Oh my--My 13 year old has played a couple of violent video games

[trumad]

and guess what? He's one of the nicest most polite kid on this planet...at least that's what other adults have said about him.

There's only one game that I don't let him play, (Grand Theft Auto) -- cause I think he's a bit young for carjacking and running down hookers--- but other than that, he pretty much plays them all. Call of Duty--great war game.. The Godfather... etc... Halo--- awesome

I stopped telling him, "Son, you know this is all fake and not real" I stopped telling him that because he looks at me like I'm a Moron for even telling him something that's so obvious.

I've seen no evidence that either he or his friends are effected by so-called violent video games.

As far as desensitizing him--- LOL. I think it's a stretch and I mean a huge stretch to say that shooting a 3D digital image on Xbox desensitizes someone from the real thing. Hell, I play right along with my kid and I gotta tell you--- senseless killing still bothers me a whole bunch.

If you're a parent who thinks otherwise --- then don't buy the play units.

So---if they start going after video games that they deem violent---who's going to make those decisions on what stays and what goes? I mentioned Call of Duty up above. It's a hugely popular war game and it's a blast to play. Guess what...I can use a sniper weapon and kill a German with a shot to the head. Will the censors take that away? I guess they'd have to because if they did it for one game they'd have to do it for all games.er right?.. And then what will they go after? If I play the game Need for Speed and wipe out the car next to me and it flips 10 times, you must assume that I killed the occupants in that car....will they want to eliminate that?

For that matter...will they take away every single incident in these games that will cause the death of a digital character? They'd have to wouldn't they? Isn't one death the same as another death?


I've said this before and I'll say it again--- I can't believe that the politicians who are going after the video game makers are the same politicians who voted for the war.

One is fake---the other is real... One doesn't kill the other one does. It's a bizzarro world that we live in.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

1. I'm only 20 and I grew up playing all kinds of "violent" games

and I grew up normal. Never wanted to commit any act of violence on anyone or anything. Take that Hillary and Joe.

[WindRavenX]

51. Same here

Doom, GTA...and I'm a pacifist. :shrug:

[KittyWampus]

55. your a pacifist sending out violent energy into the collective consciousness.

and the time you devote to playing violent games WILL manifest itself in your environment. Somehow.

[WindRavenX]

60. "collective consciousness"

Yeah, see, I don't believe in hocus pokus nonsense.

So I will continue to enjoy my Grand Theft Auto and not ever use violence in my life.

[vote 4 democracy]

72. who is having the more hostile response?

Just a thought.
The collective unconscious is a Jungian term and it basically explains how we all impact each other. Similar to the butterfly effect. If a negative element/person/whatever is brought into a group of more positive people/elements, etc., the negative will become more positive and the positives will become slightly more negative. If generally positive people are bombarded with negatives (like violent video games) . . . they will become dramatically more negative.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

75. You're putting the cart before the horse

Before finishing your argument, you should have to show how violent video games are negatives.

[KittyWampus]

91. the subconscious mind does not distinguish between 'games' and 'not games'

it acts upon the information that is presented:

most forcefully
most frequently
most emotionally charged

if you send messages to your subconscious that violence is okay in video games, she will not listen to your rationalizations that they are 'only a game'. She will take that violent input and act on it.

[WindRavenX]

94. "She will take that violent input and act on it."

How come I have never commited an act of violence?

You sound ridiculous.

[KittyWampus]

98. #1. breathing is an 'act of violence' on a cellular level. #2. You might not engage in an outwardly

violent act against another but your habit of feeding your subconsciousness adds to the current of violence in the world at large and it WILL ground itself as a physical act somewheres in your outward environment.

[WindRavenX]

102. LOL

"breathing is an act of violence"

:rofl: :rofl:

Oh, man. This is hillarious.

[cool user name]

123. No offense ...

I'm serious, none at all, but that is not logical in the slightest.

Can you explain to me how something I view or play will make me into a negative person? Or worse, make me commit acts of violence?

I'll be waiting patiently.

[Zhade]

171. You're talking to a person who admits to believing in Intelligent Design.

It's all moon muffins and shit with her, ignore it. Nothing to support that nonsense.

[cool user name]

238. Ahhh ... now I understand.

Thanks for the headsup.

[Pooka Fey]

288. I admire your courage

in attempting to explain this concept, which is extremely complex and subtle, to the DU community. You have articulated it very well and I thank you. I am in total agreement with you.

[piedmont]

343. Do you honestly believe breathing is an act of violence? nt.

[mongo]

352. We should base ALL our laws on how it will affect

"the collective unconscious"

Geesh. You are the other side of the coin of a fundie xtian dominionist who wants "biblical values"

KEEP YOUR THEOCRACY TO YOURSELF!!!

[RetroLounge]

374. breathing is an 'act of violence' on a cellular level

Apparently, so is stupidity...

:eyes:

RL

[cool user name]

119. You can predict the future?

[vote 4 democracy]

313. its called cause and effect

[Mythsaje]

134. Prove it...

There's a host of gamers here who have never acted upon that violent input. In fact, there's a whole society of young people out there who've never acted upon it.

[vote 4 democracy]

251. yet . . . but the probability that they would is much higher than those who don't play the games

see the graphs

[EvolveOrConvolve]

302. Show us the graphs of which you speak

[piedmont]

345. What graphs? nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

298. I'd like to see some empirical evidence to back that up.

I play violent video games frequently, and yet I'm a happy successful human being. I've never actually been in a fight in my life.

Under your reasoning, if I played racing games frequently, I'd be driving like a maniac all the time. But, I've never had a speeding ticket, I've never been in an accident. In fact, I do play racing games sometimes, and my friends give my shit because I "drive like an old man", and I'm only 33 years old. I'm having a hard time following your reasoning.

[Phx_Dem]

318. research links

VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES CAN INCREASE AGGRESSION

May Be More Harmful Than Violent Television and Movies Because of the Interactive Nature of the Games

WASHINGTON - Playing violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Kombat can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life, according to two studies appearing in the April issue of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Furthermore, violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive, very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor, say the researchers.
http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html

Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts,

and Unanswered Questions
by Craig A. Anderson

After 40+ years of research, one might think that debate about media violence effects would be over. An historical examination of the research reveals that debate concerning whether such exposure is a significant risk factor for aggressive and violent behavior should have been over years ago (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Four types of media violence studies provide converging evidence of such effects: laboratory experiments, field experiments, cross-sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies (Anderson & Bushman, 2002a; Bushman & Huesmann, 2000). But the development of a new genre—electronic video games—reinvigorated the debate.

Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).

Myth 2. The studies that find significant effects are the weakest methodologically.
Facts: Methodologically stronger studies have yielded the largest effects (Anderson, in press). Thus, earlier effect size estimates —based on all video game studies— probably underestimate the actual effect sizes.

Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).
Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have the same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).

Myth 4. Field experiments are irrelevant (aggression measures based either on direct imitation of video game behaviors (e.g., karate kicks) or are normal play behaviors.
Facts: Some field experiments have used behaviors such as biting, pinching, hitting, pushing, and pulling hair, behaviors that were not modeled in the game. The fact that these aggressive behaviors occur in natural environments does not make them "normal" play behavior, but it does increase the face validity (and some would argue the external validity) of the measures.

Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.

Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).

Myth 7. Violent video games affect only a small fraction of players.
Facts: Though there are good theoretical reasons to expect some populations to be more susceptible to violent video game effects than others, the research literature has not yet substantiated this. That is, there is not consistent evidence for the claim that younger children are more negatively affected than adolescents or young adults or that males are more affected than females. There is some evidence that highly aggressive individuals are more affected than nonaggressive individuals, but this finding does not consistently occur. Even nonaggressive individuals are consistently affected by brief exposures. Further research will likely find some significant moderators of violent video game effects, because the much larger research literature on television violence has found such effects and the underlying processes are the same. However, even that larger literature has not identified a sizeable population that is totally immune to negative effects of media violence.

Myth 8. Unrealistic video game violence is completely safe for adolescents and older youths.
Facts: Cartoonish and fantasy violence is often perceived (incorrectly) by parents and public policy makers as safe even for children. However, experimental studies with college students have consistently found increased aggression after exposure to clearly unrealistic and fantasy violent video games. Indeed, at least one recent study found significant increases in aggression by college students after playing E-rated (suitable for everyone) violent video games.

Myth 9. The effects of violent video games are trivially small.
Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass. Furthermore, the fact that so many youths are exposed to such high levels of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this risk factor (Rosenthal, 1986).

Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.

Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing.
Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b) youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

[Pooka Fey]

361. Thanks for posting this.

[vote 4 democracy]

95. Lets see you argue that violence is positive on a liberal website

Its called incongruence. Where logic is involved violence is negative is a given.

[Mythsaje]

136. If someone's coming at me with a club

I'm going to use my ability to defend myself. That's not a negative.

Nor is it a negative if I use my ability to defend someone else who may be harmed.

So violence isn't ALWAYS a negative.

[vote 4 democracy]

250. defense is not the same as unprovoked violence and certainly isn't the concern here

Bush said that Hussein and Al Qaeda were coming after us . . . that didn't justify what he did.

[Warren DeMontague]

252. Wouldn't it have been better if he'd gotten his aggression out playing HALO 2?

Instead of invading Iraq?

[Mythsaje]

259. Right...which is why there's a difference between defense

and preemptive attack.

[Warren DeMontague]

222. Do comic books cause spontaneous outbreaks of superheroes?

REAL violence is bad.

People who can't distinguish between entertainment and reality should not be in the censorship business.

[Mythsaje]

228. If only...

the world could USE some superheroes.

[JVS]

291. Yeah. I was hanging out on the roof reading comics and drinking pop one day

Suddenly I felt a surge of power and my muscles became all ripped. My clothes had transformed into some kind of spandex outfit. I felt like I could fly, so I tried it out. It worked! So be sure to tell your kids my story and encourage them to do the same ;-)

[EvolveOrConvolve]

297. The problem with your argument

is that there isn't any actual violence involved when playing a video game. I still think you need to show how violent video games are a negative.

[vote 4 democracy]

303. In today's news . . . MORE evidence that violent video games/movies are detrimental

Again -there is empirical evidence everywhere. I've now cited two such studies with less than two seconds worth of effort.

On MSNBC this morning
Does game violence make teens aggressive?
Researchers say parents should look closely at findings of new study
In a recent research study, adolescents played two different types of video games for 30 minutes. Teens that played the violent game (right) showed increased activity in the amygdala, which is involved in emotional arousal. Can video games make kids more violent? A new study employing state-of-the-art brain-scanning technology says that the answer may be yes.

snip

Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal – and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention.

Does this mean that your teenager will feel an uncontrollable urge to go on a shooting rampage after playing “Call of Duty?”

Vince Mathews, the principal investigator on the study, hesitates to make that leap. But he says he does think that the study should encourage parents to look more closely at the types of games their kids are playing.

“Based on our results, I think parents should be aware of the relationship between violent video-game playing and brain function.”

Mathews and his colleagues chose two action games to include in their research -- one violent the other not.

The first game was the high-octane but non-violent racing game “Need for Speed: Underground.” The other was the ultra-violent first-person shooter “Medal of Honor: Frontline.”

The team divided a group of 44 adolescents into two groups, and randomly assigned the kids to play one of the two games. Immediately after the play sessions, the children were given MRIs of their brains.

The scans showed a negative effect on the brains of the teens who played “Medal of Honor” for 30 minutes. That same effect was not present in the kids who played “Need for Speed.”

The only difference? Violent content.

What’s not clear is whether the activity picked up by the MRIs indicates a lingering — or worse, permanent — effect on the kids’ brains.

And it’s also not known what effect longer play times might have. The scope of this study was 30 minutes of play, and one brain scan per kid, although further research is in the works.

OK. But what about violent TV shows? Or violent films? Has anyone ever done a brain scan of kids that have just watched a violent movie?


Someone has. John P. Murray, a psychology professor at Kansas State University, conducted a very similar experiment, employing the same technology used in Mathews’ study. His findings are similar.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

315. So you cite a study that hasn't followed the evidence to a final conclusion

and expect me to eat it up? The study seems like a waste of time. It's a no-brainer to know that violence will cause more of an emotional response than tamer games or activities. That's not abnormal, that's human nature. There are obvious chemical responses to violence - fight or flight; adrenaline; etc. That a study showed that in a lab isn't surprising, but there are no obvious conclusions about long-term or permanent brain changes.

I'd like to see a study that provides a correlation between violent video game usage and actual violence. You won't find it, because it's not out there.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

363. And in any case, correlation does not equal causation. One of the 1st things you learn in psych. nt

[WindRavenX]

77. And it's not scientifically valid

Period.

[vote 4 democracy]

100. overwhelming evidence in EVERY single study

period. not one denies it. its just a matter of logic aside from the fact that its clear from daily observation of people. The people who are more relaxed/logical in their responses are the ones not being proponents of violent video games. The ones who are being hostile and defensive are the ones who play or aren't concerned by what their kid is playing.

[WindRavenX]

107. Sorry, these generalizations just don't work

I know TONS of people who don't play any games and are the most wound up, nuerotic nuts on the planet. I am hostile because people are claiming that by playing a violent game you harm the "collective consciousness", or whatever the hell you want to call it. That's ridiculous.

I can assure you I care deeply about what children play and I am responsible about age-appropriate activities for children.

But to say that the people who are defending violent game don't care about what their kids are playing--well, that's simply not true.

[vote 4 democracy]

314. read the evidence

[piedmont]

347. what evidence? nt

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

184. You might find the following graph instructive...

as it seems to undermine the "video games are making youth more violent" mantra.

You might be interested to note that the concept that video games are somehow making the world a more violent place was popularized by one Col. Dave Grossman, a right-winger and authoritarian who has been on James Dobson's show on occasion. I actually have read Mr. Grossman's book, Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill. It's convincing at first glance, but if you look into his claims, it's bogus.

[Irreverend IX]

241. The violent video game issue is DLC bread and butter.

That and gun control, music censorship and other nanny-state crap. Because when you sell working people down the river and stand by while neocons gut the Constitution, it's kind of hard to pass yourself off as a peer of FDR and JFK. So instead of saving people from poverty and injustice, you tell them you'll save them from all the scary things allowed by the First and Second Amendments. If you've ever wondered why some people see Democrats as ineffectual wimps, look no further than these manufactured outrages.

[vote 4 democracy]

247. You might be interested in this graph - yours is a gross oversimplification and distortion which

actually reflects a correlation between the economy and violence . . . and has no true correlation to video games

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

Violence decreases as poverty decreases . . . which is why it (and the rate of abortion) goes down during democratic presidencies . . . and why the incidence of violent crime is directly related to the socio-economic status of an area. Its the same valid logic.

[Warren DeMontague]

254. Self Delete. Dupe. nt

[benEzra]

290. That's the point--no correlation. (No one is saying that games caused that decline.)

You might be interested in this graph - yours is a gross oversimplification and distortion which actually reflects a correlation between the economy and violence . . . and has no true correlation to video games

Violence decreases as poverty decreases . . . which is why it (and the rate of abortion) goes down during democratic presidencies . . . and why the incidence of violent crime is directly related to the socio-economic status of an area. Its the same valid logic.

Yes, I'm aware of that. That was my point--that the development of video games is NOT correlated with any increase in youth violence rates, by any standard metrics. No one is saying that games caused that decline, that I am aware of, just that they coincide. I'm not arguing post hoc, ergo prompter hoc.

What I AM saying is that there has been a sharp decline in youth violence rates, and youth are less violent now than in the past (which you correctly ascribe to socioeconomic factors other than games). This completely invalidates the thesis that the development of increasingly sophisticated video games has led to increasing rates of youth violence, because the trend is in the other direction.

Proponents of additional controls on video games generally speak as if youth violence is on the rise, and blame video games for it. Just as decades ago, the older generation blamed comic books, "Hollywood movies," and whatever other scapegoats were in the headlines. (Remember the Comics Code Authority?) But the facts show that youth violence is NOT being driven up by video games, because it's not going up at all.

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

That's a press release by an anti-gaming group, so take it with a grain of salt.

I also notice he cites a couple of older studies that purport to show a link between game playing and aggression, even though more recent studies have shown no such correlation.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/05/06/game_violence/print.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy

Again, the fact that the youth violence rate has been in a steady decline seems to indicate that games are not, in fact, a major factor in youth violence, and most studies indicate that they are not a factor at all.

FWIW, I'm not saying that anyone should let 7-year-olds play through M-rated games, any more than I'd recommend letting 7-year-olds watch entire R-rated movies. What I am saying is that the moral panic over video games is as unjustified as the similar moral panics in the past over comic books, movies, youth dancing, jazz, Elvis, the Beatles, Dungeons and Dragons, etc. etc. etc. Indeed, many of the same arguments leveled in the '70s/'80s against paper-and-dice RPG's like Dungeons & Dragons or Gamma World are the same arguments leveled against first-person games today--and some of the same people are making them.

FWIW, I occasionally let my children play hide-and-seek and follow-the-leader in the Halo 2 multiplayer maps (not the campaign), under my direct supervision. That's a completely G-rated activity, but some of the game crusaders have introduced legislation at the state level that would make that a crime. That's absolutely ridiculous.

[Warren DeMontague]

223. Sort of like how porn causes violence because people vehemently defend the 1st amendment.

:eyes:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

304. Show us these studies.

And thanks for painting gamers and parents of gamers as irresponsible.

I don't see any hostility. I see defensiveness - that's not surprising considering the assault we take from idiots like Hillary and Joementurd.

[Phx_Dem]

319. research links

VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES CAN INCREASE AGGRESSION

May Be More Harmful Than Violent Television and Movies Because of the Interactive Nature of the Games

WASHINGTON - Playing violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Kombat can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life, according to two studies appearing in the April issue of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Furthermore, violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive, very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor, say the researchers.
http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html

Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts,

and Unanswered Questions
by Craig A. Anderson

After 40+ years of research, one might think that debate about media violence effects would be over. An historical examination of the research reveals that debate concerning whether such exposure is a significant risk factor for aggressive and violent behavior should have been over years ago (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Four types of media violence studies provide converging evidence of such effects: laboratory experiments, field experiments, cross-sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies (Anderson & Bushman, 2002a; Bushman & Huesmann, 2000). But the development of a new genre—electronic video games—reinvigorated the debate.

Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).

Myth 2. The studies that find significant effects are the weakest methodologically.
Facts: Methodologically stronger studies have yielded the largest effects (Anderson, in press). Thus, earlier effect size estimates —based on all video game studies— probably underestimate the actual effect sizes.

Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).
Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have the same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).

Myth 4. Field experiments are irrelevant (aggression measures based either on direct imitation of video game behaviors (e.g., karate kicks) or are normal play behaviors.
Facts: Some field experiments have used behaviors such as biting, pinching, hitting, pushing, and pulling hair, behaviors that were not modeled in the game. The fact that these aggressive behaviors occur in natural environments does not make them "normal" play behavior, but it does increase the face validity (and some would argue the external validity) of the measures.

Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.

Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).

Myth 7. Violent video games affect only a small fraction of players.
Facts: Though there are good theoretical reasons to expect some populations to be more susceptible to violent video game effects than others, the research literature has not yet substantiated this. That is, there is not consistent evidence for the claim that younger children are more negatively affected than adolescents or young adults or that males are more affected than females. There is some evidence that highly aggressive individuals are more affected than nonaggressive individuals, but this finding does not consistently occur. Even nonaggressive individuals are consistently affected by brief exposures. Further research will likely find some significant moderators of violent video game effects, because the much larger research literature on television violence has found such effects and the underlying processes are the same. However, even that larger literature has not identified a sizeable population that is totally immune to negative effects of media violence.

Myth 8. Unrealistic video game violence is completely safe for adolescents and older youths.
Facts: Cartoonish and fantasy violence is often perceived (incorrectly) by parents and public policy makers as safe even for children. However, experimental studies with college students have consistently found increased aggression after exposure to clearly unrealistic and fantasy violent video games. Indeed, at least one recent study found significant increases in aggression by college students after playing E-rated (suitable for everyone) violent video games.

Myth 9. The effects of violent video games are trivially small.
Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass. Furthermore, the fact that so many youths are exposed to such high levels of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this risk factor (Rosenthal, 1986).

Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.

Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing.
Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b) youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

[KittyWampus]

104. You haven;t studied human psycohology much then... or human behavior or animal behavior

and there are theories now about quantum entanglement being played with to explain how the Collective Consciousness works.

You ever hear of the term 'herd mentality'? It's related to the Collective Consciousness.

You either add positive/peaceful images to the world or negative/violent ones.

It's up to you.

[vote 4 democracy]

108. YES!!!!!!!!!! (And it impacts your kids and their world)

period!!!

[WindRavenX]

110. social science(s) is not the same as biologic science

Herd mentality is based on behavior, not consciousness or propagation of similar thoughts.

Collective consciousness theories are not recognized as valid science because it's a bunch of new age junk.

And I study tons of animal behavior, actually.

[Matariki]

183. What about the 'hundredth monkey'?

or was that debunked while i wasn't looking?

[MonkeyFunk]

362. debunked

over 20 years ago

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC09/Myers.htm

[vote 4 democracy]

249. Its actually the collective unconscious and has nothing to do directly with

whether or not video games increase aggression. see the many studies and graphs which indicate without question that they do just that.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

306. Show us those studies and graphs

Holy shit, I wonder how many times I'm going to have to ask for proof before I get it???

[Mythsaje]

137. So maybe we should start mowing down sci fi, horror, and suspense authors

with our cars, eh?

They're not helping matters either.

The ONLY fiction that should be put out is smut and sweet romance.

Got you.

[mondo joe]

160. What about all the faith-based hooey you put into the collective unconscious?

Maybe that explains people believing Saddam was responsible for 911.

[Zhade]

177. Not to mention her belief in Intelligent Design.

Is it any wonder she just makes shit up?

[Zhade]

175. Please stop making shit up, you're embarassing yourself.

NT!

[vote 4 democracy]

243. the fact that you want to believe its made up is an embarrassment to you

[Warren DeMontague]

277. Let's re-read that post again, shall we?

and there are theories now about quantum entanglement being played with to explain how the Collective Consciousness works.

You ever hear of the term 'herd mentality'? It's related to the Collective Consciousness.

You either add positive/peaceful images to the world or negative/violent ones.

It's up to you.

Oh, yeah. Like everything else cryingshame puts out there, real solid science.

I'm sure she's beside herself with joy to finally have some backup, though. :hi: Next time we have another thread where she's defending the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools (using another variation on this same identical "argument"), I'm sure she'll welcome your support.

[vote 4 democracy]

309. Apparently you need to start reading more science notebooks.

"Related to" does not mean that herd mentality = the collective UNconscious - The original post was in response to the very backward statement that we're not connected. Face it. The evidence is what it is. No amount of denial or name calling changes that.

What I actually support that she says is that its illogical and hypocritical for people on a liberal website to be antiwar but pro-game violence. Its incongruent. By the way, I was anti the Iraq war BEFORE the war and had no problem expressing that. Violence is generally a very primative way to resolve anything or pass your time. Defense is different but thats a given.

[Warren DeMontague]

333. I will be happy to discuss quantum physics with you in detail, if you like.

Please, provide some links, references, or backup for cryingshame's asserions. You say "the evidence is what it is". Okay, where's the evidence? I'll wait.

Um, I understand Bell's Theorem, certainly better than she does, and I'm also familiar with Eastern philosophy and the metaphysical concept of interconnectedness.

But to argue that ANY OF THOSE logically equate to the idea that playing HALO 2 somehow increases the amount of negative, alien-squashing energy in the cosmos is just beyond loopy-fucking-ridiculous. Any more than reading comic books causes superheroes and arch-villains with silly names, or watching movies about vampires and werewolves causes those. See, there is a clear line between reality and entertainment that is, seemingly, lost on some folks. "Violence" against pixels on a screen and violence against living things are NOT THE SAME THING. Nor does everything that happens in your head "manifest" into reality. (That kind of thinking isn't Fritjof Capra, it's not even "What the Bleep do we know", it's more like the ramblings of the schizophrenic who lives under the El station)

If I think -ever so fleetingly- about sex with, say, Monica Bellucci... does that mean I'm actually having sex with her?

Uh, oh, better not tell my wife.

[Matariki]

180. with all due respect cryingshame - i disagree with you

I understand where you're coming from with the idea and agree that thoughts and energy will manifest themselves in SOME way (although that idea is going to be met with a lot of hostility in the GD forum LOL) - I just don't think it's necessarily the equal 'one for one' equation you seem to think it is.

I think it's possible that video games may actually be a release of frustrated or subconsciously violent energy that people build up from normal, every day stress - so it's possible that violent games are actually a grounding factor. I see that in my partner - he's one of the most laid back, spiritual people I know - he deals with his anger and frustration in a very level headed way, better than almost anyone I've ever known. AND he loves playing Grand Theft Auto - especially on days he had a frustrating commute! So I think you are possibly reversing the order of the energy flow.

I remember reading that the Ancient Greeks had a similar idea in their theater - they would stage violent theater as a sort of community stress release valve. If you've ever been to Southern Italy during Carnivale you see a very similar release. Our culture seems to be sadly lacking in what are probably very necessary outlets.

[Zhade]

185. Unlike the studies some LIE about here, there have been some that suggest...

...gaming sublimates primal negative behaviors, diffusing build-up of anger and the like.

That's right, gang: games not only DON'T kill, they may in fact sometimes STOP it from happening.

[vote 4 democracy]

253. wow, there's a big fat rationalization if ever there was one

and yup, rationalization = untruth you tell yourself to justify a poor choice or behavior

[Warren DeMontague]

257. Using that "logic", any argument you don't agree with could be written off as "rationalization".

For example, let's say that some people here are manufacturing data and badly mangling junk science interpretations of quantum mechanics to rationalize their need to censor other people's entertainment choices.

[vote 4 democracy]

311. except for the fact that I've now shown two studies (with no effort whatsoever)

which show quantifiable and undisputable real evidence that video game violence is detrimental. Therefore calling my evidence something else is a fallacy and part of a need for cognitive dissonance (hiding from reality).

Most importantly, what she said is she has the right to say something/make a point . . . and she does. What's wrong with this picture if people on a liberal website can't allow that. I'm not a fundie or new agey. I'm a child psychologist with training in this and constant interaction to kids who have little supervision. That's what's going on here. Poor parenting looking for an excuse.

[Warren DeMontague]

329. Your "studies" show an dubious increase in a poorly defined thing called "emotional arousal"

whether that translates into "violent video games cause real world violence" is something else, entirely.

Again, above, you can't seem to debate this without ascribing personal motives to anyone -like me- who disagrees with you.

"Therefore calling my evidence something else is a fallacy and part of a need for cognitive dissonance (hiding from reality)."

Lady, I know what cognitive dissonance is, thanks (look it up, and you'll see a picture of George W. Bush talking about Iraq), and I don't care how many degrees you have after your name or what sort of white coat you wear at work, that kind of semantic Ju-jitsu isn't going to work on me. Try it somewhere else.

Hey, I'm all for effective parental supervision. I don't think everything that is for adults should be for kids. Seems to me keeping your kids from playing ultra-violent videogames is a no-brainer. But that should be the PARENT'S job, speaking of poor parenting. And I think the biggest problem many of us on this liberal website (you may want to hang around a little longer before you start issuing orders to the rest of us on how to think) have with this whole deal is, like flag burning, it's a non-issue that the DLC has come up with for pure pandering purposes. And in case you haven't noticed, right now is not a non-issue, pandering era of time.

Frankly, I think the man in your avatar has a much better understanding than Hillary of what our priorities as a nation should be right now. Global Warming, The Environment, our planetary petroleum addiction, ending the war in Iraq- those are the important, must-be-addressed issues. Violent video games are NOT a front burner deal that need to be addressed IMHO.

[Irreverend IX]

240. If collective consciousness is in any way real...

I'd much rather be sending violent energy into it than braindead horseshit nanny save-you-from-yourself energy. Maybe we should just make it illegal to speak or think. That should cut down on violence big time.

[Llewlladdwr]

365. They were discussing the 'collective consiousness'...

which is a very different kettle of fish from the 'collective UNconscious'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious

Just saying....

[KittyWampus]

89. excuse me, I typed your rather than you're. And either we ARE all connected

or we are not.

If we are, then it's via the collective consciousness.

[WindRavenX]

93. We're not connected

What the hell are you talking about? We are the same members of H.sapien, but that's all that unites us. We don't share minds/consciousness, whatever. There's absolutely no evidence of that claim at all.

[vote 4 democracy]

103. maybe not in your world but being aware means that fact is undeniable.

[WindRavenX]

115. "being aware means that fact is undeniable"

Um, not. Just because you think something is true, doesn't mean it actually is true.

Having a bunch of people think that the world was created 6K years ago, for example, doesn't make it so.

[Matariki]

188. and by the same token, just because a person hasn't experienced something

doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

307. No, but the one making the incredible claim

has to show some sort of proof to back up their ridiculous arguments.

[vote 4 democracy]

264. no but paying attention to what's happening around you and then being able to quantify

the results (or at least acknowledge them) does prove things

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

[Zhade]

179. Yeah. You're just making shit up. Unless you can show evidence for it.

But you can't, because it's not a 'fact'.

No matter how tightly you shut your eyes and wish on that dandelion, your wishes don't equal fact.

[vote 4 democracy]

266. now we've moved to projection of your motivations on others

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

projection is an extremely primative defense mechanism and indicates volumes about a person's level of functioning -sorry, just (another) fact

[EvolveOrConvolve]

310. How is it undeniable?

Prove it. The burden of proof is on you to provide credulous empirical evidence to back up your extraordinary claim.

[BoneDaddy]

187. collective consciousness is not

about playing video games. CC is about the mythological/archetypal figures that have manifested through human existence and development.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

61. Define the collective consiousness

Then, prove that it exists outside your own head.

[CrazyForKucinich]

97. Hillary is that you?

Someone said it best...you should be concerned about Grand Theft America rather than Grand Theft Auto. Take a hike Hillary.

[KittyWampus]

105. Did I advocate banning anything? No, I didn't. But I WILL stand up and make a point

about hypocrites who say they want peace in the world and then go home and spend hours playing violent video games.

[vote 4 democracy]

112. Exactly right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You Rock CryingShame. Without that bully mentality we wouldn't be in Iraq.

[WindRavenX]

118. Maybe if we spent more time on, you know, real issues...

...instead of bullshit morality wedge issues we'd get a lot more progress done.

[mondo joe]

150. LOL! Without bogus FAITH BASED arguments like these we wouldn't be in

Iraq.

[trumad]

216. I wonder if your IP addresses match?

[Mythsaje]

149. Oh, no! I write about immortals and vampires and werewolves

and monsters and sword-fights and gun battles.

I'm SUCH a hypocrite.

[Warren DeMontague]

164. Yes. How can there be peace in the world if there's not Peace on your tv set?

:eyes:

Let me break it down for you; see, you may not believe in evolution.. but there are clear EVOLUTIONARY reasons that our primate brains might be wired for pack behavior like shit-flinging, which roughly equates to 'warfare' once people get the technological know-how necessary to turn monkey doo into bullets, bombs, ICBMs, etc.

The ancient greeks understood this, which is why the brilliantly sublimated many of these impulses into sports, like the Olympics. And bravo for that.

The "violent" videogames you decry fill much the same niche. They don't "cause" violence or war so much as provide a harmless outlet for that part of our brains.

And I'd much rather have our troops at home being shot at by imaginary things on their XBOXs than in Iraq getting shot at with real bullets.

[Zhade]

189. Your point is not supported by anything but your fervent ranting.

It's not hypocrisy to sublimate one's anger by playing even incredibly violent games - it's called "letting off steam".

Human emotions build. Releasing them by pumping some rounds into zombies is actually helpful, not harmful - the tension and built-up anger is released.

Your arguments could mirror those of a thousand puritanical anti-movie, anti-book, anti-creativity arguments defeated over centuries.

[0rganism]

236. truly dangerous hypocrites vote for wars while censoring video game violence

The kids who saw their families blown to bits, tortured, raped, burned alive, maimed, and mutilated over the last five years have contributed far more to the collective unconscious in the way of violent experiences than any number of video gamers could ever hope to do in a lifetime. I suggest you and Hillary focus your pointmaking and legislating where it is most needed: protecting REAL people from REAL violence.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

308. You need to show how playing violent video games

contributes to war. It's a specious argument, and fallacious beyond all belief.

The two are different issues entirely, yet in your black and white world, everything you don't like leads to war, violence, etc. Reality doesn't work that way.

[Mythsaje]

148. That was me...

:)

LOVE seeing that quote used!

Rock on...

[cool user name]

116. How do you know this?

[mondo joe]

145. Please substantiate your claims. NT

[vote 4 democracy]

269. substantiation-please explain why you haven't or couldn't look this up yourself?

denial, maybe?

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

[mondo joe]

324. You made the claim. The burden is on you to support it. Not my job to do your

research for you.

[Odin2005]

151. LOL!!!

What a bunch of woowoo. :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

161. Thus says the poster who argues that Quantum Mechanics proves the Bible is right. nt

[Mythsaje]

167. Please tell me you're kidding...

How in the hell does quantum mechanics do THAT?

Oh, hell...I'm not sure I want to hear this.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. Yeah, you probably don't. It's in the archives somewhere.

At least, my atheistic, materialistic, science worshipping sin-addled brain thinks it is. ;-) :hi:

[Mythsaje]

181. That's all right... I got jumped on on another thread

for sounding like an atheist...

"If I want to hear about Jesus, I'll ask."

Someone took offense to that.

My response was pretty much that I'd have a LOT less problem with some people if they'd stop pretending they can tell which is fact and which is fiction in the bible in the first place. I don't know, and they don't either. LOL

[Warren DeMontague]

221. What an intolerant statement you made!

;-)

I mean, IMHO all this hand-wringing about "angry" and "intolerant" un-believers boils down to some people in our society who just aren't used to folks openly stating things like "I don't believe in (your) God"

...that's supposed to be "intolerance". Sort of like how people in gay relationships acting the same way straights do amounts to "flaunting" and a demand for "special rights".

[Mythsaje]

225. My attitude is more that I don't know if God exists

and I don't believe they do either. The bible, Torah, and Koran do not count as "proof." They're books of history, conjecture, and flat out fiction written, edited, and printed by human beings and not a single person alive can tell which parts are which.

[Warren DeMontague]

226. I don't even think what passes for the question ("Does God exist") is terribly well defined

so endlessly wrangling over the answer seems kinda silly.

I too tend to resist pigeonholing and/or categorization. For purposes of the lowest-chakra political debate in this country, these days at least, I tend to go with "Atheist" because I don't believe in anything resembling the god of the big western monotheisms. Besides, Atheists are under-represented and clearly discriminated against in the voting mind of the U.S. public (witness the polls which say voters are least likely to vote for an openly atheist candidate) ... I figure I'll get off the bus when it becomes too trendy. :hippie:

On a good day I'll classify myself as a "Taoist/Discordian/Atheist/Agnostic/Subgenius/Zen Free Agent". On a bad day I'll go with "Cranky shithead who needs his coffee"

But probably my most overarching philosophical commitment, if I have one, is to the notion that one of the whole points to this shebang is for us to figure it out for ourselves. Therefore, beyond the realms of verifiable science based on physical evidence and collectively agreed upon ground rules, to try to proseltyze metaphysics at other people is the definition of pointlessness. What works for me might not work for you, and vice versa. Your mileage may vary.

So, yeah, I'm with you: If I wanted to hear about Jesus, I would ask. :thumbsup:

[Mythsaje]

230. I consider myself a pantheist/humanist.

I say that revealed religion is at best, a delusion, and at worst, a scam.

My argument is with the idea that anyone has the answers. I think scientists, if anyone, have some of the right questions. Philosophers might have some of the others.

but no one has the answers.

[Warren DeMontague]

232. And while the speed of light is the same for everyone, when one talks about "meaning of life" issues

the answer for ME might not be the answer for YOU.

If people find meaning in Christianity, Islam, Professional Wrestling, Reality TV, Listening to old 8 tracks of The Carpenters... you know- as long as they're not trying to foist it on me and mine, AFAIC they should knock themselves out.

That's MY answer. :patriot:

[Mythsaje]

234. Yep...

Same way I feel... I'm married to a witch. I hang with pagans. Grew up Christian...even been baptised a few times. i guess it didn't take.

[Zhade]

168. Says the person who believes in INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

:rofl:

Your theories are so cute!

And so utterly, utterly unsupported. By anything. Ever.

[ToeBot]

279. Yeah, it's fouling my aura and distorting the results of my crystal scrying...

oh, how will I make any decisions now.

[conscious evolution]

78. Same here

Only there where no video games when I was a kid.We played war with real BB guns sometimes.
We also used to make our own weapons out of whatever we could scrounge up.One kid in our nieghborhood even had a real,though unoperative, M-2 50 Cal machine gun.We would be running around the hood with it and nobody would blink an eye.If we did that today I cannot even begin to imagine what would happen if someone saw us running around with Ma Duece.
As crazy as we were I still grew up to abhor violence.

[Mythsaje]

176. Ironic, isn't it?

The very first movie I can remember going to was either Enter the Dragon or Billy Jack. Been reading adult-level fiction since I was in third grade. Was into the martial arts and weapons from the age of 6 or 7 on.

And, somehow, I was never the guy that INITIATED violence, but the one who had to react to it. (Can't imagine any of it had anything to do with my smart mouth or anything). At least until I got big enough myself, and confident enough, to be genuinely daunting.

All the fictional violence, my years in the martial arts, my years as a table-top RPGer. None of these things have made me in any way dangerous.

Oh, in potentiality, perhaps. But I'm about the last person who will ever snap. If I get dangerous, it's because I had no other choice.

[proud2BlibKansan]

190. You probably had intelligent parents too who loved you

and a good education where you learned critical thinking.

Not all kids have that.

[meganmonkey]

2. "...the politicians who are going after the video game makers...

...are the same politicians who voted for the war"

You said it all right there, man.

:thumbsup:

[pooja]

3. You know these war games are the same prototypes they use in

military excercises...

And when is promoting violent actions, even through the fakest of all means, good?

[trumad]

5. But it's not bad either...

so leave me alone and let me play. Not you of course...the gov.

[pooja]

62. Personally, I don't think there is a need for games that promote violence

when peace on this earth is the ultimate goal. We used to play cops and robbers when we were kids. My mom hated it, but at least we were running around outside and not under her feet... there was one basic rule with our fake plastic red toy guns---no pointing it at each other. I always whined, "well, how are we going to kill each other"... and she said we would have to pretend...no pointing weapons at each other. I understand her point. We were emulating what we saw on cartoons... with one toon chasing the other with a gun. because it was fake and the toon lived, we would too... Had I not known watched cops/ robbers or cowboys/ indians.. then I wouldn't have even thought of running around chasing anyone with a toy weapon. Yes, they are games. Do we know the difference, yes. The bigger question is do we really need them? NO.

[Mythsaje]

152. What do you want to bet

that kids have played similar games throughout history? Before there was TV or radio, there were adventure novels and penny dreadfuls. Before that there were epics, and legends, and tales of knights fighting dragons and King Arthur fighting Mordred and all the various cultural epics that form a basis for most of our histories.

Do we need them?

Well, apparently.

[pooja]

155. yes, and the human history is filled with violence. Something to

also consider.

[Mythsaje]

158. And yet, despite the rise in more violent mediums

we are actually becoming LESS violent than we've ever been--as long as you ignore the religious loonies, anyway.

And it's amazing how violent you become when your neighbors are raiding your village and cutting big holes in you and taking your stuff and dragging off your women and kids.

Chimps conduct war too, you know. So do meerkats. And lions systematically hunt down cheetah cubs to kill them because they're a rival for food.

The world is a violent place. We had to fight the beasts to survive, then we had to fight those who fought the beasts and now we're having to fight the people that fought the people who fought the beasts.

More or less...

[pooja]

208. AND now is the time for change. We are in a civilized, modern world.

Also, I disagree with the assertion that we are less violent. The weapons have become more sophisticated and much more deadly. We are systematically enslaving this world...The modern world in debt and the developing/ 3rd world countries are losing their natural ways and their natural resources.

Point is we know better, start acting better.

[Mythsaje]

210. When was the last time you attended a public hanging?

especially part of a "community event."

A witch burning?

How about a good old fashioned draw-and-quartering session?

The weapons ARE more sophisticated. But, in general, most people are far less prone to either actual violence or CHEERING actual violence. With some exceptions.

There was a time, not all that long ago, when an attack similar to the one perpetrated against the WTC wouldn't have even been a blip on the radar. People would've shrugged it off. How many people cried out against the slaughter at the Alamo? Or the razing of the South after the civil war?

Or the crimes committed against the Native Americans?

How many "good" people do you think stepped up to protect blacks from lynching during the Jim Crow days? Did you know that the Ku Klux Klan was once a POWER in America rather than just a fringe group?

People ARE more civilized than they were.

The downside is that in some ways it makes us more vulnerable to those who AREN'T. Violent extremists (be they Islamic radicals or RW fanatics) don't give a damn whether or not you despise violence. Neither does your average criminal, for that matter.

I think blaming video games for something that is so OBVIOUSLY inherent in our nature is remarkably narrow minded. It's like blaming heavy metal. Or Harry Potter. Or dungeons and dragons. Or letting our women go unveiled.

Violence exists, and will probably continue to exist for the foreseeable future. We need to learn how to deal with and defuse it when possible, but we should also be aware that sometimes we can't. Some people cannot, and should not, be appeased or catered to. This doesn't make us wrong, or evil, necessarily. Just realistic.

There are segments in our society that still believe that they can still rationalize the INITIATION of violence, not as a response to an overt attack, but preemptively. These aren't people that understand that it still has a place, but people who have never truly learned what its place is. For defense only.

We can condemn unwarranted aggression, but we should never, ever, make the mistake of condemning violence entirely. The problem isn't violence, but the uses it's put to. To ignore this is to create a society and a race of victims.

[Zhade]

191. Who cares what you think we don't need? YOU don't decide.

Don't like the games (which have NEVER been shown to cause violence)? Don't play them.

That simple.

[fujiyama]

339. There isn't a "need" for anything beyond basic necessities

All of these are consumer electronic goods bought with disposable income. I get to define what I "need", thank you very much. Also, millions of people out there in the world don't need diamonds which are mined off the backs of child slaves, yet many buy them anyways and many women claim to "need" them. I don't see Hillary or Joe saying a Goddamn thing about that, or the war (which good 'ole Joe backs fervently and outright ). Hillary simply has no belief about that - only whatever is most politically expedient.

If I'm shooting a fictional Nazi on a screen, it does not make me want to go outside and start shooting innocent Iraqis.

Does that mean, I am everyone? No, there are some people that are simply fucked up in the head, and whether they play a video game or not won't change that. What will is actually having decent parents that raise kids and teach them the difference between reality and fiction.

Apparently, sometimes even that isn't enough, like in the case of hypocritical fuck-head politicians like Hillary and Joe, who have the blood of thousands of REAL PEOPLE on their hands.

The only blood on my hands are those of digitized Nazis and other pixelated characters...

[Pavulon]

16. If you study nuclear physics

you can go into a career in astronomical study or go work at lanl making nukes.

They do not promote action. They are an outlet for fantasy..

[kimmerspixelated]

36. I agree with you

and those kind of games get in your subconscious...and may not surface for years. It's subliminal almost.

[vote 4 democracy]

65. exactly - NOT like rock n roll

This is not the same as saying rock n roll is evil in the 50s. In the 50s people didn't talk about reality and bad things were happening then too. They wanted to shelter from the truth and even though rock and roll was so innocent. They talked about puppy love, breaking up and dancing, etc.. Things that were really happening in a very real world around them. It may have been driven by the very normal desire of parents to protect their kids compared to their naive childhoods. The difference is that now kids are bombarded with a very dark reality from every corner and violent video games focus on a very negative reality. Sure, people are violent with each other, and as a result, people die but its not happening in most homes in America like puppy love, breaking up, and dancing. This is not just a normal progression. We passed the point of being able to talk about trouble/pain/that life can be very difficult . . . and now we're focusing on those things and worse.
No comparison. Sorry.

[pinstikfartherin]

281. Even if it could be called subliminal, it should not matter.

Subliminal messages do not show a lasting effectiveness. I am currently taking a Psychology class, and we recently studied subliminal messages. They may change the way we think briefy, but it does not last long. In fact, studies have shown that people who use subliminal tapes for self improvement show improvement in line with their expectations; however, the tape did not really having any long term effect. If people thought they were listening to tapes to help their self esteem, they would feel their self esteem has improved even though they were really listening to a tape involving bettering your memory. I guess you could say that it's 'all in your head'.
To summarize, violent video games will not have a long lasting subliminal effect on a person or kid. I know many kids (including my kid sister) who play GTA and such religiously but do not have a violent bone in their body. They see enough violence in some of the cartoons they watch.

Anywho..
Speaking from personal experience, I usually get tired after playing video games for a while so I would be more likely to go to bed than go out mad and get violent. (And no, I don't have violent dreams after playing them either!) I agree with a few of those above in that I find that it relieves some stress. Cracking open a few heads with a baseball bat and running some people over is quite nice after dealing with bitchy customers all day. I think that as a waitress I deserve a little rest, relaxation, and video game violence after dealing with tons of rude people and idiotic restaurant nonsense all day. I mean, I'm not going out, partying, drinking, and driving home. I'm going home, bustin' some heads, and sippin' on some 7up. What's so bad about that?

[trumad]

289. may not surface for years? r may not at all...

true... so your basing your judgment on something that "may" happen?

[Hippo_Tron]

50. The military uses video games as only a part of their training

[rpgamerd00d]

4. Look at my screen name - No one is more experienced than I with games.

Video or otherwise.

And I also play online, as well.

I have no desire to kill anyone or commit any acts of violence.

Somehow, I doubt Hillary and others will be calling me for an interview...

[trumad]

8. Online Halo player here...

I suck but I love it.

[MessiahRp]

6. I played Combat on Atari

and I am perfectly fine. ;-)

Rp

[trumad]

9. That's the thing

We're all fine. We really are...

[MessiahRp]

17. Combat was crazy real

Like when I could ricochet shots off the wall and get a tank hiding behind something. :)

Rp

[rpgamerd00d]

18. Um, thats not real. :)

[MessiahRp]

26. I guess I should have added the :sarcasm: tag

:eyes:

[rpgamerd00d]

28. Oops, sorry, its Friday and Im burned out... :)

[MessiahRp]

31. Me too

I'm on 9:17 of a 10 hour shift...

Rp

[cool user name]

172. I hate like when in like real life ...

... like the zombies won't die like on the first three shots. They, like keep getting up and stuff.

:eyes:

[Zhade]

193. I'm sayin! Shoot a guy, and before you know it, las plagas erupts from his neck!

So inconvenient when I'm on my way to work!

[Fridays Child]

7. You're a nice person. You have a nice kid. No mystery there.

And I doubt that video games would change the equation. :hi:

(Edited to add that I'm not suggesting "bad" kids necessarily have "bad" parents.)

[Annces]

10. But don't you think those games distance you from reality

So that when you encounter real life violence, your mind does not react to it completely as a real situation?

[trumad]

11. Not even close.

I've come across a couple of road accidents in the last couple of years and have seen dead bodies...It fucks me up something good.

There aint nothing like the site of a real dead body.

[trumad]

13. And think about this

they're worried what video games do to the minds of our young ones... Imagine the minds of the kids they sent to Iraq?

[kimmerspixelated]

38. True,

but most of us of a certain age never grew up on video games or violent ones to boot, and when you get a kid who becomes addicted to them and then he wants ones more exciting...well then you've got a problem, because their brains are still forming. Adults whose brains are formed already really can't say everything is okay, it's so different!

[Zhade]

194. Happily, the games have easy-to-understand ratings that work.

So, exposure can be monitored.

[vote 4 democracy]

244. while people on here are bragging that they don't use the rating system

[vote 4 democracy]

245. Here is just one of many studies which support the fact that exposure to violence in video games

is detrimental. Read the whole thing. Look at the graph. Its part of responsible parenting.

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

[Annces]

33. Ya, that is a pretty good gauge

I think the brain is strange though, in that it can go off on tangents. My brain absorbs good and bad stuff, like from movies about killers, and I have hard time forgetting it again.

[DireStrike]

81. Ditto

I've played every sort of violent game imaginable. Yet when I stumbled onto that video of that Russian soldier being beheaded, I was left shaking and couldn't think about anything else for days.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

14. It's called "fight or flight" its a human instinct

it would be hard for a video game to erase hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

[vote 4 democracy]

106. the point is more people are likely to fight . . . less aware of the consequences

and able to make good decisions when overexposed to violence (real or pretend). . . they're also more likely to seek it out because they need the rush . . . or they don't understand the consequences.

[Mythsaje]

139. And the observable evidence of this is...where?

Are we suddenly being overridden with a plague of video-game hyped assassins roaming the streets killing people at random?

Funny...it hasn't made the news yet.

No, most of the murders and violence occuring out there seems to arise from the same things it always did...from greed, lust, and envy.

[Zhade]

195. Please stop making things up. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS.

NT!

[fishwax]

224. Have you cited any actual evidence yet?

Or are you just saying things that "feel" right :shrug:

[rpgamerd00d]

15. Not in a billion, trillion, quadrillion years. There is absolutely NO link

between video game violence and real violence.

[kysrsoze]

32. If there was, you would see some sort of link between videogames and violent crime rates

There's nothing. In fact, violent crime has consistently been reduced over the last decade. The major predictors of violent crime are the economy and the weather.

[Annces]

34. Not that videos make you a killer, but that your mind

might have a hard time feeling reality, when you actually come upon it.

I know they say in our culture, we are shielded from death, so we almost don't realize it exists, which is not healthy.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

312. That, then, is a sign of a weak mind

I watch movies - do I consider them "real"? Hell no!

I play video games - do I consider them "real"? Hell no!

I read books of fiction - do I consider them "real"? Hell no!

People who are not taught how to differentiate between fantasy and reality will obviously have problems with seeing reality for what it is. They are the ones who play World of Warcraft for 80 hours a week. They are the ones who sit for weeks on end in their basements playing Dungeons & Dragons, barely eating or bathing or sleeping. Video games didn't make these people who they are; they simply provide an outlet for their delusions.

[kimmerspixelated]

39. Hello?!!!- Columbine!

[ContraBass Black]

40. I thought we were all blaming that evil heavy metal music for that one.

[Hav]

46. .

And there are probably hundreds of millions who play video games and who are totally normal human beings.
These guys who do these killings had many more problems than wasting their time playing video games. Often, they were outsiders, rejected, ridiculed and humiliated by other pupils.
We had cases of people running amok without video games.

Maybe there are some who take video games way too seriously. But often they are tragic figures who happened to play video games. While games might have played a minor part, it is our society that made them the way they were.
But it's always easier for politicians to find easy solutions than trying to deal with things that can't be solved by just banning something.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. Columbine had nothing to do with I dunno...

COMPLETE LACK OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT. I wouldn't have even known how to go about getting a gun in high school yet those kids somehow managed to buy guns and make their own bombs in the garage.

The kids at columbihne had serious emotional problems and their parents were obviously so disengaged from their kids' lives that they didn't try to help them with their problems before they resorted to violence.

[Odin2005]

153. The Columbine shooters were messed up in the head because of bullying.

Unfortunately instead of blamming bullying they had to blame it on playing Doom. :eyes:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

229. No, that was easy access to guns plus shitty parenting.

[DarkTirade]

262. Oh yes, let's believe the hype. The Columbine kids ONLY killed people

because they played a violent videogame (that, I might add, was YEARS out of date by that time, horrible graphics, and was in a nutshell, not lifelike AT ALL).
Have you, for even once, stopped to think that PERHAPS the reason they played violent video games was BECAUSE they were ALREADY prone to violence? There are MILLIONS of people who played Doom. Out of those millions so far (And might I add, in response to your 'developing minds' comment below, that most of them discovered the game before the age of 15. I first played it before I even hit puberty.) we only know of those two committing a serious violent act. Do the math.

[vote 4 democracy]

246. Here's one of many links

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

[vote 4 democracy]

261. duplicate

[Hippo_Tron]

19. My first instinct in violent situations is run away as quickly as possible

I've regularly encountered drunken idiots who want to start fights for no reason. I always tell them "Hey whatever it is we're arguing about you're right and I'm sorry" and then walk away.

And I love my violent video games.

[kimmerspixelated]

41. Yes,

But you're brained wasn't formed watching them-right? you weren't a kid when you started?

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Proud Mortal Kombat player since age 9

[vote 4 democracy]

30. yes, definitely

the psychological evidence for that is overwhelming. Doesn't anybody remember the interviews with the soldiers in Iraq who were completely freaked out when they realized that the war wasn't really like a video game? That they had real blood on their hands? No question its had a huge (though not readily detectable) impact on youth. No different than watching violent movies which is proven to do the same. We're almost all pacifists here. Why would be for introducing our kids to this or being exposed to it ourselves. Sorry, just seems contradictory.

[DireStrike]

83. I think the statement you made shows there is NO link

The soldiers had no capacity for violence built from video games. They couldn't handle it. That shows only an (understandable) lack of maturity and wisdom about war. If you blame anything for it, it would be their trainers... but then I have no idea about military training, so I won't presume to know about it.

[vote 4 democracy]

88. in every case they were PSYCHED UP to do it by their training

which involved graphic video games . . . which desensitized them. There's a very direct connection. They thought it would be fine . . they thought they could act violently without consequence . . . which increases violent actions . . . it wasn't until it was too late that they realized they were wrong but the original mentality was put there by over exposure to pretend violence via video games.

[Zhade]

196. Prove it, or stop making shit up.

Not ONCE have you given evidence for a SINGLE ONE of your baseless assertions.

Put up or shut up.

[vote 4 democracy]

258. Gosh - this was SOOOOO difficult to find (split second)

One of many many many studies with empirical evidence proving my assertions. Sorry it took so long but I was taking my kids to a non-violent which they said "rocked".

Here you go . . .

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

[trumad]

286. LOL

He can say it all he wants... It seems to me if he was right, which he's not, violent crime would be going up instead of down like it is? Why is that not happening? It's not happening because his little thesis is pure bullshit.

[fujiyama]

340. Any studies of Japanese youth and violence

The Japanese play some extremely violent and graphic video games, yet the country has some of the lowest crime rates of industrialized nations.

Can you explain that?

You constantly bring up "studies" which don't seem to be peer reviewed and are little more than editorials.

I'll give you that violent video games likely increase adrenaline. They may even confuse younger children that have not the realization to differentiate reality from a virtual world. They may even excite them and make them more aggressive temporarily. But so do old cartoons and WWE (remember a kid that body slammed another one and killed her?). But these games are not made for children and we have labels for them. It is the responsibility of parents to gauge their children's perceptions and judge their emotional capacity to handle fictional violence. After all, if we look at violent fiction throughout the ages, you really can't beat the Bible or Koran in terms of encouraging violent behavior.

But, my guess is for the vast majority of adults out there, violent video games will have about as many long term effects as watching violent cartoons or movies.

[MADem]

12. Some of those games have a "morality" component, too

There was one that was popular in this household, damned if I can remember the name of it--Legend, maybe? FABLE!! That's it, I think--where the choices the player makes impacts their character's development. That's a very popular one--it gets dragged out every so often so that the opposite character (saint or sinner) can be tried out, just for amusement.

[DarkTirade]

263. A lot of the Star Wars games, most notably the Jedi Knight series

also has that. Only in that case it's the whole dark/light side of the force. :)

[Rex]

20. Been playing video games since 13, now 35 and I have no compunction

to kill in real life. Only a stupid moron would play a video game and want to emulate the experience in real life - IMHO.

[trumad]

24. And I bethca that 99 percent of gamers are the same way.

Oh they'll get some Dr. Phil type up before congress and dlaim it does have an effect. Well I call bullshit.

[Rex]

76. PC games...the gateway drug...

You know what they say, PC games lead to internet porn! :rofl:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

84. Atari 2600 - Modern Day

That's about 30 years of video game playing and I'm just as gentle and sweet as I ever was. I even prefer the (gasp) "violent" rpg type ones. I've also spent my life listening to rock and roll and I grew up on such graphic films as Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Perhaps they should create some kind of registry for potentially violent criminals such as myself.

[JNelson6563]

227. lol Good one.

:rofl:

[DarkTirade]

265. Most of us play games to do things that we can't do in real life.

In real life we can't have a swordfight or gunfight... in real life we can't race the Indy 500... in real life none of us will ever be a professional athlete.
(although to be honest... I make fun of most of the people who play sports games... but only the ones who spend 50 bucks on the newest sports game, but aren't willing to spent 10 bucks on a ball that they can toss around in the back yard. :) )

[bigendian]

21. Nothing personal.

But I thought this line:

...cause I think he's a bit young for carjacking and running down hookers...

was funny in a creepy kind of way.

I'm 52 and still too young to do that.

[trumad]

22. LOL

I threw that in there for a bit of humor. I'm not saying some the games are a bit rank.... they are. BUT I simply play the parent with it and say no.

[DarkTirade]

267. *gasp* Wait, you mean good parenting can replace the need to ban

violent games that kids shouldn't be playing anyway? I am so shocked... who would have thought?
:sarcasm: (edited to add in the sarcasm tag.)

[fujiyama]

341. OMG!

You're effectively parenting and taking responsibility! You actually have an emotional relationship with your child and are able to judge his emotions!

*Gasp* The Horror. You don't want Hillary and Joe babysitting your kids?

[kimmerspixelated]

42. Bingo!

[flyingfysh]

23. I spent a lot of time playing Wizardry

but never once was I tempted to cast a tiltowait spell in real life.

[rpgamerd00d]

25. omfg, memories !!!!

:D

[trumad]

27. What's that spell do?

Can I use it on my wife?

[flyingfysh]

154. only use it on people you really don't like

The effect of the spell is said to be like a small atomic bomb.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Doesn't matter, your kid is corrupting other kids

Senator Clinton and Senator Lieberman are appealing to "values voters" who want all of us to go back to the 1950's so that their kids aren't corrupted with the ideas that your kid learns from those video games.

I played Mortal Kombat when I was 9 or 10. As I said previously I run the hell away when ever I'm faced with a potentially violent situation.

[kiahzero]

37. Does that work?

I mean, Scorpion had that nasty "Get over here" move... and if it exists in a video game, it must be real!

:crazy:

[Hippo_Tron]

43. I guarantee you if I could do that move in real life

I'd end up being in a lot more violent situations. Of course the thought never crossed my mind even at age 9 that I could actually do that.

[DarkTirade]

268. Spider-man could do that but without all the blood...

But he strikes me as a nicer guy than Scorpion. Then again, something I also learned at a young age... is that NEITHER ONE OF THEM IS REAL. :)

[Hav]

35. .

Wasn't Rock and Roll at first demonized like that as well?
Then we had this discussion about videos because some kids obviously imitated things they've seen in horror movies. Now the same with video games.
Eventually, it's always up to the human being to decide what's right. We learn these things while we grow up from our parents and our social environment.

I used to play the oh so horrible Counter Strike or Doom, as did my brother. The last "fights" we were in must have been in the kindergarten. It's not the games that turn us into monsters. There is always more to these tragedies and blaming it on a video game is just an easy and lazy attempt to find explanations.

[vote 4 democracy]

54. yes it is up to individuals

and their parents to decide what's appropriate and that is good . . . that is freedom . . .

Our society allows porn movies but it doesn't mean kids should be exposed to or doing it . . .

Our society allows musicians to sing about bitches and hos but that doesn't mean kids should be exposed to it or thinking in those terms . . .

Obviously we wouldn't be having this discussion if something didn't tell us deep down that parents need to be aware and limit their children's exposure to violence and overly adult content in music, videos, games, etc. because it does impact behavior and thinking. It does desensitize.

As adults they can decide for themselves but if they get the message early that this stuff isn't really constructive for them maybe they'll make better decisions about it.

[Hav]

63. .

Oh I'd never want small kids playing questionable video games. Neither would I want them watching inappropriate movies nor should they smoke or drink alcohol.
But I think we already have laws and guidelines for that. If a game is only for adults, then the parents or those who sell it, should ensure that those who are younger don't get it. Same for movies, same for cigarettes.

I just don't like this hysteria that one can see on TV from time to time or that those who play video games are seen as violent freaks who can't distinguish between right and wrong or reality and fiction because one of their hobbies is playing a video game.

[vote 4 democracy]

82. Parents do need to pay attention to what their kid is doing

and recognize that those labels are there for a reason. No 10 year old should be watching Caligula . . . nor should he/she be playing games with similar content. I'm not saying you don't recognize that but . . .

I think the hysteria comes in response to potential restriction . . . from the people who think their kids are more capable of discerning that that kind of violence ISN'T normal reality than they really are. I think its a guilt thing/defense mechanism on the part of the parents. There are laws for a reason. There are guidelines but many DON'T follow them. The point originally made is that kids ARE watching/playing overly mature content and "see it doesn't affect them" or "it didn't affect me". That's called denial. Just because you don't see something going on doesn't mean its not happening. There won't be any physical signs of it. They're not going to hang a sign around their neck saying "I'm getting more negative and violent because I'm over-exposed to negativity and violence". Its not a gamble I would take with my kids. If we know there's a need for restriction on content and we know that desensitization occurs (which we do) why take the chance by exposing them?

How many times have we seen soldiers say that AFTER they pulled the real trigger (or after they were shot themselves) they realized it wasn't like a video game. The realized they weren't immortal. Immortality isn't really recognized until age 25 anyway and many, if not most, of the kids there are under 25. They realized (too late) that killing someone in real life does have an impact on your psyche.

Kids spend often hours everyday on violent video games, songs, movies, etc. Its disproportionate to the real world.

[Zhade]

197. Parents are warned right on the box to keep some games from kids.

The warning is there. Read it sometime.

[DarkTirade]

270. Hmm... maybe that's why they made a RATING SYSTEM for games...

With things like E for Everyone, or T for Teen... or M for Mature... as in NOT FOR KIDS.
It's up to the stores to not sell M rated games to kids, and parents to not buy them for their kids.

[trumad]

292. "isn't really constructive for them"

Says fucking who? And please don't post that link again thinking that obscure PHD backs up your argument.

[On the Road]

45. I Got My Daughter the Godfather Game Last Christmas

She loves the movies and is fascinated with theItalian mafia because one of her relatives on her mother's side was supposedly in the mob.

I don't really think there's a problem unless the child or teenager already has a problem with reality already. Society has gotten much more inured to portrayed violence over the last half century, but it has also gotten a lot more sensitive to acutal violence.

[Orangepeel]

47. So what? You wouldn't let him play if they were labeled?

:shrug:

I don't care about ratings for video games, just like I don't care about ratings for movies. I'm hardly ever against giving consumers information to use as they see fit.

[Hippo_Tron]

49. Video games have been labeled since the early 90's

So what all of us are asking now is what are Senators Clinton and Lieberman still doing talking about this issue?

[mondo joe]

52. Just so he doesn't get a plastic 30 inch superman statue.

I understand that is a sign of something deeply wrong.

Or something.

:eyes:

[KittyWampus]

53. playing violent video games sends a message to your subconscious mind and it WILL manifest

in your environment.

The player might not be violent, but their focus on that violence on a regular basis adds to the violent currents withing the group consciousness.

If you say you want peace in the world and then spend money and time and energy playing violent video games, you are sending conflicting messages.

Be the change you want to see in the world.

Send consistent messages to your subconscious mind.

[Mythsaje]

57. Oh, I guess that applies to people

who read or write fantasy, or suspense novels, as well...

Maybe people shouldn't study the martial arts either.

[vote 4 democracy]

85. if its Bill OReilly type fantasies of violence, etc.,

yes it certainly does say something about where the author's mind is at. Martial arts are intended for defense, confidence, etc., NOT intended to be violent as anything but a last resort.

[Mythsaje]

96. I read and write fantasy...have for years.

There are violent scenes, sure. A fantasy without violence is a badly told faerie tale. But the question is whether or not the violence has a purpose, or a design, or if it's just violence for the continuation of violence.

And the purpose behind the martial arts is one thing--but it's still dedicating a very large (if you're serious) part of your life into the study of how to commmit acts of violence against other people. Not all martial arts are by nature defensive. In fact, those styles are a minority. Most combine both defensive and offensive action.

[KittyWampus]

121. I study martial arts, it's not gratutious violence. One doesn't initiate violence in martial arts

one takes the energy being presented and deflects it.

It's about self defense.

I've never killed anyone while engaged in martial arts or raped anyone etc.

[Mythsaje]

131. No, but it IS the study of directed violence...

Hard style martial arts don't necessarily teach you to redirect the energy...they teach you how to project energy as well.

I'm not arguing that there's anything wrong with the martial arts--quite the contrary. But I AM saying that one can make the study of violence, specifically, in real life, part of who you are without losing yourself to the violence.

Yet we're supposed to believe that fantasy violence is somehow more dangerous?

[MirrorAshes]

58. how is it any different from violent movies?

if mere exposure to violence will subconciously manifest in your life why is the line drawn with videogames? should we be telling people not to go see the new james bond? saving private ryan? fahrenheit 911?

we live in a society where violence is portrayed in a thousand different forms. focusing on videogames is pointless. the combination of a hundred different factors MAY lead to some manifestations in SOME people. lets just all live our lives with blindfolds on so our precious little minds aren't desensitized to anything.

ps, i think the internet has led to my level of sarcasm increasing 10-fold. lets ban it too.

[vote 4 democracy]

86. it does apply to movies - haven't you noticed?

Nobody's talking about banning any of those things . . . the idea is to not focus on the negative and the violent because there's clear evidence that focusing hours of your day, adult or child, on violence and negativity, will have a negative impact on you. That's not new age just empirical fact.

[Zhade]

199. No, it's not empirical fact - despite your continued assertion that it is.

You have yet to back up one single assertion you've made.

[vote 4 democracy]

256. I took my kids to see a movie

but here's one of many, many studies with clear empirical evidence

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

[KittyWampus]

117. Video games are generally played for hours. The subconscious acts on what images are

presented:

most vividly
most often
most charged with emotion

[Mythsaje]

132. People read novels for hours too...

And project the images portrayed therein within their minds. It might be said that some people "lose" themselves in the story.

I don't buy this argument for a second.

[trumad]

59. No it doesn't

and says who?

[vote 4 democracy]

87. yes it does

says every empirical study on the matter of exposure to real or pretend violence

[Zhade]

201. BACK IT UP. We keep calling you on it, and you have provided NO EVIDENCE.

So either back it up, or stop lying.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

66. Show me the study that says that exposure to violent video games

will manifest itself in your environment. Until you do, I'm going to consider your argument crap.

[WindRavenX]

69. It's New Age horseshit

Don't even bother...trust me...

[EvolveOrConvolve]

71. The only reason I bother

is because I like to call people on their horseshit.

[KittyWampus]

113. LOL! Another DU'er who doesn't know any human psychology. Ever hear of 'herd mentality'?

it's one expression of the Collective Consciousness.

[WindRavenX]

128. herd mentality is NOT based on progagation of thoughts

NT

[Mythsaje]

142. No, it's an expression of the fucking need to conform.

And a society that pressures people to conform from all different angles... even here.

[Zhade]

202. Prove your unsupported mystical bullshit, or stop making shit up.

NT!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

296. I took plenty of psych classes in college

But we never talked about the "Collective Consciousness". And I'm not sure what 'herd mentality' has in regards to the issue of violent video games. Are you calling gamers a bunch of sheep?

[Hav]

67. .

I can only talk for how I myself see it but playing a game is simply a hobby, a means to relax. It's freetime, nothing more.
Games don't tell me that violence or killing is ok and they don't tell me that I can drive a Formula 1 car or that I can fly an F14.
There are no conflicting messages for me because I can make a distinction between what I see on a monitor and what I see in the real world.

[KittyWampus]

109. Violent video games are not relaxing. If you were hooked up to monitors,

your body would not register as being relaxed.

And your subconscious mind does not make the distinction 'it's only a game'. That is a mere conscious rationalization.

[Mythsaje]

143. I wonder whether a table top RPG would convey the same

type of readings.

It's funny how we jump from "wastes all day sitting in front of a video game" to "is going to go out and mow someone down with an uzi" depending on what day of the week it is and the cause du jour of the decade.

In the fifties it was rock and roll.

In the sixties it was...sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

In the seventies it was...sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

In the eighties it was heavy metal and dungeons and dragons.

In the nineties it was gangsta rap.

Now it's video games.

[DarkTirade]

272. The funny thing is that there are still some people so behind the times

that they're going after rock and roll or sex or drugs or dungeons and dragons...
Hmmm... maybe it would be nice to get that 'bad boy RPGer' image back... y'know, just to impress the ladies. There was a while when walking around with a D&D sourcebook was almost as 'bad' as having a motorcycle...

[Mythsaje]

276. Now we're just geeks...

LOL

[DarkTirade]

278. Actually, despite being a geek my entire life, I have yet to play a game of D&D.

Mostly because we grew up surrounded by conservative christians so anything with 'magic' was therefore 'bad'. However, I have no complaints because that helped my creativity in the long run. We made our own RPGs and played those instead. Right now my brother and I have been working on a good general system, he tenativly named it URPLAG. Stands for Universal Role-Playing Game System. We've tested out a few genres, one fantasy setting, one in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer universe. We'll probably go for a sci-fi type thing next. :) He's better at working out the nitty gritty details and mechanics of things, I'm better at the creative end of it.

[Mythsaje]

280. God, that is an amazing amount of work...

I spent half of the eighties and most of the nineties putting together my own system. And now I write books based on the universe I came up with.

Eventually I'll get around to converting everything to a d20 system, I think. Eventually.

[DarkTirade]

283. Or you could wait a bit and see if we can finish our system...

I betcha it's better. :evilgrin: Seriously though, I haven't played D&D or done anything major with the D20 system, but I can see a few flaws right there on the surface. Such as a lack of any natural curves or progressions in lots of things, and having big curves where there shouldn't be. For instance... every time you add 2 to a stat, you get a +1 bonus. No curve there. Then there are things like hit points... you start out with a tiny amount at a low level, but somehow magically the human body becomes twenty times tougher by the time you get to level 20 or so. Just seems kinda silly. Yeah, people get tougher as they get stronger and more exposed to combat, but a tiny dagger to the heart will kill just about anyone. No matter how experienced he or she is.
Then there's one thing that annoys me... instead of using dexterity for skill with melee weapons, they use strength. That's just silly. If a weapon is heavier than a character with a certain strength can lift, I can understand taking skill points away. But calculating skill based on strength alone... that just doesn't make sense. Someone with a dexterity of 20 and rapier should be much more skilled and accurate than an ogre with a dex of 10 and a club, no matter how strong that ogre may be.
And I don't really like their critical hit system either... leaves too much to chance, not enough to skill. A 'critical hit' is supposed to represent doing extra damage because you hit something vital... that should be mostly skill not chance. Which also fits with my tiny dagger comment earlier. In the system we're making, an incredibly skilled fighter with a dagger could conceivably take out a novice with one hit. Even if the novice has 10 hit points and the dagger can only do 1d4. (A very difficult feat... would require having a skill roll of at least 15 higher than your opponant's roll... for every 5 points over, you do 1 times the damage of the weapon. This also makes it unnecessary to give any kind of extra 'backstab' bonus, because any rogue or ninja sneaking up behind someone will just roll their skill against nothing, giving them that extra few points and therefore an increased possibility of extra damage.)
Just my $0.02 from what I've seen though. Maybe it works out better than it seems in practice, I don't know. I happen to favor a more realistic style, one that would require a fighter to have both strength and dexterity, not just brute strength. And one where skill at avoiding hits (or wearing armor to absorb hits) takes precidence over a huge amount of hit points. In the RPG system my brother and I are developing, if a character wants to be able to be a tank it requires good armor and/or dexterity, not a huge surplus of HP. Although that always helps a bit. :)
Basically, I'd rather find a way to work good gameplay and progression into a system that is more realistic rather than a system that just makes for good gameplay, but doesn't make sense in a lot of subtle ways. And we've done our best to boil our system down to the basics, because most games that try too hard to be realistic end up bloated and almost unplayable. I know, because I've made a few before this. And they didn't all work out too well.
Then again, there's always that old saying... "Homebrew RPGs are like assholes... everybody's got one and most of 'em stink." So odds are, ours will never get published or anything. Way too many homebrews out there, and with a choice of the D20 system or any of the various other ones already out there, odds are good that ours won't be noticed.

On another note, I actually created my first RPG universe SPECIFICALLY so I could write books in it. Looking back at it, the whole setup is just a bit... immature. Too much jumbling of genres and whatnot. A bit hackneyed. Makes for a decent RPG universe, but not so great for serious novels. But then again, I started to make this universe way back when I was 10 or so. So I guess that's to be expected. Of course, my RPG system wasn't all that hot either... I may end up transferring my universe to the system I'm working on now. It'd be nice to play in my universe without having to carry around tremendous amounts of D6s. :)

[Mythsaje]

335. Sure, the d20 system has its faults...

but it's about the most popular out there, which is a good reason to use it.

My own system, based on an open-ended percentile, was playtested for fifteen years and modified at least a dozen times. I suppose I COULD go back to it and rework it, but I'd pretty much rather just use the open-source d20 model to create something that would be based on my work but use a familiar set of mechanics.

Especially since part of the whole purpose would be additional promotion for my books.

And as far as mixing genres? I mix genres so completely the only way to classify my novels is to call them "futuristic urban fantasy" or, even "futuristic fantasy."

It works great in a game system if done right, and works well in novel form too--as long as you're using the right model.

:)

[DarkTirade]

357. Well, mine was a little obviously stitched together in some ways.

Which, as I said, worked fine for games. My fantasy setting wasn't totally cookie-cutter, nor was my futuristic one, ect. But still, it was enough to make most of my novels not quite up to par.

And I understand why it's better to use a well-known system... easier for new people to try it, everyone understands it better, ect. I just think there are some things about the d20 system that are just too silly for my taste. :)

[Mythsaje]

358. I TOTALLY had to re-vamp my magic system

for the books. It didn't work at all for novelization. But I had an epiphany in the middle of my second novel (the first one didn't include any mage protagonists, so I didn't have to mess with it much) and found the new idea worked great.

Of course, it's proved rather difficult to work back into a game mechanics. I've done a little messing with it, and I'm supposed to sit down with a friend sometime and start brainstorming the conversion, but it's tricky. It doesn't lend itself to levels easily and in no way resembles the D&D magic system.

Believe me, if you go back to the original system, you'd find even MORE weird stuff with the d20 system. They made MAJOR improvements with the 3rd Edition. Even so there is some stuff that doesn't quite work. You brought up a few of them already.

Part of the problem is that, after fifteen years of designing and playtesting and designing some more, I'm just burnt out on the mechanical stuff.

For now I'm content just to write my novels.

[DarkTirade]

372. Yeah, magic systems are always fun to toy around with

but hard to get to work properly. Mine was getting really bloated in my game, like many other things. I had completely different types of magic... spoken or signed magic, which didn't require any innate 'magical' ability, only knowlege and intelligence. Then there was the 'innate' magic (the planet itself had an energy field that could be used by some people) which came in umpteen different forms. Seven different kinds of sorcery, three different kinds of witchcraft, four elemental magics, ect. Then there was telepathy, which didn't use magic points to cast spells, rather it added to exertion the same way regular actions did. Then there were clerics... and I didn't stick with a simple alignment to be able to cast certain spells. Every kind of cleric had their own spells. Which makes sense, but is a lot of work. A cleric to a fire god isn't going to be able to cast an ice spell no matter how good or lawful or whatever they are. :)
The seperate spells for different clerical groups came in handy when dealing with different groups like rangers and things like that though. Ranger magic in my game was simply another kind of clerical group, one that worshipped a few nature-type gods. Not as powerful as druids or anything, but they made up for it in other areas.
Also, in my game skills weren't always stuck with one group. My class structure was fairly open. If a thief wants to learn how to use a broadsword, more power to him. It'll probably make it harder to sneak around, so it's not a good idea. But if he wants to... :)

[Mythsaje]

373. It's perfectly simple to sneak around

if most of your sword is inside a dimension pocket. :D

In my game I had several different kinds of magic, AND psionics--which was a separate system.

You had magecraft, which allowed the character to create his or her own spells, either offensive, defensive, alteration, or general effect 1 or 2 (GE were the highest).

Then you had spiritwrangling, which allowed characters to summon and control various types of elemental or supernatural creatures.

Then sorcery, which involved manipulating other people's PERCEPTION of reality. Illusion with the spoken word-like super-hypnotism.

Then there was runecrafting.

But when I sat down and tried to figure it out for the novels, none of this worked very well at all. I needed something that unified the whole theory of magic. Since I was working with a modern background, I basically TOOK magic from the people--the result of deliberate attacks on the genetic potential by aliens prepping the Earth for invasion. They don't like magic much.

"Magic" is the manipulation of mana, which is energy left over from the creation of alternate universes. More or less. It's more complicated than that, but that's the gist. Mana manifests as strands or threads of energy flowing through and around the Earth. A mage can see, touch, and manipulate threads to create certain "effects." A thread can be stretched and hollowed, for example, allowing the mage to step through from one point to another within a mile or so in a single step. The thread can be compacted, and one end closed, to create a dimension pocket.

Spells are created by combining threads, weaving them into patterns that manifest visibly to other mages as complex spell sigils. Each thread put into a spell can cause one effect. Once the spell is used, it's gone, but they can also be bound into stationary patterns like runes or even circuitboards. As long as the spell sits for a while before being activated, the pattern will be reformed after use, allowing for the spells to renew themselves.

Spirits are very complex spells that take on a semi-sentient identity and can manifest themselves phyiscally.

I've been told on several occasions that my magic system is one of the most unique you'll ever run across in fantasy.

[DarkTirade]

376. Hmm. Interesting.

I had to find a way to limit my magic to just one world, since my RPG universe spanned numerous worlds but only one was to end up with a fantasy setting. Hence the energy field in the planet itself. However, the way I'd had it set up was that the energy was actually some very basic energy-based life, the energy-based life equivalent of algae or bacteria, had started reproducing on this world. Minds of a certain complexity sometimes developed the ability to tap into said energy. Some intelligent races innately used magic, some were incapable of using it, and with some it just depends on the individual person. Of the four intelligent races native to the planet, two are innately connected to it(dark gargoyles and dragons... yes, life on this planet evolved in both the four-limbed and the six-limbed variety), one has the brain wiring to connect to such magic, but are hardwired to only use this magical energy to help themselves fly (Gargoyles. I had to find SOME way to explain why a creature that's human-sized can fly with only a 6 foot or so wingspan, and they don't need to feed a ridiculous amount of time to keep their energy up. :) And then to make up for their innate strength, speed and ability to fly I figured it's best to make them incapable of doing magic.), and then one race has almost no members that can use magic innately(trolls. Orcs and goblins were early attempts at cross-breeding humans types with troll types... ending up in orcs, goblins, ect.).
In the case of elven types, there's a fairly good percentage of them born with the ability. In the case of humans, halflings and dwarves, not as many. The other main species that colonized the planet with humankind were a lizardlike race who are incapable of using magic. There are a few offshoots of the two other main races in this arm of the galaxy, a feline-like alien race, who are very much wired mentally like humans, and therefore have the same odds of being able to use magic as they do. Then there is another race who are about as different as can be while still being able to breathe the same atmosphere. They have a strong exoskeleton, flexible clawlike hands, several sets of feet and a large scorpion-like tail, only without a stinger. Just a very strong, well armored tail they can use to crush things with. The best visual comparion that can be made is like an upright-walking scorpion. However they are obviously not really 'arachnids', as they evolved in an entirely different ecosystem. Their brains are wired COMPLETELY differently, and therefore so far have proven incapable of using magic.
Spirits, gods, ect. were all patterns of energy and/or higher life forms of this type of energy. In the case of gods, it was mass consciousness of people whose minds could touch the magic that brought them into being and keeps them as they are, and they can be altered according to mass perception. Spoken and signed spells, the ones that don't require the ability to use magic naturally, are simply patterns that have been set down solidly enough that they can be used by anyone capable of speaking/signing the spell properly. Almost akin to a computer subroutine. All they need to do is to be called properly. Some were created by powerful sorcerers, some, like the gods of this world, were created by mass consciousness. Which is why each culture may have their own set of spoken/signed spells, and those spells may not work well outside of their homeland. Runes worked in a similar fashion. In fact, often signed spells ARE runic spells, just spelled out in the air instead of written or carved. :)
The interesting thing about this is that eventually other worlds COULD be seeded with this energy-based life. It may take thousands of years for it to flourish enough to cover an entire planet, but it's possible. And I'm sure bits of this life are carried within the people who live on the planet, so anyone visiting another world may accidentally transfer tiny amounts of it. So perhaps this 'magic' could spread across all of known space eventually. It would still be few and far between in deep space, but anywhere that has enough energy, I.E., close to a sun with solid matter to absorb solar energy, could theoretically be seeded.
However, it is unlikely that it will spread much, since the basic plotline of this universe is that humankind reached out to the stars, made alliances and enemies, colonized a few planets, then this arm of the galaxy was enveloped in a huge war that destroyed nearly any and every means of travel between the stars. Earth and a few other planets still had high technology, but lacked the resources to quest out into space again. Most namely, lacking the proper minerals to create a hyperdrive engine, something that did not exist in this solar system. And for several hundred years, most efforts were pointed in the direction of survival on a high-tech but resource-lacking planet, not exploration. Especially since said exploration would require slower-than-light travel. Other planets fell to barbarism, like the one that my fantasy RPG was set in. Some fell to something half-way between where knowlege and technology were not gone, just difficult to continue to create. I made an RPG in each of these settings, one on Earth, one on the homeworld of our cat-like enemies, and this fantasy setting on a world that had been colonized so recently that it had not been officially named yet. It was usually just referred to as 'the planet of the gargoyles', since two out of the four intelligent races were gargoyles. :) Telepathy, unlike magic, did span my entire RPG universe. Although not really used in my space era one, it exists during the modern-day earth part of the universe, and because of the cat-like aliens love of breeding humans for various 'interesting' traits, makes a big comeback in that RPG universe too.
There's a whole lot more to the universe, I've been working on this since sometime in the early 90s... don't remember exactly when it started, but it was before Kurt Cobain died if that tells you anything. :) Basically I took a bunch of different ideas and worked a way to string them together. There's also a whole bit with super-powered humans (I.E., a generation or two of superhero/villain types) and alien interference during this time period, and also during earlier periods (I.E., Roswell, the pyramids, ect. A huge pyramid-shaped craft visiting earth... nope, not a Stargate ripoff... in fact, not even a craft at all. An AI being, the pyramid is actually only a small portion of itself. It parked the rest of its massive body on Jupiter when the pyramid visited two major continents here, and even now the big hurricane-like storm that marks where the body sucked in a bunch of hydrogen to power itself is still there.) an alien migration working its way through the galaxies, adding to its ranks every time a race outgrows its homeworld... humans may be the focus of my games and stories, but they're not the focus of what goes on in this universe. :)

[Zhade]

203. Again, PROVE IT,

If you can.

(You can't. Because you're wrong. Because you're just making shit up.)

[mondo joe]

146. I wish people would stop stating their hocus pocus beliefs as facts.

I really do.

[Zhade]

198. Your mystical nonsense has no bearing on the reality of our rights.

I don't give a fuck if you don't like violent games. You don't have to play them.

But just STOP with the made-up bullshit rationalizing of why you want to control what we can see and do.

Your arguments are based on...nothing. No evidence. Nothing.

Take it elsewhere, it's not selling here.

[mark414]

207. that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard

[DarkTirade]

271. Yes, because I saw Star Wars the other day

and today my subconscious mind tried to use the force to choke somebody. Boy, it's lucky for him that I can't actually use the force, huh.

[Hippo_Tron]

348. Nope no conflict here, I want us out of Iraq ASAP and love shooting things on the TV screen

Fortunately for me my conscious as well as my subconscious has no trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality.

[RetroLounge]

375. What The Fuck?

Wow, we better burn all fiction books and cancel all Television and Movies...

We must be in the same "group consciousness" because every time I read one of your posts, my IQ drops a few points...

RL

[Mythsaje]

56. I've never seen the draw of most video games...particularly first-person shooters.

Or any kind of driving game. BORING. To me, anyway.

Nope, I'm more the Neverwinter Nights type, myself. Good computer games are more fun to me than video games, generally.

Of course, I started playing D&D in...1982? We regularly imagined killing things and people and things that were people. Just another form of entertainment.

On the other hand, I started studying the martial arts when I was...six? Not only did I engage in PRETEND violence (and now make money writing about it, among other things) I also actually know a lot about committing ACTUAL violence.

Still not a killer. Haven't been in any kind of fight in a LONG time, and even then it was either in self defense or in defense of someone else.

I've never had a problem recognizing the difference between pretend violence and real violence.

[alarimer]

64. The real problem with video games is that while you are playing

you are not outside running around or doing something constructive. When I play, I can spend hours at it, to the detriment of all else. But that's just me.

I am convinced they help contribute to the obesity epidemic among kids (that and McDonalds et al). Hell among adults too.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

68. Again, it comes down to parental responsibility

If I as a parent lets my son play video games for 8 hours a day and eat only fast food, it would definitely be my fault of he got fat. But I don't, and he isn't.

[WindRavenX]

70. Word

:thumbsup:

I grew up playing Mario, Doom, Mortal Kombat-- and I'm a well adjusted woman. I don't get people who automatically just blame video games.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

73. I think HRC and Joementurd have it backwards

Fucked up kids take their aggression out on video games. The games themselves don't fuck up the kids.

Classic Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

[WindRavenX]

80. That's what most scientific behavioral studies have shown

People forget that correlation is NOT causation-- and in the cases where the kid's obsession with violent FPS was named as an element of his violence, the kid was already waaaaay fucked up before he picked up the game.

Playing games does not make someone violent or a murderer.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

299. Exactly! Cause and effect are not simple things to decide.

Blaming violent video games for a kid's problems is simply a kneejerk response. It's like a shortcut to thinking - rather than finding the real causes of the kid's problems, it allows for a simplistic explanation and something to blame.

[DarkTirade]

273. Nice to know somebody else is on the same page as me.

Although I coulda saved myself some time posting my similar comment if I'd read all the comments here first... :)

[Hav]

74. .

It's the easy way out. You can point your finger at McDonald's or at video games instead of asking yourself what your role as a parent has been all these years.
I guess the finger pointing or blaming someone else is easier when the other option is to accept that one has failed as a parent and that it's finally time to do something about it before it's too late.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

79. Aha! Personal responsibility.

People can whine about violent video games all they want, but unless they take an active role in deciding what their child does or does not play, they're shirking their responsibility.

And if they want to decide how I raise my child, then they can fuck right off. I won't invite the gov't into my bedroom, so why the hell would I invite them into my family room and allow them to make parental decisions for me?

[vote 4 democracy]

92. many parents don't take personal responsibility

even when there are labels . . . then they come here and whine about the people who propose the labels in the first place. They don't want to be reminded that they aren't taking personal responsibility for their child and what he/she is exposed to. It becomes almost a joke - see he/she's fine. And later it turns out that's not the case. SHOCK!!! The kid has problems.

[Zhade]

206. Again, you're just making shit up.

NT!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

295. The issue isn't even with the kid having problems

The issue is the parents not recognizing when the kid is really really messed up.

[DarkTirade]

274. I always figured Mario was more about drug use than violence...

Seriously. Mushrooms and flower power? Flying turtles? There's gotta be drugs there.

[Zhade]

205. There are games like DDR, and promising systems like the Wii, that are changing that.

NT!

[trumad]

215. Then I'm convinced that it's the parents fault for allowing that to happen.

My kids play about an hour a day--- but not every day...believe it or not, they have other interests....

[Omphaloskepsis]

90. I only play solitare..

And I want to cut your fucking head off with the 5 of clubs.

[CrazyForKucinich]

101. I play Solitaire too and everytime I see the Suicide King

I want to kill myself. We need Hillary to tackle violent playing cards or else I might die.

[ecstatic]

99. You never know what kind of subconscious damage is taking place

Good parenting does a great job of deflecting the negative side effects of violent video games, but many other kids don't have "good" parents.

[WindRavenX]

111. so does that mean we get rid of games you find distasteful?

I didn't have good parents, either.

[vote 4 democracy]

122. Nobody's talking about getting rid of them

that limits freedom . . .
What's being said is that good parents pay enough attention to realize that violence isn't good for their kids (in any form)
When these kids become adults then they decide but they're less likely to be interested in violence if they aren't over exposed to it early.

[WindRavenX]

138. I played violent video games NON-STOP for most of middle school

And today, like 99% of gamers, I have never commited an act of violence IN.MY.LIFE.

[trumad]

217. Jesus Christ man--- are you rwading what the gamers have written in this thead?

there is no evidence what so ever that video games cause kids or adults to become violent. You keep saying that it does but you haven't proven shit.

[opihimoimoi]

120. I am 66 and still a Gamer....Planetside, CR3 and BR25

This game can be addictive....sometimes a player will spend more than 10 hours a day on it....2 or 3 hours at a stretch, some times 6 or more...until your ass hurts...

requires high speed computer. Lagging occurs if you have a slow unit. 3.2 Gigahertz or better. Ukamillion Memory helps...

google it....

[cool user name]

114. Excellent post ...

I played all kinds of video games (still do) and I turned out okay.

I have no desire to rape hookers, murder pedestrians or shoot Arabs.

The real culprit to our collective insanity is the powers' greed and deflection of the national pyschosis into warring with other nations for profit.

Not video games (or movies either).

[vote 4 democracy]

125. By your judgment you turned out OK - though you've never had the opportunity

to put that to the test. Do you have kids?

[cool user name]

165. You're not serious, are you?

First, no. I don't have kids.

Second, put the test to rape prostitutes or murder pedestrians? What test would that be? Well fuck, I guess I better bolt myself inside then. Everyone run for your lives! I've played violent video games and I could become a sociopath at any moment!!! Run, run I tell you! Run if you know what's good for you! Run if you want to live, I beg of you! Run for your lives!!!

Good grief. :eyes:

[Mythsaje]

169. They're not even sure what causes sociopaths

but I believe most of the evidence suggests it happens relatively early in life.

Schizophrenia, on the other hand...

[cool user name]

186. I'm not a doctor but I think someone here might be suffering from ...

... some delusional thinking. "Collective consciousness" and all.

[flvegan]

124. I'm a vegan that believes in ahimsa. Halo and Far Cry are two of my faves.

I call B.I.G. (Bullshit In General) on the ideal that "violent" games beget violent people.

[WindRavenX]

126. You keep getting cooler in my book

:)

[vote 4 democracy]

127. then you should check out the studies - overwhelming empirical evidence

Your BIG = denial

[WindRavenX]

130. correlation does not equal causation

As someone mentioned upthread, if imaginary violence lead to violent acts, we'd see an exponential rise in actual violent crimes. Over the past decade, when violent games have been released more and more, crime rate is going DOWN.

Please explain that.

[Phx_Dem]

321. r vs f/t

Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

[piedmont]

342. I don't see much fact in their "Facts."

It's just their opinion that the "overly simplistic mantra" doesn't apply to their studies. If you want to use these studies to make public policy, then you ought to know whether the relationship is causal or not.

[flvegan]

133. WHICH studies, specifically should I check, my

profile-disabled, newbie poster friend?

Call it denial. You probably had to look "ahimsa" up, didn't you?

[rman]

135. I call bull shit

Show me the overwhelming empirical evidence.

[Mythsaje]

144. Overwhelming empirical data collected by...

people who started out believing that violent video games cause violence.

Not that the people who are conducting the study's biases can possibly skew the results or anything.

[mondo joe]

147. Please cite the studies and I will check them out. Thank you.

[Zhade]

209. STOP. LYING.

You have provided NOT A FUCKING SHRED OF EVIDENCE for your continued, WRONG, assertions.

Either put up, or shut the everloving FUCK UP already.

[YankmeCrankme]

129. Just a general opinion about the state of affairs

I agree with the comments by some of the previous posters that children already emotionally disturbed and have violent tendencies for whatever reason get satisfaction or enjoyment from the violence in these games, not necessarily from the game play or story. That's way they play them, not the other way around. Though blaming parental responsibility, or the lack of, is just as invalid too, I think. It plays a part, but you can't control everything as a parent, not all parents have the same ability or skills, and have their own issues, even the good parents.

There is a lot of time and money spent by people who wish to manipulate others into perceiving things a certain way, in accepting certain things, etc. and that plays a big part of what happens in the world and between people. I think its a lot more important when we see violence in the real world and it is presented as acceptable then taking out pixels on a video screen. I think this is what is happening in Law Enforcement where the violent choice is being chosen too quickly and too often and, of course, the resort to military action to resolve perceived problems. I think this is what happens when compromise is not acceptable or 'I'm right, you're wrong' mentally is preeminent.

When violence in the real world is used as a tool to get what you want or an acceptable response to events that don't really warrant it has more a more significant impact on people than fake violence in cartoons, games or movies.

Kudos to the Wizardry cite. :)

[proud patriot]

140. I'm a mother of a 10 yr old gamer and a wife to a 38 yr old gamer

My son has played some M games that are violent .

I frown on the first person shooters ,sex and crime
stuff like grand theft auto . Other than that my son
can play what he likes . They have been a few Violent
games that he didn't like cause they were too violent .

He likes a good game and not all violent games are good .

I think what is most important for parents is to know
what your kids are into and participate with them to
get to know what your child is exposed to so you can guide
them through it .

I'm thankful my husband plays those games too .

Censoring your kids will only make them hide things from you .
At least that is my perception as a parent .

[H2O Man]

141. Without checking

the birth certificate: what's his middle name?

[trumad]

212. Who? LOL

[H2O Man]

282. My good friend's

nickname is "Who." Odd that is your son's. But I take you at your word.

[lonestarnot]

156. My kid plays all that crap and he is one of the most sensitive people I know.

He won't even kill a fly. If one gets in the house, he will throw it outside.

[ghostsofgiants]

364. Aren't you the same person who thinks fireworks indoctrinate kids into war?

Cognitive dissonance much?

I've got nothing against violent video games. I've been playing them since I was little and I'm pacifist, but come on, at least try to be consistent in your beliefs.

[lonestarnot]

366. I didn't say I liked it and yes as a matter of fact, I am the "same person."

But you made quite a leap there frog. Inculcation is a very long slow subtle process and fireworks are one of the things along with GI Joe, idol worship of military crap, following orders without question from authority figures, nevermind whether it is an illegal order, immediate gratification, instaneous production of end product w/o any of the sweat, brain crunch, analysis that should go into any benefit worth having and these are just a subtle few of the things that create war society, including these dumbass games. But one without all the other factors, does alone not a bloodthirst make.

[ghostsofgiants]

368. So just one of these things in and of themselves is not indoctrination into war culture.

It all depends on the context and other factors? Gotcha.

[lonestarnot]

371. Yes.

[lonestarnot]

367. You know, monkey see monkey do.

[ghostsofgiants]

370. Explains all those people whose heads I ripped off after playing Mortal kombat when I was a kid.

[Odin2005]

157. I'm about THIS close to launching a Bolt3 spell at the video game haters.

There is no unbiased evidence that violent video games causes violent behavior, and even if there was evidence of a link that still doesn't make it right for the state to regulate video games.

[kiahzero]

162. ZOMG you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality!!!!!!1!!one!

:hi:

[Massacure]

178. Don't forget to equip the ALL materia, you may as well save MP and bolt em all at once!

:evilgrin:

[Zhade]

182. I'd like to mime a KOTR on some of these ignorant foo's!

NT!

[kiahzero]

204. Bah

Dual-magic, Flare, Quick, Dual-magic, Flare, Flare, Dual-Magic, Flare, Flare.

[Odin2005]

192. [FF7]Good idea![/FF7]

:evilgrin:

[DarkTirade]

275. Don't forget to pair it with an All materia.

Don't wanna just hit one. :evilgrin:

[DarkTirade]

284. Dang it... beaten to the punch. :)

No pun intended, since we're on the subject of violence.

[Massacure]

350. Of course. That's because I used haste. :)

The faster we get rid of the video game haters, the better. :evilgrin:

[distantearlywarning]

159. Collective unconscious?

I call BS on the claim that there is overwhelming empirical evidence showing that violent video games cause violence. There are in fact many studies on the subject, most correlational, some showing some evidence of viewing violence and committing acts of violence, and others showing nothing. Although these studies are something to take into account when thinking about this issue, the body of evidence as a whole is hardly "overwhelming". I would also point out that none of the posters claiming this "overwhelming evidence" have bothered to cite any authors, articles, or any other tangible evidence (a general sign of BS on message boards).

Further, I have seen several posts in this thread claiming that "herd mentality" is the same thing as the "collective unconscious". In fact, work on the collective unconscious (Jung, for instance) has very little in common with non-clinical, scientifically valid social psychological work on group behavior (Zimbardo, Asch, Sherif, just to name a few). Most negative group behavior (e.g., conformity, groupthink, violent mobs, social loafing) is considered by social psychologists to be the product of changes in each individual's psyche as a result of perceiving themselves as being a member of a group (e.g., perceiving oneself as deindividuated, fear of being excluded by others). There is simply no scientific evidence whatsoever that group members experience some kind of mystical union with others that causes them to telepathically share feelings, or to transmit behavior or desires to other people around them via some kind of archetypical knowledge. No social psychological research has ever claimed such a thing, and in fact, the very idea is ludicrous. In other words, one person playing violent video games does not transmit subsequent violent feelings (if indeed they have any) to their society as a whole, and multiple people playing multiple violent video games does not magically create a violent society the next day.

Or in other other words, as one poster put it up thread, the whole idea that group behavior is caused by some kind of collective unconscious is "New Age Horseshit". There's really no better way to put it. If you want to play Grand Theft Auto, you can go right ahead without feeling guilty that you are somehow telepathically contaminating your neighbors' minds with evil visions of banging hookers and shooting cops.

And just in case you think I'm one of those people who hasn't studied "human psychology", here are my credentials: I'm a Ph.D. student at a major research university, studying social psychology. My particular area of specialized research is in small group dynamics. I've taken at least 6 courses as an undergrad and grad student (that I can think of right now) about group behavior.

[Mythsaje]

163. Like I said...the "herd mentality" is about conformity...

People have a natural urge to belong to a group and our society has been doing its damnedest to enhance that natural urge for quite some time now. Look at social cliques in school, and how, even when they're obvious detrimental to the educational system, they're still pretty much ignored. Or used to promote what administrators and teachers want promoted.

Now the argument can be made that what you say, and what you DO, goes out into the world, but, hell, that's just rational. If you're an asshole, you're going to impinge on other people, and they're going to carry the negative feelings from that encounter on to their NEXT encounter. And if you make a habit of being an asshole, it WILL come back to haunt you because people are going to get sick of it.

Generating negative shit outside yourself like that is the social equivalent of "internal dialog" that causes anxiety and self-esteem issues.

Or so I see it.

[trumad]

219. Do you guys discuss video games?

BTW: Great post.

[vote 4 democracy]

242. Though she called it collective consciousness rather than unconscious

she didn't try to say that the collective unconscious is the same as herd mentality. She responded to a blatantly backward post which stated that "we are not connected" but as our degrees both tell us, we are. There's nothing new age or fundamentalist (as others in denial have tried to claim) about that. The explanation of the Jung's collective unconscious given upthread is that it is similar to the idea of the butterfly effect . . . and that when when more negative or violent thoughts/elements are introduced to a more positive atmosphere the result is increased negativity in the positive element and an increase of positive in the more negative element . . . which is exactly Jung's point and something we've all experienced. In your study of group behavior you would've seen that too. I know I saw plenty of evidence for it in my group behavior classes.

All of this, however, digresses from the original point of the post which was almost to brag that a kid exposed to violence "seems" perfectly fine. So did those soldiers who were desensitized to the reality of violence BEFORE they went ballistic in Iraq.

Again, notice that the ones reacting with hostility to the facts are the ones who have said they're perfectly fine. Violence hasn't impacted them. Not a bit. No denial or defense mechanisms there.

Common sense, aside from the empirical evidence, does dictate that over-exposure to violence is detrimental regardless of the media, especially at an inappropriate age. The amount of time spent on video games presents the world as being disproportionately violent. If we didn't really know that there would be no justification for the labels and ratings of videos and movies but noone here has denied that there is justification for them. I am now a practicing child psychologist and I can tell you that there is evidence for this in my office everyday. The saddest thing is seeing the parents try to justify their lack of ability or effort with their child/ren . . . gloating like they tricked the system somehow. The neurological pathways that are being constructed don't get tricked even if we can't see it happening. The real question is WHO is being tricked/fooled?

Its irresponsible to say otherwise.

Its hypocritical to be anti-war and pro-violence (or intentionally ignorant about the impact of violence on a child).

[Chulanowa]

351. I gotta call you on this...

"All of this, however, digresses from the original point of the post which was almost to brag that a kid exposed to violence "seems" perfectly fine. So did those soldiers who were desensitized to the reality of violence BEFORE they went ballistic in Iraq."

Yes, video games are part of a soldier's training. Part. A tiny part. The rest is entirely from their instructors and peers. They are verbally and emotionally conditioned towards desensitization by other people, through a regimen of actifities and punishments that yes, does include a short video game. There's also the fact that when a soldier enlists, he does so with the knowledge that hs new job is going to involve inflicting violence. He's expecting and prepared to destroy real human life when he puts his name on the dotted line.

This is in no way comparable to picking up a FPS at Best Buy. The conditions are radically different. You go into best buy expecting to buy a game that you will play and then turn off, maybe play some other point i nthe future. The soldier goes into the recruiter's office expecting to be handed a gun and trained how to use actual ammunition agaisnt actual people.

The stark difference is pretty damn evident.

[Warren DeMontague]

260. Any way I can telepathically contaminate my neighbor's DOG'S mind?

Fucker barks way too much.

[H2O Man]

293. You might find Jung's

Lecture 5 from "Analytical Psychology: It's Theory & Practice" (Vintage; 1968) interesting. Just a brief quote from pages 182-3 addresses Jung's beliefs on the collective unconscious and group behavior:

"All those personal things like incestuous tendencies and other childish tunes are mere surface; what the unconscious really contains are the great collective events of the time. In the collective unconscious of the individual, history prepares itself; and when the archetypes are achieved in a number of individuals and come to the surface, we are in the midst of history, as we are at present. The archetypal image which the moment requires gets into life, and everybody is seized by it. That is what we see today. I saw it coming, I said in 1918 that the 'blond beast' is stirring in its sleep and that something will happen in Germany. No psychologist then understood at all what I meant, because people had no idea that our personal psychology is just a thin skin, a ripple upon the ocean of collective psychology.The powerful factor, the factor which changes our whole life, which changes the surface of our known world, which makes history, is collective psychology, and collective psychology moves according to laws entirely different from those of our consciousness. The archetypes are the great decisive forces, they bring about real events, and not our personal reasoning and practical intellect."

[distantearlywarning]

316. That's nice.

But Jung isn't empirical work. And truly, most (if not all) research psychologists today consider the work of Jung to be a semi-interesting fable. It is not adequate to cite anything by Jung as scientific evidence re: what actually drives human behavior.

One more time: groups do not behave as a collective mass because they have some kind of shared mind driving them. They act as a collective mass because the experience of being a group member increases the likelihood that each individual person will behave in a certain and predictable way, for a variety of reasons. It is quite possible to induce these behaviors in individuals without the presence of an actual group, just by making the individual believe that he is in fact a part of a group.

Example: Research on individual productivity in groups suggests that when people believe that their own individual work can be identified from anyone else's work in their group, they don't work as hard and the quality of their work suffers. Studies have shown that this effect holds even when the person only _believes_ that they are part of a group (such as telling them that the rest of their group is in another room, for instance), which would seem to undermine the idea that some kind of collective mind is driving their slacker behavior. If there is no collective, there can be no collective mind, and yet you still get the effect.

Now let's take a behavior more relevant to the discussion at hand: group aggression and violent behavior. One of the many factors contributing to the "mob mentality" is the individual experience of deindividuation. This doesn't refer to tapping into some mystical group unconscious. Instead, it refers to a similar process as above - the feeling that one's own actions cannot be identified combined with physiological arousal. In large groups, people feel free to commit all kinds of actions that they wouldn't dream of doing if they were alone - violence towards a hated other or a hated outgroup, looting, rioting, cheering on a suicide "jumper", raping, etc. A similar psychological process can be created in humans by making them unidentifiable in other ways, such as letting them wear a mask and robe (i.e., the KKK aren't tapping into an archetype, they're just cleverly making their members feel more psychologically comfortable while they engage in behavior that might not be condoned by wider social norms). It's about the anonymity, not the "collective unconscious" of the group. That's what causes group violence (one thing, anyway), not some kind of magical mass thinking.

Have you ever wondered why people on the internet are so much ruder and hateful than people in real life? It's because none of us can truly be identified and censured socially. We are all behind the anonymous mask of the computer screen. Something that cuts down on some of that behavior is forcing site users to adopt a username and yes, the infamous post counts. As your post count grows, you develop a reputation that you want to keep, which makes most (obviously not all) of us less likely to engage in antisocial conversation. Why do you think the mods don't allow anonymous posting? I probably don't have to tell you. Just think about what the result of that might be on this board... Most of us have intuitively grasped this dynamic already - thus why low post count people behaving in anti-normative ways are assumed to be trolls ("anonymously") looking for trouble. And I would be willing to bet that at least a few trolls on this board are regular posters hiding behind an anonymous handle. And as it goes on the internet message board, so it goes in life - people hide in groups, in darkness, and behind masks and robes to do their dirty deeds. It's not because they're tapping into an archetype, it's because they want to be aggressive and not be thought of as a bad person, or to not get caught.

Anyway, behavior, at its core, lies within the individual mind. It can be strongly influenced by the behavior of others, or the perception that others are present. But it is not the result of a mystical force that connects all human beings. Please don't make me say it again. Jung is interesting. But he's not science.

[H2O Man]

322. I suspect

that you are as rude in person as on the internet. But that is not uncommon behavior for acorns who fancy themselves as giant oaks. (I got a 97 on a social studies mid-term in 1973.)

[distantearlywarning]

327. Give me a break.

If I didn't tell you what I did for a living, you'd tell me I was someone who didn't know anything about "human psychology". There's no way to win this one - if you just talk without giving credentials, you are accused of dabbling in something you know nothing about. If you do justify your right to say something, people accuse you of putting on airs.

So go ahead, think what you want. I'm no giant oak and never presented myself as such. The only reason I discussed my occupation at all is because another poster countered everyone else's argument by suggesting they were ignorant.

Further, presenting facts to counter someone's opinion isn't rude. It's just something you don't want to hear. If you think I'm wrong about the scientific merits of Jung, then present some research of your own. Trying to make me look like a bad person for knowing something about the topic isn't an adequate response.

[Evoman]

353. I'm a little disappointed in your response, H2O Man.

I generally find you an interesting, deep-thinking, nice person. But calling someone rude, making a personal attack, because the person disagrees with you, is not becoming at all. The truth is that old-school psychologists like Jung and even Freud, while respected as fathers of psychology and studies of the mind, are nevertheless not thought as being right about the human condition. Psychology has advanced a lot sense then...there is no need to get snippy at a poster who may know more than you about modern psychology.

[piedmont]

336. So Jung said something. Big deal. Where's the empirical EVIDENCE?

Not one poster here who has made the "collective unconscious" claim has backed it up with ANY scientific evidence, despite being asked for it dozens of times. The fact that they get rude responses is a function of them continuing to spew mystical bullshit to DUers who don't have much patience for magical thinking.

[Zhade]

166. Kick for the muthfuckin TRUTH!

You said it.

Violence went up as games became more popular? LIE. (Stats show the OPPOSITE.)

Violent games cause people to kill? LIE. (No evidence whatsoever that digital violence triggers the desire to cause the real thing.)

Games are worthless? LIE. (Hand-eye. Motor skills. Puzzle-solving skills. In some cases, exercise-quality {DDR, Wii sports}. Musical acclimation/training. List goes on.)

Great post. The puritans are just talking shit about things they don't EVEN understand.

[Mythsaje]

170. They did the same with D&D in the eighties

and people wonder why I'm pretty well sure they're full of shit now...

[Fleshdancer]

200. Here's the thing....

I have very little patience when the politicians that promote and/or excuse the most violent acts known to mankind are the same politicians who then turns around and wags a finger in MY face about what forms of entertainment are too violent. Well guess what DC...massive amounts of Iraqis didn't die when little Billy pushed buttons on his gameboy. YOU did that.

At this very moment we have actual Americans - our brothers, our sisters, our sons and our daughters who are experiencing a level of hell and violence no video game could ever accurately portray and yet I'm suppose to believe the focus should be on games and not on this reality?? DC, if you're looking for someone to blame when it comes to violence in society, look in the mirror first. It really is that simple.

[trumad]

214. Exactly

[chknltl]

211. I started playing violent video games after turning 50.

I can get very violent toward my remote....broke many of them but only against my walls. So I suppose one could say that violent video games have made me violent toward video remotes and walls...I disagree, I think my problem started long before video games were invented.
Starbucks lattes are actually FAR more conducive to causing violence in folks than video games imho.
I know that when I drink one and go for a drive everyone is "IN MY F***ING WAY!!!", for instance. (I have removed those yummy yet addictive things from my diet). I am well aware that I have a patience problem, I am well aware that this is not healthy...especially if you are a video remote, a nearby wall or my heart...it is ME...NOT the game.


(No walls or remotes were harmed in the writing of this post, and since switching to decaf I have reverted to my pre-Starbucks courteous driving ways, still refuse to stand in long lines though)

[RoyGBiv]

213. Violent video games keep me polite ...

I otherwise might be forced to take out my frustrations on a real person.

[JNelson6563]

218. I think Road Rash is a riot, but that's me

My son (15) has God of War and others kinda like it. I marvel at the graphics, some of the scenery in these games is incredible. Prince of Persia games come to mind too. He doesn't have any interest in the war type games, more medieval type weaponry.

I don't think my son will take up murder anytime soon. No violent tendancies, 4.0 GPA, never been in trouble, good kid. Kind of shy, very witty, pretty well adjusted. None of the worst of the violent games here but I doubt Hillary or Lieberman would approve of a lot of those we do have.

Julie

[trumad]

220. You know...I really don't think that Hill gives a crap about the games

she's just doing this for politics and for some reason she thinks this will play well. I think she is wrong. My own 13 year old just did a school report in video games and he thinks it's nuts that some think it will make him violent.

[MetaTrope]

231. One thing I found rather odd though

Is that the first time I played a Japanese "dating sim", I subsequently found myself wholly uninterested in going back to the violent PC games that had been my chief diet before then, like UNREAL TOURNAMENT, CLIVE BARKER'S UNDYING and COMMAND AND CONQUER: RENEGADE. I don't know what sort of switches it flipped, but it took me a year to return comfortably to the adrenaline thrill of shooters and fighting games.

[trumad]

294. My kids favorite game is Guitar Hero...

Actually they've become a bit bored of the shooter games and love games like the Sims, Guitar Hero, etc. You'd think that if violent video games were so bad and addicting, that would be all they want to play...Nope--- If you were to ask my 13 year old today which game would he'd rather play, a shooter game of Guitar Hero, he'd pick Guitar Hero. Tells ya something right there...

[fujiyama]

346. Similar thing with me and Oblivion

Sometimes, I'll just go wander around the huge world that was constructed, admiring the game as a world of art. The graphics in the game are absolutely breathtaking - water rippling, reflection effects...the sun rising and setting.

Video games are a new art form...and while I enjoy my COD2, I have to say that Oblivion is the more impressive game.

[Codeblue]

233. Damn

I had to post before I even read the whole thread, there's just so many posts here. But I have some thoughts, some of which may have been expressed before but I feel the need to say my opinion on a whole range of matters anyway.

People have mentioned the animal kingdom/nature many times. I agree with them. Apes fight wars against each other and fight for dominance in the group. A male lion takes over a pride and kills all the young cubs so he can start over and produce his own offspring. Native Americans fought wars quite regularly. You see, without violence, what would we have? A dead planet basically. Nature set things up in its way and humans are fucking that up. I agree, senseless violence is terrible, but there is definitely a place for violence on Earth. For instance, bacteria and our cells are constantly fighting each other. Without it, humans would have overpopulated the Earth and been extinct long ago. Animals kill plants so they can eat. Animals kill each other so they can eat, which also has the added benefit of preventing overpopulation by the prey species. Since the beginning of time, violence has existed and that's the way nature likes it. In fact, warfare may be a natural activity for humanity as it also takes its toll on our population and prevents us from getting out of hand. On a last note to this point, I don't think lions and tigers play violent video games or watch violent movies.

Secondly, what would you suggest we do with our time instead of engaging in video game playing, movie watching and sports playing? Obviously, since some on this thread have expressed their feeling that violent sports and games are unnecessary, what are we to do with our time? Shall we spend all of our time gardening? Reading cheesy romance novels? Masturbating? Drawing pretty rainbows? Any assertion on this board that violence is completely wrong in all regards and aspects of its existence are...well...completely out of their minds and have failed to truly think through the consequences of a lack of violence in our world.

[Mythsaje]

235. A bit...unrealistic, isn't it? n/t

[THUNDER HANDS]

237. i always preferred Tetris, personally

more my style than say, GTA or Halo.

[Gelliebeans]

239. golly trumad...

My 13 year old kiddo is allowed to play them too. I also have chosen grand theft as the only game he may not play.
It is amazing he is sweet and kind and cares for his animals. His teachers send home glowing reports about how he is an astute pupil and he is engaged with class and coursework. Yet all those nosy politicians see this as public enemy numero uno. PATHETIC.

By the way many new video games have something to do with war play. After all if games caused kids to act out more Republican children would be signing up for bushco's war and there wouldn't be shortages among recruiters. hmm just a thought :shrug:

[smartvoter]

248. It's people who don't play them that don't understand.

I play them. My kids play them. My kids -- all four of them -- are exceptional students and very socially aware and active.

This is no different than cops and robbers or cowboys and indians or way back when two kids would pick up sticks and play sword fight. People who claim otherwise are always inexperienced with them.

This is a long-running theme in our society. This is just like book burning, blaming rock music for violence, blaming television for violence and claiming that children raised by single parents will flood the country with violence and crime. These people need to focus on real problems in the here and now.

[DarkTirade]

285. I used to swordfight with sticks as a kid.

Still do sometimes, although I've upgraded that to padded PVC. I even have a couple of real swords that I've collected. And yet, I've never actually used them to kill anyone, despite my years of being 'desensitized' to sword combat...

[bigtree]

331. I don't have to pretend "play" at killing with these toys to be repulsed by them.

It's so wonderfully convenient to brand folks who refuse to participate in these 'games' as uninformed about their own bias. What part of not wanting to pretend to kill don't 'players' understand?

[trumad]

344. This isn't what this thread is about...

It's about people in power who try and take our right away to play these games.

[DarkTirade]

255. It amazes me that people can get cause and effect completely backwards

when it comes to entertainment like that.
People who play violent games or listen to heavy metal are not violent people and/or incapable of telling the difference between real life and said forms of entertainment.
However, people who ARE violent and/or incapable of telling the difference between real life and entertainment will of course gravitate towards violent video games or angry/loud music.
That's like saying porn makes people chronic masterbators.
No... chronic masterbators are just going to be looking at more porn than the rest of us. Get it right people. Cause, THEN effect. Figure out which is which before you start pointing fingers.

[Celebration]

300. cause and effect and linear thinking

It generally would be a cycle. A cause can become an effect and an effect could become a cause. The problem would be when violent game playing becomes an obsession..........and it can. I don't want censorship but I certainly want responsibility. I like to go to slot machines *very* occasionally.........but the casinos would make no money if everyone was like me..........

Even if the vast majority of violent game players/violent rap listeners never have problems with it, a minority could throw off the statistics for the society at large. We all pay for this. We are all connected. All this can feed on itself. Just because it doesn't with our children doesn't mean it can't happen.

[JVS]

287. These anti-videogame people remind me of the move Reefer Madness

[in_cog_ni_to]

305. OMG...I remember going to the theater,

LOADED, to watch that movie and never laughed so hard in my life! What a FARCE! It's now a CLASSIC! :rofl:

[in_cog_ni_to]

301. Grand Theft Auto is the ONE game my 13 year old son can't play either.

Just the concept of the game turns me off. His favorite game is Halo.. Live (how cool is it that you can now play these games against people all over the WORLD?!) and he really enjoys Call of Duty. That's hardly a Disney type game, but he knows the difference between reality and fantasy! Most kids do. The politicians getting involved in regulating this is ridiculous. I AM THE PARENT OF MY SON...NOT some politician. They need to mind their own fucking business....like getting the hell out of IRAQ!

[Hippo_Tron]

349. I think Grand Theft Auto's creators push the limits just because they can

The same could've been said about Mortal Kombat except that I actually enjoyed Mortal Kombat and not just for the fighting, I thought the storyline was pretty good.

I've played Grand Theft Auto a few times and in my view it's way overrated because it gets so much publicity. Every time I play it I just drive around the cars for a little while and then turn the thing off.

[Phx_Dem]

317. Psych research links

VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES CAN INCREASE AGGRESSION

May Be More Harmful Than Violent Television and Movies Because of the Interactive Nature of the Games

WASHINGTON - Playing violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Kombat can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life, according to two studies appearing in the April issue of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Furthermore, violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive, very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor, say the researchers.
http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html

Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts,

and Unanswered Questions
by Craig A. Anderson

After 40+ years of research, one might think that debate about media violence effects would be over. An historical examination of the research reveals that debate concerning whether such exposure is a significant risk factor for aggressive and violent behavior should have been over years ago (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Four types of media violence studies provide converging evidence of such effects: laboratory experiments, field experiments, cross-sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies (Anderson & Bushman, 2002a; Bushman & Huesmann, 2000). But the development of a new genre—electronic video games—reinvigorated the debate.

Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).

Myth 2. The studies that find significant effects are the weakest methodologically.
Facts: Methodologically stronger studies have yielded the largest effects (Anderson, in press). Thus, earlier effect size estimates —based on all video game studies— probably underestimate the actual effect sizes.

Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).
Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have the same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).

Myth 4. Field experiments are irrelevant (aggression measures based either on direct imitation of video game behaviors (e.g., karate kicks) or are normal play behaviors.
Facts: Some field experiments have used behaviors such as biting, pinching, hitting, pushing, and pulling hair, behaviors that were not modeled in the game. The fact that these aggressive behaviors occur in natural environments does not make them "normal" play behavior, but it does increase the face validity (and some would argue the external validity) of the measures.

Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.

Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).

Myth 7. Violent video games affect only a small fraction of players.
Facts: Though there are good theoretical reasons to expect some populations to be more susceptible to violent video game effects than others, the research literature has not yet substantiated this. That is, there is not consistent evidence for the claim that younger children are more negatively affected than adolescents or young adults or that males are more affected than females. There is some evidence that highly aggressive individuals are more affected than nonaggressive individuals, but this finding does not consistently occur. Even nonaggressive individuals are consistently affected by brief exposures. Further research will likely find some significant moderators of violent video game effects, because the much larger research literature on television violence has found such effects and the underlying processes are the same. However, even that larger literature has not identified a sizeable population that is totally immune to negative effects of media violence.

Myth 8. Unrealistic video game violence is completely safe for adolescents and older youths.
Facts: Cartoonish and fantasy violence is often perceived (incorrectly) by parents and public policy makers as safe even for children. However, experimental studies with college students have consistently found increased aggression after exposure to clearly unrealistic and fantasy violent video games. Indeed, at least one recent study found significant increases in aggression by college students after playing E-rated (suitable for everyone) violent video games.

Myth 9. The effects of violent video games are trivially small.
Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass. Furthermore, the fact that so many youths are exposed to such high levels of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this risk factor (Rosenthal, 1986).

Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.

Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing.
Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b) youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

[gollygee]

320. Here's the exact problem I have with these studies

from your link:

The first study involved 227 college students who completed a measure of trait aggressiveness and reported their actual aggressive behaviors (delinquency) in the recent past. They also reported their video game playing habits. "We found that students who reported playing more violent video games in junior and high school engaged in more aggressive behavior," said lead author Anderson, of Iowa State University. "We also found that amount of time spent playing video games in the past was associated with lower academic grades in college."

The above ASSUMES that playing violent video games causes aggression, and does not even consider the possibility that people who are naturally aggressive might be drawn to violent video games. It seems like people assume what the studies will show, and then they interpret the information and complete the studies based on their assumptions.

[Phx_Dem]

323. There is no self-selection bias in these experiments

Exp. 1.
Method
Participants
Two hundred twenty-seven (78 male, 149 female) undergraduates from
introductory psychology courses at a large Midwestern university participated in small groups. All members of these classes were given the option of participating in psychological research or doing an alternative project for course credit. Students choosing to participate in research are recruited by means of a research participation sign-up board that lists ongoing research.

Exp. 2.
Thirty-two (18 female, 14 male) participants were recruited from the
introductory psychology participant pool of a large Midwestern university
and participated for partial course credit. Participants were run individually by a female experimenter. Participants were informed that we were choosing video games for use in a future study and that they would be asked a variety of questions about each of four games. We measured blood pressure and heart rate several times during the study. Games were presented in one of four counterbalanced orders to control for order effects.

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp784772.pdf

[gollygee]

325. I'm not talking about the experiments

though they have assumptions of their own - if video games make people feel more aggressive immediately following playing them, they are going to have more aggressive behavior in general.

I'm talking about the specific paragraph I quoted in my previous post. They had these kids give information regarding their aggressive past behavior and how many hours they played violent video games, and then came to conclusions based on that.

[HardRocker05]

326. i don't care if they cause harm or not - it's MESSED UP to be playing a 'game'

where you kill innocent people and engage in every kind of nasty sociopathic behavior. and NO, i am not suggesting banning anything, but jeezus h. christ, nobody should be defending this stuff. when i was kid in the early '80s my favorite video game was called 'Defender;' it was a game where the player DEFENDED their people against against invading kidnappers. sure, there was violence in those games, but it was usually 1) not very realistic, and 2) used by the 'good' to fight against the 'evil;' in today's violent video games violence is used for fun by the player against anybody he doesn't like, just for the sheer 'fun' of inflicting pain, dominating, etc. i don't care if these games do or don't turn anybody into a murderer, i sure as heck wouldn't play one or let my kid play one.

[trumad]

328. "i sure as heck wouldn't play one or let my kid play one."

Aint freedom grand?

[bigtree]

330. I think the video killing is sickening

To me, it's a bizzarro world in which so many folks don't agree with that.

[trumad]

332. Why?

[bigtree]

334. because killing sickens me.

It reminds me of the real killing here at home and around the world which is escalating, unabated, and I'm sickened by the pursuit, no matter that's it's pretend.

[trumad]

338. Well then you must be a very sad guy/girl...

No movies with violence...No novels... No TV... I'm guessing that you've always been sensitive to any type of violence.

Well I'm sorry about that and I do appreciate your sensitivity. BUT---as you can see by this thread... Not all of us are as sensitive as you. SO--- should the majority conform to a very very small minority who can't take it?

[bigtree]

356. we make choices

I do believe in an opponents' right to try to talk down those things that they abhor, as it is one's right to defend such activities. Legislative opposition is nonsense.

[walldude]

337. I got about halfway through this thread

before I decided this is the most stupid debate I have ever seen. Following the logic of this "violence" in games thing would mean that since I play a lot of Tycoon games I'm a rich man. I mean I can run a Railroad, a Zoo, a Theme Park and many other businesses. Right? Lets keep going shall we? My kids can also run in one direction and jump up and down because they play platformers. My wife can run our household because she plays The Sims. I'm also a superstar golfer, a championship football player, and king of the rink in hockey. I'm also great at packing boxes because of my Tetris skills. I can also control entire Army divisions thanks to my Command & Conquer skillz. And if Aliens ever come to kill us all I should have no problem mowing them down with my BFG. I can also fly an airplane and drive a race car.

Look it's not the fucking games it's the people who play them. For most people games are a release. If you can't understand that that's fine, don't play them, but stay the fuck out of my business.

[Evoman]

354. I think we should ban sports...especially hockey and football.

The biggest, most violent assholes I have ever met have been Jocks. I mean...every couple of days theres another story of yet another jock who raped somebody. And when I went to high school, all the violent bullies played hockey and football. The geeks who played violent video games and D&D...nice, non-violent guys.

BAN SPORTS!

[Mythsaje]

360. I know it...

No one is yelling about banning sports now, are they?

[distantearlywarning]

369. You know what else?

There's a lot of evidence linking gender to aggressive behavior too - even in some of the video game studies gender accounts for more of the behavior than the type of video game participants are playing.

I think, based on this evidence, that we should ban men. They're clearly contributing excessively to the negative colllective unconscious of this planet.

Or maybe they just need to come with a warning label. :evilgrin:

:hide:

[TimeChaser]

355. I think GD flame wars cause more aggression than violent video games...

:hide:

[Printer70]

359. Political Grandstanding

The only reason Hillary is supporting a video-game rating system is to be seen as pro-family for 2008. She doesn't realize or care that by doing this, she is playing into the Right's unhinged response to video game violence. Does anyone really believe we'll stop with a rating system? Or that the rating system won't function as a form of censorship for video game makers trying to reach a wide audience.

[treestar]

377. This is only one kid

It probably depends on the kid.

There are kids whose parents are violent and who will cheer them on in violence.

Maybe the games don't make the pivotal difference though.

Yet if the games disturb some parents, definitely those parents can prohbit them.