Poll: Do video games cause violence?
- Thread starter RadioActiveChimp
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is what I did for a year long research project I had to compress into a 12 minute audio-visual speech. I went through the history of entertainment, starting from radio to television to cartoons to Rock 'N' Roll to comic books to video games. I then used at least 2 primary sources, primarily newspapers, for each medium to show how the war on video games is nothing new as it is the scape goat for parenting mistakes for this generation, just like X and Y were for the generations before and it shall pass on eventually to the next form of entertainment. I had close to 50 sources spanning a time line of 100 years and when I wrote it up as paper for a class this year, it was approaching 10 pages.RadioActiveChimp said:
Its a pretty deep topic. You can easily write 5 pages with it. I'd suggest staying away from violence and video games. The level of psychology is to high and you won't truly understand it.
1. Video games are nowadays more an outlet for anger, I can testify on that.
2. Barely any of the cases where video games are accused have any real proof to blame the game on, and those who do are in correlation to the percentage of normal people going crazy.
3. In most of the cases where they are blamed, it's the parent's to be blamed.
I'm not gonna go on a rant, but I can provide you with some arguments. Here [http://swedishgamereviewer.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/update-on-the-controversy/] are [http://swedishgamereviewer.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/news-controversy/] two posts on my blog that I've stopped using. I did a few updates where I liked ranting about the media blowing this out of proportion. I don't use it anymore though, so it can disappear for all I care.
2. Barely any of the cases where video games are accused have any real proof to blame the game on, and those who do are in correlation to the percentage of normal people going crazy.
3. In most of the cases where they are blamed, it's the parent's to be blamed.
I'm not gonna go on a rant, but I can provide you with some arguments. Here [http://swedishgamereviewer.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/update-on-the-controversy/] are [http://swedishgamereviewer.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/news-controversy/] two posts on my blog that I've stopped using. I did a few updates where I liked ranting about the media blowing this out of proportion. I don't use it anymore though, so it can disappear for all I care.
Video games have never caused me to go "murder frenzy", if anything it helped me relax and unwind after being stressed.
However, any amount of listening to people like Jack Thompson makes me really want to break something.
However, any amount of listening to people like Jack Thompson makes me really want to break something.
No. I am of the belief that a violent person will be capable of carrying out acts of violence anyway, and films and videogames are often offered up as a way of attempting to understand whats going on inside that person's head. People (media and politicians especially) tend to like having bogeymen or things that they can openly blame for acts of violence, or for a declining society, and films and games are easy to blame as they can provide a way of carrying out acts that would often be considered illegal or frowned upon in a consequence free environment, however, a rational person can put down a controller and walk away as its a game. However, someone else can go out and attack someone etc, but I believe that is because someone who is predisposed to violence, will act violent anyway. As well as that, there are other factors involved, such as a person's upbringing, mental health etc. There has always been violent people, before films and videogames, even before the ability to read was available to the masses, not just for priveledged, and there will always be violent people in this world.
I think they cause just as much violence as movies and news would.
Seriously, some shit can piss you off there.
Seriously, some shit can piss you off there.
3 words destroy the entire, flimsy hypothesis of how video game violence is dangerous:
CORRELATION, NOT CAUSATION!!!
This needs to be drilled into the heads of kids in middle school and onward, it is so important. Seriously. Lack of this knowledge causes so many failures to understand reality on a most basic level, I honestly think it comparable in importance to literacy. Yes, literacy. In general.
Here's why video game violence studies fail. How does this sort of study get performed? Well, there is a bunch of ways. One is by presenting a sample group with a video game, and measuring, "Aggression". But since we can't take out a tape measure and measure aggression, we have to make measurements up. And no one has made a measurement that has any external validity (That is, a measurement of aggression which would be a true predictor of real life aggression). There are 3 major reasons for this. One is Bias. Experimenters with agendas are certainly a big problem, but so is participant bias. When a participant is presented a video game that contains violence, and are then given some measurement of aggression, they know exactly whats going on. They know that the experimenters are looking for aggression. And they naturally want to conform to experimenters expectation. Participants will willingly electrocute crying people with heart conditions if a researcher asks, of course they are going to report aggression if it is clearly what the researcher wants (Check out Milgram and the Stanford Prison study for this). You cannot rely on this data. Secondly, aggression is a nebulous concept to begin with, and the implication that aggression causes violence is both necessary for the hypothesis, and very, very false. Aggression can also mean arousal, passion, pro-active actions, and dedication. Aggression is just as likely to mean being pumped up for a session of friendly boxing as it does wanting to hurt someone. Assumptions that cannot be made are being made. And lastly, you never see a proper metric by which to judge aggression. You always see video games and a control. Because we have no comparison, one can only conclude that, logically, movies, football, a dose of caffine, bad weather, a heated debate, or a competitive chess match could cause the exact same amount of aggression as a violent video game. Most researchers doing this sort of thing don't like acknowledging that fact, however.
Another option for research is archival data. Go through a list of troubled kids, and find which ones like video games. This is actually pretty common, and is even worse then above. There are innumerable, far more realistic alternative hypotheses which explain this mere correlation. Perhaps an already violent kid will be drawn to, well, violence? Perhaps a child whose parents are so absent that they let there 12 year old play Manhunt isn't being raised in an environment conducive to pro social behavior? Perhaps troubled kids tend to be loners, lack social skills, and few friends, and therefore Video Games are one of the only options available? Perhaps other people consider Games to be a red flag, and only notice troubled kids who also like video games? All of these are far more likely scenarios then video games magically reprogramming synapses in the brain.
What sort of study would actually provide even some evidence that video games cause violence? Researchers don't want to slowly piece together a coherent understanding from a wide variety of information sources that diminish the effect of experimenter bias, because it won't make the people funding them happy. So the only real way to test for this would be...
Illegal.
Yes, illegal. The only real way to test for this is a proper experiment. A proper experiment would involve assigning kids to play violent games, and measuring how violent they become. Let me just point out that if this study was done, you still can't trust it, because it is a grotesque breach of ethics which no IRB would be capable at glancing at without sending men with long knives after the evil person behind the experiment. It is attempting to cause violence against kids. Researchers know this, and know how much more difficult it would be to do the long, hard, drudging work to get real answers. So they rely entirely on deeply, deeply flawed studies. It confirms there bias, so why not? Except it is not real science, it's shallow political scapegoating with all the scientific merit of Phrenology.
Granted that none of this actually disproves the hypothesis, but so far, the evidence is leaning towards the gamers. Certainly reasonable people agree that there is content in games which is not kid friendly. However, I think its clear that we can put this fear of brainwashing into the junk pile, and hopefully, we can put this fear-mongering behind us. Or at least say that were going to have to ban football long before we ban Video games, because the violence there is far more observable.
CORRELATION, NOT CAUSATION!!!
This needs to be drilled into the heads of kids in middle school and onward, it is so important. Seriously. Lack of this knowledge causes so many failures to understand reality on a most basic level, I honestly think it comparable in importance to literacy. Yes, literacy. In general.
Here's why video game violence studies fail. How does this sort of study get performed? Well, there is a bunch of ways. One is by presenting a sample group with a video game, and measuring, "Aggression". But since we can't take out a tape measure and measure aggression, we have to make measurements up. And no one has made a measurement that has any external validity (That is, a measurement of aggression which would be a true predictor of real life aggression). There are 3 major reasons for this. One is Bias. Experimenters with agendas are certainly a big problem, but so is participant bias. When a participant is presented a video game that contains violence, and are then given some measurement of aggression, they know exactly whats going on. They know that the experimenters are looking for aggression. And they naturally want to conform to experimenters expectation. Participants will willingly electrocute crying people with heart conditions if a researcher asks, of course they are going to report aggression if it is clearly what the researcher wants (Check out Milgram and the Stanford Prison study for this). You cannot rely on this data. Secondly, aggression is a nebulous concept to begin with, and the implication that aggression causes violence is both necessary for the hypothesis, and very, very false. Aggression can also mean arousal, passion, pro-active actions, and dedication. Aggression is just as likely to mean being pumped up for a session of friendly boxing as it does wanting to hurt someone. Assumptions that cannot be made are being made. And lastly, you never see a proper metric by which to judge aggression. You always see video games and a control. Because we have no comparison, one can only conclude that, logically, movies, football, a dose of caffine, bad weather, a heated debate, or a competitive chess match could cause the exact same amount of aggression as a violent video game. Most researchers doing this sort of thing don't like acknowledging that fact, however.
Another option for research is archival data. Go through a list of troubled kids, and find which ones like video games. This is actually pretty common, and is even worse then above. There are innumerable, far more realistic alternative hypotheses which explain this mere correlation. Perhaps an already violent kid will be drawn to, well, violence? Perhaps a child whose parents are so absent that they let there 12 year old play Manhunt isn't being raised in an environment conducive to pro social behavior? Perhaps troubled kids tend to be loners, lack social skills, and few friends, and therefore Video Games are one of the only options available? Perhaps other people consider Games to be a red flag, and only notice troubled kids who also like video games? All of these are far more likely scenarios then video games magically reprogramming synapses in the brain.
What sort of study would actually provide even some evidence that video games cause violence? Researchers don't want to slowly piece together a coherent understanding from a wide variety of information sources that diminish the effect of experimenter bias, because it won't make the people funding them happy. So the only real way to test for this would be...
Illegal.
Yes, illegal. The only real way to test for this is a proper experiment. A proper experiment would involve assigning kids to play violent games, and measuring how violent they become. Let me just point out that if this study was done, you still can't trust it, because it is a grotesque breach of ethics which no IRB would be capable at glancing at without sending men with long knives after the evil person behind the experiment. It is attempting to cause violence against kids. Researchers know this, and know how much more difficult it would be to do the long, hard, drudging work to get real answers. So they rely entirely on deeply, deeply flawed studies. It confirms there bias, so why not? Except it is not real science, it's shallow political scapegoating with all the scientific merit of Phrenology.
Granted that none of this actually disproves the hypothesis, but so far, the evidence is leaning towards the gamers. Certainly reasonable people agree that there is content in games which is not kid friendly. However, I think its clear that we can put this fear of brainwashing into the junk pile, and hopefully, we can put this fear-mongering behind us. Or at least say that were going to have to ban football long before we ban Video games, because the violence there is far more observable.
Apparently they cause bad spelling. Also after playing Super Mario Bros I tried to kill a tortoise by jumping on it, but it just ignored me and slowly walked away.
Can I just ask what results you were expecting this is a gaming site.RadioActiveChimp said:
If I went on a George Bush appreciation site and asked if he was a good President what would they say... they say yes...
You must relies that the results of this will be bias... an 12 year old doing history could see that!
On the subject I don?t agree that games course violence
1.) I believe your results in this poll will be extremly biased
2.) I don't believe they're violiently at all, I remeber seeing a report that video games helps keep the violence down in today's times
2.) I don't believe they're violiently at all, I remeber seeing a report that video games helps keep the violence down in today's times
this might not be very helpfull, but there was an experiment in the 60s (so does not include games) using a video of some adults abusing a "Bobo" clown doll, to see if it had an affect on kids
monkey see, monkey do kinda thing
here is a link:
http://www.experiment-resources.com/bobo-doll-experiment.html
also, i guess you have to take age into account, kides usually try to fallow an adult role model. so, theoretically, having a kid play a violent game with an adult main character could lead to a more violent kid than one who plays a non-violent game
so i guess my answer is: yes, below a certen age, and no above it (plus or minus a few circumstances)
monkey see, monkey do kinda thing
here is a link:
http://www.experiment-resources.com/bobo-doll-experiment.html
also, i guess you have to take age into account, kides usually try to fallow an adult role model. so, theoretically, having a kid play a violent game with an adult main character could lead to a more violent kid than one who plays a non-violent game
so i guess my answer is: yes, below a certen age, and no above it (plus or minus a few circumstances)
One thing about this leaps out at me, the children were watching a real life human adult. Something they are programmed to watch in order to learn how to behave in society. You place a child that age in front of a console running any "violent" game and watch them get bored and distracted.somedude98 said:
Violent video games do contribute to the culture of violence in which we live. But they don't cause it directly.