Psychology Study Blames Games for Aggressive Behavior
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
ya but mind you he is giving a group a violent media and the other a peaceful one, it's like those kids science fair projects if a plant lives after listening to certain happy musics and die after listening to let's say linkin park, now if anything is subjected to one thing for it's entire life it will be the only thing they know, check out abuse victims, gaming exposes long time gamers to every kind of human emotion, if they want to do this test right they should expose the subjects to both kind of games during an extended period of time and see what kind of reaction they get.
Jumplion, you are a gentleman and a scholar. Agree with all the things you say, including your criticism on Mr. Tito. I basically said the same thing about aggressive games causing people to become aggressive (I may have used the term violent, my mistake), but it's usually for a short while after playing. Also the desensitisation is context-sensitive, so just because you can dismember people easily in a game doesn't mean you'll be so chipper doing it in real life.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:
Also people in here who are saying everyone likes to pick on games these days: Get over it. It's been the same thing when film came out, then television. Psychology studies human behaviour and since human behaviour is affected by recent developments, psychology studies those too. The most recent and relevant to human behaviour currently being video games and the internet. And don't you believe for one second they're not looking at what time spent online does to a person.
Just saying, no one is picking on video games because they think they're bad. They're just a big behavioural influence, and worthy of being tested.
Video games increase aggressive behaivour, this is no surprise
Violent video games create a desensitivation to violence, this is no surprise
The whole thing they want to prove is that it has long-term ill effects, and it doesn't. I play violent games, I'm slightly aggressive afterwards, I sleep, I loose that aggressiveness I gained, and over time I become re-sensitized to violence. It's common sense to say "ohh, this person was beaten and raped, this is bad" and most people will have this response even IF desensitized >.>
Violent video games create a desensitivation to violence, this is no surprise
The whole thing they want to prove is that it has long-term ill effects, and it doesn't. I play violent games, I'm slightly aggressive afterwards, I sleep, I loose that aggressiveness I gained, and over time I become re-sensitized to violence. It's common sense to say "ohh, this person was beaten and raped, this is bad" and most people will have this response even IF desensitized >.>
Whereas I propose that a desensitization to violence is actually a good thing, be its correlation with violent games true or not.Greg Tito said:
As we know from experience, the single greatest causes of violence are anger and fear. A desensitization to violence removes the fear of violence, taking out a good chunk of the problem.
Here's my logic: Take 9/11 (sorry if this is a bit of a sore spot fore some people, but that's part of my point), for example. Would the response (both internal and external) have provoked so many acts of violence if people did not care?
If you can teach kids to be relatively moral (in a not-kill-people general sense), then there is no harm, even a benefit in desensitization.
(I'll admit that a good number of people believe that there should have been some form of response to the acts of 9/11 (I'm one of them, I also believe that something should have been done far sooner, such as building schools and repairing homes after the soviets were driven out of afghanistan). My main issue was the acts of violence and racism committed against the muslim communities back home that continue to this day.)
Personal anecdotes =/= scientific discovery.Kakashi on crack said:
Small, short-term effects may go away after some time for some people, but the eventual build of of said short-term effects could potentially lead to more long-term effects due to the frequency and intensity of the effects. While I hate using this analogy, the first time you use a drug it has a short-term effect of a high and eventually those effects become more permanent to both your mental and physical state.
Saying that "it's common sense" is a complete disservice to scientific discoveries as a whole, especially in psychology. Truth is often stranger than fiction, and the human mind is an incredibly complex mechanism that adapts to so many things at once and can be developed completely differently if surrounded in a different environment. You'd think it's "common sense" to call the cops after witnessing a murder, and yet this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese] is not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect] the case [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility].
As an amateur Psychologist, I have to ask, how authentic was his studies. Judging from how sure he sounded, he must of had a hundred and more for his study. However, judging from what he has shown, and from the equipment that he is using as well as the accomidations that the people have, I say he is underfunded and is grasping straws, with only a few people to work with as guinea pigs.
Also his studies are purely pointed towards the fact that people who play violent videogames are always violent, he is not leaving enough room to actually leave the possibility that violent videogames also act as a release of endorfens that work as a 'stress releaf'. He is only looking at it through a Psychological and Stereotypical way, which is quite dangerous, and Psychologist have lost their jobs and reputation over drabble like this. He needs to be more precise before he can say it's 'The Facts'.
Also his studies are purely pointed towards the fact that people who play violent videogames are always violent, he is not leaving enough room to actually leave the possibility that violent videogames also act as a release of endorfens that work as a 'stress releaf'. He is only looking at it through a Psychological and Stereotypical way, which is quite dangerous, and Psychologist have lost their jobs and reputation over drabble like this. He needs to be more precise before he can say it's 'The Facts'.
So this is A-okay.
But, this
[img src="http://img2.timeinc.net/health/images/health-news/violent-video-game-kid-150.jpg"]
Is not?
Look, we can look at HARD facts/information about the many debilitating injuries sports players ACTUALLY suffer compared to the aggression from playing video games...but video games are bad....
This is such a bad test. The games that are violent are competitive, they create an environment in which you want to win, under any circumstances taking whatever advantage you can. If I'm playing anything where I can distract my opponent I'm going to, sometimes it means yelling, thus the loud noise. In a game that is non-violent there is no competition, thus relaxes the person, and from there aren't going to be as competitive, and not want to distract as much.
I really feel like this is why psychologists wonder why people in the sciences don't take psychology seriously or as a real science. This is how one of my psych friends explains it, there are people like that who claim to be a professional (they may very well be) but then spew out crap like this violence and video games nonsense.
It's sad to because it is these psychologists that get the public eye, not the psychologists who do work which is meaningful in developing psychology as a science.
Also I hope no psychologist sees that as a rant against psychology.
It's sad to because it is these psychologists that get the public eye, not the psychologists who do work which is meaningful in developing psychology as a science.
Also I hope no psychologist sees that as a rant against psychology.
I've never played anything as horrifyingly violent as the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. That scene still sticks in my head as just about the most horrible thing I've ever seen on a screen. The thing is, it's the sounds that stick with you. The crying, the sick thwack of a bullet impact on flesh, someone calling for their mother. See how desensitized they are to the sounds of real human death or pain afterwards, something notably lacking from any video game, probably because you'd end up feeling terrible if the terrorist/nazi/russian/alien you just shot in the stomach started crying out for his mother while bleeding out.
What these people don't understand is that, for many people, if they could not shoot bullets at imaginary terrorists and aliens, they would be shooting bullets at real co-workers and bosses.
So... no other media does this? No violent TV shows, films, or books can desensitize or cause any sort of aggression? That makes total sense. /sarcasm
Still, I don't think this sounds like an accurate test. Showing someone a picture of a dude with a gun after they play one game or the other doesn't really prove much, does it? I certainly don't think so.
Still, I don't think this sounds like an accurate test. Showing someone a picture of a dude with a gun after they play one game or the other doesn't really prove much, does it? I certainly don't think so.
Bullshit, that really paints the gamer stereotype pretty badly, as if the sentiment that they really are social shut ins that will go on a rampage if not satisfied. If people couldn't control themselves simply because they didn't have some imaginary terrorist/alien to shoot at, we'd all be dead by now. People are placing this study, and many others like it, into extremes here. The argument was never that people go crazy after playing violent video games, it's the debate over how intense certain short-/long-term effects may be when playing or viewing any form of violent media.2012 Wont Happen said:
The logistics of this, and many studies, may be in question, but too often people get extremely defensive over something that should be legitimately researched and debated.
Quick question, just how much do you know about psychology? The name Freud? Maybe something about sitting on a couch and talking?zarguhl said:
Yeah, that's what I thought.
It's so easy to criticize something you don't understand at even the most basic level, isn't it?
I'm not a psychologist, just sayin'.
Is psychology a science? Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of it knows that it's a science. Specific areas of it, however, have always been up to debate for various good reasons, but there's not a chance in hell you're going to refute an experiment this simple.
Maybe you ought to study a little more about what it means to be a science before you start making bold claims like these, scrub.
And while you're at it, why don't you take a look at what you're trying to argue here. Violent video games desensitizes people to violence? You're trying to say that this isn't the case? Are you kidding me? There's defending video games, and then there's lobotomizing yourself so you never have to notice anything wrong with it.