surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I'm of the opinion that these kinds of studies are bullshit from the start. You can find a study to prove something and another study that disproves it. If you have something you wish to prove, your studies will prove it.
I don't see where in that quote it proves that violence in media is harmful. It merely says violence is there.
I don't see where in that quote it proves that violence in media is harmful. It merely says violence is there.
Ya I have to agree with Jim, I mean communism isn't a show and I bet it's cause far more death than any amount of violent media. Books in these regards, and in their essence ideas are far more dangerous. But its hardly sensational if you say books helped kill millions of people.
people kill people. c'mon.
so many people watch tv and movies, & play video games. some are violent, some aren't. they would probaably have the same tendencies without media. but that's hard to prove or disprove.
so many people watch tv and movies, & play video games. some are violent, some aren't. they would probaably have the same tendencies without media. but that's hard to prove or disprove.
I'd have thought this all goes without saying, to be honest. It doesn't exactly reach any new conclusions.
-- Overexposure to violent media causes violence.
-- Children should not be exposed to violent media.
In other news, sky is blue. Ursine fecal matter found in woodland area.
-- Overexposure to violent media causes violence.
-- Children should not be exposed to violent media.
In other news, sky is blue. Ursine fecal matter found in woodland area.
Oh, and on a similar note, Here's a link to a story about another study, which links 'excessive' use of TV and videogames to inferior sleep patterns and lower verbal cognitive performance.
But I'm afraid that's more of the same. Common sense stuff, really.
But I'm afraid that's more of the same. Common sense stuff, really.
Dude I watched fucked up anime like Akira and shit when I was a kid, I'm talking about hardcore blood puddling anime. Somehow I remember getting a hold of Fritz The Cat also...and I turned out normal..sort of.
I used 5 of Bushman's reports on a paper for psychology. they all dealt with violent media and he was one of three people i found that were well respected and not pushing their own agenda
I don't see how it's any threat to realize that videogames can have an adverse effect on the general psyche. Ultimately, it's still the individuals responsibility to answer for any actions they may take in life; Doesn't it behoove us all to be informed when something poses a potential danger to us or our fellow man. Inthis way, we can make right decisions on how we should procede to expose ourselves or our loved ones to such things.
I really like videogames, but I can see the issues...
I really like videogames, but I can see the issues...
I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can isolate media specifically as the component or element that correlates directly to violence. There are so many factors that play into the development of an individual in society. I mean, maybe something like economic recession or war, maybe just maybe those things have an impact on the psychological wellbeing of the nation. . . Could just be me and my liberal, academic bullshit, but I'm pretty sure that's not how science really works. . .
It's not so much a question of towing any party line, as far as I'm concerned, at least. I agree that this study has legitimate, scientific merit. I also agree that the people behind it had no agenda of their own, other than to further their knowledge and understanding of the effects of violent media.
The point I'm trying to make is that I don't see a lot of practical merit to that, or any new knowledge that was not already, as I said, common sense.
The point I'm trying to make is that I don't see a lot of practical merit to that, or any new knowledge that was not already, as I said, common sense.
"Extreme violence" and "violence"? The whole thing seems way too vague to be taken seriously by anybody.
@Jim:
And God, am I thankful for that. How would I be supposed to finish my Ph.D. if my findings were to be universally irrefutable?
As for the study, when and if I decide to bring stupid little assholes to this world, I will be sure to know what they are playing and what they don't. And if they behave in a violent way, I will be sure to blame it on me, rather than on the videogames they play. Of course children of certain ages have no business playing certain videogames. So what?
You know, parents are the biggest pricks in the face of the planet. Most of them would like to deal with a kid the same way you deal with a cat -- feed it and cuddle it every now and then -- and, as outcome, get a grown man who is sensible and intelligent and everything that they want them to be.
Have you never heard parents complain about kids having too long vacation periods? Of course, since they work 10 hours a day 350 days a year, they expect their children should just do so, so they can avoid paying for a babysitter or kindergarten in the meantime. Just the same way they expect ALL videogames to be nice and non-harmful for their children. They just expect society to be exactly how they would need it to be in order to educate their children in the right way. But you know what? Society is fucked up, so better get working if you don't want your kids to grow fucked up as well.
</incoherent rant>
And God, am I thankful for that. How would I be supposed to finish my Ph.D. if my findings were to be universally irrefutable?
As for the study, when and if I decide to bring stupid little assholes to this world, I will be sure to know what they are playing and what they don't. And if they behave in a violent way, I will be sure to blame it on me, rather than on the videogames they play. Of course children of certain ages have no business playing certain videogames. So what?
You know, parents are the biggest pricks in the face of the planet. Most of them would like to deal with a kid the same way you deal with a cat -- feed it and cuddle it every now and then -- and, as outcome, get a grown man who is sensible and intelligent and everything that they want them to be.
Have you never heard parents complain about kids having too long vacation periods? Of course, since they work 10 hours a day 350 days a year, they expect their children should just do so, so they can avoid paying for a babysitter or kindergarten in the meantime. Just the same way they expect ALL videogames to be nice and non-harmful for their children. They just expect society to be exactly how they would need it to be in order to educate their children in the right way. But you know what? Society is fucked up, so better get working if you don't want your kids to grow fucked up as well.
</incoherent rant>
@assbees
You can statistically through careful control of a variety of variables. It's likely you won't get them all, but you can do a fairly good job of weeding out the major ones.
@Toxic
At the very least, it's practical in the sense that it gives us a better understanding of one of the many, many factors that help to shape our behavior and how we're influenced by our environment. Additionally, knowing that the link exists between people and the media can potentially, down the road, be used for beneficial things.
As to everyone who says "HEY I PLAYED A VIOLENT VIDEO GAME AND I HAVEN'T KILLED ANYONE SCIENCE SUCKS", congratulations. You are doing the exact same thing that Jack Thompson does where he points to a kid who HAS played a violent video game and claims they turn people in to murderers. These studies look at a large diverse population. There is nothing in social sciences that can be predicted 100% across an entire population.
That said, everyone also needs to realize that aggression, and even violence, aren't necessarily bad things. Every time a study comes out where aggression is mentioned everyone freaks out and acts like the researcher is blaming gamers for genocide. Aggression can mean a lot of different things. Violence doesn't mean you're shooting people in the head.
For example, when I was younger, my little brother and I would play Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat in the backyard. We had fun. It was a game. I dragon punched him in the face a number of times. Is that aggression and violence? You bet it is. Would I have done it if I hadn't played SF2? Maybe, it's hard to tell. Does it matter in the grand scheme of things? Probably not. Do I consider myself well adjusted? Yes. Do a lot of you have similar stories? Probably.
I know I probably sound pissy, but I have a fairly decent social science research background and a general idea of what's involved in these studies and what's really being discussed. It frustrates me to see people instantly jump on and attack not only a study's findings but the researchers themselves because the results go against people's own personal beliefs. If you're riled up, sit down and read the study. Do some research on the psychological definitions of aggression and violence. Hell, even (respectfully) email the author of the study if you want to talk about the results. Professors LOVE that shit.
It will be FAR more beneficial to the video game industry as a whole to acknowledge that there's a link between media and psych and to examine ways to use that in a way that benefits people than it is to stick our fingers in our ears and scream "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU FUCK YOU SCIENCE!" every time something like this comes along. Use this to encourage developers, retailers, and parents to take ESRB ratings SERIOUSLY. 9 year olds should not be playing Manhunt. Stores shouldn't be selling M rated games to 7 year olds 50% of the time. Parents should fucking PAY ATTENTION to what their kids are doing. In the end, everyone wins.
You can statistically through careful control of a variety of variables. It's likely you won't get them all, but you can do a fairly good job of weeding out the major ones.
@Toxic
At the very least, it's practical in the sense that it gives us a better understanding of one of the many, many factors that help to shape our behavior and how we're influenced by our environment. Additionally, knowing that the link exists between people and the media can potentially, down the road, be used for beneficial things.
As to everyone who says "HEY I PLAYED A VIOLENT VIDEO GAME AND I HAVEN'T KILLED ANYONE SCIENCE SUCKS", congratulations. You are doing the exact same thing that Jack Thompson does where he points to a kid who HAS played a violent video game and claims they turn people in to murderers. These studies look at a large diverse population. There is nothing in social sciences that can be predicted 100% across an entire population.
That said, everyone also needs to realize that aggression, and even violence, aren't necessarily bad things. Every time a study comes out where aggression is mentioned everyone freaks out and acts like the researcher is blaming gamers for genocide. Aggression can mean a lot of different things. Violence doesn't mean you're shooting people in the head.
For example, when I was younger, my little brother and I would play Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat in the backyard. We had fun. It was a game. I dragon punched him in the face a number of times. Is that aggression and violence? You bet it is. Would I have done it if I hadn't played SF2? Maybe, it's hard to tell. Does it matter in the grand scheme of things? Probably not. Do I consider myself well adjusted? Yes. Do a lot of you have similar stories? Probably.
I know I probably sound pissy, but I have a fairly decent social science research background and a general idea of what's involved in these studies and what's really being discussed. It frustrates me to see people instantly jump on and attack not only a study's findings but the researchers themselves because the results go against people's own personal beliefs. If you're riled up, sit down and read the study. Do some research on the psychological definitions of aggression and violence. Hell, even (respectfully) email the author of the study if you want to talk about the results. Professors LOVE that shit.
It will be FAR more beneficial to the video game industry as a whole to acknowledge that there's a link between media and psych and to examine ways to use that in a way that benefits people than it is to stick our fingers in our ears and scream "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU FUCK YOU SCIENCE!" every time something like this comes along. Use this to encourage developers, retailers, and parents to take ESRB ratings SERIOUSLY. 9 year olds should not be playing Manhunt. Stores shouldn't be selling M rated games to 7 year olds 50% of the time. Parents should fucking PAY ATTENTION to what their kids are doing. In the end, everyone wins.
@fyre
You'll probably need a university logon. Feel free to PM me your email address if you want me to send you a copy.
You'll probably need a university logon. Feel free to PM me your email address if you want me to send you a copy.
I agree with just about everyone here, and Harkonnen has a great point about parental responsibility.
Nex stop being an asshole. Is this the first research study you've ever read?
The University of Michigan researchers may not have had a bias; but any first year sociology student will tell you that no data gleaned from a "study" on human behavior can be held to be empirically accurate.
Stop lording it over us like a 3rd grader who's just been taught Pythagorean Theorem.
In closing, don't insult your readers intelligences and we won’t question yours.
Nex stop being an asshole. Is this the first research study you've ever read?
The University of Michigan researchers may not have had a bias; but any first year sociology student will tell you that no data gleaned from a "study" on human behavior can be held to be empirically accurate.
Stop lording it over us like a 3rd grader who's just been taught Pythagorean Theorem.
In closing, don't insult your readers intelligences and we won’t question yours.
wheres the study thats says we are just animals at heart so we have animalistic tendencies. do tigers play video games in which they kill and rip apart other animals or is it just in their nature to do so? to raccoons play "dig through trash simulators" all day or is it just in their nature?
people killed people before video games. people kill people with video games. did the early settlers here in the us play video games where they killed indians THEN go kill them? no. i think it's more apropriate to say that the way guns, killing, and crime are glorified in tv, movies, music, as well as video games are more of a cause not just to blame one specific media over another.
in the 80's it was rock music that was destroying our nations children. video games are the new target of all this because we would rather CREATE reasons for why people do things rather than admit we as humans are not perfect. that some people just give into tendancies we've had in us for thousands of years, we don't want to admit that some parents are full fail, we don't want to feel bad that we see obvious building of these tragadies and just ignore it because its easier than trying to help someone, nor are we willing to admit that there are problems in the world we are creating ourselves that cause these,
we persecute some while rewarding others, we attack the problem rather than what causes it. if the schools punish the bulliers rather than turn a blind eye and say well we need him for the game this weekend, maybe we would see a drop in the school shootings and such. if it wasn't so damned expensive for someone to see a psychologist it would cut down on these sort of problems, as well if we kept stricter guide lines ON these people as well it would reduce the problems. i stopped going to my psychologist because they made me feel as though they were damning me for my problems as well as creating new problems for me i don't have. how can you seek help from a person if they bash you for them? as well create a universal standard for all forms of medicine, my doctor finds my bi-polar and add horse shit but a psycologist finds them viable realities.
to fix the problems we need to do more than just damn certain medias. we need to fix the way we live, and fix our world, and learn compassion for others rather than themselves.
people killed people before video games. people kill people with video games. did the early settlers here in the us play video games where they killed indians THEN go kill them? no. i think it's more apropriate to say that the way guns, killing, and crime are glorified in tv, movies, music, as well as video games are more of a cause not just to blame one specific media over another.
in the 80's it was rock music that was destroying our nations children. video games are the new target of all this because we would rather CREATE reasons for why people do things rather than admit we as humans are not perfect. that some people just give into tendancies we've had in us for thousands of years, we don't want to admit that some parents are full fail, we don't want to feel bad that we see obvious building of these tragadies and just ignore it because its easier than trying to help someone, nor are we willing to admit that there are problems in the world we are creating ourselves that cause these,
we persecute some while rewarding others, we attack the problem rather than what causes it. if the schools punish the bulliers rather than turn a blind eye and say well we need him for the game this weekend, maybe we would see a drop in the school shootings and such. if it wasn't so damned expensive for someone to see a psychologist it would cut down on these sort of problems, as well if we kept stricter guide lines ON these people as well it would reduce the problems. i stopped going to my psychologist because they made me feel as though they were damning me for my problems as well as creating new problems for me i don't have. how can you seek help from a person if they bash you for them? as well create a universal standard for all forms of medicine, my doctor finds my bi-polar and add horse shit but a psycologist finds them viable realities.
to fix the problems we need to do more than just damn certain medias. we need to fix the way we live, and fix our world, and learn compassion for others rather than themselves.
Aerox,
I see your point, but just as you finished with "9 year olds should not be playing Manhunt. Stores shouldn't be selling M rated games to 7 year olds 50% of the time. Parents should fucking PAY ATTENTION to what their kids are doing.", we've all been saying this shit for years, now.
Whilst I'd like to believe that this study could be used as ammunition for our cause, to FINALLY convince parents that they need to take an active interest in what their children are doing, I instead fear it'll be twisted into another point for the ignorant media/parent's endless, narrow-minded war against gaming as a whole.
I see your point, but just as you finished with "9 year olds should not be playing Manhunt. Stores shouldn't be selling M rated games to 7 year olds 50% of the time. Parents should fucking PAY ATTENTION to what their kids are doing.", we've all been saying this shit for years, now.
Whilst I'd like to believe that this study could be used as ammunition for our cause, to FINALLY convince parents that they need to take an active interest in what their children are doing, I instead fear it'll be twisted into another point for the ignorant media/parent's endless, narrow-minded war against gaming as a whole.
Woot, Nex. You are like a breath of fresh, exotically-scented air. It's far too easy for us to be, "Bullshit! They're trashing my favorite hobby, so they must be out-of-touch, biased hacks!" Think, people. While video games certainly don't create instant psychos, it doesn't mean there's no merit to these findings.
@Rucksack
This comment: "The University of Michigan researchers may not have had a bias; but any first year sociology student will tell you that no data gleaned from a "study" on human behavior can be held to be empirically accurate." is incorrect.
Empirically accurate doesn't mean that it holds true 100% of the time. You can't use them to accurately predict behavior in every single person you run across, that's true. You can use them to make generalizations about populations. These researchers aren't saying "Every single person who plays video games will become violent", they're saying "The act of playing violent video games may, in a percentage of the population, increase the likelyhood that that individual may have violent thoughts or behaviors." That's something that could be as simple as the kid might be more likely to punch his pillow when he's angry.
No one here is trying to insult anyone's intelligence or imply people are stupid. I think what Nex was getting at is that people should, at the very least, read the article before they make blanket statements like "This research is biased what an asshole" or "Every study ever done is done solely for the researcher to confirm their own opinions." If you read the article, and disagree, fantastic. I'm sure there's a lot of scientists out there who do. If you are going to disagree though, talk about the article directly instead of just making generalizations about science. Say why you think the experiment they did when someone blind to condition rated how many times kids playing hockey hit each other might be inaccurate. Something like 'The fact that the observers were not blind to the intent of the experiment' is a legitimate criticism. Screaming BIAS without backing it up is not.
This comment: "The University of Michigan researchers may not have had a bias; but any first year sociology student will tell you that no data gleaned from a "study" on human behavior can be held to be empirically accurate." is incorrect.
Empirically accurate doesn't mean that it holds true 100% of the time. You can't use them to accurately predict behavior in every single person you run across, that's true. You can use them to make generalizations about populations. These researchers aren't saying "Every single person who plays video games will become violent", they're saying "The act of playing violent video games may, in a percentage of the population, increase the likelyhood that that individual may have violent thoughts or behaviors." That's something that could be as simple as the kid might be more likely to punch his pillow when he's angry.
No one here is trying to insult anyone's intelligence or imply people are stupid. I think what Nex was getting at is that people should, at the very least, read the article before they make blanket statements like "This research is biased what an asshole" or "Every study ever done is done solely for the researcher to confirm their own opinions." If you read the article, and disagree, fantastic. I'm sure there's a lot of scientists out there who do. If you are going to disagree though, talk about the article directly instead of just making generalizations about science. Say why you think the experiment they did when someone blind to condition rated how many times kids playing hockey hit each other might be inaccurate. Something like 'The fact that the observers were not blind to the intent of the experiment' is a legitimate criticism. Screaming BIAS without backing it up is not.
watching or playing something does NOT make you want to emulate those things!!
i watch girls dance on youtube EVERYDAY for at least 3 hours and it doesn't make me want to strip in front of a camera!!
i just have a really nasty blister but thats it!!!
i watch girls dance on youtube EVERYDAY for at least 3 hours and it doesn't make me want to strip in front of a camera!!
i just have a really nasty blister but thats it!!!
@ Aerox
Good point, it seems that I did not make myself clear.
I know what empirical means, and I am by no means a layman. I also Punderstand exactly how a research study "works"; though I did appreciate the fact that you took the time for a lengthy reply on that matter.
My exact criticism really falls into two categories: sampling and "correlation vs causation".
I do not have the $30 to pay for the full research study, so I'm really working off of the abstract.
You nor I (I assume) have access, due to the unavailability of the full text of the study, to just what the size of their sample really was. On that same note we do not know the criteria for selection in this study.
Also how did they treat any outlying data?
This brings me to my next compliant- correlation obviously does not prove causation. Assuming that this study is even valid who could not now logically say that violent people are more likely to play video games?
Pretending, even for a second, that a sedentary recreational activity promotes anything other than weight-gain is frankly hard to swallow.
Thanks for the reply Aerox I appreciate differing opinions!
P.S.
Nex you still come off as an asshole.
Good point, it seems that I did not make myself clear.
I know what empirical means, and I am by no means a layman. I also Punderstand exactly how a research study "works"; though I did appreciate the fact that you took the time for a lengthy reply on that matter.
My exact criticism really falls into two categories: sampling and "correlation vs causation".
I do not have the $30 to pay for the full research study, so I'm really working off of the abstract.
You nor I (I assume) have access, due to the unavailability of the full text of the study, to just what the size of their sample really was. On that same note we do not know the criteria for selection in this study.
Also how did they treat any outlying data?
This brings me to my next compliant- correlation obviously does not prove causation. Assuming that this study is even valid who could not now logically say that violent people are more likely to play video games?
Pretending, even for a second, that a sedentary recreational activity promotes anything other than weight-gain is frankly hard to swallow.
Thanks for the reply Aerox I appreciate differing opinions!
P.S.
Nex you still come off as an asshole.
Sharpless: My point is there's rarely merit to any of these findings. The joke of "you can prove anything with statistics" is very accurate. If I wanted to conduct a study that "proved" videogames caused violence, I could do it. I could also conduct a study that "proved" videogames do not cause violence.
Fact is, both types of studies already exist. Some people have "proof" of games causing violence, some people have "proof" of it not.
All I can say is that the most violent and horrific parts of human history occurred long before there ever was a PlayStation 2. I think that counts for something.
Fact is, both types of studies already exist. Some people have "proof" of games causing violence, some people have "proof" of it not.
All I can say is that the most violent and horrific parts of human history occurred long before there ever was a PlayStation 2. I think that counts for something.
Jim's right.
I used to have a brother, until I killed him for fucking up the last level of Duck Hunt on the NES.
I used to have a brother, until I killed him for fucking up the last level of Duck Hunt on the NES.
I think it certainly has an effect on people if they're exposed to violence on a regular basis when they're young. That's all well and good, but what stood out to me here was this:
Children are also spending an increasingly large amount of time playing video games, most of which contain violence. Video game units are now present in 83 percent of homes with children," he added.
Game units that play violent games present in 83 percent of homes with children? If parents let their kid play games that glorify violence in any way, then they have no one but themselves to blame when their kid goes nuts and murders the football team.
Then again, it doesn't help when they're already fucked up to begin with. Again, the parents fault.
Children are also spending an increasingly large amount of time playing video games, most of which contain violence. Video game units are now present in 83 percent of homes with children," he added.
Game units that play violent games present in 83 percent of homes with children? If parents let their kid play games that glorify violence in any way, then they have no one but themselves to blame when their kid goes nuts and murders the football team.
Then again, it doesn't help when they're already fucked up to begin with. Again, the parents fault.
ARSTechnica has a nice counterpoint write-up that picks up on some flaws in this new study.
@ Aerox
I understand how you can attempt to limit some of the external variables, but this has always been the problem with sociological research; how can you make a far reaching assesment. This article makes many assumptions about the nature of aggression and violence that are difficult to substantiate, and proporting that violent media is unhealty is inflammatory. I am in no way arguing that violent media has no effect, in fact it has a great effect, but it always seems like studies like this are too broad to make greater judgements about the state of our society. I dont think you can say that media is the cause of violence because so much has changed in our culture over the past 50 years and I dont think that sociological theory has kept up that well.
I understand how you can attempt to limit some of the external variables, but this has always been the problem with sociological research; how can you make a far reaching assesment. This article makes many assumptions about the nature of aggression and violence that are difficult to substantiate, and proporting that violent media is unhealty is inflammatory. I am in no way arguing that violent media has no effect, in fact it has a great effect, but it always seems like studies like this are too broad to make greater judgements about the state of our society. I dont think you can say that media is the cause of violence because so much has changed in our culture over the past 50 years and I dont think that sociological theory has kept up that well.
The abstract didn't really tell me anything. What does this study mean? Are kids more likely to have mental disorders? Commit violent crime? I don't have money to drop on studies, and the abstract doesn't divulge spoilers.
My questions are these: What is considered violent content? Is this limited to war, fighting, and killing ala many video games? Or does this include domestic abuse, contact sports like football and wrestling, arguing, Mythbusters stunts or self-inflicted damage ala Jackass? Which ones are simply "violence" and which ones are "extreme violence?" Does the intent of an action make a difference (i.e., is a hero who gores a cruel villain with a sword as bad as a dictator who interrogates a wounded, dying soldier with a hammer and pliars?) Is the violence shown as a plot device, or does it have educational value, like Civil War reenactments or Discovery channel fare? Does it make a difference?
Nex, could you perhaps divulge a little bit more about this study?
My questions are these: What is considered violent content? Is this limited to war, fighting, and killing ala many video games? Or does this include domestic abuse, contact sports like football and wrestling, arguing, Mythbusters stunts or self-inflicted damage ala Jackass? Which ones are simply "violence" and which ones are "extreme violence?" Does the intent of an action make a difference (i.e., is a hero who gores a cruel villain with a sword as bad as a dictator who interrogates a wounded, dying soldier with a hammer and pliars?) Is the violence shown as a plot device, or does it have educational value, like Civil War reenactments or Discovery channel fare? Does it make a difference?
Nex, could you perhaps divulge a little bit more about this study?
Agreed with Jim! Post #0!
Even the President of the US.
Can make things look like something, he wants it too.
... NO?
Even the President of the US.
Can make things look like something, he wants it too.
... NO?
Sooo, you did read the original study? Good on you, Nex.
I was going to be critical and say that I don't trust the media's reporting of scientific articles, but if people have actually taken the time here to look at the data and understand the analyses, interpretation of the analyses, and viable conclusions, then judgments can be made about the merit of this study. (I can't be arsed to read it myself right now - too tired and too much real work on my desk atm).
@ Jim: You clearly don't understand how science works. No one sets out to prove anything. You can disprove things, and what's more likely is that data can support one hypothesis over another, but that's about it. Also, this is in a peer-reviewed journal = held to the highest standards concerning bias, conflicts of interest, solid method, etc, etc, etc. It is _not_ easy to get published in a scientific journal.
That said, any data (especially the tricky correlational kind) should be understood critically (i.e., not just taken at face value). But if you're going to do this, it might help to learn the analyses and what they mean yourself.
Saying, "NO U" doesn't work in academics, nor does it work in the public policy domain.
I was going to be critical and say that I don't trust the media's reporting of scientific articles, but if people have actually taken the time here to look at the data and understand the analyses, interpretation of the analyses, and viable conclusions, then judgments can be made about the merit of this study. (I can't be arsed to read it myself right now - too tired and too much real work on my desk atm).
@ Jim: You clearly don't understand how science works. No one sets out to prove anything. You can disprove things, and what's more likely is that data can support one hypothesis over another, but that's about it. Also, this is in a peer-reviewed journal = held to the highest standards concerning bias, conflicts of interest, solid method, etc, etc, etc. It is _not_ easy to get published in a scientific journal.
That said, any data (especially the tricky correlational kind) should be understood critically (i.e., not just taken at face value). But if you're going to do this, it might help to learn the analyses and what they mean yourself.
Saying, "NO U" doesn't work in academics, nor does it work in the public policy domain.
Aerox wins the thread. Basically what he said in his first post.
I loved this bit though:
"LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU FUCK YOU SCIENCE!"
I loved this bit though:
"LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU FUCK YOU SCIENCE!"
I think the article is fairly useless considering that we know that violence begets violence. But, even before the media, our societies were violent and will continue to be violent.
I would agree with the argument if at the same time it was confirmed that the media, games included, have also aided in relieving said violent tendencies through their use.
Regardless, these tendencies bear heavily on children and is reason number one why parents should manage the media that their kids interact with on a daily basis.
I would agree with the argument if at the same time it was confirmed that the media, games included, have also aided in relieving said violent tendencies through their use.
Regardless, these tendencies bear heavily on children and is reason number one why parents should manage the media that their kids interact with on a daily basis.
@Assbees
That's the thing. They're not claiming that media is THE cause of violence. They're claiming that watching violent media can increase the likelyhood that certain individuals will be more violent. Even if the likelyhood is increased, it doesn't mean people will act on it.
@Rucksack
For some reason, my college still lets me connect to their network through VPN even though I graduated, so I still have access to all the database stuff.
Again, if anyone wants a copy of the study, send me a PM with your email.
That's the thing. They're not claiming that media is THE cause of violence. They're claiming that watching violent media can increase the likelyhood that certain individuals will be more violent. Even if the likelyhood is increased, it doesn't mean people will act on it.
@Rucksack
For some reason, my college still lets me connect to their network through VPN even though I graduated, so I still have access to all the database stuff.
Again, if anyone wants a copy of the study, send me a PM with your email.
@Jim
I agree, you can find statistics to prove anything, but that doesn't mean that any study is completely devoid of merit (which is a pretty darn cynical thing to say). When you have two intelligent people, without an obvious political agenda doing a study has merit in of itself.
I can't help but feel that a lot of this controversy is caused by fear, we (some of us) are so afraid that somebody might take away our precious games that we (some of us) take the ridiculous stance that "violent images have no effect on me". This is an unbelievably silly viewpoint, violent images probably wont make you go out and kill somebody, but they obviously have some effect on you, why else would games advertise as having super violent content. You don't need to agree with the study, but rather than just denying it because you love games, try to acknowledge that parts of it may be worthwhile.
@Aerox: You are my new personal hero
I agree, you can find statistics to prove anything, but that doesn't mean that any study is completely devoid of merit (which is a pretty darn cynical thing to say). When you have two intelligent people, without an obvious political agenda doing a study has merit in of itself.
I can't help but feel that a lot of this controversy is caused by fear, we (some of us) are so afraid that somebody might take away our precious games that we (some of us) take the ridiculous stance that "violent images have no effect on me". This is an unbelievably silly viewpoint, violent images probably wont make you go out and kill somebody, but they obviously have some effect on you, why else would games advertise as having super violent content. You don't need to agree with the study, but rather than just denying it because you love games, try to acknowledge that parts of it may be worthwhile.
@Aerox: You are my new personal hero
I had a little more luck accessing the report at this link, although perhaps video games have rotted my brain to the point where I can no longer navigate this crazy series of tubes.
Looks like a good read. Time to dig in.
Looks like a good read. Time to dig in.
Wootex: Fake violence does have an effect on me. Generally, it entertains me. Not all the time, but mostly I laugh.
It's hard to know where to begin. From what I've heard on here it looks like the study was done well with little bias, if any. Very good. I think deep down most of us knew at some point video game violence would come into the forefront more than ever. And if studies like this keep coming out we are going to have our work cut out for us.
I think we can all agree that parents of small children that are playing these games should definatly take more responsibility for it. But I'll be honest, if anyone tells an ahole parent how to raise their kid, even if they have kids of their own, and are a child psychologist, you won't win that battle. Americans are to pig headed and full of pride to accept it. Remember that "Mission Accomplished" banner Bush hung on that aircraft carrier shortly after the war in Iraq started? That should sum up how pigheaded and full of pride we are. Which can be a good thing if used properly, but for us recently it rarely is. People are very quick to blame others for their problems, I hear it a lot, "it's not my fault I got drunk and drove into that school bus, it shouldn't have been parked at a red light." They are YOUR kids, YOU are responsible for raising them. That whole thing of it takes a community to raise a child is pure shit, it takes great parents to raise great kids.
But alas I fear society as a whole is too far gone for that to become a reality.
Bottom line: Take responsibility for your kids and your own actions. If you are incapable of doing so seek professional help if you are able to and LISTEN and maybe adopt what they are saying, its YOUR kids we are talking about, you don't want them to turn out like you do you?
I think we can all agree that parents of small children that are playing these games should definatly take more responsibility for it. But I'll be honest, if anyone tells an ahole parent how to raise their kid, even if they have kids of their own, and are a child psychologist, you won't win that battle. Americans are to pig headed and full of pride to accept it. Remember that "Mission Accomplished" banner Bush hung on that aircraft carrier shortly after the war in Iraq started? That should sum up how pigheaded and full of pride we are. Which can be a good thing if used properly, but for us recently it rarely is. People are very quick to blame others for their problems, I hear it a lot, "it's not my fault I got drunk and drove into that school bus, it shouldn't have been parked at a red light." They are YOUR kids, YOU are responsible for raising them. That whole thing of it takes a community to raise a child is pure shit, it takes great parents to raise great kids.
But alas I fear society as a whole is too far gone for that to become a reality.
Bottom line: Take responsibility for your kids and your own actions. If you are incapable of doing so seek professional help if you are able to and LISTEN and maybe adopt what they are saying, its YOUR kids we are talking about, you don't want them to turn out like you do you?
Well, I'll not deny it: violence in media does influence people ; however, that does not mean it influences them badly. Humans are human, and IMHO, they'd keep killing each other whether they do it with a gun or a right analog-stick. It really hinges on the person. What I'm saying is that video games can portray violence deftly without condoning it; they can spray blood thirty feet from a wounded person's carotid without stigmatizing the blood or the person it comes from. What you see in a video game is a death - what you do with that... is up to you.
Now, in the same light, people of differing temperament will always and without fail react to that in their own way. Those quick to condemn violence in society will always condemn violence in the media, because they see reflected in red pixels hard-fought "progress" in pacifism gone to waste - they see a threat to their efforts. On the other hand, those who either have no quarrel with violence (which speaks for the majority of gamers) or embrace it (which, thankfully, is the minority, although most people you tell wouldn't believe it) will be indifferent to or appreciative of [respectively] the sometimes-grisly deeds they see on film, on television, or on a monitor.
You have to realize, quod erat demonstrandum, that it is not so much the arguments of the people that matter - it's the people themselves.
(Yes, I realize I've probably misused or abused the word "violence" in there, but it's far simpler that way).
Now, in the same light, people of differing temperament will always and without fail react to that in their own way. Those quick to condemn violence in society will always condemn violence in the media, because they see reflected in red pixels hard-fought "progress" in pacifism gone to waste - they see a threat to their efforts. On the other hand, those who either have no quarrel with violence (which speaks for the majority of gamers) or embrace it (which, thankfully, is the minority, although most people you tell wouldn't believe it) will be indifferent to or appreciative of [respectively] the sometimes-grisly deeds they see on film, on television, or on a monitor.
You have to realize, quod erat demonstrandum, that it is not so much the arguments of the people that matter - it's the people themselves.
(Yes, I realize I've probably misused or abused the word "violence" in there, but it's far simpler that way).
@ Aerox
Okay, your right about that. It seems that the article (after a brief skim) really isn't making any outlandish claim, but it seems like nex's point may be that its easy to take something like this and turn it into anti-gaming fodder.
I would be interested in a cross-referencing with other studies that relate parental interaction / presence with how much media is consumed and the percentage of media that is violent. I think that we would find a distinct relationship between lack of parental interaction and presence and consumption of media, especially violent. The thing is, then you have to ask if its the media or the lack of presence that causes the kids to "act out."
BTW, I just recently started an account here (been lurkin'), and this is the most interesting post I've seen in a long time.
Okay, your right about that. It seems that the article (after a brief skim) really isn't making any outlandish claim, but it seems like nex's point may be that its easy to take something like this and turn it into anti-gaming fodder.
I would be interested in a cross-referencing with other studies that relate parental interaction / presence with how much media is consumed and the percentage of media that is violent. I think that we would find a distinct relationship between lack of parental interaction and presence and consumption of media, especially violent. The thing is, then you have to ask if its the media or the lack of presence that causes the kids to "act out."
BTW, I just recently started an account here (been lurkin'), and this is the most interesting post I've seen in a long time.
@ volomon
I never thought I'd see the day when McCarthyism reared its ugly head on destructoid in a non-ironic fashion.
I never thought I'd see the day when McCarthyism reared its ugly head on destructoid in a non-ironic fashion.
@assbees
"it seems like nex's point may be that its easy to take something like this and turn it into anti-gaming fodder."
That's absolutely true, which I think is why it's important to try to get people to understand what specifically the study is and isn't finding, and what claims are and aren't being made. It's much easier to refute that kind of nonsense if you really understand what the article is saying.
And again, I know I've posted this twice already, but I still see people complaining about the $30 price. I know there's a ton of comments being made so it's easy to miss stuff, so I'll keep repeating it.
If you want a copy of this article to read for yourself (which I strongly suggest), send me a PM with your email address and I will email it to you.
"it seems like nex's point may be that its easy to take something like this and turn it into anti-gaming fodder."
That's absolutely true, which I think is why it's important to try to get people to understand what specifically the study is and isn't finding, and what claims are and aren't being made. It's much easier to refute that kind of nonsense if you really understand what the article is saying.
And again, I know I've posted this twice already, but I still see people complaining about the $30 price. I know there's a ton of comments being made so it's easy to miss stuff, so I'll keep repeating it.
If you want a copy of this article to read for yourself (which I strongly suggest), send me a PM with your email address and I will email it to you.
follow
