Study Finds "Moral Learning" is Disrupted by Violent Games

[Pig Mazurka]

No study will ever find an answer better than, "DON'T ALLOW LITTLE KIDS TO PLAY VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES."

Being a teenager myself, at least I understand that violence is wrong.

 

[ServebotFrank]

The funny thing is that I've been playing violent games since I was 4 but have turned out pretty fine. The thing I wonder is why would a seven year old be playing Bulletstorm? Yeah I'm sure nothing bad could happen from that kind of game. Hell I wasn't allowed to play GTA until I was 12 and I have realized that a lot of fucked up and violent kids do play violent video games BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES ARE VIOLENT. At the same time I think the reason that kids shoot up schools and murder people is because parents shelter them so much that by the time they do find out about these things, they can't handle it. Kids are really smart and we give them way less credit then they deserve.

 

[antipunt]

Children are malleable, especially during critical development. It is very likely that they will be vulnerable to -all- types of environmental influences. Violent video games can be the tip of the iceberg. There's more important variables methinks: peer group, family, friendship/bonding, healthy habits, etc. I m-mean, if your primary source of moral learning comes from an M-rated game I don't even...

 

[DaHero]

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.

Truth, BUT! They also said in the report that violent games apparently do no desensitize older teenagers. So this is sort of a double edged sword, meaning it's not helping anyone.

 

[jpoon]

There's no way it could be all the crap on tv that kids see day-in day-out, it surely is solely videogames.

/sarcasm

 

[high_castle]

The problem with a study like this is it doesn't always take into account the other factors in the child's life. Like where the parents are when the 7 year old is playing Bulletstorm or Dante's Inferno. If a parent is that absent from a kid's life, then I don't think it's much of a stretch to say the kid's going to have some problems in life. But that's not the game's fault.

 

[JordanXlord]

I think what we're really looking at is not a problem with videogames, but a problem with parenting.

And truer words were never spoken again.

That was Too true to not Cry for Joy

*Sobs*

Andy Chalk...YOU ARE AMAZING

 

[Broax]

Indeed the final line says it all... Also I violent games like bulletstorm weren't supposed to be played by kids!

And...

I thought good moral values were given to man by the allmighty god... How video games can bypass gods will is beyond me...

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

"Certainly not every child who continues to play violent videogames is going to go out and perpetrate a violent act, but the research suggests that children - particularly boys - who are frequently exposed to these violent games are absorbing a sanitized message of 'no consequences for violence' from this play behavior," Vieira said. "The concern arises when children are taking in this message and there is a convergence of other negative environmental factors at the same time, such as poor parental communication and unhealthy peer relationships."

Videogames have ratings for a reason and if a seven-year-old is playing Bulletstorm, I think what we're really looking at is not a problem with videogames, but a problem with parenting.

Finally, a study is done that finds evidence against video games but still reamains fair and brings up the incredibly relevant issue of parenting. Thank you responsible researcher. I may not agree, but you have done well.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Is it not a fact in itself that the stated bad parenting a.k.a. neglect and otherwise ignoring of the child holds a greater dilemma?I grew up with violent games and have never had such problems.Any one person dumb enough to do such things deserves the punishment regardless of age.The mommy and daddy have more to play in this factor then a faceless bike helmet wearing super human who wears a second helmet.

 

[Blueruler182]

I call bullshit... I've had depression since I was little and the only thing to always help was a video game, and I am not a violent person. I can also tell of quite a few other people who were raised around video games who aren't bad people. In fact the people whos lives have been fucked up generally live with a family who couldn't afford a console, so maybe just once we can look into parenting as being the problem. I know the parent's job is hard enough but if you can't handle making your own rules for the child and choose to go to the internet for advise you clearly don't deserve the child.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

Very smart ending quote. Parents decide what their children play and what they buy them.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The truth is that we all KNOW that exposure to violence desensitizes us to more violence.
No?

No. Never proven. Never even given ground rules for how to prove such a thing.

Also doesn't excuse the unethical study. Or the failure to double blind. Or the use of subjects without permission. Or the weasel words used. Or the passive aggressive voice you use to denounce me.

If you expose a group of people to a competitive activity and then try and teach them something away from that, of course you're going to have difficulty. It's called adrenaline. Every parent or teaching student knows that. Directly linking a form of one to the causation of the other is bad science, period.

Viera's analysis is subjective twaddle that cannot be proven statistically. Find me the report itself and I'll tear it apart scientifically as well. At the moment, I'm only finding logical flaws with the press release attached to it by the authors.

 

[The Apothecarry]

I did a research paper about this once, but it was more about whether or not games were considered "free speech."

The Parent's Television Council (PTC) had the audacity to claim that young children were getting their hands on illegal games like Postal. Seems like this is going for a similar argument.

Do I think that exposing young children to violence is a bad thing? Absolutely! But I believe that games are not the primary factor. There are standards in place to prevent such exposure, and any parent who buys Gears of War 2 for their five year old son has their head in the clouds.

I had GTA 2 when I was 8 years old. I don't feel any urge to blow something up or shoot somebody. Not when I have Halo to do it for me.

 

[Giest4life]

Wait, didn't the kids in the middle ages wanted to be knights and slayer of dragons and evil witches and wizards and foreigners? Didn't the kid in the 30's and forty's looked to Superman to kick some serious butt and rape those Nazi dickheads? Didn't the kids in the 6o's and 70's played with army action figures and simulated battles and explosions and fighting and killing? How is this any fucking different? With our "scholars" this retarded, do the rest of us stand a chance?

 

[Korzack]

In all frank honesty, as much as I wanna say "Yup. Exactly why the ratings systems are in place", first game I played was Doom II, age of Ten (Well, technically, I'd say Space Invaders, age 9, but shh), and I've not had any big issues, but the tech has moved on a Lot since those days, so in a way, the ratings rant is still appropriate, but the biggest thing is that games these days Need to be treated with a serious respect, kids, Adults and Parents all.
And TBH, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, there are Far too many variables involved in the study for it to be considered reliable... Just like 95% of the others that've been commissioned to spook people off buying videogames.

 

[4173]

The truth is that we all KNOW that exposure to violence desensitizes us to more violence.
No?

No. Never proven. Never even given ground rules for how to prove such a thing.

Also doesn't excuse the unethical study. Or the failure to double blind. Or the use of subjects without permission. Or the weasel words used. Or the passive aggressive voice you use to denounce me.

If you expose a group of people to a competitive activity and then try and teach them something away from that, of course you're going to have difficulty. It's called adrenaline. Every parent or teaching student knows that. Directly linking a form of one to the causation of the other is bad science, period.

Viera's analysis is subjective twaddle that cannot be proven statistically. Find me the report itself and I'll tear it apart scientifically as well. At the moment, I'm only finding logical flaws with the press release attached to it by the authors.

Where are you getting all that? It looks to me like Viera just ran a survey, and then proposed new research questions (focus on boys, and children from at-risk families) based on the collected data. Then the columnist made a bunch of unsupported claims.