The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
It desensitizes people to fake violence. I'm quite comfortable with violence in games and movies yet I gasp like a little girl at the sight of real injury or violence.
How do you know you wouldn't have acted like an even littler girl if you had no recieved prior desensitization thanks to video games? Also, what kind of injury are you talking about? A "someone's knee bending the wrong way" type injury or a "aggressive brain avulsion" type of injury?
Try "papercut."
I've popped heads aplenty in games, but real-life injuries still get to me every bit as much as usual.
Ok, so maybe exposure to violent media, which can include real life injuries, desensitizes people over time. Not exclusively video games. But as video games become more realisitic anyway, the line will blur.
It desensitizes people to fake violence. I'm quite comfortable with violence in games and movies yet I gasp like a little girl at the sight of real injury or violence.
How do you know you wouldn't have acted like an even littler girl if you had no recieved prior desensitization thanks to video games? Also, what kind of injury are you talking about? A "someone's knee bending the wrong way" type injury or a "aggressive brain avulsion" type of injury?
I go to the depths of little girl already, hard to imagine it could be worse. And either of those injuries would make me jump.
Then there is one exception there I guess, people who act like little girls to all sorts of trauma, can never be desensitized to violence. People who are otherwise normal, can be desensitized and domesticated over time with exposure. Try not to scrape your knee son
So you're saying: some people will be desensitived, except for the ones that wont.
It desensitizes people to fake violence. I'm quite comfortable with violence in games and movies yet I gasp like a little girl at the sight of real injury or violence.
How do you know you wouldn't have acted like an even littler girl if you had no recieved prior desensitization thanks to video games? Also, what kind of injury are you talking about? A "someone's knee bending the wrong way" type injury or a "aggressive brain avulsion" type of injury?
I go to the depths of little girl already, hard to imagine it could be worse. And either of those injuries would make me jump.
Then there is one exception there I guess, people who act like little girls to all sorts of trauma, can never be desensitized to violence. People who are otherwise normal, can be desensitized and domesticated over time with exposure. Try not to scrape your knee son
So you're saying: some people will be desensitived, except for the ones that wont.
Pretty much. Eitherway desensitization is still happening. You get what I'm saying?
What I think they should do is do a control study where we study adolescents after they do some sort of Wholesome American Family-values Activity like say, playing grid iron.
I think this is the crux of the matter. It's nothing more than an older generation demonizing what they don't understand. I still know people who think Dungeons and Dragons turns you into a Satan worshiping spree killer.
It desensitizes people to fake violence. I'm quite comfortable with violence in games and movies yet I gasp like a little girl at the sight of real injury or violence.
How do you know you wouldn't have acted like an even littler girl if you had no recieved prior desensitization thanks to video games? Also, what kind of injury are you talking about? A "someone's knee bending the wrong way" type injury or a "aggressive brain avulsion" type of injury?
Try "papercut."
I've popped heads aplenty in games, but real-life injuries still get to me every bit as much as usual.
Ok, so maybe exposure to violent media, which can include real life injuries, desensitizes people over time. Not exclusively video games. But as video games become more realisitic anyway, the line will blur.
I've always thought there'll be a cap on the degree of realistic violence that one puts in games. Most developers probably realize that making a man's death as true-to-life as possible would be in very poor taste.
It desensitizes people to fake violence. I'm quite comfortable with violence in games and movies yet I gasp like a little girl at the sight of real injury or violence.
How do you know you wouldn't have acted like an even littler girl if you had no recieved prior desensitization thanks to video games? Also, what kind of injury are you talking about? A "someone's knee bending the wrong way" type injury or a "aggressive brain avulsion" type of injury?
Try "papercut."
I've popped heads aplenty in games, but real-life injuries still get to me every bit as much as usual.
Ok, so maybe exposure to violent media, which can include real life injuries, desensitizes people over time. Not exclusively video games. But as video games become more realisitic anyway, the line will blur.
I've always thought there'll be a cap on the degree of realistic violence that one puts in games. Most developers probably realize that making a man's death as true-to-life as possible would be in very poor taste.
Sure, unless the game is rated Mature or takes place in a highly realistic looking world. If your going for realism why not go the whole way? Otherwise your just left with bullshit, anti-realism. Might as well make a game about a guy that sits in a coffee shop writing poetry.
Casket on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
Sure, unless the game is rated Mature or takes place in a highly realistic looking world. If your going for realism why not go the whole way? Otherwise your just left with bullshit, anti-realism. Might as well make a game about a guy that sits in a coffee shop writing poetry.
Idiotic. There are plenty of stylized games, and few "realistic" games that are worth a damn.
Sure, unless the game is rated Mature or takes place in a highly realistic looking world. If your going for realism why not go the whole way? Otherwise your just left with bullshit, anti-realism. Might as well make a game about a guy that sits in a coffee shop writing poetry.
Idiotic. There are plenty of stylized games, and few "realistic" games that are worth a damn.
I'm a graduate student in neuroscience, and my lab mainly does fMRI studies although I don't personally. The study is actually fairly well done and controlled compared to other research in the field. The results are that playing a violent video game produces increased short-term amygdala activation and decreased prefrontal cortex activity compared to a non-violent racing game.
Frankly, this isn't surprising. Who here hasn't focused hard on a game with intense fighting (compared to racing, where you might sort of tune out) and found it hard to refocus afterwards? Or gotten an adrenaline rush out of it?
The problem is of course in the media interpretation. Is this similar to, weaker than, or stronger than the effects produced by watching a violent movie or reading a book containing violent imagery? Are there permanent alterations if the users play consistently? (Similar parallels are present in marijuana research, where people are mildly impaired for hours after stopping but moderate users look the same as controls if they haven't smoked in a month.) Do any measureable effects change depending on the age of the children involved? As the scientists try to emphasize, more studies are needed.
The general decline in crime rates over the last decade in the U.S. certainly suggests that widespread videogame playing has at the very least not led to a widespread crime outbreak.
When the cultural smoke clears, video games will probably be treated like movies. You wouldn't take a 6 year old to see an R-rated movie, and you wouldn't let him play medal of honor either.
It desensitizes people to fake violence. I'm quite comfortable with violence in games and movies yet I gasp like a little girl at the sight of real injury or violence.
How do you know you wouldn't have acted like an even littler girl if you had no recieved prior desensitization thanks to video games? Also, what kind of injury are you talking about? A "someone's knee bending the wrong way" type injury or a "aggressive brain avulsion" type of injury?
I go to the depths of little girl already, hard to imagine it could be worse. And either of those injuries would make me jump.
Then there is one exception there I guess, people who act like little girls to all sorts of trauma, can never be desensitized to violence. People who are otherwise normal, can be desensitized and domesticated over time with exposure. Try not to scrape your knee son
Are you trying to imitate Dr. Phil or something? I think electricitylikesme actually got it right. When I myself get injured I don't feel the same way, just fear and pain. When I see others injured I'm just empathizing fear for them. When I see someone in a movie get horribly injured at worst I'll think it's gross but it won't freak me out, because I know it's just a fucking movie. Don't bother with that hard psychology stuff kiddo.
It desensitizes people to fake violence. I'm quite comfortable with violence in games and movies yet I gasp like a little girl at the sight of real injury or violence.
How do you know you wouldn't have acted like an even littler girl if you had no recieved prior desensitization thanks to video games? Also, what kind of injury are you talking about? A "someone's knee bending the wrong way" type injury or a "aggressive brain avulsion" type of injury?
I go to the depths of little girl already, hard to imagine it could be worse. And either of those injuries would make me jump.
Then there is one exception there I guess, people who act like little girls to all sorts of trauma, can never be desensitized to violence. People who are otherwise normal, can be desensitized and domesticated over time with exposure. Try not to scrape your knee son
Are you trying to imitate Dr. Phil or something? I think electricitylikesme actually got it right. When I myself get injured I don't feel the same way, just fear and pain. When I see others injured I'm just empathizing fear for them. When I see someone in a movie get horribly injured at worst I'll think it's gross but it won't freak me out, because I know it's just a fucking movie. Don't bother with that hard psychology stuff kiddo.
It desensitizes people to fake violence. I'm quite comfortable with violence in games and movies yet I gasp like a little girl at the sight of real injury or violence.
How do you know you wouldn't have acted like an even littler girl if you had no recieved prior desensitization thanks to video games? Also, what kind of injury are you talking about? A "someone's knee bending the wrong way" type injury or a "aggressive brain avulsion" type of injury?
I go to the depths of little girl already, hard to imagine it could be worse. And either of those injuries would make me jump.
Then there is one exception there I guess, people who act like little girls to all sorts of trauma, can never be desensitized to violence. People who are otherwise normal, can be desensitized and domesticated over time with exposure. Try not to scrape your knee son
Are you trying to imitate Dr. Phil or something? I think electricitylikesme actually got it right. When I myself get injured I don't feel the same way, just fear and pain. When I see others injured I'm just empathizing fear for them. When I see someone in a movie get horribly injured at worst I'll think it's gross but it won't freak me out, because I know it's just a fucking movie. Don't bother with that hard psychology stuff kiddo.
We're not the same, you and I.
Judging from your post history, I'd say one of the clearer differences is that he's not a complete dumbass.
It desensitizes people to fake violence. I'm quite comfortable with violence in games and movies yet I gasp like a little girl at the sight of real injury or violence.
How do you know you wouldn't have acted like an even littler girl if you had no recieved prior desensitization thanks to video games? Also, what kind of injury are you talking about? A "someone's knee bending the wrong way" type injury or a "aggressive brain avulsion" type of injury?
I go to the depths of little girl already, hard to imagine it could be worse. And either of those injuries would make me jump.
Then there is one exception there I guess, people who act like little girls to all sorts of trauma, can never be desensitized to violence. People who are otherwise normal, can be desensitized and domesticated over time with exposure. Try not to scrape your knee son
Are you trying to imitate Dr. Phil or something? I think electricitylikesme actually got it right. When I myself get injured I don't feel the same way, just fear and pain. When I see others injured I'm just empathizing fear for them. When I see someone in a movie get horribly injured at worst I'll think it's gross but it won't freak me out, because I know it's just a fucking movie. Don't bother with that hard psychology stuff kiddo.
We're not the same, you and I.
Judging from your post history, I'd say one of the clearer differences is that he's not a complete dumbass.
I'm a graduate student in neuroscience, and my lab mainly does fMRI studies although I don't personally. The study is actually fairly well done and controlled compared to other research in the field. The results are that playing a violent video game produces increased short-term amygdala activation and decreased prefrontal cortex activity compared to a non-violent racing game.
I'm inclined to disagree with the bolded section.
The problem I see is that the subjects are playing two entirely different kinds of games, an FPS and a driving game. With such radically different games (really, the only thing they have in common is that they're games) it's difficult to swallow the conclusion that the differences in brain activity are due to the presence of violence.
I think a better experiment would be to repeat the FPS section, but with the game artwork replaced such that it's people playing paintball. The gameplay remains identical (you could even use exactly the same levels and scripting) but in one version of the game, the players opponents are killed with the requisite violence and gore, and in the other they simply walk off the field.
I think even that might still give a bias as its just another form of simulated bias. Some sort of firefighting game vs one of the older 'baddies appear in windows and try to shoot you' games (a BAIWATTSU if you will) vs a completely abstract 'click on the green squares when they appear' game would probably give you a more interesting result. Exactly the same game, but with totally different settings.
Thinking about it, I wonder if there would be any difference between games that are simulating something and those that are just abstract puzzles.
The problem I see is that the subjects are playing two entirely different kinds of games, an FPS and a driving game. With such radically different games (really, the only thing they have in common is that they're games) it's difficult to swallow the conclusion that the differences in brain activity are due to the presence of violence.
I should have emphasized the "compared to other studies in the field" bit. It's damnation by faint praise; I'm definitely talking like I'm around other scientists here.
I like your study idea, but I'm not sure about paintball as a control the more I think about it. Would we describe paintball in real life "violent" or not? You'd need another control where people run through environments and don't shoot at all but still have some kind of mission goals and can see other players. Too bad fMRI is so damn expensive to do, and you have to do them on a lot of people. Plus you'd have to recode the games so they controlled similarly, probably produce the running game from scratch.
The Effects of Reward and Punishment in Violent Video Games on Aggressive Affect, Cognition, and Behavior
Three experiments examined the effects of rewarding and punishing violent actions in video games on later aggression-related variables. Participants played one of three versions of the same race-car video game: (a) a version in which all violence was rewarded, (b) a version in which all violence was punished, and (c) a nonviolent version. Participants were then measured for aggressive affect (Experiment 1), aggressive cognition (Experiment 2), and aggressive behavior (Experiment 3). Rewarding violent game actions increased hostile emotion, aggressive thinking, and aggressive behavior. Punishing violent actions increased hostile emotion, but did not increase aggressive thinking or aggressive behavior. Results suggest that games that reward violent actions can increase aggressive behavior by increasing aggressive thinking.
knock yourselves out with the rest, or send me a PM if you need the pdf
The problem I have with a lot of these studies isn't the studies themselves, but the conclusions drawn.
Ok, so violent games tend to increase aggression...but, do they increase it enough to make more violent crime? Do the people who play GTA go out and start fights more than the people who don't?
I don't give a flying fuck how much aggression, or anything else is increase by games, I want a measurement of what effect these games have on actual, tangible actions, rather than the conjecture that seems to come out of most of these studies.
I quite agree that the conclusion and discussions drawn from these kind of studies often reek more of trying to hit headlines for more funding/exposure.
But I also think that you shouldn't just rubbish research because it hasn't answered the question you want it to.
I'm not going to quote studies but I'm fairly sure (someone can correct me) that watching violence on TV as a child has been linked to increases in violent behaviour later on in life (not on a 1:1 scale obviously, but statistically relevant).
I don't see why it's hard to consider the possibility that violent video games may have the same, lesser or greater effect. Of course these types of cohort studies are expensive and time consuming and for a serious study you'd probably better have some proof that violent games have some measurable effect short term over non-violent games, especially when these same effects can be shown in other media which have then been linked to increased aggressive/violent behaviour later in life.
I'm a graduate student in neuroscience, and my lab mainly does fMRI studies although I don't personally. The study is actually fairly well done and controlled compared to other research in the field. The results are that playing a violent video game produces increased short-term amygdala activation and decreased prefrontal cortex activity compared to a non-violent racing game.
Frankly, this isn't surprising. Who here hasn't focused hard on a game with intense fighting (compared to racing, where you might sort of tune out) and found it hard to refocus afterwards? Or gotten an adrenaline rush out of it?
The problem is of course in the media interpretation. Is this similar to, weaker than, or stronger than the effects produced by watching a violent movie or reading a book containing violent imagery? Are there permanent alterations if the users play consistently? (Similar parallels are present in marijuana research, where people are mildly impaired for hours after stopping but moderate users look the same as controls if they haven't smoked in a month.) Do any measureable effects change depending on the age of the children involved? As the scientists try to emphasize, more studies are needed.
The general decline in crime rates over the last decade in the U.S. certainly suggests that widespread videogame playing has at the very least not led to a widespread crime outbreak.
When the cultural smoke clears, video games will probably be treated like movies. You wouldn't take a 6 year old to see an R-rated movie, and you wouldn't let him play medal of honor either.
I agree. I'm sure that watching tons of Bruce Lee films as a kid had some impact on me. They sure didn't turn me into a killer or even a decent martial artist. Neither did playing Mario or even Mortal Kombat. Actually, Mortal Kombat just made me feel dumber so I'd go back to Street Fighter II.
Anyway, have they done studies involving top notch players? I played UT2k3/UT2k4 in organized leagues (IG LG BR for those who wonder) for a couple years and definitely noticed that I was completely focused once I had reached a certain level of mastery. It wasn't really violence anymore. It had become strategic and shooting was simply a means to an end. It might as well been rainbows or paintballs.
My heart rate didn't even ratchet up much when I played (I checked to make sure I was in optimal arousal states) and any spikes were more due to emotions about the game score than about the violence itself. It was extremely similar to my Starcraft days (also competitive) and I recognized the optimal frame of mind; completely calm and clear, with crystal clear thinking and reaction time. The hands and fingers were controlled mostly through muscle memory and the brain just thought about what to do next, not "OMG GUY COMING SHOOT HIM". It was similar to meditation in some ways; both involve emptying yourself of unnecessary concerns and focusing on what is important.
This differs wildly from my experience playing soccer (before knee injuries and my subsequent turn to video games for competitive release). When I played soccer, I was far more emotional and could use that emotion to good effect. It provided adrenaline rushes which translated to more energy to put into the physical exertion. Of course, there was a necessary mental clearness but a different kind. If I ever got as emotional and aggressive while playing video games as I did when I played soccer (a pretty violent sport), it impaired my ability to play, not enhanced it.
Basically, they might find extremely different results with a different group. I'd be interested to hear what others who have played games and/or sports competitively have to say, but I think looking into the brain activity of athletes in violent sports and non-violent sports would help us draw a clearer picture of how different the experience of playing video games is from more accepted activities.
Wouldn't it make sense to compare these results to something like sports? Have some test cases that included different activities and compare them, rather than have them on their own?
Because the way they paint their results and process, it makes it seem like playing violent video games is the only thing that kids do to achieve this effect.
I'm a graduate student in neuroscience, and my lab mainly does fMRI studies although I don't personally. The study is actually fairly well done and controlled compared to other research in the field.
<snip>
The problem is of course in the media interpretation.
Nissl, from what I can tell this was an oral presentation at the Radiological Society national meeting. Since you're a graduate student, you probably know better than most that much of what is bandied about at these meetings is complete crap (not just at the RSNA; I've been in a few different scientific communites and their respective meetings during my career, and I've seen the same thing in every one). This study is no different. To say that this study is well done indicates that you should be asking some basic questions about proper controls in your own research. Think about it - many other people have on this forum and came up with the better solution already. The two games have little in common. To have a truly relevant control, the first author should have set up the game with and without opposing forces for the children to play against. In other words, the control is the exact same map, in the exact same game, with the exact same stimuli - except for the violence.
You should always look at every study - even ones published in peer-reviewed journals - with a critical eye, especially ones that have any value to the mass media.
Are there permanent alterations if the users play consistently?
THE REAL QUESTION
Are there any studies that attempt to answer it?
This is exactly what I was thinking. It doesn't matter if you're playing GTA or football on a field, playing Medal of Honor or playing paintball, you're going to have a temporary emotional adjustment as a result of playing a competitive game. Engrossing games will get your adrenaline going, the same way that stealing second base will. Tetris might not get you into fist-pumping mode, but neither does a good game of chess.
So yes, video games do elicit an emotional response in anyone who plays them. Is anyone shocked? I should hope not. Sports do the same thing. So do movies, whether they're Oscar winners, Ed Wood films, or porn. So does music, from rap to Elivs to classical. Everything we do for entertainment makes us respond emotionally to it, to one degree or another.
The "real question" is if continual exposure to any entertainment mediums creates a permanent or even just long-term change to a person's emotions, and/or perceptions of the world, and whether or not those changes are detrimental. Can playing lots of turn-based strategy games help you learn how to plan ahead and micromanage in real life? Probably. Playing chess does the same thing. Most gamers probably have slightly improved hand-eye coordination comapred to non-gamers, but I can think of a lot of different professions which would improve that same skill while never touching a video game.
You know the people who say that nothing shocks them anymore after seeing Goatse, beheading videos, and all manner of gross-out websites on the web? I wouldn't be terribly shocked if playing a lot of hyper-violent games produces the same effect. Doesn't mean that either group is likely to become a sociopath and start killing people.
The key thing here is whether a normal person, by virtue of having played lots of video games, is any more likely to have some kind of delinquent behavior or habits than any other passionate hobbyist, be it playing paintball or football, skydiving or computer hacking, making amateur movies or doing parkour. I'd make a bet that gamers are no more likely than any other hobbyist to have long-term psychological changes, whether they're good (improving a subset of skills) or bad (sociopathic behavior).
I know from personal experience that a good competitive video game can get the adrenaline going and make my pulse quicken. So what? I'm still almost phobia-level afraid of guns, despite many, many hours playing FPS games. I always have been, and the first FPS I picked up (Tribes) came long after I discovered that guns made me very uncomfortable.
There is a discussion to be had here, but the problem is that no media outlet seems to want to have it. The notion that video games can make for violent children is very popular with the Overconcerned Parent demographic, who also happen to mesh nicely with the chunk of people who watch the most TV and buy the most newspapers and newsmagazines. Not coincidentally, they also tend to be very underrepresented amongst gamers, and as a whole we take pride in our hobby/lifestyle/culture/pasttime, or whatever you want to call it.
This study is no different. To say that this study is well done indicates that you should be asking some basic questions about proper controls in your own research. Think about it - many other people have on this forum and came up with the better solution already. The two games have little in common. To have a truly relevant control, the first author should have set up the game with and without opposing forces for the children to play against. In other words, the control is the exact same map, in the exact same game, with the exact same stimuli - except for the violence.
You should always look at every study - even ones published in peer-reviewed journals - with a critical eye, especially ones that have any value to the mass media.
Total monkey business could be going on in the back end, and we'll never know until the paper is published if then. But it's being discussed now so I think it's ok to weigh in tentatively. Based on the description of the study design, it is an improvement on previous video game studies that I've seen popularly reported in the media. It's nice that the comparison condition involves videogames. It's nice they used a stroop-like setup in their fMRI to measure aftereffects. That doesn't mean that future studies can't improve on it further.
Every control suggested has benefits but is also moderately problematic. An empty map control has to leave you concerned about exactly how much attention the children are going to pay to the game. A paintball control might tell you something about gore, but not necessarily about shooting at other people. These are additional studies that eventually will get done. But you can't just toss this study out as bullshit because it doesn't have every possible condition in it or the exact control you want. As I'm sure you know fMRI is expensive and time-consuming to perform. The first studies done in a field often use fairly different conditions to establish the presence of large effects, then start to play with the details. At least here we don't have sitting around doing nothing as a control condition.
That doesn't mean it answers the real money question, as I, and others, and the scientists producing the study have pointed out: is there a quantifiable, functional long-term effect of consistent video game playing, in either children and adults? (And if so, what does that mean? - though that's harder to answer.) If there are studies you are aware of that fill this gap, perhaps you can direct us to them.
Additionally, I haven't seen the scientists involved say anything except exactly what the results of the study are. The negative articles are a media and culture problem, not a science problem. I'm sure you also know how distorted popular articles about your work come out, if you've gone through the process or know people who have. A brief search of the authors' publication history shows a decent publication record investigating MRI imaging techniques, language and more recently antisocial behavior involving fMRI. These are not anti-videogame partisans here.
I don't appreciate you tossing around aspersions concerning my research, which you know absolutely nothing about.
Total monkey business could be going on in the back end, and we'll never know until the paper is published if then. But it's being discussed now so I think it's ok to weigh in tentatively. Based on the description of the study design, it is an improvement on previous video game studies that I've seen popularly reported in the media. It's nice that the comparison condition involves videogames. It's nice they used a stroop-like setup in their fMRI to measure aftereffects. That doesn't mean that future studies can't improve on it further.
Every control suggested has benefits but is also moderately problematic. An empty map control has to leave you concerned about exactly how much attention the children are going to pay to the game. A paintball control might tell you something about gore, but not necessarily about shooting at other people. These are additional studies that eventually will get done. But you can't just toss this study out as bullshit because it doesn't have every possible condition in it or the exact control you want. As I'm sure you know fMRI is expensive and time-consuming to perform. The first studies done in a field often use fairly different conditions to establish the presence of large effects, then start to play with the details. At least here we don't have sitting around doing nothing as a control condition.
Besides the fact that the other options are more complicated and expensive, there's benefits to having a naturalistic control. Honestly it's pretty hard to critque when we have no idea of their actual research question. I doubt it's as stupid as the quote makes it seem. I also don't think MRI work is really at the stage where you can come to particularly staggering conclusions about violence anyway.
That doesn't mean it answers the real money question, as I, and others, and the scientists producing the study have pointed out: is there a quantifiable, functional long-term effect of consistent video game playing, in either children and adults? (And if so, what does that mean? - though that's harder to answer.) If there are studies you are aware of that fill this gap, perhaps you can direct us to them.
Most of the long term effects studies I've seen have focused on television and desensitisation. Video games have only become the sexier scapegoat over the last five years or so. It's funny, I've seen a dozen or so studies on the subject now, and I don't think I would've bothered to read any of them if it wasn't for the outraged D&D thread that reliably appears every few months.
The problem I see is that the subjects are playing two entirely different kinds of games, an FPS and a driving game. With such radically different games (really, the only thing they have in common is that they're games) it's difficult to swallow the conclusion that the differences in brain activity are due to the presence of violence.
I should have emphasized the "compared to other studies in the field" bit. It's damnation by faint praise; I'm definitely talking like I'm around other scientists here.
I like your study idea, but I'm not sure about paintball as a control the more I think about it. Would we describe paintball in real life "violent" or not? You'd need another control where people run through environments and don't shoot at all but still have some kind of mission goals and can see other players. Too bad fMRI is so damn expensive to do, and you have to do them on a lot of people. Plus you'd have to recode the games so they controlled similarly, probably produce the running game from scratch.
Ah, the problems of designing a good control...
Fair enough. I'm perfectly willing to accept that my idea isn't a perfect control, it's just the first thing that came to mind. I like this idea:
Some sort of firefighting game vs one of the older 'baddies appear in windows and try to shoot you' games (a BAIWATTSU if you will) vs a completely abstract 'click on the green squares when they appear' game
I'm actually surprised to see how many people here actually do feel violent video games make people "Aggressive" or "Desensitized". I thought it was common knowledge in this forum that that is just a scapegoat for poor parenting. :P
Let's set aside the fact that there is a huge jump from personality traits to the willingness and motivation to commit a violent act...
The argument is being made that this aggressiveness and/or desensitization will make a person more violent.
What about people who serve in the armed forces? That shit is rigorous. Someone who goes to war would potentially be severely Desensitized and Hyper-Aggressive, and by the same rationale, much more likely to commit a violent crime.
Thus, if we are going to say that the % of kids playing violent video games is somehow related to the occurrence of violent crimes in the respective age bracket, then the same relation (if not more so) would have to be applied to people who have served in the armed forces.
Thaiboxer on
Playing WoW "only when you are bored" is like smoking "only when you are drinking".
People in the armed forces become desensitised to violence? Colour me shocked.
No one's making the jump between the emotions/behaviours being exhibited and incidences of violent crimes, except lousy media commentators and the very occasional suckarse scientist. The hypothesis that being constantly exposed to violence in media leads results in a greater degree of indifference to real violence has been repeatedly supported experimentally (Edit: not that this particular study has anything to do with that) and is explained by the fundamental principles of the major behaviorists theories. Doesn't mean there aren't far more relevant factors causing people to get stabby.
No one's making the jump between the emotions/behaviours being exhibited and incidences of violent crimes, except lousy media commentators and the very occasional suckarse scientist.
I'm not so sure about that. I mean, if you are going to make a statement that someone is "desensitized to violence", aren't you impling that said person would be more prone to comit a violent act than someone who wasn't? After all, the "desensizitation", while not exempting the person from any legal consequences, would exempt the person from a sense of moral guilt, which would then in turn reduce the overall conseqences of such an act. When someone says "Violent video games desensitize a person to violence", the mind automatically makes the next logical jump...
Thaiboxer on
Playing WoW "only when you are bored" is like smoking "only when you are drinking".
What about people who serve in the armed forces? That shit is rigorous. Someone who goes to war would potentially be severely Desensitized and Hyper-Aggressive, and by the same rationale, much more likely to commit a violent crime.
Thus, if we are going to say that the % of kids playing violent video games is somehow related to the occurrence of violent crimes in the respective age bracket, then the same relation (if not more so) would have to be applied to people who have served in the armed forces.
That's actually a big problem too. Especially war veterans and special forces people often have a really hard time trying to readjust to society after leaving the armed forces. Part of it's due to the sudden lack of regulation in thier lives, but part of it is also the desensitization to violence and training to kill.
I'm actually surprised to see how many people here actually do feel violent video games make people "Aggressive" or "Desensitized". I thought it was common knowledge in this forum that that is just a scapegoat for poor parenting. :P
And I thought it was common-sense that if you reward a certain kind of behaviour all the time, you're likely to see that behaviour repeated on a regular basis.
I'm actually surprised to see how many people here actually do feel violent video games make people "Aggressive" or "Desensitized". I thought it was common knowledge in this forum that that is just a scapegoat for poor parenting. :P
And I thought it was common-sense that if you reward a certain kind of behaviour all the time, you're likely to see that behaviour repeated on a regular basis.
If the behavior being rewarded is blowing up pretend people with pretend weapons, I don't think we have to worry about that behavior being repeated in a quest for some quad damage.
I'm actually surprised to see how many people here actually do feel violent video games make people "Aggressive" or "Desensitized". I thought it was common knowledge in this forum that that is just a scapegoat for poor parenting. :P
And I thought it was common-sense that if you reward a certain kind of behaviour all the time, you're likely to see that behaviour repeated on a regular basis.
If the behavior being rewarded is blowing up pretend people with pretend weapons, I don't think we have to worry about that behavior being repeated in a quest for some quad damage.
You do realise that that doesn't even begin to respond to my point in any way whatsoever, right?
I'm actually surprised to see how many people here actually do feel violent video games make people "Aggressive" or "Desensitized". I thought it was common knowledge in this forum that that is just a scapegoat for poor parenting. :P
And I thought it was common-sense that if you reward a certain kind of behaviour all the time, you're likely to see that behaviour repeated on a regular basis.
If the behavior being rewarded is blowing up pretend people with pretend weapons, I don't think we have to worry about that behavior being repeated in a quest for some quad damage.
You do realise that that doesn't even begin to respond to my point in any way whatsoever, right?
How so? The actions in most videogames that're being rewarded aren't generally the kind of thing that even *can* be replicated in the real world, so I have hard time believing that even constant rewarding for these actions in a fantasy world is going to have any effect on the overall motivations of kids in the real world.
So is Ohio just the only place where there are jocks anymore or are people unable to connect the dots between rewarding athletes for an overall aggressive poise and behaviour leading to a tendency for athletes to behave aggressively in non-sports environments? Does it happen 100% of every time there's a jock? No, but only a fucktard would expect any behavioural trend to happen 100% of every time.
Posts
Ok, so maybe exposure to violent media, which can include real life injuries, desensitizes people over time. Not exclusively video games. But as video games become more realisitic anyway, the line will blur.
No, you are either a "sissy", sensitized, or desensitized.
Sissy and desensitization being the extremes.
Makes sense.
So you're saying: some people will be desensitived, except for the ones that wont.
Pretty much. Eitherway desensitization is still happening. You get what I'm saying?
I've always thought there'll be a cap on the degree of realistic violence that one puts in games. Most developers probably realize that making a man's death as true-to-life as possible would be in very poor taste.
Sure, unless the game is rated Mature or takes place in a highly realistic looking world. If your going for realism why not go the whole way? Otherwise your just left with bullshit, anti-realism. Might as well make a game about a guy that sits in a coffee shop writing poetry.
Idiotic. There are plenty of stylized games, and few "realistic" games that are worth a damn.
whatever
Frankly, this isn't surprising. Who here hasn't focused hard on a game with intense fighting (compared to racing, where you might sort of tune out) and found it hard to refocus afterwards? Or gotten an adrenaline rush out of it?
The problem is of course in the media interpretation. Is this similar to, weaker than, or stronger than the effects produced by watching a violent movie or reading a book containing violent imagery? Are there permanent alterations if the users play consistently? (Similar parallels are present in marijuana research, where people are mildly impaired for hours after stopping but moderate users look the same as controls if they haven't smoked in a month.) Do any measureable effects change depending on the age of the children involved? As the scientists try to emphasize, more studies are needed.
The general decline in crime rates over the last decade in the U.S. certainly suggests that widespread videogame playing has at the very least not led to a widespread crime outbreak.
When the cultural smoke clears, video games will probably be treated like movies. You wouldn't take a 6 year old to see an R-rated movie, and you wouldn't let him play medal of honor either.
We're not the same, you and I.
Judging from your post history, I'd say one of the clearer differences is that he's not a complete dumbass.
ding ding ding, we have a winner!
I'm inclined to disagree with the bolded section.
The problem I see is that the subjects are playing two entirely different kinds of games, an FPS and a driving game. With such radically different games (really, the only thing they have in common is that they're games) it's difficult to swallow the conclusion that the differences in brain activity are due to the presence of violence.
I think a better experiment would be to repeat the FPS section, but with the game artwork replaced such that it's people playing paintball. The gameplay remains identical (you could even use exactly the same levels and scripting) but in one version of the game, the players opponents are killed with the requisite violence and gore, and in the other they simply walk off the field.
Thinking about it, I wonder if there would be any difference between games that are simulating something and those that are just abstract puzzles.
I should have emphasized the "compared to other studies in the field" bit. It's damnation by faint praise; I'm definitely talking like I'm around other scientists here.
I like your study idea, but I'm not sure about paintball as a control the more I think about it. Would we describe paintball in real life "violent" or not? You'd need another control where people run through environments and don't shoot at all but still have some kind of mission goals and can see other players. Too bad fMRI is so damn expensive to do, and you have to do them on a lot of people. Plus you'd have to recode the games so they controlled similarly, probably produce the running game from scratch.
Ah, the problems of designing a good control...
I quite agree that the conclusion and discussions drawn from these kind of studies often reek more of trying to hit headlines for more funding/exposure.
But I also think that you shouldn't just rubbish research because it hasn't answered the question you want it to.
I'm not going to quote studies but I'm fairly sure (someone can correct me) that watching violence on TV as a child has been linked to increases in violent behaviour later on in life (not on a 1:1 scale obviously, but statistically relevant).
I don't see why it's hard to consider the possibility that violent video games may have the same, lesser or greater effect. Of course these types of cohort studies are expensive and time consuming and for a serious study you'd probably better have some proof that violent games have some measurable effect short term over non-violent games, especially when these same effects can be shown in other media which have then been linked to increased aggressive/violent behaviour later in life.
It was just presented at a meeting. I doubt the study is published yet.
There's no copy of the presentation? So... what is everyone basing their criticisms on? The headline and a couple of quotes?
Is Rene Weber involved in this any way? This sounds like his kind of game.
I agree. I'm sure that watching tons of Bruce Lee films as a kid had some impact on me. They sure didn't turn me into a killer or even a decent martial artist. Neither did playing Mario or even Mortal Kombat. Actually, Mortal Kombat just made me feel dumber so I'd go back to Street Fighter II.
Anyway, have they done studies involving top notch players? I played UT2k3/UT2k4 in organized leagues (IG LG BR for those who wonder) for a couple years and definitely noticed that I was completely focused once I had reached a certain level of mastery. It wasn't really violence anymore. It had become strategic and shooting was simply a means to an end. It might as well been rainbows or paintballs.
My heart rate didn't even ratchet up much when I played (I checked to make sure I was in optimal arousal states) and any spikes were more due to emotions about the game score than about the violence itself. It was extremely similar to my Starcraft days (also competitive) and I recognized the optimal frame of mind; completely calm and clear, with crystal clear thinking and reaction time. The hands and fingers were controlled mostly through muscle memory and the brain just thought about what to do next, not "OMG GUY COMING SHOOT HIM". It was similar to meditation in some ways; both involve emptying yourself of unnecessary concerns and focusing on what is important.
This differs wildly from my experience playing soccer (before knee injuries and my subsequent turn to video games for competitive release). When I played soccer, I was far more emotional and could use that emotion to good effect. It provided adrenaline rushes which translated to more energy to put into the physical exertion. Of course, there was a necessary mental clearness but a different kind. If I ever got as emotional and aggressive while playing video games as I did when I played soccer (a pretty violent sport), it impaired my ability to play, not enhanced it.
Basically, they might find extremely different results with a different group. I'd be interested to hear what others who have played games and/or sports competitively have to say, but I think looking into the brain activity of athletes in violent sports and non-violent sports would help us draw a clearer picture of how different the experience of playing video games is from more accepted activities.
Because the way they paint their results and process, it makes it seem like playing violent video games is the only thing that kids do to achieve this effect.
Are there any studies that attempt to answer it?
Nissl, from what I can tell this was an oral presentation at the Radiological Society national meeting. Since you're a graduate student, you probably know better than most that much of what is bandied about at these meetings is complete crap (not just at the RSNA; I've been in a few different scientific communites and their respective meetings during my career, and I've seen the same thing in every one). This study is no different. To say that this study is well done indicates that you should be asking some basic questions about proper controls in your own research. Think about it - many other people have on this forum and came up with the better solution already. The two games have little in common. To have a truly relevant control, the first author should have set up the game with and without opposing forces for the children to play against. In other words, the control is the exact same map, in the exact same game, with the exact same stimuli - except for the violence.
You should always look at every study - even ones published in peer-reviewed journals - with a critical eye, especially ones that have any value to the mass media.
This is exactly what I was thinking. It doesn't matter if you're playing GTA or football on a field, playing Medal of Honor or playing paintball, you're going to have a temporary emotional adjustment as a result of playing a competitive game. Engrossing games will get your adrenaline going, the same way that stealing second base will. Tetris might not get you into fist-pumping mode, but neither does a good game of chess.
So yes, video games do elicit an emotional response in anyone who plays them. Is anyone shocked? I should hope not. Sports do the same thing. So do movies, whether they're Oscar winners, Ed Wood films, or porn. So does music, from rap to Elivs to classical. Everything we do for entertainment makes us respond emotionally to it, to one degree or another.
The "real question" is if continual exposure to any entertainment mediums creates a permanent or even just long-term change to a person's emotions, and/or perceptions of the world, and whether or not those changes are detrimental. Can playing lots of turn-based strategy games help you learn how to plan ahead and micromanage in real life? Probably. Playing chess does the same thing. Most gamers probably have slightly improved hand-eye coordination comapred to non-gamers, but I can think of a lot of different professions which would improve that same skill while never touching a video game.
You know the people who say that nothing shocks them anymore after seeing Goatse, beheading videos, and all manner of gross-out websites on the web? I wouldn't be terribly shocked if playing a lot of hyper-violent games produces the same effect. Doesn't mean that either group is likely to become a sociopath and start killing people.
The key thing here is whether a normal person, by virtue of having played lots of video games, is any more likely to have some kind of delinquent behavior or habits than any other passionate hobbyist, be it playing paintball or football, skydiving or computer hacking, making amateur movies or doing parkour. I'd make a bet that gamers are no more likely than any other hobbyist to have long-term psychological changes, whether they're good (improving a subset of skills) or bad (sociopathic behavior).
I know from personal experience that a good competitive video game can get the adrenaline going and make my pulse quicken. So what? I'm still almost phobia-level afraid of guns, despite many, many hours playing FPS games. I always have been, and the first FPS I picked up (Tribes) came long after I discovered that guns made me very uncomfortable.
There is a discussion to be had here, but the problem is that no media outlet seems to want to have it. The notion that video games can make for violent children is very popular with the Overconcerned Parent demographic, who also happen to mesh nicely with the chunk of people who watch the most TV and buy the most newspapers and newsmagazines. Not coincidentally, they also tend to be very underrepresented amongst gamers, and as a whole we take pride in our hobby/lifestyle/culture/pasttime, or whatever you want to call it.
Total monkey business could be going on in the back end, and we'll never know until the paper is published if then. But it's being discussed now so I think it's ok to weigh in tentatively. Based on the description of the study design, it is an improvement on previous video game studies that I've seen popularly reported in the media. It's nice that the comparison condition involves videogames. It's nice they used a stroop-like setup in their fMRI to measure aftereffects. That doesn't mean that future studies can't improve on it further.
Every control suggested has benefits but is also moderately problematic. An empty map control has to leave you concerned about exactly how much attention the children are going to pay to the game. A paintball control might tell you something about gore, but not necessarily about shooting at other people. These are additional studies that eventually will get done. But you can't just toss this study out as bullshit because it doesn't have every possible condition in it or the exact control you want. As I'm sure you know fMRI is expensive and time-consuming to perform. The first studies done in a field often use fairly different conditions to establish the presence of large effects, then start to play with the details. At least here we don't have sitting around doing nothing as a control condition.
That doesn't mean it answers the real money question, as I, and others, and the scientists producing the study have pointed out: is there a quantifiable, functional long-term effect of consistent video game playing, in either children and adults? (And if so, what does that mean? - though that's harder to answer.) If there are studies you are aware of that fill this gap, perhaps you can direct us to them.
Additionally, I haven't seen the scientists involved say anything except exactly what the results of the study are. The negative articles are a media and culture problem, not a science problem. I'm sure you also know how distorted popular articles about your work come out, if you've gone through the process or know people who have. A brief search of the authors' publication history shows a decent publication record investigating MRI imaging techniques, language and more recently antisocial behavior involving fMRI. These are not anti-videogame partisans here.
I don't appreciate you tossing around aspersions concerning my research, which you know absolutely nothing about.
Besides the fact that the other options are more complicated and expensive, there's benefits to having a naturalistic control. Honestly it's pretty hard to critque when we have no idea of their actual research question. I doubt it's as stupid as the quote makes it seem. I also don't think MRI work is really at the stage where you can come to particularly staggering conclusions about violence anyway.
Most of the long term effects studies I've seen have focused on television and desensitisation. Video games have only become the sexier scapegoat over the last five years or so. It's funny, I've seen a dozen or so studies on the subject now, and I don't think I would've bothered to read any of them if it wasn't for the outraged D&D thread that reliably appears every few months.
Fair enough. I'm perfectly willing to accept that my idea isn't a perfect control, it's just the first thing that came to mind. I like this idea:
Let's set aside the fact that there is a huge jump from personality traits to the willingness and motivation to commit a violent act...
The argument is being made that this aggressiveness and/or desensitization will make a person more violent.
What about people who serve in the armed forces? That shit is rigorous. Someone who goes to war would potentially be severely Desensitized and Hyper-Aggressive, and by the same rationale, much more likely to commit a violent crime.
Thus, if we are going to say that the % of kids playing violent video games is somehow related to the occurrence of violent crimes in the respective age bracket, then the same relation (if not more so) would have to be applied to people who have served in the armed forces.
No one's making the jump between the emotions/behaviours being exhibited and incidences of violent crimes, except lousy media commentators and the very occasional suckarse scientist. The hypothesis that being constantly exposed to violence in media leads results in a greater degree of indifference to real violence has been repeatedly supported experimentally (Edit: not that this particular study has anything to do with that) and is explained by the fundamental principles of the major behaviorists theories. Doesn't mean there aren't far more relevant factors causing people to get stabby.
I'm not so sure about that. I mean, if you are going to make a statement that someone is "desensitized to violence", aren't you impling that said person would be more prone to comit a violent act than someone who wasn't? After all, the "desensizitation", while not exempting the person from any legal consequences, would exempt the person from a sense of moral guilt, which would then in turn reduce the overall conseqences of such an act. When someone says "Violent video games desensitize a person to violence", the mind automatically makes the next logical jump...
If a racing game doesn't stimulate the violent parts of your brain then you're playing it wrong. :P
That's actually a big problem too. Especially war veterans and special forces people often have a really hard time trying to readjust to society after leaving the armed forces. Part of it's due to the sudden lack of regulation in thier lives, but part of it is also the desensitization to violence and training to kill.
If the behavior being rewarded is blowing up pretend people with pretend weapons, I don't think we have to worry about that behavior being repeated in a quest for some quad damage.
How so? The actions in most videogames that're being rewarded aren't generally the kind of thing that even *can* be replicated in the real world, so I have hard time believing that even constant rewarding for these actions in a fantasy world is going to have any effect on the overall motivations of kids in the real world.