if by violent behaviour you mean people raging at the screen then yes. But it isn't too big a deal, mostly violence is caused by upbringing, school and who you hang out with.
Poll: Do Video Games cause violent behavior?
- Thread starter Tenkage
- Start date
Recommended Videos
On occasion people can get frustrated with games and, if they are unable to manage their behavior, then it is possible they would lose control and act out in violent ways. I wouldn't call games "murder simulators," but certain games do have a tendency to set certain people into a heightened state in which they could become violent.
There was a study done a while back to measure violent response to video games which found violent video games caused no more aggression than violent films or any other type of media. They scanned people's brains whilst playing violent games and found that the parts of the brain normally associated with violent behaviour were fairly inactive. On the other hand people playing driving games were found to be using the aggressive parts of the brain both whilst playing and also after.
The study concluded that violent games don't necessarily cause violent behaviour since we can dissociate ourselves from the fantasy. Driving games on the other hand seem to increase instance of road rage and aggressive driving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed
The study concluded that violent games don't necessarily cause violent behaviour since we can dissociate ourselves from the fantasy. Driving games on the other hand seem to increase instance of road rage and aggressive driving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed
Yes but only towards facists like the PTC who tell us videogames cause violent behaviour.
Ironic right?
On a more serious note:
This quote:
"It was that violent video game that made my kid do it! Ban the game and give my kid hugs!"
Can recieve 2 perfectly valid responces:
1. Why did you let your kid get / keep the game? A good parent would check on their often kid enough to see what they are doing. Even if it's just a 3 second head in the door "You ok?" sort of thing, throwing your eyes onto the TV to see how much blood is gushing out a dudes neck for your 10yr old son to see isn't the worst idea ever.
2. If a person has a violent nature in them it WILL surface, be it influced by media (games/movies) or be it from alcohol, road rage etc. I have been playing video games since I was very young and as I progressively got older took pride (like many idiotic, retarded kids) in getting my hands on an 18 cert at age 14 etc.
I have since played games that allow me to run people down, hack them to pieces with swords, blow off limbs in VERY grotesque ways and so on (we all know whats out there), and today the only thing I take from that in my personality is "Gee that was a giggle," not "Must chainsaw and hack dog to bits,"
Games are violent yes, games come with certificates on them saying 18+ for a reason, if the parents knowingly buy an 18+ for a 12yr old, then they do NOT retain the right to say it was the game when the social conscience falls to you but as I already said, if someone has it in them it will come out, the game might encourage it a bit faster but thats where you say "NO!" and take it away from them.
EDIT:
For the record I have a really good mom who always questioned me on violent games I had.
I dont actually remember how I got my hands on them now because she refused to buy them for me.
Ironic right?
On a more serious note:
This quote:
"It was that violent video game that made my kid do it! Ban the game and give my kid hugs!"
Can recieve 2 perfectly valid responces:
1. Why did you let your kid get / keep the game? A good parent would check on their often kid enough to see what they are doing. Even if it's just a 3 second head in the door "You ok?" sort of thing, throwing your eyes onto the TV to see how much blood is gushing out a dudes neck for your 10yr old son to see isn't the worst idea ever.
2. If a person has a violent nature in them it WILL surface, be it influced by media (games/movies) or be it from alcohol, road rage etc. I have been playing video games since I was very young and as I progressively got older took pride (like many idiotic, retarded kids) in getting my hands on an 18 cert at age 14 etc.
I have since played games that allow me to run people down, hack them to pieces with swords, blow off limbs in VERY grotesque ways and so on (we all know whats out there), and today the only thing I take from that in my personality is "Gee that was a giggle," not "Must chainsaw and hack dog to bits,"
Games are violent yes, games come with certificates on them saying 18+ for a reason, if the parents knowingly buy an 18+ for a 12yr old, then they do NOT retain the right to say it was the game when the social conscience falls to you but as I already said, if someone has it in them it will come out, the game might encourage it a bit faster but thats where you say "NO!" and take it away from them.
EDIT:
For the record I have a really good mom who always questioned me on violent games I had.
I dont actually remember how I got my hands on them now because she refused to buy them for me.
It's possible, but it's also possible that people with violent tendencies seek out violent games because it appeals to them.
Things like this only provide influence in the absence of all other influences.Tenkage said:
What I mean by this is that a person (child or not) will only imitate the violent behavior in video games if the other influences in their lives (like PARENTS) have not properly taught them other, more appropriate behaviors for expressing or mitigating anger.
This creates what I call a "learning vacuum," where there should be good coping behaviors, but there are none. If no one else steps up to fill that vacuum, it's possible that a child will instead glean a few things from video games--notably a bad temper, poor impulse control, and a willingness to use force to get their way.
This isn't the fault of the games, though. It's the fault of the people who should rightfully be responsible for teaching the child how to deal with negative emotions. Parents, after all, signed up for that time-and-energy-intensive job, IN FULL, the very second they copulated. Just because they don't REALIZE they signed that little contract doesn't absolve them.
It's possible, but it'll be about the same as violent films promoting violent behaviour, or violent television promoting violent behavour. For the entire population aside from a few loonies, no.
Definitely Maybe.
I don't feel that video games have any more impact than television, movies, or internet videos would towards violent behavior. Removing only one of these sources would barely have any impact as an individual is often exposed to several if not all of these.
If all of these sources were removed and thus you had an Amish-like community...would violent behavior be reduced? Maybe. Can't say I've known the Amish to be as violent as everyday individuals.
Finally, this board is extremely biased for polls...but I'm sure you know that. Post this same question on a highly conservative religious based forum and you'd probably get a very different sample.
I don't feel that video games have any more impact than television, movies, or internet videos would towards violent behavior. Removing only one of these sources would barely have any impact as an individual is often exposed to several if not all of these.
If all of these sources were removed and thus you had an Amish-like community...would violent behavior be reduced? Maybe. Can't say I've known the Amish to be as violent as everyday individuals.
Finally, this board is extremely biased for polls...but I'm sure you know that. Post this same question on a highly conservative religious based forum and you'd probably get a very different sample.
I voted no.
I wouldn't say that games make me a violent person. However, I've only had my consoles for a few years now and I've found that since I got them my thoughts when people annoy me are more along the lines of "if this was fallout 3, you would be dead by now" than they were before.
But I don't act on them.
I wouldn't say that games make me a violent person. However, I've only had my consoles for a few years now and I've found that since I got them my thoughts when people annoy me are more along the lines of "if this was fallout 3, you would be dead by now" than they were before.
But I don't act on them.
Yes.
And so does playing with legos.
Digging through your sandbox.
Playing tag.
Building treehouses.
Or anything else you can get up to.
Including any type of work you care to mention.
Well, maybe not testing beds.
No, you could get in a fight over who gets to test the new one first.
And so does playing with legos.
Digging through your sandbox.
Playing tag.
Building treehouses.
Or anything else you can get up to.
Including any type of work you care to mention.
Well, maybe not testing beds.
No, you could get in a fight over who gets to test the new one first.
I voted maybe for a simple reason. There will always be some impressionable idiots wanting to emulate what they see. As a gamer, my gut wants me to vote no, but I just can't. Impressionable idiots will always exist, and always have. I will say that, in some cases, video games can cause violent behaviour, but so can TV and movies. If you are impressionable, you can blame anything for your actions and it will be technically true. If you are copying something from a game, the game is partially to blame, but the individual is mostly to blame. I'd say the game was only about 2% to blame, but the blame is still there.
Let's face it. The people who play GTA and then steal a car to run over pedestrians are the same people who watch Wrestling and then decide to choke slam their little brothers, or watch Hannibal and decide that cutting of their face and feeding it to the dog is a good idea.
This has all probably been said before but hey, it's a long thread. And I'm only on a break... I should get back to work.
Let's face it. The people who play GTA and then steal a car to run over pedestrians are the same people who watch Wrestling and then decide to choke slam their little brothers, or watch Hannibal and decide that cutting of their face and feeding it to the dog is a good idea.
This has all probably been said before but hey, it's a long thread. And I'm only on a break... I should get back to work.
I had to do similar project when Studying Psycology, most scientific studies are inconclusive.
Some rare ones proving it does, some proven it doesn't.
If by some chance they do, when TV and Movies would have a far greater impact considering they are far more realistic.
Some rare ones proving it does, some proven it doesn't.
If by some chance they do, when TV and Movies would have a far greater impact considering they are far more realistic.
Not of themselves, no. Has a person, at some point, performed a criminal act inspired by one in a videogame? Sure, but it's not the fault of the medium- television is just as bad an 'offender'.
It is not the videogames, but the mindset of those playing them.
Of course, I'm just restating the argument that is presented every time this question is asked.
It is not the videogames, but the mindset of those playing them.
Of course, I'm just restating the argument that is presented every time this question is asked.
Of course they cause violent behaviour because they are a source of frustration; I batter my poor controller into a sad pile of plastic and silicone shards with every misplaced cross on FIFA... If I had a wife she'd probably receive the same treatment. And I do.
I haven't seen a study that established anything other than a correlation, and then, I didn't have a chance to look over the methodology of said study. And even if they can prove a statistically significant relationship between video games and violent behavior, that does not necessarily translate to practical significance. It simply means that there is a link, and that the link did not appear as a result of some sampling error.
The reality is that video games probably aren't much different than books and movies. Are they more interactive? Yes, they are. But that is not to say that books and movies don't offer their share of interactivity, as they do. If a movie was good, chances are we think about it later, talk about it, perhaps even write about it and see it again. That movie might be violent, or it might not be. The important thing is that the viewer in question has the capacity to distinguish between fiction and reality.
And there lies a big difference between children and adults. Up until a certain age, most children struggle to separate reality from fantasy, fact from fiction. Kids at this age tell lies not out of malicious intent, but because they literally can't grasp the difference between what they said and what actually happened. And hence why it is logical to withhold video games of a certain bent.
However, most adults have the ability to tell fact and fiction apart. In other words, watching a violent film, or even ten violent films, will not turn the average adult into a savage beast. But of course, that is what the media would like for us to think, and so they fall back on the fallacy of positive instances. Who cares about all the occasions on which serial killers were found to have hobbies other than gaming? As far as the media and the moral "majority" is concerned, only those instances which prove their point stand to be judged, even if they only make up an insignificant minority.
The reality is that video games probably aren't much different than books and movies. Are they more interactive? Yes, they are. But that is not to say that books and movies don't offer their share of interactivity, as they do. If a movie was good, chances are we think about it later, talk about it, perhaps even write about it and see it again. That movie might be violent, or it might not be. The important thing is that the viewer in question has the capacity to distinguish between fiction and reality.
And there lies a big difference between children and adults. Up until a certain age, most children struggle to separate reality from fantasy, fact from fiction. Kids at this age tell lies not out of malicious intent, but because they literally can't grasp the difference between what they said and what actually happened. And hence why it is logical to withhold video games of a certain bent.
However, most adults have the ability to tell fact and fiction apart. In other words, watching a violent film, or even ten violent films, will not turn the average adult into a savage beast. But of course, that is what the media would like for us to think, and so they fall back on the fallacy of positive instances. Who cares about all the occasions on which serial killers were found to have hobbies other than gaming? As far as the media and the moral "majority" is concerned, only those instances which prove their point stand to be judged, even if they only make up an insignificant minority.
No.
While some people might kill after Catcher in the Rye, while some might slaughter others after listening to Burzum (or, rather, are Burzum), while some might kill people in sewers after playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons or after playing Counter-Strike; the very fact that millions upon millions of people who participate in the same activities do not kill should be evidence enough.
Correlation does not imply causation, especially if the causality is utterly crushed by a counter-example.
While some people might kill after Catcher in the Rye, while some might slaughter others after listening to Burzum (or, rather, are Burzum), while some might kill people in sewers after playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons or after playing Counter-Strike; the very fact that millions upon millions of people who participate in the same activities do not kill should be evidence enough.
Correlation does not imply causation, especially if the causality is utterly crushed by a counter-example.
