Um, yeah. That's why he said "if they did".Daystar Clarion said:
OT: Well, I suppose I'd do something violent.
If violent video games were actually making people violent, what would you do?
- Thread starter Dark Knifer
- Start date
OT: Well, I suppose I'd do something violent.
Invent the pacifistic game that induces calmer states and set them all up in a place not unlike the Betty Ford Clinic. Now, anyone claiming that the games made them do it will check into my clinic and pop out later to say "I'm all better now!". I'll make billions...
I am not surprised that this thread is filled with the pathetic standard nerd reaction to anyone even suggesting the hypothetical possibility that violent video games causes aggressive behavior. The pathetic standard nerd reaction being completely ignoring the question and screaming "VIDEO GAMES DON'T CAUSE AGGRESSION".
Honestly, stop being so butthurt.
OP: If violent video games made people violent, I'd start to argue for stricter regulations on selling games to underaged kids. Then I'd see how it goes from there.
Honestly, stop being so butthurt.
OP: If violent video games made people violent, I'd start to argue for stricter regulations on selling games to underaged kids. Then I'd see how it goes from there.
I don't see how you can say they teach bad habits when you admit to having no examples. It's not as if we are talking in real time, you could have taken the time to google an article with a BS story about kids doing something they learned into a video game. Then I could have easily explained it's just parents trying to shift the blame from neglecting their kids onto video games.HooterNanny said:
Saying that they cause SOME people to be violent is equally BS. That statement is so general and generic it was a waste of time typing out. Violent movies can cause SOME people to be violent. Waiting in line at the post office can cause SOME people to be violent. Watching a Dane Cook special can cause SOME people to be violent. Being in a conversation when the other person cannot back up anything they say can cause SOME people to be violent.
Video games have not been proven to actually cause anyone to do anything. Remember Jack Thompson and how that turned out? He has long been since shut up and discredited. Saying people learn to be violent from video games has about as much going for it as saying people learn how to shoot lasers from their eyes from playing too many video games.
Ok, so again lots of people seem to have trouble with the idea of a *hypothetical* question.
Ok .. so if games were definitely making people more violent .. I'd probably still keep playing them.
Think of it this way: whether it is 100% correct or not, there is significant evidence connecting alcohol and violence. But I still drink very frequently (approx 40 standard drinks a week, maybe? Which probably puts me in the alcoholic bracket. Ho hum.).
EDIT: As an interesting aside, I recall reading a report on alcohol and violence. In the UK a study was done on uni students. They were told it was a market research event - and they were trying an alcoholic fruit cocktail thingy (approx the same alcohol content as beer). They were also told to try as much as they like. Naturally, they dug in. As the 'market research' progressed, the students got more and more drunk. They started to get rowdy - the girls started dancing and flirting, the guys started yelling and arguing more, and eventually a few fights broke out and the study had to be cancelled as violence spun out of control. And the kicker:
There was ZERO alcohol in the drinks.
For some reason, English-speaking Western nations (UK, USA, NZ, Aus, Can, etc) have some kind of cultural retardation which makes them aggressive fucksticks when they get drunk (or even *think* they're drunk) If I could find the link I would.
But of course, this is research. And research is easy to skew. They may have selected people particularly susceptible to the power of suggestion, for example, and not told us that.
Ok .. so if games were definitely making people more violent .. I'd probably still keep playing them.
Think of it this way: whether it is 100% correct or not, there is significant evidence connecting alcohol and violence. But I still drink very frequently (approx 40 standard drinks a week, maybe? Which probably puts me in the alcoholic bracket. Ho hum.).
EDIT: As an interesting aside, I recall reading a report on alcohol and violence. In the UK a study was done on uni students. They were told it was a market research event - and they were trying an alcoholic fruit cocktail thingy (approx the same alcohol content as beer). They were also told to try as much as they like. Naturally, they dug in. As the 'market research' progressed, the students got more and more drunk. They started to get rowdy - the girls started dancing and flirting, the guys started yelling and arguing more, and eventually a few fights broke out and the study had to be cancelled as violence spun out of control. And the kicker:
There was ZERO alcohol in the drinks.
For some reason, English-speaking Western nations (UK, USA, NZ, Aus, Can, etc) have some kind of cultural retardation which makes them aggressive fucksticks when they get drunk (or even *think* they're drunk) If I could find the link I would.
But of course, this is research. And research is easy to skew. They may have selected people particularly susceptible to the power of suggestion, for example, and not told us that.
It's their fault if they do something stupid, apparently they don't know that it's just a game. That's why I always try to have a cool head and not do something stupid. Because it is just a game.
Well, your second paragraph was pretty much what I was trying to say. There are people who are fundamentally screwed up in the brain, and playing violent video games is a catalyst for violent behaviour. Similarly, watching a violent movie, or reading a violent book, even learning about violent people in the past, like Hitler or Genghis Khan can be a catalyst for violent behaviour. I didn't mean violent video games make ALL people violent, I just meant that SOME people, who are wrong in the head can be turned to violent behaviour because of video gamesWushu Panda said:
I would play more video games. probably start hitting people on the street and say "It's not my fault I play video games!, I can't help it!"
TV is far more influencial than video games, after watching Skins smoking just doesn't seem hazardous to me anymore. Nor the effects of drugs.
TV is far more influencial than video games, after watching Skins smoking just doesn't seem hazardous to me anymore. Nor the effects of drugs.
I wouldn't care, I've already been exposed to enough of them that I would be extremely violent. Not that I am. I intake by FAR the most violent entertainment and yet am the most passive of my entire family, and that's including my father who claims to be a passivist and crusades against violent entertainment.
However if I had children I would prevent them from playing the most violent games, I would actually do that anyway. There is no need for them to waste their time on a fighting game (I've just never understood the draw of them, baring a few "just for fun" examples like Super Smash Bros.), much less one that must be aimed at 10 year-olds with all the unnecessary gore it contains (Mortal Kombat).
However if I had children I would prevent them from playing the most violent games, I would actually do that anyway. There is no need for them to waste their time on a fighting game (I've just never understood the draw of them, baring a few "just for fun" examples like Super Smash Bros.), much less one that must be aimed at 10 year-olds with all the unnecessary gore it contains (Mortal Kombat).
It would be impossible to have such a study. Statistics can't tell us shit about this. Correlation does not imply causation, and anyway there are too many factors involved. There are so many other violent media out there, there are so many gamers who aren't violent, and there are so many violent people who don't game, that it's ridiculous to think that they have anything to do with each other. I simply can't come up with any plausible study that could imply any evidence toward this, even assuming that games really do cause violence. It's just too complex a problem to be solved by a statistical study. And it doesn't make any logical sense anyway, and we know from a historical standpoint why people react to games this way. It's to be expected because it's new, but that'll pass in time, it always does.
Off topic. I am really fucking annoyed at the adverts in the captchas. The world has way too many ads as it is. Can we go back to the old captcha system please?
Off topic. I am really fucking annoyed at the adverts in the captchas. The world has way too many ads as it is. Can we go back to the old captcha system please?
Well obviously, if video games ACTUALLY made people violent then the only moral and ethical thing to do would be to ban them. I'm serious--so far no one has conclusively proven ANYTHING "makes someone violent" other than hard, mood altering drugs (meth, crack, et al) so if this were proven it would mean games would have to become illegal like those drugs, and since games take millions to make then it would be easy to do, thus making this the most painless and simply executed prohibition in history.
However games DON'T make people violent (nor does tv, movies, rock music etc) so right now there is no reason to do jack. But obviously if it were shown that games make people violent then they'd have to be banned.
However games DON'T make people violent (nor does tv, movies, rock music etc) so right now there is no reason to do jack. But obviously if it were shown that games make people violent then they'd have to be banned.
Then how come you did not say it? You didn't even allude to that statement. After this post I'm not responding to anything you have to say because you don't have any arguments or valid material to back up whatever you say. You seriously lack ANY knowledge worthwhile enough to debate someone with.HooterNanny said:
There are people "fundamentally screwed up in the brain", everyone. Don't act like only certain people are and others go on perfect and flawless. You, me, everyone is capable of performing good or horrible deeds. Don't try to sound smart by labeling things as a 'catalyst'. Saying some people are "fundamentally screwed up" is an ignorant and passive method of ignoring any real issues.
Please do some real research before making claims or adding to a subject. I won't be responding to anything else you have to say because this is starting to become a real waste of time.
I'd crucify whoever proved that on flaming chainsaws in the middle of Stonehenge.
Or just order pizza.
Or just order pizza.
I would wade into the blood thirsty masses of gamers gone rogue and begin to reenact the following scene to establish my dominance.
Thats also correlation, not causation.... unless you get a practically 100% result AND can explain the failures. Then you would have a qualitative experiment you've repeated instead of a quantitative one. Also if you just "let" them play a game they're making a choice. If they're making a choice to play the game your entire experiment is shot for causation as you can't disprove that B leads to A, IE the violent ones picked up the game. You could force people to play... but that adds another external factor. Theres a reason cause and effect are seldom mention in psychological examples.Jordi said:
In general:
Quantitative experiments show correlation
Qualitative experiments show causation
If your wanting to convincingly prove causation you would have to find a procedural and repeatable experiment. You would need to break the event chain into small testable parts and have an explanation for each causal step. The really simple litmus test, can you explain it? If you can't, then your experiment shows correlation. Statistics based approaches may sometimes imply causation, but this is a huge challenge even for physiological experiments, let alone psychological ones. And it is an implication, at some point a strong enough correlation will be the result of a causal factor. Although the problem is that it goes both ways, even showing a 100% correlation doesn't give you the direction of the causation, you must find that via qualitative means.