Violent Video Games: An Excuse for the Parentally Impaired

Craig Anderson's research fuckin' sucks, and he gets boatloads of media attention for shitty research with super-modest findings. He had a front page article in USA Today on Monday - at least they were savvy enough to interview Christopher Ferguson as well.
 
Definitely tl;dr. Anything new here? I guess it's alright as long as it doesn't attempt to say that media has no effect on anybody or that video games are an "outlet" for aggression/violence.
 
Mykevermin is the poster boy for video games making you violent. I heard he was once shot a man just to watch him die.

EDIT: I know I'm a bad parent. I'm collecting oysters in GTA: SA with my son watching. I can see it slowing turning him into a monster that wants to upgrade his lung capacity.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Definitely tl;dr. Anything new here? I guess it's alright as long as it doesn't attempt to say that media has no effect on anybody or that video games are an "outlet" for aggression/violence.[/QUOTE]

Take a quick scour of the dates of the articles cited in the bibliography. It's safe to say this was a quick and dirty term paper converted into a blog.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Mykevermin is the poster boy for video games making you violent. I heard he was once shot a man just to watch him die.

EDIT: I know I'm a bad parent. I'm collecting oysters in GTA: SA with my son watching. I can see it slowing turning him into a monster that wants to upgrade his lung capacity.[/QUOTE]

In Reno.

I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

Get the story straight.

Rumor has it there ain't no coffee in Folsom; that was enough to scare me straight.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Lol, he cited Leviathan? Somebody must have had a minimum number of citations...[/QUOTE]

I always cite Leviathan, it's a masterpiece that everyone should read. In response to the article dates cited, you would be surprised at the limited number of publications regarding this stuff. Although it may seem as if researchers and psychologists CONSTANTLY study the effects of violent video games on children, they do not, or at least they don't publish their results. I found everything in the entire libraries database that dealt with the material. There is not as much evidence as the media suggests, as usually.
 
There have been plenty more recently than 1986. I just heard of two not that long ago that formed opposing conclusions using different methodologies. I don't remember all the details, one argued that video game violence desensitized players to actual violence and used measures of heart rate and skin conductance IIRC. The other I think was arguing that the violence was recognized as "play" violence.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with Leviathan, it's just not particularly relevant and seemed jammed in there for the hell of it (or to get another citation).

The general conclusion though seems to be that violent video games, like any violent media, have effects on the aggression/violence of the consumer - the questions are more about the specific effects, how long they last, how generalizable the results are, etc. Though nobody (in academia) is going to argue that violent video games (or media in general) are the only factor motivating aggressive or violent behavior.
 
I dunno. The jury's still out on whether or not their are tangible effects of long-term deviant/violent behavior linked to video games. There are examples (i.e. anecdotal cases) aplenty, but, say, the story coming out of Korea where a couple's infant died from malnutrition because they spent the bulk of their free time at internet cafes raising a digital child is not, by itself, indicative of any such link.

As long as Craig Anderson's terrible research dominates the field, though, what we know about effects of violent games is going to be misguided - hell, Chris Ferguson published something a couple years ago demonstrating publication bias in the field.

I'd love to tackle that stuff myself (I have a brilliant idea for replicating Anderson's methodology such as to expose the shortcomings of drawing conclusions about the violent aspect of it), but my research platter's full, baby. But if you know someone who would pay me good money to do that research, I'm all ears.
 
I have a better idea. You let me do it and you pay me. Give me the methodology, I'll do the grunt work, and make the stats look all nice and Photoshoppy clean.

Where are you from, kid? Mykevermin Associates. We tear ass at makin' graphs.
 
Questioning methodology is well and good, my problem is when people say that X has absolutely no effect on them, be it advertisements or violent video games, as if they are unable to be influenced and those who are have problems. And I also hate when people say that violent video games are an "outlet" for their aggression so it's actually a good thing and reduces aggression specifically because it's violent. Shit just doesn't work that way, there are no outlets. You feel less angry when you stop thinking about what made you angry, not when you do something violent, like you're using up your anger fuel or something.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...ent=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws[/QUOTE]

Most of those were published over 9 years ago as well. Also, Google Scholar is not the best place to find sources, even though it may link to some credible ones, there are many non-credible ones.

I must admit I stuck to books.

The article was more about parenting and its relationship to video games... I'm assuming it was tl;dr... It wasn't a paper designed to report scientific evidence of video games affecting kids.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Questioning methodology is well and good, my problem is when people say that X has absolutely no effect on them, be it advertisements or violent video games, as if they are unable to be influenced and those who are have problems. And I also hate when people say that violent video games are an "outlet" for their aggression so it's actually a good thing and reduces aggression specifically because it's violent. Shit just doesn't work that way, there are no outlets. You feel less angry when you stop thinking about what made you angry, not when you do something violent, like you're using up your anger fuel or something.[/QUOTE]

Right. Gamers with no research background often decry such studies, rather than look at the effects they find. It's the gamer equivalent of the dude at the club who nobly only has three double rum-n-colas because they're ok to drive on that.

"Anderson found a slightly higher heart rate in his 'violent' group compared to the 'nonviolent' group that disappeared after 15 minutes? And the media's turned this into "violent games make kids killers"? What the fuckity fuck? I can do this research and do it better" is a whole 'nother response.

Tear ass at makin' graphs will end up on a t-shirt one day fo sho.

Some of those articles are older hydro, but they ain't from 1986, and they ain't Leviathan. Did you turn in the crowbar you used to wedge that citation in there with the rest of your paper?
 
You can pay me in Mykebucks.

mykebucks2.png


I should fix the text on the right. Humm.

Ahh, much better.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Right. Gamers with no research background often decry such studies, rather than look at the effects they find. It's the gamer equivalent of the dude at the club who nobly only has three double rum-n-colas because they're ok to drive on that.[/QUOTE]
My problem is how you isolate games as an influence. I just think the whole premise is absurd, that media can influence negative behavior to a degree that it should be controlled. I don't have a problem with people wanting to control their kids media consumption, but to blame an act on a book, movie, or video game just doesn't pass the smell test to me.
 
Well it's generally parents or the media that blame a specific book, etc. for a behavior. The researchers just measure shit and see how it goes (unless they do it wrong). There's no reason to wholesale disregard any measured effects.
 
[quote name='speedracer']My problem is how you isolate games as an influence. I just think the whole premise is absurd, that media can influence negative behavior to a degree that it should be controlled. I don't have a problem with people wanting to control their kids media consumption, but to blame an act on a book, movie, or video game just doesn't pass the smell test to me.[/QUOTE]

theoretically shouldn't be hard to identify the influence of a specific media type at all. in terms of making it affordable on a research grant (ignoring trying to get a half-million-dollars to research vidya games), hard but doable. in terms of time, though, since you're implicitly pointing out these studies need to be longitudinal in design, that's the rub. longitudinal studies ruin careers, simply put.

but it's important to consider that 7-year-olds who play GTA might respond differently to prolonged exposure than 18-year-olds.

you also have issues of defining a "gamer." There's variation even amongst all of us in terms of knowledge, interests, time dedicated, etc. The dude with a dusty PS2 who plays Madden only - are they a "gamer"? Or the cat who plays nothing but Atlus soopa-japanese-cat-fucking-SRPGs?

The term "gamer" has a specific meaning, but I think we're in search of it. It's a term that lacks the precision the people who use it think it has.

There are a lot, a lot, a lot of complexities that the research field on games and media effects have not sorted out. But I hardly think they're impossible. They just need folks to challenge them.
 
I think that the research might get better as more people who have played video games continually for years get into researching their effects. I'd think that might be around now-ish though...
 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131018355

“What’s a deviant violent video game?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia, who was the law’s most vocal opponent on Tuesday. “As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?”

“Some of the Grimm’s fairy tales are quite grim,” he added. “Are you going to ban them, too?”
Click to expand...

Holy shit, Scalia confirmed for TRUE BRO.

Justice Kagan: Would the iconic game called "Mortal Combat" be banned for sale to minors in California?

Answer: It would be a candidate.

Kagan: Im sure half the law clerks who work for us spent considerable amounts of time in their adolescence playing it.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS spanking so hard it could be a fetish.

Justice Scalia: What will be next - barring the portrayals of excessive drinking or smoking? The ratifiers of the Constitution always understood that freedom of speech did not protect obscenity. But it has never been understood that freedom of speech allowed punishment for portrayals of violence.

Justice Alito, caustically: I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about videogames.
Click to expand...

fucking hell this is a damn Globetrotters routine.
 
It's like the only way it could be better is if I found out they were saying "nice one bro" and giving each other high fives during the whole hearing.
 
Sotomayor: Would a video game that portrayed a Vulcan as opposed to a human being, being maimed and tortured, would that be covered by the act?

Morazzini: No, it wouldn’t, Your Honor, because the act is only directed towards the range of options that are able to be inflicted on a human being.
Click to expand...
Kagan's a Sub Zero fangirl and Sotomayor is a Trekkie. Best appointments evar.
 
Justice Alito: But we have here a new medium that cannot possibly have been envisioned at the time when the First Amendment was ratified.
Click to expand...

There I was, all having fun reading about the Supreme Court (can we stop using SCOTUS? I hate that so much.), and then Alito, a Constitutional Originalist, has to go and be a non-originalist. Jaysus.
 
I know games have had an effect on me, every time I see a turtle I just want to stomp on the little fucker.

But then I know the shell would just jump up and hit me in the head or something.
 
Funny that Arnold Schwarzennotevengoingtotryandspellthiscorrectly, a guy that was in some rather violent movies himself and whose likeness has appeared in violent video games, is the guy spearheading this new movement of censorship. Then again, within a 10 mile radius of the governor's mansion, there is likely a film being made where a man is pooping in a woman's mouth and then sticking his penis in that same mouth while it is still full of poop.

Cue Yakkov Smirnov "what a country!"
 
That's the funniest thing about it, dude has made lots of violent movies, some even with kids, but thinks that sellingg violent games to kids should come with fines?

Come on.
 
There is absolutely a link between video games and violence.

I played Super Mario Bros. a lot when I was a kid.

Today, I'm an unemployed plumber who eats magic mushrooms and kills turtles.

And even if you disagree with his opinions, Scalia is an awesome justice.
 
[quote name='nasum']Funny that Arnold Schwarzennotevengoingtotryandspellthiscorrectly, a guy that was in some rather violent movies himself and whose likeness has appeared in violent video games, is the guy spearheading this new movement of censorship. Then again, within a 10 mile radius of the governor's mansion, there is likely a film being made where a man is pooping in a woman's mouth and then sticking his penis in that same mouth while it is still full of poop.

Cue Yakkov Smirnov "what a country!"[/QUOTE]

Although the latter movie you described is art, it isn't interactive. Add a Wiimote to the mix, then you have a case.
 
[quote name='IRHari']There is absolutely a link between video games and violence.

I played Super Mario Bros. a lot when I was a kid.

Today, I'm an unemployed plumber who eats magic mushrooms and kills turtles.

And even if you disagree with his opinions, Scalia is an awesome justice.[/QUOTE]
Mario jokes quota satisfied.
 
If this effect turns out to be true i can tell you one thing; Considering Halos popularity, the first alien encounters aren't looking good.

Glorfig of the Quilar system: "We come in peace"
human 1: "i am programed to kill you" *fires rocket
human 2: "noobtube" *sighs then proceeds to kill remaining aliens with assault rifle
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I'm calling it now: Seven to Two[/QUOTE]

The only justice who seemed inclined at all to uphold this law was Breyer. It could be 8-1. The dogfighting videos law was struck down 8-1 with only Alito dissenting.

The problem I keep hearing is that while the court seemed inclined to strike down this law, they might not be willing to make a broad judgment that video games are protected by the first amendment and NO law against their sale could ever be constitutional. And then we'd be stuck with states keeping on with "ok, is THIS law not too vague?"

Rush Limbaugh even came out on the side of video games in this debate the other day, although he (true to character) blamed the attempts to ban games on "liberals" even though as we have seen time and again that politicians on both sides of the political spectrum have railed against violent videogames and proposed laws to ban them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top