another '' study'' about violent games

A

arr4ws

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
6,671
link : http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061128/wr_nm/videogames_brain_dc

text:
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Teens who play violent video games show increased activity in areas of the brain linked to emotional arousal and decreased responses in regions that govern self-control, a study released on Tuesday found.

The study used functional magnetic resonance imaging to record tiny metabolic changes in brain activity in 44 adolescents who were asked to perform a series of tasks after playing either a violent or nonviolent video game for 30 minutes.

The children, with no history of behavior problems, ranged in age from 13 to 17. Half played a T-rated first-person shooter game called "Medal of Honor: Frontline," involving military combat, while the other group played a nonviolent game called "Need for Speed: Underground."

Those who played the violent video game showed more activation in the amygdala, which is involved in emotional arousal, and less activation in the prefrontal portions of the brain associated with control, focus and concentration than the teens who played the nonviolent game.

"Our study suggests that playing a certain type of violent video game may have different short-term effects on brain function than playing a nonviolent, but exciting, game," said Dr. Vincent Mathews, a professor of radiology at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis and the study's author.

After playing the games, the children completed tasks requiring concentration and processing of emotional stimuli while their brain activity was scanned. Alterations in brain function reflecting changes in blood flow appeared as brightly colored areas on the magnetic resonance images.

"What we showed is there is an increase in emotional arousal. The fight or flight response is activated after playing a violent video game," Mathews said.

The findings were presented at a meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

The $13 billion U.S. video game industry, with revenue rivaling Hollywood box office sales, is at the center of a cultural battle over violent content. Lawmakers' various attempts to ban the sale of violent video games to children have been blocked by courts in Louisiana, Illinois, California. Michigan and Minnesota.

Video games with a T-rating (for Teen) are considered suitable for ages 13 and older. They may contain violent content, strong language or suggestive themes.

Numerous behavioral and cognitive studies have linked exposure to violent media and aggressive behavior. Now, researchers are using advanced imaging technology to scan the brain for clues to whether violent video games cause increases in aggression.

Mathews said he hopes to conduct additional studies on the long-term effects on brain function of exposure to violent video games.

what do you guys think? who paid for this study anyway?

medal of honor :frontline... maybe the kids were frustrated about the game ...
 
I don't believe video games make people violent. They may push someone over the edge, but it will take a lot to get to that point and video games will only be a minor contributor.

What video games can do is teach you to unleash violence in different and potentially more effective ways. If you want to shoot up a school you could go about it in a more strategic manner. Also, you will be able to think on your feet better and react to situations more quickly.
 
Video games definately do have an effect on the human psych. This is completely dependent upon the person however. Some people who already do not have enough self control may be further compelled to lose it, while some people already have set morals, etc. You can see evidence of this everyday when you see people swear and shoot off obscenities ingame that they wouldn't normally do. They aren't the biggest contributor to murder or other crimes, but they will have a marked change in some people. Don't forget that kids are probably the more malleable, and that playing alot of violent video games at a young age will change them. As a parent, can any of you say that you'll let your child play something like medal of honor at a very young age?
Before any of you say anything, I'm just a college student, and a big gamer as well, but I have seen some people change quite alot due to Halo and other video games.
 
lol i'm not surprised people on a general gaming forum dont find violent games linked to kids being violent. I do.

what about porn and rape. You don't think that if a kid watches 8 hours or porn a day, is shy, cant talk to girls, that his chances of raping someone are higher than someone who never watches porn? its just common sense.
 
I think under the age of 13 shouldn't play violent games to be honest.... after that.. who cares...
 
My cousin showed me Counters strike at 8. I've been playing it since and im fine........... ;)

But seriously, it all depends on parenting. Plain and simple. I was literally brought up with guns. I've been shooting rifles since I was 5. I was taught at an extremely young age what is right and what is wrong, becuase you dont want a 5 year old you dont trust playing around with a rifle, even if its only a .22. Its all about perception. The only people that violent video games really and truely affect in a negative manner are those who cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Chances are, those peopel would do somethign eventually, video games just sped things up a little. All of these studies stem from shitty parents who cant take the blame for being horrible parents. Seriously, thats all it is. Plain and simple. They are to damned lazy to raise their kids right, and then of course, its not MY fault, its everyoen else's, they just choose video games becuase its something new and easy to target.

Moral: Dont be a lazy piece of you know what and raise your kids right, and take the blame for makign mistakes.
 
yea theses people are crazy or just plain bored and have nothing else to do....next thing you know they'll be saying:
USING THE WII CONTROLLER AS A SWORD MAKE YOU WANT TO CUT PEOPLE AND STUFF!
 
Hulk said:
what about porn and rape. You don't think that if a kid watches 8 hours or porn a day, is shy, cant talk to girls, that his chances of raping someone are higher than someone who never watches porn? its just common sense.
Click to expand...
No, it goes back to self-control, mental stability, and mental faculties. Let's say they watch so much porn that eventually they're convinced that all women are like porn stars, and that they're always willing and able. And what about masturbation? Maybe it gets boring. But how realistic is this scenario? They likely have a job, and if not, someone has to send them money or food, they have to go to the store, porn store, interact with people online while Google-imaging women, and have other exposure to people to keep them more level-headed.

If porn increases their chances to rape someone, they were messed up to begin with. The same goes for video games. I've been gaming all my life, even binging for many hours on FPS and games like Grand Theft Auto, and I'm no more likely to buy a gun and kill someone than if I had never played them. The difference is that I may just know how to do it better.

Video games aren't the fuel. It's the mental state of those who play them. Parenting isn't the only factor, and we can't always blame the person entirely either. Sometimes they're a victim of their gene pool, society, appearance, cruelty, etc.

This debate is like religion. People just want something to explain what's bad in the world. Our best profession is placing blame.
 
Hulk said:
lol i'm not surprised people on a general gaming forum dont find violent games linked to kids being violent. I do.

what about porn and rape. You don't think that if a kid watches 8 hours or porn a day, is shy, cant talk to girls, that his chances of raping someone are higher than someone who never watches porn? its just common sense.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of reasoning is really stupid, stop for a moment and actually think about what you're saying here.

The only kind of person who watches porn for 8 hours a day is someone who is pshologically and emotionally imbalanced, they have issues to start with, in this case like with many others, the effect of the problem is common misconstrued as the cause of the problem. A sexual deviant who watches that much porn is probably more "likely" to rape someone,not because they're watching too much porn, it's because they have problems to begin with and watching that much porn is simply an effect of the problem.

People need to start being able to differentiate between the cause of a problem and the effects that problem then has on other things.

The reason this is important is that if you misunderstand a situation and you try and "fix" it by changing something to stop the effect of the problem then you've not really stopped the problem at all, it will just come back in another form and have different effects.
 
While an interesting debate, it's getting off the point of the study.

We have, here, conclusive proof (if nothing else) that playing violent video games effects the brains of adolescents in different ways than non-violent (but still action-packed, reflex-heavy) games do.

It does make it difficult to argue that kids should be allowed to play them. It does, clearly, have SOME effect that surely can't be better than NOT having that effect.

(IE., you could certainly argue "it isn't going to make them go out and do violent things like shooting people...unless they were already inclined/unless they already were imbalanced/unless/unless/unless"...and be entirely accurate. But it's like arguing for allowing kids to smoke. Sure, it MIGHT not cause cancer. But it DOES have measurable effects even if it doesn't, so...why risk it?)

Also note that we are talking adolescents - KIDS - which are demonstrably VERY different from adults in any measurable way. Brain development is still very early on and open to quite a range of impressions that effect later attitudes.
 
You guys smell what I smell? Bullshit.

These "studies" are just a dumbass reason to shove blame off of bad parenting.
 
The study shouldn't be in quotes, this was a real study using real science. It's not B.S. The study does not say anywhere that violent video games cause kids to specifically be violent, although many people will draw those conclusions from it. Notice how they kept emphasizing that the games made short-term, not long-term, changes. Whether or not someone grows up to be violent is long-term.

To be fair, if you REALLY want to get a result, run a kid through an MRI right after he's been on a rollercoaster. You'll get the same results, only x10. All this study did was show that violent video games activate the flight or fight response, which, uh, taking tests also activates.
 
What the study is getting at is imediate changes in behaviour of subjects after a session of violent gaming.

If anyone is going to draw the conclusion that a perfectly well balanced person could play games even for an extended period of time and suddenly enter a state where they might murder someone, then they're completely nuts, it just doesn't happen.

The effect people are worried about is childrens access to violent games at a young age, and I agree 100% that small children shouldn't be playing violent games, but we have a ratings system to analyse what content what age bands should be viewing/playing, if children get access to such media when they shouldn't do then this is down to bad parenting.

I think the numbers speak for themselves...

How many people do we have playing games around the world?
How many people have played violent games for longer than 6,12,24 hours at a time?
How come if games cause violence we simply do not see much more of it?
 
Frosteh said:
The effect people are worried about is childrens access to violent games at a young age, and I agree 100% that small children shouldn't be playing violent games, but we have a ratings system to analyse what content what age bands should be viewing/playing, if children get access to such media when they shouldn't do then this is down to bad parenting.
Click to expand...

While a good start, it does not appear to be aggressive enough. As the article noted, the game in question WAS rated 'T' for teen...and these kids were of the proper age to buy it.

The rating system is a good idea, it just needs to go a little further.
 
"What we showed is there is an increase in emotional arousal. The fight or flight response is activated after playing a violent video game," Mathews said.

And you could say the same thing after watching a violent movie, or listening to music that might bring out some anger or aggression. Does it make a teenage kid want to murder someone? No.

This "study" sounds like more of the same preaching from religious/parenting groups that want to ban most video games, movies, and music from store shelves. The "rating" system backfired on them because we all know that something rated "R" or "Mature" is more enticing than something that is "family" friendly.

I have no problem with this study, but it's old hat. :rolleyes:
 
All of this wouldnt be a problem if the PARENTS actually did something with their children. When I was a kid, my parents always let me watch/play what I wanted and it didn't matter how violent it was because they would sit me down and explain that it wasn't real and that I can't go and do that to people.

In my view, if anyone/anything is to be blamed, its the parents
 
HUMANS ARE VIOLENT

Entertainment:
Video Games
Movies
TV Shows
Cartoons

Real life:
What do you hear on the news EVERY goddamn day? This person was murdered, that person was raped, etc, etc.
War

It's moronic to focus only on games when it comes to violence, because it's everywhere.. I've played a lot of gory games over the years but I'm more impacted by what I see in the movies with dipictions of actual real people involved in some type of violence.. Man this topic gets old lol
 
Every time I read the Bible it makes me want to go out and nail everyone I see to a cross. Lets ban the Bible.
 
Wolfenstein at age 3. Haven't killed anyone in real life... Yet... I'm just kidding. But seriously, I'm gonna kill someone.
 
Sometimes people have to die for our entertainment. How many should die is the limiting factor, not deaths vs. no deaths. You can put a value on human life pretty easily.

How much did this study cost?

You can save an African baby with a cleft palate from death by neglect(since they look like a mutant freak) by just donating $200 bucks for a very simple operation that leaves them looking totally normal. Then we can measure the dead babies that "paid" for the study vs. the violence-victims the study-funders are pretending they're saving. These people aren't looking to save lives. Hypocrites.
 
To be honest, I'd be more inclined to injure someone from reading a gory book. They have all the details, and you're left to imagine the whole situation. When I'm playing a violent video game, I usually zone out of "thinking" and just enjoy the game.
 
Hilary clinton funded the thing at Indiana University. I was looking about to see if I could find the actual study, but could not. Let me know if you guys see it, I like reading these things as most are based on such ridiculous findings. (blood pressure, post-gaming games, etc)
 
Lord of Shadows said:
Hilary clinton funded the thing at Indiana University. I was looking about to see if I could find the actual study, but could not. Let me know if you guys see it, I like reading these things as most are based on such ridiculous findings. (blood pressure, post-gaming games, etc)
Click to expand...

no way hillary clinton funded this?!?!?! i NEVER saw this coming!!!
 
"What video games can do is teach you to unleash violence in different and potentially more effective ways. If you want to shoot up a school you could go about it in a more strategic manner. Also, you will be able to think on your feet better and react to situations more quickly."

Case in point: I play violent video games. (I loved FEAR, amoung others.) I am convinced that the best way to do a school shooting is not to go in guns blazing. The best way is to set off the fire alarms. What happens when everyone hears the fire alarm? They all congregate in one huge mass in an open place like a parking lot. How can you not miss such a big target? Get a gun with a large magazine, a few homemade grenades... Much more effective than taking people out one-by-one. And if you are fast enough, then you might be able to escape before too many, if any, police arrive. (I am not liable for anyone doing this.)

Now I am never going to do this, but I bet it would work.

Video games do not make anyone do anything violent. Nothing does. However, games, movies, books, whatever, they all make people less sensitive to violence. Have a 5 year old watch Black Hawk Down, and they would not take it well, to put it mildly. Many adults wouldn't even blink at the violence. So too much violence in ANY form of media can be bad, but it does not make people murderers.

The rating system works fine, but no one ever enforces it. Kids shouldn't be allowed to buy M rated games. However, their parents could get them the game. It mostly comes back to parents not raising their kids properly. If they are raised properly, then the kids would know that the violence is wrong and that they cannot do the stuff the see in real life without real consequences and punishments.
 
Who cares, you can make a study point to almost anything you want it to.. All you have to do is ignore/hide the other contributing factors to the outcome..

Person A: worked in a facility that used CARC paint for many years..
Person A: smoked only 3 cigarettes their entire life..
Person A: gets lung cancer and dies..
Person A: gets added by some study to the list of people they claim died due to smoking..
People running the study decide that the fact that the individual worked around a carcinogen for many years is inconvenient to what they wish to show.. Which is that cigarettes kill people.. So they ignore/hide the fact that the probable cause of that individual contracting lung cancer was due to occasional and accidental inhalation of carc paint.. The statistics get padded..
Exchange carc for any of a hundred other carcinogens that people work around every day, and you start to will start to wonder...

Not saying cigs don't cause death.. They do, just not as many as are claimed..
Just offering a for instance and an unfortunate truth about how studies and statistics are generally manipulated.. For quite some time now, the vast majority of studies are nothing more than a political or legal tool for politicians and ambulance chasers.. Many of them are absolutely meaningless..
Let the game companies fund a study or two and you will see the same data give an entirely different result..

Edit: Game companies' study conclusion based on the same data "A state of emotional arousal" = "Having Fun"..
 
dderidex said:
While a good start, it does not appear to be aggressive enough. As the article noted, the game in question WAS rated 'T' for teen...and these kids were of the proper age to buy it.

The rating system is a good idea, it just needs to go a little further.
Click to expand...

in my opinion (somewhat uneducated in this area) I think the limit on games is fine.

I've yet to see any game offend/shock me in the way a film has, they're just too unrealistic to represent reality in a believeable way, a few games made strides to being really gory/violent but nothing recently.

I think Soldier Of Fortune the original with limb dismemberment and being able to blow peoples guts out was a big step towards pretty nasty violence/gore in games, but looking back on the graphics even from todays standards its very weak.

But by and large we still see little dismemberment, little de-boweling, very rarely do we see people suffer from our actions, if they do it tends to be in a comical/cartoon like way which very sharply seperates fantasty from reality.

WIth movies its different with the effects of movies today we get to see films like saving private ryan where people have their intestines laying out, people walking around with dismemberd limbs. Hostel was quite nasty people physically getting parts cut off, heads stoved in etc.

Things are only really graphic/offensive when it looks good enough to be real, look at older movies with bad prostetics and its not really believeable, It doesn't look like someone is being sawed in half so I dont really find it offensive.
 
But seriously, it all depends on parenting. Plain and simple. I was literally brought up with guns. I've been shooting rifles since I was 5. I was taught at an extremely young age what is right and what is wrong, becuase you dont want a 5 year old you dont trust playing around with a rifle, even if its only a .22. Its all about perception.
Click to expand...
I agree. When someone doesn't have strong moral foundations under them, to keep them anchored in what they think is right, the emotions inherent in many forms of media can sweep them away like leaves in the wind.

Of course, most people are more or less grounded in what they think is acceptable (at least most think they are), but I also know from past personal experience that things like games and movies can still influence your perception, and coax you along in certain moral/anti-moral directions without you realizing it.

Violence stemming from video games is something I'm not too concerned with, because I think it's a rare type of person who would actually act upon such an impulse, but I think the real problem is when people become more snappy and less considerate, especially socially, while utterly submerged in images and behaviors of violence and shortness of temper. It's not that people think, "Oohh, look at pretty blood, time to yell at somebody," but rather that venting aggression tends to make one more and more prone to *using* aggression, especially by means that they don't see as obviously wrong, like when they get snappy with somebody. Of course, this all has to do with the mindset in which one plays certain games.

I think it only affects a certain percentage of people, but I know from personal experience that violent games can be negatively moving, and that even some people who think they're immovable aren't solid stones. For example, years ago, I used to play Quake 3, and would really get into it. Now, here's someone who used to say that complaining about violence in games was ridiculous, because it wasn't like I would suddenly desire to have shotgun in hand, or go shoot up the neighborhood. And yet, after playing long matches in Quake 3, I'd often notice that I'd be in a darker, more easily agitated mood, and felt slightly more prone to lashing out if a brother or someone would provoke me. It certainly had nothing to do with physical violence (at least with that comparatively small level of aggression), but the feeling was directly related to the hour or so of non-stop competitive violence going on in the game, and the aggression vented toward the other players during the struggle to kill faster and better. That's probably an extreme case, because the game's competitiveness is notoriously intense, and the flying gibs and exploding bodies really get one into the feel of the competition, but the feeling carries over to some degree in almost all violent games, depending on what the gamer is getting out of them and playing them for.

Now, I remember the days when I used to play Quake as darker times, just because I was a lesser person then (that was when I was about 16). Today, I only play games for the immersion and the experience, and have long since abandoned the competitive nature, and so, of course, the impulse of violence and aggression is all but gone.

But, as far as others, I think one must really look at the broad picture of violence in games before jumping to the conclusion that everything is perfectly safe. For example, just because YOU don't feel a connection between video game violence and real violence, doesn't mean certain other people aren't taking a hit, and feeling the effects of having a bad mindset in the game,... whether they be violence, shortness of temper, or a subconscious inclination toward hating as you go about the day, big or small.

Personally, I think violence in video games is as real as the studies show (and why not?), but I also know for fact that it only plays on a small percentage of gamers (and I would guess especially young ones). But, as CmaN3 said, I really think has a ton to do with parenting. I think parents should observe and police their children, and make them stop playing certain games if they notice an obvious pattern of aggression, or even just "getting too into" the killing or competition. Of course, any good parenting that tries hard to define what love and morality is will naturally anchor a child far deeper in good mindsets. That alone will reduce the chances of a being swept away by at least half, I would imagine, as the child's mind would be grounded in a set morality, and won't be influenced so easily.
 
hity645 said:
You guys smell what I smell? Bullshit.

These "studies" are just a dumbass reason to shove blame off of bad parenting.
Click to expand...

Nail, meet hammer.

Right on the money hity645 .
 
arr4ws said:
"Our study suggests that playing a certain type of violent video game may have different short-term effects on brain function than playing a nonviolent, but exciting, game," said Dr. Vincent Mathews, a professor of radiology at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis and the study's author.
Click to expand...
why is a radiologist talking about neurology? anybody else find this weird?
 
jcll2002 said:
why is a radiologist talking about neurology? anybody else find this weird?
Click to expand...
Because the study was conducted using an MRI.

Do you think neurosurgeons operate MRI machines regularly?
 
dderidex said:
Because the study was conducted using an MRI.

Do you think neurosurgeons operate MRI machines regularly?
Click to expand...
Radiologists don't either. Techs do it.
 
GJSNeptune said:
Radiologists don't either. Techs do it.
Click to expand...
That's not the point I was making. The poster was positioning the argument as if he assumed that ONLY a neurologist would operate an MRI machine.

In fact, a neurologist would NEVER operation such a machine, and somebody being (or not being one) would have no relevance to the results of this study.
 
House Julii said:
"What video games can do is teach you to unleash violence in different and potentially more effective ways. If you want to shoot up a school you could go about it in a more strategic manner. Also, you will be able to think on your feet better and react to situations more quickly."

Case in point: I play violent video games. (I loved FEAR, amoung others.) I am convinced that the best way to do a school shooting is not to go in guns blazing. The best way is to set off the fire alarms. What happens when everyone hears the fire alarm? They all congregate in one huge mass in an open place like a parking lot. How can you not miss such a big target? Get a gun with a large magazine, a few homemade grenades... Much more effective than taking people out one-by-one. And if you are fast enough, then you might be able to escape before too many, if any, police arrive. (I am not liable for anyone doing this.)

Now I am never going to do this, but I bet it would work.

Video games do not make anyone do anything violent. Nothing does. However, games, movies, books, whatever, they all make people less sensitive to violence. Have a 5 year old watch Black Hawk Down, and they would not take it well, to put it mildly. Many adults wouldn't even blink at the violence. So too much violence in ANY form of media can be bad, but it does not make people murderers.

The rating system works fine, but no one ever enforces it. Kids shouldn't be allowed to buy M rated games. However, their parents could get them the game. It mostly comes back to parents not raising their kids properly. If they are raised properly, then the kids would know that the violence is wrong and that they cannot do the stuff the see in real life without real consequences and punishments.
Click to expand...

Ah, while that's a good tactic, you'd still need to consider the overall strategy. Sure you'd get a bunch of people that way, but you're exposed and a high-profile target. You could probably get more people with a random stab+mug+run technique anytime you see a stranger by themselves. Then use that mugging money to move to another state or somesuch to lay low or bide your time. Since the target is random and the location changes, you can't be stopped. Eventually you can rack up more people that way.

Where did I get this idea?

D.C Sniper, read/heard about the two of them from the news, the same news that reports stupid crap like these "studies". The news trains me to be a more effective serial killer. Now I know what works and what doesn't as a serial killer. Ban retarded reporting. My logic is unassailable because I'm uninterested in a dispute. That means I win right?
 
arr4ws said:
link : http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061128/wr_nm/videogames_brain_dc

text:
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Teens who play violent video games show increased activity in areas of the brain linked to emotional arousal and decreased responses in regions that govern self-control, a study released on Tuesday found.

The study used functional magnetic resonance imaging to record tiny metabolic changes in brain activity in 44 adolescents who were asked to perform a series of tasks after playing either a violent or nonviolent video game for 30 minutes.

The children, with no history of behavior problems, ranged in age from 13 to 17. Half played a T-rated first-person shooter game called "Medal of Honor: Frontline," involving military combat, while the other group played a nonviolent game called "Need for Speed: Underground."

Those who played the violent video game showed more activation in the amygdala, which is involved in emotional arousal, and less activation in the prefrontal portions of the brain associated with control, focus and concentration than the teens who played the nonviolent game.

"Our study suggests that playing a certain type of violent video game may have different short-term effects on brain function than playing a nonviolent, but exciting, game," said Dr. Vincent Mathews, a professor of radiology at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis and the study's author.

After playing the games, the children completed tasks requiring concentration and processing of emotional stimuli while their brain activity was scanned. Alterations in brain function reflecting changes in blood flow appeared as brightly colored areas on the magnetic resonance images.

"What we showed is there is an increase in emotional arousal. The fight or flight response is activated after playing a violent video game," Mathews said.

The findings were presented at a meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

The $13 billion U.S. video game industry, with revenue rivaling Hollywood box office sales, is at the center of a cultural battle over violent content. Lawmakers' various attempts to ban the sale of violent video games to children have been blocked by courts in Louisiana, Illinois, California. Michigan and Minnesota.

Video games with a T-rating (for Teen) are considered suitable for ages 13 and older. They may contain violent content, strong language or suggestive themes.

Numerous behavioral and cognitive studies have linked exposure to violent media and aggressive behavior. Now, researchers are using advanced imaging technology to scan the brain for clues to whether violent video games cause increases in aggression.

Mathews said he hopes to conduct additional studies on the long-term effects on brain function of exposure to violent video games.

Can you hear That?...That is the sound of me not caring,games make children violent...My ASS!,if someone said I couldnt play my games because they will make me kill someone I would tell them to tung my bags.
Click to expand...
 
all of this proves my theory that video games are to now what rock was in the 60s: the cause of most if not all violent acts in the country. my friend's mom actually believes bullshit like this "study" and is convinced that games that even mention any form of violence is going to ruin my friend's mind and make him the next charles manson. he's hasn't even been allowed to hang out with me ever since i got black for my ps2 (crazy fun game btw). ive tried to show her studies that say games aren't bad for you but she dismisses them as complete bull, despite the fact that one or two of them was sponsored by either m.i.t or caltech (cant remember which). it doesn't help that joe leiberman, jack thompson and hillary clinton are all gods in her eyes. *sigh* maybe he'll get a wii and i can sneak him a copy of redsteel for him to keep under his bed like it's a freakin pr0n0. *sigh* it's sad when people are so ignotant and at the same time so unwilling to learn.
 
In my opinion video games at best reinforce someone's natural tendencies. If someone is naturally predisposed to violence then a violent video game is going to reinforce that. I think that is why most people are not adversely affected by violent video games but some people are. I think that it would be naive to think that video games and other media have no affect on people but I disagree with people who say that violent video games make people violent. I have never understood why people assume that all people are naturally good. nonviolent people. Like other posts said some people are just born to be pricks and games can just reinforce their prickish behaviour.
 
its true that the media can teach you things. heck, if you want to see a case of this go ask a highschool class if they've ever shot a pistol. then ask them to show you how to hold a pistol if they wanted to shoot it. that said- the bigger issue at hand isn't anything about what it teaches you. if they want to address the problem the issue is that we feel a desire as a culture to be taught these things. but, thats another bag of tea altogeather and they dont have a chance of doing anything about it.

blah.

ps. this was written by paraphrasing some wonderful studies in development and adolescent psychology.
 
It's not unusual. When you're playing an intellectual game (Tetris, scrabble), your brain switches to intellectual mode and you start going through long term memory. Action games makes you temporarily increase your reflexes. RTS makes you go into macro management. Same goes for other genres where you adapt as necessary.

What? He just got off playing a highly intense adrenaline game 2 minutes ago, then you shove a crossword puzzle in his face?

Hulk said:
lol i'm not surprised people on a general gaming forum dont find violent games linked to kids being violent. I do.

what about porn and rape. You don't think that if a kid watches 8 hours or porn a day, is shy, cant talk to girls, that his chances of raping someone are higher than someone who never watches porn? its just common sense.
Click to expand...

Dude, japan has the 2nd highest porn saturation on the planet (the first being... greece... or was it athens, can't remember), heck even kids can get them out at the corner store. And yet it has the lowest sex related crime rate than any other country (They are actually currently in danger of being underpopulated, imagine that).

It's not like i'll end up like this guy.
1164641884903lu2.jpg

BTW, i think that thing's street legal.

Here's a study to counter that study :cool:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061030/152445.shtml
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top