Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@recluse, I think the existence of real soldiers is a straw men. Yes I am a pacifist, but the difference with the military is that the soldiers are there for defense. The problem is imperialism I feel. So your argument actually is not a straw man, I am just saying it is not black and white the need for soldiers.
Personally, I think video games have an effect on the mind, just as porn does. I play video games though; everything single thing you do can be seen as a vice, even meditation if you are like me with my energies all effed up by a psychotic break. Video games are a time synch and focus on power and fantasy and these are the downfall and the vice.
It's not more a time sink than anything else though, unless it's to a point you play games to the exclusion of everything else in your life. I know people who've gotten divorced because their spouse spends so much time playing games that their marriage fell apart and they didn't know it, and when they did know it, didn't care. That's quite different.
My husband (and the kids) and I do a lot of things together. But in the winter when it's -20F for a high, or when it's pouring rain, spending time playing and laughing with each other isn't a time sink for us. It's no more a waste of time than taking a nice long bath, reading a fiction book, etc. It's just in priorities and what you do with that time. My 2 younger kids are playing Wii Mario together right now, and they are laughing like crazy. Sometimes there is no better way to spend your time than by connecting with someone and just having fun. Just because it's fun, doesn't mean it has to be a vice.
@karasti, my own experience colors my above response. I have sensitive energies in my body and role playing games over excite me. They are one of my favorite activities, but my state of mind is affected big time and it hinders my daily awareness practice of stability. When I play role playing games sometimes my whole body is vibrating and I fear a risk of another psychotic break.
It's like Marijuana. Some people can handle it and some can't.
Exactly, the key is knowing where you fall and properly managing it, and it sounds like you know how to do that I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just expressing another point of view, from our home.
@twobitbob there is certainly a correlation between the two. But that doesn't mean games turn young people violent, only that young people with violent tendencies are attracted to violent games.
No, the research suggests it actually causes violence, or at least aggression (which was the usual outcome measure, researchers not actually wanting to elicit violence in their studies) not simply correlates. This was based on experiments in which non-gamers were asked to play violent video games, their levels of aggression being measured before and after.
At what times were the measurements taken? Most people would be running on a bit of adrenaline after an intense, violent game. Did they measure right after they were done playing, or did they wait a few days?
In a study such as this, there are so many variables besides that I generally never take them seriously. Not just on video games, but even on things such as "is milk healthy for you or not" Every person is different, so there can be any number of reasons for any number of results.
How did they measure how violent a person is? A questionaire as the measurement can only say the observation. It is extrapolation to say a measurable data as questionaire is relative to muggings and domestic abuse or other violent situations
That "study" was merely a collection and review of other studies, which makes it even harder to simply accept this one analysis of other's studies as evidence of much. I only say this because it becomes increasingly difficult to control for bias when simply lumping a bunch of studies together.
Here is an excerpt that explains exactly how they assembled their analysis:
Literature Search Procedures We searched PsycINFO for all entries through 2000, using the following terms: (video* or computer or arcade) and (game*) and (attack* or fight* or aggress* or violen* or hostil* or ang* or arous* or prosocial or help*). The search retrieved 35 research reports that included 54 independent samples of participants. A total of 4,262 participants was included in the studies. About half of the participants (46%) were under 18 years old. If a research report did not contain enough information to calculate an effect-size estimate, we contacted the authors and requested the missing information.
Criteria for Relevance Studies were considered relevant if they examined the effects of playing violent video games on aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, aggressive behavior, physiological arousal, or prosocial behavior. Studies were excluded if participants merely watched someone else play a video game. In some studies, half of the participants played the game while the other half watched, and the reported results were collapsed across this play/watch manipulation. When we could not estimate the effect for “play” participants, we used the collapsed results but divided the sample size in half.
Tmottes is correct, the link i posted is a meta-analysis which is a statistical amalgamation of all available evidence. However, they are generally considered the best possible evidence for any phenomenon - in healthcare they are considered the definitive word on a subject, assuming the meta-analysis was well conducted (it is possible to conduct them poorly, in which case they only muddy the water).
It shouldn't stop anyone being able to look at the source studies though, since they are all referenced and everyone here has internet access.
If anyone has any studies supporting the idea that video games do not increase violence they could post them, it would be interesting to compare.
Zayl - fair enough, you have very high standards for accepting evidence. So long as you are consistent with this requirement for evidence then i can respect that. As for adrenaline, even if true, it would still make the statement playing video games causes violence to be true. However video games 'cause' violence it is likely to involve neuro-chemicals of some sort.
Jeffrey - not sure i understood the first part of the question (questionnaire as measurement can only say observation). Anyway, you'd get a better answer by looking at the paper than asking me, i've only read it once so far.
I wasn't addressing whether it was a meta-analsis. I was addressing what is their testable indicator of violence. Extrapolating whatever that test is such as a questionaire is dubious. For example extrapolating to mugging or domestic violence from a questionaire would be clearly flawed.
@tmottes I wasn't addressing whether it was a meta-analsis. I was addressing what is their testable indicator of violence. Extrapolating whatever that test is such as a questionaire is dubious. For example extrapolating to mugging or domestic violence from a questionaire would be clearly flawed.
@Jeffrey my point was that the testable indicator of violence isn't going to be consistent due to the nature of the article (meta-analysis).
The article doesn't use the term violence, but aggression. It seems to further separate aggression into a few "types":
Aggressive Behavior -No mention of the testable indicators Prosocial Behavior - No mention of the testable indicators Aggressive Cognition - No mention of the testable indicators Aggressive Affect - No mention of the testable indicators Physiological arousal - Three measures of arousal were used in these studies: systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate.
The article indicates that to varying degrees, all of these "types" of aggression (minus Prosocial Behavior) were positively and significantly correlated with violent video games. Prosocial Behavior was negatively correlated, meaning
violent video games cause at least a temporary decrease in prosocial behavior.
Most experimental studies were conducted in laboratory settings; many used standard lab measures of aggression (e.g., punishment delivered to an opponent). Most nonexperimental studies were conducted in field settings and used more “real world” types of aggressive behaviors (e.g., assault).
I guess for a more complete understanding, you would have to go to the individual studies to determine how each of them measured aggression.
Here is a table that shows the studies used and gives a bit more insight into how they measured aggression.
Maybe around 40-50% of the studies used were unpublished. This could mean a number of things: not peer reviewed, not credible, politics, too recent, etc.
Finally here is a list of the studies that can be used to track down the methods.
This person has obviously dedicated a decent portion of his life to helping people understand the links between violent video games and aggression. While I feel it is a worthy cause, the scientist in me must question his bias. Whenever scientists don't maintain a level of objectivity to their subject of study, we can expect to see results which support those scientists. I am not saying this is one of those cases, but that we should be aware of potential biases that skew study conclusions.
I would be interested to know how contact sports fair using similar methods. Does a competitive game of rugby increase aggressive behavior? Aggressive Cognition? Aggressive Affect? Physiological Arousal? At least the kids are getting some exercise while learning to be aggressive ;-) haha.
I will tie this back to buddhism:
The buddha directed his own son to observe his thoughts, speech, and deeds before, during, and after they occur: the goal being to ask ourselves openly and honestly, is this skillful? Do violent video games rack up karma? IMO, Probably not. Do violent video games promote skillful thoughts, words and actions? IMO, that is dependent on the person.
Very thorough research and ideas. My point was that the identified 'aggression' might not be a societal problem. In muggings and so forth it is obvious that is a social problem, but as you said a lot of the testable categories are not disclosed. If it doesn't lead to a societal harm then it isn't very ground breaking. I must admit I don't read long text because I get tired as I am on meds. So I might have missed a lot.
Then we are on the same page. I guess if the pot doesn't boil over, then there is nothing to clean up on the stove . Although, I always wonder about the more subtle effects of things on our society.
Comments
Personally, I think video games have an effect on the mind, just as porn does. I play video games though; everything single thing you do can be seen as a vice, even meditation if you are like me with my energies all effed up by a psychotic break. Video games are a time synch and focus on power and fantasy and these are the downfall and the vice.
My husband (and the kids) and I do a lot of things together. But in the winter when it's -20F for a high, or when it's pouring rain, spending time playing and laughing with each other isn't a time sink for us. It's no more a waste of time than taking a nice long bath, reading a fiction book, etc. It's just in priorities and what you do with that time. My 2 younger kids are playing Wii Mario together right now, and they are laughing like crazy. Sometimes there is no better way to spend your time than by connecting with someone and just having fun. Just because it's fun, doesn't mean it has to be a vice.
It's like Marijuana. Some people can handle it and some can't.
In a study such as this, there are so many variables besides that I generally never take them seriously. Not just on video games, but even on things such as "is milk healthy for you or not" Every person is different, so there can be any number of reasons for any number of results.
That "study" was merely a collection and review of other studies, which makes it even harder to simply accept this one analysis of other's studies as evidence of much. I only say this because it becomes increasingly difficult to control for bias when simply lumping a bunch of studies together.
Here is an excerpt that explains exactly how they assembled their analysis:
It shouldn't stop anyone being able to look at the source studies though, since they are all referenced and everyone here has internet access.
If anyone has any studies supporting the idea that video games do not increase violence they could post them, it would be interesting to compare.
Zayl - fair enough, you have very high standards for accepting evidence. So long as you are consistent with this requirement for evidence then i can respect that. As for adrenaline, even if true, it would still make the statement playing video games causes violence to be true. However video games 'cause' violence it is likely to involve neuro-chemicals of some sort.
Jeffrey - not sure i understood the first part of the question (questionnaire as measurement can only say observation). Anyway, you'd get a better answer by looking at the paper than asking me, i've only read it once so far.
I wasn't addressing whether it was a meta-analsis. I was addressing what is their testable indicator of violence. Extrapolating whatever that test is such as a questionaire is dubious. For example extrapolating to mugging or domestic violence from a questionaire would be clearly flawed.
The article doesn't use the term violence, but aggression. It seems to further separate aggression into a few "types":
Aggressive Behavior -No mention of the testable indicators
Prosocial Behavior - No mention of the testable indicators
Aggressive Cognition - No mention of the testable indicators
Aggressive Affect - No mention of the testable indicators
Physiological arousal - Three measures of arousal were used in these studies: systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate.
The article indicates that to varying degrees, all of these "types" of aggression (minus Prosocial Behavior) were positively and significantly correlated with violent video games. Prosocial Behavior was negatively correlated, meaning I guess for a more complete understanding, you would have to go to the individual studies to determine how each of them measured aggression.
Here is a table that shows the studies used and gives a bit more insight into how they measured aggression.
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01ABtable.pdf
Maybe around 40-50% of the studies used were unpublished. This could mean a number of things: not peer reviewed, not credible, politics, too recent, etc.
Finally here is a list of the studies that can be used to track down the methods.
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01ABref.pdf
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/index.html
This person has obviously dedicated a decent portion of his life to helping people understand the links between violent video games and aggression. While I feel it is a worthy cause, the scientist in me must question his bias. Whenever scientists don't maintain a level of objectivity to their subject of study, we can expect to see results which support those scientists. I am not saying this is one of those cases, but that we should be aware of potential biases that skew study conclusions.
I would be interested to know how contact sports fair using similar methods. Does a competitive game of rugby increase aggressive behavior? Aggressive Cognition? Aggressive Affect? Physiological Arousal? At least the kids are getting some exercise while learning to be aggressive ;-) haha.
I will tie this back to buddhism:
The buddha directed his own son to observe his thoughts, speech, and deeds before, during, and after they occur: the goal being to ask ourselves openly and honestly, is this skillful? Do violent video games rack up karma? IMO, Probably not. Do violent video games promote skillful thoughts, words and actions? IMO, that is dependent on the person.