Psychology Study Blames Games for Aggressive Behavior

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Okay, long post coming, but I recommend people read it. ;)

The problem here is that we're dealing with two opposed positions which are both wrong as the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It's sort of like talking about terrorism, where you have a left winger in his tie dyed shirt talking about civil liberties and human rights, and how all terrorism is either a lie or only brought on the deserving, yadda yadda, and the right winger in his suit talking about doing sweeps through the streets and what amount to mass executions, and of course moderates like myself being lost in the middle between the two sides that both refuse to accept that there is a middle ground because anything in between interferes with the purity of their own beliefs. I get griped at on sites like this one for being some kind of inhumane monster for the most part, and then get called a naive hippy by some of my more conservative relatives and aquaintences, because the solutions I believe aren't quite heavy handed enough.

I use the above example because of both sides being wrong, but having legitimate points, with the truth being somewhere in the middle.

Let me be blunt, "our" side as gamers is by and large wrong about games desensitizing people to violence or making them more receptive to using force and so on. Sources that support "our" beliefs and objectives and frankly quacks in most cases, we just want to believe what they are selling. What's more most nerds know this, even if they have chosen to not put the pieces together.

We've known that violent images can make people deal with violences easier, and render them more willing to commit violent acts. We've known this for DECADES now as there have been all kinds of studies done by the military on the subject. We all know brainwashing, hypnosis, and mental deprogramming are possible. Simple examples are used as parlour tricks by entertainers, and some of us might have even been influanced by them,

You keep showing people images of something, and reinforcing certain behaviors, you WILL condition people in those directions. If you start bringing other factors into the equasion you can even program people. The military and intelligence services experiemented with this kind of thing going back to like the 1930s, hoping to condition soldiers to be better killers and more able to deal with the evils they would need to perform or deal with in war. In fiction even know we see stylized remnants of these early experiments in brainwashing and mental deprogramming, in scenes where you have some guy tied to a chair and being bombarded with violent images and audio propaganda. Real techniques that actually work are a bit more sophisticated than that, but that's the image that has been burned into people's minds from when this kind of thing was outed, and of couse the bottom line has always been that if you condition someone like that, how do you turn it off?... and really there isn't an easy way to do so without another whole battery of brainwashing.

Violent Video games aren't brainwashing, but at a very basic level they, like any media, are going to get people more used to things like violence, and reinforce aggressive behaviors. While noticible on a purely academic level, it's overall menaingless in any reasonable context, as lots of differant kinds of media can be used to achieve the a similar effect. Sustained contact with nothing but ultra violent horror movies, cop shows, or action adventure is going to have a very similar overall impact.

Basically we as gamers have to concede that yes, violent games DO desensitize people to violence and encourage people to be more aggressive.

HOWEVER, where the academic community is dead wrong is in promoting this as a BAD thing. The problem is that you have your hand wringing left wingers who have been singing "take my hand, share the land" as a dominant force within society, who have been trying to present violence as a bad thing, and something to be overcome, or removed from society. It is not, and that's the actual problem in a nutshell. Rather than denying that games make people more receptive to violent and agressive behavior, it's better to just simple take the correct track which is to say "so what?".

Let me be blunt, humanity has survived and become the dominant life form on the planet for a few reasons. One is of course our raw intelligence and self awareness, another is of course an opposable thumb allowing us to use that intelligence to create and use tools, and the final is simply that we are the craziest, most murderous thing in the jungle. Your tie-dyed, hang wringing, limp wristed Baby Boomer hippie... which is still a substantial political force despite the change in apperance, will sit there and prattle on about how wrong it is that humanity is one of the only species that will seriously attack and exterminate itself, yet it's that same aggressive overdrive that has made us what we are, and gotten us to the dominant position where people can munch granola in the dark, and spend time thinking about garbage like this.

Right now I think the "problem" with video games is that they do a lot to undermine the messages of the baby boomers, and basically wind up giving people more normal impulses, in contridiction to the social engineering we've seen going on. With the boomers getting older and finally about to step down for "Generation Y" I think there is increasing concern that their big "social legacy" is going to go nowhere.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying it's a wonderful thing to go shooting each other in the streets, though I'm sure some people on the other side of the equasion would love to claim that. The thing is that violence is something people need to be taught to control, NOT viewed as a trait to overcome. After all violence and aggression are a big part of what it is to be human, we would not be here without them, they are our survival traits. That tenacity is what keeps humans going in the face of aversity. It's important to note that while the craziest, most murderous thing to come crawling out of the primoridial ooze, we're also social animals, and out own social tendencies and desire for order along with the understanding of how it benefits us, helps to keep our baser instincts in line.

It is absolutly ridiculous for anyone to look at today's society and decry how violent and horrible it is. Actually we live at the most peaceful period in human history. There is all kinds of violence throught the second and third world, and tons of crime in the first as well, but compared to the days when we had tribes of barbarians fighting each other every single day? Someone needs to bloody grow up.

If anything, the only reason why things seem more violent right now than they did... oh say 40 years ago, is because we have better information technology. Something happens today and a local town can't just cover it up and consider it a dirty little secret, it goes screaming out accross the information superhighway and we all hear about it. It's not more violence, it's simply increased awareness. What's more improved police techniques mean that things that got filed away get solved, we get from dealing with little mysteries revolving around things thta might have been violent crimes, to situations where we know exatly what happened with far more frequency and everyone hears about it in real time.

I'll also say, that I do not think the non-violent tendencies of the Baby Boomers, and honestly that's who we're dealing with on the "other side" of this... the parents of Generation X, have hardly served us well. some good has come from this, but by and large the lack of violence and warfare has arguably contributed to the current global overpopulation, and prevented us from dealing with the issue of resource depletion. No violence, and free love, means more people. More people means more demand for resources. Even if enough resources can be harvested, the issue of us running out of things like wood, metal, and fuel are present. We're at a point right now where even ZPG (Zero Population Growth) can't stop us, and World War III has become inevitable... and it's going to be a war where eradicating large groups of people is going to be part of the point, because in the end until we obtain more living space, we need to lower our population to the point we can sustain it and embrace ZPG. Nobody wants to be culled, so as a result war is inevitable.

I'm getting pretty far afield here, but I think this is one of the worst times in history for the "peacenink" philsophy to be being prooposed by anyone.

Apologies for my political rant, and hippy comments, I'm tired and could probably have said this better, the basic point here is that while neither side wants to admit it, the truth is in the middle, but nobody wants to see it. Games do a lot of the things being claimed by the opposition, there is nothing magical about them that makes the violent images have any less effect on the human brain that others do. On the other hand, all of those effects are not a big deal. Games do not "brainwash" people, human self control is still intact, if anything the message involved in such games actually channels violent impulses for a reason.

I'll also say the noise blast thing is stupid, one would think the researcher has never heard of Schaetenfreude [SP], or the tendency to take cruel pleasure in the suffering of another. To be honest, humans are actually very receptive to the plight of other humans in serious distress, but a little annoyance here and there is something we can appreciate. Giving someone a shock button, or a noise blast, in what is known to be a controlled situation where nobody is going to get hurt means that nobody is going to hestitate much to mess around. With a competitive game, this is just another form of gambling really, and it hits that button too. Hook the video games up to SAW inspired execution devices and make it so the winner actually brings about the horrible screaming death of the loser... well people are generally going to be a lot less receptive to that even if fairly desensitized and aggressive. Hand me a joy buzzer and I'll shock someone for lulz, hand me a button that slowly crushes someone's head in a vice, and I'm not going to push that button without a bloody good reason and "won the abillity to do so in a video games" is not that reason.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

EDIT: Also, I found this article terribly nonprofessional. Could you sound any more defensive?

Also what I thought. The guy conducted an experiment and these are his results, they may not be what you want to hear, but it may be true. It may also be false, as has also been proven. So who do you believe more?

I've played "violent" games since I was 9 years old (in 1993), and I still feel creeped out by violent imagery (ACTUAL violent imagery) in films and the news.

Eri:
Bitch please. De-sensitized to virtual violence is not the same thing as being de-sensitized to real life violence. Just ask Penn and Teller.

this is very true I've seen a unedited video of a terrorist bombing on a isrealy bus stop from the 90's and no ammount of Call of Duty will ever de-sensitize me of that experiance

god not again... I think that some one should hire a scientist to say that researching connections between video games and violents causes a sever brain damage which disqualify their opinions, claims and "facts" due brain damage and being emotionally involved.

Fuck sake another one of these studies. I thought to myself "I bet it's another correlation study". Read the start of the article, and sure enough I came to the word correlation. No need to read any more. Correlation studies prove nothing.

Pretty impressive how they manage to lose me on the very first sentence "Scientists have known for years that playing violent videogames causes players to be more aggressive".

Throw science at the wall, see what sticks.

Unfortunately for this Professor, he pretty much threw a super-ball at rubber.

Although I generally agree with the notion that violent videogames are not a primary cause of aggression, thinking that there is no effect AT ALL is bollocks, too.
A word on the measurement: the noise-blast paradigm is actually a pretty good one and as close to real-life agression as you may get in the laboratory - Mr. Tito'c complaints about the construct validity are thus a bit naive (after all agression is defined as applying aversive stimuli to someone who tries to avoid such treatment--and the noise is pretty intense). On the other hand, noise level of the game might indeed be a confound, but the paradigm actually tests if you were provoked by your bogus opponent and as a result give your opponent louder blasts (you don't hear the blast that you set). My conclusion: If the paper by Bartholow is not to your liking, try to counter it on the ground of if methods. And if you try this, know the methods!
I don't want to sound like a jerk, but psychology is a science for a reason--just because everybody has an opinion on another one's psyche doesn't make him a psychologist.

Phyroxis:

MasterOfWorlds:
Yeah, as a former psych major,

and out goes your credibility. If you took anything beyond general psych, I'd be surprised. You certainly have no grasp of experimental design (or, more importantly, Human Subjects constraints). Long, long, gone are the days of being able to directly observe aggression (see Standford Prison Experiment).

Seriously? You can't even spell correlation right.

Really? You're going to judge me based on the fact that I mispelled something, which is something most people do from time to time, I might add, and because I switched majors? You know nothing about me. You have no idea how far I progressed along my psych courses before I found out that I liked sociology better.

I've read several books regarding violence and the psyche, hell, I've even watched several documentaries and clips from the prison experiment. Don't presume to judge me because I might not have Psy. D. at the end of my name. And did you not read my entire post? I said that it was because of things like this that I want I'm studying sociology and social psychology. Because I want to do research almost exclusively, and this would be one of the things that I'd do it on.

I don't care if you disagree with me. I do care that your disagreement with me seems to be a personal attack on me, and not the seemingly reasoned argument in the rest of the post that you attacked me in.

This 'study' here makes me more violent than any videogame ever could. Congratulations, science.

Anything else I wanted to say has been ninja'd a billion times already.

Scrustle:
Fuck sake another one of these studies. I thought to myself "I bet it's another correlation study". Read the start of the article, and sure enough I came to the word correlation. No need to read any more. Correlation studies prove nothing.

You might do yourself a favor by learning a little bit about research prior to deciding whether or not to even read the article. Don't make the mistake of equating what you call a 'correlation study' with one that is non-experimental. A correlation is a statistical procedure that quantifies the direction and magnitude of the relationship between two variables and is not the type of study one chooses to undertake. While non-experimental studies can only hint at causality with varying surety (though some of the more elegant ones are able to account for all but one or two confounds), the study in question is very much an experiment, one of those things that is actually able to show causal relationships.

Were the folks here complaining about the results to actually read (and understand) the academic article that reports these findings, they'd be much less likely to question the merits of the study. This is what happens when we let people who don't know what they're talking about comment on science. Next thing ya know, we'll have some ignorant quack sue to get the Large Hadron Collider shut down for fear that it will create an earth-destroying black hole. Oh wait...

4173:

MasterOfWorlds:

This test is BS, the results are BS, and this is exactly why I want to do sociology and social psychology, so that I'll be able to come up with better and more comprehensive tests than these. Ever think about looking into someone's background before allowing them to participate in the tests? For instance, someone that came from an abusive household might internalize it more than someone that comes from a "normal" family? There are so many outside variable here that it sickens me that this was allowed to be published.

If the test is on the general population*, picking people out because of their background is terrible, terrible science. Random sampling and assignment are less likely to bias the outcome.

*If a different population is the focus of the study, then sure, screening is necessary.

I'm not saying to study only people who might lean towards violence, but you should certainly see if your subjects have a tendency towards it before assuming that the general population would react the same way. That may have just been poor wording on my part, but that's what I meant. I don't care that he took a random sample, I do care that they don't seem to take into account that outside factors may have contributed to the increased aggression that they had studied.

A friend of mine is just about the perfect example. Most of the time, he's pretty relaxed, but if he starts getting stressed out, he becomes irritated, and much more aggressive. I've played games with him, and he's almost hit me because I made a crack about something. One time, we were playing Nazi Zombies, and he went to the random weapon box. I said that he'd probably get the Panzershrek because he wanted the laser, and lo and behold, Panzershrek. I laughed, because I had no idea that I'd be right. He paused the game, took a step towards me with a raised fist, and I got ready to take him down. Luckily, his reason kicked in, and he only kicked me out of his house.

Some people just have a short fuse. Some people are just more prone to violence. Taking in people's background would probably not be a bad idea when doing a test like this.

When I play Donkey Kong Country sticker bush symphony 2 I want to break things, start fires and bunch babies.

eh...i watch the news every day..i think over the years that has de-sensitized me to violence more than video games can ever hope to

RedEyesBlackGamer:

MasterOfWorlds:
Yeah, as a former psych major, I'm calling BS on this one. Unless you show real violence happening to real people, and their reaction is the same to videogames, I'm not buying that it's a direct coorelation.

Sure, it does desensitize to violence to a certain degree, but I don't really think it'd be any more so than movies would. I'm not even sure that the fact that you're the one dishing out the pain in videogames has any more effect that watching a movie. I find it amusing that some people say, "They're disassociating themselves from people by playing as this character." and some of the same people turn around and say, "They're becoming more violent because they play these games." People need to make up their minds.

This test is BS, the results are BS, and this is exactly why I want to do sociology and social psychology, so that I'll be able to come up with better and more comprehensive tests than these. Ever think about looking into someone's background before allowing them to participate in the tests? For instance, someone that came from an abusive household might internalize it more than someone that comes from a "normal" family? There are so many outside variable here that it sickens me that this was allowed to be published.

I'm sure the test sample was random. We don't know enough about the gathering methods to say for sure. Actually, that is my main argument. Of course video games desensitize people to violence to some degree. But so does every other medium. I've yet to see tests that cross examine this to see the varying differences between media.

To be fair, this sort of test has been repeated across other mediums e.g. television. All the guy has pointed out is that video games can cause aggression. Also psychology studies have shown aggression in sports or children just being frustrated can cause aggression. Shit loads of things can cause aggression, which is exactly what he points out at the end.

Though it would be interesting to see a comparative study.

bad rider:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

MasterOfWorlds:
Yeah, as a former psych major, I'm calling BS on this one. Unless you show real violence happening to real people, and their reaction is the same to videogames, I'm not buying that it's a direct coorelation.

Sure, it does desensitize to violence to a certain degree, but I don't really think it'd be any more so than movies would. I'm not even sure that the fact that you're the one dishing out the pain in videogames has any more effect that watching a movie. I find it amusing that some people say, "They're disassociating themselves from people by playing as this character." and some of the same people turn around and say, "They're becoming more violent because they play these games." People need to make up their minds.

This test is BS, the results are BS, and this is exactly why I want to do sociology and social psychology, so that I'll be able to come up with better and more comprehensive tests than these. Ever think about looking into someone's background before allowing them to participate in the tests? For instance, someone that came from an abusive household might internalize it more than someone that comes from a "normal" family? There are so many outside variable here that it sickens me that this was allowed to be published.

I'm sure the test sample was random. We don't know enough about the gathering methods to say for sure. Actually, that is my main argument. Of course video games desensitize people to violence to some degree. But so does every other medium. I've yet to see tests that cross examine this to see the varying differences between media.

To be fair, this sort of test has been repeated across other mediums e.g. television. All the guy has pointed out is that video games can cause aggression. Also psychology studies have shown aggression in sports or children just being frustrated can cause aggression. Shit loads of things can cause aggression, which is exactly what he points out at the end.

Though it would be interesting to see a comparative study.

Oh, I know. I would just like to see a series of experiments examining most of these then seeing a comparison. My uneducated hypothesis is that video games would "rank" second or third behind sports and possibly film/television. I may be going to college for journalism, but I love statistics and psychology. The people here trying to attack psychology as a whole is a bit infuriating.

wandatheavenger:

Scrustle:
Fuck sake another one of these studies. I thought to myself "I bet it's another correlation study". Read the start of the article, and sure enough I came to the word correlation. No need to read any more. Correlation studies prove nothing.

You might do yourself a favor by learning a little bit about research prior to deciding whether or not to even read the article. Don't make the mistake of equating what you call a 'correlation study' with one that is non-experimental. A correlation is a statistical procedure that quantifies the direction and magnitude of the relationship between two variables and is not the type of study one chooses to undertake. While non-experimental studies can only hint at causality with varying surety (though some of the more elegant ones are able to account for all but one or two confounds), the study in question is very much an experiment, one of those things that is actually able to show causal relationships.

Were the folks here complaining about the results to actually read (and understand) the academic article that reports these findings, they'd be much less likely to question the merits of the study. This is what happens when we let people who don't know what they're talking about comment on science. Next thing ya know, we'll have some ignorant quack sue to get the Large Hadron Collider shut down for fear that it will create an earth-destroying black hole. Oh wait...

I know exactly what a correlation study is which is why I didn't bother to read any further. You cannot use a correlation study to infer cause and effect. End of.

well we did a more controlled type of research over here in the uk with violence
and it turned out that ppl who played violent games were more relaxed than those who played ........ wait for it........ SPORT GAMES!
yep apparently sport games cause more agression towards other ppl than shooting or fighting games
who would of thought.

Scrustle:

wandatheavenger:

Scrustle:
Fuck sake another one of these studies. I thought to myself "I bet it's another correlation study". Read the start of the article, and sure enough I came to the word correlation. No need to read any more. Correlation studies prove nothing.

You might do yourself a favor by learning a little bit about research prior to deciding whether or not to even read the article. Don't make the mistake of equating what you call a 'correlation study' with one that is non-experimental. A correlation is a statistical procedure that quantifies the direction and magnitude of the relationship between two variables and is not the type of study one chooses to undertake. While non-experimental studies can only hint at causality with varying surety (though some of the more elegant ones are able to account for all but one or two confounds), the study in question is very much an experiment, one of those things that is actually able to show causal relationships.

Were the folks here complaining about the results to actually read (and understand) the academic article that reports these findings, they'd be much less likely to question the merits of the study. This is what happens when we let people who don't know what they're talking about comment on science. Next thing ya know, we'll have some ignorant quack sue to get the Large Hadron Collider shut down for fear that it will create an earth-destroying black hole. Oh wait...

I know exactly what a correlation study is which is why I didn't bother to read any further. You cannot use a correlation study to infer cause and effect. End of.

No, but they can be good indicators. Insisting that they are worthless is silly.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Scrustle:

wandatheavenger:

You might do yourself a favor by learning a little bit about research prior to deciding whether or not to even read the article. Don't make the mistake of equating what you call a 'correlation study' with one that is non-experimental. A correlation is a statistical procedure that quantifies the direction and magnitude of the relationship between two variables and is not the type of study one chooses to undertake. While non-experimental studies can only hint at causality with varying surety (though some of the more elegant ones are able to account for all but one or two confounds), the study in question is very much an experiment, one of those things that is actually able to show causal relationships.

Were the folks here complaining about the results to actually read (and understand) the academic article that reports these findings, they'd be much less likely to question the merits of the study. This is what happens when we let people who don't know what they're talking about comment on science. Next thing ya know, we'll have some ignorant quack sue to get the Large Hadron Collider shut down for fear that it will create an earth-destroying black hole. Oh wait...

I know exactly what a correlation study is which is why I didn't bother to read any further. You cannot use a correlation study to infer cause and effect. End of.

No, but they can be good indicators. Insisting that they are worthless is silly.

Well, then there's the detail that this was in fact not a correlational study, by his definition, but rather one that satisfies all requirements for causal inference.

wandatheavenger:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Scrustle:

I know exactly what a correlation study is which is why I didn't bother to read any further. You cannot use a correlation study to infer cause and effect. End of.

No, but they can be good indicators. Insisting that they are worthless is silly.

Well, then there's the detail that this was in fact not a correlational study, by his definition, but rather one that satisfies all requirements for causal inference.

And thus I overlook a fundamental detail. Sorry.

thepyrethatburns:
This article illustrates one of the primary problems with the Escapist.

Every time Extra Credits show how games can affect a person positively, it is immediately taken as the truth and a brilliant one at that.

Every time a psychology study comes out that links violent gaming with heightened agression (which, by the way, is not the same as violence.), unprofessional articles are written and everyone gets defensive.

It's a two-way street. Either we accept that gaming can have no possible effect on our psyche or we accept that, as games can elevate us, they can also lower us.

I'd give you a huge, but i'll settle for this.

NaramSuen:
Surely all of this aggressive behaviour must be manifesting itself in out of control record crime rates, right? No wait, the FBI just released its preliminary report which states that violent crime is at a 40 year low and dropped more than 5% last year. Well what about Japan, they play a lot of video games, no their crime rate is one of the lowest in the world. I suggest that we blame aggressive behaviour on comic books or heavy metal music again, I did not get enough of that the first time around.

Interesting thing to note, I do believe that youth crime rates have steadily risen. And nobody has ever said that video games were the only cause for increased aggression, only one goddamn factor. Could people please stop being so inanely defensive over something that we really shouldn't be defensive over? It's not like this guy is specifically out to get anything, it's simply an experiment to see what short-/long-term effects we can find from these things.

Scrustle:

wandatheavenger:

Scrustle:
Fuck sake another one of these studies. I thought to myself "I bet it's another correlation study". Read the start of the article, and sure enough I came to the word correlation. No need to read any more. Correlation studies prove nothing.

You might do yourself a favor by learning a little bit about research prior to deciding whether or not to even read the article. Don't make the mistake of equating what you call a 'correlation study' with one that is non-experimental. A correlation is a statistical procedure that quantifies the direction and magnitude of the relationship between two variables and is not the type of study one chooses to undertake. While non-experimental studies can only hint at causality with varying surety (though some of the more elegant ones are able to account for all but one or two confounds), the study in question is very much an experiment, one of those things that is actually able to show causal relationships.

Were the folks here complaining about the results to actually read (and understand) the academic article that reports these findings, they'd be much less likely to question the merits of the study. This is what happens when we let people who don't know what they're talking about comment on science. Next thing ya know, we'll have some ignorant quack sue to get the Large Hadron Collider shut down for fear that it will create an earth-destroying black hole. Oh wait...

I know exactly what a correlation study is which is why I didn't bother to read any further. You cannot use a correlation study to infer cause and effect. End of.

It wasn't a correlation study, it was a lab experiment. The independent variable (non-violent or violent video-games) was manipulated to see if it caused a change in the dependent variable (brain response towards violent images). Which it did.

*Edited because I worded poorly the statement*

I'm so fed up about all this desensitisation BS. Yes, it does that, but it does not, repeat NOT make people violent in real life. What if the UK was invaded and I had to pick up a fallen soldiers rifle and fend nasty Russians off, I'd be able too. I'd help stop said Ruskies killing all those brains that are calling videogames the doom of society.

Jumplion:

NaramSuen:
Surely all of this aggressive behaviour must be manifesting itself in out of control record crime rates, right? No wait, the FBI just released its preliminary report which states that violent crime is at a 40 year low and dropped more than 5% last year. Well what about Japan, they play a lot of video games, no their crime rate is one of the lowest in the world. I suggest that we blame aggressive behaviour on comic books or heavy metal music again, I did not get enough of that the first time around.

Interesting thing to note, I do believe that youth crime rates have steadily risen. And nobody has ever said that video games were the only cause for increased aggression, only one goddamn factor. Could people please stop being so inanely defensive over something that we really shouldn't be defensive over? It's not like this guy is specifically out to get anything, it's simply an experiment to see what short-/long-term effects we can find from these things.

What source says that youth crime rates have steadily risen? All the statical data I have seen agrees that youth crime in the United States has been steadily decreasing since a high in 1994. Crime rates across the board are at the lowest levels in decades.

Jumplion I do not know how old you are, but I am defensive of this issue because I have been dealing with people like this researcher my entire life. I have had to listen to experts talk about how Dungeons & Dragons and heavy metal encourages people to worship the "devil," skateboarding leads to juvenile delinquency and video games cause anti-social behaviour. People who make unsubstantiated claims should be subjected to as much scorn as we can heap upon them.

Violent video games desentisize us to violence in the same way any violence desentisizes us from violence.

You look at something initially disturbing you get used to it. There is no profe however that people who play violent video games encage in violent acts more than anyone alse. Same goes for people who, as you said watch CSI. What was his fucking point with all this?

Psychologist are the most useless people on the planet.

I like how he says violent VGs are causing the increase in violence, the only problem is violent crime has been going down while our population continues to increase.

A pyschologist has proven that COD makes you shout? Well done that man!

A person whose been watching violent images for a bit then sees ANOTHER image and is less impressed by it.

Oh, do tell.....

They should conduct this study using actual real psychologists.

Jumplion:

Acidwell:
One Question;

What caused violence before now?

Plenty of things caused violence before hand. What's your point? All forms of media have some sort of an effect on the human psyche, regardless of whether violence has happened before, no matter how minor it may potentially be. Depending on studies, video games, and many other mediums, may cause aggressive. What we don't know is what the extensive long-/short-term effects are, and why it may affect some people more than others. The brain is a complicated thing, that's why "common sense" is said to be an oxymoron :P

Exactly my point. You can't really turn around and say that it's video games causing violence unless you also blame just about everything else in our lives. :)

No Psychologist worth his salt would say his study "Proved" his study showed something.

Id rather be desentised to violence and be happy than spend my time on really boring studies woth conclusions people have already made.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54301)