PDA

View Full Version : Violent video games?



Pages : [1] 2

VirtualAce
04-21-2006, 11:01 AM
Just read a story about some teens being arrested for plotting a Columbine style attack on their school. The news story was good until this phrase....



...
Norman also mentioned bullying and said investigators had learned the suspects liked violent video games.
....


What the hell does that have to do with anything? I wish they would stop blaming video games for this stuff. You can see way more graphic stuff on the big screen and on TV.

Video games have just gotten to the point, via shaders, where stuff actually might look a tad bit realistic. But most, if not all, violent FPS games are when you are acting as the good guys beating down a ton of aliens, or you are a SWAT team, or an Army ranger team, etc, etc.

I think the video game industry has done well at improving the settings in which FPS's are played. None that I've played, with the exception of GTA series, promote gunning down everything and anyone. Usually you have a set of objectives in a military type setting or you are fighting your way out of something as in Half Life series, Doom series, and Farcry. Tom Clancy games are totally military based, the Total War series are historical based, and most other games are RPGs where everyone knows it's fantasy.

How can they blame these games when our TV's show far more than I've ever seen on a video game? 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.

psychopath
04-21-2006, 11:22 AM
There was an article on /. a little while ago about a study on violent video games. To avoid re-typing everything, my take can be found here (http://cookpages.blogspot.com/2006/04/slashdot-reports-games-lead-to.html) .

VirtualAce
04-21-2006, 11:30 AM
I'm not just defending video games because I like them or enjoy 'attempting' to program them. This is more about placing blame on everything but the person.

It's not my desire that anything I program would cause someone to go out and do something extremely stupid. But, cmon, let's get real - I did not force anyone to do anything, much less even buy the game. The same is true for all the great game programmer's out there? I'll defend the art till I die I reckon but there will always be those who just take the popular news side of the story and never do any research.

Why do our new sources continually push their own agendas regardless of the facts?


Doesn't anyone have any common sense in this world anymore?

cboard_member
04-21-2006, 11:52 AM
I'm quite neutral to this "blame the video game" business.

As one gamer to another, I enjoy playing violent video games. In the words of that bald CS psycho:

"There's nothing like the thrill of hunting people down and killing 'em!"

Indeed. He's referring to digital violence. You lack a great deal of mental stability to go out and shoot up your high-school because you did it in a virtual world. Surely the media realise this.

Looking at the games I've got here. They're all violent in some way and I would probably be right in saying the violence in all of them is pretty "in your face" - the type which is - apparently - polluting the minds of otherwise sane individuals.

However, I am a proponent of age ratings in terms of a store not selling it to you without ID. It's up to the parents if they want their 10 year old to go on a killing spree around Vice City, but I think it's a good idea to make sure kids don't get hold of this type of game without consent.

I mean come on, would you want your minor to tear through a military bunker pinning people to the walls with a nailgun?

Oh, If I'm not making much sense it's because I badly need a good nights sleep. :(

Govtcheez
04-21-2006, 12:24 PM
I bet you they played DOOM, which is that ultra-realistic murder simulator on the cutting edge of technology.

Seriously, games have gotten so much bloodier since then - why do they always pick on DOOM?

Dante Shamest
04-21-2006, 12:31 PM
Seriously, games have gotten so much bloodier since then - why do they always pick on DOOM?

Ignorance.

While I won't say games don't have any negative effects at all, it's more likely that violent people like videogames and not that videogames create violent people. If I may quote from the villain in Scream, "Movies don't create psychos, movies make psychos more creative!", it's similar with videogames I guess.

JaWiB
04-21-2006, 03:18 PM
However, I am a proponent of age ratings in terms of a store not selling it to you without ID. It's up to the parents if they want their 10 year old to go on a killing spree around Vice City, but I think it's a good idea to make sure kids don't get hold of this type of game without consent.


I'm not against the ratings system, but it still seems pointless. I mean, if kids can get their hands on alcohol before they turn 21, do you really think they can't get ahold of a mature game when they aren't supposed to?

indigo0086
04-21-2006, 03:35 PM
I love violent video games. I use them in my sunday school teachings.

MadCow257
04-21-2006, 04:04 PM
I love violent video games. I use them in my sunday school teachings.

This is amasingly true :o
Several churches that I've been too have had M games at some point, and have plenty of violents T's.

I think there's only one reason why they're picking on Video Games: because its still alot smaller business then movies. I don't know a whole lot of people that do both, and the number of people I know that see movies is significantly higher.

Perspective
04-21-2006, 04:21 PM
>I think there's only one reason why they're picking on Video Games: because its still alot smaller business then movies

Actually the video game industry has been pulling in more dough than any other entertainment industry (including hollywood) since 2003ish (its been at least 2 years, maybe 3 or 4). I remember the first year it happend, there was a big deal about it on the news.

BobMcGee123
04-21-2006, 06:40 PM
Everybody likes violent video games.

The real issue is how do these kids get firearms? ...

But, I fully support blaming societal influences and how we're training our kids to be sociopathic killers.

MadCow257
04-21-2006, 06:51 PM
Actually the video game industry has been pulling in more dough than any other entertainment industry (including hollywood) since 2003ish (its been at least 2 years, maybe 3 or 4). I remember the first year it happend, there was a big deal about it on the news.
I had thought that might be true, but I don't think money is a fair indicator. A game costs 40+ bucks while a movie costs like 5 (well...I haven't been to a theater in a long time). I think the important thing is that hollywood is very well established, while video games come out of the shakier and smaller nerdium.

SniperSAS
04-23-2006, 07:51 PM
You guys should see Bowling for Columbine, it's a documentary about all the violence in America. In one segment it defends violent games, saying that they have tons of violent games in japan where the number of gun related deaths is in the double digits, where as in the united states it is more then 11,000. Lot's of people think the movie was saying that lots of the violence was due to guns, but personally I think Moore attacks the media more.

Someone asked why the media blames it on violent video games earlier in the thread, I believe it is because they need a scape goat to divert attention away from themselves.

After all, why do you think there was a sudden spike in school violence after columbine? Because kids heard about it on the news.

I know seeing violence on the news has effected me alot more then games. I remember seeing video footage of some mom beating the ........ out of her kid, changing the channel and playing some Body Harvest for the N64 to take my mind off things.

BobMcGee123
04-23-2006, 08:14 PM
The overwhelming point Moore was trying to make was that we have a society that encourages violence...that's why he 'defended' video games that are played in other countries, pointed out that Canada, the UK, etc various other countries have plenty of guns...etc.

Govtcheez
04-24-2006, 06:42 AM
> why do you think there was a sudden spike in school violence after columbine?

There was? Please feel free to name some of these violent schools.

And besides, it's the media's job to report news, for good or bad. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.

BobMcGee123
04-24-2006, 06:57 AM
He was referring to how I punched my sociology teacher in the face after failing me.

Govtcheez
04-24-2006, 06:58 AM
Well he probably deserved it.

Darryl
04-24-2006, 08:02 AM
Just read a story about some teens being arrested for plotting a Columbine style attack on their school. The news story was good until this phrase....

Quote:
...
Norman also mentioned bullying and said investigators had learned the suspects liked violent video 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.

Even non-violent vidoe games have gotten a bad rap- look at the 9/11 highjackers and flight simulator.

Govtcheez
04-24-2006, 08:28 AM
To be fair, MSFS is actually pretty realistic, so it's plausible that they really did get some benefit out of it.

It's a pretty huge stretch to say that anyone would gain a real benefit out of an FPS, though.

kermi3
04-24-2006, 08:39 AM
Ok...can I step into this fray for a moment? This is a topic that comes up numerous times in psyc classes, so I've at least listened to a lot of people talk about it - especially people that no little to nothing about video games...

However, real good research has been, and is being done, of the effects of violent video games. One of the "best" early piece of research is "Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life" by Anderson and Dill (2000) (summary (http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html)).

First of all...why pick on Doom? Apparently Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine) made a Doom mod where NPCs couldn’t fight back and they had unlimited ammo (posted on Harris’ website). Then they made a short film based on their game wherein they wore trench coats and shot all the jocks…and year later they tried it for real. That put Doom in the spotlight.

There are both short term and long term reasons video games are thought to effect aggressive behavior. I’m attaching the figure that researchers have used to describe it…it’s a bit difficult to follow, but it’ll give an idea. (edit: deleted for copyright purposes) I’m not going to take the time to describe the whole study, I can if someone would like more detail, but the findings were basically that:

In the second study, 210 college students played either a violent (Wolfenstein 3D) or nonviolent video game (Myst). A short time later, the students who played the violent video game punished an opponent (received a noise blast with varying intensity) for a longer period of time than did students who had played the nonviolent video game.

"Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing aggressive solutions to conflict situations," said Dr. Anderson. "In the short run, playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts. Longer-term effects are likely to be longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new aggression-related scripts that can become more and more accessible for use when real-life conflict situations arise."

"One major concern is the active nature of the learning environment of the video game," say the authors. "This medium is potentially more dangerous than exposure to violent television and movies, which are known to have substantial effects on aggression and violence.”
The research – and other parallel theories also indicates that other violent media and life experience have important effects on aggression.

Govtcheez
04-24-2006, 08:47 AM
> Longer-term effects are likely to be longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new aggression-related scripts that can become more and more accessible for use when real-life conflict situations arise.

That's just speculation, though. It doesn't look like they actually researched that.

> First of all...why pick on Doom?

I was really just making a joke there. I know about the mod they made.

I still don't think it's the best plan to go after violent video games, since, as pointed out, they're not only played by people who go on violent rampages. 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.

kermi3
04-24-2006, 08:50 AM
The speculation was built off the first study which I didn't summarize as much:

"One study reveals that young men who are habitually aggressive may be especially vulnerable to the aggression-enhancing effects of repeated exposure to violent games," said psychologists Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., and Karen E. Dill, Ph.D. "The other study reveals that even a brief exposure to violent video games can temporarily increase aggressive behavior in all types of participants."

The first study involved 227 college students who completed a measure of trait aggressiveness and reported their actual aggressive behaviors (delinquency) in the recent past. They also reported their video game playing habits. "We found that students who reported playing more violent video games in junior and high school engaged in more aggressive behavior," said lead author Anderson, of Iowa State University. "We also found that amount of time spent playing video games in the past was associated with lower academic grades in college."

Edit: On a VERY basic level, the first study found that those who reported playing violent video games had more dilquent behaviors.

Observing violence is also linked to a longer term choice of aggression in serveral other studies not directly involving video games. It was first researched (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Bandura/bobo.htm) by Bandura (http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/Bandura.htm).

Govtcheez
04-24-2006, 09:00 AM
Ah, there we go. That's what I get for trying this at work :p

I'm not going to debate you on something psychological kerm (because I'll get smoked), but do you agree that video games probably aren't the PRIMARY cause for these?

kermi3
04-24-2006, 09:04 AM
Of course they aren't. 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.

Anderson and Dill think that they may be a more important factor than other media due to their interactive nature (they encourage not only observational leraning, but also teach that aggressive actions can help the child themselves reach a goal), but playing violent games alone in no way causes violence; it is just thought to contribute to the overall behavior model.

Fordy
04-24-2006, 09:45 AM
Anderson and Dill think that they may be a more important factor than other media due to their interactive nature (they encourage not only observational leraning, but also teach that aggressive actions can help the child themselves reach a goal), but playing violent games alone in no way causes violence; it is just thought to contribute to the overall behavior model.

Is that any different from my dad playing "war" with his school friends back in the 1950s?

kermi3
04-24-2006, 10:09 AM
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.

On the other hand, Hughes and Dunn (2001) found that 4 and 6 yr old children who play have more fantasy play have a lower percentage of violent fantasy play, and children who engaged in a higher percentage of violent play were more likely to attribute neutral actions as having an aggressive intent (a key set in the theory of why video games may promote violence). Of course there are interaction in this data involving how predisposed the child is to aggression – I don’t have time to really pour through the data right now. 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.

For a kid with a video game it's pretty much a solitary thing where it's just killing. I would think that those predefined inflexible rules that say success comes through violence. Of course there is a very important difference in age here as well. Violent video game players are more likely to be older than kids who run around and play War.

An interesting way to test that might be to look at the other types of play kids are involved in or to test games that have more interpersonal aspects but also include some violence; WoW comes closest, but even that may place a bit too much value on violence.

I’m not really sure what the differences would be; I’m sure there’d be some, but I’m not sure what…hmmm…interesting.

SniperSAS
04-24-2006, 11:30 AM
> why do you think there was a sudden spike in school violence after columbine?

There was? Please feel free to name some of these violent schools.

And besides, it's the media's job to report news, for good or bad. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.


Here are some statistics for you:
http://www.ncdjjdp.org/cpsv/library/statistics.htm

Also, I never said that they should stop reporting on that stuff. I was just pointing out that society in general is so quick to censor games, movies and music, then they turn around and hear about people actually being murdered in real life.

Govtcheez
04-24-2006, 11:33 AM
I'm not sorting through everything in that link to do your research for you.

BobMcGee123
04-24-2006, 11:40 AM
I don't have anything to actually contribute right now (you guys have sort of tackled every angle I've thought of), I just wanted to say that I like the way Kermi is going about this conversation (be like that guy! EDIT: or girl...or frog)

Govtcheez
04-24-2006, 11:49 AM
Kermi's a psych major - why do you think I didn't want to argue with him about this :p

SniperSAS
04-24-2006, 02:33 PM
I'm not sorting through everything in that link to do your research for you.

everything in that link is about school violence :confused:

kermi3
04-24-2006, 02:34 PM
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)

Govtcheez
04-24-2006, 02:43 PM
everything in that link is about school violence :confused:
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.

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.

SniperSAS
04-24-2006, 02:58 PM
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.

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.


"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.

kermi3
04-24-2006, 03:04 PM
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?

SniperSAS
04-24-2006, 03:13 PM
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?


Just read a story about some teens being arrested for plotting a Columbine style attack on their school. The news story was good until this phrase....

You 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!"

You are right though, my mistake.

Thantos
04-24-2006, 05:52 PM
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.


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.
My brother is a police officer and him and his buddies like playing shooting games.

BobMcGee123
04-24-2006, 05:54 PM
>>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)

Righteous


>>in which I'm getting a degree in a few weeks.

Nice, what school? Undergrad? Plans for the near future?



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.


I agree completely, but, as Kermi pointed out:


...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.


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.


Quoting Fordy + Kermi from pg2, respectively:


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.


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?


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.

Govtcheez
04-24-2006, 06:42 PM
> "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.

kermi3
04-24-2006, 06:50 PM
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.

sean
04-24-2006, 06:55 PM
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.

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 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.


I love violent video games. I use them in my sunday school teachings.

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.

kermi3
04-24-2006, 07:55 PM
>>Nice, what school? Undergrad? Plans for the near future?

I'm getting my BA from Washington and Lee University (http://www.wlu.edu). 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.


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).

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 that
“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). – sorry for the long quote

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.


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?

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.

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.

SniperSAS
04-24-2006, 10:23 PM
> "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!


It pains me to actually have to respond to this, but-
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 :)



> 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.

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!)

However, consider this: there where violent games, music and movies before columbine, but news reports regarding columbine only took place after.

VirtualAce
04-24-2006, 11:32 PM
I don't need psycho babble to tell me if games affect me or not.

Point:
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.

nvoigt
04-25-2006, 03:54 AM
As I can't wear my shirt here, I'll just link to it:

Guns don't kill people... (http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/gaming/713e/zoom/)

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.

VirtualAce
04-25-2006, 04:10 AM
LOL. I gotta get that shirt.

Govtcheez
04-25-2006, 06:03 AM
> However, consider this: there where violent games, music and movies before columbine, but news reports regarding columbine only took place after.

News reports regarding Columbine only took place after Columbine? That's a totally valid point, thanks for making it!

Protip: Go stick a broken bottle up your ass.

Off the top of my head, here are 2 school shootings that predate Columbine. Feel free to ignore them though, since they go against your completely screwed up worldview, though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paducah%2C_Kentucky#The_Heath_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonesboro_massacre

Take note that I linked you right to the relevant information instead of saying "There's something on wikipedia about it, go find it"

Clyde
04-25-2006, 08:00 AM
I don't need psycho babble to tell me if games affect me or not.


Sure you do. Scientific method > Introspection.

SniperSAS
04-25-2006, 11:24 AM
> However, consider this: there where violent games, music and movies before columbine, but news reports regarding columbine only took place after.

News reports regarding Columbine only took place after Columbine? That's a totally valid point, thanks for making it!

I was trying to show you that it obviously wasn't video games or movies or whatever that caused the increased violence rates, since they existed before columbine. I intended to suggest that one big difference between the two periods was the media hype surounding columbine, sorry the point I was trying to make went over your head



Protip: Go stick a broken bottle up your ass.

I don't see how this furthers your argument at all :(



Off the top of my head, here are 2 school shootings that predate Columbine. Feel free to ignore them though, since they go against your completely screwed up worldview, though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paducah%2C_Kentucky#The_Heath_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonesboro_massacre

Take note that I linked you right to the relevant information instead of saying "There's something on wikipedia about it, go find it"


I already know that there was school violence before columbine, what I was trying to show you was that it occurred more often post columbine.

Feb. 29, 2000
Mount Morris Township, Mich. Six-year-old Kayla Rolland shot dead at Buell Elementary School near Flint, Mich. The assailant was identified as a six-year-old boy with a .32-caliber handgun.

March 2000
Branneburg, Germany One teacher killed by a 15-year-old student, who then shot himself. The shooter has been in a coma ever since.

March 10, 2000
Savannah, Ga. Two students killed by Darrell Ingram, 19, while leaving a dance sponsored by Beach High School.

Govtcheez
04-25-2006, 11:41 AM
> I was trying to show you that it obviously wasn't video games or movies or whatever that caused the increased violence rates, since they existed before columbine.

And I was pointing out a typo you made. Sorry you're too busy trying to act superior to notice that.

> I don't see how this furthers your argument at all

Your smarmy little "protip" didn't either.

> I already know that there was school violence before columbine, what I was trying to show you was that it occurred more often post columbine.

Oh? So why did you say this

> However, consider this: there where violent games, music and movies before columbine, but news reports regarding columbine only took place after.

If you were actually saying that, then I'm sorry, but you've been less than clear during most of this discussion. Your earlier post implies that there was little to no media coverage for school shootings, which is obviously not true.