My Textbook says video games are bad!

[0p3rati0n]

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.

well then doesn't that mean I agree with the idea? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

 

[timmytom1]

Is it one of those textbooks that also tells you how to tell if a person near you is a commie?

 

[Computer-Noob]

Prove it

I highly doubt that this is true. You're either lying or you misread what the text book said.

Agreed...it seems to be too opinionated to actually be in a textbook. This is the kind of thing you'd hear from the media. Media corrupted by Jack Thompson.

I mean, in order for that to have gotten through, there would have needed to be a long list of people to allow it. For anyone currently in high school, pull out a text book and look at the contributors and authors. Then consider the fact that if the printing company isnt the same people, it has to go through them first, so they know they aren't printing propoganda to the masses. Then in order for your school to use them, it goes through the board.

"Dating violence is where a person in a relationship feel intimated by their partner, whether physically or mentally. Why do these things happen? They are widely because of drugs, video games, and abuse."

Ok, so it isnt statistical. When I took health, there was a much longer, more detailed list, that provided much more believable information. I suppose that you could substitute neglect for video games, but you could also do that for almost any activity that involves even a moment of time.


I'm going to assume that this isn't a credible source of information, and therefore I dont care, because there are already people in the world arguing against video games that also have no credibility to their arguements, or that you mis-read the quote.

 

[Merteg]

Prove it

I highly doubt that this is true. You're either lying or you misread what the text book said.

Agreed...it seems to be too opinionated to actually be in a textbook. This is the kind of thing you'd hear from the media. Media corrupted by Jack Thompson.

I mean, in order for that to have gotten through, there would have needed to be a long list of people to allow it. For anyone currently in high school, pull out a text book and look at the contributors and authors. Then consider the fact that if the printing company isnt the same people, it has to go through them first, so they know they aren't printing propoganda to the masses. Then in order for your school to use them, it goes through the board.

"Dating violence is where a person in a relationship feel intimated by their partner, whether physically or mentally. Why do these things happen? They are widely because of drugs, video games, and abuse."

Ok, so it isnt statistical. When I took health, there was a much longer, more detailed list, that provided much more believable information. I suppose that you could substitute neglect for video games, but you could also do that for almost any activity that involves even a moment of time.


I'm going to assume that this isn't a credible source of information, and therefore I dont care, because there are already people in the world arguing against video games that also have no credibility to their arguements, or that you mis-read the quote.

"Why does dating violence occur? Many teens who use violence in dating most likely learned this behavior. they may have seen violence in their own homes or been victims or been victims of abuse. They may have learned it from movies, mus videos, video games, or other people. Teens who are just learning to date aren't always sure how to have a healthy dating relationship."

 

[Computer-Noob]

"Why does dating violence occur? Many teens who use violence in dating most likely learned this behavior. they may have seen violence in their own homes or been victims or been victims of abuse. They may have learned it from movies, mus videos, video games, or other people. Teens who are just learning to date aren't always sure how to have a healthy dating relationship."

There's your problem. Your text book is stating the possibility of something, as opposed to saying that playing video games always produces a negative effect.

 

[saintfrankie]

you guys are giving alot of weight to a statement that cant even be verified, chill.

 

[sneak_copter]

I like how people are cursing their mouths off and screaming on a video game forum about how video games do not make people violent.

I appreciate good irony.

And then there are the posts that are like:

I'M SO ANGRY I'D KILL FOR BELOVED VIDEOGAMES! GRR!
It's Irony x2.

 

[TheTygerfire]

"Why does dating violence occur? Many teens who use violence in dating most likely learned this behavior. they may have seen violence in their own homes or been victims or been victims of abuse. They may have learned it from movies, mus videos, video games, or other people. Teens who are just learning to date aren't always sure how to have a healthy dating relationship."

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I have the quote here:

"Why does dating violence occur? Many teens who use violence in dating most likely learned this behavior. they may have seen violence in their own homes or been victims or been victims of abuse. They may have learned it from movies, mus videos, video games, or other people. Teens who are just learning to date aren't always sure how to have a healthy dating relationship."

As Yahtzee said, clicking a button to shoot a gun has no correlation to actually shooting a gun.

If you gives want the name of the book, etc., just specify.

Now that you gave the actual quote from the book, I'm less surprised and angry. My main problem with people blaming video games for violence is that videogames shouldn't be blamed any more than movies or other forms of media. But if your textbook mentioned movies, music videos, and other people alongside them, I'm much more okay with it.

In fact, not only am I okay with it, I'd say it's true. Atleast, as true as it is for movies and such. Though I wouldn't say that people "learn" violence from movies either. Maybe "get the idea from", but not learn. You'd have to be psychotic or a complete idiot to commit a crime based on having seen it in a movie or video game.


You could have mentioned this earlier though. It makes a big difference.

 

[Yoshi_egg80]

Then that book was written by a ignorant dumbfuck. Go read "What's bad for you is good for you" instead.

 

[sheic99]

I do so with obviously limited knowledge, however you are being clearly argumentative, I am not criticising any test or any scientist in particular, mmerly pointing forth my small understanding of the topic.

First of all you have used no citations, and as such your words lack any more factaulity than mine. Secondly I find your tone surprisingly insulting, hold on, INSULTING, there we are, I used capitals to highlight my point rather than an "!".
Thirdly, do not pretend that there is a way to measure aggression. How the fuck, could that possibly be accurately done, or done at all.
Perhaps these subjects demonstrated increased aggression due to smug, arrogant and condescending people such as yourself. Telling me your a grad student gains you no respect from me, I know some incredibly idiotic people who have made it through university on more difficult subjects than psychology.
I understand bias very well, and you didn't answer my question of who the controls were. I would ask you, who funded these experiments?

Again, you are merely using an argument from ignorance, and then an appeal to emotion.

How could it be measured, you say? The first and most obvious way is for an experimenter or the subject themselves to rate their frustration, and how they attack problems. The second is simple biometrics: aggression causes distinct changes in thermal patterns and heart rate, due to increased fighting response. The third, and the method used by labs today, is simply measuring the stimulation of the amygdala, which can be done easily through a small scanning device worn by the participant. Stimulation of the amygdala INVARIABLY causes aggression and is a VERY reliable indicator that aggression is present. The fourth method is functional fMRI, which shows the patterns of blood going through the brain, allowing us to see EXACTLY what areas are lighting up. As we know the pattern for aggression, we can easiily see when a subject is frustrated. This is more accurate, but hindered by the machinery present. The fifth method, usually used in late stage cancer studies that could be harmful to people who are healthy, is a variation of brain surgery with implantation of a mesh which allows us to do readings outside of an fMRI.

There you have it. Five methods I myself have personally seen used to study aggression.

Craig A. Anderson and Brad J. Bushman:
All Violence is Aggression, but not all Aggression is violence.

In case you're wondering where I got this.
Psychological Science; Sep2001, Vol. 12 Issue 5, p353

 

[CallmeMerry]

Again, the data simply does NOT support both of your assertions! Average people of strong and stable mind, with no real psychological illness, have been PROVOKED by video games, not RELEASED. In fact, the average person is significantly more violent and aggressive after playing a video game for a limited period of time (around two hours). The video game need not even be particularly violent, though violent video games with realistic human injuries were more correlated with non-culturally acceptable aggression than any other.

However, from the gamer perspective, football is SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to cause aggression and violence then video games, even though they are present through the same mechanisms.

I have a better understanding where you are coming from now. Not having any knowledge of the studies done, personally, I am curious about what kind of games are being studied. For example, if the study was done with people playing some Halo online, I can definitely see increases to hostility. However, the game itself, in this case, would not be only factor towards the increased aggression. Just competitiveness and, knowing some of the online communities, the other players are the cause of frustration. Now, take games like Final Fantasy or various other RPG's. While they still have scenes of "fantasy violence," I can't picture anyone flying off the proverbial handle because of something that may have happened. The whole concept of competition from multiplayer games is pitting people against each other, which is why, I think, so many games like to use the football analog like you used yourself.

I see it boiling down to the point that anything anyone ever does effects them in various ways (without exaggerating it to the point of eating snickers like some of the previous posts have mentioned). Some people are bound to get negative effects, and others positive. The media seems to love exploiting video games and tries to cast them in a negative light, which I cannot understand. Too say that playing video games is the sole reason for violent tendencies is asinine, but it may contribute to it, just like traffic, football, or any other daily frustration.

 

[A random person]

I was reading my health textbook

Well, there's your problem.

Seriously though, I agree with Internet Kraken.
Give us proof.

Health books are BS now. It used to be 'clean out your ears' and pictures of genitals, but now they talk about expressing your feelings and shit. I wouldn't doubt if it said games are bad.

Someone needs to tell the retards who make health education that their advice doesn't help in the slightest and is just dumb propaganda. My health class was nothing but this shit. For craps sake, my teacher passed up CPR for some impractical violence prevention thing that nobody will ever use ever. Bad priorities much?

But this guy delayed giving proof for 7 pages now; just give us the title and publisher already if you can't scan it.

 

[A random person]

Is it one of those textbooks that also tells you how to tell if a person near you is a commie?

Or how to deal with a homosexual, one with an illness of the mind?

 

[Lunar Shadow]

hmmmmm very interesting. I love video games and their violence and I'm a buddhist lol. Oh the media. silly people

What he said.

 

[crazy-j]

let us burn the all then!!!

in all seriousness though what did you expect?

 

[Mr.PlanetEater]

If Violence in Video Games is bad, then I guess Football/Rugby/Hockey can be blamed for why little timmy decided to go off his mental medicine and say fuck you to every one in his way. Because those sports are not only fun but violent!

 

[Leorex]

I'll concede that most of the things there work with reductionism (especially in the terms of schizophrenia; dopamine suppressors i believe work quite well) and you clearly have a better understanding then I do on psychological experiments. Its just aggression can be caused by a number of things (social learning, perceived relative deprivation, deindividuation, genetics, the temperature, crowding etc.) I just think it seems too reductionist to blame it solely on the media which the OP suggests it is

the op said that the BOOK said its the video games fault, the op him self never said it was the video gamesfault.