As usual, I read and type too quickly. Yes, you're right, that should be aggressive behaviour, not violent behaviour.JDKJ said:There are no studies of which I am aware that establish a causal link between video games and violent behavior. This study doesn't purport to do so, either. Aggressive behavior is not the same thing as violent behavior.FightThePower said:You do realise these are peer-reviewed scientific journals and therefore unlikely to contain any crap from 'pop-psychologists', right?Greg Tito said:there always seem to be pop-pyschologists who want to play the aggression card and pass that off as encouraging violence...............Bartholow's study will be published in the "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology."
There is no point trying to argue against the notion that games cause aggressive behaviour. The studies are overwhelmingly in favour of the argument that they do; but it seems to be mostly short-term effects. It's the same with any other media, and that's the point we should be pressing; yes, violent videogames cause violent behaviour, but so do violent films, and there is no controversy with them, so why treat games differently?
Maybe this study isn't so good after all.One such study is a ?noise blast? test, which is supposedly designed to measure aggression through the volume and duration of a noise blast one test subject administers to another. Yet, as the authors point out, it is hard to draw any conclusions about real-life activities from a test without any context or real world implications.
The issue was pushed front and center by Leland Yee's violent video game-labeling law that currently pends an opinion by the Supreme Court. A requirement of any such law is that the proponent offer proof of a causal connection between violent video games and real-world violence. The "studies" that California offered to the Court were ripped to shreds by the opponents of the law. Those "studies" didn't even come close to proving the required causal connection.FightThePower said:As usual, I read and type too quickly. Yes, you're right, that should be aggressive behaviour, not violent behaviour.JDKJ said:There are no studies of which I am aware that establish a causal link between video games and violent behavior. This study doesn't purport to do so, either. Aggressive behavior is not the same thing as violent behavior.FightThePower said:You do realise these are peer-reviewed scientific journals and therefore unlikely to contain any crap from 'pop-psychologists', right?Greg Tito said:there always seem to be pop-pyschologists who want to play the aggression card and pass that off as encouraging violence...............Bartholow's study will be published in the "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology."
There is no point trying to argue against the notion that games cause aggressive behaviour. The studies are overwhelmingly in favour of the argument that they do; but it seems to be mostly short-term effects. It's the same with any other media, and that's the point we should be pressing; yes, violent videogames cause violent behaviour, but so do violent films, and there is no controversy with them, so why treat games differently?
Interestingly, I did a quick dig and whilst violent games leading to aggressive behaviour is fairly well established, according to a recent study: "Neither video game violence exposure, nor television violence exposure, were prospective predictors of serious acts of youth aggression or violence."
So yeah, definitely not violent then.
EDIT: Just found this as well, taken from a book attacking violent videogame hysteria:
Maybe this study isn't so good after all.One such study is a ?noise blast? test, which is supposedly designed to measure aggression through the volume and duration of a noise blast one test subject administers to another. Yet, as the authors point out, it is hard to draw any conclusions about real-life activities from a test without any context or real world implications.
Who says you'd call the cops? Desensitization to violence doesn't just mean not being as grossed out by blood/guts/whatever, it also means how well you react to it. Be desensitized enough and you probably wouldn't bat an eye to the shot man. Not saying video games, or any other medium, makes people do that, but that's the main point of these studies. Various forms of media do cause some aggressive behavior depending on the situation, we just need to know the short-/long-term effects of it. It's nothing to scoff at, really.DarkRyter said:Why is it a bad thing to be desensitized to violence?
You see a guy get shot, it's better to just man up, stay calm, and call the cops, instead of flipping the fuck out like a blubbering goddamn pansy.
know that you mention penn and tell her a link to the first part of that episode on video gamesEri said:***** please. De-sensitized to virtual violence is not the same thing as being de-sensitized to real life violence. Just ask Penn and Teller.
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:One Question;
What caused violence before now?