Violence and Video Games

[Sander]

(Dutch Article) http://www.tue.nl/cursor/bastiaan/jaargang47/cursor01/nieuws/n_12.html
According to Brad Bushman, researcher at the university of Michigan, there is a definite link between aggression and violent video games. According to his, apparently valid, research, people that play violent video games really do become desensitized for violence. One of the researches tested college students who played a video game for twenty minutes and were then confronted with a questionaire, while a violent argument was going on outside. Students that had played violent video games took far longer to respond, and estimated the victims pain to be lower, than the ones who had played a non-violent game.

For another article of his about the same subject: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/BA02PSPB.pdf

 

[Jabbapop]

Desensitized? Sure.

Prone to commit violent acts themselves? Meh.

It's like listening to loud music maybe.


*Edit- Wait, so the questionnare was about the argument which was going on outside?

 

[The Vault Dweller]

Desensitized my ASS!

Someone should kill the researchers and whoever's paying them and put their remains in a blender to be mixed into a fine stew...

That would make me laugh? Dont you agree?

,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Jabbapop]

If the violent video game players were desensitized, why did it take them longer to respond?

 

[John Uskglass]

Bullshit. Total bullshit. That's like saying watching Kubrick movies make people richer.

 

[Sander]

*sigh*
1) No, the questionnaire was unrelated.
2) I didn't say people became more prone to commit violent acts, nor did he. I DID say that you become desenstized. What the hell are you going to do about it? It's a simple and objective bit of research, CCR, not some opinion piece by some stupid fuck who thinks Rockstar should be sued for producing GTA.

 

[welsh]

Wasn't there a bit in Black Hawk Down, the book, about the men playing violent video games as a way to build aggression?

I honestly doubt it. People play video games probably more for cathartic release of violent impulses than to aggrevate violent tendencies.

Still, I could think of a few faculty members I wouldn't mind taking my Bozar to.

 

[Jabbapop]

Well I can't read dutch, so it's kind of difficult to have any real opinion on the matter, apart from the sketchy synopsis you told us. There are a lot of things which don't make sense.
1) If the idea is that the game players became desensitized towards violence, why did they take longer to respond? Are they implying that the argument somehow distracted their attention? If they were desnsitized, shouldn't they just not care about the argument?

2) What's this about the game players estimating the victim's pain to be less? How did they obtain this information?

I could come up with a crazy idea. Maybe the game players took longer to answer the questionnare because the experience of playing an enjoyable video game put them out of the mindset of answering questions.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

I could come up with a crazy idea. Maybe the game players took longe to answer the questionnare because the experience of playing an enjoyable video game put them out of the mindset of answering questions.

Especially when you consider they spent more time drawing doodle's of stick figures being blown to bits instead of answering the questionnare's questions.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[SnaX]

Yeah, I buy it. I assume however, that these test subjects were also watching lots of TV at the time too. Afterall, you have to turn on the TV to play a video game and naturally you watch a little before and after the gaming. And if they're computer video games, then perhaps they were using the internet as well. Not sure how you could get a truly accurate reading on the brain-waves, or whatever they test with the shit-storm of life blowing around. And if you were in a controlled environment, then it wouldn't be a realistic scenario. Whatever, they do far more good than bad, my two cents...

 

[SuAside]

i kill people dead

bury in backyard or use for food

mmmmm brains

 

[Sander]

1) If the idea is that the game players became desensitized towards violence, why did they take longer to respond? Are they implying that the argument somehow distracted their attention? If they were desnsitized, shouldn't they just not care about the argument?

They took longer to intervene or respond in some way to the argument. In other words, they thought "well, whatever" for a longer time until it became really bad. Note that desensitized does not mean completely uncaring, it just means that you care less.

2) What's this about the game players estimating the victim's pain to be less? How did they obtain this information?

They were asked.

I could come up with a crazy idea. Maybe the game players took longer to answer the questionnare because the experience of playing an enjoyable video game put them out of the mindset of answering questions.

Okay, since this obviously isn't clear enough, I'll explain again.

Test subjects were randomly given a violent or non-violent (both equally enjoying) game to play for twenty minutes. To make them believe that the argument was a random occurrence and had nothing to do with their test, they were given a questionnaire to make it seem as if they were testing something different than the desensitization. The argument going on was out of their viewpoint, since it was played from a CD. The people who had played the violent video game then took a longer time to respond to the argument (since they didn't think it was that bad) AND they thought that victim was in less pain than the people who had played a non-violent video game.

Yeah, I buy it. I assume however, that these test subjects were also watching lots of TV at the time too. Afterall, you have to turn on the TV to play a video game and naturally you watch a little before and after the gaming. And if they're computer video games, then perhaps they were using the internet as well. Not sure how you could get a truly accurate reading on the brain-waves, or whatever they test with the shit-storm of life blowing around. And if you were in a controlled environment, then it wouldn't be a realistic scenario. Whatever, they do far more good than bad, my two cents...

None of those assumptions are correct.

 

[Executioner]

Just another study that some bored as hell, stick my nose into everybody's business, morally superior pta member will use to preach the idea that violence in games should be banned. The result would be the end of all crime, war, and suffering...uh huh.

They took longer to intervene or respond in some way to the argument. In other words, they thought "well, whatever" for a longer time until it became really bad. Note that desensitized does not mean completely uncaring, it just means that you care less.

Other reasons could be that they didn't think it was any of their business or maybe they didn't want to get their asses beat. I'm just saying that many other factors played a role in 'response time'.

 

[Sander]

Other reasons could be that they didn't think it was any of their business or maybe they didn't want to get their asses beat. I'm just saying that many other factors played a role in 'response time'.

Yes, and those factors are eliminated by testing it multiple times. Like with 350 people, like he did.

And I'll say this YET AGAIN that HE isn't arguing that it is CAUSING violence.

 

[Tannhauser]

Give it up Sander, I think it's obvious that people are not objectively looking at the study, but rather making quick assumptions. Obviously you are going to run into a bias on a forum such as this one, and part of the population here reacts emotionally to anything they see slandering gamers.

Of course, it's not entirely their fault, because there have been biased studies before. After all, blaming an aspect of youth culture is nothing new, we've had television and music before video games. Because of the history of this sort of study, they disregard this one as unfairly biased.

I don't really think you will convince people otherwise Sander, you've had to repeat yourself far too much even at this point.

 

[Jabbapop]

Oh. Thanks for clearing that up sander. I initially thought that by 'longer to respond' you were referring to the questionare. Next time they should make the questionnare some kind of logic 'test', and see who scores better.

 

[Executioner]

Yes, and those factors are eliminated by testing it multiple times. Like with 350 people, like he did.

And I'll say this YET AGAIN that HE isn't arguing that it is CAUSING violence.

Even though multiple people were tested, those factors still exist. I would be more comfortable if the subjects were asked why it took them a while to act. I'm not sure if he did this because I too can't translate Dutch.

I understand that he didn't say the games were causing violence. I was merely pointing out how the study would probably be spun by some politician looking for camera time.

 

[Sander]

Even though multiple people were tested, those factors still exist. I would be more comfortable if the subjects were asked why it took them a while to act. I'm not sure if he did this because I too can't translate Dutch.

So you actually think there's a reasonable chance that if 350 random college students that are randomly divided into two groups those two groups will have distinctly different backgrounds? If so, you really need to learn some statistic basics. 350 is MORE than enough to eliminate ANY such possibility.

 

[Executioner]

So you actually think there's a reasonable chance that if 350 random college students that are randomly divided into two groups those two groups will have distinctly different backgrounds? If so, you really need to learn some statistic basics. 350 is MORE than enough to eliminate ANY such possibility.

So you think these randomly chosen, randomly separated people with completely different backgrounds would all have the same desire to break up a fight? I doubt this study lists reasons for not interfering. So, how can you say for sure that my conditions absolutely, positively do not exist? THAT is a statistical impossibility.

 

[Sander]

So you think these randomly chosen, randomly separated people with completely different backgrounds would all have the same desire to break up a fight? I doubt this study lists reasons for not interfering. So, how can you say for sure that my conditions absolutely, positively do not exist? THAT is a statistical impossibility.

I give up. If people want to be stupid, they can remain stupid. Jesus fucking Christ.