Violent Videogames Cause "Macbeth Effect"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They made a scientific study about this? I thought it was a popular stereotype that gamers and couch potatoes don't take care of their hygiene and appearance. 
I enjoy the "LOL WATS?" Like I enjoy a root canal.
I read a book that was written before video games (originally). It is called "On Killing: the psychological impact of killing" (name might be off). Written in the early 90s though updated a year or two ago, with a section on video games. It agrees with this study. The techniques used during WW2 evolved too the modern techniques that almost mirror what video games do now.
In WW2 and before, firing rates among soldiers were 15%-20%. Training implemented in Korea, 55%. Training in Vietnam too present 95%.
I know none of you want too hear this, but tough biscuits. Video games do tear down mental barriers to killing. They do not make us kill, they just teach us how too kill. Amazingly, that is not something most humans do naturally, we have too be trained.
You can dismiss this research, but can you dismiss research that did not originally involve video games that concurs with this study? I am NOT saying we should ban or strongly regulate video games, but this is going to be a LEGITIMATE conversation.
I read a book that was written before video games (originally). It is called "On Killing: the psychological impact of killing" (name might be off). Written in the early 90s though updated a year or two ago, with a section on video games. It agrees with this study. The techniques used during WW2 evolved too the modern techniques that almost mirror what video games do now.
In WW2 and before, firing rates among soldiers were 15%-20%. Training implemented in Korea, 55%. Training in Vietnam too present 95%.
I know none of you want too hear this, but tough biscuits. Video games do tear down mental barriers to killing. They do not make us kill, they just teach us how too kill. Amazingly, that is not something most humans do naturally, we have too be trained.
You can dismiss this research, but can you dismiss research that did not originally involve video games that concurs with this study? I am NOT saying we should ban or strongly regulate video games, but this is going to be a LEGITIMATE conversation.
Then comes my fit again, for I had else been perfect.
I think that's the quote, although it's been a while since we did a MacBeth unit in high school. I was probably the only person there who enjoyed it.
Have I ever felt bad after playing a video game? No, because it's a fucking video game. Let me list my atrocities that I don't lose any sleep over:
-Murdering hotel guests in their sleep in Fallout: New Vegas
-Burning down a forest in Minecraft
-Casting Soul Trap on kids in Skyrim and trapping them forever inside a Soul Gem. Now that I know the fate of people whose souls you used to refill your weapon's enchantment after watching gameplay videos of Dawnguard, I just doomed all the kids of Skyrim to the feeling of being eviscerated for all eternity.
-Killing hundreds of people in Assassin's Creed by shoving them off a ledge into water (you don't get desynchronized for that).
-Detonating a bomb inside the White House in Hitman: Blood Money.
-Killing practically everyone in DE:HR by impaling them with my arm blades or twisting their neck around multiple times.
-Murdering kids in Deus Ex
-Destroying all life on earth in Pandemic 2
What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of me giving no fucks.
I think that's the quote, although it's been a while since we did a MacBeth unit in high school. I was probably the only person there who enjoyed it.
Have I ever felt bad after playing a video game? No, because it's a fucking video game. Let me list my atrocities that I don't lose any sleep over:
-Murdering hotel guests in their sleep in Fallout: New Vegas
-Burning down a forest in Minecraft
-Casting Soul Trap on kids in Skyrim and trapping them forever inside a Soul Gem. Now that I know the fate of people whose souls you used to refill your weapon's enchantment after watching gameplay videos of Dawnguard, I just doomed all the kids of Skyrim to the feeling of being eviscerated for all eternity.
-Killing hundreds of people in Assassin's Creed by shoving them off a ledge into water (you don't get desynchronized for that).
-Detonating a bomb inside the White House in Hitman: Blood Money.
-Killing practically everyone in DE:HR by impaling them with my arm blades or twisting their neck around multiple times.
-Murdering kids in Deus Ex
-Destroying all life on earth in Pandemic 2
What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of me giving no fucks.
Maybe you are a sociopath?MammothBlade said:
I know if I do something like accidentally kill someone who spawned I will send an apology message to that person after the match, because I am not pathetic and can admit when I am in the wrong. Thats my way of dealing with guilt. But I dont feel guilt over the violence because it isnt real... or maybe that rationalising is my way of dealing with it?
Hahaha. Why would you think that?Kinguendo said:
It's a game... not as if I'm slaughtering real people. Maybe fulfilling some violent fantasies perhaps but there's nothing to feel guilty about.
Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack. :V
Quacks ran this study, that's all there is to be said about it really.
I wish there were actual news related to video games available day to day, not endless studies and clinical whatevers quacking to anyone who will listen that games will be the downfall of western civilization.
Quacks ran this study, that's all there is to be said about it really.
I wish there were actual news related to video games available day to day, not endless studies and clinical whatevers quacking to anyone who will listen that games will be the downfall of western civilization.
This guy has actually done a lot of research on aggression in general, and how video games/the media relate to aggression. At first glance, the research seems sound. I would like a follow up study with more depth (and to be able to access the details and statistics of this study). Such as, are the inexperienced gamers inexperienced because they have issues with violence and seek to avoid it? Do the experienced gamers have pre-existing empathy/aggression problems? Do the inexperienced have abnormally high empathy? Does age affect the results? Etc.
I do think that video games desensitize us to violence. Anyone who disagrees is sticking their head in the sand. The real question is - does that desensitization result in lower empathy? Do all the twelve year olds playing COD and running around yelling "I'll shoot you!" actually have a higher chance of shooting someone because they don't understand the very real consequences? (higher chance versus 12 year olds who have very little exposure to violence)
I do think that video games desensitize us to violence. Anyone who disagrees is sticking their head in the sand. The real question is - does that desensitization result in lower empathy? Do all the twelve year olds playing COD and running around yelling "I'll shoot you!" actually have a higher chance of shooting someone because they don't understand the very real consequences? (higher chance versus 12 year olds who have very little exposure to violence)
A quick Google Scholar search for Andre Melzer will show that he is not a "quack." I would say that there is insufficient evidence in the Escapist article alone to draw that conclusion. Don't write something off simply because you do not agree with it.Tradjus said:Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack. :V
Quacks ran this study, that's all there is to be said about it really.
I wish there were actual news related to video games available day to day, not endless studies and clinical whatevers quacking to anyone who will listen that games will be the downfall of western civilization.
What do you buy for someone for Christmas when you don't know them very well?
HYGIENE PRODUCTS
dear lord scientists get a grip.
HYGIENE PRODUCTS
dear lord scientists get a grip.
What I can't believe is that anyone takes this seriously, it's like there wasn't any violent behavior among humans before the advent of video games and other violent media. Overall we live in perhaps the most violence-free period in human history overall... which with all the violence going on gobally probably isn't saying much. To be honest people in the first world can go about their entire lives without being involved in any real violence, while that's only the first world, it still represents a larger percentage of human safety and freedom from actual violence than we've likely ever seen.
The thing that gets me is that most of the real ultra-violence takes place in areas where people don't play many video games at all, as they have other concerns. You know the guys who look at video game QQing and dismiss it as "a first world issue". It seems to me that you could actually prove (using the same logic from this study) that violent video games decrease violent behavior societally because the societies without video games are more prone to violence and barbarity. Of course that's totally stupid, but it's the same kind of logic.
What I find most disturbing about this is that the implication is that violent behavior is inherantly a problem. I believe people need to be able to control themselves, but being totally peaceful and passive is not a good thing. Especially when you look at the state of the world outside of the first world enclaves, and the problems going on. If anything I think the people of the first world are too passive and anti-violent for their own good on a whole and it's something we're going to regret, pacifying ourselves to the point of not being able to survive. A form of social darwinism where we eventually wind up getting overrun due to our own inabillity to defend ourselves, or willingness to fight and kill on the needed level for our own interests.
That said, another big problem with this is that issue of fun. People tend to forget that the whole point of gaming is to have fun and enjoy themselves. You can't do much gaming in the space of 15 minutes, or learn how to play a game seriously, develop a context for what is going on, or anything else for that matter. This kind of scews any kind of study involving gaming, especially if it involves people who are allegedly not gamers and thus lack any real context.
If these games are intended to expose the people to ultra violence in a game in 15 minutes there can't be much else going on there. I suppose if someone put me in a room and basically tossed me a limited section of "Manhunt" which involved the director telling me to draw a knife accross some victim's crotch or whatever, without any other context to the game or whatever, I'd think it was pretty screwed up, since your basically handling me an interactive snuff flick. As a horror fan I can say "well, that's disturbing but I've seen worse" to someone without that kind of experience I can see an increase in the "WTF" factor. To really evaluate the reaction to a game, the experience has to be taken as a whole, to use Manhunt as an example, the messed up things that happen are held together by a narrative. Slicing people up on command in a 15 minute session, is far differant than the gradually developed subtext of being forced into a televised deathmatch and comply with doing this crap or die, and going along with it in hopes of escaping... and of course taking down the sick puppet master behind all of this stuff. It's not a storyline that might be fun to everyone, but the context DOES matter, and games pretty much always have a context. As games become more advanced graphically, leading to all of these criticisms about violence, so does the context behind those actions, and yet nobody ever bothers to make that point in these studies, and those involved seem to even go so far as to ensure it's impossible for the guinea pigs to put the violence into any kind of context.
The thing that gets me is that most of the real ultra-violence takes place in areas where people don't play many video games at all, as they have other concerns. You know the guys who look at video game QQing and dismiss it as "a first world issue". It seems to me that you could actually prove (using the same logic from this study) that violent video games decrease violent behavior societally because the societies without video games are more prone to violence and barbarity. Of course that's totally stupid, but it's the same kind of logic.
What I find most disturbing about this is that the implication is that violent behavior is inherantly a problem. I believe people need to be able to control themselves, but being totally peaceful and passive is not a good thing. Especially when you look at the state of the world outside of the first world enclaves, and the problems going on. If anything I think the people of the first world are too passive and anti-violent for their own good on a whole and it's something we're going to regret, pacifying ourselves to the point of not being able to survive. A form of social darwinism where we eventually wind up getting overrun due to our own inabillity to defend ourselves, or willingness to fight and kill on the needed level for our own interests.
That said, another big problem with this is that issue of fun. People tend to forget that the whole point of gaming is to have fun and enjoy themselves. You can't do much gaming in the space of 15 minutes, or learn how to play a game seriously, develop a context for what is going on, or anything else for that matter. This kind of scews any kind of study involving gaming, especially if it involves people who are allegedly not gamers and thus lack any real context.
If these games are intended to expose the people to ultra violence in a game in 15 minutes there can't be much else going on there. I suppose if someone put me in a room and basically tossed me a limited section of "Manhunt" which involved the director telling me to draw a knife accross some victim's crotch or whatever, without any other context to the game or whatever, I'd think it was pretty screwed up, since your basically handling me an interactive snuff flick. As a horror fan I can say "well, that's disturbing but I've seen worse" to someone without that kind of experience I can see an increase in the "WTF" factor. To really evaluate the reaction to a game, the experience has to be taken as a whole, to use Manhunt as an example, the messed up things that happen are held together by a narrative. Slicing people up on command in a 15 minute session, is far differant than the gradually developed subtext of being forced into a televised deathmatch and comply with doing this crap or die, and going along with it in hopes of escaping... and of course taking down the sick puppet master behind all of this stuff. It's not a storyline that might be fun to everyone, but the context DOES matter, and games pretty much always have a context. As games become more advanced graphically, leading to all of these criticisms about violence, so does the context behind those actions, and yet nobody ever bothers to make that point in these studies, and those involved seem to even go so far as to ensure it's impossible for the guinea pigs to put the violence into any kind of context.
I just finished writing a breakdown of what I think of the study myself. Speaking for the doctor in question, if he isn't a Quack, he's acting as one. His study is by definition loaded. He seems to basically be selling his academic credability for 5 minutes of fame on what is currently a political hot button topic. This study and how it was apparently conducted is quackery.Aslyn said:A quick Google Scholar search for Andre Melzer will show that he is not a "quack." I would say that there is insufficient evidence in the Escapist article alone to draw that conclusion. Don't write something off simply because you do not agree with it.Tradjus said:Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack. :V
Quacks ran this study, that's all there is to be said about it really.
I wish there were actual news related to video games available day to day, not endless studies and clinical whatevers quacking to anyone who will listen that games will be the downfall of western civilization.
A lot of the worst Quacks out ther started as reputable doctors and scientists.
?Moonlight Butterfly said:
Well my answer would have been cheeseboards, to be honest I can't think of ever having bought anyone hygiene products, except perfume.
My holiday philsophy has always been "when in doubt, go with Pepperidge Farms", I do gift cards to, but I for some reason always felt cheeseboards aren't quite as impersonal thinking, and everyone enjoys a solid snack or two.
Yes, and no.Gilhelmi said:
The basic issue is that as people become more civilized and passive they tend to become increasingly less interested in violence, as they need less, and become more interested in maintaining what they have. In the US, our big problem has largely been our morality, and relative safety due to being seperated from most of the powers that could do us harm by the oceans. We're pretty much the most moral, and self-judgemental people on earth.
During World War II, it's important to note that it took a while for propaganda to kick in. Hitler was quite popular to begin with (International Man Of The Year), and a lot of Americans, even after Pearl Harbour, wanted to maintain an isolationist attitude and not get involved. We went to war, instituted war powers, cranked propaganda into overdrive, and we gradually saw a transition from reluctant soldiers, to extremely motivated ones. Our war department was paticularly infamous for actually lying to demonize the Nazis, for everything that was true, we took it a couple of steps further, like say the "human flesh lampshades" which were proven to be fakes (when tested they were goat skin).
The later wars saw increased training and condition of soldiers (being ready for it) but also a bit more in the way of omni-present propaganda about communism. Our guys sent to Korean and Veitnam went in fairly motivated, which is why things like 'Nam were so messed up as we weren't invovlved fighting for what we were supposed to be down there for (which much has been said about).
The simple truth is people are extremely violent and murderous, and will slaughter each other given a halfway decent region. You see it all through the second and third world where murder, warfare, and slaughter are all ways of life, and you have kids barely able to walk toting guns as shock troopers (photographs from the camps of African Warlords and such are all over the place). The major differance is that the people throughout most of the world are realists, where in the US, especially currently, we're dominated by left wing Idealists who for all their claims of military and war worship, actually preach and condition people with humanitarian beliefs and anti-violence messages. Your typical American might play violent video games or watch action programming, but when presented with the reality of violence or the need for it, will rail against it... you see it in these forums all the time. For all of our promotion of personal armament, your typical American is probably far less likely to pull the trigger than say your average African, who might have already killed multiple people in order to survive by the time an American would graduate from high school.... depending of course where in Africa he's from of course. The same could be said of most second and third world countries where life is cheap, and people are raised with that mentality out of nessecity, and where competition for resources and simple survival can be brutal. Things like clean water, food, etc... that most Americans take for granted (even the poor ones) aren't anywhere near as accessible. In many cases it might not be a matter of not being able to buy food, but there simply not being any for sale at any price because there is too little of it to go around, so either you starve, or kill that guy and take his. That's more or less how people are wired, when we're not conditioned otherwise, in relatively safe and stable enviroments.
While a video game could be used as part of military training and conditioning, I do not think video game violence inherantly conditions people for real violence, after all there is a clear divide between fantasy and reality inherant simply in the identification as a "game". Your typical person on these forums for example (which is heavily left wing) might gleefully slaughter and torture their way through video games, but is going to get incredibly upset when you start talking about real violence, even when arguably nessicary, never mind become eager to involve themselves in it at all.
Even I, the militant, only believe in violence when I feel there is a purpose to it, and I'm probably a lot better conditioned (in a real world, practical sense).
In short, I do not think it's the video games, I think it's the society. Video games are under fire in the US, because we have become so moral, and detached from the realities of humanity and the world, a lot of our society wnats to remove anyuthing violent from existance.
If the US collapsed, post apocolyptic style, people would become extremely violent and barbaric as a matter of survival, because it's how we're wired. We don't need to be "taught" those things, rather we teach ourselves to not be like that.
Speaking for myself, a recurring message of a lot of my posts is actually that I think we need a middle ground. I don't think barbarity is a good thing, but I don't think the demonization of violence is a good thing either. I think people need to control those impulses, but should not try and shy away from anything violent or try and pretend they don't exist, because as odd as it might sound, our capacity for violence is one of the things that allows us to survivre against both other humans, and in dominated our enviroment. If humans weren't violent and aggressive we never would have tamed the planet and come to dominated it the way we have. In the final equasion, humans are simply put the penultimate predators on planet earth. Even creatures that are inherantly stronger than we are, like say sharks in their enviroment, are nothing compared to us because of our intelligence and the abillity to make tools, and perhaps the ultimate natural weapon... the opposable thumb, which allows us to use tools. An opposable thumb combined with a brain is a lot more dangerous than the nastiest claws, or the sharpest teeth... and well, our domination of the planet shows that. We've made things like guns which pretty much trivialize pretty much every animal we know of. That's not something that occured because we're inherantly peaceful, and can't bring ourselves to kill without special consideration or training.
It's always been par for the course that you get someone a body shop set or Lynx or something. The lads in my family always receive an or abundance of shower gel sets because no one ever know what to buy guys rofl.Therumancer said:
The first thing that came to my mind is, "wow, these people have no idea what to get, do they?" I'm reminded of what my family members got my fiancee during our first Christmas together. My mother got her a body wash set.
It's an interesting fact that I do wash my hands fairly regularly... but while it MAY be related to games, it has nothing to do with what I'm playing. Here's why: When I started getting CD based games on the PC and PSX, I began to wash my hands more frequently because I didn't want to get grime or fingerprints all over the cases and was very careful how I handled the discs.
I don't do it nearly as often now, but I don't generally like sticky or grimy hands regardless, and always wash them after I've eaten or used the bathroom.. or even if I've just been petting the cat and found my hands strikingly hairy; sweaty palms may see me do it, too, as they can get gunk on the controllers.
Another reason is that I probably do suffer from very mild OCD and it's really the only part of my body to see water daily (besides my hind quarters which occasionally get splashed when flushing).
Trust me, if I thought I'd done something seriously question or morally reprehensible (in my eyes, not yours) I'd be more likely to beat/scratch the crap out of myself in a laughable attempt at punishment, not wash my hands.
...actually, now that I think about it, one time I masturbated to something that I found to be rather vulgar and reprehensible. I felt incredibly guilty about it after climaxing and did turn the hot water all the way up to kinda scald my hands slightly as I washed them. But I think that just goes back to the punishment thing, not because I wanted to "cleanse" myself. I had to wash my hands, wanted to hurt myself for doing something I thought was stupid, two birds with a single stone.
Ah, psychology.
It's an interesting fact that I do wash my hands fairly regularly... but while it MAY be related to games, it has nothing to do with what I'm playing. Here's why: When I started getting CD based games on the PC and PSX, I began to wash my hands more frequently because I didn't want to get grime or fingerprints all over the cases and was very careful how I handled the discs.
I don't do it nearly as often now, but I don't generally like sticky or grimy hands regardless, and always wash them after I've eaten or used the bathroom.. or even if I've just been petting the cat and found my hands strikingly hairy; sweaty palms may see me do it, too, as they can get gunk on the controllers.
Another reason is that I probably do suffer from very mild OCD and it's really the only part of my body to see water daily (besides my hind quarters which occasionally get splashed when flushing).
Trust me, if I thought I'd done something seriously question or morally reprehensible (in my eyes, not yours) I'd be more likely to beat/scratch the crap out of myself in a laughable attempt at punishment, not wash my hands.
...actually, now that I think about it, one time I masturbated to something that I found to be rather vulgar and reprehensible. I felt incredibly guilty about it after climaxing and did turn the hot water all the way up to kinda scald my hands slightly as I washed them. But I think that just goes back to the punishment thing, not because I wanted to "cleanse" myself. I had to wash my hands, wanted to hurt myself for doing something I thought was stupid, two birds with a single stone.
Ah, psychology.
Wait... someone agreed with me? I was expecting dozens of replies along the sillier side of how wrong I was for doing research and reading books, (what kind of crazy person actually reads studies).Aslyn said:
Thank You. You have restored my faith that there are people out there, on this site, who actually think through their position.