Let me pick out some choice bits. First, we'll start with the kid's real motive (which is buried deep in the article):
quote:Peter Joyce QC prosecuting told the court that the defendant had planned to rob his younger friend to help repay a drugs debt.
Okay, a kid in your town murders and robs a younger friend. You take a critical look at the killer's life. He uses drugs, and owes a lot of money to his dealer. He also plays violent video games. Which do you think is more likely to be the prime motivator behind the crime?
Yes, it can be better to keep impressionable children away from disturbing media. But I'd say it's even more important to keep them away from FREAKING DRUG DEALERS.
quote:Britain's Daily Mail Thursday carried a front page headline: "Murder by Playstation" and another saying: "Horror images on computer drove teenager to kill his friend aged 14."
Could some of our resident Brits fill me in about the Daily Mail? Please, please tell me this is not what you consider to be a respectable journalistic outlet.
quote:Giselle Pakeerah, 36, told the UK's Press Association: "I think that I heard some of Warren's friends say that he was obsessed by this game.
[tries to imagine the context of this quote] "Mrs. Pakeerah, for the fifth time, did you have any indication that Warren played violent video games? I'm going to keep asking you until you give me something!"
She thinks she heard some friends talking about him being obsessed with the game. And this makes it the motivating force behind the murder? Could it not also be a symptom of this kid wanting to kill people?
quote:"I don't play these games but if they are influencing kids to go out and kill people then you don't want them on the shelves."
The best quote ever. "I don't know anything about the subject, but if you tell me it's bad, then I'll campaign blindly against it!"
quote:Thompson, speaking from Miami, Florida, said: "I wrote warning them that somebody was going to copycat the Manhunt game and kill somebody.
"We have had dozens of killings in the U.S. by children who had played these types of games. This is not an isolated incident.
Okay, I'm just about to lose it here. How many of those child murderers also eat Starburst? I bet they all do. In fact, I bet at least one of them could be considered "obsessed" with the candy. Now, I don't eat Starburst, but if it's making kids kill people, then I don't want it on the shelves!
I understand the initial motivation behind this guy's concern. But you CANNOT decide, in advance, to believe that violent video games cause children to murder people, and then treat every young murderer who once played a violent video game as proof of your point.
Well, I guess you CAN, but then you're really, really stupid.
Now, unlike EVERYONE quoted in this article, I have played Manhunt. It's a really disturbing game, and the death scenes almost feel pornographic in their depiction of murder. I really enjoyed the gameplay, but had to detach myself from the content. It's not something I would want a child of mine to play. It's scary, and it depicts a part of the world that I would not like to see glorified.
That said, I don't believe for a second that any child of mine (not that I have any yet) would ever, ever, EVER become a murderer because of playing this game. They might get scared. They might feel disturbed. It might be unpleasant. It might even desensitize them to other images of violence if they saw it all the time. But causing them to become a murderer? There's a lot more to becoming a killer than seeing something scary.
[ August 10, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Very, very true. I just wish these people who want simple, easy explanations would realize that.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote:How many of those child murderers also eat Starburst?
You know, this really isn't a valid argument. Of course Starburst candies don't cause kids to kill people. There is, however, a correlation between the amount of violence a kid is exposed to (either in media like movies and video games, or at home or at school) and the amount of violence that will come out of him/her. That doesn't mean they will automatically kill someone, but few kids will remain completely unaffected by it.
quote:It's a really disturbing game, and the death scenes almost feel pornographic in their depiction of murder. I really enjoyed the gameplay, but had to detach myself from the content. It's not something I would want a child of mine to play. It's scary, and it depicts a part of the world that I would not like to see glorified.
That said, I don't believe for a second that any child of mine (not that I have any yet) would ever, ever, EVER become a murderer because of playing this game.
Good for you. Please remember that not everyone is as stable and happy as this hypothetical child of yours. The same thing can affect different people in wildly different ways, depending on personality, history, and a bunch of other factors.
quote:There's a lot more to becoming a killer than seeing something scary.
You're right. Ever heard of the straw that broke the camel's back? There is such a thing as accumulation. And like I said, things affect different people in different ways.
I understand why this article makes you mad, but please don't try to go to the other extreme. There is a genuine concern about the effect of violent media on children. Most will survive quite well. Very few will become violent. Only the rarest exceptions will become murderers. But there are always those rare exceptions, and it would irresponsible to discount that.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:You know, this really isn't a valid argument. Of course Starburst candies don't cause kids to kill people. There is, however, a correlation between the amount of violence a kid is exposed to (either in media like movies and video games, or at home or at school) and the amount of violence that will come out of him/her.
Actually, it's a completely valid argument. The fact that there is a correlation between violent kids and kids who play video games is no more (nor less) conclusive than if there were a correlation between violent kids and kids who eat Starburst. The fact is that correlation is not the same as causation. Correlation is not even the same as reverse correlation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
This is the same argument I used to hear years ago about why D&D is evil. "There were these guys, they played D&D, and then they killed somebody. Ergo, D&D bad."
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Puppy, Brits on a few other message boards I frequent refer to the Daily Mail as the "Daily Hate Mail", so I guess that answers your question.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Of course Starburst candies don't cause kids to kill people. There is, however, a correlation between the amount of violence a kid is exposed to (either in media like movies and video games, or at home or at school) and the amount of violence that will come out of him/her.
I chose an obviously non-violent consumable on purpose. My point here is that even if you find a correlation between a consumable item and a behavior, that does not mean that the consumable item caused the behavior. It could just as easily mean that the behavior caused the child to desire the consumable item, or that the causes of the behavior ALSO caused the child to desire the consumable item. Or there could be no relationship between the two whatsoever.
So maybe a better example would be condoms. Kids who are disturbingly sexually active buy more condoms than kids who are not. Does that mean that the availability of condoms causes kids to want to have sex?
Another example. I'll bet there's a correlation between the achievement of an MD degree and subscriptions to medical journals. Does that mean that subscribing to medical journals makes people want to be doctors? Or rather that people who are already pursuing careers as doctors often subscribe to medical journals along the way?
If there is a correlation between consuming violent media and violent behavior (which you haven't shown), then must we necessarily assume that the former causes the latter? In your own experience, do you make choices in life based on which media you have consumed, or do you choose which media to consume based on what interests you in life?
quote:Good for you. Please remember that not everyone is as stable and happy as this hypothetical child of yours. The same thing can affect different people in wildly different ways, depending on personality, history, and a bunch of other factors.
You're right, it's hard to be convincing when speaking of a hypothetical child. Forgive me for being more passionate about this than I am patient in writing. I should have found a better way to make that point.
But here's what I'm saying. If someone's child is really in a position such that playing a violent video game will actually CAUSE him to murder one of his friends, there are much bigger problems in his life (his personality, his history, and other factors) than the video game. We won't solve that child's problems by removing the game. Doing so won't prevent him from causing harm if he is already that close to the edge. We need to address the REAL PROBLEMS in that child's life, not run around after scapegoats. This crusade is helping no one and sidestepping the real issues that desperately need our attention.
The murderer in this article is a prime example. The kid plays violent video games. He is also on drugs and in debt to his dealer. If one of these factors is going to be the prime motivation behind his turning to murder, I would bet you it's the latter, not the former. But for some reason, the world is up in arms over Manhunt, and could care less about STOPPING THIS KID'S DRUG DEALER.
quote:Ever heard of the straw that broke the camel's back? There is such a thing as accumulation.
I would like to see an example of ANY real person who turned to murder or even assault entirely because of a lifelong accumulation of violent media, and not because of other much stronger factors in his life.
quote:There is a genuine concern about the effect of violent media on children. Most will survive quite well. Very few will become violent. Only the rarest exceptions will become murderers.
Individually, all those sentences are true. What is false is the implied causality. The fact that a certain percentage of people exposed to violent media will become violent themselves does not imply that the violence was caused by the media.
Personally, I'm concerned about the effect that LIFE has on people. Bad things happen all the time in the real world, and it affects everyone in different ways. Some people become violent. Very few become murderers. Do we blame LIFE and try to hide from it? Or should we try to help these people solve the real problems they face?
[ July 29, 2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
True. Worse is how they lump all video games in the same catergory. Assuming that every single last video game is violent and horrible when there are a lot of good deep ones. They need to do something about the larger problems that cause violence, but most are too lazy to even try.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Syn, you'd be surprised how often I have this conversation:
FORTYSOMETHING WOMAN What do you do for a living?
ME I'm a video game designer.
FORTYSOMETHING WOMAN Oh, good. We need SOMEone to start making some GOOD video games.
ME [after a stunned silence] What do you mean?
FORTYSOMETHING WOMAN Well, all these video games today, they're so violent and awful and they're having a horrible effect on children. We need someone to start making good ones.
ME [sigh] You know, the video games you hear about on the news? That's three games, made by one developer in Scotland. The vast majority of games either are non-violent or are conscientious and respectful about violence.
ME [to myself] When will people STOP BLINDLY AND IGNORANTLY ADOPTING EVERY OPINION THE MEDIA FEEDS THEM?!
[ July 29, 2004, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Obviously they've never played Final Fantasy. That series is like an excellent brilliant book with a few monster fights. It's violent in some parts, but it's RESPECTFUL violence for the most part no worse than that of a -g-13 rated movie or something... But, people can be ignorant.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
But Geoff! Video games are the DEVIL! And so is Harry Potter and DnD!
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Robert had his 7 year old check up last week, in which the pediatrician said they suggest that tv/video game playing and computer time be limited to ONE HOUR per day.
The reason for this is simply that kids are getting FAT. He'd had 7 check ups that day, and three of the kids were morbidly obese. MORBIDLY OBESE. I was shocked.
But when he asked Robert "What do you do for fun?" What do you think he said? "I like to play video games and play on my computer."
I said that he loves those things because we don't let him do them much. Usually only when there is a baby sitter or a special occasion or we all play together. We go biking, camping and hiking a lot, because Mommy and Daddy like to. Robert enjoys these activities, more or less, but he lloves video games.
He's also 50th percentile for weight, 90th for height. And we hope to keep him that way.
As to the VIOLENCE issue... I am regularly exposed to violence in TV, movies, video games, Hatrack threads, stories I read (and write) and lots of other stuff.
But I have yet to beat anyone's head in with a shovel. Even if they're really asking for it. Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
What I love is that every generation does this. EVERY GENERATION. My generation listened to that wild rock and roll and it was just crazy and made you lose your head and do drugs and have promiscuous sex and, yes, murder people! Have you ever heard of that Beatles song called Helter Skelter? Charles Manson murdered someone because of that song! Rock and roll is just evil! Also playing foosball.
My parents' generation listened to that wild bebop jazz which was just crazy and made you smoke marijuana. Also they read COMIC BOOKS! Those things make you violent, they have all these superheroes in them beating people up all the time.
My grandparents' generation were FLAPPERS! You want to talk about evil! They hung out in speakeasys and played pool did those crazy dances like the Charleston! And they wore skirts that SHOWED THEIR KNEES! And the girls BOBBED THEIR HAIR! And read NOVELS! Can you believe such trash? No wonder this world is going straight to murder and chaos! What will they think of next?
I can picture an unbroken chain going back to Lucy in Africa being appalled that her children carry sticks. The world is just going crazy these days! Not like in OUR day when people used rocks like our grandmothers did. These kids today!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think that it we are oversimplifying the effect that violence has on kids a bit.
I am NOT agreeing with that article, not completely anyway. But it IS a violent game, and it is possible to overexpose kids to violence this way. I have seen a lot of kids get hurt trying out wrestling moves that they saw in video games, and not all of them are stupid...just not fully aware of the possible consequences of those actions.
That in no way absolves the kid who killed people, nor should the games makers be held completely to blame; but to say that it had nothing to do with it is misleading.
I played D&D a lot when I was younger, and I never murdered anyone...but I also had a very caring family who was supportive, and other outside interests. I love to play video games now, but I am not jumping off roof trying to teleport from one side of the city to the other side... Although that would be really cool...
But there have been a lot of studies (I used a good one in college, I'll see if I can find the source again) that draw a connection between overall exposure to violence and violent behaviors in children.
Parents are right to worry....but not to blame the gamers/designers.
BTW, I DO know what the difference between correlation and causation....all that means is that we need to keep studying the issues. The theory of gravity is still only a theory....and it started as a correlation between events..
Kwea
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
But it can't be the fact that the kid was hanging out with drug dealers. If that is the case then the PARENTS could have looked after their son and prevented him from getting such bad influcences. Everyone knows that parents cannot be held responsible for how their kids turn out. It must be the fault of the evil video game industry. Well, that and that gay teletubby. That has to be a bad influence. </sarcasm>
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
A note on British press---they are sensationalist. Horribly so.
Another note on the case--Lawyer (or Barrister) defending murderer sees that his client played violent video games. Combining that with America's favortism of blaming violence problems on video games and British sensationalism, puts it forth that the game drove his client to do murder, therefore blaming a game and not the client. A tactic to get the kid off, or at least a shortened sentence.
It calls away from the issue. A boy is dead. Another boy, with a drug problem and now a murderer, could very well go to jail for the rest of his days. And what are they talking about? A violent video game.
I was just reading White Oleander--I know it's a fiction book, but there's one part where she thinks about a television show her foster father produces--a paranormal magazine-type show. It's very successful, and she thinks about how easy it is for people to be attracted to death and mutilations that can be blamed on aliens, ghosts, and who the hell knows what else, but not to the real and more frequent, more senseless--like a boy getting killed because of his leather jacket.
No one wants to put the blame on a person. No one wants to admit a 17 year old had a drug problem and killed a 14 year old to get money and pay for his habit. It's so much easier to blame it on a game.
Plus, I think what AK said is completely valid. I can't stand it when the older people I work with complain about 'these kids these days.' Yeah, and no one said anything about your love beads.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
There was an interesting article about the more complex video games that teach kids basic combat tactics and strategy.
There was some concern about the more "realistic" fps games in the arcade - Silent Scope, Time Crisis and so on were actually functioning as training simulations.
The article quoted an Army sergeant who noted the steady increase in basic marksmanship ability in recent groups of recruits.
As the more logical of us will note, there isn't a definitive link - but it does make for interesting speculation.
-Trevor
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Good marksmanship is a good thing, though. It doesn't follow that a good marksman will decide to be a sniper of innocent people. Perhaps he or she will become a sniper for law enforcement, for instance, and take out bad guys holding hostages. Or perhaps the hand eye coordination will be used for some other good end. Learning a skill is never a bad thing!
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I never said that marksmanship was a bad thing.
But a number of these recruits had never held weapons before - which led the author of the article to believe the numerous hours spent playing fps might have influenced their ability.
The story is hardly scientific in and of itself, but provides anecedotal musing.
-Trevor
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Oh god. Not more of this, please.
If someone can point to a legitimate study that finds causation between video games and increased violence of behavior in children, by all means, post it. I've never seen one that conclusively made the connection.
Saying there's a connection because it seems like there should be one does not make it so.
One thing that general gaming *does* do is improve spatial understanding and reasoning. An interesting study I read in Science News found that video gamers in general have a firmer grasp of 3d space than the average person. A quick google couldn't find a specific link, unfortunately.
EDIT
Here's something close:
quote: Research in the upcoming issue of Nature demonstrates that action video games can give a person the ability to monitor more objects in their visual field and do so faster than a person who doesn't play such games. The study by researchers at the University of Rochester suggests that in addition to making game players more aware of their surroundings while performing tasks such as driving, action game playing might be a useful tool to rehabilitate visually impaired patients or to train soldiers for combat.
"Players can process visual information more quickly and can track 30 percent more objects than nonplayers," says Daphne Bavelier, associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences, and member of the Center for Visual Science "Several game players even achieved perfect scores on tests barely doable for non-game players."
[ July 29, 2004, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The article quoted an Army sergeant who noted the steady increase in basic marksmanship ability in recent groups of recruits."
Hey, what with "America's Army" out there, I'd imagine that this is in fact a major GOAL for them. Heck, if we're going to be concerned about video games training children to kill, the Army is completely up-front about releasing "America's Army" for FREE to do exactly that. And yet many of the same people who'd find "Manhunt" horrifying because of context do NOT find "America's Army" horrifying because of ITS context. (And perhaps the fact that the enemies you kill in AA die bloodlessly, despite the games' otherwise high realism factor.)
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
He...it's interesting how I had similar problems time and time again. You see...I'm a gamer. A hardcore one. D&D, Magic the Gathering, Pokémon (yeah, yeah...), Vampire the Maskerade, Video Games, Computer Games, Chess...you name it, I play it. So, it's disturbing how much I listened about crap like this ("D&D is bad for you" - "You're a literature PHD! Why do you keep playing videogames!?" - "Ender's Game!? Science fiction is trash! Read some 'real' literature!"). Here in Rio, last year, minors (less than 18 years) were prohibited to enter LAN Houses even with parents aproval, because of a very popular game called Counter Strike, that pitted terrorists against anti-terrorist forces (you can choose which to play. It seems that terrorists are more popular than the good guys). Now...it's interesting how everytime games in generalare considered guilty of promoting violence, the children/teenagers in question also have significant problems as drugs, disfunctional families, severe psychological issues, etc. I guess it's easier to blame media, or games, or rock and roll, or Sci-Fi, than to really take care of troubled kids.
Sorry for the venting, but this subject makes me a little mad. Too close to home.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
I prefer to play as a CT (counter-terrorist), unless I can get my hands on a Sig 552 as a T (Terrorist) or it's a bombing mission on a good map.
I'm an old softy in CS. I like the colt way too much (it was much better when it had the scope still).
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I can tell you that the first time I ever went out shooting (clay pidgeons) I was dead on almost all the time. I tried aiming at first, and just couldn't hit the target in time. So, instead, I just started feeling where the gun was going (just like I do when I play video games) and I started pegging the pidgeons 9 times out of ten. The only real difference was the actual deadliness of the weapon and the extremely loud noise.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, it's just a quick search, mind you but:
quote:Anderson, Craig A., Dill, Karen E. (2000) Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772-790. ABSTRACT
Two studies examined violent video game effects on aggression-related variables. Study 1 found that real-life violent video game play was positively related to aggressive behavior and delinquency. The relation was stronger for individuals who are characteristically aggressive and for men. Academic achievement was negatively related to overall amount of time spent playing video games. In Study 2, laboratory exposure to a graphically violent video game increased aggressive thoughts and behavior. In both studies, men had a more hostile view of the world than did women. The results from both studies are consistent with the General Affective Aggression Model, which predicts that exposure to violent video games will increase aggressive behavior in both the short term (e.g., laboratory aggression) and the long term (e.g., delinquency).
Anderson, C. A. (1997). Effects of violent movies and trait hostility on hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 161-178.
ABSTRACT Examined the effects of violent movies and trait hostility on hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts. Exp 1 explored the effects of viewing violent movie clips on affect and cognition. 53 university undergraduates participated in Exp 1. Results from Exp 1 show that Ss who viewed a violent movie clip later reported higher levels of state hostility than did Ss who viewed a nonviolent clip. Exp 2, with 66 university students, added trait hostility to the design as a potentially important individual difference variable. The state hostility results of Exp 1 were replicated in Exp 2. In addition, the relative accessibility of aggressive thoughts was increased by the violent clip, but only for low irritable Ss. The relevance to aggressive behavior was also discussed.
Ballard, M. E., & Weist, J. R. (1996). Mortal Kombat: The effects of violent video game play on males' hostility and cardiovascular responding. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 717-730.
ABSTRACT Examined cardiovascular reactivity (CVR) and hostility among 30 male undergraduates (aged 18-23 yrs), after either nonviolent (billiards) or 1 of 2 levels of violent videogame play using Mortal Kombat ® (MK). A computer videogame system was used for the videogame stimuli. Systolic BP, diastolic BP, and heart rate were monitored using an automatic electro-sphygmomanometer and an adult size BP cuff positioned on the nondominant arm. The hostility questionnaire was composed of items from the Adjective Checklist. Ss who played MK1 or MK2 had higher heart rate reactivity than those who played billiards. Ss who played MK2 showed greater systolic BP reactivity than those who played MK1 or billiards. Ss who played MK2 scored higher on the hostility measures than those who played MK1, who in turn scored higher than those who played billiards.
Now look, this newspaper article is crap sensationalism, but that doesn't mean that the underlying point is invalid. It seems to me that people, most likely based on their values, are making specious arguments against the point.
I'll go out on a limb and say that anyone who claims that violent video games are the sole cause of violent behavior has an axe to grind and is not brimming over with integrity about it. That position is absurd. But then again, so is saying that, because there are other factors that affect a person's hostility, playing violent video games obviously has no effect. For most behaviors there are numerous contributing causes, often of various weights. I think it's fair to say that, in general, looking for the one sole factor is usually an exercise in futility. The argument against violent video games - the responsible one anyway - is not that, if you restrict children's access to them, that all violence will evaporate, but rather that violent behavior will become less likely.
You'll notice that my brief search didn't turn up experiments on children and violent video games. I imagine that, because of ethical issues, these are unlikely. However, there's plenty of literature on the effects of exposing children to violent images and situations (e.g. watching an actor on a video tape or through a window hitting a doll or being exposed to television news or movies depicting violent crimes, or watching violent sports, such as football). The research is pretty conclusive that this exposure has three main effects. First, it increases short term aggressive goals. After exposure to violent images, children are more likely than both control groups exposed to non-violent images and themselves prior to their exposure, to be interested in and to perform violent things. Second, it increases long term cognitions. Children exposed to violent images are more likely to test higher on scales of violent cognitions when tested a some remove from the exposure. Third, it increases children's sense of threat. Children who are exposed to violent images are more likely to say they view the world as a threatening place.
---
As a personal pet peeve, I don't like it when people mistake correlation for causation. However, besides the standard form of people thinking that correlation = causation, there is another misunderstanding (exhibited here) that dismisses causation because it is related to correlation. This reveals a misunderstanding of the entire process of scientific experimentation. That is, you introduce some independent variable and see what effect is has on dependent variables. This is all about correlation, but correlation of a specific type. Causation can be inferred by temporal correlation, or, to put it another way, if you took a bunch of kids who had not played violent video games and had some of them play the games and some of them do some other control activity and the children who played the video games increased in violent behavior and the children who didn't, then you can infer causality, even if the correlation between the violent games and violent behavior is not 100% (i.e. say maybe only 70% of the violent kids became more violent and 15% of the control kids did).
---
As I said, I think that this scoffing at the possible effects of violent video games is at least partly fueled by values. I wonder how many people who have implied here that saying that exposure to violence is not a cause of this behavior would say the same if the kid was heavily into pornography. We live in a world where parents complained because, when they were watching football with their 5 year old, Janet Jackson showed her nipple. Because, after all, we need to protect our children from bad influences. Not necessarily the ones that careful research shows are bad though, just the ones that go against our values.
[ July 30, 2004, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Wheat - like I said, I have yet to see a scientifically accepted, definitive link betweeen the two. It may very well be that the games attract people already pre-disposed to violence which may or may not fuel existing impulses.
Tom - the article came out long before AA. Since then, I remember reading one article which mentioned an Army base using Doom (fun game that it is) as a training tool.
I suspect the US Army released AA with all of these factors in mind.
-Trevor
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
uhhh, Trevor ^^^^.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's one hypothesis and not a commonly accepted fact in the medical or scientific community?
-Trevor
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You're wrong. There's a pretty strong consensus among child psychologists that exposure to violent images has a link to the three results I posted above. The experimental evidence is pretty darn compelling.
Besides that, you asked for valid scientific experiments that showed that violent video games resulted in more violent reactions. I gave you that, didn't I? I mean, maybe if your post saying that you haven't seen any studies like that didn't come directly after my post where I presented three I found in like 2 minutes, it wouldn't be quite so noticable.
[ July 30, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Then I phrased it badly.
I am aware that a number of people believe that video games can and do fuel violence in children.
I am equally aware that this is a contested conclusion and not one that has been definitively proven and for all practical purposes universally accepted.
And while I didn't ask for scientific experiments demonstrating the link, it does make for an interesting read.
-Trevor
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
I know I might be bashed, flamed, etc. for saying it but...
When people run around killing because they read in the (*insert religious book here), was the book in question responsible for the person abnormal behavior?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker. This is one of the few boards where you won't get flamed for it.
I tend to think people who are predisposed to doing that will gravitate to something and adopt it, but I don't believe it was a trigger.
As Mr. Squicky pointed out, certain mediums that fuel certain tendencies can act as reinforcing elements according to some studies - video games that offer "rewards" for violent behavior, for example.
Similar studies are done with porn and sex offenders - although I don't think you can create a valid answer to "which came first: the porn or the offender?"
As to the David Koreshes and Jim Jones - I submit they found the Bible as a means of validating what they already intended to do. Charles Manson used "Helter Skelter."
-Trevor
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Trevor, Where are you getting you're information that this is a contested conclusion. I'm not aware that controversy exists among people who actually work in the field. Granted there are plenty of people who disagree with this link, but I've yet to see them present actual evidence for their disagreement. Instead, you get things like "I've never seen any evidence that there is a link." As I've shown, evidence for this link is very east to find. If they've never seen any and they don't seem to have any evidence for their own claims, I wonder how hard they are actually looking into the matter.
Eduardo, I'll say it again, if you are trying to say that one thing is the cause, then you're pretty much bound to be disappointed. Behavior is almost always determined by a complex system of influences. Depending on your philosophical orientation, there is also the question of free will. Saying that something influences someone's behavior neither dismisses all other possible causes nor invalidates their free will (although it does conflict with the theory of unrestrained free will by positing a dimished free will).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Trevor, I'm not sure I understand your behaviorist objection to the video game link. Are you saying that, because violent games reward violent behavior and these rewards make people more likely to be violent, that it's not actually the video games themselves that are encouraging violent behavior? I don't think I got your logic right there.
Also, as I noted, the link between exposure to violent images and agressive and violence is well supported in passive, non-reward based contexts, such as watching depictions of violence, even those that don't glorify the violence.
You keep on coming back with saying that there isn't a consensus. There is actually a consensus, fueled by the preponderance of experimental evidence. I am pretty familar (though not expertly so) with the literature, and I'm not aware of experimental studies that have given evidence against this preponderance. I think that the lack of consensus you're talking about is among people who are basing their opinions, not on the facts, but on their values. Although I could be wrong. My coverage in the field is by no means exhaustive and there may be an entire respectible group of people who have proposed alternative explanations, tested them, and shown how the data better fits their ideas (e.g. it's the bright flashing lights that do it, or something). If so, I'd be glad to read it. I'm more interested in truth than I am in upholding a value system.
edit: And I already talked about the misunderstanding of correlation and causality that you reference in the "which came first" objection. It's easy to determine which came first in some cases because we introduce the thing (be it porn or violent video games) prior to the behavior. In this case, we know that whatever thing we're introducing comes first. If, after introduction, there is an increase in behavior that does not happen in the control group, then we can infer causality. You're criticizing aspects of strict corelational studies without acknowledging the existence of these experimental studies that answer the objections that you're bringing up.
[ July 30, 2004, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Heh. Before I eat my crow, permit me to elaborate:
Violent video games can act as a motivating influence. The reward system for violent behavior is built into the game itself - kill x to get more ammo, better weapons, loot, etc.
As you pointed out, violent video games require interactive participation, forcing the player to think and act and respond to the violence in such a fashion as to be enjoyable.
However, I hold that while video games can influence behavior patterns, I think it tad simplistic to focus on video games as the sole cause of anti-social behavior in children.
An article from the AAFP - without specifics, they suggest the impact from video game violence to be more hype than legitimate concern.
However, this article more closely supports your view of a definitive link: APA
-Trevor
Edit: For clarity
[ July 30, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Trevor, I largely agree with the take that you put into your last post. Here's the one thing that I was hoping I'd get a chance to get to that wasn't there.
I think that, like you said, it's silly and simplistic to focus on one thing, like violent video games, in terms of explaining violent behavior. Because it avoid other, perhaps more important, issues it can also be seen as almost counter-productive In my opinion, this is definitely the case currently.
I think the big thing that we're missing is that, as I've been saying, behavior is the result of an interelated set of factors. By focusing on a pretty low-level one (video games or even exposure to violence) we're missing what I think is orders of magnitude more important. That is, we live in a culture that both directly and indirectly supports and condones violence. To put it another way, it is not the violent images that intrinsically support violent, but rather the violent images parsed in our cultural ideas towards violence.
Consider people's strenuous and ill-founded objections to the idea that exposure to violence leads to agression. This, like many of the other stories we tell about violence in our culture (e.g. if you're angry, then doing something violent will relieve this anger or violence never solved anything) have been extensively tested and disproven. However, because they fit in with our cultural values, we are highly motivated to come up with reasons why we should still believe them.
As you may notice, I included the "violence never solved anything" statement in with these false stories. I did so because it shows the negative side of these immaturely held cultural stories. It's sort of like the Janet Jackson thing. We know through experimental research that a 5 year old watching a game of football is likely to be more violently inclined. We don't have conclusive evidence that exposure to a nipple is going to have any ill-effects at all. However, parents are encouraged to watch football with their children, but are outraged when the kid might have caught a brief glimpse of a part of the human body. Both of these demostrate immature, ill-founded views on things. In the same way, saying that violence doesn't solve anything is a largely empty statement and a way of immaturely trying to repress violence rather than deal with it.
We give violence this power in our culture because we value it, either negatively or positively. Current violent video games are reinforcing the stories we tell about violence by creating immersive worlds with a particularly supporting context for violence and depersonalization.
To cap this all off, I'd like to admit that I am both an agressive person by nature and I, from time to time, enjoy playing violent video games. I'm okay with this for myself because I don't accept our cultural stories about violence. For me, it's mostly a tool, rarely necessary, and an aspect of games that I like where everyone agrees that it is part of the game. Outside of these contexts, I've learned to choose not to be violent and to deal with rather than repress my violent impulses. To put it another way, the meaning I give to violence and to interpersonal reactions alters the effects of exposure to violence on me.
When I complain about the effects of violence on children (and adults) I'm complaining more about the meanings that people interpret violence within. Given a more mature outlook, I'd completely agree with the people who want to claim that violent video games don't have any major effect. I'm pretty sure that this would be true. However, as things stand, their fact-free denial of this strongly supported link is part of the cultural attitudes towards violence that I'm decrying and that I think makes their objections not match reality.
[ July 30, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
While I don't think video game makers are to blame, it seems like common sense to me that exposure to and mainstream acceptance of violence would definitely lead to more real life violence.
quote:Does that mean that the availability of condoms causes kids to want to have sex?
I think so. Again, I think having condoms advertised as available at, say, a school, makes them and sex seem more accepted.
Would a sex video game (if they existed) make kids want to have sex?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't blame the game for people acting out. I do think that seeing something repeated over and over can change a person's thought processes to make that more acceptable. The difference here is that we have society and family largely saying that this kind of violence is only acceptable in video games, so most people would never get to a point where they would act out.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I get a little bit disturbed whenever we start talking about weighing statistics and percentages related to human behavior and trying to edge the behavior one direction or the other by altering variables in the environment. These are people, not cattle.
We could eliminate violence from the media and create a completely sterile environment in which to raise children. In fact, we could establish censors that weigh the potential impact on human behavior of every piece of art that is ever produced, and determine whether or not to allow it to be experienced. That might even reduce the incidence of some forms of stupid imitative behavior.
But while you believe you are protecting life by doing that, you are actually stepping too far over the line in the other direction, protecting the security of human life by reducing the freedom and quality of human life. Humans like to stay alive, but not as an end in itself. Humans like to stay alive because there are things they like to DO with their lives. And among those things is play. If you take away the things that make life enjoyable for the sake of hypothetically prolonging life by a few percentage points, no one is going to thank you.
In general, if you take away a boy's toy gun, he'll build one out of Legos. If you take away the Legos as a punishment, he'll make a gun out of his hand. Not because boys love killing people, but because boys are enthralled by the drama of violent conflict, and for a boy, experience in battle and confidence in one's ability to fight can be very, very important. Violent play gives boys (and men) a chance to experience something they enjoy without causing harm to others.
That's why I question the causality in a lot of these cases. Because in my own experience, I was not exposed to violent games against my will, and I did not develop a more violent personality as a result of playing them. On the contrary, I sought them out because as a typical young man, I enjoyed violent play, and felt somewhere deep inside me that developing skill at fighting was an important thing for me to do.
The bottom line for me is, if you want to change human behavior, you show respect for the humans whose behavior you want to change. You help them, teach them, offer punishments and rewards for their behavior. But you don't tell them, "If you play this game, you will have a .5% greater chance of committing an assault, so I'm sorry, but you're not allowed to play it." Because their answer will always be, "How about you ASK me not to commit that assault, and give me the damn game?"
We live in a violent world. Eliminating violence from art and media will not make the real-life violence go away. It will only make it easier for us to sweep it under the rug and pretend it isn't happening to other people. Violence is a part of our nature. For some people, violence is how they feed their family. For others, it is how they protect their homes from marauders. For yet others, it is how they win freedom from oppressors. There are also those who use violence to act out anger, steal from the weak, and oppress the helpless. There are entire nations and cultures that are almost continually at war, including the ancestors of our own.
We did not create this relatively-peaceful society in which we now live by eliminating violent expression and play. We did it by teaching strong moral values, by effective consensual government, by good law enforcement, and by offering people a better life than they otherwise had. And they took it, by choice, freely, because they knew it was better. Not because their experience was so limited by censorship that they thought it was the only choice to make.
We don't make better humans by limiting their knowledge and experience, or by sanitizing their environment. We make better humans by expanding their knowledge and giving them the tools to understand their experiences. Teaching is harder than censorship, but unlike censorship, it can actually work from time to time.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
"A Rat named Dog", I agree with you in every way. Censorship never solves anything. IMHO, it only raises curiosity to get and try the censored thing. To teach is sure harder than to prohibit but, as a teacher, I say that young (and even older) people usually prefer to learn the pros and cons about something than having it denied to them.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:While I don't think video game makers are to blame, it seems like common sense to me that exposure to and mainstream acceptance of violence would definitely lead to more real life violence.
... I think having condoms advertised as available at, say, a school, makes them and sex seem more accepted.
Now, in our society, I think there is a strong difference between violence and sex in the media and its effect on human behavior. You may imagine that someone playing a violent video game begins to think attacking people is an acceptable thing to do ... but the moment he tries it, there is a POLICEMAN there who tells him otherwise.
Sex is a little different, because we have worked so hard over the past several decades to remove every social consequence of every sexual behavior short of rape. If the media encourages a young man to think that it's healthy to screw around with a different girl every night, and pursue sex like it's the holy grail, and he goes out to try it ... there is NO ONE THERE so say wait a second. Stop this. If anything, if he gets himself in trouble, there will be people lining up around the block to tell him nothing he did was wrong.
From my perspective, it isn't the media that teaches people what behavior is or is not acceptable. It's the real life social consequences of their actions.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
What I meant by "I havn't seen" was that I havn't neccessarily searched for information one way or another, instead I only counted stuff that came my way of its own volition. I read Science News, sometimes Scientific American, and a few other science magazines, and I hadn't noted any studies making the link. Basically any article I see in Newsweek or in a newspaper, or other Infotainment sources I discard, since, like the article that started this thread, they're mostly sensationalistic.
Are my arguments based on belief alone? No. I just don't spend my time looking into every position I have, just as I'm sure you don't.
The study quoted above hardly does it for me. The study was with a small subject group and doesn't produce anything more than qualitative data. "Seemed" and "Observed to be" doesn't cut it for me. I want charts showing an increase in measurable violent behavior (transgressions of the law, etc.) in a larger study.
The study I read (and attempted to cite above) showed concrete brain analysis and quantitative studies. Also, a quick google search of my own turned up a counterarticle: http://www.hfienberg.com/clips/vidgames2.htm
Disclaimer: I've never heard of the guy, so I don't know how credible he is. Like I said, I don't keep up on this issue, since it only frustrates me.
That said, I think violent video games have some effect on people, but I think it's impossible to say that violent video games imply violent behavior. It's more possible to say that having violent behavior implies playing violent video games.
EDIT: Goeff explains things perfectly, as usual. :-) Go two posts up. ^
[ July 30, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
quote:Now, in our society, I think there is a strong difference between violence and sex in the media and its effect on human behavior. You may imagine that someone playing a violent video game begins to think attacking people is an acceptable thing to do ... but the moment he tries it, there is a POLICEMAN there who tells him otherwise.
Obviously they're different. The two halves of my quote were addressing different questions.
But while the two circumstances may vary by degree, I don't think there's any denying that making violence mainstream is going to increase its occurence.
But I definitely don't think it should be banned. Not any more than sex, alcohol, or rated "R" movies. That doesn't mean I think it's not doing any harm.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If i ever feel the need to kill someone, I'd probably vent my anger into one of those "violent" games. Instead of actually killing people, I could kill people on the video game and pretend it is the person I am angry with. Counterstrike for instance, It's an online game, so its even better for venting anger. Destroy other peoples fun by killing their characters!!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't think that would help me. When I play FPS games, it's just a tactical game to me. It doesn't feel violent at all.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Last night my 8-year old son and I enjoyed a nice game of Unreal Tournament 2004: Assault with the City Ruins map. I remarked to him that after a successful assault and then having to defend on the same map, that I had racked up 133 frags in the defense alone. He looked up at me and beamed with pride, notching 54 of his own.
For me, that was more rewarding than fielding sac flys in the backyard.
I was always turned off by Joe Lieberman's anti-video game politics. That is why I laughed like a madman when one of the video game mags had a parody called:
The Sims: The Liebermans.
The irony of this demands that someone must make this mod!
[ August 08, 2004, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
aspectre, I've seen that last article and I thought it was a bit funny that they mention only the XBox in the title, then go on and say that some clothes were stolen too. And it doesn't say the motives of the three participants other than the owner of the XBox. (they might not know them yet, but it's still strange...) Well, just another example on how to get a perfect story out of imperfect facts...
More on the topic: I've had some very entertaining days of playing First Person Shooters with my friends. And that didn't make us any more violent. In fact, our group was mainly formed of the calmest, most equilibrated persons in real life. Maybe we had our share of violent emotions while playing the games. But it doesn't seem like that. We played them FOR FUN ! I wouldn't have wanted those games to be taken away from me. I'd have acted really violent...
When/if I'm angry with someone/something I cannot concentrate. If I played a violent computer game, I wouldn't be able to aim or move properly, and that would only increase my anger. That's not the way to get rid of it, in my opinion.
I haven't written the above in order to validate/invalidate anything. Just to give you another point of view from which to look at the violence in video-games.
Posted by lunox (Member # 6758) on :
Video games are huge right now, but it's pretty stupid for everyone to clame them. Yeah, there isn't an OUNCE of violence or sex in today's movies and media...Totally sex and violence-free, our entertainment is.
But what really quirks me is when parents complain of kids getting more violent because of their videogames or whatever...and these games have like Mature or Teen ratings! They don't even bother to check and suppose that a 'Need-to-get-this-video-game-no-matter-what' seven-year-old's judgement is perfectly fine to trust. I bet there are tons of little kids playing Teen/Mature titles games and having a blast while blowing up everyone's guts.
Admittadly I do that, but at least I'm old enough. It's a good way for older people to have fun and release stress, but when little kiddies are running around getting prostitutes to go into rooms with them and spilling everyone's guts, it's not so good.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
It's time that video game developers took responsibility for the devastating violent effects of Solitaire!
This is actually a really, really tragic story, a horrible waste ... but I'm surprised this isn't being called the "Freecell Suicides" in the same vein as the "XBox Murders" and "Death by Playstation" ...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
</sarcasm>
![[Wink]](wink.gif)