October 24, 2007
When Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced in September that his government would launch a study of the effects of violent games and the Internet on children, there was much eye-rolling among cynical gamers.After all, government officials and game bashing go together like fish and chips. But surprising early comments from TV shrink Dr. Tanya Byron, leader of the inquiry, indicate that there may actually be some objectivity afoot.
Although Byron didn't address the video game issue, she did remark on the Internet aspect, as reported by the Evening Standard:
Byron says society has become so "risk averse" that many young people no longer know how to protect themselves from harm such as web paedophiles.
"...We obviously have to be vigilant about people with inappropriate desires. But we can't wrap our children in bubble-wrap because then we remove the opportunity for them to live life... Some risks are unacceptable but if it gets to the point where children can't play with conkers, how can you enable children to manage risk?"
GP: Byron's viewpoint is interesting, and some U.S. judges have made similar arguments in striking down video game legislation. One judge noted in his ruling that "shielding children from exposure to violent descriptions might leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it."
Comments
Online games yes but its more Online than gaming. Are they going to try to outlaw the internet? Games in themselves are neutral in that regards. Pedo's exist in many forms.
Games that teach math skills, spelling/typing (could have used one of those myself), color perception, reflexes and the like are helpful (and used) in that regard they could well claim that playing "violent" games makes one better prepared for violence IRL.
From what I know only the 9th level was frozen since the ice was caused by the wings on the devils back flapping uncontrably causing the temerature to drop dramatically. The (9th level itself is divided into 4 different zones.
I have my fingers crossed over this woman, I hope she does right by both sides of the debate.
Having said that, she does have a good point with the 'we can't bubble wrap our kids' argument, which leads me to believe this report may be more fair than the last few of its ilk.
This is going to be a UK Fox News type of thing.
On the TV it's known as Sky News, in the Papers they're known as The Daily Mail.
As you may have guessed, they're both full of shit.
@Austin Lewis
She's one of ours, not one of yours. Therefore, we are obliged to listen to her, and it seems like she's on our side.. Yeah, i'm scared too..
Speaking of protecting our children, I already have a "baby helmet" on order. Too much?
Don't forget the bomb shelter. You never know what Putin's going to do these days..
Depends on where you intend to use it.
There have been several TV shows over the years of people overdoing it with protecting their kids in home with outrageous precautions.
But, when I was able to see better when my son was only a couple of years old, I did put a baby helmet on him when I put him in the baby seat on my bicycle. Sometimes, people think reasonable precautions are over doing it. Now, if I had installed rollbars on the bicycle or at least the babyseat...
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Is death okay?
thats the exact thing i feel. i know we all can honestly say that we want what is best for kids and we want to protect them from all the bad things that are out there but that is unrealistic. if you overkill that kind of protection you will end up with kids that dont know how to react to the things in real life that are going on around them, good or bad. you shield them from every bad thing in this world and you will eventually get rid of their ability to judge right from wrong. in this case pretending something doesnt exist isnt going to make it go away, its going to make it more appealing.
i mean, people do the same thing when it comes to illnesses. if you never allow your kids to get sick, they'll be worse off when they finally do catch something. that's the whole concept behind parents sending their children to play with kids who have the chicken pox: have them go through it now while it isn't deadly.
games can (not necessarily that they do) be a teaching tool for morality and complex issues, but it is up to the parent to contextualize everything for the child so they actually learn the lessons.
Let's face it, violence and depravity are permanent fixtures in our civlization and its art. No government board, no piece of feel-good legislation, no "social experiment" (i.e. utopianism) is going to change that. Rather than pretend these things don't exist, wouldn't you help your kid more in the long run if you talked with them about these things and explain how to handle these things in a mature manner, you won't have much to fear for your kids.
If, however, you don't have the sex talk, if you don't explain to your kids that what happens in The Terminator is not okay to do in real life, then of course your kids will be vulnerable to outside influences. You cannot shield them forever.
I realize this has been said before, but parents DO have a hand in their child's mental upbringing. It is known, for example, that family is still the primary source for political views (http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_dye_politics_5/0,7238,445463-,00.html). Despite the friction between teens and parents, then, it is reasonable enough to assume that they also play the biggest role in a child's intellectual and moral upbringing. Yet they constantly shirk this responsibility because they believe that any work they achieve is lost the instant their cub turns on the TV, powers on a video game, or listens to heavy metal. In the absense of parents, then, these kids will have no choice but to turn to these things for values. Talk about self-defeating.
That and why Lewis Hamilton fell apart in the last two races of the F1 season. !!, I wanted him to win so bad.
I am wondering what protecting children from online pedophiles (which is a good thing imo) has to do with gaming, violent or no.
Well, as with any online communication, online gaming *does* provide a window for pedophiles to get in touch with their future victims. Just something to be aware of. Be chat-smart. It's fine to give out A/S, just leave out the L... or keep it vague.
It sounds though, like she's talking about how we shield kids so much, that when they actually get into danger, they don't know it, or don't know how to deal with it, because we've pretty much conditioned them to think the whole world is a big fluffy land full of gumdrop princes, where no-one is ever bad. So when a kid gets asked personal info in online games, it doesn't occur to them that it could be a greasy perv old enough to be their father.
My niece is like that. We don't want to scare her, but make her smart about communicating. But she firmly believes the world is a happy place, and only her fellow teenagers go into chat rooms. And they only lie about themselves to hide their insecurities, not because of any devious intentions...
No, i'm more interesting in knowing why I was the only Brit in the world who knew the Springboks were going to beat England.
The book also says that technically Michael Jackson is black.
The study is into games AND the internet.
As noted by GP this press snippet has no direct bearing on games, other than it given an insight into the likely tone of the final report which will deal with games.
Comrade Stalin will not tolerate betrayal!
Consider Dwyer & Stockbridge's (1999) account of how the Australian parliament decided to commission some studies that were supposed to support its decision to regulate games. However, the research "was not used, presumably because it did not support the assumptions of necessary negative effects and the research findings contradicted the assumptions on which the legislation was based – particularly parental incompetence and level of concern about the media, including games" (p. 238).
We may yet see a reasonable study come out of all of this, which would be grand. But that's not to say it will affect how politicians' decisions are made.
There naive nature of children will be the downfall of society as we know it.
Outside of the internet inclusion though this seems like it will be reasonable. My personal take it that it's outright bad to shield kids anymore than a parent must to ensure the kids long term safety. Shielding a 4 year old from Manhunt is good, shielding a 17 year old is not so good unless they've shown they're not mature enough to handle the game. Basically if the person is mature enough to deal with the content, the more they see, the more they learn and can cope with it in the real world. Granted only on simple levels, playing a war game where a buddy gets hit by a sniper will not make the kid a sniper, but in the tragic event that someone does go on a sniper killing spree the gamer might react fast enough to save them self recognizing the attack for what it is. Very strange and extreme situation, but it illustrates my point, kids will not become violent from gaming but will learn to recognize situations from playing games, and if they're mature enough for the content then even if they didn't react in a proper way in the game they're more likely to react in a proper way in the real world.
Plus if they don't gradually acclimate to violence by playing games what happens to them when a bad Google search winds up showing them helicopter fatalities or they catch some of the evening news. That sheltered psyche has become so fragile that these are likely to shatter their mind and world perception, which is going to be way more damaging than some people playing games.
I was also raised fairly protected, in the middle of nowhere, in the country. However I got enough life from TV, video games and anime that when I turned 18 and moved out of the house to live in the big city by myself, I didn't go crazy like some people suggested I might. However, I don't think I kept a level head because of my parents upbringing, I think I did so despite their upbringing. Everything I knew about life I learned on the sly. Everything I learned about dating I had to do on my own because my parents never let me date.
Isn't it the last 3 levels? Not just the ninth? Something like the 7th being people who betrayed their friends, 8th being people who betrayed their family, and the 9th for traitors to church and state? All down there in the ice pit in the center of Dis, freezing for all time.
*above statements made with the assumption that Shaesyco is talking about Dante's Inferno and further with the assumption I remember enough of it to talk about it.
For as long as I can remember the whole "protectionist" attitude towards children was considered deeply weird by parents, teachers, social services.. everyone. When there were pedophiles possibly in the area, we got given a speech by our parents and teachers along the lines of "if someone tries to get you into a car, kick them in the nuts and run away screaming". Once the initial threat was gone, by either the person getting caught, or a few weeks passing... we went back to playing in the park unsupervised like we always had been.
When one of us fell over and smacked ourselves on the floor, we went home, got cleaned up, and sent right back outside.
When we got bullied, we ran home crying because someone said or did mean things, we got turned around and told to get back out there and deal with it ourselves.
When we got into fights, we got bandaged up and told we were stupid for fighting, while our dads (and often our mothers) laughed about it once we were out of the way.
If one of our friends got sick with a non dangerous illness.. we got told to go spend time with them.. on the principle that it was better for us to get the bug, get it into our immune system, and then not get it again later.
When we did something incredibly wrong, like hurting animals, or dangerous like setting fire to something... we got put over our parents knee and given a spanking, and the shock of it reinforced that it was wrong.
I'm not sure when, but by the time I was an adult I had found the world changed... I hate to say it, but American and psychologists had persuaded parents they needed to wrap their kids up in cotton wool, make the world a special place, "understand" them when they did bad things, prevent them from hurting anyone ever, and try and make them feel they were some kinda special snowflake.... it sickens me, I truely hope this is a start of a return to a sensible world.
Online games yes but its more Online than gaming. Are they going to try to outlaw the internet? Games in themselves are neutral in that regards. Pedo’s exist in many forms.
Kids being introduced to online *anything* need to be made aware of the risks. And seeing as online gaming is exploding, it's a logical area for educating kids about some issues they should be aware of while being online.
As others have said, she's not just focusing on gaming. So there will be some crossover.
The problem is parents aren't smart enough to figure this out.(no offense to anyone). I personally blame this on the feminist movement.
Hmm... Guess I was just confused, looks like it's time for me to dig the book back out and read it again. Oh well.
On your other topic I have to agree that the average parent doesn't know enough to keep their kids safe online, since the average parent is old enough that they never got into games when they first came out and are now hopelessly behind now. I don't however see how this relates to the feminist movement (which, as a guy I do support so long as it keeps meaning equality, I do not support the "feminists" who require treatment as if they're superior and are just intent on putting down/harassing guys).
A:It doesn't it actually Ive just been in an anti feminist mood since monday.
B: Its not because they don't play games themselves thats the problem. The fact that they are so naive to believe that chesters(child+molester=chester) don't play online games. Just like they think that they only get online at night. WRONG!!! they are gonna get on when little kids get on duh!!!
The Betrayer weres limited to the 9th level. Dante had a rather severe hatred/contempt of betrayers (feeling betrayed by his exile). I vaguely remember the poem and think there was one other plane of ice around the 6 or 7 circle but am not sure.
@ Jabrwock
Sorry to be fixated on the "games" aspect. It is how the title started and a common thread here.
I do agree that parents do not do their best by trying to shelter children. I too was raised in a family that taught if you feel down to get right back up and try again. None of the kids in neighborhood wore protective clothing yet we played games in the street and rode out bikes and such. Played "army" (as we got older we used BB-guns until someone got hurt) and did not get violent or go on shooting sprees. We all survived without incident. Not sure when it started to change.
Elbow and knee pads and a helmet to bike or skate... who are you kidding? Then again when I was growing up both of my parents did not need to work (mom did part time when they wanted something special) so there was almost always a parent there to guide the child. Now that both parents work and are rarely around the whole "protect the children" might be over-compensation.
My point was that because the parents didn't play games they have no idea what's going on in games now. So basically it agrees with your view on naivety the same way a cause will have an effect. we can hope that parents will wizen up but they'll probably have to start actively playing games to do that. Actually worked wonders for my parents understanding of the world, even with something as simple as playing tetris worlds.
@Icehawk
That's what I was thinking, was that the ice started at the 7th level, and I know it's solid once it gets started... Lesse here pretty for the early stuff, 1st is a maze for non-christians, 2nd is the winds for the lustful, 3rd I don't remember, 4th is styx and the people trapped in it, 5th is the gates of Dis with the Furies, inside is people upside-down in mass graves with their feet on fire burning the next persons face (can't remember crime, I think it was theft), 6th is the lake of burning pitch with demon archers shooting or spearing anyone who surfaces (no clue on the crime here). At this point it's fuzzy but I think the 7th was freezing traitors to friends and the steep cliff between fire and ice, 8th was traitors to family, and 9th was the traitors to church and state.
Elbow and knee pads and a helmet to bike or skate… who are you kidding?
I learned my lesson when I was a kid. Had a particularly nasty wipeout on my bike. Tore the skin up on my hands, knees, elbows, and shoulder (landed on loose gravel on top of paved concrete), and would have cracked my skull if I hadn't been wearing a helmet at the time.
There's no need to go completely looney on protection, but it's stupid to ignore it as well...
In fact they should start downplaying the study any time now....
Byron is a TV shrink in that she's a psychologist who became famous for making a few TV shows. Fortunately she didn't have to have a lobotomy in order to look into a camera. She's really not the sort to scream "FOR TEH CHILDRENZ." Her TV shows are aimed at educating parents, something which we could all benefit from.
Parents in the UK make a big deal about having to get up at 4am to work down the mines (after travelling fifteen miles in the snow) and then fight the ducks for scraps of stale bread for supper and so generally don't follow the cotton wool approach.
True video games don't really come under the heading of un-preconstructed playtime. But since so many parents seem obsessed with doing preconstructed playtime, video games aren't really any less of an outlet in it in my opinion.
And before anyone starts I am not even talking about real baned items I am talking about items that are dismissed by overly anal adults who think treat other adults as kids.
who might just give this the fair and balanced look it needs.
Sorry, you'll need to pick a different coin of phrase. Fox News has decimated "fair and balanced" to the point where it's meaningless... ;)