@Keanu: I like where this is going.

Adrock4

Amazing, with the first post it became another lolicon argument.

Keanu

I am no doctor, but I don't think it matter if you are talking about games, films, cartoons or whatever... We, sane people, use this kind of entertainement to experiment out of reach stuff. And is intent to be use that way. The psyco who goes on a rampage after playing to much violent video game, is in the first place A PSYCO!!! This is not even a issue... One day, some guy was in need of a good story and decided to bash on video game because he sucks at it and then everyone jumped in the wagon... I will let you debate and I will just keep playing in the meantime!

BilliousB

@Arsenicberyllium: The benefit is enjoyment. 99.9% of entertainment has only that benefit. There is no benefit to jelly donuts. In fact they rot your teeth and make you fat and get diabetes. Lolicon and GTA IV do nothing to your teeth and don't directly cause you to gain weight. Therefore lolicon and GTA IV are better than jelly donuts.

etchasketchist

Everytime I see a guy on a motorcycle stopped at an intersection, I want to elbow him in the chest, knock him off his bike, say "I'm taking theese" and ride off. I haven't actually done it. Yet.

etchasketchist

GTA IV's narrative never really struck me as being positive toward crime. Sure, the story follows Niko's criminal life and the people he meets along the way, but every one of them, Niko included, seems like a pretty miserable person and/or ends up dead. The ones who make it out the best are the people that were the least involved with crime. If players actually think about all the characters they met, what their lives are like, and exactly what happens to them throughout the game, it's arguably one of the stronger anti-crime messages we've seen in a long time.

Nirolak

@Jeff Paine: I'm not saying viewing lolicon will cause a person to go out and rape toddlers.
In fact, I'm even going to say there are no ill effects from viewing it.
I just feel it's not going to be beneficial to anyone. I don't really see anyone deciding not to rob a bank or kill strangers because they played Grand Theft Auto. Its one thing to say GTAIV and porn aren't detrimental, it's another thing to say they're explicitly beneficial.

@PCapologist:
Grand Theft Auto presents negative actions, murder and crime, in a positive light, and allows people to see and do actions they otherwise wouldn't do.
Lolicon hentai presents negative actions, in this case "child molestation", in a positive light, allowing people to witness actions they otherwise wouldn't be exposed to.
I feel that neither of those things are beneficial.
Now how is that an insane stretch?

Arsenicberyllium

Ha Ha jokes on you, i have read it. and totally agree that games are an Outlet for, well everything.

Go Team Venture

Is this really supposed to be evidence condemning video games?

"Consider a laboratory experiment I recently conducted with some Dutch colleagues. Boys about 14 years old were randomly assigned to play a violent or nonviolent video game for 20 minutes and rated how much they identified with the video game character. Next, they completed a noise blast task, with the winner blasting the loser with a noise ranging from about 60 decibels to about 105 - about the same level as a fire alarm.

The boys were told that inflicting higher noise levels could cause "permanent hearing damage" to their partners. Of course, nobody actually got hearing damage. But our results clearly show that violent game players acted more aggressively than nonviolent game players, especially if they identified with the game character. These boys were even willing to give another boy noise levels loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage."

This seems more likely to find the class bullies than anything else - video game association or not.

However, I don't see how anyone could dispute his closing statements:

"Parents should carefully monitor what video games their children play this summer, instead of being lulled into a false sense of security about the effects these games can have now and well into the future."

Arttemis

@Jeff Paine and Arsenicberyllium: I don't think it's fair to compare such a medium to videogaming as it doesn't involve roleplaying, something that I believe is key to this argument... the idea that you actually partake in imoral actions.

Lessthan_tom

That is a decent book from what I heard. The author was interviewed on www.gametheoryshow.com podcast a month or so back. She was definitely NOT a Jack Thompson.

DigitalHero

@Arsenicberyllium: Hentai is surely used as a masturbatory tool, for people who get off on that thing. Regardless of that whole mess, comparing it to the experience from playing GTA IV is a bit of a stretch. No wait, it's not even in the same ballpark. Logic isn't your strongsuit is it.

PCapologist

@Arsenicberyllium: Yes, actually. Not everyone who looks at lolicon goes out and rapes toddlers afterwards.

And if someone gets the urge to beat off to a little girl, they can just look at lolicon instead.

I'd say it helps fulfill urges that would otherwise lead to harmful behavior.

Jeff Paine

It's nice to see someone defending the side of games, and getting to say something. Unlike the mass effect scandal that happened. We shouldn't be so mad at authors, they have a right to express their opinion, but when you get people spouting lies on national TV, where the defense isn't allowed to get a word in? That's something to be upset about. And Scientology.

Talleh

Maybe I should climb up in the educational field and earn myself a doctorate, and say Vio-lant games are okay for toddlers. And that ducks require pants, since everyone believes anyone with a high enough degree :3

Kaizuden

both sides will defend themselves so there will be no clear winner or better argument. it will all come down to the decisions of the parents.

Firesoul1

I just finished GTA4. I now want to steal a car, pick up a hooker, have sex, pay her, then beat her up and take my money back... then call my current girlfriend, take her out, then bang her... after that I'll go on the interwebs and look for a date.... then I'll go kill some mob guys.

tralfaz23

Hmmm..so futanari hentai, and lolicon hentai are actually good for the people who watch it?

It prevents them in engaging in inappropriate behavior by allowing them to experiment in a acceptable environment without harming anybody?

...It just doesn't work for me.

I don't like the video game scapegoating any more than anybody else, but that whole catharsis crap is exactly that..crap.

Otherwise, you have to support the idea of cartoon child pornography.

Arsenicberyllium

@gamadaya:

I'm not sure what you mean by "crackdown" on video games. Limit the content or something? Either way I don't think it makes an appreciable difference.

"But that's like saying that anybody who goes on a killing spree was destined to do so and it could not be avoided."

That's not the wording I'd use. It's more if someone wanted to go on a killing spree they'd do it regardless of the trigger. Not so much they're destined to do it, but that they would have even if the video game wasn't there.

NeoAkira

@Arsenicberyllium: What's the difference? Relief of boredom. Pleasure. What's a "psychological benefit"?

etchasketchist

"I strongly disagree. Consider a laboratory experiment I recently conducted with some Dutch colleagues. Boys about 14 years old were randomly assigned to play a violent or nonviolent video game for 20 minutes and rated how much they identified with the video game character. Next, they completed a noise blast task, with the winner blasting the loser with a noise ranging from about 60 decibels to about 105 - about the same level as a fire alarm.

The boys were told that inflicting higher noise levels could cause "permanent hearing damage" to their partners. Of course, nobody actually got hearing damage. But our results clearly show that violent game players acted more aggressively than nonviolent game players, especially if they identified with the game character. These boys were even willing to give another boy noise levels loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage."

Rather than just having violent and non-violent gaming groups how about having a real control group such as watching violent and non-violent TV for 20 minutes. I for one would hypothesize that those that watched violent TV for 20 minutes would show the same results as the violent gamers. This to me just seems like poor testing methodology to get the conclusion wanted rather than going to extra mile and doing things right and getting a result that may not coincide with what you originally thought. A good researcher would go the extra mile, and if the original hypothesis was proven false they would ask "why?"

"The Surgeon General's report focused on TV rather than video game violence. But there are at least three reasons to believe that violent video games might be worse. First, video game play is active whereas watching TV is passive. People learn better when they are actively involved. Suppose you wanted to teach a person how to fly an airplane. What would be the best method to use: read a book, watch a TV program, or use a video game flight simulator?"

Of course other researchers, such as W. James Potter, may disagree and argue the other way around. One of the best ways to desensitize someone to an act is to put them in a position where it is not questioned. While people learn better when actively involved they also are allowed to question exactly what they are doing, even questioning the morality of the act. This questioning allows them to understand what is happening. The so called "passive" TV watcher (which is itself a myth) does not actively question the content on the TV as much as one playing a game is asked to do (though it is still questioned). Of course the best way to learn something is to do it. I won't argue that, but...

"...violent games directly reward violent behavior, by awarding points or allowing players to advance to the next game level... In TV programs, reward is not directly tied to the viewer's behavior."

Complete and utter BS, if you ask me. You sir need to retake some of your 2000s and 3000s. To say that reward isn't directly tied to viewer behavior is a direct disregard of TV's one purpose... Entertainment, which in itself can be considered a reward directly tied to a single action: Watching TV.

Hmm, maybe I should talk to my graduate adviser about going in a different direction. Rather than studying ratings systems maybe I should start studying immediacy effects of violent TV and games.

MantisDragon

Whoa, whoa whoa. @Arsenicberyllium - you have to be staring at the business end of the BanHammer for that nonsense.
You don't think videogames and videos are different things? Did you even read the whole article? They're arguing about a reward pathway. Something a little more sophisticated than monkey see monkey do.

Also, this Bushman guy published in the Detroit Free Press? Wow, really? For those not in the know there are things called 'peer-reviewed journals' which is where all the science is kept.

Kaos_

@j00s:
But that's like saying that anybody who goes on a killing spree was destined to do so and it could not be avoided. How many murders could potentially be avoided if they did crack down on games? Would it be significant enough to where it should be considered?

gamadaya

@gamadaya: If a video game wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back, it would've been something else. A song on the radio, a television show, a movie, a book, a religion, your dog telling you to do it, the voices, etc.

The moment we try to limit all the possible triggers for these events, we'll find that literally anything could be a trigger. It's a problem with no answer, which is why entertainment has always been a popular scapegoat.

j00s

@Arsenicberyllium: Futanari=child porn? Strange.

(I well aware there is loli+futa)

On topic:
Who really cares about these people who hate violent video games anymore? Now if they change a game like they did with Manhunt then I can understand being all up in arms about it.

Keanu

@Arsenicberyllium:
Well aren't entertainment benefits psychological benefits. I'm happier after I play San Andreas. At least I am when I didn't have to do a boring as hell nearly impossible mission.

gamadaya

I heard about this book a few months ago. I definitely think it's true because about 90% of the time I'm playing video games it relieves stress. I can just chill when I'm playing video games. It doesn't make my mind more violent and most of the time (unless I'm on a really hard or almost impossible part or the game is glitching) it is not stressful in the least bit.

lenandude

@j00s:
But, the question is(or at least the question that these anti video game activists would be asking more if they weren't so retarded), would that psycho have gone on a rampage if it weren't for the violent games he was playing. Is it worth it to impose harsher regulations so that incidents like this can be stopped? The answer, I'm pretty sure, is no, but if the morons who should be asking these questions are to stupid to do so, I might as well.

gamadaya

Man, I hate having to defend myself when I didn't do anything wrong.
@Yuki: Nothing to do with it?
Straight from the article:
"but relax, the authors, Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson, found that violent games don't make kids psychopaths, but merely allow them to experiment with dangerous behavior in a context that can be healthful (a position I myself tend to take in my editorials)".
I pointed out that I don't agree with this assessment, and that I feel it's unfounded.
I believe that you can't blame Grand Theft Auto for murderers, but it's over-the-top to claim that it prevents murders.
To try and explain my point, I provided an analogy in which I said, just like video games, you wouldn't expect child porn to prevent molestation.

I don't see how that's off-topic.

@etchasketchist: @gamadaya: I'm not talking about entertainment benefits. I was referring to the supposed "psychological" benefits of playing the games.

Arsenicberyllium

I recommend this book to anyone who takes this issue seriously. I read it because I knew its conclusion was pro-games, and I wanted ammo for arguments I might have about the industry I work in.

However, I was surprised at the nuances of the issue that I hadn't even thought of. It certainly helped me look at the findings of studies and experts in a more informed way.

psychocide

I read on GamePolitics this guy was in cahoots with JT over one of his cases as a witness...

Still wanna give this guy any credibility for his statements?

DarkTetsuya

@BilliousB: "The psyco who goes on a rampage after playing to much violent video game, is in the first place A PSYCO!!!"

Agreed. Limiting the sales of video games because a Doom fan went on a rampage is like limiting the sale of Beatles albums because of the Manson Family.

Rock & roll doesn't create killers, neither does rap, comic books, D&D, or video games. Are video games harmful? No more than any other form of entertainment. Are they beneficial? Again, no more than any other form of entertainment.

j00s

@Adrock4: meh, I enjoy it.

Keanu

@Yuki:
That has tons to do with the post. The article was arguing against GTC's stance that video games like GTA4 can be beneficial. That first poster whose name I don't care to type was making an analogy. One that involved lolicon for some reason, but was still valid.

gamadaya

@Keanu: Except the whole, you know penis thing.

Adrock4

@Keanu:
lol, I didn't even pick up on that. Accelerates from GTA4 to lolicon in only 3.5 seconds flat!

gamadaya

@Adrock4: I don't cause it never ends.

As for futa, nothing wrong with futa.

Keanu

@Arsenicberyllium: This has nothing--NOTHING--to do with the post. Congratulations on probably derailing the comment section.

Yuki

"Parents should carefully monitor what video games their children play this summer, instead of being lulled into a false sense of security about the effects these games can have now and well into the future."

Ok. So then I guess they'll do just that and keep this matter the fuck out of the court system.

@etchasketchist:
I'll give you that point, but what about Boston Creme?

@Arsenicberyllium:
I'd say GTA could be considered beneficial. It helps me have a lot of fun at the expense of only $50-60.

gamadaya

@Arsenicberyllium:

I still would have to say I disagree and believe in catharis to an extent.

Mikazukinoyaiba

@MantisDragon:
"Age and content labels make video games forbidden fruit for youth."

So what does this guy want? If we took off the age and content labels, that wouldn't solve any problems. Man, it's like he just doesn't like video games in general and wants to keep people from playing them...

Also this part:

"One boy said, "I blasted him with level 10 noise because he deserved it. I know he can get hearing damage, but I don't care!" Another boy said he liked the violent game "because in this game you can kill people and shoot people, and I want to do that too." A third boy said, "I like Grand Theft Auto a lot because you can shoot at people and drive fast in cars. When I am older I can do such things too. I would love to do all these things right now!""

Those don't sound like quotes from teenagers. Even if I did want to kill people, I wouldn't just blurt something like that out.

gamadaya

@gamadaya:

If we knew that we wouldn't have any harm befall anyone now would we?

NeoAkira

@Arsenicberyllium:
Oh so like a prevention sort of thing.

gamadaya

Oh, and this is for everyone out their arguing for "venting", which is what I'm saying doesn't exist:

[www.apa.org]

Arsenicberyllium

Why, instead of reading what I wrote, do people feel the need to call me an idiot, dismiss what I say without reading it, and then threaten me with a banhammer they don't wield?
And with that, let's introduce our first guest-
@Kaos_: Hi Kaos. Thanks for taking the time to not bother even trying to comprehend what I wrote. Yes, in fact, I did read the whole article. Well, not the bushman article, but the Kotaku article, and about Olson. I decided to focus on that specific part of the article. The part that said that playing violent video games can be good for you, IE: the sight and role-playing aspects of video games and movies can provide a catharsis for the inappropriate urges that people may get. I simply said I don't think that's true.

@gamadaya: @etchasketchist: Well, you're not as bad as Kaos. I think you guys just misunderstood me. When I said psychological benefit, I was referring to the idea that video games are somehow going to prevent you from becoming an axe murderer.

Arsenicberyllium

@Kaos_: Yes, he did publish with the Detroit Free Press. It is easy to see that this is not a scientific article so it would not be in a journal, and even then such a short time after the release of "Grand Theft Childhood" I don't think we would see peer-reviewed articles arguing against the book's findings. It is just too soon. This is nothing more than one researcher squabbling at others, and if anything because they've gotten national press time and he hasn't.

While I don't agree with him, his recent publication history is quite extensive which gives he at least some credibility... [sitemaker.umich.edu]

Of course, I love the title of the second article down, " Age and content labels make video games forbidden fruit for youth." 13 years ago the National TV Violence Study deduced this with MPAA ratings. Why should it be any different with ESRB and any other system. And here I thought Pediatrics was a respectable journal, guess I thought wrong.

MantisDragon

@gamadaya: "But that's like saying that anybody who goes on a killing spree was destined to do so and it could not be avoided."

Now you're getting it.

j00s

@Arsenicberyllium:

I don't see what is so hard to believe about that.

Believe it or not it does allow people to "vent" and does prevent actual action being taken.

Granted it could also encourage, but I think the former is what more likely happens.

I don't know what futanari is (not going to look that up) and I'm not encouraging or condoning lolicon (although if you asked me should it be criminalized I'd be on the side that says it shouldn't, as it really is hard to define or argue lolicon in legal terms), but I am saying that it stops people from trying to experiment their ideas or thoughts on real people first.

Instead they vent in other ways. I'm on the side that lolicon and such don't CREATE pedophiles and perverts, because the people who gravitate towards these things are ALREADY interested in it.

Mikazukinoyaiba

@NeoAkira:
So what can be removed in order to stop that person from going on a killing spree?

gamadaya

@Arsenicberyllium: Hey there, relax, this is the Internet. I wasn't looking to ruin your day, just confused that you would post a link to a study whose protocols didn't quite connect with the current argument.

"the point of catharsis is this: acting out, or envisioning an action, will somehow make the lust for the action disappear."

The fundamental flaw in the study is that they equate "acting out" with "envisioning an action". The supposed benefit to using entertainment as an outlet is that one can observe or participate in aggressive activities in a detached, non-physical way. This cannot be lumped in with engaging in a violent, physical activity with an inanimate object.

For example, I happen to despise city traffic. I find something like GTA to be somewhat cathartic because I can go ahead and violate traffic laws to my heart's content. However, the equivalent of this activity in the study you linked would be to participate in a demolition derby. The difference (and it is a huge difference, in my opinion), is that I am physically invested in one and not the other.

j00s

@Arsenicberyllium: If it keeps those people indoors, it's doing a valuable service to humanity.

Sabre_Justice: Okay, no more long name.

@Arsenicberyllium:

I think it's just that your opening argument sounds like "of course video games are harmful, and here's a bunch of other contested stuff that is too!" Drawing an analogy to a hot-button topic only serves to polarize people more and depending on which side they end up on, to misunderstand your message as well because they're now taking it from a different context.

I think in the ensuing argument your side made more sense and I agree it would be foolish to assume video games are beneficial because they are not harmful. As for measurable benefit... I suppose any of the examples you cited would have its own more significant works as would any form of art. (I would say all 4 count as an art as they appeal to aesthetic and emotional interests.) I don't know what strict definition you have of catharsis, but it could also be conceivably found in all 4. They won't neccesarily defuse a potential criminal though, I agree there.

fuchikoma

@j00s: Deep breaths...Deep breaths...
I had to calm down for awhile before I could respond to this comment. Not because you didn't make a good point, but because every fucking person on the planet feels the need to say "Read the article" as if I just said it without looking at it.

You make a point, but the point of catharsis is this: acting out, or envisioning an action, will somehow make the lust for the action disappear. Regardless of the fact, it makes it pretty clear that it doesn't work in that case.
At that point the question becomes: "If it doesn't even work in the prototypical definition of catharsis, why would it work on fringe situations?"

Arsenicberyllium

@NeoAkira:
That's actually pretty much what the kids in the experiment say. Granted, this guy is probably making up the quotes, but what if he isn't? Personally, even if the link can be proven, I still don't think video games(or pretty much anything else) should be censored.

gamadaya

@NeoAkira:

they're = they'll

NeoAkira

@gamadaya:

If that link can be proven sure. But the fact remains that there's no proof of such a causal relationship.

You only hear people say it was because of a video game AFTER the act of doing so, you never hear someone say "this video game makes me want to go murder someone" so I'm more inclined to think that if someone's going to kill someone they're do it video game trigger or not.

NeoAkira

@Arsenicberyllium: Whoa there, big guy. Read the article you linked to.

"The purpose of combining these two activities was to test whether the act of hitting the punching bag (catharsis) would reduce the participant's anger and aggression during the second exercise."

The study assumed that engaging in a physically active and aggressive activity towards an inanimate object would reduce aggression towards others, NOT whether or not a hobby (with violent or non-violent content) would reduce aggressive behavior.

The scope of the study was far too narrow to completely discount the possibility that "catharsis" exists.

j00s

I've read both articles and they were well worded. As for the first though - chalk it up to the old fallacy of thinking if you're an expert, you can ignore all the studies and evidence you feel are "irrelevant" for whatever reason, leaving you to cherry pick pieces of what you think supports your argument. In his case it looks like he failed to do that successfully too. I'm sure they'd love to have him on Faux News though.

@Kaos_: Peer-reviewed journals have higher standards, at least his academic peers would, though I cringe to call them that when the man studies violence in media and fails to grasp the basic culture of video gaming...

fuchikoma

@NeoAkira:
Yeah, and that doesn't answer my question. Look, either killers will kill no matter what and it can't be stopped, or there are actual triggers. If video games are a significant trigger, should they be more heavily censored and controlled?

gamadaya

I cannot for the life of me imagine why you would contrast Lolicon, or pornography in general with video game influence on a person. Infact, you might want to check your wanted level after posting something like that

SmokeFemur

Whenever I read psychology stuff written in newspapers I find it jarring that the writer do not seem to have a background in the science because they do not cite numbers or do much to review other info that might better inform someone about the study like previous research. So finding a psychologist playing that same game disappoints and angers me since he i playing that same game. Let me just tell you what I did and tell you what I found in ONE STUDY! He seems to think he one study of his can conclude the argument but gives few details on it.

He says he spilt the boys up at random and had them play two games. What two games, can he really compare the two games? Like an early study compared Doom and Myst but in Doom your heart is pumping due to the action in the game while Myst does not have you in any situation to cause a heightened sense of awareness therefore people would of course have a different mindset.

His quotes from the kids are cherry picked of course so they do not give what the boys on the other side said, maybe they said some things equally saucy. We are also dealing with 14 year old boys here and they are not really the most sensitive of the populations.

Really he can not prove cause and effect here but correlation and even then it sounds incredibly weak.

But take note of me, my favorites games are like Civilization, Master of Orion 2 and Galactic Civilizations so if you see me causing genocide in the future you know what exactly caused it. That and my Doom Stars loaded with Stellar Converters™.

datafox

@Arsenicberyllium: If you've gotta calm down because of a relatively civil internet discussion, you need to unplug for a while.

As for the article you linked, I admittedly didn't read the whole paper but from the synopsis given I find flaw with the researcher's methods. They gave the students pro- or anti-catharsis "media reports" (an appeal to authority) to influence their opinion on catharsis, then they tested hostility towards an inanimate object. Then, immediately after that, they tested how loud a sound they would make to people who insulted them.

A person were given the pro-catharsis "report" would respond to each situation in the same manner - they would express their frustration to the greatest degree, because they had just been told by an authority (the news report) that expressing their frustration was a healthy thing to do. Just because that feeling extends beyond the initial "punch this inanimate object" test does not mean that catharsis is not a valid feeling. It's just the Milgram Experiment all over again.

All this report does is say: "If you think expressing your feelings and feeling cathartic helps you to calm down, you will express your feelings and feel cathartic." Sorry, I don't buy it. Show me a study where they asked these people how they felt after punching the inanimate object. That's the study of the cathartic effect of punching an inanimate object.

baberg

@Arsenicberyllium: what?

Amiash is Walking

@Arsenicberyllium: Wait, what?

InsidiousTuna

For this, GTA V's protagonist will be a bloodthirsty loli from the Yakuza mob. :P

About the whole discussion. I don't think it can be absolutely proved that violent games can be either bad or good for people.

But I don't agree with using games as scapegoat.
And even worse: Using games as scapegoat makes people not look into the real reasons behind the crime.

And I know the solution to some of these indiscriminate killings is not easy, and will require a complete social and cultural reform. Using games, music, movies, books or whatever is just a way to avoid thinking on things that could really avoid such crimes.

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

@gamadaya: It's an unfortunate that researchers by being human have an agenda, though a good researcher will try to look past personal feelings and will try there best not to bias their own research.

Ratings systems in general have always been questioned. The MPAA film rating system has been attacked for years, and IMO is heavily flawed. And, unfortunately, it is what the ESRB seemed to model their system after. The TV industry in the US also modeled their ratings system after the MPAA and look where it got them. A decade ago the FCC was touting how amazing the system and the V-chip was... April '07 they announced in a report to congress that it was a complete failure.

Wish I could find the link to the pdf, but it is almost impossible to find anything of the FCC's website... go figure.

MantisDragon

I usually would defend gaming violence, but after extensive time with GTA 4 I see a health reticule above everyone on the streets which just begs to be reduced, and I feel a big impulse to just take any car I see. Then I played too much Super Paper Mario and walk around life constantly thinking that I should switch back to 2D or my life is going to start depleting.

pikachumariachi

hey if there was no video game violance i probably would have shot someone alredy, because i let out all my anger playing violent videogames, and i know im not the onlyone two.

DarkLuigi

@baberg: It's not this particular discussion that infuriated me.
It's the general attitude that people give me on the net. Whenever I say anything anybody disagrees with, they instantly label me as a troll and say stupid shit like "Did you read the full article" and "you deserve the banhammer for expressing an opinion I'm not going to bother trying to comprehend."

After the seven millionth time, it's really frustrating.

Arsenicberyllium

@MantisDragon:

What would your comparison of violent games to violent movies/tv prove? Bushman and his colleagues do not claim that violent video games are the sole cause of aggression. Additionally he has published many studies showing that other forms of violent media increase aggression including but not limited to: violent television, violent music, and even violent passages from the bible.

As for your second contention - c'mon, that's just ridiculous. Sure, when you watch TV, there is a degree of vicarious agency with characters. So you can FEEL as if you are an active contributor. But you don't have active control over anything. You can have TV on in the background while you are doing entirely different things. But to play a video game, you need to engage directly with the game. YOU have to push buttons (or swing the control) to control the character. YOU have to make decisions. YOU are in control. As such, video games are inherently more active than tv. That being said, they will both have an effect. It is merely suspected that video games will have a greater effect.
Yes, TV programs do show rewards for violence. But when YOU play a video game, YOU get rewarded. And while watching TV is often found as a rewarding activity, the reward is not for watching violence, the reward is simply the act of watching TV as a whole. When people play a violent video game they get the sense of reward for playing the game but also a more direct and immediately contingent reward for engaging in violence. The more temporally close and specific the reward, the stronger the effect.

graddy

Catharsis is the idea that if you have pent up aggression, you need to use aggression to get it out. As such when you are angry, you need to punch a pillow, etc. to stop being angry. This is false.

Additionally, you can't engage in anything that is arousing. There is a wealth of research showing that engaging in highly arousing activities (e.g. sex, exercise) will also increase aggression.

You can "vent", however, using other nonviolent calming activities. But this is not catharsis (as aristotle defined it). Really all that it is, is getting your mind off the aggression and reducing your arousal state.

So essentially, the claims made by Kutner and Olson, that video games allow kids to vent in a safe environment, are not supported by the research. And if you read their book and the finding that led to this specific statement, you'll realize how far they are stretching their finding. Kids only SAID that they used video games to vent. Their studies were entirely self report. And just because a kid says something or believes something doesn't make it true. They never actually tested whether kids were successful in venting. And everyone who has tested whether or not we can vent (with aggression) has found that it just doesn't work.

graddy

@Arsenicberyllium: Yes, this is correct and there are at least a dozen other papers that support this finding. Catharsis does not actually seem to work. Every study conducted on it has found that it either has no effect on aggression or actually increases it.

That being said, catharsis can never be nullified completely. But yes, according to research, the catharsis effect is completely false.

graddy

@datafox: actually he can prove cause and effect. That's what random assignment to condition is all about. Read a book on research methods and statistics.

graddy

@j00s:

I agree with this.

I heard about this book on Attack of the Show--it sounded pretty interesting.

.em.

Simply put, Kutner and Olson's methods in their research were incredibly poor. They relied entirely on self-report. As for them picking on the Dutch study - their assertation about that study is just like the rest of their research, speculative at best. Participants in Bushman's Dutch study were informed that the white noise they were blasting their partner with could cause permanent hearing damage. As such the use of high intensity and duration noise blasts would be an aggressive behavior. Maybe some were skeptical about whether or not the blasts could cause hearing damage, but to suggest that all participants were is speculation.

Additionally a recent study published in the journal of aggressive behavior had participants play vs. watch a violent video game and then left children to their own devices to "play" with other children. These play sessions were video taped and then coded for aggressive behaviors later by research assistants blind to the hypotheses of the study. Those who played the game were more aggressive than those who just watched the game.

The effect is real. And although Kutner and Olson were correct in stating that violent games won't make kids into psychopaths, they were wrong in assuming that this is what researchers were saying. It stands as a risk factor. it's not the only risk factor but it is a risk factor. And to play it down to sell books is irresponsible.

graddy

ROCK AND ROLL IS THE DEVIL'S MUSIC!!!!!

Wait, we're talking about Rock and Roll being bad, right?

This...this is the 1950s, right?

Morte

BUSHMAN?! I JUST CRITICIZED his paper in my methodology class last semester! Yeah, he's got no room to nitpick anyone on methodology. His study was based on 20 minutes of play, comparing traditional FPSes like America's Army, Doom3 and Max Payne to stuff like Pro Evo Soccer, The Sims, Mario Kart and Final Fantasy __. He doesn't even number which FF he used, what can you do in 20 minutes in a modern FF game? Watch the intro?

Not only does the nonviolence comparison fail to hold up in FF (Hello, you hack at monsters as the core gameplay mechanic), but the mechanics and perspective of the other non-violent games are so dissimilar that the level of violence is one of the smaller differences between games and the type of arousal each causes.

And while the noise-blast test they used sounds interesting (and fun if you ask me) it's highly questionable as well. Bushman uses a groomed sample of troubled dutch teens, but other researchers have used the same task with questionable results. One highly publicized study (Dill & Anderson, 2000) used the same noise-blast method and found that Women were more violent than men. And the difference between Men & Woman was larger than between violent/nonviolent gamers. Of course they didn't bring that up, but their numbers essentially say that the average woman is more aggressive than violence-addled gamers. Obviously the task is failing to model actual violence properly and Bushman's limited sample hides that skew.

My impression of Bushman's study was that of a bandwagon "games are evil" hatchet piece, replicating work already done more thoroughly by better prepared researchers. Granted, I'm just a grad student, so that's just my opinion. But he's just a researcher who was recommended to me by faculty for criticism because his methodology is consistently crappy, so I'm taking his article with a grain of salt.

sheepofdoom

@Arsenicberyllium: I, for one, thought your comment was funny.

I'm perplexed at the prevalence of the opinion that ANY attempt to question video games should be inherently resisted, even if media outlets consistently mess up the presentation of the results when attempting to make the story fit their soundbite style of reporting. Poor media translation happens with all scientific findings, even noncontroversial ones. How many times have you seen a headline mentioning a researcher by name rather than "Some scientist discovers/makes/claims foo"?

Even if it's true that "the lawmakers who will read this are all dumb," the effect of video games on aggression is still a valid scientific inquiry.

Spann

@sheepofdoom:

I think you should re-read that article and spend a little more time on the discussion section. Here is a quote directly from that paper dealing with the gender difference:

"One additional behavioral result of Study 2 warrants comment: specifically, the finding that women displayed higher levels of state hostility and aggression than men. At first this result may seem very surprising given that men are generally seen as more aggressive than women. However, as Bettencourt and Miller's (1996) meta-analysis of provocation effects showed, gender differences vary considerably depending on setting and type of provocation. One possible explanation involves differences in liking for video games. In our participant population, men generally report playing more video games than women, as was seen in Study 1. Even a cursory examination of video game advertisements reveals a clearly male orientation. Thus, it is possible that both the higher reported level of state hostility and the higher level of aggression by women in Study 2 resulted from their being less familiar with video games or less happy at having to play them in this lab experiment. Furthermore, the ambiguous nature of the duration measure may well fit the aggressive style of women in our culture better than the style of men. In any case, what is most important to keep in mind is that exposure to the violent video game increased the aggression of both male and female participants."

But you are right, that study wasn't the best study. There are problems with it. But that doesn't give you the right to bad mouth bushman as a bad researcher or to claim that he is touting a bandwagon against games (afterall this study, and every other study Bushman has run, has found that games do increase aggression). There are problems with each individual study that gets published. This is why so many journals and researchers have turned to multi-study reports rather than individual reports.

I'd be careful making broad statemnts about Bushman's research being "consistently crappy". Dr. Bushman is a top-notch researcher with multiple publications in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (our top journals). These are not journals that you get published in if your research is "crappy". He is very well-respected in our field and has made significant contributions to the study of and our knowledge of aggressive behavior. Additionally, in my conversations with him, he seems much more concerned with examing aggression in general than going on a vendetta against violent video games. But he does feel that people should be aware of the effect and does become quite concerned when people play down the seriousness of the effect. Especially when the claims are unfounded and based on even worse research.

If you want a good study to criticize, you should read chapters 4 and 5 of Kutner and Olson's book. You'll find rampant speculation there.

graddy

@graddy:

So, if an Actor plays roles in a movies or plays that are violent, is there any concern about them becoming violent in real life?

Because, after all, the actor gets rewarded for violence. Gets millions of dollars in some cases.

That's what all these studies fail to understand - It's a role you play.

It's not "YOU" who is doing any of this - it's a virtual representation of you.

Just like an actor isn't likely to go on a shooting spree after filming an action movie, a video game player isn't likely to go on a shooting spree after playing a game.

FunkyJ

were the kids allowed to just not play the noise blast game? I guess telling them it does damage and then letting them lose will obviously have that effect. You say "if you go to war these bullets will hurt/kill people" and I'll say screw you I'm not going to war. But if I am thrown into a battle regardless of my decision than I would rather have a weapon myself.

TheGreySpectre

I read the Detroit Free Press article and found it's logic lacking. It made me think of playing "couboys and indians" or "army" growing up. A youthful interest in violence is natural and healthy, especially for males.

krushjudgement

@graddy: "You can "vent", however, using other nonviolent calming activities. But this is not catharsis (as aristotle defined it)."

Holy cow, are you kidding me?

Aristotle's version of catharsis referred to the feeling you'd get after watching a tragedy. It was an emotional enema delivered by a non-violent, non-interactive activity. I'm not a psych, history, or literature grad, and even I know that!

j00s

I must say that i've played video games for as long as i can remember... but I have never played a game, which has influenced me so much to an extend to where I've wanted to open fire in a relatively busy street until i've got several stars in the corner of my eye, or to the extent of which i'd be throwing blocks down an alley in an attempt to get them in a synchronized order.

The way i see it, I've never been affected by video games, and I can only think that they improve us as people as they let us vent out our emotions through imaginary situations, which have been conveniently named as 'Games' to distract us.

shade-black

adfasdf

Ralavik

@Arsenicberyllium: I agree with Jeff Paine. Would you rather have someone getting off to a picture or wait by a school yard for a real girl/boy?

Ralavik

@tralfaz23: Well which would you rather have, someone masturbating to a drawing or waiting by a school yard for a real girl/boy?

Ralavik

@Arsenicberyllium: It's funny, when I read that all I see is an absolute pro-catharsis demonstration.

People are told catharsis works; they hit a punching bag. People are told catharsis doesn't work; they don't hit the bag. Ok, so people are ignorant suckers, doesn't really prove much...

Then, completely separate and aside from the punching bag, they're insulted by some unknown person, and are given a 'punching bag' for the experiment: a button that plays a loud sound at the person. Shockingly, people choose to retaliate, and though it isn't mentioned, they probably felt vindicated afterward for doing so.

That's catharsis if I've ever seen it...

Norellicus

@FunkyJ: So you don't have any agency or authorship over the character's actions? I thought this is what video game developers attempted to do, to make the game immersive so that the player feels as if they are there and are the author of the character's actions.

@j00s: In aristotle's definition a cathartic feeling was not calming. It was an extreme release of emotion. I did not say that the cathartic effect was restricted to anger. I was refering to calming activities such as meditation or counting to 10. Aristotle's definition would not include such activities.

graddy

It's two different tests, they didn't combine them to show a reflection of increased/decreased aggression. That's why it's flawed.

"To test the first question, 360 undergraduate students were exposed to either a pro-or anti-catharsis media report. Additionally, within each group half the students were angered and half were not. Subsequent findings showed that exposure to a media message in support of catharsis can affect subsequent behavior.

Angry people expressed the highest desire to hit a punching bag when they had been exposed to a bogus newspaper article claiming that an effective tool for handling anger was to vent it toward an inanimate object. In contrast, students who were given a newspaper article that debunked the catharsis effect were relatively disinclined to hit the punching bag."

Then:

"To test the second question, 700 different undergraduate students were put in a situation where they were insulted by an unseen study partner and then rank ordered a list of activities for later in the experiment including hitting a punching bag. Some students hit the punching bag, others did not."

Totally different groups, completely separate tests. The only thing that lends to catharsis being bogus:

"Furthermore, participants who did hit the punching bag were significantly more aggressive during the noise blast exercises than those who did not hit the bag."

Which really doesn't prove anything, because if in that second test people are not encouraged to hit the bag via any means of information planting then it may simply be that they are naturally more aggressive than those who chose not to.

The whole thing is ridiculously inconclusive either way, but on the whole the fact that people chose to retaliate when given the option and not otherwise dissuaded from doing so tells me that most people find retaliatory activity cathartic, even if retaliation isn't always the "right" thing to do.

Norellicus

@FunkyJ: The simple fact of the matter is that when watching tv you don't really have to do anything hence it can be a very passive experience. When you play a video game, however, you have to at least occasionally engage with the game, making it a more active experience.

graddy

@Norellicus:

I think you misunderstand the study. In the study half of the participants are told that catharsis works or that it doesn't work(by reading a news article). They are then insulted (before the punching bag) and given the opportunity to hit a punching bag (this is the opportunity to engage in a carthartic act). They are then given the opportunity to aggress against someone. If catharsis were true, then hitting the punching bag should reduce the likelihood that they aggress against this person. But it didn't work that way. Instead participants who were told that catharsis works were more likely to hit the punching bag with greater intensity and then to blast their partner with higher intensity and duration noise blasts than those who were told catharsis didn't work.

Other studies, using a similar method, have shownt that people not given the opportunity to vent (by hitting the punching bag) were also less aggressive than those left to hit the punching bag (and hence given the opportunity to vent).

Where is the pro-catharsis message in that?

graddy

@PCapologist: Hentai is surely used as a masturbatory tool, for people who get off on that thing. Regardless of that whole mess...

I see what you did there.

eugaet

@Norellicus:

You should read more carefully

The first study merely looked at whether or not telling people that catharsis worked increased their desire to engage in cathartic activities. And when participants were angered (compared to not) and informed that catharsis could reduce that anger (compared to information that it couldn't), they were more likely to want to hit a punching bag.

The second study was an EXTENSION of the first one. It used the SAME METHODS as study 1 to elicit aggression and manipulate belief in chatharsis (participants were provoked and then read information that confirmed or denied the veracity of catharsis), with a few additions: 1) participants were allowed to hit the punching bag and 2) had the opportunity to aggress toward someone else (either the person that had provoked them at teh very beginning of the study or another participant unrelated to the provocation).

I think you are getting confused while reading the press release. Here is a link to the full article [sitemaker.umich.edu]

IF that link doesn't work, you can access the article from brad bushman's CV page found here
[sitemaker.umich.edu]

The paper is by Bushman, Baumeister, & Stack (1999)

This effect has been replicated in other studies as well. The basic design is to provoke participants (or not), give them the opportunity to vent that aggression by hitting a punching bag (or just sit there) and then givethem an opportunity to aggress against the initial provoker. In all of these studies it is the same effect - provoked participants, give the opportunity to vent their aggression are more aggressive than those who were not given the opportunity to vent. It never reduces aggression.

graddy

I think videogames enhance whatever feelings you have about the real world, whether those be positive or negative. For example if I am spending 2 hours to pass a boss and I get beat, I would be angry for the next 10-15 minutes to anything in the real life that could frustrate me. Think allergies and dust. Dust doesn't cause allergies, but it certainly worsens the symptoms.

Just because I love videogames, that doesn't mean I will illogically deny any negative side effects on the real life if you play them too much (especially the violent and offensive ones, like GTA).

gencid

If you want more evidence, here's a few more papers on catharsis:

[sitemaker.umich.edu]

[sitemaker.umich.edu]

The following articles are not directly available online, but can be accessed at pretty much any university library:

Lewis, W.A., Bucher, A.M. (1992). Anger, Catharsis, the reformulated frustration-aggression hypothesis, and health consequences. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training. Vol 29(3), Fal 1992, pp. 385-392

Konecni, V.J. (1974). Self-arousal, dissipation of anger, and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Vol 1(1), 1974, pp. 192-194

Baron, R.A. (1983). The control of human aggression: An optimistic perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical psychology, Vol 1(2), 1983, pp. 97-119

graddy

@Arsenicberyllium: I do.

Pi-face