True, but they could be overlooking benefits of gaming like increased skills (hand-eye coordination) or social skills like cooperating on a mission. Focusing primarily on violence in itself is somewhat biased because it excludes the bigger picture of gaming's impact. The primary question is "Does gaming cause a negative behavior?" and rarely ask "Does gaming cause positive behavior?" If there is enough research to definitively answer BOTH questions - specifically "yes" to the former and "no" to the latter - then gaming does indeed hold no artistic or social value and a better argument, I feel, can be made for it's regulation.Generic Gamer said:
Study Claims Anti-Game Research More Reliable
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
A lot of "violent game" studies (most that I've seen anyway) are set out from the start to try to prove that violent games affect kids, most often with completely biased methods that people (for some reason) still seem to take seriously.Generic Gamer said:
Personally I believe that nothing is a result of one specific influence, trying to prove any such causality will never result in an unbiased study
Gee, kinda like global warming research. If you have research that proves, or at least suggests, that humans have virtually no impact on climate, you are called a flat earther in the pocket of the oil companies and will NEVER recieve any government grants to continue your research. On the other hand, if you have very poorly conducted research with obvious faults that shows the slightest hint of man made global warming, tax dollars come flowing your way like a tsunami.
That's the problem when you have politicians deciding which 'science' is and is not valid
Very very very important to note.The Dark Canuck said:
It's not only that, though; a lot of the Bushman and Craig Anderson studies have demonstrated a vast and dismissive negativity to the entire medium. It borders on high-snobbery, and is not objective social science.
They're also somewhat alarmist as well; they've used the term "Public Health Threat" in regards to video game violence. Public Health Threat being more specifically reserved for things like resistant strains of Tuberculosis, or terrorism.
Here's the problem
An, "Anti gaming" study likely has stronger names because there is an agenda to "Prove (God, I hate that word in Social Sciences) that they are harmful. Legitimate individuals find a CORRELATION, and report such.
Slightly less credible, but still quite credible, individuals do a "Pro game" study that show no CAUSATION between video games and violence.
Those anti-gaming studies are more reliable because the label, "Anti-gaming" is applied by people who have no idea what the results of those studies actually mean. Its a very clever way to lie with Statistics, and Im not encouraged, because I probably wouldn't have been able to catch that lie until very late in my undergrad. In reality, when you actually look at, and properly interpreter, the studies themselves, ypu see that there is no danger posed by games.
And if there are, I would like to follow up this case trying to get games like football banned from high schools, and banning sale of shoulder pads to minors, because I can all but guarantee that any harmful causation between video games and violence is doubled when you look at sports. Can someone start trying to censor Football so we can establish a precedent?
An, "Anti gaming" study likely has stronger names because there is an agenda to "Prove (God, I hate that word in Social Sciences) that they are harmful. Legitimate individuals find a CORRELATION, and report such.
Slightly less credible, but still quite credible, individuals do a "Pro game" study that show no CAUSATION between video games and violence.
Those anti-gaming studies are more reliable because the label, "Anti-gaming" is applied by people who have no idea what the results of those studies actually mean. Its a very clever way to lie with Statistics, and Im not encouraged, because I probably wouldn't have been able to catch that lie until very late in my undergrad. In reality, when you actually look at, and properly interpreter, the studies themselves, ypu see that there is no danger posed by games.
And if there are, I would like to follow up this case trying to get games like football banned from high schools, and banning sale of shoulder pads to minors, because I can all but guarantee that any harmful causation between video games and violence is doubled when you look at sports. Can someone start trying to censor Football so we can establish a precedent?
Just how exhaustive is this literature search anyways?
1) Is it just a bunch of correlation studies, as has been suggested by commenters above?
2) Are most of the anti-game studies those ones from the 80s and 90s where they tested a sample group of a few dozen undergraduates and measured "aggression" based on things like "aggressive thoughts" (that do not necessarily translate into action) or sounding airhorns after 15 minutes of playing Pac-Man?
3) Can these studies explain why rates of violent crime--especially among youth--have dropped dramatically since video games became a prominent form of entertainment?
1) Is it just a bunch of correlation studies, as has been suggested by commenters above?
2) Are most of the anti-game studies those ones from the 80s and 90s where they tested a sample group of a few dozen undergraduates and measured "aggression" based on things like "aggressive thoughts" (that do not necessarily translate into action) or sounding airhorns after 15 minutes of playing Pac-Man?
3) Can these studies explain why rates of violent crime--especially among youth--have dropped dramatically since video games became a prominent form of entertainment?
They say that the Gruel brief has 48 times more the number of "respected" studies than the contrary, but these studies are most likely respected for the sole purpose of their outcome rather than the science around them. Esentialy what I am saying is that the only reason those studies are respected is because their results said that games cause violence.
Excellent points. Thank you for the continued coverage on this Mr. Tito, you're a credit to the community.Greg Tito said:
Problem is in this day and age you are unlikely to find many people that have not played video games, we all have seen the stories that "stretch" when some teen commits some violence then mention in the article oh he played modern warfare, just like the good old days when stories stretched to mention that some kid listened to ozzy osbourne or marylin mansion, or i could push that further that most people invloved in gang violence listens to rap like NWA and ice tea and etc so that rap music must cause gang related violence.
It is just simple creating connections that exist but have no basis in fact any proof or logic that say one thing caused this behavior. It is just making the inference enough times that it sticks.
Why would not the anti game side have more ammo, and more "accredited" signees, the state of CA and many places in europe have had studies funded to prove that video games do cause violent behavior, you are not going to publish a study you pay for that does not support what you payed for in the first place, or you are like the federal government and just redact the study heavily and take things out of context to create outlandish and non sensical aka lies about something.
Being that most of the lower courts in fact tossed out the games are bad research as bad studies and not good research, should speak volumes about the quality of said research, despite the names signed on the thing that have either had an axe to grind or were payed to sign it.
Then the simple fact of the matter stands that in the explosion of video games and gaming, youth and teen violence is down, violent crime rates across the board are down over previous decades and have been declining despite the fact that since the 90s more and more people have been gaming and if these studies had any basis in reality then we would expect to see a rather noticable uptick in youth and teen violence, but the actual number do not bear that out no matter what stacks of peoples the bureaucrats in california want to pay for and shove under the justice's nose.
It is just simple creating connections that exist but have no basis in fact any proof or logic that say one thing caused this behavior. It is just making the inference enough times that it sticks.
Why would not the anti game side have more ammo, and more "accredited" signees, the state of CA and many places in europe have had studies funded to prove that video games do cause violent behavior, you are not going to publish a study you pay for that does not support what you payed for in the first place, or you are like the federal government and just redact the study heavily and take things out of context to create outlandish and non sensical aka lies about something.
Being that most of the lower courts in fact tossed out the games are bad research as bad studies and not good research, should speak volumes about the quality of said research, despite the names signed on the thing that have either had an axe to grind or were payed to sign it.
Then the simple fact of the matter stands that in the explosion of video games and gaming, youth and teen violence is down, violent crime rates across the board are down over previous decades and have been declining despite the fact that since the 90s more and more people have been gaming and if these studies had any basis in reality then we would expect to see a rather noticable uptick in youth and teen violence, but the actual number do not bear that out no matter what stacks of peoples the bureaucrats in california want to pay for and shove under the justice's nose.
Honestly, I have to wonder if you would take such discrepancy if the study found that the "Pro-Game" research was more reliable than the "Anti-Game" research. I get that this is a gaming news site, so of course we'd take umbrage to this study, it's just an interesting thought.Greg Tito said:
What really bothers me though is that it's "Video Games cause violent behavior" studies versus "Video Games have first amendment rights" studies. Can you even research "Video Games have first amendment rights"? That, I think, is BS.
I wonder why they never make a link between a shooting involving teens and violent movies. Oh wait, complete bias against video games.
And yes, I believe video games can cause a change in young teenagers, I for one will never allow my children to play games that I do not deem fit for them. I would NEVER let my children anywhere near games like Gears of War until they are at least 18.
Also, extreme violence in movies is okay, but when it comes to games its suddenly bad? Hypocrisy.
And that is your right and responsibility as a parent good on you. Sadly it seems too many parents want to shove off their parenting duties on the state in enough cases that this silliness continues.sinterklaas said:
Each and every child is different there is no one set age where all children are ok and not ok to play one game or another, but i doubt video games are any worse at ramping young kids up than say watching dragonball z, or watching the old star wars movies with lots of laser pew pew and lightsaber fights. We were all kids once and we know that we get a jolt of adrenlin when watching tv or movies or playing sports or some roughhouse play, But none of that is permanent watch dbz as a kid does not skew your thinking or make you think beating the snot out of some super being for hours on end is the sane and rational way to view life, and i doubt video games have any more effect than the typical adrenlin buzz that many other child friendly activities have.
But you set the limits for your kids i will support and applaud that and stand up for your right to do that each and every time.
yes they have published works, but tell me, what have they published? Does it involve psychology at all? Does it involve studies into children and who they grew up to be after playing violent video games? Some of these people could have published papers on purple dinosaurs, and still be being called, 'experts'. Age is a major factor here. Older people are more likely to dislike video games, and there for, have more experience to justify their words. Whereas video games are a younger, newer medium of art, and there for many of its advocates are- get this- younger, with less experience. So it can be seen that this is a completely one sided argument. I have a bad feeling about what the SC is going to rule...