Violent games lead to more violence?

[spartan231490]

Playing violent video games have nothing to do with committing real life violence. The thing people fail to realize, is that violent people are violent because of their choices. Everyone has the occasional urge to pull out an oozi on main-street, but we don't act on it because we DECIDE not to. It is possible that violent people choose to play violent video games, but never forget the importance of choice. You wouldn't want to be treated as mindless machine who's actions are determined solely by what media you are exposed to, so why would you treat others the same way. Remember, other people are very like yourself, and they make decisions just like you do.

 

[razer17]

I think one of the main points this racing/killing game comparison hasn't been made is that as a general rule 12-15 year olds don't go driving cars. If they do, everyone expects a tragic heap of twisted metal to be the outcome.

Murder is relatively easy, with (US) guns and (UK) knives easily obtainable from a certain place in a house.

Not to mention that experienced drivers would be more likely to avoid an accident even with an inept driver, as learning to drive is avoiding crashes.

The same can't be said for living. Living isn't avoiding murder for the most part, soldiers do not count as they haven't been soldiers since they were born.

TLR violence is easier than driving

Kids around that age get arrested for joy riding all the time. Car crime makes up 30% of all crime in Britain, and they reckon that most joyriders start between 13 and 16. Violence isn't easier than driving, because it's a lot harder to make a decision to seriously hurt someone than to steal their stuff.

Anyhow, I've been having the urge to start a football team. DAMN YOU FIFA 13!

 

[razer17]

Playing violent video games have nothing to do with committing real life violence. The thing people fail to realize, is that violent people are violent because of their choices. Everyone has the occasional urge to pull out an oozi on main-street, but we don't act on it because we DECIDE not to. It is possible that violent people choose to play violent video games, but never forget the importance of choice. You wouldn't want to be treated as mindless machine who's actions are determined solely by what media you are exposed to, so why would you treat others the same way. Remember, other people are very like yourself, and they make decisions just like you do.

There is very little evidence to suggest that videogames increase violence in the average person. Some studies have shown an increase in aggression, testosterone and other indirect measures of violence, but in general the evidence isn't great. However, you can't assume that everyone out there is "normal" psychologically speaking. There are certain groups of people who may by influenced by violent videogames, for whatever reason. Is it really a choice they are making if they don't really understand?

All I'm saying is that not all people are like yourself.

Meta-analysis of the literature (2001 and earlier) indicates that their is a small but insignificant positive connection that doesn't necessarily imply a causal relationship. I am sure there have been more recent meta-analyses but I expect they haven't change the picture in any real way.

Well for a start that research is flawed from the get-go, because the advnaces in graphics and gameplay in the last 11 years means that this study is so out of date it's basically prehistoric. Then there's methodological issues in the very nature of meta-analysis (the researcher can choose what studies to include/not include, can interpret findings slightly differently etc.)

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

Meta-analysis of the literature (2001 and earlier) indicates that their is a small but insignificant positive connection that doesn't necessarily imply a causal relationship. I am sure there have been more recent meta-analyses but I expect they haven't change the picture in any real way.

Well for a start that research is flawed from the get-go, because the advnaces in graphics and gameplay in the last 11 years means that this study is so out of date it's basically prehistoric. Then there's methodological issues in the very nature of meta-analysis (the researcher can choose what studies to include/not include, can interpret findings slightly differently etc.)

Well yes. You are right. If a meta-analysis from 2001 was all there was than that would not be much to build on. But as I said it is not the only one or the last one, merely the most cited one and perhaps the most well known. There are others like this one: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/136/2/151/ from 2011. And it is true that a systematic (or just unconscious) exclusion of certain studies can skew the overall results something awful. That's why is is important to read just how studies were selected for the meta-analysis. Unfortunately we can't do that for the 2011 one as it is not publicly available as far as I know. But we can look at the methods used in the 2001 one. If I remember correctly their were no visible flaws in the method of selection in that one and since they are both authored by one Craig A. Anderson I think that it is safe to estimate that the methodology has not changed in any significant way. (Also note my second comment. Mr. Anderson is one of the most accomplished researchers in this field of study but his motivations might be questionable as he always seems to get the same results)

Having said that there is a lot of unknown in the field and there is a lot of room for good studies still. I was just saying what the current state of the literature is.

Edit: I actually found it now, the 2011 one that is. I am to tired at the moment to read much science so I will leave it to you to rip it's methodology to shreds. Good times.
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/mjreese/psy453/Anderson%20et%20al,%202010.pdf

 

[Nieroshai]

No one has an opinion on this matter?

I guess I'll go on a killing spree instead. *picks up Carmageddon for the iPhone*

It really is more of a "not this topic again!" than any lack of opinion. This has been talked into the ground. I do care, I wrote my thesis on this, I'm just tired of debating it on forums where people are contrarian just because they can be.

 

[ODWX9K]

If violence in video games leads to violence in the real world, so what? Making fun of Muhammed or Allah can lead to violence (or any number of other religious leaders or deities); telling someone they're gay can lead to violence; drinking can itself lead to violence. Even showing news of something gone wrong, could arguably lead to violence.

If a murderer enjoys the same thing that I enjoy, that in no logical way itself assumes that I have anything in common with him, certainly no more than what he probably shares with a variety of pro-war politicians.

 

[JagermanXcell]

Lets discuss this subject of violent video games causing more violence, with a violent video game!!!
No More Heroes:
We can all agree, this is a violent game, decapitations, blood, gore, all that good stuff.
Now the games main focus in terms of subtext is: What if all that violence, was applied to reality? And thats No More Heroes in a nutshell.
The game revolves around the idea of a world influenced buy violent media, superheroes, video games, anime, ect.
The game makes it a point where the line between violent media and reality must never an will never be crossed, because if it does, it'll be ugly, lack sanity, and overall be inhumane.
So to say violent media influences violence in reality is a tad bit ludicrous considering just how surreal the outcome is, The game also kindly mentions: Violence, fiction or non-fiction, will never be censored, so in the end its comes down to how you see it.

 

[In Search of Username]

I often go on reckless digging sprees after playing Minecraft.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

What's "SS"? Are you referring to Serious Sam?

I hope you are. Cos Serious Sam is rad and good little boys and girls all play it.

 

[spartan231490]

Playing violent video games have nothing to do with committing real life violence. The thing people fail to realize, is that violent people are violent because of their choices. Everyone has the occasional urge to pull out an oozi on main-street, but we don't act on it because we DECIDE not to. It is possible that violent people choose to play violent video games, but never forget the importance of choice. You wouldn't want to be treated as mindless machine who's actions are determined solely by what media you are exposed to, so why would you treat others the same way. Remember, other people are very like yourself, and they make decisions just like you do.

There is very little evidence to suggest that videogames increase violence in the average person. Some studies have shown an increase in aggression, testosterone and other indirect measures of violence, but in general the evidence isn't great. However, you can't assume that everyone out there is "normal" psychologically speaking. There are certain groups of people who may by influenced by violent videogames, for whatever reason. Is it really a choice they are making if they don't really understand?

All I'm saying is that not all people are like yourself. snip

I never said every person was like myself, I said every person makes their own decisions like, you know . . . a person. You know, that's why we let people vote, and drink, and smoke, and join the military. Sure, some severely handicapped individuals and young children might be susceptible, but that isn't a problem with the media itself, that's life. These people have parents and guardians to look after them, you don't ban video games because of it, you trust the parent/guardian to make good fucking decisions about their charges. Sure, that doesn't always work out, you get the occasional parent who duct-tapes their kid to a wall, but that isn't the duct-tapes fault.

 

[Something Amyss]

-le snip-

Did you quote me verbatim with no additional input for a reason?

To lazy to weed out every other quote. Other things to do then to argue a point you misunderstood.

If you're too lazy to bother to make a response that actually shows up, maybe don't make it at all. Otherwise, saying "you don't understand" is cool, but it doesn't really mean anything without context.

Looking at your post, it seems you made a spurious statement with no actual rational or factual backing to it. Perhaps you are a fan of Doctor Phil logic, but I am not. If your point was to say something other than what you said, I clearly misunderstood (but then, how can I be blamed for that?). If your point was to say that " If people don't get an outlet in games they will look for it in other places," then yes, I understood it fine and my statement remains valid.

 

[Something Amyss]

Everyone has the occasional urge to pull out an oozi on main-street, but we don't act on it because we DECIDE not to.

I've never had an urge to pull an Uzi or any other weapon on Main Street.

However, the difference between those who do pull a weapon on Main Street (or location of their choosing) is not so much a conscious decision so much as a series of other functions such as impulse control.

Anyhow, I've been having the urge to start a football team. DAMN YOU FIFA 13!

You think you have it bad? I've been playing Borderlands 2, Mass Effect 3 MP, and Dungeon Village. I'm torn between the urge to go shoot aliens and the urge to build a medieval fantasy kingdom!

If violence in video games leads to violence in the real world, so what? Making fun of Muhammed or Allah can lead to violence (or any number of other religious leaders or deities); telling someone they're gay can lead to violence; drinking can itself lead to violence. Even showing news of something gone wrong, could arguably lead to violence.

This is a fair point. Where is the campaign to end religion because it leads to violence (in some, but is that different that vidjya gamez)?

 

[Slayer_2]

The point of Need for Speed isn't to cause crashes, it's to race.

Because everyone owns a race spec car, is trained how to drive it, and has access to a track. If videogames encouraged behavior depicted in them, it's more likely an influenced person would take mommies Honda Civic out for a street race against some pals, and one or more people could end up getting injured or killed.

Also, GTA doesn't have the option to rape. Just the option to have sex caused a lot of fallout.