# Study Shows Violent Video Game Effects Linger In Brain



## MA-Caver (Nov 28, 2006)

> Violent video game effects linger in brain
> By Susan Kelly 1 hour, 58 minutes ago
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061128/wr_nm/videogames_brain_dc
> CHICAGO (Reuters) - Teens who play violent video games show increased activity in areas of the brain linked to emotional arousal and decreased responses in regions that govern self-control, a study released on Tuesday found.
> ...



More studies reveal more of what most of us suspected all along. Desensitizing our minds (and spirits) to images violent, sexual, etc. can mess us up, and mess up our kids. Maybe not ALL but there is now growing evidence that prolonged exposure can have harmful effects on the precious few. 
Thoughts, comments?


----------



## Marginal (Nov 28, 2006)

I'd be more impressed if they actually gave useful information in the article. Increased? How much?


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 28, 2006)

So is this why I always have a earge to jump on mushrooms and try to bang my head through brick ceilings....


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 28, 2006)

MA-Caver said:


> "Medal of Honor: Frontline"



My son loves the Medal of Honor games!

As for my thoughts on it, I don't think there are any real effects on the kids.  My son is emotional alright, but not in the agressive sort of way.   So I don't know that the study proves anything really.

Hell, when I was a kid we played 1st person shooter games (we played with toy guns out in the fields in my neighborhood)  and I turned out OK (I think... ).  I am sure they found what they did, but what are the real results?  I don't think it really means anything, just they got those results.

Just my opinions.


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 28, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> Hell, when I was a kid we played 1st person shooter games (we played with toy guns out in the fields in my neighborhood)  and I turned out OK (I think... ).



That I think would be a interesting study.  Compare video game violence to other, "traditional" forms of violent play.

If I had to guess I'd say video games make people less violent in reality, although perhaps with more graphic violent thoughts, just less likely to act on them.

I'd say that is unhealthy in a way, because our instincts still occasionally tell us "be violent" and without that "play" violence in real life, there is no understanding of real violence, just a stylized video game version.  When people do snap, they follow the video example, not get into a fist fight like they might otherwise have done.

I got no stats, just a theory, but IMO kids need more violence, just less graphic and real life based.  Water guns, stick fighting, plastic swords, wrestling, boxing, all the good stuff that is often left out now


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 28, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> That I think would be a interesting study.  Compare video game violence to other, "traditional" forms of violent play.
> 
> If I had to guess I'd say video games make people less violent in reality, although perhaps with more graphic violent thoughts, just less likely to act on them.
> 
> ...



Sounds plausible.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 28, 2006)

MA-Caver said:


> Thoughts, comments?


 
I spent much of my childhood playing games like Street Fighter II, Mortal Kombat, Duke Nukem, Castlevania, and a host of other "violent" video games. I continued to play these into high school.

Guess what? I graduated with an International Baccealaureatte degree, National Merit award in English, was listed in Who's Who Among American High School Students, a Bronze Congressional Medal, a scholarship to a local community college, and managed to find the time to hop three ranks in kung-fu.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't buy the "they're messed up" hypothesis of playing video games.

Laterz.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 28, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> I spent much of my childhood playing games like Street Fighter II, Mortal Kombat, Duke Nukem, Castlevania, and a host of other "violent" video games. I continued to play these into high school.
> 
> Guess what? I graduated with an International Baccealaureatte degree, National Merit award in English, was listed in Who's Who Among American High School Students, a Bronze Congressional Medal, a scholarship to a local community college, and managed to find the time to hop three ranks in kung-fu.
> 
> ...



LOL A big portion of our generation grew up with those games. I'm not writing them off yet...

however, I must admit this. it might increase the odds of violence. alot of kids are susceptible to this. Just like everyone knows some old lady that is 90 and has smoked for 70 years w/out cancer. The odds are not in her favor, and finding some 90 year old smoker will not encourage me to go out and smoke.

This article was interesting... I'd like to read more when I get the time. First kind of scientific proof of things. I'd like to see similar work with possibly movies, music, language, etc... could prove interesting...


----------



## fireman00 (Nov 28, 2006)

We are living in the most brutal and violent times EVER!  Violent 1st shooter games are being linked in more then one study in having an extremely detimental affect on youth.  "'In television and movies, whenever an injustice needs to be righted, or a character becomes bothersome the solution is to blow them away. It's quick, provides instant gratification, and makes the purveyor of the act a hero '"   However, depending on whose feels they have been wronged the "hero" may well be a cop who brought down a killer or it could be a kid that was slighted at school and is determined to extract revenge.

Folks who in turn say that music and violent movies are also to blame should take note that these are passive forms of entertainment - the participant doesn't get extra points for killing a cop then urinating on him or beating a woman to death like the "enterainment" that Grand Theft Auto offers.

Lt. Col. Grossman - author and physcologist at West Point has written "Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill" http://www.killology.com/new_media_vio.htm


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 28, 2006)

fireman00 said:


> We are living in the most brutal and violent times EVER!


 
I'm sorry, but I just found this statement mind-numbingly hilarious.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 28, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> I'm sorry, but I just found this statement mind-numbingly hilarious.


 
When you consider the amount of people that have been killed last century in all of its wars combined, this statement is not so hilarious.

We produce more weaponry in this day and age then in any other.  We produce more dangerous weapons in this age then in any other.

...and we have used those weapons.

Yes, I know this is off topic, but, don't be so quick to laugh it off...


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 28, 2006)

But, at the same time, we are very disconnected from that violence.

Compare what a child experiences in terms of violence now, in North America to Europe durring the World Wars, in Vietnam, Korea, right now in Iraq, durring the Crusades, the French Revolution, the American Civil War, etc.

We live a relatively peaceful existance right now.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 28, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> But, at the same time, we are very disconnected from that violence.
> 
> Compare what a child experiences in terms of violence now, in North America to Europe durring the World Wars, in Vietnam, Korea, right now in Iraq, durring the Crusades, the French Revolution, the American Civil War, etc.
> 
> We live a relatively peaceful existance right now.


 
Exactly.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 28, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> When you consider the amount of people that have been killed last century in all of its wars combined, this statement is not so hilarious.
> 
> We produce more weaponry in this day and age then in any other.  We produce more dangerous weapons in this age then in any other.
> 
> ...



I'll have to agree w/ Heretic on this one. Man has been killing man since the beginning. The atrocities mankind has committed did not start over the past century. I don't think man is any more brutal or violent than any other time. I just think he has more efficient tools to express those emotion.

I'm sure more men have been killed in this past century. We have also had a larger population than any other time in history. Our weapons of war are much more efficient at killing. Automation has increased the number of weapons, so thats not too suprising either.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 28, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> I'll have to agree w/ Heretic on this one. Man has been killing man since the beginning. The atrocities mankind has committed did not start over the past century. I don't think man is any more brutal or violent than any other time. I just think he has more efficient tools to express those emotion.


 
Correct, although we have been _much_ more brutal during earlier epochs of human history (and prehistory).

There was once a time when legalized slavery was common practice across the globe. This is no longer the case. Similarly with intermittent tribal wars and an almost lack of regard for how we treat criminals or prisoners of war. Then, of course, there has been the obscenely (by modern standards) inequitable treatment of women, other ethnicities, the elderly, the handicapped, minors, and domesticated animals.

I don't disagree there are still very violent regions of the world, but I don't think fireman00 was talking about the Middle East in his post. If you compare the modern West to the medieval West, it is no contest which was the more "violent" and "brutal".

Just something to put things in historical context.

Laterz.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 28, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> When you consider the amount of people that have been killed last century in all of its wars combined, this statement is not so hilarious.
> 
> We produce more weaponry in this day and age then in any other. We produce more dangerous weapons in this age then in any other.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, but most of that took place before the rise of violent FPS games.  Although I've heard that WWII was the result of an all-night Castle Wolfenstein game over at Adolf's.  :rofl:


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 29, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Yeah, but most of that took place before the rise of violent FPS games.


 
I often wonder if all of that didn't have an effect on our collective psyche however.

People from the past would probably be astounded at the level of carnage last century.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 29, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I often wonder if all of that didn't have an effect on our collective psyche however.
> 
> People from the past would probably be astounded at the level of carnage last century.



FPS games have only been around for a few years. Well after the largest war casualties (WW2, Viet Nam, etc). Effective war technology came before FPS games. Nuclear weapons, rockets, airplane bombers, napalm, etc... 

People from the past would be astounded at many things in the last century. Population increase, treatment of diseases, computers, cars, planes, all aspects of science, etc... Almost all aspects of technology have increased. Lots of things to be astonished at


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 29, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> FPS games have only been around for a few years. Well after the largest war casualties (WW2, Viet Nam, etc). Effective war technology came before FPS games. Nuclear weapons, rockets, airplane bombers, napalm, etc...


 
And I would find it hard to believe that the development and use of these things hasn't had a collective effect on our psyche.  One has to wonder if these games would be so popular if push-button death weren't so chic.



> People from the past would be astounded at many things in the last century. Population increase, treatment of diseases, computers, cars, planes, all aspects of science, etc... Almost all aspects of technology have increased. Lots of things to be astonished at


 
True dat!


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 29, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Yeah, but most of that took place before the rise of violent FPS games.  Although I've heard that WWII was the result of an all-night Castle Wolfenstein game over at Adolf's.  :rofl:



I'm just glad he didn't have a copy of Doom III


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 30, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> And I would find it hard to believe that the development and use of these things hasn't had a collective effect on our psyche.  One has to wonder if these games would be so popular if push-button death weren't so chic.



I'm not quite so sure... stick your average 14 year old in a foxhole. Give him a gun and real bullets flying over his head and a friend that is in the adjacent foxhole dying. I don't think he is likely going to think its fun. More likely going to be peeing his pants.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 30, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> I'm not quite so sure... stick your average 14 year old in a foxhole. Give him a gun and real bullets flying over his head and a friend that is in the adjacent foxhole dying. I don't think he is likely going to think its fun. More likely going to be peeing his pants.


 
Most definitely.  However, more warfare then ever before takes place at long distances...at the push of buttons.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 30, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> And I would find it hard to believe that the development and use of these things hasn't had a collective effect on our psyche. One has to wonder if these games would be so popular if push-button death weren't so chic.


 
The controversy with FPS games is that people suspect that violent video games tend to make people more prone to violence.  What you seem to be saying here is that violent video games are popular as a result of historical violence, which is a reversal of the complaint.  I think your statement is more likely true than the claim that violent games make violent people, but I think this thread has become confusing.  It seems to have taken this circuit:

- Video games are more violent.  People are more violent.  Therefore, violent video games have made people violent.

- In supporting the claim that people are more violent, references are made to military campaigns dating back to the first half of the century.

- When it's pointed out that video games hadn't been invented yet, it's suggested that historical events have made violence more palatable, paving the way for violent video games.

It's like this weird Moebius strip of cause and effect that I can't get my mind around.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 30, 2006)

Video games really don't have a significant effect on violence.  Kids who play video games, and then go out to commit crimes, would have done so anyways, without having played such games.  Some people are simply bad people, and it doesn't matter if all you gave them to play was a "Barbie's Doll House" CD-ROM.  Something else would have triggered their behavior one way or the other.  

Violent content or not, you really can't blame the video games.  People make conscious thoughts, and choose their own actions, and thus must be held responsible for their own actions, instead of passing the buck onto someone else.  

On a side note:

In 1993, I remember the US Senate panel blasting away at the execs from Sega and Nintendo, criticizing them for pushing games such as "Street Fighter II" and "Mortal Kombat."  I never knew who Joe Lieberman really was, until I heard his shuddering voice lambasting the execs.  I also never knew about Herb Kohl until his rampage against the video games manufacturers.  

I also remember Howard Lincoln, the CEO of Nintendo, bragging to the panel, of how Nintendo (at the time) forbade the display of blood in their video games, and how he was accusingly pointing fingers at the Sega folks for allowing blood.  He then started boasting about how Nintendo promotes "wholesome, family-oriented" values in their games.  

The Sega rep then started saying "let's look at the differences between the Nintendo and Sega versions of Street Fighter II, and you won't really see any."  Of course, when the Sega version was being displayed, it had Ken and Ryu duking it out.  When the Sega folks showed the Nintendo version being played, it wasn't surprising to me that they selected the evil-looking Blanka biting down on the slender woman, Chun Li.  

None of this impressed Joe Lieberman, who accused both of them of promoting more violence, regardless of company policies.  I didn't know whether to laugh, cry, or be angry at him...


----------



## fireman00 (Nov 30, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> I'm sorry, but I just found this statement mind-numbingly hilarious.


 

I'm very sorry that you feel that way:

Since 1995 murder rates in all but 4 states have gone up, the average is increase is 2 additional murders per 100,00 people.
Ask the folks in Littleton, Co; Springfield, OR; West Paducha, KY; Jonesboro, AK; Columbine, CO and over the families affected by 35 other deadly school attacks since 1975.
At least 53% of student polled in "Class of 2000" study felt that a school shooting would occur in their school.  22% of those same students knew someone who brought a gun to school regularly.
Schools in metropolitan areas have had to resort to using metal detectors to prevent an influx of knives, razors and guns into public schools.
Mass murders ala genocide  occuring in Dakar, the Sudan, Iraq with hundreds and hundreds of thousand of innocent people murdered.
Terror attacks in Palistine, Isreal, France, Pakistan, Indonesia, Spain just to name a few.
Attacks with the intent of mass murder in schools have not only occurred in the US but in Germany, Canada, Japan, Australia, Russia, the UK, France, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Rwanda and many more countries.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 30, 2006)

I admit that one way that video games have affected me is the sometimes I have to remind myself that life doesn't give 'do-overs'.  I can't just save the game and try again if I make the wrong decision


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 30, 2006)

fireman00 said:


> I'm very sorry that you feel that way:
> 
> Since 1995 murder rates in all but 4 states have gone up, the average is increase is 2 additional murders per 100,00 people.
> Ask the folks in Littleton, Co; Springfield, OR; West Paducha, KY; Jonesboro, AK; Columbine, CO and over the families affected by 35 other deadly school attacks since 1975.
> ...


 
Yeah, I don't dispute any of that.

But, guess what?? It's _still_ better off than the Dark Ages, where the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Black Plague were everyday realities. It's also better off than prehistory, where intermittent tribal wars, human slavery, and human sacrifice were also daily occurences.

A little historical perspective, if you will.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 30, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> But, guess what?? It's _still_ better off than the Dark Ages, where the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Black Plague were everyday realities. It's also better off than prehistory, where intermittent tribal wars, human slavery, and human sacrifice were also daily occurences.


 
Need I remind you that almost a million people died at the Somme.  We have weapons that could kill a hundred million people at the push of a button.

Sure, we are better off in many ways but I think we also need to put some of the ways in which we are not into perspective.

And, subsequently, now that I think about it, it makes sense that FPS games would become so popular in a culture that was rooted in the level of violence that we have endured in the twentieth century...


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 30, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Need I remind you that almost a million people died at the Somme. We have weapons that could kill a hundred million people at the push of a button.
> 
> Sure, we are better off in many ways but I think we also need to put some of the ways in which we are not into perspective.
> 
> And, subsequently, now that I think about it, it makes sense that FPS games would become so popular in a culture that was rooted in the level of violence that we have endured in the twentieth century...


 
Certainly, but all of that is more or less a product of us having developed more powerful and more destructive technologies. It is not, as was implied before, a product of our culture itself being more violent than in previous generations or or of there being more violence in our everyday lives.

I should also point out that my critique more or less applies to industrialized nations in the West and certain industrialized nations in the East. It most certainly doesn't apply to, say, subsaharan Africa or the Middle East.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 30, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Certainly, but all of that is more or less a product of us having developed more powerful and more destructive technologies.


 
That, my friend, is a major contradiction.  How can we not be more violent, but yet be inventing more and more violent technologies?  Especially when these technologies are being put to use and millions are dying in response?



> It is not, as was implied before, a product of our culture itself being more violent than in previous generations or or of there being more violence in our everyday lives.


 
Statistically, by age 18, our children will witness over 100,000 acts of murder.  They will see over 1,000,000 acts of violence.  Previous generations were not exposed to this level.  While it is true that this violence is occuring in various forms of media, these acts still have a demonstrable effect.  

Desensitization.



> I should also point out that my critique more or less applies to industrialized nations in the West and certain industrialized nations in the East. It most certainly doesn't apply to, say, subsaharan Africa or the Middle East.


 
Industrialized nations export violence to those nations.  We install the dicators.  We sell/give them their weapons.  And all the while our culture shrugs its shoulders and hyperfocus into our FPS games.

Suddenly, something weird slips through the corporate controlled news...visions from these far off places that are being ****ed with by the people we vote for...and it looks strangely familiar...and we shrug our shoulders.

Desensitization.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 30, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Suddenly, something weird slips through the corporate controlled news...visions from these far off places that are being ****ed with by the people we vote for...and it looks strangely familiar...and we shrug our shoulders.
> 
> Desensitization.


Kafka manged to conceive of that without blaming Doom for the world's ills.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 1, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> That, my friend, is a major contradiction. How can we not be more violent, but yet be inventing more and more violent technologies?


 
There is nothing intrinsically "violent" about the combustion engine, nuclear technology, or satellite mapping. They can be employed in violent ways, but this makes them no more intrinsically violent technologies than, say, the wheel.

To answer your question, there is a difference between means and intent. Tribal societies, as a whole, do not do as much wholesale destruction as industrialized societies. But, this is not because of some benign intention on their part, it is solely because of a lack of technological means. One need not look further than south Africa to see what happens when you give tribalistic cultures modern technology (i.e., shotguns).

As Ken Wilber put it, there's only so much damage you can do to the world with a bow and arrow. 



upnorthkyosa said:


> Statistically, by age 18, our children will witness over 100,000 acts of murder. They will see over 1,000,000 acts of violence. Previous generations were not exposed to this level. While it is true that this violence is occuring in various forms of media, these acts still have a demonstrable effect.


 
There is a world of difference between watching something on television and seeing something firsthand. Your use of the term "witness" is rather liberterian, in my opinion.

You talk about the modern "desensitization" to violence, but this is in large part disingenous. Western societies during the Dark Ages saw far more daily violence than we do today, comparable to current living conditions in southern Africa or the Middle East. Watching a fuzzy clip of someone being killed off-camera on CNN is a completely different thing than seeing your friends and family massacred before your eyes by Inquisitorial soldiers, after all. There is no censorship or sliding subtitles there.

A little historical context, if you will.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Industrialized nations export violence to those nations. We install the dicators. We sell/give them their weapons. And all the while our culture shrugs its shoulders and hyperfocus into our FPS games.
> 
> Suddenly, something weird slips through the corporate controlled news...visions from these far off places that are being ****ed with by the people we vote for...and it looks strangely familiar...and we shrug our shoulders.


 
Dude, you're preaching to the choir.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 1, 2006)

Marginal said:


> Kafka manged to conceive of that without blaming Doom for the world's ills.


 
I won't blame Doom for the world's ills.  I would say that Doom is a symptom of them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 1, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> There is nothing intrinsically "violent" about the combustion engine, nuclear technology, or satellite mapping. They can be employed in violent ways, but this makes them no more intrinsically violent technologies than, say, the wheel.
> 
> To answer your question, there is a difference between means and intent. Tribal societies, as a whole, do not do as much wholesale destruction as industrialized societies. But, this is not because of some benign intention on their part, it is solely because of a lack of technological means. One need not look further than south Africa to see what happens when you give tribalistic cultures modern technology (i.e., shotguns).
> 
> As Ken Wilber put it, there's only so much damage you can do to the world with a bow and arrow.


 
There are specific weapon systems that exist and their only purpose is to kill millions of people.  In those cases, the means and intent are one in the same.  I agree with the point in your second paragraph, however.  Perhaps our society is more violent because we have the technology to be more violent.

Your bow and arrow example is apt.



> There is a world of difference between watching something on television and seeing something firsthand. Your use of the term "witness" is rather liberterian, in my opinion.


 
Witness 



> You talk about the modern "desensitization" to violence, but this is in large part disingenous. Western societies during the Dark Ages saw far more daily violence than we do today, comparable to current living conditions in southern Africa or the Middle East.


 
I disagree.  First of all, I have yet to see a study that definitively shows how much violence someone in the Dark Ages actually saw.  Secondly, the amount of violence that a person could witness was limited by population.  In today's interconnected world, where we can access vast samples of people at the speed of light, I would say that we have far more potential to witness violent acts.  



> Watching a fuzzy clip of someone being killed off-camera on CNN is a completely different thing than seeing your friends and family massacred before your eyes by Inquisitorial soldiers, after all. There is no censorship or sliding subtitles there.


 
This is true, but, due to the limitations of population and technology, I would say that this sort of thing is far more common in the modern age.



> Dude, you're preaching to the choir.


 
My thesis in this discussion is this...FPS games, violent media, etc have an effect.  They desensitize us to violence.  And this is related (notice, I did not say cause) to a number of phenomenon.  Our acceptance of the military industrial complex.  Our _blase_ attitude toward real violence.  Our decisions to elect leaders who propagate this system.

You would not believe how many _children_ I've spoken to who claim that the solution to the Iraqi "problem" lies in bombing them with nukes.

I wish, I really wish that I could show them actual pics of that without losing my job...

And that is also a result of the desensitization...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 4, 2006)

For those that don't believe that video games have an effect on children and violence, I would suggest that they read "On Combat" by Col. Dave Grossman.  Or read related article on www.killology.com


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 4, 2006)

Okay, back on topic....



upnorthkyosa said:


> My thesis in this discussion is this...FPS games, violent media, etc have an effect. They desensitize us to violence.


 
In case anyone has a misunderstanding here, I do not dispute this.

What I do dispute, however, is the strength of this effect. There are a number of variables that influence the prevalence of violence in society, video games probably being the least significant of them. I am much more concerned with the easy access of violent weapons in society, the dangerous imbalance between socioeconomic class, our endorsement of capital punishment, and our willingness to go to war with other countries than I am with video games. In fact, I would argue that _every_ one of those other variables produce more violent tendencies than playing video games will (barring a few exceptions).

I should also point out that the desensitization effect video games have on children is significantly lessened with age. In other words, it is not going to affect a 15 year old in the same way it will a 5 year old. This is most likely related to the child's ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, a cognitive operation that is virtually non-existent before the age of 10 or so.

As I said on another thread related to this, I believe that people are targetting television, movies, and video games because they are _easy_. The real social issues --- the real things that contribute to societal violence --- are by and large left unnoticed. Things like why have worker wages remained stagnant for nearly four decades while corporate profits are at an alltime high? Things like why do we spend more on military expenses than every other country in the world combined? Things like what exactly are we doing over in the Middle East, anyway?

Compared to real issues like that, _Grand Theft Auto_ is just a distraction. Which, of course, is exactly the point.

Laterz.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 4, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> For those that don't believe that video games have an effect on children and violence, I would suggest that they read "On Combat" by Col. Dave Grossman. Or read related article on www.killology.com


 
It's hard to take such findings seriously when coupled with alarmist nonsense like "murder simulator" being tossed about.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 4, 2006)

Oh this is just so stupid.  I'd like to kill the guy who did this study...just as soon as a finish this level of Quake 4


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 5, 2006)

> In case anyone has a misunderstanding here, I do not dispute this.
> 
> What I do dispute, however, is the strength of this effect. There are a number of variables that influence the prevalence of violence in society, video games probably being the least significant of them. I am much more concerned with the easy access of violent weapons in society, the dangerous imbalance between socioeconomic class, our endorsement of capital punishment, and our willingness to go to war with other countries than I am with video games. In fact, I would argue that _every_ one of those other variables produce more violent tendencies than playing video games will (barring a few exceptions).


 


> As I said on another thread related to this, I believe that people are targetting television, movies, and video games because they are _easy_. The real social issues --- the real things that contribute to societal violence --- are by and large left unnoticed. Things like why have worker wages remained stagnant for nearly four decades while corporate profits are at an alltime high? Things like why do we spend more on military expenses than every other country in the world combined? Things like what exactly are we doing over in the Middle East, anyway?
> I would agree that there are many factors that are more influential on this subject, although I would definatly disagree with you about what those factors are.


 
The problem is we have a breakdown of social structures (lack of two-parent households, lack of moral clarity, etc.) that influence whether ther will be violent behavior.  However, seeing as that is becoming more of the case then not, video games, movies, and music act as sort of a surrogate parents.  This is where children are learning their morality.  If someone disrespects you, shoot them or fight them.  Women are "hoes" and "bitches".  Music videos, movies, and television show scantily clad women shown as objects, to be used and abuses as any other material possession.

Honestly, I don't think that the issues you brought up affect children's _though processes._  Granted, they affect their lives, but only in distant ways.  I think that if you ask most children about Iraq (and an increasingly larger number of adults), they would have no clue what you are talking about.





> I should also point out that the desensitization effect video games have on children is significantly lessened with age. In other words, it is not going to affect a 15 year old in the same way it will a 5 year old. This is most likely related to the child's ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, a cognitive operation that is virtually non-existent before the age of 10 or so.


 
This is true.  But the increasing problem is that children are getting access to more violent movies, tv, video games, etc., at a younger and younger age.  Below the age of ten even.  this is due to lack of good parenting, not the war in Iraq.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 5, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I would agree that there are many factors that are more influential on this subject, although I would definatly disagree with you about what those factors are.



You are free to disagree with the variables I brought up, but they are the product of research from within the social sciences. By contrast, some of the variables you suggested (such as "moral clarity") cannot be quantified and sound like little more than ideological abstractions.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> The problem is we have a breakdown of social structures (lack of two-parent households, lack of moral clarity, etc.) that influence whether ther will be violent behavior.


 
Well, to address the examples you gave....

The correlation between single-parent households and delinquency is an artifact of socioeconomic factors also related to single-parent households. This includes both financial pressure on the part of the single parent, as well as time-management issues in regards to providing attention to the child. To put it succinctly, this is nothing intrinsic to single-parent households. Rather, it is a product of the pressures that society demands of single parents. Which, once again, is the point.

As for "lack of moral clarity", from a developmental perspective this is generally a sign of moral maturity.  The more self-assured one is that one's moral choices are _the_ only acceptable ones, the less sophisticated the moral reasoning one is relying upon. Rather than "moral clarity", the emphasis should be on perspective-taking and critical moral thinking that encourages the child to rise above egoic self-interests.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> However, seeing as that is becoming more of the case then not, video games, movies, and music act as sort of a surrogate parents. This is where children are learning their morality.



The fact that people expect the entertainment industry to "educate" children speaks volumes, in my opinion.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Honestly, I don't think that the issues you brought up affect children's _though processes._ Granted, they affect their lives, but only in distant ways. I think that if you ask most children about Iraq (and an increasingly larger number of adults), they would have no clue what you are talking about.



A child's conscious awareness of the contents of their psyche is irrelevant, as such factors generally occur on an autonomic or subliminal level.

I am speaking, of course, from the vantage of social learning theory here (which is itself something of an extension to Skinnerian behaviorism). Individuals observe the actions and repercussions of others, thereby assimilating the behavioral patterns that they associate with "positive" results and rejecting the behavioral patterns they associate with "negative" results. None of this occurs on the conscious level.

Regardless of what one thinks of social learning theory or behaviorism, there are direct correlations between socially-sanctioned violence and societal violence at large. That is why rates of violent crime upshoot whenever a country is at war or whenever a policy of capital punishment is in effect.

The Iraq War contributes to violent behavioral patterns among our children because it is society's way of telling them that violent behavior is an acceptable way of handling disputes. 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> This is true. But the increasing problem is that children are getting access to more violent movies, tv, video games, etc., at a younger and younger age. Below the age of ten even. this is due to lack of good parenting, not the war in Iraq.



It isn't either/or, they are both factors here.

Laterz.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 5, 2006)

> You are free to disagree with the variables I brought up, but they are the product of research from within the social sciences. By contrast, some of the variables you suggested (such as "moral clarity") cannot be quantified and sound like little more than ideological abstractions.


 
You are right, moral clarity is not a quantifiable variable.  I use it to mean as you later state _perspective-taking and critical moral thinking. _  Clarity does not mean absolutism.



> Well, to address the examples you gave....
> 
> The correlation between single-parent households and delinquency is an artifact of socioeconomic factors also related to single-parent households. This includes both financial pressure on the part of the single parent, as well as time-management issues in regards to providing attention to the child. To put it succinctly, this is nothing intrinsic to single-parent households. Rather, it is a product of the pressures that society demands of single parents. Which, once again, is the point.


 
I agree that financial pressures or time-management issues are not intrinsic only to the single parent household.  However, I wonder if you would agree that these factors are generally mitigated in a two-parent household as it relates for time availablity in raising a child, thereby allowing the child to grow up socially more stable?



> As for "lack of moral clarity", from a developmental perspective this is generally a sign of moral maturity. The more self-assured one is that one's moral choices are _the_ only acceptable ones, the less sophisticated the moral reasoning one is relying upon. Rather than "moral clarity", the emphasis should be on perspective-taking and critical moral thinking that encourages the child to rise above egoic self-interests.


 
I agree, but I believe that this is true if as you say they are the *only *morally acceptable ones.




> The fact that people expect the entertainment industry to "educate" hildren speaks volumes, in my opinion.


 
Agree.





> A child's conscious awareness of the contents of their psyche is irrelevant, as such factors generally occur on an autonomic or subliminal level.
> 
> I am speaking, of course, from the vantage of social learning theory here (which is itself something of an extension to Skinnerian behaviorism). Individuals observe the actions and repercussions of others, thereby assimilating the behavioral patterns that they associate with "positive" results and rejecting the behavioral patterns they associate with "negative" results. None of this occurs on the conscious level.


 
This is true of direct observation.  But what about issues observed through a filter.

In the case of Iraq (as one of your "concerns"), there is no direct observation of the war, only that we are at war.  I don't know if you are saying that there is *never *a "good" reason to go to war, but regardless, children are "observing" the actions and consequenses through a filter (ie., teacher, parents, news media sources).  The question then becomes what filter are they observing it through, because that shapes what they see.  

What do you think they see?




> Regardless of what one thinks of social learning theory or behaviorism, there are direct correlations between socially-sanctioned violence and societal violence at large. That is why rates of violent crime upshoot whenever a country is at war or whenever a policy of capital punishment is in effect.


 
Where do you get your figures for that?

In fact, if you look at the FBI's Uniform Crime Report for 2005 (the latest year in which the figures were compiled), the crime rate has been on the decline, with only a minor upswing in 2005.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html




> The Iraq War contributes to violent behavioral patterns among our children because it is society's way of telling them that violent behavior is an acceptable way of handling disputes.


 
Are you saying that there are no situations in which we should teach our children where violence is a socially acceptable way to handle disputes?

It isn't either/or, they are both factors here.



> In any event, I don't think that we disagree on the fact that there are many factors influencing violent behavioral patterns in children.  I think where we disagree is to the degree of influence each of those factors we chose in our arguments has.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 26, 2006)

*A Kick and a Punch, but Don't Forget Compassion*




> WAY YIN YUEN has been playing video games for as long as he can remember. He lovingly remembers his Atari 2600, one of the first home video systems. Video games were his only passion until he found his second love, martial arts, at age 14.
> 
> Training in Poekoelan, an Indonesian martial art, he rose last year to the level of third-degree black belt after a three-day test during which he neither slept nor rested. And with two others he operates Golden Dragon Martial Arts Institute, a school in Eastham, Mass.
> 
> ...


----------

