Psychology Study Blames Games for Aggressive Behavior
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Exactly my point. You can't really turn around and say that it's video games causing violence unless you also blame just about everything else in our lives.Jumplion said:Plenty of things caused violence before hand. What's your point? All forms of media have some sort of an effect on the human psyche, regardless of whether violence has happened before, no matter how minor it may potentially be. Depending on studies, video games, and many other mediums, may cause aggressive. What we don't know is what the extensive long-/short-term effects are, and why it may affect some people more than others. The brain is a complicated thing, that's why "common sense" is said to be an oxymoronAcidwell said:
Id rather be desentised to violence and be happy than spend my time on really boring studies woth conclusions people have already made.
the problem no psychologist would like to admit: Human are not like physical particles and therefore can not be experimented on in the same way. testing a hypothesis on any number of humans cannot be re-purposed to the whole. Every single human being on this planet is different (not special but that's a different discussion). Every single human will have a slightly different reaction. To be a proper study we would all have to be the same, same exact political, scientific and religious beliefs. and if that were the case then the experiments wouldn't be needed.
Whether the good professor can prove a correlation or not is irrelevant, he's forgetting the golden rule of statistics, Correlation does not equal Causation. Anyone who's taken a simple economics 101 or statistics class can tell you how important that rule is.
Enough exposure to ANYTHING, whether it be sex, violence, and even actual pain, will desensitize an individual to that given thing. "Tolerance" is built up. Movies, television, and the internet do the same things video games do. They are just trying to prove common sense.
A desensitization to violence does not mean tendency for violence.
(but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a positive correlation between the two, regardless of how small or large it may be)
A desensitization to violence does not mean tendency for violence.
(but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a positive correlation between the two, regardless of how small or large it may be)
^ This. This. This.MasterOfWorlds said:
As a current Psych major, I agree with everything you just said.
While you beat to most of my points, mainly on how isolating certain variables and using those to form conclusions is completely bogus. Their are way too many variables to take into account. Such as environmental, cultural, social, family history, psychological dispositions, medical history of the person, individual age and maturity factors that come into play, the list goes on.
Frankly, I find it very irritating when other "psychologist's" belittle the psychological profession with lazy "studies" like this. This makes it increasingly difficult for genuine reputable and future psychologist's to be taken seriously. We already have enough negative stigma attached to our profession already, that we definitely do not need something like this.
I think that I shouldn't say anything because I didn't read the article or any post in here but lookie ok it seems ok no I not no, ye I also thin at same times at the experiments or results were not fake or anything but I don't agree with their conclusionIdon't think being less sensitive to realistic yet fictional violence makes uMoar_violent.irokno irl and cause also that winner gets to loud the sound experiment was.. she- shortish, it.. even if ok did they compare the sound volume to how £violenceto|erant they were??
To me the first one is like an argument for the second.
Please explain if yo u feel like it and.
I don't get it, how have those people not made up their minds? Both quotes suggest that people got more violent from playing violent video games, right?MasterOfWorlds said:
To me the first one is like an argument for the second.
Please explain if yo u feel like it and.
Glad to see some folks familiar with experimental psychology responding here. Desensitization to violence following exposure to media with violent imagery is a well observed phenomenon. The literature on the subject dates back to the 60s, with results replicated in literally hundreds of studies under varying conditions. As someone remarked earlier, it's hardly surprising, given that the military has used training techniques that rely upon desensitization literally since the dawn of time.
Articles like this just make the gaming community look silly. Attacking research as flawed based on the writer's experience of watching CSI is a non-starter. Making snide comments about how he needs to "keep working at it" and emphasizing that he's an Associate Professor (what, you need tenure before you're allowed to do research?) moves into the realm of unprofessional writing. Fine for a blog somewhere, or perhaps the latest Jimquisition screed, but out of place in an online magazine that usually adheres to a higher standard of industry analysis.
Bottom line, there are a lot of good questions we could be asking about the relationship between games and subsequent reactions to violence. For example, does the interactive nature of games enhance desensitization? A bigger question, not just related to games, is whether desenstization has a significant impact on subsequent behavior. Truthfully, that's still hotly debated, although it's hardly as dismissable a conjecture as some posters seem to think.
Intelligent debate and an understanding of the actual research out there is needed in the face of the hysterical Fox News "Do videogames make your children rape puppies?" articles, not simple "is not!" counterarguments.
Articles like this just make the gaming community look silly. Attacking research as flawed based on the writer's experience of watching CSI is a non-starter. Making snide comments about how he needs to "keep working at it" and emphasizing that he's an Associate Professor (what, you need tenure before you're allowed to do research?) moves into the realm of unprofessional writing. Fine for a blog somewhere, or perhaps the latest Jimquisition screed, but out of place in an online magazine that usually adheres to a higher standard of industry analysis.
Bottom line, there are a lot of good questions we could be asking about the relationship between games and subsequent reactions to violence. For example, does the interactive nature of games enhance desensitization? A bigger question, not just related to games, is whether desenstization has a significant impact on subsequent behavior. Truthfully, that's still hotly debated, although it's hardly as dismissable a conjecture as some posters seem to think.
Intelligent debate and an understanding of the actual research out there is needed in the face of the hysterical Fox News "Do videogames make your children rape puppies?" articles, not simple "is not!" counterarguments.
Increased violence in society? Look at the Roman empire.. look at the Vikings.. look at decades of slavery.. look at American civil war.. look at Spanish civil war.. look at the world wars.. look at the Mafia in the 50's... Its like saying ''The youth today has no respect'', which Sokrates(?) also did 2500 years ago.
All I have to say to these kinds of topics is ''Bleh''.
All I have to say to these kinds of topics is ''Bleh''.
I'm not sure why it's controversial to say that video games increase aggressive behaviour. Video games are challenging, which entails them being sometimes frustrating, which in turn breeds aggression. Added to the fact that in multiplayer games you are actively challenging/frustrating another person I'd say it would be only natural to be more aggressive than if you were reading a book or watching a film, which are generally passive experiences.
The trick, I think, is to manage the frustration. To do well at a game you can't always lose your composure, and those that do will often do worse than those who don't.
Games do, and should, be frustrating at times, and challenging most of the time, and so will naturally cause people to be more aggressive. But being able to mediate that aggression is an important life skill, so any game that teaches that should be praised.
The trick, I think, is to manage the frustration. To do well at a game you can't always lose your composure, and those that do will often do worse than those who don't.
Games do, and should, be frustrating at times, and challenging most of the time, and so will naturally cause people to be more aggressive. But being able to mediate that aggression is an important life skill, so any game that teaches that should be praised.
I think over a 100 million people play some kind of violent video game everyday, the world didn't explode so wtf r we talking about? I love it how researchers think they need to do a bunch of experiments to come to conclusions that you could've figured using common sense and then blowing it out of proportion. How is that person a college graduate?
Not this again...
If video games make people violent, is the fault of the person, not the fault of the video game. If you can't handle it, don't play it. The same logic applies to roller-coasters. If you get sick from it, you shouldn't be in one.
If one kid unloads a gun at a school after playing Call of Duty (or whatever) that doesn't mean Call of Duty caused it. But all the parents and government and whatnot suddenly make it a hot topic again.
*sigh* It's always the people who don't understand games that make a fuzz about it.
PS. And then there is the fact that a kid shouldn't have a gun to begin with, but that's a whole other topic.
If video games make people violent, is the fault of the person, not the fault of the video game. If you can't handle it, don't play it. The same logic applies to roller-coasters. If you get sick from it, you shouldn't be in one.
If one kid unloads a gun at a school after playing Call of Duty (or whatever) that doesn't mean Call of Duty caused it. But all the parents and government and whatnot suddenly make it a hot topic again.
*sigh* It's always the people who don't understand games that make a fuzz about it.
PS. And then there is the fact that a kid shouldn't have a gun to begin with, but that's a whole other topic.
Well it's true... how many people have repeatedly died on a game and gone, "Oh, for FUCKS sake! I'll kill you all!" *revvs up chainsaw*
As for people reacting differently... everyone does that. I'm squeamish but my boyfriend isn't. People at my work don't like touching the eggs, but I don't mind.
Lets make up some bullshit so the Daily Fail can use us in their reportings!
As for people reacting differently... everyone does that. I'm squeamish but my boyfriend isn't. People at my work don't like touching the eggs, but I don't mind.
Lets make up some bullshit so the Daily Fail can use us in their reportings!