Less Crime in U.S. Thanks to Videogames

[person427]

Ugh, why do we always get blamed for this sort of- wait, what? Oh, well, ok then. Glad to hear it.

 

[punipunipyo]

dud, Japanese earth quakes, everyone who survived didn't have any one taking chance to rape anyone (not even a simple burglary!) they followed the law, but look, this is the country that started video gaming(the "real" games starting from ATARI on), and Sex/date/rape/-sims... less rape than many countries out there... why? because these "toys" soak up all the "evil" and leave the users fulfilled, satisfied (may not be a good example... T_T|||)

I for one had anger issue in middle school, but I play video games to let my anger/rage out; Every time I get pissed off, it's shooter game time! (when I get home) then I felt alot better, sometimes I even felt kinda sorry for the badies in games (like the game ROTT, Duke3D, and Return to castle folfenstine). Guess why Unreal Tournament was my favorite game in college? yeh I had so much rage, I had to kill hundreds! in short amount of time, and ARENA games made it possible, and satisfying too! I can only remember the first time rag dolls in games was intro to me in UT2K3, that was sooooo sweet!(though I ending up loving 2K4 MORE) EVERY KILL IS DIFFERENT!

 

[Strazdas]

murder caused natural drugs are very addictive thing, and people who do crime are likely to keep doing it. computers offer alternative. nowadays you can choose to be addicted to games, drugs, alcohol, crime, you name it. and in my humble opinion i would take computer addiction over serial murder any day.

Only mentally unstable people would correlate in-game violence with real life violence, because they lack the ability to differentiate the two. And altrough yes, there are such people, it does not mean others should pay for their disability.

what caused the decrease in violence is the decrease in unwanted and poor children being born. part of it is due to abortion and part of it is due to the fact that there are less people born in general than it was 20 years ago.

 

[sdfasdfhfgfgjtyisdgdfdfj]

This is not evidence that videogames don't cause violence. This paper was written by an economist, not a psychologist. This alone is not enough to dismiss his claims. However, he goes on to criticize the work of psychologists claiming that their studies do not show increased aggression over the long term (not true), and the paper does not appear to have been published in a peer reviewed journal(it is currently only listed as a working paper, this should be a red flag). Moreover, he completely fails to cite major literature sources that disagree with him, such as this massive meta-analytic study across many universities which demonstrates a causal, long-term connection between video games and increased aggression.
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/10ASISBSRS.pdf

I should add that the author is not claiming videogames don't increase violence, but instead that they don't increase violent crime. This is different from the discussion scientists usually have, as there are many factors contributing to violent crime that are very hard to follow, and showing that videogames do or do not increase incidence of violent crime is very difficult.

While I disagree with bans/restrictions on videogame sales, it dismays me that we as gamer are so illogical when cornered with evidence we don't like. The article I posted is an example of critically tested, causal, long-term increased aggressive behavior, CAUSED by videogames. We need to understand that this increase in aggression is small and doesn't warrant restrictions on our art more so than any other medium, but we also have to start taking real science seriously, or no one will be willing to take us seriously.

Greg Tito, I hope you understand that the justices would be doing the right thing to ignore this article. This is a working paper that has not yet passed peer review. When citing a scientific article in your stories, it is probably best to mention that they are not peer reviewed. If they aren't, it's probably best to add a qualifier to the title of your article, such as "Less Crime in US Thanks to Videogames, Study Claims". This protects your credibility and helps prevent accidentally misleading readers.

Ah, a post I agree on and want to quote for that purpose!

In all seriousness, I've skimmed trough the article as well (I wonder how many people did that?) and here's what my (early) findings are.

At first it also struck me as odd that an economist tries to draw a conclusion about something which is not in his field. I think this is something more fit for psychologists and criminologists.

Secondly, this article tells me that earlier studies miss external validity i.e. external factors such as type of game (shooter/puzzel game)and type of person playing the game, all while I think they missed other (hidden) factors. I couldn't make much out of the maths, but it seems to me trying to include every factor out there and drawing a conclusion is almost impossible.

Finally, I think peer reviewing is going to shred this one to bits. It seems to me they made their hypothesis (or maybe not one at all), then collected the data of the past 5 years or so and used that. The things they name in the paper look a bit...cherry picked, another researcher will most likely come to a different conclusion.

Also to add to this news post:

Heh, that Critical Miss comic comes to mind..

Yes, people are biased. It's a bit sad that many gamers are so close minded about the topic of games contributing to violent behaviour and it would be nice to see if the gaming community worked on that =]

Greg Tito, adding: "Less Crime in US Thanks to Videogames, Study Claims", as eriktheguy claims is a great idea.

Last, please stop the huge flaming about greg having an opinion or an unfortunate choice of words, I think you are missing the point of the news article this thread is about.

 

[Tentickles]

The thing about the studies that video games cause more violence is that most of them are trying to PROVE that and therefore are not objective in their study.

 

[sdfasdfhfgfgjtyisdgdfdfj]

The thing about the studies that video games cause more violence is that most of them are trying to PROVE that and therefore are not objective in their study.

The idea of scientific study is to take a hypothesis and to check if you can refute it. Not every study is a 'good' scientific study, but many try their best. Also, peer reviewing is very important. I think that the thing you imply (if I am right), "all studies about video games causing violence are biased", is rather unfair and too generalized.

 

[Tentickles]

The thing about the studies that video games cause more violence is that most of them are trying to PROVE that and therefore are not objective in their study.

The idea of scientific study is to take a hypothesis and to check if you can refute it. Not every study is a 'good' scientific study, but many try their best. Also, peer reviewing is very important. I think that the thing you imply (if I am right), "all studies about video games causing violence are biased", is rather unfair and too generalized.

Please feel free to take my comment however you want.
I just didnt want to spend 10 minutes completely explaining all facets of my thoughts so no one can misunderstand them.

 

[Jumplion]

To be fair, though, what do you expect on a website devoted to gaming populated by people who think games are good? I mean, would you expect a news and entertainment site devoted to gay people to make posts about how homosexuality is a sin, and to unbiasedly evaluate and agree with people who say it can be "cured"? No, I'm pretty sure most people would react badly to any study or article that suggested things like that.

No, but I would expect that homosexuality website to provide a reasonable, thoughtful, and low on bias post. This isn't a blog, or an editorial site; this is a news site, and I expect good news. If that homosexual site posted an article on how scientists have found the "gay gene", I would lose my confidence in them if they skewed the facts in favor of bashing the other side. Similarly, if scientists found that homosexuality could be changed, I would hope that they would scrutinize that study for good reasons and not because it goes against their beliefs.

I am not asking for anyone to completely agree with one side of the other, that is the complete opposite of what I want! I want people to scrutinize anti-game studies, I want people to scrutinize pro-game studies as well. But the thing is, people are not scrutinizing these studies for the right reasons. If a study says "Hrm, video games may cause a slight increase in aggression under certain conditions," everyone goes "BOO, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE TRYING TO CENSOR EVERYONE, YOUR SCIENCE IS BAD, FUCK OFF!!!" but the opposite, such as this, garners smug replies of "Hur hur, you crazy anti-gamer assholes! Can't you see how amazing our games are?". Both of these kids of studies must be scrutinized as video games do have some sort of an effect on people, positive or negative.

Everyone is biased. No one likes to be told they're terrible and they suck and what they're doing is wrong. Everyone is pretty damn sure that they're right, or else they wouldn't do the things they do. Show me a person without any biases and I'll show you a corpse.

Of course people are biased, but that does not excuse biased journalism. You're supposed to be as unbiased as you can when it comes to good journalism. That's why nobody gives a shit about what The Sun or Fox News say. The entire first paragraph reeks of purposeful bias, and I have already commented on the previous news report that the guy made. If you cut out certain areas of this article, it is less biased and a better article overall.

No one likes being told that they're terrible and they suck and what not, but the thing is, no legitimate scientific study has ever done that. And yet gaming sites make it as though they do. Again, read my criticism of the previous article, and even that only covers a smaller portion of my grievances with it.

Moreover, it doesn't make much sense to expect objective journalism from what are quite obviously editorials. The modern news environment involves commentary (even bad commentary) just as much as it does dry reporting. You might think that's a terrible thing, but, if so, I can't help but think that a gaming website isn't really the place to start that crusade. I don't go expecting objective journalism from people whose entire job is to give their personal opinions on pieces of entertainment.

But The Escapist does not claim to be an editorial, they proudly proclaim they are a news site. Every time someone brings up this issue, one of the staff (which I am not trying to attack here) says something like "We attempt to keep our news posts entertaining for all as well as informative, etc...etc...". That is what honestly disgusts me about these posts every now and again. Other sites, like IGN, keep as little personal commentary as possible and they are just as informative as any other news post.

I'm not asking for 100%, unbiased, dry, witless reporting here. I'm asking for at least some attempt at being as unbiased as possible, sprinkled with some wit, washed with some consideration for all the facts, and not blindly supporting one side of the other.

 

[cthulhumythos]

Heh, that Critical Miss comic comes to mind...

Scientist 1: Video games are linked to an increase violent behaviours!

Gamers: ARG HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT IT'S CORRELATION NOT CAUSE AND YOU'RE ALSO FAT!

Scientist 2: Video games are linked to a decrease in violent behaviours!

Gamers: HOORAY FINALLY SOME RESPECT LOOK AT ALL THIS SCIENCE!

For the record, I don't think games cause violence. I just think this is pretty funny

To prove a point, you know what else happened in 1991?

The end of the Cold War.

That was the real cause of there being less crimes. Obviously.

(by the way, these guys didn't even do an experiment from what I'm reading. It's all theory)

Damn commies, upp'n our murder rate like that.

 

[monojono]

To everyone saying correlation does not imply causation:

That whole point of this paper was to posit a possible cause of a decreasing crime rate. There must be something affecting the crime rate, so things which correlate are a possibility. Correlation is one of the most obvious signs of something causing something else, but it isn't proof the two are linked.

 

[syltman]

I, for one, have become angrier overall from a game called Heroes of Newerth. Before I played it I used to be extremely calm but now I become angry over very tiny stuff. So I guess it varies from person to person and also which game.

 

[Biodeamon]

Probably becuase people see what real violence is up-close and educate them about what real war/murder is like.

Either that it lets people vent their murderous tendencies.

 

[Why do I care]

Finally something good like this has come by.

Now we need to shove it in fox news face.

 

[comadorcrack]

As nice as this sounds a still doubt the corroboration of the two... Aw well its nice to hear a pro game study every now and then anyways

 

[eriktheguy]

im sorry but this just reminds me of this:

It's scary how much this reminds me of trying to convince people that the Earth is older than 6000 yrs.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Ward goes on to say any possible short term "aggression" that videogames may elicit is mitigated by the time it takes to play them.

Can i take that as a go ahead for developers to make a single player campaign LONGER? Stop giving me 4-8 hour experiences! Study demands that i be force to play for many many hours!

 

[Berithil]

Well, I'm a conservative and I've always known the video games equals murder theory is bunk. The video games don't cause the murder, its someone whose probably already a little unstable. The closest link between the two is possibly a video game might inspire someone to recreate a scene for his already planned killing. I've been playing video games since I was really young and I turned out alright (mostly )

 

[GonzoGamer]

Conservatives and hate-mongerers like Jack Thompson [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/tag/jack+thompson] always point to videogames as the root of all violence and evil in this world.

Yeah, like that fascist right-wing Republican-loving video-game-banning Leland Yee [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee].

Scaring parents for easy votes is a bipartisan initiative.

Too true.
There?s a reason Hillary Clinton was the ?Statue of Freedom? holding "hot coffee" in gta4. Politicians from both sides have long used the activities of non-voters (young people) as the whipping boy for voters (old people) who don?t want to blame themselves for their misguided disappointment in the youth of the day: heavy metal music, tv, rock music, comic books, jazz music....
That?s more of a matter of overall political integrity which is completely missing on both sides of the isle.

However, the conservative news outlets definitely give more time up to this absurd debate and actually take people like Thompson seriously which is strange because they also take gun nuts very seriously too. That's the thing about the right wing of today, it's so hypocritical, it's hard to tell where they stand on anything really.
I?d like to quote George Carlin: ?Now they?re talking about banning toy guns... And they?re going to keep the fucking real ones!!!?