Researcher: Kids Were Aggressive Before Modern Media Came Along
Researcher: Kids Were Aggressive Before Modern Media Came Along
October 20, 2007
Aggression, violence, brain scans...Such is the stuff with which video game research concerns itself these days. But a University of Montreal professor holds that aggression is genetic, not a by-product of violent media.
As reported in Scientific American, Richard Tremblay, a professor of pediatrics, psychiatry and psychology said:
It's a natural behavior and it's surprising that the idea that children and adolescents learn aggression from the media is still relevant... Clearly youth were violent before television appeared.
Searching for the roots of physical aggression, Tremblay has tracked 35,000 Canadian children for more than 20 years. He presented his findings earlier this week in London at a meeting of The Royal Society, the U.K.'s academy of science.
A genetically-rooted lack of social skills causes aggression in children and adolescents, he believes:
We're looking at to what extent the chronically aggressive individuals show differences in terms of gene expressions compared to those on the normal trajectory. The individuals that are chronically aggressive have… more genes that are not expressed. [This] is an indication that the problem is at a very basic level.
In the long studies we've been doing, we've measured a number of characteristics during pregnancy and after birth that are good predictors.
Tremblay's work has identified maternal factors that might negatively impact the neurobiological development of the fetus, including smoking, drinking, poor nutrition and excessive stress. The researcher believes that children who have impaired communciation or social interaction skills are more prone to violence and aggressive behavior:
When you don't master language, it's hard to get people to understand what you want.
Comments
Joseph McCarthy was a US Senator in the 1950's who was basically responsible for demonizing Communism and Communists as evil and godless. Hit up Wikipedia or other encyclopedias for information, look for Joseph McCarthy, McCarthyism, the Hollywood Ten, and I think the Red Scare fits into that as well.
Read and be enlightened, fellow GP'er.
You're taking my statement too seriously. They didn't 'cut him off,' they just got the idea that he's a nut (finally) and stopped the conversation.
If he does, here's hoping bookstores will clear out all those unsold copies of 'Out of Harm's Way' (to the recycle bin) to make room for it. ;)
It's a better world, no matter how some people would prefer to think of it. The good old days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems.
/sarcasm.
It's about dawn time!
I've been lucky that I was able to get specialized help in this area (and others of concern). I got into video games before I got therapy and I have to say that I understand about the frustration. I got help before it could have gotten really bad for me (diagnosed with ADHD/Depression). My parents had to lobby very hard for me to get into the special ed programs and it is still just as hard today to get your children into them. I think it was especially hard for me because I didn't act out extremely and I tested as quite smart. ;)
If you ever ask a special ed teacher about how bad their budget is, well: They. Won't. Shut. Up. All us kids knew that the budget for our program was bad.
Tangent aside, what the pols should be working on is increasing funding for programs for troubled/disabled youths instead of pissing it away on grossly unconstitutional "feel good" bills. The bastards should pay out of pocket the legal fees for such bad laws.
Oh, and dugg.
The research certainly shows a genetic factor in determining the potential for responding more or less aggressively to the complex concert of factors that occur when someone is exposed to any stimuli.
While I still remain wary of studies in general, the long study period with a large study group is pretty interesting.
It is a good study on one of the many causes, genetic, of how much aggression or lack thereof that an individual may display.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
So am I and I always sayt it. I don't know where Tremlbay is based, do you know if he is from McGill University or from UQAM?
Long term, observational studies. Not some quack brain scan handed to you 5 minutes before going on live tv :) Or brain scans that show that children's brains work differently (who would have guessed), but do not show that this is detrimental. Actual, meaningful study, as opposed to emotion and opinion driven statements.
This seems like a study that any and all anti-video game legislation proponents should read and consider before they put forward another unconstitutional and unenforcable waste of taxpayers money. Although, to the politicians and agenda driven people, they could not care less about anything that would undermine their position.
It's good to see such optimism for the future.
....
Please share it with the class. Some of us could use the Optimism Boost Points.
:)
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Good to see you back in circulation. Seems you rest was good for you and your opinions
@DCOW
If JBT posts on this thread (seems unlikely) I would give long odds he will claim just that. We gamers are not Allowed to have anyone on our side is not is corrupted by games themselves
@ nightwng200
Yep you have been consistant in your arguement on that point, have to respect you for that (if nothing else). But whats with the points system? Point games are so 1990's :)
@ GP
Today methinks is a good day to be a gamer. Even Dennis seems to be in a cheerful mood for once ;)
For myself I am glad to hear a professional going public to state the same things I have said over and again. May have to make this on my calendar.
Prof. Tremblay is based at Universite de Montreal.
http://www.psy.umontreal.ca/employes/TREMBLAYRichardE.html
Violence came before video games anyways. Sports had its moments (look at Hockey as a good example) I'm sure. Some of us grew up watching war and black freedom movement films in school. It amazes me to see that people are shocked that violence still exists.
I'm glad there are researchers think outside the box.
Glad to see you up and about. Keep up the good work.
I love this study. Long term, lots of subjects and no agenda. The best kinds.
Expect JT to come in and claim this guy to be an industry shill.
/ end sarcasm
Anyway, 20 years. I'd like to see JT disprove that one (and he will probably try. Leftist conspiracy, anyone?).
"The good old days weren’t always good and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems."
Did you learn stickball as a formal education? =)
He probably will claim he's a shill, but I think it's more likely given JT's bigotry that since the entire study was conducted in Canada, and the kids and Tremblay himself are Canadian, unless it took place in the U.S. and was applied to American kids, it doesn't count. He'll probably also make some sort of disparaging remark about Canada and a geographical error while he's at it. :P
"The good old days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."
Yeah, as an sponge for history, I've seen this trend in the past before. People are convinced that it's the end of days because of some event or another and usually give up their liberties to see the problem fixed, whether it's to a king or a politician. Of course, we later came to regret those decisions (re: The French Revolution),but it's still sad. And now we are seeing it on two fronts: "Moral reform"groups trying to take freedom of speech, and leaders using the fear of terrorism to do away with the rest.
At least we can rest knowing that there are wise people to protest these short-sighted actions, however few they may be. ;)
He will insult this mans reputation and come off sounding like he is cherry picking studies for his own agenda. What thompson doesnt realise because he knows dick-squat about psychology is that with its large sample size and lengthy time period alone this study exudes more credibility than any one he's mentioned so far.
WAAAAGGHH!!!
Thank you for reminding critics of this industry of obvious emperical evidence.
Seriously, what do you think kids are going to do in a country where schools lack disipline and guns are practically laying around just about everywhere?
Poverty + Poor Parenting + Tons of Guns + No Disipline in Schools = Trouble
The true variables involved here.
Oh, the sweet sound of common sense. There's been so little of it recently. We gamers have been saying much the same thing for how many years now?
Que JT's Brain Dead Bullshit in 3....2....
Kent Brockman: "And this was before cartoons were invented? Fascinating!"
I agree. At the end of lion king you see the shadow of Scar being eaten alive by 3 hyena's. That and Disney's orphan fetish. Either the parents are dead, one is dead, or one/both will die soon.
Of course, youth violence were more serious 20 years ago. It has always existed.
The fact that it is a long term study, on a great number of persons reinforce it's credibility.
One final though: I do hope that JT won't comment to fuel another of Pandraslik's anti-christian rant, and I dislike them more than everything JT will ever say.
I don't doubt that JT will try to claim that this guy is an "industry apologist"
he does that with everyone who disagrees with him.
oh. and great headline GP.
Clearly, he is some kind of industry apologist or something, because everybody knows that the world was a great, kind place until TV and video games started getting popular.
Also, I'm glad to see you up and about, GamerDad! Keep up the great work!
everyone knows that violence didn't exist until Pong was created. it retroactively caused all wars known to man.
Never..? I swear, we've been saying that for so long and finally someone else realises it..
Jack Thompson: "Oh crap!. I got a good ideal. '
Jack:(begins to build a time machine)
Jack: "I know what to do now" (Jack travels back to the 1860's)
(Jack attempts to ban "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn" from public libarys and fails)
Seeing pointless violence makes your hair curl? That explains a few things..
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Any history buff will easily point out that as much "advancement" we've had in modern society, or as much "nostalgia" that people have painting a better picture of the past (remembering the good things mainly), in actuality, very little has changed with overall human interaction. There are still wars, there is still violence. Things really aren't all that better, or all that worse, those are not valid ways of defining the past or present -- things just are a bit different, but when comparing all of the differences, you end up with nearly a zero sum between "now" and "then" as far as better and worse goes.
The books take place before the US civil war.And the civil war ended in 1865.That would have placed Jack in the year of 1884 if he would have traveled time.
Guess this guy solved it XD
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4247084
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8554750
I could hunt for more but it would have been useless. I like the bit about "Watlz is the true enemy" but I read that one long ago in the print version. The online articles are perhaps shorter.
GP: Jack, any truth to the rumor that you've submitted racy pix of Headmaster Dumbledore to the federal court record?
Joseph McCarthy was a Senator who played on America's anti-Communist fears to become one of the most powerful men in the world in the early 1950's, claiming that he had a list of 205 people employed by the State Department who were also members of the Communist party. His baseless accusations ruined countless lives until Edward R. Murrow's nationally broadcast TV show See It Now exposed him as a fraud. After that, coupled with the Army-McCarthy hearings, he was censured by the Senate and saw his public support slip away. McCarthy would eventually die of alcoholism in 1957.
Anyways, it's good to finally see some real research going on instead of papers being shuffled around Fox saying that thinking is a bad thing.
See, that's what happens when you let the Republicans into office. They go ape-shit whenever someone mentions Communism.
Need I point to my favorite example Jack? Gen. Westmorland said that the War in Vietnam was as good as won. Three or so weeks later, the NVA and Vietcong launched the Tet Offensive.
And Jeez Mr. Thompson, you lie and say the same things on tv all the time, how would watching today's broadcast be any different?
Frankly sir, your rather boring...
Sorry.
You're seriously considering that showing a victory, Jack? The only reason they cut you off right after you mentioned your precious flawed APA study is because they noticed that your ass was getting torn, chewed up, spit out, and chewed up again, and wanted to end the madness before you started a shouting match with the person you were arguing with.
And if you didn't notice, this article was on the the BEFORE your laughingstock of an appearance even aired. A little common sense goes a long way, Jack. Learn that once your lisence is revoked.
You're just mad because...
He's right. (and you're not) XD
Guess I'll have to wait for it to be YouTube'D.
note that aggression does not equal violence.
@DavCube
They cut him off? I guess Fox News is more reliable then we thought.
"This is undoubtedly the single dumbest story ever to appear at this site, and that is really saying something."
Yeah, this site has had some pretty dumb stories. Remember that one about the crazy lawyer who trawled the internet for pictures of men having sex and then sent them to a judge?
"Of course kids have been aggressive. Games make them more so."
This study shows that kids have been aggressive over 20 years. That means before Grand Theft Auto. Before Manhunt. Before Halo. The games you blame were not around then, so how do you reconcile that fact with your silly theories?
Are you really saying that kids were never violent before the advent of video games?
"If you all had watched Fox News this morning at 11:30 am you would have known that."
To watch what? Watch you trot out the same old studies that have been shown as flawed and inconclusive? That can at best show a weak corellation, and not the causation you incorrectly reference? Being wrong on television is the same as being wrong on the net, in your lawsuits and public appearances. The forum involved does not make your incorrect statements any more true or accurate.
Still, his preposterous ideas (that we are all criminals, and that gaming is the source of all violence) are amusing sometimes. So amusing that the years will go by and children will see him sitting in his front porch and will laugh their asses for the ridiculous failure he is. And when he dies, he'll be forgotten. Yeah jackie, you should've known when too stop. Now it's too late, and you keep pushing it.
Well... i suppose that's sorta putting it a bit more harshly than need be. It only took about 20 seconds before the other guy pretty much destroyed what little credibility he had and the whole airing was basically a match of 'who has the least common sense?'
Then Jack brought up the APA study, and the person running the debate was just like 'OK THEN NEXT SUBJECT.' and that was it. Utterly horrible.
Seems he means "You can't argue with science that supports MY arguments - but if it supports yours - well thats the "dumbest thing ever."
Yep, that very one. I've written a rather angry comment about his misuse of science in one of yesterday's news because of, among other things, this.
Oh just shut up. It contradicting you does not make it any less right. Hell, by your logic you should have logged hundreds of hours on GTA San Andreas, because you're the most aggressive person I know of.
SO whichis this guy? Industry shill? Apologist? Oh, wait, no, he's a whore for taking money from them.
You should just, stop talking. You're liek the Dalai Lama of f***ing retards.
or he would be, but that'd give both retards and the dalai llama a bad name. :P
He's already giving his religion, his profession, and his entire side of this debate a bad name, so why not?
"This is undoubtedly the single dumbest story ever to appear at this site, and that is really saying something."
There have been some dumb stories on this website.Most of them probably involved you in some way.
He's right. You're not. Deal with it.
So do little league sports.
Yeah, now you're getting it! And most people have to pay for their subscription to 'The Logic Weekly Newsletter with Jack Thompson' My favortite column is 'Why you're right (and they're not)'
@kurisu7885:
touche. :P
@Erik
I thought that only affected the parents?
"Jack’s a prick, of course he’s going to say this guy is stupid if he doesn’t agree with him. However, if he had agreed with him, then he’d be a “highly intelligent” man from Jack’s POV."
Exactly!He bitches and moans and belittles anyone who doesn't buy into his bull.
Of course you think that. It does not allow any room for you to misrepresent it and use it for your pointless agenda.
The point of the study was to determine if kids were at the same level of aggression or more or less than they are now after modern media came about.
Just because a study doesn't enforce your preconceived notions does not make it stupid. What makes a study stupid is using a number of subject that can be counted on no more than two hands and studying them for half an hour. That sounds a lot like the studies you hold strong to.
This study took several tens of thousands of individuals and studied them for twenty years before they made any conclusions. That is how studies are supposed to be done.
As for your 11:30 thing. I didn't watch it as I don't have cable. But I can picture you saying exactly the same things you always say.
I did not see the segment (otherwise I wouldn't ask what I asked). Anyway, good for Fox to get the idea that Wacko Jacko is (to quote South Park's Mr. Mackay) "nuttier that Chinese Chicken Salad."
"Of course kids have been aggressive."
This is very true. Kids have always been aggressive in some form, some more than others.
Unfortunately, Jack then goes downhill by attributing games to increased aggressiveness, despite research telling him otherwise.
You had it, Jack! You were actually on the right track! But then you...you...gah! I was actually rooting for you for a second there. Ah well, maybe next time you'll get it right.
Anyhow, a person like JT should spend his time fighting the variables I listed. What do you expect is going to happen when there are more guns than people in certain states, tons of parents suck, and schools lack power to discipline children?
This is undoubtedly the single dumbest story ever to appear at this site, and that is really saying something.
Wow, more dumb than all the stories about you being an idiot? Gosh.
Of course kids have been aggressive. Games make them more so. If you all had watched Fox News this morning at 11:30 am you would have known that.
Until you come up with a study that looks at media effects on kids over 20 years instead of 5 minutes, and can actually be bothered to read the studies you misquote, you can go back to trolling the interweb looking for gay porn to submit to the courts to prove how biased they are against you...
Like that one MSNBC(I think, was some business news channel) he would not let the other people get their own words in. And lets not forget that one radio interview where he got fed up at not being able to control it & avoid answering their questions, he got to be the shows first interviewee to hang up on the interviewers.
While I think it didn't go that great or show us in a good light, that is the reason I supported G4's Adam Sessler's attempt to keep the conversation flowing. Otherwise it would have just been the same old debate with a broken, repeating record("studies have shown, studies have shown, studies have shown..." etc)...
You actaully studied this stuff for decades??!!?!?!?!?
Good luck getting your research results out...
Everybody that argues that tv and game violence cause children to turn violent always bases their 'facts' on 5 minute studies or just looks at colorfull piece of a study for a couple of minutes... Nobody arguing policies cares for actuall research becuase that proves them wrong...
If you truly want people to realise that violence isn't caused by TV or Games then come up with a easier to blame culprit...
In this sensationalist and alramist world that is the only way to do it cause most people's genes made them to dumb to comprehend long boring facts...
October 20th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
This is undoubtedly the single dumbest story ever to appear at this site, and that is really saying something. Of course kids have been aggressive. Games make them more so. If you all had watched Fox News this morning at 11:30 am you would have known that."
Ok Jack so were they more or less violent before video games?
Considering that going around and beating up gays and black people and rapind women was considered 'boys being boys' in many states(mainly because it happened so often that jailing millions of boys would have been the alternative...) before video games how can you possibly claim that games make them more violent?
Oh yes that's right because you said so... and on FOX no less... which is so 'fair and balanced' that looking at a study for 5 minutes makes you an expert...
@ JT: I think you just got pwnt. Care to respond?... oh wait, you won't, because you're a coward who hides behind lies and deception, seeking media attention without regard to the Constitution.
No, actually.
I second that.
That feeds fire to what I've been thinking for the longest time. Video games aren't at fault for shootings.
For some reason, I spend quite a bit of time looking up information about school shootings. It fascinates me. Not because I condone such behavior, but I want to know what would lead someone to do such a thing.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine shooting):
They were picked on and abused. Not many friends. I would assume that they had poor social interaction skills. Sure, they played Doom, but that isn't what made them angry in the first place. Doom was just shoved into the mix when they became angry from school. Eric and Dylan just played Doom for fun, but decided to try and make it a reality when they became angry enough to snap. But it was the social problems that lead them to kill. Not games.
Jeff Weise (Red Lake High School shooting):
This kid had a crap life. His dad committed suicide...
His mom got into a car accident and suffered from brain damage...
He was considered an outsider by peers. He even attempted suicide in 2005. He was also obsessed with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. NOWHERE are games even mentioned as a reason. It's all social interaction and events leading up to the shooting. Weise wasn't trying to emulate his favorite game, he was looking for attention. Either that, or just didn't want to live anymore and take a few people with him.
Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech Massacre):
Disturbed. Extremely bright. Lonely. Another outcast. Jack Thompson would like to believe that it's all the fault of games that led Cho to kill 30-something people, but it's not. He's just another loner who sought attention in a world that wouldn't give him any. Anger began to fill him and he let it out on everyone else.
Yeah, this is probably pointless and there are some kids who have emulated what they saw in a game, but most of it, as I have seen, is just being ousted from society by mean-spirited people.
Oh, and Jack doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
I'm convinced that he paid his psychologist to pass that mental examination.
Yeah, you know, I don't feel any more violent than I usually would. In fact I feel kind of mellow. I'm taking it you haven't seen the youth violence figures that sharply decrease after GTA3. And even if I had access to fox news, I still wouldn't watch you. Because I have better things to do at 11:30 at night... you know, sleep.
There were some pretty dumb people back then.
That's what I was thinking. He either wrote it himself or bribed for a good result, and Jack isn't that good a writer.
He's just mad that this study torpedoed a gigantic hole in his crusade... almost as effectively as anything he's done to himself. (Even the gay porn stuff.)
The study isn't saying that "some people pass on better genes", it's saying that "certain environmental conditions, particular before birth, inhibit the expression of genes necessary for both learning and using appropriate social and emotional actions and responses." So the study is basically saying that it's important to provide your children with a healthy, stimulating, and calm environment even in the womb, avoiding extensive stress, poor nutrition, drug use, and other factors that interfere with an unborn child's development.
Which should be as much common sense as the "children have always been aggressive, drawn to violence and what they aren't allowed to do" argument, but it's amazing what some parents believ