Research Finds Negative Effects in Violent Videogames
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
So much anger. Wow.
The study is a small focus group. The sampling could be bigger. What are the quantitative results? Don't know..I don't want to pay to actually download the study from Scopus. And yes, there are seemingly presumptuous conclusions without basis in the article printed here. But...
Why is it so hard for everyone to believe that video games can affect your behavior? The study doesn't say you are going to act out the things you saw in a violent game. It says there is evidence that they influence behavior. If the study said video games about selfless acts inspire people to volunteer in their community, would there be this uproar of dissent?
Your brain is a very complicated thing. It is influenced by everything you take in and not all of it on a conscious level. Your super-ego is always there, putting the stop limits on your actions and filtering incoming information to fit your belief system. But that underlying id shifts its boundaries around based on the environment it experiences.
For Example: I did a couple long days of Saints Row 3 a while back. Afterwards, I didn't want to whip out The Penetrator for any beatdowns. But I do remember that my driving was actually more reckless for a bit. I pulled into a parking spot way to fast and came really close to the side of another car. That was the way I had been driving for the past few days in game. The reckless driving style was becoming an unconscious competent act (see: The 4 Stages of Learning) and I had to do a conscious mental "reset" to get back into the right mindset. I'm 43. And I slipped into a recent, abnormal behavior during a normal unconscious act. Is the game to blame? Hell no--I am the only one accountable for my actions. But, my short-lived behavior change was a direct result of my gaming experience.
The study is a small focus group. The sampling could be bigger. What are the quantitative results? Don't know..I don't want to pay to actually download the study from Scopus. And yes, there are seemingly presumptuous conclusions without basis in the article printed here. But...
Why is it so hard for everyone to believe that video games can affect your behavior? The study doesn't say you are going to act out the things you saw in a violent game. It says there is evidence that they influence behavior. If the study said video games about selfless acts inspire people to volunteer in their community, would there be this uproar of dissent?
Your brain is a very complicated thing. It is influenced by everything you take in and not all of it on a conscious level. Your super-ego is always there, putting the stop limits on your actions and filtering incoming information to fit your belief system. But that underlying id shifts its boundaries around based on the environment it experiences.
For Example: I did a couple long days of Saints Row 3 a while back. Afterwards, I didn't want to whip out The Penetrator for any beatdowns. But I do remember that my driving was actually more reckless for a bit. I pulled into a parking spot way to fast and came really close to the side of another car. That was the way I had been driving for the past few days in game. The reckless driving style was becoming an unconscious competent act (see: The 4 Stages of Learning) and I had to do a conscious mental "reset" to get back into the right mindset. I'm 43. And I slipped into a recent, abnormal behavior during a normal unconscious act. Is the game to blame? Hell no--I am the only one accountable for my actions. But, my short-lived behavior change was a direct result of my gaming experience.
What a crock of shit I play nothing but violent video games my whole life from Mortal Kombat to Gears of War and I've never hurt anyone who didn't have it coming
No, but the fact that there are large quantities of data means that the accumulative chances of it being faulty fall under the fault margin. Or is scientific consensus something that's now on trial here?DrOswald said:
Sample size is way too small, choosing from university students is not a representative sample, wasn't double blind(which probably means the stories read to the violent games group were read in a more aggressive tone), expectation of violence in media does not equate to expectation of violence in real life, expectation of violence does not equate to violent behavior or tendencies in the subject, this is not even close to being something that you can reasonably draw a conclusion from.
I have a feeling that there's a lot that's not mentioned here OR on the Ohio State site... mostly because Andy lifted the article in its entirety(sans Wikipedia links to most of the games).
Given the fact that more and more people are long term gamers now that when I was a kid leads me to believe that there isn't really a link between even the increased aggression and actual increases in violence.
Given the fact that more and more people are long term gamers now that when I was a kid leads me to believe that there isn't really a link between even the increased aggression and actual increases in violence.
So you're telling me that after playing a war game a work of FICTION, when people were presented with other works of fiction that they referred to the other and most recent work of fiction.
If you've just finished watching 300, and I ask you to think of a color, are you more likely to say florescent pink or crimson red?
I don't see how this proves anything.
If you've just finished watching 300, and I ask you to think of a color, are you more likely to say florescent pink or crimson red?
I don't see how this proves anything.
I've played video games since the Atari 2600. The only offense I've ever committed was a moving violation 20 years ago (and no I don't play racing sims). Either the world is sitting on a powder-keg of violent videogamers ready to go ape-shit at the slightest provocation, or people are just looking for a scapegoat.
I know you gave the disclaimer about the methodology, but i can only speak from personal experience and my post was based on such.Cryo84R said:
Im 20 years playing violent video games. I volunteer at my local search and rescue unit, im a corporal in the army reserve, i do a shit load of charity work as an actor (my main job), the only altercations i have ever been involved in has been to defend someone,and i have no criminal record and one citizenship award
I watch violent movies too.
I pay my taxes, do right by my neighbours, I vote and take a principled stand when i need to.
I also have an MA from a university.
Im not perfect, but i do alright by people. Im certainly no genius, what i have noticed however in my time in university is that Academics will and quite happily shit on anyone and anything if it gets them a thesis.
These guys admitted to a limited scope of study and they found results.... fine. Results are results, but insinuating conclusions out of this is a betrayal of the academic and research principle these guys are hiding behind. From my own perspective and using my own personal experience as a flimsical authority in this matter, i think these guys are not only stretching, but also attention seeking.
Thank you, I'm always effected in my writing by any media I've recently consumed. It is part of the reason why when I sit down to write a particular Genre I put myself on a genre ban of that particular genre.sethisjimmy said:
I don't want my work to seem overly derivative or be overly influenced by other media in that genre. So say I'm writing a fantasy story, I don't play any fantasy games, watch any fantasy movies etc. Because if I do elements of them will find their way into my writing and it will greatly distract me and generally stop my flow.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that having a large amount of bad data does not make it good data.Farther than stars said:
Imagine that 10,000 different experiments are performed. The objective of these experiments are to determine which value is larger: A or B. 9900 of the experiments come to the conclusion that A is larger than B, while only 100 of the experiments state that B is the greater value.
According to your logic the 9900 experiments are more likely to be true, and this is the important part, even if many or most of them can be proven to be experimentally unsound. Simply because there are more of them.
Moving on. After the 10000 experiments are performed and we check the methodology of each, it turns out that 99% of the results favoring A were based on faulty experiments, while only 1% of the results favoring B were based on faulty experiments. This means that there were only 198 valid experiments, with 99 results in favor of A being larger and 99 results in favor of B being larger.
While this is an extreme example, it demonstrates that faulty data (data obtained through flawed experiments) should be ignored entirely. They should have no bearing on our conclusion at all. Valid conclusions can only be drawn from good data, and a valid scientific consensus can only be reached using good data.
Which means that if this is indeed a garbage study, then it should put in the list of experiment to be ignored entirely. It does not matter if that list has 5 items or 1,000,000 items. All of them should be ignored completely.
They must have a TARDIS to be able to see "Long term effects" in a three day span.
Honestly.. what a bunch of rubbish, you can't test the long term effects of ANYTHING in a short period of time, that's completely against the definition of LONG TERM
*looks at captcha*
I'm Batman? well that's one way to calm me down after getting slightly worked up haha
It didn't accept my answer of "This city's full of people, WILLING TO BELIEVE IN GOOD"
I'm sad now.
Honestly.. what a bunch of rubbish, you can't test the long term effects of ANYTHING in a short period of time, that's completely against the definition of LONG TERM
*looks at captcha*
I'm Batman? well that's one way to calm me down after getting slightly worked up haha
It didn't accept my answer of "This city's full of people, WILLING TO BELIEVE IN GOOD"
I'm sad now.
Sorry to jump into your conversation but the first gaming console the Magnovox Odyssey was invented in august 1972. I don't really see many 40 - 50 year olds running about tearing each other apart.kburns10 said:
Violent crime has been on the decrease since video games were invented. If they were villain training machines surely the earth would be a wasteland by now. I have been playing games since I was 3 years old in 1984 and I haven't killed anyone yet
. Also as a personal anecdote my dad who suffered from violent episodes which we later found out were due to a form of epilepsy, (Think living in The Shining every night) could put off his rampages by playing DOOM 2 on the snes with infinite health and the chainsaw. I think video games are more likely to be an outlet for violent tendencies rather than a cause of them and that's the reaction their studies are seeing.
The study did suggest that the violence factor "levels off" after a certain point. So maybe it levels-off at a point so insignificantly low that it has virtually no impact on actual violence/aggression outside of the mind. Those who are violent and aggressive would've been that way regardless of whether they were playing violent videogames or not.
Actually what he says is that 'It may level off at some point' he uses very dismissive language about the possibility while going on to claim that there is no 'theoretical reason' why levels would later decrease.Aaron Sylvester said:
Except all the studies mentioned which only found short-term aggression increases rather then long ones.Odd how he forgets to mention that.
