My Textbook says video games are bad!

[messy]

No, most of the time there is an underlying problem, video games are just found first and then all of a sudden that's the reason some kid went on a murderous rampage.

Or their already violent nature attracted them to violent games. The problem with things like this is evidence is based on correlation so you cannot show cause and effect i.e you cannot say X caused Y or Y caused X

That ISN'T a problem, for the very reasons I've already outlined around four times. We do longitudinal studies and such to eliminate such correlations, along with experiments to provide credence to a causality. If what you said was true, we'd basically never run experiments, as they wouldn't show anything that observation doesn't.

Experiments are there to provide the evidence for causality. Ignoring this is simply silly.

No evidence of this type of study has been given in the OP, and all the text books I have read of media violence are often poorly done with very little control or highly artificial so ecological validity is reduced. And with longitudinal studies you can't remove other factors. We're dealing with people, you can't know for sure you observe all there behaviour, or they're responding to how they think an experimenter wants them to do/or not to do.

With traditional sciences you can provide "credence to a causality" but it doesn't work as well with people. Also most actions (pro or anti social) imitated form the media are often short lived and viewers (especially with younger children) find it different to generalise the behaviours. Also decent rehearsal is required to make violent behaviours stick around

 

[Arkhangelsk]

It's not video games that cause violence, it's mental illness. And those who blame games show symptoms of a very common disease called stupidity. But no worries, this can be cured by the simple use of art and literature (ironically).

 

[messy]

No, most of the time there is an underlying problem, video games are just found first and then all of a sudden that's the reason some kid went on a murderous rampage.

Or their already violent nature attracted them to violent games. The problem with things like this is evidence is based on correlation so you cannot show cause and effect i.e you cannot say X caused Y or Y caused X

That ISN'T a problem, for the very reasons I've already outlined around four times. We do longitudinal studies and such to eliminate such correlations, along with experiments to provide credence to a causality. If what you said was true, we'd basically never run experiments, as they wouldn't show anything that observation doesn't.

Experiments are there to provide the evidence for causality. Ignoring this is simply silly.

No evidence of this type of study has been given in the OP, and all the text books I have read of media violence are often poorly done with very little control or highly artificial so ecological validity is reduced. And with longitudinal studies you can't remove other factors. We're dealing with people, you can't know for sure you observe all there behaviour, or they're responding to how they think an experimenter wants them to do/or not to do.

With traditional sciences you can provide "credence to a causality" but it doesn't work as well with people. Also most actions (pro or anti social) imitated form the media are often short lived and viewers (especially with younger children) find it different to generalise the behaviours. Also decent rehearsal is required to make violent behaviours stick around

Again, this is simply an appeal through lack of imagination. Have you read the peer reviewed literature? Have you seen the justifications for what you call a "highly artificial" test? Or is this just your basic opinion, as a non-expert? I'm sure many of studies that have been WIDELY influential in science you would call "highly artificial". This does not discount their validity, as the people who actually know how to design experiments were careful yo tailor their experiment to deal with it.

It works just as well on people as on anything else. To lend credence, I point to the growth of designed drugs such as SSRI's and treatments for disorders such as depression, which employ the exact same reductionists pose as any other science, merely applied to such things as psychology and behavior. It works just as well, and on the same scales, as something like chemistry.

The example of drugs is a very biological problem since you can see if symptoms disappear or not. Whereas human behaviour I feel is a lot more complex and is more difficult to reduce in the same way you can we chemistry because it stops seeing people as people and more as chemical processes

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The problem with the example used in the difference between "clinical" and "real world" significance is pretty simple to see.

Unlike the source of your "data"

Thalidomide had BOTH clinical AND real world significant side effects. The problem was not a matter of science or medicine, but politics; the drug was pushed out far too early. To blame this on science and medicine is simply misrepresentation to a gross degree.

Sort of like blaming aggression on videogames?

Would you prefer that I use the example of testing pain treatment on purely male specimens for female pain killers because "Well, they're roughly the same".

Put up or shut up.

 

[durandal1707]

load of bollocks, soon enough health specialist will claim oxygen is bad for you, an then blame a murderous rampage on someone breathing too much?

 

[LisaB1138]

I don't think you can discount it entirely since video games can make emotions run high. I've had frustrating bouts with games that have put me in a bad mood for hours.

Of course, the same can be said for sporting events or anything else where emotions run high. Bad day at the office for example.

 

[jimduckie]

burn that evil book

 

[HuntrRose]

*snip*

I've been reading most of these posts now, and I have a few comments.

1. As someone mentioned, your posts do sound like you're looking down on your opponent in the discussion. Not counting the posts about the lepers, they were just hilarious.

2. I don't disagree with you, but feel that aggression might be a wrong name for it. Frustration could be better. Just like you get frustrated by a problematic crossword, 1000 piece puzzle or a Rubick's Cube. Then again, upon completion of said tricky excersize (did I spell that right?) you get a totally different feeling. At least I do usually, but I might be weird =P


P.S. Are you female? If so I think I might be in love or something...

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Except for the fact ...

That you neither read what I had put, asked for research to back it up or provided your own.

Did you even do preliminary research on this, one of medicines most significant case studies?

Which one, Thalidomide or painkillers being tested on rats? Or your non-existant game violence correlation?

 

[Uncompetative]

It's not video games that cause violence, it's mental illness. And those who blame games show symptoms of a very common disease called stupidity. But no worries, this can be cured by the simple use of art and literature (ironically).

Many games "empower" - e.g. you get to be James Bond or some other character whose abilities have been artificially enhanced: the first enemy bullets always miss, your head shots are always lethal, all enemies only shoot you in the chest, you have a fat health bar and possibly body armor. This bias then enables the developers to throw a worrying number of enemies at you - cue: dramatic tension.

Yet, unstable, mentally-ill, loners are often attracted to videogames for this very reason. They may be bullied only to become bullies as they grow up (parents can be a source of violence here also). They may play these games an inappropriate amount, rehearsing retribution that they intend to carry out against fellow students at their place of education, rather than treating the whole thing as an entertaining escape.

There is a difference between catharsis and rehearsal. Those spree-killers identified as being videogamers weren't helped by their exposure to those games, but given their mental state they might just as easily have been shooting tin ducks at the fairground. Just because some pitiful members of society are at risk of making a mod of their high-school and then rehearsing their optimal plan of retribution doesn't mean this technology should be taken away from all us normal players.

Spoiler: What should be banned is the other technology that seeks to empower the weak...

 

[Jepix]

I was reading my health textbook today and it says that the majority or dating violence and shootings happen due to people playing video games.

Do you guys think they should put stuff like that in textbooks?

Flip forward, do your text-book say something about Xenu?

 

[sneakypenguin]

Video games? BAD?! DRUGS!?!? DATING VIOLENCE!?!?!?!?! WTF that's BS! I play a s*** load of CoD and I'm not that violent!? Although that's how most boys are. Let's hunt down the b***** that created that propaganda! ~

I'm not sure if someone pointed this out but saying lets hunt down the ***** that created that propaganda prolly isn't the best argument against said oppinion.

just saying.

 

[spuddyt]

load of bollocks, soon enough health specialist will claim oxygen is bad for you, an then blame a murderous rampage on someone breathing too much?

Did you know that dihydrogen monoxide is involved in 100% of all murders to some degree

 

[Gerazzi]

NO
THEY REDUCE IT IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SUCH THINGS AS FACTS
Also, all forms of crime have went down over the ages and so I want them to explain that.
The year they didn't release a GTA game gang violence went up. This is roughly saying the same thing as "Violent dreams are what's causing date violence, we must get rid of them".

We'd think they'd gone loopy if they had said that. ALSO, gamers as a minority are not getting the same rights as other minorities. What the hell?

B.T.W. I'm running for president when I'm thirty six. Vote for me.