have numbers on their side. I don't think I've ever seen a violent bully pick on someone when he was alone.

        And I don't know why you brought up 9/11. The reason nobody did anything on the first pla

    • by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @12:03PM (#25613259) Homepage Journal

      Think about hit, pop little Susie on the butt for mouthing off to you at home and she tells her teacher. Well the law requires the teacher to report any hints of abuse and next thing you know child services is at your door.

      take my friend's day care experience, no more time out, no more quiet area, and no more telling kids they are "bad", anymore as that hurts their self-esteem. So what happens? They call the parents EVERY TIME the kid acts up. Now it is suddenly the parent's problem if the kid acts up as the care center will no longer discipline. So when the kid won't behave the parents are told to not bring them back etc yet the center doesn't put any bounds on the kids and wonder why.

      The problem is that we are a knee jerk reaction society. People cannot yell, spank, or otherwise discipline their children in public places because some do gooder will freak out and claim its abuse. They lose the ability at home because what many may perceive as mild punishment is child abuse to some fanatic with the backing of government. The news is replete with stories of the government agency overreacts, fails to protect children it places, and more, yet parents don't stand a chance against a group who can use police powers to take your children let alone put you in jail.

      When people started relying on others to discipline kids and took the rights of their parents and even schools to set bounds it removed any inhibition. There is a natural reaction to being punishment when it comes to children, they learn where the threshold and correct the behavior to stay on the nice side.

      • by WillRobinson ( 159226 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @12:11PM (#25613401) Journal

        I have 5 kids, went through the age where they believed we could not touch them. During one heated argument, they said they would call the police. I said, tell you what, let me do it.

        So I called our local police, and the office came in and told the kids what I could do and what I could not do. And they also said if I needed it, they would taze them a few times for me, so I would not get in trouble ...

        Discipline problems went away after that.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Geoff ( 968 )

          There's nothing like a visit from a cop to put some healthy fear into kids. My brother was being bothered by some bullies in our neighborhood. Our uncle was visiting and hear about this, so he went and talked to the kids. It sarted as the usual, "quit messing with my nephew" type of thing that probably had the bullies rolling their eyes.

          Then he asked them, "Have you ever seen one of these?" He flashed his police badge.

          Never mind that we were in California and his badge was from Utah. Those bullies never bot

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by plague3106 ( 71849 )

            It depends. If you have an experience like me, where a cop shows up accusing you of stealing & B&E, when you clearly were a 30 minute drive away in another city, doesn't let up, then finally figures out that they mis-spelt the name they got from one of the other kids they caught.. and then are told "it's our policy not to applogize." Well, lets just say I don't have any great respect for cops... espcially since I was told these same cops wouldn't respond to a break in (or worse) at my house, becau

      • by Moryath ( 553296 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @12:25PM (#25613721)

        No kidding.

        Parents don't discipline their kids (OMG, you sent them to bed without supper? CHILD ABUSE THEY'RE DENYING NUTRITION!). Schools can't discipline kids, because "OMG YOU MADE MY LITTLE BOY FEEL BAD ABOUT HIMSELF AND STUNTED HIS SELF ESTEEM!"

        I've seen it countless times - we even approved having our class (unknown to the kids) having a hidden video camera so that if some kid acted up and the teacher had to discipline them, the kid whining "wahh teacher was mean and hit me" could be checked on. Five kids - the BRATTIEST, WORST ones - tried exactly that. FIVE KIDS - and every one of them was a fucking liar, proven on tape, yet somehow four sets of parents saw the tape and STILL insisted that somehow their kid was telling the truth and the tape was "doctored."

        That's where we stand. Parents are so worried about their kid getting written up (OMG that could keep my kid out of college!) that rather than discipline their brat and teach them how to behave, they will support trying to get the good teachers (that is the ones who actually try to use what few discipline tools they have left) fired anyways.

        Now as far as the study goes, here's the usual debunking boilerplate necessary:
        #1 - Bad methodology (the researchers are finding what they want to find when they analyze "violence"; hitting/shooting each other with nerf weaponry is not violence, neither is playing cowboys and indians. Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd do not encourage violence.)
        #2 - Crap sample size
        #3 - The usual reporting errors ("self-reporting" and "reporting from other students" where they have incentive to overinflate reports and can easily be coaxed into doing so by someone they view as an "authority").

        #4 - Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc [] fallacy. These idiot "researchers" can't imagine for a moment that the "most violent" kids will pick media suiting their temperament. Most rambunctious little boys don't want to play Barbie's Horsey Adventure or Barbie Picks Out Clothes And Does Her Hair, for example, but those sell pretty fucking well to little girls. The games don't "cause violence", they're simply as much of an expression of the kids' temperament (same thing for kids who pick non-contact sports like Tennis rather than medium-contact sports like Baseball or heavy-contact sports like Football).

        #5 - "Massaging" the data to fit their sponsors' designs. And who sponsored this one? National Institute on Media and the Family - a known group who have the goal of killing off entertainment media in a variety of forms. When in doubt, follow the money.

        Every time one of these studies comes up, the same crap is wrong with them. THAT is why the laws based on this crap "science" are thrown out in court, because even the local half-witted judges can see how nonscientific these "studies" are.

        • by decoy256 ( 1335427 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @01:35PM (#25614991)
          As a parent of three children, I can say that I notice a marked difference in my children's behavior when they spend their free time playing video games. Video games detach you from the rest of the world and for little kids, that is not healthy. On those days that we let our 7 year old play video games, he responds more angrily to requests from both of his parents. On days where we make him (heaven forbid) PLAY, he is obedient and happy.

          That being said, I'm a gamer, I think games are great, and I want to be able to enjoy playing games with my kids when they are older. But there is an appropriate way to do it and each parent needs to be observant about their kids behavior. If your kid has behavioral problems, try taking away video games and see if that's the cause. If your kid plays hours and hours of video games and is still the sweetest kid in town, then why change a good thing. It's all about parents being... PARENTS.

        • I agree. There's a clear difference between disciplining one's kid and telling him he's a worthless good-for-nothing, and that he'd be better off dead. The former makes him a better person. The latter will turn him into a poor excuse of a human being, blaming everyone for each of his problems.

          You're also hitting the nail on the head on #4 (well, that's a bit obvious with the tag "correlationisnotcausation"). If a kid has murderous intentions and wants to take revenge upon the world, he will get grand theft auto and start killing everyone on the game.

          On the contrary, if a kid has a healthy psychological condition, he'll enjoy GTA, but because of the normal gaming elements.

          I had a friend whose life was a mess, his father beat him, his mother abandoned him and the people he had to live with kept saying he was useless. His favorite videogames were GTA, Hitman 3, and other violent videogames - including Street Fighter, where I totally kicked his ass :P -. He often gets in streetfights, occasionally beats someone on the street because he felt like it, and one time he tried to commit suicide.

          He went once with a psychologist and things have been improving for him, but he gets kicked out of jobs often (guess why). Are videogames the cause of his violent behavior? I don't think so.

          But "abused and neglected kid becomes violent" isn't a headline as catchy as "kid who played GTA becomes violent".

        • by kaizokuace ( 1082079 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @04:42PM (#25617775)

          Parents don't discipline their kids (OMG, you sent them to bed without supper? CHILD ABUSE THEY'RE DENYING NUTRITION!)

          In America chances are that the kid needs to eat less anyway.

      • by timster ( 32400 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @12:36PM (#25613921)

        I understand the need for clear, credible discpline and I want to be sympathetic to your point of view.

        But I must say, every time -- every single time -- that I have seen a parent spank, public or private, the parent has been obviously emotionally agitated and acting out of anger. I'm not saying that these people don't have a right to raise their children the way they choose, and I'm sure there really are parents who spank thinking only of the child's needs (as opposed to the parent's need to express anger). The trouble is, as long as pro-spankers seem to be saying that spanking = good and more spanking = better, instead of discussing the merits of good spanking vs. bad spanking, it becomes more difficult to accept their arguments. Over time I think this erodes the credibility of corporeal punishment as a legitimate means of parenting.

        I'm sure that all discpline must inflict pain of some sort (physical or otherwise), and so it's possible for almost any discpline tactic to be abusive if misused. However, humans are strongly wired to hit things when frustrated, and children should not be physical targets of frustration (with discpline as a mere excuse).

        • by hobo sapiens ( 893427 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @01:44PM (#25615185) Journal


          Children need consistency. They'll push the boundaries, but it's especially then they need to know that you aren't budging. They should know what is going to happen to them when they do something. Instead, many parents let something go on unchecked and then explode with anger.

          Parents should have certain offenses that get a spanking. For my children, its lying in order to get out of trouble. I always want the punishment for just owning up to a fault to be less than trying to lie and get out of trouble. In my mind, this reinforces the concept of personal accountability. If you mess up, own up to it. If you don't own up to it, then that's when things go really badly. After each time I spank them, I hug them and reassure them of my love. That's what usually makes them cry and feel bad for what they've done, and that's exactly what you want: remorse.

          Not being perfect, I have spanked my children out of anger and will probably continue to do so at times. But I *always* regret that later. But as bad as that is, people always complement me on my well behaved children. I'd rather err on the side of giving them a bad spanking every once in a while (read: the exception and not the rule) than having children run amok.

          I think you never see the proper use of spankings because that doesn't tend to happen in public. A parent has to be pretty angry to spank a child in public, and that's exactly when NOT to use a spanking. What you don't see are the good spankings administered in private.

          • by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @07:21PM (#25619569)

            always want the punishment for just owning up to a fault to be less than trying to lie and get out of trouble. In my mind, this reinforces the concept of personal accountability.

            It also increases the chances that they are amongst those who'll get killed when the society completes its current slide towards fascism. Accountability is not a good thing when those doing the accounting are hostile, and honesty is a liability in a hypocritical society. Teaching them to lie to authority automatically, consistently and without any nervousness would probably serve them better and lead to longer, happier, freer and more productive life.


      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I am a teacher and I often have students who have terrible behavior but my hands are tied, I am not allowed to punish them, yell at them or give them time outs because if I do and the children go to the parents and complain, then the parents start complaining to my boss that I am being the bad guy because "their kids would do nothing wrong, they are angels" and the boss tends to favor the parents because are the ones paying money and shit like that.

        Parents love to blame the schools for whenever their kids p

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I believe that Chris Rock said: Every child needs the 5 Key ass whoopings. Lying, cheating, stealing, cussing and disrespecting. You get those 5 and you turn out better.
      • by moderatorrater ( 1095745 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @01:02PM (#25614425)
        That's why you teach your children that they aren't to allow police officers or anyone else into the house unless you're there and say that they can come in. If you keep them on the porch. Child Services can do less than they can if you cooperate. My family saw this all the time with the abusive couple across the street: they wouldn't let them in the house, the cops couldn't do anything. Yet whenever the local religious leader made someone angry, they'd call child services and cooperation would end up disrupting his family for hours while the cops found nothing to be worried about. This happened multiple times with both families. Cooperating also got my cousin's baby taken away when she cooperated with DCFS; if she'd refused to let them into the house, they wouldn't have been able to take her baby away for 9 months before ultimately deciding that there was nothing wrong with the situation.

        It says a lot about our society when cooperating with the authorities is never, ever in your best interest. Cue the "adversarial justice system" person who's going to claim that it's in the best interests of everyone for the cops and prosecutors to go after everyone like they're the worst serial killer in the world.
        • by TheCarp ( 96830 ) * <[ten.tenaprac] [ta] [cjs]> on Monday November 03, 2008 @04:23PM (#25617539) Homepage

          I was told similar things once.... by an off duty cop.

          When I took "Driver's Ed" the instructor was a police officer. He was a very good instructor. When it came to drunk driving he made an interesting aside. He told us "I would never submit to a voluntary breathalyser, I would take the 90 day loss of license instead, whether I was drunk or not"

          His reasoning was very simple. The police officer who pulls you over is NOT there to help you. He is there for one job and one job only: to gather evidence against you. Why would you EVER help him gather evidence against you? (remember, we are talking about the specific case of you, as a driver, being pulled over)

          Seriously, even if your innocent... in this situation YOU are under investigation and he is there to gather evidence against you, as you are the subject of his current investigation. You are under no obligation to help him, so why do it?

          Give him the opportunity, and he will be rummaging through your trunk, and anything he finds is fair game once you said ok. So why take the chance? If just say no ever meant anything to anyone.... just say no to cooperation.

          Like you point out, if you say no, there are very strict limits on their powers. If you say yes, they can disrupt your life for hours on end.


    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      You are marked funny but I actually agree. Too many kids do not receive punishment that fit's the crime.

      Lots of the little bastard kids out there need their ass lit up with a hand or belt far more often than it is happening.

      Also your neighborhood families should be able to scold and drag them home by their ear or arm to you so you can whup his little ass as well.

      today, talk to a kid and get sued. Or worse the little bastards will come by and smash your windows.

      • by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @01:17PM (#25614697)

        I've always said, "The best thing that ever happened to me was my father's belt." I was a bored little smartass punk in elementary school. This let to misbehavior all the time, with teacher-given paddlings. Eventually my father got wind of it and used the belt. I got -one- paddling after that in 8th grade over something that was being done by half the class at the time.

        I've now got a healthy respect for authority. Not blind obedience, mind... Just respect.

        Like all things, if done to excess, punishment is bad for you. But handled properly, it will be the correction that's needed when "Oh honey, you shouldn't do that" fails.

        I was very sad the day that schools stopped paddling. I knew it was a bad move. I see that it was just the first of many.

      • by PinkPanther ( 42194 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @01:20PM (#25614731)
        Thing is, this has NOTHING to do with "spanking". The problem is that parents aren't willing to discipline. A good public embarrassment or denial/revoking of privileges is as effective as a spanking IF your children have respect for you.

        A good portion of the problem is that parents don't get the respect and are doing nothing (or the wrong thing) towards getting it. Ignoring your kids behaviors and disrespectful acts does not resolve anything and often encourages more of the same.

        Parents need to ask themselves *why* the children are misbehaving. A smack on the ass can be worse than simply ignoring the problem. Discipline isn't just about ending the immediate misbehavior...

        It takes mature adult to raise well adjusted, respectful and respected individuals. Spanking might be part of the discipline used towards that end, but I truly question its effectiveness when put in combination with the FOLLOW-UP necessary for proper discipline.

        It isn't the heat-of-the-moment, eliminate-the-danger discipline tactic that solves the overall behavior problem.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Most of them just need fathers around. The fathers don't even necessarily have to spank them, just discipline them. The problem is that we have far too many single-parent households and single-parenting is linked with increased rates of child misbehavior and teenage delinquency.
  • by Deflagro ( 187160 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:33AM (#25612637)

    I don't get why they keep beating this horse...

    I played violent games all my life, I haven't killed or hurt anyone.
    I will agree that sure if that's all kids see and they don't get any parental direction, then sure.

    Kids do copy what they see, but a 6 year old kid shouldn't be playing GTA 3. Then again it depends on the kid.

    It's just not something you can put to statistics.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What's the opposite of PRO....CON. What's the opposite of PROgress...?


    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:38AM (#25612727)

      I don't get why they keep beating this horse...

      Perhaps it is aggression induced by the video games?

    • by the4thdimension ( 1151939 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:38AM (#25612733) Homepage
      This is one of the stories that is good to throw out there if you want a quick bit of fame. It's easy research because it is kind of like a "duh" type of thing. You will feel more aggression psychologically, but that doesn't mean you are more likely to kill or hurt anyone.

      While there is likely a link, it does not mean that playing violent video games means you kill people. Many will try to jump to this conclusion, many will fail.
    • by blueg3 ( 192743 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:44AM (#25612865)

      Statistics are much more enlightening than anecdotal evidence.

      Of course, they don't seem to link to the study, so I can't comment on its quality. I do notice, though, the article attempts to address most of the I-didn't-read-the-article Slashdot responses:
      * brings up the problem of causation
      * attempts to properly show causation, not just correlation
      * conclusion is advice for parents

      • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @12:26PM (#25613747) Journal

        * attempts to properly show causation, not just correlation

        This study does no such thing. From TFA, it appears that they just kept track of kids video gaming habits. Those who spent more time with "violent" video games by choice exhibited more violent behavior. It's entirely likely that those kids who tend to be aggressive will choose to play more violent video games.

        Even in the best of circumstances, this study can't answer the important question. That is, do violent video games increase crime? Any parent, or even former child can attest that entertainment can temporarily increase aggressive behavior. I know I roughhoused around more than once after watching TMNT as a kid, and I know plenty of kids who've done the same after power rangers. That's normal, natural, and appropriate behavior for a kid. Getting punished when you take it too far is also normal, natural and appropriate. This is how kids become adults and learn how to manage their aggressive tendencies.

        My point is that there's a difference between little Jimmy play acting after watching a show or playing a game, and little Jimmy growing up to be a criminal. Plenty of studies have demonstrated the first, none that I'm aware of have demonstrated the latter.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mauddib~ ( 126018 )

      Hmmm, so your 'statistical' analysis with N equals 1 'proves' that it cannot be put to a statistical test since your own 'research' has already shown otherwise? Common, get a grip.

    • by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:47AM (#25612943) Journal

      I don't get why they keep beating this horse...

      I played violent games all my life, I haven't killed or hurt anyone.

      I love this superficial analysis. It is like family members who tell me that they have never work seat belts but have never gotten hurt in a wreck. (Ya always need a car analogy to make a point)

      I don't know what the reality is about video games and violence. Is there no causation at all? Are there at-risk kids who should not be playing? Are there age limits and maturity limits? Do violent games combine with other influences to increase violent behavior? Should violent games be avoided altogether?

      The fact is I don't know. I have my suspicions that it lies somewhere between my first and second question, but that is only my gut.

      And this is why we fund studies. I believe strongly in science to help us progress as a society. I also believe that you must base your beliefs on facts, not your prejudices. Fifteen years ago I would have told you that porn causes objectification of women and leads to violence against them. A number of studies have indicated otherwise, and I have abandoned this viewpoint.

      I am open on the violent video game issue as well. Let the studies continue, wait for the evidence to point one way or another. But if you are already closed to answers different that your preconceptions, then you opinions are worthless.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by DrEldarion ( 114072 )

        The problem is that the studies are all crap. Their conclusions are always "violent video game playing and real-life violence look linked" and could as easily be explained as "violent people play violent video games" and "violent video games cause violent behavior".

        Looking, however, to vilify games, they always choose to present the second viewpoint, which is why people get so frustrated with these studies.

    • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:49AM (#25612963)

      Um. You do realize when the findings are based on on statistical correlations right? That means there are often people even a majority of people who do fit into the rule. However it shows that that action is somehow linked to the reaction. It may not be direct say banning video games will fix the problem, may be the wrong approach it may be the kids may play theses games more when they have more violent tenancies. However there is a link, And saying Hey I play violent video games and I didn't kill people yet isn't a good response.

    • I played violent games all my life, I haven't killed or hurt anyone.

      Me too!

      Although I quite often *want* to hurt people, but that might have more to do with other people than me in the current political climate.

    • by imboboage0 ( 876812 ) <> on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:56AM (#25613109) Homepage

      Kids do copy what they see, but a 6 year old kid shouldn't be playing GTA 3.

      You're absolutely right, GTA 4 is out.

    • They are beating this dead horse because they want to find "scientific proof" to justify the nanny-state laws the article clearly mentions, laws which would limit sale of these games. Said laws get challenged and often rejected for the anti-freedom bunk that they are.

      This is similar to how creationists/IDists keep looking for tenuous scientific proof in order to justify teaching the subject as part of biology.

      It's not about science or psychology, it's about agenda, and this one goes across party lines. You

  • by Ogive17 ( 691899 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:34AM (#25612655)
    But all video games can bring out the worst in me.. even playing monopoly online :). When someone routinely lands on the luxury tax square instead of my hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place.. I start dropping F-bombs like they are going out of style! I've been known to throw a pen accross the room also...

    Maybe I should seek help ;)
  • by drunkennewfiemidget ( 712572 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:35AM (#25612669) Homepage

    So the only aggression I have is this unexplainable urge to jump on people's heads and punch bricks.

  • by PIPBoy3000 ( 619296 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:37AM (#25612691)
    As a parent of a five year-old and a nearly ten year-old, I find that a lack of activity and too-quick transitions tend to lead to aggression. When my son has been playing video games for longer than normal and we immediately yank him off, it causes frustration and acting out. If he's been active that day and we give him warnings that his time is coming to an end, things seem to go more smoothly.

    Good parenting is more than a series of yes/no decisions.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) *

      That's exactly my experience []. It has nothing to do with violence in video games and everything to do with sitting on their butts while getting more and more excitable.

      • by Half-pint HAL ( 718102 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:56AM (#25613105)

        Agreed. I used to be surly, irritable and aggressive. Thankfully my parents are both teachers, so we'd go on 6 week long summer holidays in a caravan without a computer.

        I remember being restless and agitated for the first couple of weeks of the holiday and then when the brain fog cleared I realised that computer games were doing something weird to my head. It wasn't necessarily about the level of violence in the games themselves, but maybe more something to do with the mental processes involved.


    • by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:45AM (#25612901) Homepage
      This is just good advice for kids in general. Give them warning about what is going to happen in the future. I have a 2.5 year old and a 1 year old. If you turn off the TV without telling the kid that it's going to get turned off, or if you just say, "we are leaving the park now", the kid will get cranky and wine. However if you tell them 10 minutes before hand, and remind them at 5 minutes and 2 minutes, you tend to get a much better reaction out of them.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by orzetto ( 545509 )

        the kid will get cranky and wine

        Mmh, I see, so your strategy is getting them drunk so they will not fight back? Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

      • How to tell if you spend too much time on /. Reason #255
          - Your two year old child is 2.5 years old.
        CAPTCHA: belted

  • by Rurik ( 113882 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:38AM (#25612715)

    Video games are violent, per the majority. For most, the point of a game is to kill other people. I'm an avid game player of Xbox and Wii, and my four year old has his games that he plays (Simpsons, The Bee Movie game, Kung Fu Panda). Last year we noticed that when I was playing Zelda on the Wii, he loved to mimic my actions. He started collecting "swords" and "shields" out of anything at hand and would play fight. Every now and then we watched me play Lost Odyssey, where the characters run up to the mob, attack, and run back (and that's how he named the game - "the one where you run up and hit the bad guy and run back"). When I fought, he would orchestrate himself fighting our chair with a sword.

    Even when the game is over and unplayed for months, he would still act out those movements. Is he aggressive? He's a child, and he does have aggressive tendencies like all other boys. The point of this article: can it be pinned on the games? I doubt it. Just as young boys are attracted to guns, army guys, and fighting, he is attracted to games that have him fighting people - even if it's just jumping on their heads.

    Correlation doesn't imply causation, IMO.

    Then again, I think there are many parents out there who expect their kids to be little adults. They want them to shut up, sit down, be quiet, and follow strict rules. And, when the kids act like kids, the parents stretch for something to blame for them being "unruly". When ritalin isn't helping, let's blame the video games. IMO

  • by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman&gmail,com> on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:38AM (#25612719) Homepage Journal

    The results are consistent with my own experience. When my older son was younger, I provided him with access to an NES emulator so that he could play the old Nintendo games I had sitting in the closet. (I was missing cabling and didn't find them until later.) What we noticed is that if he was allowed to play video games for too long, he became a) lazy about doing anything else and b) very temperamental and difficult to deal with.

    About that time my wife instituted a time-limit for games each day that my son could spend at any time during the day. when he wasn't playing games, he was required to find some other activity to do. (e.g. play with Duplos, ask to go to the park, etc.) This change was very effective in smoothing out his behavior.

    The problem does not appear to be the violence in video games as Mr. Thompson, no longer esquire, would have you believe. The problem appears to be that playing games for a long period of time results in a lot of pent-up energy. That energy is tempered by a reduced desire to perform any task besides play video games. In result, the energy ends up expended via a behavior route.

    • by poetmatt ( 793785 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @12:17PM (#25613515) Journal

      It's not really pent up energy, it's just focus. Someone gets highly focused and sucked into something enjoyable, and you're trying to take it away. Think anyone's response would be positive?

      This is like trying to grab a needle from someone as they're trying to use it + addicted. Or in my case, when I am practicing my cello and really enjoying it. If someone came in and told me to just "stop", whether or not with a precursor warning, my response to them is not going to be positive, whether external or internal, my response is going to be something negative. Or as another example, if you're having sex, and you or your partner is about to orgasm, and you just stop.

      It's not a video game thing at all. It's not an age thing at all. If you try to stop people from doing what they enjoy, and some will be motivated to smash your face. Just because you don't enjoy/comprehend whatever they enjoy, isn't an excuse to halt their activity. This is an ignorance of society and is not something limited to parents, although it does show bad parenting which is being passed on to the kids continuing the cycle of bad parenting. Also please note that I am not implying or saying that you have done this or are attributing you to this. Setting a timeframe or giving a kid other things to do is a very good and reasonable response.

  • We have too many "electronic baby sitters." It is precisely a lack of authority and discipline that leads to problems such as these. When kids know their place and behave accordingly, they are generally happier, healthier and a lot more well adjusted.

    Let the kids play video games... as long as the parents play WITH them! People said the same thing about television. The real problem is lack of parental participation that drives children wild.

  • by eln ( 21727 )

    Video games do not make people violent. On the contrary, I find video games to be a good way to wind down after a good killing spree. Video games train you to concentrate on a single task for a long period of time, which is an invaluable skill when you have to bury the bodies deep enough to evade those pesky corpse-sniffing dogs.

    I find that far from being more aggressive, video games have made me more focused. Before, I was so aggressive I would get sloppy in my work, and often leave incriminating eviden

  • by DragonTHC ( 208439 ) <Dragon@gPERIODam ... .com minus punct> on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:40AM (#25612787) Homepage Journal

    First, correlation is not causation.

    Second, aggression is not violence.

    Third, this applies to all violent media exposure, not just video games.

    Fourth, we have known about these links for more than a decade.

  • by InfinityWpi ( 175421 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:42AM (#25612821)

    I've always believed that violent games cause agression in children. No doubt about it. Hell, I can tell that I'm more agressive after a marathon of gaming violence.

    The problem is that these kids aren't taught what to do with that agression, and so they bring it out into the real world. Kids need to be taught that, in real life, hurting someone and looting their stuff isn't okay.
    And parents and teachers are, more and more, not doing that.

  • by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:42AM (#25612825)

    Having a couple of young boys myself, I have observed that, for instance, watching a fast moving exciting film can make them over-excited quite easily. It's not really aggression, it's just that kids have much greater and more readily available energy than adults. Unfortunately these days adults often mistake this for a defect in their child.

    The correct response is of course to fight back! There is nothing little boys like better than pretend fighting, and they tire very quickly.

  • by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <> on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:43AM (#25612837)

    But that does not mean there is not a problem here.

    My mom has taught 1st graders for ~20 years. Back when Power Rangers used to be the shit, she would talk about how these kids would get all riled up playing Power Rangers during recess. When they got back into class, they were still all keyed up from their "fighting" between each other and would always get in trouble.

    Does this mean Power Rangers causes violence in children? Of course not. But it does remind us that children can be excitable and impressionable, get caught up in the games they play, and sometimes don't realize when it's time to stop, or take the game too far. What they are doing before they exhibit this behavior is really immaterial: they might do this with a video game, a movie they see, a cartoon, or a couple of sticks they find in the gutter and play "sword fighting" with.

    You have to set limits for children. Limit their diet of video games, TV, and other media, and let them know when their behavior related to this media consumption becomes unacceptable. Parenting 101.

  • by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:43AM (#25612839) Homepage

    Next door there are two teenage boys with a younger sister, she is mad for High School Musical and they like rock. So far we've had raised shouting, a TV being ripped for the wall and one son actually throwing himself out of a window (no injuries) to get away from the music.

    Now you could say that they are just being older brothers and mocking their sister's taste, but I say its proof that High School Musical causes violence in teens and so should therefore be banned.

    Some would further say that this is evidence of "appropriate" for groups and how the horror movies that the boys watch aren't appropriate for their younger sister while HSM is not appropriate for the boys. You'd almost think some sort of certification should be placed on movies and games to give an idea of what is appropriate (Harry Potter - both sexes and aged 7 to adult, HSM - girls between the ages of 7 and 11).

    • "You'd almost think some sort of certification should be placed on movies and games to give an idea of what is appropriate (Harry Potter - both sexes and aged 7 to adult, HSM - girls between the ages of 7 and 11)."

      Gee, like the ratings systems everyone already bitches about?


    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by dedazo ( 737510 )

      one son actually throwing himself out of a window (no injuries) to get away from the music

      If we're talking about High School Musical then I suppose I totally agree with that approach.

  • by SCHecklerX ( 229973 ) <> on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:45AM (#25612883) Homepage

    I thought Jack Thompson was disbarred? Why are we still hearing about this crap?

  • by svendsen ( 1029716 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:47AM (#25612927)
    That I feel like punching children.
  • When I am playing Halo online and some snot-nosed 10 year old starts playing cheap and stuff, it makes me REALLY angry and aggressive at those kids... so maybe there is something to that...

  • by Toll_Free ( 1295136 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @11:49AM (#25612977)

    I have three kids. Boys.

    Yes, violent cartoons and video games cause aggression.

    Let your kids watch He Man, Popeye, Halo, etc. Games or videos. Children mimic what they see. Bottom line.

    It's like, DUH. If a child grows up watching his Daddy beat his Mommy because she talks to much, said child will grow up to beat his wife for talking too much, as well.

    Little common sense here. Children are a product of their environment. Give them a loving environment, and they grow up loving (in general, and the facts are there to back this up, and any parent worth a shit can attest to this)... Let them grow up with parents that hate, don't give a shit, or whatever, and that's the way the kids will grow up.

    I let my 3 and 4 yr old watch Kung Foo Panda a couple months ago. THAT was a great movie. And my kids, for about a week, thought Kung Foo on each other was A-OK.


  • I think it's interesting that the article doesn't mention that the man behind the research, Dr. Craig. A. Anderson, Ph.D., was part of a "summit" conducted by the pressure group National Institute on Media and the Family []:



    Could it be that a politically motivated study by a political activist psychologist would come up with a conclusion that he had already decided on?

    Remember, this is an organization that dec

  • But correlation does not imply causality.

    So the question remains, do aggressive children just naturally want to play more aggressive games, or does playing games actually cause aggression, or is there another factor that causes both?
  • I saw this story this weekend, and am concerned with how it is being framed. I think that one side is saying, "This stuff is hazardous to children and must be controlled by the government." The other side often says, "This stuff is not necessarily hazardous to children, correlation is not causation, etc."

    I think both sides are wrong. I think the correct answer is, "This stuff probably is hazardous to children, and parents should be just as careful about this stuff as they are about movies or playing in the

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by GameMaster ( 148118 )

      Where are you from? I'd love to see streets with full-length railings as opposed to the present system here in the Chicago area, which is to install speed bumps so that anyone who dares to drive anything close to the speed limit is guaranteed to destroy the underside of their car. Sure, I could drive in more main travel routes but, then again, horrible traffic congestion if the reason I'm driving on the back-roads in the first place. Of course, speed bumps aren't uncommon in other parts of the country, b

  • absolutely (Score:4, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <> on Monday November 03, 2008 @12:14PM (#25613439) Homepage Journal

    because before video games existed, mankind was pastoral and peaceful. in fact, if you go back to the days of the romans, when violent media meant crude stick figure drawings on a wall, everyone was loving and logical and reasonable and bountiful with good intent and no desire to to be aggressive

    (rolls eyes)

    humanity is in its essence violent and sexual. don't believe me? go look at a bunch of 3 year olds for 5 minutes. you tell me that they are acting the way they do because of media with a straight face. humans are not some pure vessels who are corrupted by outside forces. humans are born corrupt (where corrupt=possessing violent and sexual tendencies that are not socially appropiate). violent and sexual media, for psychologically well-adjusted people, is simply a way to jettison bad tendencies we all possess in asocial and harmless and therefore appropriate ways. where do these tendencies get jettisoned if that "bad" media did not exist?

    if someone acts violent, it is because of that person's own failures, or their parents, not some media somewhere. if you, dear social conservatives, want to refute this notion, then kindly relinquish any intellectual honesty you might think you have when talking about the concept of personal responsibility. because the position of blame the individual, not the media, is the essence of personal responsibility: if i do something bad, i am accountable for it, no one else. meanwhile, attempts to blame outside influences, "bad" media, is simply a lame attempt to avoid responsibility

    so dear social conservatives:
    1. blame the media,
    2. or continue talking about personal responsibility with a straight face
    but you can't do both at the same time

    in fact, the truth is, modern civilization's advances in media: movies, video games, etc., has served as a way to harmlessly express violent and sexual nature inherent in us, not amplify or create that which wasn't already there. that which is released harmlessly on a computer keyboard is that which is not expressed in a real world situation. the modern world we live in, while still containing violent and inappropriate sexual behavior (and always will, as long as you are talking about human beings) is far more peaceful than the days of the romans, or the middle ages, or even 100 years ago. you can't get rid of our tendencies, but you can minimize them, by providing avenues for harmless catharsis, with violent and sexual media

    all studies to the contrary are pure propaganda or are fundamentally flawed

    want a more peaceful world with less rape? more porn, more violent media. i absolutely believe that

    there is no such thing as a psychologically balanced individual who can't tell the difference between violent/hypersexual media and the real world. actually, there ARE in fact individuals who can't tell the difference. such individuals are alrerady organically psychologically damaged or raised horribly wrong by awful parents. and if they had never encountered any violent or sexual media, they would still commit trangressions. they just wouldn't have anything to blame and they wouldn't have a ready audience in social conservatives who don't want to accept violent and sexual essential human nature out of some cotton candy idealism, and who willingly embrace the ridiculous attempt by criminals to avoid responsibility and blame the devil, the media


  • by tgibbs ( 83782 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @12:18PM (#25613579)

    I don't understand why people waste money and time doing these kinds of studies. Invariably they depend upon untested, questionable assumptions, such as equating "aggressive" play with violence. And it is all directed toward solving a problem that doesn't exist, because the violence statistics have consistently shown that as games have gotten more realistic and more violent, real-world violence has steadily decreased []. In fact, it has decreased most precipitously in the very demographic that is the biggest consumers of videogames. Now of course, this doesn't prove that games don't make people aggressive, or even violent. What it does prove is that the violence-inducing effect of video games, if any, is so small that it is swamped by other social and demographic factors that influence violence.

  • by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @12:50PM (#25614217) Homepage
    Even before I read the story I suspected that Anderson was involved.

    Anderson has never done a study where he didn't find that something caused aggression. He sees aggression everywhere.

    The problem with this? At least in the papers of his that I have read (and it is hard to read them all because his name gets put on a lot of papers as co-researcher) he has never defined what he means by "aggression." The closest I have ever seen him define the term is in a table in one article where he gives examples of aggression. One of those examples was, "raising one's voice."

    Now I'm no psychologist but I think that there is a big difference between yelling and physically hurting someone.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bigbigbison ( 104532 )
      Ok, I managed to get a copy of this latest study and they actually do define aggression -- but in a contradictory manner.

      They write, "'Aggression' also is defined differently by behavioral scientists than by the general public. Social and developmental psychologists typically define 'aggression' as behavior that is intended to harm another person who is motivated to avoid that harm. In other words, aggression is an act conducted by 1 person with the intent of hurting another person; it is not an emotion,
  • Atari Generation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by arclyte ( 961404 ) on Monday November 03, 2008 @01:54PM (#25615353)
    I grew up playing the Atari 2400. Lots of the games we played contained violence and I have to say that I have been personally scarred by that. To this day, my anger flares and I have to try very hard not to go into a berserker rage whenever a brightly colored blob shoots a colored square at me. Luckily, I haven't had too many run-ins with such blobs, but as I get older and my eyesight worsens (from hours spent in front of a TV playing these games) I'm afraid that the world is getting 'blobbier' by the year and this may cause me to eventually lash out at anything within reach. This is an issue that is little addressed, but should be as the generation growing up on Atari games grows older for the sake of all the pixelated blobs out there.

What this country needs is a good five cent ANYTHING!