They have done previous experiments where the children acted differently when shown an aggressive behavior to model.
I am sorry that you guys do not believe it, but it is a fact. You can deny it all you want, but the FACT remains that children that are exposed to violent media are in fact more violent themselves. Over 50 years of research has been done on these issues and the overwhelming opinion is that exposure to violence is harmful to children.
MadAce exposure to violence is not the same as exposure to a women's breast. I think we can at least agree on that fact.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Here another example that maybe will make it clearer.
If a teenager watches pornography and that is his only example of interactions between a man and a woman, what do you think will happen when he starts dating? He has become desensitized to abusing women and treating them like objects. He will want to model the behavior that he saw in the pornography and will not know how to properly make a normal relationship. That is why Pornography is against the law as well to children.
And Children are anyone under the age of 18.
The fact remains that up until that age a Child hasn't fully matured to the necessary level to emotionally deal with the subject matter.
For instance When the movie American History X came out there was a couple of teens that got in and watched it. When the main character cracks the skull of the guy on the sidewalk, they started laughing. They had already become desensitized to the cruelty that was being depicted in the movie.
I know that we are all gamers and some of us are younger then others. A lot of us are able to cope and deal with what our hobby offers. But the fact remains that not everyone can. And even some of us have already been affected by it.
I know it is a difficult subject to talk about because everyone gets defensive. The kids get defensive because they don't want that cool new game taken away from them. The adults get defensive because they think their freedom is going to get infringed upon. Both of those are valid concerns. The fix ultimately is most likely impossible to make though. Which would be for the Industry to move away from so much violence in their media and move more towards healthier images. But that will not happen. The next best fix is for Parents to be given the responsibility to police what their children are viewing. But that doesn't happen either. The next best fix is where we are currently, which is the industry trying to police itself. This just isn't working as well as it should. Too many retailers are unwilling to miss out on sales revenue and too many developers are marketing that youth dollar. The last way to fix it and the very unwanted way is for the government to step in. I hate government intervention in our lives, but it is becoming more and more obvious that it is going to be needed.
It only has an effect to a certain extent. a mentally healthy person of the age of 15 should not show any strange, violent reactions from playing a game like the Darkness, GTA or Manhunt. Ofcourse there are always exceptions, and thats where the responsibility of the parents come in. I see absolutely no reason why a large group of 15 ~17 year old gamers should not be able to play a game just because a few exceptions are unable to handle the content of the game.
It only has an effect to a certain extent. a mentally healthy person of the age of 15 should not show any strange, violent reactions from playing a game like the Darkness, GTA or Manhunt. Ofcourse there are always exceptions, and thats where the responsibility of the parents come in. I see absolutely no reason why a large group of 15 ~17 year old gamers should not be able to play a game just because a few exceptions are unable to handle the content of the game.
It isn't a few exceptions. It is a large number of children. The few exceptions are the ones that are able to properly handle it.
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Also by the Teenage years your Parents no longer have much control over your personality growth. Your greatest influences are going to be friends and the media. So if you get a bunch of friends who all play violent games and decide that it would be fun to go out and knock mailboxes down with a baseball bat, or shoot paint ball guns at passing cars, your parents have no direct influence on that decision at all.
Some of the most important and critical years are Birth to 7-9ish when a lot of the foundation for your personality is being developed and then your teenage years when you are learning how to become an adult. In both instances your are extremely easily influenced. That is why young children easily fall for the kidnapping schemes (no matter how much their parents warn them) of here is some candy or help me find my doggy. And also why teens so easily fall into the "wrong crowd" and start doing recreational drugs, smoking, drinking, casual sex, etc.
Children are going through massive changes during those periods and it makes them easily influenced and puts them at an increased risk.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
It only has an effect to a certain extent. a mentally healthy person of the age of 15 should not show any strange, violent reactions from playing a game like the Darkness, GTA or Manhunt. Ofcourse there are always exceptions, and thats where the responsibility of the parents come in. I see absolutely no reason why a large group of 15 ~17 year old gamers should not be able to play a game just because a few exceptions are unable to handle the content of the game.
It isn't a few exceptions. It is a large number of children. The few exceptions are the ones that are able to properly handle it.
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
It only has an effect to a certain extent. a mentally healthy person of the age of 15 should not show any strange, violent reactions from playing a game like the Darkness, GTA or Manhunt. Ofcourse there are always exceptions, and thats where the responsibility of the parents come in. I see absolutely no reason why a large group of 15 ~17 year old gamers should not be able to play a game just because a few exceptions are unable to handle the content of the game.
It isn't a few exceptions. It is a large number of children. The few exceptions are the ones that are able to properly handle it.
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
The problem is that the evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence shows that even teenagers are unable to shake off the need to feel accepted and the lack of critical decision making when it comes to determining good behaviors to model and bad behaviors to model.
In truth you are over estimating what these Teenagers are capable of based on your own experiences. While the Psychological community is basing it on statistics and experiments.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
It only has an effect to a certain extent. a mentally healthy person of the age of 15 should not show any strange, violent reactions from playing a game like the Darkness, GTA or Manhunt. Ofcourse there are always exceptions, and thats where the responsibility of the parents come in. I see absolutely no reason why a large group of 15 ~17 year old gamers should not be able to play a game just because a few exceptions are unable to handle the content of the game.
It isn't a few exceptions. It is a large number of children. The few exceptions are the ones that are able to properly handle it.
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
The problem is that the evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence shows that even teenagers are unable to shake off the need to feel accepted and the lack of critical decision making when it comes to determining good behaviors to model and bad behaviors to model.
In truth you are over estimating what these Teenagers are capable of based on your own experiences. While the Psychological community is basing it on statistics and experiments.
As this survey shows, the vast majority of gamers clearly notice the difference between a game and real life.
This study also points out that most kids are unaffected by violence in video games, it does not change their behaviour
It only has an effect to a certain extent. a mentally healthy person of the age of 15 should not show any strange, violent reactions from playing a game like the Darkness, GTA or Manhunt. Ofcourse there are always exceptions, and thats where the responsibility of the parents come in. I see absolutely no reason why a large group of 15 ~17 year old gamers should not be able to play a game just because a few exceptions are unable to handle the content of the game.
It isn't a few exceptions. It is a large number of children. The few exceptions are the ones that are able to properly handle it.
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
The problem is that the evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence shows that even teenagers are unable to shake off the need to feel accepted and the lack of critical decision making when it comes to determining good behaviors to model and bad behaviors to model.
In truth you are over estimating what these Teenagers are capable of based on your own experiences. While the Psychological community is basing it on statistics and experiments.
As this survey shows, the vast majority of gamers clearly notice the difference between a game and real life.
A survey is not reliable evidence to show anything. How do those people know how they will react in a given situation. For instance a person breaks into your home...
Person A has never watched an Action movie, read an action book, or played an Action video game. He owns a gun for home protection. He pulls it on the Criminal and calls the police.
Person B loves every new Action flick that comes out, Gets home and reads his Bourne books (or some other action book), and then hops onto the Game for some Counterstrike or GTA. He also owns a gun for home protection. He is confronted by the criminal and proceeds to shoot the criminal.
Those are too extremely plausible situations and honestly no one knows how they will react. That is why Psychologists place people into controlled environments and actually experiment to see what happens before they say what they believe.
For instance a lot of us might say we would never purposely shock someone if we knew it was hurting them. Yet we have this very famous example:
Video games will only make children more violent if they already have a tendency towards aggression, a new study has found.
A Swinburne University of Technology study of 120 children aged 11 to 15 revealed children prone to worrying, neurotic behaviour and predisposed to aggression were likely to be more aggressive after playing violent video games.
But for the majority of children there was no difference in behaviour, according to the research published in the Psychology, Crime and Law journal.
The study monitored the behaviour of children from 10 schools in eastern and southern metropolitan Melbourne before and after playing the violent video game Quake II for 20 minutes, Swinburne's Professor Grant Devilly said.
Prof Devilly said only children predisposed to aggression and more reactive to their environments changed their behaviour after playing and of those only some showed more aggression.
"They were a little bit more aggressive anyway in their interaction with life," he said.
"The majority of people did not increase in aggression at all and we're not the first people to find that."
The study found that children predisposed to aggression who were relaxed before playing became more aggressive afterwards while the more hyperactive children became less aggressive.
Prof Devilly said much of the research linking aggressive behaviour to violent video games had been unconvincing.
"It's the only message parents have ever received and it's just not accurate," he said.
The study showed aggression linked to game playing depended on a player's mood and predisposition to aggression, he said.
"You've got to basically read your own kid. If you have a quite hyper kid they will come down after playing a bit, but for the rest of kids, the vast majority, it makes no difference at all in their general aggression rate," he said.
The game they were playing is Quake 2 and they only played it for 20 minutes. This isn't a very good example of the a controlled experiment.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
It only has an effect to a certain extent. a mentally healthy person of the age of 15 should not show any strange, violent reactions from playing a game like the Darkness, GTA or Manhunt. Ofcourse there are always exceptions, and thats where the responsibility of the parents come in. I see absolutely no reason why a large group of 15 ~17 year old gamers should not be able to play a game just because a few exceptions are unable to handle the content of the game.
It isn't a few exceptions. It is a large number of children. The few exceptions are the ones that are able to properly handle it.
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
The problem is that the evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence shows that even teenagers are unable to shake off the need to feel accepted and the lack of critical decision making when it comes to determining good behaviors to model and bad behaviors to model.
In truth you are over estimating what these Teenagers are capable of based on your own experiences. While the Psychological community is basing it on statistics and experiments.
As this survey shows, the vast majority of gamers clearly notice the difference between a game and real life.
A survey is not reliable evidence to show anything. How do those people know how they will react in a given situation. For instance a person breaks into your home...
Person A has never watched an Action movie, read an action book, or played an Action video game. He owns a gun for home protection. He pulls it on the Criminal and calls the police.
Person B loves every new Action flick that comes out, Gets home and reads his Bourne books (or some other action book), and then hops onto the Game for some Counterstrike or GTA. He also owns a gun for home protection. He is confronted by the criminal and proceeds to shoot the criminal.
Those are too extremely plausible situations and honestly no one knows how they will react. That is why Psychologists place people into controlled environments and actually experiment to see what happens before they say what they believe.
For instance a lot of us might say we would never purposely shock someone if we knew it was hurting them. Yet we have this very famous example:
Becaus it does show that in regular situations, people do not notice a difference.
You also implied that, because of violence in media, kids are more agressive. But this does not make any sense at all, as the violent crime rate is actually going down. If your theory was correct, then the violent crime rate should go up.
It only has an effect to a certain extent. a mentally healthy person of the age of 15 should not show any strange, violent reactions from playing a game like the Darkness, GTA or Manhunt. Ofcourse there are always exceptions, and thats where the responsibility of the parents come in. I see absolutely no reason why a large group of 15 ~17 year old gamers should not be able to play a game just because a few exceptions are unable to handle the content of the game.
It isn't a few exceptions. It is a large number of children. The few exceptions are the ones that are able to properly handle it.
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
The problem is that the evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence shows that even teenagers are unable to shake off the need to feel accepted and the lack of critical decision making when it comes to determining good behaviors to model and bad behaviors to model.
In truth you are over estimating what these Teenagers are capable of based on your own experiences. While the Psychological community is basing it on statistics and experiments.
As this survey shows, the vast majority of gamers clearly notice the difference between a game and real life.
A survey is not reliable evidence to show anything. How do those people know how they will react in a given situation. For instance a person breaks into your home...
Person A has never watched an Action movie, read an action book, or played an Action video game. He owns a gun for home protection. He pulls it on the Criminal and calls the police.
Person B loves every new Action flick that comes out, Gets home and reads his Bourne books (or some other action book), and then hops onto the Game for some Counterstrike or GTA. He also owns a gun for home protection. He is confronted by the criminal and proceeds to shoot the criminal.
Those are too extremely plausible situations and honestly no one knows how they will react. That is why Psychologists place people into controlled environments and actually experiment to see what happens before they say what they believe.
For instance a lot of us might say we would never purposely shock someone if we knew it was hurting them. Yet we have this very famous example:
Becaus it does show that in regular situations, people do not notice a difference.
You also implied that, because of violence in media, kids are more agressive. But this does not make any sense at all, as the violent crime rate is actually going down. If your theory was correct, then the violent crime rate should go up.
And I don't see why there should be a difference between playing a game for 20 minutes or longer.
Not at all. I even stated earlier that the Aggression is shown simple things like playground fighting or pushing and shoving. I also stated that I wasn't saying that a child who plays violent games is going to commit acts like columbine. That is just silly. No one but the most delusion of people is going to play Doom and then walk out and think they are fighting demons from hell.
That isn't what the issue is about at all. The issue is about the relative health and aggression level of our children. Aggression can be shown in sports, school work, or in the school halls. Not all aggression is related to violent crime.
Also, the violent crime statistics are unimportant to the matter. What you would need to do is compare the Statistics of the generations before there was TV and Movies to our generations today. But even then it wouldn't be a fair comparison because so much is different between that generation and now.
That is why controlled experiments are so important. Such as the children watching adults model different types of behavior and then seeing how these children behave with their dolls. That shows the effect that aggressive behavior can have on children.
The reason that the 20 minutes matters and even the game subject matter is important is because not all things are created equal. Quake 2 is definitely less realistic then Grand Theft Auto. And the fact that the experiment doesn't use equal subject matters means that they can not say for certain what is causing the difference in behavior. In a controlled experiment you can only have one variable. Otherwise the validity of your experiment is very low. Also you need to make the experiment a double blind where neither the children nor the observers know what is actually going on so no bias shows in the results. Also you must make use of a control group in order to compare the results to know whether there is any actual difference in behavior.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
It only has an effect to a certain extent. a mentally healthy person of the age of 15 should not show any strange, violent reactions from playing a game like the Darkness, GTA or Manhunt. Ofcourse there are always exceptions, and thats where the responsibility of the parents come in. I see absolutely no reason why a large group of 15 ~17 year old gamers should not be able to play a game just because a few exceptions are unable to handle the content of the game.
It isn't a few exceptions. It is a large number of children. The few exceptions are the ones that are able to properly handle it.
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
The problem is that the evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence shows that even teenagers are unable to shake off the need to feel accepted and the lack of critical decision making when it comes to determining good behaviors to model and bad behaviors to model.
In truth you are over estimating what these Teenagers are capable of based on your own experiences. While the Psychological community is basing it on statistics and experiments.
As this survey shows, the vast majority of gamers clearly notice the difference between a game and real life.
A survey is not reliable evidence to show anything. How do those people know how they will react in a given situation. For instance a person breaks into your home...
Person A has never watched an Action movie, read an action book, or played an Action video game. He owns a gun for home protection. He pulls it on the Criminal and calls the police.
Person B loves every new Action flick that comes out, Gets home and reads his Bourne books (or some other action book), and then hops onto the Game for some Counterstrike or GTA. He also owns a gun for home protection. He is confronted by the criminal and proceeds to shoot the criminal.
Those are too extremely plausible situations and honestly no one knows how they will react. That is why Psychologists place people into controlled environments and actually experiment to see what happens before they say what they believe.
For instance a lot of us might say we would never purposely shock someone if we knew it was hurting them. Yet we have this very famous example:
Becaus it does show that in regular situations, people do not notice a difference.
You also implied that, because of violence in media, kids are more agressive. But this does not make any sense at all, as the violent crime rate is actually going down. If your theory was correct, then the violent crime rate should go up.
And I don't see why there should be a difference between playing a game for 20 minutes or longer.
Not at all. I even stated earlier that the Aggression is shown simple things like playground fighting or pushing and shoving. I also stated that I wasn't saying that a child who plays violent games is going to commit acts like columbine. That is just silly. No one but the most delusion of people is going to play Doom and then walk out and think they are fighting demons from hell.
That isn't what the issue is about at all. The issue is about the relative health and aggression level of our children. Aggression can be shown in sports, school work, or in the school halls. Not all aggression is related to violent crime.
Also, the violent crime statistics are unimportant to the matter. What you would need to do is compare the Statistics of the generations before there was TV and Movies to our generations today. But even then it wouldn't be a fair comparison because so much is different between that generation and now.
That is why controlled experiments are so important. Such as the children watching adults model different types of behavior and then seeing how these children behave with their dolls. That shows the effect that aggressive behavior can have on children.
The reason that the 20 minutes matters and even the game subject matter is important is because not all things are created equal. Quake 2 is definitely less realistic then Grand Theft Auto. And the fact that the experiment doesn't use equal subject matters means that they can not say for certain what is causing the difference in behavior. In a controlled experiment you can only have one variable. Otherwise the validity of your experiment is very low. Also you need to make the experiment a double blind where neither the children nor the observers know what is actually going on so no bias shows in the results. Also you must make use of a control group in order to compare the results to know whether there is any actual difference in behavior.
Well Obviously if, in this age of violent television and violent video games, if it "teaches" kids to be more agressive then in earlier years, then agressive crime SHOULD go up, As aggression and violence are directly related.
Well Obviously if, in this age of violent television and violent video games, if it "teaches" kids to be more agressive then in earlier years, then agressive crime SHOULD go up, As aggression and violence are directly related.
Why should they be directly related? There is all types of aggression. A Race Car Driver is aggressive. A Stock Broker can be Aggressive. A Doctor can be Aggressive. Aggression in and of itself isn't directly related to crime.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Not even joking when I say this; I am seriously considering moving to the Netherlands.
It's the only country in the world that I know of that can allow freedom for all activities (including those frowned upon) and show that it doesn't change the populous, and that these things can be fine when taken with moderation and responsibility. Legalizing prostitution doesn't make the entire populace into sexual deviants, legalizing marijuana doesn't make everyone into lazy potheads, broadcasting sex and violence on media outlets doesn't melt the minds of the citizens.
I'm not saying that I'm considering going there because I can hire hookers, smoke pot, and watch blood and boobs on my TV, I'm saying that I respect the idea of leaving certain practices to those with enough personal responsibility, and I respect the lack of authoritarian ideals that I see posted everywhere in the US.
The US bans tag because they say it harms the self esteem of children, the Netherlands tells you to get a fucking band-aid and get back out there. The US taps your phone lines in the name of security from people they forced their ideals on, the Netherlands doesn't care, because they don't impose, so they don't have that problem, but wouldn't rob anyone of privacy when faced in the situation.
What my point is, is that I despise the idea of sacrificing freedoms for security, and I see the Netherlands as the only country that said "Fuck you", and did what they wanted. Not to say that there are *no restrictions*, because I'm sure there are, or that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the place, but god damn, I am sick of asshole politicians telling me what I can and cannot do because they know I couldn't possibly be someone who could be responsible enough on my own.
Cabe says the US has very high crime rates among its youth partly because of the violent media.
So why are countries like the Netherlands and Belgium muchn much more violent? Over there you can say fuck on TV, decapitate someone on tv and then piss on their corpse.
As a result people there should be much more violent than in the US where you can't say fuck on TV (for example). But that isn't the case.
Well Obviously if, in this age of violent television and violent video games, if it "teaches" kids to be more agressive then in earlier years, then agressive crime SHOULD go up, As aggression and violence are directly related.
Why should they be directly related? There is all types of aggression. A Race Car Driver is aggressive. A Stock Broker can be Aggressive. A Doctor can be Aggressive. Aggression in and of itself isn't directly related to crime.
Cabe says the US has very high crime rates among its youth partly because of the violent media. So why are countries like the Netherlands and Belgium muchn much more violent? Over there you can say fuck on TV, decapitate someone on tv and then piss on their corpse.
As a result people there should be much more violent than in the US where you can't say fuck on TV (for example). But that isn't the case.
How come?
I never said that it caused very high crime rates. I said it caused us to become less sensative to other's feelings. IE the Iraq War and the bad things being done by people there.
Once again Aggression does not automatically mean Crime
Aggression Does not equal crime.
Hopefully now people see that statement.
Yes aggression means inflicting pain of some sort. It could be emotional Pain. It could be embarrassement. It could be a lot of things. IT doesn't equate to Assault, rape, murder etc. Yes those are acts of aggression but not all aggression leads to crime.
As I stated earlier it can be the simple things like how you would react in a situation. How you drive. How your deal with stress. How you deal with your boss when he says you need to stay late.
For instance. Boss says he needs you to come into work on Sunday.
Non aggressive response. You talk to him about why you do not want to come in and then you make a decision based on what the results are going to be.
Aggressive response you tell him off. Or you go out after work and you go drinking with the guys. Or you go home and take it out on your family by being a prick.
So, once again I hope we can see that Aggression doesn't equate to physical pain nor does it equate to crime.
GL made the link saying Aggression leads to crime. I said that it doesn't mean the kids are going to commit another columbine. I said it perfectly in the example of the two home owners with guns. One is an aggressive act and one is just defensive. Neither is a crime.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Here another example that maybe will make it clearer. If a teenager watches pornography and that is his only example of interactions between a man and a woman, what do you think will happen when he starts dating? He has become desensitized to abusing women and treating them like objects. He will want to model the behavior that he saw in the pornography and will not know how to properly make a normal relationship. That is why Pornography is against the law as well to children. And Children are anyone under the age of 18. The fact remains that up until that age a Child hasn't fully matured to the necessary level to emotionally deal with the subject matter.
Hmm, thats interesting, because I got interested in tits in the early teens, and I haven't been having any trouble like that.
As well, I grew up on Duke Nukem and Doom, and quite honestly, as most of my friends can attest, while I'm an asshole quite often, I'm one of the least likely to resort to violence, because quite honestly, I know I can't walk around shooting people up and beating the shit out of 'em without some particularly nasty consequences.
Kids are smarter than you give them credit for. The ones that aren't and get their hands on this stuff are victims of bad parenting. As of right now, Video games are the scapegoat for people who do bad stuff and their parents or people around them don't want to take the blame. Hell, if I told you Elvis was the root of all teenage evil and created a sex fiend out of your innocent daughter you'd laugh your ass off, but back in his time, I guarentee that was the popular opinion among parents. Then it was Metal. Then it was movies. Now its video games and rap.
And as for your studies, we could go back and forth with thousands of studies that point to completely different things. But the fact remains, that most kids who do any of the stuff you're so scared of, will not be affected by it in any noticeable way, and I guarantee 99% of them will not grow up to kill anybody because of it. The ones who do are the ones who should've gotten help, the video games did not do this to them.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment; We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
Here another example that maybe will make it clearer. If a teenager watches pornography and that is his only example of interactions between a man and a woman, what do you think will happen when he starts dating? He has become desensitized to abusing women and treating them like objects. He will want to model the behavior that he saw in the pornography and will not know how to properly make a normal relationship. That is why Pornography is against the law as well to children. And Children are anyone under the age of 18. The fact remains that up until that age a Child hasn't fully matured to the necessary level to emotionally deal with the subject matter.
Hmm, thats interesting, because I got interested in tits in the early teens, and I haven't been having any trouble like that.
Having an interest in playboy or in other women and hardcore porn being your only interaction. Porn can be used as a marital aid. It can be used to spice up a relationship. But when it is used as a replacement it causes problems. Of course that is all for a different thread entirely. As well, I grew up on Duke Nukem and Doom, and quite honestly, as most of my friends can attest, while I'm an asshole quite often, I'm one of the least likely to resort to violence, because quite honestly, I know I can't walk around shooting people up and beating the shit out of 'em without some particularly nasty consequences. Using yourself as an example is not a good way to actually prove anything. Yes there can be exceptions to any rule. But the evidence from controlled experimentation favors the conclusion that exposure to violence leads to increased aggression and desenatizes(sp?) the subject to violent acts. Kids are smarter than you give them credit for. The ones that aren't and get their hands on this stuff are victims of bad parenting. As of right now, Video games are the scapegoat for people who do bad stuff and their parents or people around them don't want to take the blame. Hell, if I told you Elvis was the root of all teenage evil and created a sex fiend out of your innocent daughter you'd laugh your ass off, but back in his time, I guarentee that was the popular opinion among parents. Then it was Metal. Then it was movies. Now its video games and rap. I am well aware of the different targets for the censors wrath. The difference here is not the wrath of a censor or controlling freedom, but the link between aggressive behavior and media. Studies show that when children are exposed to aggressive behavior they model that behavior themselves. Lets take an easier to follow example. Pit bulls, doberman pinchers, rotweilers can be some of the meanest dogs around, but they can also be some of the most loving dogs around. It all depends on what they are exposed to as they grow up. If you beat a dog and make it fight it will become mean. If you play with it as a loving pet it might be scared of your neighbor's cat. (as my neighbor's dog is scared of my Icelandic cat ) The same thing applies to Children. It doesn't matter how smart they are. Because children do not have the life experiences yet to determine what is happening to them as a bad thing or a good thing. As I said before a lot of teens might be old enough, but they have determined from study that 18 is the best age to cut it off at. And as for your studies, we could go back and forth with thousands of studies that point to completely different things. But the fact remains, that most kids who do any of the stuff you're so scared of, will not be affected by it in any noticeable way, and I guarantee 99% of them will not grow up to kill anybody because of it. The ones who do are the ones who should've gotten help, the video games did not do this to them. You have no idea. That is why we do experiments and studies. There is a big difference between a double blind study with a control group and a survey showing results. One study has a lot more validity then the other. I also stated that Video games do not cause children to think they are killing doom monsters, but it does cause them to react with more aggression then they might have otherwise. You guys are thinking way to much in extremes. You get defensive and think of Columbine or the VT murders and the media's link to Video Games. I am not making a link like that. My example of the two home owners who both own guns and both decide to defend their home is the example you should be thinking about. No respectable Mental Health professional is claiming that Playing Video Games means you are going to become a murderer. But it could very well mean you have a shorter Fuse on your temper or that you might escalate to yelling sooner then someone who did not.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Here another example that maybe will make it clearer. If a teenager watches pornography and that is his only example of interactions between a man and a woman, what do you think will happen when he starts dating? He has become desensitized to abusing women and treating them like objects. He will want to model the behavior that he saw in the pornography and will not know how to properly make a normal relationship. That is why Pornography is against the law as well to children. And Children are anyone under the age of 18. The fact remains that up until that age a Child hasn't fully matured to the necessary level to emotionally deal with the subject matter.
Hmm, thats interesting, because I got interested in tits in the early teens, and I haven't been having any trouble like that.
Having an interest in playboy or in other women and hardcore porn being your only interaction. Porn can be used as a marital aid. It can be used to spice up a relationship. But when it is used as a replacement it causes problems. Of course that is all for a different thread entirely. Typing in an ugly ass yellow font, but oh well. I can't say that I know anybody that have those types of problems with porn, but as you state later on, that is personal experience, and yeah, you're right, that doesn't make it fact. My point is, that out of all the possible bad influences, I find porn to be the least. There isn't a really good reason for demonizing it so, because if you step back and look at it, its just the human body, and two people interacting. But you know, society isn't going to change on that one for a while, I guess. As well, I grew up on Duke Nukem and Doom, and quite honestly, as most of my friends can attest, while I'm an asshole quite often, I'm one of the least likely to resort to violence, because quite honestly, I know I can't walk around shooting people up and beating the shit out of 'em without some particularly nasty consequences. Using yourself as an example is not a good way to actually prove anything. Yes there can be exceptions to any rule. But the evidence from controlled experimentation favors the conclusion that exposure to violence leads to increased aggression and desenatizes(sp?) the subject to violent acts. Of course its not a good example, I'm just saying in my experience, I haven't come across anyone who has had some of the negative effects from video games you state (Except for social consequences, but we don't want to get into the gamer stereotype here). Honestly, I think I turned out fine, as well as many of my buddies who I've played games with, but again, this is all personal experience, and you could not believe a word of it if you'd like. Kids are smarter than you give them credit for. The ones that aren't and get their hands on this stuff are victims of bad parenting. As of right now, Video games are the scapegoat for people who do bad stuff and their parents or people around them don't want to take the blame. Hell, if I told you Elvis was the root of all teenage evil and created a sex fiend out of your innocent daughter you'd laugh your ass off, but back in his time, I guarentee that was the popular opinion among parents. Then it was Metal. Then it was movies. Now its video games and rap. I am well aware of the different targets for the censors wrath. The difference here is not the wrath of a censor or controlling freedom, but the link between aggressive behavior and media. Studies show that when children are exposed to aggressive behavior they model that behavior themselves. Lets take an easier to follow example. Pit bulls, doberman pinchers, rotweilers can be some of the meanest dogs around, but they can also be some of the most loving dogs around. It all depends on what they are exposed to as they grow up. If you beat a dog and make it fight it will become mean. If you play with it as a loving pet it might be scared of your neighbor's cat. (as my neighbor's dog is scared of my Icelandic cat ) The same thing applies to Children. It doesn't matter how smart they are. Because children do not have the life experiences yet to determine what is happening to them as a bad thing or a good thing. As I said before a lot of teens might be old enough, but they have determined from study that 18 is the best age to cut it off at. The difference is, you aren't willing to give kids the credit for being able to tell the difference between the game and reality. There is a huge difference in the fact that the dog is ACTUALLY getting beat, as opposed to the Boy (Or Girl, if we're being PC) who is sitting in front of the TV shooting at a couple of Elites in Halo. Once again, I have never run into somebody who was angered after the playing of a video game, and never run into someone who became an "Angry person" because video games did it to him. Many, if not the vast majority have no emotional stake in the game. Sure, sometimes you get pissed because you jumped at the exact wrong second and Mario ended up dead in the pit, but you don't take that out on anybody outside of the game. Once again, defering to personal experience, I often find shooters a little stress-relieving. When I'm angry, it gives me this nice little virtual world to take my problems out on and I'm even better than when I started. And as for your studies, we could go back and forth with thousands of studies that point to completely different things. But the fact remains, that most kids who do any of the stuff you're so scared of, will not be affected by it in any noticeable way, and I guarantee 99% of them will not grow up to kill anybody because of it. The ones who do are the ones who should've gotten help, the video games did not do this to them. You have no idea. That is why we do experiments and studies. There is a big difference between a double blind study with a control group and a survey showing results. One study has a lot more validity then the other. I also stated that Video games do not cause children to think they are killing doom monsters, but it does cause them to react with more aggression then they might have otherwise. You guys are thinking way to much in extremes. You get defensive and think of Columbine or the VT murders and the media's link to Video Games. I am not making a link like that. My example of the two home owners who both own guns and both decide to defend their home is the example you should be thinking about. No respectable Mental Health professional is claiming that Playing Video Games means you are going to become a murderer. But it could very well mean you have a shorter Fuse on your temper or that you might escalate to yelling sooner then someone who did not. I'm just gonna have to disagree here. Just out of personal experience. If you believe otherwise, thats fine, but I have enough faith in humanity (Which is probably niave of me, but oh well) to believe that those who play video games, even children, can detach themselves enough from it to not be negatively effected by it. Hell, when it comes right down to it, there are so many other greater things that negatively effect children and are real problems, which are getting away clean. Just take a look at just about any portion of the media, and you'll quickly see that most of that showcases much more dangerous ideas than the small chance of an anger problem that may or may not exist within video games.
Comments are in the shitty yellow (Obviously). Yeah, I know most of these are my personal opinions and its not a very good arguement, but this is the way I feel, and I doubt a few more studies are going to change it.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment; We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
Here another example that maybe will make it clearer. If a teenager watches pornography and that is his only example of interactions between a man and a woman, what do you think will happen when he starts dating? He has become desensitized to abusing women and treating them like objects. He will want to model the behavior that he saw in the pornography and will not know how to properly make a normal relationship. That is why Pornography is against the law as well to children. And Children are anyone under the age of 18. The fact remains that up until that age a Child hasn't fully matured to the necessary level to emotionally deal with the subject matter.
Hmm, thats interesting, because I got interested in tits in the early teens, and I haven't been having any trouble like that.
Having an interest in playboy or in other women and hardcore porn being your only interaction. Porn can be used as a marital aid. It can be used to spice up a relationship. But when it is used as a replacement it causes problems. Of course that is all for a different thread entirely. Typing in an ugly ass yellow font, but oh well. I can't say that I know anybody that have those types of problems with porn, but as you state later on, that is personal experience, and yeah, you're right, that doesn't make it fact. My point is, that out of all the possible bad influences, I find porn to be the least. There isn't a really good reason for demonizing it so, because if you step back and look at it, its just the human body, and two people interacting. But you know, society isn't going to change on that one for a while, I guess. As well, I grew up on Duke Nukem and Doom, and quite honestly, as most of my friends can attest, while I'm an asshole quite often, I'm one of the least likely to resort to violence, because quite honestly, I know I can't walk around shooting people up and beating the shit out of 'em without some particularly nasty consequences. Using yourself as an example is not a good way to actually prove anything. Yes there can be exceptions to any rule. But the evidence from controlled experimentation favors the conclusion that exposure to violence leads to increased aggression and desenatizes(sp?) the subject to violent acts. Of course its not a good example, I'm just saying in my experience, I haven't come across anyone who has had some of the negative effects from video games you state (Except for social consequences, but we don't want to get into the gamer stereotype here). Honestly, I think I turned out fine, as well as many of my buddies who I've played games with, but again, this is all personal experience, and you could not believe a word of it if you'd like. Kids are smarter than you give them credit for. The ones that aren't and get their hands on this stuff are victims of bad parenting. As of right now, Video games are the scapegoat for people who do bad stuff and their parents or people around them don't want to take the blame. Hell, if I told you Elvis was the root of all teenage evil and created a sex fiend out of your innocent daughter you'd laugh your ass off, but back in his time, I guarentee that was the popular opinion among parents. Then it was Metal. Then it was movies. Now its video games and rap. I am well aware of the different targets for the censors wrath. The difference here is not the wrath of a censor or controlling freedom, but the link between aggressive behavior and media. Studies show that when children are exposed to aggressive behavior they model that behavior themselves. Lets take an easier to follow example. Pit bulls, doberman pinchers, rotweilers can be some of the meanest dogs around, but they can also be some of the most loving dogs around. It all depends on what they are exposed to as they grow up. If you beat a dog and make it fight it will become mean. If you play with it as a loving pet it might be scared of your neighbor's cat. (as my neighbor's dog is scared of my Icelandic cat ) The same thing applies to Children. It doesn't matter how smart they are. Because children do not have the life experiences yet to determine what is happening to them as a bad thing or a good thing. As I said before a lot of teens might be old enough, but they have determined from study that 18 is the best age to cut it off at. The difference is, you aren't willing to give kids the credit for being able to tell the difference between the game and reality. There is a huge difference in the fact that the dog is ACTUALLY getting beat, as opposed to the Boy (Or Girl, if we're being PC) who is sitting in front of the TV shooting at a couple of Elites in Halo. Once again, I have never run into somebody who was angered after the playing of a video game, and never run into someone who became an "Angry person" because video games did it to him. Many, if not the vast majority have no emotional stake in the game. Sure, sometimes you get pissed because you jumped at the exact wrong second and Mario ended up dead in the pit, but you don't take that out on anybody outside of the game. Once again, defering to personal experience, I often find shooters a little stress-relieving. When I'm angry, it gives me this nice little virtual world to take my problems out on and I'm even better than when I started. And as for your studies, we could go back and forth with thousands of studies that point to completely different things. But the fact remains, that most kids who do any of the stuff you're so scared of, will not be affected by it in any noticeable way, and I guarantee 99% of them will not grow up to kill anybody because of it. The ones who do are the ones who should've gotten help, the video games did not do this to them. You have no idea. That is why we do experiments and studies. There is a big difference between a double blind study with a control group and a survey showing results. One study has a lot more validity then the other. I also stated that Video games do not cause children to think they are killing doom monsters, but it does cause them to react with more aggression then they might have otherwise. You guys are thinking way to much in extremes. You get defensive and think of Columbine or the VT murders and the media's link to Video Games. I am not making a link like that. My example of the two home owners who both own guns and both decide to defend their home is the example you should be thinking about. No respectable Mental Health professional is claiming that Playing Video Games means you are going to become a murderer. But it could very well mean you have a shorter Fuse on your temper or that you might escalate to yelling sooner then someone who did not. I'm just gonna have to disagree here. Just out of personal experience. If you believe otherwise, thats fine, but I have enough faith in humanity (Which is probably niave of me, but oh well) to believe that those who play video games, even children, can detach themselves enough from it to not be negatively effected by it. Hell, when it comes right down to it, there are so many other greater things that negatively effect children and are real problems, which are getting away clean. Just take a look at just about any portion of the media, and you'll quickly see that most of that showcases much more dangerous ideas than the small chance of an anger problem that may or may not exist within video games.
Comments are in the shitty yellow (Obviously). Yeah, I know most of these are my personal opinions and its not a very good arguement, but this is the way I feel, and I doubt a few more studies are going to change it.
And that is perfectly fine. You are allowed to feel how ever you want.
The thing that some gamers have to realize (not speaking specifically about you) is that we can't claim the first amendment rights of video games being free speech because they are an example of media and use it for our advantage, but then in the same breath say hey you can't include us with all that bad stuff in movies or on Tv. We are just a fun past time and everyone can tell reality from this fiction.
Because honestly not everyone can detach themselves. Not completely. Very Very Very Very Few people are not affected in some manner. These are generally called sociopaths and they do not feel for others one way or another. So they are not affected by external influences like the media or video games. Because they can not empathize with anyone but themselves.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Comments
psychclassics.yorku.ca/Bandura/bobo.htm
They have done previous experiments where the children acted differently when shown an aggressive behavior to model.
I am sorry that you guys do not believe it, but it is a fact. You can deny it all you want, but the FACT remains that children that are exposed to violent media are in fact more violent themselves. Over 50 years of research has been done on these issues and the overwhelming opinion is that exposure to violence is harmful to children.
MadAce exposure to violence is not the same as exposure to a women's breast. I think we can at least agree on that fact.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Here another example that maybe will make it clearer.
If a teenager watches pornography and that is his only example of interactions between a man and a woman, what do you think will happen when he starts dating? He has become desensitized to abusing women and treating them like objects. He will want to model the behavior that he saw in the pornography and will not know how to properly make a normal relationship. That is why Pornography is against the law as well to children.
And Children are anyone under the age of 18.
The fact remains that up until that age a Child hasn't fully matured to the necessary level to emotionally deal with the subject matter.
For instance When the movie American History X came out there was a couple of teens that got in and watched it. When the main character cracks the skull of the guy on the sidewalk, they started laughing. They had already become desensitized to the cruelty that was being depicted in the movie.
People like that grow up into someone like this:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6384781.stm
I know that we are all gamers and some of us are younger then others. A lot of us are able to cope and deal with what our hobby offers. But the fact remains that not everyone can. And even some of us have already been affected by it.
I know it is a difficult subject to talk about because everyone gets defensive. The kids get defensive because they don't want that cool new game taken away from them. The adults get defensive because they think their freedom is going to get infringed upon. Both of those are valid concerns. The fix ultimately is most likely impossible to make though. Which would be for the Industry to move away from so much violence in their media and move more towards healthier images. But that will not happen. The next best fix is for Parents to be given the responsibility to police what their children are viewing. But that doesn't happen either. The next best fix is where we are currently, which is the industry trying to police itself. This just isn't working as well as it should. Too many retailers are unwilling to miss out on sales revenue and too many developers are marketing that youth dollar. The last way to fix it and the very unwanted way is for the government to step in. I hate government intervention in our lives, but it is becoming more and more obvious that it is going to be needed.
When we have basically babies (elementary students) bringing guns to school we have an issue. When a father designs a bullet proof backpack we have issues. www.market-day.net/article_90153/20070816/Bullet-proof-backpack-latest-for-kids.php
I know this isn't anyone's favorite subject. But denying that Violent media affects our youth is like denying that Humans' need oxygen.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
It only has an effect to a certain extent. a mentally healthy person of the age of 15 should not show any strange, violent reactions from playing a game like the Darkness, GTA or Manhunt. Ofcourse there are always exceptions, and thats where the responsibility of the parents come in. I see absolutely no reason why a large group of 15 ~17 year old gamers should not be able to play a game just because a few exceptions are unable to handle the content of the game.
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Also by the Teenage years your Parents no longer have much control over your personality growth. Your greatest influences are going to be friends and the media. So if you get a bunch of friends who all play violent games and decide that it would be fun to go out and knock mailboxes down with a baseball bat, or shoot paint ball guns at passing cars, your parents have no direct influence on that decision at all.
Some of the most important and critical years are Birth to 7-9ish when a lot of the foundation for your personality is being developed and then your teenage years when you are learning how to become an adult. In both instances your are extremely easily influenced. That is why young children easily fall for the kidnapping schemes (no matter how much their parents warn them) of here is some candy or help me find my doggy. And also why teens so easily fall into the "wrong crowd" and start doing recreational drugs, smoking, drinking, casual sex, etc.
Children are going through massive changes during those periods and it makes them easily influenced and puts them at an increased risk.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
The problem is that the evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence shows that even teenagers are unable to shake off the need to feel accepted and the lack of critical decision making when it comes to determining good behaviors to model and bad behaviors to model.In truth you are over estimating what these Teenagers are capable of based on your own experiences. While the Psychological community is basing it on statistics and experiments.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
On that note, did anyone see the Wii trailer where they use the remote to take a pair of pliers and tear off a guy's testicles in this game?
It isn't a few exceptions. It is a large number of children. The few exceptions are the ones that are able to properly handle it.We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
The problem is that the evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence shows that even teenagers are unable to shake off the need to feel accepted and the lack of critical decision making when it comes to determining good behaviors to model and bad behaviors to model.In truth you are over estimating what these Teenagers are capable of based on your own experiences. While the Psychological community is basing it on statistics and experiments.
As this survey shows, the vast majority of gamers clearly notice the difference between a game and real life.
This study also points out that most kids are unaffected by violence in video games, it does not change their behaviour
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266811,00.html
www.smh.com.au/news/National/Most-kids-unaffected-by-violent-games/2007/04/01/1175366055463.html
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
The problem is that the evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence shows that even teenagers are unable to shake off the need to feel accepted and the lack of critical decision making when it comes to determining good behaviors to model and bad behaviors to model.In truth you are over estimating what these Teenagers are capable of based on your own experiences. While the Psychological community is basing it on statistics and experiments.
As this survey shows, the vast majority of gamers clearly notice the difference between a game and real life.www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266811,00.html
A survey is not reliable evidence to show anything. How do those people know how they will react in a given situation. For instance a person breaks into your home...Person A has never watched an Action movie, read an action book, or played an Action video game. He owns a gun for home protection. He pulls it on the Criminal and calls the police.
Person B loves every new Action flick that comes out, Gets home and reads his Bourne books (or some other action book), and then hops onto the Game for some Counterstrike or GTA. He also owns a gun for home protection. He is confronted by the criminal and proceeds to shoot the criminal.
Those are too extremely plausible situations and honestly no one knows how they will react. That is why Psychologists place people into controlled environments and actually experiment to see what happens before they say what they believe.
For instance a lot of us might say we would never purposely shock someone if we knew it was hurting them. Yet we have this very famous example:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
www.dailymotion.com/video/xcuy4_obedience-experiment
Here is a video of it as well.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Most kids 'unaffected' by violent games
Video games will only make children more violent if they already have a tendency towards aggression, a new study has found.
A Swinburne University of Technology study of 120 children aged 11 to 15 revealed children prone to worrying, neurotic behaviour and predisposed to aggression were likely to be more aggressive after playing violent video games.
But for the majority of children there was no difference in behaviour, according to the research published in the Psychology, Crime and Law journal.
The study monitored the behaviour of children from 10 schools in eastern and southern metropolitan Melbourne before and after playing the violent video game Quake II for 20 minutes, Swinburne's Professor Grant Devilly said.
Prof Devilly said only children predisposed to aggression and more reactive to their environments changed their behaviour after playing and of those only some showed more aggression.
"They were a little bit more aggressive anyway in their interaction with life," he said.
"The majority of people did not increase in aggression at all and we're not the first people to find that."
The study found that children predisposed to aggression who were relaxed before playing became more aggressive afterwards while the more hyperactive children became less aggressive.
Prof Devilly said much of the research linking aggressive behaviour to violent video games had been unconvincing.
"It's the only message parents have ever received and it's just not accurate," he said.
The study showed aggression linked to game playing depended on a player's mood and predisposition to aggression, he said.
"You've got to basically read your own kid. If you have a quite hyper kid they will come down after playing a bit, but for the rest of kids, the vast majority, it makes no difference at all in their general aggression rate," he said.
The game they were playing is Quake 2 and they only played it for 20 minutes. This isn't a very good example of the a controlled experiment.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
It isn't a few exceptions. It is a large number of children. The few exceptions are the ones that are able to properly handle it.We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
The problem is that the evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence shows that even teenagers are unable to shake off the need to feel accepted and the lack of critical decision making when it comes to determining good behaviors to model and bad behaviors to model.In truth you are over estimating what these Teenagers are capable of based on your own experiences. While the Psychological community is basing it on statistics and experiments.
As this survey shows, the vast majority of gamers clearly notice the difference between a game and real life.www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266811,00.html
A survey is not reliable evidence to show anything. How do those people know how they will react in a given situation. For instance a person breaks into your home...Person A has never watched an Action movie, read an action book, or played an Action video game. He owns a gun for home protection. He pulls it on the Criminal and calls the police.
Person B loves every new Action flick that comes out, Gets home and reads his Bourne books (or some other action book), and then hops onto the Game for some Counterstrike or GTA. He also owns a gun for home protection. He is confronted by the criminal and proceeds to shoot the criminal.
Those are too extremely plausible situations and honestly no one knows how they will react. That is why Psychologists place people into controlled environments and actually experiment to see what happens before they say what they believe.
For instance a lot of us might say we would never purposely shock someone if we knew it was hurting them. Yet we have this very famous example:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
www.dailymotion.com/video/xcuy4_obedience-experiment
Here is a video of it as well.
Becaus it does show that in regular situations, people do not notice a difference.
You also implied that, because of violence in media, kids are more agressive. But this does not make any sense at all, as the violent crime rate is actually going down. If your theory was correct, then the violent crime rate should go up.
www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames
And I don't see why there should be a difference between playing a game for 20 minutes or longer.
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
The problem is that the evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence shows that even teenagers are unable to shake off the need to feel accepted and the lack of critical decision making when it comes to determining good behaviors to model and bad behaviors to model.In truth you are over estimating what these Teenagers are capable of based on your own experiences. While the Psychological community is basing it on statistics and experiments.
As this survey shows, the vast majority of gamers clearly notice the difference between a game and real life.www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266811,00.html
A survey is not reliable evidence to show anything. How do those people know how they will react in a given situation. For instance a person breaks into your home...Person A has never watched an Action movie, read an action book, or played an Action video game. He owns a gun for home protection. He pulls it on the Criminal and calls the police.
Person B loves every new Action flick that comes out, Gets home and reads his Bourne books (or some other action book), and then hops onto the Game for some Counterstrike or GTA. He also owns a gun for home protection. He is confronted by the criminal and proceeds to shoot the criminal.
Those are too extremely plausible situations and honestly no one knows how they will react. That is why Psychologists place people into controlled environments and actually experiment to see what happens before they say what they believe.
For instance a lot of us might say we would never purposely shock someone if we knew it was hurting them. Yet we have this very famous example:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
www.dailymotion.com/video/xcuy4_obedience-experiment
Here is a video of it as well.
Becaus it does show that in regular situations, people do not notice a difference.
You also implied that, because of violence in media, kids are more agressive. But this does not make any sense at all, as the violent crime rate is actually going down. If your theory was correct, then the violent crime rate should go up.
www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames
And I don't see why there should be a difference between playing a game for 20 minutes or longer.
Not at all. I even stated earlier that the Aggression is shown simple things like playground fighting or pushing and shoving. I also stated that I wasn't saying that a child who plays violent games is going to commit acts like columbine. That is just silly. No one but the most delusion of people is going to play Doom and then walk out and think they are fighting demons from hell.That isn't what the issue is about at all. The issue is about the relative health and aggression level of our children. Aggression can be shown in sports, school work, or in the school halls. Not all aggression is related to violent crime.
Also, the violent crime statistics are unimportant to the matter. What you would need to do is compare the Statistics of the generations before there was TV and Movies to our generations today. But even then it wouldn't be a fair comparison because so much is different between that generation and now.
That is why controlled experiments are so important. Such as the children watching adults model different types of behavior and then seeing how these children behave with their dolls. That shows the effect that aggressive behavior can have on children.
The reason that the 20 minutes matters and even the game subject matter is important is because not all things are created equal. Quake 2 is definitely less realistic then Grand Theft Auto. And the fact that the experiment doesn't use equal subject matters means that they can not say for certain what is causing the difference in behavior. In a controlled experiment you can only have one variable. Otherwise the validity of your experiment is very low. Also you need to make the experiment a double blind where neither the children nor the observers know what is actually going on so no bias shows in the results. Also you must make use of a control group in order to compare the results to know whether there is any actual difference in behavior.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
We aren't talking about columbine. We are talking about a Child who would of normally walked away from a bully getting into a fist fight. Or a child who would of sat in class and listened as the teacher lectured him on getting a bad grade throwing a desk at the teacher instead. We are talking about an increase in aggressive behavior that is seen in children.
Whether you want to believe it children, even in the age bracket of 15-17, can not handle the exposure to violence and are more likely to model the behavior.
I'm pretty sure that there exceptions are the ones who are unable to handle it, and I'm sure that the vast majority is able to handle the exposure just fine. I don't know all bits and bites of the American education system, but here in the Netherlands, the ages of 14 ~ 15 are dead important for children, as their entire future depends on those few years. So I find the idea that they can handle that so much pressure on their shoulders, but are unable to see the difference between fake and real absurd. I mean, for children of ages of 12 and below, sure. When I was little, me and my kids picked up sticks and played "war" on the streets, but I have never seen a child of 14 ~ 15 do that. I think you understimate the maturity of those children. the vast majority of them KNOW that its just a video game.
The problem is that the evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence shows that even teenagers are unable to shake off the need to feel accepted and the lack of critical decision making when it comes to determining good behaviors to model and bad behaviors to model.In truth you are over estimating what these Teenagers are capable of based on your own experiences. While the Psychological community is basing it on statistics and experiments.
As this survey shows, the vast majority of gamers clearly notice the difference between a game and real life.www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266811,00.html
A survey is not reliable evidence to show anything. How do those people know how they will react in a given situation. For instance a person breaks into your home...Person A has never watched an Action movie, read an action book, or played an Action video game. He owns a gun for home protection. He pulls it on the Criminal and calls the police.
Person B loves every new Action flick that comes out, Gets home and reads his Bourne books (or some other action book), and then hops onto the Game for some Counterstrike or GTA. He also owns a gun for home protection. He is confronted by the criminal and proceeds to shoot the criminal.
Those are too extremely plausible situations and honestly no one knows how they will react. That is why Psychologists place people into controlled environments and actually experiment to see what happens before they say what they believe.
For instance a lot of us might say we would never purposely shock someone if we knew it was hurting them. Yet we have this very famous example:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
www.dailymotion.com/video/xcuy4_obedience-experiment
Here is a video of it as well.
Becaus it does show that in regular situations, people do not notice a difference.
You also implied that, because of violence in media, kids are more agressive. But this does not make any sense at all, as the violent crime rate is actually going down. If your theory was correct, then the violent crime rate should go up.
www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames
And I don't see why there should be a difference between playing a game for 20 minutes or longer.
Not at all. I even stated earlier that the Aggression is shown simple things like playground fighting or pushing and shoving. I also stated that I wasn't saying that a child who plays violent games is going to commit acts like columbine. That is just silly. No one but the most delusion of people is going to play Doom and then walk out and think they are fighting demons from hell.That isn't what the issue is about at all. The issue is about the relative health and aggression level of our children. Aggression can be shown in sports, school work, or in the school halls. Not all aggression is related to violent crime.
Also, the violent crime statistics are unimportant to the matter. What you would need to do is compare the Statistics of the generations before there was TV and Movies to our generations today. But even then it wouldn't be a fair comparison because so much is different between that generation and now.
That is why controlled experiments are so important. Such as the children watching adults model different types of behavior and then seeing how these children behave with their dolls. That shows the effect that aggressive behavior can have on children.
The reason that the 20 minutes matters and even the game subject matter is important is because not all things are created equal. Quake 2 is definitely less realistic then Grand Theft Auto. And the fact that the experiment doesn't use equal subject matters means that they can not say for certain what is causing the difference in behavior. In a controlled experiment you can only have one variable. Otherwise the validity of your experiment is very low. Also you need to make the experiment a double blind where neither the children nor the observers know what is actually going on so no bias shows in the results. Also you must make use of a control group in order to compare the results to know whether there is any actual difference in behavior.
Well Obviously if, in this age of violent television and violent video games, if it "teaches" kids to be more agressive then in earlier years, then agressive crime SHOULD go up, As aggression and violence are directly related.
Well Obviously if, in this age of violent television and violent video games, if it "teaches" kids to be more agressive then in earlier years, then agressive crime SHOULD go up, As aggression and violence are directly related.
Why should they be directly related? There is all types of aggression. A Race Car Driver is aggressive. A Stock Broker can be Aggressive. A Doctor can be Aggressive. Aggression in and of itself isn't directly related to crime.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Not even joking when I say this; I am seriously considering moving to the Netherlands.
It's the only country in the world that I know of that can allow freedom for all activities (including those frowned upon) and show that it doesn't change the populous, and that these things can be fine when taken with moderation and responsibility. Legalizing prostitution doesn't make the entire populace into sexual deviants, legalizing marijuana doesn't make everyone into lazy potheads, broadcasting sex and violence on media outlets doesn't melt the minds of the citizens.
I'm not saying that I'm considering going there because I can hire hookers, smoke pot, and watch blood and boobs on my TV, I'm saying that I respect the idea of leaving certain practices to those with enough personal responsibility, and I respect the lack of authoritarian ideals that I see posted everywhere in the US.
The US bans tag because they say it harms the self esteem of children, the Netherlands tells you to get a fucking band-aid and get back out there. The US taps your phone lines in the name of security from people they forced their ideals on, the Netherlands doesn't care, because they don't impose, so they don't have that problem, but wouldn't rob anyone of privacy when faced in the situation.
What my point is, is that I despise the idea of sacrificing freedoms for security, and I see the Netherlands as the only country that said "Fuck you", and did what they wanted. Not to say that there are *no restrictions*, because I'm sure there are, or that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the place, but god damn, I am sick of asshole politicians telling me what I can and cannot do because they know I couldn't possibly be someone who could be responsible enough on my own.
Question:
Cabe says the US has very high crime rates among its youth partly because of the violent media.
So why are countries like the Netherlands and Belgium muchn much more violent? Over there you can say fuck on TV, decapitate someone on tv and then piss on their corpse.
As a result people there should be much more violent than in the US where you can't say fuck on TV (for example). But that isn't the case.
How come?
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Well Obviously if, in this age of violent television and violent video games, if it "teaches" kids to be more agressive then in earlier years, then agressive crime SHOULD go up, As aggression and violence are directly related.
Why should they be directly related? There is all types of aggression. A Race Car Driver is aggressive. A Stock Broker can be Aggressive. A Doctor can be Aggressive. Aggression in and of itself isn't directly related to crime.
"In psychology and other social and behavioral sciences, aggression refers to behavior that is intended to cause harm or pain"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agression
Violence is often used to cause harm or pain.
Once again Aggression does not automatically mean Crime
Aggression Does not equal crime.
Hopefully now people see that statement.
Yes aggression means inflicting pain of some sort. It could be emotional Pain. It could be embarrassement. It could be a lot of things. IT doesn't equate to Assault, rape, murder etc. Yes those are acts of aggression but not all aggression leads to crime.
As I stated earlier it can be the simple things like how you would react in a situation. How you drive. How your deal with stress. How you deal with your boss when he says you need to stay late.
For instance. Boss says he needs you to come into work on Sunday.
Non aggressive response. You talk to him about why you do not want to come in and then you make a decision based on what the results are going to be.
Aggressive response you tell him off. Or you go out after work and you go drinking with the guys. Or you go home and take it out on your family by being a prick.
So, once again I hope we can see that Aggression doesn't equate to physical pain nor does it equate to crime.
GL made the link saying Aggression leads to crime. I said that it doesn't mean the kids are going to commit another columbine. I said it perfectly in the example of the two home owners with guns. One is an aggressive act and one is just defensive. Neither is a crime.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Apparently a lack of empathy does not originate from desinsitization.
According to this.
Of course it's probably a factor.
Frankly I think that it depends on upbringing. A lot.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
As well, I grew up on Duke Nukem and Doom, and quite honestly, as most of my friends can attest, while I'm an asshole quite often, I'm one of the least likely to resort to violence, because quite honestly, I know I can't walk around shooting people up and beating the shit out of 'em without some particularly nasty consequences.
Kids are smarter than you give them credit for. The ones that aren't and get their hands on this stuff are victims of bad parenting. As of right now, Video games are the scapegoat for people who do bad stuff and their parents or people around them don't want to take the blame. Hell, if I told you Elvis was the root of all teenage evil and created a sex fiend out of your innocent daughter you'd laugh your ass off, but back in his time, I guarentee that was the popular opinion among parents. Then it was Metal. Then it was movies. Now its video games and rap.
And as for your studies, we could go back and forth with thousands of studies that point to completely different things. But the fact remains, that most kids who do any of the stuff you're so scared of, will not be affected by it in any noticeable way, and I guarantee 99% of them will not grow up to kill anybody because of it. The ones who do are the ones who should've gotten help, the video games did not do this to them.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment;
We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
Having an interest in playboy or in other women and hardcore porn being your only interaction. Porn can be used as a marital aid. It can be used to spice up a relationship. But when it is used as a replacement it causes problems. Of course that is all for a different thread entirely.
As well, I grew up on Duke Nukem and Doom, and quite honestly, as most of my friends can attest, while I'm an asshole quite often, I'm one of the least likely to resort to violence, because quite honestly, I know I can't walk around shooting people up and beating the shit out of 'em without some particularly nasty consequences.
Using yourself as an example is not a good way to actually prove anything. Yes there can be exceptions to any rule. But the evidence from controlled experimentation favors the conclusion that exposure to violence leads to increased aggression and desenatizes(sp?) the subject to violent acts.
Kids are smarter than you give them credit for. The ones that aren't and get their hands on this stuff are victims of bad parenting. As of right now, Video games are the scapegoat for people who do bad stuff and their parents or people around them don't want to take the blame. Hell, if I told you Elvis was the root of all teenage evil and created a sex fiend out of your innocent daughter you'd laugh your ass off, but back in his time, I guarentee that was the popular opinion among parents. Then it was Metal. Then it was movies. Now its video games and rap.
I am well aware of the different targets for the censors wrath. The difference here is not the wrath of a censor or controlling freedom, but the link between aggressive behavior and media. Studies show that when children are exposed to aggressive behavior they model that behavior themselves.
Lets take an easier to follow example. Pit bulls, doberman pinchers, rotweilers can be some of the meanest dogs around, but they can also be some of the most loving dogs around. It all depends on what they are exposed to as they grow up. If you beat a dog and make it fight it will become mean. If you play with it as a loving pet it might be scared of your neighbor's cat. (as my neighbor's dog is scared of my Icelandic cat
And as for your studies, we could go back and forth with thousands of studies that point to completely different things. But the fact remains, that most kids who do any of the stuff you're so scared of, will not be affected by it in any noticeable way, and I guarantee 99% of them will not grow up to kill anybody because of it. The ones who do are the ones who should've gotten help, the video games did not do this to them.
You have no idea. That is why we do experiments and studies. There is a big difference between a double blind study with a control group and a survey showing results. One study has a lot more validity then the other. I also stated that Video games do not cause children to think they are killing doom monsters, but it does cause them to react with more aggression then they might have otherwise.
You guys are thinking way to much in extremes. You get defensive and think of Columbine or the VT murders and the media's link to Video Games. I am not making a link like that. My example of the two home owners who both own guns and both decide to defend their home is the example you should be thinking about.
No respectable Mental Health professional is claiming that Playing Video Games means you are going to become a murderer. But it could very well mean you have a shorter Fuse on your temper or that you might escalate to yelling sooner then someone who did not.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Having an interest in playboy or in other women and hardcore porn being your only interaction. Porn can be used as a marital aid. It can be used to spice up a relationship. But when it is used as a replacement it causes problems. Of course that is all for a different thread entirely.
Typing in an ugly ass yellow font, but oh well. I can't say that I know anybody that have those types of problems with porn, but as you state later on, that is personal experience, and yeah, you're right, that doesn't make it fact. My point is, that out of all the possible bad influences, I find porn to be the least. There isn't a really good reason for demonizing it so, because if you step back and look at it, its just the human body, and two people interacting. But you know, society isn't going to change on that one for a while, I guess.
As well, I grew up on Duke Nukem and Doom, and quite honestly, as most of my friends can attest, while I'm an asshole quite often, I'm one of the least likely to resort to violence, because quite honestly, I know I can't walk around shooting people up and beating the shit out of 'em without some particularly nasty consequences.
Using yourself as an example is not a good way to actually prove anything. Yes there can be exceptions to any rule. But the evidence from controlled experimentation favors the conclusion that exposure to violence leads to increased aggression and desenatizes(sp?) the subject to violent acts.
Of course its not a good example, I'm just saying in my experience, I haven't come across anyone who has had some of the negative effects from video games you state (Except for social consequences, but we don't want to get into the gamer stereotype here). Honestly, I think I turned out fine, as well as many of my buddies who I've played games with, but again, this is all personal experience, and you could not believe a word of it if you'd like.
Kids are smarter than you give them credit for. The ones that aren't and get their hands on this stuff are victims of bad parenting. As of right now, Video games are the scapegoat for people who do bad stuff and their parents or people around them don't want to take the blame. Hell, if I told you Elvis was the root of all teenage evil and created a sex fiend out of your innocent daughter you'd laugh your ass off, but back in his time, I guarentee that was the popular opinion among parents. Then it was Metal. Then it was movies. Now its video games and rap.
I am well aware of the different targets for the censors wrath. The difference here is not the wrath of a censor or controlling freedom, but the link between aggressive behavior and media. Studies show that when children are exposed to aggressive behavior they model that behavior themselves.
Lets take an easier to follow example. Pit bulls, doberman pinchers, rotweilers can be some of the meanest dogs around, but they can also be some of the most loving dogs around. It all depends on what they are exposed to as they grow up. If you beat a dog and make it fight it will become mean. If you play with it as a loving pet it might be scared of your neighbor's cat. (as my neighbor's dog is scared of my Icelandic cat
The difference is, you aren't willing to give kids the credit for being able to tell the difference between the game and reality. There is a huge difference in the fact that the dog is ACTUALLY getting beat, as opposed to the Boy (Or Girl, if we're being PC) who is sitting in front of the TV shooting at a couple of Elites in Halo. Once again, I have never run into somebody who was angered after the playing of a video game, and never run into someone who became an "Angry person" because video games did it to him. Many, if not the vast majority have no emotional stake in the game. Sure, sometimes you get pissed because you jumped at the exact wrong second and Mario ended up dead in the pit, but you don't take that out on anybody outside of the game.
Once again, defering to personal experience, I often find shooters a little stress-relieving. When I'm angry, it gives me this nice little virtual world to take my problems out on and I'm even better than when I started.
And as for your studies, we could go back and forth with thousands of studies that point to completely different things. But the fact remains, that most kids who do any of the stuff you're so scared of, will not be affected by it in any noticeable way, and I guarantee 99% of them will not grow up to kill anybody because of it. The ones who do are the ones who should've gotten help, the video games did not do this to them.
You have no idea. That is why we do experiments and studies. There is a big difference between a double blind study with a control group and a survey showing results. One study has a lot more validity then the other. I also stated that Video games do not cause children to think they are killing doom monsters, but it does cause them to react with more aggression then they might have otherwise.
You guys are thinking way to much in extremes. You get defensive and think of Columbine or the VT murders and the media's link to Video Games. I am not making a link like that. My example of the two home owners who both own guns and both decide to defend their home is the example you should be thinking about.
No respectable Mental Health professional is claiming that Playing Video Games means you are going to become a murderer. But it could very well mean you have a shorter Fuse on your temper or that you might escalate to yelling sooner then someone who did not.
I'm just gonna have to disagree here. Just out of personal experience. If you believe otherwise, thats fine, but I have enough faith in humanity (Which is probably niave of me, but oh well) to believe that those who play video games, even children, can detach themselves enough from it to not be negatively effected by it.
Hell, when it comes right down to it, there are so many other greater things that negatively effect children and are real problems, which are getting away clean. Just take a look at just about any portion of the media, and you'll quickly see that most of that showcases much more dangerous ideas than the small chance of an anger problem that may or may not exist within video games.
Comments are in the shitty yellow (Obviously). Yeah, I know most of these are my personal opinions and its not a very good arguement, but this is the way I feel, and I doubt a few more studies are going to change it.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment;
We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
Having an interest in playboy or in other women and hardcore porn being your only interaction. Porn can be used as a marital aid. It can be used to spice up a relationship. But when it is used as a replacement it causes problems. Of course that is all for a different thread entirely.
Typing in an ugly ass yellow font, but oh well. I can't say that I know anybody that have those types of problems with porn, but as you state later on, that is personal experience, and yeah, you're right, that doesn't make it fact. My point is, that out of all the possible bad influences, I find porn to be the least. There isn't a really good reason for demonizing it so, because if you step back and look at it, its just the human body, and two people interacting. But you know, society isn't going to change on that one for a while, I guess.
As well, I grew up on Duke Nukem and Doom, and quite honestly, as most of my friends can attest, while I'm an asshole quite often, I'm one of the least likely to resort to violence, because quite honestly, I know I can't walk around shooting people up and beating the shit out of 'em without some particularly nasty consequences.
Using yourself as an example is not a good way to actually prove anything. Yes there can be exceptions to any rule. But the evidence from controlled experimentation favors the conclusion that exposure to violence leads to increased aggression and desenatizes(sp?) the subject to violent acts.
Of course its not a good example, I'm just saying in my experience, I haven't come across anyone who has had some of the negative effects from video games you state (Except for social consequences, but we don't want to get into the gamer stereotype here). Honestly, I think I turned out fine, as well as many of my buddies who I've played games with, but again, this is all personal experience, and you could not believe a word of it if you'd like.
Kids are smarter than you give them credit for. The ones that aren't and get their hands on this stuff are victims of bad parenting. As of right now, Video games are the scapegoat for people who do bad stuff and their parents or people around them don't want to take the blame. Hell, if I told you Elvis was the root of all teenage evil and created a sex fiend out of your innocent daughter you'd laugh your ass off, but back in his time, I guarentee that was the popular opinion among parents. Then it was Metal. Then it was movies. Now its video games and rap.
I am well aware of the different targets for the censors wrath. The difference here is not the wrath of a censor or controlling freedom, but the link between aggressive behavior and media. Studies show that when children are exposed to aggressive behavior they model that behavior themselves.
Lets take an easier to follow example. Pit bulls, doberman pinchers, rotweilers can be some of the meanest dogs around, but they can also be some of the most loving dogs around. It all depends on what they are exposed to as they grow up. If you beat a dog and make it fight it will become mean. If you play with it as a loving pet it might be scared of your neighbor's cat. (as my neighbor's dog is scared of my Icelandic cat
The difference is, you aren't willing to give kids the credit for being able to tell the difference between the game and reality. There is a huge difference in the fact that the dog is ACTUALLY getting beat, as opposed to the Boy (Or Girl, if we're being PC) who is sitting in front of the TV shooting at a couple of Elites in Halo. Once again, I have never run into somebody who was angered after the playing of a video game, and never run into someone who became an "Angry person" because video games did it to him. Many, if not the vast majority have no emotional stake in the game. Sure, sometimes you get pissed because you jumped at the exact wrong second and Mario ended up dead in the pit, but you don't take that out on anybody outside of the game.
Once again, defering to personal experience, I often find shooters a little stress-relieving. When I'm angry, it gives me this nice little virtual world to take my problems out on and I'm even better than when I started.
And as for your studies, we could go back and forth with thousands of studies that point to completely different things. But the fact remains, that most kids who do any of the stuff you're so scared of, will not be affected by it in any noticeable way, and I guarantee 99% of them will not grow up to kill anybody because of it. The ones who do are the ones who should've gotten help, the video games did not do this to them.
You have no idea. That is why we do experiments and studies. There is a big difference between a double blind study with a control group and a survey showing results. One study has a lot more validity then the other. I also stated that Video games do not cause children to think they are killing doom monsters, but it does cause them to react with more aggression then they might have otherwise.
You guys are thinking way to much in extremes. You get defensive and think of Columbine or the VT murders and the media's link to Video Games. I am not making a link like that. My example of the two home owners who both own guns and both decide to defend their home is the example you should be thinking about.
No respectable Mental Health professional is claiming that Playing Video Games means you are going to become a murderer. But it could very well mean you have a shorter Fuse on your temper or that you might escalate to yelling sooner then someone who did not.
I'm just gonna have to disagree here. Just out of personal experience. If you believe otherwise, thats fine, but I have enough faith in humanity (Which is probably niave of me, but oh well) to believe that those who play video games, even children, can detach themselves enough from it to not be negatively effected by it.
Hell, when it comes right down to it, there are so many other greater things that negatively effect children and are real problems, which are getting away clean. Just take a look at just about any portion of the media, and you'll quickly see that most of that showcases much more dangerous ideas than the small chance of an anger problem that may or may not exist within video games.
Comments are in the shitty yellow (Obviously). Yeah, I know most of these are my personal opinions and its not a very good arguement, but this is the way I feel, and I doubt a few more studies are going to change it.
And that is perfectly fine. You are allowed to feel how ever you want.The thing that some gamers have to realize (not speaking specifically about you) is that we can't claim the first amendment rights of video games being free speech because they are an example of media and use it for our advantage, but then in the same breath say hey you can't include us with all that bad stuff in movies or on Tv. We are just a fun past time and everyone can tell reality from this fiction.
Because honestly not everyone can detach themselves. Not completely. Very Very Very Very Few people are not affected in some manner. These are generally called sociopaths and they do not feel for others one way or another. So they are not affected by external influences like the media or video games. Because they can not empathize with anyone but themselves.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)