Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase Violence in Players

October 6, 2010 -

Two unnamed gamers oppose the opinions of research experts in a BBC story examining the impact, if any, violent games have on players, but the roles are probably reversed from what you might expect.

The academic types, which included Dr. Cheryl Olson and Villanova University Professor Dr. Patrick Markey defended games, with Olson, co-author of Grand Theft Childhood, saying “Given that the typical young teenage boy plays violent games, and that the youth crime rate has gone down rather than up, it makes sense that these games are meeting needs.”

Markey referenced his previously published research, which indicated that only people who are already angry typically fall under the negative spell of violent games, or, as he told the BBC, “Those who are negatively affected have pre-existing dispositions, which make them susceptible to such violent media.”

Psychologist Dr. John Ryder had the strongest condemnation of any link between violent games and hostile behavior, stating, “Usually violence begets violence, not watching it on TV or play-acting in a video game.”

He added, “There is no reason to assume that doing that will make someone more violent. That is just ridiculous.”

One unnamed 21-yeard old “gaming addict” told the BBC that “playing violent videogames for hours every day was having a psychological effect," stating, “Players can come to the point where they see this as an alternative to real life interaction and if this is their other world, it's pretty bad.”

Another gamer speaking to the publication about violent games stated, “They're bad news. Anything that shows stabbing, shooting, kinds of killing, can't teach anything but that.”


Comments

Re: Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase ...

Am I the only one that smells a rat with the two "gamers"? 

Re: Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase ...

The very fact that youth violence has been decreasing while games have been increasing in popularity is and has been the absoute slam-dunk to end this debate.  Why have the ESA and other pro-games entities not been drumming this point home?

Re: Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase ...

Correlation =/= Causation

Re: Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase ...

 Indeed. While it is nice to point out as it makes the argument that video games cause violence seem weaker, we should not act as though its the end-all to the anti-video game argument. When it comes down to it, the correlation between the two could be nothing more than a coincidence. Hell the critics could even claim that whatever factors cause the decrease in violence are more than enough to outweigh the supposedly negative effects of games... the cause of the decrease could be any number of factors like changes to the education system, improvements made in urban areas, generational gaps between parents and their own upbringings, maybe even other forms of media like the cartoons these teens watched when they were young impressionable preschoolers; ya i don't know... but all in all, video games may be unrelated to the decrease

Re: Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase ...

Considering this data involves a much more statistically significant metric than the "violent video games make kids violent" correlations that the anti-video game lobby always trots out, I'd say it doesn't matter that correlation =/= causation.

The pro video game side wins either way.

 

Even if you could prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a video game made a SINGLE non-violent child become violent...even granting that ridiculous assertion....that would not be a statistically significant rate of incidence.  1 in 10's of millions?

Cosidering the other side cannot even present the 1, let alone a statistically significant number, makes this entire argument a joke for anybody with any scientific background.

 

"You know what I wish? I wish all the scum of the Earth had one throat and I had my hands about it."

"You know what I wish? I wish all the scum of the Earth had one throat and I had my hands about it."

Re: Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase ...

Precisely. So the pro-game crowd shouldn't stoop to that level of spouting crap like that.

Else we could say: 

Teen pregnancy is down, game sales are up. Games must be preventing teenagers from having as much sex. Go Games! 

Highschool test scores are up (laugh), game sales are up, therefore games must be making kids smarter! Go Games!

and on and on and on...

Re: Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase ...

Teen pregnancy is down, game sales are up. Games must be preventing teenagers from having as much sex. Go Games!

Actually, I'm pretty sure there's something to that one. How many chicks find being to able to beat Halo on Legendary in record time to be a huge turn-on? Eh? :)

Re: Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase ...

Could it not be used a a valid argument to disprove their proposition?

The point they're driving is: "Violent games cause teen gamers to be violent."

But add to that the facts: "The typical teen gamer plays violent games." and "Youth crime has gone down down."

Is that not enough to prove: "Games can't be the cause of increase in violence in teen gamers."?

I mean, if the point they're driving is valid, would that not mean that teens playing violent games would be more violent causing teen crime to rise or at the very least keep at the same level, yet the facts show otherwise. Given this, could it not be taken that their proposition is thus proven false?

Re: Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase ...

 No... for instance, as i mentioned below, the argument could be made that whatever factor is the true cause of the lessening of teen violence, it may outweigh the negative effects of the damage caused by violent games. to put it simply, if violent games made someone 1.5x more violent, but all those other factors made teens 2x less violent, then you would still see a gradual decrease in violence despite the negative effects of games; all in all, the violence decreases across the country, but at the same times it does not mean for sure that violent games are not having a harmful effect. 

You can say it's evidence against them(useful for when you have other evidence) and makes their side of the argument seem less likely to be true(at the very least it makes the level harm seem much less serious and less of a cause for concern), but you can't say that their position is proven false by that alone.

Re: Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase ...

I see your point.

"You know what I wish? I wish all the scum of the Earth had one throat and I had my hands about it."

"You know what I wish? I wish all the scum of the Earth had one throat and I had my hands about it."

Re: Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase ...

Gotta credit the BBC with brining in 3 reasonable experts though.

Re: Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase ...

Blugh.  I knew the British tabloids liked to make up their facts on the fly, but I thought the BBC would be above that sort of thing.  "Anonymous gamer?"  Can't you at least provide us with their tag?

---
Fangamer

---
Fangamer

Re: Psychologist: “Ridiculous” to Assume Games Increase ...

Wow, gamer #2 has certainly forgotten his thinking cap.  So, according to him, something like, say, Saving Private Ryan can't possibly have anything to teach about loyalty, honor, the horror of war, etc. because it shows stabbing, shooting, and/or kinds of killing?  The mere presence of violence, no matter how it is actually portrayed, totally negates every other aspect of a piece of media?  Yeah, good thinking there, champ.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which Feminist Frequency video are you looking forward to most?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew WilsonI cant say anything though I am stupid lucky. I have a 75/75 line01/29/2015 - 11:27pm
Matthew Wilsonthat isnt awful 1.2MBs, but yeah 100bucks a month is over priced to all hell. ps 8mbs=1MBs01/29/2015 - 11:24pm
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.speedtest.net/my-result/410086446201/29/2015 - 9:12pm
ZippyDSMleeMatthew Wilson Dunlap, TN, its the only game in town and they only started in 08 or so.01/29/2015 - 9:12pm
MechaCrashThe explanation for the misanthropy of the character in Hatred comes from "we want to be super edgy and get those controversy dollars."01/29/2015 - 8:34pm
Andrew EisenI'm interested in giving it a try. I think it has some cool ideas but I haven't been "feeling it" when watching continuous gameplay.01/29/2015 - 8:04pm
Matthew Wilsonif you dont know, the code name STEAM demo is out, and it it downloading very slowly. It might be more popular that I thought, or it could just be the eshop.01/29/2015 - 8:02pm
Goth_SkunkPlayer/Playable Character, yes. As opposed to the NPC.01/29/2015 - 7:36pm
Andrew EisenOh, Player Character! Heh, that one took me a few moments!01/29/2015 - 7:29pm
Goth_SkunkIt really bothers me that there is no explanation for the PC's misanthropy. Even the Saw movie series, despite the level of violence in them, had a premise that fascinated me. The only thing about Hatred that fascinates me is the controversy.01/29/2015 - 7:27pm
Goth_SkunkI can't think of a time a game has made me simultaneously want to both buy it and not buy it. On the one hand, I find the premise disturbing and repulsive. On the other hand, I find the controversy fascinating and want to play it just to say I did.01/29/2015 - 7:25pm
Andrew EisenTrailer for new Van Damme movie, Pound of Flesh. "They just stole the wrong man's kidney!" http://vimeo.com/11808880501/29/2015 - 7:24pm
Andrew EisenNew Hatred trailer. Destructible environments, vehicles, light buildings and people on fire! http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/7bzwzs/hatred-devastation-gameplay-trailer01/29/2015 - 7:12pm
Goth_Skunk@WonderKarp: And that's why I don't read or watch mainstream news.01/29/2015 - 5:06pm
Matthew Wilsonzip is it KB or kb? if its KB its MB, if its kb is mb. ether way where do you live that you are getting ripped off that badly?01/29/2015 - 4:41pm
ZippyDSMleeI has a whole 1MB(mb mabye, 1000KBPS) for a whole...100$ a month ;_;01/29/2015 - 4:24pm
WonderkarpFCC appears to be kicking ass today01/29/2015 - 4:11pm
WonderkarpI found this neat. Shows the different ways different websites tell the same story. Not VG Related, but its neat https://i.imgur.com/3m6xOfE.jpg01/29/2015 - 2:12pm
Matthew Wilsonnp I am still suprised that the fcc did it, but I still do not trust the chairman yet.01/29/2015 - 2:11pm
Andrew EisenYeah, what I mean is I'm fortunate enough to live in an area where I have the option of up to 50Mbps if I want to pay for it. Meant that as an anecdote; didn't mean it to come across as a "you're wrong!" Sorry 'bout that!01/29/2015 - 2:06pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician