Study Finds "Moral Learning" is Disrupted by Violent Games

[Nikolaz72]

That last line really needs to be taken to heart. That sums up most of my arguments right there.

I came in to bring this point up... what parent is letting their seven year old play super violent video games? When I was that young my dad would let me play Age of Empires ROR, but we were only allowed to play games where everyone was allies or a saved game he had already all but won(I was allowed to build stuff and attack houses / granaries / walls / animals).

Get good at parenting, parents.

My father let me use the map-editor. . . And that was how Age of Empires turned into a city builder

 

[Biosophilogical]

Well that's crazy, because I never played games rated for audiences above my age and I'm more empathic then a lot of other people my age (at least as far as I know, but then again, what's the operational definition for empathy, and what other factors may have affected me?)

 

[Dexiro]

This does actually sound a lot more reasonable than usual, it seems to take a neutral stance which is how it should be. Playing large amount of violent games can affect some very young kids, but with enough parenting their should be minimal or no effects.

Hopefully this can be used in favour of violent games and send the message that parents should regulate their kid's consumption of violent games.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

This just in, guns and alchol are bad for children.

This doesn't matter since it's ilegal to sale such things to minors, like 18+ games, but we thought we should make a study about it anyways.

 

[Folio]

What if children who lack empathy just want to play games that match their way of thinking? This means it's from the child itself, not the game.

Besides, 15 year olds aren't allowed to play Bulletstorm, are they?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The kids were already playing the games, I'm not sure what this hot coffee is.

An allegory/metaphor. If you're testing the idea that something poisons someone else, it's possibly best not to feed it to them.

Social scientists have been measuring feelings and thoughts for a long time. It isn't perfect, but there are methods that provide the capability.

But it's the way he worded it that cripples the research.

"The research suggests" requires data, we were given just enough to see that it might, but not the tests used.
"The concern arises" is blind hypothesizing.

Whether the research's data suggests one thing isn't so much the factor, what is the factor is how the data was obtained, and what little evidence we have of that is flawed. This is Sociology, not Statistics, so treating it as hard science is a mistake.

 

[StormShaun]

You kidding me, if you ask me video games have made my moral point of view better...like Fallout 3...

 

[Deathman101]

I can confirm it. My own exposure to video games since the age of 3 or 4 may have something to do with my inability to look at things from the victim's perspective, and see all the sadness. All I can see is the bigger picture. Which in a way isn't a bad thing.

Mind you games like StarCraft also saved my intellectual development from spiraling out of control like the rest of my family.

 

[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.

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?

Because believe it or not there are still a shit ton of annoying 7-12 yr olds playing Halo and Call of Duty. The problem is that parents don't care when they should be. To them it's just the babysitter.

 

[Trolldor]

I lol'd when he mentioned convergence.
Given that behaviour has a well-established genetic link, a computer game teaching a child morals only applies in a 'vaccum' - if they have no real mechanism by which to learn how to function in society, in which case the problem is not the video game.
A video game shouldn't be the prime teacher of morals for a child, ignoring the fact that studies demonstrate that bar the extreme, environment simply doesn't have that much of an impact on development anyway.

 

[ConvincingJohn]

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.

 

[Griffolion]

That last line really needs to be taken to heart. That sums up most of my arguments right there.

Seconded. Violent video games shouldn't be in the hands of young, impressionable children. But when they are found in their possession, who's really to blame? The parents.

 

[JoshGod]

The results also indicated that gamers who reported playing a variety of games consistently stuck with similar kinds of games.

This confuses me, although it may just be me as i'm exhausted. Would someone elaborate please?
OT
As someone who has played God Of war since about 11 years old I can say that I am desensitised more than most people, however I have far greater understanding and appreciation for other people's perspective than most. being less able to emotionally relate to a person and their situation doesn't mean i can't logically do so. Then again I may just be a minority that considers other people perspectives.

I think it means that even among children who played multiple games, they tended to stick to the same genre.

It's a pretty awful sentence though.

But that doesn't mean anything in regard to the issue. Besides what do you expect? People stick with what they know they like.

 

[4173]

The kids were already playing the games, I'm not sure what this hot coffee is.

An allegory/metaphor. If you're testing the idea that something poisons someone else, it's possibly best not to feed it to them.

I don't think the researcher did feed it to them. The kids were already owned the games and had played the games. Kids weren't made to play these games, they were just asked questions.

Social scientists have been measuring feelings and thoughts for a long time. It isn't perfect, but there are methods that provide the capability.

But it's the way he worded it that cripples the research.

"The research suggests" requires data, we were given just enough to see that it might, but not the tests used.
"The concern arises" is blind hypothesizing.

Whether the research's data suggests one thing isn't so much the factor, what is the factor is how the data was obtained, and what little evidence we have of that is flawed. This is Sociology, not Statistics, so treating it as hard science is a mistake.

It's the columnist's fault the data analysis isn't included in the piece. It is the columnist's fault if the data, and what Vieira drew from the data are treated as hard science. It is the columnist's fault if the columnist can't distinguish between a survey and a laboratory experiment.

But that doesn't mean anything in regard to the issue. Besides what do you expect? People stick with what they know they like.

Yeah, it was most likely found as a by product of the questions asked, not directly related to kids and violent video games.

 

[SanguineSymphony]

Morals and empathy are over-rated anyways. As long as you understand the law and society's expectations of you as an individual you'll be fine.

What if children who lack empathy just want to play games that match their way of thinking? This means it's from the child itself, not the game.

Besides, 15 year olds aren't allowed to play Bulletstorm, are they?

At 15 I was watching much much racier movies. I think that was around time I started watching stuff like Cannibal Holocaust and Maniac.

 

[Dastardly]

Study Finds "Moral Learning" is Disrupted by Violent Games

I have definitely noticed kids having a harder time with empathy/sympathy/considering the feelings of others. And yes, I do think gaming can be a contributing factor... but not for the reasons this study claims. It's not so much that gaming allows kids to be interactive with the violence. It's that it doesn't require them to be interactive with other people.

And the same can be said of many other forms of entertainment. Mostly, it comes back to parents allowing the kids to play alone too much. And sometimes even playing a game next to someone doesn't involve real interaction. But, as I said, the problem isn't the game--it's the parent allowing too much of a good thing.

We're programmed with the capacity to empathize with others... but we're not programmed to do so automatically. The first thing we understand about the world is me. My wants, my feelings, my needs. Only through interaction do we learn about the wants, needs, and feelings of others. That's when we start learning how to negotiate ours with theirs, and this is where empathy develops.

So, yes, gaming can interrupt this kind of learning, but only if parents allow the kids to do it at the expense of real interaction. Similarly, gaming can teach a child violent behavior, but only if no one else is teaching the child any alternatives. The game is just the subject of the problem--it is neither the cause nor the solution.

 

[RuralGamer]

Yeah, all this suggests is that there are some very poor parents out there; the rating on the box is there for a reason.