Studies Say Video Games Increase Violent Behavior 402
KyDaran was one of several people who wrote about findings in UniSci regarding two studies released in the April issue of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The studies show a relationship between violent and aggressive behavior and video game playing. Check out the full journal study for yourself.
Re:Man! they are reaching... (Score:2)
Re:Youth violence dropping (Score:2)
Re:Youth violence dropping (Score:2)
Re:Statistics abuse (correllation) (Score:2)
I'm just saying that someone who is already likely to blow real people away probably has yet one more reason to play games where he pretends to do so . .
Nothing in there suggests a causal relation *from* the game to a real shooting.
However, diverting them in this way makes esnese (but so does handing out 9mm ammunition to street gangs, figuring that by killing more of them this way, you save more lives than you lose in innocent bystanders during the fihte . .
That's amazing. (Score:2)
Holy cow! These guys really are smart. I think they must have been talking to my mom.
Most People Eat At McDonalds. (Score:2)
The first thing that crept into my mind when I saw the article on Slashdot was that this article would either be a completely unfounded urban-legend (like the rise in domestic violence on Superbowl-Sunday which, only in the last year or two, has the media actually started to act responsibly for and even admit that it is a completely unfounded and made-up statistic) or that it would basically have the following point:
People who are violent tend to play violent video games.
Well, duh.
This is along the same line of "Most rapists view pornography, but most viewers of pornography are not rapists"
In other words, so what if there is a correlation between violent people and video-games? What does that have to do with the rest of us? Because some kid down the street goes berserk every time he watches Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or feels violent after playing ten-zillion hours of Quake3, the rest of the world should give it up or require that every other normal kid do without the videogame?
I mean, come on here -- most murderers have eaten at McDonald's, but most people who eat at McDonald's don't commit murder.
And that's about as strong as this article's argument is.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Video Games ain't the only thing then... (Score:2)
Solution then? Ban driving, marriage, school (and school busses), football, sports in general, paintball warfare, etc... sit at home and watch the Partridge Family (but then _that_ could drive some to violence).
Or - perhaps rather than pointing fingers at others, we could point them back at ourselves. It's easy to think your kids are perfect. Heck, mine are. They'll never get into trouble or get into a fight. (NOT!). There will be cases when you will be totally taken by surprise, but in many instances of violence, there are signs and clues - parents should be educated on these clues and taught how to handle them in a loving and nurturing maner (rather than - "you're grounded!"). Instead of spending all this money to fund research on why video games are so bad and responsible for violence (something that will be used in a very biased way to the exclusion of all other possible causes in court), how about a little funding to workshops for parents and kids?
violence against women rise 40% during Super Bowl (Score:2)
Another study shows... (Score:2)
Re:A very good point! (Score:2)
as for hunting and guns, yes, I totally agree that teaching a kid to hunt will give him responsability. the point is that hunting is controlled violence within rigid bounds of acceptability, and has (somewhat of) a redeeming reason too (namely, collecting food). it may be violent, but it is not mindlessly violent. I don't think it's even comparable to the kind of violence that's featured in movies and video games.
Re:how the study was conducted (Score:2)
Just because people who have just played "Deathorgy 2000" for an hour are statistically more likely to be annoying does not mean they are statistically more likely to be violent. Once again, this seems like a study where the conclusion was designed before the procedure.
Re:Studies on other types of games? (Score:2)
In everything from soccer hooliganism (sp?), to Aussie-rules players being charged with assault and rape, violence surrounds traditional sport - probably more so than computer games, yet no-one bats an eyelid.
I can tell you why we don't see studies theorising that football promotes violence - it's because it's popular, and anyone that speaks out against it is publicly hanged (hopefully more metaphorically than physically, but it's getting iffy).
Re:Look at this study for what it is... (Score:2)
The thing about scientists is, whenever they set out to prove something they want to prove, they invariably find a way of proving it.
They do show a short-term correlation between agressive behavior in a lab, and agressive behavior in a video game.
What they did not address, however, is the massive ammount of collected evidence already available on the subject. Namely, the fact that while violent video games have become more and more popular over the last several years, all state and federal statistics show that violent crime committed by monors has gone down every year for the last several years.
So, there's this controlled environment where, under short-term evaluation, a certian correlation is shown.
And then there's this big, uncontrolled situation we call reality, where for the last several years a different correlation has been shown. And they failed to address it.
Paraphrasing Dr. Marvin Monroe... (Score:2)
Re:No Slashdot, NO! (Score:2)
Bad Mojo
Re:Look at this study for what it is... (Score:2)
> and in this case, the researchers were clearly trying to find the truth.
They were not. These two psychologists failed to apply the scientific method properly. They conducted two studies, and then wrote a comprehensive summary describing results they would have hoped to obtain, and dismissing the results they did obtain. They went into the study believing that video game violence (or VGV as they so cutely call it) caused aggressive behavior, and they discovered no evidence that it does. Then they summarized that it must cause aggressive behavior because "it is obvious" (slight paraphrase), despite the results they obtained.
This is not the scientific method, this is the political method. It is effective for achieving political ends, but not for finding truth.
Re:No Slashdot, NO! (Score:2)
> training before they went on actual killing sprees?
As part of martial arts, I have trained in defending myself against an armed aggressor when I am unarmed. If I am ever in such a situation, I will pray that the aggressor has learned everything he knows from video games or from watching violent TV/movies. Video games and movies teach people very ineffective habits. It turns out that the things that look the coolest are not the most effective.
So no, I wouldn't consider video games top rate training at all. Playing video games teaches you how to play video games, or in the case of the marine doom training, how to work in a team. If anything, they will develop logical skills, not assassination skills.
Studies on Video games.... (Score:2)
Ummm.. Sports? (Score:2)
s/Aggressive/delequent/; (Score:2)
They also point out that people get lower grades.
I do not understand the "nose blast" example however my guess is this is a test of aggresive beahvure based on how long a person holds down a button.
A technical trate of many nonviolent video games is the need to let go of the button QUICKLY on violent video games to mash down and hold on.
As such this may end up learnning to hold buttons longer.
Also the nose blast is "psudo violenet" realistic video games force the player to make a greater seperation between reality and fantacy unlike other games who allow you to be comfortable with the reality that lines and bright colors are fictional.
In the real world.. rather than the lab or in a video game.. violenent acts are done every day by kids and adults who are underprivilaged [have no computer or video game access].
While kids playing violent video games are pumping money into more and more powerful computers. They are not doing anything violent short of playing the stupid game and maybe ranting on-line.
Yes it's true... if you play ANY addictive game (like violent video games) you will tend to skip classes (in favor of the games) and drop grades.
This has more to do with how good violent video games really are.
And then there are people who don't have a very good seperation of reality and fantacy (that violent video games premote) and they do not understand the attraction of such games short of learing to be violent. They imagin it as a tool for violence trainning and having imagined it that thought becomes fact to them. In the mean time we make skins of such people and blow them away in violent video games knowing full well no such death occured.
It's just annother case of "I think it therefor it's true".
Re:Statistics abuse (correllation) (Score:2)
Thus leading unerringly to the conclusion that schools and libraries should make lots of violent games available, because people blasting their way through Wolfenstein won't be blasting their way through Columbine.
ps - The above neither is nor isn't sarcasm; it's just the logical outcome of your claim. I honestly don't know how I feel about it.
--
"Damn! And just when Piranha was starting to turn the tide of negative PR!"
Re:Janet Reno Play These Games? (Score:2)
Well.. if you put it that way, it makes sense.
What were the feds supposed to do.. go in unarmed? with a mob of irrational protesters outside, who could very easily turn very violent? (heck.. they DID turn violent).
Not a shot was fired and nobody got hurt, not until the protesters started RIOTING.
In my country, when you have someone elses child against's the court's permission, we call it KIDNAPPING, and people go to PRISON for it.
The mistake you make.. (Score:2)
None of the sensations of actual violent behavior are present when playing a video game. Yes, it can be exciting, and even get your heart going.. but more due to anticipation of winning the contest than of committing acts of violence.
In half-life, when I shoot soldiers, do I equate this to holding a gun and killing someone? No.. not in the slightest. It's a GAME, and my brain makes a very clear distinction.
The brain learns based on all it's stimuli at a given time, and the result. (yes, bad english, I know). It's not simply 'oh, my score went up because I shot someone'. That's logic. What the brain learns is that a particular twitch of your hands and visual on the screen caused you a pleasant feeling (winning). This is extremely different than the sensations you would get actually killing somone. '
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:2)
Yep, somebody's home, though probably not one you expected
Saying that our brains are neural nets (NNs) which learn by repetition is a GROSS oversimplification of human neural activity. It's like saying that aircraft fly by sending electical signals down the wire. Sure, some of it is taking place, but that's not a useful starting point.
Do the "violent behavior is normal/acceptable/etc" neural pathways get reinforced by playing violent games or by watching cinema/TV violence? Of course they do.
Err... can you be more specific about what you mean by saying "neural pathways"? Especially about the 'violent behavior is acceptable' neural pathways? I mean, man, you are making a breakthrough in neural physiology and the study of human brain -- there could be a Nobel prize in this! After all, if after all the years of research it turns out that the brain is such a simple device as you're describing... why, then we'll have most of the world's problem fixed! [/heavy sarcasm mode]
To summarize, you don't have the first clue about the brain physiology or how human behavior is formed. Try training your "thinking" pathways more.
Kaa
NEWSFLASH (Score:2)
Watching "A Baby Story" can make you weepy and want to have children!
Watching sports can raise your heart rate!
Watching Burger King commercials can make you hungry!
Playing video games can make you more aggressive!
The 'scientists' who publish such nonsensical 'scientific' studies need to be more careful about stuff like this. This is obviously media-pandering and a means to get attention. Give me a break...
LL
a general rule of statistics.... (Score:2)
the part on myst and wolfenstein is pure bull. all that showed was a temporary or exhibition of aggressiveness. The time span of that study was too short imho. Are they also to say pep talks also make people violent? They need to broaden their topic or just say what they found is a statistic. Is it video games that make them aggressive or contact (and simulated) games.
---
Wow, what incredible insight! (Score:2)
Amazing, people who like to pursue violent images tend to be more agressive. Who'da thunk it. You mean if I (was a student and decided to) play Madden instead of study, my grades might go down? Me no understand...
In the second study, 210 college students played either a violent (Wolfenstein 3D) or nonviolent video game (Myst). A short time later, the students who played the violent video game punished an opponent (received a noise blast with varying intensity) for a longer period of time
than did students who had played the nonviolent video game.
Duh, it makes sense to me that the people who were asleep (i.e. playing Myst) would want to avoid loud noises, and the people who had been shooting virtual guns wouldn't mind them as much. This is more a study on adaptive behaviour (if that's the right term for how we adapt to our current environment) than violent video games.
Or maybe all this stuff is just so obvious as to be useless??
--
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:2)
The problem with this study (Score:2)
It's long been established that states like aggression and sexual attraction can be affected by preexisting levels of physical arousal. For example, if you climb to the top of several flights of stairs and encounter a good looking woman, you are more likely to rate her as attractive than if you met her going down the stairs. The effect doesn't have to be huge to be statistically significant.
It may be that Myst is just as exciting as Wolfenstein 3D; heck lot's of people find chess more exciting than video games; but they aren't really exciting in the same way,are they?
It would be better to compare something like a driving game than a puzzle oriented game. In fact, ideally you would have custom games written with interfaces to the subjects galvanic skin response, heart rate and respiration to bring them to the exactly the same level of physical arousal. (Hey, you might be able to sell something like that!)
Re:A very good point! (Score:2)
Re:A very good point! (Score:2)
What is the practical use of a gun? To kill. The original writers of the constitution specifically put in the right to keep and bear arms into the 2nd amendment of the constitution for 1 reason... To make it impossible for our government to do whatever they want to us. The original intent was that if the legislators started to do what the British government was doing then the citizens of the country could rise up and overthrow the repressive government. Yes you read that right the founding fathers encouraged the use of a violent overthrow if the American government became repressive. Thomas Jefferson in his biography stated that a violent overthrow of the government should happen every 12 years or so. Basically eliminating corruption.
To continue with "original intent" it was the intent of the original writers of the constitution that the citizens would have access to the same firepower as the government. Today that is impractical with the development of weapons of mass destruction, but there are many weapons that are impossible for a citizen of the United States to legally own which are not weapons of mass destruction.
If guns are taken from the citizens hands who is going to stop the government if it decides to repeat the past of the British. If you don't think the government is going to do this then explain why many of our freedoms been striped from us.
The United States may be needing another war of independence in which guns would be very practical. Of course this is just MHO.
Re:A very good point! (Score:2)
It is called Guerilla Warfare which is extremely effective. A small band of lightly armed men are extremely mobile. The heavily armed US army is extremely immobile. As you slowly pick off small parts of the US army you capture extremely valuable resources which reinforce your lethality. Making you stronger and them weaker.
I could go on and on. There are quite a few good books on Guerilla Warfare. The US government and every other government out there studies it and is very worried about it.
And by the way... If I wanted to I could buy military grade X on the black market, i.e. plastic explosives with remote and timed detonators, very effective in guerilla warfare. Which by the way "fell" off the back of a transport. I can buy an AR-15, which is the civilian version of the M-16, and use a common file to modify the firing pin to convert it to a fully automatic machine gun. IMO this is much more than "hunting buddies."
Also sorry about the 12 years typo it is 120 years.
Re:A very good point! (Score:2)
The difference is they EXPERIENCE death. They KNOW the power of the weapon. They see the blood, they see the light go out in the animals' eyes. They understand what pulling the trigger means.
Video games emulate all the behavior without the experience. Ya, you can blow away 20 aliens in one minute, but do you experience the pain? Do the aliens cry out? Do you see pictures of their parents grief-stricken?
That's the issue. Not that guns are any different today than they were years ago, but that the experience is different. Without respect for life- without understanding the pain and sorrow killing can cause- that is the tragedy.
Violent video games can perpetuate the violence- and kids can grow up thinking violence is no big deal. Ah, so someone gets shot-they'll be ok....right?
That is where the parent/peer guidance needs to come in. I watched violent movies sometimes as a kid, but my parents were always there with the sorrowful look on their face when a death occurred- or they made me watch MASH to see the other side.
Yeah, that's it- every hour my kid plays a violent video game, it'll be balanced with an episode of MASH.
Re: (Score:2)
Computer games (Score:2)
Re:Thoughtless posts are more damning than good (Score:2)
Yer whatever... (Score:2)
Re:False Statements and other sources (Score:2)
Haven't you ever heard of Gallipoli, where the Turks machine gunned unarmed British soldiers?
The whole of France was turned into a charnel pit!
Have you ever done any serious study of the Great War?
Did you know that German snipers would shoot through the eye slits on the British side of the lines?
Sigh... the American school system, kids think that WWI started when the Lusitania sank. Perhaps when you've grown up and gone through college you'll get some historical education? Of course, I'm not sure what that will be like at Bob Jones University...
Re:False Statements and other sources (Score:2)
Re:Damn Straight! (Score:2)
Oh, and KahunaBurger, this isn't Amazon, so quit trying to peddle books. If you have something useful to contribute to the conversation, contribute it, don't just say read On Killing over and over again to get money into the pocket of your fascist hero. I happen to know that his testimony before Congress is available to everyone online, so why don't you do a little Web search.
Or could it be that you don't give a damn about people and just want to see profits for Grossman at the expense of American freedom?
Oh, and no, a person doesn't have to read On Killing to conclude Grossman was a fascist any more than he or she has to read Mein Kampf to conclude Hitler was a Nazi.
Re:Ever heard of a confounding variable? (Score:2)
"If I like it, no matter how obviously flawed and biased the research is, then it is good science and everyone should just bow down before the authoritarian new laws we will have to enact to protect people from themselves."
"If I don't like it, as in this post by KahunaBurger about the fact that the American Scientific Establishment might deny homeopathic medicine a top level .med domain name [slashdot.org] then it's bad science and suppressing people's rights and should not be listened too."
I mean, I'm sure it never occured to you (and I say this as someone who has no real opinions on homeopathic medicine, but who has close friends who swear by it) that the reason why the body that was supposed to enforce a .med domain name would deny it to homeopathic medicine is because they believe homeopathic medicine is bad science and have studies to back that up.
Of course, knowing the US medical establishment the way I do, I know that .com is the correct designation for such sites, money comes first and people second.
But then, it has always been the position of authoritarian fanatics, from Hitler to the present day, that they have unimpeachable scientific authority for their insane, repressive political beliefs. These people have to corrupt the scientific community because their claims do not stand up on their own merits. If you can't convince people they have to give up their right to free speech because it is good for the state, use some pseudo science to push your claim, eh?
Of course, the elitist and condescending attitudes of such fanatics always gives them away, "How dare you try to disagree with these people!! They're priests^H^H^H^H^H^Hpsychologists, you should be burned for heresy for even trying to debate them!!"
I've read this reoprt, it is bad science, and you know it is bad science. Anything for the cause though, right? The big lie technique, keep repeating obviously false statements until the public swallows them, eh?
Patrick Henry said it best.... (Score:2)
However, people like you can inflict a lot of suffering on a lot of people in the short term before people see through you and see what you are about. You are talking about jailing people for downloading Doom or buying their kids Mortal Kombat, yet another reason for jack booted government thugs to knock down the doors of law abiding peaceful American citizens and put guns to their heads. That's the use of force your ilk never object to, a use of force you and your ilk seem to relish with unholy glee. Otherwise, how would you enforce your censorship, someone is going to have to go to jail and there must be uncounted millions of copies of the game Doom out there. They aren't just going to evaporate because you say they're bad.
I will resist people like you until I die, as Patrick Henry said, "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" [ou.edu]
Why don't you try Iran, I think they have just the kind of government you want already.
Parenting (Score:2)
Your quote is right on. Parents who don't pay attention to what their kids are doing have only themselves to blame. Not video games, not gun manufacturers, not society, not drugs, ad freaking nauseum...
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
This brings something else to mind... (Score:2)
Yet, for all the supposedly violent video game content I processed as a youngster, my gaming friends and I were always the TARGET of agression... We weren't particularly interested in sports, for instance, nor were we impressed by physical muscle... I got into the gifted program (quit it when I went to Jr. High -- Now THAT stuff can mess with your mind) and generally became branded a geek at an early age.... I had a lot of pent-up rage at the jocks and whatnot, but I never attacked anyone, I saved it for my time spent gaming, when I "decompressed," as I like to put it.... I was subject to threats and the like all the time however, from the "normal" kids. This continued all the way through high-school. The ones who were leading the healthy lives, body-building, playing football, etc.... these are the violent ones.... Ever see a high-school football player who's really juiced up after a game? They take that stuff off the field with them, into their social life, use that energy to beat down the little guy, a lot of times. Used to make me sick.
My story isn't uncommon, as was evidenced by the strong backlash on
I apologize for the rambling, but this post just struck a chord with me I guess.
I am passive (Score:2)
Violent tendencies are brought on by violent upbringings, not by any single factor. Perhaps people should look at the bigger picture?
Off- Topic (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with responsible hunting. Of course, that's strictly an opinion (backed by scientific fact).
Join PETV, People for the Ethical Treatment of Vegetables!
-Veldrane
Games that *do* cause violent behavoir are: (Score:2)
US murder rate 3x that of Canada (Score:2)
The U.S. murder rate is three times higher than that of Canada. Same continent, same language, same high level of industrialization, same TV shows and pop songs, and I'm even given to understand they have video games up there. But the U.S. murder rate is 6 per 100,000 per year, while Canada's is 2 per 100,000 per year.
I know it's trendy to blame all the problems of the world on video games these days, and I can understand how venal pseudo-scientists might be eager to cash in on that fad, but I don't much care. Why don't these psychologists stop wanking off over video games and study those numbers, and try to figure out why it works out that way?
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:Time to ban the Football team... (Score:2)
> surely they will be even more aroused after
> playing an actual game where all their senses
> and their bodies are used.
First, a disclaimer. I loathe sports. Mencken once suggested that all golfers should be prohibited from public office; I go one step further and propose that all admitted sports fans should be disallowed from voting altogether. In addition they should pay double taxes and be forced to wear dunce caps when in public. Now that I've made my personal prejudices clear, I'd like to play Devil's advocate here.
I spent about a decade doing outdoor construction work for a living. Admittedly, while it was physical labor, in contrast with competitive sports, it was not particularly antagonistic in nature; the closest it came to being aggressive was when I had to attack and chop out a survey line with my machete. But it was my experience that after a few hours of hard physical labor, I always felt a pleasant and relaxed sensation, and I was not the slightest bit inclined toward violence, quite the contrary.
It's possible that the problem with video games is not just the aggressive mental tension they induce, but that psychical aggressiveness combined with the complete physical torpor induced by sitting still in a chair for hours on end, with even the movement of your head and eyes damped down to stasis, as you focus on the computer screen. You get all the mental tension of combat, together with none of the release of strenuous physical activity.
I'm 45 years old. Probably most slashdot readers are younger, and thus healthier and more supple than I am. Last year I bought Quake II for my eight-year-old son (who loves it, and who is, by the way, the happiest and most good-natured little boy I ever met). I played it a few times. Every time I got deep into fragging, when I finally gave up, I would discover that it was three or four in the morning, I was soaked in sweat like some dope fiend coming off a binge, and my body ached all over like I had been beaten from the strain of holding myself rigidly in position before the monitor. I had to give it up! By comparison the after-effect of a ten-mile hike under the Florida sun is a gentle caress.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:False Statements and other sources (Score:2)
The average rifleman on the other hand, has plenty of incentive to just keep his head down during a firefight, and no one is really watching him to make sure he fires his weapon. The crew on the machine gun will quickly notice if one of the crewmembers is not doing their job, and there was little evidence they ever failed to pull the trigger.
After WWII and Korea, the Army altered rifle training to emphasize firing the weapon in combat situations (instead of just shooting at round targets at the firing range). Their problem was pretty much "solved" by the time Vietnam rolled around, so video games had pretty much zilch to do with it.
Prison causes crime (Score:2)
--Kevin
this is sooo dated... (Score:2)
Who plays "... violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Combat [sic]" anymore?
I can see how those games can lead to violent behavior -- they suck! Personally, I would prefer to commit a violent act against myself than have to figure out some obscenely complicated sequence of buttons to finish off a match, or once again get pissed off because my version of the game did not have the naked chicks on the walls...
--
If violent video games increase violent behavior.. (Score:2)
Do funny, humorus games lead to an increase of comedy in the streets?
And, more importantly, is this causation or mere correlation?
Causation: Evil violent game turns harmless person into violent person.
Correlation: Evil violent person tends to like games that happen to be violent.
Do stupid games lead to an increase of 'first post' nonsense?
Er... (Score:2)
Re:Doom? Wolfinstien?? Mortal Kombat??? (Score:2)
Inconclusive Period! (Score:2)
All of them (Score:2)
If you accept that then you must ask what caused the insanity? There IS a cause - whether it's in the genome and turned on at birth, or caused by bad parenting, or turned on by video games. This study didn't find any statistically significant evidence that video games were the cause, but simply saying "killers are crazy" doesn't address the question of "why??"
Re:Look at this study for what it is... (Score:2)
We all know that the unwashed masses and politicians (unwashed as well?) will point to this preliminary study as definitive proof that Johnny shot 12 kids with a .9mm because he played Quake.
Unfortunately, most peoples' faith in the APA is so great, that if they (the APA) even hint at a link between video games and violence, everyone is going to say "See, I told you. Ban the games, they're dangerous!"
See my .sig. Even though it's from a fictional character, it speaks volumes of the mentality that most (read majority) people have.
A very good point! (Score:2)
This is the point that I have been trying to make! Look at our ancestry, we are hunters. Throughout history, our fathers have gone out and blown the brains out of cattle, deer, sheep, and almost anything else that moves. Our ancestors cut the heads off of chickens, rabbits, and small game. My question is if this behavior did not lead to school massacres etc., then how the hell does a stupid video game?!
When kids grew up in the late 1800's and early 1900's, they grew up with hunting rifles in thier hands. The were taught how to hunt from a young age and probably got thier first kills before they were 10! The were exposed to cleaning and skinning the kill as well. Has any of these 'experts' that tell us that video games are to blame actaully stuck their hand into a deer's chest to cut the sternum with thier knife? I bet not.
Personally, I am not a huge fan of guns because they are becoming less and less practicle in today's urban society, but what I am trying to say is that if kids in the past had used these guns for hunting, and killed all kinds of animals yet they were not raving lunatics, then why are the kids today turning into these evil beasts because of video games? The answer is that they are not. Nothing has changed. As long as we are humans with free will, there will always be violence and tragedy. We must accept it and do something about accountability. We must look out for our kids, not by putting metal detectors into their schools, not by subscribing them to WAVE, but by teaching them how to get along with other kids, how to communicate their feelings with others, and that they are not alone in this cold world and that there are people, at home, that love them very much.
Ah, but what do I know. I am just a 22 yr old programmer that has been playing everything from Wolfenstein to Quake III.
Re:Look at this study for what it is... (Score:2)
Politicians won't bother to read the study and understand what it actually means. They'll use selective quotes and beg that we vote for them because they'll Do Something(tm) about this Horrible Threat to our Schools(tm); after all, we must Save the Children(tm). Activists determined to brand the American Ideal with their own particular visions (duly enforced by law, of course) and misguided crusaders eager to save the American people from themselves will be just as quick to trumpet snippets of the report which seem to support their cause.
This isn't, however, the fault of the researches. Public opinion and the fear of public response can not and should not be allowed to dictate the course of scientific research. It's hardly over-reacting, however, to view the publication of such studies with some trepidation. Not because of the nature of the studies themselves, but because of the (mis)use to which they'll undoubtedly be put.
Re:A very good point! (Score:2)
A lot of people say that kids today are raving lunatics. Not true. Kids are the same as they've always been. It's just that now we have slightly different problems that need to be blamed on a common scapegoat. Columbine tradgedy a result of shitty parents who a) failed to raise their children or b) were too absorbed in their own lives to recognize their child's mental illness? No, it was the video games! Bullshit.
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:2)
Ugh, please don't repeat the myth that violence is increasing. Violence in the US hasn't increased for ten years (and has actually decreased a bit). And while one has to stretch to corrolate violence with video games, it's plainly obvious and undeniable that violence overall is directly related to the "war on drugs". Crime dropped in half starting the day that alcohol prohibition ended and didn't significantly increase until the modern "war on drugs" began, after which it steadily increased to prohibition levels. Pfft!
Re:US murder rate 3x that of Canada (Score:2)
On a related note, in the US, the rate of shootings is way up (about 3x) since the 1960s, but the murder rate is down to 1960s levels. This reflects better medical care; most big cities have paramedics and trauma centers now. More shooting victims are surviving, although often with crippling damage.
Re:If violent video games increase violent behavio (Score:2)
Correlation: Evil violent person tends to like games that happen to be violent.
Strawmanning: Rediculously exagerated descriptions of real causation.
Real causation: Exposure to violent video games has a tendency to increase the violent responses in any person with an accelerated effect in people who have other violence indicators.
To put in in other terms, you might as well have said -
Causation: puffing on one cigarrette will cause an otherwise completely healthy person to die of cancer within a year.
Correlation: people who have unhealthy habits and living situations otherwise also smoke cigarrettes.
The real answer, as above, is accellerated causation : Smoking is bad for you, but not in a individually predicatable way, and the effects will be increased in people with other unhealthy life factors.
You know, if there was a way to get demographic data on all you guys, we could have a real study going here. Just post a well designed, straightforward study on anything related to computers that has a non-positive outcome. Then post a link to it on /. and watch the responses. We could title it "The effects of negitive news on over-sensitive non-psych educated geeks who think they know everything."
If you want to get a less personalized veiw of the effect of external stimuli on violence, read On Killing. It starts with the firing rates of soldiers in WWII vs vietnam and how the army brought them up. pretty interesting.
-Kahuna Burger
Damn Straight! (Score:2)
For a better perspective on the issue of this thread, read On Killing.
-Kahuna Burger
Ever heard of a confounding variable? (Score:2)
Oh this is rich. All this talk about correlation vs, causation and then this. they don't need to "address" the data, because there is no useful data there.
This is pure correlation. "Two different things happened together, so they are related". The probelm is that tons of other things were happening at the same time. Program specifily meant to fight youth crime, other changes that may have had unexpected effects. An interesting study last year suggested that the entire dip in juvenile crime in the last decades is due to increased contrceptive avalibility and legal abortion. Unwanted poor kids are more likely to be delinquints, better family planning cuts down on both.
To suggest that structured laboratory data can somehow be trumped by highly confounded trends is just silly. Do you guys know anything about science?
-Kahuna Burger
Re:Damn Straight! (Score:2)
Is freedom to play video games more important to you than freedom of speach? Can I say anything I want except point out the dangers we may be exposed to? Its a pretty piss poor respect for freedom that responds with hysteria and bile to a reading suggestion.
-Kahuna Burger
Heh Heh (Score:2)
What came out of my mouth was, "Move or I will kill you"
Hey.. my cat would not get out of my seat and I had to piss in a QIII DM.
Re:Ignorance of Slashdot readers (Score:2)
- Microsoft software makes me more agressive than Quake.
- Ignorant idiots posting on public forums and letters to the editor make more agravated than a violent video game (irony not intended).
The bullshit is in the ideology behind the study, not that the study found a correlation. The study will be conveyed as showing that it was not continual bullying that made them plan revenge, it was not windows crashing or Word messing with their assignment that made them violent, it was not violence on TV since age 5, it was DOOM (at the expense of trenchcoats?).Don't you think that to be valid the study really should have put the correlation into perspective - Violence induced by video games vs violence induced by traffic. Instead it's going to be used as evidence that games cause killings.
I do agree with you that I'm no psych expert and neither are most people here. However my opinions on that relevance are coloured by the only person I know [that I know] has a psych degree saying the only thing this taught her was that they don't know squat (I don't think those were her exact words, but I can't remember them). That and the fact that you don't need a psych degree to have introspection and social interaction to draw from, both of which are more educational than anything a psych degree can teach you (of course, a psych degree is extra).
Man! they are reaching... (Score:2)
Uhm, WHAT?! And who says TETRIS isn't an aggressive game?! (you should see the way I play SCRABBLE!)
And of course one must consider the age range we are looking at- Young males at the peak of thier testosterone levels. And I believe there is more than just a causal link between aggression and testosterone. So to say "Hey, look! Young males are aggressive!" is about as revealing as saying "Anyone who thinks Super Mario Brothers is a violent game needs to have their head checked"... it's a no brainer!
Whew! (Score:2)
Sigh..Bad Memories (Score:3)
When I was 8, I was sent to a shrink after spending days running back and forth in front of my apartment building with a bucket of water in my hands screaming "Get out of the way! Get out of the way! I must prevent the Mad Bomber from succeeding in his evil plans!".
This was followed by the unfortunate episode where I crafted a giant yellow arrow (not like a bow and arrow, but an arrow as in the symbol that points to something) and ran around town screaming out "Foul Rhindle! I will find and defeat you! I must keep moving! The bat wants my arrow!".
Of course, I hit rock bottom the time I stole several dozen live chickens from the local farm and threw them out into the road at rush hour.
(sigh)
Okay, my therapist says sharing all of those painful memories will make me feel better. I do already.
Nice game choices (Score:3)
Suddenly the results become clearer. Of course the Wolfenstein 3D group was more violent! The control group was probably asleep by the end of the test.
Statistics abuse (correllation) (Score:3)
And when one thinks about it, we really do expect those who are violent and prone to such behavior to be more interested in such games (and the same goes for rapists and violent pornography).
However, they do have a scrap, at least, in one of the studies. They found that the link is stronger for those who fit an aggressive profile to start with. I'd have to look *very* closely at their definitions before accepting this--as a Ph.D. statistician, psychologists playing with statistics are the second most suspect group (behind sociologists).
However, the match does not have to be exact for them to come up with a valid correllation--even a mild correllation (such as between a general agressive profile) and a different result (stronger correllation) *could* be evidence of causation, but I'd really need a closer look before being certain.
hawk
Yeah right... (Score:3)
You know I've always suspected this. (Score:3)
After playing Sim City I had an uncontrollable compulsion to run for mayor, or at least to lay pipes for the sewer authority.
I saw some people play too much Populous. They became Gods.
You don't want to know what happened to the guy that played Leisure Suit Larry.
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:3)
What nobody is really doing at this point is examining the kind of culture that produces these same games. Change society and the games and other forms of entertainment will become less violent. Less violent cultures simply do not get into the same violent passtimes that our culture goes for (the Japanese are odd in the sense that they love the epic fight/duel games and yet do not have the violence factor).
The society of the Japanese is not as violent(notice I am not saying that their culture is pacifist by any means and their history is very violent I know this) but the games are. The society and culture not the games the children play make the monsters taking out each other in our schools.
Re:Missing the point (Score:3)
During exercises, he was on the base aggressor team. Personnel in various non-combat roles would be trained to augment base defense (one day you're a clerk, the next you're in a concrete bunker overlooking a field). The aggressor team would attack the augmentee's positions as part of the exercise.
There was a particularly annoying young lady that my friend was unable to ferret out. Time was ticking. The pressure built and he went after her with everything he had. He tossed a smoke grenade at the bunker and lit up her MILES gear as she staggered away from her position.
There was some hand-smacking for tossing ordnance at another person. Not the safest thing to do. And probably quite unpleasant. But my friend was much harder on himself. He was quite horrified at his own actions. "I wanted to take her out so bad. I mean... my God... I was salivating!"
The heat of the moment.
We all like to think we know ourselves. We have our boundaries that we feel comfortable with. There are logical reasons behind what we will and won't do. But to say we know exactly what we'll do while under the pressure of a dire moment is deluding ourselves. We may crumble. Or we may unleash a force we didn't know our psyche contained. And quite often, the situation may call for the actions that force enables us to do. Our survival may be dependent on it.
And it may scare us after the fact.
Why Columbine? (Score:3)
Stupidity (Score:3)
Re:Missing the point (Score:3)
Also, I play Quake 3 with my son. We play capture the flag and are usually on the same team. I run and he blocks. We work together and feel a real sense of accomplishment when we trounce another team. I don't see any problem with this at all.
What? I was supposed to have a point? Oh. Nevermind.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Interactive Learning (Score:3)
Corollary: I believe that the worst source of violence ever, in the past 50 years (after WWII) was caused by Windows 95/98 OS. It made me so violent sometimes that even the scary Eradicator or Doom or Wolf3 looked PALE in comparison. When my computer crashed because of those OS's I became enraged and unstoppable, I became a killing machine. Of-course when I booted my GNU/Linux or Solaris partitions I cooled down and relaxed for a while.
Doom? Wolfinstien?? Mortal Kombat??? (Score:3)
how the study was conducted (Score:4)
1) had to in order to receive class credit. This is how people who are doing studies get test subjects, the U requires that the 100/200 level students participate in X number of experiments being done by grad students. Unfortunately, these studies are usually questionaires (although, I did participate in one that tested memory by building things with Legos).
2) having filled out a questionaire, did self assesment, which means any results collected are not singlely biased, but rather are up to the interpretation of each person who filled out the questionaire.
Personally, I specificly play Quake3 SO I DON'T GET TOO AGRESSIVE IN REAL LIFE AND KICK SOMEONE'S ASS. A quick 200 frags can be really relaxing.
Yet Another Study.. (Score:4)
I'll be eager to go read this new study, but I'm always curious about studies like this: How come if video games spur violence among the young, that violence among the young is dropping to its lowest levels since the depression. Though the study may explain Threads.
Not a surprise. (Score:4)
NY Times Report (Score:4)
It starts out:
>They are not drunk or high on drugs. They
>are not racists or Satanists, or addicted to
>violent video games, movies or music.
You can read the series of articles here: http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/040900ramp age-killers.html [nytimes.com]
Thoughtless posts are more damning than good (Score:4)
Violent video games are in a bad position, because they get kids talking about how much damage different weapons do and how much ammo they hold and how they took down Joe 3/_ee+ with a head shot. Well, duh, this is going to cause people to wonder. Yeah, yeah, yeah, violent movies, blah, blah, blah, but they didn't let the viewer to do the killing. Being smug about this is the wrong angle. It's like going in front of a PTA and saying, "C'mon all you soccer moms! Marijuana isn't bad like everyone says! Look at me!"
Re:Not a surprise. (Score:4)
I suggest reading On Killing. In WWII soldiers (like the original poster's father, perhaps) had very low firing rates. They gave them guns, pointed at the enemy and said "shoot", but in general, they didn't do much shooting. Troop leaders talked about walking up and down the lines, kicking soldiers to get them to fire their damn guns. These were men from a more rural nation than today, most of whom had probably handled guns well before being drafted.
By vietnam, the Army had heard of this psychology thing, and was using it to try to reduce soldier aversion to firing on other human beings. They used desensitisation and script building - the same factors, and in some similar ways, that modern psychologists worry about with violent media. Even though its likely that a smaller percentage of vietnam soldiers had handled weapons previous to the draft than their WWII counterparts, firing rates went way, way up.
Now, to go back to your earlier question, its possible that the entire draft pool of the vietnam war just happened to be more violent than those called up for WWII. Its also possible that people's behavior can be effected by stimuli and training. The fact that we don't present all of this stimuli and training on purpose, doesn't mean that it can't have an effect. It also doesn't mean that one round of Doom can turn a healthy person into a killer. But then, one cigarrette won't turn a healthy person into a corpse either, and that doesn't mean they're safe.
-Kahuna Burger
The Quote... (Score:4)
The quote says it all...
Gun manufacturers don't make bad products, bad parents do.
The experts have an opinion, or three (Score:5)
Vitamin C used to useless, then it was a miracle drug, now it's useless again.
And yes, after a year of studies finding little correlation, there will of course be two that find that video games are killing us all. Along with rays from high-tension lines, cellular phones, caffeine, aspartame, and the fumes from using ALex caulk on your house's siding.
Yawn.
Somebody let me know when the experts have agreed on something for more than five years in a row. I should be nearly finished with Thief II and System Shock 2 by then. Then you can let me know if I'm a raving psycho or not.
--G
No Slashdot, NO! (Score:5)
> Playing violent video games often may well cause increases in delinquent behaviors,
> both aggressive and nonaggressive. However, the correlational nature of Study 1
> means that causal statements are risky at best. It could be that the obtained video
> game violence links to aggressive and nonaggressive delinquency are
> wholly due to the fact that highly aggressive individuals are especially
> attracted to violent video games.
This is the single most significant portion of Study #1, it says that people who play violent video games are the same people who are aggressive individuals. This means one of three things, either people play violent video games and become aggressive because of it, people who are aggressive prefer to play violent video games, or a third factor causes both aggressiveness and a tendency to play violent video games.
In order to resolve which of the three it was, they conducted the second study. In Study #2, the hypothesis was the first of the three things I mentioned, that playing violent video games causes aggression. The results of the pilot study conducted for the hypothesis are reported as follows:
> The game type effect as well as all two- and three-way interactions between
> the independent variables were nonsignificant (allps >
The key word here is "nonsignificant". In other words, this means that when they attempted to find an increase in aggression due to playing violent video games, they completely failed. There was no measureable increase in aggression due to playing violent video games.
So in conclusion, no, playing violent video games does NOT increase violent behavior, and studies, such as this one, continue to demostrate such. Only the opposite can be shown, that people who are aggressive are inclined to play violent video games.
Well, Duh! (Score:5)
Hello? Anybody home? Our brains are neural networks, which learn by patterning and repetition.
Do the "violent behavior is normal/acceptable/etc" neural pathways get reinforced by playing violent games or by watching cinema/TV violence? Of course they do.
The survival of civilization relies on the OTHER neural pathways overriding the violent ones when its time to make a real life decision. Thankfully this happens most often. Unfortunately, it is happening less often that it used to (road rage is an example.)
Argue all you want that playing violent games is not criminal. (I don't think it is either.) The problem is, the "violent is beneficial" pathways (by nature and evolution) respond FASTER than the "peace" pathways.
Train (a neural network term) those peace pathways as much as you train the ones for immediate attack/flame, and you'll be a fine member of a civilization.
Obvious to any thinking person.
Video Game/ Violence Correlation (Score:5)
Knowing this however, it becomes _my_ responsibility as a parent to monitor his game usage and teach him how to appropriately channel his aggression.
Using video games as a substitute for family interaction can lead to problems. Socialization is a learned skill and sitting in front of a video console 4 hours a night takes away from the opportunities to learn this skill.
Does that mean that all of us (myself included) who like to play video games are going to turn into gun crazed lunatics? No, and some groups will try to oversimplify these findings to say that. But there does need to be a balance and it is responisibility of parents to make sure that balance is there.
Look at this study for what it is... (Score:5)
And the second experiment is just that -- an attempt to start to establish firmer ground for the "video game hypothesis". This was a pretty responsible approach, I believe. The scientific method bears out the truth in time, and in this case, the researchers were clearly trying to find the truth.
Before people overreact, let's remember that there's nothing wrong with having the hypothesis that there is a causal link between real-life and video game violence. For many people, that's actually a "common sense" conclusion. So when someone wants to apply the scientific method to verify the validity of that conclusion, even those who oppose it should applaud the honest and valuable effort.
I agree (Score:5)
I learned this behavior from playing video games. It all started with Shinobi, the ninja game from sega. I started pretending to be a ninja and then when street fighter II came out I started fighting like blanka. You couldn't have imagined it when I would dress up in my yellow fur and beat the crap out of people.
This is my life style and I have video games to thank for it. I now know 20 different styles of martial arts, learned from playing video games. You would believe how high I can jump!
False Statements and other sources (Score:5)
The psychological profession long ago decided that the road to power and political relevance was to reject the Aristotilean idea of catharsis and instead follow the Platonic idea that "the poets should be banned from the Republic because they get the people all stirred up." Otherwise, they won't get invited to testify on Capitol Hill or TV talk shows.
There are some counter articles out there today that everyone should also read:
Lawmakers are uneducated about video game industry, panelist says [freedomforum.org]
Illinois attorney general urges end to sales of violent video games to minors [freedomforum.org]
And, most importantly: Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers [freedomforum.org]
I think the big question that everyone needs to ask themselves is who better serves American interests, jurists, or psychologists? I agree with R. A. Heinlein (who used to get guff from amateur psychologist when he was writing his juvenile novels, Red Planet, and others) that the psychological profession is full of charlatans and quacks. Of course, with the current low regard the First Amendment and the entire Constitution is held in in this country, I don't expect my opinions to hold much weight.
Analyse (Score:5)
The first study just found a link between violent games and violent behavoir. However a link doesn't mean that violent games cause violent behavoir. It's quite common for people to confuse these two. Just because something is associated with something else doesn't mean that that something caused something else. Floods and rain are linked, but you wouldn't say that floods caused rain!
The second study looks at very short term effects that lasted a matter of minutes. No-one has done any proper studies to look at this. IE you get a two groups of kids, encourage one group to play violent games, watch violent TV etc. while do nothing with the other group. Then as they grow up watch their behavoir. Unfortunatly these sort of studies cost huge amounts of money and take a very long time to complete. But they are the gold standard.
Now what would happen if such a study was done and showed a definit cause and effect between violent games and TV and violent behavoir? Well I'll put it this way, good luck keeping Doom legal!
Missing the point (Score:5)
"One study reveals that young men who are habitually aggressive may be especially vulnerable to the aggression-enhancing effects of repeated exposure to violent games," said psychologists Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., and Karen E. Dill, Ph.D. "The other study reveals that even a brief exposure to violent video games can temporarily increase aggressive behavior in all types of participants."
I look at this report and I worry. Not because of the details of the report in particular, but because aggressive behaviour is difficult to pin down and is not necessarily a bad thing. The first report seems to me to say that aggressive people may be stimulated by aggressive situations. That doesn't strike me as being an illogical statement - it is merely stating the obvious. The second study is more interesting. If I play an immersive video game, yes, my heart rate goes up. In a tricky situation when I'm pinned down by sniper fire or there is a helicopter whirring overhead, I'm tense, edgy. If I get into an open fire-fight with half a dozen other human players or computer-controlled players, I may get aggressive and noisy. So yes, video games do have an effect, probably far more effective then TV because the interaction between what you see and can do is so much more complete.
But is this limited to computer games, or does it extend to other activities? I would argue that any competitive activity will lead to increased aggression over my normal, fairly passive self. If I play rugby, there is no way I'm going to survive on the playing field unless I get going. If I'm not pumped when I get the ball, I'm going to get flattened by someone who wants it more than I do. If I'm being chased by some back row player who is technically faster than me on paper, then that extra adrenaline is going to be needed if I'm going to make it to the line. If I'm going to tackle some 6ft6 tight-head prop forward who weighs 260 lbs, I'd better be aggressive!
Any involving competitive activity will require an increased level of adrenaline, alertness and aggression. And it's not necessarily a bad thing - these are our survival instincts being used in a modern arena, whether it's rugby, Quake or even some individual sport like badminton. Aggression can help us out when our other resources are low. The only time aggression becomes a problem is when it is taken from the field of play/battle/sport whatever and spills over into our daily lives. And I really don't feel that this report works through this last point.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes