IT'S ON NOW! Games cause violence (again)

Men in their early 20s who had a healthy dosing of violent TV and video games from ages 6 to 9 were twice as likely to push, grab or shove their spouses and are three times more likely to be convicted of criminal behavior, according to the research. The study also found that women who watched a lot of violent content and played violent video games growing up are twice as likely to have thrown something at their spouse and are four times as likely to have hit or assaulted another adult.

lol
 

“The study supports what has long been suspected: Viewing violent ‘entertainment’ and participating in ‘virtual violence’ have profoundly serious implications for society,” read the press release regarding the study. According to the researchers, video games, particularly the first person shooter games, could be more “dangerous,” than watching violent television shows or movies.

Makes sense to me. The games are much more immersing.
 
Can the science community just agree on this: you don't got shit until you have a halfway decent longitudinal study on video games themselves. You can't just say "ahhh, TV did it, games will too" and then send your shit in to Fox news. Even a longitudinal study, your results will probably be riddled with holes due to lack of control. Cheers.


and no, this:
The research, which dates back to the 1960’s when the lead scientist interviewed 856 third graders (and then tracked them for 30 years), found that repeated exposure to violent television shows and video games have a stronger influence on aggressive behavior than being poor, having a substance abuse or growing up with abusive parents.
Click to expand...

doesn't count since games in the 60s probably consisted of flashing leds on a circuit board...they may have caught the Doom phenomena right at the end of that research :lol
 
FunkyMunkey said:

“The study supports what has long been suspected: Viewing violent ‘entertainment’ and participating in ‘virtual violence’ have profoundly serious implications for society,” read the press release regarding the study. According to the researchers, video games, particularly the first person shooter games, could be more “dangerous,” than watching violent television shows or movies.

Makes sense to me. The games are much more immersing.
Click to expand...

its bullshit. there is no equal to actually holding a real gun and shooting it etc. its nothing like you would expect

to accept that these implications are true is to agree with the insinuation that humans are empty vessels ready to be influenced by any and everything around them.
 
davepoobond said:
its bullshit. there is no equal to actually holding a real gun and shooting it etc. its nothing like you would expect

to accept that these implications are true is to agree with the insinuation that humans are empty vessels ready to be influenced by any and everything around them.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that instinctual development and influence is greater than that of environmental influence.
 
Relatedly, there is this Gamasutra article that says a majority of people in the United States are in favor of governmental interference with regards to regulation and a whole forty percent in favor of government mandates on content.

This is disturbing news, especially given that this is a winning issue in a political year.
 
as the other study referenced infers... while violent adults are much more likely to have consumed violent media, that is just correlation not causation.

look at it like this, people with violent tendancies are more likely to watch and play violent games. that's as equally valid a finding from these same statistics.

violent crime is steadily *decreasing*... which should tell you that not only is there no smoking gun, but there's no dead body either.
 
FunkyMunkey said:
I don't believe that instinctual development and influence is greater than that of environmental influence.
Click to expand...

images on a flat screen constitute as an environment?
 
I decide it is bullshit.

I love how the journalist used the old trick or making a generalization ("researchers") to make the headline more impacting.
 
knowledge is a very powerful thing and shouldn't be weilded haphazzardly...same goes for opinions.

i agree that games can be a powerful media in terms of influence. the reason we're seeing this comparison is because we're in a generational transition. children/adults of future generations will probably have different attitudes once games are the norm.

interesting how games started out as a subculture to almost a counterculture on the brink of mainstream acceptance
 
The source is INFALLIBLE.
Anything Fox related must be true.
*throws consoles and rig out the window*
 
davepoobond said:
images on a flat screen constitue as an environment?
Click to expand...

Considering they affect emotions and actions, yes. Two senses: sounds and visuals.

For example, people listening to Hitler or watching his speeches during the 30s were influenced. Sounds and visuals again.

Listening to the radio? Influence.

Watching TV? Influence.

Listening, watching, and interacting with the TV? Influence.

Also, ANY influence during a child's development can alter their course drastically.
 
FunkyMunkey said:

“The study supports what has long been suspected: Viewing violent ‘entertainment’ and participating in ‘virtual violence’ have profoundly serious implications for society,” read the press release regarding the study. According to the researchers, video games, particularly the first person shooter games, could be more “dangerous,” than watching violent television shows or movies.

Makes sense to me. The games are much more immersing.
Click to expand...
The immersion that games provide is precisely the reason that games are not as dangerous as passive media.
 
FunkyMunkey said:
Considering they affect emotions and actions, yes. Two senses: sounds and visuals.

People listening to Hitler or watching his speeches during the 30s were influenced. Sounds and visuals again.
Click to expand...

There are a whole host of reasons why people ended up following Hitler, and it wasn't just the combination of a mustachioed man and some loud words.

Besides, we still haven't proven causation but merely demonstrated correlation.
 
FunkyMunkey said:
Considering they affect emotions and actions, yes. Two senses: sounds and visuals.

For example, people listening to Hitler or watching his speeches during the 30s were influenced. Sounds and visuals again.
Click to expand...


except there was a gestapo under Hitler that actually forced you to do things. hardly anyone is forcing you to put a yellow star on your shirt that says you're a video game player. except for people who subscribe to this theory.
 
davepoobond said:
except there was a gestapo under Hitler that actually forced you to do things. hardly anyone is forcing you to put a yellow star on your shirt that says you're a video game player. except for people who subscribe to this theory.
Click to expand...

Not yet, but I'm working on it.
 
Campster said:
There are a whole host of reasons why people ended up following Hitler, and it wasn't just the combination of a mustachioed man and some loud words.

Besides, we still haven't proven causation but merely demonstrated correlation.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. But seeing the people here call complete bullshit on these studies just makes me shake my head in disgust.

I would like to see some with an unbiased hypothesis, though. It is disheartening when they are obviously LOOKING for a correlation.

Acosta said:
Free speech is dangerous and an potential bad influence, let´s the government decide what is good to hear or not. I´m sure that will work.
Click to expand...

Gaaaaah. *eject*
 
FunkyMunkey said:
Considering they affect emotions and actions, yes. Two senses: sounds and visuals.

For example, people listening to Hitler or watching his speeches during the 30s were influenced. Sounds and visuals again.

Listening to the radio? Influence.

Watching TV? Influence.

Listening, watching, and interacting with the TV? Influence.

Also, ANY influence during a child's development can alter their course drastically.
Click to expand...

Free speech is dangerous and an potential bad influence, let´s the government decide what is good to hear or not. I´m sure that will work.
 
I'm also concerned about the slant of this article, namely because the research started in the 60's (when videogames were largely nonexistant) and is explicitly about "violent media," not specifically games.

Why are we the medium being singled out, and not violent media as a whole? The article doesn't mention a single Hollywood film or television show, or make any reasoning for aiming straight at games.
 
Unfortunately, as of this date, only one mainstream news publication has truly nailed this issue in popular culture and it's an article published in The Economist in August 2005. I highly recommend reading it. As is often the case, The Economist gets it right.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4247084

Pointing all this out makes little difference, though, because the controversy over gaming, as with rock and roll, is more than anything else the consequence of a generational divide. Can the disagreements between old and young over new forms of media ever be resolved? Sometimes attitudes can change relatively quickly, as happened with the internet. Once condemned as a cesspool of depravity, it is now recognised as a valuable new medium, albeit one where (as with films, TV and, yes, video games) children's access should be limited and supervised. The benefits of a broadband connection are now acknowledged, and politicians worry about extending access to the have-nots. Attitudes changed because critics of the internet had to start using it for work, and then realised that, like any medium, it could be used for good purposes as well as bad. They have no such incentive to take up gaming, however.

Eventually, objections to new media resolve themselves, as the young grow up and the old die out. As today's gamers grow older—the average age of gamers is already 30—video games will ultimately become just another medium, alongside books, music and films. And soon the greying gamers will start tut-tutting about some new evil threatening to destroy the younger generation's moral fibre.
Click to expand...
 
crimevictimsgames.jpg
 
Violent games may trigger certain unstable people, who should have been helped earlier at some point by the society that has let them down.

But it's far, far, easier to make a sweeping generalisation and blame video games.
 
FunkyMunkey said:
Considering they affect emotions and actions, yes. Two senses: sounds and visuals.

For example, people listening to Hitler or watching his speeches during the 30s were influenced. Sounds and visuals again.

Listening to the radio? Influence.

Watching TV? Influence.

Listening, watching, and interacting with the TV? Influence.

Also, ANY influence during a child's development can alter their course drastically.
Click to expand...
Wow, I didn't think Godwin's law could weed out stupid posts so effectively. :O
 
Wario64 said:
Men in their early 20s who had a healthy dosing of violent TV and video games from ages 6 to 9 were twice as likely to push, grab or shove their spouses and are three times more likely to be convicted of criminal behavior, according to the research. The study also found that women who watched a lot of violent content and played violent video games growing up are twice as likely to have thrown something at their spouse and are four times as likely to have hit or assaulted another adult.

lol
Click to expand...
My parents never played videogames, or threw anything at me, but when I was little they would hold me at gunpoint and yell "I got you now you sqwewy wabbit!!"
 
FunkyMunkey said:
Considering they affect emotions and actions, yes. Two senses: sounds and visuals.

For example, people listening to Hitler or watching his speeches during the 30s were influenced. Sounds and visuals again.
Click to expand...


Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower, who wouldn't listen to him?
 
mugwhump said:
Wow, I didn't think Godwin's law could weed out stupid posts so effectively. :O
Click to expand...

Next time, just post a cat gif and go "lololololll". It'll make a more compelling argument that that p.o.s. post.

And, okay, screw the Hitler comment.

I'm just saying that what you SEE and HEAR influences behavior. Unless you're some unusual person who can completely block out anything from changing your behavior. If you are like that, congratulations. But guess what? Most people aren't. In fact, most people are stupid canvasses waiting to be taken advantage of.
 
FunkyMunkey said:
Next time, just post a cat gif and go "lololololll". It'll make a more compelling argument that that p.o.s. post.

And, okay, screw the Hitler comment.

I'm just saying that what you SEE and HEAR influences behavior. Unless you're some unusual person who can completely block out anything from changing your behavior. If you are like that, congratulations. But guess what? Most people aren't. In fact, most people are stupid canvasses waiting to be taken advantage of.
Click to expand...

Well, I think there's no denying that exposure to violence probably deadens one's response to it, but I don't think that it encourages violence.

Someone who has seen every horror flick under the sun might have a very different reaction to a new horror movie than someone who has never seen a scary movie before. But just because the guy who has seen lots of horror movies doesn't get as scared as the other guy doesn't mean he's going to run around in a rubber mask and stab people.

Similarly, your mom might get disgusted at Manhunt 2 while you see nothing "wrong" with it, but it doesn't give you compulsions to stab people with screwdrivers when they aren't looking. Your behavior has been altered by what you have seen and heard, but that doesn't mean it's made you more like what you've seen and heard.
 
FunkyMunkey said:
Next time, just post a cat gif and go "lololololll". It'll make a more compelling argument that that p.o.s. post.

And, okay, screw the Hitler comment.

I'm just saying that what you SEE and HEAR influences behavior. Unless you're some unusual person who can completely block out anything from changing your behavior. If you are like that, congratulations. But guess what? Most people aren't. In fact, most people are stupid canvasses waiting to be taken advantage of.
Click to expand...
So your only point is that people are influenced by sensory information? I don't see how that rather obvious statement relates to the topic at hand, nevermind the holocaust. Just establishing that behaviour is influenced by what people see and hear does not answer HOW what they see and hear influences them. Your whole Hitler post was completely irrelevant.
 
Campster said:
Relatedly, there is this Gamasutra article that says a majority of people in the United States are in favor of governmental interference with regards to regulation and a whole forty percent in favor of government mandates on content.
Click to expand...


If anyone ever needed to reinforce their beliefs about the stupidity of their fellow Americans, read the article.

Yes, the government should be the authority on this matter. They certainly know what's best!
 
mugwhump said:
So your only point is that people are influenced by sensory information? I don't see how that rather obvious statement relates to the topic at hand, nevermind the holocaust. Just establishing that behaviour is influenced by what people see and hear does not answer HOW what they see and hear influences them. Your whole Hitler post was completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It was in response to "images on a flat screen constitute as an environment?". Yes they do.

Hitler was an example. Hillary Clinton is an example. Obama. Martin Luther King Jr. ANYONE that uses a medium to send a message is an example.

Radio, television, internet, music, and videogames are all environmental influences.
 
The study is too small and too old (Pong is really not comparable to GTA3).

In general, I wouldn't be suprised if gaming, especially excessive gaming, especially for children, especially ridiculosly sick and brutal games like Manhunt, had adverse effects. Much like, and probably even more than, violent movies. And I'm still very, very opposed to the idea that extreme violence is "good" (i.e. a merit on gamesp0t) instead of "neutral" or "bad".

But we still haven't seen many decent studies that would actually support that claim.
 
Stupid researchers said:
repeated exposure to violent television shows and video games have a stronger influence on aggressive behavior than being poor, having a substance abuse or growing up with abusive parents.
Click to expand...


How can anyone even with just half of a rotten brain can agree with that? I mean, seriously. lol
 
FunkyMunkey said:
It was in response to "images on a flat screen constitute as an environment?". Yes they do.

Hitler was an example. Hilary Clinton is an example. Obama. Martin Luther King Jr. ANYONE that uses a medium to send a message is an example.

Radio, television, internet, music, and videogames are all environmental influences.
Click to expand...

Right, but there's a disconnect here. I mean, Life is Beautiful is a movie full of death and despair, but the message is pro-life and anti-violence. The "message" and "the images and sounds" are two different things, and it's more than possible to use horrible images and violence to tell you to *not* do these things.

And yes, plenty of games do encourage violence, and that's horrible. Call of Duty 4 makes a war crime look like an awesomely badass Holywood scene. Manhunt rewards your patience with more gruesome and horrible murders.

But other games that use violence don't necessarily imply that people *should* use violence. DEFCON is about millions of people dying, but the entire game is anti-nuclear war, for instance.
 
People have been hitting each other over the head with blunt, sharp and generally unpleasant objects since the dawn of mankind. Has it got that much worse the last 10 years? To be perfectly honest, I'm having way too much fun playing my videogames to be bothered to go outside and beat somebody over the head with anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Once again, NeoGAF --> Internet --> NeoGAF, Also, HeisenbergFX4 is now famous
2
91
1K
Topher replied
Copycat game now on console
4
209
IbizaPocholo replied
Dark and Darker will be purged from Epic Games Store libraries later this year, but it's still available on Steam for now
News 
11
321
Ceadeus replied
Have Rockstar Games snubbed Nintendo again??
21
1K
ADiTAR replied
  • Locked
ESA: Tariffs on Video Games Would Cause 'Significant Harm' to 'Everyday Americans'
2 3 4
152
8K
jason10mm replied
Top Bottom