Study Finds "Moral Learning" is Disrupted by Violent Games

[Phantom Echo]

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.

Here's the problem with your argument:

As far as I can tell, you haven't said anything about the study itself... but rather about the REPORT being made on the study, by none other than the Escapist here. Most of these studies are PAGES and PAGES and PAGES of data. This is a condensed version for those folks who can't be arsed to read the entire twelve thousand word experimental journals, I'm sure.

This is like expecting the WARNING STICKER on your mirror to not only tell you that objects may be larger than they appear... but to also then give you precise measurements of the distance between you and said object.

Sure, I suppose it could be done. In fact, that would be so awesome that I suggest someone does it and makes millions on the newest 'safety features' market.

But again... it's not the same thing to read this ARTICLE... as it is to read the actual full-length report. And unless you did, which I doubt... considering you used word-for-word the sentences of the article... all you serve to do is further obfuscate the truth.

The truth is that we all KNOW that exposure to violence desensitizes us to more violence. Nobody with half a brain would deny that. That's why there are ratings in the first place... which the parents involved in most of these kinds of cases choose to KNOWINGLY ignore. The problem is, and this is why you keep seeing these studies being done over and over again, that nobody has been able to prove it to satisfaction through science. They're trying to determine precisely what it is that happens, and probably what 'desensitized' actually translates to, as well.

We know what does happen... but we don't really know WHAT happens, deep down on a physiological/psychological level. And this is the job of scientists and psychologists... to study this stuff. That's what they do.

Unfortunately, some of them are biased towards the 'cause' of others... which is where you should be really concerned. Instead of taking your aggression out on a man who openly believes that the problem is with parents not knowing what their children should and should not be exposed to... perhaps you should take it out against the ignorant zealots who would DEMAND that all violent exposure turns your children into walking, ticking time-bombs.

No?

 

[Lma0nade]

Wow, A unique study! Just like all the others.

 

[frago roc]

I want to read the scientific journal article to, if anything, see the statistics and testing procedure. However I cannot find it. Maybe it's waiting to get published. Maybe it's still being peer viewed. Regardless, studies are not always perfect, and oftimes can be refuted by future work. This is the beauty of real science.

 

[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.

 

[Phantom Echo]

I want to read the scientific journal article to, if anything, see the statistics and testing procedure. However I cannot find it. Maybe it's waiting to get published. Maybe it's still being peer viewed. Regardless, studies are not always perfect, and oftimes can be refuted by future work. This is the beauty of real science.

This! Exactly this.

The odds are that, with as new as this article is, the official journals probably aren't released yet. This was probably just an article written up based on an interview with the guy running the group. That's usually how news happens, anyways. I could be wrong.

I think it's premature to jump the gun like some people have and claim bias and all kinds of craziness when we haven't even SEEN the actual study.

 

[godfist88]

again with this nonsense, it's seems like we get a "video games are the cause of everything bad" argument every week. It's nothing but white noise at this point.

 

[frago roc]

Here's the problem with your argument:

As far as I can tell, you haven't said anything about the study itself... but rather about the REPORT being made on the study, by none other than the Escapist here. Most of these studies are PAGES and PAGES and PAGES of data. This is a condensed version for those folks who can't be arsed to read the entire twelve thousand word experimental journals, I'm sure.

This is like expecting the WARNING STICKER on your mirror to not only tell you that objects may be larger than they appear... but to also then give you precise measurements of the distance between you and said object.

Sure, I suppose it could be done. In fact, that would be so awesome that I suggest someone does it and makes millions on the newest 'safety features' market.

But again... it's not the same thing to read this ARTICLE... as it is to read the actual full-length report. And unless you did, which I doubt... considering you used word-for-word the sentences of the article... all you serve to do is further obfuscate the truth.

The truth is that we all KNOW that exposure to violence desensitizes us to more violence. Nobody with half a brain would deny that. That's why there are ratings in the first place... which the parents involved in most of these kinds of cases choose to KNOWINGLY ignore. The problem is, and this is why you keep seeing these studies being done over and over again, that nobody has been able to prove it to satisfaction through science. They're trying to determine precisely what it is that happens, precisely.

We know what does happen... but we don't really know WHAT happens, deep down on a physiological/psychological level. And this is the job of scientists and psychologists... to study this stuff. That's what they do.

Unfortunately, some of them are biased towards the 'cause' of others... which is where you should be really concerned. Instead of taking your aggression out on a man who openly believes that the problem is with parents not knowing what their children should and should not be exposed to... perhaps you should take it out against the ignorant zealots who would DEMAND that all violent exposure turns your children into walking, ticking time-bombs.

No?

As I just said in the last post, I actually looked for but cannot find the journal article. Until I see a peer viewed paper I am taking this article with a grain of salt. I do however agree that the definitions of all the phrases are probably in the actual article. And indeed, this definitions are of particular interest... how does one measure morality...?

 

[ecoho]

OK what happened to parents actualy paying atention to their kids? When i was 8 i wanted an M rated game(cant remember which one i think it was GTA) my mother read the box then told me if i can explain to her why i want this game shed buy it. in short she made sure i knew what the game was about and was mature enoth not to be damaged by it. (i didnt get the game after i did my research since it didnt look good to me afterword) Only you the parent know how mature your child is no one else so for god sake get to know them.

 

[The Stonker]

I played video games from a very young games (soldiers of fortune, MOH etc etc).
Most people consider me to be one of the most sympathetic and kind people you will ever find, even tho I was bullied for a long time and I will smite anyone who will hurt my family, which I find to be a good quality.
So, this study is bullshit kinda like Rebecca Black.

 

[Th37thTrump3t]

In fact, it was said, by Vieira himself. Videogames have ratings for a reason and if a seven-year-old is playing Bulletstorm [http://www.amazon.com/Bulletstorm-Pc/dp/B003H0CBT8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1301951974&sr=8-2], I think what we're really looking at is not a problem with videogames, but a problem with parenting.

Source: Yahoo! News [http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20110404/pl_usnw/DC76717_1]


Permalink

Did it seriously take researchers this fucking long to realize something the gaming community has been screaming out at the top of their lungs for a few years now... -.-

Seriously though where the fuck was this guy a few years ago when all of this bullshit started.

 

[Scout Tactical]

Seriously though where the fuck was this guy a few years ago when all of this bullshit started.

If I had to guess, I'd say he was consulting for European countries in marketing management and strategic marketing.

Source: http://www.simmons.edu/gradstudies/programs/mcm/faculty/vieira.php

 

[Th37thTrump3t]

again with this nonsense, it's seems like we get a "video games are the cause of everything bad" argument every week. It's nothing but white noise at this point.

Notice the age group this study pertains to, ages 7-12. Honestly I wouldn't want my 7 year old playing GTA or Bulletstorm.

 

[4173]

I think I reading a completely different excerpt than some of you guys. You need to distinguish between what the researcher said, and the columnist.

The researcher said they have findings which SUGGEST an effect, and possible interactions. That IS the scientific process. Not every piece of research is undertaken with the same goal.

The hypothesis seems to have been along the lines of "violent video games can impair moral learning in children." If that is the research question, OF COURSE THE SAMPLE GROUP WILL BE VARIED. Then you either find something, IN WHICH CASE YOU RUN MORE FOCUSED STUDIES, in order to tease out more specifics or you redesign the research and try again, or give up entirely.

In this case, they can now go look at a few specific groups (boys and at-risk children). That's really the only thing the researcher is actually quoted as saying in this piece, "MORE RESEARCH IS IN ORDER."

 

[mjc0961]

...

When are these people doing these studies going to realize that the aren't giving us any meaningful data (that or they are giving us blatantly obvious data we already knew)? Also, they're actively asking kids to play M rated games. These people are worse than the games industry that wingnuts like Jack Thompson and Fox News are certain make these games for little kids to play, but they get a pass because said wingnuts can use this "research" as more ammo for their "games are the devil!" arguments. Blah.

 

[godfist88]

again with this nonsense, it's seems like we get a "video games are the cause of everything bad" argument every week. It's nothing but white noise at this point.

Notice the age group this study pertains to, ages 7-12. Honestly I wouldn't want my 7 year old playing GTA or Bulletstorm.

then don't let them play it. These games aren't meant for kids anyway so why are they doing studies to reinforce the reason why?

 

[Seanchaidh]

What does a desensitization to violence have to do with moral learning? Violence is sometimes the most moral action to take. It's a tool. As far as I'm concerned, this sort of desensitization is about as significant as carpentry at a young age desensitizing children to hammering[footnote]the M-rated version of this post says 'screwing'[/footnote], and thus 'interfering' with architectural learning.

 

[Murray Whitwell]

I think people are really forgetting the importance of self discovery. A kid won't grow up to be individual if people shove morals down their throats their whole lives, and a big part of self improvement is to have our morals and beliefs challenged. Only until our moral flaws are exposed can we change and improve ourselves as a human being. And if what challenges us goes completely against our morals, it strengthens and solidifies what we already hold true to ourselves and our beliefs.
If we are given the space to develop our own beliefs, violent media should not influence what we already believe since it is just that. Media. Entertainment. Rarely a depiction of someones moral beliefs; just a bit of fun.
Of course, this whole anti-videogames scare campaign has destroyed any chance of people thinking sensibly..

 

[Therumancer]

Well, kids are by definition self centered, cruel, violent, and have self control issues. This is why parenting is such a big deal. Children are not "little adults" or simply uneducated, they are fundementally differant as they have not fully developed in an
emotional and intellectual sense. For some reason people like to think children are some kind of blank slate, or inherantly passive, that's hardly the case. Children are very much driven by insticts, in a pure, and fairly animal form, with their own needs before anything else. This is why it can take quite a bit to reinforce behaviors like sharing and communal action.

If you look at some of the things children have done throughout less civilized portions of the world, including becoming soldiers, or even warlords in their own right, not to mention hardened gang bangers one famous example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_%22Yummy%22_Sandifer ... and remember "Yummy" was before the current video game "problems" in the media.

This is to say nothing of books like "Lord Of The Flies" and Steven King's "Children Of The Corn" which are famous shockers because they get right down to the basics of this reality.

At any rate, I think the problem here is that the researchers are disturbed when they find the children don't match the tendencies they have mentally created for them. Forgetting about the fact that kids, especially boys, have been running around shooting each other with toy guns and fighting with toy swords pretty much forever, video games are just a fancier way of doing the same basic things.

Older groups being "less affected" is more a matter of them just being more mature in general.


Now granted, I *DO* think that violent video games and such should be kept away from children, and I see that as part of parenting. I do not however believe that keeping kids away from violence is a good idea, and quite counter productive, because face it... that's how kids play. You just have to watch out to step in to prevent (and punish if need be) actual fighting.

To be honest though, I'll be frank in saying that the biggest reason for keeping kids away from a lot of this material is *NOT* for fear that it will turn them into a psycho-killer or anything. It's because kids are easily frightened, and the big reason why you keep kids away from things like horror movies, and ultra-violence, is because you want to get some sleep. You show a kid "Nightmare On Elm Street" the issue isn't that he's going to want to be Freddy, the issue is that he's not going to want to go to sleep because he's afraid Freddy
is going to get him if he does. Since you have to go to work, and he has to go to school... well the problems here are obvious.

To be honest, most of the action heroes in video games today are not really all that differant from the ones of yesterday. Entire generations grew up with guys like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood before all this current contreversy. Seeing a bunch of military guys or cops wipe out bad guys today, is no differant than seeing it in the older movies. Sit down and actually watch some of those old Westerns and stuff, a lot of them are pretty brutal. They also use a lot of the same exact ethics and conventions you see in current action fare. The Sheriff heads out alone (or maybe with his Deputy) and takes out a bunch of outlaws, is really very similar to a police officer (and maybe his partner) taking out a bunch of organized crime people.

 

[Jikuu]

Neither the Escapist article nor the news article from Yahoo! discusses how this hypothesis was tested. I'm worried that the experiment may not have weeded out all biases or used improper procedure. I hope the actual journal article pops up soon.

 

[Reallink]

Educate adults first about how not to be ignorant of what the children are playing. Then if people are still 'morally disrupted', we can talk.