Study Finds "Moral Learning" is Disrupted by Violent Games
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
No. Never proven. Never even given ground rules for how to prove such a thing.Phantom Echo said:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Hmm a study to investigate whether games rated mature are unsuitable for young children...
*reads study*
"Well thank you very much Lieutenant Obvious, I believe a promotion is in order".
*reads study*
"Well thank you very much Lieutenant Obvious, I believe a promotion is in order".
This confuses me, although it may just be me as i'm exhausted. Would someone elaborate please?Andy Chalk said:
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.
So did anyone actually read this? This was a study, not an exeperiment. You don't need a control group or a double blind for what is essentially a survey. The kids were not exposed to mature games, they were already playing them. And he study does not claim anything except that exposure to violent games increases the risk of being desensitized to violence.
Learn to read people, and don't shout bullshit unless you know what you're talking about.
Learn to read people, and don't shout bullshit unless you know what you're talking about.
My thoughts the entire time. There's more to psych studies than sitting behind a one way mirror looking at someone playing a game while kicking a baby. Most of the time, its little more than surveys and naturalistic observation. Anything else needs much more planning/funding/giving a crap about what your results will do for you.4173 said:
Ok, just focussing on Vieira's words alone, and assuming that he took all possible considerations in hand.4173 said:
Research cannot suggest, it can only find potential correlations which can be then tested against the control group (missing) to find causations.
Children is a poor term to use for subjects 7-15 because their level of emotional intelligence required to take in this information varies a great deal due to their emotional growth at differing stages of that process.
Frequent exposure is not defined, and here we come to the central crux. If frequent exposure is harmful, could moderate exposure not be? Also, if you are exposing "children" to "these violent games" (All three words there are subjective), then you are either dealing with potential lying, or potential illegality. In the first case, boys are more likely to exaggerate details to impress than girls due to a number of reasons. (I could cite studies but I'll try for common sense here.) In the second case, you are giving children access to Mature games, which is illegal.
"are absorbing a sanitized message of 'no consequences for violence' from this play behavior," Unfounded, unscientific opinion. This hypothesis was never tested. You would actually have to define a separate study to show this.
Equally, given the lack of control group, this could also be caused by the subject's homelife, school or the test itself.
From the word "concern" onwards, Vieira is hypothesizing without study. Correlating two undefined terms that, in themselves, could produce the reactions that he has been seeing.
Statistically, the results aren't significant in themselves because of the lack of control group.
But, I'm just going with the evidence that's presented. Other people have actually done more... media friendly case studies. Here's one:
I'd advise you watch right to the end where they give a 9 year old child a gun to fire.
RIGHT at the end, you'll see his reaction.
I don't think he absorbed a sanitized message. I think he was scared shitless.