Videogames cause violence

As more relevant examples, we’d want to go play tackle football in the grass after watching a football game. We wanted to go beat the shit out of each other after watching The Karate Kid. Fortunately, mom signed us up for karate lessons and we had pads.

Movies never impelled me to want to engage in real life violence, but I was a wimp. I did draw some fantastically gory comic books in my younger days.

True story:

My six year old son was complaining that nobody wanted to do anything fun at recess today.

Me: What did they want to play?
Him: Freeze tag! That’s SO BORING!
Me: Well, what games do you normally play?
Him: Call of Duty 2! Me and Brendan are the good guys and Kyle and Tim are the jerries.

I’m not sure whether it’s weirder to play a playground game that’s a sequel, or to hear WW2-vet slang out of the mouth of a small child…

Oldie, but a goody.

No they’re not - They’ve already decided there’s a connection and they’re out to find ways to distort the evidence to support that claim.

Simple logical fact: if video games caused increased violence, the millions of people who have played violent games over the past ten years would have an increased likelihood of committing violent crime. Yet the violent crime rate today is relatively low. How do they get funding for these ridiculous studies when all of the factual evidence is so blatantly contradictory to their hypothesis?

[edited because I left out some words somehow]

Ridiculous? First, I’m talking about researchers and you seem to be talking about the media. Second, the percentage of people who play video games relative to the whole population is pretty low, despite how many people you personally know. The rate of people playing video games and commiting violent acts could go up even as the total rate goes down. Third, your language is loaded in all sorts of ways, but you accuse them of bias. Fourth, you are measuring violent crime as the only sign of violence, whereas the studies are not. The media may try to make such connections but the studies do not, at least none that I have seen. You can’t do controlled research and allow people to commit major crimes.

repeated exposure to violent television shows and video games have a stronger influence on aggressive behavior than being poor, having a substance abuse or growing up with abusive parents.

But it doesn’t really say what “aggressive behavior” means. Yes, videogamers might throw a pillow across the room more often than a poor drug addict from a fucked up family robs and beats someone to death. But I’d rather hang out with the pillow thrower.

There’s an early game theory podcast that’s done with a professor studying the impact of game violence. It really puts the whole issue in perspective.

That’s awesome. So they not only play Call of Duty at recess, they play Call of Duty 2?

They tried playing normal Call of Duty but clipping problems caused Kyle to keep running into walls.

I was a young pre-teen during the GTA 3 moral crisis. I don’t feel any more aggressive or violent. Through, my whole family has this chronic disease called an Irish temper. It’s really tragic.

They’re next-gen.

Where are the news articles of how poverty leads to violence and the government needs to setup a rating system to help regulate that?

Rated L for Low-Income Housing Development?

No news, but I have a text book with an entire chapter dedicated to that.

Not that most people give it much credibility after he hid half of his own facts, but Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine tries to rule out all forms of entertainment media as factors in the gun violence problem. His own theory was a bit more plausible.

He blames the news itself for fueling a self-perpetuating circle of violent thoughts (mostly by breeding fear) by showing all these murders every night on the news.

So from a certain point of view, this Fox News broadcast about video game violence is actually more dangerous than the media actually being reported.

I dunno, maybe I’m the only one who finds that amusing.

Almost all commercial cereal is sugar cereal. The range is typically from 25% to 50% sugar, with a good proportion of them being 33% sugar. Particularly shocking are the number of supposedly “healthy” cereals which are in the same range. “Toasted muesli” is another scary one… OK, this is kind of off topic…

Am I? Does the press release count as the media?
“The study supports what has long been suspected: Viewing violent ‘entertainment’ and participating in ‘virtual violence’ have profoundly serious implications for society.”
That certainly sounds to me like U of M is saying this study supports the idea that games cause violent behavior.

The PS2 alone sold what, 90 million units? Even assuming only one person played each of those units, that’s not an insignificant number of people. If games made them more prone to violence, there would be statistical evidence to support it. The fact that the crime rate has fallen dramatically as the popularity of games has increased flies in the face of the entire theory.

Yes, my language is loaded in that I believe these studies to be full of crap. I’m not trying to be diplomatic about it.

That’s my point - I’m measuring the only form that matters to society, and they’re measuring forms that don’t in order to distort the information to fit their anti-game positions. Then they say that it “has serious implications for society.” If it’s not raising the crime rate, then what are those serious implications, exactly?

Unless you count their press releases. Not having $30 to blow on a thrilling research report (I’d rather spend it on a violent game) that’s all I’ve got access to, but it certainly seems to think there’s a connection.

So the question remains, why do these studies at all?

Whenever the [blank] influence [blank] debate comes up, I just remember how Windex sales went up after My Big Fat Greek Wedding came out. Coincidence? Of course not. Media can influence people in ways that have nothing to do with rational development or thought.

Not saying Fox News is on to anything, though. They are certainly guilty of sensationalism.

Whether it’s minty flavor or being full of life, Mentos are often pointed to as to the “Fresh Maker.” Now, stayin’ cool can be added to that list.

Last week, Science Experts in Freshology released a study that links eating Mentos to having a great life filled with minty fresh breath. The research, which dates back to the 1990’s when the lead freshologist interviewed 856 fresh-looking actors from Europe (and then tracked them for a fun day in the city), found that repeated exposure to Mentos has a stronger influence on stayin’ cool than chewing gum, eating Tic-Tacs or being a stuffy businessman who is late for a meeting and doesn’t have time to move his car even though he has rudely double parked and blocked your car.

If anyone wants to read the actual report, you can find it here.

It’s the “Review Article” one.