New Study Finds No Link Between Violent Video Games and Behavior (dailydot.com) 200
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Daily Dot: Scientists have been investigating the impact of violent video games on behavior for more than two decades, and the results are still being debated. In a 2015 resolution on games, the American Psychological Association reported that multiple studies found a link between violent game exposure and aggressive behavior, though critics at the time questioned the findings. Now, a new study published by researchers at the University of York in the journal Computers in Human Behavior further challenges the connection.
It has long been theorized that exposure to in-game concepts like violence has a "priming" effect on players that ultimately impacts behavior, leading scientists to believe that a player exposed to in-game violence will be more susceptible to displaying such violence in real life. The new study found the exact opposite to be true in some instances. In a series of experiments with a little over 3,000 participants (more than any past study to date), university researchers found that exposure to video game concepts like violence won't necessarily impact behavior. It also found that increasing the realism of violent video games does mean aggressive behavior in gamers will increase.
It has long been theorized that exposure to in-game concepts like violence has a "priming" effect on players that ultimately impacts behavior, leading scientists to believe that a player exposed to in-game violence will be more susceptible to displaying such violence in real life. The new study found the exact opposite to be true in some instances. In a series of experiments with a little over 3,000 participants (more than any past study to date), university researchers found that exposure to video game concepts like violence won't necessarily impact behavior. It also found that increasing the realism of violent video games does mean aggressive behavior in gamers will increase.
It's hard to find time to be violent (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Or naked. ;)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah how many Wolfenstein players are out in the streets shooting Nazis?
- You're so right, not nearly enough.
Re: (Score:2)
"Justice with your own hands" always ends in shit, because things like due process are tossed out of the window.
If you have a bunch of people planning to kill one or more people, well, that's what the cops are for.
Re: (Score:3)
There is this old German joke about a doctor's congress in the Third Reich where one of the participants greeted with "Heil Hitler" and got the reply "Why me, you're the shrink".
(the joke hinges on "heil" being (also) the imperative of "cure, heal" in German)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And on the other hand, if a few more people had stood up nazis when it counted, it would have saved millions of lives. And before you ask, yes, the same is true of communists and jihadists and plenty of other fundamentalists besides.
Re: (Score:2)
Should we also kill people who claim that everything would be better if only some group or other were murdered en masse?
Re: (Score:2)
It's "Nazis" not "Nazi's". I'm not a Grammar Nazi, I'm Alt Write (tm).
And you seem pretty hateful and murderous yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is spotting it when such a movement is in its infancy, when stopping it would be trivial. Today we know that a lot of atrocities could have avoided had Hitler been stopped early on. Though it would have been questionable whether that would actually have been good for the peace in Europe, imagine a Germany with its vast technological and industrial power with someone commanding the armies that actually had a clue. But I digress.
The very reason the Nazis came to power in Germany in the 1930s is th
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you sir for that laugh, that made my day. "Alt Write".
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah how many Wolfenstein players are out in the streets shooting Nazis?
Might explain why there are so few running around in the wild ;)
My own experience (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's my experience.
When some of my friends were frequently talking about their twice-weekly poker game, I heard them several times and starting thinking about if I might like to play poker. I ended up playing poker with them, twice a week.
Later, was flying home from a business trip in Vegas and wanted something to read on the flight. I ended up with three poker books. Later I put them in my reading room (bathroom). I was always reading *something*, and that month I read about poker. While driving o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel like the accurate analogy would be you suddenly sitting down and starting to deal a poker table in the middle of a busy street because you're thinking about poker. It's what you think about exactly that counts, not the "area" of thinking you're doing. Even if the area contains violence, thinking doesn't automatically become violence only. Even if the area contains card dealing, thinking doesn't automatically become card dealing only.
In video games, the violence is only the act. The substance comes fr
Re: (Score:3)
This effect is well understood in politics too. By constantly talking about certain things and framing them in certain terms it is possible to move people's frame of acceptability, which in turns makes it easier to sell them more and more extreme ideas.
As you say, it's not like playing Street Fighter makes you want to go out and dragon punch someone, but there are more subtle effects in play (excuse the pun).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My own experience (Score:5, Interesting)
This is correct obviously, but there are 2 important distinctions that you left out that make a huge impact on the discussion about games/media and violence,
Firstly, as an avid gamer since my teens I've played a lot of violent games, and I find myself often thinking about them when I'm not playing, but those thoughts are not violent in nature. That's because I don't think of shooting a virtual enemy as an act of violence anymore so than I think about capturing a pawn on a chess board as an act of violence. I find myself thinking about stuff like level layouts, how to improve my use of cover, etc stuff that relates to my goal, which is completing the game. I don't play the games because they're violent, I play them because I enjoy puzzles and challenges, and games offer that. Some of them with a violence as a mechanic, some of them without it. I've never had violent thoughts towards real people as a result of playing a lot of games, because my mind is perfectly capable of discerning between actual violence, and a a virtual character on screen being 'shot' at.
Secondly, even if one's thinking about violence, that does not automatically mean one will become more likely to be violent. Here as an example I'll use my brother who in his teens was actually quite aggressive and short tempered as many young males especially are and often got into fights. Then he started kickboxing, which is an extremely violent sport by all metrics. Now, is he thinking more about violence these days than in his teens? Very likely so, he watches matches, practices a lot and teaches techniques etc. But he's not gotten into fights outside the ring since he became an adult because he's now found himself a 'game' in the real world that has given him an avenue to deal with violence in a manner that's more sensible, and also more rewarding as it is a competition. He's learned a lot about respecting other people via the sport. So for him not only thinking but actively engaging in more violence in a controlled setting has actually made him less likely to be a risk for others in the world. He's much more in tune with his emotional responses to situations now, and while he still gets angry and loud easily, he doesn't transition from yelling to actually punching someone but has instead learned to walk away from the situations before they spiral out of control. That self-control is entirely the rest of a combat sport (and good coaches) teaching him discipline.
The primary question with regards to games and media of a violent nature is therefore not 'does the media make people think about violence more?' because even if it does that's not necessarily a bad thing, but 'does the media lessen people's impulse control and/or dehumanize other individuals so that they're more likely to use violence in the real word?'. To me there's no evidence that this is the case. Violent crime has gone down and is going down in pretty much all advanced societies, even though the amount of violent media in different and more graphical forms (think Game of Thrones cutting of limbs and dicks and burning people alive, murdering children etc) has exploded.
Now it's also obvious that people with pre-existing violent tendencies still likely gravitate towards violent entertainment, but as is the case with my brother, I remain unconvinced that that is necessarily a bad thing, because these are precisely the people who in fact need to think about violence and their own relation to it more in order to attain control over their own impulses and behavior towards others, and it's far better for them to do it via something like a game or sport rather than actually getting themselves into violent situations.
Re: (Score:2)
If my mind is on violence several hours per day, sure whatever I think about a lot is going to tend effect what I'm more likely to do.
Cool story Bro. I'm a very non-violent person. I also play Diablo 3 several times a week. Blood and gore and dismemberment and killing and body parts flying all over the place. A dark murderous place.
But not for a minute have I ever thought of emulating that in real life. Not once. Never crossed my mind. I'd probably kill myself before performing violence on another being.
If seeing something like a violent game make you violent, you were already violent before you saw the game.
Meanwhile, have some
Re: (Score:2)
If God wanted you to listen to Christian music, wouldn't he make it good? Listening to it is the modern equivalent of scourging yourself.
A reason US companies spend $180 billion advertisi (Score:2)
Every year, US companies spend 180 BILLION dollars advertising, and most of those ads have no real substance, they just show the product logo and colors, in a positive, feel-good situation. There is a LOT of science around advertising; they know what they are doing, and do that because it works, on humans. Whether you like it or not, seeing the same thing repeatedly affects the human brain.
Re:Playing video games is disconnecting from reali (Score:5, Insightful)
those who spend huge amounts of time playing video games avoid personal growth and avoid connecting with the world.
Do you have any actual evidence for this? Or are you just spouting off the same "conventional wisdom" that is debunked by this study?
Sure, introverts may be socially isolated and play a lot of video games. But that doesn't imply that the games caused the isolation, nor does it imply that the isolation is actually harmful, to the introverts or to the rest of society.
When I was a kid, there were no video games (other than "Pong"), yet we still had socially isolated people, watching Star Trek on TV, reading SciFi, and playing D&D. So are interactive video games "worse" in some way compared to likely alternative activities? I have seen zero evidence for that.
Re:Playing video games is disconnecting from reali (Score:5, Funny)
Evidence: (Score:2)
About once a week for the last 3 years I've been around a group that plays Dungeons and Dragons. My impression from talking with them is that they have all had difficult childhoods. It's good that they have a group activity. But playing D&D does not give them any help in understanding how to recover from insufficient care.
Will they have limited social abilities their entire lives? It seems yes.
Want an example of people having limited social ability? He
Re: (Score:2)
About once a week for the last 3 years I've been around a group that plays Dungeons and Dragons.
So your evidence that video games are harmful is an anecdote about a group of dysfunctional guys that are playing something that is NOT a video game?
My impression from talking with them is that they have all had difficult childhoods.
That may be true, but that is not evidence that any particular activity caused that problem.
But playing D&D does not give them any help in understanding how to recover from insufficient care.
So what? Nobody is claiming that D&D is helpful. We are just reserving judgement about whether video games, role playing games, or whatever, are harmful, until some actual evidence is presented. None so far.
Re: (Score:2)
There are still single player games?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone needs to do a WoW parody of Cretin Hop "Gonna go for a whirl with my Dryad girl"
Also a population preferring virtual sex over real sex is probably the end of the species. Or at least of the groups or cultures capable of building that sort of technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be worse. She could find your Worgen suit and think you're a furry.
Re: (Score:2)
At least put a towel down. Those fart stains when it ain't just farts are ... well, it's easier to clean the towel.
Not true (Score:1)
This is not true. Ever since playing Super Mario I've had a strong tendency to hurl fireballs at anyone that crosses my path.
Re:Not true (Score:5, Funny)
"If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
* Marcus Brigstocke
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... the 90s start to make a lot of sense, if you phrase it like this...
Social Science = Junk Science (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Social Science = Junk Science (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the study accepted the null hypothesis argues against this being junk science. The flux in the field, with established concepts like priming being vigorously challenged, is actually good sign.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think we need any additional proof that social science is mostly junk science. Priming, intersectionality, trigger warnings all brought to you by these clowns.
I used to think that. My degree is in physics and I got a job later in life teaching community college physics. I got interested in the teaching craft and started taking master's level teaching courses and was forced to read these kinds of studies.
What I learned: The science for learning now humans work is way harder to study in a scientific manner than physics or math. That is, to study correctly. We don't even know how to form the questions well. We didn't even know what all the questions are. Yes, a lot
Re: (Score:2)
However wrong phlogiston, Aristotelianism, Ptolemaic astronomy, Dalton and so on are, they don't deserve ridicule because they're the foundation of our learning how the world works. It's the same with social sciences.
It's not about being wrong, it's about being wrong and simultaneously applying that wrongness to change society. They're like monkeys with atomic bombs, poisoning society with psychology the way an a-bomb would with radiation. The ends are little different. Being wrong is great, that's how people learn, being wrong and applying that en mass (or even in their shitty social experiments like MK Ultra) isn't just being wrong, it is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about being wrong, it's about being wrong and simultaneously applying that wrongness to change society.
Exactly. We quickly forget that outcomes like day care abuse hysteria [wikipedia.org] are the norm instead of exception.
Is there good social science? Sure, but on the whole it is junk science [wikipedia.org] that does more harm than good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Is it? Just because the narrative that violent video games causes violence didn't turn out to fit reality, that doesn't mean that violent video games doesn't affect behavior. Granted, it's not just video games, but violence in media, including video games, may beget violence, but desensitizes people to it. That can affect behavior in ways they aren't looking at, like how one reacts to certain news stories - like how one reacts to stories (either way) violence happening throughout the world, which affects
Re: (Score:2)
History, linguistics, and economics are social sciences. Are they junk?
Rule of thumb: If a field has the word "science" in it, it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Rule of thumb: If a field has the word "science" in it, it isn't.
So, according to your rule, physics and chemistry, which are the "hard sciences" aren't actually science. Good to know.
Re: (Score:2)
So, according to your rule, physics and chemistry, which are the "hard sciences" aren't actually science. Good to know.
Well, no - neither "Physics" nor "Chemistry" feel the need to add "Science" to their title. We don't talk about "Physical Science" or "Chemical Science", because to do so would be redundant - physics and chemistry are both so obviously science that it's not necessary to SAY they are.
I think that's GP's point. Perhaps you've heard the saying "Being in power is like being a lady: if you have to tell people you are, you aren't."? Or if you prefer your quotes to come from Tywin Lannister rather than Maggie That
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good argument, except for one small detail: History, Linguistics, and Economics do not have the word "Science" in their title either, unless you group them into the "Social Sciences".
Does that mean that computer science, isn't science but phrenology is? I suppose we could rename it computeristics or computerology and then it would be real science? Overall, there's only a few individual fields that have the world science in their title, so I'm not sure that rule of thumb helps much.
Compuristry?
I k
Re: Social Science = Junk Science (Score:4, Informative)
No, but they're not sciences in the way that, say, particle physics is. As Lubos Motls pointed out the number of sigma required to verify a hypothesis is very different
https://motls.blogspot.com/201... [blogspot.com]
Some disciplines of science try to be as hard and reliable as particle physics so they adopted the same 5-sigma (1 in 3 million) standard for discovery; most other disciplines, especially soft sciences such as medical research, climate science, psychology, and others, are often satisfied with 3-sigma (1 in 300) or even 2-sigma (1 in 20) evidence.
That's assuming there's enough data for this sort of thing, which there most likely isn't for history where you're relying on a couple of second hand sources.
That doesn't mean history is junk, it just means you can't be as certain of it as you can with physics. And in fact new discoveries turn up all the time and change the consensus view of historical events. Similarly the consensus on economics can change pretty drastically - e.g. Keynesianism took a major beating in the 80's due to stagflation. Arguably post Keynesian economics did post 2008, though that may be coming to an end.
Social sciences have fuzzy data and the interpretation of the data is influenced by politics - that's especially true of climate change and economics. They're not at all like particle physics with its spectacular 5 sigma near certainty. You could probably find examples of present day politics influencing linguistics too.
Incidentally literature isn't science and it definitely isn't junk. And good literature isn't influenced by politics, except in the extreme Orwellian case where a worst case totalitarian regime ends literature.
http://www.orwell.ru/library/e... [orwell.ru]
Literature has sometimes flourished under despotic regimes, but, as has often been pointed out, the despotisms of the past were not totalitarian. Their repressive apparatus was always inefficient, their ruling classes were usually either corrupt or apathetic or half-liberal in outlook, and the prevailing religious doctrines usually worked against perfectionism and the notion of human infallibility. Even so it is broadly true that prose literature has reached its highest levels in periods of democracy and free speculation. What is new in totalitarianism is that its doctrines are not only unchallengeable but also unstable. They have to be accepted on pain of damnation, but on the other hand, they are always liable to be altered on a moment's notice. Consider, for example, the various attitudes, completely incompatible with one another, which an English Communist or 'fellow-traveler' has had to adopt toward the war between Britain and Germany. For years before September, 1939, he was expected to be in a continuous stew about 'the horrors of Nazism' and to twist everything he wrote into a denunciation of Hitler: after September, 1939, for twenty months, he had to believe that Germany was more sinned against than sinning, and the word 'Nazi', at least as far as print went, had to drop right out of his vocabulary. Immediately after hearing the 8 o'clock news bulletin on the morning of June 22, 1941, he had to start believing once again that Nazism was the most hideous evil the world had ever seen. Now, it is easy for the politician to make such changes: for a writer the case is somewhat different. If he is to switch his allegiance at exactly the right moment, he must either tell lies about his subjective feelings, or else suppress them altogether. In either case he has destroyed his dynamo. Not only will ideas refuse to come to him, but the very words he uses will seem to stiffen under his touch. Political writing in our time consists almost entirely of prefabricated phrases bolted together like the pieces of a child's Meccano set. It is the unavoidable result of self-censorship. To write
Re: (Score:2)
Economics and social sciences sure are.
I don't know about your tests, but any where I got 50% negative was a failed one.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for global warming, err climate change, err increased extreme weather, which is Settled Science.
Sigh, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and then you just had to prove that you are an idiot...
A study ? Made by scientists ? (Score:1)
But aren't all scientists untrusworthy bastards part of a global conspiracy of evil to suck always more grant money from not-at-all-evil governements ?
If you don't trust scientists when they tell you that global warming is caused by human activity, or that diversity of life on earth is the product of evolution through natural selection, or that the universe is 15 billion years old and not six thousand, or that vaccines don't cause autism, then why would you trust them when they tell you that there is no lin
Re: (Score:2)
But aren't all scientists untrusworthy bastards part of a global conspiracy of evil to suck always more grant money from not-at-all-evil governements ?
No, no, no. Only the scientists that tell us things that we don't want to hear are part of the Evil Global Grant Suckers (EGGS). The scientists who tell us what we want to hear are Champions of Harmonious Instruction Carrying Knowledge and Enlightened News (CHICKEN). It's the eternal battle between the EGGS and the CHICKEN that must be fought so vigorously.
If you don't trust scientists when they tell you that global warming is caused by human activity, or that diversity of life on earth is the product of evolution through natural selection, or that the universe is 15 billion years old and not six thousand, or that vaccines don't cause autism, then why would you trust them when they tell you that there is no link between violent video games and violent behavior ?
Well clearly, what you do is listen to find out what each scientist is saying and then choose the scientists who say the things you like the most and
Does NOT Mean (Score:4, Informative)
It also found that increasing the realism of violent video games does mean aggressive behavior in gamers will increase.
This error is in the article as well, but reading on makes it clear that this sentence is missing a 'not'. To wit:
it was expected that those exposed to the more realistic game would choose more violent words. Surprisingly, the researchers found no significant difference between the word choices of players exposed to either game.
This is different how? (Score:2, Insightful)
See also: Comic Books. Nekkid wemmin in magazines. TV. Rock music. Marijuana. Abortion.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're pretty much correct here, it seems like we haven't heard very much about video games and violence since Jack Thompson [wikipedia.org] was disbarred in 2008. I suspect that's not a coincidence.
Inconsistent (Score:1, Flamebait)
"Violent video games don't promote violence"
"Sexist video games promote sexism"
Pick one.
Re: (Score:1)
Most people who play video games where you get a gun and kill other people, never dream of killing people in real life at all (most, especially non-Americans, don't have guns and have never handled one).
That's quite different from sexism, which many of the above people would indulge in while playing said game - look on youtube for videos of female gamers being harrassed in voice chat while playing games.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people who play video games where you get a gun and kill other people, never dream of killing people in real life at all (most, especially non-Americans, don't have guns and have never handled one).
When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?
I guess that question is answered for non-Americans, then.
I grew up watching "The Three Stooges" with other school kids. We didn't go into the schoolyard and gouge eyeballs out, tear out hair or put heads in vices.
Now we see the violence inherent in the system . . .
Whether a child is violent or not has one overwhelming factor: The parents, or lack thereof.
Don't blame schools, video games
Re: (Score:2)
Whether a child is violent or not has one overwhelming factor: The parents, or lack thereof.
I'm not sure about that, according to actual research [nih.gov], it seems to be that the overwhelming factor is actually the number of different risk factors that a child is exposed to (for example being exposed to 6 different risk factors increases the likelihood of violent behaviour 10 times over exposure to any individual risk factor). Now, poor parenting can contribute several different factors so you're not entirely wrong. However, according to the risk factor chart (4-1) on that page, the largest individual fa
Re: (Score:2)
And guess how many of them can be affected by bad parenting? (Hint, it's all of them)
Re: (Score:2)
I dare say that every male in my country is more proficient on average with a gun than any male US citizen. Unlike them, most of the males in my country did get a through education concerning guns, their safe handling, cleaning (hell yes...) and yes, firing.
We don't own them, though. We leave them with the military when we quit our service.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
False equivalence.
It is entirely possible that violent video games do not make people more violent, whereas sexist video games do increase the degree to which one subscribes to sexist ideals.
This study covers violence. It says nothing on the topic of sexism. So, this study lends evidence to the claim that there is no link between violent video games and violence. We cannot infer from this that there is no line between sexist video games and sexism.
Re: (Score:3)
So Tomb Raider, where I spend the entirety of the game staring at some shapely female butt, isn't sexist?
Porn is not sexist. (Score:2)
In case that was being implied.
Shooting at blinky dots or a full avatar rendering is nothing more than target practice.
On the other hand, incitement to hate is always a bad thing and can definitely boil over into real and dreadful actions ... so it depends on how the story is presented rather than the topic itself.
Re: (Score:3)
If a lifetime of playing video games, including first-person shooters, had ANY VALUE at all as 'target practice,' my IDPA ranking would be WAY higher than it is. Oddly enough, though, pointing a mouse cursor and clicking, or tilting a thumbstick and hitting a button, doesn't really magically translate into completely different sets of physical action.
I mean, by that logic, you could go play Track & Field and become an amazing athlete.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, by that logic, you could go play Track & Field and become an amazing athlete.
Wait...you can't? Shit, i'll never get that scholarship now!
Re: (Score:2)
And a good workout to boot! ;) I think you've taken the target practice definition a tad too narrowly.
Maybe there was something else more substantial to pick on?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. I was responding specifically to this:
Pointing a cursor at a piece of screen and clicking the button isn't even target practice. The US Army figured this out, what, seventy or eighty years ago, when they stopped teaching combat marksmanship with bullseye targets, and started teaching combat marksmanship with popup silhouettes.
There's a lot of stuff that goes into teaching a skill, and in stress situations, people
Re: (Score:2)
I never said anything about it being practice for physically handling a rifle, or any other weapon for that matter.
You've taken the target practice definition a tad too narrowly.
Re: (Score:2)
What about decreasing? (Score:2)
I find playing an FPS helps burn off some pent up aggression.
Also playing against other really skilled players gives you a great big reality check as to how far you can get with a gun and willpower alone.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Skeptical of This Particular Study (Score:5, Insightful)
This study has a few problems. For one, the participants were all adults; the argument is usually that violent video games have a harmful effect on children whose minds are still developing, and these experiments don't assess that. Furthermore, several studies found that short-term aggression was increased by playing violent video games, but there was a lack of evidence for any long-term effects. This experiment didn't study long-term effects, either.
IMO the theories on how violent video games might mentally harm children approach Intelligent Design levels of pseudoscience, pushed by moral guardians who have a knee-jerk "think of the children!" reaction. I've played lots of violent video games, and the ones that most realistically depict violence are pretty disturbing; they make me less likely to want to employ violence, if anything.
What I'd REALLY like to see is if a VR game where you use motion controllers to punch people makes the players more likely to employ punches in real life afterward (in say some roleplay with a dummy where a punch, kick, or handshake can be employed.) I wonder if muscle memory (pressing a button on a Dualshock is nothing like throwing an actual punch) and feeling that the game isn't real (VR takes this away) are the main things stopping a connection between in-game violence and real-life aggressive tendencies. However, there's a big difference between "I'm curious if" and "I'm certain, therefore it must be made illegal immediately." I also chuckle at the idea that 'ragdoll physics' apparently equals 'realism' now; all those hours playing UT2003 and I never realized how REAL it was.
Re:I'm Skeptical of This Particular Study (Score:5, Interesting)
I did see a study done back in the 1990's sort of like what you're describing.
They observed some groups of the kids for some time before bringing in games, and the kids were graded on how many times they acted aggressively (toy-stealing, shoving, hitting, etc). Kids are people. Most are decent and some are jerks.
Then some groups got non-violent video games and some got violent video games.
In the places that got non-violent games, the individual kids aggression levels remained much the same before and after.
In the groups that got violent games, what they observed is that the non-aggressive kids remained the same, but the aggressive kids got worse, and some much worse.
This sort of thing has been born out in other studies in various populations and situations.
It looks to me like healthy people aren't affected by exposure to violent shows, porn, criminal caper TV shows or whatever. People who aren't mentally healthy get worse. I suspect those people whose lives get devoted to playing Everquest, CoD, Warcraft or whatever, would get "addicted" to something else, perhaps poker playing, perhaps collecting Hummel figurines, if the games did not exist.
I read many studies on the topic of media-induced behavior changes, and I am very sure that the people who have an agenda know this about the differing reactions of healthy and non-healthy people and design their studies in such a way to take advantage of this phenomenon.
For example, suppose that the people who did the study I described above chose to not differentiate ( not publish those measurements) between the known violent and non-violent kids, but just published the group's number e.g. "before violent games, the group had 5 assaults per hours, and after there were 10 assaults per hour". If you didn't know that only one kid in the group was doing all the assaults, you would get a different conclusion that if you did know that fact.
Re:I'm Skeptical of This Particular Study (Score:4, Interesting)
That's interesting that it was shown that only the kids with violent tendencies tended to be more violent when exposed to violent video games... but also pretty obvious. I've heard it suggested several times on Slashdot before (although that's different from proof, maybe they read the same study.)
However, politicians will say that there's no way to prevent ONLY the violent kids from accessing these violent materials, and thus they ruin it for everybody and it has to be restricted to adults only. Media that contains violence/aggression is so ubiquitous that even with a ban that somehow wasn't struck down by SCOTUS, again, these kids would essentially have to be kept in quarantine to ensure they don't see/hear it, and the value of doing so is questionable. A more sane idea is to redirect the effort of doing these violent media studies, and figure out a way to treat these violent kids to be, you know, less violent.
Re: (Score:2)
This study has a few problems. For one, the participants were all adults; the argument is usually that violent video games have a harmful effect on children whose minds are still developing, and these experiments don't assess that
I'm sure it's fairly similar to teenage readers of Playboy objectifying women in adulthood or listening to satanic/immoral/whatever music. We have enough data for that.
Old News (Score:2)
It seems like a study is done every 7 years saying the same thing since the 80s?
Before that it was cartoons...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like a study is done every 7 years saying the same thing since the 80s?
Before that it was cartoons...
It should go away soon... Gamers are getting older and this kinda crap is getting less and less traction as the non-gaming geriatrics are kicking the bucket.
Politicians are starting to realise that gamers are a wealthy(ish) demographic, and that it doesn't pay to piss on or off; least they start loosing votes
No (Score:1)
This study uses proxies. Finding no link between a proxy an violent video games does not disprove that it affects violent behavior.
Apples to oranges.
(Not that I support banning violent videogames, but this headline is junk. typical slashdot trash...)
Don't Video Game and Drive (Score:2)
When you play a video game, doesn't need to be a violent one, your brain goes into a state of hyper-arousal. Some games are more intense then others, depends on how long you have been doing it, your age, and if its a new game.
But right after you finish playing, for example GTA, your driving around with a car and not really obeying street laws.
Right when you get done, don't go out and drive a real car, take a few minutes to get back to reality.
Re: (Score:2)
I look at video games as a reinforcement/training tool... you have to be aware of what you're reinforcing/training.
If you're a stable individual, killing hookers after sex to get your money back in GTA V is reinforcing mindless videogame fun. If you're a violent nutcase, perhaps you're instead reinforcing a fantasy and it's getting you one step closer to acting it out.
But you know what? If you're in that latter group, it's only a matter of time, and it's your mental health and not the video game that's to
Flawed abstraction. (Score:2)
The idea that you will go out and be violent because you've seen, and been involved in violence in games is a flawed abstraction of the idea that you repeat what you are exposed to.
When people are exposed to violence, real or in games, the constant practiced activity between both situations is that it demands of them to observe the situation and then learn to change how they make decisions for a better outcome for themselves. They can either enforce their decisions on the others present, or find a solution
Hm, not sure... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
>> How come we are not allowed to see female nipples on tv? Or cursing?
I presume you''re American. We Europeans are free to see that stuff on TV.
To answer your question though, it has nothing to do with bad side effects and everything to do with radical christian puritanism that was the religion of the founders your country and is still mainstream there today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Half truths ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember the first time I watched Smokey and the Bandit at the movies. When I got in my car, I wanted to speed all over the place.
But I didn't ... because I'm not stupid and know I could crash, kill someone or me, or at least get a ticket.
I'm sure violent video games can make violent people more likely to be violent.
That doesn't mean the other 99% (made up statistic) of society should be kept from playing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Do empirical studies make Sarkeesian violent? (Score:2)
Just wondering.
Unless a control group was isolated ... (Score:2)
Video games are just the latest proxy... (Score:3)
We have had proxy activities for competition, aggression, and violence since the dawn of history. Everything from boxing, rugby, and polo to swimming and track to Go and chess.
Video games are just a new spin on an ancient habit. We substitute relatively harmless activities as outlets for our less-than-friendly instincts. In this respect, we have reached a new zenith with the variety, ubiquity, and flexibility of computer games. Participation in previous sports or hobbies has never been as safe and widely appealing as video games.
I'm not surprised there is no link between video games and violent behavior; the games themselves are the outlet for the urges that lead to violence.
There is a link (Score:2)
I, for one, don't act out video game violence unless I know where the respawn area is.
Going through life without a save game function really sucks.
Arrow In The Knee? (Score:2)
Visualize that and then imagine how it might affect tendencies toward violence. Or archery.
Study is bogus (Score:2)
I know that I for sure like nothing better than playing some Candy Crush and then going down the local boozer to whup some ass.
Outlets (Score:2)
I did not read the article, but they always seem to miss one observation.
What if the violent video game is an outlet for the players? Take away the video game and they're more likely to "outlet" on others, rather than less likely to do so.
I've been a gamer for quite a while. I like jumping on TeamSpeak and running around shooting my friends in the face. That doesn't make me a violent person. That certainly doesn't make me want to go buy a gun and shoot someone in the face. It's much like the difference
Re: (Score:2)
> NRA financed study...
Do you have any actual proof or are you just another libtard making up fake news?
It seems at best highly unlikely to be funded by the NRA given the study was conducted by the University of York which is in the (gun-hating) UK. The entire study document also contains absolutely no references to the NRA.
Re: (Score:2)
But they aren't pulling a trigger, they aren't mowing down people and they aren't creating blood baths. They are just clicking mice, pushing buttons on game-pads or tapping on tablets and phones. I own guns and I have been a member of the NRA before. I've pulled a trigger countless times. However, I've never hurt anyone since I don't have the desire to do so. I'm not a criminal. If I did have that desire I doubt I'd be spending a lot of time playing video games where I would just be clicking on mice and trackballs, pushing buttons on game-pads, etc.
You have a visual impression and no clue what it does to your subconscious since it is what it is - sub... ;-)
Any input, be it visual, smell, taste, sound, mental activity thinking interacting with others changes you.
Or - do you want to tell me sitting in front of a screen playing games does not emotionally affect you?
Eye focus fixed to short distance for significant time does nothing? Hmm...
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting statement. Of course, my argument was as to whether or not video games made people violent, not as to whether they changed people in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting statement. Of course, my argument was as to whether or not video games made people violent, not as to whether they changed people in some way.
Well, people are different, one has it in him/her and it comes out from long ago and who knows what the triggers are. Maybe video games can relieve some tension which would otherwise show their face as violence. Or it is a trigger for something in people and it does something to take the violent street. Ratatata...
Examples are many nowadays.
Re: (Score:3)
Umm... you forgot to add how this is on topic in any way.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? It is possible to hurt people over the internet now?
Damn, this guy [bash.org] really did it, I didn't believe him.
Re: (Score:2)
Why eliminate the sex based ones? You could combine it with a study whether wanking to hentai games reduces teen pregnancies.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd how our times of the month synchronize, sister, but every time you have your time of the month I have mine.
I stab people that piss me off during mine. Seeing how your thing is pissing off people... you might find someone else to hang around.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, it's sort of a release to play a violent video game, if you're in a pent-up state of frustration or anger, you can work it out of your system by slaughtering pixels. For the most part, however, these games are just a test of skill, aiming and dodging.
In some games, there were parts I didn't even feel totally comfortable; Skyrim is a tad schizophrenic in that the main quest paints you as a hero (Dragonborn, savior of the world) but two of the main side quests (Thieve's Guild, Dark Brotherhood)