This is one of those topics that I don’t think we’ll ever come up with a satisfying answer. For example, I could easily believe that violent VGs make one marginally more violent but that all these violent people are spending more time at home playing VGs, which leads to a lower crime rate. I just don’t know how one could conduct a test or examine statistics that could lead to one conclusion or another.
If they’re spending time playing video games, then they are not being violent. If they aren’t being violent, there is no sense in calling them violent. That would be like saying kicking puppies makes people more charitable, only they don’t donate more to charity because they’re too busy kicking puppies so we can’t tell.
Besides the whole idea that correlation doesn’t equal causation, I think this sort of idea largely comes from us searching for rational answers to irrational behavior. Why did the Columbine kids do what they did? Well, they listened to dark music and played violent videogames. Wasn’t it the guy who killed John Lennon who was supposedly inspired by The Catcher in the Rye? What about the Unabomber? Well, he was just crazy. None of these people were behaving in a rational way, so trying to determine a rational cause will inevitably create this sort of controversy.
As for normal people, I do think violence in videogames and other media has a way of desensitizing us, but I don’t think it’s so much in the way that we might think. For instance, I can see film or photos of some horribly violent scenes and relatively fine with it, even if I know it’s real. But when I actually witness it, it’s always far more shocking than I’d expect. I think most rational people are able to compartmentalize fantasy from reality and that’s exactly why I have that sort of reaction and exactly why mentally ill people end up doing irrational things.
I think the real question here is if these people who do turn violent would or would not have done the same thing or something similar had they not gotten that particular stimulus. And I don’t think it makes much difference. You can theoretically remove violence from videogames and music and movies and maybe even have G rated versions of the news, but violence is still an inherent part of human nature. Every child at some point in his youth will experience physical pain and understand that it’s a deterent or as a manner of force; it’s a natural extension of basic moral development from aversion of punishment. IOW, I think it is completely impossible to eliminate any potential for learning about violence and so we’re simply fooling ourselves to believe removing some set of those stimuli will have a meaningful effect other than perhaps changing the methodology from shooting to bombing or cutting or just straight punches.
And speaking personally, I find that some manner of violence in videogames and music and movies is a non-destructive way to express aggression. We all need will need a vent for frustration, anger, and aggression, and violent videogames are one amongst many ways of accomplishing that.
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/VideoGames1.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5564/2377
They were also teens with underdeveloped brains who were tortured and bullied at their Littleton high school.
Perhaps its video games + violent culture + predisposition to other life factors. My kid can play Super Mario and defeat Bowser, but you’re nuts if you think I’m letting him play ‘violent’ video games. My students talk about violent video games constantly. They also live in a violent world.
I can see how there is a difference between playing a video game where you take out a Nazi and one where you get to systematically torture people.
Perhaps video games themselves don’t make people more violent. Maybe our violent culture in general desensitizes us to what’s happening around us. A kid gets shot in the 'hood and we’ve all seen it before. Columbine happens and everyone pees their pants because white kids are shooting each other. Not all violence is created equal, but there’s something inherently creepy (to me) about 8 or 10 year olds blowing people’s heads into bits in a simulated game. And maybe urban kids playing Grand Theft Auto (or something similiar) isn’t the best use of their free time.
About the only person who consistently finds these effects is Craig Anderson. Others find no significant relationship between the two factors.
Everyone that is calling video games an “outlet” for aggression is invoking Freudian catharsis theories that have no experimental support. Patterns of Freudian defense mechanisms have been observed in nonhuman animals for example.
In addition, successful violence is motivating for more violence.
There will always be sociologists and social psychologists willing to hang their hat on studies of something socially distasteful and its negative consequences on our youth. Any significance they find is weak and inconsistent.
Further, let’s say there is an effect, not just a relationship, of video games on people’s potential for violence. How do you think that effect compares to something like abusive parenting or antisocial peers? Seriously, which do you think plays a more important role?
How exactly do you study what makes people violent in regards to video games? Start polling on who beats their wives?
Especially at this hour.
Really? The world my son lives in is LESS violent than then world I grew up in. Violent crime is down. Schools are less tolerant of fighting and bullying.
My 14-year-old son plays shooters with his buddies all the time. They laugh over the headshots because they know it’s not real. They know the different between pretend violence and real violence, and pixels don’t feel pain.
Yeah, we wouldn’t want the “urban kids” getting ideas, would we? :rolleyes:
Just because somebody reposts a daily mail story, doesn’t make it true. It was a fun seminar as part of a large conference that discussed if it was possible to make war games with ethics - a pretty interesting idea imho.
From the first link (bolding mine):
"Studies provide converging evidence that exposure to media violence is a significant risk factor for aggressive and violent behavior.
…
Recent video games reward players for killing innocent bystanders, police, and prostitutes, using a wide range of weapons including guns, knives, flame throwers, swords, baseball bats, cars, hands, and feet. Some include cut scenes (i.e., brief movie clips supposedly designed to move the story forward) of strippers.
How are strippers violent? Is he a real scientist or is he just morally outraged? You be the judge.
“Violent crime is down” is not a fair statement if it’s up in some places, down in others. And not all violent crimes are the same - murder, aggravated theft, and rape are all different. Violent crimes are also about who is reporting what. So if you don’t report it (perhaps because you’re part of that culture yourself, so you don’t report getting jumped in an alleyway), it doesn’t “count”. Violence will also rise and fall depending on other factors (with the crack epidemic in LA being an example).
I suppose tough sentencing also helps, as does access to medical care. Someone may shoot you, but they may not kill you.
You don’t think kids are more likely to be influenced by things that are closer to them? What if your kid played a video game where white cops constantly attacked and beat up black kids and he played the cop? Is that OK?
Current research shows that the Columbine shooters weren’t bullied anywhere near as much as they claimed. Most of their claims of persecution and bullying stemmed from depression and a “the world is against me” outlook on life. And in fact, they were bullies themselves. Doling out insults to others that were much harsher than they got.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm
On top of that, their game of choice, Doom, is not exactly the gorefest it’s been portrayed as.
It’s absolutely possible. Rainbow Six, the first game I designed, was set up so killing non-combatants resulted in automatic mission failure.
However, what the Red Cross fails to realize is that games are not designed as simulations. Real war tends to be either boring or terrifying. It’s not fun. Creating a game that realistically models all the rules of engagement that modern soldiers function within would be an interesting technical exercise, but it would quickly cease to be a game.
Violent crime has dropped overall in the United States since when I was a kid. I’m sorry if that fact is inconvenient for your argument, but there it is.
I think that if kids grow up in a neighborhood where lots of adults commit crimes they will be more likely to commit crimes themselves. But that has nothing to do with video games.
I’d personally find such a game offensive. However, I wouldn’t worry that playing it would encourage my son to beat up black kids.
Yeah, bullies often bully. And according to my Columbine High School graduate friends (some of whom became teachers) they were ostracized. You don’t have to be shoved in a locker every day to be bullied.
Your link is based on Cullen’s book. My info is based on Jeff Kass’ and second-hand accounts from friends. The thing is, we as people are desensitized to violence. If we weren’t so, perhaps someone would’ve taken these boys more seriously.
So again, perhaps violent media is a risk factor, but not the direct cause.
They were bullied, yes. However, they were not the school whipping boys by a long shot. You might know some people who know some people, but you don’t know for sure. And all the official accounts say they were disturbed kids who had friends, got good grades, and even dated. The “disturbed” part is the key word there.
Both of them were on antidepressants and Harris had attended counseling. People were trying to help them.
Pop quiz, what violent media did they surround themselves with?
Answer: the movie Natural Born Killers. Harris and Klebold’s favorite game, Doom, was six years old at that point. It had long been surpassed in the violent game sweepstakes and was never that gory to begin with.
Perhaps you’re not so good with statistics when we’re talking about several different definitions of violent crime and several cities at once? Did you see what I said when I wrote how it was up in some places, down in others? How things wax and wane? LA’s muder rate spiked sharply during the “crack” epidemic (and gang wars) and now it is decreasing. You’re making it sound as though every major city in the US (and suburbia, too) has had steady declines that look like a straight diagonal.
Cite
Citeroo (Detroit up)
Citerippie (Detroit down)
Citerwoopah (Bubbles and swells and outliers)
Citeybooyah (Went up a skosh in NYC)
And again (New Jersey)
My point is that crime rates and reporting and stats are a lot more complicated than, “Crime is down!” The annual murder rate for a suburb may go down 25 per cent from 25 to 20, but that doesn’t mean the streets are safer to walk. When police say, “There’s a gang problem” in Denver and the teachers who are old-timers say, “There is definitely a resurgence of gang wars here,” they’re not being sensationalist.
Columbine is not the same as sexual assault or gangs or ____. Violence is quite a spectrum. Sorry if I don’t take your “Violence is down!” statement as absolute proof that violent media doesn’t influence our thoughts and actions.
Do you mind the reinforced stereotype and subtle racism? I would.
I don’t just “know some people who know some people” - I know adults involved in the shooting. Well, on the being shot at side. We’ve been friends since college.
But I’ve never asserted that video games were to BLAME for Columbine. I thought that was ridiculous back in high school. What I do think, though, is that media in general affects how we see violence and how we respond to it.
I am interested to hear how you back up your claim of, “However, they were not the school whipping boys by a long shot.” Do you know someone who knows someone who knows someone?
You don’t have to be THE biggest loser in high school to feel like it.
:dubious:
Oops - to clarify - I was talking about murder rates.