do violent games 'create' violent people?

**Maitland** · 06-13-2010, 11:56 AM

As a father of 5,I can say that video games do not make
kids violent.The most violent game they play is Halo on
the x-box.that is a violent game.lots of guns.Do i think
later in life they will pick up a mac-10 n go to town?..no.
my 2cp

**Talon_Moonshadow** · 06-13-2010, 12:02 PM

Only when someone nerfs your playing style.

**Bronko** · 06-13-2010, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by phillymiket

*snip*

I’m not the OP but I would gladly read any additional information you would provide. I’m sure you find this hard to believe at this point but my mind isn’t made up on the topic and I invite you to “convert” me. Given a good argument, I’ll throw in with your view and gladly speak out against video games.

Thank you for your ear. Sorry this post is longer than initially intended.

I didn't take any offence at all Philly but I thank you for your respectful concern.

The reality is that the discussion is far to complex to be concisely put into a single post or thread. Many posters have made valid points that deserve a fair and valid retort but I have already devoted more time posting in this thread than just about any other. At some point I want to get in a little DDO time.

I don't think I can really do/say anything past this point to convince anyone that my arguement is valid. I can continue to cite case studies and the only thing I'll mention on that point is that I've gone to decent lengths to prove my argument while the naysayers have only said "I believe" and left it at that. It's easy to find flaws with a primary assumption or even valid supporting points but I challange someone to try and actually prove the dissenting arguement in this case. I know there are some out there (they were part of our studies on the issue) so why hasn't anyone presented those for discussion?

For those that think Wiki is a lame source I will simply say I was pointing the OP to the source material. I can link to online sources in my posts but I can't do that with the texts and seminar notes from the shelves next to me. I'm not about to start typing in the sources verbatim.

As far as causation and correlation goes I'm very familiar with the concepts. In fact, it's a pet peeve of mine when people make the claim of one being the other. It's only my guildmates and some of my other close in-game friends that know this but I was a scientist long before I got into law enforcement.

But again, I think the primary research and case studies I have cited provide that causal link. And even if I'm wrong and it's only correlation then there is still merit in acknowledging it in this case. There is, for example, no casaul link between the use of seatbelts and accidents. But the data definitely bears out the fact that wearing a seatbelt helps prevent serious injury when an accident occurs. That's why we have mandatory seatbelt laws.

If I've given the OP some good sources and food for thought then mission accomplished. If I've stirred some thought on the matter for anyone else: bonus points.

**phillymiket** · 06-13-2010, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Bronko

I didn't take any offence at all Philly but I thank you for your respectful concern.

The reality is that the discussion is far to complex to be concisely put into a single post or thread.
If I've given the OP some good sources and food for thought then mission accomplished. If I've stirred some thought on the matter for anyone else: bonus points.

Then let's end on these points of agreement.

I can't speak for OP but you have given me food for thought and I'll further consider both sides.
Thanks.

Good luck with your paper OP!

**Jendrak** · 06-13-2010, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Bronko

There is a causal link between violence in video games and violence in society. If anyone disagrees with this they are kidding themselves and I will gladly accept all flames/attacks in contrast to my statement of fact.

I would suggest that jackson117 read up on such definitive works as Stop Teaching our Kids to Kill or it's precursor On Killing by Lt. Col. David Grossman. You can also read up on such programs as the CeaseFire program by Dr. Gary ****kin in Chicago for starters.

I studied Col. Grossman's work in recruit training and I'll tell you without hesitation that I didn't believe it at first. But the reality is that we are inadvertantly using Operant Conditioning to train kids to kill. We are in fact giving them the same training that we get in law enforcement and the military and we don't realize it.

I had the priviledge of meeting Col. Grossman at one of his lectures. It was there that he emphasized, "you can't just MSU. You can't just Make Sh*t Up. The research is in. The facts are there for all to see. There is an increase in violence in society and we can corrolate it to the source."

The AMA in it's report to Congress stood up with the American Society of Child Psychologists and many other national scientific and research bodies to present the facts but nobody really seemed to listen. More school shootings continue to happen and still the public doesn't listen. Even here in Canada we are feeling the effects of what we've sowed in terms of media violence and still people won't listen. It reminds me of a ostarich putting it's head in the sand sometimes.

If the OP wants more sources to back my claim that there is indeed a link between media and video game violence and societal violence I'd be happy to provide them. To those that have a dissenting opinion I encourage you to provide me the sources that back your claim.

Was about half way through when I saw this and gotta say i was very suprised.

Never would have thought you were one of those "blame it on everything but the parents" kinda people.

You just dropped way down the ladder of people respected in the forums by me.

**Borror0** · 06-13-2010, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Bronko

The reality is that the discussion is far to complex to be concisely put into a single post or thread.

It is not. Provide a short summary of the experiment and give us the reference for further study. That's it.

Presenting the question as a debate is deceptive. It's not a philosophical question, such as the existence of god(s), or something subjective on which each can have his or her opinion. It's a factual claim which can be verified through experimentation; in other words, it can be proved right or wrong. No rhetoric is needed.

Originally Posted by Bronko

I think the primary research and case studies I have cited provide that causal link.

Fine. Which studies and can you summarize how they have ensured that there is indeed causation?

Originally Posted by Bronko

And even if I'm wrong and it's only correlation then there is still merit in acknowledging it in this case. There is, for example, no casaul link between the use of seatbelts and accidents. But the data definitely bears out the fact that wearing a seatbelt helps prevent serious injury when an accident occurs. That's why we have mandatory seatbelt laws.

Correlation has no merits and your provided example does not support your claim.

Seatbelts are mandatory because there is a inverse causal relationship between wearing a seatbelt and injuries: subjects who wore a seatbelt during a collision were less prone to suffer grave or fatal injuries than if we were not wearing a seatbelt. Correlation was not the relationship used to make seatbelts mandatory; it was causation.

**phillymiket** · 06-14-2010, 08:47 AM

So I’ve been reading the web sites and literature from both sides of the coin.

I have made the personal conclusion based and my extremely limited searches that the web sites supporting the view that games are violent tend to provide broken links, links that don’t seem to direct you to the information sited but to the home page of an organization or are undocumented entirely while the sites supporting a “little evidence” or “no evidence" view seem to be better documented and notated.

I have drawn my own conclusion long ago, in considering topics like global warming, evolution etc, that if I feel one side “seems” to encouraging you to look at their sources and one side “seems” to be covering up their sources then that is significant to the motivations and honesty of the points of view.
I firmly believe motivation and honesty are crucial to objective thinking or to put it simply, if someone goes into an endeavor with an agenda and is slanted in their presentation then their work is frankly garbage.

Most of the “anti-game” camp seem to universally list the following works:
Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy - Craig A. Anderson, Douglas A. Gentile, Katherine E. Buckley
"Teaching Kids to Kill." - Grossman, David.
I would suggest you read these as a contrast to the position you stated in your OP that you will be taking in your paper. (that there is no connection)

My personal belief is that the research used to justify a connection is sketchy.
I found the research in the area to be smaller than at first I would have believed yet the “anti-game” crowd seems state that the work has been exhaustive.

I found the following quotes listed particularly interesting in regards to the ability of social science to properly measure the effects of violent media at all and also in regards to the interpretation of those results.

Professor Jonathan Freedman of the University of Toronto, an independent expert who reviewed the media violence literature in the 1980s, concluded that the research did not "provide either strong or consistent support for the hypothesis that exposure to media violence causes aggression or crime. Rather, the results have been extremely inconsistent and weak."3 Updating his resarch in 2002, Freedman reported that fewer than half the studies support a causal effect.
Jonathan Freedman, Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression: Assessing the Scientific Evidence

Some experiments have found more aggressive behavior after viewing nonviolent shows like Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.
"Field Experiments of Television Violence with Children: Evidence for an Environmental Hazard?" Joyce Sprafkin, Kenneth Gadow & Patricia Grayson

“[A]n examination of the scatter plot relating age 8 TV violence viewing to adult violent crime revealed that the correlation between them was entirely due to 3 boys who committed violent crimes and had scored high on age 8 TV violence viewing. ... It is enough to make the results significant according to statistical theory, but if just these 3 boys had behaved differently, all the significant results could have vanished.” Rhodes, supra; e-mail from L. Rowell Huesmann to Richard Rhodes (Mar. 13, 2000) in regards to L. Rowell Huesmann, et al., “The Stability of Aggression Over Time and Generations,” 20 Devel. Psych. 1120 (1984)

”They hedged, did other analyses, and tried to make it sound as if the results supported the initial prediction that television violence would increase aggression. The Dutch group did not hedge. Their write-up came right out and said that there was no evidence of any effect. Well, Huesmann and Eron would not publish their chapter unless they revised their conclusions. To this the Dutch replied that they were “competent enough to draw our own conclusions.” And they had to publish their report separately. There may be another side to this story, but the fact is that they did publish separately and their view is that their contribution was rejected because they would not change their conclusions. This is an unfortunate incident and indicates, I think, how politicized this issue has become and how difficult it is for some of the researchers to be objective about the research.” Freedman, 22 Hofstra L.Rev. at 849-51 (citing Oene Wiegman et al., Television Viewing Related to Aggressive and Prosocial Behavior [1986]); see also Wiegman et al., “A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Television Viewing on Aggressive and Prosocial Behaviors,” 31 Brit. J. Social Psych. 147 (1992).

Laboratory experiments have provided what is arguably the strongest evidence that exposing children to a violent film or TV show can, in the short term, cause some of them to imitate the activity they have just observed, although even in this highly controlled environment, not all experiments have yielded positive results. The classic experiments, conducted by Albert Bandura in the 1960s, showed children films of adults and cartoon figures hitting Bobo dolls, then invited the children to imitate. Bandura’s positive results have been questioned on numerous grounds, among them the fact that Bobo dolls are meant to be hit, so that the experiments did not really measure aggression. Moreover, laboratory experiments cannot replicate the complex mix of media experiences and other factors that in everyday life interact with any particular film, game, song, or TV show. Behaviors that are permitted and even encouraged in a laboratory setting, such as hitting Bobo dolls or delivering “noise blasts,” are weak proxies at best for actual, socially disapproved aggression outside the lab. Children in these circumstances (and indeed, adult subjects as well) are likely to act as they believe the researcher expects. Federal Trade Comm’n, Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children, Appendix A, “A Review of Research on the Impact of Violence in Entertainment Media” 13 (Sept. 11, 2000).

While I must admit I hardly scratched the surface, and others in these forums and certainly in the academic community would differ, I can no longer justify the research as conclusive in finding a connection. I personally believe most people on the "strong connection" camp are looking at the issue through the filter of a "moral campaign" or are politically motivated. While I appreciate the intentions of protecting children I don't find a "crusader" to very reliable in interpreting facts objectively.

Considering the issue does involve our freedoms I would be opposed to an outright ban on violent themed video games or "First Person Shooter" games.
While the right to play video games is not our most important social privilege I am considering the greater implications of a ban on this form of artistic expression or to paraphrase (and hopefully not misuse) a German proverb, "It always starts this way".

In conclusion, while earlier I stated I was in the “I don’t know” camp, I have now switched to the “little or no connection” camp.

Again, good luck on your paper.

Edit - In the spirit of honestly I'll point out that the above quotes were taken from other sources. I'm trusting the accuracy of the quotes and notations. I didn't actually read the books listed and my own investigation into this issue was brief and also "sketchy" (at best). I am not a researcher, psychologist, scientist or sociologist but rather "just some guy". This is, obviously, just personal opinion and should be taken with a rather large grain of salt.

**JOTMON** · 06-14-2010, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by bandyman1

My point is Philly, that violence is becoming more and more prevelant in our lives.
I grew up fighting. I'm from the south. It's how we solved problems here throughout my youth, with two basic rules;
1) You don't ever, ever hit a female. Unless she picks up a weapon and is most likely going to kill you.
2) You don't start a fight. You don't back down from one either.
You ran in flapping your gums??? You got smacked down. You learned respect, for yourself and for other people, and how not to be a ******-bag. You win some, you lose some, but both parties are around later.

This part I can agree with.(LOL on #1)

Originally Posted by bandyman1

But, now we see Billy getting picked on, and Billy taking a high-powered rifle to the dance.

Why??? How the hell is it that things were so different for me only 15 years ago??? Because Billy's never had an ass-whipping his entire life, and he can't handle it. There's a reason why at 18-19, I was considered a grown man, but now 25 year-old dudes still live at home with mommy and daddy, won't work, have children of their own, and are still considered children.

/shrugs. Is what it is.

I disagree with you here in some cases.

Violence is a human trait, typically displayed by those that are emotionally incapable of expressing themselves in an effective manner. Lack of respect for others and being unable to communicate the emotion tends to lead to violence.

There are differences in the types of violence.

Schoolyard brawls- fight results both get bloodied, its over and they move on, often gaining each others respect.

Alphamale syndrome- jockeying for their place in the hiearchy (a male testosterone genentic thing we all grew up with)

Bullying - those that pick on others that allow themselves to be bullied are often cruel and unyeilding. those that are bullied are typically have low self esteem and will not defend themselves.
Unfortunately until they stand up for themselves and draw the line this does not usually go away on its own. Standing up to a bully often results in getting a beating but if the one being bullied gives it all they have will often not be bullied again thereafter.
Sadly many kids are raised to not defend themselves, instead they are told to go tell someone else if they are harrassed and never learn to really defend themselves. These kids don't/won't talk to their parents or teachers as peer pressure and ridiclule will geneally be the result. They may also have a tendancy to resort to more unconventional ways (Billy and his gun or even suicide) to resolve their situation when they have no one to support them and feel they have no other options. Girls tend to be the cruelest and mental manipulation is the game they play.
Stopping a fight once the outcome has become clear or allowing someone to be beaten by more than one person.
Everyone is more concerned about themselves and most will not step in to stop this type of activity, or look a round to see if someone else will step in instead.

I recently saw a news clip where a man having a heart attack on the street lay there for several hours before he finally died as hundreds of people walked by looking at him thinking he was either a bum or someone else had done something or they were to busy to get involved.

As a community we are failing our kids by setting poor examples of how to treat each other. Respect and common decency is on the decline, simple things like holding a door open and thanking someone else for doing so for you. Teaching our kids to do the same. Everyone is in a rush, no time to smile and say good morning. Riding someones bumper because they are not driving fast enough, refusing to let someone merge in front of you because you are in a hurry.

Fights will happen that is part of growing up, be willing to stand up for what is right for yourself or for someone else. Your kid may get suspended from school (stupid school rules- no clause for self defense) but at least you have the chance to do the right thing. Support your kids, be willing to listen without judgement and watch for signs because they are not allways obvious.

**BrinLondo** · 06-14-2010, 12:12 PM

"Violence" as a concept is an onion and a complicated onion. But at the end of the day, it's an onion; one with many layers.

I don't think you can wholly dismiss violent video games as a layer to the onion of violence. As a society, we've become numb to computerized murder. There is a sense of pride one has from their own body count they've created. To think one of the most popular games ever, "Grand Theft Auto," reveled in an orgy of anarchy senseless violence. Players were rewarded for conducted drug deals, "hits," and even murdering police. So, no I don't think you can wholly dismiss violent video games as a source of promoting violence.

That being said, various media (TV--series, cartoons, Hollywood, and music) have all been blamed for promoting violence. These can be layers of the dilemma too, but not the whole cause of violence.

Other layers include: parenting, the community in which one develops, the individual's experience with justice and the law, and their own personal values.

I do think violent games give some a sense of pride and a bizarre sense of self-esteem. You won't see Grandma crowing at the senior rec center, "C'mon b*tche$!!! Whose up for Scrabble!?! I'll takez ya'll on!!" Nor will you see that coming from Mario Cart Players, Minesweepers, or Free Cell Addicts.

I responded to your post as it made me remember two incidents of true violence: The Columbine Massacre and the Virginia Tech shootings. Between each of these incidents, there were scores of cases of school violence--many of which included the death of a faculty member.

These incidents didn't get much press outside of the Associated Press. Virginia Tech did though and the only reason was that we had a new "high score!" A new body count. Twelve hours after the incident, round the clock coverage continued with no new answers, not much of a story; except that it was the greatest loss of life since Columbine--a new high score.

So as a society, we're a little guilty too. The deaths in the other incidents were no less tragic, but we paid them no heed until we had a new high score.

In closing, it's overly simplistic to state that violent video games promote violent behavior. In some cases/personalities, I think they could be a contributing factor, but not the whole cause. I hope that in your paper, you'll also talk a bit about MMOs and online gaming. I don't think they are entirely emotionally healthy. "Friendships" being made with disembodied voices doesn't seem right. But the same can also be said of texting.

**phillymiket** · 06-14-2010, 12:18 PM