I have done many research papers on this, and it seems all the studies (both for and against) are biased. Today, my friend and I had a debate, and I defended video games mainly because her dislike for videogames seems to be based upon biased ignorance. Still, I couldn’t help but wonder if a non-biased study, research, or even honest reflection could solve if whether or not videogames do make people more violent or if it indeed a mix of nature, parenting, and people looking for something to blame.
Well I sure hope a mod moves this to GD soon. Because there ain’t nothing factual gonna come from this discussion.
This is a topic frequently covered by Slashdot. If you search the site with the appropriate keywords you will find lots of links to studies which purport to show whether video games lead to violent behaviour.
I posted this here though because in the game discussion there is going to be extremely biased opinions that would be on par with my own. I hope that those who know they are biased won’t post thier opinions, but rather those who are indifferent either way speak up.
This thread makes me so fucking angry. I just want to fucking kill someone!
Youth violence is down. I think violent video games are to blame.
All we could do is point to the research. As you say, that’s mostly biased one way or the other. I’m not even convinced you can create a “non-biased study” to show causation. Without causation, you’ve got nothing in this argument. Relying on correlation without showing causation leads to silly conclusions like: the Amish don’t play video games and are not violent; inner-city minorities do play video games and have high rates of violence; therefore video games cause inner-city violence.
GD isn’t the Game Room, it’s Great Debates.
no. unless being violent means twitching your mouse fingers while typing furiously. in that case the BBQ Pit would make people violent too. imho how you treat animals is a greater indicator of violence than choosing to shoot pixels for fun.
What are you basing that on? I bet a lot of cattle farmers would beg to differ.
This may be coming up now because I think the Supreme Court has taken up a case from California where the state government is seeking to ban the sales of violent video games to people under 18.
as I said, it’s just a better indication than basing off on video games. who is more violent? someone kicking a dog or someone kicking a virtual dog?
And as Chessic Sense said, no it isn’t.
Depends.
If kicking a dog is defined as violent then your position is a rather childish tautology. “Who is more violent, some who is violent or someone who is not?”
If kicking a dog isn’t violent then I would ask for the evidence that you used to reach your conclusion. Hitler would never have kicked a dog. Does that indicate that he wasn’t violent? jockeys whip horses, does that mean that they are all violent?
hmm… are you saying my suggestion is as silly as the notion of video games promoting violence? surely not more so? what can a person possibly do in a video game that would indicate a violent nature?
Yes, it is precisely as silly. There is precisely as much reliable evidence for each position and precisely as many counter examples of people engaging in such behaviour being extremely pacifistic and people who do not engage in such activity being extremely violent.
The two positions have precisely the same validity. Essentially non at all.
What can a person possibly do to an animal that would indicate a violent nature? Once again, unless you are utilising the blatantly circular argument that mistreating animals is violent, there is simply no correlation between either playing video games or mistreating animals and violence. And if you are utilising the circular argument, well that is obviously childish and silly, and we could equally include video violence as violence.
A few years ago this was pushed hard. My wife insisted , I talk to my son about video games. It was all over the TV. So I brought it up to him. He looked at me very disappointed and said " dad they are pixels on a computer screen. they aren’t real’. I felt like a fool.
Video games can make people rage pretty hard, no doubt about that. It would suck to be around someone when they’re like that. I’ve seen more than one tussle at a LAN. (Old Sagat is so cheap.)
But I guess this is more about a lasting effect.
What does it mean to say that the studies are biased in one direction or the other? Which studies have you read? How were they biased? Which journals are publishing these biased studies?
I think that has more to do with the competitive nature of the game and not the violence (ever seen people rage when playing Monopoly?)
As opposed to other activities engaged in by young men where they never “rage” and there are never tussles? Healthy, peaceful activities like hockey for example? 
Young men are hormone driven creatures. That makes them both very competitive and very violent. Simple point of fact. If you get a group of young men together engaged in competitive activity you will see some “rage” and you will see some tussles. It doesn’t matter at all what that activity is. The only real question is whether such “rage” and tussles are more or less prevalent during competitive video game playing compared to any other competitive activity.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that fewer people require medical treatment for injuries sustained from fights at LAN parties than for fights sustained at football or poker.
Blake, maybe it is a misconception, but I thought it was well established that people who are criminally cruel to animals were more likely to also be violent towards humans. Is that not true? shijinn only said treatment of animals was a better indicator of violence than playing of video games, not that there is perfect correlation between puppy kicking and murdering all Jews.