The Truth About Violent Youth and Video Games

core238

CAG Veteran
http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/arti...ce/violence.htm
violence.gif

The Truth About Violent Youth and Video Games
Thanks to the current media frenzy and barrage of lawsuits surrounding violent video games, I can t tell people what I do for a living without getting a lecture on the current plague of youth violence and the scourge that is Grand Theft Auto. I decided it was time for a rebuttal more effective than shrugging and saying, Well, I think you re wrong.

So I sat down to write this article, and started doing some research. What I discovered startled me. I'm not sure I have the ability to write a totally serious piece - it is not in my nature to be serious, nor the nature of GR - but the issues are very serious indeed and the evidence is very real.

I am even going to use charts. With words on 'em. We spare no expense.

First off, I have absolute proof that video games are not the cause of this epidemic of youth violence in America. No, really, I do. Ready?


There is no epidemic of youth violence in America.
The whole concept is a lie manufactured, distributed and perpetuated by the media. Kids are not killing each other more frequently than they used to. In fact, it turns out the opposite is true.

Check out that ugly graph on the right. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that violent crime is at the lowest it has been in a good thirty years. For effect, I ve also marked the release of the Playstation console, the first Grand Theft Auto game, the PS2 console, and the infamous GTA 3. Wow, look at those surges in violence!

Believe it or not, I got that graph - and all the others in this piece - directly from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics. All I added was the video game timeline. This isn t some privately-funded poll or crazy game journalist defense mechanism - this is the actual, most recent government data on crime as used by the FBI. The fact that they all max out at 2003 is irritating, but this debate has raged much longer than the past few months.

doj_chart_1.gif
Please understand that I m not a conspiracy theorist. I don t think that there are any aliens at Area 51. I know that AIDS was not created in a secret government lab, I believe that men really landed on the moon, and I am 100% certain that Sasquatch shot JFK with the help of the Loch Ness monster. But something clearly isn t right here. The government and the media just can t go around making this stuff up, right?

Something must be missing. That first graph is the overall violent crime rate, and we re talking about youth violence here. So I found the data sorted by age, and it turns out that through 2002, youth homicide actually dropped across the board, the only increase being among adults. If I may quote directly from the D.O.J. report, Recently, the offending rates for 14-17 year-olds reached the lowest levels ever recorded.

doj_chart_2.gif


The lowest levels ever recorded. In other words, the Playstation era has, in fact, produced the most non-violent kids ever. But I thought video games were training children to kill? I m sure I read something like that here and here and here and here and here and here.

To be fair, there have been about 300 studies on the effects of violent media, about 30 of which have been about video games. Most have found little to no connection, although some studies found a small, casual correlation between aggressive people and violent media.

Even if true, this does not necessarily mean violent media has created aggressive people. It is more likely that aggressive people are attracted to violent media. Blaming violent media would be like going to the opera, noticing that most people there are rich, and concluding that opera makes people rich. (Classical opera, by the way, is chock full of lust, incest, murder, suicide, and revenge.)

In an analysis of the risk factors of youth violence by the Surgeon General of the United States of America, violent media is categorized as Small Effect Size. In fact, there are 27 risk factors rated higher than exposure to violent media, like socioeconomic status, academic failure, poor parent-child relations, weak social ties, and being male. Quick! Ban all the males!

So is the media and the government flat out lying to us? Yes, and they have been doing so for years. As touched on in the rabble-rousing films of Michael Moore, fear sells. It s how you turn terrible tragedies like Columbine and the WTC Attack into election votes and must-see TV.

doj_chart_3.gif
The media in particular loves to bash video games, making sure to point out any time there s an Xbox within 50 yards of a crime. This is because games are the new competition - every hour you spend interacting with a game is one hour less spent drooling in front of their fear-mongering programming.

And it's working. Sparked by Columbine, mainstream media routinely paints a picture of gamers as odd shut-ins dangerously close to the precipice of violent behavior, and almost unerringly misconstrue the games themselves without taking the time to fact check, as is the case in the very first sentence of this CBS News report. Points for killing cops in GTA? Do games still have points?

Gaming is also a new medium, one that has recently become wildly successful. Young people play them and old folks don t understand, so they must be bad. Don t forget that in the 1950 s, rock and roll was linked to youth violence in the same way. The hedonistic, tribal rhythms were going to turn America s youth into a bunch of violent maniacs. Rock and roll was banned and censored all over the country. A bill was even put before Congress in 1955 to ban rock and roll altogether.

Something exactly like what is happening now. Sorry guys, I don t care what people say, rock and roll is here to stay.

Let me be perfectly clear: Grand Theft Auto is a best-selling adult game that should not be played by 12 year-olds. That s why it s rated M and you have to be 17 to buy it. However, most games are not like GTA. In 2004, 54% of games were rated E for Everyone, 33% were rated T for Teen, and only 12% were rated M for Mature. The vast majority of the best-selling titles every year are not rated M. Compare that to the 55% of movies rated R and only 8% rated G. The ESRB might not get it right all the time, but who does? (Sources: the ESRB and the NPD Group).

And after all, there s no problem with R-rated movies or mature rap lyrics or violent video games, because there is no problem with youth violence. The most disgusting thing to me is that some truly horrible high-school tragedies are being exploited by the media, and somehow, I'm part of the problem.

The truth is that these are the most non-violent kids we have ever had, and they all own Playstations. The government is so desperate to find some youth crime to crack down on that they re strip-searching kids for 10 bucks while locking up 11 year-old girls for throwing rocks and eating french fries. The most peaceful generation of Americans in recorded history is being shoved through metal detectors, having their civil rights violated on a daily basis, are the victims of unreasonable search and seizure, and are treated with constant suspicion.

All because of a media lie. If nothing else can incite them to violence, maybe that will.

__________________
Updated: October 19, 2005

The FBI has just released its 2004 crime report. The results? The violent crime rate has further dropped 2.2% since 2003. The number of murders is down by 2.4%. And our violent youth? "As for trends in arrests of juveniles for violent crime, a comparison of 2004 data with those of 2003 indicated that the number of juveniles arrested for violent crimes declined 0.8 percent, 5.5 percent compared with 2000 data, and 30.9 percent compared with 1995 figures."

fbi_chart_2004.gif
So the according to the FBI, the murder rate hit a new 40 year low in 2004. The best selling video game of 2004? Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
This stuff is absolutely sick. As an industry we have become the biggest scapegoats in the nation over a problem that does not even exist. What a complete load. And some like the Jack Thompsons of the world, wish to insist that as gamers, we are a part of this problem . . . this problem that does not even exists. Ladies and gents, we are being used to further the political agendas of people who do not even care about the very people they say they are attempting to protect by creating all these bogus laws meant to curtail the sale and ban the production of games, that supposedly have no place in society.

Our biggest enemy is ignorance . . . not only the gross ignorance of the public at large, but the same level of ignorance by gamers ourselves. Honestly, how many of you were aware that there is not epidemic of youth violence? Okay, we've all known it was bogus and that it's connection to videogames was even moreso, but better yet, how many of you knew exactly where you could find the resources and facts to prove it? For almost a decade, the news media and politicians have used Columbine, an aberation of youth violence, most certainly not the norm, as proof of a problem that never existed . . . and from the very start, they have labeled videogames as the cause of this problem. Despite hard evidence collected by our own government, to the direct contrary. Well now peeps, not only do we have concrete proof (it's hard to argue against real world results) that all this talk is complete and total BS, but we have one of the world's most reliable sources to thank for that proof.

This is the type of news that needs to be spread far and wide. If nothing else, we have to educate our own to the reality of what is being perpetrated upon our good names. Below, I have included a hyperlink that will take you to a page with the code for the post above, complete with all relevant graphs and links. This needs to be spread to every videogame related forum and blog across the internet. People should know about this stuff. A major election year is coming up, and political types at every level of our government are already lining up now to use the "videogames are evil" ploy as their means to re-election or upward mobilization in the political spectrum. The very least that we can do, is educate ourselves so that we can better educate others as to what is going on. So getting the word out there, and the facts to back it up, and if we are lucky we'll get a few forum mods and admins to pin those threads to make them easier to locate for use as a reference source, then maybe we can finally begin to change the negative image our industry is continually forced to endure.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 and with luck others will help to get the word out and spread it far and wide. And maybe one day soon, we can finally shut fearmongers like Jack Thompson up for good.

LINK TO THE CODE FOR THIS ARTICLE
Cut and paste the code from the page and then paste it to your favorite forum/blog of choice.
 
Thats a good article. Thanks for posting it OP. Personally, I think all this is bullshit. There are more important things to worry about that someone playing GTA. Jesus, many of these parents grew up watching Road Runenr cartoons. And they don't think those are "violent"?
 
That article is rather old around two years I think, but the statistics don't mean much. We don't know how low crime would be without the games, so saying it's low doesn't mean anything. It could be a coincidence, or it could be a direct relationship. The same goes for the studies which show no long term effects, only short term when the kids are playing.

We all know of course that we're not affected by the games. It's logic and common sense, but those stats are useless.

Gamepolitics featured this awhile ago, and the video game voters network (Google it) are in the fight to get this crap stopped.
 
[quote name='gamereviewgod']That article is rather old around two years I think, but the statistics don't mean much. We don't know how low crime would be without the games, so saying it's low doesn't mean anything. It could be a coincidence, or it could be a direct relationship. The same goes for the studies which show no long term effects, only short term when the kids are playing.[/QUOTE]

So, because there is no way to view an alternative universe where video games were never invented, the data we do have is useless? Wow, that makes sense.

The data is clear to anyone who isn't an idiot: the increasing popularity of videogames has not caused an increase in violent crime. Period.
 
Well that can't be right. I mean the news is always telling me that kids are more violent and that every kid thinks about shooting up their school. Some even do end up shooting up their school!

:roll:

Seriously, the article is interesting and points out that people tend to just believe whatever the media tells them. They don't question the fact that people such as Jack Thompson, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Lieberman rarely present these types of charts to support their claims that video games cause violence. They just assert that its true and you know how the old addage goes, if you repeat something enough times you start to really believe it.
 
why do videogamers think they're so victimized...the only legal action I've seen is towards the banning of sales of M-rated games to minors. Question for anyone who has played Manhunt or GTA: Is that really such a bad thing? Ever heard of social learning theory or modeling? It's very possible for a young person to mindlessly mimic violence when they see it.

the correlations this guy makes are just plain irrelevant, if not spurious...just because videogame related violence isn't singlehandedly pushing up the crime rate, doesn't mean that the medium shouldn't be criticized at all. The media takes it far, but the media takes everything far. Politicians react with game sales legislation and that's that. They aren't going to prevent Halo 3 from coming out...they also won't prevent a porn game from coming out, as long as it's stamped AO.


basically, my point is, it's cool to defend certain injustices but when you start whining and making weak correlations, you start to look like a nut.
now, if the medium as a whole was actually in danger, that would be a whole different thing. I would be worried...this is just a growing pain for the industry-- as it gets more popular, it will be further scrutinized, just like everything else. standards will be put in place to make sure the industry is in check.

especially when you start saying things like this:
A major election year is coming up, and political types at every level of our government are already lining up now to use the "videogames are evil" ploy as their means to re-election or upward mobilization in the political spectrum

with all due respect, a politicians stance on videogames is a really lame thing to base your vote off of. Should I drop support for Barack Obama because he encouraged students to drop their PS2 controllers and to instead start getting involved with their communities? Gamepolitics.com seems to think so. and that's one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.
 
[quote name='Apossum']with all due respect, a politicians stance on videogames is a really lame thing to base your vote off of. Should I drop support for Barack Obama because he encouraged students to drop their PS2 controllers and to instead start getting involved with their communities? Gamepolitics.com seems to think so. and that's one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.[/quote]

You poor, naive soul. If people feel strongly enough about certain issues they will make their votes based on that one issue. If George W. Bush ran with the exact same stance on every issue, except he supported gay marriage, do you think he would have won? Do you think he would have had a chance?
 
[quote name='NeoFrank1']You poor, naive soul. If people feel strongly enough about certain issues they will make their votes based on that one issue. If George W. Bush ran with the exact same stance on every issue, except he supported gay marriage, do you think he would have won? Do you think he would have had a chance?[/QUOTE]


you really think video games are one of those tie-breaker issues? :lol: If the situation came up where both candidates ran on all the same platforms, I would consider the history of their political party before I'd look at whether they even have a stance on video games.

games aren't important. I'll just take a wild guess here and say that less than 1% of the world feels strongly about video games, enough to make a political decision based on them (and even less than that actually vote.)

another problem: I don't think video games are the corner stone of anyone's platform.
 
Although a nice attempt at synteshizing DOJ data with arguments over the effect of violent media/games on crime rates, there are several fundamental things wrong here:

1) A downward trend in crime rates is meaningless in this case. Citing that data seems to take an assumption that violent media would be the *predominant* cause of crime, which nobody is arguing. A downward trend also does not imply that violent games have no effect, a conclusion that the author also jumps to. Other couses could be waning while the effect of violent media increases. That's not too impossible. So, in this regard, the author is making the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. He's saying "violent media doesn't affect crime rates; the data show crime is going down, thus violent media doesn't affect crime rates!" What a lousy argument.

2) All the data in the world is meaningless in the absence of controls. This guy is using blanket crime rates to come to conclusions. What's this guy's salary for writing this drivel?

3) The most egregious error, is, of course, that there is no separation of people into "gamer" or "nongamer" (or "occasional gamer" and "hardcore gamer" if you want to parse it even further) statuses. If we don't know who is gaming, and only know the number of violent crimes per 1,000 population, how can *anyone* on *any side* make *any* conclusion about the impact of violent games?

4) The author makes no attempt to consider the impact of violent games on aggressive behavior (a significant predictor of later criminal behavior), and flippantly disregards studies that do show a correlation between gaming and later aggressive behavior. Very unprofessional, and more importantly, revealing of the author's bias.

This article is a misleading piece of shit. I respect it for using data, something not enough journalism does. Nevertheless, this was prepared and written by someone who has a vested interest in seeing arguments of media's causation on deviance/crime debunked and put to bed. I don't buy it for a second.
 
bah video games are the 21st century Rock and Roll. They went after rap last time, and now its video games. It will pass eventually, just wait till we get to there age, we will hate on holographic movies or something
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Although a nice attempt at synteshizing DOJ data with arguments over the effect of violent media/games on crime rates, there are several fundamental things wrong here:

1) A downward trend in crime rates is meaningless in this case. Citing that data seems to take an assumption that violent media would be the *predominant* cause of crime, which nobody is arguing. A downward trend also does not imply that violent games have no effect, a conclusion that the author also jumps to. Other couses could be waning while the effect of violent media increases. That's not too impossible. So, in this regard, the author is making the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. He's saying "violent media doesn't affect crime rates; the data show crime is going down, thus violent media doesn't affect crime rates!" What a lousy argument.

2) All the data in the world is meaningless in the absence of controls. This guy is using blanket crime rates to come to conclusions. What's this guy's salary for writing this drivel?

3) The most egregious error, is, of course, that there is no separation of people into "gamer" or "nongamer" (or "occasional gamer" and "hardcore gamer" if you want to parse it even further) statuses. If we don't know who is gaming, and only know the number of violent crimes per 1,000 population, how can *anyone* on *any side* make *any* conclusion about the impact of violent games?

4) The author makes no attempt to consider the impact of violent games on aggressive behavior (a significant predictor of later criminal behavior), and flippantly disregards studies that do show a correlation between gaming and later aggressive behavior. Very unprofessional, and more importantly, revealing of the author's bias.

This article is a misleading piece of shit. I respect it for using data, something not enough journalism does. Nevertheless, this was prepared and written by someone who has a vested interest in seeing arguments of media's causation on deviance/crime debunked and put to bed. I don't buy it for a second.[/quote]

You think the people that fund the studies that show a correlation don't has a vested interest in the outcome? They are usually the ones funding such studies. Hell, a little while ago Hillary Clinton wanted to give something like $30M to some organization to come up with numbers on the effect of violent videogames and movies on kids. When an organization gets a windfall like that, they aren't going to disappoint. They are going to come out with fuzzy generalities that support whatever conclusion the person footing the bill wants. Then she gets to appeal to the 'values' crowd when running for office in 2008. It's the same thing as when the fucking oil companies fund a study that finds no link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming. It's fucking ridiculous to think that kind of stuff is in any way objective. If I had enough money I could have a scientific study done that concludes I am 100 feet tall and the son of Jesus Christ. The gaming industry had a study done that 80% of people aren't worried about the effect of gaming on children at all, ect. Even they are paying for skewed data.

As to your point of the data being flawed, I saw the man worked with what he has. These are clear cut numbers coming from the DOJ and if violent games are causing such an epidemic of violence among young people as the news and certain POLITICIANS AND SELF-PROMOTERS would have us believe, it should be enough to skew the numbers. The fact that the data doesn't split the numbers into gamers, non-gamers, hardcore gamers, ect. is because the DOJ probably saw no reason to do so because there is no discernable pattern either way from the data they collected I bet. I'm sure they have data split like that that show the rate of violence in drug users v. non-drug users though. Why? Because it's an actual cause of violence.

A downward trend also does not imply that violent games have no effect, a conclusion that the author also jumps to. Other couses could be waning while the effect of violent media increases. That's not too impossible. So, in this regard, the author is making the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. He's saying "violent media doesn't affect crime rates; the data show crime is going down, thus violent media doesn't affect crime rates!" What a lousy argument.

Your idea that just because the data shows a downward trend in youth violence doesn't mean that all other factors for youth violence are decreasing except for violent media, which is causing an increase is jumping to as much of a conclusion as saying it has no effect. What is more likely is that it has an effect but it's so small as to be nearly insignificant next to things like poverty, drugs, child abuse, ect.
 
How do we know that the rate of violent crimes committed by youth didn't drop because they are "being shoved through metal detectors, having their civil rights violated on a daily basis, are the victims of unreasonable search and seizure, and are treated with constant suspicion."...

Just a random thought I had while reading the article.
 
[quote name='Vegan']I think I have a chart somewhere that shows how much your credibility drops, the more charts you use.[/quote]

I have a book here that I think is called "How to lie with charts and graphs".

Not saying the article is wrong, just that because you have charts and numbers doesn't mean that you know what you are talking about.

TBW
 
[quote name='Stuka']You think the people that fund the studies that show a correlation don't has a vested interest in the outcome? They are usually the ones funding such studies. Hell, a little while ago Hillary Clinton wanted to give something like $30M to some organization to come up with numbers on the effect of violent videogames and movies on kids. When an organization gets a windfall like that, they aren't going to disappoint. They are going to come out with fuzzy generalities that support whatever conclusion the person footing the bill wants. Then she gets to appeal to the 'values' crowd when running for office in 2008. It's the same thing as when the fucking oil companies fund a study that finds no link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming. It's fucking ridiculous to think that kind of stuff is in any way objective. If I had enough money I could have a scientific study done that concludes I am 100 feet tall and the son of Jesus Christ. The gaming industry had a study done that 80% of people aren't worried about the effect of gaming on children at all, ect. Even they are paying for skewed data.[/quote]

The data that he flippantly disregarded, in question, came from an American Psychological Association. If you want to consider them an arm of those who are trying to prove a case, rather than do unbiased research, then that's fine. You will be dead wrong, but that's fine. Your assertion that "I can prove myself to be 100 feet tall" claim is well taken; I hope that you never believe another statistic as long as you live, if that's the case.

My question to you is this: what do you think of the studies cited in the OP article that show no significant impact of gaming on violence and/or aggressive behavior? Are you skeptical of *their* origins too? It's whole hog or no go, dude. If you want to be skeptical of research, you'll have a lot of credibility if you're skeptical of everything, not just that which you are ideologically opposed to.

Listen. I don't *want* there to be a proven link between gaming/violent media and aggressiveness/deviant behavior. I have a vested bias in the same realm at the OP author. But, I also have a duty to be a skeptic and point out poorly analyzed data and meaningless numbers. In the context of this article, a declining crime rate has fucking NOTHING to do with the impact of violent games. At all. Nada.

You are far too cynical if you think every person out there performing research starts with the conclusion and then builds their case around that. Besides, if you want to make the "they're all biased" argument, let me ask you to do me a favor: find me a research study on the effects of games and point out to me, theoretically, methodologically, just how biased they are. Did they use an inappropriate sample to generalize results from? Did they prompt the test subjects such that the results are useless? What did they do, and how did they do it, in order to expose their bias? Tell me more, because now I'm intrigued.

As to your point of the data being flawed, I saw the man worked with what he has. These are clear cut numbers coming from the DOJ and if violent games are causing such an epidemic of violence among young people as the news and certain POLITICIANS AND SELF-PROMOTERS would have us believe, it should be enough to skew the numbers. The fact that the data doesn't split the numbers into gamers, non-gamers, hardcore gamers, ect. is because the DOJ probably saw no reason to do so because there is no discernable pattern either way from the data they collected I bet. I'm sure they have data split like that that show the rate of violence in drug users v. non-drug users though. Why? Because it's an actual cause of violence.

Oh horseshit. The DOJ has data like Shipwreck's got Xbox titles. The data he used is probably page 4 and 5 of the annual DOJ Uniform Crime Report, which is a several-hundred page report (let alone a data set). He's lazy and he makes false conclusions from the simplest of data. I can't take birth rates in the US per 1,000 people, see they are declining, and claim that video games did or did not have a hand in it. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE fuckING DATA. That's why. His data says "apples" and his conclusion is "clearly we can see that oranges aren't doing anything here."

Your idea that just because the data shows a downward trend in youth violence doesn't mean that all other factors for youth violence are decreasing except for violent media, which is causing an increase is jumping to as much of a conclusion as saying it has no effect. What is more likely is that it has an effect but it's so small as to be nearly insignificant next to things like poverty, drugs, child abuse, ect.

I won't disagree with you there. I'm just chiding the OP for laziness, poor data, and false conclusions. He's like fucking Ross Perot: lotsa tables and graphics, but ultimately meaningless. Let me restate: I hope that, eventually, data show this homeboy is correct in his arguments. I want gaming to not have an impact on aggressiveness. But, I won't exalt this guy if that relationship is ever disproven, because all this guy has done is taken the same, willfully ignorant, convinced that their opinion is god's honest truth, and said "THIS IS HOW IT IS!" With a fucking chart or three.

In the end, I'm postulating as well as to what impact games may have. I wholeheartedly agree that, if poverty, race, family status, and prior criminal activity are controlled for, violent games are likley to have as much of an impact on aggressiveness or deviance as "favorite breakfast cereal." However, my argument at that point was merely hypothetical, and suggestive of the idea that the only thing the chart shows is that *crime is decreasing per capita*. That's it. Nothing more.

If you want to prove the impact of games, you better fire up that copy of SPSS, or run a program through LISREL. Provided you have the adequate gaming variables, as well as your conventional controls. Otherwise, you'll end up with the drivel of an article in the OP.

I want him to be right, but I also want papers that cite research to do so in a meaningful way that makes sense. This is just citing numbers for the sake of citing numbers.
 
once again, i wanna see the huge controversy. I mean, the whole jack thompson thing blew up, then died, and now a few politicians are supplementing their platforms with concerned views on a form of media (nothing new there either.) it's really not a big issue as people make it out to be.
 
[quote name='Stuka']It's the same thing as when the fucking oil companies fund a study that finds no link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming. It's fucking ridiculous to think that kind of stuff is in any way objective.[/QUOTE]

This reminds me of a joke I heard in college in my research class:

A mathematician, an accountant and a researcher apply for the same job. The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks, "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician says "Yes, four, exactly."

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "Four, plus or minus any error."

Then the interviewer calls in the researcher and askes the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The researcher gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, lowers his voice and says, "What do you want it to equal?"
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] Are you skeptical of *their* origins too? It's whole hog or no go, dude. If you want to be skeptical of research, you'll have a lot of credibility if you're skeptical of everything, not just that which you are ideologically opposed to.[/quote]

[quote name='Stuka'] The gaming industry had a study done that 80% of people aren't worried about the effect of gaming on children at all, ect. Even they are paying for skewed data. [/quote]



In the context of this article, a declining crime rate has ing NOTHING to do with the impact of violent games. At all. Nada.

When games are being called "murder simulators" and people are saying games are "teaching kids to kill" and the data clearly shows the rate of murders commited by kids has been on the decline since a peak in 1995, I would say it should silence such arguements.

You are far too cynical if you think every person out there performing research starts with the conclusion and then builds their case around that.

I never said that is the case. My sister is in research and I know that most research is objective. I'm just saying, when family groups and politicians site research like this, it's not always the most subjective and reliable research.

Besides, if you want to make the "they're all biased" argument, let me ask you to do me a favor: find me a research study on the effects of games and point out to me, theoretically, methodologically, just how biased they are. Did they use an inappropriate sample to generalize results from? Did they prompt the test subjects such that the results are useless? What did they do, and how did they do it, in order to expose their bias? Tell me more, because now I'm intrigued.

I would love to if you could point me to all these independent research groups that found games harmful and published just more than their findings, like their methodology.


Oh horseshit. The DOJ has data like Shipwreck's got Xbox titles. The data he used is probably page 4 and 5 of the annual DOJ Uniform Crime Report, which is a several-hundred page report (let alone a data set). He's lazy and he makes false conclusions from the simplest of data.

Well if they did have such data it makes me wonder why we don't hear "according to DOJ data, while youth violence is on a decline, there is much more occurances of violence among children that play videogames than those that don't" from Hillary Clinton, Joe Liberman, Leland Yee, Jack Thompson, ect. rather than fuzzy logic and wild claims?


In the end, I'm postulating as well as to what impact games may have. I wholeheartedly agree that, if poverty, race, family status, and prior criminal activity are controlled for, violent games are likley to have as much of an impact on aggressiveness or deviance as "favorite breakfast cereal." However, my argument at that point was merely hypothetical, and suggestive of the idea that the only thing the chart shows is that *crime is decreasing per capita*. That's it. Nothing more.

So you are arguing this on the principal of scientific method in research? Again, I point you to fuzy logic and skewed data on both sides. But the overriding truth is that media and some self-serving politicos have people thinking kids are killing kids in record number and videogames are to blame, when that is clearly not the case. And until someone proves that the controls you mentioned are taken into consideration kids that play videogames ARE more violent than those that don't, I have agree with the article's findings.
 
I had an elective class last year called Psychology of Adjustment and I did a presentation similar to what this guy from Game Revolution did. I even used some of the same charts....mostly because I didn't care much and did little research ;)

Although there is an interesting article in EGM from last year where they interview both Jack T and this guy Henry Jenkins. Jenkins heads some area of the media department at MIT, and says in the interview how going off mood altering meds, poverty and domestic violence all contribute to child violence much more.
 
bread's done
Back
Top