NationStates Jolt Archive

In these days of video games legislation, it might be a good idea to discuss wether video games indeed might be harmful.

There are not that many studies that deal with video games and the conclusion often contradict each other.

Some studies say that playing video games can lead to a short term increasing level of aggression, but the same could be probably said about playing soccer.

One of the very few long-term studies (http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2005/12/Computerspiele) (link in German) made by the Berliner psychologist Salisch could not find that games would cause aggression - but she concluded that people with aggressive tendencies tended to play violent games more than others.

What is your oppinion on this matter and on what do you base it?

I personally don't think that there is an inherent harm to be found in games, but I would say that some forms of games might not be appropriate for everyone.

An overview of video game studies can be found here (http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/freedman.html). It's already a few years old, so keep in mind that there are newer studies out there already.

Here's (http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm) also an article that points out flaws of the media effects model - claiming that even after 60 years of research no conclusive proof for effects of media on behaviour could be found.

no. in fact, i think they are beneficial. think about the puzzle-solving and memorization involved in games. they keep us intertained but at the same time makes us think.

They may have moderate effects on minors who spend way too much time playing them and thus get detached from reality.

But as a grown-up I want them as bloody as they get without anyone telling me what to do!

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/poke.gif

They aren't harmful in the ways that 'certain' people suggest.

I do agree that there are some games which should have enforced age restrictions on them, though. Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines for instance, is a very adult game which I wouldn't want to see a 10 year old playing. It deals with adult concepts which kids might not understand, accept, or react well to. That isn't to say that everybody who plays it will run around drinking the blood of virgins though, because games just don't work that way.

However, they do seem to have some effect on the social skills of a lot of people. People I know who spend a disproportionate amount of time playing MMORPGs and the like seem to suffer from shyness and have trouble making eye-contact, more so than your average Joe. But then, if you were to lock yourself in a room and speak to nobody for months on end doing anything you'd probably come out the same. People don't seem to understand the concept of 'moderation'.

I think we should give most policemen a roll of quarters and drop them off at the mall to play some first-person shooters - obviously, if police accuracy in gunfights is any indication, they are in serious need of practice.

Video games are not harmful. And if they were, so what? If people want to do things that are "harmful," who cares, so long as they're not harming anyone else.

They are harmfull in some ways, beneficial in others. Like most things..

Note that every teenager shooting and maiming computer characters, is not at the same time out on the street doing it to real people. So the more the people inclined to violence play video games instead, the better ;)

All the studies I've read have found that while violent video games may not be a direct cause of violence, violent video games reitirate environments which are already aggressive, making a child raised in an aggressive environment more likely to partake in acts of violence or aggression.

Videogames in general do not make people violent. Really difficult videogames make people violent! I've suffered a large amount of broken controllers and consoles as a result.

Videogames in general do not make people violent. Really difficult videogames make people violent! I've suffered a large amount of broken controllers and consoles as a result.

Here, here!

Videogames in general do not make people violent. Really difficult videogames make people violent! I've suffered a large amount of broken controllers and consoles as a result.

videogames are good at letting us release our deep emotions like that :D . its therapy. better to break a controller than a random person...

I don't think they are harmful, I let my kid play video games. I think they probably aren't great babysitters, and even worse at being parents. I never understood why people go and blame TV and video games, for making kids violent. They make the jump so quick, "He plays those video games all the time and he is violent, so it must be the video games" it never occurs to them that the kid probably wouldn't play the video games all the time if their parents payed any attention at all to them.

So, is it the video games fault? nope. it's the parents fault.

Are video games bad?

No.


Is addiction to video games bad?

Yes.

I still think that the police are in serious need of video games.
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/shooting-range/articles/72357/

In our earlier review of police gunfight statistics, I didn''t mention the numbers that reflect our real-world marksmanship performance. These numbers will vary a bit from year to year, but the U.S. national average hit-ratio is about 1 out of 6, or roughly 15%. That is, for every six shots deliberately fired by officers during armed confrontations, only one of those six shots will hit its intended target. That means that 85% of the shots fired during these gunfights are hitting something other than the intended target, often causing expensive property damage, injury, and sometimes death. You don''t need me to tell you about the unpleasant financial, political, and emotional consequences that can result from these errant bullets. Do you think that our officers would achieve better results in their real-world shootouts if they were regularly training on moving targets?

I find them to be a worthy outlet for my aggression.

I love video games! :mad: :sniper:

I love video games! :mad: :sniper:like-love, or love-love?
Nothing to break warranty I hope :rolleyes:

They aren't until you find a good one and you start to play it in order to avoid doing icky school work! :p

The 7th guest and The 13th hour cause violence. lots of it

I find them to be a worthy outlet for my aggression.


I second that. Take away the outlets for our frustrations, and then there'll be many more problems to deal with

I think that video games can indeed be harmful, but perhaps not for the reasons you might think. I think they can be harmful if they are played too much instead of kids getting out and playing and getting the exercise they need. I think they can be harmful if other priorities get ignored, like school work, time spent with family and friends. I believe they can be harmful if all kids do is rot their brains playing video games.

I think like anything else if played in moderation there is nothing wrong with them. But I have seen all to often how some kids become consumed with playing these games and limit all the other things in life worth doing to play video games.

I think that video games can indeed be harmful, but perhaps not for the reasons you might think. I think they can be harmful if they are played too much instead of kids getting out and playing and getting the exercise they need. I think they can be harmful if other priorities get ignored, like school work, time spent with family and friends. I believe they can be harmful if all kids do is rot their brains playing video games.

I think like anything else if played in moderation there is nothing wrong with them. But I have seen all to often how some kids become consumed with playing these games and limit all the other things in life worth doing to play video games.

The question is, should that be the government's responsibility (i.e., the nanny-state), or should it be the parents' responsibility?

The question is, should that be the government's responsibility (i.e., the nanny-state), or should it be the parents' responsibility?Well, obviously the parents should take responsibility. But let's face it, most won't. So it's the state's responsibility to make sure the parents take responsibility, or otherwise take responsibility itself.

Well, obviously the parents should take responsibility. But let's face it, most won't. So it's the state's responsibility to make sure the parents take responsibility, or otherwise take responsibility itself.

I personally would say, it's up the adult individual or, in case of children, to the parents. I don't think the state has any rights to interfere here - unless there is a case of major neglect of the parents, but those should be covered in existing laws already.

What kind of measure would you suggest that the state should take? Limit the time for on-line roleplaying games like in China for example?

Well, obviously the parents should take responsibility. But let's face it, most won't. So it's the state's responsibility to make sure the parents take responsibility, or otherwise take responsibility itself.
As a parent, I believe that most parents do take responsibility - or think it's ok for their kids to play video games of any kinds.

Video games aren't harmful in that kind of psychological sense. Rather, what they are is a symptom of a society under great psychological strain. The fact that people enjoy the concept of rampant innocent murder, even imaginary, should indicate just how far down the slippery slope we have slid.

The 7th guest and The 13th hour cause violence. lots of it

Ha ha. :D

I can remember playing the 7th Guest when I was about 10. It really scared me, parts of it anyway. Largely because it was my first introduction to horror in any medium I think.

Also, wasn't the sequel The 11th Hour?

I seriously do not believe video games have any influence on your character, just like music. I play the most violent of video games, and listen to death metal and other kinds of metal, yet I am probably one of the least violent people you will ever meet. I do however think they could be harmful, if over played, but thats like comparing it to smoking really, because if you want to play video games you play them, and if you want to smoke you smoke, there is no law against smoking as a whole so why should there be a law against video games?

I personally would say, it's up the adult individual or, in case of children, to the parents. I don't think the state has any rights to interfere here - unless there is a case of major neglect of the parents, but those should be covered in existing laws already.It depends on what effects it actually has on society (which is what government has responsibility for). If violent games cause children to become violent, that becomes a problem for society.
Of course, games are hardly the worst problem. Just raising kids to have some manners would help, but that'd be a whole different discussion. ;)

What kind of measure would you suggest that the state should take? Limit the time for on-line roleplaying games like in China for example?I can't really say; it would depend on the game for one. As games go, roleplaying games are fairly social, and that could actually be beneficial.

The question is, should that be the government's responsibility (i.e., the nanny-state), or should it be the parents' responsibility?
It's the kid's responsibility. He/she can choose how to spend their time, and have to deal with the consequences of making a bad choice, it is the parent's job to make sure there are consequences.




Well, obviously the parents should take responsibility. But let's face it, most won't. So it's the state's responsibility to make sure the parents take responsibility, or otherwise take responsibility itself.
uh.....no. It's the state's job to mind it's own business.

Obviously, a 5-year old playing really violent videogames probably isn't too good for them, but if you ask me, there are other, larger dangers. Videogames really aren't that big of a deal and it certainly isn't the business of the government to decide what games we can play.

The question is, should that be the government's responsibility (i.e., the nanny-state), or should it be the parents' responsibility?

No, absolutely not.

I am the parent of two kids, I believe you're a parent as well (I think you said you were some time back) Anyway, it is my job to raise my children. Not the governments. Of course with the exception of child abuse in any form, the government has no right to tell me how to raise my kids.

Okay, i'd like to ask a question..remeber columbine?..well, the two gunmen Eric and Dylan acted out their fav video game "Doom"...and they where self confessed gun fanatics.

I think video games arent harmful just depends whos getting them!:p

uh.....no. It's the state's job to mind it's own business.But this is part of its business. Managing society is the state's business. And people, families make up society.
If parents are raising their kids to be mass murdering psychopaths, the state should certainly interfene, because it's rather detrimental to society as a whole. Admittedly that's not the case (although some politicians border on claiming video games do this).
But it will have some effect, good or bad, on society.

Okay, i'd like to ask a question..remeber columbine?..well, the two gunmen Eric and Dylan acted out their fav video game "Doom"...and they where self confessed gun fanatics.

I think video games arent harmful just depends whos getting them!:p

I may be wrong here, but I don't think that the police report about the Columbine shooting listed video games as a reason for the shooting. Besides, school shootings are mostly done by male teenagers and the percentage of male teenagers who play video games in about 80% in the US. School shooters are gamers, because male teens are gamers.

Okay, i'd like to ask a question..remeber columbine?..well, the two gunmen Eric and Dylan acted out their fav video game "Doom"...and they where self confessed gun fanatics.

I think video games arent harmful just depends whos getting them!:p

Well, I think those two would of done something at some point video game or not. Normal people do not "act out video games" in real life.

It's the parents job to teach their kids the difference between fantasy and reality, what is right and wrong, and to not take games seriously. I happen to like guns, does that mean I'm going to go on a trigger happy rampage? I think not.

Anyway, it is my job to raise my children.I'm glad you feel that way. I wish I could be confident all parents did. But seeing the way many kids behave these days, how maladjusted and antisocial they are.. Well, let's just say it doesn't fill me with confidence for the future..

But this is part of its business. Managing society is the state's business. And people, families make up society.
If parents are raising their kids to be mass murdering psychopaths, the state should certainly interfene, because it's rather detrimental to society as a whole. Admittedly that's not the case (although some politicians border on claiming video games do this).
But it will have some effect, good or bad, on society.
no, it's the government's job to do what individuals can't do (protect the homeland, build roads, ect.) not what people won't do (take care of thier kids,ect.)

I am not answering your poll, because none of the answers suit me. I would if only play them a few hours or less a day they can acualy be helpful. However, OD'ing on them definatly is harmful. There i've put my two cents in now.

I'm glad you feel that way. I wish I could be confident all parents did. But seeing the way many kids behave these days, how maladjusted and antisocial they are.. Well, let's just say it doesn't fill me with confidence for the future..
I have a theory that, kids are that way because parents are either afraid or too apathetic to actually be parents.

You are not your child's friend, it's okay if they hate you sometimes.

No, absolutely not.

I am the parent of two kids, I believe you're a parent as well (I think you said you were some time back) Anyway, it is my job to raise my children. Not the governments. Of course with the exception of child abuse in any form, the government has no right to tell me how to raise my kids.

Amazing! I have three children (12, 7, and 5).

I had you pegged as a big fan of the nanny state. Good to see it isn't true.

I may be wrong here, but I don't think that the police report about the Columbine shooting listed video games as a reason for the shooting. Besides, school shootings are mostly done by male teenagers and the percentage of male teenagers who play video games in about 80% in the US. School shooters are gamers, because male teens are gamers.

Yeah okay i'm not a liar..it was an article in a form we were given to edit at uni..college..it said the reason was doom, if it was me I would have done it for all the retards who gave me shit..but being in England we dont have gun laws..not decent ones..burglers get them..we dont apart from, bought one..

no, it's the government's job to do what individuals can't do (protect the homeland, build roads, ect.) not what people won't do (take care of thier kids,ect.)But this is something that individuals can't do. I can't make someone else raise their kids properly, or at least half decently. And I can't make society not fall apart. (oooh how dramatic.. But what the hey..)

I have a theory that, kids are that way because parents are either afraid or too apathetic to actually be parents.

You are not your child's friend, it's okay if they hate you sometimes.So what would you propose to fix that problem? Or just leave it as is? (in the ends it's also the kids that suffer)

Yeah okay i'm not a liar..it was an article in a form we were given to edit at uni..college..it said the reason was doom, if it was me I would have done it for all the retards who gave me shit..but being in England we dont have gun laws..not decent ones..burglers get them..we dont apart from, bought one..

I didn't call you a liar. What I said, that the police did not link the shooting with their playing of the game Doom. There are however people like Jack Thompson, who claim that Doom made them commit the shooting. There is no proof for this however - we can't ask them, can we?

And as you say yourself, "because of the retards who gave me shit" sounds like a much more understandable motive. Doom may have played a part in it - but we don't know and there does not seem to be conclusive scientific evidence that games lead to violence.

But this is something that individuals can't do. I can't make someone else raise their kids properly, or at least half decently. And I can't make society not fall apart. (oooh how dramatic.. But what the hey..)
I think you are confusing can't and won't.

The more government interference you have in things like "how to raise your kids" the less people are inclined to do what needs to be done. I have heard from too many parents "I don't talk to my kids about sex, because they have that class in school now" it upsets me to no end, no matter what the school does part of being a parent is preparing your kids for real life, you can't just sit back and wait for someone else to do your job.

So what would you propose to fix that problem? Or just leave it as is? (in the ends it's also the kids that suffer)
Parents need to grow up and realize that they are responsible for their kids, not anyone else.

If you don't want to be a parent you shouldn't have kids, period.

I don't rely on anyone else's judgement as to what my kids do or don't do. I am the adult, I need to be responsible. Just because a movie is rated "G" doesn't mean it's safe for my kids to watch, and just because they play a song on "Radio Disney" doesn't mean that it's a good song for kids to listen to. There are too many parents that rely on other people to make their parenting decisions for them.

The more government interference you have in things like "how to raise your kids" the less people are inclined to do what needs to be done.That is a very good point.
It's unfortunate that wherever a government tries to make life easier by trying to help out, people just try to hand over as much responsibility as they can. I don't think total non-involvement is the answer either, though. But it does show haphazardly 'helping' could possibly make things worse.

That is a very good point.
It's unfortunate that wherever a government tries to make life easier by trying to help out, people just try to hand over as much responsibility as they can. I don't think total non-involvement is the answer either, though. But it does show haphazardly 'helping' could possibly make things worse.
I am glad you understand what I am trying to say (even if you don't agree ;))

There are times in which the government must intervene (like if a kid is being abused) but most of the stuff they try to interfere with is better left alone. (rating of movies, music, games, ect.)

Parents need to grow up and realize that they are responsible for their kids, not anyone else.

If you don't want to be a parent you shouldn't have kids, period.

I don't rely on anyone else's judgement as to what my kids do or don't do. I am the adult, I need to be responsible. Just because a movie is rated "G" doesn't mean it's safe for my kids to watch, and just because they play a song on "Radio Disney" doesn't mean that it's a good song for kids to listen to. There are too many parents that rely on other people to make their parenting decisions for them.

True. After all, the ratings systems are based on what some people see as appropriate for certain audiences, based and morals, worldview and supposed harmful effects. Different people come up with different rating systems - just like we in Europa often have harsher ratings for violence while in the US the ratings are harsher for sexual content.

What Hillary Clinton is currently trying to legislate the voluntary (and subjective) ratings system of the ESRB. You could say that this is another attempt of people legislating their morals on you.

Parents need to grow up and realize that they are responsible for their kids, not anyone else.

If you don't want to be a parent you shouldn't have kids, period.Some will become parents regardless. Or only find out afterwards that they didn't want actual kids, but fantasy disney kids.

hmm.. Slowly drifting away from the topic... How about a Sim-Kids game, for potential parent wannabe's.
Of course you'd need a gameconsole that can't be shut off, and which you're basicly handcuffed to. ;)

True. After all, the ratings systems are based on what some people see as appropriate for certain audiences, based and morals, worldview and supposed harmful effects. Different people come up with different rating systems - just like we in Europa often have harsher ratings for violence while in the US the ratings are harsher for sexual content.
I have my own rating system that is based on my kids, there are movies that I let them watch that I think would make some parents freak out, and some I won't let them watch that most parents would. I think it's a bad parenting choice to let some group of people that you don't even know dictate what your kids watch.

What Hillary Clinton is currently trying to legislate the voluntary (and subjective) ratings system of the ESRB. You could say that this is another attempt of people legislating their morals on you.
exactly.

Some will become parents regardless. Or only find out afterwards that they didn't want actual kids, but fantasy disney kids.

hmm.. Slowly drifting away from the topic... How about a Sim-Kids game, for potential parent wannabe's.
Of course you'd need a gameconsole that can't be shut off, and which you're basicly handcuffed to. ;)

Ever heard of Teenage Mum (http://www.boardsmag.com/screeningroom/animation/1146/)?

I didn't call you a liar. What I said, that the police did not link the shooting with their playing of the game Doom. There are however people like Jack Thompson, who claim that Doom made them commit the shooting. There is no proof for this however - we can't ask them, can we?

And as you say yourself, "because of the retards who gave me shit" sounds like a much more understandable motive. Doom may have played a part in it - but we don't know and there does not seem to be conclusive scientific evidence that games lead to violence.

Dont get me wrong, I was just stating that I read it somewhere..well, yeah anger is an amazing thing..see, they dident bottle it up i've been there, not done it but been there morons who dont give a break..but the future holds many surprises doesent it? I can sympathise with them but at the same time feel angry at them for killing inoccent students. (im in a rock band..not the dorky type*

Some will become parents regardless. Or only find out afterwards that they didn't want actual kids, but fantasy disney kids.
at which point they need to suck it up and be a parent anyway

hmm.. Slowly drifting away from the topic... How about a Sim-Kids game, for potential parent wannabe's.
Of course you'd need a gameconsole that can't be shut off, and which you're basicly handcuffed to. ;)
yeah. I had to take home one of those "baby think it over" dolls in highschool, I can tell you after having 2 kids, that that stupid doll was easy. I would recomend loaning your kids out for a weekend, to prospective parents, except my kids wouldn't go for it. :p

Does anyone ever think about the level of propaganda in videogames? Just look at war games like SOCOM, Rainbow Six or America's Army.

They do effect people in some ways yes, but have minimal effects.

Does anyone ever think about the level of propaganda in videogames? Just look at war games like SOCOM, Rainbow Six or America's Army.

Sometimes, yes. But propaganda is still speech and thus should be protected. I'm more worried about the narrow range of topics portrayed in video games in general. Games need to grow up.

I know that videogames are dangerous, but ONLY if parents don't take the time to discuss morality, and the difference between videogames and real life, with their kids. That's the important thing.

Also, violent videogames don't cause violence, violent people play violent videogames.

And tetris always makes me more violent than, say, Grand Theft Auto. The pure frustration that I get from playing that game always makes me lash out physically and verbally at anyone in range... it's that bad. :p

Sometimes, yes. But propaganda is still speech and thus should be protected. I'm more worried about the narrow range of topics portrayed in video games in general. Games need to grow up.

And then there's things like... Katamari Damacy, that have a whole genre to themselves! :cool:

They aren't harmful in the ways that 'certain' people suggest.

However, they do seem to have some effect on the social skills of a lot of people. People I know who spend a disproportionate amount of time playing MMORPGs and the like seem to suffer from shyness and have trouble making eye-contact, more so than your average Joe. But then, if you were to lock yourself in a room and speak to nobody for months on end doing anything you'd probably come out the same. People don't seem to understand the concept of 'moderation'.

I would argue that MMORPG players suffer from shyness BEFORE they begin playing. The nature of the game attracts the shy and gives them an outlet for social interaction that they wouldn't otherwise have. They do indeed speak to people, just not face-to-face.

I would argue that MMORPG players suffer from shyness BEFORE they begin playing. The nature of the game attracts the shy and gives them an outlet for social interaction that they wouldn't otherwise have. They do indeed speak to people, just not face-to-face.

I agree. I think MMOs may have actually made me more social. I actually converse with other people now (outside of my circle of friends, even). That's a good improvement, there.

Video game critics take aim at cannibalism
Group warns of danger to kids playing adult-rated games

WASHINGTON - Video games glamorizing guns and violence have long drawn the ire of media watchdog groups. This holiday season, they say they have found a bloody new wrinkle to hate: cannibalism.

Games featuring graphic scenes of cannibalism, "F.E.A.R." and "Stubbs the Zombie in Rebel Without a Pulse," were among the 12 "games to avoid" listed Tuesday by the National Institute on Media and the Family.

"It's something we've never seen before," said institute president David Walsh, warning that today's games are "more extreme" and more easily available to underage kids than ever before.

In "Stubbs the Zombie," the lead character eats the brains of humans as blood splatters across the screen.

"It's just the worst kind of message to kids," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who joined institute officials at a press conference announcing the group's 10th annual video game report card. "They can be dangerous to your children's health."

Hal Halpin, head of Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association, an industry trade group, defended such games, saying they are rated M, not intended for children under 17.

"It's not appropriate for kids and it is clearly labeled that way," said Halpin. "There are R-rated movies and DVDs."

...

Source. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10257524/)

WTF?

Is the Institute for Media & Family running out ideas? It's a goddam zombie game!

As most of you may have already heard, the llinois Video Game Law has been ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly. That's the 5th video game law that was thrown out by the courts (for more detail go here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/148962.html)).

As proof that games would make people more violent, the proponents of the law had cited studies by Dr. Craig Anderson and here are some examples of his studies (and other studies) - quite telling if you ask me. Note that the following is simply a post someone made on Gamepolitics (http://www.gamepolitics.com/).

The next part deals with the research by Dr. Craig Anderson who it reports has broad research in aggression and developed a "general aggression model" to explain a persons triggers and reactions to situations. He proposes that when an individual repeats something over and over it becomes a reflex memory and performing this in a computer game can lead to them recreating this behaviour in reality in certain situations. However, this study is dismissed during the ruling and a part in the explaination that sticks out is:

"Dr. Anderson found "a strong correlation between video game exposure and aggressive behaviour". He conceeded, however, that once the results were adjusted to exclude non-serious behaviour, such as throwing snowballs, less that 10% engaged in aggressive behaviour."

Yes ladies and gents, playing computer games can lead to that most disgusting of crimes known as throwing snowballs. However rumours that gamers specifically imported snow just to partake in this activity remain unfounded...
I jest, but still, what a ridiculous study. And what a stupid defense to think that a Judge of any standing wouldn't look past the initial statistics on offer at the means at which they were obtained. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". A phrase any follower of maths and politics should learn to heart.

It further claims that more aggression was shown because gamers who had been exposed to shout "loser" at whomever they beat when playing Wolfenstein 3D did shout longer than those who played Myst. This was an attempt to prove that violent videogames are more harmful that others, despite the fact that the longer shout from Wolfenstein 3D players was "a matter of milleseconds" longer. (Surely a more scientific study would have measured the volume rather than the length? Not that it would prove much more...) I can only summise that the Judge realised that the vocality was down to the intensity of the game rather than the violence and dismissed it out of hand.

In addition to this, in a 2nd study, players of violent video games who were fooled into thinking that they were playing against someone else (they weren't) and taunted everytime they thought they lost, were the LEAST vocal in responding with their own taunts, which as the ruling states, completely contradicts the findings of Dr. Anderson.

It concludes that, in line with the thinking of a Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Williams, that whilst a computer games being violent may provoke an outburst or more aggressive reaction than non-violent games, it disagrees with Dr. Anderson that there are any long term effects on the gamer's aggression. It also reports that Dr's Goldstein and Williams find the methods in which data was collected to be questionable and that Dr. Anderson had ignored research in drawing his conclusions.

(My own personal conclusion is that Dr. Anderson set out to come to this conclusion and thus was biased in his findings.)

The court's conclusion is:

"Though the Court believes that many of the measures of aggression used in violent videos games research are likely valid, we agree with Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Williams that neither Dr. Anderson's testimony nor his research establish a solid causal link between violent video game exposure and aggressive behaviour or thinking. As Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Williams noted, researchers in this field have not eliminated the most obvious alternative explanation; aggressive individuals may themselves be attracted to violent video games"

WHAT A BLESSED RELIEF!

To FINALLY hear a voice of reason stating the exact same thing I have been saying for so long. It is NOT cause and effect and the presumption of which is known as "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc", or roughly translated, "it happened after so it was caused by". A false argument.


The next section deals with research into the effect if violent videos games on brain activity. I must admit that this part of the ruling had a negative affect on my own brain activity due to excessive abbreviations for areas of the brain in which my own knowledge of biology is deficeint.

The summary of this I will give is that a Dr. William Kronenberger uses a technique known as fMRI to scan the blood flow to relevant areas of a subjects brain to determine activity. The subjects consisted of those who had previously been subjected to a large amount of violent media and those who had not. These subjects were then asked to play and watch violent and non-violent games and their brain activity was compared.

Dr. Kronenberger concludes that those with exposure to violent video games have a similar brain activity to those children in previous studies have displayed behaviour problems. He used a post hoc analysis to further conclude that violent media was related to whether an adolescent displayed behaviour problems or not.

Dr. Howard Nusbaum in response for the plaintiffs said that Dr. Krononberger makes false presumptions that areas of the brain are used solely for 1 type of emotion. Thus if there was an increased activity in an area of the brain it was not necessarily associated with people who are aggressive, nor were the area of the brain themselves responsible for aggressive behaviour in the first place. Further to this Nusbaum argues that a reduction in brain activity in certain areas of the brain was not a deficiency, but could be a sign of expertise or use of an alternative method to solve a task.

Dr. Nusbaum also goes on to point out that the images used in the court case to illustrate to show brain activity was a composite of all individuals in an area of study and therefore is not indicative of an individual displaying activity. (I read this to mean that the activity of an individuals brain is unique and simply making an overview from averaging brain activity makes for meaningless results) He also says that as a behaviour comes from many areas of the brain and that each area of the brain can be a part of many emotions and compunctions (a many to many relationship) that the conclusions from the study are not possible.

"The Court found Dr. Nusbaum's testimony credible and persuasive, and Dr. Kronenberger's unpersuasive."

If I'm not mistaken, the recent APA report (http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/69434.html) about violent games was mostly based on Anderson's studies too.

Video games are harmful if used correctly.

;)

(Credit goes to David Byrne who said that "Nuclear weapons can wipe out all life on Earth, if used correctly.")

http://gr.bolt.com/oldsite/articles/violence/violence.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

No, I believe it doesn't.

We should kill the people who think video games make me violent...

Video games change your personality just as much as anything else that you can use. Your brain can only allocate so and so much attention towards what you do, so when you play'em your brain changes so it can perform tasks more efficiently and effectively the next time around. It other words, it adapts and learns.

Media regulation would have the desired effect that its proponents claim, but the disputed issue shouldn't be argued over on Congress' floor. Just as much as companies do not market products to target audiences beyond those who should be interested, those companies shouldn't sell such products to potentially affected demographics since it wouldn't be the best use of their resources (it just wouldn't be good business sense to sell such media to underage and immature populations).

Is Christmas music harmful? No, but the way that it is popularized and depicted today is certainly not the best way to enjoy it versus using your time wisely. Yes, everyone enjoys going to a holiday party and listening to traditional songs for 3-4 hours, but hearing the songs 4 weeks in advance of the holidays just because the corporations want to get you in the mood to go shopping is just stupid. Then and again, it is the customers choice on how he uses he time and money... but isn't it SO annoying to hear that music all day long for so many days that unless you dedicate 100% of your energy to repulse it, you're going to go crazy?

Check this forum out in case you're worried about today's corporate media impact on education (mind you that although Republicans are known for being pro-business, most of us truly cherish our American virtues and how certain economic policies are going nuts).

http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42242

video games are not harmful, communism is harmful