Its a common enough claim, popular among both democrats and republicans in the US attempting to sway parents who are worried about what their children are watching. And ironically enough sometimes supported by war hawks such as Lieberman who despite supporting warfare, such as iraq, denounces video games that 'desensitize children to violence', quietly ignoring that real warfare is nothing compared to what can be created in a video game.

Well the Economist has weighed in on the issue as well, and while stating nothing radically new (I'd link/copy the article, but you need to have a subscription and I only have the physical magazine)

But there was one quite interesting graph they included... What does everyone else think?

   

Read Steven Johnson's "Everything Bad is Good for You". He makes the argument that simulated violence provides an outlet for violent behaviour/tendencies, and as a result, violent crime is on the decline. He also argues that they help to increase IQ by helping people learn problem solving.

   

IT's a hard question answer. There have been a number of studies on the subject, some lean one way, the rest the other way. The overall consensus I've been able to figure out is that there is a rise in agressiveness in people who are exposed to violent images (video game and other media types as well). But a direct correlation between violent video games and crime is hard to prove.

Most of the people who claim they were acting out a video game usually have had an underlying psychological problem. The kids from Columbine? One was clinically depressed and the other was a textbook psycopath (read about them here)

Personally, I have a strong grasp of what is reality and what isn't. Whenever I have a shitty day at (and I have many) nothing is more satisfying that going postal in GTA.

   

There was an interesting article in EGM (yup, I read it and I love it) comparing the two extremes of yes and no about two months ago.

The "yes" side of course always finds anecdotal evidence of playing video games preceding a violent act. However, they make a gross mistake when they assume that video game playing turns people violent. It's an assumed cause and effect. The antithesis to that supposed cause and effect is violent people SEEKING violent endeavours.

It's a better explanation for why the majority of people can handle deaths in movies, video games, heavy metal rock or violent television, but a certain subculture acts upon and acts out the violent tendencies.

Do they cause violent behaviour? I don't think so. Does anybody (Scape, I'm looking your way on this one) have a link to an on point study?

   

If video games caused violent behaviour I'd already have several homicides under my belt.

Personally I think they reduce stress and probably minimize violent behaviour. You'd already have to have psychological issues to play a game and then go out and kill someone. Any normal person can tell the difference between reality and a game.

   

I say that parents are partly to blame for the raising of their kids. It is so easy to blame Television or games.

   

I definitely agree Pimp. When a parent is irresponsible and doesn't explain to their child clearly what is right and wrong, how the hell are they gonna know? These days the media has a big part in kids' lives and the media can hammer some pretty untrue things into their young impressionable minds.

   

lol thats a good point,

another thing is that people playing video games do not have time to perform violent crimes and they are away from the streets. this does not seem to apply to drug crimes as much, however.

   

I've actually read the methodology of many of those reports, they tend to go to extreme and ridicolous lengths in stretching their definition of "aggressive behavior", for example one of the ones I read played a video tape of people hitting dolls which bounce back, and then put the kids in a room full of the dolls, and found that more kits played with the dolls then they found in the control group.

Or that kids who had just played videogames popped more balloons then the kids in the control group, a similiar study was done with the length of airhorn blasts the kids used when provided with airhorns and told to use them...

I swear... some psychologists...



I've read it, very good book.

   

Kids can come to their own conclusions, for example, despite authority figures telling kids that they should respect authority at every turn I managed to come to the conclusion that those in authority are just as likely to screw up as everyone else, if not more so, and thus should not be given a carte blanche for their position. It was not a message which was being hammered into me from other sources, other then by witnessing and observing the world (and the alternate arguement extensively)

   

Well when did you draw this conclusion? I'm talking about younger children being screwed up by irresponsible parents and THEN growing up to be violent.

   

What I don't understand is how parents who, as kids, ran around playing cowboys and indians with cap guns is less likely to inspire violent acts than a kid sitting in front of the television.

Sure video games and television are more graphic today than they ever were, but consider this: One kid grows up watching Wile E. Coyote getting shot in the face with a shotgun, only to stumble away with some soot on his face and stars over his head. Another kid watched a person get shot in the face and lose it, along with the rest of his head. Now which kid is likely to have perverse views of violence and death?

Movies and video games are an excape from reality. If someone is genuinely moved to commit violent acts based on what they saw on tv on on the nintendo, they've got more serious issues than can be attributed to the media.

   

Very well said Blue_Nose.

   

For a specific time I can't say, although the notion it was firmly entrenched by 5th grade, so sometime before I was 9.

   

http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?nam ... d&did=1244

lol thats funny