My Textbook says video games are bad!

[Talyn.Co]

EDIT: I've been tracking the escapist for some 8 months now, it was this thread that finally gave me the nudge to join.
Excuse me if I'm repeating anything here, but proccessing everyones post individually can make each page last an hour.
Whatever the textbook says, it provides a somehow to present a much discussed debate. And whilst bringing it up on a predominantly gamer-themed forum may not exactly bring about the most balanced discussion, it is still interesting and in a degree the posts are intellectual and thought-prevoking discussion none the less. With that said, I think a lot of people are falling into a pattern of "games do or don't prevoke violence/aggression" except perhaps Ururu, who has shown logical examples supporting both sides of the argument. When it comes down to it, as far as I can see games DO prevoke aggression, but not nessicarily voilence. One thing I want to point out is aggression does not directly mean violence.

One other point I'd like to make is that the TYPE of game would also be a prime determinator in the aggression/violence. I'll use myself as an example.
In games that, I'll say 'build' the mind, for want of a better term (meaning those that include puzzles or are in one way or another educational, not to focus on games who's prime purpose is this)... I find these, when presented with an actual challenge, extroadinarily frustrating. After playing a good hour and a half of one of these I'll proceed to either, yell at another member of the household or break something through frustrated clumsiness. Whilst these are not directly violent, they are aggressive or related to aggression.

Now, onto my second example, in this I will include the possibility of releif from games.
If, instead of going out to yell at someone and be generally irritable after that hour and a half of a puzzle game, I were to say play a game that was significantly more simple and far more violent, I usually find myself relieved. With simulated blood and gore, easy to achieve and a game based upon it creative in it's medium, I find myself less inclined to punch someone in real life in the face, having experienced releif from my breif hommicidal impulses thanks to a bunch of binary.

Whilst I understand that using myself is not the most balanced basis for a point, it was simply as an example. One last thing I wish to mention is that whilst games may prevoke aggression, despite all of the simulated blood and gore I've seen, I still flinch and look away whenever someone is about to be decapitated in a movie. Whilst I believe games have the potential to desensitize someone and no doubt will to some effect, it still seems wrong to me for it to be so demonized beacuse of it's potential to desensitize. But I could just be a freak.

One last thing I want to mention is troll or no, whilst some wish to actually discuss the textbook in question (and I touched breifly on this at the beginning of my post longer than some short storys I've read ) it's brought up a topic that some have cared to discuss with all seriousness.
I apologise for the extensive post and I thank all that bothered to sit through it.

 

[sirdanrhodes]

Wow, it's like being back in the fucking dark ages, people going with theories they have NO evidence to back up.

 

[Valkyira]

Your textbook was written by a retard

 

[Manic Overkill]

Definetly NOT. It's just part of the adults trying to make children behave because they don't like shooting games!

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Burn every copy!
Just felt like saying that.

 

[Daveman]

No, I don't think anyone should be allowed to put utter bullshit in textbooks.

But then, what are we supposed to teach people who suck at science?

Seriously, I think people are already in a bit of a state for a video game to have that much control over their lives to force them to commit violent behaviour. Also it is equally likely for this to happen due to violent movies or even news footage of any violent crimes surely. It's really just people becoming desensatised to violence.

EDIT: I've been tracking the escapist for some 8 months now, it was this thread that finally gave me the nudge to join.

Welcome to the escapist. My forum that made me join was a Halo bashing one. times a billion.

 

[FredFredburgur]

I'm actually writing a research paper about this now, obviously against the connection between Violent Video Games and Violent behaviors. ( Actually I'm writing about Violent Media in general, but that includes Video Games) and I found a lot of the research is faulty because of the way the studies are conducted, they are done in labs on young children who may feel expectations on how to behave from those conducting the experiments and may act violent because they believe they are supposed to and a bunch of other stuff like that.

We have a winner!!!

Ive been saying this myself for a while. If you think about it from a research perspective, what study could they actually do to indicate a causal relationship? The only research that could even indicate the tiniest fraction of evidence at a causal relationship would be GROTESQUELY immoral. About the closest they have ever come is showing that video games increase, "Aggression". Really. That's nice. Now does this sort of aggression lead to violence? If that Aggression a causal response to the game? Whats that? You have no idea, and no evidence one way or another? Yeah, that's what I thought. Best part is, I want to see them compare the aggression of a violent game to the aggression of, say, playing football. I'm going to go and get football banned.

But really, your health textbook is downright surreal. I mean, I've seen bad science condemn video games before, but even though its bad, flawed, spurious reasoning, there is still reasoning of a sort. That's just downright non-sequitar. Beyond that, it's actually rather offensive and dangerous to the problem of dating violence.

Exactly. It's not like these kids are raised entirely isolated from everything except violent forms of entertainment. They see how they are supposed to be in the real world and how things can be in entertainment.

 

[tomtom94]

I believe that's what might be known as a casual fallacy. Could be wrong.

I think that linking video games and dating violence is ridiculous. Linking video games and violent teenage murderous rampages is more plausible but still ignoring major issues (bad parenting, bullying, peer pressure).

I didn't say Jack Thompson was right I said his argument was plausible.

 

[A random person]

Health textbooks are wrong and written by retards!

Fixed.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

This is some of the most retarded bs in existence. Video games are not responsible for violence. Its not video games fault a like violence, i just find it amusing. In fact, video games prevent violence. Instead of grabbing a real gun and killing innocent civillians you just go do it on gta4 instead

 

[ThePocketWeasel]

My psychology and media a& crime textbooks say the same thing. It's all lies really, they're just trying to find someone to blame. If someone was completely sane they wouldn't play a game and then think its a good idea to go out and shoot someone in the face.
However video games can make people slightly more aggressive but that depends what you play and how long for.

 

[Sewer Rat]

With the ammount of people who play videogames these days you might as well say that their is a correlation between people who eat cheese and acts of violence. The day that they prove that there is a definite correlation will be the day that I throw away all my games.

 

[ArcWinter]

Ah. Eh. Bleurgh. I cannot formulate a response, it is so stupid.
I say start up a class discussion. And then use logic to brutally put down their arguments.

And for anyone who posted a "violent" response, yes, we get it, irony is funny. Ha ha. I'll go read some XKCD now. Which coincidentally has a comic about causation and correlation. Ah, small world.

(not really, it's a terrifyingly huge world. You should go hide somewhere dark)

 

[Ninja Tank]

the Virgina tech shooting was quickly blamed on video games but they found out the only game the kid played was sonic, he was bullied by people on campus

 

[J.E.T.]

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! Give us proof.

 

[Nerexor]

The main question I have regarding your post

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.

Question: Is the increased aggression present for any length of time post game play? I know its easy to get riled up while playing a game, but many of the arguments made about video games (not so much in scientific studies, rather the arguments made in the media and by proponents of banning violent games) causing violent behaviour act on the premise that this continues long after gameplay has ceased. I'd like to know if any of this research you are referencing backs that up or not.

 

[Fruitloops89]

Yes Tetris is to blame for my desire to eradicate people with t/l/j/s/z/square/straight shaped objects.

 

[Merteg]

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.

 

[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

So you are arguing that depression, bi-polarity, schizophrenia, autism, etc etc, all of which are indisputable examples of human behavior, are not valid? More than that, in med school and as psychologists, when we do experiments, we deliberately don't see people as people. We see them as subjects, or clients, or simply numbers in even larger scale tests, for the very reason that seeing people as people is simply not a tenable position.

Reductionism is responsible for every psychological and medical advancement, as it allows us to think of psychology as applied biology. The study of neurotransmitters directly aids in helping depression and addictions, the study of relevant brain matter allows for the development of enhanced group techniques and solving the social problems of mob mentality, etc etc. I could go on for hours on the number of problems that have been eradicated or understood by a process you "feel" is more complex than it really is.

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

 

[WeedWorm]

Anyone who blames video games for anything is a fucking idiot.

If a kid attacks or steals from someone and his excuse is "I saw it in a video game" then he was more than likely going to end up doing it anyway. The game just gave him the "push" he needed. If he hadnt seen it in a game, he would of seen it in a movie or on TV anyway.