[twoblink]

I was reading in some scientific rag, and it asked this question.

Fairly good presentation.. Had quotes from both sides, but in the end, they said, no conclusive evidence that such is the case.

One of the "pro guns" side, he said "I grew up watching the Three Stooges, but I'm sure there wasn't an increase in eye-gauging in my generation vs. my fathers." :D

They also traced the violence vs. what video game was #1 at the time. When Qbert was #1, it had the highest crime rate, while when Donkey Kong was #1, it was the lowest.

Absolutely no corrolation..

But that won't stop the antis..

[gudel]

I worked for the company that made Delta Force game. I must be really violent, since these guys use the badass weapons! :D
I supported it and tested it. heck it's even got my voice in it! Kind of like playing it everyday, 8hr/day, 5day/ week while at lunch we play Quake etc.
there's no evidence, but there's a correlation. Exclude me.

[WonderNine]

I dunno, I've been playing violent video games since I was old enough to hold a joystick (past seventeen years). I haven't gone postal as of yet.

I haven't been playing many games lately, however the new demo for Postal 2 (http://avault.com/pcrl/demo_temp.asp?game=postal2) is pretty fun.. :D :D :D

[LiquidTension]

Heck no! I'd say that violent video games PREVENT youth violence. I know they did for me! Getting on the computer and blowing up a bunch of pixels on the screen is a much better way to vent frustration than going out in the real world and blowing things up. If I hadn't had video games to occupy my time when I was younger, I would have gotten into a LOT more trouble than I did!

The people that blame violence on video games are the same people that blame all sorts of problems on everything BUT the cause - bad parenting in most cases. People can't handle the fact that they raised a hoodlum, so they blame it on the video games, or the music, or tv, movies - anything other than themselves! Yes, there are some cases where the kid will end up being a prick no matter what, but the majority of the time the parents are to blame. I'm glad my parents did a good job with me :D

[Kevlarman]

No way videogames *cause* violence, since they're inanimate objects. Of course, videogames can give you *ideas* on violence... like throwing diseased cow heads at people (ala Postal 2). :p

[NonServiam]

"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989

:neener:

As to violence, nah. Parental neglect tends to take care of that all on its own. I'm sure there are kids out there who could stand being exposed to a little less videogames and a bit more of the real world, though. If all your sensory input are through TV and games, and you lead your social life through the net, some part of your growth as a human being is going to be stunted. I must say that I sometimes find a disturbing lack of empathy in games-obsessed people ...

[twoblink]

As a gun owner, I preach responsiblity..

The anti's seem to want to blame every inanimate object they can find for the problems with youth; whatever they can find to take the blame off themselves.. That makes me sick.

As for video games and shoot them'up blo'm ups.. hehehe.. Who told the Zerg to try to attack my base?? :D I gotta defend my fort you know!

But in all seriousness; I find that whenever I feel violent and frustrated, I take it out on the Zerg and Protoss and I'm good for a while. I find it relaxing to be able to get the pent up anger and frustration out, in such a violent (but non-violent) fashion.

[MAKOwner]

If videogames caused violence, I'd be a poster boy for it. I've played virtually every violent game since Wolf3d and I'm not a violent person at all. Too this day I'm still playing the most violent games, I agree it is an outlet, not a cause of violence.

Anyone that appears to have been driven to violence by a videogame was probably unstable and violence prone anyway...

[WhoKnowsWho]

Youth violence?

Road Rash motorcycle racing with some punching... no interest in doing it for real.

Any fighting game, a fireball to the gut ain't for me.

Donkey Kong, now why the heck would I want to fight the ape when I finally get up there?

I think if the kid is twisted enough to do something in a game he played, he's probably twisted up in more than one way. And he would have done something bad with or without violent games around.

[TarpleyG]

we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music
Hmmm... Sounds a LOT like what I experienced in my twenties during the entire 90s. Now I know why.

GT

[Double Naught Spy]

Whether or not videogames cause youth violence is not going to be settled by looking at what game was #1 versus the current state of youth violence at the time. So the Donkey Kong\Q-Bert reverse correlation is not valid and this is due to the fact that it is an overly simplified and meritless attempt to link factors in a very complex situation.

Even if there had been a correlation between what was #1 (those have to be really old numbers, like 25 years old, right?) and youth violence, that would assume that all youths were exposed to said games in an equal manner and all had comparable tendencies. That simply is not the case and these facets are not being controlled in the Donkey Kong\Q-Bert argument suggested to disprove there is a link.

A really big factor here is that not everybody will react the same way to the same stimuli. Sure enough, some kids will become more violent as they try to emulate things they are exposed to such as activities in video games, TV wrestling, the stunts in Jackass (the movie) etc. Some kids won't. Not every kid of the Three Stooges generations grew up to be eye gougers, but eye gouging was a real problem. Unfortunately what the kids did not realize was that Moe never poked the other stooges in the eyes. Instead, he poked them in the forehead above the eyes, but the speed of the act, camera angles, and the reactions of the pokees played enough on misdirection to make it look like the forehead hit was in the eyes.

It all boils down to stimuli and situational context. Not every kid that grows up in a rat infestd, bullet ridden, violent ghetto neighborhood with broken families will be a violent person, but no doubt there will be more violent people growing up there than in places where children are raised in a safe environment with loving families. TV, movies, and video games simply provide exposure stimuli to violence or other stupid activities and those traits may get worked into the kids' psyche as being okay or normal.

[Soap]

Bad parenting affects kids. One aspect of bad parenting is not teaching your children the idea of right vs. wrong and fantasy vs. reality. Even though I'm sure that the people at THR are excellent parents, there are many in the world that are not. If kids can't differentiate between these things, they can be impressionable to a ton of different things. For example, they could be dumb enough to become "G's" because it looks cool on MTV. Or they could be dumb enough to shoot someone casually because they do it in a video game. The problem isn't media, its parenting...and sometimes genetics. So what is the solution? Nothing. Bad parenting will exist as long as stupidity exists, and stupidity isn't leaving this world any time soon.

[Graystar]

I'd guess that a combination of video games, violent movies, and bad parenting leads to kids most likely to exhibit violent behavior.

[pax]

It's a complex issue. As others have pointed out, whatever innate tendencies the individual has are going to make some difference.

Advertising executives make the big bucks because they are able to convince the people buying the ads that a few seconds' worth of exposure to their work will alter consumer behavior. They sell ads because they believe that after a 30-second Pepsi ad, John and Jane Doe will be more likely to drive to a store and purchase a Pepsi product.

For that matter, hours of violence in the movies or on TV, we are told, have no effect on human behavior whatsoever, but the same people who tell us this will buy a 30 second SuperBowl spot which sells for millions. Something is wrong with this picture.

Why should we be willing to believe that a few seconds of advertising will alter other people's behavior, but that hours at a time of practice at blowing people up, kicking, stabbing, shooting, and killing them will have no effect?
But in all seriousness; I find that whenever I feel violent and frustrated, I take it out on the Zerg and Protoss and I'm good for a while. I find it relaxing to be able to get the pent up anger and frustration out, in such a violent (but non-violent) fashion.
Reading books that were written more than 50 years ago, people seemed to believe that repression of one's violent or passionate urges was a good thing. It isn't that people didn't have such urges, but that they were taught to build walls between their emotions and their behavior. People were taught from childhood to deny, by their actions, that their emotions could control them. An example of this is the classic Sense & Sensibility. The whole point of that tale is that reining in one's outward behavior despite strong emotion is a good thing to do and leads to greater happiness in the long run.

Okay, back to the video games. Point is, we have torn down the walls that used to be erected to keep people from acting out their passions. Instead of saying, "No, civilized human beings don't do that -- use your energy in other ways," we say to our angriest young men, "well, it's ok, you should spend hours fantasizing about doing it for real, and the more realistic your fantasy, the better."

For most young people, the fantasy is enough and it stops there. But some want more realism, more than they will be able to get via video game. The games get more and more and more realistic, and it's still not enough to sop up all the anger the kid is throwing at the screen. Such young men spend hours of their lives pretending that they really can simply lash out and kill the people who annoy them. They get angry, they play a video game, they feel better. They get angry, they play a more realistic video game, they feel better. And that's where it stops, for most people.

But for perhaps one in a thousand, one in ten thousand, the video game violence does something else at some point. The kid gets angry, and he wants real blood and real guts and real explosions -- and, partly because he has spent so much time playing video games, he has no experience in stifling his angriest and most violent emotions. He only knows how to express those emotions in ways that aren't socially acceptable except in pixelville. But he doesn't live in pixelville. He lives in the real world, with flesh and blood people around him. And he wants their blood.

Will outlawing "violent" video games stop this process? Nope. Because the problem isn't the video game. The problem is that no one has ever taught the kid that he is not at the mercy of his emotions. No one has ever taught him how to deny his emotions by his behavior.

Our whole society is set up so that people emote rather than reason, and when they emote, they believe they "have to" do whatever their emotions dictate.

Does that mean that violence is the fault of the society, or of the parents? Nope. The kid is still a human being and still responsible for his own choices. No matter what he's been taught or not taught, he is not an animal at the mercy of his emotions. He is a human being, endowed with a sense of reason and a will of his very own.

It's just too bad that nobody ever told him so.

pax

A man cannot govern a nation if he cannot govern a city; he cannot govern a city if he cannot govern a family; he cannot govern a family unless he can govern himself; and he cannot govern himself unless his passions are subject to reason. -- Hugo Grotius

[Skunkabilly]

If so I would have gone postal with either an F-15E Strike Eagle or TIE Interceptor by now...

[falconer]

It is very simple from a sociological point of view. Video games are not a necessary or sufficient condition for violence. Therefore they are not the cause.

[DRC]

Hello to all,

I will say that I do believe that video games can and do desensitize those that play them to an extent but pax has it right, we all have to have personal responsibility, even children, but few are taught these things. As humans we know that our actions have consequences both good and bad; it's inherent.

I heard something intresting kind of along this same vein some time ago "Did you know that Humans are the only animal that blushes? We're the only ones that have need to." :)

Talk to you later,

DRC

[Elmer Snerd]

My personal belief is no. "Violence in the Media" is often used as a scapegoat by all of the following: parents who didn't take the time to teach their kids the difference between fantasy and reality, ratings-hungry newsies, vote-hungry politicians, and greedy lawyers(who get a percentage of the settlements).

The collective problem is people who cannot/will not distinguish between fantasy and reality, people who will not accept responsibility for their actions, and people who would have committed horrible deeds anyway. They have been a problem throughout history. The number of times that they watched The Terminator or played Half-Life is irrelevant.

If someone is irresponsible to the point that watching fictional depictions of violence can inspire him/her to commit real violence without an expectation of consequences, then the problem is that person's irresponsibility. The problem is not with a product that has been safely used/viewed/played by millions.

If someone is mentally unstable to the point that watching depictions of violence can actually force him/her to commit real violence, then the problem is that person's insanity, not a product that has been safely used/viewed/played by millions.

Typing "media violence" and "media violence skeptic" (no quotes) into a search engine should turn up dozens of sites on both sides of the issue.

http://reason.com/bi/ftc-violence.shtml

http://reason.com/bi/wh-kids.shtml

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

http://www.avault.com/articles/getarticle.asp?name=skeptic

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-01/fear.html

[Strings]

of the whole "pornography/rape" connection. The idea that a rational human male, upon looking at pictures of nude women, will go out and immediately rape the first woman he can find...

Also reminds me of the uproar over RPGs back when I was a kid: "D&D is evil... it drives you insane". The only people who begin acting in a socially unacceptable manner due to an outside input (video games, porn, RPGs) are unstable to begin with, and will find SOMETHING to set them off if deprived of their "excuse of choice"...

I've played violent video games, and have never acted out what I saw there. Have read through a mountain of porographic magazines, and have never forced myself on a woman. And, although some will say my connection to reality is sometimes a bit weak, I've never lost my own identity in a role-playing game. And all of the above hold true for all my friends, too...

[adobewalls]

A few years ago I read and interesting book titled, "On Killing" written by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. The author looks at how the military trains soldiers to kill. His observation of violent video games is that many of these games use the same tactics used in soldier training, but without the social organization and discipline that the military offers. At the end of the book he comes out against violent video games - but, if I remember correctly, acknowledges that violent games probably do not affect normal children.

My opinion, I agree to an extent - if a kid is normal, probably no different from a kid running around with a BB gun shooting bottles and cans but daydreaming he is in the thick of battle. If the kid is dysfunctional, then maybe the kid doesn't have the internal checks and balances to prevent him from taking the wrong path - but that would probably be his choice with or without violent games.

[Phyphor]

(Skunk) "If so I would have gone postal with either an F-15E Strike Eagle or TIE Interceptor by now..."

Damned right. Of course, for me it probably would have either been a BFG-9000 (From DOOM 1 & 2,) or maybe even 15 Snarks (From Half-life) :D


Seriously, I am just so sick and tired of people whining about how violent video games are getting. I've even seen 'animated violence' warnings on games like X-Wing Vs. Tie Fighter, amongst others. Sure, those TIE fighters blow up real good, but it's pretty damned obvious that it's just a game.

As for kids taking inspiration from games to do school shootings, I don't even know where to begin ranting about that., I remember it bein' said that during the Columbine fiasco, the kids were pulling off head-shots, simply because they played Counterstrike or some game like that.

Hmmm, wish I picked up such mad pistol skills so easily. Of course, I'd always be inside the 10 ring with any pistol, IF I USED A MOUSE.

(sorry, sarcasm there. :D )

Why is it that people can't be bothered to put the blame where it lies? Millions of people play these games, watch violent TV shows, listen to music with..er..less than nice lyrics, and I'm seeing a distinct lack of people running around head-shooting their neighbors to get their frag counts up.