Do Videogames Really Cause Violent Behavior?
- Thread starter Lauren Admire
- Start date
I sat in on a presentation at MSU by a German professor named Renee Weber. He had people play Counterstrike inside an MRI machine and took readings of their brain while they did it. What he discovered was that at the exact moment of the kill, there's a HUGE spike in brain activity. He took the data to a neurologist, who scratched his head on looking at the data and asked, "what on earth did you do to get such a huge reaction?" He'd literally never seen that pattern before.
Professor Weber admitted openly that he didn't really know what the reaction was, only that there was a big reaction. My personal theory: it's probably the same reaction as occurs when you score a touchdown in Madden and he should try that study with a sports game.
Professor Weber admitted openly that he didn't really know what the reaction was, only that there was a big reaction. My personal theory: it's probably the same reaction as occurs when you score a touchdown in Madden and he should try that study with a sports game.
I have played every violent game that any group has ever tried to ban (well, atleast 80% of them). I'm know among my friends as being the peace keeper. I can get violent, but its a choice. I hate to hurt people, but I wont hesitate to splatter your insides across a wall (in a video game of course).
Plus I have only ever killed one large animal, and that was a rat, and it was a mercy kill. It was my aunts pet, the rat had a huge tumor, she asked me to end its suffering. I still felt bad for killing the thing.
On another note, not to many people die solely because of video games. Though how many people die from PLAYING sports(3 died in NC last year from foot ball injuries)? Or in the riots BECAUSE of sports events?
I think 39 deaths was the largest soccer riot body count. 13 in one where they claimed the other team used witch craft. http://www.newser.com/story/37559/congo-probes-witchcraft-stampede-deaths.html
most gamers i know would sooner turn to throwing a controller and a few hours of porn to vent anger and frustration, then to violent acts against another person.
Plus I have only ever killed one large animal, and that was a rat, and it was a mercy kill. It was my aunts pet, the rat had a huge tumor, she asked me to end its suffering. I still felt bad for killing the thing.
On another note, not to many people die solely because of video games. Though how many people die from PLAYING sports(3 died in NC last year from foot ball injuries)? Or in the riots BECAUSE of sports events?
I think 39 deaths was the largest soccer riot body count. 13 in one where they claimed the other team used witch craft. http://www.newser.com/story/37559/congo-probes-witchcraft-stampede-deaths.html
most gamers i know would sooner turn to throwing a controller and a few hours of porn to vent anger and frustration, then to violent acts against another person.
There has been allot of studies like this... Some even dating back to the 1960s...
Unfortunately none have relay been reliable, and have easily been rebutted.
Do violent people prefer violent content? or does violent content make violent people?
I would ague both. However this is only if video games are the only influence the person receives... So the notion that video games cause violence alone is absurd.
Unfortunately none have relay been reliable, and have easily been rebutted.
Do violent people prefer violent content? or does violent content make violent people?
I would ague both. However this is only if video games are the only influence the person receives... So the notion that video games cause violence alone is absurd.
Ok, I read the synopsis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_a_Boy_a_GunToxxistorm said:
But the heck does that have anything to do with guns and video games?
"Also in such cases such as Columbine, video games taught them HOW to shoot."
No, a video game cannot and does not teach anyone how to shoot.
Video games are never once guilty of violent behavior. It's the stupid kids that get their ideas from the games, invariably coupled with bad parenting from overweight soccer moms.
Indeed, I call bullshit on that - http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/168812/detail/SuperFriendBFG said:No no no no... There were school shootings throughout history, long before videogames even existed. The only common denominator between young violence across history is the fact that these kids are troubled.Lauren Admire said:Do Videogames Really Cause Violent Behavior?
Videogames are often the scapegoat for any adolescent violence that makes it onto the evening news. However, are these "murder simulators" truly the reason behind teenage violence?
Videogames have often been linked to teenage violence - especially in cases of Columbine or other senseless, adolescent shootings. Various activist groups have claimed a correlation between violent videogames and the rise of violence amongst adolescents, but does correlation imply causation? In Issue 153 of The Escapist, Michael A. Mohammed examines recent studies of videogames and violence and draws his own conclusions.
[blockquote]
To establish causation, researchers must rule out these "other factors" by performing a lab experiment. For example, Anderson ran an experiment in 2000 that had college students play a violent game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent game (Myst). Then each subject played a game in which they could punish a student in another room with a blast of noise - though the game was rigged and the other student did not exist. The subjects who had played Wolfenstein chose longer blasts of noise than those who played Myst.[/blockquote]
Was this study a positive finding of videogames causing a quick and sudden rise in violence? Read more in "Monkey Play, Monkey Do [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_153/4958-Monkey-Play-Monkey-Do]" to find out, and share your own opinions on the matter with us.
Permalink
can't say that any of my videogame habbits have borked me up in the head.
playing carmageddon as a 13 year old and diablo 2 shortly after... then followerd my loads of soldier of fortune didn't do much to me...
I allways percieved these games to be to brutal/inaccurate to be anything close real life...
playing carmageddon as a 13 year old and diablo 2 shortly after... then followerd my loads of soldier of fortune didn't do much to me...
I allways percieved these games to be to brutal/inaccurate to be anything close real life...
So being more aggressive in a nonviolent situation, means you're more violent? Riiiiiiiight.
Thanks for the late breaking news guys, I bet NO ONE had heard of that nine year old study before. Less filler articles, please?
Thanks for the late breaking news guys, I bet NO ONE had heard of that nine year old study before. Less filler articles, please?
It is a simple conclusion - the ones who play video games are more comfortable with violence, and therefore more comfortable expressing, or releasing any emotional rage. Which was not the case for any of the shooting or similar. These suspected were reported to be calm and withdrawn - AKA they were not expressing their fustrations and allowed them to develop and grow into something dangerous and volatile.
While people who play video games, go paintballing, etc are more prone to a larger quantity of violent acts, but each is to a much smaller extent.
While people who play video games, go paintballing, etc are more prone to a larger quantity of violent acts, but each is to a much smaller extent.
Of course it causes people to kill others, I mean... I just killed a hobo in my area, took his alms and sent word the area is clear for another hobo to come around. God I love fishing.
As for this, all I can say is I disagree. And this scientist - Craig Anderson - should defend to the death my right to say so, in fact... he should go do that right now, until he is dead.
Okay, seriously now... I strongly disagree with him about that experiment and its results. I'll leave it at that before I start ranting.
As for this, all I can say is I disagree. And this scientist - Craig Anderson - should defend to the death my right to say so, in fact... he should go do that right now, until he is dead.
Okay, seriously now... I strongly disagree with him about that experiment and its results. I'll leave it at that before I start ranting.
Research about 'priming' like this article has already concluded that violent stimuli lead to more violent behavior. For instance, in one experiment, people that had to listen to a list of words associated with the elderly walked slower afterwards than those who didn't. Evidence is abundant that violent imagery makes people less sympathetic.
But the difference between punishing a person with a loud noise a few seconds longer and going on a psycho shooting spree is a pretty fucking big one.
But the difference between punishing a person with a loud noise a few seconds longer and going on a psycho shooting spree is a pretty fucking big one.
I'd say they do cause an increase in short term violent behaviour. For maybe an hour. Overall I'd say that video games have a cathartic effect, relieving tension and stress.
The only way I'd even pay attention to this argument would be if it was someone who played violent videogames to a dangerous extent, but if someone does that, I'd argue that they have other problems which are more likely to contribute.
Also, it's due to a rise in adrenaline that shooters etc cause, so you'd have the same effect if you had a group of people who read for an hour versus a group who played rugby for an hour, but no one's going to do a study like that, because it would prove the vg=evil theory wrong.
So yeah, the test is really flawed, because if they had let the people who played the games cool off for an hour, the results would have been drastically different.
The only way I'd even pay attention to this argument would be if it was someone who played violent videogames to a dangerous extent, but if someone does that, I'd argue that they have other problems which are more likely to contribute.
Also, it's due to a rise in adrenaline that shooters etc cause, so you'd have the same effect if you had a group of people who read for an hour versus a group who played rugby for an hour, but no one's going to do a study like that, because it would prove the vg=evil theory wrong.
So yeah, the test is really flawed, because if they had let the people who played the games cool off for an hour, the results would have been drastically different.