Video games and violence

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
12,778
Reaction score
1,046
http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20050811-112401-5671r.htm

"Oooops, looks like the scapegoat is getting away! Someone catch it and bring it back!" - Hillary and various (irresponsible) parents associations.

Or, as the cooler head of La Presse (Québec newspaper) had to say this morning : "Video Games are to the current older adults generation as rock was to the one before, and television before that, and even novels once upon a time. Thirty years from now the video games players of today will be complaining about the menace to society that holographic constructs represents."
 
Gamers have been trying to tell people this for years. If anything, it's a vent for frustration. I've even heard reports that gaming is HEALTHY for the mind.
 
The worst gaming does it fuel an already disturbed mind, and even THAT'S borderline BS.

Damian said it best: It's a scapegoat. It's something to blame the world's ills on because we're to afraid to admit that there ISN'T one big, bad monster responsible for what happens to people. Video games aren't to blame. Music isn't to blame. TV isn't to blame. Hell, GUNS aren't to blame (now THAT hurt to say). Bullying isn't to blame. What IS to blame is different in every individual. Sometimes it's a mental defect. Sometimes it's abuse from any of hundreds of sources. Video games, TV, music, and guns can all be blamed for a LOT of things (ADD for one), but not violence. At most, they give people new ideas. I know they've given ME ideas.

But I love how many people are suing GTA over the sex that you have to do all kinds of crap to even see. Nevermind the shooting cops. Nevermind the stealing cars. Nevermind the shooting other people. Nevermind the sex you see on ANY given TV channel at ALMOST any time. Or movie. There was nudity in Titanic. It was rated PG-13. No one sued (although I was tempted to, but for different reasons entirely). Video games are this decade's McDonald's. Everyone's going to sue, but nothing is actually going to come of it. Except, maybe, we'll get less rat meat in our games.
 
I raped a sewer rat because I play Pokemon.
 
Are we supposed to be surprised?
 
I read an article recently that said playing video games makes for better surgeons. The reason? The constant use of one's hands and fingers to manipulate the gaming controls. Interesting, to say the least.

Our culture celebrates violence. To blame only one aspect (games) is a bit silly. Scientific evidence is needed to correlate human aggression with playing video games. A meta-analytic review of video game violence from the Univ. of Iowa
 
Barb, readign that study - they apparently consider bouts of frustration and anger when your character get killed just before you could save your progress from the last three hours (you know, such as yelling "DAMN!" and hitting a table with your fist, or storming away) as "video-game induced violent behavior", adn thus, proof that video games make you violent.

If they do, it's QUITE obvious that "violent" video games (ie, ones where you can actually get killed and thus lose progress) are much moer likely to cause "violent behavior" (read, "frustration") than those where you can't get killed, and can just keep trying without every losing your progress short of a black-out.

In other word, the study you quoted is grade-A misrepresentation.
 
Last edited:
in your opening paragraph, you state that a person could display aggressive behavior after losing a video game. (Note that this is true also of sports.) To deny that there is a connection between the two is ignoring the facts. Even certain types of music are known to cause aggression (ever seen a mosh pit, let alone been inside one?).

I've often wondered about the first-person shooter games that are on the market myself. I'm not thinking of GTA; maybe Metal Gear Solid or Medal of Honor. Some of these games are modeled after or are hybrids of games used to train soldiers to kill. How could a person not be affected by repeatedly playing those games? I know you'll probably disagree with this, but here's an excerpt from another paper I found:

Perhaps not coincidentally Jonesboro was also the place where Dave Grossman author of On Killing (1995) and a leading critic of violent video games had retired.

Grossman was a lieutenant colonel who had devoted his career to figuring out
how to train soldiers to kill. Recently he has become a leading US critic of the
interactive entertainment industry arguing that “the main concern is that these violent video games are providing military quality training to children.”. Like the training of these soldiers, Grossman believes that violent video games may have a similar effect on young people who play them a lot, not because they create models or templates for children’s behaviour, but because they help break down the psychological barriers that prevent killing: “children don’t naturally kill; they learn it from violence in the home and…from violence as entertainment in television, movies and interactive video games.”. Like in the army, the repeated shooting at targets in the video games may not only enhance weapons skills, but also desensitize some young people to the horror of killing by turning enemies into targets. Like the soldiers, with constant practice, players of violent video games will eventually have extremely low or even no empathy towards victims of violence. The engagement process from video games will decrease the
players’ empathy and negative reaction towards violent acts. The disturbing
blend of participation, engagement, rewards and practice that video games encourage, is a perfect instructional environment. One of the central thrusts of Grossman’s argument is that we see the rise of violent video gaming as more of a concern than violence in movies and on television. In other words, aggression training is more effective to the degree it is experienced as not really violent – even pleasurable and enjoyable as playful entertainment—which is the case for most gamers.

And this moral panic has recently spread to Canada. In a recent case where
five teens were accused of brutally murdering an 81 year old woman in her home, the press reported statements by the town mayor who claimed “Young people play Nintendo with scenes of violence and flowing blood”. The article also cites “A group of local teenaged boys who hung around with one of those charged said the boy in recent months became increasingly withdrawn, spending hours playing video games or surfing the net on his home computer. “He used to get into crazy Web sites – murder, pedophilia, there were no exceptions,” said one boy in 10 a baseball cap and cargo pants. “It’s like there were fantasies at work” (Globe & Mail, 1999: A3). Grossman’s arguments are obviously contributing to the escalating political struggle over video games worldwide. But they may also help to galvanize some much-needed research into how video games influence kids.

As a retired US army officer, Grossman is well positioned to comment on the similarity between the tactics used in the army to train soldiers and they use of violent video games among children today. The US military has long used simulation training for its soldiers because the “repetition and desensitization” of simulated killing effects kill rates (the actual percentage of soldiers that will pull the trigger in real life combat).

Grossman has trained elite fighting soldiers and police officers how to kill by
adapting fighting simulations for training purposes. What they found was that
by eliminating the blood, gore and emotions of the ‘victims’ on the computer
screen, the soldiers begin to treat their training as more of a game. According to Grossman, the soldier’s training is designed to be both practical and psychological. Simulation training enhances familiarity and physical skills with weapons while decreasing the soldiers’ empathy towards their enemies. By firing at the computer simulated images of enemies who die without blood and gore, the fighting simulation can sharpen the marksmanship of these soldiers at the same time it trains them to see enemies as targets rather than humans. In desensitizing the soldier to the act of killing the trainee becomes more capable of actually pulling the trigger effectively (Discovery Channel). It also shifts researchers attention to the cognitive and emotional mechanisms by which shooting is rehearsed by video game players and dis-inhibited by emotional numbing through fantasized killing acts. But Grossman’s research is not based on examining how extensive video game play influences children.
Click to expand...

I haven't noticed any violent tendencies in my own kids, although their games admittedly (Super Smash Bros Melee, Mario Kart, and Godzilla Destroy All Monsters) are light-hearted in comparison with Doom and Resident Evil.

Although I think it's more the culture than the games themselves. Here'sanother article from Science magazine dealing with violence in the media.
 
But the games used to train soldiers are used in order to get these troops prepared for combat situations, not to train them to kill. It's so they'll have the proper muscle memory when it comes time to fight or die. Now, the problem is that you have mentally unstable children playing these games, and subsequently getting trained on how to kill.

I grew up on Doom. I've played a large portion of the Medal of Honor games. Heck, I was playing Duke Nukem before it went "3-D" (man, the original was great). I was playing Mortal Kombat when it was still in the arcades, and owned every version of it when it was FINALLY released for consoles. I never once got into a fight until high school, and even THAT was only a fight in the vaguest definition. Throughout my life, I've had some particularly violent thoughts. I'll not deny that. But I think we all have (or at least all the guys have). Some days you just get fed up with things. But there's that fine line between grabbing a gun and shooting up your school...and moving past it. MOST don't cross that line. Most shove it down or vent their anger in a more productive way.

Games don't make people violent. Games just provide training for an already violent mind. Or maybe push people a little more, so they shoot up their middle school instead of their high school. And TV doesn't make people violent...it's along the same lines. It's how people treat each other that determines the end result. And the amount of damage is related to what they have access to. Guns don't kill people, but people WITH guns kill people.

Limiting what your children have access to is a good thing. But it's more important that you're aware of what their reactions are to the things they already have access to. There ARE signs if you watch closely. And therapy never hurt anyone...it's just that there's a horrible, horrible stigma attached to it.

Ironically, the more video games we get and the more realistic TV gets...the more medication we prescribe. But which came first? The drugs or the violence?
 
Barb said:
in your opening paragraph, you state that a person could display aggressive behavior after losing a video game. (Note that this is true also of sports.) To deny that there is a connection between the two is ignoring the facts.
Click to expand...

Oh please. *FRUSTRATION* (due to losing, generally, especially if you worked hard on getting as far as you got before losing) cause those violent behavior. Not video games : losing, and it happens with any sort of games : I've seen people reacting violently to losing in sports, card games, board games, whatever you have.

Trying to blame the video games themselves for this sort of frustration, and then going from there to claim that such frustration is a sign that people who play video games are more prone to committing actual acts of criminal violence (as opposed to punching a random couch) is just plain dishonest.

Even certain types of music are known to cause aggression (ever seen a mosh pit, let alone been inside one?).
Click to expand...

If you're going to bring up the old "society is getting more violent!" debate, I'll simply point out this : flat numbers plain out disagree with you. From 1998 to 2003, the number of murders and non-negligent manslaughters in the US each year has been LOWER than at any other point since 1972.

More than that, those 18670 murders in 1972 were out of a population of roughly 203 000 000.

The 16 503 murders in 2003 were out of a popularion of roughly 270 000 000.

That means, statistically, that the percentage of murders in 2003 was 0.006%, compared to 0.009% in 1971 - half again as much!

More than that, the newspaper this morning mentioned that the number of violent crimes reported in the US has gone down from 1996 to 2003 : 3.6 millions to 1.9 millions, barely 53% of what it was back then.

More violent, society? Or is it just the mass market medias are growing more and more everpresent, and reports of violence makes for flashy headlines?
 
Last edited:
I don't know that it's the kids that are mentally unstable. I wonder if it's the parents. What I mean by that is that there is little to no authority in the home and the kids are pretty much left to their own devices. The Columbine shooters played some of the same games you did, but look at the difference. You're non-violent and they killed several people.

Like I said before, it's not the games alone. It's the culture that condones and accepts violence as a means of solving problems that has to share blame. But you can't really discount the effects of these games on certain individuals.
 
Damian Silverblade said:
Oh please. *FRUSTRATION* (due to losing, generally, especially if you worked hard on getting as far as you got before losing) cause those violent behavior. Not video games : losing, and it happens with any sort of games : I've seen people reacting violently to losing in sports, card games, board games, whatever you have.

Trying to blame the video games themselves for this sort of frustration, and then going from there to claim that such frustration is a sign that people who play video games are more prone to committing actual acts of criminal violence (as opposed to punching a random couch) is just plain dishonest.
Click to expand...

If you push and shove a person out of the way because you're frustrated that you lost, that is an aggressive and violent reaction. Does it happen all the time? No. But saying it doesn't happen at all is dishonest.

How much more scientific evidence do I have to post before you admit that there is a connection between the two? Or do you simply ignore the science that disagrees with your personal prejudices?

If you're going to bring up the old "society is getting more violent!" debate, I'll simply point out this : flat numbers plain out disagree with you. From 1999 to 2003, the number of murders and non-negligent manslaughters in the US each year has been LOWER than at any other point since 1972.

More than that, those 18670 murders in 1972 were out of a population of roughly 203 000 000.

The 16 503 murders in 2003 were out of a popularion of roughly 270 000 000.

That means, statistically, that the percentage of murders in 2003 was 0.006%, compared to 0.009% in 1971 - half again as much!

Getting more violent, society?
Click to expand...

You don't suppose gun control laws had anything to do with it, do you? In my own neighborhood, crime is down. Too bad the same can't be said for Miami--or for most urban areas in the U.S. Crime as a whole may be down, but I still lock my door at night. I'm sure you do the same.

Youth violence is also down, but it's still considered a major problem. Ask anyone who lives in a gang-infested part of town. But something is causing the statistics, however low or high the numbers are. I say it's the culture as a whole, which is a point that apparently you haven't figured out yet. Have you even been reading my posts? Video games are a part of that culture. I didn't say they were the root cause, but they do play a part, just like all other media outlets.
 
that was always an absurd rumor. im a pacifist but i play the pokemon games
 
With hazing, vandalism, arguing with refs, and parental violence at youth and professional sports events, I would say that Americans have a culture problem independent of video games.
 
Barb said:
If you push and shove a person out of the way because you're frustrated that you lost, that is an aggressive and violent reaction. Does it happen all the time? No. But saying it doesn't happen at all is dishonest.

How much more scientific evidence do I have to post before you admit that there is a connection between the two? Or do you simply ignore the science that disagrees with your personal prejudices?
Click to expand...

Barb, that does not create a link between video games and violence. it creates a link between LOSING IN GENERAL and violence. You yourself admited it could happen from sports as well Can losing in a video game results in violent behavior?

Of course. Losing in ANYTHING can.

My problem is the singling out of video games. Nobody talks about word processor making people more violent because of people lashing out when their last three hours of work get erased in a computer crash (let alone viruses or hacking. Nobody talks about sport making people more violent.

To use the "loser's frustration" effect of video games to justify claims that video games make people more violent than they'd otherwise be is JUST PLAIN BAD SCIENCE.

Barb said:
You don't suppose gun control laws had anything to do with it, do you? In my own neighborhood, crime is down. Too bad the same can't be said for Miami--or for most urban areas in the U.S. Crime as a whole may be down, but I still lock my door at night. I'm sure you do the same.
Click to expand...

Actually (and as an aside), we've never locked our door at night here. Short of being away for several (and by that, I mean half a day and more) hours, we don't lock our door when the house empty's either. Violence in the outer Montréal suburbs is just THAT low, and what Crime there is mostly take the form of pot smoking, underage drinking, etc.

Back on topic, gun control may have helped. But why is there gun control? Could it be because SOCIETY WANTED VIOLENCE CONTROLED? The laws of a democracy reflect (at least in theory) what people want their society to be, Barb (though such things as constitution, etc, affect that.

Youth violence is also down, but it's still considered a major problem. Ask anyone who lives in a gang-infested part of town. But something is causing the statistics, however low or high the numbers are. I say it's the culture as a whole, which is a point that apparently you haven't figured out yet. Have you even been reading my posts? Video games are a part of that culture. I didn't say they were the root cause, but they do play a part, just like all other media outlets.
Click to expand...

Present western society is about the LEAST tolerant of violence any society on earth has ever been - and, as a direct result, the least violent.
 
Palpatine said:
With hazing, vandalism, arguing with refs, and parental violence at youth and professional sports events, I would say that Americans have a culture problem independent of video games.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I have been saying all along. I wonder, though, how video games fit into the violence culture. How much is environmental (coming from peers, media, etc) and how much is inherited (seeing parental violence directed at you or one of your parents)?
 
Palpatine said:
With hazing, vandalism, arguing with refs, and parental violence at youth and professional sports events, I would say that Americans have a culture problem independent of video games.
Click to expand...

At least the professional sports events don't consist of slaves trying to kill each others or warriors practicing their arts on each other like some OTHER societies once did (gladiator fights, jousting - you know the sort of stuff).
 
Last edited:
How many dead people lately in football?
 
Normally none die during the season. But PRE-SEASON? About 5-10, depending on how bad the heat is.

And a year or so ago, there WAS the guy who was killed at his son's peewee hockey game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom