All Video Games Cause Aggressive Behavior, Say Two US Congressmen 483
Fluffeh writes with news that U.S. Congressmen Baca (D-CA) and Wolf (R-VA) have proposed a bill that would require most video games to have a warning label decrying their "potential damaging" long-term effects on children.
"Under the one-page Violence in Video Games Labeling Act (PDF), packaging for all video games except those rated 'EC' for Early Childhood would be required to prominently display a message reading: 'WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior.' The proposed label would be required even if the video game in question is not violent."
Like War (Score:5, Insightful)
War causes violent behaviour too, but no congressman as ever putting a bill against, have they?
Re:Like War (Score:5, Interesting)
I was thinking something close to this at least...more along the lines of "morons that hold public office has been linked to aggressive behavior"
Seriously, when you consider just how outrageously fucked up the USA & world are right now...this is the dumbest shit to be wasting time on I can almost think of. Hopefully the voters in their districts see it the same way. Not fucking likely, but I could hope.
Of course this is bipartisan douchebaggery too. Morons.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Like War (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, someone has to step up to the moron plate now that what's-his-nuts has been disbarred and Joe LIEberman is retiring...
Re:Like War (Score:5, Funny)
Nonsense. I enjoy the good Senator from Israel's presence, if only because it ensures that a portion of our elected leaders have a vague understanding where that country is located.
Re:Like War (Score:5, Insightful)
"Wolf's my congressman btw. If someone better wants to run I'd be all for it, but the ones who actually run against him are much worse."
And that's kind of the problem, isn't it? Are the people running for office the best ones that this country has to offer? I mean, what if that were true, that that's really the best we can do. That's something to tell your kids if you want them to have nightmares for the rest of their lives.
Re:Like War (Score:5, Insightful)
I would run, but I'm a college-educated atheist who doesn't come from a blue-collar background, don't think that giving up fundamental freedoms is the right way to fight terrorism or child porn, I like single-payer/universal health care, I don't support ridiculously long sentences for literally victimless crimes like marijuana possession, and I'm all for gay marriage.
In other words: I'm godless and therefore lack a moral compass; I'm an intellectual elitist who is out of touch with the working class; I don't Think of the Children; I'm soft on crime; I'm weak on terrorism; I'm a radical socialist; I support the gay agenda and want to take away our religious freedoms
Re: (Score:3)
If I had but one mod point to give, I would give it to you.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider this: Since all other candidates are exactly the opposite of you, you'd get all the votes from the ones that don't share this opinion.
No matter whether you look dem or gop, you get exactly the same trash. And when my only other options are burgers and tacos, even a halfway decent sushi bar becomes a feast.
Re: (Score:3)
If I could reply to both of you I would...
Run -- if only to fail.
To try, and then lose, is far better than not trying.
But if you both win, you will be doing your country a service - you'll get a great pension - and you'll make a difference. Hopefully a positive one.
It's not that hard either.
To be a State Representative:
-must be 25 years of age at the time of the election
-reside in the state that you represent
-citizen for 7 years
-win election
To be a Senator
-must be 30 years or older at time of election
-citiz
Re: (Score:3)
The only comparable countries are places like Iran. Oh, the irony.
Re:Like War (Score:4, Insightful)
How would I know the person holding that gun isn't going to rob a store? Let's outlaw guns!
How would I know that person driving that car is not going to use it to run over his spouse? Let's outlaw cars!
How would I know that person using this computer is not going to use it to download child porn? Let's outlaw computers!
How would I know that person buying liquor is not going to hand it to minors? Let's outlaw alcohol!
Get the idea or should I go on?
Re:Like War (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't support ridiculously long sentences for literally victimless crimes like marijuana possession
Victimless? How would you know if the person carrying that isn't going to A) Sell it to someone or B) Not have obtained it by stealing money or whatever from people to obtain it. You know with that level of intelligence, you'd fit right in with the rest of them.
A) If selling it is still a crime, then convict him of that.
B) Convict him of stealing money or whatever from people then.
It's like the "high driving" complaints. Making drugs legal does not suddenly make OTHER things legal. Driving while intoxicated: still illegal. Theft: still illegal. Assault: still illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Like War (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually the platform he proposed is essentially socialist libertarianism. Except without the government-by-consensus model (which no politician would support since it would put them out of a job).
But that you see some parallels is not surprising. Socialist and capitalist libertarianism (a version of it that does not exist anywhere outside the US and is less than a century old so really "libertarian" ought to imply the 500 year old socialist version) only really differ on one aspect.
That said - my problem with right libertarians (or American Libertarians rather) is more deep. In theory we completely agree on civil liberties. The American libertarian party is on record as saying "we support the Republican party on economic matters but the democratic party on civil matters."
So why the fuck do American libertarians keep voting republican ? Surely civil liberties is MORE important than economic liberty ? Regardless of which definition of economic liberty you subscribe to ? Surely then American libertarians - having decided that at the ballot you can only vote for half of what you want, are consistently choosing the less important half ? Voting for the party that's pro-censorship, pro-war and pro-religion-in-government because you agree with their tax-plan is, as far as I'm concerned, not libertarian AT ALL nor compatible with ANY variant there-off.
Re:Like War (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like War (Score:5, Interesting)
We should elect officials and representatives through a system like how we do juries. Picking randomly from the populace would make it nigh impossible to lock down a large enough portion of the government through corruption. It would make surveillance of officials easier. Which makes me think that another easy thing would be to put all of congress and the pres on 24/7 surveillance.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?
Re: (Score:3)
With democracy you just have to accept that often the people's representatives are indeed representative of the people. For good or for bad.
I may not like the results but that's how democracy works, it's s
Re:Like War (Score:4, Funny)
I still can't believe that they'd have the gall to try to restrict all video games because they cause "violence". Makes me want to roll up his house with a giant sticky ball and launch it into the sky.
Re:Like War (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the difference between a two-year-old and a Baby Boomer? The two-year-old might outgrow his sense of entitlement.
Re:Like War (Score:5, Insightful)
Let them. We'll keep the secret of the elixir as such until the last of them is gone.
Re:Like War (Score:5, Funny)
"Holding public office have been linked to irresponsible behavior, bad judgement, and wasteful expenditures"
Re:Like War (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like War (Score:4, Funny)
"Other symptoms made include a 'flip-flopping syndrome', where shit comes out the opposite end of the body. There is no known cure."
Re:Like War (Score:5, Funny)
THIS is an issue?
MY HOUSE is worth EIGHT DOLLARS.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like War (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like War (Score:5, Informative)
Piggybacking on this comment, the two senators obviously didn't read the recent WSJ (or was it NYT) article specifically on the benefits of videogames. They had found that gamers--ESPECIALLY gamers who play violent video games--are significantly (like 25%) faster to arrive at the correct decision to a given problem compared with their non-gamer collueagues. Basically, the whole article was a giant middle finger to everyone who's ever said gaming is good for nothing.
Re:Like War (Score:5, Insightful)
No no they read it but why on earth do you think they would want people to arrive at the correct decisions?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
After playing Super Mario Brothers, I can't even see a mushroom without stomping on it. I can't go to the supermarket, restaurants, it's hell!
Re: (Score:3)
No. Being able to whip around with a mouse and use my wrist to aim precisely is nowhere near the same as using both arms to hold a weapon steady, look through the site, squeeze the trigger, deal with the recoil, etc. Two completely different actions in my opinion and my experience.
I don't think games made me violent, either. I never had to fire on an enemy and I am grateful for that. Pixels don't have feelings. People do, even if they are the "bad" guy
Re:Like War (Score:5, Insightful)
I play plenty of violent video games but you know....
NOTHING makes me so violently angry as listening to politicians and their machinations. Can't we outlaw them?
Doesn't matter which ones it is.... Democrats, Republicans.... they all piss me off to no end...pretty much anytime they open their mouths.
Re: (Score:3)
NOTHING makes me so violently angry as listening to politicians and their machinations. Can't we outlaw them?
Sure, Dictators would be happy to outlaw politicians. So just install one.
Warning: Dictator uninstallation might be much harder than installation.
Re:Like War (Score:5, Interesting)
No kidding! Cause we ALL know that video games caused all the atrocities of World War I and World War II, right? ... OH WAIT. SOME people are inherently violent -- the "medium" they use to express that is irrelevant !
Don't you love how every generation just has to blame X for what it doesn't understand?
e.g.
'40 Dancing
'50 Soul Music
'60 Rock N Roll
'70 Drugs
'80 DnD
'90 Video Games
'00 Guns / Homosexuality
Obviously the list isn't 100 accurate, but you get the point.
What a bunch of fuck tards.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder what we will blame when we turn old and conservative.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess then I have reached that old age already. The idea to tell the whole world when I sit on the can and how my bowel movement was is kinda frightening. Not only do I not understand why I would possibly want to tell anyone and everyone what I do, how I feel or where I go, the whole concept is honestly frightening me. I spent a good deal of my early life just TRYING to get some privacy and some private space, giving it up voluntarily is something I absolutely cannot grasp at all.
It's actually really some
Re: (Score:3)
SOME people are inherently violent
While I agree that videogames don't really cause violence, other stuff does. Like, for example, violence from others, sexual abuse, etc. It's not necessarily something "inherent" to the person.
Re: (Score:3)
'80 DnD
'90 Video games
'00 Guns / Homosexuality
'10 The '00 decade
These days we blame the world's problems on the decade that preceded this one, and our inability to understand what the hell we were collectively thinking for most of those years.
Re:Like War (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting Facts about Rep. Frank Wolf (Score:5, Insightful)
All congressmen cause violent behavior, (Score:3, Insightful)
All Congressman cause violent behavior, says 2 video game players.
---Fixed it
Re:Like War (Score:4, Interesting)
And let's not forget sports. When are one of these clowns going to ask for a ban on high school football? College football? Never? Of course not, despite the towering mass of evidence that demonstrates that this is a major source of violence in our society. This is not about violence, this is about being a demagogue, which means pounding upon minorities for the benefit of majorities. And who gives a fuck about nerds, right? Jocks rule the world, still, so football gets a pass.
This is all bullshit.
Re:Like War (Score:4, Insightful)
I see you are angry. Have you been playing too much Tetris? Maybe Bejeweled?
Re:Like War (Score:5, Insightful)
Well catharsis and other arguments have been used wrt pornography and violence in TV. Except that we HAVE become more violent and less able to have good relationships. Now, I don't assume that TV and videogames and porn sites are the culprits, but I am pretty certain that they don't work the other way as I have heard for decades.
Except that we haven't become more violent. Despite more things being illegal, rates for murder are lower now than they were in the 1970's, and all types of violent crime have been steadily in decline for 20 years. News media reports the crime, and thanks to the ubiquity of the Internet and TV, you hear about it a lot more, but the rates are actually much lower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
And the same trend is happening pretty much everywhere in the developed world.
Re: (Score:3)
Except of course that statistically global crime rates have been dropping for over a century, global violent crime rates showing the largest drop of all.
In the USA in the 1890s being killed by a gang in the street was so common that newspapers didn't consider it news worth reporting. Now it's so rare that each time it happens there's a huge public and community outcry.
Someone thinking of the Children. (Score:5, Funny)
Thank FSM someone is finally thinking of the children!
Re:Someone thinking of the Children. (Score:5, Insightful)
And their parents' votes!
Re:Someone thinking of the Children. (Score:4, Insightful)
Video games cause pedophilia too?
Touhou might.
It warms the heart. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait...
WARNING (Score:5, Funny)
Exposure to politicians has been linked to aggressive behaviour.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exposure to politicians has been linked to aggressive behaviour.
I thought it made adults curl up and suck their thumbs.
TV? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't TV come with the same warning then?
Re:TV? (Score:4, Insightful)
Playing Monopoly tends to lead to violence. Commence warning labels!
ooh it's bipartisan!! (Score:4, Funny)
That means they can't possibly be wrong, right?? Are they still worried about the effects of Doom on the kids of today? I hear Bart Simpson is a really bad influence as well, and those Teletubbies...straight from Satan himself, there to make your toddler catch Gay.
Re:ooh it's bipartisan!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Doom? Try Mario. Yes, under this bill, every Mario game would get a big scary "CAUSES VIOLENCE" sticker on it. Same for Sonic, or Tetris, or Oregon Trail, or Pong. Same for such nightmarish gore-fests as "Junior Classic Games" (a compilation of checkers, backgammon, etc.), "Nicktoons MLB 3D" (a Nickelodeon-themed basketball game), "Imagine Babyz" (a child-care simulator), "Microsoft Flight" (a flight sim), and "Sesame Street: Once Upon a Monster " (a Sesame Street game - need I say more?).
The "E" rating means "Everyone". To quote the ESRB, "Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language."
Apparently they need to amend that to "suitable for ages 6 and older who are not elected officials or otherwise mentally handicapped".
Speaking of Labels (Score:5, Informative)
How about "Congress has been linked with corruption and abuse of power" for any campaign Ads?
An important caveat is missing (Score:5, Insightful)
The same argument was made about violent movies and the now more prevalent incidences of school shootings. I content that the movies didn't make the kids violent; they were already that way and probably should have had help beforehand.
Re: (Score:2)
Violent video games may cause aggressive behavior in a subset of individuals, likely already predisposed to said aggressive behavior.
As another poster pointed out, the APA statement about this was retracted. This bill is completely unsubstantiated.
There needs to be an easy way to strike down laws that are contradicted by facts. For example, both marijuana and LSD have medical uses, yet both are Schedule 1 (no medical use) drugs. The facts here are not in dispute. Don't we want laws to match reality?
Re: (Score:3)
The facts here are not in dispute. Don't we want laws to match reality?
*We* might, but unfortunately a lot of people simply don't.
And a lot of politicians have figured out that it's a winning strategy to cater to voters who want to use law (and consequently, men with guns) to forbid any behavior that they don't approve.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a generational issue. Many here may be too young to remember (and it was before my time, too), but practically all the claims that are made about the evils of computer games today used to be made about Rock'n'Roll music back in the days when that was new.
Please, everyone, let us be smarter and wiser when we grow old and face whatever the new thing is going to be then.
Re:An important caveat is missing (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think school shootings are really any more prevalent now than they used to be, they just tend to get more attention.
"Between 1979 and 1988 there were 27 school shootings. From 1989 to 1998 there were 55 and then they continued to increase from 1999 to 2008 to 66, so there were 148 shootings in the three decades from 1979 to 2008. What’s most disturbing is that in the three years since 2008 there have been 43 shootings, and that’s almost two-thirds of the number of shootings that occurred in the preceding decade." - http://www.salon.com/2012/03/04/inside_the_bully_economy [salon.com]
Re:An important caveat is missing (Score:5, Interesting)
It is also important to gauge this as a per capita rate.
Eg, if you have a 1% rate, you have a 1% chance that any given student will go apeshit and shoot people.
If you have 100 students, the chance it will happen is now statistically very relevent, as at least one of them will go apeshit by the numbers.
If you cram 1000 in, you now have 10 shooters.
Other contributory factors that are not accounted for: degree of student disciplinary action over time. Degree of broken family life as percentage of student population. Degree of truancy enforcement. Degree of personal libery violation of students over time.
I do believe that you will see a statistical rise in the basic rate of becoming a shooter over time, when adjusted for increased population sizes.
I believe you will also find correlations between disciplinary activity (including the use of metal detectors, drug dogs, etc.) of the school and the schools which produced shooters, vs the schools that didn't; between the truancy enforcement of the same; and against home income and homelife quality of the student populations of the same.
Correlation does not prove causation. That is what experimentation is for.
Find schools with a high shooter rate, do the unthinkable and remove the dogs, the metal detectors, and the draconian zero tolerance rules, and see if there is a net reduction of school shooting statistics.
It is my personal hypothesis that shooters resort to shooting when other methods of resolving violent problems cannot be explored. (Eg, you get mugged for lunch money by a bully? In the 40s and 50s, you manned up and broke the bully's nose. He stopped trying to shake you down for lunch money after that. These days, doing so will land you in juvenile detention. The only avenue provided is the completely impotent 'tell a teacher' option. The teachers are afraid to take action, should poor, misunderstood snowflake bully boy get punished and feel bad. As such, they say they need proof that bully boy is shaking you down for lunch money. They forbid the use of electronic monitoring and recording devices, except for their own, so that isn't an option. It is impossible to prove that the bully is taking your money, and that you aren't abusing the system to bully the poor misunderstood snowflake, and so you have no choice but to simply take it. Add insult to injury, you get screened daily for contraband and have armed retacops in the hallway as morale deteriorates and people start snapping. Eventually, you can't take it anymore. You would have just punched the little bitch years ago, but the thought of going to jail was undesirable. Now you don't care. In for a penny, in for a pound, you bring a gun to school to end the problem permanently. The penalty is the same as if you punched him: jail time.)
Basically, I would say american schools are throwing petrol on the fire by trying to "enforce" safety through threat of violence (what else does an armed security guard represent?), through the threat of severe recrimination for petty offenses (suspension for drawing a man with a gun? Really?), and through complete and total beurocratic inaction that repeatedly screws over and endangers students (gotta protect the school from those sue happy parents of joey the bully! He's a snowflake!).
If anything, simulated violence in a safe venue like video games is thereputic, and not deleterious.
If you widen your statistical comparison to include the same set of comparisons I suggested above to include sample sets from other countries, (human children are human children, regardless of nation) I suspect the correlation between extreme student violence and extreme school imposed penalties and hightened school security would really stand out prominently.
Re: (Score:3)
but why start at 79? If this started at a round 80, then that covers all things starting with 8. If it starts with 81, then we are just shifting a year to start with a familiar 1 within the decade. When a 10 year period is chosen that starts with an odd point, I instantly want to see the source data to know what may lie on the cusp that could be making the speaker's point more or less interesting.
If that's the case . . . . . (Score:2, Funny)
Then our elected officials should cease playing video games. We might actually stop bombing half the planet when we don't get our way :|
There should be a warning on the bill. (Score:5, Insightful)
[citation needed]
Signs don't matter... (Score:5, Interesting)
No matter how many sings you put up, the general public WILL NOT READ THEM. You have "No Solicitor" signs, yet you still get people trying to sell you stuff. You put up "No Outside Food Or Drink", yet you still get people bringing it in. You put health warnings on Cigarettes yet people still buy them (because they don't care). These signs won't do anything that the ESRB labeling system hasn't done already. These Congressmen are trying to score political points by doing nothing.
Do theaters sell diabetic candy? (Score:2)
You put up "No Outside Food Or Drink", yet you still get people bringing it in.
From what I've seen, these notices on the door of a movie theater is there to make it easier to enforce alcohol bans. If movie theaters enforced such notices strictly, they'd get lawsuits from some diabetes advocacy group.
Re: (Score:2)
If movie theaters enforced such notices strictly, they'd get lawsuits from some diabetes advocacy group.
I'm quite sure that the theaters sell plenty of things that can treat hypoglycemia.
Re: (Score:3)
If movie theaters enforced such notices strictly, they'd get lawsuits from some diabetes advocacy group.
Neither insulin nor the sugar candies some diabetics carry to counter hypoglycemia would count as "outside food or drink".
If a theater is worried that a diabetic would have to bring in a sugar-free drink to stay hydrated during the marathon exhibition of some blockbuster trilogy, then they ought to be selling diet and sugar free drinks to start with. Might I suggest, water? That's even free from the fountain.
But yes, in the modern "everyone is a victim of something" world, it is likely that some diabet
I'm fine with this, (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You, sir, are a rather nice guy. Me? I'd make 'em get a tattoo on their big lying faces that reads:
WARNING: Politics as a profession has been linked to ignorance, corruption, and sociopathy
So that every time they speak into a camera, we will all be reminded that nothing they say is to be trusted.
are they planning to do it with films as well? (Score:3)
Or do these Congressmen support Big Hollywood peddling their ultra-violence directly into our CHILDREN's homes????
Violent Pong (Score:2, Funny)
Make sure if you go after the Pong recreation competition to get your warning!
And All Political Office Causes Dishonesty. (Score:2)
That warning applies to a lot more.. (Score:5, Interesting)
WARNING: Exposure to X has been linked to aggressive behavior.'
x ==
movies
TV
playgrounds
school
religious texts
alcohol
relationships
capitalism
life
They are wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They are wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
And I've watched Japanese anime filled with all sorts of what would be considered violence and sexual perversion.
As a result, I am more prone, than in time's past, to take a quiet moment of reflection before condemning someone.
Warning: Video Games are Known to Cause... (Score:2)
Warning: Video Games are Known to Cause...
Go ahead, put it on the boxes. You know that kids will still be buying them anyway (same way that 9-year-olds are buying games rated for 13+ right now), and that mommy and daddy will buy them for their kids for Christmas just as well.
The impact from the warning on those boxes (that you keep at home and rarely see - and doesn't even apply to e.g. Steam downloads) is even less than the warnings on ci
Violence is beneficial (Score:2)
Especially soccer games-- (Score:3)
--some of those slide tackles are pretty nasty.
Sponsor this, Nitwit (Score:2)
I propose that all legislators be forced to wear a 'Hit Me' decal on their forehead.
Warning (Score:2)
who cares? (Score:2)
Cigarette warning labels (displayed on an actually harmful product) are not effective. Experts think it is because they make cognative statements, rather than emotional ones... Personally I think you could require cigarette to be packaged directly in cancerous lungs, and require smokers to recite a complicated emotional sonnet declaring that
Re:who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
From my post:
Cigarette warning labels (displayed on an actually harmful product) are not effective
From your link:
knowledge of warning labels on cigarette packages and advertisements is not associated with reduced smoking
Conclusive proof (Score:2)
I think it's been conclusively proven since the congressman questioned the Secretary of the Navy about the danger of capsizing Guam that US Congressmen are really the stupidest creatures on the planet.
And, as Senator Dodd pointed out, they don't even have the sense of a reliable whore to stay bought when they've been purchased.
Seriously, they bring each other up on ethics charges, as if our opinion of them could get any lower?
This is actually pretty brilliant... (Score:2)
My guess is that it's a fluff measure. When it comes up for a vote, they'll try to attach some truly hei
Re: (Score:2)
Make a bill so pants-on-head retarded
I suppose followers of Zarathustra would approve.
News? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that these two liars are acting in an influential and trusted position in our society and can possibly change laws..
If someone in a position of such trust is found to be untrustworthy ... then shouldn't they be removed from office?
third argument (Score:2)
There are three arguments:
1. They're right, and labels should be added.
2. They're wrong, and labels shouldn't be added.
3. It's not their jurisdiction.
The most distressing part of news items like this is that the third argument is so frequently overlooked.
translation (Score:4, Informative)
"The videogame industry should spend more money bribing congressmen, like the other entertainment industries. Then we'll start sucking up to them instead of picking on them."
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder... (Score:2)
pacman (Score:3, Funny)
Not that far-fetched, actually (Score:4, Informative)
My sons (7 and 9) have been exposed to video games for a good year now, mainly Wii and Nintendo DS ("The Tendo").
My tentative summary: All is fine as long as they play short duration games, like Sports or Mario Kart, where a games lasts only a few minutes.
But it's different when they play games with a story that swallows them, like Zelda or Lego Star Wars. I'm convinced that these games do mess with their minds. Sometimes it takes them the rest of the day to get back out of the game. They don't respond any more. OK, this is probably normal between kids and their parents, but there's more: After a game they are overexcited and hyperactive, they can't focus on a single thought, they have headaches, they scream and shout, they tell us that they hate us and they look as if they mean it. Sometimes I can almost see fangs grow on them.
I guess it's because we take away their super powers when we tell them it's time to switch off. And the worst part is they realize how they are (namely aggressive) and they're obviously not happy about it. But of course they want to play again ASAP. This is highly unsettling form a parent's pov.
You can argue whether this is really as bad as it looks from my perspective, but IMHO these are clear symptoms of addiction and negative side-effects. I have come to believe that video games are unhealthy (to some extent) at a young age and would have liked to keep them away from gaming for a bit longer, and feed them football, hide-and-seek and some healthy mud-digging instead. The kids appear much more sane (and happy, and human) after some real-world activity. But of course you can't help them gaming if daddy owns a Wii, and everybody else in school boasts with their elder brother's gadgets.
In order to mitigate the symptoms we have agreed never to play longer than 30 minutes per day in our family. This has helped a bit, but only quantitatively. The outbursts of aggression have become rarer but not less harsh.
Congressman what? (Score:3)
Linked by whom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What real-world effects does this have, if any (crime rates are certainly not going up)? How severe is the effect? Which individuals does it affect? I've only heard of temporary aggressive behavior.
Good question. Video gaming has grown explosively in the last 10-20 years, yet crime rates are generally in decline. Presumably video games are indeed causing aggressive behaviour, yet something else is happening that cancels this out. The alternative is that these Congressmen are fucking idiots, or pandering to an electorate that doesn't know what's wrong, or even if something is wrong, but are eager to be protected from whatever it is that might possibly exist.