Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Science

Do Violent Games Hinder Development of Empathy? 343

Posted by Soulskill from the doth-not-the-zombie-weep dept.
donniebaseball23 writes "Although there's yet to be a study that conclusively proves a direct causal relationship between video game violence and real-life violence, psychologists are continuing to examine the effect violent media can have on children. A new study in the Journal of Children and Media notes that violent video game exposure can actually hinder a child's moral development. 'Certainly not every child who continues to play violent video games is going to go out and perpetrate a violent act, but the research suggests that children — particularly boys — who are frequently exposed to these violent games are absorbing a sanitized message of "no consequences for violence" from this play behavior,' said Professor Edward T. Vieira Jr."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Do Violent Games Hinder Development of Empathy? More

Do Violent Games Hinder Development of Empathy?

Comments Filter:

  • "No consequences for violence" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cheekyjohnson ( 1873388 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @05:35PM (#35713928)

    I believe that only a few of them would get that message. But even if they did, instead of having parents ban the games for the child, why don't they teach them otherwise and then let them play them?

    • Re:"No consequences for violence" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AndyAndyAndyAndy ( 967043 ) <afacini@NospAm.gmail.com> on Monday April 04, 2011 @05:41PM (#35714026)
      They're concerned with the varying percentage of kids whose parents won't take the time / know better to talk to them and give context, etc. Ideally, sure, all the world's parents would have a bit of guidance and insight for each of the things their kids see/hear/experience, but we know that's not the case.

      I'm usually all-for telling parents to get their shit in order and to do a good job raising their kids, but going on about the ideal situation is to miss some valuable details about what effect these things have on development. We should accept the fact that many, many families lack parental guidance, and the results should be studied and understood.

      • Re:"No consequences for violence" (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cheekyjohnson ( 1873388 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @05:44PM (#35714060)

        They're concerned with the varying percentage of kids whose parents won't take the time / know better to talk to them and give context, etc. Ideally, sure, all the world's parents would have a bit of guidance and insight for each of the things their kids see/hear/experience, but we know that's not the case.

        I see. However, the number of children who would get such a message from a fictional piece of entertainment are few in number, I think. That number can be thinned even further if they have responsible parents. What you're likely left with is a few children who do get this message, but they are so few in number that they are likely not worth worrying about (well, in the sense that games should be censored or banned for children, anyway).

        We should accept the fact that many, many families lack parental guidance, and the results should be studied and understood.

        Then those families shouldn't have children.

        • Re:"No consequences for violence" (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jhoegl ( 638955 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @05:55PM (#35714262)
          Perhaps a similar study or "side by side" study should be performed on basketball, baseball, soccer, hockey, and football.

          Because, we all know hockey and football are the worst for anger issues, then soccer (if outside the US and Canada).

          I will bet it will be higher percentages for physical contact sports. A PR term for "violent sport"

          • Perhaps a similar study or "side by side" study should be performed on basketball, baseball, soccer, hockey, and football.

            We should start by examining worst offending influences. Its possible that violent video games can lead to violence, but reading religious texts can lead to genocide.

          • Especially considering that no matter how violent the video game players are, they are on average much smaller and scrawnier than say football players.

            There is a reason one of those groups has a reputation for dominating the other with physical force.

            • I think the difference here is consequences

              In a video game, you blow someone's head and you just see some red stains before the body 'vanishes'. In a sport, you injury somebody and you see him in pain, people around him wondering about him, and that guy being forced to leave to game or having trouble with some movements. Most likely, if the injury is serious you'll see him again in the neighbourhood in the next days still with sequels. If you are injured, you even get to feel how that feels.

              So, even accept

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            You left off boxing where of course violence is the intent in training and performance. Even professional fake wrestling needs to be addressed where violence is promoted as desirable and via toys targeted at children http://www.wwetoys.com.au/ [wwetoys.com.au].

            For the games of course it all depends how the violence is portrayed, as fun and desirable like professional wrestling or as harsh and undesirable, well like war use to be portrayed in the news until the US military cleansed it with 'in bed' journalists because it

        • Re:"No consequences for violence" (Score:5, Insightful)

          by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @06:03PM (#35714384)

          However, the number of children who would get such a message[...] are few in number I think

          Exactly. "You think"!

          And that right there is why its worthy of study. Lets actually find out how few in number it is.

          Then those families shouldn't have children.

          And the only way you get to enforce that is a policy of eugenics, forced abortions, and sterilization.

          I may well agree that many people shouldn't have children, but I have no desire whatsoever to live in a society that actually tries to decide who and then enforces it.

          • And that right there is why its worthy of study.

            Yes, it is. But, I just don't see how someone, even a child, could believe that something so obviously fictional is reality. I doubt even more that something 'terrible' would happen even if they did (but that claim has more statistical evidence to back it up).

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by japhmi ( 225606 )

              Yes, it is. But, I just don't see how someone, even a child, could believe that something so obviously fictional is reality.

              Who said anything about the kids not understanding that it's not real in order to have an effect on them?

              • I suppose that no one did. However, based on statistical evidence, it does not have much of an effect on them at all. Perhaps some temporarily aggressive thoughts, but it almost always never goes beyond that.

            • Re:"No consequences for violence" (Score:5, Insightful)

              by dave562 ( 969951 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @06:53PM (#35714964) Journal

              The imagination is a powerful thing. I've seen kids come out of the movie theater after watching Kung Fu Panda, and they were trying to kung fu fight each other. That was after what... 90 minutes of animated animals fighting each other. I remember when Power Rangers was popular. Kids all over the place were "playing" Power Rangers, punching and hitting and kicking at each other.

              Violence is an innate inclination in human beings. Part of becoming cultured and civilized is learning to find other solutions to inter-personal problems that do not involve the quick and dirty inclination to just simply remove the problem.

              On one level the issue is the cultural acceptance of certain behaviors. Look at a game like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas that portrays the gang life style. Sure, there are gangsters in any city of any reasonable size. Yet to glorify that behavior to the point where you are allowing children to live it sends the wrong messages. It delivers the message that such behavior is okay. Perhaps it is funny. Dangerous? Nope, it's a video game. You die and come back to life.

              During play time, children try on roles. Every second they spend "playing" a socially destructive role is a second wasted where their mind is not focused on making positive contributions to their environment.

              • Re:"No consequences for violence" (Score:4, Insightful)

                by cheekyjohnson ( 1873388 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @06:56PM (#35714990)

                And how many children actually become violent in real life because of this? Based on statistical evidence that I've seen, not many at all. The most some studies have been able to do is correlate temporary aggressive thoughts with violent entertainment. But, as far as I know, that was it.

                Every second they spend "playing" a socially destructive role is a second wasted where their mind is not focused on making positive contributions to their environment.

                The same could be said about just about every hobby.

              • Part of becoming cultured and civilized is learning to find other solutions to inter-personal problems that do not involve the quick and dirty inclination to just simply remove the problem.

                Every second they spend "playing" a socially destructive role is a second wasted where their mind is not focused on making positive contributions to their environment.

                Funny, I think most people would prefer kids learn to eliminate problems instead of creating complex and ineffective means of trying to lessen the harmful effects of the problem.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dave562 ( 969951 )

                  Funny, I think you're an idiot if you believe that society would be better off if kids are encouraged to give into their natural urges to attack people who upset them.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by khallow ( 566160 )

                Every second they spend "playing" a socially destructive role is a second wasted where their mind is not focused on making positive contributions to their environment.

                It's also a second that they aren't spending making negative contributions to their "environment."

            • Note that many TV soap opera characters are sent birthday cards on their supposed birthdays. Fictional characters given birthday cards? People, especially not very mature ones, often act as if fictional characters are real. This sounds crazy but is true. How many fans talk about Batman or Spider-man as if they were real, and get into deep arguments over them. Look at how people act as if Star Fleet and Star Trek were real or at least a basis upon which to behave in real life. People act as if Sherlock Holm

              • Now consider how great of an effect that has on most children: seemingly almost none. Temporary aggressive thoughts, perhaps, but it doesn't go far beyond that in most cases. Crime statistics simply are not there. Nor are there enough violent children to support such a theory, as far as I know.

        • I see. However, the number of children who would get such a message from a fictional piece of entertainment are few in number, I think. That number can be thinned even further if they have responsible parents. What you're likely left with is a few children who do get this message, but they are so few in number that they are likely not worth worrying about (well, in the sense that games should be censored or banned for children, anyway).

          Even adults can get dumb messages they believe from entertainment. How

          • I don't think adults are more logical thinkers than kids or more immune to it necessarily, they just have more experience and recognition/fear of some type of consequences.

            I agree, and that is why they should help the children whenever possible.

          • "Even adults can get dumb messages they believe from entertainment."

            Fox and Roger Ailes depend on that fact.

            • Those are perfect examples.

              And now that I think about it, that's what enforces the message - the perception that the messenger is some type of authority figure. In peer groups, the "older kids" will be followed, whether it's advice on girls or doing some type of mischief. Various regimes and religions around the world, past and present, actually spout an ideology that isn't too different from these game, but since they have "legitimacy", even the so-called smart adults follow them.

              So it seems, the old ada

      • A couple female colleagues of mine (both working professionals) let their sons (both are 12 years old) play COD black ops as much as they want, don't impose a bed time, and let them watch R rated movies with violence (but not sex!). The kid whose parents are still together and have tight family ties to grand parents etc. is a nice, polite boy and he gets good grades. The other kid (single mom, self proclaimed "black sheep" in her family) is literally a gang-banger in the making and is currently repeating th

    • Design consequences into the game (Score:4, Interesting)

      by elucido ( 870205 ) * on Monday April 04, 2011 @05:51PM (#35714208)

      Such as if you play a game and you play violently, maybe your enemy just attacks you harder, forcing you to be more tactical rather than just trying to rambo your way through the AI.

      Also dying in a game should be a bit more painful. You lose all your gear and you start at the first level, thats how it was when I played growing up. They didn't have a "save" feature.

      • Also dying in a game should be a bit more painful. You lose all your gear and you start at the first level, thats how it was when I played growing up. They didn't have a "save" feature.

        Thank you so much! I've been waiting patiently for forty years to find out what "get off my lawn" would sound like coming from our generation, and you have surpassed my wildest expectations. Never did I imagine it would come in the form of something like, "Listen sonny, when I was your age, we didn't have save points. We had to pump in more quarters. Uphill. Both ways. In the snow."

    • Pretty bad programming on the part of the video game story writer, I'd think. Seems to me that a much more fun game would have severe consequences for violence- if nothing else than those who live by the sword should die by it, quite often....

    • You know, I was just thinking how you'd teach a kid that they're not supposed to do that. And then I look at the whole "no consequences for actions" idea again, and I'm thinking... as opposed to what? As opposed to their just needing to not live under a rock to notice that there are no consequences if a few bankers cause yet another bubble, and they even get to congratulate themselves and give themselves millions of dollars each in bonuses for a job well done, just as the government is taxing everyone else

    • They study is likely done/pushed by those that oppose any or certain violent media. As with much "science" there is an obvious bias from the get go. Certainly what a child learns has an effect, this has been proven. Obvious even, that we can only do what we know, or build off of that. And you are right, they would be better off studying how to effect children in a positive way and allow video games to be merely an constructive outlet, than wasting time on studies that will continue be "inconclusive" or disa

    • Re:"No consequences for violence" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by martyros ( 588782 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @06:10PM (#35714480)

      But even if they did, instead of having parents ban the games for the child, why don't they teach them otherwise and then let them play them?

      Because we don't learn primarily through word of mouth instruction, but by example and imitation. Our subconscious learns things by inference, not by logical deduction. Inference comes from stories, example, and our behavior. When we act consistently with a belief (such as, "I'm not that interesting to people"), we tend to strengthen that belief.

      I've definitely noticed this, for example, in watching movies. In the last year or so a friend of mine has been organizing "movie nights" for our group of friends about twice a month; and since I don't really care much about what kind of movie to see (it's more about hanging out and having a shared experience), and he really likes action flicks, we see a lot of action flicks -- where violence is really the only solution to most problems. I've definitely noticed a change in my gut reaction when I encounter aggressive behavior in real life.

      Now, I think you're right, if a child is getting a moderate amount of violence in video games (a few hours a week), and is getting a lot of positive examples in other areas of life -- interaction with parents, friends, coaches, &c -- on the balance the video games won't really have that large of an effect.

      But if there aren't many positive influences, it can go into a negative feedback loop. For example, say his parents are mostly absent, so he's a little more aggressive when playing with friends or playing sports. So most kids don't really like being around him, and his coach tells him he can't be on the team. So he ends up with mostly more aggressive friends (whom he doesn't really like either, but at least they put up with him), and not many rewarding things to do in his free time other than play violent video games. And if his aggressive friends are more likely to get him into other kinds of things... you see where this might go.

      There's a lot in this example that went wrong of course -- parents who weren't really doing their job, the unlucky lack of an adult to step in and invest in him for the better, or the particular circumstances of the people at school. No one thing would cause all the badness; but it's not hard to see how violent video games could definitely contribute to the problem.

  • Given the behavior I see in multiplayer games and forums, I'd say it's not violent content that destroys empathy.

    It's anonymity and the lack of consequences for bad behavior.

    • That would be The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com] in a nutshell.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mangu ( 126918 )

      Given the behavior I see in multiplayer games and forums, I'd say it's not violent content that destroys empathy.

      It's anonymity and the lack of consequences for bad behavior.

      Considering the recent events in Afghanistan, I beg to disagree, in part. Lack of consequences, yes. If you can kill people under the orders of your church and with the tacit approval of the government of your country, that's surely an incentive to bad behavior.

      About anonymity, I'm not so sure. There seems to exist people who enjoy broadcasting to everyone how obnoxious they are.

  • another useless comment (Score:4, Funny)

    by demonbug ( 309515 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @05:39PM (#35713990) Journal

    Looks like Professor Edward T. Vieira, Jr. is in need of an ass-kicking.

    Right after I finish clubbing this baby seal to death in Grand Theft Orca.

  • Or Maybe, (Score:3)

    by Bobfrankly1 ( 1043848 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @05:40PM (#35713996)
    Maybe it's boys (and girls for that matter) that spend all their time playing video games (violent or not) and no time socializing. The lack of social interaction would hinder the development of empathy. How are you supposed to empathize, with "that which has no life?" (Oblig. southpark quote)

    • That thought has crossed my mind as well. I'm not sure how one would develop empathy if the limit to ones social life were even the old school Atari and NES games. They aren't particularly violent, but they don't provide any sort of basis for developing empathy either.

      • and that's a bad thing? Empathy (in almost every use of the term) is just a euphemism for "I don't have the spine to make tough choices that some people won't like". Do I feel bad that in order to keep company X running and keep most of it's employees paid means that 5% of the workers need to be laid off? Yes, but that doesn't mean I'm going to make a bad choice because I "empathize" with those 5% and thus damn everyone because I lack the balls to say "Sorry it sucks, but this is how it has to be".

  • Public School (Score:3)

    by internerdj ( 1319281 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @05:40PM (#35714002)
    I wonder what they would find if they ran a similar study of a semi-controlled environment filled with their peers with regular violence that was inconsistently punished rather than video games.

  • Personally I think violent TV is probably worse than violent games. Kids learn to behave by copying behaviors they see in other people, so when they see violence on TV it's a passive experience that may leave them wanting to try it out for themselves, to see what it feels like, etc.

    In a game, they've already committed the violent act so perhaps there will be relatively less chance they will want to act it out in real life as they will have to some degree gotten the violent acts "out of their systems".

    G.

    • And they live in a violent neighborhood? What good would any of this censorship do when they get to see people being shot and stabbed IRL?

    • "The concern arises when children are taking in this message and there is a convergence of other negative environmental factors at the same time, such as poor parental communication and unhealthy peer relationships."

      These things don't happen in a vaccuum.
      Science and world events undeniably show us that even the most stable individual will turn into a brutal sadist under the wrong conditions.

      It's the parents, stupid.

  • A comment on Fark sums this up perfectly (Score:5, Funny)

    by heypete ( 60671 ) <pete@heypete.com> on Monday April 04, 2011 @05:41PM (#35714030) Homepage

    Fark user FloydA: I think if boys play this game, they will grow up to abuse women, in exactly the same way that I played Asteroids when I was young, and I grew up to be a triangle.

    (said in regards to the "Capture the Babe" multiplayer level category in Duke Nukem Forever)

    • Re:A comment on Fark sums this up perfectly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @05:55PM (#35714264)

      It's a valid point, you don't see people getting up in arms when it's a female protagonist beating or generally abusing male antagonists. I gave up watching most prime time TV because it was typical for the wives to behave like abusive bitches and for the husbands to more or less cower.

      One has to wonder whether it's not as big a problem as is advertised or whether men just have that little value in modern society.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Splab ( 574204 )

      I grew up with quite violent video games, and I must say there is some truth to what these guys are saying - I may not want to go out on a rampage, but I sure am emotionally distanced from bad stuff. Granted, might just be a defect or lack of good care - or it may stem from games, but I sure as hell lack a lot when it comes to "normal" emotions.

      • I think its generally futile to argue on this subject. Its like arguing with creationists. Everything we do affects us to some degree, violent video games included.

        But on the subject of 'normal' emotions....By the time I was about 20 I was emotionally numb and sometimes appallingly cruel. Was it a result of abuse, or was in an inherited insensitivity and viciousness such as causes abuse? Probably both, but in a way it doesn't matter. Although you can't snap your fingers and change yourself, with time a

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mitsoid ( 837831 )

        See, I found violent video games did little for my morals or empathy... My morals and empathy were shaped more by 2 snipers taking out random people as they walk to/from school, or get gas, then from violent video games. Knowing one moment I'm walking to school, and the next moment my brains might be on a tree 30 feet away... That effected me more then doing it to someone in a video game.

        I would say news outlets broadcasting for 2-3 days straight about the same violent real life stories more impacting.... I

  • I have a feeling that game violence desensitizes people to real violence, but it doesn't appear that stats back that up. However, I do know for a fact that entertainment violence produces a Hollywood impression of how violence goes down in real life; like bullet effects, injury stamina, etc.

  • Only games tho. (Score:5, Funny)

    by dadelbunts ( 1727498 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @05:46PM (#35714092)
    Yes but only violent videogames. Other forms of media that depict violence such as movies, magazines, books, comics, and songs no. Actual violence no. Videogames yes. THEY ARE THE WORK OF ALAN TURING'S HOMOSEXUAL DEVIL MACHINE.
  • I don't know. Let me punch you in the face after I play GTA and I'll get back to you on how much I can empathize with how your broken nose makes you feel.

  • Probably, but not as much as killing and torturing smalls animals. There is nothing like removing the skin of a living thing while keeping it alive to hinder a child's moral development.

  • BS, when you die it hurts. (Score:3)

    by elucido ( 870205 ) * on Monday April 04, 2011 @05:50PM (#35714180)

    Even when playing a violent game as a child, I hated to lose the game or die and have to start over.

    So when you die in a game it hurts. If they don't think it hurts enough then perhaps the punishment for death in the new games should be like it was in the old games. When you died in some of the old school games that was it, or you'd get 3 lives and after losing all 3 that was it, and you had to start from scratch to get back to where you were. So dying in a game meant something.

  • For quite a while I was an advocate of the idea that since I've played games for years and it hasn't had an effect on me that its not an issue. However, one cannot ignore a drastic change in the behavior of kids today, empathy being one of the biggest changes I have noticed. I have witnessed some truly horrible things that have happened at my kids schools that simply didn't happen or were even thought of when I was young. I can remember when I was a kid shooting a bird with a bb gun, I felt so guilty abo

    • As a result children have less empathy. Empathy isn't rewarded in society. Look at this society and tell me why you'd expect any other result besides less empathy from children?

      Do the corporations have any empathy? So why expect it from children?

      • Thats a good point, parents, friends and family can help curb that and help develop good well rounded people, but until society in general steps up to the plate those who dont have a good structure around them are basically destined to fail.

    • However, one cannot ignore a drastic change in the behavior of kids today, empathy being one of the biggest changes I have noticed.

      Yes, and I hear they are lazy, disrespectful to their elders, and will be the downfall of our society.

    • Then, as I was saying, our youth should be trained from the first in a stricter system, for if amusements become lawless, and the youths themselves become lawless, they can never grow up into well-conducted and virtuous citizens ... Thus educated, they will invent for themselves any lesser rules which their predecessors have altogether neglected.

      What do you mean?

      I mean such things as these:--when the young are to be silent before their elders; how they are to show respect to them by standing and making them sit; what honour is due to parents; what garments or shoes are to be worn; the mode of dressing the hair; deportment and manners in general. You would agree with me?

      Yes.

      But there is, I think, small wisdom in legislating about such matters,-- I doubt if it is ever done; nor are any precise written enactments about them likely to be lasting.

      Socrates complaining about Kids These Days.

  • A better study (Score:3)

    by vlm ( 69642 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @05:56PM (#35714280)

    "no consequences for violence"

    Not in any game I've ever played. You take a level 1 trainee mage up against a "boss" dragon, you get turned into ashes. Not fun at all.

    I think a better way to study the influence of violent video games would be to study attitudes in boys about sizing up the opposition, and estimating the oppositions abilities, having a plan for running for it, and sharing gossip with their buddies about the best way to beat the other kid.

    I'm thinking there is no influence... Stories about my grandfather getting into fights as a little kid sound about like my sons stories, yet my grandfather was too young for video games by about half a century.

    Typical boy fight for the last couple centuries or longer: "Well he said some $#%^ so I decided to whack him one to teach him a lesson and one thing led to another and next thing you know we're in the principals office getting disciplined"

    Theoretical boy fight, when affected by video games: "Well I heard he drops phat loot and my buddy told me he's vulnerable to bludgeoning weapons and I need a defense against his poisonous spit, and I figured he's about a level 9 boy based on his STR and CON, and I'm about a level 10 boy based on my WIS and INT and CHA, so I figured I can take him pretty easily, and I got a cellphone-rune-of-recall if I need help, and a level 2 flask of bactine and a healers kit of bandaids, so I'm all good, I'm gonna camp his respawn point and get him when he steps off the school bus".

    Pretty obvious which is more realistic.

  • Video games aren't the only thing that represents violence as a consequence-free and effective way to solve problems: TV has been doing that for a lot longer. Most children in the US are exposed to a lot of violence that is presented as good, or fun, or useful.

    • Sure. How often do you see a TV show where the main character "hero" punches out some guy in a bar, everybody cheers and he goes home? Yeah that doesn't happen in real life. The cops get called, and you get hauled out for assault You simply cannot punch people in modern society and expect there to be no consequences.

      I watched that movie "Date Night" with Tina Fey and Steve Carell the other night. They steal a dude's car, wreck it, and in the process lead cops on an incredibly dangerous high speed cha

  • THEY DO NOT!
    NO!

  • In other news, studies suggest that some children are more suggestible than others. This correlates with, among other variables, the degree of parental involvement in rearing the child.

    What say we focus on identifying at risk children and make sure their parents have the tools to handle this special case?

  • We should react and just ban violent video games? I played violent video games and turned out just fine. I blame the parents on this one for not instilling proper morals. It seems like Americans want politicians to do their thinking/parenting for them. I rarely see some policy created by a politician truly succeed. Makes me sick. Censorship won't solve the problem at all. Instead, it creates new ones.
  • IIRC, there was another study recently that indicated decreasing levels of empathy in all of the young, accompanied by increasing levels of narcissism. Don't recall the name or anything, so I can't provide links. Either way, I'd be hard pressed to not make a correlation between the two, rather than with video games. How exactly different is playing video games to paintball/airsoft or the time honored pastimes of cops & robbers? I didn't RTFA, so is it simply the pervasiveness of video games or is th

  • "It's only a game," they said. (Score:3)

    by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Monday April 04, 2011 @07:13PM (#35715150) Journal
    I type this from a federal penitentiary. When I was 12 my parents bought me a game for my Sega Genesis called "Mortal Kombat." "It's only a game," right? If only that "game" had done a better job of explaining the consequences of one's actions, I wouldn't be doing 30 consecutive life sentences for ripping the heads off two dozen of my classmates (spines attached) and then tearing the skin off my face and proceeding to breath searing flames on my teachers, burning them alive until they were just charred skeletons.

    Parents, talk to you kids about the REAL cost of a "Fatality!" Before it's too late.
  • Kids who are regularly parked in front of violent video games have crappy, un-empathetic parents to begin with.

  • Violent people are more attracted to violent games, and as a result you will see slightly higher rates of violence amongst those who play them. This is not games causing violence.

    Time and time again, they've tried to prove a link, only to find none whatsoever. The simple fact is, violent games don't cause violence any more than violent music, violent movies, violent comic books, violent regular books, or violent [Insert whatever form of entertainment people will have in 20 years that the 50+ crowd mostly wo

  • And yet another study trying to drop all behavioral problems on video games. Lets not mention all the other things that kids are exposed to on a daily basis that could also cause kids to not be overly empathetic. Like movies, tv shows, news stories (As a parent I'm well aware that even if -I- were not to allow my kids access to the news, they will certainly hear about it at school, parents need to sit down and -talk- with their kids!), not to mention at least in the US two wars that have been plagued with

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close