quote:The real intent of the M rating seems to be to keep 17-year-olds from seeing in-game breasts for one more year. Until the GTA:SA "Hot Coffee" fiasco, the AO rating was essentially reserved for pornographic games. In other words, there is no video game equivalent of the movies' R rating.
twink, I don't understand your concern. It seems to me that the M rating is more strict than the R rating because it is tougher on nudity while functioning about the same in terms of violence. (Have you seen an R-rated zombie movie lately? Sure, video games have higher body counts, but they are also ten times longer and more repetitive than movies. That doesn't make them "more" gorey.)
Meanwhile, the AO rating is more strict than the NC-17 rating because it requires customers to be a year older to purchase less disturbing material. Honestly, the most disturbing violence I've ever seen in a game (Manhunt) is nothing compared to some of the hideous live-action movies out there that kids can watch if they want to. I've also never been aware of a game that earned an AO for violence, honestly ... which is in part because most games mitigate the violence by pitting you against enemies who are non-human, unrealistic, faceless, and/or repetitive. Compared with some horror movies that get you intensely involved with a character, and then slowly, brutally, mutilate them to death.
The intent of the M rating, obviously, is to draw a line between games that the ESRB thinks parents will be comfortable with their teenagers purchasing on their own, and games that they think parents would want to more tightly control. Judgments are made on a game-by-game basis, and it is virtually impossible, under those circumstances, to come across as completely "consistent". I mean seriously, how do you do that, without at least one M rated game ending up looking milder than some T rated game.
And since when have movie ratings been considered completely consistent with regards to the line between PG-13 and R?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a reason the PG-13 label was criticized, too. It's a bit of a cop-out.
Of course, I personally think all ratings systems are pretty much inherently flawed, but that's just me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. None at all, and let the store vendors decide whether they're going to sell a given game to a given child.
Ratings WOULD be informative, but the problem they've got is that by having ratings at all they present the impression of accuracy and some sort of legal promise of content -- something that, with moddable games and widely varying standards, is pretty much impossible to guarantee.
So I'd reassure store owners that they have the freedom to not sell a product to a minor if they don't want to. And let parents who're unhappy with the sale complain to the store, rather than the publisher.
This would not eliminate the core problem that ratings currently fail to "satisfactorily" address -- namely, that some people enjoy media other people consider inappropriate -- but it WOULD eliminate other ancillary problems. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, personally, hate rating systems. They judge people by their age, not their maturity. I've seen preview for 'R' movies, some don't look that bad (as in violence and sexual content) and I'd like to see them. But they're rated 'R' I can't go to the theater to see them unless I'm with a parent, which will never happen. A few times I've watched a movie without looking at the rating. My DAD watched them with me. They were rated 'R' and were thought it was 'PG-13'! I can understand people not wanting a 3 year old watching something like 'Kill Bill', but that should be up to the parent, not the people who rate it. (The name currently escapse me) I find it annoying that movies like 'Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events' is given a higher rating for 'Thematic Elements'. I just don't like any of the rating systems. (Or anything that requires a certian age)
Posts: 1164 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Raise your hand if you were raised watching Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner cartoons?
No violence there.
No sex either. Except when Bugs is getting up in drag and kissing other guys.
Remember though that the violence in Looney Toons was slightly modified by the fact that no matter how much they were hurt, they never drew blood and nobody died.
The Looney Toons were fine just seconds after being blown up with TNT, it made us think they werent hurt that bad so we could focus on how funny the violence was.
As for Bugs Bunny in Drag. Well yes he did kiss other guys while dressed in womens clothing. But I wouldnt say that was a common thing for the character. Often it was the result of the neccesity of a female character (For example when they parodied "Wagners Ride of the Valkyrie." A lack of a female Looney Toon I suppose neccesitated Bugs Bunny to take the role on himself.
I know that sounds like a silly thing but in reality if the Looney Toons reacted to the abuse they were put through realistically it really would have been a different ball game, err cartoon.
Tom and Jerry to me pushed the envelope just alittle further. Then the Simpsons came along with Itchy and Scratchy and parodied basically what taking the format to excess would do.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:None at all, and let the store vendors decide whether they're going to sell a given game to a given child.
Chaos. Who knew Tom was an anarchist?
I mean, can you imagine the HUGE corporate policy document Wal-mart would have to make to implement this? Today, they can just say, "We don't sell M-rated games to people under 17," or whatever.
In order to make this sort of thing useful, all employees would have to be familiar with all the games...
Practically, what you're suggestion does is make all games available to all people. I'm not terrified of the concept; but it doesn't make me happy.
This is kind of like sex-ed: parents aren't really doing the best job they could with teaching kids what's acceptable, proper, safe. So society has to throw the kids a few hints.
Except it's the reverse for video games: the ESRB functions to let parents know what is generally available within a child's appropriate-ness level.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, all employees SHOULD be familiar with the games they sell. Is that what you're saying?
I think this is possible in small gaming shops; part of the reason they exist is so gamers can go chat with someone who knows something about games.
But what about in Wal-Mart or Target, where there is a section where electronics are sold, but no employee that is knowlegeable about games?
I think your anarchist ideas are going to be squashed beneath the weight of capitalist America, and the need for unskilled, uninformed labor, Tom.
Additionally, I really don't trust other eight-year old's estimations on what makes for quality entertainment. By way of example, let me point out the ongoing existence of the Disney channel, and the devotion given to it by eight year old girls country wide.
EDIT: That last paragraph makes no sense. What I'm saying, I suppose, is that I trust an anonymous board of people organized under an acronym more than I trust Janie-the-check-out-girl.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
ARND, I think you somewhat missed my point. I'll try to explain.
First, I don't view the fact that M and AO are "more restrictive" than R and NC-17 as inherently positive. If I implied that, I certainly didn't intend to. As you noted, the only way in which the game ratings are "more restrictive" than the movie ratings is sexual content, and I'm not convinced that there shouldn't be in-game breasts in M-rated games.
As an aside, I'm not sure I agree that games classified as AO are necessarily "less disturbing" than movies classified NC-17, but maybe it's just that something about tentacle monster sex scenes really creeps me out.
With respect to the ESRB ratings system, I don't think there's much point to having separate M and AO ratings if the only distinctions between them are one year of elapsed time and breasts. It's obvious that essentially no games are going to get an AO rating on account of violence, given what you can find in M. My major problems with the rating system, then, are (1) the blatant double standard in the treatment of violence and sex, respectively, and (2) the failure of the ESRB to apply its own definitions in rating games. Games that would be AO if the ESRB actually rated games in accordance with its own definitions -- like RE4 and Killer7 -- all wind up with M ratings.
The AO rating should be amended to reflect how the rating is actually applied -- otherwise, what's the point of having a rating system at all? Really, what they should do is move the "intense violence" stuff into M, since that's how they actually rate the games in practice. That would make it more clear that the only thing that's going to garner you an AO is nudity. Then we can get into the question of whether any nudity should be allowed in M-rated games...
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just played through a game called Indigo Prophecy". It's rated 'M' for- let's see here- "Blood, Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Strong Language, Use of Drugs and Alcohol, Violence"
(Actually, the only drugs in the game are prescription painkillers, taken by the person prescribed to, and if you take then with alcohol you die. But I digress.)
As far as I can tell, the game got the "M" rating and the "Partial Nudity" descriptor based on that, while sex and nudity comparable to an "R" rated movie exist, the female textures have no nipples.
I'd tend to agree that the ratings system for games, while better than nothing, tends to be a bit perverse. Consider that the "T" rated Command & Conquer games allow one to roll tanks over people to kill them, or drop a nuclear weapon and cause dozens of people to burst into flames and fall down screaming. Or that many "T" rated first-person shooters are virtually identical to their "M" rated kin in body count, but the "T" games present the results of shooting someone as bloodless.
So, you can have violence or sex, as long as it's not remotely realistic. This is a service? Frankly, I think a game that presents killing as something with *consequences* ought to receive more consideration.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I just played through a game called Indigo Prophecy". It's rated 'M' for- let's see here- "Blood, Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Strong Language, Use of Drugs and Alcohol, Violence"
(Actually, the only drugs in the game are prescription painkillers, taken by the person prescribed to, and if you take then with alcohol you die. But I digress.)
As far as I can tell, the game got the "M" rating and the "Partial Nudity" descriptor based on that, while sex and nudity comparable to an "R" rated movie exist, the female textures have no nipples.
I'd tend to agree that the ratings system for games, while better than nothing, tends to be a bit perverse. Consider that the "T" rated Command & Conquer games allow one to roll tanks over people to kill them, or drop a nuclear weapon and cause dozens of people to burst into flames and fall down screaming. Or that many "T" rated first-person shooters are virtually identical to their "M" rated kin in body count, but the "T" games present the results of shooting someone as bloodless.
So, you can have violence or sex, as long as it's not remotely realistic. This is a service? Frankly, I think a game that presents killing as something with *consequences* ought to receive more consideration.
By that logic a movie such as Titanic should not have been fighting for a PG13 rating in spite of showing nudity, but instead should have gotten a cool PG rating for being up and front about nudity in art. Heck to bring it to the point of craziness, if they had depicted the sex scene afterwards more graphically, it should have gotten even more reduced ratings because lets face it, the movie makers were trying to be more honest and accurate as to what a relationship between a man and a woman really is.
Censors are not trying to hide reality from children. Lets say you lived in a large metropolitan city and you found out one of your next door neighbors was a convicted murderer. That your other neighbor was an active crack dealer, and that the fire codes in your apartment was not up to snuff on regulations. Would you keep you and your family there because lets face it thats the reality some people live in?
Children are not always ready to face the harsh cold mess that reality can sometimes be. Often we try to subject them only to the positive in life rather then making them aware of the negative. There is nothing wrong with trying to carefully expose your children to a more and more mature environment. Every child is different and every parent has the right to do what they think is best for their child. There is nothing wrong with expecting movie and gaming companies to provide guidelines that parents can use to at least get an "Idea" as to what they can expect if they and their child view a particular movie.
If you were raised in a household where your parents were very controlling and made you say "pee pee" intead of "piss." well sorry, when you are 18 you can throw off those shackles and go do WHATEVER you have always wanted to do. Nobody is stopping you, except your parents maybe if you insist on living under the same roof as them.
Rating systems are not perfect, but no system ever will please everyone of that I am convinced. So use your own inteligence as to what you think is right and proper in your own life and in the lives of the children you have responsibily over.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rating systems are not perfect, but no system ever will please everyone of that I am convinced. So use your own inteligence as to what you think is right and proper in your own life and in the lives of the children you have responsibily over.
Which is an excellent argument against a rating system.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rating systems are not perfect, but no system ever will please everyone of that I am convinced. So use your own inteligence as to what you think is right and proper in your own life and in the lives of the children you have responsibily over.
Which is an excellent argument against a rating system.
I do not think it is. Not everyone was completely happy with the constitution that became the foundation of government for this country (The US). Almost nobody has been perfectly happy with it ever since. And yet we put up with it. It still serves a useful purpose.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My major problems with the rating system, then, are (1) the blatant double standard in the treatment of violence and sex ...
I don't think there is necessarily something wrong with having a double standard for things that are actually inherently different. Humans perceive and react to violence and sex in markedly different ways.
I've got a huge rant about this stored away in my head that I don't have time to type now [EDIT: Or maybe I do], but consider this. There is a reason why there is a huge market for hardcore sexual pornography, while there is much less of a market for "Faces of Death". The instinctive human reaction to convincing violent imagery is very different from the instinctive human reaction to convincing sexual imagery.
A shark, for example, becomes aroused and flies into a rage when he experiences violent "imagery" (in its case, the scent of blood). If sharks created art, then violent art that smelled like blood would be considered much more dangerous than sexual art, and would need to be tightly controlled to keep sharks civilized.
Humans, on the other hand, have a different reaction to violence. We get pumped with adrenaline when we see certain types of violence (and revulsion when we see others), but either way, our instincts aren't predatory. We don't develop a desire to murder and devour other people. Adrenaline just makes us want to move fast, experience thrills, and do "cool" things, from skateboarding to riding a rollercoaster to driving too fast. So for us, violent art is far less dangerous than it would be for a hypothetical society of sharks. It isn't the mere presence of violence that makes something "bad" for us, but rather the social context and presentation of that violence. Violent imagery, for normal humans, doesn't function like a drug.
Note that most people gravitate towards violence that "looks cool" — car chases with explosions, martial arts with wire work, two-fisted slow-motion gunslinging. In those cases, it's not the "killing people" aspect of the scene that makes it cool. It's the choreography, the drama, the sense of jeopardy, the overcoming of terrifying odds.
Sexual imagery, however, does have a more shark-like, drug-like effect on humans. It triggers chemical and emotional responses that cut very deeply and promote compulsive behavior. People become addicted to pornography much more easily than they become addicted to violence, or even thrills, and the wrong kind or amount of sexual experience at the wrong age can warp someone's sexual development.
Does that mean that the system should function exactly as it does now? Maybe, maybe not. My point is that violence and sex are not equivalent, and it does not make sense to enforce some kind of "equivalency" between two forms of imagery that are inherently not equivalent.
EDIT: Actually, when people truly do consider violence and sex to be equivalent, we call those people "rapists", and lock them away for a long time Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, regarding blood, I think that given the visceral reaction some humans experience at the sight of blood, it is safe to say that there is something actually different about watching a human bleed, versus watching him fall down.
Honestly, I think that decades of non-gorey violent films have established a convention in our culture.
Human falls down bleeding = dead human. Human falls down not bleeding = actor, not dead.
posted
Geoff, I'd be very interested in what sources you are basing your comparison of sex and violence on. It doesn't sound like an accurate description based on the literature I know.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll respond to the larger part of your post a little later, but I have a couple of quick comments. First, you only addressed one part of my post (and one part of the post before it). Do you have any issues with the stuff you didn't mention? [Added: You don't necessarily need to enumerate them, I'm just trying to establish areas of agreement.]
And, second:
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: My point is that violence and sex are not equivalent, and it does not make sense to enforce some kind of "equivalency" between two forms of imagery that are inherently not equivalent.
There's no way to devise a single rating system that accounts for both without drawing at least a measure of equivalence. The only way to address your criticism (insofar as I accept it; again, more on that later) would be to have two separate scales.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, I'm not a professional in the field of psychology, so I'm basing this mostly on being a human and observing my own and other humans' behavior. However, what I'm saying seems to be pretty common-sense stuff. If you have some counterexamples to share, please do so.
My main points are:
1. Humans react in different ways to violent and sexual imagery, and it is therefore difficult (in my opinion, impossible) to establish a one-to-one equivalency between them.
2. Humans react to entertaining violent imagery (combat in The Matrix, for instance) in a very similar way to how they react to non-violent exciting scenes (like the car chase in The French Connection). This is from personal experience and observations. (I'm defining "violence" in this case as "humans intentionally hurting other humans" and not "any situation in which harm to humans might result". Leaping across a gorge, for instance, would be considered a non-violent exciting scene. As would smashing a column and causing an unoccupied building to collapse.)
3. Sexual pornography functions as an addictive substance in a way that violent imagery does not. Again, this is based on anecdotal evidence.
posted
twink, I'm at work, so I'm having trouble responding comprehensively to everything in every post. Can we do one thing at a time for a bit?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not a problem at all, Puppy, I was just looking for a "yes" or "no" answer with that question. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:(2) the failure of the ESRB to apply its own definitions in rating games. Games that would be AO if the ESRB actually rated games in accordance with its own definitions -- like RE4 and Killer7 -- all wind up with M ratings.
I think you may be reading the ESRB's definitions in a way other than how they intended. Certainly, it is difficult to lay down language in these definitions that is simultaneously vague enough to avoid silly exercises like counting f-words and turning blood green, while remaining specific enough that it is impossible for people to read different interpretations into it. "Obviously this violence is 'prolonged' and so it should be AO! The ESRB is inconsistent!"
quote:There's no way to devise a single rating system that accounts for both without drawing at least a measure of equivalence. The only way to address your criticism (insofar as I accept it; again, more on that later) would be to have two separate scales.
I disagree. What we need (and what the ESRB is trying to provide) is a single system that represents as accurately as possible what most American parents would be comfortable letting their children autonomously expose themselves to at different ages. If that involves different standards for sex and violence, then that's completely fair. If it involves different standards than those used in other countries, then that is also fair. Germany, for instance, is far more restrictive of violence and Nazi symbolism, while France is much less restrictive of nudity. Which accurately reflects the most common attitudes of adults in those countries.
Actually, I guess what this means is, we have two parallel arguments going. One over the effectiveness of the ESRB in presenting good guidelines for concerned parents, and another over what those concerned parents should ideally be most concerned about
I personally think there should be much less hand-wringing about quantities of violence in video games, and much more about the social context of said violence. Shooting fantasy aliens, reenacting military conflicts, and pursuing criminals should belong in a whole different category from games that cast the player as a murderer or a gangster.
But that goes to the second argument, not the first.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: EDIT: Actually, when people truly do consider violence and sex to be equivalent, we call those people "rapists", and lock them away for a long time
From what I've read on the subject, addictive personalities are compulsively attracted to violence and sex for the same reasons- they trigger reward mechanisms in the brain which are tied up with human survival instincts. The addict personality, the alchoholic, the rapist, the serial killer, feels that he or she must drink, rape, or kill in order to survive. Its very much a similar process for all of them, but with very different results. This isn't to say they are all morally equivelant, but they are all similar in some ways.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
RE: studies, Squick, I could point to that study done recently that tested gamers for violent tendencies after playing Asheron's Call 2. The conclusion of that study was that the game had no effect, despite the fact that the players killed hundreds of monsters.
My personal conclusion? They had no reaction because Asheron's Call 2 is boring. In my opinion, it isn't the violence that makes the subjects of some competing studies exhibit increased "violent" feelings and behaviors after playing games. It's the adrenaline rush.
Here's a study I'd like to see:
Four groups of subjects play four different games.
Group 1 plays Hexic. An engaging, addictive game with completely abstract imagery that cannot be construed as violent. It is slow paced and causes no adrenaline rushes that I can detect.
Group 2 plays Asheron's Call 2. An incredibly boring game that depicts a lot of violent conflicts.
Group 3 plays Burnout 4. A very exciting, fast-paced game in which no living things are depicted, and the only "violence" is committed against unoccupied vehicles.
Group 4 plays Call of Duty. A very exciting, hair-raising game that is all about shooting people.
My expected results: In the short term, Groups 1 and 2 have similar reactions, and Groups 3 and 4 have similar reactions. Violent imagery is shown to be secondary to adrenaline-fueled excitement.
I would also like to see a long-term study that examines the short- and long-term effects of both violence and antisocial themes in games. Do the standard "violent feelings/behaviors" tests after each play session to determine the short-term effects, but also have participants watch and comment on the moral messages of movies after months of playing different kinds of games, and see if their tolerance for evil, anti-social behavior is affected in the long run by violent games with different themes.
My expected results: That the short-term effects are similar, but temporary, and that the antisocial games have long-term effects on attitudes that the non-antisocial games do not, regardless of the level of violence.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy- I know I'm not going to say this very well, so please bear with me. You say sex (pornography) is addictive, but violence is not. Could that just be because no one considers it to be? I know plenty of people who play hours of violent video games, and get cranky if they can't play for some reason. But their behavior, at least in my experience is just considered normal. Someone doing exactly the same thing with pornographic video games, on the other hand, would be considered addicted.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding the validity of equating sex with violence (that is, my perceived double standard):
I don't think that the addictive potential of sexual media is significantly greater than the addictive potential of video games. That is, I think the chance of someone becoming addicted to a video game is roughly equivalent to the chance of someone becoming addicted to pornography, once you control for the respective market sizes. I do feel that I can speak with at least some anecdotal authority on this subject, as I am a sometime consumer of both types of media and also have direct experience with addiction... but, like you, I don't have any supporting literature on hand, so keep that in mind.
A good case study is Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball, which has no redeeming features (I should know -- I've played it, and it's a terrible volleyball sim) and is clearly designed to sell entirely on the basis of titillation. Its sales numbers were certainly respectable, and I wouldn't suggest that sex has no appeal to the mass market, but you only have to compare its sales to those of the contemporaneous iteration of the Madden NFL franchise to see that sex in video games is not nearly as alluring as, well, whatever it is that makes people play Madden.
(I'm at least partly kidding, there, because multiplayer Madden is actually pretty fun.)
Also, I don't think anyone has ever spent so long looking at porn that they didn't eat or drink and consequently died; this has definitely happened with video games. Both porn and MMORPGs have destroyed relationships and lives, and I don't think you (the royal "you") could show that porn does this to a greater extent than games when you control for market size. So insofar as addictive potential is concerned, I definitely don't accept your argument.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: ...the wrong kind or amount of sexual experience at the wrong age can warp someone's sexual development.
This is tricky. What constitutes "wrong," or "warped," with respect to sexual development? I know that I certainly have some, ah, kinks... but I'd like to think that I wasn't warped by the path my sexual development took. I get what you're saying, which is that you think the potential for harm in the context of sexual media is greater than that of violent media, but I'm not convinced by your arguments so far.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I think you may be reading the ESRB's definitions in a way other than how they intended. Certainly, it is difficult to lay down language in these definitions that is simultaneously vague enough to avoid silly exercises like counting f-words and turning blood green, while remaining specific enough that it is impossible for people to read different interpretations into it.
I really have a very hard time parsing the rating descriptions in any way other than what I outlined in my big post on the first page. Given that a game has never, to my knowledge, been rated AO for "prolonged intense violence," I have to wonder exactly what constutitutes the same. If nothing else, the wording should at least reflect the practice. I don't think that the wording needs to be (or can be, as you say) "perfect," but I do think that the current state of affairs, particulary with respect to M and AO, is suboptimal.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: What we need (and what the ESRB is trying to provide) is a single system that represents as accurately as possible what most American parents would be comfortable letting their children autonomously expose themselves to at different ages.
The ratings are also used outside the U.S., which I actually think is somewhat problematic -- their application certainly does appear to be based on the values of Americans. That makes sense, of course, since the ESRB uses American reviewers to determine its ratings. I would definitely prefer it if we had our own review board here in Canada, for example, but as it is we use the ESRB ratings. In fact, as I've mentioned, in some of our provinces the ESRB ratings carry legal weight.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I personally think there should be much less hand-wringing about quantities of violence in video games, and much more about the social context of said violence. Shooting fantasy aliens, reenacting military conflicts, and pursuing criminals should belong in a whole different category from games that cast the player as a murderer or a gangster.
I'm not so much wringing my hands about the amount of violence as I am pointing out that the ESRB is not applying its own standards. I can't think of any metric by which the wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings in Resident Evil 4 -- all in the name of rescuing the President's daughter, mind you -- could be considered anything but "prolonged and intense."
That said, I agree that the people doing the rating should consider context. To some extent, I think they do -- compare the T rating of the Call of Duty games with the M/AO rating of the Grand Theft Auto 3 series, for instance. I think that the violence in the CoD games is much more realistic, despite being essentially bloodless, simply because the graphics are way better. However, there's give and take here. In Condemned, for example, the player begins as a police officer pursuing a serial killer by investigating crime scenes, but the scenes and the violence in the game are both graphic and (to me, at least) highly disturbing. I downloaded the demo from the Xbox Live Arcade and could only handle about ten minutes of it, despite some 20 hours of Resident Evil 4. I feel similarly about the Silent Hill games, actually.
But yes, I agree with the gist of what you're saying there. Context is definitely a factor.
One final thing: the area about which I think there is entirely too much hand-wringing is actually sex. I don't think the PC version of Oblivion should have been re-rated to M, for example, and I don't think Giants should have had to be patched to stay at M.
Added: You know, having said all of that, I don't think we disagree about all that much in terms of substance -- you just seem to like the current wording of the ESRB ratings a bit more than I do. The balance of our disagreements seem to be comparatively minor (that is, the relative weight of sex and violence in the rating scheme).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Puppy- I know I'm not going to say this very well, so please bear with me. You say sex (pornography) is addictive, but violence is not. Could that just be because no one considers it to be? I know plenty of people who play hours of violent video games, and get cranky if they can't play for some reason. But their behavior, at least in my experience is just considered normal. Someone doing exactly the same thing with pornographic video games, on the other hand, would be considered addicted.
I personally doubt, for reasons cited above, that it is the violent imagery that makes violent video games addictive. I don't see them to be any more addictive than non-violent games, in which case, it is the "game" part of the equation that is addictive, and not the "violent" part.
I also haven't seen any evidence that people on the whole are particularly prone to becoming addicted to violent movies the way the become addicted to sexually pornographic movies.
EDITED to make it clear that I'm talking to blackwolve.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
twink, I've got no time, but I wanted to clear up a misinterpretation. The addiction discussion has spun off in a direction I didn't intend. I wasn't trying to say that porn is bad because it is addictive, or that video games are not addictive.
I know video games are addictive. My point was that violent imagery and sexual imagery, regardless of the delivery system (ie, video games are irrelevant here) show widely varying degrees of addictiveness, which indicates to me that they are perceived differently by the human psyche.
I suspect that way more people become tense on the way home from work because they are really anxious to get on the internet and see some boobs ... while very few have the same anxiety about going home to see some blood and guts.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All your statements about people becoming addicted to pornographic movies, Puppy, I've known plenty of people who view porn and have never personally known anyone who became addicted to it. I have certainly heard of it happening, but never to anyone I know or even know of. I don't believe porn is an inherently addictive thing.
As for violence, an ex-boyfriend of mine 5 or so years ago played Counterstrike rather extensively, in waves. He defaulted to it between other games. He always played on the side of the "good guys."
His neighbors called the police on him more than once (different neighbors each time) because they thought there was domestic violence going on, when really he was just yelling at the computer and pounding his fist on his desk, in anger at the game or frustration at someone else he was playing with. When he was playing Counterstrike instead of a non-violent game, I noticed a clear difference in his driving habits. He was much more aggressive driving, got mad at other drivers more easily (for getting "in his way" or tailgating, or just plain driving in a way he thought was stupid) and I frankly was a lot less comfortable as a passenger in his car. There is no doubt in my mind that it was a direct result of spending hours submerged in a violent game.
One example only, of course, and probably an extreme one. But since no one seems to be quoting actual studies or statistics in this thread, I think it's just as valid as your observations of human behavior. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. To clarify, the argument I was trying to make is that adding sexual content to video games does not significantly enhance their addictiveness, and therefore that the furor over breasts in video games is unwarranted.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I guess my response would be that the addictiveness of sexual imagery is not the reason to exclude it from video games aimed at children and teenagers. I only introduced the "addictiveness" factor as evidence that sexual imagery is processed differently from violent imagery. The addictiveness alone isn't the reason to exclude it.
The potential for immature players to develop unhealthy psychological issues and attitudes through unfiltered exposure to sex is, I think, what most parents worry about.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You haven't supported your assertion that it's addictive on a wide scale, though. It's addictive because you say it is doesn't work for me, especially since this supposed pernicious addictive nature of sexual (or merely naked) imagery is not supported by the literature.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The potential for immature players to develop unhealthy psychological issues and attitudes through unfiltered exposure to sex is, I think, what most parents worry about.
The people who study this issue, such as the AMA, APA, and AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) are a deal more concerned with the violence.
A lot of the stuff we're talking about is not so much graphic depictions of sex as it is simple nudity. And, other than teenage boys finding it sexually arousing (assuming you find that objectionable), there doesn't seem to be all that much psychologically damaging about that. The bare breast doesn't have anywhere near the power the hysterical response to it seems to suggest. People exposed to nudity don't, in large part, become addicted to it.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: The potential for immature players to develop unhealthy psychological issues and attitudes through unfiltered exposure to sex is, I think, what most parents worry about.
As MrSquicky says, if that's their concern, I think they should at the very least be equally concerned about violence. So as far as that goes, I think equation of the two for the purposes of constructing a rating system is entirely valid. I also think that the current rating scheme is too restrictive with respect to sex and too permissive with respect to violence. If I were to rework the rating system myself, the last few tiers would go something like:
T -- 13 and up, animated or cartoon-style "unrealistic" violence. e.g. WarCraft III. Romantic relationships can be depicted but sex can't. [Edit: Oblivion would not go here.]
M -- 16 and up, realistic (but not graphic) violence. e.g. Call of Duty. Partial nudity (that is, breasts) is allowed. The unpatched version of Giants: Citizen Kabuto would get this rating, [as would Oblivion].
AO -- 18 and up, realistic and/or graphic violence. e.g. Resident Evil 4, Killer7. Nudity is allowed roughly to the level of an R-rated movie.
X -- For lack of a better letter. Also 18 and up, but this rating would be reserved for pornographic or sickeningly violent games (Japanese hentai would belong here).
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Puppy- I know I'm not going to say this very well, so please bear with me. You say sex (pornography) is addictive, but violence is not. Could that just be because no one considers it to be? I know plenty of people who play hours of violent video games, and get cranky if they can't play for some reason. But their behavior, at least in my experience is just considered normal. Someone doing exactly the same thing with pornographic video games, on the other hand, would be considered addicted.
Off course that person is considered addicted. Tetris, Spider solitaire anyone?
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being addicted to Pornography is actually a considered a disease, the way being addicted to gambling or alcohol is. There aren't any support groups for people addicted to Tetris or Spider Solitare.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being addicted to Pornography is actually a considered a disease, the way being addicted to gambling or alcohol is.
That's not necessarily true. Outside of chemical dependencies, just what constitutes "addiction" and what the ultimate focus is of addictions is still being debated. "Porn Addiction" as a thing all on it's own separated from the general class of addictions and the addictive personality is by no means universally accepted.
For that matter, while specific video games (excepting EverQuest and the like) may not have well-defined support groups or treatments aimed towards then, generalized "Video Game Addiction" does have these things.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, the problem with broad statements like the one you linked is the fact that they don't allow me to examine the methodology or the specific findings of the studies. They just assert a broad opinion that I can either accept or reject with no supporting evidence for either decision beyond inherent trust or distrust of the statement's writers. I could say, "Well, they're a lot of scientists; they MUST be right," but somehow, that would feel really irresponsible to me.
As someone who works in this field and actually creates this entertainment, I'd like to understand how these conclusions are being reached, what methods are being used, what assumptions are being made, etc.
Have any studies compared violent play assisted by video games to older forms of violent play like cops-and-robbers, wrestling, and football, to compare their effects on children's dispositions?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And by the way, I'm not saying that media has no effect on children or adults. That would be silly. If it had no effect, it wouldn't be worth making. But I do suspect that the effects of violent video games, as opposed to other media and other forms of play, are generally overstated.
I am also generally of the opinion that sheltering children from easy targets like violence and nudity is an simple way to bypass the more difficult but more important task of actually raising them to understand violence and sex in a healthy sort of way.
By the way, Squick, in studies that try to detect the effects of exposure to media violence versus exposure to media sex, how do the people running the study detect or define "unhealthy" effects? How does one define an "unhealthy" sexual attitude or appetite these days? Versus an "unhealthy" violent behavior?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: That is, I think the chance of someone becoming addicted to a video game is roughly equivalent to the chance of someone becoming addicted to pornography, once you control for the respective market sizes.
That' silly, the markets are different sizes for a reason right? You can't eliminate market size in this case, especially since the pornography market is so vastly bigger than that of video games.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thompson highlighted alleged cases of soft ratings by the ESRB, claiming that 60% of games rated "E for Everyone" reward violent actions.
Life rewards for violent actions too. Ever hear of dog eat dog? (not a pun directed at Puppy/Rat named Dog...)
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Squick, the problem with broad statements like the one you linked is the fact that they don't allow me to examine the methodology or the specific findings of the studies. They just assert a broad opinion that I can either accept or reject with no supporting evidence for either decision beyond inherent trust or distrust of the statement's writers.
I understand and empathize with your desire for more concrete information, but keep in mind that this -- asserting a broad opinion that others can either accept or reject -- is exactly what both of us have been doing in this discussion so far.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: That' silly, the markets are different sizes for a reason right? You can't eliminate market size in this case, especially since the pornography market is so vastly bigger than that of video games.
How else are you going to determine addiction rates? You can't compare two numbers that weren't generated using the same basis.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you want references? Here;s the reference section from the APA resolution on it:
quote:American Psychological Association. (1993). Violence and Youth: Psychology’s response: Vol 1: Summary Report of the American Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth. Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association, Advertising Council, & National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2002). Adults and Children Together [ACT] Against Violence Campaign. American Psychological Association Task Force on Television and Society. (1992). Report on televised violence. Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, C.A. (2000). Violent video games increase aggression and violence. U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Hearing on "The Impact of Interactive Violence on Children." Tuesday, March 21, 2000. Hearing Chaired by Senator Sam Brownback, Kansas. Anderson, C.A. (2002a). FAQs on violent video games and other media violence. Small Screen, 179-180, September & October issues. Anderson, C.A., (2002b). Violent video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Chapter in S. L. Calvert, A. B. Jordan, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.). Children in the digital age, (pp. 101-119). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Anderson, C.A., & Bushman, B.J. (2002). The effects of media violence on society. Science, 295, 2377-2378. Anderson, C.A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., Valentine, J. C. (2004). Violent Video Games: Specific Effects of Violent Content on Aggressive Thoughts and Behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 199-249. Anderson, C.A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772-790. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill. Boland, M. (2001, December 17). Left in the dust: Oz distrib defies vidgame restriction. Variety, 385, p. 7. Booth, L. (2001, November 26). Do you enjoy showering with men and picking on sissies? Join the military. New Statesman, p. 83. Braun, C., & Giroux, J. (1989). Arcade video games: Proxemic, cognitive and content analyses. Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 92-105. Brown, J.A. ( 2001).Media literacy and critical television viewing in education. In D.G. Singer & J.L. Singer (Eds.). Handbook of children and the media, (681-697) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Buchman, D.D., & Funk, J.B. (1996). Video and computer games in the '90s: Children's time commitment & game preference. Children Today, 24(1), 12-15, 31. Bushman, B.J., & Anderson, C.A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477-489. Bushman, B.J., & Anderson, C.A. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of the general aggression model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679-1686. Bushman, B. J., & Cantor J. (2003). Media ratings for violence and sex: Implications for policymakers and parents. American Psychologist, 58(2), 130-141. Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.). Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223-254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Calvert, S. L., Jordan, A. B., Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2002). Children in the digital age: Influences of electronic media on development. Westport, CT: Praeger Carll, E. K. (1999a). Effects of exposure to violence in interactive video games on children. New York State Senate Hearings, Senate Majority Task Force on Youth Violence and the Entertainment Industry Hearing on “Video Game Violence: Fun and Games or Deadly Serious?” October 6, 1999 & November 23, 1999. Hearings chaired by Senator Michael A. L. Balboni. Carll, E. K. (1999b). Violence in our lives: Impact on workplace, home, and community. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Carll, E. K. (2003). New media technologies and social change in the 21st century: Psychology’s role. Symposium, New media technologies, psychology, and social change, Carll, E. K., chair. American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Toronto, Canada. Dietz, T. L. (1998). An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in video games: Implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior. Sex Roles, 38, 425-442. Dill, K.E., & Dill, J.C. (2004). Video game violence exposure correlated with rape myth acceptance and attitudes towards women. Unpublished manuscript. Dill, K. E., Gentile, D. A., Richter, W. A., & Dill, J. C. (in press). Violence, sex, race and age in popular video games: A content analysis. In E. Cole and J. Henderson Daniel (Eds.), Featuring females: Feminist analyses of the media. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Donnerstein, E., & Malamuth, N. (1997). Pornography: Its consequences on the observer. In Schlesinger, L. B. and Revitch, E. (Eds.) Sexual dynamics of antisocial behavior. Pp. 30-49. Emes, C.E., Is Mr. Pac Man eating our children?. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, May 1997; 42(4):409-14. Eron, L.D., Huesmann, L.R., Lefkowitz, M.M., & Walder, L.O. (1972). Does T.V. violence cause aggression? American Psychologist, 27, 153-263. Eron, L.E., Gentry, J.H., & Shlagel, P., (Eds.). (1994). Reason to hope: A psychological perspective on violence and youth. Washington: American Psychological Association. Fisher, S. (1995). The amusement arcade as a social space for adolescents: An empirical study. Journal of Adolescence, 18(1), 71-86. FTC, (2000). Marketing violent entertainment to children: A review of self-regulation and industry practices in the motion picture, music recording, & electronic game industries. Report of the Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission. Available online: www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/. Funk, J.B., & Buchman, D.D. (1996). Playing violent video and computer games and adolescent self-concept. Journal of Communication, 46(2), 19-32. Eron, L.E., Gentry, J.H., & Shlagel, P., (Eds.). (1994). Reason to hope: A psychological perspective on violence and youth. Washington: American Psychological Association. Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent aggressive attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 5-22. Golde, J. A., Strassberg, D.S., Turner, C. M., & Lowe, K. (2000). Attitudinal effects of degrading themes and sexual explicitness in video materials, Sexual Abuse, 12, 223-231. Herbert, B. (2002, November 28). The gift of mayhem. The New York Times. p. A35. Hobbs, R. & Frost, R. (2003). Measuring the acquisition of media-literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 38,( 3), 330-355. Hortin, J.A. (1982). Innovative approaches to using media in the classroom. Educational Technology, 22(5), 18-19. Huesmann, L. R., Moise, J., Podolski, C. P. (1997). The effects of media violence on the development of antisocial behavior. In Stoff, D. M., Breiling, J., et al. (Eds.) Handbook of antisocial behavior, (pp. 181-193). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Huesmann, L. R., Moise, J., Podolski, C. P., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal relations between children's exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977-1992, Developmental Psychology. 39(2), 201-221. Huntemann, N. (executive producer and director). (2000). Game over: Gender, race and violence in video games. [video]. (Available from the Media Education Foundation, 26 Center Street, Northampton, MA 01060) Huston, A., Donnerstein, E., et al. (1992). Big world, small screen. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Jhally, S. (executive producer and director). (1994). The killing screens: Media and the culture of violence. [Video]. (Available from the Media Education Foundation, 26 Center Street, Northampton, MA 01060) Kirsh, S.J. (1998). Seeing the world through "Mortal Kombat" colored glasses: Violent video games and hostile attribution bias. Childhood, 5(2), 177-184. Komaya, M. (2003). Media literacy for Japanese third graders (No.132, ISSN 1346-8618, pp.45-60). Tokyo: National Institute for Educational Policy Research. Lanis, K. & Covell, K. (1995). Images of women in advertisements: Effects on attitudes related to sexual aggression, Sex Roles, 32, 639-649. Linz, D., & Donnerstein, E. (1989). The effects of counter-information on the acceptance of rape myths. In Zillman, D., & Bryant, J. (Eds.) Pornography: Research advances and policy considerations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 259-288. Linz, D., Wilson, B. J., & Donnerstein, E. (1992). Sexual violence in the mass media: Legal solutions, warnings, and mitigation through education. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 145-171. Knapp, D. (1996, October 16). Adolescent males blamed for violent gaming trend. Retrieved January 16, 2003 from http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9610/16/video.games/ Marriott, M. (2002, November 7). Game formula is adding sex to the mix. The New York Times. p. G1. Mulac, A., Jansma, L. L., & Linz, D. G. (2002). Men's behavior toward women after viewing sexually-explicit films: Degradation makes a difference. Communication Monographs, 69, 311-328. National Television Violence Study (1996). Mediascope: Studio City, CA. Phillips, C.A., Rolls, S., Rouse, A., & Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Home video game playing in school children: A study of incidence and patterns of play. Journal of Adolescence, 18(6), 687-691. Potter, W. J. (1999). On media violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Reid, P., & Finchilescu, G. (1995). The disempowering effects of media violence against women on college women, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 397-411. Robinson, T.N., Wilde, M.L., Navracruz, L.C., Haydel, K.F., & Varady, A. (2001). Effects of reducing children’s television and video game use on aggressive behavior: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 155, 17-23. Rosenkoetter, L.J., Rosenkoetter, S.E., Ozretich, R.A., & Acock, A.C. (2004). Mitigating the harmful effects of violent television. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 25-47. Ryan, J., & Wentworth, W. M. (1999). Media and Society, Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Singer, D.G. & Singer, J.L. (1994). Creating critical viewers; a partnership between schools and television professionals. New York: National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Denver, CO: Pacific Mountain Network. Singer, D.G. & Singer, J.L. (1998). Developing critical viewing skills and media literacy in children. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 557, (164-179). Singer, D.G. & Singer, J.L. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of children and the media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Singer, D.G & Singer, J.L. (2005). Imagination and play in the electronic age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. St. Lawrence, J. S., & Joyner, D. J. (1991). The effects of sexually violent rock music on males’ acceptance of violence against women, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 49-63. Strasburger, V. C., & Wilson, B. J. (2002). Children, adolescents, and the media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Surgeon General (2001). Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior. (1972). Television and growing up: The impact of televised violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Thompson, K.M., & Haninger, K. (2001). Violence in E-Rated Video Games. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 591-598. Turkle, S. (2002). E-Futures and E-Personae. In Leach, N. (Ed.) Designing for a digital world. London: John Wiley & Sons. Video game industry gets an “F.” (2002, December 19). Retrieved January 16, 2003 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/19/eveningnews/main533790.shtml Walsh, D., Gentile, D. A., VanOverbeke, M., & Chasco, E. (2002, December). MediaWise video game report card. Retrieved January 15, 2003, from " target="_blank">http://www.mediafamily.org/research/report_vgrc_2002-2.shtml[/quote]Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I'd also like to point out that I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion already (although to be fair, I'm not sure if it was directly with you or just in a thread that you were participating in). The problem I have with what you're saying, besides it being wrong based on what I know, is not that you are not a psychology professional, but that it seems you have made absolutely no effort to gain information on this besides what seems right to you. If you're going to make a passionate defense on something, especially something that experts in the field claim has an adverse affect on children, I think it behooves you to have a more sound basis for your ideas than your own unsubstantiated theories.
This information is out there and easily obtainable through a semi-dedicated search. Maybe it's just a hangup I have from my rigorous education and the fact that, in my professional contexts, if I tried to talk authoritatively about things I didn't know anything about, I'd get my rear handed to me by people who I consider my friends, but I can't even imagine talking about this anywhere near as assertively as you have without knowing at least something of the literature.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, I can't help the fact that with limited time in my life, I haven't managed to devote a college degree's worth of study to every issue I have an interest in. That's the problem with politics, too — we all need to have strong enough opinions to make decisions about things that we don't all have the time to become experts on.
However, I don't think that opinions should only be handed out to the experts, and everyone else should defer to their wisdom until they become experts themselves. That would lead to a remarkable uniformity of thought that I think would be unhealthy for our society at large. If you think that my opinion is inherently valueless because I don't have the same educational background that you do, you don't have to discuss this with me.
Personally, I see no harm in my presenting an opinion and being completely up-front about the fact that my reasoning is based mostly on personal experience. I'm not pretending to be an expert in psychology with a volume of studies supporting my position, so it should not offend you that the opinion I'm presenting varies from the studies you've read. If I were presenting myself falsely and claiming undue authority, that would be one thing. But I'm being completely forthcoming about the bases for my reasoning, which in my mind is more than enough to qualify me for participation in this discussion.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, Maybe you could point out to me where I said you had to be an expert on this? I think there may be some difference between expecting people to know something about the things they talk about (which in this case would probably take about 7 or so hours of research and reading) rather than relying on their uniformed opinions and saying that only people who have "devote[d] a college degree's worth of study" to it should talk about it. We're not fighting an elitism/anti-elitism battle here. We're fighting an anti-ingorance/pro-ignorance one.
We've had this confusion before, so I'll make it explicit. I'm not expecting you to be an expert in this. I do think you should perhaps have made some effort to understand what the experts think and why they do so, especially in light of us having had this conversation before.
I'm nowhere near an expert in this area either. However, there's a whole continuum between completely ignorant and expert. Realizing this, I try to match the confidence that I present my opinions with where I fall on this knowledge continuum. Also, when I think something is important, especially when it's something that people who know more about disagree with my stance on, I try to learn more about it.
Did it even give you a second's pause when I presented "Hey, three organizations of experts who study this disagree with your assessment." information? For that matter, I think we both acknowledge that I know orders of magnitude more about the study of psychology, but I don't think it fazed you a bit when I said your assertion of the pernicious addictive nature of sexual imagery is not born out by the literature I'm famiiar with.
Considering I've built my nascent academic career on disputing the accepted Western view of human nature, I'm not one to say you must obey the experts without question. However, what gives me the ability and confidence to challenge the experts is that I've worked very hard gaining knowledge about what I and they are talking about. I'm not and never will say you must agree with the experts. I am, however, one to say that, if you're going to disagree with them, you should do some from an informed opinion and you probably shouldn't be making claims that are obviously false to people who actually know something about what you're talking about.
---
edit: And, again, we've had this discussion before. I mean, were you just hoping that I wouldn't show up in this one, so that you could make these claims without me calling you on them?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:were you just hoping that I wouldn't show up in this one, so that you could make these claims without me calling you on them?
This is an uncivil question.
quote:How do the people running the study detect or define "unhealthy" effects? How does one define an "unhealthy" sexual attitude or appetite these days? Versus an "unhealthy" violent behavior?
I'm much more interested in the questions Geoff asked you, Squicky.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do the people running the study detect or define "unhealthy" effects? How does one define an "unhealthy" sexual attitude or appetite these days? Versus an "unhealthy" violent behavior?
The problems associated with violent media are detailed in the things I linked. As for exposure to nudity/sexual images, some of it is that there is little change in behavior and some of it is that the people fall into the normal distribution of social and psychosexual functioning. There are affects to some types of imagery for some populations, and they can be pretty severe, but this is not in line with what people have traditionally gotten up in arms about.
Also, so-called "porn addiction" is, like most non-chemical addictions, a pretty rare phenomenom and generally affects people who have serious underlying problems prior to the onset of the addiction.
quote:some of it is that there is no change in behavior and some of it is that the people fall into the normal distribution of social and psychosexual functioning.
Some of what?
I don't think this response really answers Geoff's questions.
EDIT:
Your edit:
quote: There are affects to some types of imagery for some populations, and they can be pretty severe, but this is not in line with what people have traditionally gotten up in arms about.
Geoff's questions weren't directed so much at the video-game playing population, but at the people studying the players. How do they determine what is unhealthy? What's the standard for unhealthy these days?
quote: Also, so-called "porn addiction" is, like most non-chemical addictions, a pretty rare phenomenom and generally affects people who have serious underlying problems prior to the onset of the addiction.
No disagreement there. Well, not about the "serious underlying problems" part. Without evidence, I'm witholding judgement on the "pretty rare phenomenom" bit.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
