My Textbook says video games are bad!

[Same River New Water]

The ones who make those claims sound the most reasonable become your "experts" on the subject. The same "experts" who write the science and health columns quoted by many a health textbook written by other "experts" no more fluent in the subject matter than the "expert" they're quoting.

This is simply factually incorrect. Experts in sciences become experts by publishing the best papers and doing the best research in their fields.

You misunderstand JFoxTail's point. Note the phrase "your 'experts'" and the fact that "experts" is in quotes. JFoxTail is talking about people who get quoted as experts but aren't necessarily genuine authorities. People get taken up as "experts" by some sides of a debate because they appear to support their opinions, without regard to how truly authoritative they are. This happens a lot in tabloid news.

 

[LiquidLen]

Video Games are a convenient patsy. If I was a parent who paid little attention to my child other than provide the basic requrements of food, hygene, shelter all the while neglecting their emotional development and letting Xbox fill in the blanks I'd be pointing fingers and blaming videogames for their violent behavior as well.

Especially if the went too school and killed a bunch of people.

We all probably know of situations where the parents come home from work and sit in front of the tube until bed, while the kid is in his room playing videogames all night.

 

[Bob_Bobbington]

Sadly, you are all guilty of the same accusations you are throwing at your own opponents: of not having perspective.

Video games DO cause increased aggression and violence. This is an indisputable fact, backed by numerous case studies and experiments (and yes, there ARE peer reviewed experiments, done on gamers of ALL ages, and not just those who play violent video games; to argue that you cannot think of a viable experiment is an argument from ignorance or lack of imagination).

Due to this psychological and experimentally verified fact, two camps have developed: denialists and destructionists. This forum, obviously with a video game bias (which isn't necessarily bad, don't take that as judgment, I was playing Left 4 Dead before I saw this), is a denialist camp. You deny the hard data even exists. The other camp is the soccer moms, that want to destroy video games, or render them castrated, to protect the children.

The problem is, you are both missing the OTHER side of the data. Video games cause LESS violence than PHYSICAL sports, a notable example being football. Football causes the most long term effects on aggression, BY FAR. Even BOARD GAMES cause an increase in aggression, so it is absolutely ridiculous to deny video games, with fancy graphics and increased gore, wouldn't cause increased aggression and tendency towards violence, when a simple board game like Monopoly does (and I know all of you that have played Monopoly recognize this). On the other hand, it is just as ridiculous to try and regulate or destroy a field which causes FAR less violence than something as popular as football. If the soccer moms REALLY wanted to reduce violence, they'd stop taking their kids to soccer.

All this being said, both camps use the same flawed arguments. A single example, either way, does not imply a universal example: just because the members of this forum do not feel inclined towards violence, does not mean a large percentage are not. And vise versa, of course! Just because some people fly off the handle does not mean EVERYONE will.

The point to take away from this admittedly long post (the original deconstructed most of the arguments people have posted here, but I felt it would be unfair, since apparently no one has actually done psychological research as I have) is that video games cause aggression and violence, but so does a lot of other things, and the measurements already in place are by and far sufficient. This is the opinion of me, and the vast majority of the medical community, and if anyone in either camp actually cared to look at the research and recommendations of experts, we probably wouldn't even care about this non-issue right now.

tl;dr: shut the hell up about shit you have no real knowledge about.

So what you are saying is that no matter what background you come from, what mental state you are in, no matter what you social status is a video game will ALWAYS cause an increase in aggression? I find that very hard to believe. Test subjects are one thing but the entire population of the world is another.

 

[LiquidLen]

To ururu 117

There are in fact many scientific falsehoods still being taught in public schools. A classic example is the chart that shows how similar the fetus is between rats, humans, cows ect that is used to support evolutionist views However in reality they look nothing alike hence why you always see a hand drawn picture from the 1800's thats been colorized in photoshop.

im not trying to bash evolution for the reasons ppl are going to percieve will explain later.
gotta go to work!

 

[Same River New Water]

Except for the fact he notes medical and health columns, which are usually written by people who actually know what they are saying. And textbooks are DEFINITELY written by experts in the field, all things considering.

And journalists always check their facts, and doctors never misdiagnose a patient, and the results of a scientific survey are never wrong. In a perfect world.

In this world, health and medical columnists may be chosen for their entertaining writing style rather than their scientific rigour, especially outside of academic journals. Even columns for authoritative publications are written by imperfect people, all of whom have opinions that they struggle to remain uninfluenced by, some of whom will have biases on a given topic. As for "textbooks are DEFINITELY written by experts in the field" - that's just not true. Of course the most successful textbooks are, and you'd certainly hope that university textbooks are, but JFoxTail didn't specify a context; (s)he just said "textbooks". Even creationists have textbooks!

But that's a minor point, really, and I should let JFoxTail clarify his or her own argument. Let me rewind to what I think this is really the crux of this whole debate:

Everyone has misrepresented my stance, which is actually based on the data (...) I am simply presenting the data as succinctly as I can, and if that comes across as pompous, so be it.

Data, information and knowledge are different things. Data is raw facts: e.g. the number of participants in a study who had increased activity in a certain part of the brain after playing a violent video game than before it. Information is our selection and interpretation of data: e.g. the respondents in this study showed an increase in specific brain activity after playing one particular video game; this pattern of brain activity has previously been linked to aggression. Knowledge is the belief we hold as a result of our understanding of the information we take in, e.g. playing violent video games causes aggression.

You're not "simply presenting the data", with the objectivity that implies. You're presenting your knowledge, which is not objective fact (in the sense that I'm using the word), but rather subjective and open to debate. I don't actually disagree with you; like The_root_of_all_evil, I'm not arguing that video games probably don't cause violence, just that your argument hasn't yet proved that they do.

And you still haven't cited any sources.

By the way, what comes across as pompous is not your argument per se, but the amazingly condescending way you present it as though it's totally indisputable and anyone who disagrees could only be a mental infant or an ignoramus at best. Even aside from all the borderline name-calling you've been indulging in, you have the gall to say that "everyone has misrepresented my stance" because they're disagreeing with you. That and WRITING in CAPS.

 

[Bob_Bobbington]

Sadly, you are all guilty of the same accusations you are throwing at your own opponents: of not having perspective.

Video games DO cause increased aggression and violence. This is an indisputable fact, backed by numerous case studies and experiments (and yes, there ARE peer reviewed experiments, done on gamers of ALL ages, and not just those who play violent video games; to argue that you cannot think of a viable experiment is an argument from ignorance or lack of imagination).

Due to this psychological and experimentally verified fact, two camps have developed: denialists and destructionists. This forum, obviously with a video game bias (which isn't necessarily bad, don't take that as judgment, I was playing Left 4 Dead before I saw this), is a denialist camp. You deny the hard data even exists. The other camp is the soccer moms, that want to destroy video games, or render them castrated, to protect the children.

The problem is, you are both missing the OTHER side of the data. Video games cause LESS violence than PHYSICAL sports, a notable example being football. Football causes the most long term effects on aggression, BY FAR. Even BOARD GAMES cause an increase in aggression, so it is absolutely ridiculous to deny video games, with fancy graphics and increased gore, wouldn't cause increased aggression and tendency towards violence, when a simple board game like Monopoly does (and I know all of you that have played Monopoly recognize this). On the other hand, it is just as ridiculous to try and regulate or destroy a field which causes FAR less violence than something as popular as football. If the soccer moms REALLY wanted to reduce violence, they'd stop taking their kids to soccer.

All this being said, both camps use the same flawed arguments. A single example, either way, does not imply a universal example: just because the members of this forum do not feel inclined towards violence, does not mean a large percentage are not. And vise versa, of course! Just because some people fly off the handle does not mean EVERYONE will.

The point to take away from this admittedly long post (the original deconstructed most of the arguments people have posted here, but I felt it would be unfair, since apparently no one has actually done psychological research as I have) is that video games cause aggression and violence, but so does a lot of other things, and the measurements already in place are by and far sufficient. This is the opinion of me, and the vast majority of the medical community, and if anyone in either camp actually cared to look at the research and recommendations of experts, we probably wouldn't even care about this non-issue right now.

tl;dr: shut the hell up about shit you have no real knowledge about.

So what you are saying is that no matter what background you come from, what mental state you are in, no matter what you social status is a video game will ALWAYS cause an increase in aggression? I find that very hard to believe. Test subjects are one thing but the entire population of the world is another.

The degree of the aggression is different depending on each person, with the mean being around 4 hours. Just as any given medication has varying effects, but has a typical effect, video games have a typical effect of around 4 hours of increased predilection towards aggression and violence, across all backgrounds, social statuses, and genetic markers. The sample size used for the tests adds up to a considerable cross section of human life. This is not a particularly hard pill to swallow, considering fight or flight and competitive responses are a genetic hard coded portion of humans.

Try as you might there is no way to include every variable in a single study. For a study of this type there are over 8 billion, because everyone's mind is different. To say that all people will be aggressive is a narrow view. Also a cross section is completely different to the entire shape.

 

[LooK iTz Jinjo]

Your text book is wrong and written by a retard!

 

[Space Spoons]

In about ten years, that book is going to look like an idiot. Kinda like all those stuffed shirts back in the Victorian Era who claimed books were dangerous, unhealthy and would ultimately destroy us all.

 

[revolverwolf]

I was reading my health textbook

Well, there's your problem.

^Lots and lots of this.^

With an overpowering portion of no. Video games can't really be proven as the problem.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

In about ten years, that book is going to look like an idiot. Kinda like all those stuffed shirts back in the Victorian Era who claimed books were dangerous, unhealthy and would ultimately destroy us all.

Eh, read a little Chuck Palahniuk.

 

[Captain Pancake]

Whether or not this is true, it still raises a poignant argument. The press say that videogames cause school shootings, when in fact, they do the opposite. Why do people play videogames? for entertainment, but also to RELIEVE stress. we all know in our hearts, the real reason grand theft auto had so much stigma.

It wasn't the half-baked violence.

It was the fact that it is a scottish game.

 

[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