posted
As far as I know, there is very little concern about violence in video games making those games addictive or of kids getting addicted to violence. I'm not sure why you're talking about it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Columbine sort of exploded the gasket on violence in video games, and alot of "experts" were saying that video games were a big factor in encouraging those 2 boys to play out the game in real life. Even citing a mod that they were using within Doom that encouraged being efficient.
GTA 3 made lots of headlines as it rewards people with cash for delinguent behavior and that debate is still going on. I am not taking sides to the issue in this post, merely pointing out that I do think there is alot of concern regarding violence in video games.
Or were you saying there is little concern in this thread MrSquicky? If so you may disregard my post Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:but rather about the clear, conscious attempt to put an erotic show on the national airwaves in the middle of the day
Nitpick: the Superbowl starts at 6pm EST, and lasts roughly 4 hours. Which puts the halftime show on at 8pm; hardly middle of the day, even on the West Coast. It's well established that the networks and the FCC are more permissive the later it gets. Not that that really applies to the Superbowl, because of the huge national audience.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I wasn't talking about violence in media encouraging violence in general, but about the specific ideas of violent video games addicting kids into either playing violent video games or violence in general.
There is plenty of concern, but as far as I can see, very little of it has to do with "addiction".
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Of course not, that was my point. A simple bare breast wouldn't have been a problem without the context.
Did you see the show? It was a woman in a leather suit singing a suggestive duet with a man who promised to "have her naked by the end of this song", then ripped a part of her clothing off. That's what made it inappropriate for the audience. The context and meaning of the performance. Not just the nipple.
Though the nipple was something that crossed a clear line, and could be criticized, while mere "adult themes" are much harder to regulate without getting ridiculous. But isn't there a line, in your mind, between a dancer and a stripper? Even if they do roughly the same moves, doesn't teasing the audience with nudity make a difference?
Do you think that future half-time shows should feature the same kind of content, and that people should learn to accept it?
quote:As far as I know, there is very little concern about violence in video games making those games addictive or of kids getting addicted to violence. I'm not sure why you're talking about it.
It stems from a misunderstanding of my position. I used the (alleged) addictiveness of sexual imagery as evidence that it is perceived differently than violent media. Someone tried to refute me by saying that violent games are addictive. I refuted them back by saying that it seems obvious that it is the "game" part of violent games that is addictive, not the "violent" part.
So I'm talking about it because someone asserted it, and I'm not as quick as some to say, "None of the experts think your concern is valid, so I'm insulted you think I should even talk to you about it." Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, I wasn't talking about violence in media encouraging violence in general, but about the specific ideas of violent video games addicting kids into either playing violent video games or violence in general.
There is plenty of concern, but as far as I can see, very little of it has to do with "addiction".
I can agree with that.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARND: It stems from a misunderstanding of my position. I used the (alleged) addictiveness of sexual imagery as evidence that it is perceived differently than violent media. Someone tried to refute me by saying that violent games are addictive. I refuted them back by saying that it seems obvious that it is the "game" part of violent games that is addictive, not the "violent" part.
Similarly, as I've already said, games containing sexual imagery are not more addictive than games that do not contain such imagery. This means that your original objection to sexual imagery in games -- its purported addictiveness -- isn't relevant; games are so addictive as it is that adding violent or sexual imagery isn't going to tip the balance. Naked Tetris will never outsell Tetris.
Remove purported addiction from the equation. Is there another reason why you think sexual imagery in games should continue to be restricted as tightly as it is now?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to throw out that I think we should be making the distinction between sexual imagery and non-sexual nudity. Some people might not see the difference, but I think it's an important one.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. One of the reasons that I advocate loosening nudity restrictions in games is that I think breasts are really oversexualized in North American society.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
European ratings systems do make that distinction, and if you think that's a direction that America should move in, then that's a valid point — though for the ratings system to be relevant to parental concerns, you'd first have to persuade the American populace to alter their broad opinions on the matter
quote:Similarly, as I've already said, games containing sexual imagery are not more addictive than games that do not contain such imagery.
First off, for the millionth time, I wasn't trying to say that sexual imagery should be banned from games for fear that it will get little boys addicted to porn. I only brought up "porn addiction" as evidence that sexual and violent imagery function differently. Not that one is above the other. Just differently. That's it. Please, please don't make me explain this again.
quote:Is there another reason why you think sexual imagery in games should continue to be restricted as tightly as it is now?
If we're all willing to agree that the two are different and can legitimately be treated with different standards, then this part of the discussion can begin.
Here's one possible reason. The lack of legal regulation of sex in our society (beyond violent and exploitative sexual acts) means that sexual behavior is left entirely up to the desires and attitudes of the participants, as well as unenforced social mores like "Don't cheat on someone with whom you've agreed to be exclusive," and "Don't falsely insinuate that you love someone just to get them into bed."
So while violent behavior (picking fistfights, stabbing people, shoving people) gets you punished in school and tossed into jail as an adult, and even minor violent behavior is treated as being well out of bounds for any adult (ie, someone who would sleep with an underling at work would never imagine shoving an underling in the hallway), nonviolent but harmful sexual behavior often only has emotional consequences for the people involved.
If someone develops the wrong attitudes towards sex at a young age, they might cause a lot of pain to other people and to themselves later on in life, with very few major mechanisms to stop them or "punish" them.
Don't get me wrong; I don't want us to start making laws about who can sleep with whom. But I think that this situation does mean that we need to be especially careful with how young people are exposed to sex, and what they learn about it. In the end, it will be their own consciences and attitudes that determine what they are allowed to do to other people, not any outside regulating influence.
quote:I think breasts are really oversexualized in North American society.
Is it possible to oversexualize a breast? Wouldn't that be like overdeliciousizing chocolate?
Seriously, though, what would you see change, in an ideal future version of America? Female toplessness as common as male toplessness? How would a change like that come about? Would there be obstacles to things working the way you intend? What would make that version of our society better than this one?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for your response to my post. Your arguments are much clearer to me now.
Just a random, relevant anecdote, not meant to argue against anything said here. The Bible has screwed me up sexually far more than anything I read or watched as a child. At some point, I'm going to make a thread about this because it's not something that is obvious to parents to moniter. But if your 10 year old daughter is reading the New Testament on her own, it might be a good idea to explain to her that "wives obey your husbands" does not mean abusive relationships are God's Will.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, A question. I linked you to a joint statement from the AMA, APA, and AAP and a separate statement by the APA on violence in interactive media. Did you read and consider those statements? If not, I'm recommending that you should, because it likely give you a better idea of the full scope of people's objections here.
The suggested effects go far beyond merely increasing the incidence of overt physically violent behavior. I'll quote a few relevant sections:
quote:WHEREAS psychological research reveals that the electronic media play an important role in the development of attitude, emotion, social behavior and intellectual functioning of children and youth
quote:WHEREAS there appears to be evidence that exposure to violent media increases feelings of hostility, thoughts about aggression, suspicions about the motives of others, and demonstrates violence as a method to deal with potential conflict situations
quote:WHEREAS comprehensive analysis of violent interactive video game research suggests such exposure a.) increases aggressive behavior, b.) increases aggressive thoughts, c.) increases angry feelings, d.) decreases helpful behavior, and, e.) increases physiological arousal
quote:# Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts. Children exposed to violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior. # Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs. # Entertainment violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent and mean place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others.
Even when just focusing on violence, we're not talking just about overt physical violence, such as you are saying will trigger punishment. Violence starts as a mental thing, as a way of thinking about other people. It takes many forms besides just overt physical attacks such as verbal violence, intimidation, prejudicial thought. And, instead of punishing violent thought, our society often advocates it, either directly or indirectly.
The same person wo wouldn't shove an underlying at work would still carry out all manner of violent behavior towards them. Many people here had an unpleasant time in high school because of the violence other people vistied on them, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of this was not physical. In a comparison of first world countries, America is on the extreme in many forms of violent behavior, including physical violence. This is a very real problem in our country.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't read the entire statement very closely (because holy crap, do I have a lot of work to do), but I read all the parts you've quoted here. (EDIT: I mean, I remember reading them before you quoted them.)
I've been cautious because the statement does seem to go further than most other statements that I've read on the same subject in the past, even those used by anti-game-industry zealots. I've been saying that I want to look at the studies that led to these opinions because ... well, humans are complex, and a major claim like this deserves to be investigated more fully.
However, I think the reason I haven't heard a lot of this stuff before may be the fact that most of the zealots I deal with aren't trying to blame unfriendliness and meanness on games. They're trying to blame murders on games. And in that arena, I think I'm on pretty solid ground when I say that a young person who decides to kill somebody likely has a lot more going on in his life that is pushing him toward violence than his choice of art.
Jerkiness, however, might very well be another issue, which I haven't looked into, really, at all. Personally, I'm surprised by the notes about people becoming less helpful to victims. I would think that while violent movies might have that effect, because the audience is passive, violent games ought to (if anything) make people feel more competent to help out in a dire situation, and less afraid of consequences.
One of the great values I see in a lot of games is that they let a person act out the role of a hero many times, trying again each time they fail, until they achieve success. So I'm curious if that statement is a direct contradiction of my assumption, or if it was drawn from studies that were not specific to games — particularly games like Full Spectrum Warrior or GRAW, in which the player is a hero with allies to protect and keep alive.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should mention, by the way, that I am very much in favor of game developers being conscientious about the moral messages of their games — an issue that I am more concerned about than the sheer amount violence, free of context. Since it seems impossible when using retail games to divorce the content from its context, I'm always hypersensitive to the possibility that it was a message and not an image that had an effect when a piece of media is cited as having caused a change in behavior.
Grand Theft Auto is not intended for children, for instance, and I don't think they should play it, expect under careful supervision and guidance, after they have reached an age where such guidance can make a difference. But it's not because you shoot people and hit them with cars. It's because you shoot and hit innocent people and cops without remorse or repercussions. You are a horrible sociopath, and the game makes it really fun. I think an adult can grasp the irony of the game and have a great time with it without serious side effects. But I wouldn't want it to be a part of a child's moral development at all.
Nor would I want a young person to watch Crash without parental guidance. It depicts some horrible stuff, and a person really should already have a strong moral foundation and a reason to have hope before they watch it. But it's brilliant work, and the experience of watching it has made me a better person.
This is just to be clear that I definitely think that art has an effect, and that we should be very careful with it. That isn't what I'm disputing here at all.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not an anti-violent video game zealot. Neither are most of the people who conduct reputable research on it. What we are are people who are concerned about the welfare of children and of society as a whole.
I don't think any of us expect the resolutions of the statements I linked (and read them when you hav etime to, you'll find that there are many more goals than merely reduction of video game violence) are going to be a magic bullet to take care of the problems of violence, but it will help.
I'm going to quote another bit that may make why I consider accurately understanding the problem so important:
quote:WHEREAS the data dealing with media literacy curricula demonstrate that when children are taught how to view television critically, there is a reduction of TV viewing in general, and a clearer understanding of the messages conveyed by the medium. Studies on media literacy demonstrate when children are taught how to view television critically, children can feel less frightened and sad after discussions about the medium, can learn to differentiate between fantasy and reality, and can identify less with aggressive characters on TV, and better understand commercial messages
When people understand the non-conscious effects that things have on them, many of these effect go away, and can even lead to greater strength in those areas. (This is part of what I like to call the two-door effect, which I've explained before and am willing to explain again if people are interested.)
The debate over violent video games is, in a pretty significant way, part of the scorn and prejudices that is often visited on psychology (both in society at large and here on Hatrack) in part because we actually take unconscious effects seriously - a position that is in strong conflict with the prevailing American view.
So getting that idea in the door is also part of this issue. If I could make one change to things like this, I'd make it so that instead of people saying "Someone should do a study on this." or forming their opinions just on what seems to make sense to them, that they would make a serious effort to take the few hours to see what the reputable literature has to say about things.
However, if people treat us as an extreme advocacy group working from emotion and ideology instead of a solid foundation of research, none of these things are going to happen.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not an anti-violent video game zealot. Neither are most of the people who conduct reputable research on it. What we are are people who are concerned about the welfare of children and of society as a whole.
I know that. What I was trying to say was that most of the conflicts I have over this topic ARE with anti-video-game zealots, and I have become accustomed to refuting their claims, which are very different from yours.
quote:The debate over violent video games is, in a pretty significant way, part of the scorn and prejudices that is often visited on psychology (both in society at large and here on Hatrack) in part because we actually take unconscious effects seriously - a position that is in strong conflict with the prevailing American view.
I'm not sure I fully understand the background of this statement. What prevailing American view? And are you saying that the fact that there is a debate over video game violence suggests a lack of respect for your profession?
It certainly leads to an undeserved lack of respect for mine Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I should mention, by the way, that I am very much in favor of game developers being conscientious about the moral messages of their games — an issue that I am more concerned about than the sheer amount violence, free of context. Since it seems impossible when using retail games to divorce the content from its context, I'm always hypersensitive to the possibility that it was a message and not an image that had an effect when a piece of media is cited as having caused a change in behavior.
Grand Theft Auto is not intended for children, for instance, and I don't think they should play it, expect under careful supervision and guidance, after they have reached an age where such guidance can make a difference. But it's not because you shoot people and hit them with cars. It's because you shoot and hit innocent people and cops without remorse or repercussions. You are a horrible sociopath, and the game makes it really fun. I think an adult can grasp the irony of the game and have a great time with it without serious side effects. But I wouldn't want it to be a part of a child's moral development at all.
Nor would I want a young person to watch Crash without parental guidance. It depicts some horrible stuff, and a person really should already have a strong moral foundation and a reason to have hope before they watch it. But it's brilliant work, and the experience of watching it has made me a better person.
Part of the problem with this is that children are not just little adults in the way they perceive things. There is considerable evidence that they way they perceive and process violent media is significantly different from how an adult would. So, using the way you would see it as a guide for how say a 10 year old (edit: albiet, obviously, with far less development and defenses than you) would is not necessarily a good idea.
As I said, this isn't actually an area I focus on, so how, exactly the perception differs, I couldn't really tell you. I've never read a complete treatment of it.
edit: I don't think I got my point across very well. Let's try, you may think that the moral message overrides or elevates the violent actions, and for you perhaps it does, but we can't say the same is necessarily true for a child.
edit: What I was referencing above was the side of the debate that holds the strict cognativist assumption (i.e. people only do things because of conscious decisions on their part) and refuses to consider that things have effects on thinking and perception that operate below the level of consciousness. This cognativist assumption, though somewhat weakened, is a very common, and I believe the prevailing, American cultural attitude towards the psyche.
posted
[EDIT: I just posted this and saw that Squicky had posted before me. I haven't read his post yet, but I quickly panicked and wanted to make sure that I prefaced this post with a disclaimer: This post is not a direct response to anything Squicky just said. In case he somehow finds a way to take it as an affront ]
This issue is starting to lead into my half-formed concern about treating humans like statistics. At what point is it no longer appropriate to try and control human behavioral output by regulating their input, like they are little math problems? Is there a point at which every human is accountable for his own choices, and we need to start treating them like responsible individuals, and not like functions in an equation? Reduce input X by 50% and reap a 5% decrease in antisocial behavior Y?
This particular discussion may not be the best place for this digression, but I started thinking about this the last time someone said to me, "If we criminalize abortion, then millions of women will die from back-alley procedures!"
The question is, would it be right for a policymaker making such a decision to think to himself, "I am saving these women," or "I am killing these women," when the choice to have the back-alley procedure belongs to each individual woman? Is it megalomaniacal for a leader to take credit for choices that are made by other people a few links down the causal chain from his own?
He should definitely take responsibility for the first link in the chain — the fact that for good or ill, in preventing the abortions, he puts these women into difficult situations. But after that point, doesn't the decision to resort to a life-threatening solution belong to them? Is it disrespectful to these women to act as though their choices are merely the product of a grand equation, and not actual choices made my real human beings? To act as though their decisions are foreordained and inevitable?
As parents, we sort of have to think of children this way to a degree. When they are young, they are more responsive to input from their environment, and our society does not consider them to be entirely responsible for their actions. So things like ratings systems for games are very important, as parents search for ways to regulate the input that is going into their kids.
But I get the sense that there is a line somewhere that we shouldn't cross. A line across which we start treating humans like machines whose input we should be able to regulate, and thus control the choices they make later in life.
Does that make sense? To be clear, I am not accusing anyone here of doing this, nor am I leveling some accusation at psychologists. (I don't think my post could be read that way, but I've been surprised in the past, so I want to head off any confusion.)
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Part of the problem with this is that children are not just little adults in the way they perceive things.
Exactly. Hence my comments about Grand Theft Auto. I think an adult has what it takes to understand Grand Theft Auto in context, and some older children may be able to do so, as well, with the right guidance. I don't think younger children, in general, are equipped for that.
I base this, in part, on an experience I had watching two young boys playing GTA: Vice City. To them, it wasn't a challenging driving and shooting game. It went like this:
"Kick the fat lady! Kill her! Kill her! Ha ha ha, she's bleeding!"
Totally freaked me out. From an adult, even that same exact line would have come across as them laughing at the audacity of the game in depicting such awful stuff in such a silly way. From a kid, though ... "Kill the fat lady" was the game they were playing.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not exactly what I meant. I'm going to have to think a bit on how to explain it better.
quote:But I get the sense that there is a line somewhere that we shouldn't cross. A line across which we start treating humans like machines whose input we should be able to regulate, and thus control the choices they make later in life.
I feverently believe that people have the potential to make many decisions relatively free of deterministic forces. The problem is, what I see leads me to believe that realizing this potential requires a level of psychological health that is rare in our society. I'm haunted by the Milgrim experiment and the hundreds of others in the same vein.
quote:Similarly, as I've already said, games containing sexual imagery are not more addictive than games that do not contain such imagery.
First off, for the millionth time, I wasn't trying to say that sexual imagery should be banned from games for fear that it will get little boys addicted to porn.
I didn't say that, though. Not only is that not in the excerpt you quoted, I'm pretty sure I didn't paint your argument that way anywhere.
However:
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I only brought up "porn addiction" as evidence that sexual and violent imagery function differently. Not that one is above the other. Just differently. That's it. Please, please don't make me explain this again.
The argument I did make in the snippet you quoted is a natural extension of this.
If sexual imagery is generally addictive in a way that violent imagery is not, then it may also be addictive in the context of video games. Since video games containing sexual imagery are not significantly more addictive than video games not containing sexual imagery, it follows that the two should not be treated differently in the context of video game ratings solely on account of addictive potential. There may, however, be other reasons to treat them differently.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:Is there another reason why you think sexual imagery in games should continue to be restricted as tightly as it is now?
If we're all willing to agree that the two are different and can legitimately be treated with different standards, then this part of the discussion can begin.
Obviously "sex" and "violence" are not the same insofar as they are two words that mean different things. So as far as that goes, we do agree. However, sexual imagery and violent imagery are both in the "take care in how you expose children to these things" category. When I said that the ESRB has a "blatant double standard" in how it treats sex and violence respectively, that was what I was talking about. As I've said, I think the ESRB standard is too lax on violent imagery and too restrictive on sexual imagery.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Here's one possible reason. The lack of legal regulation of sex in our society (beyond violent and exploitative sexual acts) means that sexual behavior is left entirely up to the desires and attitudes of the participants, as well as unenforced social mores like "Don't cheat on someone with whom you've agreed to be exclusive," and "Don't falsely insinuate that you love someone just to get them into bed."
So while violent behavior (picking fistfights, stabbing people, shoving people) gets you punished in school and tossed into jail as an adult, and even minor violent behavior is treated as being well out of bounds for any adult (ie, someone who would sleep with an underling at work would never imagine shoving an underling in the hallway), nonviolent but harmful sexual behavior often only has emotional consequences for the people involved.
If someone develops the wrong attitudes towards sex at a young age, they might cause a lot of pain to other people and to themselves later on in life, with very few major mechanisms to stop them or "punish" them.
Don't get me wrong; I don't want us to start making laws about who can sleep with whom. But I think that this situation does mean that we need to be especially careful with how young people are exposed to sex, and what they learn about it.
This is a reasonable argument, but I think you're underestimating the extent to which sex is regulated in society. For example, the Canadian government recently tabled legislation to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 across the country. There will still be a "close in age" exemption, so a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old could have sex, but a 14-year-old and a 17-year old could not (this is legal now). However, the age of consent for anal sex under the new legislation will remain at 18. Thus, under the new scheme, heterosexual teenagers can fornicate to their hearts' delight, but homosexual teenagers (still) can't. So we do at least attempt to regulate who can sleep with whom and when. (As an aside, I agree with the age-of-consent raise; the intent of the bill is to protect teenagers from adult sexual predators.)
Also, I know you put a qualifier in "nonviolent but harmful sexual behavior often only has emotional consequences for the people involved," but I think this is contingent on what you consider "harmful sexual behaviour." Certainly in the workplace context my experience has been that sexual harrassment policies are uniformly strict, frequently going above and beyond the legal requirements. In the broader sense, though, I think we probably have significantly different definitions of what constitutes "harmful sexual behaviour," and that to some extent this influences our respective positions.
Which is fine, of course.
In any case, sex and violence do both have the potential for extremely serious consequences, even in controlled situations (e.g. a martial arts dojo), and I think that care should be taken in how children are exposed to both of them. In that sense, ours is a difference of degree rather than principle.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:I think breasts are really oversexualized in North American society.
Is it possible to oversexualize a breast? Wouldn't that be like overdeliciousizing chocolate?
I don't think so, no. Breasts have a sexual/non-sexual duality to them that is usually ignored in North American society. I think this duality needs to be acknowledged -- MrSquicky's distinction between sexual and non-sexual nudity. I'm mostly talking about nursing infants, but even in other contexts an image of a bare breast doesn't have to be sexual in nature.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Seriously, though, what would you see change, in an ideal future version of America? Female toplessness as common as male toplessness?
I'll stop you right there, because the answer to that question is "no," so your subsequent line of questioning is moot.
Again, the law here in Ontario is essentially that women may go topless anywhere men may go topless. This hasn't led to rampant public nudity -- after all, going topless is physically uncomfortable for a lot of women. That's what bras are supposed to mitigate. As I said earlier, the practical upshot of the legislation has been that mothers with infants can nurse them more or less anywhere, which I can't help but see as a positive thing. We need reminders that breasts don't have to be sexual.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
