everything in that link is about school violenceOriginally Posted by Govtcheez
everything in that link is about school violenceOriginally Posted by Govtcheez
hehe...thanks Bob, Govt. It's not often I get to talk about something I'm really good at around here. Nice to know I make sense to others when talking about the subject in which I'm getting a degree in a few weeks.
(And it's guy Bob..well sometimes frog, been accused of rat...but usually guy)
I only checked the 1999 link, since that's when Columbine was - I saw a bunch of links to other studies, which I'm not going to read through to help prove your point.Originally Posted by SniperSAS
I did skim the 2000 PDF, though, and there was nothing there to back up your case, either. Unless you can point me to something specific that says there was a spike in school violence after Columbine, I'm ok with declaring you full of crap and moving on.
I was a senior in high school when Columbine happened, and what I remember was a bunch of scared kids, and not much else. The schools implemented crazy 0 tolerance policies, so I'd be surprised to hear that violence actually went UP after that.
Originally Posted by Govtcheez
"I am not going to read through the evidence you gave me, so I am just going to assume I was right. Also, since things in my high school were this way, I am just going to apply that to every other school in the US"
Alright, but here is an argument that might actually be considered valid:
Ten percent of all public schools experienced one or more serious violent crimes (defined as murder, rape, or other type of sexual battery, suicide, physical attack or fight with a weapon, or robbery) during the 1996-1997 school year.
In 1999-2000, 20 percent of all public schools experienced one or more serious violent crimes such as rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Yea but what does that mean for the purposes of the discussion Snipe?
How does that differ from other years? What's the link to video games? What's the link to other media? And just saying that it was the same time as Columbine doesn't work. What eles might of changed that year? What about other trends?
"Rampage" shootings may have gone up after Columbine (though I'm not totally convinced), and it may have been due to increased media coverage, but there's no way to really say that it effece4d other forms of violence.
And again, what's the relevance to the video game discussion?
Originally Posted by kermi3You will have to read the posts between me and cheese to see how we got off on this tangent. Somewhere down the line it got down to just general violence. At least your points are valid though unlike "I am not going to read that so I must be right!"Originally Posted by Bubba
You are right though, my mistake.
Kermi I find it interesting that the study showed an increase in aggression after playing a violent game. I regurarly play a particular mission in Hitman where I get to circle a drug compound and snipe people in the head. Afterwards I'm much calmer and more focused (on shooting people in da head).
In that study did they take into account underlaying personalities? I think for some people it could increase aggression, but I think a great deal of people use it as a release from the constraints imposed on us by our moral and social beliefs.
My brother is a police officer and him and his buddies like playing shooting games.You never hear about the Cop or the athlete or the Straight "A" student liking violent video games, though I am sure there are many that do.
>>Afterwards I'm much calmer and more focused (on shooting people in da head).
Wait, weren't you a marine? I can't imagine much of anything could make you particularly excited, compared to bootcamp (+combat?)
>>(And it's guy Bob..well sometimes frog, been accused of rat...but usually guy)
>>in which I'm getting a degree in a few weeks.
Nice, what school? Undergrad? Plans for the near future?
I agree completely, but, as Kermi pointed out:More needs to be done about what causes these kids to act violently in the first place, whether it's bullying, poor parenting, unconcerned school officials, or whatever.
So, you have a bunch of different factors, it's debatable which is the key factor, the media has probably blown things out of proportion (shock?) subsequently you probably must pay attention to all of these factors at *least* somewhat, meaning that it is wise to be aware of the effects of violent games on kids. Pragmatically, the real issue is how do these kids get the guns....They are a factor. Just like genes and aggressive predispostions, family interactions, the success/failure of aggressive behavior in the past, the specific situation in which the violence may occur, and other media are factors.
Quoting Fordy + Kermi from pg2, respectively:
You do not deny that "rough and tumble" behavior among young children, especially males, has always been prevalent amongst the generations, but you also seem to suggest that there's a distinction between healthy aggressive behavior and unhealthy aggressive behavior...in this case, the key factor seems to be the presence of others to interact with (in which other social skills may be developed). Is there such thing as healthy aggressive behavior? If so, how is it different from unhealthy aggressive behavior?Is that any different from my dad playing "war" with his school friends back in the 1950s?
Hmmm, I don't know...I don't know if there's any actual research on that, but I would think there would be a difference. For your dad it was a more interpersonal game that had more flexibility and required interpersonal skills other than aggression. Kids playing like is often referred to as "rough and tumble play" and is pretty normal, especially in boys. It is considered distinctly different from aggression and is a normal part of the development of interpersonal skills.
However, a key portion of imaginative play like your dad's may be that it was interpersonal. Multiple kids played and it probably helped develop empathy (via imagination) and other social skills.
Also, at what time in a child's development would playing an ultra violent video game be the most damaging *in the long run,* in terms of delinquint/very aggressive behavior? Obviously, somebody that starts playing soldier of fortune when they are 18 probably isn't as impressionable as somebody that starts playing it when they're 9. Would a male that is 9, before puberty, be more susceptible to the violence than somebody that has just shortly began puberty (where the sex/aggression chemicals start to kick in).
My own experiences were very cliche in a lot of ways...I played doom when I was very young, I always had a very anti social personality...not to the point of being a disorder, just the stereotypical shy computer geek type. But, when confronted or picked on, my response/internal state was *always* that of aggression, thoughts of revenge, and on a couple occasions physical retaliation. This has, in general, curbed substantially as I matured (which has been taking forever), but I wonder if even my own behavior was influenced by *drum roll please* doom and other violent games. Or maybe I'm just a douchebag.
I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.
> "I am not going to read that so I must be right!"
Oh, blow me. You can't honestly just send me with a page full of links and say "There's your proof!"
Here: www.google.com - Guess I was right!
> Somewhere down the line it got down to just general violence.
Maybe in your little mind, but I was specifically talking about your "spike after Columbine", and I mentioned that several times. Your links do absolutely nothing to back up your claim that the rise was due to kids seeing it on the news.
Haven't read Bob's post year...Going to address Thantos first:
They did meassure participants trait aggression. In the first study, they found that this people who had aggression was increased by long term video game usage more in those with higher trait aggression (steeper slope) than those with low trait aggression. They did not find this in the lab setting (study 2). There is other evidence to support this in either direction. They thought they may not be lining up with previous research due to different messures used. It is also possible that aggression and video games may build on each other over the long term but not in the short term.
I'm sure this is an area for future research, but I don't have time to track it down. Remember though, this is about statitistics and overall trends, there is always variablility, and you could be different. It's a fairly new theory (at least when this article was written. It's also possible that even though you "feel" calmer, you may still "punish" someone in a more aggressive manner similar to the subjects in this study.
Because you play the game in moderation. Most of the people who are influenced by the games are in an almost complete state of social withdrawal - the game is their whole life...I just bought NFS: Most Wanted and it's awesome but that doesn't mean I'm gonna take my Eclipse out and ram it head on into a cop car.
I also agree with Bubba's early points. I regularly play AirSoft and go shooting with friends who play Rogue Spear and SWAT 4 even more regularly. They've all learned discipline. They treat the guns like the lethal (or in the case of AirSoft - "eye-sight damaging") weapons they are and they have reverence for life - it's the idiots who pull stunts like Columbine.
If they had video games in the first few centuries AD, all those Saducees would've been whining about the effect of Crusader XII: The Resurrection on the little Pharisee kids.I love violent video games. I use them in my sunday school teachings.
>>Nice, what school? Undergrad? Plans for the near future?
I'm getting my BA from Washington and Lee University. I'm going to take a couple years to pick up some experience and take a break from school, but then I plan on moving on to get my PhD in psyc - probably child and adolescent clinical if I can make it in - those programs can require GPAs as high as 3.75 min, and I only have ~3.6.
>>So, you have a bunch of different factors, it's debatable which is the key factor, the media has probably blown things out of proportion (shock?) subsequently you probably must pay attention to all of these factors at *least* somewhat.
I prefer to think more along the lines that every factor takes a part; some effect some people more than others. We should attempt to address as many as we can.
Oh man Bob…you’re going to make me pull all sorts of ideas out of the back of my head…I wonder how close my old notes are…I’m going to take a crack at this, no promises to how much I’ll be able to answer well…I’ll tell you if what I’m saying is completely useless.
I’ll start by saying you have a lot of good ideas here; let me see how much I can address.
First of all, it is useful to conceive of play as a child’s work. It is necessary for their development to master their motor skills, cope with emotions (through imagination). Ok, I can’t find the notes I want…but let me take a crack anyway. After skimming an article, one important factor is the child’s social competences. For “popular” kids, rough and tumble play often evolves into play with rules. Less competent kids are more likely to misinterpret rough and tumble play and have it turn into aggression (I can address this in more detail later if you’re like – I know this model fairly well). Researchers observed children playing at recess and found thatYou do not deny that "rough and tumble" behavior among young children, especially males, has always been prevalent amongst the generations, but you also seem to suggest that there's a distinction between healthy aggressive behavior and unhealthy aggressive behavior...in this case, the key factor seems to be the presence of others to interact with (in which other social skills may be developed).– sorry for the long quote“both rejected and popular children engage in rough and tumble play (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983). However, only popular children’s play was positively related to measures of social competence. This may be due to the fact that rejected children play with children of similar sociometric status (Ladd, 1983) and, as such, do not have the opportunity to model different social problem-solving strategies during play. Moreover, by playing with other rejected children, there is a good likelihood of the rough-and-tumble play events escalating into aggression. Popular children may use rough-and-tumble play groups as a place to model and practice pro-social behaviors with other popular children” (Pellegrini, 1988, p. 805).
As for age, I don’t know, but I would assume that at a certain age, it becomes less socially acceptable to engage in this play. I don’t know when it is. I would have to do more research than I have time for right now, but assume it’s after 4th grade…I would guess it’s into adolescence. Hell, when I some friends and I wrestled in our living room a few months ago, that was probably rough and tumble play (I lost for the record).
I know that’s not your exact question, but I hope it tells you a little more about rough and tumble play. I can’t find my developmental textbook with its easy answer right now. If you want to rephrase what you're getting at I can take another crack at it later.
Now there’s an interesting question. The earlier studies I referred to were done with college students, so I bet you’re going to have some effects at any age. The best thing I can associate it with is with children’s understanding of advertisements and knowing what’s real and what’s not. Hmmm, another book I can’t find…I might’ve taken it home over break. The summary version though, because I can’t find my notes either, is that kids can be confused by advertisements on TV even up until age 10 or 11. That’s about the time that, according to Piaget’s theory, they might just be starting to develop abstract reasoning. I would guess that younger children would also have a harder time knowing that video games were not real. Therefore, I would definitely steer children under the age of 12 or so as far from violent games as I could.Also, at what time in a child's development would playing an ultra violent video game be the most damaging *in the long run,* in terms of delinquent/very aggressive behavior?
Your own experiences may have been influenced by a lot of things. You could have just had an overactive arousal system that stimulated aggressive responses. What’s important is the actions that you chose to carry out. I can go more into this model later if you’d like (it’s by Ken Dodge, 1993 I think).
I’m sorry I don’t have as many citations in the above as I should have…I don’t really have time right now to dig them all out (I could probably write 10 pages on all the questions you asked with 3 pages of citations on top of it). Not to say that I mind, you’re making me think in interesting ways Bob…I just can’t promise the best most researched answers on the things you’re making me think back 2-3 years on without my notes hehe.
I hope I managed to address at least some of your thoughts.
It pains me to actually have to respond to this, but-Originally Posted by Govtcheez
1) The link I sent you contained a list of different years, after clicking on these years a bunch of different statistics about school violence specific to each year will appear on your screen
2) Google is a search engine
I apologise for confusing you, I thought sending a page full of statistics related to school violence would allow you to figure out a lot of information by yourself without someone else copying and pasting information for you. Don't worry friend! Finding information on the internet for yourself is a simple concept and I would be glad to answer any questions you might have
Okay do you see the two bits of information I sent you? Notice how the one block of text mentions that the satistics are relative to the school year before columbine? Notice how the other states how it's statistics take place in the year after? Now do you notice how in the years after the percentage is larger? You are right, I can't prove that the spike is due to kids seeing it on the news. You are probably right about that, even though someone beat you to the punch. (protip: read the thread next time!)Originally Posted by Govtcheez
However, consider this: there where violent games, music and movies before columbine, but news reports regarding columbine only took place after.
I don't need psycho babble to tell me if games affect me or not.
I know beyond a shadow of a doubt I'm not going to go kill everyone on the street just because I did it in GTA 3. Period, end of discussion.
If you do this and blame it on a game, it's just like saying the devil made me do it.
Face it......it's the person's fault, not their childhood, not their environment - it's the person's fault. The game didn't kill anyone.
- Put the game in a room full of people and guess what....no one dies.
- Put a gun in a room full of people who respect it for what it is and can do, and guess what...no one dies.
- Put an idiot in a room full of people and someone is gonna get hurt.
- Put an idiot anywhere in the world with anything in their possesion and guess what, something bad is probably gonna happen.
Common theme here: the idiot.
It's not the object that's the problem......it's the idiot using it.
Conclusion: Don't be an idiot.
Last edited by VirtualAce; 04-24-2006 at 11:36 PM.
As I can't wear my shirt here, I'll just link to it:
Guns don't kill people...
I agree on the idiot theory. 20 people with 20 guns will do fine. 19 people plus one idiot and someone will get hurt. The guns will just raise the level of pain, the idiot will hurt someone one way or another. Still, 20 people without guns would be the safest scenario.