Poll: Aggression and Video Games

[FalloutJack]

Poot

Sorry, it is true. False positives, you see. Still, if you took the time to dig up an older thread just to quote a half-dozen or so people and make minor remarks of contradiction and nothing else, I'm pretty certain your point in doing so was not for discussion purposes. And if I have to put up with that, you have to live with my claims.

 

[Doom972]

Not in my case at least. I play games to relax and escape reality for a bit. Sometimes a game can make me frustrated (not angry)

You just described a game causing aggression within you right there. Frustration.

Frustration could lead to aggression, but it doesn't have to, and it doesn't in my case.

Also, the fact that you quoted 5 different people in one post, picked out only a single sentence out of my post, and your forum avatar make it a bit obvious.

 

[Dalsyne]

Warning: I have opinions

The question is a bit wrongly stated. Video games themselves do not cause aggression. In fact, video games reduce aggression over time by acting as outlets, or a form of escapism that helps you take your mind off whatever you're pissed off at.

But in some situations, aggression undoubtedly appears while playing video games. This is not caused by video games themselves, but by the spirit of competition and/or frustration. These two are not exclusively nor necessarily present in video games. Played a high-stakes game and lost, over and over? Yes you're going to be pretty aggressive. Just can't seem to make that jump? You'll be pissed off. But these states fade as fast as they are born.

So it's a bit of a frustrating predicament to see all of these studies try to go directly for *VIDEO GAMES* when analyzing aggression levels instead of going for the more obvious competitive aspect that has been proven to increase aggression over and over again whether playing or watching a sport.

 

[Flammablezeus]

While it may trigger aggression, I believe the source of aggression is in the people actually experiencing it. They're the ones that need to focus on themselves and find out why they're being that way so that they can manage it.
Some people need to take a step back, look at their lives and re-prioritise. Then hopefully they can enjoy games for what they are and have the wisdom to put down the controller when the experience isn't giving them anything positive.

 

[FalloutJack]

While it may trigger aggression, I believe the source of aggression is in the people actually experiencing it. They're the ones that need to focus on themselves and find out why they're being that way so that they can manage it.
Some people need to take a step back, look at their lives and re-prioritise. Then hopefully they can enjoy games for what they are and have the wisdom to put down the controller when the experience isn't giving them anything positive.

This is actually one of the reasons I state that it doesn't trigger aggression, actually. Because it's not being made to happen. It's just how the person normally is when responding to a situation.

 

[Something Amyss]

Sorry, it is true.

Editing away correct claims doesn't make them disappear. Sorry, you're wrong. And the fact that you did that tells me you know so.

Still, if you took the time to dig up an older thread just to quote a half-dozen or so people and make minor remarks of contradiction and nothing else, I'm pretty certain your point in doing so was not for discussion purposes. And if I have to put up with that, you have to live with my claims.

You can make as many untrue claims as you want, but I didn't "dig up" this thread. I responded to a notification in my inbox.

Frustration could lead to aggression, but it doesn't have to, and it doesn't in my case.

Frustration is aggression. That's kind of the point. Aggression leads to other things, this is an aggressor, however. You've got it backwards. It would be more accurate to say that you suffer from aggression (in the form of frustration), but that it doesn't lead to additional displays.

'

Also, the fact that you quoted 5 different people in one post, picked out only a single sentence out of my post, and your forum avatar make it a bit obvious.

Do tell.

No, the fact that I picked out the relevant, incorrect statement is only an indicator that I was correcting an incorrect statement. My avatar has no relevance, and the fact that I quoted multiple people isn't even that unusual around here. Also, I only quoted five people if you include me correctly attributing someone who actually has a real background in the topic at hand. Who, incidentally, agrees with me.

Trying to tackle my avatar instead of the facts doesn't make me wrong.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Are you feeling alright? Usually, I can follow your retorts. This time, I just don't get it. Still, it looks like you're just making a mass-"Nuh-uh!" rather than discussing normally. I've already made my points. If you've got nothing to add, then I'll assume the topic is concluded.

 

[Pseudonym]

In this article (http://gamerant.com/psych-game-violence-aggression-theory-117/) there was a study on video games and does it cause increased aggression. To me any study that says video games cause increased aggression is BS the first video game I played was the first Doom and today while I am slightly aggressive I am also well controlled of my emotions and actions but not because of video games but do to my way of life I have found that being aggressive will not get me anything or anywhere. So I ask all of you does video games cause aggression?

So your argument against scientific experiments of which you don't even know how they are conducted is an anecdote the reliability of which depends on your own ability and desire to accurately describe your agression? You understand that even if you are right about yourself, you might be an exception? And that you might not fully understand the terminology and suppositions being used?

Actually, the effects of violent media upon aggression is fairly well established from reliable sources on a scholastic level.

So here is my honest question for you: If games undeniably cause aggression, how can you support them, let alone play them? If violent media causes aggression isn't it by definition extremely detrimental to society and something that needs to be cast aside? I'm just trying to understand how one can say media has a negative effect without also condemning it.

Well, whatever bad things a game causes you to do, you are still responsible for those things and the games are not. If only for the simple fact that games cannot be responsible for anything and you can. Whenever something happens there are many different causes which all led to that thing. A murder is the result, amongst many other things, of the murdervictim being born. We don't use murder as an argument against birth even though it is a result of it. In this specific case, if you do something bad because of aggression caused by video games the response should be, 'have some selfrestraint' rather than 'we should ban those games'. There is a difference between 'x is the cause of y' and 'x is responsible for y'.

I'll also note that many people smoke, drink, eat at mcdonalds and do other unhealthy or otherwise bad things even though they are well aware of the negative effects associated. (and thus the possible costs associated that are likely to be payed for out of common means through either government, insurance or some combination thereof) We can allow that because we don't want to infringe on everybodies civil liberties too much and we can participate in that because we feel sometimes some possible negative effects are worth the positive effects, whatever we think they are.

 

[Pseudonym]

This shouldn't have been a separate post. My mistake.

 

[Something Amyss]

I've already made my points.

And I've explained why they were wrong. You can continue to misrepresent me, claim it "doesn't make sense" and "close" the topic, but that won't change anything.

I explained precisely why you're wrong. That's literally the opposite of a "nuh uh" argument.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'll also note that many people smoke, drink, eat at mcdonalds and do other unhealthy or otherwise bad things even though they are well aware of the negative effects associated. (and thus the possible costs associated that are likely to be payed for out of common means through either government, insurance or some combination thereof) We can allow that because we don't want to infringe on everybodies civil liberties too much and we can participate in that because we feel sometimes some possible negative effects are worth the positive effects, whatever we think they are.

Indeed, being aware of the risks has never mandated societal abstinence.

Not to mention, I would argue that simply causing aggression is not even on the same tier as the examples you give. Which is, I guess, a longer way of saying "good point," but still.

 

[BoogieManFL]

Only if you're already prone to it. Just like any other potentially competitive environment.

 

[FalloutJack]

Zoop

That's just it. You haven't done anything. So, either you didn't read them or you just don't care. Once again, given the manner by which you're replying to people, I would lean more towards the latter. That's very rude.