Skip to main content

If you want to know just how twisted our politics and media have become look no further than Senator Rockefeller's bill last week asking the National Science Foundation to study the effects of video game violence after the NRA blamed the Newtown shootings on video game violence and mentioned video games that the Newtown shooter didn't play.  The news media responded quickly, forcefully and with a complete disregard for the facts.  ABC News reported that a research study had found no relationship between media violence and actual rates of violence.  Similarly, the Christian Science Monitor claimed that scientific research had already dismissed claims of a link between violence and video games.  Similarly, a PBS local station (KCTS) claimed the entire idea of video games causing violence has been completely refuted by science.

Rockefeller's idea that more research is needed, the NRA's assertion that violence has only one cause (video games) and the media claims that science hasn't made any determinations are all false.  So where is the truth?  That's pretty hard to find based on mainstream media reports.  

The American Psychological Association, The Australian Psychological Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, a 200 page Canadian report, The International Society on Resarch on Aggression and the US National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women Final Report (2012) all concluded that violent depictions in the media including violent video games cause aggression and violence. Note the word "cause."  Scientists don't use it very often unless they have proof.  For example, tobacco products cause cancer.  Climate change is caused by people.  Is this causal research based on one or two studies as the mainstream media suggests?  No, its based on more than 3,500 scientific studies.  

What's the scientific principle involved?  Children frequently learn how to do things through imitation.  If a child over a long period of time is exposed to violent solutions that they believe are realistic, they begin to see violence as a realistic option.  That's why children who witness violence in the home are at risk to become violent.

Science suggests limiting children's exposure to violence and to teach children that depictions of media violence are unrealistic. For example, one study found that a school intervention that taught children that violence on TV is not realistic reduced future bullying and aggression.

So why hasn't the media interviewed the world's leading authority on a link violence.  Actually, they did.  Here's a link to his CNN interview that I couldn't find on CNN's website and here's another link to his Violence Research Groups comprehensive policy statement on violence that of course includes other actions such as limiting guns and preventing individuals with mental disorders from owning or having access to them.

So why is Rockefeller asking for a new government report when this year's national advisory report and a number of major scientific organizations have already concluded that video games cause violence?  Why is the NRA overstating its causal significance as they did for mental illness.  The research on mental illness shows that only people who are experiencing violent delusions are more dangerous.  Most mentally ill people are less violent than the general population.  Why does the media downplay or attempt to refute what scientists have found to be the case.  

Clearly the NRA is attempting to rally others to its cause including the video game manufacturers and mental health advocates who have long argued that forced institutionalization is a civil rights violation because the US uses a very unscientific approach to decide who gets committed.  As for the Senator and the media, the same sort of false assertions were made after it became clear that smoking causes cancer, certain foods are bad for you and with climate change.  In each of these cases there were calls for more research and media stories that completely ignore science in favor of quotes from "industry experts."   An example of how absurd these media experts have become was recently illustrated by MSNBC's video guru expert who claimed that she knew that violence isn't caused by video games and that scientists just don't know what they're talking about because they're old and don't understand the new media.  

4:45 PM PT: Some responders falsely claimed that they had read within 30 minutes of this posting over a 1,000 pages of documentation and found no mention of the word causal.  However, the video link to the international expert uses the word causal.  The first page of the older Canadian report uses the word causal.  The third page of the Report of the Media Violence Commission uses the phrase "overwhelming causal evidence" etc ...  What there saying is just as false as the media reports.

Fri Dec 28, 2012 at  4:34 PM PT: For this statement follow link at the bottom of this article https://www.impartial-review.com/...

The American Academy of Pediatrics released a harrowing Policy Statement in November, 2009 warning its members about the health risks posed by children’s use of violent video games, and urging its members to track children’s violent media consumption and to educate parents about the games’ negative health effects.24 The Academy found that the “debate” about the effects of violent media on children “should be over,” as “consistent and significant associations” between violent media consumption and a variety of mental health problems for children and adolescents have been clearly established. These health problems include aggressive and violent behavior, bullying, desensitization to violence, fearful world views including “mean

world syndrome,” depression, and sleep disturbances.25 Social scientists concur that children’s exposure to violent media is a “socially significant” cause of later antisocial attitudes and conduct, that a substantial correlation exists between such exposure and

subsequent aggressive and/or antisocial behavior,26 and that violent video games likely pose the greatest risk to children due to their interactive and repetitive nature.27 It is a fact that interpersonal violence is now a more prevalent health risk for children, adolescents, and young adults than infectious disease, cancer, or congenital disorders.28

A leading suicide researcher is concerned about increases in suicide rates among younger Americans that may result from desensitization to violence and pain, which can be caused by playing violent video games.29  Parents of violent video game connoisseurs often express concern about the “addictive” nature of the games. Children and adolescents (as well as some adults) are known to revolve their lives around playing the games, which have been called as addictive as

cocaine:30 children become entranced in the games, play for hours without a break, and become enraged when they are interrupted.31 Childcare professionals have begun to advise parents on how to deal with children’s video game addiction,32 which can produce neurological and other health problems for children.33 In 2007, the American

Psychiatric Association issued a statement addressing the problem of children’s video game addiction and explained that an official diagnosis of “video game addiction” has been proposed for inclusion in the 2012 version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V).34 Research in the last year has shown similar brain activaction patterns between video game addition and drug addiction.35 In sum, numerous serious risks to children’s and adolescents’ health can result from their exposure to violence, and in particular, their consumption of violent video games.


Poll

Are you a video game violence denier?

72%48 votes
27%18 votes

| 66 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Bro, your headline... (6+ / 0-)

    doesn't seem right.

    And if anyone wants to play Halo 4, add me on X Box Live.

    -Zubalove73

    •  And if you think games are about violence.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Isaacsdad, JesseCW

      you don't know much about video games.....

      http://www.rochester.edu/...

    •  I'm guessing you answered yes on the poll (4+ / 0-)

      Because you're special and science doesn't apply when it refers to anything you like.

      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:50:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, if it's science.... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pistolSO, wildweasels, JesseCW, atana

        I wonder how Canada and England manage stop violent video games from reaching their shores? If they started playing them, I imagine violent crime would look a lot like the USA, then.

        •  Right, so you admit that you have no (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueness, emidesu, brasilaaron

          real response to the issue?

          There is violent crime in both countries you mention, and none of that changes the fact that scientific studies have shown that violent behavior increases with exposure to violent video games.  You don't want to address that because you like video games and you don't want it to be true, not for any good reason.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:05:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Also, the UK does ban video games that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emidesu

          have too much violence, so the most violent games aren't available there.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:06:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  By the way the reports show a correlation of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          brasilaaron

          about .30 between the amount of video game purchases for a developed country and the gun homicide rate after adjusting for the overall population of the country.  There have been several studies and this research is cited in some of the reports.

          What that means is that the more a country purchases video games, the more homicides that country reports.  Such a correlation could be influenced by many factors but it does completely refute the argument made in this thread which suggests that no such correlation exists.

          •  OR..... (0+ / 0-)

            It means the more homicides there are, the more games are sold.

            OR....

            It means as another independent variable changes both game purchases and gun violence go up by equal amounts.

            EXAMPLE: So as the economy decreases, game purchases may increase as an alternative to going out AND gun violence goes up due to an increase in crime.

            OR....

            something else.

            Correlation does not imply causality. It means there is evidence of a relationship. Say anything more than that and Toto goes and pulls back the curtain on you.

            •  Of course, the causal evidence is overwhelming (0+ / 0-)

              Summarizing the threat thus far.  First, in an idiotic attempt to refute the opinion of hundreds of scientists and many scientific bodies, someone claimed there is no correlation between a countries homicide rate and video game consumption.  It was pointed out that such a correlation exists.  In response zubalove, ignores over half of the posts, and the opinion of hundreds of scientists and many scientific bodies that there is causal relationship between media violence and the violence rate.  

              Instead, he irrelevantly argues that correlation doesn't equal causality when no one was arguing that correlation equals causality.  

              Causality was demonstrated by experimentation, not by looking at correlation so we know two things.  There is a correlation between number of video games a country purchases and the homicide rate in that the country and we know using video games over time will cause violence in some individuals.  Therefore, its reasonable to conclude that the correlation between video game purchases and the homicide rate in countries is the result of the causal connection between violent video games and violence.  This is particularly true because the degree of correlation is the same as the size of the effect of video game violation (about 30% in both cases).  

              However, some individuals continue to post and claim they disagree with me when actually they are disagreeing with what the scientific bodies concluded in all seven cases.  The link to a summary of these cases and there recommendations is provided in the original diary. That is, individuals continue to argue that the scientists are all wrong and there isn't a causal connection when the scientists claim there is a causal connection.  

    •  My Live gamertag (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zubalove

      and Steam ID are the same as my Daily Kos username.

      I'm on Steam more often than Live. Hit me up for some XCOM or DoW2.

      Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

      by eataTREE on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:57:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Until someone (10+ / 0-)

    commits a mass murder with a video game, you can kiss my ass, pal.

    The gun nuts and the social conservatives have been together in an unholy union since literally the day after Columbine to blame mass shootings on movies, comic books, and video games (and pretty much anything else other than the damned GUNS). And they have done it in a fashion somewhere between hyperbolic and simply dishonest (hint: your links do not say what you say they say).

    Guess what else: they have the same movies, comic books, and video games in Canada and Japan, but because those countries aren't awash in firearms and there are sensible policies to control those guns that do exist, fatal shootings are quite rare.

    The NRA and video game studios have no cause in common. Video game studios submit their products for voluntary ratings (which aren't a substitute for parental involvement, but then again nothing is) and have nothing to gain by the sales or promotion of guns. Or did you think they all got together at the weekly Supervillans Meeting to discuss their plans?

    Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

    by eataTREE on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:55:01 PM PST

    •  You should actually read what was said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brasilaaron

      before commenting on it.  You claims of what was said don't jive with the facts.

      •  I don't think what was said (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, atana, Sandino

        jives with what was said.

        At least I found the diary inarticulate to the point of being incomprehensible.

        •  I have another theory. The media likes to downplay (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          brasilaaron

          the role media violence plays in causing violence.  We know that's true from all the science that has demonstrated a causal relationship between the two.  Your response is to claim that the science doesn't say what it says and you believe my diary is inarticulate.  

          I have a theory that you like the media and you don't like that it's proven that it causes violence.  Since you don't like that fact, you don't like me.  I believe there is a causal relationship between the two because you misstate facts about the science and so you probably don't even believe the diary is inarticulate.  You're probably just angry but that's just my opinion and theory.  My idea is based on a principle referred to as cognitive dissonance.

          •  I have made no claims about what science says. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atana

            Just that your diary is inarticulate.

            So you start out mentioning a story that blames teh shootings on a games the shooter didn't play (Which doesn't seem to have much to do with the rest of your diary).

            Then you have one incomprehensible sentence "ABC News reported that a research study had found nothingports that a study had found nothing."  "Nothing" has no clear meaning.  The study could have been looking for bigfoot.

            Then you have a sentence ending with "dismissed these claims".  "These" seems to lack an antecedent.

            Then you finally have a sentence that expresses a thought that's apparently both coherent and relevant...  "PBS kids claimed the entire idea of video games causing violence has been completely refuted by science."  Only problem there is I've never heard of "PBS kids", and Google turns up nothing, and the link doesn't seem to mention "PBS kids", either.

            "Rockefeller's idea that more research is needed, the NRA's assertion that violence has only one cause (video games) and the media claims that science hasn't made any determinations are all false."  Wait...Only one cause?  You didn't mention that claim, and skimming over the earlier link, I see no mention of violence only having one cause.

            Then you mention a bunch of groups, and have a link to a website that's pretty much unintelligible - https://www.impartial-review.com/....  The first source looks like it's a paper from a legitimate psychology journal, I'm not complaining about it, just your diary (And the page you're actually linking to).

            Then the next paragraph... "What's the scientific principle involved?"  Here you're making your own claims, or stating theories advanced in your sources as facts - it doesn't look to me like any experiments have really looked into the mechanism.  You also fail to name a scientific principle.

            At this point, I gave up and stopped reading.

            •  Actually you did make claims about the science (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              brasilaaron

              You nonspecifically claimed that what I said, apparently referring to the prior post where I said media violence causes actual violence, didn't jive with what the scientific committees concluded after reviewing the literature.  As noted in my update your were wrong.  After your first accusation you went on to make a second nonspecific claim that you believe I'm inarticulate.  You don't prove an example or even an adjective to describe what confused you.  

              Even though you admit to being confused you go on to claim that I'm wrong.  That's illogical which suggests to me that your more confused than you believe or your just trying to be rude.

              You also misread a lot of things.  For example, you claim that I blamed the shootings on the games.  You misread what I said.  I said the NRA blamed the shooting on the video games.  That suggests the problem isn't that I'm inarticulate.  It suggests you have a problem with reading comprehension.

              As far as the PBS kids goes, i suggest you click on the link.

              Thanks for noticing the typos.  I will correct them.  

              •  I said what was said didn't jive with what was (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                atana

                said...Note the identical verbiage.  Both phrases referred to what you said - i.e. what you said was internally inconsistent (Or, more accurately, incoherent).  I used "what was said" twice instead of "what you said" because that was the slightly odd turn of phrase you yourself seemed to use to refer to what you write.

                I did indeed follow the link, and say no mention of "PBS kids".  I see you now modified the sentence, did you mean PBS KCTS?  Typos happen (Heck, I misspelled "the" in my post), but too many of them make things much harder to follow.

                You are, in the sentence referenced (About "scientific principles") making your own claims - I see no misuse of the term "scientific principle".

                I have nothing against you because of your position...  I'd given up on your diary before I had a clue what point you were trying to make.

    •  Don't forget (8+ / 0-)

      that demon rock and roll music!  Remember after Columbine it was Marilyn Manson who made 'em do it.  And I've been playing video games - violent and otherwise - since I was six years old.  That's thirty years.  I have yet to kill anyone, or assault anyone, or even spit on anyone.  

      If at first you don't succeed, try again. Then quit. No need to be a damn fool about it. - W.C. Fields

      by Isaacsdad on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:07:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except that video games have been shown (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emidesu, brasilaaron

        to cause more violent behavior, music has not.  Causation.  I'm sure science is just dumb when it disagrees with you.

        The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:11:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And just like the diarist (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pistolSO, JesseCW, Miggles, Sandino

          you can't link to anything that actually shows this, other than a bunch of studies demonstrating the rather obvious point that letting your kids watch hours of mindless TV is not good for their brains and doing the same with video games isn't either.

          Do you have the results of any research, any at all, that addresses the effects of violent media on adults?

          Do children with poor parental supervision who consume violent video games become violent as a result of the video games? Or is the cause rooted in a lack of parental supervision?

          What about the kid who could play violent video games, but chooses not to? How do you know that a propensity to play violent video games isn't sometimes an expression of an inherent tendency to be violent and therefore effect, not cause?

          Your logic reminds me of the pornography-banners of the '80s, who decided that pornography promoted sexual violence and was therefore itself a form of sexual violence. You can't decide not to distinguish between the representation of a thing, and the thing itself, like that.

          Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

          by eataTREE on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:40:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've linked to it before (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness, brasilaaron

            Here you go:

            http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/...

            You can check that out and the studies it cites.  Of course, you will still think it's bullshit because you have an emotional interest in thinking your pastime has nothing to do with violence despite the science.

            Your logic reminds me of the pornography-banners of the '80s, who decided that pornography promoted sexual violence and was therefore itself a form of sexual violence. You can't decide not to distinguish between the representation of a thing, and the thing itself, like that.
            Because I was totally calling for a ban on violent media.  I said it exactly no where.  

            You on the other hand seem to think that the media we consume has no effect on our actions.

            The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:53:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  THIS is what exploiting a tragedy looks like. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Miggles

            People riding their hobby horses right over the fresh graves of kids.

            "It's the games!!!" "It's the music!!!" "It's the comic books!!!"  "It's role playing games!!"

            "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

            by JesseCW on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:19:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  he simply living in a fantasy world. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            brasilaaron

            The links do say causation and I've updated the post to show this.

            Some studies also suggest that reading ability is also impaired
            after video games.  That research is causal as well.

        •  Actually violent music has been shown to cause (0+ / 0-)

          violent behavior.  That's part of the media and it's covered in the scientific reports as well.  As Dr. Christianson notes in the video link, it's remarkable how well the PR industry has convinced everyone there is no link when a link has been proven.

    •  Yeah! Until someone commits murder (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness, Cedwyn, Miggles, David54

      with a racist book then that book isn't racist!

      Or something.

      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:07:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  inconvenient truths: (6+ / 0-)

      (1) Real-life "video games" commit mass murder every time a drone operator, thousands of miles away, uses his little joysticks and screens and such to wipe away human beings charmingly termed "squirters."

      (2) The death industry uses video games to train its killers.

      (3) Gun manufacturers and video-game outfits do have a symbiotic relationship.

      •  Yeah, I hear the drone operator (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pistolSO, HipHopAnonymous

        has to put in another quarter every so often, and he gets an extra thousand points every time he kills an orphan. Gimme a break.

        The United States Armed Forces -- nice slur on our military there -- uses simulators to train soldiers. (Who defend the empire by getting shot at in far-off places which, in turn, enables your cushy first world lifestyle where you get to sit on your butt calling them killers and feeling morally superior.) These trainers used to be like mechanical shooting galleries. Now they're electronic, duh. Did you have a point about things that are actual video games marketed as entertainment or not?

        EA had a marketing deal with a gun company. I didn't know that, disapprove, and would send a Sternly Worded Letter. However, one promotional marketing deal does not a symbiotic relationship make, especially when most video games -- get this -- don't actually have any guns in them.

        Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

        by eataTREE on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:33:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So I guess video games turn you into a (3+ / 0-)

          murder apologist too.  Good to know.  And no, invading Iraq and blowing up brown people around the world hasn't done shit for my "cushy" lifestyle.  But go ahead and worship the military.

          EA had a marketing deal with a gun company. I didn't know that, disapprove, and would send a Sternly Worded Letter. However, one promotional marketing deal does not a symbiotic relationship make, especially when most video games -- get this -- don't actually have any guns in them.
          Maybe you could take note that we're specifically talking about violent video games, a great deal of which do in fact have guns in them.  Video games with gun very often do have real guns in them, or fake real guns, not sure exactly how to put that.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:38:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I play violent video games with no guns (2+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            pistolSO, HipHopAnonymous
            Hidden by:
            happymisanthropy

            predominantly, actually. It would seem there's an entire genre called "fantasy" which tends to be both violent and gun-free.

            Oh, our imperial adventures don't do shit for you? Ride in a motor vehicle recently? Eat food from somewhere other than your own organic garden? Then you used oil, and securing oil was why we got into the whole imperial mess to begin with and remain there to this day.

            "Dissent" is a lie. You are a cog in the American machine and those soldiers dying for the empire, are dying for you too. You can disagree with the policy and you can vote to send them home and no one will be more happy than me to see it happen, but when you start calling them names, we part ways. Mainstream liberalism is no longer in the spitting-on-veterans business, or did you not get that memo dated 1973?

            Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

            by eataTREE on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:53:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You should probably go check out my (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              brasilaaron

              diary history if you think I'm a cog in the machine of American Empire.  I can assure you that I am not and that I'm well aware of how it works.

              Mainstream liberalism is no longer in the spitting-on-veterans business, or did you not get that memo dated 1973?
              I am not a mainstream liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

              The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:25:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  HRed (0+ / 0-)

              for the ugly personal attack:

              Mainstream liberalism is no longer in the spitting-on-veterans business, or did you not get that memo dated 1973?

              States' rights? Corporate rights? Militia rights? Government rights? Hell no! Only individuals have rights. Proud lifelong human supremacist.

              by happymisanthropy on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:33:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  no, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Avila, happymisanthropy, brasilaaron

          the drone operator does not "put in another quarter every so often." It is the drone operator who receives the quarters. To kill.

          As those who in what you term the United States Armed Forces, who train on video games, are paid to kill. In what I absolutely accurately described as "the death industry." Not a "slur." Fact.

          And this death industry does not "enable[] [my] cushy first world lifestyle." It retards it.

          I believe that Doom, Full Spectrum Warrior, and Call to Duty, mentioned in the second and third pieces as utilized by the death industry, are video games "marketed as entertainment."

          Finally, the third piece outlines a symbiosis hardly limited to a single "marketing deal."

          •  Yawn. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HipHopAnonymous
            what you term the United States Armed Forces
            It's just a little pet name I made up for them myself.
            It is the drone operator who receives the quarters. To kill.
            That's horrible! They must be getting severely underpaid.
            And this death industry does not "enable[] [my] cushy first world lifestyle." It retards it.
            Because you don't use motor vehicles for transportation, or eat food from a large farm, or plastic goods, or do anything else that requires oil: your world is powered by 100% pure, clean burning moral self-righteousness.

            Look, shouldn't you be on a boat going to save Gaza or something? Mainstream liberalism rightly rejected soldier-hating forty years ago. Hate the game; the player is just a regular Joe with a job and deciding that he was the bad guy was the worst mistake we ever made.

            If "Doom" was really used by any military force to train anyone, I can only shake my head sadly. Unless maybe we're going to be invaded by flying demons and have nothing to defend ourselves but Elvenwands, I seriously question the real-world utility of any such training.

            Yeah, all the video game studios are in bed with arms manufacturers. I heard Bethesda is totally doing a marketing deal with J.A. Henckel: buy the Skyrim Collector's Edition and you get a four-foot steel broadsword. It's the video-game-military-industrial-complex, run!

            Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

            by eataTREE on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:04:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  no, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Avila, brasilaaron

              a member of the death industry is not "just a regular Joe with a job." This is the all-volunteer era: those who enter the death industry do so voluntarily, and with the full knowledge that the primary purpose of the industry is to kill.

              I don't "hate" these people, as you assume. But neither will I blind myself to what it is they do.

              I have never been much interested in "mainstream liberalism."

              Costa Rica seems to have motor vehicles, plastic, and food. Yet no death industry.

              You can continue to snort and sneer, or you can read the pieces, and reflect on them. I suspect you'll choose the former.

              •  Stop telling us to read the piece. (0+ / 0-)

                We read the piece. It does not say the same thing that you are saying.

                None of us think that kids (which is who the piece that you keep linking to and telling us to read is about) ought to have unfiltered, unsupervised exposure to any and all media. Speaking for myself, however, I believe that adults are agents of their own conscience when it comes to decisions about what to put into their own heads. And I suspect I speak for more than myself when I say that I also think that the causal contribution of violent media to events such as Newtown is trivial, compared to the causal contribution of our ridiculously lax gun policies.

                In the 1970's, social conservatives were convinced that the cause of the rising tide of youth apathy, violence, and antisocial behavior was... Batman comics. You sound just like them.

                As regards your views on the military: riiiiight.

                Do you know why Costa Rica doesn't need a military? Because we have an obligation to defend it with ours under the Rio Treaty. It must be nice that things don't work that way on your planet, but on this one nations require national defense, and the people who perform that duty deserve respect, not abuse from supercilious moral posturers.

                Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

                by eataTREE on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:06:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  YOu once again make two entirely false accusations (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  brasilaaron

                  1. I've made no military claims in this thread of any kind.

                  2. Again you clam the causal contribution is small when is fairly large according to the scientists.  It explains about 30% while assault weapons ban might reduce things by 50%.

                  3. In the 1970's, social conservatives were convinced that the cause of the rising tide of youth apathy, violence, and antisocial behavior was... Batman comics. You sound just like them."

                  You sound like someone who first claimed there was no causal connection and now admits there is one.  Now you're claiming I made military claims when I didn't and that I sound like social conservatives who claimed Batman comics cause violence when all I did was accurately cite scientific evidence.  You not credible.

                  The makes NRA overstatements about banning all video games and making lists of all mentally ill persons.  Obviously, screening for violent psychosis is a good idea but now you have naive liberals screaming when somebody argues that screening for psychosis is a good thing. Yeah the NRA got liberal screaming that they don't want an effective government program and they've done the same thing with science of media violence.  Don't present media violence to people who don't know its not real or can become addicted to what.  Oh what a terrible government intrusion that is.  They misrepresent, mis-characterize it and suddenly liberals become their best cheerleaders.  It's all about assault weapon and nothing else and the NRA knows that at least they've made certain they won't lose all of their ill gotten gains.

          •  Wait a minute... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eataTREE

            Who the fuck is still playing Full Spectrum Warrior?

            No really. Who? I need to sit them down and have a talk with them.

            And if seems like I'm belittling your argument with humor, it is only because that is EXACTLY what I am doing.

  •  Science has made no such claim. (10+ / 0-)

    Go write the following on the blackboard 100 times "Correlation is not the same thing as causation".

    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

    by Whimsical on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:55:48 PM PST

    •  Go write this on the blackboard, scientists (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, brasilaaron

      know the difference between correlation and causation.  Apparently, you don't or you didn't bother to review the evidence.  The evidence is not correlational.  it's causal.

    •  Go use your eyes and read (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brasilaaron

      the paper.  It does in fact say that there has been causation proven.

      Or just close your eyes and scream about how things you like can't be bad.

      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:08:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I read the paper (7+ / 0-)

        It makes no such claim.

        It makes a lot of claims with weasel words like "appears" and "suggests", and it makes a lot of claims it simply refuses to back up.

        It does not make a credible claim, backed up by actual facts,  that video game violence causes violent behavior. Because science has yet to find more than a questionable at best correlation.

        If you want to prove causation, you're going to have to do a whole lot better than that page of BS excepts you posted.

        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

        by Whimsical on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:13:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't post any excerpts (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueness

          Here's the actual paper: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/...

          Pertinent quote

          Over the past 50 years, a large number of studies conducted around the world have shown that watching
          violent television, watching violent films, or playing violent video games increases the likelihood for aggressive
          behavior (Anderson et al., 2003; Bushman & Huesmann, 2006; Huesmann, 2007; Huesmann & Kirwil, 2007).
          This is true across studies using different methods, coming from different countries, and covering different time
          periods.
          Or do think that magically what sort of media we watch has no effect on us?  How would that even make sense?

          The pen is mightier than the sword except when inspiring violence!

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:16:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Aggression Increase Does NOT Equal Causes Violence (6+ / 0-)

            From Henry Jenkins, Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT):

            Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, "media effects." This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds. In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand. Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played. Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. That's why the vague term "links" is used here... Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers — 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. The moral panic over violent video games is doubly harmful. It has led adult authorities to be more suspicious and hostile to many kids who already feel cut off from the system. It also misdirects energy away from eliminating the actual causes of youth violence and allows problems to continue to fester.
            •  So peer review doesn't matter when refuting (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              emidesu

              this sort of thing?  No, everything needs peer review to establish a link between violent media and violence but a column on a video game web site is perfectly acceptable as a refutation.

              The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:41:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Aggression isn't violence. That's not clicking (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rimjob

                for you.

                They aren't synonyms.

                "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                by JesseCW on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:21:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So it makes people more aggressive (0+ / 0-)

                  and that magically has no effect on violence.  Yeah, totally, that makes sense.  Come on.  Just because the right says that a hyperbolic version of something might be true doesn't mean it has no validity at all.

                  The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:29:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Really. Getting aggressive doesn't actually (0+ / 0-)

                    mean you're going to get violent.

                    Some of the most aggressive people I've ever met would have no idea at all how to throw a punch.

                    "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                    by JesseCW on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:42:55 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm sorry, but I find it absurd (0+ / 0-)

                      to say that increased aggression doesn't contribute to increased violence.  It makes absolutely no sense.

                      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                      by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:44:36 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Again with the weasel words (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ConfusedSkyes

                        Aggression is not the same as violence.

                        Contribute is not the same as cause.

                        There is NO scientific evidence claiming violent video games CAUSE violence. (And frankly, the ones that suggest they contribute to violence are sketchy at best, almost always being funded by groups with a hidden agenda.) You've not quoted any here, because you can't- and you're using weasel words to try to move the goalposts away from the fact that you're flat out wrong.

                        Just change your argument to contribute to violent behavior, and (I think)  you'll still be wrong- but at least you'll have an arguable case as opposed to the utter BS youre spewing now.

                        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                        by Whimsical on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:19:09 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  By your definition nothing causes violence. (0+ / 0-)

                          Guns certainly don't. And neither does mental illness.

                          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                          by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:13:34 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  And cigarettes don't caise cancer if (0+ / 0-)

                          you are going to be consistent with your definition. Nor does co2 cause global warming, it just contributes.

                          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                          by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:35:51 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Again read the report instead of going by what (0+ / 0-)

                          you learned elsewhere.  The reports say that the link to aggression and VIOLENCE has been established.   You're old news.  What you say was true ten years ago.  It's not the case today if you trust the expert panels.  If you don't trust them, then read the reports and refute their arguments.  Personally, I find their arguments to be exceptionally compelling especially when you have six eminent bodies composed of first class scientists all arriving at the same conclusion which is that media violence is a cause of VIOLENCE and aggression and its not a slight or even minor risk factor but a substantial one.  Not as large a factor in the overall homicide rate as assault weapons which increase the kill count but don't increase the overall level of aggression within a society.

                          Also, many reasonable people would assume that if you increase the levels of aggression in a society that would lead to more violence.  I know some people like to give corporations every possible chance to make a profit regardless of the possible damage they are doing (e.g., the Supreme Court) but others would argue that increasing aggression levels would be sufficient to limit what video games are given to children and those who have difficulty distinguishing between reality and fiction.  

                          As the reports state, media violence only causes violence if the person seeing the media violence believes the display of violence is realistic. If they don't believe it's realistic, they become more aggressive or violent.  

            •  so u make ur judgements based on someone (0+ / 0-)

              who agrees with and ignore The American Psychological Association, The Australian Psychological Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, a 200 page Canadian report, The International Society on Resarch on Aggression and the US National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women Final Report (2012) recommendations which do use the word causal in every report.

              OK

              •  Proof? Links? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Miggles

                Given how wrong you've been so far, I'm certainly not going to take YOUR word that that's what these reports say.

                "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                by Whimsical on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:19:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Given that I already refuted your prior posts its (0+ / 0-)

                  not surprising you'd try to make an absurd unspecified accusation to claim victory as that's what you did before.  

                  In your last post, you claimed I didn't know the difference between aggression and violence but you failed to specify why you believed that.  

                  Nevertheless I understood what you were trying to say.  You had heard somewhere, perhaps on some conservative website that the 2001 Surgeon General's report said that research had only demonstrated a link between aggression and not actually violence.  Personally, I believe the Surgeon General was setting the bar too high and in 2001 the case had been demonstrated.  The Australians believed this too (see their report a few years later) and so did the American Pediatric Association and congress which concluded media violence is a risk factor for actual violence (see Christianson's blog in my blog list).  

                  However, its 2012 now and a large number of scientific bodies have not carefully reviewed the literature and decided that a causal link to violence has been proven.  So the original post refuted your only argument which was old and dissproven years ago.

                  The only other argument against what all these scientists concluded that has been posted here was the absurd claim that these committees of scientists didn't say there was a causal link.  I refuted that claim by pointing out that on the first or 3rd page of these reports said there was a causal link so the evidence would suggest that you and your snarky friends have been wrong about everything but in this day and age its seems like its almost habitual for people who assert the opposite of the truth in there posts to also claim that any truth is false.  Maybe that's FOX News' contribution to our culture.  I don't know.  

                  However, your argument is not rationale and its poorly specified.  You claim I'm wrong about everything because I agree with hundreds of eminent scientists and I've pointed out exactly what I said.  It doesn't seem to me that your argument is rationale.  It just seems to me to be a sort of backhanded personal attack.    

                  •  No, you make a claim (0+ / 0-)

                    that hundreds of scientists have said things you agree with.

                    You have yet to post a single example of those scientists agreeing with you.

                    You claiming they agree with you does not mean they agree with you.  I think you are misinterpreting what they are saying and on some level, your refusal to link them directly is because you know you are wrong about what they say.

                    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                    by Whimsical on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:18:47 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  That's not true. It states causality and it (0+ / 0-)

          says explains.  Randomized experiments.  For example, as I mentioned in the article, a randomized experiment put kids in two groups. One takes a class explaining that what they see on TV is fake and the violence is fake.  Another groups gets a different class.   Results, the group of kids who learned that TV violence is totally fake were less aggressive as rated by their peers, their teachers, their parents and themselves.  That's a causal connection.  Time series analysis over 30 years after championship prize fights, the homicide rate goes up in the U.S. for about a week.  3,500 studies like those.  Science says your wrong because you are.  

          •  If It Says That..... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Miggles

            Quote the exact section of text where it says video games "cause" violence.

            •  You want video games to be the sole causal agent (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              emidesu

              and that isn't going to happen because there is no single causal agent.  Should we stop talking about mental health in the context of gun violence because it isn't the only causal agent?  If you do that then we shouldn't talk abut guns either, because people are violent without guns as well.

              The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:43:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's Not The Claim Made By The Diarist (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW, Miggles

                Don't move the goalposts.

                In the diary & in comments, the diarist's argument is that scientific research asserts that:

                "...violent depictions in the media including violent video games cause aggression and violence."
                I'm only asking for him/her to back up that assertion by pointing me to the text where this report says that.
                •  You want there to be a single cause (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  emidesu

                  and there never is.  The diary notes that the NRA overstates the influence of violent media in regard to social violence, that should make it clear that it isn't the only causal agent.

                  The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:50:11 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So... Long Story Short.... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JesseCW

                    You can't quote me the section where you assert that "causation" is proven?

                    •  You know, whatever. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      emidesu, USSpinWatcher

                      Live in your magical world where the media we consume has no effect on our behavior.  I'll be over here in reality.

                      You could go read the paper:

                      Over the past 50 years, a large number of studies conducted around the world have shown that watching
                      violent television, watching violent films, or playing violent video games increases the likelihood for aggressive
                      behavior (Anderson et al., 2003; Bushman & Huesmann, 2006; Huesmann, 2007; Huesmann & Kirwil, 2007).
                      This is true across studies using different methods, coming from different countries, and covering different time
                      periods.
                      And
                      What is clear is that exposure to media violence is one risk factor
                      for increased aggression in both the short run and the long run.
                      Of course, those don't count because it's not any perfect causation, whatever that looks like.

                      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                      by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:01:27 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  As has been repeatedly demonstrated to you (0+ / 0-)

                        aggression and violent behavior are NOT the same thing.

                        Quit moving the goalposts and using weasel words and admit you're in error.

                        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                        by Whimsical on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:21:02 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Your accusations are completely false (0+ / 0-)

                          No one in this thread has repeatedly demonstrated that violence and aggression are not the same thing.  Your simply making a false assertion that the reports don't state that video games cause violence and they also say they cause aggression.  

                          You falsely stating that I moved the goalposts when moving the goal posts doesn't change anything.  Nowhere in the diary or in the comments did ever say that violence = aggression.  The reports conclude that both violence and aggression are caused by displays in the media of violent acts.

                          Therefore, your post is simply a bunch of false accusations that have nothing to do with the content of the diary or the discussion.    

                    •  The article was updated with the references to the (0+ / 0-)

                      quotes for causal 15 minutes before this post.  

          •  "less aggressive as rated by...." (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mythatsme, ConfusedSkyes

            You're not grasping that violence and aggression aren't the same thing.

            You're presenting a study that shows that talking to kids about how to distinguish fiction from reality reduces aggression.

            You're pretending you're presenting a study that shows exposing kids to violent media increases violent action by those kids.

            And - who the hell watches boxing anymore?  Ratings are in the toilet.  They had to move to PPV and pay channels because networks won't pay for fights.

            "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

            by JesseCW on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:25:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No your not grasping anything. The reports looked (0+ / 0-)

              at both aggression and violence.  The Surgeon General's report of 2001 said there was already strong causal evidence of short-term aggression and some evidence for long term aggression.  Nowadays there is evidence for both. Of course, many people would assume that if something causes aggression it could in some cases lead to violence but we have a very high standard of proof that includes many deaths before an industry can be prevented from delivering dangerous products to the public.  

              Look at tobacco.  It causes cancer and its addictive.  The US banned addictive and cancer causing agents many years ago but made an exception for tobacco.  Did that exception have the best interests of the public behind it?

              Also, you falsely claimed that I was presenting a couple of studies two prove my point.  There are 3500 studies reviewed in those reports that represent committees of scientists.  I gave you two examples and you're failing to grasp that they are just examples.  There are other studies that use different methods and different approaches to address different questions about the link between violence and the media.  You fail to grasp that it's not personally what I say but what hundreds of scientists believe.

               

  •  I once virtually shot a duck (5+ / 0-)

    Fucking Nintendo!  Sure, it was many years ago, but I really to aimed and fired....

    Then I moved on to Elf.  Then Mammoth.  Wooly, aren't they?

    Cartoons aren't reality

    You could have it all if you didn't care about others having some too. Good on you...

    by funluvn1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:00:56 PM PST

  •  The media vested interest in blindness (7+ / 0-)

    Studied blindness is a fundamental and foundational part of the commercial media, particularly network television.

    One should meditate on this principle until it really sinks in.  

    Look at network television programming.  In order to avoid insanely violent storylines you have to pretty much give up watching any television at all.

    I recently asked a friend of mine who has been involved with prison reform activism for many years, whether he had ever met any people in prison who were like the brilliant psychotic masterminds that network tv crime dramas depict.  

    There might be someone in there somewhere like that, but even after decades of interviewing people on Death Row and elsewhere, in the US and in other countries, the overall conclusion is that real criminals are not really interesting enough to create a TV drama around.  Mostly they just are people who don't think beyond knee-jerk reaction and are not really very smart at all.  

    What is going on?  TV writers are in a competition to create the most shockingly ruthless, brilliant evil geniuses so that the audience gets to feel a sense of righteous vengeance when the bad guy gets his comeuppance.  

    But what does it mean that TV and video games and movies are stuck in this ever increasing cycle of competition for the most violent imaginations?  

    One of these days, we are going to look back from some point in the future and realize that we are polluting the mental atmosphere we live in as surely as a coal fired power plant in the neighborhood would smoke it up.  

    We do people go off?  Many reasons.  Not enough human to human warmth and community feeling, perhaps.  To much alienation.  But surely a steady diet of images and storylines that suggest that violent outbursts are the way to get one's frustrations satisfied has something to do with it.  

    However, the foundation of the network TV economic model depends on not questioning this, and the video game industry probably would not survive if they had to get away from the "ZAP!"  and it explodes formula.  Many have tried to develop or sell intelligent, problem and riddle solving games and have not found enough takers.  

    Thus, the problem is that the audience is absolutely engaged and will spend money and create massive profits.  Every day We The People vote by large margins to support the incumbency of that which is poisoning us.  

    If you are a young and talented programming language geek, chances are you could make a few million dollars in a few years working on video games before you burn out.  What is not to like about that?  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:01:23 PM PST

    •  Video game industry not actually all (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pistolSO

      that lucrative. Indeed, if you are a rank-n-file programmer or artist, you will work much harder, for much longer hours, for much less money than you would make doing the same job in another industry. (Hollywood was smart, and unionized, that's why it isn't crewed by starry-eyed seventeen-year-olds making five dollars an hour.) The people I know in the industry who are wealthy as a result, were part-owners in their studio when it was bought out.

      That quibble aside, I found your comment to be a thoughtful analysis of violence in our culture -- unlike this diary, alas.

      Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

      by eataTREE on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:13:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Australian report addresses your comments (0+ / 0-)

      They cite research which show people don't like all the violence all time and say its because its easy to write violence while its more difficult to write something with an actual story line.  I don't know if that's true or not but I suspect that you have to pay less for violent writers than you do writers that write non-violent TV shows that get high TV ratings.  

  •  How can a gun in video game cause violence (7+ / 0-)

    but not a real gun?

    •  Diarist doesn't take guns (0+ / 0-)

      out of the equation. Why do so many people insist on findind one cause for complex events?

      Stay fired up: now is the time to focus on downticket change! #Forward

      by emidesu on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:27:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just think about how people learn things. They (0+ / 0-)

      sometimes learn things by watching other people do things.  It gives them ideas about how to behave.  For example, if a child was stranded on a desert island (e.g., hypothetically will call the island Ensino) and there was only one TV with a bunch of cooking videos.  The child might over time learn a lot about cooking and become a cook when they were rescued.  

      Now suppose instead the only videos were Call of Duty. The person probably wouldn't become a cook.  Maybe they would join the military or become a police officer but suppose they couldn't do that because they had some mental disability from being stranded on a desert island for twenty years.  What do you think would happen to them in that case?

      •  But parents shooting guns with kids is a tradition (0+ / 0-)

        If what you say is true, what about the kids who go out with their parents and shoot actual guns when they are 8 years old?  Surely the kids growing up with gun nut parents are going to be a bigger threat than the kids who play first person shooters.

        Praxis: Bold as Love

        by VelvetElvis on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 02:16:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They're imitating violence. They're not learning (0+ / 0-)

          that violence is a possible solution to a problem that they are having.  They only learn that from inaccurate media depictions of violence.  It's based on the scientific principle of social learning AKA monkey see monkey do.  If you learn how to be violent you might become violent.  If you learn how to have fun shooting at a target your not going to equate guns with violence or solving problems with people you don't like.

  •  HR for parroting the NRA's talking points (7+ / 0-)

    and for misrepresenting what the science actually says.   Video games influencing aggressive behavior does not equal video games causing someone to buy a gun, buy an armored vest and go shoot a bunch of people.

    And I am pretty sure that the everyday street violence has absolutely nothing to do with the latest edition of Grand Theft Auto.  Also I'd like to see a actual link to a peer-reviewed journal article if you're going to insist that the science says what the GOP claims it does.

    Washington and Colorado said that you've got to legalize it. Hope the DOJ respects that.

    by pistolSO on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:07:14 PM PST

    •  No one said what you claim they did. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emidesu

      What they did say was that there have been numerous studies showing that violent media, including video games, cause an increase in violent behavior.  Not that they cause mass shootings.

      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:13:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, influence does not equal cause (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wildweasels, Rimjob

        And while we are at it, you know what else is strongly correlated with violent behavior?   Alcohol.

        I'd be more worried about a gun owner who just drank a couple of beers than someone who just finished playing four hours of Call of Duty.

        Since the diarist ignores that most of the gun violence(since they mention the Newtown shooting) are on the streets of major cities like Chicago and New Orleans and the contributing factors don't include video games, but they do include easy access to handguns,   I see the diarist as someone who is chasing the NRA's latest shiny object.

        Washington and Colorado said that you've got to legalize it. Hope the DOJ respects that.

        by pistolSO on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:22:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course influence equals cause (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueness, emidesu

          If it makes an event more likely then it's a causal agent in that event.  Violence in the media is far from the only causal agent, and it isn't even the main causal agent, but it is a causal agent.

          Since the diarist ignores that most of the gun violence(since they mention the Newtown shooting) are on the streets of major cities like Chicago and New Orleans and the contributing factors don't include video games, but they do include easy access to handguns,   I see the diarist as someone who is chasing the NRA's latest shiny object.
          Do people in large cities not play video games or watch violent movies?  That's news to me.  And I most certainly agree that access to handguns is a huge part of the problem, huge, much bigger than media violence.  But it's absolutely wrong to say that violent media has no effects.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:28:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think you understand what I mean. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rimjob, JesseCW

            Something that says that video games can influence aggressive behavior is a far, far thing from actually causing someone to commit gun violence.

            Aggression takes many forms.  It could be as simple as somebody cutting in line.  It could be somebody driving six MPH over the speed limit.   It could be somebody yelling "Yeah!" at them doing well at Halo 4.   Point is, aggression does not equal violence.

            Somebody below also pointed out a few valid criticisms as well

            However, this meta-analysis was criticized for a number of methodological flaws, including failure to abide by quantifiable measurements of aggression and for failing to engage dissenting studies, thus aggravating the sampling bias of incorporated studies.
            Sampling bias can seriously taint statistical data.   Just ask Mitt Romney or look at how wrong Dean Chambers was with his "Unshewed Polls" crap.

            Washington and Colorado said that you've got to legalize it. Hope the DOJ respects that.

            by pistolSO on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:45:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Neither does mental illness, and guns (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              emidesu

              Neither of those cause the sort of mass killing we see.  The vast majority of gun owners never kill anyone.  The vast majority of people with mental illnesses never kill anyone.  How can we blame anything if we hold anything to those standards.

              The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:56:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think you read one single word. The word (0+ / 0-)

              causal is used throughout the reports.  Causal inference is typically achieved through randomized experiments as was mentioned in the article.  If you randomly assign some people and show them violence and they become more aggressive that people who are shown something that is non-violent you can make inferences that displays of violence cause aggression.

              You seem to understand some things about methodology but lack basic reading skills.

        •  Also, the diarist (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emidesu

          specifically noted that the NRA overstates the influence of video games, as do the studies quoted.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:34:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Bam said the lady (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pistolSO, JesseCW

      Pistol nails it. "Peer reviewed" is the key term.

    •  That's also a bullshit HR (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emidesu

      and if you read the diary you'd note that it says that the NRA overstates the influence of violence in the media.

      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:44:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The article mentions 3500 peer reviewed studies (0+ / 0-)

      but pistolSO can't find a single one or the word causal that is on the first to third pages of most reports.  

  •  Mother's Milk Leads To Everything (7+ / 0-)

    That was George Carlin's joke when discussing the perception that Marijuana was a gateway drug.
    Wikipedia - Video Game Controversies

    The most recent large scale meta-analysis, examining 130 studies with over 130,000 participants worldwide, concluded that exposure to violent video games causes both short term and long term aggression in players and decreases empathy and prosocial behavior. However, this meta-analysis was criticized for a number of methodological flaws, including failure to abide by quantifiable measurements of aggression and for failing to engage dissenting studies, thus aggravating the sampling biasof incorporated studies.
    The article that it cites Much Ado About Nothing: The Misestimation and Overinterpretation of Violent Video Game Effects in Eastern and Western Nations: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010)
    Christopher J. Ferguson and John Kilburn
    Texas A&M International University

    Media Scholar - Henry Jenkins

    According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers — 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do not commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. The moral panic over violent video games is doubly harmful. It has led adult authorities to be more suspicious and hostile to many kids who already feel cut off from the system. It also misdirects energy away from eliminating the actual causes of youth violence and allows problems to continue to fester
    •  Its true that mental stability is a stronger (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emidesu

      risk factor than media violence but the Surgeon General's report acknowledged that it is a risk factor for short-term aggression and cited a substantial effect size for that.  It said they needed to see more research on long term effects.  They said that didn't mean we shouldn't start interventions to reduce violence by reducing violence in the media.  The Surgeon General's report and other scientists have always argued that violence is always multi-causal.  Guns, psychosis with violent delusions, media violence, living in a culture of violence, seeing violence at home, being in neighborhood where there is a lot of violence, being a gun owner, being a conservative, living in the South and extreme stress are all risk factors.  Some are correlational and some are causal.

    •  What Calrin said is true but it doesn't apply (0+ / 0-)

      According to a 2001 report by a Bush appointee ...  Read the 2012 reports buddy!

      Why don't you mention why violent crime is at a 30 year low (e.g, the highest incarceration rate in the world, targeted problems in high risk neighborhoods).  Your like the weather guys who say its cold today so global warming must not be true.  

      •  I wonder why a report by a Bush appointee (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        atana

        might reach the conclusion that we ought to be focused on Games rather than Guns.

        It's not like the Bush administration was known to bully Government employees whose scientific finding pissed off Rove or Cheney.

        "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

        by JesseCW on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:36:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again you mistate the facts. The Bush appointee (0+ / 0-)

          downplayed the role of guns and video game violence.  At
          the same time, the Australian government was addressing both problems which you would know if you'd read the report.  Instead you claimed something that is entirely false.

  •  Of Course..... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zubalove, JesseCW, atana, Miggles

    Because as we all know, there was never any murders or violence before the invention of television, video games, rap music, and that devil worshiping rock & roll.

    And it's not like the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low, the same time period in which video games (and violent video games & media) became more commonplace.

    •  Its at an all time low as result of local (0+ / 0-)

      interventions that put more police and other resources in neighborhoods with high violence.  The overall crime rate is lower too. This is a good argument for the NRA thought.  I believe they've used it but its not very scientific.

      •  Most crime is caused by young males (0+ / 0-)

        and the population is aging. That is why the crime rate is lower.

        •  Your wrong according to the census data (0+ / 0-)

          There are always multiple causes for things like this so there is never one cause.  

          Actually, the number of people in the high crime age range 18-24 increased between 2000 and 2010. by 3,000,000 people but the crime rate went down.  

          After adjusting for population trends, the effect remains.  Another factor is higher incarceration rates.  Longer sentences and more people behind bars means less crime and violence but is also associated with less justice.

    •  One of the prime drivers in the drop in violent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zubalove

      crime has been the removal of lead from paint and other things we use.  If you want to use anecdotal examples I could just as well say that the reduction in crime is a result of an increase in the number of guns.

      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:33:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And You Have As Much Evidence For.... (0+ / 0-)

        Video games & violent media causing violence as you would for the levels of lead paint.

        •  No, there's far more evidence of the link (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zubalove

          between lead and violence than video games.  There is a direct increase in violence in neighborhoods that have high lead exposure with a 20 year lag.  It's one of the reason that there was a giant push to remove lead from so many products, and it worked.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:47:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow AoT... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT

            I'm as big of a proponent for lead abatement as I am a gamer.

            I've gone from arguing against you to up-rating you.

            Well played, sir. Well played.

            Now, would you like to play a game? :)

            •  It depends, I don't have a computer (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zubalove

              with internet access, all I have is an XBox 360 at this point and FPSs are horrible on consoles.  It's enough to make me hit someone ;)

              Really though, playing deus ex on the 360 sucks.  So disappointing.

              The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:07:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Also, for the record (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueness, emidesu

              I've worked in the video game industry and have friends in the industry and still play when I get a chance.  I'm not some school marm trying to harsh on the kids and their games, I'm just frustrated that there's such resistance to admitting that violence in the media might be a problem.

              The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:09:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm frustrated that people prefer to trust their (0+ / 0-)

                corporate media bred notions of reality over what hundreds of respected scientists believe or choose to shoot the messenger in a misguided effort to avoid the cognitive dissonance of either not trusting scientists or not trusting what the corporate media has trained them to believe.

    •  As we know before TV, people used to learn how to (0+ / 0-)

      kill by watching others die.  Now, we have more police and our overall crime rate is at a 30 year low it makes sense to completely ignore the fact that people learn violence by watching violence.  Brilliant logic!  It would confuse almost every 3rd grader I know for several minutes.

  •  Love The Colbert Like Poll (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ConfusedSkyes, Miggles

    Why do you hate America?

  •  Um... (8+ / 0-)
    The American Psychological Association, The Australian Psychological Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, a 200 page Canadian report, The International Society on Resarch on Aggression and the US National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women Final Report (2012) all concluded that violent depictions in the media including violent video games cause aggression and violence.  Note the word "cause."  Scientists don't use it very often unless they have proof.
    Except they didn't use the word "cause", and they'd be stupid if they did.  I bothered flipping through the reports.  For example, here's the International Society on Research and Aggression, putting things in a much more likely context (citations deleted):
    No single risk factor causes a child or adolescent to act aggressively. Instead, it is the accumulation of risk factors that leads to an aggressive act.  Although no individual risk factor may be necessary or sufficient to cause aggressive behavior on its own, each factor increases the likelihood of aggression, especially in response to some provocation. (p336)
    I don't think anyone doubts that exposure to violence can, at best, desensitize one to violence.  I think people are more skeptical that the impact of video games is more than negligible on real-world violence, and best ameliorated not by restrictive public policy, but by education and responsible parenting.  That seems to be what these studies suggest, too.  

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:24:52 PM PST

    •  There isn't a single cause, as they note. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emidesu

      There are multiple causal factors.  Violent media consumption is potentially one of those factors.  And I don't see anyone here suggesting banning these things, but to pretend like they aren't harmful is frankly irresponsible.

      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:31:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They did use the word the cause. You are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT

      factually imparied.  They do use the word causal.  See my above comments.  The correlation doesn't equal causation NRA baloney doesn't apply to this research any more than it applied to cigarette companies claiming that smoking and lung cancer is just a statistical association.  

      •  Quote It (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pico, zubalove, ConfusedSkyes, Miggles

        You keep saying these reports said something that the reports do NOT say.

        Use the damn blockquote and cite the exact text where researchers claimed that video games/violent media "causes" violence.

      •  Well, no, they don't. (5+ / 0-)

        And certainly not the scientists.  Of the groups you listed above, only the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women Final Report and the Canadian Report on Media Violence, neither of which is a scientific study, use the word "cause" in the sense you mean it.   So when you argue that "science" is attributing "cause" to video game violence, you're wrong.  The reason I bothered to check is because it'd be so unusual for scientists to make such a claim in the first place: the ISRA's version is much closer to how scientists actually discuss these issues.  

        Speaking of the Canadian Report, it did contain this gem:

        41. Recommendation: Survivors of violent crime caused by entertainment products, or their family members, should file civil lawsuits against the entertainment companies responsible for producing and/or distributing the products.
        I'm imagining the John Lennon estate suing Little, Brown and Company for publishing Salinger.  Heh.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:46:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not true. Look at the update. Your (0+ / 0-)

          good a shooting the breeze though.  I've give you credit for that.  

          •  Again.... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pistolSO, JesseCW, Cassandra Waites

            Increases in aggression does not equal "causes violence."

          •  LMAO (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            Wow, you've got to be trolling. All you have to do to prove you are right is to quote it.

            Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

            by moviemeister76 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:01:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Apparently, arguing with a lot of people online (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pico

            who disagree with you also increases aggression.

            I'm not confused enough to claim that your little aggressive outburst there is going to lead to violence, though.

            I'm not a student of the George Lucas school of pop psychology.

            "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

            by JesseCW on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:41:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  As Romney discovered, personal attacks really (0+ / 0-)

              don't win arguments even if it feels good to denigrate those who point out that your logic is hopelessly flawed.  Instead of dealing with the reality that I was right and you were completely hopelessly and utterly wrong about everything you said, you decided to cry that I was mean to and everyone for pointing out that you were attempting to convince everyone that your absurd ideas had merit and a large body of scientists ideas lacked any merit whatsoever.  Yeah I know even though I just repeated what the scientists said, I didn't tell it to you the right way.  

              I'm sorry the truth hurts you so much.  

  •  Given NRA success in quashing gun death research.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pistolSO, Miggles

    this is certainly rich.

    •  No has quashed any research. Gun death (0+ / 0-)

      research is easy.  Just compare policies.  Less guns or guns that don't fire as quickly equals less death.  Sort of makes sense too.

      If you meant that the NRA has successfully quashed such ideas from the public's mind, then I agree.  

      •  Not so. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ggrzw

        The National Institutes of Health have been explicitly enjoined by the NRA's Congressional toadies from collecting any more data on gun violence.

        •  Oh yeah, your right about NIH funding. (0+ / 0-)

          That's a problem with the funding of research and not the research. However, most media violence research was funded by the National Institute of Justice.  I suppose it could be the same over at the NIJ but its too late.  The verdict is already in for media violence and its also in for many effective interventions including assault weapons bans, background checks for psychosis and history of violence, mandatory delays in first time weapons purchases as well some other things that have proven to work in other countries with very low homicide rates.  

          I'm concerned that it may take a 2014 election victory for Democrats to push through any meaningful reforms and of course some Democrats are funded by gun lobbyists.

          There are plenty of other things NIH should be researching including violence against women which typically involves guns and geographic hotspots.  It's astonishing how destructive lobbyists truly are on every issue of importance especially when it involves the safety of others.

  •  I've read these studies (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, mythatsme, ConfusedSkyes, Miggles

    And you're severely misrepresenting them. What the vast majority of them say (and it should be noted that there are also several studies that contradict this finding) is that playing violent video games increases aggression in the timespan immediately following playing the game. This is not really hard to understand. It happens when you play football or participate in a Lincoln-Douglas debate as well, though I might accept that violent video games magnify the effect.

    What these studies have failed to prove is a correlation between violent games and long term aggressive behavior. That would be a pretty difficult thing to prove causally, which means it's no surprise that it hasn't been proven.

    That's not to say I think video games are completely innocent and immune from criticism. Many, many of them have problematic aspects, and it's not just violence -- lack of diversity plays a role as well.

    However, this diary is clearly flamebait for a couple of reasons. One, it either purposely or ignorantly misreads the study and then asserts that "science" has decided that video games create violence; and two, it gives nothing in the way of suggestions about what to do about this assertion, though there are plenty of implications (and anyone who follows those implications is promptly accused of strawmanning or assuming).

    So diarist, here's the question -- even if I agreed with your interpretation of the studies, which I don't, what do you propose we do about it? Ban violent video games? Ban minors from playing violent video games, even with parental consent, a la porn? Encourage developers to create more diverse, nonviolent games (and how would you go about doing this in a country where Yearly Violent Military Shooter is the most popular game ever?)

    matthewborgard.com ~ @MatthewBorgard

    by zegota on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:29:32 PM PST

    •  You claim to have read all 3500 studies have you. (0+ / 0-)

      Then you go on to prove you haven't read anything by your assertions.  You claim my "interpretation" which is actually a statement of fact is not to your liking.

      Second, you claim that I or the studies don't suggest simply remedies when in fact all of reports do suggest remedies  which proves you didn't read anything or you didn't understand a word you read.  You also prove that you didn't read or understand anything when you claim they didn't find correlations.  They did but they also found causal evidence which apparently you also don't understand the difference between the two.   In either case, I think that's pretty sad as is your idea that your opinion is better than the scientists who conducted the studies and the committees that conclusions.

      It also sad that you then feel a need to turn your hate towards me.  All I did is accurately report on what the reports said and you feel a need to claim that the obvious isn't true.

      •  I'm not sure what 'hate' (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ConfusedSkyes, Miggles

        you're talking about. Nor my 'opinion.' And I'm not really interested in what you find sad.

        In any case, which remedy are you suggesting? Please, produce one, as your assertion that 'all of reports do suggest remedies' makes little sense (I can use your own logic here -- really, you've read all 3500? And they all suggest a remedy?)

        Futhermore, I never claimed that they didn't find causal links. I claimed that their causal links weren't what you said they were, which is true. Studies have found a link between violent video games and aggression immediately following playing the games. None I am aware of have found a strong causal link between violent video games and long term violence, though if you'd like to produce a specific example (rather than saying "It's one of the 3500!") then we might go from there.

        Anyway, that's beside the point. What remedy do you suggest? You never answered my question.

        matthewborgard.com ~ @MatthewBorgard

        by zegota on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:24:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reading is fundamental. Read the reports b4 u (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:
          Miggles

          post

          •  So you have not a single one (0+ / 0-)

            Gotcha.

            matthewborgard.com ~ @MatthewBorgard

            by zegota on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:10:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Reading is still fundamental. You've been totally (0+ / 0-)

              refuted in the comments, the articles, in what the scientists say, you're living in your probably living in own video game fantasy where you can make the rules the way you want but that doesn't mean you win when other people don't want to play your silly games.

              •  Yup (0+ / 0-)

                Make as many personal attacks as you want. Still waiting for you to reply to me with an actual policy suggestion. Just one.

                matthewborgard.com ~ @MatthewBorgard

                by zegota on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:51:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I gave you a link and pointed out there are 100 (0+ / 0-)

                  recommendations in the link.  What you're too lazy to click on the link or is the problem you can't read well to understand which link I'm asking you to click on.  If you can't read, I'm sorry I can't say it out loud.

                  •  Didn't ask for a link (0+ / 0-)

                    Asked for a single policy suggestion from you written in a comment reply. You are unable to reply, which makes me think you haven't actually read the links you're posting.

                    matthewborgard.com ~ @MatthewBorgard

                    by zegota on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 05:39:34 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Long Long ago I added the Pediatric (0+ / 0-)

                      Association comments which you could of read. Their right their in the update.  As a matter of the fact, it seems to me the 1st update should have satisfied you if you were just willing to click on a link and read.  

                      As I noted you only have to read a maximum of three pages on any of the policy statements.  If all that is too hard, read my latest post which is a verbatim transcript of US scientists and anti-violence organizations joint statement on the tragedy.  As I recall, the phrase used in that statement was that media violence causes physical aggression.  Physical aggression is pretty much the same thing as violence.  

                      There is a second statement in my post as well from some renown University of Michigan researchers that runs through in fairly simple lay terms why we get copy cat killers and why the media plays a role in these mass murders.  

                      If none of that is good enough for you, I doubt anything ever would be.

  •  Whether or not the investigators (0+ / 0-)

    actually used the word "caused," the language I saw in the linked material is strong enough for me to take seriously. If I saw that level of linkage between another lifestyle activity and a health risk I couldn't ignore it in good conscience.
    Whether the NRA uses media violence as a talking point is irrelevant to whether it contributes to actual violence. It takes multiple factors for a person to intentionally harm another; they should all be looked at.

    Stay fired up: now is the time to focus on downticket change! #Forward

    by emidesu on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:45:01 PM PST

    •  Obviously, they used the word causal on the 1st (0+ / 0-)

      page of most reports but some people like to post without reading and render their baseless opinions accordingly.

      The reports also emphasize the multi-causal nature of violence which arguments against gun control and causal nature of media violence always ignore.

  •  To summarize (0+ / 0-)

    The diarist names 6 studies that he says "concluded" that violent video games "cause aggression and violence".  Said diarist is HR rated because his diary undermines the prevailing thoughts that more restrictive gun regulations are needed.  Commenters also claim these studies did not find a "causal" relationship.  I think the representational quote is, "Correlation is not the same thing as causation".   (The same argument is used on those claiming that SSRI drugs can cause violence.)  Another cites Henry Jenkins: " Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. "  The diarist describes one experiment which seems to show a causal relationship.  A commenter dares the diarist to quote where "causal" is used in the report.  The diarist updates the diary citing several spots where the word "causal" is used.

    80% of poll respondents claim/admit to be "video game violence deniers".

    I think the poll is quite revealing.  I wonder what it will take for Kossacks to consider other remedies to gun violence?  Nowhere does the diarist state that gun restrictions should or should not be pursued.  But 80% of us seem to think we must pursue a single avenue -- at least for now.

    Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

    by Helpless on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:47:13 PM PST

    •  Except... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zegota, Miggles

      ...the diarist is trying to say that scientists were the ones to use the word "causal," and that is completely untrue. The reports which did use it were not scientific reports. I don't mind having a discussion about violence in the media, but I am not interested in someone trying to incorrectly use an appeal of authority to make their case. I can't stand it when someone tries to say science proves something, when the very core of science has always been about disproving something.

      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

      by moviemeister76 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:07:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except the scientific committes did use the (0+ / 0-)

        word causal in every report as you must know if read anything so why are claiming that the reality of the word causality doesn't have any meaning. What the reports did is report on the results of a scientific review of more than 3500 scientific studies but some reason the scientists opinions don't mean anything to you.  You'd rather read all 3,500 studies yourself and criticize anyone who doesn't report on the results of all 3,500 studies to your satisfaction.  Seems like a terribly biased approach.  

        I don't mind having a discussion about facts but apparently you do.  I can't stand it when someone tries to claim that science doesn't prove something after hundreds of scientists review all those studies and then write reports of their finding and someone claims that doesn't mean anything.  The very core of statistical hypothesis testing has always been about disproving the null hypothesis which in this case was that there is no causal relationship between violence and exposure to media violence.  As would be expected from a theoretical perspective, the scientists demonstrated a causal connection and disproved the null hypothesis which has upset violent video game makers and their Internet trolls.

        But some people have to engage in personal attacks and misstate the facts in order to argue that what they want to believe is true even when its obviously isn't.  Hundreds of experts in the field have reviewed thousands of studies and discovered the truth of the matter which coincides with my view on the issue.  

        You haven't made a rationale argument to dispute any of that.  Instead, all you've done is attempt to obscure the weight of the overwhelming scientific evidence by claiming that these summary reports aren't studies, there just reviews of studies.  Pure Malarchy

    •  Joe Biden says violence is multi-causal (0+ / 0-)

      in the reports that lots of people claimed to read but clearly didn't.  The reports note that gun control and less media violence both reduce violence rates.  In fact, the reports states that gun control is more important in this country.

      Guess who is mentioned in these reports.  It's the same guy President Obama put in charge of his task force on coming up with a bill to reduce the homicide rate.  That's right VP Joe Biden knows that media violence is part of the problem and he's repeatedly stated and his bill will include that component so for those who don't like that idea you better get ready to buck up because there's an outstanding chance that media violence is going to be in Obama's bill along with an assault weapons ban, more effective background checks and more mental health and police services for the Nancy Lanza's of this world.  

    •  What remedies? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana, Miggles
      I wonder what it will take for Kossacks to consider other remedies to gun violence?
      The diarist, both in the diary and in comment, flat out refuses to suggest a single one. Would you like to offer one, perhaps, and then maybe we can discuss that? For instance, there are common-sense solutions like "increase parent education about ESRB ratings."

      matthewborgard.com ~ @MatthewBorgard

      by zegota on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:13:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The comments give example of a (0+ / 0-)

        remedy so now you've proven once again that you refuse to read things.  The reports and the article  that summarizes the reports outlines all the recommendations.  There are over a 100 recommendations from these reports that are listed in the summary article.  

        You then make a new false assertion that I didn't suggest a remedy in the comments when I did which shows that not only did you not read the reports or the links, you also didn't read the comments but you continue to claim that you know what the comments say and what the scientists believe when clearly you don't.  I would suggest that you read something.

        •  Actually your not telling the truth at all about (0+ / 0-)

          that there is a link to several 100 recommendations in the diary and all the links to reports have 100s of recommendation.  My comments include recommendations and you've been told that repeatedly.

    •  Because we have an opening for gun control (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles

      right now, and we should focus all our energies on getting as much gun control as possible -- not diffuse it into psychology areas where fuzzy theories based on fuzzy measurements make fuzzy policy recommendations.

      •  well Biden is going to do that so you better call (0+ / 0-)

        him and tell that u don't care how many people are hurt by media violence.  Your so frightened of the Republicans you believe that all we can push through is an assault weapons ban and forget about the fact that media violence, improved background checks, more funding for crime prevention within communities where there are lots of guns and violence, interventions for violence against women and school based interventions (see Biden led school based interventions in the 2012 advisory report) are effective interventions that save lives.  Will just throw people out the window like the Republicans want to do by ending Obamacare.    

        But maybe Biden is a scared little rabbit like you and he'll just throw all of that out of his proposals because he's afraid the big bad Republicans will vote it all down but I doubt it.  

        And maybe if he's got the time, he can have a talk with you about the power of knowledge, reality, proposing rationale effective laws and how to become a thinking Progressive.

        By the way, you're totally fully of crap when it comes to your ideas about fuzzy psychological theories.  It's hard science that you just don't understand.  Social Learning is another fact I guess you want to deny.  I don't know what your problem is but social learning isn't fuzzy.  It's your argument that is illogical, fuzzy and NRAish.

        •  Hard sciences measure with ratio scales (0+ / 0-)

          unlike social psychology.

          •  Pure bull. Ratio scales are used in social (0+ / 0-)

            psychology all the time.  Example of a ratio scale used in some of the studies cited in the scientific reports - Blood pressure and temperature changes after viewing a violent film.  Well I guess it depends how they measured temperature. A pretty irrelevant criteria.  

            There are ratio scales in research on assault weapon bans though.  Still I would argue that research is very solid.

            Hard scientists like to point out they use more true experiments.  Randomized experiments are pretty good though and were used in the media violence research which refutes all the silly claims in this thread that the research wasn't causal.    

            •  OK -- I guess even social psychologists (0+ / 0-)

              can figure out how to use a bp cuff and a thermometer. But you can't predict who will be a mass murderer from bp changes after watching a film. And I'll bet non-violent X-rated films cause bp changes in some people. Does that foretell mass shooters too?

              •  Just like hard scientists can hardly predict (0+ / 0-)

                anything relevant like human behavior which drives everything else that's important to humans.

                All you've proven that you don't understand informal logic.

                First, you claim that social psychologists don't use ratio scales.  Refuted!

                Second, you use a straw man argument which is a violation of informal logic.  You claim that because I used an example of a one aspect of one research study that used these measurements to show that violence arouses people, that science hasn't proven that media violence doesn't cause actual violence.  That's also a violation of the informal logic principle of over-generalization.  

                That also proves you didn't read the original post where I explained that a number of scientific organizations have had their best scientists review thousands of studies in order to determine whether there is a causal connection.  Across varying scientific organizations the same conclusions were reached that a causal connection does exit.  That was the argument not your straw man argument.  

                •  Social psychology isn't "hard science" (0+ / 0-)

                  And you, spinmeister, argue like a spinmeister -- though perhaps you've taken some psychology classes.

                  It's not selling here. You are pushing an NRA meme, and people can see that.

                  •  You're pushing straw man arguments. (0+ / 0-)

                    I never said social psychology is a hard science.

                    The NRA knows it's going to take a hit.  What the NRA hoped when they said that video games are at fault is that some really low information Democratic voters who are vulnerable to psychological reactance and don't respect what 100s of top scientists and anti-violence organizations say would hear the NRA meme and let the NRA get away with just a ban on assault weapons and no improvements in background checks, integrated services for high-risk groups and measures that have proven to work as noted by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2009 (see above) which apparently is another organization that you naively believe is pushing NRA memes.  

  •  Violent crime is caused by two things (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, Miggles

    Testosterone and guns.

    It would be easier to get rid of guns than to get rid of testosterone, but perhaps we should keep all the options on the table.

    •  I'm glad some people stand by their opinions even (0+ / 0-)

      in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Mostly, that type of person is referred to as a Republicans but I guess there has to be few people like that on both sides of the aisle.

  •  Catholics cause Africans to die of AIDS (0+ / 0-)

    Children cause their parents to get divorced

    Being snarky to your asshole customers causes them to beat their wives

    I think you can probably draw a line on a graph where one axis is "significance of impact" and the other axis is "level of malice", where above the line the appropriateness of discussing the connection depends on the strength of the evidence, and below the line it depends on whether or not you're being a dick.

    •  I think you can draw a line between the (0+ / 0-)

      dishonesty of the posts and the degree to extent to which those individuals will go to, to discredit a diary.

      For example, if most of the posts grossly misstate the facts of the diary, chances are you will have posters who will call the diarist names especially when such outpourings of baseless assertions and mountains of illogical arguments are proven to be false.

  •  As one who teaches social science research at (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana

    the undergraduate and graduate level, I am impressed with the level of discussion (petty, personal attacks aside). Two comments. First, there are no genuine (as can be found in the natural sciences) casual claims that can be made about human behavior. Second, I suspect the more important issue is not the strength of relationship between violent violent games and aggressive behavior; rather, I am more interested in the link between violent video games and criminally violent behavior.

    I found the Medial Violence Commission Reportt sound.  Its conclusion is worth reflecting upon:

    One conclusion appears clear-extreme conclusions are to be avoided. Not every viewer or player will be affected noticeably, but from understanding the psychological processes involved, we know that every viewer or player is affected in some way. Some commentators have argued that violent media, especially violent video games, are the primary cause of school shootings. Other commentators have argued that there is no good evidence of any harmful effects of violent media, usually based on the results of one or two studies. Neither extreme is supported by the vast body of research in this domain. What is clear is that exposure to media violence is one risk factor for increased aggression in both the short run and the long run.
    •  Your completely and wildly wrong in all of your (0+ / 0-)

      arguments about social science not being able to infer causality.  I have a PhD in social psychology and I know of hundreds of causal relationships that are known in the social sciences.  Also, the reports of numerous other PhDs that have had long careers studying violence have concluded there is a causal relationship between media violence and actual media violence.  

      Who are you to argue with them especially when you make the absurd claim that causal inference is not possible in the social sciences.  Most psych 101 classes I taught mentioned a number of examples of causality  For example, classical and operant conditioning are proven facts.  They involve stimuli causing responses.  The biology has been worked out to the cellular level.  The same is true of social learning.  The principle of social learning is what underlies research on media violence causing actual violence and there have been thousands of studies not 1 or 2 that have demonstrated a causal relationship.  

      You can certainly entitled to claim that all those scientists are wrong and they are also wrong about claims of causality even though they use the same scientific methods used in the hard sciences and find evidence of causation but don't claim that other social scientists agree with your outlandish views which don't match what the scientific reports say, what undergraduate students would normally know about in my experience or what scientists such as myself who has done research on media violence have concluded.  Frankly, I find your claims to be fantastic.

      Your review of the violence literature is a complete misrepresentation of what is stated in the reports.  It's totally inconsistent with all seven scientific reports that all argue there is a causal relationship.  Your claims about the content of those reports is totally outside the bounds of what all those scientists concluded after reviewing 3,500 studies and not 2 or 3 as you suggest and yes I did as a matter of fact conduct some of the research myself that they reviewed and I find your statements about the literature to be totally and wildy inaccurate but that's just my expert opinion which is consistent with all the committee reports which I have read and consistent with what my class on the causes of violence learned.

      In other words you should point out that your opinion is far far far outside of mainstream scientific thought.  It fact, I've never met a psychology student with opinions that even remotely mirror yours and I've personally known hundreds.

  •  Thanks to the diarist for alerting us about (0+ / 0-)

    http://theimpartialreviews.com

    Any connection between the diarist and that website is surely coincidental.

  •  I don't believe in the 'Science' (0+ / 0-)

    behind these types of studies.

    "But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds."

    ^^^ This quote from one of your links is the type of thing that I have a problem with.  I've seen similar criticisms about so many studies so many times that now these types of studies hold no credibility for me.  The field of psychological research no longer has credibility in my eyes.

    So you seem frustrated that people are ignoring the science.  I can't speak for anyone else but I don't believe in the science.

    It's not only the bad science ...The APA  has a lot of corporate backing - which like the NRA makes me highly skeptical of anything they claim.

    Besides I don't see anything conclusive has been proved.

    Even if  there is a corresponding increase in gun deaths when more video games are bought, maybe the  correlation is merely a symptom of how much discetionary income is available?

    I would imagine that video games and guns come under discretionary spending.  So maybe it just proves that when people have more to spend on things like Videos games they also have more money to spend on things guns - they  might also be spending more money on vacations but you wouldn't think of linking gun deaths with vacations.

    Frodo: What are we holding onto, Sam? Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.

    by Starbrite on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:43:41 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site