Study Finds "Moral Learning" is Disrupted by Violent Games

[DTWolfwood]

Ok, let's take a quick look at how big this fails.

"Moral Learning" - never defined.

Kids between 7-15 (no obvious [sub]puberty[/sub] change there.) playing Mature games...

Oh, wait a moment, didn't we already decide that's what they're not supposed to play with that whole rating system that's been there since they were first created?

Long term exposure? Never defined.

Level of violence? Never defined.

"absorbing a sanitized message of 'no consequences for violence' from this play behavior," - meaningless biased unproven drivel

Oh, and you've just poisoned the minds of 166 kids to find out that it can poison kids minds.

Seriously, non-gamers are far more dangerous than gamers, if this study is anything to go by. We at least admit we're biased.

+1

 

[Kalont]

At the end of the article the Dr. does say that parenting is more the problems then games.He's not unreasonable.

 

[Kilyle]

My 7-year-old nephew plays Left 4 Dead. Draws happy little pictures of Bill shooting bullets at a "whish" (both with happy smiles); we've talked with him a few times about "please don't ever draw these pictures in school."

I don't really have a problem with him playing L4D... maybe it's that the enemies are zombies instead of people? Killing other humans gives cognitive dissonance (why I tend to avoid the FPS genre), but here the enemy is undead, mindless, and only helped by a bullet to the brain, so even I enjoy it.

By contrast... GTA. His mom lets him play it. I know it only tangentially, but its elements include killing cops and playing a criminal, so I think he shouldn't play it until he's old enough to sort out the moral/ethical boundaries being crossed (deconstructed?).

On the flip side, there's my other 7-year-old nephew, whose parents shield him from all violent media. My dad thinks that the kid is "a sissy" (and worse) already, and lets him play L4D over here on the argument that it'll make him more manly (or that lack of exposure will make him more of a sissy). I think it's a poor way to maintain good grandparent/parent relations, but that aside, I don't agree with the argument.

You don't have to play violent video games to be "manly," and sticking to stuff like puzzle games, time-management games, Spiro the Dragon, and Harvest Moon isn't going to make you into a sissy. I support my brother's stance and I'm glad his kid is starting to refuse to play the games on his own volition.

ETA: Parents should absolutely discuss this stuff with their kids. And not just parents; we've got me (an aunt) and two grandparents who bring up stuff about the games as we're ferrying kids to and fro. Car rides are a great chance to talk about what you've been playing all day.

 

[legopelle]

So, parents who let their children play violent games makes the children violent?
Who knew...

I agree with above posts: too many variables, and too few accounted for.

 

[timeadept]

Everyone seems to view morals as a fixed concept. Morals are subjective to society. Saying that exposure to violent video games prevents moral learning doesn't really have a concrete definition.

I don't see your point, morals are subjective within a society, however we all live in extremely similar societies and our morals are relatively constant within them. One simply has to look at the society that the speaker is from and then they know the context within which the morals are being violated. In this case we all hold very similar views of violence, namely that it should only be used in self defense and even then only as a last resort. Yes there is variance within our societies, and members of our societies, but the norm, in reference to morals is what was being considered in this study, and so variance is irrelevant.

*edit* oh yeah, also a fixed view of morals is not an un-useful view for most people. We rarely travel outside of our society and so rarely need to consider the fact that others have different morals that are arguably no more wrong or right than ours are. It's completely understandable and in fact expected that people view morals as constants, especially within their own society. After all, I expect that it is the stability within society it's self that encouraged this idea.

The moment you walk outside your door, you enter a different society. What may be acceptable inside your house is not acceptable outside it. The differences may be small, but they are there, and that makes them different. Now as far as "extremely similar societies", quite simply, no, we don't. Any small group of people has different customs than another group. Any group you label as "weird" or "unusual" or anything else is a society that is different than your own. Now some may call these all part of the same society, and they are just outliers, but the difference is arbitrary.

You pass through many different societies on a daily basis most likely, even on your computer, there are societies on the internet. No, we do not have the same sense of right and wrong. No, we don't all share the same view on violence. And no, society is not stable. Unless you define stable as on a monthly basis. Information, technology, viewpoints, laws, morays all define society, and all are changing at a rapid pace compared to the views of many people.

And once again, touching on the differences in society, touching on a current example, natural disasters. When Hurricane Katrina hit Louisianian, there was rioting, looting, acts of violence. That is a part of the United States society, the American mindset: "looking after myself first and foremost." You may say that it doesn't count, it was a breakdown of society, but that just says that it is an unpleasant part of the society that people don't like to think about.

Now take Japan and the earthquake and tsunami. There is almost no violence, no rioting, no looting, especially compared to the US. It is rather startling how differently their society is compared to others. No, societies do not have fixed viewpoints. Any person's views are not necessarily those reflected by any other in a society, and issuing blank statements such as "moral learning" is irresponsible from a scientific perspective. It is vague, and can be easily turned any way the person using it chooses, because each society has different morals. In addition, exposing children to incredibly violent content in any form is inserting a new teacher of morals. We learn from what we experience, so any violent form of media isn't preventing "moral learning", it is simply teaching them a different set of morals contrary to the morals that the researcher thought were norms.

You're definition of society is too small to be effective. "The second you walk out your door you enter a different society." "Society is referred to as a group of people who share common area, culture and behavior patterns. Society is united and referred as a distinct entity. Society consists of a government, health care, education system and several occupations of people."

Spoiler: Read more: Difference Between Culture and Society | Difference Between | Culture vs Society

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-culture-and-society/#ixzz1Im9CQDHc

You seem to be referring more to subcultures, in which case you can find many small differences, but for the most part they are not significant enough to define a society. Society is what unites us as a country, and as such i think it is appropriate to judge our countries laws as our societies morals. All first world countries seek to punish violence in the majority of cases. In fact, in the minority of cases when the violence is not sought to be punished it is because it is either not seen as violence or it is justified in some other way as the lesser of two evils.

I believe i also mentioned that individuals may hold different morals than the society as a whole, however these differences are not significant enough to be considered when looking at the overall morals of a society. After all, if the differences were significant, they would be reflected in the laws of the country and the rest of the society, and so they would define the society and its morals.

As far as natural disasters go, i simply do not have the experience to comment one the disaster in Japan and the aftermath of Katrina. Even if i were keeping up with the stories i wouldn't pretend to know enough to comment on the looting. After all, the areas were and are in chaos, there are priorities greater than protecting property. In any case, all you need is a few looters and you can report that there was looting. All you need is a few of the variant population to see their opportunity and they will go to work. But again, we're not talking about variants and minorities, we're talking about the majority.

I am cautious to agree that the statement "moral learning" is vague. But i find it difficult to argue against. It depends on the context it was said in, which i believe was readily apparent. I still believe that the majority of Americans are familiar with the moral standards of our society and so when "moral learning is prevented" it is understood that it is our societies standards that are not being learned because the opposite is being taught.

Alright, i understand what you mean when you say that the statement lacks a concrete definition, but i have to disagree with the implication that this lack of definition is a flaw. Again, i think the majority of people in our society are capable of understanding the intended meaning of the statement. A more definable statement is preferable in science, then again, it's possible that this statement was simplified in order to clearly communicate it's meaning to thous who are not aware of, or do not care for the subtleties of the subject.

 

[Booze Zombie]

"Hey, hey listen!" That's what a seven year old should hear in a game, not: "FUCK! ****! DICKTITS! ASS! FHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCK!"

 

[Direwolf750]

snip

The reason I find fault with being vague is that anyone can use it in their own context and it would be appropriate, where in fact it may not be. Say that it is used by someone who very strongly believes in a religion. Religious faith is part of their morals. Now I would be hesitant to say that "moral learning" covers faith, but said individual could easily say that video games prevent children from learning the word of their god. There is no concrete point where the words say "this is what I mean" which is necessary in an experiment, a study based on the scientific method and meant to be taken as viable evidence in the scientific community. If vague is acceptable in science, than something is very wrong. Certain things could be referred to, empathy, aggression, compassion, sense of responsibility. Those things are much more concrete. Now we can't see the whole of the study, maybe these terms are mentioned and quantified, but I tend to doubt that they are. That said, I still consider this to be irresponsible.

And personally, I consider most subcultures to be valid in terms of evaluating the morals of an individual involved. However, I do concede that it is not the standard definition, and that perhaps I was a bit too zealous.

Edit: and about the looting during Katrina. There wasn't only a little, it was a lot.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9131493/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/

 

[timeadept]

snip

-snip-
Certain things could be referred to, empathy, aggression, compassion, sense of responsibility.

I'm going to re-read the first post now but i believe that these terms were actually used.

*there it is, in the bolded introduction to the post. But i think the actual study is worth reading, as we're both arguing over what words it used without actually knowing it they were used in the study*

 

[Direwolf750]

snip

-snip-
Certain things could be referred to, empathy, aggression, compassion, sense of responsibility.

I'm going to re-read the first post now but i believe that these terms were actually used.

*there it is, in the bolded introduction to the post. But i think the actual study is worth reading, as we're both arguing over what words it used without actually knowing it they were used in the study*

Empathy is referred to but not quantified, and there is no link to any sort of experiment report.

 

[timeadept]

snip

The reason I find fault with being vague is that anyone can use it in their own context and it would be appropriate, where in fact it may not be. Say that it is used by someone who very strongly believes in a religion. Religious faith is part of their morals. Now I would be hesitant to say that "moral learning" covers faith, but said individual could easily say that video games prevent children from learning the word of their god. There is no concrete point where the words say "this is what I mean" which is necessary in an experiment, a study based on the scientific method and meant to be taken as viable evidence in the scientific community. If vague is acceptable in science, than something is very wrong. Certain things could be referred to, empathy, aggression, compassion, sense of responsibility. Those things are much more concrete. Now we can't see the whole of the study, maybe these terms are mentioned and quantified, but I tend to doubt that they are. That said, I still consider this to be irresponsible.

And personally, I consider most subcultures to be valid in terms of evaluating the morals of an individual involved. However, I do concede that it is not the standard definition, and that perhaps I was a bit too zealous.

Edit: and about the looting during Katrina. There wasn't only a little, it was a lot.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9131493/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/

Excuse me, i got excited and apparently ignored half your post. Judging from the linked article, terms like aggression, empathy and sympathy, were apparently used. There does not seem to be an easy way to access the actual study though. And i'm sorry, i was feeling a bit defensive and wanted to counter all your arguments and so commented in areas that i should have at least taken the opportunity to do some research and make an intelligent statement on.

 

[the December King]

It's kind of a shame that the last line of this article here couldn't have been the title of the study... because alot of people will likely stop reading there.

Okay, a lot of you guys actually managed to piss me off. The observation above should explain why. I?m going to try and be civil, but some of you really need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Here is a study (a study, not a divine decree of universal truth) that suggest that: Children who are already in bad environment and have a big exposure to violent video games (or indeed any violent media) may find a number of violent acts acceptable. Therefore it is probably a bad idea to ignore age ratings on games.

And this apparently pisses a lot of you off. That the media you proclaim as you own, is held in the same regard as TV, movies and books. It seems to me that the study is saying that video games are just as influential as any other thing. Not more. Not less. Just as much as every other goddamn thing.

As for those attacking the science. It seems that lot of you have got your hermeneutics, mixed up with your natural science. I?m no scientist, but I do have some experience in doing behavioral studies with children. The thing is, there are no ultimate answers in this kind of thing. Only tendencies. You then look at those tendencies and try to figure out why they are there. Then you most likely discover new tendencies, and so on and so forth. Point is, from what I have seen, this study seems legit, if a little vague. But that?s behavioral science for you. Also, I?m going to take a safe guess and say that these people probably know more about doing these kinds of things, than most people on this forum.(No need to show me your resume, I said most)

Here is an idea. If you are so pissed at the science and so sure that violent video games, have absolutely no effect on kids, then how about funding you own study.

And for those of you that played violent video games and grew up the most empathic/sympatric/ level headed guys. Good for you. No seriously kudos. But is it really so unthinkable that things could have turned out otherwise. I consider myself to be in the same group (those that turned out okay), but I also am very aware of the dangers of escapism.

Some of you guys seriously need to stop acting like fucking victims. Especially in cases like here, when nobody is attacking you. Perhaps the reason that videogames have become the big bad child corrupting scapegoat, is that it is the one community that flies into a rage every time somebody even hints at it?

Pew?that felt good?.in a kind of pointless way.

Well, I'm glad you got that off of your chest! But really, personally, I wasn't pissed off, I was making a reasonable observation. The study is very likely sound. Kids shouldn't play violent games. But I would rather not see more restrictions placed on games I want to play because of other people's poor parenting descisions, and if this could be twisted to use as fuel for some sort of political struggle to severely restrict certain games, well, that makes me concerned.

But you know, you're allowed your opinion too, right?

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Also, when did video games become kids' primary moral compass? >(

Ever since irresponsible soccer moms started suing developers for their own inability to read the PEGI ratings.