Ignornat Anti-Gaming Drivel

[DAISHI]

I'm sorry. You're going to argue that the vast majority of video games don't reward violence? That the vast majority of video games are filled with racism and sexism?

Because they are.

Characters named "Coal Train" and girls fighting in thongs is blatant racism and sexism.

Here, let me point you to people who do science and don't just spout opinions.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa.../anderson.aspx

Simply because you don't see the results in yourself or others doesn't mean it's not there.

[KuroShiro]

Originally Posted by DAISHI

Here, let me point you to people who do science and don't just spout opinions.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa.../anderson.aspx

As someone who also does actual science (in the area of cognition, no less), color me thoroughly unconvinced. I don't have time to do a point by point breakdown of the issues I have with that article, but the main issue I have with studies RE: violence in media and video games is this: they are studies which are attempting to *prove* a hypothesis rather than to *test* one. This seems a trivial complaint, but is actually extremely critical when considering the scientific process. It automatically introduces bias into experimental design, encourages the ignoring of potentially significant confounds, and makes for sloppy studies overall.

Also, in his conclusion he states:

Several major gaps remain in the violent video game literature. One especially large gap is the lack of longitudinal studies testing the link between habitual violent video game exposure and later aggression, while controlling for earlier levels of aggression and other risk factors.

Here, he is essentially admitting (in confusing language) that there has never been a study done with a proper control to test the effects of video game violence. Any serious researcher would read this sentence, and immediately laugh off any claims made.

It's also important to recognize that even the most respected academics are still human, and to be frank many of them are more interested in defending their own theories than seeking the truth (particularly in the social sciences).

[Alcoremortis]

I honestly didn't like the fact that he immediately discounted the "correlation argument". This is a valid argument. We really don't know if violent video games cause violent behavior, or if the subjects who expressed violent behavior after playing a violent game were drawn to that game because they were naturally violent. To just say that this doesn't matter or shouldn't be tested seems rather silly. Is this article, by chance, peer-reviewed?

[St_Eddie]

Originally Posted by DAISHI

I'm sorry. You're going to argue that the vast majority of video games don't reward violence? That the vast majority of video games are filled with racism and sexism?

Because they are.

Characters named "Coal Train" and girls fighting in thongs is blatant racism and sexism.

Here, let me point you to people who do science and don't just spout opinions.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa.../anderson.aspx

Simply because you don't see the results in yourself or others doesn't mean it's not there.

Yes, there are violent video-games, what's your point? Would you rather that we ban violent games altogether? That's called censorship and makes for a molly-cuddling society. No thanks, I'd prefer to choose what I deem myself capable of playing.

Why should video-games be any different to other forms of media such as film? It's the parents responsibility to know what games their children are playing, that's why we have a legally enforced age rating. Children shouldn't be playing adult rated games but if they are then I'd suggest that the real harm will come from their negligent parents, not a piece of entertainment.

If you're a parent, then it's your responsibility to know what activities your children are partaking in and to ensure that you do not allow them to play or watch inappropriate material. It's all to easy for crappy parents to place their child's bad behavior on video-games. After-all, a scapegoat means that they don't have to face up to their own failings.

Rock & Roll, film and video-games - throughout history there have been scapegoats. It's nothing new but to try and defend that ignorant lunacy? Give me a break!

[KuroShiro]

Originally Posted by Alcoremortis

... To just say that this doesn't matter or shouldn't be tested seems rather silly. Is this article, by chance, peer-reviewed?

Considering it is published in a very minor journal, and is extremely sparsely sourced (mainly the author's own work), I would guess "No".

[Alcoremortis]

Originally Posted by KuroShiro

Considering it is published in a very minor journal, and is extremely sparsely sourced (mainly the author's own work), I would guess "No".

Yeah, if it isn't peer-reviewed, then it's only one step up from a blog post as far as the scientific community is concerned.

And Davies, I agree that parents should take a more active role in monitoring and understanding what their children are absorbing. Or at least not complaining because they bought their kid violent video game and then were shocked to discover that it has *gasp* violence in it. What did these parents think they were buying when they got a copy of Modern Warfare for their thirteen year old? These guns don't shoot flowers, you know.

[DAISHI]

Originally Posted by St_Eddie

Yes, there are violent video-games, what's your point? Would you rather that we ban violent games altogether? That's called censorship and makes for a molly-cuddling society. No thanks, I'd prefer to choose what I deem myself capable of playing.

Why should video-games be any different to other forms of media such as film? It's the parents responsibility to know what games their children are playing, that's why we have a legally enforced age rating. Children shouldn't be playing adult rated games but if they are then I'd suggest that the real harm will come from their negligent parents, not a piece of entertainment.

If you're a parent, then it's your responsibility to know what activities your children are partaking in and to ensure that you do not allow them to play or watch inappropriate material. It's all to easy for crappy parents to place their child's bad behavior on video-games. After-all, a scapegoat means that they don't have to face up to their own failings.

Rock & Roll, film and video-games - throughout history there have been scapegoats. It's nothing new but to try and defend that ignorant lunacy? Give me a break!

I think it's silly to act as if we're walking blank slates that deflect at will all external influences. Or more to my actual point, video gamers get in a rage about people criticizing their medium, and do nothing to justify their perspectives when you take an actual look at how they respond (see: all youtube comments). There are valid points being made by psychologists and even Penny Arcade doesn't seem to have the ability to step back from their own vested interests to asses those points. Of course games don't create violent people, but they have influence on how predisposed violent individuals exhibit their anger, and those games can have special influence in the period after playing. So what happens to extended periods of deep investment in these sort of games? It's not a passive experience like movie watching, it actually requires the player to engage with physical feedback and encourages not just violence but also death. I think those are properties quite unique to games as opposed to films.