ECA Opposes Videogame Violence Research

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
ECA Opposes Videogame Violence Research


The Entertainment Consumers Association says a National Academy of Sciences study of the influence of media violence is "a first step by Congress to legislate entertainment content and videogames."

Introduced in the wake of the horrific mass murder at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Bill S.134 [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s134], the "Violent Content Research Act of 2013," will direct the National Academy of Sciences to conduct another study into the harmful effects of exposure to videogame violence on children. It might seem like a fairly innocuous bit of legislation - after all, numerous previous studies have failed to establish any such link, and more knowledge is never a bad thing - but the ECA has now officially come out against the legislation and is calling on its members and supporters to do the same.

The ECA pointed out that Senator Jay Rockefeller, one of the driving forces behind the bill, has made clear his belief, irrespective of any evidence, that videogames do in fact have a detrimental effect on children, and also noted that the evidence actually indicates the opposite: Violent crime in the U.S. and around the world has been declining since the 1980s while videogame sales have skyrocketed, and countries whose per capita spending on videogames actually exceeds that of the U.S. nonetheless enjoy significantly lower levels of violence, and particularly gun violence.

It then listed several other reasons why the proposed study will "achieve little," before concluding that the whole thing is a smokescreen. "This is a first step by Congress to legislate entertainment content and videogames," the ECA said. "They have stated that they disagree with the Supreme Court's decision that videogames are protected speech. For that alone, this issue is too politicized and cannot proceed as is."

Opposing research into a potential cause of harm to children is a risky move to say the least, and especially in support of a medium that remains so controversial to so many. But it also signals the industry's growing maturity; a willingness to stand up to the powers that be instead of acquiescing to their every demand in hopes of acceptance is a big step to take, but sooner or later one that also becomes unavoidably necessary if any measure of independence is to be maintained.

Source: Entertainment Consumers Association [http://action.theeca.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7236]


Permalink
 

cerebus23

New member
May 16, 2010
1,275
0
0
Good for them i support this, we have more than enough studies that utterly destroy the senators opinions on the matter, we do not need our tax dollars spent on 10s of millions more to study something that has been studied to death since moving pictures became a thing.
 

Phrozenflame500

New member
Dec 26, 2012
1,080
0
0
Personally I don't care about the government wanting to throw more money into a hole to research video games. What I do care about is politicians using this as a smokescreen to avoid talking about gun control and improved healthcare.
 

Yuuki

New member
Mar 19, 2013
995
0
0
All we need now is for another school shooting to happen, and then the psychopath is found to have stood next to a gaming device at some point in his life, and this legislation will go through. At this point it's it's more about blame figures and scapegoats than a quest for genuine knowledge, and that's a terrible insult to what science/research is supposed to be used for.

United States is a funny place.
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
Phrozenflame500 said:
Personally I don't care about the government wanting to throw more money into a hole to research video games. What I do care about is politicians using this as a smokescreen to avoid talking about gun control and improved healthcare.
Politicians will always find an excuse to avoid the important issues, but anti-government politicians use government waste as a excuse to cut spending, then eliminate important programs. So, you should care.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Opposing research into a potential cause of harm to children is a risky move to say the least, and especially in support of a medium that remains so controversial to so many.
Except when you can point to countless other sources of research that says the proposed study is already chasing a red herring. :p

I mean seriously, how many times are they going to run this dog and pony show? The vast majority of independent studies have shown no link whatsoever between violent people and violent media, the ones that have either used an obviously flawed method or were obviously biased in their foundation (i.e. funding).
 

tmande2nd

New member
Oct 20, 2010
602
0
0
Least I live in Canada.

I do enjoy watching the cycle in politics.
DISASTER
BLAME
NEWS COVERAGE
USELESS LEGISLATION
FADING AWAY
Forgotten

Rinse and repeat boys rinse and repeat.
 

Quantum Glass

New member
Mar 19, 2013
109
0
0
So, how do they find volunteers for these studies, anyways? Are they hanging up fliers and posting things online that say, "Looking for volunteers between the ages of six and eighteen for a clinical study. We ask that volunteers have no pre-existing psychological conditions. Volunteers will be paid 100 USD an hour to play video games?"
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
cerebus23 said:
Good for them i support this, we have more than enough studies that utterly destroy the senators opinions on the matter, we do not need our tax dollars spent on 10s of millions more to study something that has been studied to death since moving pictures became a thing.
I still think those moving pictures are witchcraft.

OT: FFS people, just because the gun lobbyists are trying to bully the senate dosen't mean you should listen. What are they going to do? Shoot you*? The minute they do, all gun owners rights get put on the spotlight. And all their "guns don't hurt people, video games do." argument get thrown out.

*I am not advocating people getting shot. I don't want anyone to get shot.
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
And what if games are detrimental? Should we bury the possible issue under the rug?

Obviously biased "research" isn't what we want, but the industry isn't going to conduct the research needed to learn more about possible detriments from gaming.
 

chinlamp

New member
Mar 10, 2009
17
0
0
Yuuki said:
All we need now is for another school shooting to happen, and then the psychopath is found to have stood next to a gaming device at some point in his life, and this legislation will go through.
One successful shadowrun later...
 

bravetoaster

New member
Oct 7, 2009
118
0
0
CardinalPiggles said:
And what if games are detrimental? Should we bury the possible issue under the rug?

Obviously biased "research" isn't what we want, but the industry isn't going to conduct the research needed to learn more about possible detriments from gaming.
Pretty much this. The world's more nuanced than people on either extreme seem to be willing to acknowledge. Games are able to be good and they can probably be bad, and it's worth understanding how/when/why they could be either, rather than plugging our ears, closing our eyes, and shouting, "GAMES ARE [GOOD/EVIL]!"

While it's more than clear that violent video games do not directly cause violence, it's well worth trying to understand if/how they may affect us, our minds, and how we think/behave. It's not an easy thing to examine or even begin to examine, but could tell us a whole lot about how our brains work and develop. On top of that, developers could potentially learn some things from such research.
 

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
Quantum Glass said:
So, how do they find volunteers for these studies, anyways? Are they hanging up fliers and posting things online that say, "Looking for volunteers between the ages of six and eighteen for a clinical study. We ask that volunteers have no pre-existing psychological conditions. Volunteers will be paid 100 USD an hour to play video games?"
"..must be able to produce evidence of sociopathic, psychopathic and/or such related tendencies otherwise harmful to self and/or others, after minimal exposure to a narrow scope of the subject matter to be tested, as and when the cameras are recording or important officials are visiting."
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Jul 8, 2011
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
CardinalPiggles said:
And what if games are detrimental?
And what if eating chicken causes you to grow feathers in your throat and die? At what point can we say the evidence is in, and clearly does not support what certain twisted groups and individuals would LIKE for it to support?

bravetoaster said:
While it's more than clear that violent video games do not directly cause violence, it's well worth trying to understand if/how they may affect us, our minds, and how we think/behave. It's not an easy thing to examine or even begin to examine, but could tell us a whole lot about how our brains work and develop. On top of that, developers could potentially learn some things from such research.
I'm pretty sure this bill has nothing to do with any of that.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I'm unconvinced that there is any research that could be conducted that would prevent us from having to jump back on this particular ride again a few years down the line.

That being the case, could we maybe spend the money somewhere where it could actually do some good? Rebuild some bridges? Research some vaccines? Hell, invest in better mental health support, if combating violence is actually the goal?
 

TitanAura

New member
Jun 30, 2011
194
0
0
Guys, doing research isn't the problem. The problem is how often this "research" completely disregards the scientific process. If we could have research that is done without an ulterior motive or ultimate end-goal (aka GRAWR BAN ALL THE GAMES), then we might have a study both sides could consider valid.
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
bravetoaster said:
Pretty much this. The world's more nuanced than people on either extreme seem to be willing to acknowledge. Games are able to be good and they can probably be bad, and it's worth understanding how/when/why they could be either, rather than plugging our ears, closing our eyes, and shouting, "GAMES ARE [GOOD/EVIL]!"

While it's more than clear that violent video games do not directly cause violence, it's well worth trying to understand if/how they may affect us, our minds, and how we think/behave. It's not an easy thing to examine or even begin to examine, but could tell us a whole lot about how our brains work and develop. On top of that, developers could potentially learn some things from such research.
Not from this research.

It's long been documented that research that's even only funded by a party with stakes on the outcome is likely to get subtly twisted to suit the contractor's needs. Some notable example include medicines that are 'proven' to 'cure' or 'prevent' Altzheimers, if you're looking for something to search for.

Even if data is objectively gathered it's not difficult at all to creatively use statistics to interpret that in a variety of ways. At the end of the day scientists are just people, people with jobs. And when you've been hired to prove that there's a link between two things, you'll find yourself subtly choosing slightly different methods and treating all the data just slightly differently in order to 'do your job'.

Each will, on it's own, still be a completely valid method. But when you start stacking selectively chosen methods and interpretations you'll still end up with a subtly skewed conclusion.
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
Pyrian said:
CardinalPiggles said:
And what if games are detrimental?
At what point can we say the evidence is in, and clearly does not support what certain twisted groups and individuals would LIKE for it to support?
Never. I'd say we need 2 sides to every argument. Otherwise nothing changes.

Clearly we don't want corrupt people adding their own flavour to the mixing bowl but some research and understanding is better than sticking our fingers in our ears and saying "Nope, games can't hurt me".

Ideally I'd want many neutral teams conducting uninfluenced research into the possible issue, but if only the world were perfect.