Swedish Study Says Videogames Do Not Cause Aggression

[BrotherRool]

You haven't understood the meaning properly!!!!

They have said there is clear evidence that people who play videogames are more violent. What they are saying is there's no evidence that it's just that violent people are the sort of people who play videogames and non-violent people have other hobbies.

Thanks for explanation, but naaaaaaaaaaaah, i'm sure i understood it like i was meant to.

"Not causal" means one does not cause another. So, perhaps violent people tend to play more aggressive games. Perhaps thanks to this activity they are 25% less violent. Perhaps the opposite. However there's no evidence that playing aggressive games change people into bloodthirsty monsters and that's the bottom line i guess.[/quote]

Ahh okay the misunderstanding is easy.

The study did not say 'not causal' that;s what the incorrect title suggests. The study said 'no evidence of causal' which sounds like it's the same but it's not at all. I don't know if you do much maths? If you do think of the difference between if and iff (if and only if).

So lets imagine we have a world with all the possibilities being equally likely.
Games reduce violence.
Peaceful people are more likely to play games.
There is no correlation between violence and games.
Violent people are more likely to play games.
Games cause violence.

The big mistake and the one that people have been making is that they've said 'there's a correlation between games and violence' so therefore games make people violent.

Whereas this study suggests, actually you can only rule out the first three options, and that leaves Violent people are more likely to play games and Games cause violence.

The reason I feel that your post isn't quite correct is that you are suggesting that there isn't any evidence/ it isn't likely that games cause violence. At least you've been dismissive of the people who propone the idea that games cause violence.


But you can see from above that basically, people who suggest games cause violence are 50% likely to be right and much more correct in their statement than people who suggest any of the first three, all of which are opinions held by lots of gamers. (Well actually I guess there would be some chance of either of the first two being correct if combined with the fact that violent people are a lot lot more likely to play games but in all honesty that implication is just as distasteful to mean as games causing violence if being attracted to a game is very much likely because you're a violent person)

So I think the videogames cause violence people are still on much surer ground than the people who suggest there is no correlation, and at the very least they're on equal footing with you (I presume) who suggest violent people are more attracted to games than peaceful people.

I just feel fairytale is a bit strong considering the weight of the evidence is still that there is some sort of correlation.

I hope I haven't been too preachy, as I've said before it's mainly because this article was written to make it sound like the idea that games cause violence has been disproved when there hasn't been a scrap of evidence or meaning in the study to really suggest that.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Repeat after me: Correlation, not Causation.

Up yours Australian Shrinks.

This.

I'm proud of my Swedish neighbors right now.

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

So, does this imply that killing kids in game doesn't affect the urge to kill kids in real life?
Really? You're sure about that? I'm pretty sure about that but what about you? And you? And you over there who blantaly posted some insulting and obonoxious comments in those threads?

And what about that psychotic creepy video where the character in game collects heads on and decorate his home with half naked women? Does this behavior makes that person more likely to be a women decapitating murdering Psycho in real life?

I remember reading loads of posts wishing that poor (abeit brilliantly creative) fellow to be overrun by truck or die a very antagonizing dead. Very "mindful" replies that thread got.

And what about rape then? Suddenly almost everyone seems to think that raping pixels brings you one step closer to real life rape.

In my personal experience I never saw any correlation between video games and real life, but maybe I'm biased or blind. In any way I don't need some study to underline this but I'm very happy that Sweden did such a good job pointing out the very obvious...

 

[kyuzo3567]

Arguing that violent video games lead to real-world violence uses the same logic as arguing that elevated ice cream sales lead to shark attacks.

I love you for saying this, we discussed the same issue in my Psychology stats class,and my teacher used the same example for why correlation does not imply causation. The reason those two items are correlated is: its summer time so we go to the beach... which can have sharks (depending where you live)

My prof. warned us: if we take anything away from this class, its that Correlation DOES NOT imply Causation... so screw you every study that says otherwise!

 

[maxben]

I agree, a right wing goverment in Sweden is a bad idea.

But honestly, I can´t blame people for voting on the Moderates. I mean, the Social democrats are falling apart, especially since they hired a goddamn tax cheater for their leader. The left need to make a full revamp, because right now there´s a good chance the moderates will win pretty much all elections withing the next two decades. And none of us want that.

OT: This is why I love my country, despite it´s faults. Ever the realist, aren´t you, Sweden?

To make you feel better, the Conservatives in Canada crashed from a majority with 167 to 2 in 1993, but after reshuffling and joining hands with other conservatives by 2006 the New Conservatives led the parliament, and won every election since (2008 and 2011) and won more seats at each that they are now a majority.
Not to say that was a good thing for us, but it just shows that politics/voting is far more fickle than we assume and a situation can change rather quickly.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Arguing that violent video games lead to real-world violence uses the same logic as arguing that elevated ice cream sales lead to shark attacks.

Wow, you really have no idea how an analogy works, do you?

On the contrary, I know how they work quite well. The case at hand and the example I gave are both fallacies of correlation.

That's..A really, really poor comparison. Several mediums, when exposed to it, mentally alter your behavior in some subtle way. Point is that it isn't enough to go from violence in videogames = violence in real life, but that doesn't mean that violence in videogames = no change at all. We have age-ratings for a reason, you know.

Mhm. ESRB, correct? Pardon my skepticism, but their roots are practically the same as that of the Motion Picture Production Code [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code], a panicked response to a new medium of entertainment. Ever actually perused the ESRB website? The descriptions of the rating conditions [http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp] are particularly entertaining, and they've got delightful parallels to stuff found in the MPPC (or Hayes Code, as it's better known).

So, your theory is that "several mediums," one of which I assume is video games, can "mentally alter your behavior in some subtle way." In other words, "A fair sized group of factors can affect your brain in ways that are too minor to detect or prove scientifically," and this is why we have an organization as laughably Puritan as the ESRB?

For your own good, don't make such a logic-leap again, especially not with a flawed comparison like that. You'll probably get pounced on the internet by far ruder people than me (and I have no intent of being rude) in an instance if made at the wrong time, in the wrong place.
Cheers.

Let me break that previous point down:

-Correlation is not the same as causation, ie, just because two things happen at once doesn't mean one caused the other and vise versa.

-I've yet to see arguments about video games causing real-world violence that can't be explained by existing mental instability, and what remain are simply cases where police found a copy of Doom or something in the room of a crazed gunman.

-I stated that using correlation to claim that violent video games are responsible for violent behavior is like claiming ice cream sales cause an increase in shark attacks.

-I didn't invent that example. it's been used [http://intergalacticwritersinc.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/ice-cream-consumption-linked-to-shark-attacks/] many times [http://pineda-krch.com/2008/09/03/causal-basis-of-the-ice-cream-shark-correlation-fallacy/] before I said it here [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7592579.stm]. There's a few examples for you.

-The basic idea of the aforementioned ice cream/shark attack 'study' is that both ice cream sales and shark attacks actually do rise at the same time as one another, but only a monumental idiot would think that they were actually causal of one another. In real examples, it's not always so obvious.

Did you really think I picked those two things at random? Or were you just so eager to flaunt your perceived intellectual victory that you didn't stop to think about it?

 

[ResonanceSD]

This should really recieve more press than it does. Finally a sensible perspective.

 

[duchaked]

thought this had been cleared up before...but as others are saying here, of course opponents of all things gaming won't be listening >:/

 

[Realitycrash]

Arguing that violent video games lead to real-world violence uses the same logic as arguing that elevated ice cream sales lead to shark attacks.

Wow, you really have no idea how an analogy works, do you?

On the contrary, I know how they work quite well. The case at hand and the example I gave are both fallacies of correlation.

That's..A really, really poor comparison. Several mediums, when exposed to it, mentally alter your behavior in some subtle way. Point is that it isn't enough to go from violence in videogames = violence in real life, but that doesn't mean that violence in videogames = no change at all. We have age-ratings for a reason, you know.

Mhm. ESRB, correct? Pardon my skepticism, but their roots are practically the same as that of the Motion Picture Production Code [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code], a panicked response to a new medium of entertainment. Ever actually perused the ESRB website? The descriptions of the rating conditions [http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp] are particularly entertaining, and they've got delightful parallels to stuff found in the MPPC (or Hayes Code, as it's better known).

So, your theory is that "several mediums," one of which I assume is video games, can "mentally alter your behavior in some subtle way." In other words, "A fair sized group of factors can affect your brain in ways that are too minor to detect or prove scientifically," and this is why we have an organization as laughably Puritan as the ESRB?

For your own good, don't make such a logic-leap again, especially not with a flawed comparison like that. You'll probably get pounced on the internet by far ruder people than me (and I have no intent of being rude) in an instance if made at the wrong time, in the wrong place.
Cheers.

Let me break that previous point down:

-Correlation is not the same as causation, ie, just because two things happen at once doesn't mean one caused the other and vise versa.

-I've yet to see arguments about video games causing real-world violence that can't be explained by existing mental instability, and what remain are simply cases where police found a copy of Doom or something in the room of a crazed gunman.

-I stated that using correlation to claim that violent video games are responsible for violent behavior is like claiming ice cream sales cause an increase in shark attacks.

-I didn't invent that example. it's been used [http://intergalacticwritersinc.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/ice-cream-consumption-linked-to-shark-attacks/] many times [http://pineda-krch.com/2008/09/03/causal-basis-of-the-ice-cream-shark-correlation-fallacy/] before I said it here [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7592579.stm]. There's a few examples for you.

-The basic idea of the aforementioned ice cream/shark attack 'study' is that both ice cream sales and shark attacks actually do rise at the same time as one another, but only a monumental idiot would think that they were actually causal of one another. In real examples, it's not always so obvious.

Did you really think I picked those two things at random? Or were you just so eager to flaunt your perceived intellectual victory that you didn't stop to think about it?

Hahahahahahhaha. Did you just spend half an hour writing that up?
Yes, I did think you took those two completely at random. I got a few reason as to why such an anology is silly stillo, but I CBA to write half a thesis-paper on a forum.
Did you think I honestly would, or do you just want to flaunt your preceived intellectual superiority by posting an overly long explanation that is mostly beside the point?
Still, don't even answer. Have a nice day.

 

[JesterRaiin]

(snip)
The reason I feel that your post isn't quite correct is that you are suggesting that there isn't any evidence/ it isn't likely that games cause violence.

Nope.
I merely observe that "causality" in this special case may or may not exist, however until we find solid proof nobody should use this assumption as a valid argument in discussions.

Also, i'm more than sure that even if it will be proven beyond any doubt, some people will still accuse videogaming of being responsible for all Mankind's sins. Yep. Some people need to hate something.

 

[AbstractStream]

This is going to be one of those never-ending arguments, huh?
Well at least gamers aren't being blamed this time around.

 

[Scars Unseen]

fact is, you get infinitely more time with your child than anyone else

Fun fact: the above statement was probably true... in the 50s. I see my daughter for an hour while I get her up and ready for day care, and then for twenty minutes after I get home from work before she goes to bed. And that's if I don't have to be at work early(then I don't see her in the morning) or have class that day(then I don't see her at night). Also, I work 2 out of 3 weekends, so I don't see her but for a few hours then either. I still don't blame others for any problems my daughter might have(she's a bit behind on language development because she hears Japanese at day care and English at home), but don't assume you know anything about any given family. In a world where 2 incomes is mandatory for most people, the time just isn't there.

 

[Simon Pettersson]

At the height of it's socialist policies the country almost imploded, and that was 1991-ish.

Actually that happened when we had an right wing goverment ....
They tried to do what they did now but a bit too fast. The man in charge of it is even in goverment right now not as primeminister tho thank god ....

 

[Dastardly]

fact is, you get infinitely more time with your child than anyone else

Fun fact: the above statement was probably true... in the 50s. I see my daughter for an hour while I get her up and ready for day care, and then for twenty minutes after I get home from work before she goes to bed. And that's if I don't have to be at work early(then I don't see her in the morning) or have class that day(then I don't see her at night). Also, I work 2 out of 3 weekends, so I don't see her but for a few hours then either. I still don't blame others for any problems my daughter might have(she's a bit behind on language development because she hears Japanese at day care and English at home), but don't assume you know anything about any given family. In a world where 2 incomes is mandatory for most people, the time just isn't there.

I'm not saying you have "all the time you want." I'm saying you have "more time than any other individual does." I'm not talking just hang-out time or anything, either -- or even time spent directly talking/playing/instructing with the child. The time a child spends sleeping? That counts, too -- parents have a lot of control over that environment. Parents are responsible for more hours than any other individual.

A lot of kids, for instance, come to school tired and grouchy and unable to focus because 1. their parents don't enforce a reasonable bed time, 2. the bed/room is not suitable for comfortable sleep, 3. the home environment is so stressful that the child isn't able to get restful sleep, 4. the child isn't well-fed, and a hungry body can't get quality sleep. (Yet when the kid performs poorly in school, they look at the teachers.)

My point here is that parents often attribute far more influence to other areas because it appears they spend "most of their time" there. Let's look at school, for instance. From birth to 18, a child has 157,788 hours in his/her life. 20,160 are spent in school (including an average 1 year of pre-school). That's assuming a full 8 hours per day, which is usually not the case (but we're allowing for after-school activites, too). That's 13% of a child's life at school. That's including lunch, bathroom, recess, lockers... And that 13% is usually split among as many as 40 different teachers.

By contrast, they spend (if we assume 8 hours of sleep) 52,596 hours sleeping. There's 33%, or over twice what they spend in school. That's time spent in the home environment, so there's a lot of influence there even though it's not active "parent time."

What's the point of all these numbers? That parents have absolute control over every minute? No. Just that they have more time in which they are the primary influence over their child's life than anyone else. They have more "hours of influence" than they choose to recognize. Whether or not all of them use that time correctly doesn't change the fact that it's there. And a parent can influence their children even when they're at work, by the way they establish routines and the home environment.

 

[Fearzone]

We all learn that correlation does not prove causation in undergrad, then for some reason that gets totally forgotten when people earn their PhD degree in politically-motivated psychology research.

 

[Baresark]

At the height of it's socialist policies the country almost imploded, and that was 1991-ish.

Actually that happened when we had an right wing goverment ....
They tried to do what they did now but a bit too fast. The man in charge of it is even in goverment right now not as primeminister tho thank god ....

You call it a right wing problem, but it was a problem with the socialist policies. The policies that cost too much money to uphold and your taking everything you can. It was the deregulation at the time and the lowering of the corporate tax levels that spared it. It kept businesses there and provided jobs to people.

 

[BrotherRool]

(snip)
The reason I feel that your post isn't quite correct is that you are suggesting that there isn't any evidence/ it isn't likely that games cause violence.

Nope.
I merely observe that "causality" in this special case may or may not exist, however until we find solid proof nobody should use this assumption as a valid argument in discussions.

Also, i'm more than sure that even if it will be proven beyond any doubt, some people will still accuse videogaming of being responsible for all Mankind's sins. Yep. Some people need to hate something.

Okay that's fair enough, yeah definitely can't be taken as fact until much more research

 

[TheMatsjo]

Sadly we aren't socialists anymore.

*Sad face*

OT: Hooray for Swedish research, but boo on the title of this piece Andy, misleading. Saying there is no evidence of causation =/= there is no causation.