Videogames breed violence? DON’T MAKE ME HIT YOU!!!
As the Muppets used to say, “The continuing stooooooooryyyyy…” is the “well-known fact” that games breed real-life violence, aggressive tendencies and probably weak bowel syndrome. This fact is always preceeded by the statement “They say…”, which of course means “I think I heard this somewhere at some point, but I wasn’t paying that much attention.”
The problem with arguing this point from the other side has been the fact that there are quite a few studies that seem to show a correlation between playing video games and whacking your mailman in the face with a shovel.
If you hit’em just right, they make a squeaky sound.Courtesy of GameCritics.com, we now have a rather potent missle in our argument silo, which offers the promise of easing the tensions of this point-of-view cold war. Or of finally inciting Ragnarok. And I quote:
The latest issue of the highly respected journal Psychiatric Quarterly contains a meta-analysis of all peer-reviewed studies published in the last twelve years concerning the relationship between violent videogames and aggressive behavior. The conclusion? While the analysis found some evidence that videogames improve visuospatial cognition, it found zero evidence linking videogames with violent behavior. The article is rather technical, but the author’s conclusion is as clear as day:
“Arguably the larger part of the discussion on violent video games has focused on their effects on aggressive behavior, with some researchers suggesting that the relationship between violent games and aggressive behavior is well demonstrated. Results from the current analysis, however, suggest that such claims are unfounded.”
Let’s stop and savor this for a moment, shall we? One of the most well-respected psychiatric journals in the world found a beneficial effect from playing video games, but also found that claims of a link between gaming and aggressive behavior is unfounded?
To make the Circle of Irony complete, the author of this paper would be physically attacked by Jack Thompson.
Seriously, this review from Psychiatric Quarterly should settle the debate once and for all, I’m sure.
Nah. It’ll never happen.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Sorry, but you’re wrong again. The American Psychology Association in August 2005 found a clear causal link between teen violent video game play and teen aggression. Nice try. Jack Thompson
November 11th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Jack, that mis-characterizes their conclusion somewhat.
The American Psychological Association summarizes the issue as “Psychological research confirms that violent video games can increase children’s aggression, but that parents moderate the negative effects.”
It also ignores all other research, which might be the point of a meta-analysis to begin with.
However, some studies explicitly deny that such a connection exists, most notably Anderson and Ford (1986), Winkel et al (1987), Scott (1995), Ballard and Lineberger (1999), and Jonathan Freedman (2002).[5] More recently, Block and Crain (2007) claim that in a critical paper by Anderson (and his co-author, Bushman), data was improperly calculated and produced fallacious results.[6]
Certainly, if one only looks at the research which supports one’s point of view – and even then only considers the specific words which support one’s point of view – then, sure, all the research (that research) will seem to be prove one’s point of view.
That still leaves you in the position of expressing opinions:
One, that the potential for increased aggression outweighs any possible beneficial effects.
Two, that increased aggression is a bad thing.
Three, that whatever activities would replace a child’s gaming aren’t “worse” – even leaving “worse” undefined.
And if you don’t ignore the “, but…” attached to the APA findings that you are referring to:
Four, that the increase in aggression translates to an increase in inappropriate aggressive behavior with sufficient frequency to warrant concern.
Four point one: Not only to warrant concern, but also the expenditure of resources.
Four point two: Not only to warrant the expense, but also infringement upon freedom of expression.
Four point three: And that no other options exist than censorship.
But if you say no research “counts” but that which has found evidence of a link between the thing you claim causes the behavior which results in the problem that you claim exists…
Well, then, why shouldn’t the opposing point of view do the same thing?
If I wrote something like…
Please forgive me, but you are incorrect once more.
All the research has not only failed to find a link to aggression, but most has found no such link exists.
This proves that videogames cannot possibly be the cause of the pandemic of violence which, incidentally, also doesn’t exist.
I applaud your effort.
…of what use would that be?