Dr. Phil Taping Video Game Violence Episode

August 14, 2007 -
Will Dr. Phil be nasty or nice to video games?

GamePolitics has learned that the popular TV shrink is taping an episode about game violence on Thursday.

Readers may recall that just one day after the Virginia Tech massacre, Dr. Phil made comments on the Larry King show which seemed to indicate a belief that violent games played a role in the killings:
LARRY KING: Why, though - OK, you want to kill someone, you’re crazed, you’re a little nuts, girlfriend drops you, why do you kill innocent people?…

DR. PHIL: ...the problem is we are programming these people as a society. You cannot tell me - common sense tells you that if these kids are playing video games, where they’re on a mass killing spree in a video game, it’s glamorized on the big screen, it’s become part of the fiber of our society. You take that and mix it with a psychopath, a sociopath or someone suffering from mental illness and add in a dose of rage, the suggestibility is too high.

And we’re going to have to start dealing with that. We’re going to have to start addressing those issues and recognizing that the mass murders of tomorrow are the children of today that are being programmed with this massive violence overdose.

As of this point, we don't know when the video game themed episode will air or who Dr. Phil's guests will be. There was some talk with the show's producer that ECA president Hal Halpin would appear. However, we've heard that Dr. Phil has instead lined up a "game violence specialist."

Uh-oh...

Comments

Re: Dr. Phil Taping Video Game Violence Episode

Here's a video I found very interesting, it really opened my eyes to some of these video game violence issues.

Video Game Violence: A Modern Epidemic?: http://youtube.com/watch?v=X5ozuPflaZw
 

 

 

@Gamepolitics

Ohhhhh, so the disappearing comments were your doing. And here I thought I did something that pissed you off and caused you to ban me. Glad to see I haven't joined that boat yet.

I am testing if this works.

Also, I think the Dr. Phil is a quack and doesn't deserve to be a psychologist or whatever he is, nor should he have a tv show.

Did this article have 40 comments 5 minutes ago or have I been hitting the ole' crack pipe too hard?

As much as I want to hope for the best, this could be one of the worst things to happen to us. Dr. Phil is watched by thousands of stay-at-homes and soccer moms that will believe anything he presents. I don't expect there to be much in the way of fair and balanced.

But then again, if this "Game violence specialist" is who we think it might be, and they invite on Hal Halpin as well...... It will be a TIVO moment for sure.

The fact that he uses the term "points" shows his ignorance.
Anyone who's actually PLAYED a video game knows that points are no longer the bragging tools they once were.

The spam-eater flagged my comment about all the comments disappearing. Discuss... in comment form.

If it wasn't for freakin' Oprah he wouldn't have his own TV show. I bet its going to be Jack Thompson and again they will only present one view of the situation to the table... It is really a shame.

test...

Lost all of the comments here while doing a quick edit..

:-(

Please. Somebody tell Dr. Phil that there are no "game violence specialists".

If Jacky shows his ugly face on the program: You gotta chug 6 beers.

If it wasn't for Oprah he wouldn't have his own TV show. I bet its going to be Jackie boy and again they will only present one view of the situation to the table... It is really a shame.

I... uh... oh god... there's one middle aged lady in my office who religiously watches this man AND believes that video games cause killing sprees and all the problems in today's society... this cannot be good.

Let the witch hunt begin.

Cue the massacre-chaser hawking an appearance in 10...9...8...

The truly ironc thing is that he uses the term "points" in his anti-violence tirade, when every person who's PLAYED a video game knows that points are no longer used as bragging tools or rewards anymore.
Just shows his boundless ignorance.

Yea I smell JT. But its Dr. Phil. He only gives a shallow view of situations to his audience.

I think his specialist is Dr. Phil. If it wasn't for Oprah this clown wouldn't have his own show.

Uh oh, i smell a Jack attack.

"Uh-oh" indeed.

Seems appropriate since Dr. Phil is as qualified a shrink as JT is as qualified a lawyer.

Then again, this could be a moment where we see Grossman crawl out from under his rock. It wouldn't surprise me at all for Dr. Phil to stoop that low.

God damnit GP stop flagging everything I say!

@mogbert

so true, I suggested it before that a statistician compare findings to try and prove out cause but comaring:

Gamer population/shootings that have some tenusous link to games (gamerviolence occuance)

AGAINST

normal violence occurance
(total population/all shootings)

Then youd have some statistical backing for whether games increase or decrease the chances of such horrible events.

Seconding what David B. said - correlation does NOT, under ANY circumstance, imply causation.
Suppose that there is a correlation between consumption of media violence and propensity for real-world violence. (That's media violence, not just game violence, and I don't claim that there is any such correlation - I think the jury's still out on that one.)
Anyhow, presume that the correlation exists. Without knowing anything else, causality can work in one of four ways:
1) Consuming media violence causes one to be violent. (A causes B.)
2) Being violent causes one to prefer violent media. (B causes A.)
3) Some external influence causes one to have a preference for both media violence and real world violence. (C causes both A and B.)
4) There is no causal link - just a random coincidence.

Without a more thorough study it's impossible to tell which is the case. Rigorous scientists are very clear on this point - correlation does not imply causation. Unfortunately, not everyone is clear on this point and unscrupulous scientists can drum up support by showing off a correlation as cause.

@ Phantomdata
"Father Time; Doesn’t common sense tell us that correlation DOES equal causation?"

No; no it really doesn't, science is in fact quite adamant on that point. Did you know there is a distinct correlation between ice-cream sales and murder rates; they both peak and ebb at the same time of year, on the same days. This is because of the heat; not because ice-cream makes people murderers. Seriously look it up.

@Erik, Father Time; The woman doesn't respond to logic. She took a formative psychology course when she was younger and believes that, since infants have trouble distinguishing realities (and I have trouble accepting experiments performed decades ago in a formative field that infer cognitive abilities from things which we can't converse with), everyone under the age of 18 has issues distinguishing realities. Since everyone under the age of 18 plays video games and violence exists then violence is clearly the result of the video games.

I just keep out of it. I'm almost certain that it's impossible to convince someone, who believes this, of anything else. Seriously, has anyone ever convinced someone non-scientific who was FIRMLY of the belief that violence is caused by video games otherwise?

Trying to evade the spam filter...

@bayushisan: "Once those points are acknowledged and aggreed upon real, common sense solutions can be worked out."

I think most people, even here, agree that media has affects on people. The issue is one of degree. The surgeon general put media violence somewhere around eleventh on his list of issues that cause youth violence. The ones before it should be addressed well before.

That is the dumbest most simple-minded idea ever!!!! I cannot believe these dumbass soccor asses are demonizing something as little as video games. GO TO HELL DR. Phil. He is the next David Koresh. Games do not tell kids to kill. Next time why don't you assholes think before you speak. The Columbine Killers did not kill cause of video games. It was cause it made them feel godly. Powerful! I know this because I did something that these dumbasses didn't... STUDY THE PSYCHOPATHS!

"322185 eaten and counting..."

Fuckin' massacre chaser.

@bayushin

One more thing

we can dismiss their arguments because it's the same old song and dance they've pulled throughout history. First it was rock and roll causing juvenille violence, next it was comic books, then it was dungeons and dragons and now it is video games.

"One thing that I think we need to do is stop saying that media has no effect on people. We all know that’s a load of horse hockey. Violent media CAN desensitize people to violence. We also know that there is correlative evidence to violent behaviour and the consumption of violent media. Once those points are acknowledged and aggreed upon real, common sense solutions can be worked out."

I don't believe anyone here has ever said media has no effect on people. Its always been people asking for the same rules that apply to movies/books to be applied to other media like video games.

Not to mention that being desensitized to violence really doesn't say much. What exactly are you implying when you say that? That being desensitized to violence makes you more likely to do violence or less or neither? As for correlative evidence being more aggressive does not make you more violent. You confuse the two. Most studies I've read have noted a increase in aggression not violence two entirely different things.

I'm going to dismiss your argument based on the fact you cited nothing and are just spouting your opinions. So, yes we've dismissed their arguments because they are flawed and contain either no factual information or they twist what the studies say to fit their agenda.

O, and when you watch Dr. phil make sure he cites his information and his expert is an actual expert. Not a media dubbed expert. Common sense isn't always as common as people would like to believe.

@Father Time

How do you keep getting published in what feels like a Chinese Newspaper. Seriously, this entire website is giving me the FYAD response.

@Erik, Father Time; The woman doesn't respond to logic. She took a formative psychology course when she was younger and believes that, since infants have trouble distinguishing realities (and I have trouble accepting experiments performed decades ago in a formative field that infer cognitive abilities from things which we can't converse with), everyone under the age of 18 has issues distinguishing realities. Since everyone under the age of 18 plays video games and violence exists then violence is clearly the result of the video games.

I just keep out of it. I'm almost certain that it's impossible to convince someone, who believes this, of anything else. Seriously, has anyone ever convinced someone non-scientific who was FIRMLY of the belief that violence is caused by video games otherwise?

I'm a physician. A physician who games. Games competitively, like in leagues. With more time we should have gotten me prepped and on with Dr. Phil.

Spam filter's berserk.

@GamePolitics

A few of my 'more tasteless' comments in regards to the spam filter didn't get posted. /cry

People, chill... the spam filter decided to go nuts and I'm working to fix it,clearing your posts as I go...

Father Time; Doesn't common sense tell us that correlation DOES equal causation? Isn't it something more complex that lets us look beyond that and see that our world is not just what is in front of us? Isn't that why so many people are easily convinced by pretty graphs that correlate pirates and global warming?

Okay, my best spam filter crack got through, I'm happy now.

Um, on the subject at hand... I dunno, he's not really a doctor? So what does he know? And why does the great unwashed listen to him?

exactly Zig, I love it even better when he gives dieting advice...


One point that got erased here was that gamerdad said he got a call from "Dr." Phil's producers but they quickly balked when they found out he would not take an anti-game stance.

Funny, I didn't know Phil was on FOX... :P

"Violent media CAN desensitize people to violence."

Whoa, whoa, whoa, there sparky. No.

Violent media, or imagery, can desensitize people to more violent media or imagery. There have been no cross correlations between violent media and real life violence.

A person can watch 300 over and over and over, which can make them desensitized to say, watching Saving Private Ryan (and give them a warped sense of history), but then still get light-headed at the sight of real blood (say, a nosebleed).

Our brains distinguish between fantasy and reality from a young age (at least with the slightest bit of influence of a parental figure[s]). People who can't are the vast minority.

dr Dave shuts me up again. To quote South Park, "This is fucking weak."

@bayushin

"One thing that I think we need to do is stop saying that media has no effect on people. We all know that’s a load of horse hockey."

Oh really all of us and a some professionals say otherwise

"Violent media CAN desensitize people to violence."

Assuming that you don't realize that the violence is fictional then sure it can. Also being in the military desensitizes peopole to violence, there's no question about that, but do we see a lot of veterans going on killing sprees?

"We also know that there is correlative evidence to violent behaviour and the consumption of violent media."

Common sense 101 tells us that that correlation does not equal causation so that correlative evidence is essentially horse spit.

@bayushisan

There is no civil discourse, cause dr Dave has a black sharpie in one hand and his dick in the other and he's saying "Look'it me! I'm putting an end to civil discourse. Flag Flag Flag." The last thing we need is a filter with massive delusions of grandeur.

What about the mass murderers of your generation Dr. Phil? What did they play? Or how about before your generation? What did Hitler play? Shut the hell up you phony.

I may actually watch this. I'd like to know what someone is going to say before leaping to judgement.

One thing that I think we need to do is stop saying that media has no effect on people. We all know that's a load of horse hockey. Violent media CAN desensitize people to violence. We also know that there is correlative evidence to violent behaviour and the consumption of violent media. Once those points are acknowledged and aggreed upon real, common sense solutions can be worked out.

Dismissing any argument other than our own out of hand does nothing but hinder civil discourse.

According to www.unt.edu he has a PH. D. in psychology from there.
I want to TiVo this when I get the chance. Something I would like to point out in the discussion is that the number of people who grew up playing violent videogames is huge. I mean REALLY huge. I don't think I would be selling it short to guess in the tens of millions (again, just a guess).
Out of all of those people, how many have gone on a murderous rampage?
What would you make that percentage out to be? %0.0001 or something?
I think that the best defense of the whole "violent videogames" debate WOULDN'T be a psychiatrist, it would be a statistician. The numbers disprove what the rating mongers are trying to prove.
In fact, youth violence is on the decline. Why? Because videogames teach a number of things that previous generation couldn't learn in the same way:
1. Teamwork
2. Problem Solving
3. Consequences
4. Persistance
5. Patience
6. How to constructively channel your emotions

Earlier generation COULD learn these, but not as easily as a lot of games can hammer it into you.

At least he wasn't singling out videogames.

Well, at least no one watches him aside from housewives and seniors, and we already know they're against us...

ah this reminds me of the old gamepolitics where every post was pre-screened to avoid the troll(s), although it wasn't because of a spam filter gone beserk.

The uh... spam f~ilter's hard-on for smiting has utterly destroyed this site. Fight back, ECA! Fight this censorship!
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician