Psychology Study Blames Games for Aggressive Behavior
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
I think you're right, but I think you're coming at this defense from the wrong angle.Greg Tito said:
He is demonstrating that exposure to violence in video games can desensitize a person to the idea of violence. Not only does he appear to demonstrate this in the brain, it also makes sense--the more you see anything, the less shocking/surprising/novel it will be.
He then claims that subjects behaved "more aggressively" when asked to "blast an opponent" with a loud noise. And that this means the desensitization is encourage, or even prompting, this aggressive behavior. Don't we think, perhaps, the fact that you told them to do it is what led to this behavior?
So, it seems that the desensitization elevated their willingness to engage, but it didn't cause aggressive behavior. You could say it elevated it when already present or cued.
Furthermore, could that also just be because subjects engaged in a competitive game are encouraged to be more "aggressive" in order to win? See, "aggression" and "violence" are not the same thing. Violent videogames, however, pit human against human(oid) in competition, which may stimulate our basic hypothalamus "fight or flight" response in a mild way. That could make us more likely to react more strongly in perceived competition.
In order for this study to hold any real water, we'll need to know:
1. What were the "non-violent" games being played?
2. Were any of these games competitive non-violent games?
3. If not, what effect do competitive non-violent games have on the "sound blasting" choices?
4. If some of them were, was there any "statistically significant" difference between those and the non-competitive non-violent games?
5 Do other competitive endeavors outside of video games have any similar impact? (Sports, martial arts, really any competitive activity)
We have to be extremely careful how we define things like "aggressive" and "violent," and be careful not to conflate them with traits like being "competitive" or just "in an excited state."
What Bull**** mother@#|@~~|piece of~#@@~|@#son of|@|#|#@#|@@|
On all seriousness i think it's a load of BS
On all seriousness i think it's a load of BS
Yes this has been highly debated on both sides, some say it's reduces stress others say it builds agression. I can't really use myself as an example because I do play violent games and I'm not agressive in my social life, but I am agressive because I play rugby. So... yea there's that.
Complete agreement on the latter portion, especially.The Abhorrent said:
As I said in my post above, I'd like them to include more information about what types of "non-violent" game were used. I'd also like to see them run similar comparisons with competitive and non-competitive non-violent games, and see if any significant results pop up.
The idea that "blasting louder sounds" necessarily means someone is "more aggressive" is a potential problem, too. It could just be that a person playing a violent game is in a somewhat more "excited" state, making them prone to react more strongly to requests or challenges (like, say, telling them to attack with sound). It could also be that the competitive nature of these games is what leads to that behavioral change, not the violent nature itself*.
*Though I would allow that violence, particularly when it includes a humanoid surrogate meant to be "us," has a more primal connection to our basic competitive drive. But so does football, so what's new?
I feel like there's no argument when it comes to this. It's obvious that video games have an effect on a person's aggression levels. The question is, does it increase or decrease them, and to this, I believe the logical answer is the former.
Of course, the same could be made of millions of components of everyday life- Like if you sit on an uncomfortable chair at the office.
Of course, the same could be made of millions of components of everyday life- Like if you sit on an uncomfortable chair at the office.
The first bit was interesting, but there are problems with the second part, when he says that people who already play a lot of violent video games are less sensitive to violent imagery. That's a correlational study, and as such you can't make causal conclusions based on it, as the confounds haven't been eliminated. Any psychologist should know that. I know that and I'm only a psychology student.
People who already see a lot of violence, perhaps from TV shows and such, might be more desensitized to it and subsequently more predisposed to buy a violent video game. All that second part suggests is that there is a correlation between violent video games and becoming desensitized to violence, not that there's a causal link.
People who already see a lot of violence, perhaps from TV shows and such, might be more desensitized to it and subsequently more predisposed to buy a violent video game. All that second part suggests is that there is a correlation between violent video games and becoming desensitized to violence, not that there's a causal link.
Quite simply, nature trumps science because it's been around for longer.9Darksoul6 said:
Science actually has worked it out. I'd suggest looking up the "uncanny valley" when you've finished being condescending.
You might also want to look up "mechanism", "rational" and the difference between a mind and a brain.
This experiment has been done time and time again. It doesn't speak much to his credit to not know this. It does not any more than any experiment before it prove a cause and effect link between video game violence and real violence. You can't prove it, beyond exposing people to actual violence -- putting an actual gun in their hands with no rules to see whether gamers or non-gamers would fare better.
Keep trying, I'll keep laughing.
Keep trying, I'll keep laughing.
So are you telling me that books,movies,theater or even cowboy games (childrens games) can't do the same?
I'm a renonwed bacon expert and I will tell you that bacon is fatty! But so is any other meat.
I'm a renonwed bacon expert and I will tell you that bacon is fatty! But so is any other meat.
... and tomorrow we'll get a story that proves that there is no link whatsoever... and then by the weekend we'll have another one that proves it again.
We see this all the time and it gets really old. Why is this such a big deal to people anyway? Oh yeah, that's right, because the same people who tried to ban comic books and protest Marilyn Manson concerts want strict regulations on video games because they're something they don't understand. It's silly that people are still this worried about something as insignificant as video games. Seriously... they have ratings on them. Isn't that enough?
We see this all the time and it gets really old. Why is this such a big deal to people anyway? Oh yeah, that's right, because the same people who tried to ban comic books and protest Marilyn Manson concerts want strict regulations on video games because they're something they don't understand. It's silly that people are still this worried about something as insignificant as video games. Seriously... they have ratings on them. Isn't that enough?
I think the scientists should be more concerned with sports increasing aggression. Hell, in football you're encouraged to be violent towards the other team, but you don't see parents up in arms over that. It's a double-standard.
Aggression is most definitely not the same thing as violence. I can definitely agree with the aggressive thing, I get pissed off if I can't get passed a certain point in a game, but I'm not that violent a person. I also have a good hold of myself; if I didn't my aggression -would- lead to violence. Yet it does not.
if you know its virtual then your subconscious knows as well9Darksoul6 said:
OT:i agree that it "desenities" a bit but there is also a big diffrence between video game violence and real life violence a big ones being the smell, sights, sound and every thing else a video game cant deliver in the right magnitude if at all