If you go into a study with preconceived notions, it's NOT science.

So gamers are getting screwed by both political parties, what's new? I think given the rate we're going gamers might as well form their own party, or maybe secede from the Union.

Anyway, regarding the "research" topic, has anyone here actually read about what sort of things that go into the lab experiments in which they determine if video games are linked to violent behavior? The research is pretty flimsy, from what I've read in the past the research consists of taking a subject, having them sit down and play like fifteen minutes of a violent game, and then questioning them afterwards to see if they exhibit any potentially violent thoughts. The problem is that the scientists who have set up these experiments have failed to create a situation in which real aggression/violence can be produced in their lab settings. In which the direct result is a half-assed conclusion on whether or not violent video games are linked to violent behavior.

I will say in its favour that at least the wording of the reasons is a little less sensationalised than many others.

Unfortunately, from that point onwards, saying 'We want research that gives [i]this[/i] result' is somewhat abusing the scientific faculty in order to forward a political agenda.

Damn you wordpress and your HTML compatability....

I wish I had access to millions of dollars of tax-payers money. I would us it on unbiased research and accept the results of that research. Unbiased being the key word here.

Or I would spend the money on stuff that really matters (education, health care) as opposed to researching topics that people with common sense already know.

When the outcome of the study is already predetermined, then it's not a study, it's a witch-hunt.

Especially when a just-posted article here debunks anything that this fool can come up with.

SO many stupid statements here, time for translation:

"The Tennessee State Senate will consider a measure which seeks a legislative study into the ”adverse societal impact” of violent electronic media."

Surely they mean the "adverse societal impact THAT IS CLAIMED BY SOME BUT NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE"?

"WHEREAS, decades of social science research reveal the strong influence of televised violence on the aggressive behavior of children and youth; and…"

Wrong. Some correlational studies have claimed this, butat the same time, maybe they just proved that people with violent tendencies like violent games.

"WHEREAS, there appears to be evidence that exposure to violent media increases feelings of hostility, thoughts about aggression, and suspicions about the motives of others, and…"

I suppose it is right of him to qualify this statement with "There APPEARS to be". It shows that there is no concrete evidence that he has to mention.

"WHEREAS, television and media violence negatively affect the maturation of our children, the social development of our young adults, and the equilibrium of our citizens who are mentally impaired, and this important issue should be carefully studied by this Body…"

Lumping citizens who are mentally impaired in with regular normal people is one reason why the anti game nuts get the whole thing wrong and seek to demonise our hobby. Out of the millions upon millions of people who play video games, the only ones who have committed violence have been mentally impaired or unstable. Also, similar (and worse) violence has been perpetrated in the past by people who don't play games. You cannot make laws restricting the rights of people just because of the actions of people who are mentally unstable and impaired. Do guns get banned because the Columbine and Vtech killers used them? Did the Beatle's music get banned because of Charles Manson? Did Catcher in the Rye get banned because of the actions of John Hinckley Jr and Mark Chapman?


"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that as part of its study, the committee should identify ways and means to impress upon the entertainment industry that the depiction of the consequences of violent behavior in the electronic media should be associated with negative social consequences."

Doesn't GTA already do this? If you act in a criminal manner in the game, the police come and arrest/kill you. The worse you act, the more extreme their efforts to stop you. If you are killed/arrested, you lose money and equipment. There's negative consequences of violent behaviour. For goodness sake, there are cities in WoW where if you start fighting you are kicked out or attacked by guards. There are probably innumerable video games where violent behaviour has a negative consequence for the player.

The frightening thing is, that if this study even comes up with a correlational finding (which is very easy to do) they will go ahead with it as it is too good of a "We care about the childrens" opportunity to pass up.

Oy, I wish these people would hurry up, grow old and pass away already.

I knew something like this was comeing. Not too long ago I was in Movie Gallery (a movie/video game rental place) and there were signs up stating (and i'm paraphraseing from memory here) that "due to the tightening of laws regarding movie and video game ratings in tennessee a photo id will be required to rent or purchase all games rated R and above and any game rated M or above."

At the time there were no such laws that I knew of in tennessee, now it looks like there will be.

I knew what this article was going to say as soon as I read:
"study into the ”adverse societal impact” of violent electronic media."

He doesn't want to study the effect, he wants the study to find the adverse effects. If, on the off chance that the researchers have any moral fiber at all, the study finds there to be no adverse effects, the researchers will all be scrapped and the study will be re-ran.

Is there any way for us to send him our feelings on this subject? Does his office have an e-mail address to which me can mail WELL THOUGHT OUT, POLITE, and SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE coorespondence?

I disagree with the wording, but at least they're trying to put some science behind it first.

Well, this guy is Chair of the Select Committee on Children and Youth.
Scary, yes. http://www.royherron.com/childrenandyouth.htm

I couldn't find a way to contact him directly, but I guess we can email his administrative or legislative assistants (on his web site) about the foolhardiness of such an empty study.

Why is it that the government always has the money to waste on projects like that? If I was a taxpayer I'd be seriously worried... oh wait.

Video games don't kill people.
Politicans who waste money kill people.

It looks to me like another prick who wants to get his state sued for legal costs. Good job.

The idea that violence makes kids into psycho's always continues to be funny. These are people who when they were children played cops and robbers, or lone ranger, had shows where native americans were called dirty savages but apprently that didn't affect them. People in the seventies had huge amount of those kung fu movies but some how we don't have generation of jackie chans running things. Kids seeing violence isn't inherently bad. Especially if the violence is given context.

I'm not a big fan of Halo, but the violence there is always in context. In war people do things that we find reprehencible in normal life, but they are dealing with extrodinary circumstances. That is the game they are trying to make sure they keep out of kids hands. But Pokemon they have no problem. A game where the idea of 10 year olds breeding and enslaving monsters to force them to brutally fight for their own entertainment and monetary gain is fine.

@TheGreg: that isn't so bad of an idea, it's unconstitutional, but not that bad. Don't get me wrong, I say if a law goes against the Constitution it should be repealed. By the way can give the source of the lotto money going to be used for building public schools, it's the first I've heard about it. Yeah are sales tax sucks, but at least we don't have a sate income tax(most regressive state in the union, might not be something we should brag about).

@chuma: Tennessee has never, in it's entire history, been hit by a hurricane. Our wind disaster are tornadoes. But your point stands.

@insanejedi: You are a complete idiot. Getting this nation's economy back on track is something that can be only accomplish at a national level, not at a state level.


Being from TN, I am obligated to say something. With that in mind, I'll write him on the weekend(along with some other people). My advice to anyone else intending to write him is to remember that politicians tend to ignore angry emails and letters, so be courteous, calm, and to remind him of the other state's failures(with the cost of each failure bolded or underlined). Also it would be proper to remind him, of ethical issues such as going setting up this study as if he knows the outcome already

@Merc25

Really? Why would be only something that can be only accomplished at a national level? It’s that kind of thinking that gets nothing done. Just because you aren’t the president of the United States doesn’t mean you can’t do anything about the economy. That money could have been used for social programs in the state to help the nation get its economy back on track. Yeah it’s a pretty minor difference made in the current situation of the country, but haven’t you ever heard the saying “every little bit counts?”

Why don’t you go out and also say that only big companies like EA, Activision, and the ESRB are the only people that can tackle these people trying to demonize video games because it’s too big for you to do something about it if you’re going to say that. ECA anyone? Just because Hillary Clinton is running for president and she’s the front runner doesn’t mean it’s too big for you to do anything about it. Same goes with recession, just because its nation wide doesn’t mean you can do something about it locally, especially if you're a senetor for god's sakes.

yay more junk science!!!

OK, scratch one part of that rant there.

I sorta realised that i was chucking in learning/developmental disorders and other mental impairments into the same group, and those ARE pretty different when you think about it. I apologise.

"When the outcome of the study is already predetermined, then it’s not a study, it’s a witch-hunt."

I think that sums it up right there.

I wish I could use taxpayer money to "study" television and video games. It's what I generally do every evening anyhow...

...this politician thing sounds like a great gig. Lie a lot, smile, shake hands with people, get perks from lobbyists, vote yourself a pay raise every year, and spend tax money on iPods and fishtanks using your food budget. Brilliant!