Don't blame games for what happens in the real world

Games have been linked to real world violence or even misogyni. But the reasearch has been clear. Games do not have any correlation with what happens in the real world. The same goes with any other art aswell. Music, Movies, TV, Comic Books, etc. None of these art forms have anything to do with harming other people. If someone does something to another person, you can't blame games on it. Because there are several other factors that have to be accounted for. Yet everytime some sort of shooting happens, it gets blamed on games.

Even before Adam Sessler's downward spiral, he had some good discussions about the topic on tv. There are numerous others incidents of discussion on tv though. But Jack Thompson did his best by trying to blame violence on video games. Most people can tell the difference between a game and reality. Those who can't might need help mentally.

One can argue that there are age restrictions for games. That can be harmful right? So can movies? There is a reason children aren't suppose to be exposed to some themes of life until they completely understand them. Games do not harm children. There are age appropriate games or art for children. They don't need to see everything, because they don't understand it or can deal with it properly. That's why they aren't sold to everyone.

For someone to suggest that any game causes violence even after all the research is ignorant and does to know what they're talking about. You can disagree or not like art, but it does not make people hurt each other

@The_Last_Ride: Now this is something I can side with you on.

Game shouldn't even be made. There is no point for it to exist.

Well i am glad :P

I stopped watching the first video when he said he trained on doom to do so hahahaha I mean seriously come on, we play video games to escape reality, if you can't tell the difference or it influences you to do crime then you need medical help.

The funny thing is, no one ever brings up movies as a motivation to act out these crimes, considering there real life images, which I would go out in saying that, there more to blame than video games, I mean take hostel a film basically just portraying brutal torture, and yet this just goes by as o it's just a film, yet video games have this bad rap even tho, you can tell from the off set it's not real. it honestly blows my mind that people to this day are still protesting against video games, probably because they have nothing better to do.

If someone goes out and shoots loads of people, just because the guy played call of duty, doesn't mean he decided he would do this just over that game or even trained on it, how anyone can train to shoot a gun or reload a gun frew a game which doesn't even show you how it's done is mindnumbing,

Huzzah !!!

You could say that about anything, not just games. The "point" is whatever value you decide to give it.

Entertainment can be influential, though. Ask any kid who hurt himself copying WWE.

I would ask where the parents are, also everytime a ppv or a show starts they ask you NOT do this at home

We're not talking about Dragon Age: Inquisition here.

No, we're talking about Hatred. Dragon Age has a reason to exist.

Console version announced.

It's just instinctive for some people to look outside of themselves for what's wrong in their life

@The_Last_Ride:

I agree with this. Since you do not believe that video games make people violent. Do you think that people can be addicted to video games? I am often against the diagnosis of video game addiction because I feel that this will give anti video gamers more ammunition to use as to why video games should be banned or regulated or make them harmful. I think that video games get a lot of flack and I was wondering if you have some good arguments against game addiction just like game violence?

WHY do you think they tell you not to do it? WHY do you need to ask where there parents are? BECAUSE it's an influence on kids!

@The_Last_Ride said:

One can argue that there are age restrictions for games. That can be harmful right? So can movies? There is a reason children aren't suppose to be exposed to some themes of life until they completely understand them. Games do not harm children. There are age appropriate games or art for children. They don't need to see everything, because they don't understand it or can deal with it properly. That's why they aren't sold to everyone.

You do you realize you JUST explained how video games can be harmful, right? You're trying to make an argument that video games are harmless, but you can't do that without contradicting yourself. I will agree with you in saying it's ridiculous to think that video games are a main factor in causing violence in youth, but to flatout saying it's NO factor at at all is wrong. If that's so, why do we ask "Where were the parents at?" Why do TV shows have disclaimers that tell us not to try those things at home? Why do our games and movies have ratings systems? Because entertainment can be influential.

This says it all:

http://imgur.com/a/hoETy

First of all, parents should tell their kids not to do this in the first place... Every parent should...

No... They're not harmful. They're not going to harm children. I played GTA when i was 10, i am totally fine. I can understand that children shouldn't play these games. Again, look at the research. There is none, let me repeat it again, no evidence of what you're claiming. You sound like Jack Thompson. No it's not a factor, at all. Crime has gone down since game were introduced... Again you have no evidence on your side.

My opinion is that it seems like the criminal types and mentally disturbed like to use the realistic violent games as a combat simulator to practice for the real world.

YOU are not all children. Yes, it is a factor. It could be .0001 percent of a factor when a person goes on a shooting spree, but it's still an influence. Most people are immune to the influences of violent entertainment; that's why you don't see millions of people shooting each other up. But for the disturbed, mentally ill or just neglectfully raised, it can have a harmful influence on them.

Please answer me this honest question. If a person was never exposed to violent media, then would they ever get an idea to shoot or stab someone? Where does the idea to go out and kill people even come from? Just so I am CRYSTAL clear, I am NOT suggesting that violent games create violence tendencies on perfectly normal people. What I am saying is that under specific conditions, some video games can be harmful to some people, which you yourself supported in that contradictory statement I quoted you on earlier.

Also, I'll thank you not to compare me to Jack Thompson again. Him and I are no where near on the same level.

exactly

People have been brutal LONG before comics, movies, and games.

Anders Behring Breivik claimed he trained by playing COD. Which is total bull, which also experts debunked

It is becoming more than tiresome that deep-rooted societal problems have been blamed on 'gamers' again.

I'm alright with news outlets blaming video games just so I know who to ignore when it comes to my news.

The visual arts are powerful...and can influence people to action. Schools use visual arts for instruction. Politicians spend 10's of millions of dollars for (visual) adds to persuade people to vote for them. Game developers buy (visual) adds to influence people to purchase their games. Ever watch a video about a game you are considering buying before you make the purchase? The major concern is that all children are impressionable, and if they see villains being portrayed (in games or movies) as successful and superior they will aspire to be like them. The concern is that entertainment intended for adults could inadvertently influence children to wrongdoing. Wise and responsible parents should follow the game ratings when deciding which games to allow their children to play. Just because “it is art” or “it is a game” does not mean it is healthy for children.

I'll never understand why conceding that something can be influencential is such a threatening concept. That is NOT necessarily the same as saying it's the cause. But to attempt to act like we all exist in a vacuum impervious from various daily influences that can be harmful just because we don't want to confront the possibility due to the fact that that possibility can hold ramifications on something we enjoy is nothing but being intellectually dishonest for the sake of one's own bias.

Everything we perceive influences us to one degree or another, consciously or sub-consciously, some more than others, and some are better equipped to deal with it than are others. Is this an argument for causation or censorship? No.

Once again people don't take responsibility for their actions. It's easier to play the blame game. Good article my friend.

We really shouldn't be blaming video games for anything. People do violent things because they are actually idiots who do not look at other people's responsibility.

only idiots blame real world violence on video games.

im sure hitler loved his ps4, but i doubt it motivated him.

Can you provide the documentation for this research you are clinging to? You said other art forms such as Music, Movies, TV, Comic books etc does not have an effect on the real world but that statement is just ignorant. Everything a person interact with affects their perspective of the world and to pretend that these mediums are blameless is just being naive. That is not to say that they are solely the reason but they are part of the equation. The first thing is to acknowledge the influence these mediums have and deal with its influences not pretend that these influences are non existent. I don't know why people love to take extremes to issues like these. Its either video games are solely the cause or videos is not the cause when the reality is most likely in the middle.

Your point? because you seem to miss that here.

But in line with your logic, it could be said that you should not have been made, there is no point for you or anyone/anything for that matter to exist.

But i will wait for your point with that comment.

Humans were horrible violent creatures long before video games and films were about, but i think a young mind growing up playing alot of violent games and watching violent movies can have a negative effect, could possibly make them resort to violence in a particular situation, just depends on the individual i guess.

So to say violent games dont influence people to commit violence in the real world..... who knows maybe it does in some case's.

It's really sad that we haven't come anywhere in 20 years since this first became an issue.

I played Doom II: Hell on Earth in 1994 at the age of 8 and didn't grow up to be a serial killer.

Link

this is the biggest and most definitive proof to render any bs anyone claims mute. A comic, game or a movie have no relations to making someone kill a person. That's a fact

This.

The research article does not mention which videogames were being played by these children. One would assume these are age appropriate videogames, but we don't actually know. Also, the study focuses almost exclusively on screen time and only children in the 5-7 years age group were included. You're severely generalising the outcome of this study and you're also not taking its limitations into account (which are mentioned in the research article). On top of that, you're apparently disregarding any alternative studies that are mentioned in the research article. The results of this study do not automatically debunk all those other mentioned studies. How easy do you think proper research is? You act as if there's no nuance in research.

You know what this study proves? It proves there's no apparent psychosocial change in children aged 7 (from the UK), who were exposed to a certain amount of videogame screen time from the age of 5. It does not prove videogames are harmless. It is explicitly stated in the research article that there was no information on "the content or context of early screen time." That means they don't know what these kids played or how well parents were doing their job. Another limitation is that the researchers relied solely on mother reports of adjustment and screen time: "Although mother-reported screen time has been used in many other population studies, concerns over reliability and validity have not been extensively addressed."

This study is merely another argument in the discussion about the potential effects and influence of videogames. It is not the "most definitive proof to render any bs anyone claims mute." Seriously, you can't claim that...

@loafofgame: you can cherry pick it if you want, that's only one study.

Link

you are clearly only discussing for discussing. You should know by now by being a gamer and playing games does not make you violent. There are around 300 million hardcore gamers in the world. Why aren't there mass shootings all the time?

"No link, either causal or correlational, was found between violent-video-game playing and aggressive or violent acts."

"Neither short-term laboratory exposure nor long-term real-life exposure were related to aggressive behaviors in the lab"

Link

I'm not cherry picking. I'm discussing the link you provided and I'm questioning your conclusions based on that link. In your statement you included factors that were not included in the study. I'm addressing your tendency to add a lot of personal interpretation to valid research without making that clear. That study doesn't prove what you claim it proves (it only proves a small part of it), yet you claim it renders "any bs anyone claims mute."

As for your subsequent links: the first research studies a different age group being exposed to violent videogames, an age group that is allowed to play these violent videogames. It is not focused on children. It does not discuss the effects of age-inappropriate material.

The second research states: "Given that aggregate data on media violence consumption are not available, this study used estimation procedures for this exposure. Any such estimation procedure runs the risk of over or underidentifying exposure and results should be interpreted with caution." I see no caution in any of your statements. The research in question is a data study, comparing youth violence rates and violent videogame consumption rates. It offers valid criticism on previous studies linking violence to videogames. But it's researching youth violence rates in relation to violent videogame consumption rates. Nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't prove videogames have no influence on people or that videogames can't be harmful to certain people in certain contexts. It simply calls into question the very questionable assumption that violence in videogames is related to violent behaviour.

Look, I'm not disagreeing with you. It's very questionable to suggest there's a direct link between videogame violence and real life violence. However, to say videogames have no influence on people whatsoever (especially age-inappropriate videogames) is not supported by these studies and is an exaggeration of what is being proven. I (will probably always) have a problem with the casually blunt confidence with which you make your claims, not allowing yourself to doubt anything you say even for a second. I think you exaggerate and generalise a lot of the information you present (and in some cases I think you bend reality ever so slightly). That has always been the point of most of my comments. I have no desire to refute your opinion, only to add some nuance to it.

To put it bluntly, I care very little about whether you're right or wrong, because I think a lot of these issues are largely insignificant. That might be geographical issue, though. I think the amount of media attention being given to the 'harmful' effects of videogames is mostly limited to the US. I hardly hear anything negative about videogames in my own country's (The Netherlands) media. I don't feel stereotyped as a gamer, I don't feel my hobby isn't respected and I certainly don't feel attacked. But I guess I don't know what it's like, then...

That is not a fact. What is a fact is that everything we interact will have some degree of influence. That influence factually varies from person to person because a person is a collection of calculated experiences overtime. This is NOT a black and white issue because we are NOT black and white in our thinking. So why the hell are you trying to indicate to the contrary?

Your first link does not take me to the actually study but your second link was quite interesting

"It’s hard to nail down the link between violent behavior and video games because most of the research has been experimental. Researchers have participants play a violent video game and then take some test — like a questionnaire — that should be an indicator of aggressive or violent behavior. These studies have been mixed, finding positive, negative, and null links. But the problem with outcomes like these is that they are experimental, and hard to compare to everyday life. If a child plays a violent video game and then answers five questions indicating an increase in aggression, does that really translate into violence or crime outside the lab?"

There is a recent decrease in general violence/crime and no one have a concrete answer for the drop in general crime. But you can continue to speak in concrete terms based on non concrete evidence. Again I will re-iterate that I am not saying that videogames are immune or solely the reason for violent behavior in some people but it is most likely somewhere in the middle of the extreme views.

It's still an extensive research that shows no harm to children.

So? It's still relevant to the topic. Since videogames have becoeme a thing, crime has gone down, that's just a fact.

I know, but you're still discussing for the sake of discussion. There are multiple studies, these are just 3, none of them indicate any correlation.

I've shown you 3 links now, none of them indicate violence with videogames, just look at Reality check on this site. They say the same goddamn thing...

I never denied the validity of the research. I'm just pointing out you shouldn't asign certain proof to this research that isn't actually in the research. We don't know what these kids played. If they all played the age appropriate disney games, then of course it shouldn't affect them. Do you have research that shows 5-7 year olds extensively playing GTA V is harmless? I bet no researcher would even dare to research something like that, because it might be considered unethical (they might in fact be breaking the law if they let children play those games; I'm not sure though). That in itself implies some sort of influence coming from videogames and any media, which is totally normal with impressionable kids. You don't have to deny that because you fear it might get videogames banned or something. This research shows it's very questionable to claim that videogames in general cause psychosocial change in 5-7 year olds, but it doesn't show you the effects of age-inappropriate content (or any difference in content). It also does not account for all the factors that might be considered 'influence', whether it's positive or negative.

Again, I'm not questioning the research. It provides an important argument. But the research states that the relation isn't causal, which means more videogames consumption didn't necessarily lead to a decrease in youth crime rates (it could, but it isn't proven). There might have been other developments in tandem with these two developments that have lead to a decline in youth crime rates. The research tells me it is very questionable to claim violence in videogames leads to increased youth violence, which makes perfect sense. But again, age-inappropriate content was not discussed, children were not discussed, the idea that videogames might have an influence on certain people is not disproven. That doesn't dismiss the research, it just adds nuance.

If you don't want to discuss things, then please put a disclaimer in your thread. Threads are there for discussion. I'm aware of the multiple studies conducted on this subject and I take them very seriously. I'm also aware that reality is very complex and that all studies have controlled factors and limitations (separating them from reality). You can't use one study to prove an extremely general point. The fact of the matter is that in here you are trying to get away with making broad statements based on some links to studies. You're not showing me you have actually critically studied these research articles, pointed out their limitations and then showed how another study might compensate for those limitations. You simply throw a bunch of studies on a pile and say: look, there's your proof, I'm right and you're wrong.

I'm questioning your conduct. You're not showing me you actually know what these studies are about. One of the articles uses the Uses and Gratifications theory to explain the relationship between media and consumers. On a basic level it suggests many people seek out specific media to suit their needs. This is important, because it implies that what people consume is likely to be an expression of their preferences, not necessarily specific media content drawing them in (or influencing them) reagardless of preference. Based on this theory one could argue that is likely that people who are violent are drawn to violence in media, which means it is not the violence in the media itself that causes a person to be violent. Of course there are many other factors in play and there are limitations to consider (for instance, the idea that based on this theory we could potentially predict a person's personality based on his/her media consumption, which is alway a dangerous endeavour), but it's an important argument in the discussion.

Showing me you actually know what you're talking about (at least, to a certain extent: I do not wish to imply I'm in any way an expert) is far more convincing than simply barging in and throwing around research articles without discussing them, accusing me of discussing for the sake of discussion. I wouldn't discuss this if I didn't think it was necessary.

@loafofgame: They would not be breaking the law, but it might be unethical. True, but games in general do not harm anyone, even kids.

But it is more than a coincidence that crime has gone down while games have become more popular isn't it?

But you're not taking sides, you're just discussing things that don't really have a thing to do with the topic. You're just asking questions even though i do give you evidence. I don't know if you're really good at debating or just don't take any sides

you're completely ignoring them aswell. They're facts, 10 000 kids and other studies have shown no link between violence and games. You're wrong, i'm right

This illustrates my point. You make a broad statement and you then provide evidence that you think supports that statement. I then point out that the evidence you provide is not broad enough to cover all the aspects of your broad statement. That's all I'm doing. I'm not dismissing your argument or your opinion by doing that. No research article will claim: "games in general do not harm anyone, not even kids." Yet, that seems to be the claim you are making.

If that broad claim you make is based on more than one research article, then I think you owe it to the people who read this to provide those articles and explain how all those articles tie together to support that one very broad claim (something tells me you carefully collect all evidence to support your claims, so repeatedly providing it shouldn't be that much work). Otherwise you shouldn't make such a claim. That is the nuance I'm addressing here. There's a subtle difference between the claims you make and the evidence you provide to support those claims. More importantly, you seem very reluctant to consider that your claims are broader than the evidence you provide. A lot of people provide evidence that does not cover the full breadth of their opinion, but they can at least admit which parts of their opinion are strongly supported and which parts are an educated guess or speculation.

Oh, and the fact that in the vast space of the internet there are more studies is irrelevant. You are the one starting these discussions, you are making the claims, so you have the responsibility to provide us with all the evidence we need to fully verify the claims you make.

I don't know. The research doesn't say. What is clear is that an increase in videogames consumption doesn't directly lead to an increase in youth violence. If you want to suggest videogames have lead to a decrease in youth crime, then you are free to do so, but you can't use that particular research as evidence for that, since the research article explicitly states the relation is not causal. If you want to suggest a causal relation, then that's speculation and you should be clear about that (or you should provide another research article that shows a causal relationship).

You don't have to deal with people who are (more or less) neutral very often, do you? Since when do people have to take sides to have a discussion? This is exactly what is wrong in this entire debate: the apparent need to take a side. I question people on both sides, because I see people on both sides rushing to conclusions without taking a good hard look at their own reasoning. I've already explained what my personal view on these matters is. I just want to make sure people actually understand and have critically studied their own evidence and reasoning. That is why I'm raising these questions. On this ridiculously small scale I'm trying to prevent the world from turning into a black and white nightmare.

That doesn't mean I'm not biased, though. I think my bias is pretty clear. I'm most definitely not in the 'videogames lead to violence' camp. I am however sceptical about the suggestion that any form of media is harmless under all circumstances. Things can be harmful in many ways under many circumstances, and not just in the confrontational sense (i.e. violent behaviour), and you're not telling me research has accounted for all those ways and circumstances.

Videogames not leading to violent behaviour does not mean they can't contribute to other behaviour or certain views and ideas. We've already seen they can have positive influences on certain behaviour and skills, but I don't think all potentially positive influences have been properly researched, nor do I think all potentially negative influences have been properly researched. Then there's the factor that many people will always value their own experience over any research (unless that research supports their (desired) experience), which makes discussion on other levels than science necessary. All these factors cause me to be cautious by default, which is sometimes interpreted as suspect by others.

I'm not saying the research is wrong. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm not even saying I am right. As I have said before, I have a problem with the extreme way you seem to interpret everything regarding this issue (your own evidence, those silly videos, other people's arguments). I have read the research articles you've provided and I have pointed out what I think are their most important conclusions and limitations. Those conclusions and limitations are right there in the articles. I have not dismissed them because of that. Not at all.