Do violent video games corrupt our youth?

[Darth_Yuthura]

As I states earlier, I would be perfectly willing to accept this as true if there were solid studies (i.e. studies with sound methodologies, etc) that could show this to be true.

 

The problem I see with this conclusion is that there are far too many other possible factors that could go into explaining a phenomenon that doesn't even seem to be very clearly defined ("more violent" compared to what? When? Whose standards? Etc.)

 

I'm not proclaiming that video games are the ONLY factor in this. I remember TV shows 15 years ago which inspired me to become more violent, because I was a child and thought it was cool to mimic my favorite heroes. That's definitely something that I actually would consider more influencial than video games. Movies are also a major thing.

 

I probably would say that violent video games do not exactly corrupt our youth, but they are a part of a much greater society which adds appeal to violence. That doesn't mean everyone who spends eight hours a day or more watching/playing violence electronically will shoot everyone in their school with an AK, but those who start by emulating them are more likely to escalate things to a more extreme level. The counter to this is a firm grip on reality. The biggest problem I see with electronic/digital worlds is that they are much more appealing than the dullness of reality. I would also admit that I have lost touch with reality even when I was 20. I was simply not interested in the world anymore because nothing was as stimulating as good-old electronic fiction.

 

Very young children are more likely to just become wild, but the older they get, the more likely to go from physical violence (punching, kicking) to using a gun. That's when they seek to hurt other people rather than just emulate Batman or Spiderman.

[Achilles]

And I agree that these are all possibilities.

 

I'm not ready to accept that there is a causal relationship, because thus far, I've yet to see any conclusive studies which can establish one. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I'm also not going to jump on the bandwagon.

 

I think the point was raised earlier that children sometimes have difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality, which I think was the gist of your argument here. I think this is something that kids with active parental figures will overcome very quickly, but even those without will come to grips with in time. Otherwise, I think we'd see a lot more accidental deaths involving kids who inadvertently committed suicide after jumping from large trees, thinking they could fly.

[Ray Jones]

GTA:SWcity, I did never say any game did ever make anyone go out and kill someone, nor do I say they ever will. I am not saying violence in games "corrupts" our youth (which is the very question of this tread), it is just that in my opinion those games do have an effect on people, young or not. I did not even say those effects are negative. Everybody seems to be like "these games do nothing to anybody", and I think this is not true.

 

 

 

While not at me...

Red herring (possbily bordering on ad hominem--in which case read the rules)?

 

 

 

This isn't an argument.

Oh, first you come up with how "situational" violence is and when I show you how it is not it's suddenly not an argument any more.

 

Are you just trying to +1 your post count, or do you intend to contribute something to the thread?

even if one replaces my posts here with duck poo I'll have contributed more value to this thread than you ever will

[Achilles]

Oh, first you come up with how "situational" violence is and when I show you how it is not it's suddenly not an argument any more.

 

Oh, you're confused?

 

Allow me to help.

 

Argument: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion

 

My comment that your post did not contain an argument was an attempt to politely point out that you typed a lot of words without actually saying anything meaningful.

 

even if one replaces my posts here with duck poo I'll have contributed more value to this thread than you ever will

 

Obviously.

[KinchyB]

Do violent video games corrupt our youth?

 

No.

 

[/thread]

 

_EW_

 

Ditto

[Agincourt]

Feel free to let me know when that starts. Not sure how you figure you're doing so with these non-starters, but you keep on telling yourself whatever you want, Rayston.

 

 

 

Oh, you're confused?

 

Allow me to help.

 

Argument: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion

 

My comment that your post did not contain an argument was an attempt to politely point out that you typed a lot of words without actually saying anything meaningful.

 

 

 

Obviously.

 

So is this an argument or what? Is this one of those places where you can be rude and obnoxious to other people?

 

I recently saw a study on video gamers and it shows that the average gamer is almost 30 years old. That surprised me, because I always thought it was more like 20. I don't know if this contributes anything of value, but I think it shows that computer games corrupt and people get hooked on them at a young age and will keep playing them for the rest of their lives.

 

I think that is was only 20 years ago that the first video game consoles started being sold, so people starting at maybe 10 are now 30 years old. This isn't what the topic is about, but I think people have good reason to worry about what video games will do to people. Children maybe aren't as likely to be violent, but if they aren't spending as much time with school work and reading, that's a good reason to condemn them.

[Achilles]

So is this an argument or what?

 

No, my argument has already been made. My most recent post was commentary on Ray's inability to muster a counter-argument while at the same time proclaiming to be significantly contributing to this thread. Thus far all he's posted in supposition. While some (including himself) might find baseless claims convincing, this is supposed to be a forum for serious discussion.

 

Is this one of those places where you can be rude and obnoxious to other people?

 

The staff is very good about doing their jobs. If they have a problem with a post, they will let us know.

 

I recently saw a study on video gamers and it shows that the average gamer is almost 30 years old. That surprised me, because I always thought it was more like 20. I don't know if this contributes anything of value, but I think it shows that computer games corrupt and people get hooked on them at a young age and will keep playing them for the rest of their lives.

 

Which assumes that all of those 30 year old gamers were once 10 year old gamers. I don't share that assumption, therefore I don't agree that "it shows" any such thing. As per usual, I'm perfectly willing to be convinced by whichever arguments you can provide evidence for.

 

This isn't what the topic is about, but I think people have good reason to worry about what video games will do to people.

 

That's fine. It's not very specific though. What exactly is it that we should be worried about? What studies have been conducted to either show that such concern is warranted or belay such concerns altogether? And most importantly, how well constructed were the methodologies used in those studies (i.e. did they account for confirmation bias? How many blinds were used? How did they control for other influences? Etc.)?

 

Children maybe aren't as likely to be violent, but if they aren't spending as much time with school work and reading, that's a good reason to condemn them.

 

What about educational games?

[Ray Jones]

Not sure how you figure you're doing so with these non-starters, but you keep on telling yourself whatever you want, Rayston.

Welcome to the world of animated GIF, Herr Rocket-Science!

 

 

Oh, you're confused?

 

Allow me to help.

Please, allow me to help.

 

 

 

 

Argument: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion

You forgot to mention that the conclusion of your "argument" of "situational violence" was neither based on logic, reality, nor, and that's my favourite: any source. Thumbs up for being coherent so far, though.

 

 

My comment that your post did not contain an argument was an attempt to politely point out that you typed a lot of words without actually saying anything meaningful.

While this is getting more and more away from being on topic-- you still pull the same lame tactics, apparently. You come up with something and every time you find it rebutted, you go like "but that's not an argument", "rana rana burden of proof", or, and here's my favourite again, "that's not valid because you did not provide any sources". This behaviour from your side is near being a troll. Additionally, your "attempt to politely point out that ..." was surely anything but polite.

[Achilles]

You forgot to mention that the conclusion of your "argument" of "situational violence" was neither based on logic, reality, nor, and that's my favourite: any source. Thumbs up for being coherent so far, though.

 

Pay attention, Ray. Remember that part you referenced? What was the very next sentence?

 

Of course, I'm only speculating...just as you are. I think the difference here is that I realize it and you don't.

 

So are you just struggling to keep up or are you intentionally trying to mis-characterize my comments because you think it makes you look cool or something?

 

While this is getting more and more away from being on topic-- you still pull the same lame tactics, apparently. You come up with something and every time you find it rebutted,

 

But you didn't offer a rebuttal, Ray. That's the problem.

 

you go like "but that's not an argument", "rana rana burden of proof", or, and here's my favourite again, "that's not valid because you did not provide any sources".

 

Well, when you make a claim, you're responsible for providing the burden of proof. And when you just pull stuff out of your butt, it would help if you acknowledge that instead of acting as though you've made your case.

 

You said that video games have "some effect". Great. What is it?

 

Either you have something to contribute here or you do not.

[KinchyB]

You said that video games have "some effect". Great. What is it?

 

I would say the effect is hours of fun and entertainment!! Or is that affect... I get confused.

 

Anyway... I highly doubt there is any actual proof of video games directly causing any violence (I am of course ignoring the first versions of the Wii remotes that were thrown into TVs, thus breaking said tv). Now you could look at a 6 year old that plays GTA, and say "Hey this kid picked up a bat and hit another kid and tried to steal his tricycle" and that would be valid and it may technically be a video game causing the violence.... maybe, but there are several other points to look at first... why is the child playing a game that is not rated for their age group? Where were the parents? (Ok, it happened at school) Did the parents never teach their child that hitting is wrong? How did a 6 year old get a wooden or metal bat to begin with?! Where are the teachers? (Well, it's summer and they are at a playground) Unsupervised?! You shouldn't be a parent if your letting your kid run around that age unsupervised! No wonder they are violent (see parent's fault )! You could blame the game, but that is a cop out. The truth is the child's parents, teachers, neighborhood, society, and friends (yes, i'm blaming other 6 year olds now too) failed miserably in educating this child. In fact, I'd place a bet in vegas that this child eventually does jail time... or the parents are into something illegal. Either way, it's not the game and likely would have happened eventually anyway even without the aid of a game.

 

Also most research (I'm reworking the definition of most here... I actually mean a single article that I read, although I probably could say all research since 1 out of 1 article mentions this point...) suggests that the impact of games depends on an individual's mental disposition. And nope, i'm not linking to my article i'm referencing... but if you really want I can find a random article (or just create one) that proves my point. Anyway, an individual's mental disposition has to be taken into consideration here. Have they ever killed small, large, x-large, or xx-large animals for fun? Do they find daydreaming about doing bodily harm to others fun and facinating? Do they chase their brother around the house with a machete? All these can be indications that something is not right. Playing a game, violent or otherwise, isn't going to change this person (Well, maybe a barney game, that would drive anyone nuts.... purple dinosaurs are unnatural).

 

In essence, it's not actually the game giving the person an idea to go out and shoot or hurt people... the idea is already there. in fact, one can argue that the game could be acting as an outlet for said individual. If so, the game industry could be saving millions of lives a year... I would even say they deserve a tax write off for their noble deeds ...

 

Basically, anyone who is trying to blame a game for anything needs to take a closer look at themselves. The minute you start passing off personal responsibility is the minute your child has the opportunity to do what they want... even hurt other people.

[Ray Jones]

You said that video games have "some effect". Great. What is it?

 

 

"Of course, all gamers are not addicts – many teens can play video games a few hours a week, successfully balancing school activities, grades, friends, and family obligations. But for some, gaming has become an uncontrollable compulsion. Studies estimate that 10 percent to 15 percent of gamers exhibit signs that meet the World Health Organization’s criteria for addiction. Just like gambling and other compulsive behaviors, teens can become so enthralled in the fantasy world of gaming that they neglect their family, friends, work, and school."

 

--http://www.video-game-addiction.org/

 

 

 

"A recent article published in the journal Psychological Science indicates that youth in the United States may be at risk for addiction to video games. According to a 2007 Harris poll of 1,178 American children and teens (ages 8 to 18), 8.5 percent of those who played video games exhibited six of 11 addiction symptoms. These symptoms included skipping household chores or homework to play video or computer games, poor performance on tests, and playing video games to escape problems.

 

Experts are comparing video game addiction to other pathological non-substance related behaviors like compulsive gambling. Researchers at Iowa State University, who conducted the study, actually utilized gambling addiction criteria to help develop the self-administered questionnaire. Currently no clinical diagnosis exists for video game addiction.

 

In general, boys exhibited a greater number of addictive symptoms than girls. Boys tended to exhibit two or more of the 11 symptoms, while girls were more likely to show two or fewer. In addition to the symptoms listed above, other symptoms of gaming addiction exhibited by youth who played video games includes excessive thinking about playing games, excessive planning for the next opportunity to play, trying to play less and failing to do so, becoming restless or irritable when trying to play less or stop playing, lying about how much they play, and stealing a game or stealing money to buy a game."

 

--http://www.video-game-addiction.org/video-game-addiction-articles/about-video-game-addiction.htm

 

 

 

"In an April 21 article on the TimesOnline website, technology correspondent Mike Harvey reported that Prof. Gentile's research had yielded the following statistics:

* Just under 90 percent of survey respondents reported playing video games.

* The average boy in the survey spent 16.4 hours a week playing games, while the average for girls was just over nine hours every week.

* The average "addicted" gamer played 24 hours a week -- twice as much as casual gamers.

* 8.5 percent of the young gamers exhibited "pathological patterns of play," which was described as the presence of at least six of the 11 clinical symptoms (as defined by the American Psychiatric Association).

* One-fourth of the surveyed gamers reported turning to video games in an attempt to escape problems, and nearly as many said they played instead of doing homework.

* Twenty percent of the young video game enthusiasts said that their schoolwork had suffered because of the time they spent playing the games.

 

ScienceDaily noted that the young people whose behavior rose to the level of video game addiction were more likely than were non-pathological players to report the following:

 

* Having game systems in their bedrooms

* Receiving poor grades in school

* Feeling "addicted" to game systems

* Experiencing a higher than normal number of health problems

* Stealing to support their video game habit

 

"While the medical community currently does not recognize video game addiction as a mental disorder, hopefully this study will be one of many that allow us to have an educated conversation on the positive and negative effects of video games," Prof. Gentile said in the TimesOnline article."

 

--http://www.video-game-addiction.org/video-game-addiction-articles/study-documents-prevalence-of-pathological-behavior-among-young-video-gamers.htm

 

 

 

"But it begs the question: Which comes first? Can aggressive and violent behavior be attributed to violence in video games? Or do those who play already have violent tendencies which draw them to violent games? It's a type of "chicken or the egg" debate that has strong advocates on both sides.

 

Though video games made their appearance in the 1970s, it wasn't until systems like the Sony PlayStation were released in the 1980s that violence became an issue. Along with these more sophisticated systems came the ability to make graphics more lifelike. The more lifelike they've become, the more interest there has been in the correlation between violent games and violent behavior.

 

One of the primary concerns with violence in video games is that gaming is not passive. In order to play and win, the player has to be the aggressor. Rather than watching violence, as he might do on television, he's committing the violent acts. Most researchers acknowledge that this kind of active participation affects a person's thought patterns, at least in the short term.

 

Another factor that concerns both researchers and parents is that violence in video games is often rewarded rather than punished. In army and sniper games, players "level up" based in part on how many people they kill. If played frequently enough, games like this can skew a young person's perception of violence and its consequences."

 

...

 

"Short-term effects were easily identified in the GAM; the most prominent being that violent games change the way gamers interpret and respond to aggressive acts. Even those who aren't predisposed to aggression respond with increased hostility after playing a violent video game. The game becomes what's called a "situational variable" which changes the perception of and reaction to aggressive behavior.

 

Long-term effects of violent video games are still uncertain and are fiercely debated. No long-term studies have been conducted to date, so there are only hypotheses. Anderson and Bushman theorized that excessive exposure to violent video games causes the formation of aggressive beliefs and attitudes, while also desensitizing gamers to violent behaviors."

 

--http://www.video-game-addiction.org/violence.html

 

 

 

"While occasional use of video games is harmless and may even help with some disorders like autism, doctors said in extreme cases it can interfere with day-to-day necessities like working, showering or even eating.

 

"Working with this problem is no different than working with alcoholic patients. The same denial, the same rationalization, the same inability to give it up," Dr. Thomas Allen of the Osler Medical Center in Towson, Maryland.

 

Dr. Louis Kraus of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and a psychiatrist at Rush University Medical Center, said it is not yet clear whether video games are addictive.

 

"It's not necessarily a cause-and-effect type issue. There may be certain kids who have a compulsive component to what they are doing," he said in an interview.

 

But addictive or not, too much time spent playing video games takes away from other important activities.

 

"The more time kids spend on video games, the less time they will have socializing, the less time they will have with their families, the less time they will have exercising," Kraus said.

 

"They can make up academic deficits, but they can't make up the social ones," he said."

 

--http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN2425415820070624?sp=true

[Agincourt]

Okay, that's something which I would say is very convincing.

 

The comparison to gaming to gambling really caught my attention, because 15% of children acting like an addiction makes for some very undesirable consequences. It may not exactly be violence, but lower grades, less social activities, and other things that come from losing hours a day playing. That is reason enough to think it's bad for children to have unrestricted limits to how much they can play.

 

Video games are bad because they are addicting enough to draw people's attention from real life. You can't really dictate people to act or not to, but parents should take more of an active role to reduce how much their children play, such as incentives. If their child doesn't make at least a C, they would take away the game until they improve their grade. That would not exactly stop their addiction, but it would be something that parents can do to make it harder for their kids to play all the time and kill their grades.

 

Gaming is addicting like gambling, but there are many more kids who game that it's worrisome. I can't point to games, but I do know that the average grade in my high school has diminished with each year over the last five or six classes. That's not a clear answer that it's video games, but I really can't think of much else that could cause such a drop in grades. I have considered the other possible causes as well, but the average number of hours they work, social status, and teacher resources have all been about the same. The majority of the failed students had x-boxes and playstations. Many who graduated also did, and many females who failed didn't. This is only anecdotal evidence.

[Achilles]

My apologies, Ray. When you said that video games had "some effect" I made the mistake of assuming that you meant that within the context of the discussion. I did not realize that you were trying to derail the thread with off-topic stuff about video game addiction.

 

Thanks for the links.

[Darth Avlectus]

GTA:SWcity, I did never say any game did ever make anyone go out and kill someone, nor do I say they ever will. I am not saying violence in games "corrupts" our youth (which is the very question of this tread), it is just that in my opinion those games do have an effect on people, young or not. I did not even say those effects are negative. Everybody seems to be like "these games do nothing to anybody", and I think this is not true.

 

Okay, then there is at least something we do agree upon. Thank you.

 

BTW your post, while related, may be just a bit broad for the scope of this particular discussion. It could be the start of another topic worthy of discussion--the focus is more broad, but I'm sure it's worth looking into.

 

 

 

I've observed that some like to be a provocationist while marginally avoiding breaking rules. Fairly common among intellectuals (as well as sports professionals), I'm afraid. If it's any consolation they probably do it to feel superior because they are lacking in some other way.

 

Whether or not that is the case with him, I don't know.

[Ray Jones]

My apologies, Ray. When you said that video games had "some effect" I made the mistake of assuming that you meant that within the context of the discussion.

Your question was what kind of effect I was referring to when I said I think video games do have an effect on people. It has been answered.

 

Also, the topic of this thread is "Do violent video games corrupt our youth?" -- So, if so and so much young people show symptoms of an addiction to video games it's not really that much of a drift to catch to say these young people are already corrupted by video games. Especially when you'd read this part of my post:

 

"One of the primary concerns with violence in video games is that gaming is not passive. In order to play and win, the player has to be the aggressor. Rather than watching violence, as he might do on television, he's committing the violent acts. Most researchers acknowledge that this kind of active participation affects a person's thought patterns, at least in the short term.

 

Another factor that concerns both researchers and parents is that violence in video games is often rewarded rather than punished. In army and sniper games, players "level up" based in part on how many people they kill. If played frequently enough, games like this can skew a young person's perception of violence and its consequences."

 

So much for the context of this discussion.

 

 

I did not realize that you were trying to derail the thread with off-topic stuff about video game addiction.

Great. Really great. I forgot to post this with the list of your favourite "how do I weasel around having to respond to posts I really don't like to answer" tactics.

 

 

Thanks for the links.

No, thank you.

[Agincourt]

I think that video game addiction does have some impact on violent tendencies. I don't know if this is aimed at showing statistics that video game players are more likely to be violent, or that they are 'corruptive.' I can think of many people who play video games all the time, but they are just underachievers. It's only when they fail school and would struggle to get by when the addiction would lead to them becoming desperate.

 

But that might happen because parents don't enforce their children as much, or poor education standards, or many other things besides video games.