And Now They Say Violence In Video Games Does Create Violent Kids
from the where-are-the-parents? dept
While we were focusing on the question of video games and indoctrination, it looks like the American Psychological Association was going back to the old issue of youth violence and videogames, declaring that there’s is absolutely a connection between the two — despite the fact plenty of studies have shown no such link and the incidents of youth violence appear to have dropped consistently as violent video games have become more popular. The APA’s findings weren’t based on any new study (in fact, as we noted, the latest study doesn’t support their position). Basically, it looks like the APA picked which studies it wanted to believe and completely ignored all the others. Anyone else think it’s becoming abundantly clear that either side can come up with some data to support their position on this one? What seems likely, however, is that all of this really misses the point. Whatever impact video games actually have on users, it’s likely to be significantly less important one way or the other than many other factors in a kid’s life — such as how their parents have raised them and whatever else is going on in their lives at the time.
Comments on “And Now They Say Violence In Video Games Does Create Violent Kids”
that darn violence
ya know… i’m beginning to think that maybe the military might create violent kids… or, better yet, maybe its because we’re one of the only nations where handguns are legal… or, even further, maybe its becuase the tentacles of human nature show up randomly in, i don’t know, HUMANS! i know, i know not the most popular ideas ever expressed, but hear me out… actually, nevermind. you’re right, i’m a communist.
Re: that darn violence
Of course video games do, if every other type of violent media has consistently shown to increase violence in children’s behavior, why should video games be any different. I play video games both violent and non-violent and do not want them banned, but i do know their effects and do believe them to be very real. I am not advocating over-regulation of the video game market. I just wish that parents were more responsible these days and took the time to properly put the video game into perspective (if possible, i think a 10 year old would have a hard time with GTA). Regardless, the comment about the military making kids more violent: You are a complete idiot. With that logic lets go back to the beginning of the species. I think that it was our need for survival and our initial hunting of other animals that makes us violent. Come on… think about what youre saying before you say it. While the military is an example of areas of violence in our species, the debate is about whether or not kids act more violent after playing video games as a result of their time playing it. The existence of a military does not do that. Or if it did, we wouldn’t have known any other option for the past 6000 years, since we have had militaries since the beginning of recorded history. Let’s not act like idiots here who are scared they wont get to play their doom, grow up and look at things logically.
No Subject Given
Yes. Yes I am an incredibly violent person because of all those hours that I spent in my basement playing things like Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, Duke Nuk’em, Quake, and Gran Turismo. Yep. I shoot my BFG at all those super bad guys while driving 400 miles an hour on the freeway. Yup. Sure do.
Re: No Subject Given
Rock on dude
I blame wildlife documentaries
I’ve never seen a lion killed by a herd of gazelles, and whales murder literally billions of plankton, yet you never see their victims ganging up for revenge. These evil tv programs are teaching] “youth that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict” and should be banned.
BTW note that they said “teaches youth” rather than “makes youth believe”. They are not actually claiming cause-and-effect, just using weasle-words that give that impression.
confusing cause and effect
I think that these studies are all guilty of confusing cause and effect.
Good parents give their children discipline, feed them a varied quality diet, and a wide variety of experiences to make them fulfilled people… and probably limit the time spent watching tv and playing video games.
Bad parents let their kids misbehave all the time, give them a bad diet, and let them fill their lives with TV and video games and otherwise have poor interaction with people.
Thus, if bad parents bring up kids who misbehave and watch “bad” (whatever that means, sex or violence?) TV and play “bad” video games, therefore you can make a link between two of the effects which are not directly related. Thus bad video games —>>> bad people. QED.
Re: confusing cause and effect
Well put, that is my view as well. Shitty parenting is the root of much of the anti-social behaviour in kids. The US is in for a rough ride in the next few years as the rampant consumerism drives parents to seek the almighty dollar and bigger cars & houses at the expense of spending their time raising their kids properly.
Nahh people don't get influnced by video games, mo
GTA DC anyone…Oh and what was it California 1997 two guys in full body armor rob a bank and go on a shooting spree…Hmm what movie was that??? Oh yeah it was called Heat.
No Subject Given
When I was growing up if I got in trouble at school I knew I’d get it worse when I got home for getting in trouble in the first place. Today I have a coworker who is suing the school system for expelling her son…for setting a fire. He took a lighter to school (which isn’t allowed) and set fire to a bulletin board and the fire caused the school to be closed for a few days. What kind of a message does it send to kids when a parent will blame the school for their kid trying to burn it down? I remember when the kid next door got expelled for breaking into the school and spraying a fire extinguisher. His parents sent his ass to military school.
APA, ha, ha, ha!
The APA “Professional” organization using statistics incorrectly to further their own political agenda… No!!!, They would NEVER do that! …would they? …oh wait…
Missing the point
I don’t understand why these people feel the need to put these reports out. Do they think that if they convince people that video games are bad we’ll stop making and playing them?
I think the video game industry has done an awfully good job of pointing out games that aren’t appropriate for younger children. They have no argument or reason to continue this debate.
Perhaps..
Maybe it’s the fact that they show nothing but our nation at war on TV… I’m not saying TV is that influential, but war is real and everyone knows that.
But yeah… video games influence me! I just played frogger and I have a sudden urge to go dodge traffic.
Re: Perhaps..
LMAO ! !
japan
Funny how they leave Japan out of these studies. They are the home of ultraviolent video games, comic books, animation, and other “childen’s entertainment.” Yet- there is far less violence there than here.
It is clear that there are other factors that are far more important.
This has been debunked many times
I remember the big debate about violence in television years ago. People like to give out anecdotal evidence without bothering to do any kind of scientific study. Of course, when a study DOES come out and debunks things, the politically correct will either ignore the study or marginalize it.
Dick Cavett had a telling remark about violence on television: “I see more comedy on television than I do violence, but I don’t see people complaining about comedy in the streets.”
Michael Moore’s documentary “Bowling for Columbine” debunks the “fact” that violent video games and Marilyn Manson, which were enjoyed by the perpetrators, were parts of the root cause of the shooting. The documentary notes that one of the last things the boys did before shooting up the school was go bowling. Using the logic of “guilt by association,” bowling should therefore be just as much responsible for their violent acts as video games or rock and roll.
Re: This has been debunked many times
Regarding bowling for columbine: ARE YOU KIDDING ME. That attack at their school was pre-meditated, are you aware of that words meaning. Apparently the fattass michael moore doesnt because that is the worst logic i have ever heard. Bowling for columbine happened because they had shit ass parents who didnt pay attention to them, and that, coupled with the fact that they were awkward social outcasts, led to their slayings of their schoolmates as a way to have some sort of legacy. None of the outside influences were the causes of their horrible display of violence, but they all shaped those two kids’ lives, and accordingly, had some influence in guiding their actions. If you want to know what really killed them, it was their minds making the choice to do it. I dont know where im going with this, but we need to end this “Phil Donahue: I’m surffering and its some one else’s fault” shit.
finally:
“Dick Cavett had a telling remark about violence on television: “I see more comedy on television than I do violence, but I don’t see people complaining about comedy in the streets.”
Are you f-ing kidding me? This quote is moronic and you are a moron for quoting and respecting it. Comedy is a positive in general, violence generally is negative. and in general people dont complain about good things. Come on, think….
Lets take a step back and think, rather than compl
Of course video games do, if every other type of violent media has consistently shown to increase violence in children’s behavior, why should video games be any different. I play video games both violent and non-violent and do not want them banned, but i do know their effects and do believe them to be very real. I am not advocating over-regulation of the video game market. I just wish that parents were more responsible these days and took the time to properly put the video game into perspective (if possible, i think a 10 year old would have a hard time with GTA). Regardless, the comment about the military making kids more violent: You are a complete idiot. With that logic lets go back to the beginning of the species. I think that it was our need for survival and our initial hunting of other animals that makes us violent. Come on… think about what youre saying before you say it. While the military is an example of areas of violence in our species, the debate is about whether or not kids act more violent after playing video games as a result of their time playing it. The existence of a military does not do that. Or if it did, we wouldn’t have known any other option for the past 6000 years, since we have had militaries since the beginning of recorded history. Let’s not act like idiots here who are scared they wont get to play their doom, grow up and look at things logically.
Re: Lets take a step back and think, rather than c
Uhhh, regarding your military comment… Are you saying that just because we have always had and encouraged military forces it is ok for us to advertise it as acceptable violence while at the same time punishing people for committing the same act of our need for “survival”… The original point of how the military has a negative influence on youth stands true and is not by any means of the imagination a stupid observation.
Re: Re: Lets take a step back and think, rather than c
“The original point of how the military has a negative influence on youth stands true and is not by any means of the imagination a stupid observation.”
Again, i will reiterate: “While the military is an example of areas of violence in our species, the debate is about whether or not kids act more violent after playing video games as a result of their time playing it. The existence of a military does not do that.”
obviously i dont advocate war in most situations, i believe in diplomacy as the best method. But war does happen and it has for a long time. We can all be idealists and say “Lets stop all violence and get rid of all militaries” but thats not going to happen and you know it. The debate is around regulation of video games. But while we’re on the military debate, and its negative effects, lets bring in the bible and its references to violence. Maybe lets bring in history class and its references to violence. Oh wait, lets bring in this discussion because we are discussing violence, thus making violence more salient in our minds, which may cause us to be more violent. You can extend this to a lot of things. But the fact is video games make kids more violent. If you really want i will explain the experimental set up and get you all of the relavent statistical proofs of its level of violent arrousal increases. I’m a psych major who stands firm in being a realist, i study this shit all the time, and see the experiments first hand, and THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
Re: Re: Re: Lets take a step back and think, rather than c
“But the fact is video games make kids more violent.”
Yeah, so does working out, sports, abusive parents or siblings, and the feeling of being an outcast to your peers…
Do you realize, Mr psychology major (peter kruger), that psychology is still in its EARLIEST STAGES. Do you really think the field is accurate enough to confirm a ridiculous theory like ‘video games are the reason kids are violent’ without incorporating any of the other billions of possibilities.
Maybe you should also be minoring is sociology or politics, then you’d understand why BS studies like these make it to mainstream media and people like you eat them up.
There is absolutely no way for you or anyone else to prove at this point (even with your fancy educations paid for by mom and dad) that the violence in any individual couldn’t have come from something besides video games.
Here’s a great question for you Peter (and everyone):
WHY ARE THERE NO FINGERS BEING POINTED AT SPORTS???
Football is a great example and it is aimed at children. And in football, the kids are ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING IN VIOLENT ACTS and not just pretending like they are as they do with video games.
All I’m going to say is if you’re going to blame video games, blame violent sports as well. It’s all competition involving violence.
Re: Re: Re:2 Lets take a step back and think, rather than c
The discussion isn’t about everything in the world that may have an influence on violent behavior (sorry for going on the military bandwagon before).
We aren’t talking about Football… We are talking about video games.
I think what this boils down to is that people are looking for an escape. They see our children being violent and instead of saying “hey… I was a bad parent” they say “Holy shit! Rockstar games is to blame!”
Re: Re: Re:3 Lets take a step back and think, rather than c
“I think what this boils down to is that people are looking for an escape. They see our children being violent and instead of saying “hey… I was a bad parent” they say “Holy shit! Rockstar games is to blame!”
I agree completely, and i mentioned this in my first post. Parents need to take responsibility. Violent video games can be fine, they just have to be paired with proper parenting that promoted well-being and level-mindedness in a kid’s life.
As for the “psychology major” aspect. Its part of my major. I’m a Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology major (basically cognitive science) with a concentration in Artificial Intelligence. I do agree that many psych studies are bullshit. However, the ones regarding violence in the media and their aggrevating effects on children are very real and every time you will see a drastic shift in most childrens’ behaviors as a result of direct exposure. Psychology is never going to be a perfect field because its a science of interpretation. The only reason its a good indicator is due to the math and (hopefully) the rigorous scientific method used during a study.
Finally, sorry if ive seemed like an asshole, but honestly, some of the quotes used on here were pretty piss poor. And deny it as much as we want, video games to lead to heightened violence-related arrousal in children. I am not saying that other things dont either, but video games just do it in a realitvely accute manner. WE debate this because video game content is something that is controllable where as the existence of militaries is not.
And regarding sports. God help our country, we’re turning into a bunch of pussies. The male is getting killed in our society and especially in our schools. This is not being done by banning violent video games, but by restricting more male activities. but this is a whole different issue. Football is good for kids, it fosters a sense of competition. Shows them first hand that if they mess up, it could lead to some pain. And also, sports, such as football, lead to the body releasing endorphins which are a mood booster. There is a reason you feel great after a good work out, and it has to do with its effect on the chemicals in the brain.
Video games do not cause the release of endorphins, but rather adrenaline, which could either lead to positive, or negative arroused mental states. If the wrong mindset is inhabiting a kid at a given point due to whatever social factor it may be, and that kid plays a violent video game, it will heighten that negative arrousal level as per the adrenialine and cause an increase in violent behavior. Especially when coupled with loosing in the game. This effect does exist and we cant deny it. I do not believe censorship (generalization) is the answer, but rather good parenting and positive social reinforcements. Bottom line, a violent video game can either be cathartic fore a child, or reinforcement for negative behavior. This matters completely based on the individual. Kids with great demeanors are mildly to not affected by violence in the media, whereas kids predisposed to violence are heavily affected. Argue all you want about this, but i believe it to be extremely true. And if youre still unsure, Go out, do some research (whether reading research or conducting your own experiment) and you will find the same outcome.
Re: Re: Re:4 Lets take a step back and think, rather than c
That was a really intresting post to read being that you raised many points i have never really thought about before. Violent video games definately bring about a change in people’s behaviour, be it arousal of fear or excitement leading to what you said about adrenaline rather than endorphins. What can make violent video games so dangerous to children and impressionable youngsters is that they reward violent acts through extra points, or being placed into a higher level. Combined with rewards, there are no realistic consequences. If you kill someone in the game you get away with it, if you die you come back to life, etc. Many young children lack the maturity and experience of life to understand that violent tv and video games do not reflect acceptable behaviour in real life, they tend to think what they watch is an accurate reflection of the world. Again this links in with bad parenting and allowing children access to violent games at a young age. However this is clearly not the case with most young children or else the world would be an extremely violent place with youngsters everywhere running about beating the crap out of eachother, but on a subconcious level it is intresting to think about the affects these games can have. They tend to reinforce that anger and agression is the key to solving your problems. (excuse my bad spelling…)
Re: Re: Lets take a step back and think, rather than c
yes, the military is sactioned murder.
yes, it is undoubtedly dissonant that committing the same act within different circumstances results in opposite outcomes (decoration vs. incarceration)
nice talk, but where are the solutions? undoubtedly televised military operations are a much more tangible manifestation of acceptable violence, compared with something like cartoonish video games, but all of this cheapjack chinwagging and post factum legislation is a visibly pathetic attempt at apportioning blame in places where it obviously does not belong.
a problem this big (violent children) needs a big solution, not some half-baked, half-assed abortive attempt at legislation so all the middle-class, middle-aged whiskey drinking gentlemen and scab bellied, pale skinned young mothers can point the finger.
Re: Lets take a step back and think, rather than c
>>You are a complete idiot.< And you, sir, appear to be an effete asshole.
Re: Re: Lets take a step back and think, rather th
bitch
Re: Lets take a step back and think, rather than c
And anyone who disagrees is a “a complete idiot” too!
Re: Re: Lets take a step back and think, rather than c
hey, my mind is open. I could go either way on this one provided someone was able to change my mind using proper logic and citing good hard evidence. But i’ve only seen that in support for the side i have taken.
But luckily we all do agree on one serious issue. That issue being how parents affect their children, and how bad parenting is the worst thing for our society.
Re: Re: Lets take a step back and think, rather than c
And/or a pussy.
As my father always said ...
Beware the single factor analysis!
It's BS
When I lived in Japan, we knew other Americans that had kids. No TV in the house to watch (it was all in japanese anyway) so there weren’t any violent TV programs on. The kids had NO “war toys” (play guns, GI Joe, etc) at all. ALL of the toys were educational & cute.
what happened? The kids were *still* violent. They’d lash out with anything that they could. Sticks, utensils, anything became a weapon. this was without *any* interaction from video games or television.
I think blaming video games is just stupid. It’s misdirected attention.
APA
Psychiatry and psychology in the world today are barely out of the voodoo stage. It’s like physics at the beginning of the renaissance… theories without evidence, woeful misunderstanding of proper scientific inquiry. Theories being structured to fit into pre-existing philosphical frameworks, instead of the other way around.
Most of these studies have absolutely no relevance at all, except — because they influence people in power — they do affect us all.
it could go either way
I agree that violent video games don’t necessarily make kids violent, and that there are definitely other factors involved. However, I think violent video games also give kids an unhealthy way of dealing with their anger and stress. So essentially, they may not be more violent in their actions, but their thoughts may be completely wrapped up in violent things. And it’s hard to measure that. But yes, anybody can use research/evidence to their advantage at any given time by just ignoring the stuff they don’t agree with.
Violence
Perhaps it goes like this:
Some impressionable youngsters, given certain influences and environmental factors, will display an inclination towards violent behavior when exposed to violent media content.
Others, however, will not.
This might lead to a non-scientific conclusion that states that:
Some children will react to certain intellectual stimuli while others will not.
The question then is: how far do we go to remove exposure to violent content from possible viewing by “at risk” kids? How far do we allow censorship in the name of children’s safety, or public safety in general?
The formula works out something like:
In order to ensure maximum public safety, the government is required to place legal limitations on the public in general, resulting in the outlawing or strict limitation of certain materials deemed threatening to the development of impressionable minds.
Among these may be digital content, printed materials, broadcast media, or any other source of information transfer (including those intended primarily for entertainment purposes) that could possibly fall into possession by at-risk members of society.
As government, we are charged with the task of ensuring the safety of the general public. Therefore, materials expounding rebellious or threatening attitudes towards government entities shall also be censored prior to certification for general dissemination or publication.
Is that a better way to handle things? Or should we skip the knee-jerk reactions and realize that the influencing and shaping of young minds is so complex and varied that the possibility of violence – proven, unproven, scientific or swag – is a necessary evil in a free society?
Violence in Video Games
i’d like to point out again mm’s post
“Funny how they leave Japan out of these studies. They are the home of ultraviolent video games, comic books, animation, and other “childen’s entertainment.” Yet- there is far less violence there than here.
It is clear that there are other factors that are far more important.”
“Gang members don’t commit drive-by shootings simply because they played a video game, nor do school kids shoot others simply because they played a video game.
The factors influencing such violent acts are far more complex than that. Hundreds of thousands of kids who play video games, the vast majority of which do not portray violence, will never assault, attack, or otherwise harm anyone.” (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0801/p09s01-coop.html)
“The flaw in that reasoning is that no one has ever been able to prove through independent research that video games are harmful to children or to show that they cause violence.
There have been some contrived laboratory experiments that purport to show a correlation between viewing video games and increased aggression in some people, but aggression is not the same thing as violence, and correlation does not equal causation.” (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0801/p09s01-coop.html)
The EPA is not to blame nor the people who make video games for creating violent people. Ratings are put on games for a reason.
another site i saw that had some good points was
http://gr.bolt.com/articles/violence/violence.htm
Reasons
Violence is there because of many reasons
1)Protect self from harm
2)Gain power
3)Protect others
4)Test power (like football, or any other sport)
5)Enertainment
The list goes on…
one thing people forget
one thing that all of these advertisers forget is that most if not all very violent or semi violent games are rated mature, and can only be bought by someone older than 17. that means its the parents who bought the kid the violent videogame and they wont take responsibilty, i’ve played video games allmost all my life, and i am taking college level calculus in 10th grade, and have had no violent outbursts.
hi i am 16 hear me out
Violent video games take children’s fate by throwing there gifts away . Children spend too much time on video games when they could be making a big impact on life here and not on the T.V
I think a lot of this has to do with how many hours the child is playin on the video game. Are we talking about 1 hour? 2-5 hours? or more?
I can say that I never got anything out of video games, but frustrated or angry , especially if I didn’t master the game, or had to keep starting over.
Honestly, kids are becoming more obsessed with the fictional, when they should be going outdoors playing and socializing like a normal human beings.
And staring constantly at the T.V screen all day drains your health as well as strains the eyes. It’s no wonder why the child is more aggressive after.
This also brings to the issue on why kids are so obese these days. Kids parents need to enforce the rules on video games, and take apart in their childs lives, such as being active with them. They shouldn’t leave the raising up to a video game.
monkey
YOU SUCK