Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Don't Study the Video Game, Study the Gamer

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the obvious-but-needs-to-be-said dept.

Games 163

rrossman2 writes with this quote from a USA Today article about research recently presented to the American Psychological Association: "Video games — especially violent ones — are constantly under scrutiny from parents concerned about negative effects. Now, research suggests that those worries should focus more on the player's personality rather than the content of the games. 'If you're worried about a video game turning your son or daughter into a killer, don't worry about that,' says psychologist Patrick Markey of Villanova (Pa.) University. 'But is your kid moody, impulsive, or are they unfriendly? It's probably not the best idea to have that child play violent video games.' ... Markey found slight increases in hostility for those with certain personality traits: extremely high on neuroticism and extremely low on agreeableness and conscientiousness. ... 'We found — irrespective of violent content — the two highly competitive games produced more aggressive behavior than the two less competitive games,' [Markey said.]"

cancel ×

163 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Blame Canada? (3, Insightful)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418124)

Children's violence is actually the fault of the child and his parents. News at 11.

Re:Blame Canada? (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418290)

"But my child is just pleasant! It must have been the video game!"

Study doesn't actually deny video game violence .. (0)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419798)

First, yes, the major influence on kids are the parents. In just about everything. Yes, it's the actual "parent", which may or may not match the biological parent(s). If you spend time with kids when they're very little, they will imitate you throughout their entire life. If you're a violent slob, guess what will happen. Parents, or their de-facto replacements, have much, much more influence than any tv program or video game. This does not mean, of course, that there is no such influence.

So do you realize the reason this research was "presented" ? I guess not.

It's because it's a tested, re-tested, re-verified and oh yes double-blind checked observation that video games increase violent behavior, in the short term, in the long term, in little kids, in big kids, in young adults, in middle aged people, older people and pensioners. In men and in women. Leftists, rightists, there's even studies testing mental patients. Other than that the effect is stronger and lasts longer the younger you are, there's no difference. Some people react stronger to this than others (in fact it's really, really, really bad in some people), but not a single group has ever shown itself to be immune. There's been an insane amount of resources wasted on this specific question, tons of outright falsifications have gotten caught, people have gotten fired over this left and right ...

Show people violence, you're making them violent. Make people participate, even in imagined violence, and you're doing the same, but much faster. Show people relaxing images, they relax. Make them participate even in imagined relaxation, and it works better. No big surprises there.

So that's the reason this research had to be presented. Note that the actual study indicated that people are very much affected, specifically made violent, by these video games. What the study mostly claimed is that some types of imagined violence had more of an effect than others (big surprise : convincing violence, preferably with some sort of consequence on a real, human, victim, even if it's just a number on his/her screen, evokes more violence than what amounts to showing a picture of some blood).

So can we now please please grow up and assume that, yes, 40 years of testing the same thing (20 years for video games), with every honest psychologist coming again and again to the same conclusion did not result from a desire to steal your tv/video games ? Argue for or against video games (or tv) knowing full well that they cause violent behavior. The whole point of science is that you can be VERY certain that it won't conform to your political persuasion, whatever that may be.

This is THE way to politicize science.

Re:Study doesn't actually deny video game violence (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420308)

Cool story, bro.

Re:Study doesn't actually deny video game violence (5, Insightful)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420398)

It's because it's a tested, re-tested, re-verified and oh yes double-blind checked observation that video games increase violent behavior, in the short term, in the long term, in little kids, in big kids, in young adults, in middle aged people, older people and pensioners.

Except not a single one of these studies have proven that. In fact, they are closer to proving that competition irrespective of violent content, is the main motivator for aggressive, not violent behavior. Holy crap, people who play competitive games (sports, video games, board games, whatever) are sometimes aggressive about their competitiveness. Hmm...perhaps competitive people play competitive games. Considering that the only thing that has been shown is a correlation (to aggressiveness, not violent behavior) claiming that they cause violent behavior is a flat out lie.

So can we now please please grow up and assume that, yes, 40 years of testing the same thing (20 years for video games), with every honest psychologist coming again and again to the same conclusion did not result from a desire to steal your tv/video games ?

If you read what the studies actually say, the honest psychologists never claimed that violent media caused violent behavior, only that there is a correlation. The honest ones also showed that video games are not alone, all violent media has roughly the same effect. Games (video, card, board, sports, etc.) are only different in the existence of competitiveness. When it comes to the violent imagery, they are no different that tv, movies, books, comics, etc. Maybe the reason why we've been testing the same thing for 40 years is because everyone THINKS that they must cause it (because they don't want to take responsibility for raising their own children) and they keep re-testing it because they haven't gotten the answer they want yet. Nah, that couldn't be it.....

Note that the actual study indicated that people are very much affected, specifically made violent, by these video games. What the study mostly claimed is that some types of imagined violence had more of an effect than others (big surprise : convincing violence, preferably with some sort of consequence on a real, human, victim, even if it's just a number on his/her screen, evokes more violence than what amounts to showing a picture of some blood).

Except the study said no such thing. The study actually explicitly stated that the violent content in the games doesn't do anything unless you have specific personality traits that could be affected. Newsflash! If your kid has trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality, don't let them play a violent game. If your kid is already aggressive, violent and moody, don't let them play a violent game. It has nothing to do with the video game causing anything, it just reinforces a pre-existing issue with the person. Violent games will not cause a perfectly normal person to become a violent person. It just doesn't happen and it's not possible. The study actually stated: "We found — irrespective of violent content — the two highly competitive games produced more aggressive behavior than the two less competitive games." So the factor is competitiveness, not violence. And the result is aggressiveness, not violence. Holy crap, people who play competitive games will become aggressive because they are competitive! I never guessed that! Maybe they want to win or something?

This is THE way to politicize science.

Politics refuses to accept the answer that media (whether it's movies, video games, punk rock, comic books, etc.) is just not as influencing of behavior as they like to believe. People need to be able to blame something other than themselves for the perceived "immorality" of young people today. Every time some new media comes around, it is vilified and eventually proven to not be the cause of all of life's woes like people claim. Your post is a prime example of politicizing science. You have no evidence whatsoever yet claim to interpret what many studies say. Read the Supreme Court decisions on Brown v EMA. Even the supreme court came to the conclusion that the studies that people claim show that violent video games cause violent behavior, are just bunk, stupid experiments, that have no basis in common sense.

Re:Study doesn't actually deny video game violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37420924)

Troll trolling for Trolls.

Re:Blame Canada? (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418292)

Studies shown to be paid attention to by people who want to reinforce their opinions. So this will largely unnoticed by the "think of the children" crowd.

Oh yeah, news at 11:30

Re:Blame Canada? (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418336)

"Children's violence is actually the fault of the child and his parents that use games and TV as a babysitter. News at 11." FTFY.

My boys have been pretty much allowed to play any games that they wanted to play from a young age and I never worried about it because I actually sat and taught them how it all works. No mixing up reality and fantasy when you see how you can alter scripts to alter character movements, or tweak a DOOM Wad (dating myself there) to put your name on the walls, or fire up Unreal ED and show them how the different pieces come together to make levels. Did make for some interesting "cursing" from the oldest though. I'd hear things like "Look at the tearing! Who designed this mess? And this AI is a bad joke, I'm clearly in the line of sight! DUCK OR FIRE YOU STUPID SCRIPT!"

But sadly I have picked them up from friends houses when they were younger and saw houses without a single book in them (my mom read "Sci/Fi writers of the 70s" to them like she did to me when I was little, aaww) where they frankly didn't care WHAT the kid did as long as it didn't involve them. Hell their kids could be watching snuff porn for all they knew, as long as the kid wasn't bugging them it was all good as far as they were concerned.

Now while their kids are in dead end crap jobs the oldest is in his second year of pre-med and on the dean's list , and the youngest is trying to decide whether he would prefer to go for something that would help with his love of computer art or go with his love of cooking and be a chef.

Both of them are kind and decent human beings and both only play violent games if they have more than just violence to offer like a compelling story or well made levels. That is what happens when you treat kids like they actually have a mind and give them knowledge and help them develop the ability to decide on their own, you find they actually develop taste and critical thinking skills and judge based on merits, not just how many bodies they can throw in.

Re:Blame Canada? (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418386)

"Children's violence is actually the fault of the child and his parents that use games and TV as a babysitter. News at 11." FTFY.

This was not technically a fix, it was an expansion. And I couldn't agree more.

Re:Blame Canada? (1)

Nox3173 (1495587) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419638)

Ah the old Nature vs. Nurture debate. Not all kids can be taught to be kind and not all kids that can be taught to be kind are.

Re:Blame Canada? (1)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420434)

Regardless which side of the Nature vs Nurture debate you fall on, the claim that video games can undo good parenting is just ridiculous.

Re:Blame Canada? (0, Flamebait)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418754)

blablablabla MY CHILDREN WOULD NEVER blabla I DID BETTER blablabla THEY GOT THE BAD FROM OTHERS blablabla SELFEGOPET blablabla I'M BETTER

Stop feeling better as anyone else.

OOoooooo redddd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418126)

A red story ! How cute. TACO!! (as in Khan!!) I want my slashdot back.

Re:OOoooooo redddd (0)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418314)

Red stories are an old hat.

So, basically... (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418136)

So, basically, video games can still turn anti-social ultra-competitive assholes into anti-social ultra-competitive assholes? Blows my mind.

violent LEGO games (1)

Dark Lord of Ohio (2459854) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418142)

My kids love to play Lego games (StarWars, Indiana Jones, Pirates...) maybe there is no killing per se, but to finish levels you have to fight, shot or use The Force. No violent games? Let me see... nope... don't know any. Even Cars for 3 years old is violent, you drive your favorite Cars character and smash other cars... I think that Mass Effect could fit that non-violent games a little. You run, talk, shot once, yawn... reload, yawn again, shot, run. There are no games which are not violent. Even Teletubbies are kinda weird.

Re:violent LEGO games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418180)

Card games? Monopoly? Actual racing games? Flightgear isn't violent.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

Dark Lord of Ohio (2459854) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418232)

Card games? Monopoly? Actual racing games? Flightgear isn't violent.

Solitaire is frustrating, Texas Hold'em will make your kid go gambling before 21, racing games.... ok. Few. Flightgear... boring for 99% of people within age range from 3 to 99. Monopoly is OK, but we prefer play it on real, not video game.

Re:violent LEGO games (2)

rcuhljr (1132713) | more than 3 years ago | (#37421526)

Card games? Monopoly?

Someone had a different experience of playing monopoly and cards than I did with my siblings.

Re:violent LEGO games (3, Insightful)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418190)

There are no games which are not violent.

There's plenty of non-violent games. Unfortunately, kind tend to think shooting is more cool than leading some ball around, building a city or solving various logical puzzles. Also, non-violent games are usually involve more thinking, which is frowned upon in modern society, even more so among children.

Off the top of my head: Portal, SimCity, various Tycoon games, Neverball, Bejeweled, Tetris

Re:violent LEGO games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418210)

If I recall correctly, don't you beat the end boss in portal by launching boxes into it?

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418368)

Yes, you and every other sibling post do recall correctly. I forget about that one. But, in my futile defense:
  - In Portal 2, you save the very same boss you beat in Portal 1
  - She's firing her own missiles, you're just redirecting them
  - The turrets "don't blame you" and are not even alive.
  - In any case, you can just let your kid play the test levels, which don't include any violence.

Re:violent LEGO games (3, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418254)

Portal? That game where the psychopathic robot end boss tries to kill you by pumping a nerve toxin into the facility, having stated that the first bit blown off it was a module installed to stop it from pumping a lethal nerve gas into the facility?

Where you defeat the boss by using portal mechanics to direct its own explosive munitions back at itself?

Where you are frequently set upon by static turret pods with automatic weapons?

That game where you have to drop the only item your character is supposed to have an emotional attachment to into an incinerator?

Where you are almost burned alive by aforementioned psychopathic AI?

But wait, yeah... You don't get a gun, so it's totally not violent.

Re:violent LEGO games (2)

qbast (1265706) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418578)

What? You mean that you don't want GlaDOS as role model for your kid?

Re:violent LEGO games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418694)

No. HAL 9000 sure, but not that lunatic GlaDOS.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

Nrrqshrr (1879148) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418738)

Somehow, Portal ranks strangely in the "violent games" category.
Sure, there are turrets shooting at you and fires burning you and glowing balls disintegrating you and all that kind of stuff... But the turret screams "Sorry" or "No harsh feelings" before shooting.
Sure, Portal is kinda bloody, but it's bloody in cute way.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

darronb (217897) | more than 3 years ago | (#37421084)

Actually, my favorite is how the turrets say "I forgive you" before shutting down when you knock them over.

Whoever did the writing on that did an AWESOME job.

My problem was trying to show my 4 year old portal mechanics and accidentally running into a turret. "No, I spilled some red paint." I don't think he bought it. It needs a "no blood" game option.

Re:violent LEGO games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418744)

You also didn't mention the mad scribblings of the past experiments scrawled in their own blood - it's not as "in your face" as being shot at by a turret, but for anyone with even the smallest amount of imagination it's pretty gruesome to imagine the extremes those people were pushed to where opening a vein just to warn other people was a valid decision.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

Dark Lord of Ohio (2459854) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418262)

There's plenty of non-violent games. Unfortunately, kind tend to think shooting is more cool than leading some ball around, building a city or solving various logical puzzles. Also, non-violent games are usually involve more thinking, which is frowned upon in modern society, even more so among children.

Off the top of my head: Portal, SimCity, various Tycoon games, Neverball, Bejeweled, Tetris

I forgot about Kinect games, some of them. Kinect Adventures. Really good. And Lego Rock Band :) On the other hand I remember when I was at the of 10 I was playing Bruce Lee, Ninja, Commando, River Raid, Raid Over Moscow killing thousands or North vs. South - that was violent game! So it's all about shooting. tetris is good, only to play it when you have ten minutes only.

Re:violent LEGO games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418282)

I take it you have never finished Portal?

You win by tearing up a sentient AI using missiles, and then throwing all the pieces containing her personality into a fire.
There are also automated kill-bots with machine guns for arms and neurotoxins involved.

Re:violent LEGO games (3, Insightful)

Trigger31415 (1912176) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418360)

In a way, SimCity is violent. Or at least brain-washing, which is the precise default we hope violent games don't have.
I'm not talking about the disasters (earthquakes, etc.) the player can unleash. For a SimCity game, one thing matters over everything : your bank account. You want to build this stuff? You need money. You want to change the landscape? You need money.
Having a positive balance may requier for the player to diminish stuff like hospital subventions, etc.: the kind of stuff that can cause more deaths in reality is here rewarded.
SimCity is extremely pro-capitalist (may seems unimportant in US, but many people in other countries don't have the same view about economy).
There is a huge gap in what you'ld expect of a good mayor, and what SimCity teaches.

Re:violent LEGO games (2)

Kirijini (214824) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418716)

"I disagree with how this video game simulates reality" is not the same thing as "this video game is violent"

Likewise, that your choices in a video game may lead to some virtual deaths is not the same thing as violent.

Re:violent LEGO games (3, Insightful)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418786)

In a way, SimCity is violent. Or at least brain-washing, which is the precise default we hope violent games don't have.

I'm not talking about the disasters (earthquakes, etc.) the player can unleash. For a SimCity game, one thing matters over everything : your bank account. You want to build this stuff? You need money. You want to change the landscape? You need money.

Having a positive balance may requier for the player to diminish stuff like hospital subventions, etc.: the kind of stuff that can cause more deaths in reality is here rewarded.

SimCity is extremely pro-capitalist (may seems unimportant in US, but many people in other countries don't have the same view about economy).

There is a huge gap in what you'ld expect of a good mayor, and what SimCity teaches.

SimCity has recently been accused of being to environmentally based as well.

I actually think it is just trying to be realistic. We live in a world where money matters more than everything, so Sim City would be utter rubbish if it did not mirror this to a certain extent.

Also, you sat people in many other countries don't have the same view of economy, did you have any in particular in mind? I am from the UK by very left leaning parents who considered themselves socialists. I was encouraged to play SimCity as a kid as a way to learn about economics and the results of your actions.

I would say that SimCity can be used to encourage left leaning thoughts in children. In the example above you give about hospitals as far as I remember if you skimped on things like healthcare and education people started leaving your city in droves to go and live somewhere nicer. If you just followed purely capitalist rationale for your decisions you would build lots of oil or coal fired power plants, but the resulting pollution also made people leave your city. People leaving meant you got reduced tax revenue, so that made it harder to balance the books in future. While the game might revolve around economics, economics is not a subject studied solely by people who are pro-capitalist.

Many lefties also study economics, they just approach it from a different point of view. Interestingly here in the UK both of our main parties (conservative and labour) are riddled with people who all studied the same thing at the same university: Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Oxford. In my case this was also what my mother studied, then later taught at university.

Economics is not just the domain of capitalists, we could all do with learning about it. Ultimately, even without the existence of money economics would still be about how you allot resources.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418816)

SimCity is extremely pro-capitalist (may seems unimportant in US, but many people in other countries don't have the same view about economy).

What SimCity are we talking about here? That colors the discussion somewhat. Regardless of the edition, however, if you want to "advance" the game then sure you need to make money. On the other hand, if you just want to watch the seasons change on a tiny little farm community then you can do that, too.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

Amtrak (2430376) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419024)

SimCity is extremely pro-capitalist (may seems unimportant in US, but many people in other countries don't have the same view about economy).

Wait what? If SimCity was extremely pro-capitalist the Mayor would just designate a plot of land as zoned for a hospital and then if the people wanted one and thought they could make money on it they would build the hospital. The Mayor(Player) would have no control over the quality and prices of services at the hospital they would be decided by the market for better or worse. And that's just one example of "extreme" capitalism. We can really take it to the extreme where the Mayor just says fuck all, hires some police, writes a few tax laws, and does nothing but butter up companies to invest in his campaign I mean town. No what your describing is called socialism because the government (Society) owns the hospitals and just about everything else. But thanks for playing.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418678)

There are no games which are not violent.

There's plenty of non-violent games. Unfortunately, kind tend to think shooting is more cool than leading some ball around, building a city or solving various logical puzzles. Also, non-violent games are usually involve more thinking, which is frowned upon in modern society, even more so among children.

Off the top of my head: Portal, SimCity, various Tycoon games, Neverball, Bejeweled, Tetris

Non-violent games still can and will induce aggressive behavior in an aggressive gamer through frustration when trying to beat a level. Games that don't pose some kind of a challenge to the player don't count as games.

People should stop linking violent games to aggressive behavior. Instead, have the susceptible players participate in a football or chess match. Or even better, DotA. Anything involving a minimal degree of competitiveness will make you them act aggressively. Bonus rage if it involves teamplay.

there are options galore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418202)

old non violent great games - tetris, transport tycoon (although sometimes trains crash), capitalism.

newer stuff - spacechem, cities in motion, fate of the world.

most baseball games are non violent, as are most driving games. there are tons of options new and old. the reason we have so many violent games, is because people love playing them, but to say there are no options is just wrong.

hell, you can even play dwarf fortress with invasions off, and it just becomes a great building game (and a bad economy game).

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418250)

I 2 year old loves Angry Birds (and is pretty good at it too!) and recently pointed to a real life bird outside saying "shoot!". (Actually he spoke Dutch, and said "afschieten" but this is a good enough translation, I guess.)

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

Dark Lord of Ohio (2459854) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418280)

I 2 year old loves Angry Birds (and is pretty good at it too!) and recently pointed to a real life bird outside saying "shoot!". (Actually he spoke Dutch, and said "afschieten" but this is a good enough translation, I guess.)

now... this is bad.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418690)

It was certainly something that made us think. We still let him play Angry Birds (because it's such a cute game, and they are technically puzzles, though my son is still too young to really figure out the puzzle part; and alright, also because he loves it so much and gets angry when he can't play it and it's kinda convenient when he can enjoy himself for a few moments without our attention), but now we "launch" birds instead of shooting them.

I feel dirty.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418854)

gets angry when he can't play it

That there would be enough for my kid to not be playing it anymore. He lost little big planet 2 because of that, and lost Terraria for the exact opposite (getting far too worked up when he died - angry when he was playing it effectively).

Though of course you may use the word "angry":at a lower threshold than I do.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419796)

He's two. He gets angry over the stupidest little things, and sometimes he doesn't even know why he's upset. It's a difficult age. We do set limits about when he can and cannot use his "tuter" (a small, cheap Android tablet) or "big tuter" (an iPad), and he's slowly getting better at accepting those limits.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420716)

Ah that makes sense, I misinterpreted "I 2" completely...

"My 2 year old" is the english wording - "my" is the possessive case of I. Your English is several trillion times better than my Dutch, so don't take that as criticism.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420902)

Yes, it was a typo. I started with "I have a..." then changed it but messed up. And you can't edit slashdot messages afterward.

Very good of you to correct it while complimenting my command of a second language, though. More people should be like that.

And sorry for the confusion. I have an Angry Birds-addicted 2 year old, not 12 year old. While he sometimes launches birds to the left instead of the right, he also manages to finish some (easy) levels, and even improved a few highscores! I fear I've created a gaming prodigy.

Re:violent LEGO games (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418284)

Yeah, and many children form a "gun" with their hand, point it at someone else and say "bang, you're dead". Few of them become killers.

Re:violent LEGO games (3, Interesting)

dintech (998802) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418400)

Tetris isn't very violent. But anyway, you're doing the right thing. I don't think it's useful for kids to grow up in an environment with zero exposure to violence. Kids that are over-protected can be just as maladjusted as the ones that get no adult supervision at all.

Pacifist Protester: Name one situation where violence is the answer!?
Ali G: A violent situation.

Re:violent LEGO games (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418796)

I don't think it's useful for kids to grow up in an environment with zero exposure to violence.

I really don't think we need to worry about any kids growing up with "zero exposure to violence". I don't see how it's even possible, since nature is chock full of violence.

On the other hand, my daughter has studied martial arts seriously since she was very young (Iaido, Hsing I and now Muay Thai). She has seen me practicing Chinese martial arts since she was little. She's the most peaceful, non-violent person you could possibly meet (though I pity anyone who would be crazy enough to mess with her). And yes, we play Street Fighter IV and Fallout 3 and Borderlands, but we're pretty aware that they are not real. Even Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare 2 Part II (or whatever it's called) is not real. Realistic is not real.

I think when it comes to children, teaching them morality and honor and respect is more important than trying to hide from them the fact that the world is a violent place.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420170)

Tetris is only violent if you look at it from the block's perspective.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419128)

"There are no games which are not violent."

http://familypastimes.com/ [familypastimes.com]
"Family Pastimes games are the inventions of Jim Deacove. Jim started making co-operative games for his own family, and was encouraged by friends to make more. The Deacove family was and is no different from others. Sharing toys, helping mom and dad and being kind to others are values taught in all homes. To find games which help reinforce such sharing attitudes, however, is very difficult. Thus, Jim and Ruth felt the need to create some."

Also:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1713701812/co-opoly-the-game-of-cooperatives/posts/105473 [kickstarter.com]

And:
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/i_cooperation.htm [share-international.org]
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm [share-international.org]
"Kohn argues that the 'sacred cow' of competition stands on four mythological legs."

But yes, alternatives to competitive games in the USA can be much harder to find.

My wife and I invested over six-person years trying to create non-violent video game alternatives in the 1990s when everyone was saying how important that was, and mostly all we got for that ourselves was having to spend many years working for others to pay off debt.
http://www.gardenwithinsight.com/ [gardenwithinsight.com]
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/nsfprop.htm [kurtz-fernhout.com]

Still, Minecraft is a new popular mostly cooperative game that I can recommend if you want one (although get your vitamin D from supplements if you spend a lot of time indoors playing it):
http://www.minecraft.net/ [minecraft.net]

I would have been very proud to have made something that good and also that popular which created a huge cooperating user community. I have immense respect for Mojang AB in that sense.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

Fned (43219) | more than 3 years ago | (#37421148)

Competition IS co-operation.

Don't agree? Watch what happens when one competitor doesn't follow the rules, i.e. doesn't co-operate.

Re:violent LEGO games (1)

DangerOnTheRanger (2373156) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420404)

At least for me, it's not the guns/shooting that's the problem, it's the blood, guts, and gore that prevents me from buying certain video games, even if they're meant to be played only by me. Yeah, sure, your child will probably see lots of guns in his lifetime - ever bought him a BB gun? But people blowing up into bloody messes? I don't think so. Frankly, I don't even see the point of having things like that happen in a video game, anyway - it doesn't add anything to the gameplay, it's just some sick form of "eye candy".

Oh my freaking lord... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418146)

I'm going to let my kids play video games. A lot.

If they murder anyone I will eat my hat. And if it's me they murder I won't have to put up with the 'I TOLD YOU SO'

Cause and effect (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418242)

Those who think that video games make people aggressive got cause and effect mixed up. If there is a correlation between aggression and video games it's because aggressive people like to play violent games and not because a game made them aggressive. Like the fact that most bank robbers have guns doesn't mean that guns turn people into criminals.

Re:Cause and effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418304)

Like the fact that most bank robbers have guns doesn't mean that guns turn people into criminals.

They do if guns are illegal where they are.

Re:Cause and effect (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418322)

They do if guns are illegal where they are.

Oh look, someone has carelessly left an illegal firearm just sitting here. I'd best pick it up so I can hand it in to the relevant.....hey wait...this feels kinda....nice.....yeah....this feels real nice. This makes me feel...powerful, like, like I could rob a bank! Yeah! I'm going to go rob that motherfuckin' bank!

Re:Cause and effect (1)

malkavian (9512) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418518)

They didn't say "guns turn you into bank robbers".
I seem to remember a chap discovering an old firearm in public, took it to a police station to turn it in, and was promptly arrested for possession of a firearm (illegal in the UK).
So, yes, possession of a firearm can turn you into a criminal.

Re:Cause and effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418626)

They didn't say "guns turn you into bank robbers".
I seem to remember a chap discovering an old firearm in public, took it to a police station to turn it in, and was promptly arrested for possession of a firearm (illegal in the UK).
So, yes, possession of a firearm can turn you into a criminal.

Nope, being accused, suspected and/or arrested is not the same thing as being criminal.
You don't even have to be criminal to be convicted and punished.

Re:Cause and effect (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418638)

That would be an example of idiocy turning people into criminals.

Re:Cause and effect (1)

Yamioni (2424602) | more than 3 years ago | (#37421628)

So the proper thing to do is to let it lie there, go find an officer, and lead him to it? That has to be the dumbest fucking thing I've heard this week. Yes please, allow this dangerous weapon to sit where anyone of ill intent has unfettered access to it while I go find an authority to properly handle and dispose of said weapon. What kind of fuctards are running the UK that shit like that even happens?

...... Not to throw stones from my glass house or anything though, as it's plenty fucked up over here in the US as well. But arrested for being a responsible citizen? What the fuck?

Re:Cause and effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418338)

...Like the fact that most bank robbers have guns doesn't mean that guns turn people into criminals.

Where guns are banned, it does.

Competitive Violence? (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418332)

Heard it here first folks. Tetris multiplayer a bigger danger and a threat to society than Mortal Kombat single player.

(/snark(

Cracked.com article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418340)

Didn't I just read this on cracked.com?

Oh yes I did. http://www.cracked.com/article/104_6-ways-video-games-are-saving-mankind/
#4 Make You Nicer (Some of Them, Anyway)
http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13726738
A recent Iowa State study supports this line of thought. Researchers took 161 students and assigned each of them one of six games; three "violent" and three "pro-social" (including Super Mario Sunshine, where the player has to clean up graffiti).
After a 20-minute gaming session, the gamers paired up and assigned their partners ten puzzles, knowing the partner would win a gift certificate for completing the puzzle. Interestingly, the pro-social gamers tended to aid partners with easier puzzles. As for the violent gamers, they got off on torturing their partners with brainteasers.
The "pro social" games simply put the kids in a nicer mood. And a German study confirmed it. In that one, having gamers play Lemmings (which involves saving the relentlessly suicidal Lemmings) made them exhibit more pro-social tendencies after playing. See? It works both ways, Jack Thompson.

It doesn't appear to be the same study, but it's the same result.

Chess is dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418374)

Nothing makes me more angry than losing a round of chess against some underclass AI...

er... (1)

CapuchinSeven (2266542) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418398)

...I was pretty moody, impulsive and unfriendly as a kid. Does this mean I can't play MW3 now? :(

Re:er... (1)

Dark Lord of Ohio (2459854) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418438)

...I was pretty moody, impulsive and unfriendly as a kid. Does this mean I can't play MW3 now? :(

Hmm... Not really, sorry. You were probably bullying other kids at school, so you will be bullying online but online there will be many people with skills to kill not just powered by their anger, so you will start losing matches and your frustrations may cause you go mad and actually shoot to real people. You should play Flightgear. Ok, you owe $100. Next.

Re:er... (1)

CapuchinSeven (2266542) | more than 3 years ago | (#37421498)

God damn it, every time I come on the internet I owe someone $100.

Rating systems ignored by parents... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418456)

In the UK we have a rating system the same as for movies in cinema's and DVD's...

If the Game is rated 18 then dont buy it for your 11 year old! are you that dumb?

The kids cant buy these games themselves so its obviously the parents buying them, then blaming the games. Do some research on what you are giving your kids before you buy it, these games are for adults only, just like horror films and porn

Re:Rating systems ignored by parents... (4, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418550)

I once went to the house of a teacher at the school where I worked, to do an IT job for them. Their child (7/8 years old) was home and playing on the console while I sat at the PC.

It wasn't until *I* mentioned it that she realised that the South Park videogame they were playing lets you launch dildos at the other players. At first, she thought I was joking, then she thought it was just us mis-interpreting it, then she read the instruction manual.

Then she started to actually WATCH South Park with her child and realised that it wasn't just a cartoon for kids. Bear in mind that she would spend every working day herding children and making sure they didn't say anything untoward, or see anything they shouldn't, and she hadn't noticed even though she'd bought the games the kids asked for after seeing the cartoon on TV and they'd been playing them for months.

A lot of parents are fecking idiots. Sure there are some that are deliberately liberal and accommodating, but there are a lot that just don't care / know what their kids are doing. And, no, a violent video game, or even a sexually explicit one, isn't going to harm your child. But the lack of parenting that can result in them doing those things you never realised were available to them can and will harm your child.

That's where the link is - not the games making your child violent or unsociable - its the laxity of parenting that can often result in both things appearing at once. If you're really just buying games for your kids with no question of their content despite their age ratings, that's a parenting problem.

But hell, when I was younger I would watch 18-rated films with my parents - they were never "scary" because it was only a film (i.e. not real life) but it's only my upbringing that taught me that, and when I was that young my parents would *know* what I was watching because they'd have seen it first or had a rough idea of the content of it before they watched it with me.

Game ratings are as useless as film ratings. They only work if the parent is so lazy that they rely on them exclusively. If they are just a lazy parent, they won't even bother to check the age. If your parent knows what they are doing, the age-rating is neither here nor there - they will decide whether or not you get to watch it and not have to read a box on the back of the DVD case, and 99.9% of the time will let you watch it when you are younger than it says.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a well-brought-up child of 11 playing an 18-rated game, or watching an 18-rated movie. So long as they are mature enough to handle it and you KNOW that's what they are doing.

The worst of modern diseases is having no idea what your kids are doing, and not caring even when you do. I bet a lot of those parents that whine about their children becoming violent after playing GrandTheftAuto never bother to mention that their kids were allowed out until all-hours anyway, that they never knew where they were, that they didn't know where the games (or the money to buy them) came from, etc. that the kid has all the latest games consoles but plays in no team sports, etc.

Today, other people are the perfect targets to play for YOUR bad parenting. If you tell your kid to be home at 8, they are home at 8. There is no "but what if" they don't turn up. They *WILL* be home at 8. It's very simple. But nobody bothers to enforce the little things until the big things have already bred in habits.

Re:Rating systems ignored by parents... (1)

rioki (1328185) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418840)

I totally agree, totally.

But I also think that we look at the wrong things when it comes to ratings. I was watching TRON Legacy and my daughter (6) loved the visuals and music. So I though, oh to hell, that movie is not that violent. (Compared to come cartoons for that age...) So I sat down with her and started to watch the movie. We had to stop, not because of some violence or some suspense; because the character of Rinsler was too frightening. Can you imagine?! I sometime thing we get the priorities wrong...

That remember of an anecdote, a friend of mine her husband was watching some old pirate movie and the son (5) set down next to him. After a short while, she said: "Honey! Can't you watch something that is appropriate for our son?" (Apparently the child was OK with pirates fighting each other.) So he switch to some cartoon. Can you believe that the child was frightened shit less by the dragon "monster" in the cartoon?

Moody children (1, Insightful)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418464)

'...don't worry about that,' says psychologist Patrick Markey of Villanova (Pa.) University. 'But is your kid moody, impulsive, or are they unfriendly?

...uh...such as about every child that gets into puberty? Yeah, sure.

How about not giving children guns? How many children kill others or themselves when they do not have a gun?

I don't claim that children without a gun don't kill themselves or stab others with knifes, yet it seems striking to me that the violent crimes (aka "running amok") by children (and probably also adults) are so violent because they have one or more guns. At least to me as a non-violent layman from Europe it seems much easier to shoot a dozen classmates than to club them to death or stab them. The bottom-line being that you should not give your child a gun when it reaches puberty. Oh yeah, and also give 'em very sharp katanas without further supervision...

Re:Moody children (1)

antdah (1057288) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418940)

...uh...such as about every child that gets into puberty? Yeah, sure.

As always, we are talking about those who show these traits beyond the norm.

Re:Moody children (2)

Loosifur (954968) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419384)

I know this may come as a surprise given the stereotype, but Americans don't actually hand AK-47s to children just before they get on the schoolbus.

Also, shotguns are guns too, you know. The first time I met my friend's Welsh husband, he made a remark about Americans and handguns. Then, not two minutes later, mentioned something about his grandmother shooting rabbits in her front yard with a shotgun. She did not live in the country. He was not making a joke. I don't know where you're from, but if I walked outside with a BB gun right now and started popping off at squirrels, police would be called, and I would be hauled off for a serious talking-to.

My father was a deputy sheriff and a gun nut, and from the South, and so I grew up surrounded by guns. Loaded guns, in fact, because an unloaded gun isn't much use if someone's breaking into your house. I first shot a gun when I was 12, but knew about guns from about six. The first thing I learned about guns was that they are incredibly dangerous, and are not toys. Practically from the time I could walk I was taught to respect guns, to never point a gun at someone (even a toy gun) unless I was going to shoot them, to assume all guns are loaded, and knew where every gun in the house was, hidden or not. I also listened to death metal, industrial, was goth, and watched horror movies all the time. I did drugs, was dumped by girlfriends, and had problems with authority. To date, I have never shot anyone.

Parenting makes the difference. Taking guns out of the equation just means that Junior Sociopath will start googling "fertilizer explosive".

Re:Moody children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37420618)

you can't shoot squirrels with a bb gun? now i am curious where you live. i live in a suburb and i could totally do that in my backyard with no problem.

Re:Moody children (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420982)

Parenting makes the difference. Taking guns out of the equation just means that Junior Sociopath will start googling "fertilizer explosive".

It's far easier for a troubled kid to pick up, say, dad's irresponsibly handled guns, than it is for that same kid to build a fertilizer explosive capable of doing significant damage completely undetected.

No reasonable person would argue that "kid can't get a gun" implies "kid can't hurt or kill anyone". There's a big difference between that (flawed) argument and the argument that "kid can't get a gun" means "kid more likely to be caught before he hurts or kills someone" and "kid able to kill or hurt fewer people than if he had a gun".

Re:Moody children (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419658)

Based on Breivik, you Europeans must have delayed puberty to your early 30s. Strange, I thought for reasons of public safety adulthood was delayed until after death...

Re:Moody children (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420912)

I don't claim that children without a gun don't kill themselves or stab others with knifes, yet it seems striking to me that the violent crimes (aka "running amok") by children (and probably also adults) are so violent because they have one or more guns. At least to me as a non-violent layman from Europe it seems much easier to shoot a dozen classmates than to club them to death or stab them.

The counterargument from most pro-gun folks in the US is that if one bad guy opens fire, all the good guys can shoot back and stop him more easily.

This isn't born out by reality. In fact, most mass shootings in the US are stopped by the gunman being tackled and taken down by non-lethal force. For instance, when Jared Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and kept firing, there were people armed with guns and military training in the area, and not one of them opened fire on Loughner (citing reasons like the risk of hitting people other than the target and the police not knowing who the bad guy was if they had started shooting).

Duh (1)

Andtalath (1074376) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418484)

Seriously.
Duh.

oh come on (2)

amnezick (1253408) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418558)

What the **** is going on in this ***** up 21st century of yours(ours). So .. I grew up watching roadrunner and tom&jerry. Went through highschool wasting 4nights/week playing nothing but counter-strike for 10 hours straight. Moved from servers in europe to servers in us then in asia as time past and people went to sleep. Played every GTA under the sun. Now i'm in my twenties and I don't rob stores, don't beat up people on the street or get them out of their cars to steal it, I keep the door open for a lady no matter the age or looks because I'm polite, and I work as a programmer and help my parents with groceries and the house and stuff. **** it .. I think I'm a decent person. These days you can't watch tom&jerry or roadrunner because there's just too much violence and .. think of the children. Really? Well you grew up just fine and I don't see any reminiscence from watching tom&jerry in you. Just do your job and raise them properly and they'll pick up the rest...

Don't forget Speedy Gonzales (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418622)

Violent AND racist!

Couple that with my love for Yosemite Sam and I'm surprised I'm not blowing away Mexicans in the street.

Re:Don't forget Speedy Gonzales (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419872)

Couple that with my love for Yosemite Sam and I'm surprised I'm not blowing away Mexicans in the street.

Wait... hold on! *wipes bloody hand on pants* This is not permissible?

Don't hate (1)

lars_stefan_axelsson (236283) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418560)

Or in other words; "Don't hate the game. Hate the player..." :-)

Definition of a teenager? (3, Informative)

thetartanavenger (1052920) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418618)

But is your kid moody, impulsive, or are they unfriendly?

Seriously? Isn't this the definition of every single teenager that exists, has existed and will exist? Myself included back in the day of course.

Re:Definition of a teenager? (1)

Mike Mentalist (544984) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418668)

Pah, you beat me to it!

- 1 mod point for being faster than me.

Re:Definition of a teenager? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37419086)

Of course, that's partly because everone expect them to be like that and treat them as such.

Re:Definition of a teenager? (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420932)

No, wrong. The very idea of "teenager" did not exist until 1950s America. The idea that there is a separate stage between childhood and adulthood is a new one. The fact that people think it's always been this way because it's been this way since they were born shows a sad lack of education and knowledge of history.

Re:Definition of a teenager? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#37421302)

But is your kid moody, impulsive, or are they unfriendly?

Seriously? Isn't this the definition of every single teenager that exists, has existed and will exist?

No, it's the stereotype of "every single teenager that exists, has existed and will exist".

Re:Definition of a teenager? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37421730)

No, it isn't. I've known teenagers who were 2, 1, or none of those things.

TFA: Haters gonna hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418874)

So in effect, what the article is saying is that if you play competitive games you'll become an asshole. I used to play tourneys rather regularly back in the day and I'm not going to disagree with this. Just look at the communities for all the competitive games out there (MOBAs, RTS games, FPS games, et al.) --e-sports, essentially. The stress of competitive play will generate these negative feelings in people. Teabagging, trash talk, unnecessary violence... if it's true for adults, it'll be true for the kids too.

The lesson you should take away from the study's conclusion is not that competitive games are bad. Far from it, a competitive spirit is seen as an asset in today's society. Instead, teach them coping strategies. Manners, civility, good sportsmanship. Shake the hand of the loser. If you can make them keep in mind the other person's feelings (losing is no fun, losing to a brat is even worse), they'll be well-served later in life. And as for the anger, well, there's no way around it. You have to teach them to recognize anger for what it is.

As Conan the Barbarian once said, "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

Duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418882)

Like everything else in the world... It's just a few people who manage to FUCK IT UP for everyone else in the world.

The majority has no problem or adverse reactions to playing billions of hours of violent video games.

.
Now.. the question is.. Do we take away games from the majority because a few can't handle it...

Smart Post (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419084)

It's never been about the game. This is the worlds most ridiculous argument. If a violent game called game X causes Mr. Y to go out and Kill then to blame the game EVERY SINGLE PERSON who played X should be killing. Mr Y kill because he wanted to, on one level or another he had the desire to kill and it's not the game fault. Do you think the top 10 all star killers of the last 1000 years played video games and that's why they killed?

No, they killed because they wanted to. When someone can tell me Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer only killed because the Atari made him then I'll side with video games make kids violent. The truth is people who kill or steal or rob always wanted to. There just using the video game as an excuse and getting away with it.

It would be like someone playing pacman and telling me that it made them eat all the dots they saw around them. I would just call them a dot eater.

Re:Smart Post (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419286)

This is the worlds most ridiculous argument. If a violent game called game X causes Mr. Y to go out and Kill then to blame the game EVERY SINGLE PERSON who played X should be killing. Mr Y kill because he wanted to

That IS the world's most ridiculous argument. Would you also argue that because not every smoker is dying of cancer, that smoking does not cause cancer?

There's a lot of bad arguments and fallacies out there linking video games with violent behavior. Let's counter them with facts, not bad arguments of our own.

Re:Smart Post (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419496)

My argument isn't bad at all, a person is violent because they want to be. To blame the fact that games influence people to become violent doesn't make sense. It's a black or white issue, you either do or don't. To your point, if you smoke you will at some point get cancer if you keep smoking. It might take 1x10^57 years but at some point you'll get cancer. Please don't rip me a new one for that, the reason I point that out is that all I'm saying is that you need to look at black and white conditions.

I know a human wont live to much older then a 100 in some rare cases 120. But if it were possible then in X years a smoker will get cancer, unless you have a degree in human behaviour then you really can't start trying to say game X made Person Y violent because of effect Z on day T for reason R.

The parents and students who like to rant about games making kids violent don't have the underlying skills and years of serious training to draw that conclusion. They should look at it like I stated which for a 1st state model is fine.

Re:Smart Post (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420002)

My argument isn't bad at all, a person is violent because they want to be.

Starting off with two unsupported assertions linked by a non sequitur. Nice.

To blame the fact that games influence people to become violent doesn't make sense. It's a black or white issue, you either do or don't.

No, violent behavior is a complex multi-factorial phenomenon. Like cancer, like the weather, and so on. Oh what the fuck ever, contine babbling incoherently.

Re:Smart Post (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420570)

Oh your in luck, I played a video game today so I'm going to come kill you, thank god.

Re:Smart Post (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420622)

Dude, your reasoning here is exactly the same as someone who says "it's cold today, so global warming must not be real". Try applying some nuance.

I'm not even someone who thinks video games cause violence. I'm just embarassed for the rest of us when I see people spout stupid garbage like that.

Technology is an amplifier... (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419166)

... so, be careful what you let it amplify.

On addiction and technology and overcoming it:
http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html [paulgraham.com]
http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx [drfuhrman.com]

(Technology can also be used to broadly suppress things, too, as a variation on amplification...)

or.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37419206)

maybe nothing is wrong with either. In fact it's healthy to have an outlet for your rage, particularly considering how violent human nature is. Let's drug kids up so they are all pacified, and see how well they succeed in life.

Re:or.. (1)

Yamioni (2424602) | more than 3 years ago | (#37421788)

I was going to reply to you, but then I remembered it was time to take my Ritalin. Wait what? I replied anyway? These damn things aren't working!

Um, what? (2)

flink (18449) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420382)

"moody, impulsive, unfriendly (to adults)" describes, like, 90% of teenagers, with the exception of the student council types.

Causality (2)

nine-times (778537) | more than 3 years ago | (#37420458)

I've been saying for a while that the whole "video games cause violence" idea has causality wrong. If you're a happy, perfectly well adjusted person, then playing DOOM won't turn you into a killer. However, if you have mental/emotional problems that make you potentially violent and homicidal, you might be very likely to seek out means to play out those desires, which may include violent games.

If you want to prevent the next school shooting, don't bother censoring video games. Seek out the troubled kids and try to help them.

The real problem here isn't the video games. The real problem is high school.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?