Research Credibility In the Video Game Violence Debate 154
An anonymous reader writes "Two researchers who have a history of publishing studies that claim violent video games lead to violence have now published a new study claiming that they've come up with an 'objective' way to measure why violent video games lead to violence. They've taken the names of people who signed an amicus brief on the upcoming Supreme Court case on an anti-violent video game law in California, and decided that if you added up the number of publications by each side the ones who supported 'video games lead to violence' had more publications, and thus that was 'proof' that they had more credibility. Yes, quantity is more important than quality. The fact that the researchers who published this 'study' also wrote the amicus brief that supported the same claim seems to call their objectivity into question as well."
An earlier Slashdot article... (Score:2)
...proved quite nicely (and objectively) that violent video games incite an ~insensivity~ to violence, rather than promote violence itself. But whatever...
Re: (Score:1)
Let's write two Slashdot articles, better even three, proving that violent video games _demote_ violence. This would close the argument, at least here on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's write two Slashdot articles, better even three, proving that violent video games _demote_ violence.
Better still: Write the same article, and then publish it three times.
Re: (Score:3)
They might desensitize people to some forms of violence (though I doubt many people would still be able to react normally in the face of such if it happened to them in real life). But what does it matter? That just means that they'd be more calm in said situation, not that they'd begin voluntarily participating in violence. I'd say it's a good thing if people react more calmly.
Also, a lot of people claiming something is true does not make it so. [wikipedia.org] The validity of the studies must be questioned, as well as wha
Re: (Score:2)
Desensitizing people to killing -- a deliberate goal of military training, and a possible outcome of some sorts of violent video games -- does not affect the intellectual, conscious decision to not kill, but it does affect the instinctive one.
I see. I lost the "instinctive" one long ago, and I have no plans to ever kill anyone. I'm against violence, in fact.
If a person's intellectual inhibition then falls because they become extremely agitated to the point of irrationality, or because they are socialized to regard some group of people as not fully human (commonly used in times of war), then they will be capable of killing.
And, judging from the amount of people that view/play violent entertainment, this does not appear to happen often (the killing), if at all (if it happens, there's no real evidence for it). So, as far as I see, either it doesn't desensitize very many people, or they just aren't 'insane' enough to kill other people merely because they would be more calm about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you've been in a situation where you've had all intellectual impediments to killing removed and seen that you were in fact able and willing to kill, I'm not sure how you can assert this.
You're right. It's mere speculation. Judging from my past and current feelings, though, that's what I believe.
"Viewing" and "playing" are completely different. Viewing does not train a behavior, playing does.
So you say. But my point still stands nonetheless. There's plenty of people who play violent video games. The effect, if it exists, appears to be extremely small and not worth worrying about.
One can certainly argue that the evidence is not conclusive, but to say that it's nonexistent demonstrates either gross ignorance or a strong unwillingness to step beyond one's personal biases and look at the matter scientifically.
It's amusing how one of the few statements that I didn't add "that I've seen" to got picked out for that so quickly. Anyway, that is not what I meant. I meant that, as far as I know, no study has linked real-wor
Re:An earlier Slashdot article... (Score:5, Funny)
So it's like goatse -- you aren't shocked anymore to see a stretched anus on the screen, but you still aren't inclined to stretch your anus in front of other people or cameras?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually I can prove that video games are completely harmless. It's easy: There are far more Slashdot comments saying that video games are harmless than comments saying they are harmful. And I'm pretty sure that the number of Slashdot comments is larger than the number of studies on this subject, therefore Slashdot comments clearly take priority.
What? Peer reviewed? Yes, we have that on Slashdot, too. It's called moderation.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't actually understand why insensitivity is so feared. Doctors are desensitized due to the way they have to essentially be biological mechanics for human beings. Hunters are desensitized by actually killing real living things and butchering them (the fact that human beings have analogous parts to such animals would be disquieting without at least some degree of desensitization). And of course, we actively encourage this in our military personnel and call them heroes rather than being terrified of th
Re:An earlier Slashdot article... (Score:4, Interesting)
I saw an essay once by a anthropologist who made the claim that video games and sports do not increase violence. His argument in a nutshell was the humans like all mammals have a very deep seated sense of play vs serious business. even though play often has mock violence aspects is isn't the same thing. Children and teenagers, like dogs, instinctively understand the difference between the two.
Re: (Score:3)
I saw an essay once by a anthropologist who made the claim that video games and sports do not increase violence. His argument in a nutshell was the humans like all mammals have a very deep seated sense of play vs serious business
I can tell you authoritatively that guy in an idiot.
Most professional athletes got where they are specifically because their play is a "serious business." There are many a player who have no problem breaking your arm so they can make that catch. They justify it as the risks of playing the game and a risk you willingly accepted when you started playing.
The simple fact is, people perceive the world in different ways. For some people, a silly, friendly game is just that. For others, that same game is a means o
Re: (Score:2)
I saw an essay once by a anthropologist who made the claim that video games and sports do not increase violence. His argument in a nutshell was the humans like all mammals have a very deep seated sense of play vs serious business
I can tell you authoritatively that guy in an idiot.
Most professional athletes got where they are specifically because their play is a "serious business." There are many a player who have no problem breaking your arm so they can make that catch. In many cases, these people go on to become sports stars, successful businessmen, or serial killers.
I agree. Let us ban professional sports throughout the globe, and usher in a new age of world peace.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Becoming insensitive to something doesn't automatically imply you lose all morals concerning it. It just means you're not shocked when somebody does get stabbed. You might be less disgusted by the idea of stabbing someone, but you still need the right lack of morals or conscience to actually do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's very little violence in Portal 2, but after playing it for three hours I'm ready to kill a whole bunch of people.
Of course, I was ready to kill a whole bunch of people before I started playing Portal 2, but my point still stands. If I had a point.
Re: (Score:3)
Had this been studied prior to Portal2 release, I may have rethought my purchase in order to avoid this type of aggression against turrets.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't blame you
Re: (Score:2)
Computer games I've seen so far luckily don't posses sufficient reality in them, expressions, sounds and smells.
Not to mention the ability to fool the player into believing that the people in them are real. That would be a pretty important factor, too.
The Three Stooges (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone growing up watching The Three Stooges back in the 70's, I can't fathom why all the school kids didn't poke each others' eyeballs out, tear each others' hair out, etc, etc, etc.
You can't canny get more violent than that.
I guess our parents told that stuff in films . . . shouldn't be carried out in street fights . . .
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't go as far as pointing to video games as a direct cause of turning someone in a murderer, but I can imagine, given an already unstable personality, that a video game could tip him (or her for that matter) over the edge while a TV show w
Re: (Score:3)
There is a very real difference between a temporary media type like movies and an immersive media type like TV...
There is a very real difference between a written media type like novels and an immersive media type like movies...
There is a very real difference between a factual media type like non-fiction and an immersive media type like novels...
There let it be shown that novels, movies, TV and video games are all responsible for plunging our society into the 30 year violence lows that we are currently expe
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that media types are responsible for plunging our society into the 30 year violence lows as you so enthusiastically start your
Re: (Score:2)
Before video games, those phobia treatments were performed with movies.
Before movies, they were performed with props, and before that they were done with the imagination alone.
Perhaps it is the therapy, and not the tools?
WTF!? (Score:1)
/. could get it's members to write a lot of publications about how video games are not responsible for violence. If their logic is true, then they would have to admit defeat and admit they are wrong, but I am sure something "new" would show up allowing them to remain on their moral high horse.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they wouldn't admit defeat. They're not looking for truth, they're looking for support for their beliefs. Any facts that don't support them will be ignored and declared irrelevant. It's a very bad but surprisingly popular way to do "science".
Re: (Score:2)
It's what happens when science becomes someone's religion. Creationist groups like the ICR work the same way: start with your conclusion and work backwards, rejecting anything that doesn't support the conclusion. More and more scientists with political motives are doing this sort of thing. It's frightening.
Re: (Score:2)
In short, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
wheres the study....? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's assume video games are to blame for all of the anger issues young people exhibit today; why aren't the shop keepers, parents and other such "guardians of merchandise" to blame for essentially enabling the behavior? A 10 year old kid shouldn't be able to walk in and buy the latest blood and gore exhibition from any reputable game store. Don't try to trash the gaming industry. Instead, throw the parents/guardians under the bus. They're responsible for letting the child play the game. They don't monitor the kid's behavior and correct them when they are out of line.
Re: (Score:2)
not all people know what violence existed 40 years ago. in fact, many people think that it's a modern invention and those same people think that modern refers to some frozen space time what constitutes what they think of "today". they're idiots of course, but they gotta do something all day long, we all have to - which is why video games are so friggin great, they don't pollute much yet they offer a positive time wasting ratio - a good game wastes a lot more time from a lot more people than what it took to
Re: (Score:2)
His final say on the matter was full old man, get-off-my-lawn statement.
-- We didn't have knife crime in my days... We had knuckle dusters and coshes.
Re: (Score:1)
There has been alot of research on the effects of media violence before video games were as big as they are today, and the general conclusion was that media violence was in fact a risk factor for increased agression. The reason you don't hear that much about it is because that debate is pretty much settled, but you can find plenty of the studies you are looking for by simply typing in "media violence" on google scholar.
Re: (Score:2)
What anger issues are you talking about? The ones that aren't reflected in crime rates, maybe? In the USA, at least, crime rates have either dropped or remained more or less stable over the last few decades.
People seem to be stuck with this idea that crime is on the rise, but it's really not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We came home and found our son lying dead on his bed of a gunshot wound.
He had his headphones on and there was an Ozzy record on the turntable, so we called our lawyer." from Triumph of the Swill by the Dead Kennedys
"Bad facts make bad law, and people who write bad laws are in my opinion more dangerous than songwriters who celebrate sexuality. Freedom of speech, freedom of religious thought, and the right to due process for composers, performers and retailers are imperiled if the PMRC and the major labels
The Solution is Simple... (Score:2)
Someone else publish more papers than [these two researchers] saying that [video games don't cause violence].
The additional quantity will disprove them.
Wrong Solution... (Score:2)
Someone else publish more papers than [these two researchers] saying that [video games don't cause violence].
The additional quantity will disprove them.
No, no... There's a much better solution: Bring back the Colosseum. Make a spectacle of violence, nay, revel in it. Let the lions eat the criminals. Let the gladiators slay men and beasts... Who would want to play a silly violent video game when you can see / hear / smell / taste / participate in the real thing?
Face it, we're animals. Some of us have more animosity than others. Ever since the first human fell down and the others laughed we've been entertained by violence. Today, we consume our vio
Re: (Score:2)
Is liking violence perverse? Not if the majority of people enjoy it in some form or another
The answer to that is subjective. Whether or not a majority of people agree or disagree with something is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
If you define "perverse" as "a deviation from the statistical norm", then quantitative measurements are perfectly objective.
If you define "perverse" as "a deviation from what I say should be the norm", then it is indeed subjective.
"The majority of people" is perfectly valid, depending on which definition you choose. So what definition are you using?
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose if you're going by the first definition, it would make sense. You should clarify that you are, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The GP basically spelled out that he meant perversion as a statistical outlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you're right. It seems I heavily misinterpreted him there.
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to not have read TFA.
The main point in the article, is how almost none of the few published papers by the people signing to "video games don't cause violence" brief were published in respectable psychological journals. So unless you can do proper science that disproves that video games are a risk factor for agression, which incidentally is very hard to find (why is that I wonder), your solution won't get you anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
The main point in the article, is how almost none of the few published papers by the people signing to "video games don't cause violence" brief were published in respectable psychological journals.
But did they even look at the actual studies to determine if any of them were valid? What's the point of this? The fact that they aren't published in "respectable psychological journals" does not alone prove them wrong or warrant doubting them without even seeing them.
So unless you can do proper science that disproves that video games are a risk factor for agression
I'm not too worried about aggression, especially if it's temporary, as many of the studies seem to imply.
Re: (Score:2)
The main point in the article, is how almost none of the few published papers by the people signing to "video games don't cause violence" brief were published in respectable psychological journals.
The reasoning is flawed anyways: no matter how much people repeat something that is wrong, it doesn't become right. It just doesn't follow -- if the studies were all biased and badly conducted, no matter how many of them exist, their conclusions are wrong.
Following their reasoning: respectable (to astrologers) astrology journals have published much much more studies on the relevance of astrology than respectable psychologists published on video game violence. Thus, according to their arguments, astrology mu
Shitty Complaint (Score:2)
So granted that Slashdot is all "hey-man-don't-regulate-my-games". I mean, I'm in the same boat, video game engineering was my employment at one point, and I'd tend to not want restrictions on the source of both my paycheck and entertainment. (The "who's ox is getting gored" bias, as we'd say down on the farm.)
But honestly, this summary/article is a pretty shitty, rambling, poorly-founded, juvenile, knee-jerk complaint. Assessing the level of expertise in differing camps is a fairly common technique nowaday
Re: (Score:2)
Final line FTA: "They're starting with an established position and trying to figure out ways to present evidence to support that. That's not science." Um, actually, that's pretty damn close to the actual definition of science (hypothesis, followed by experimental design).
No, it's the direct opposite of science. In science you start with an established position and try to figure out ways to refute it, not support it. Starting with a hypothesis and looking for support for the hypothesis is what all the pseudoscientists, snake-oil merchants and quack healers do. And they never have to "admit when the results contradict [their] starting position", because if they're not looking for evidence that contradicts their position then they'll never find it, the most that will happen i
Re: (Score:2)
I teach falsifiability. But what happens in practice is that people go looking for tests to accrue additional evidence for their position. Surely you know how rarely null-hypothesis results get published.
If anything, researchers look for ways to refute their competitor's position.
Re: (Score:2)
I teach falsifiability. But what happens in practice is that people go looking for tests to accrue additional evidence for their position.
Then what happens in practice isn't really science (although it can be a useful precursor to science, as there's not much point in putting effort into falsifying something that was never particularly plausible in the first place).
Surely you know how rarely null-hypothesis results get published.
If anything, researchers look for ways to refute their competitor's position.
Then that's not science, it's marketing. Surely you know of the many meta-study techniques that are applied to identify whether the number of null-hypothesis results is statistically plausible, especially whether deviations correlate credibly with the population sample sizes used i
Science doesn't put food on the table (Score:2)
If anything, researchers look for ways to refute their competitor's position.
Then that's not science, it's marketing.
By that definition, science doesn't put food on a researcher's table; marketing does. So if you disagree with the mixture of science and marketing that characterizes research over the past decade at least, then how do you recommend to promote the progress of science?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to confuse the functioning of the institution of science (by logically falsifying theories) with the activities of individual scientists (who generally seek more evidence for for their favored theories). They don't have to be the same. For example, Karl Popper (popularizer of the falsification criteria) compared scientific theories to evolution. Likewise in that case you need two separate and distinct operations: mutation and natural selection. Ultimately, competition is how the institution uses in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot prove the non-existance of something.
Just like you cannot prove there is no god, you cannot prove that violent games do not cause violent behaviour.
It's only logical there are more studies claiming violent games result in violent behaviour, therefore using a comparison of the number of studies as evidence is deeply flawed.
It may be a reasonable technique in a field where different theories are all provable, but not in any "exists/not-exists" type scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh jeez not this crap again...
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html [bloomu.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
You should read the paper. From what I read he basically says that because people accept axioma for scientific field, every axioma can be accepted, including those required to prove a negative, without regards to the merits of those axioma.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then how about this instead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#You_can.27t_prove_a_negative [wikipedia.org]
You can scientifically prove a negative and even disprove the existence of something. That's good enough for science, but it may not be good enough for those who would argue for the existence of Russell's teapot. [wikipedia.org] Are we using scientific standards of proof or philosophical ones?
Science could prove that video games do not cause violent behavior (if that's where the evidence points) or the non-existenc
Re: (Score:2)
The Wikipedia article basically states that because you can't know anything with absolute certainty, proof for a negative can be good enough.
Please correct me if I misinterpreted that one.
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically right. "Absolute certainty" doesn't really exist in science. That's more of a philosophical concept.
Re: (Score:2)
So just because nothing is ever 100% certain but only, say, 99.999% means you should accept anything less than 100% as equally certain?
I'm sorry, but the whole reasoning that because nothing is absolutely certain we should just ignore known uncertainties just doesn't make sense to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Meta analysis is bunk, even when it's "properly" done. This isn't even a well done meta-analysis, this is dick waving. "My guys are more prolific than your guys, so we must be right" isn't science. Still, might be enough to sway the Supreme Court.
LOL how Ironic (Score:2)
Instead of reading as "two researchers prove their point" this thing reads more like "two researchers prove their own idiocy"
If quantity was proof... (Score:2)
Not that I'm arguing for or against anything, just pointing out the absurdity of the arguments...
Obligatory SMBC (Score:2)
http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1192#comic [smbc-comics.com]
The Earth is flat! (Score:2)
I just went to citeseer and searched for "spherical earth": 149 documents found.
A search for "flat earth" gave me 231 documents, so the Earth must be flat!
Re: (Score:2)
I interpolated those results and concluded that the earth is an ellipsoid with an eccentricity of 0.645
Science is awesome!
Relative to? (Score:2)
Studies show that sedentary activities for hours increases heart disease, even if you exercise during the week as well.
What would kill more people, violence stimulated by video games, or heart attacks and strokes at younger ages due to lack of exercise?
This story (Score:2)
Reminds me of this comic
http://dresdencodak.com/2011/04/19/dark-science-09/ [dresdencodak.com]
Popularity (Score:2)
Anderson and Bushman ~ Credentials (Score:1)
Having read quite a lot that these two have published, as well as literature from the opposing side, it's quite clear that these two don't really know what the hell they're talking about. They consistently create experimental conditions comparing games that aren't comparable to test for violence effects, with silliness like 'lets see if Unreal Tournament causes people to have higher arousal than those playing Farmville!'. While they -may- be experts on aggression, they clearly have no idea the mechanics o
TFA tells a whole different story (Score:1)
I'm a first year student studying psychology, and I happened to write a paper on the subject of the effect of violent video games, and I have some opinions on this subject.
First of all, I'd like to say RTFA. The summary above is one of the worst summaries I have seen, presenting the matter in an extremely biased fashion. First of all, what the researchers in question (Bushman, Anderson, Sacks) did is not so outrageous as the article suggests. To rephrase it in a less biased way, they looked at the people wh
Re: (Score:2)
I read a study published in EGM that says there's no such link, and if disagree, I'll pop you right in your mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the most informative post of this whole thread. Thank you!
A "Novel" Method (Score:1)
After having read TFA... (Score:2)
... I'd like to point out that the researchers are not claiming to have settled the issue of video game violence by counting the credentials. They're merely pointing out that there is more scientific credentials behind one of the two briefs delivered to the court.
"The justices were presented with two briefs, arguing opposite sides, and they may think the contradictory briefs simply cancel each other out," Bushman said.
Still, I don't think it's a very strong argument, and it can easily be misused.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, I don't think it's a very strong argument, and it can easily be misused
Indeed it can. For example, an uneducated person with money may dislike Fact X, so they create a camber of echoes for Fact Not-X, using whatever scrappy nonsense they can pay people to pull together. Then the general public will think both sides are ideologues. This is precisely how public opinion is shaped [youtube.com] in a modern democracy.
Clearly, they're right (Score:2)
On the contrary, it means they've corroborated their story. And the more such support they discover, the more they're going to get their findings published, and thus, the more their findings will be corroborated.
It's called argumentum ad bootstrapum. Google it.
Big Lie (Score:1)
Yes there are violence in games. (Score:2)
Games for mature people. Most people is ignorant, and don't know there are games for mature people. Not all videogames are for childrens.
The problem is... ..some people is ignorant.
Heres the problem that need fixing.
I will spam slashdot comments (Score:2)
The upside... (Score:2)
Well, since volume of work determines what's true, guess this closes the book on the whole climate change 'debate' since 100% of the peer reviewed papers are in support of it. Sucks that video games cause violence, but one must pick their battles. Eat it, warming deniers!
No more studies (Score:2)
Medieval Times... (Score:2)
Looks like 21st century research is reverting from scientific empiricism to medieval scholasticism.
Researchers? (Score:2)
Calling them researchers is an insult to all people who actually do research.
Objectivity D.O.A. (Score:2)
The moment they said "why", rather than "whether", they ceased to be objective.
Re: (Score:2)
but it does add to the credibility of this idea.
It does? Only if the original studies were actually valid and truly proved what they were attempting to prove. I've seen none that actually link real-world violence to violent entertainment. Only temporary aggressive thoughts which almost never amount to anything.
Re: (Score:2)
"video games aren't related to ANY violence at all!"
I can't speak for them, but I speculate that most of them probably mean that any 'normal' person wouldn't be so drastically effected by a video game that it would change them completely.
However, it can be easily shown that some video games are related to the release of endorphins and adrenaline, which is why they are "fun."
That almost never amounts to anything. Temporary aggressive thoughts, maybe. But given the amount of people who view/play violent entertainment, you'd think that more people would be violent. The effect is likely so miniscule that it doesn't do anything to the average person, even if they are children.
Re: (Score:2)
I play games myself, but the theory of carthesis has been pretty much shown to be bull, and I still hear gamers say "it helps me relax." When hooked up to sensors, however, playing a game does anything but make a gamer relax (heightened blood pressure, pulse, release of adrenaline, etc.).
Relax is not the right word. It helps you escape. Your regular life may be full of worry, stress, and insecurity. Perhaps you have feelings of powerlessness and you're afraid to take action. A game is empowering and makes you feel good. After it's over you can ride that high and let your body cool down and relax and you'll feel more satisfied than you did before when you felt powerless and used by the system. In that sense, it does help you relax. You're not relaxing *while playing*, but it can help
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
from here [techdirt.com]
"The data for the study came from the PsycINFO database, which provides more than 3 million references to the psychological literature from the 1800s to the present, including peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters or essays, and books."
Something's wrong, I think. 3 million references is a lot!
I wonder what the violent video games from the 1800s looked like.
Re: (Score:2)
I will objective proof that it is indeed crap by adding up the number of adjectives by each side found in this very post.
Crap, crap, good, crap, crap, crap, good, crap.
There you go; objectively proven. "Crap" has far more publications than any other word in this post, therefore it is far more credible.
Re: (Score:2)