I swear I'd posted in this thread last night, but I suppose not.
I think the whole games'n'violence thing has been debunked enough (or led to enough dead ends) that it's not really the pertinent psychological issue with gaming anymore.
But since the rise of MMOs and in light of the pervasiveness of gaming in the 21st century, I'd really like to see some more studies done on gaming addiction.
While I am not familiar with the studies regarding violent television/music/whatever, I am saying that video games would break any pattern precisely because you get to be violent. Sublimation is a powerful defense mechanism and being able to channel violent tendencies (which everyone does, in fact, have) in a socially acceptable manner is a powerful thing to have.
And I am saying that's a totally legitimate and plausible hypothesis, and I wouldn't be all that surprised if your theory turning out to be correct, even though I don't personally expect it to.
But, since we won't have any hard data for years, isn't it more reasonable right now for the field to assume things will turn out the same way they did for violent television? Violent video games could break the pattern, but it's probably safer to assume the pattern will hold until the evidence proves otherwise.
Doesn't that strike you as a teensy bit unscientific? In the absense of evidence, let's assume things behave a certain way. And people wonder why psychology gets a bad rap as being a super soft science. Not only does it not make a whole lot of scientific sense, but it also opens the door to bias.
That's actually how all science works. Assume the pattern that has been supported with the most prior evidence holds true for future data points, all while searching for any evidence that contradicts the current theory. It's just magnified here because much of developmental psychology takes decades to research. It's frustrating, and you're right that part of it involves throwing your hands in the air and settling for "in the absence of evidence, let's assume things behave a certain way." But a more fair characterization would be "until our evidence can be collected, we have no choice but to assume this phenomenon will behave the same way as those phenomena most similar to it have behaved in the past."
You know, we're both right, but we're just looking at video games in a different way. You're operating on the view that violent television and violent video games are more or less the same with a few minor differences. In that case, you are right to follow the pattern. I'm operating on the view that violent television and violent video games are fundamentally different with a few minor similarities, in which case it would be very unscientific to assume the patterns of the former apply to the the latter.
When I was nine I fired an Ak-47 and thought nothing of it, other than how much cooler it was than a .22. After a few shots I even hit the beer can I was aiming at. I'd fired .22's probably for a year before that. I had some cousins with me in the same boat. When they were 12 they recieved .22's for christmas, and were allowed to pretty much shoot them whenever they wanted. I also grew up in a family that was heavily oriented around hunting and all the kids, regardless of if they were interested in shooting or not, were more than aware of the danger of guns. And none of us ever used our ease of access to many weapons to go kill people after we'd played violent video games.
In fact the only time video games made us violent was when it was someones turn and that fuck* wouldn't give up the control, at which point a fight would usually break out, and the parents would intervene then we'd all go play outside happily afterwards. But fights would break out over all sorts of stupid shit when we were kids, like who can throw a football further, etc.
*whoevers turn was over
EWom on
Whether they find a life there or not, I think Jupiter should be called an enemy planet.
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
While I am not familiar with the studies regarding violent television/music/whatever, I am saying that video games would break any pattern precisely because you get to be violent. Sublimation is a powerful defense mechanism and being able to channel violent tendencies (which everyone does, in fact, have) in a socially acceptable manner is a powerful thing to have.
And I am saying that's a totally legitimate and plausible hypothesis, and I wouldn't be all that surprised if your theory turning out to be correct, even though I don't personally expect it to.
But, since we won't have any hard data for years, isn't it more reasonable right now for the field to assume things will turn out the same way they did for violent television? Violent video games could break the pattern, but it's probably safer to assume the pattern will hold until the evidence proves otherwise.
Doesn't that strike you as a teensy bit unscientific? In the absense of evidence, let's assume things behave a certain way. And people wonder why psychology gets a bad rap as being a super soft science. Not only does it not make a whole lot of scientific sense, but it also opens the door to bias.
That's actually how all science works. Assume the pattern that has been supported with the most prior evidence holds true for future data points, all while searching for any evidence that contradicts the current theory. It's just magnified here because much of developmental psychology takes decades to research. It's frustrating, and you're right that part of it involves throwing your hands in the air and settling for "in the absence of evidence, let's assume things behave a certain way." But a more fair characterization would be "until our evidence can be collected, we have no choice but to assume this phenomenon will behave the same way as those phenomena most similar to it have behaved in the past."
You know, we're both right, but we're just looking at video games in a different way. You're operating on the view that violent television and violent video games are more or less the same with a few minor differences. In that case, you are right to follow the pattern. I'm operating on the view that violent television and violent video games are fundamentally different with a few minor similarities, in which case it would be very unscientific to assume the patterns of the former apply to the the latter.
Only if there was some other scientific evidence indicating that they are fundamentally different and thus should be tested fundamentally differently and you are basing your judgement that they are different on this.
If you can justify this adequately enough as a researcher, you will get the funding to test it.
For a completely new field, you don't just randomly go okay lets test everything. You proceed slowly and methodically based on what previous evidence suggests and then go from where the new experiments suggest you should go. Since so many other processes of human beings are generalisable to similar situations, it's not unusual to start off by assuming it will be so here. The trick is that by testing this assumption, they're trying to disprove it in the testing. Not prove it, disprove it. So no matter what the assumption is, it must survive thorough skeptical investigation.
If it doesn't, then they go where the results of the experiments suggest they should.
It may lead to where you suggest in the end. There may already be theory based on what you suggest. I'm not an expert at all for aggression and violence, I'm not focusing on it.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
The episode was ok overall. "Let's show some nuts or people with political agendas as the case against video game violence, and a sweet little boy for video game violence." didn't do a lot for me, but the ending made it worthwhile.
That's really been my stance all along. Back when the whole Jack bullshit first began, I said they should follow a group of football/hockey/rugby players and a group of professional gamers for a year. At the same time do this for a football/hockey/etc team in high school and a group of gamers and see which are involved in more violent acts.
It makes me sick when there is a school shooting and immediately they try to come up with a link to video games. I wonder what happens when you take someone who may already have sociopathic tendencies, then relentlessly bully or ostracize them every day throughout some of the most formative years of their life. I fucking wonder.
My solution to school violence is to take a kid from every clique and lock them in a room for detention for a day to force them to get to know each other and understand their differences. It worked for Emilio Estevez, Molly Ringwald and Bender so I'm pretty damn sure it will work for our kids.
Dangerous on
0
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
I'm sure it is to a lot of non-gamers. But having taken some of my gaming friends shooting, I can say that Harrison's reaction wasn't out of the ordinary. Most people aren't prepared for that big, fuck-off BOOM that an AK or AR lets off.
He had ear covers on. The AR is loud but it's recoil is virtually non existent. He was probably crying from the emotions involved with the pressure being under so much scruntiny. He had a lot of people watchin him as well as the cameras and all that. It can be a lot for a little kid. I don't think it was shooting the gun that made him cry. Although he was obviously not into it after firing.
Also he held the gun completely wrong
Also I can beleive it making him cry, it can be a very shocking experience.
I remember crying after a fight when I was 12
after a fight I actually won and was not hurt in
I was a softy, yes, but it was still a shocking experience
The Black Hunter on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I'm sure it is to a lot of non-gamers. But having taken some of my gaming friends shooting, I can say that Harrison's reaction wasn't out of the ordinary. Most people aren't prepared for that big, fuck-off BOOM that an AK or AR lets off.
He had ear covers on. The AR is loud but it's recoil is virtually non existent. He was probably crying from the emotions involved with the pressure being under so much scruntiny. He had a lot of people watchin him as well as the cameras and all that. It can be a lot for a little kid. I don't think it was shooting the gun that made him cry. Although he was obviously not into it after firing.
Also he held the gun completely wrong
Also I can beleive it making him cry, it can be a very shocking experience.
I remember crying after a fight when I was 12
after a fight I actually won and was not hurt in
I was a softy, yes, but it was still a shocking experience
:?:
KalTorak on
0
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
I have no idea what the hell that is
The Black Hunter on
0
Burden of ProofYou three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on.Registered Userregular
In areas where the Reason Magazine/Cato Institute brand of libertarianism intersects with reality, Penn & Teller are often both entertaining and informative, and frequently use simple and persuasive arguments.
Simple is not necessarily a good thing, as matters of life can seldom be abstracted into such black and white.
I can't say my opinion of Penn & Teller is very high, they seem to often use less-than-credible sources on their show, and that episode where they compared the death penalty to Hitler just left a sour taste in my mouth.
I just jumped back in here to point out that no way in hell is the "violence'n'videogames" question put to rest in science or society. Much as you wish that were true, there are still all kinds of studies coming out that raise more questions than answers, even just about violence on TV, let alone video games.
I just jumped back in here to point out that no way in hell is the "violence'n'videogames" question put to rest in science or society. Much as you wish that were true, there are still all kinds of studies coming out that raise more questions than answers, even just about violence on TV, let alone video games.
it sure would be great if we could get links to said studies
That's actually how all science works. Assume the pattern that has been supported with the most prior evidence holds true for future data points, all while searching for any evidence that contradicts the current theory. It's just magnified here because much of developmental psychology takes decades to research. It's frustrating, and you're right that part of it involves throwing your hands in the air and settling for "in the absence of evidence, let's assume things behave a certain way." But a more fair characterization would be "until our evidence can be collected, we have no choice but to assume this phenomenon will behave the same way as those phenomena most similar to it have behaved in the past."
You know, we're both right, but we're just looking at video games in a different way. You're operating on the view that violent television and violent video games are more or less the same with a few minor differences. In that case, you are right to follow the pattern. I'm operating on the view that violent television and violent video games are fundamentally different with a few minor similarities, in which case it would be very unscientific to assume the patterns of the former apply to the the latter.
Only if there was some other scientific evidence indicating that they are fundamentally different and thus should be tested fundamentally differently and you are basing your judgement that they are different on this.
If you can justify this adequately enough as a researcher, you will get the funding to test it.
For a completely new field, you don't just randomly go okay lets test everything. You proceed slowly and methodically based on what previous evidence suggests and then go from where the new experiments suggest you should go. Since so many other processes of human beings are generalisable to similar situations, it's not unusual to start off by assuming it will be so here. The trick is that by testing this assumption, they're trying to disprove it in the testing. Not prove it, disprove it. So no matter what the assumption is, it must survive thorough skeptical investigation.
If it doesn't, then they go where the results of the experiments suggest they should.
It may lead to where you suggest in the end. There may already be theory based on what you suggest. I'm not an expert at all for aggression and violence, I'm not focusing on it.
Obviousness? Participating in one is an active endeavour and participating in the other is a completely passive endeavour. They are fundamentally different. Now, what isn't known is whether the result of that difference is fundamentally different, which is what needs to be scientifically studies. However, the nature of the two beasts is pretty obviously different, which is why I think it isn't at all safe to assume the result is similar until more evidence appears.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited July 2009
I'm gonna watch this Wal-Mart episode (since I worked for 'em). I wanna see what's true and not.
Edit - I'm not sure what that guy was getting at with his, "Oh they don't let them control their schedule or pay rate." Uh... isn't that like, every fucking company?
I actually did have a job once where my hours were "Whenever you come in to work". I was basically just a regularly paid freelance worker there.
Khavall on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited July 2009
Wow, those t-shirt makers were pretty big assholes. And the only time we ever had to do the "Wal-Mart cheer," which has nothing in it that's akin to the Nazi bullshit those two were talking about, was when one of my pals there made a joke during a meeting about how he wants us to do it from now on (ass).
If there's anything negative to be said of Wal-Mart from that episode with no defense, it's the sweat-shop labor and the no-unions thing. What they failed to do was bring up Wal-Mart's bullshit regarding healthcare it offers its employees and all the clauses in it that could result in making the employees pay anyway.
But I mean, it's still just a business and offers people a place to shop. Nobody at my store was being paid close to minimum wage (in Texas, at the time I worked, mw was 6.55 an hour) (new hires were coming in at 8.50, or 8.75 / 9.00 for overnight positions). I wouldn't quite call that mistreating employees.
Wow, those t-shirt makers were pretty big assholes. And the only time we ever had to do the "Wal-Mart cheer," which has nothing in it that's akin to the Nazi bullshit those two were talking about, was when one of my pals there made a joke during a meeting about how he wants us to do it from now on (ass).
If there's anything negative to be said of Wal-Mart from that episode with no defense, it's the sweat-shop labor and the no-unions thing. What they failed to do was bring up Wal-Mart's bullshit regarding healthcare it offers its employees and all the clauses in it that could result in making the employees pay anyway.
But I mean, it's still just a business and offers people a place to shop. Nobody at my store was being paid close to minimum wage (in Texas, at the time I worked, mw was 6.55 an hour) (new hires were coming in at 8.50, or 8.75 / 9.00 for overnight positions). I wouldn't quite call that mistreating employees.
It depends on your store. In NY around where I lived they paid $9 an hour (vs a minimum-wage of just below $7 at the time), and had the hour-dependent health care and retirement and whatever, but they dicked everyone something fierce on hours. If you got close to the requirements? Expect to be getting 2 shifts a week until you quit out of frustration. They didn't care about turnover because there was always another teenager or HS dropout to hire.
Bullshit is decent, except for that episode about Wal-Mart hate. That episode was completely off base.
Everything they said was accurate. You could mention they were pro wal-mart btw.
No, what they were saying wasn't accurate. Also, you might want to look up lie of omission sometime, as that's one of Penn's preferred tactics.
Having worked at a Wal-mart I can say that it indeed was accurate. nothing he said about the corporation negative or otherwise was false . It's been about a year since I watched the episode though so perhaps I'm mistaken.
King Riptor on
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
I know we've already covered the Harrison part, but I wanted to throw my experiences out there.
I had fired a small caliber rifle when I was in boy scouts, and at some point in my teens went to a range and shot a .22, 9mm, and .45 with my dad.
I hated shooting the .45, it felt way too powerful for me to enjoy shooting it. The .22 and 9mm were more like very dangerous toys (which I am very okay with). My dad owns a .45 now and I'm not even to fond of holding it. It feels like something designed to just fucking kill.
Improvolone on
Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
Watching Bullsh!t is like a fucking lesson in how to write a speech (and swearing), they are so goddamned effective at making their point.
That's like saying watching Michael Moore movies are like lessons in how to make documentaries, or reading Ann Coulter books are like lessons in researching and writing political theory.
Penn & Teller are not effective at making their point, they're effective at preaching to the converted. They go out of their way to edit their show to make people who disagree with them seem like idiots and without any critique present Cato Institute shills they can get to parrot some glibertarian talking points.
Except that a documentary is supposed to be founded in... truth and reality?
Penn & Teller absofuckinglutely have an agenda but that doesn't remove how well they construct their (sometimes flawed) argument.
When they cut up the school shooting triangle it was a great piece of spectacle.
Improvolone on
Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
Bullshit is decent, except for that episode about Wal-Mart hate. That episode was completely off base.
Everything they said was accurate. You could mention they were pro wal-mart btw.
No, what they were saying wasn't accurate. Also, you might want to look up lie of omission sometime, as that's one of Penn's preferred tactics.
This is what I have to remind people whenever I watch this with them.
I love Bullshit!, but it's not distilled truth. On a certain level, the show's own bullshit (see Wal-Mart, maybe even the recycling episode) just works in favour of their overall message: think critically. The show isn't supposed to be balanced as far as I'm concerned...like a courtroom, they're just using their skills to present a case in total opposition of whatever point of view they're criticizing. They take a similar approach to interviewees as the film Religulous: find the most polarizing nutjob you can and make them look as stupid as possible. It is, after all, television.
I think the last episode should be about the show itself, and in the end Penn and Teller fight to the death with hammers.
I enjoyed the video games episode, although I wish they had done it later so they could mention how Thompson was disbarred. The football speech deserves liming. Watching the kid react to the gun...stung. Overall, entertaining, as usual.
Torso Boy on
0
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
I think they have an agenda, and they are also presenting something in 1/2 hour - bullshit seemed more "fair and balanced" when it was an hour long.
Also, i was a hell of a shot by the time I was harrison's age and I've managed to avoid shooting the crap out of anyone undeserving.
Also, they missed the best argument, which is that the standard of the video games industry is not and should not be the standard of "what is good for a 9 year old", they didn't talk about the voluntary ratings system, they failed to truly address the parental numbness that puts violent games in the hands of kids (I mean, really, the fucking thing is called Grand Theft Auto you'd really think that would draw a second look before you drop 60 bucks on it for a little kid) so their format forces them to pick and choose from supporting arguments, much less opposing ones.
I just jumped back in here to point out that no way in hell is the "violence'n'videogames" question put to rest in science or society. Much as you wish that were true, there are still all kinds of studies coming out that raise more questions than answers, even just about violence on TV, let alone video games.
You didn't quote me, but I'm the one who implied this so I'll respond. I think it's a good discussion to have.
The issue certainly isn't resolved in any meaningful fashion, but I'll tentatively say that studies on the games-aggression front are not going to produce any eye-opening results in the near future. I say this because:
-It's not a new and sexy issue anymore. A lot of stuff is out there about it, and the amount of public and scientific interest is dwindling.
-When it was new and sexy, the results of early studies were resounding "mehs". Some correlations that showed violence decreased, but could in no way be interpreted as causation. Some studies that show aggressive thoughts increase, but very few showing that aggressive behavior increases (or changes at all, actually). Confusion about what counts as "aggressive" and what counts as "competitive." I don't think there are any sudden breakthroughs forthcoming to kill the issue once and for all.
-The conclusions of the results of these studies will, inevitably, lead to First amendment and "art" discussions. This is territory most lawmakers won't touch with a ten foot pole, and as such research on the issue isn't likely to produce any policy suggestions that anyone can or will take seriously.
Meanwhile:
-The MMO genre is gaining huge ground. More than any other form of game in the medium's history, it encourages addiction. It's the addictive, not the aggressive, effects that we're seeing cause some issues in certain gamers. You can't point at something so spectacularly horrifying as, say, school shootings and try to manufacture a link between that and gaming, but I've no doubt that gaming addiction has ruined lives in quieter ways.
-Addiction is an incredibly well-studied field, but gaming addiction is a new and sexy take on the issue. Combine that with recent advanced is neuroimaging and biopsych and you've got yourself a great new field to test out some fun new research toys with magnanimous grants from all sorts of interested parties.
-Game addiction research can very much produce pragmatic results. Add it to the DSM, give clinical psychologists protocols for helping gaming addicts, and learn more about the nature of other addictions from watching a very curious form of it (there is no physical component to gaming addiction, and unlike other behavioral addictions [such as gambling] it doesn't even pretend to produce material rewards). Making gamers aware that their 4-5 hour a day habit is not, in fact, healthy would be a huge boon in and of itself.
In short, I think that we're going to lose interest in the games-cause-aggression-and-violence field, and an increased interest in studies on gaming addiction.
"Video Games" aren't new and sexy, but every single new game that comes out is. GTA5 will probably cause some sort of media storm.
To be fair, Rockstar has benefitted from public outcry about their games. If they aren't actively encouraging it (they probably aren't) they stand little to gain from toning things down for the sake of mitigating controversy. I'm sure various lawsuits have cost them some lawyers fees, but would they be the juggernaut they are if they didn't dominate a few news cycles before the release of their last few games? I highly doubt it.
It's the "no such thing as bad publicity" effect, which is so increasingly rare these days that we tend to be shocked when we see it rear its head.
"Video Games" aren't new and sexy, but every single new game that comes out is. GTA5 will probably cause some sort of media storm.
To be fair, Rockstar has benefitted from public outcry about their games. If they aren't actively encouraging it (they probably aren't) they stand little to gain from toning things down for the sake of mitigating controversy. I'm sure various lawsuits have cost them some lawyers fees, but would they be the juggernaut they are if they didn't dominate a few news cycles before the release of their last few games? I highly doubt it.
It's the "no such thing as bad publicity" effect, which is so increasingly rare these days that we tend to be shocked when we see it rear its head.
Agreed. But to be fair, your point was that public opinion was turning m'eh.
Improvolone on
Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
I just jumped back in here to point out that no way in hell is the "violence'n'videogames" question put to rest in science or society. Much as you wish that were true, there are still all kinds of studies coming out that raise more questions than answers, even just about violence on TV, let alone video games.
You didn't quote me, but I'm the one who implied this so I'll respond. I think it's a good discussion to have.
The issue certainly isn't resolved in any meaningful fashion, but I'll tentatively say that studies on the games-aggression front are not going to produce any eye-opening results in the near future. I say this because:
-It's not a new and sexy issue anymore. A lot of stuff is out there about it, and the amount of public and scientific interest is dwindling.
-When it was new and sexy, the results of early studies were resounding "mehs". Some correlations that showed violence decreased, but could in no way be interpreted as causation. Some studies that show aggressive thoughts increase, but very few showing that aggressive behavior increases (or changes at all, actually). Confusion about what counts as "aggressive" and what counts as "competitive." I don't think there are any sudden breakthroughs forthcoming to kill the issue once and for all.
-The conclusions of the results of these studies will, inevitably, lead to First amendment and "art" discussions. This is territory most lawmakers won't touch with a ten foot pole, and as such research on the issue isn't likely to produce any policy suggestions that anyone can or will take seriously.
I don't really know of any measures of public interest, but scientific interest in violent video games (as measured by the number of articles written) is actually growing at a pretty fast pace. Maybe science is behind the times as far as how sexy an issue is, but it's one of those fields that still has that "new and applicable and maybe I'll get quoted in the media" shine to it.
As for the results of prior studies... they weren't conclusive, but they were certainly more suggestive than you're implying. Longitudinal studies will never really be able to conclusively prove causation. It's just not really feasible. But there's as much suggestive evidence as is attainable that violent media increases 1) aggression, 2) aggressive behavior, and 3) several measures of violence. And more short-term behavioral studies on violent video games in particular found essentially the same thing, although those tend to hold less stock than more longitudinal studies (which won't be available for years). Kakos might be right that violent video games ultimately break the trend of violent media, but I think the evidence so far is more suggestive than "meh."
Although, your prediction that the media focus will migrate to gaming addiction is a pretty cool one that I really hadn't thought of. And yeah, I could kinda see things going that way, to be honest, what with WoW becoming such a cultural phenomenon.
Posts
AR though? ho boy
I think the whole games'n'violence thing has been debunked enough (or led to enough dead ends) that it's not really the pertinent psychological issue with gaming anymore.
But since the rise of MMOs and in light of the pervasiveness of gaming in the 21st century, I'd really like to see some more studies done on gaming addiction.
You know, we're both right, but we're just looking at video games in a different way. You're operating on the view that violent television and violent video games are more or less the same with a few minor differences. In that case, you are right to follow the pattern. I'm operating on the view that violent television and violent video games are fundamentally different with a few minor similarities, in which case it would be very unscientific to assume the patterns of the former apply to the the latter.
In fact the only time video games made us violent was when it was someones turn and that fuck* wouldn't give up the control, at which point a fight would usually break out, and the parents would intervene then we'd all go play outside happily afterwards. But fights would break out over all sorts of stupid shit when we were kids, like who can throw a football further, etc.
*whoevers turn was over
Only if there was some other scientific evidence indicating that they are fundamentally different and thus should be tested fundamentally differently and you are basing your judgement that they are different on this.
If you can justify this adequately enough as a researcher, you will get the funding to test it.
For a completely new field, you don't just randomly go okay lets test everything. You proceed slowly and methodically based on what previous evidence suggests and then go from where the new experiments suggest you should go. Since so many other processes of human beings are generalisable to similar situations, it's not unusual to start off by assuming it will be so here. The trick is that by testing this assumption, they're trying to disprove it in the testing. Not prove it, disprove it. So no matter what the assumption is, it must survive thorough skeptical investigation.
If it doesn't, then they go where the results of the experiments suggest they should.
It may lead to where you suggest in the end. There may already be theory based on what you suggest. I'm not an expert at all for aggression and violence, I'm not focusing on it.
That's really been my stance all along. Back when the whole Jack bullshit first began, I said they should follow a group of football/hockey/rugby players and a group of professional gamers for a year. At the same time do this for a football/hockey/etc team in high school and a group of gamers and see which are involved in more violent acts.
It makes me sick when there is a school shooting and immediately they try to come up with a link to video games. I wonder what happens when you take someone who may already have sociopathic tendencies, then relentlessly bully or ostracize them every day throughout some of the most formative years of their life. I fucking wonder.
My solution to school violence is to take a kid from every clique and lock them in a room for detention for a day to force them to get to know each other and understand their differences. It worked for Emilio Estevez, Molly Ringwald and Bender so I'm pretty damn sure it will work for our kids.
Also he held the gun completely wrong
Also I can beleive it making him cry, it can be a very shocking experience.
I remember crying after a fight when I was 12
after a fight I actually won and was not hurt in
I was a softy, yes, but it was still a shocking experience
'Oh god, I shot my eye out!'
Those were tears of triumph.
I can't say my opinion of Penn & Teller is very high, they seem to often use less-than-credible sources on their show, and that episode where they compared the death penalty to Hitler just left a sour taste in my mouth.
Watching Bullsh!t is like a fucking lesson in how to write a speech (and swearing), they are so goddamned effective at making their point.
Obviousness? Participating in one is an active endeavour and participating in the other is a completely passive endeavour. They are fundamentally different. Now, what isn't known is whether the result of that difference is fundamentally different, which is what needs to be scientifically studies. However, the nature of the two beasts is pretty obviously different, which is why I think it isn't at all safe to assume the result is similar until more evidence appears.
Everything they said was accurate. You could mention they were pro wal-mart btw.
No, what they were saying wasn't accurate. Also, you might want to look up lie of omission sometime, as that's one of Penn's preferred tactics.
Edit - I'm not sure what that guy was getting at with his, "Oh they don't let them control their schedule or pay rate." Uh... isn't that like, every fucking company?
If there's anything negative to be said of Wal-Mart from that episode with no defense, it's the sweat-shop labor and the no-unions thing. What they failed to do was bring up Wal-Mart's bullshit regarding healthcare it offers its employees and all the clauses in it that could result in making the employees pay anyway.
But I mean, it's still just a business and offers people a place to shop. Nobody at my store was being paid close to minimum wage (in Texas, at the time I worked, mw was 6.55 an hour) (new hires were coming in at 8.50, or 8.75 / 9.00 for overnight positions). I wouldn't quite call that mistreating employees.
It depends on your store. In NY around where I lived they paid $9 an hour (vs a minimum-wage of just below $7 at the time), and had the hour-dependent health care and retirement and whatever, but they dicked everyone something fierce on hours. If you got close to the requirements? Expect to be getting 2 shifts a week until you quit out of frustration. They didn't care about turnover because there was always another teenager or HS dropout to hire.
Having worked at a Wal-mart I can say that it indeed was accurate. nothing he said about the corporation negative or otherwise was false . It's been about a year since I watched the episode though so perhaps I'm mistaken.
Loved the metal dude though. \m/
I had fired a small caliber rifle when I was in boy scouts, and at some point in my teens went to a range and shot a .22, 9mm, and .45 with my dad.
I hated shooting the .45, it felt way too powerful for me to enjoy shooting it. The .22 and 9mm were more like very dangerous toys (which I am very okay with). My dad owns a .45 now and I'm not even to fond of holding it. It feels like something designed to just fucking kill.
That's like saying watching Michael Moore movies are like lessons in how to make documentaries, or reading Ann Coulter books are like lessons in researching and writing political theory.
Penn & Teller are not effective at making their point, they're effective at preaching to the converted. They go out of their way to edit their show to make people who disagree with them seem like idiots and without any critique present Cato Institute shills they can get to parrot some glibertarian talking points.
Penn & Teller absofuckinglutely have an agenda but that doesn't remove how well they construct their (sometimes flawed) argument.
When they cut up the school shooting triangle it was a great piece of spectacle.
I love Bullshit!, but it's not distilled truth. On a certain level, the show's own bullshit (see Wal-Mart, maybe even the recycling episode) just works in favour of their overall message: think critically. The show isn't supposed to be balanced as far as I'm concerned...like a courtroom, they're just using their skills to present a case in total opposition of whatever point of view they're criticizing. They take a similar approach to interviewees as the film Religulous: find the most polarizing nutjob you can and make them look as stupid as possible. It is, after all, television.
I think the last episode should be about the show itself, and in the end Penn and Teller fight to the death with hammers.
I enjoyed the video games episode, although I wish they had done it later so they could mention how Thompson was disbarred. The football speech deserves liming. Watching the kid react to the gun...stung. Overall, entertaining, as usual.
Also, i was a hell of a shot by the time I was harrison's age and I've managed to avoid shooting the crap out of anyone undeserving.
Also, they missed the best argument, which is that the standard of the video games industry is not and should not be the standard of "what is good for a 9 year old", they didn't talk about the voluntary ratings system, they failed to truly address the parental numbness that puts violent games in the hands of kids (I mean, really, the fucking thing is called Grand Theft Auto you'd really think that would draw a second look before you drop 60 bucks on it for a little kid) so their format forces them to pick and choose from supporting arguments, much less opposing ones.
I host a podcast about movies.
You didn't quote me, but I'm the one who implied this so I'll respond. I think it's a good discussion to have.
The issue certainly isn't resolved in any meaningful fashion, but I'll tentatively say that studies on the games-aggression front are not going to produce any eye-opening results in the near future. I say this because:
-It's not a new and sexy issue anymore. A lot of stuff is out there about it, and the amount of public and scientific interest is dwindling.
-When it was new and sexy, the results of early studies were resounding "mehs". Some correlations that showed violence decreased, but could in no way be interpreted as causation. Some studies that show aggressive thoughts increase, but very few showing that aggressive behavior increases (or changes at all, actually). Confusion about what counts as "aggressive" and what counts as "competitive." I don't think there are any sudden breakthroughs forthcoming to kill the issue once and for all.
-The conclusions of the results of these studies will, inevitably, lead to First amendment and "art" discussions. This is territory most lawmakers won't touch with a ten foot pole, and as such research on the issue isn't likely to produce any policy suggestions that anyone can or will take seriously.
Meanwhile:
-The MMO genre is gaining huge ground. More than any other form of game in the medium's history, it encourages addiction. It's the addictive, not the aggressive, effects that we're seeing cause some issues in certain gamers. You can't point at something so spectacularly horrifying as, say, school shootings and try to manufacture a link between that and gaming, but I've no doubt that gaming addiction has ruined lives in quieter ways.
-Addiction is an incredibly well-studied field, but gaming addiction is a new and sexy take on the issue. Combine that with recent advanced is neuroimaging and biopsych and you've got yourself a great new field to test out some fun new research toys with magnanimous grants from all sorts of interested parties.
-Game addiction research can very much produce pragmatic results. Add it to the DSM, give clinical psychologists protocols for helping gaming addicts, and learn more about the nature of other addictions from watching a very curious form of it (there is no physical component to gaming addiction, and unlike other behavioral addictions [such as gambling] it doesn't even pretend to produce material rewards). Making gamers aware that their 4-5 hour a day habit is not, in fact, healthy would be a huge boon in and of itself.
In short, I think that we're going to lose interest in the games-cause-aggression-and-violence field, and an increased interest in studies on gaming addiction.
To be fair, Rockstar has benefitted from public outcry about their games. If they aren't actively encouraging it (they probably aren't) they stand little to gain from toning things down for the sake of mitigating controversy. I'm sure various lawsuits have cost them some lawyers fees, but would they be the juggernaut they are if they didn't dominate a few news cycles before the release of their last few games? I highly doubt it.
It's the "no such thing as bad publicity" effect, which is so increasingly rare these days that we tend to be shocked when we see it rear its head.
Agreed. But to be fair, your point was that public opinion was turning m'eh.
I don't really know of any measures of public interest, but scientific interest in violent video games (as measured by the number of articles written) is actually growing at a pretty fast pace. Maybe science is behind the times as far as how sexy an issue is, but it's one of those fields that still has that "new and applicable and maybe I'll get quoted in the media" shine to it.
As for the results of prior studies... they weren't conclusive, but they were certainly more suggestive than you're implying. Longitudinal studies will never really be able to conclusively prove causation. It's just not really feasible. But there's as much suggestive evidence as is attainable that violent media increases 1) aggression, 2) aggressive behavior, and 3) several measures of violence. And more short-term behavioral studies on violent video games in particular found essentially the same thing, although those tend to hold less stock than more longitudinal studies (which won't be available for years). Kakos might be right that violent video games ultimately break the trend of violent media, but I think the evidence so far is more suggestive than "meh."
Although, your prediction that the media focus will migrate to gaming addiction is a pretty cool one that I really hadn't thought of. And yeah, I could kinda see things going that way, to be honest, what with WoW becoming such a cultural phenomenon.