Do violent video games corrupt our youth?
 

Article

Youtube 1

Youtube 2

I wouldn't insult a kid's intellegence by claiming that he can't tell video games from real life. As for the study that claims the video game kids are more aggresive, it could be that the kids are frustrated due to the dfficulty of the games or hyped up by spending too much time on them.


90% of U.S. kids 8-16 are plaing video games, and theres been only a handfull of school shooters. plus, there were school shootings before video games were invented. How does Jack Thompson's "experts" explain that?

Well, if you watched BULL****!, Penn & Teller also reveal that the worst case of school violence preceded vid games by several decades and didn't involve guns, but explosives. Guess people gotta bitch about something.

There is good reason it isn't sold to kids.

Having said that, none of this stuff has ever caused someone to "go over the edge" so to speak. Not if they weren't already likely to do so in the first place. So it depends on mental well being, as well as parental guidance. If the kid goes and kills because of VGs or music, the kid already has problems which should be (or have been if in past tense) taken care of.

Kipper,

The problem with these kinds of studies is that the methodology is typically either flawed or garbage. In order to establish a causal relationship, you have to be able to ratcheted down every variable except the one your testing for.

So all these kids play violent video games. Do they also watch violent movies? Television? What are their dietary habits? How much exercise are they getting? What are their parents like?

It is entirely possible that the video games are the culprit (I highly doubt it, but it is possible). However unless you can rule out every other possible cause, you can't say with any certainty that this is it.

Since the article talks about the study but offers only vague details about the methodology, it's impossible to tell if the research is even remotely valid. It sounds as though you're pretty skeptical of their findings as well :)

what is that good reason?


Then you are in agreement with me.

Do violent video games corrupt our youth?

No.

[/thread]

_EW_

It is easier to blame video games, television, movies, music, comic books… than to blame the problems with society and parenting.

While I'm not censorist, I do believe in parental moderation/mediation. You'll eventually have to have those talks with your kids, but exposing them to prostitution, beatdowns, robbery car jacking, and crime while they're too young isn't exactly the way to go.

Do you really want junior being sent home in the middle of the day and having to meet with an irate principal because he's slamming other kids' heads in doors and wisecracking to a teacher about "plinking" a hooker in the car he stole form her?
--I think you get the point: only when you believe they are ready and can handle it responsibly.

Yeah, I am. And furthermore I think parents who completely blame VGs and rock music on their child's bad behavior need to take a look at themselves. Freedoms have responsibility, no?

If you've done your part as a parent and your kid is still acting up because of it, then take it away. If you haven't...that's where it starts. That's what I have observed from parents whose kids are exposed to that stuff, but they are not little monsters for it.

[/wrong]




So, video games, television, movies, music, comic books, etc, are not part of our society, and do in no way carry a potential to be problematic? Hm. Hm Hm.

So, Rayston, you believe that video games are to blame for the children who perform school shootings, etc?

Rather than parenting or environment?

_EW_

No, the games alone are not to blame. I mean, how to blame a game anyway. However, if you ask whether violent games have an effect on children, then seriously, how could they not? Or why would you think is there a huge industry shoving learning computers and learning games/programs down our throats?

And say, what is this environment? Your parents, what they teach you, what you see them doing? Friends you hang out with, their activities? Something like school, people at school? Your activities there? What you do in your freetime? Like, reading a book? Talking to people? Playing a game? Isn't this all the environment somehow?

Yes, but there is a system and there has always been a system in place to keep unwanted materials out of children’s hands and control the amount unwanted material a child is exposed to. It is called parenting and has nothing to do with the government control.

It is just easier for the parents to use these mediums as a means of surrogate babysitter. This is just hideous to comprehend. Parents need to be the one’s that monitor what their child is involved in. They need to understand their child’s like and dislikes, they need to understand his/her fears and dreams. Parents just need to play the larger role in their own child’s development and not depend on media outlets including game developers to protect their child. After all, since we are all different, we should not depend on a stranger to know if something is appropriate for little Johnny, his parents should know him well enough to make that decision.

Very true.

Sad but also very true. And given the kinds of messages kids are bombarded with these days, parents' jobs are that much harder, but perhaps more important.

This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. If someone wants to argue that violent games do have an effect, I'm perfectly willing to listen to whatever they have to say (in fact, I'm quite interested in what a legitimate study would show). However it is on the parties making the claim that there is an effect to show what that effect is. Otherwise, we're just guessing.

Which would seem to posit that there is some benefit to these devices (???). Do you have a source for this?

I think we're all aware that companies sometimes market products that consumers belief have some utility but actually don't (how much money does homeopathy rake in every year?).

Well sure. But I'm not sure what this is supposed to show us.

If I play games and my friends play games, that makes us "gamers", not "mass murders". Even if we pile on violence in TV, movies, music, etc, I think we have to admit that a lot of this violence is situational. I think seeing your dad beat your mom IRL one time is going to be a lot more damaging than a million hours of "shooting" pixels shaped like zombies. One of these situations is modeling behavior while the other is clearly fantasy.

They're a part of it, however they are little more than entertainment and influences, which even the most primitive rational minds realize (not that I'm calling *you* primitive mind you, just saying). These should not be a primary thing for children when growing up--otherwise you will have problems.

They do indeed carry potential to be problematic (I don't think anyone here is debating that point) and yes they are a part of society or else we wouldn't all be HERE in a Star Wars site discussing this. Having said that, even as much a part of society and as influential as they are, their effects can be effectively supervised and negated regarding child development. That falls on the parents' shoulders because it does not preclude responsible decision making or parenting.

OK, think of it like anything else (alcohol, firearms, etc.): it requires external influence in the first place for it to even have an effect. You already have a grasp of that. You have a point, yes they do have an effect. While it is ever-pervasive, it does not preclude one (or ones as in a family) from making decisions. So while it is everywhere in our society, there is a choice to turn away.


Frankly I think the gaming industry is running out of creative ideas like the TV industry did some time back. Games are beginning to take a turn towards major suckage and it'll be in a lull for a time. Why do you think there are so many re-hashes, reviews, and complaints that new games suck lately? I'd think they can't be alluring and all encompassing forever. I would actually be interested in what merited studies have to say about this.

It is but the environment have varying degrees relative to source of influence. People eventually realize "hey, these games might be fun but I'm not really going anywhere in my life" and decide to get up and get out.

Thirded to this notion.


I've seen families with parents who just don't care and leave it all to the babysitters and nannies. Dysfunctional. I shudder to think what will happen if/when the family starts leaving it to the VG systems.

QFT.

Yes. I think what should be dealt with is actually the bombardment issue. Since direct intervention seems to be interpreted as an attack on free market, it think it'll have to be dealt with by other means.

Speculation: We're coming up on a down trend of VG productions. During this period we may perhaps be seeing a certain number of our society become resistant to the influence and effects of video games, and an outright rejection to the VG culture in some cases. (I only wish I had data to support this!) Thoughts?

Don't get me wrong, you are absolutely correct about parents and their responsibilities. That said, I honestly would prefer if there was some kind of parents licence in some cases, actually. :p

But parents cannot teach 'society' to their kids. They can teach moral values, social behaviour, language, any kind of skill, all that jazz, yes. Parents can prepare their kids for many, many things. But the fun thing about offspring is, there's a certain dynamic you cannot control. Like you can say a thousand times don't touch this it is hot, and you can take care like hell, one out of those fifty little creatures will touch it. There are influences you cannot control. On the playground, in the kindergarten, at school. My kids are at the kindergarten 5 days a week for about 6 hours each day. I have no absolute control about what they eat and when, if they take a nap after lunch or what words they hear or say. This is where influence by anyone but the parent side begins.

I don't blame or bitch, I just say that there's a long list of things which form a human character, and movies and games, media (containing whatever material) in general are part of it, and to me it sounds not to far fetched when I say violence (and anything else for that matter) in the media gives ideals and ideas to the young people, which might not always be 'caught' ideally by the parents.



Yeah, you and me, we both would like this to be the truth. :p


Turning away is a *bad* idea, really. Eventually you'll have to cope with everything that does not fit into your parental plan. Otherwise you will have problems.


Odd, that's exactly what some school shooter's thoughts might have been...



So, you'd argue that when you do things over and over again, that does not has any effect at all? That'd make me wonder what any kind of training is for, then. Wait, you mean it only works for non-violent stuff? Ah,.. then it makes sense.


Oh, I said benefit? Oop.


You seem not to fit into the scheme of "our youth", actually.


And, that makes a difference exactly how?


And luckily enough, there's nothing but zombie and alien shooters available on the market, too!!


And luckily enough, never do especially young people never mix up reality and fantasy ever as well!!

Because it seems you need help

Believe it or not, I didn't hatch from an egg already at my current age.

Because shootin' biotches wit yo AK would seem to only have context if you have an AK. Grabbin' a perp by the collar and shoving him up against a cop car would probably only have context if I had a perp (and a cop car).

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

Way to skirt past the point there, Rayston.

Indeed they sometimes do. Hence why I think we're seeing so much commentary on the importance of active participation on the part of parents.

They can teach how to respond to universal issues that do come up.

That doesn't mean you don't try to set the child straight when its behavior is incorrect. At this point, the parents must take a proactive role in making sure the child knows enough reasoning of actions and their consequences which follows in order to tell the good choices from the bad; responsible from irresponsible. It may be only basic logic, but it teaches the kids to reason because you will not always be there.

Teaching a kid to "consider a source for what it is" goes a long way for when you're not there as a parent. Longer way than I think you are willing to give credit. No, you can't be there all the time, hoever you can leave a lasting impression on your child in its youth so that it will make responsible decisions as it gets older.

Sometimes it is inevitable the offspring will have to learn the hard way. It's up to the parent to make sure that the hard stuff isn't something deadly, or of lifelong detriment.

You might not be able to prevent all incidences, however, you can *manage* the ones that do come up. No child is clever enough to hide these influences completely from a parent who truly cares. Also, you can teach trust-worthiness.

On the other side of it, there is a certain openness needed if you are to minimize the rebelliousness of the offspring at a certain age. To make sure their complacency and resistance to you is not higher than your possible reach as a parent.

Like it to be the truth? :confused: It is a part of society, not society on the whole. Its effects _can_ be negated and managed like any other external medium which requires being acted upon in order to have any effect. That doesn't mean parents have absolute control or that a child won't try to hide things; if you're vigilant though, then not much will get by you.

I'm not exactly sure what's the deal with the turn of phrase--would you care to explain what you meant by that???

Clever, you can dance around the semantics pin. :dozey:

Since you seem to need it spelled out to you, I shall do it, lest you misinterpret what I said again. No, I was not at all saying that the parents should turn away from doing their job.

The "choice to turn away" is related usage of the object of indulgence.
Idea of:
situation; The object is doing harm?
solution; *Stop* using it, then.

Of course in this situation, we have kids who wouldn't choose to stop indulging (playing), so it is up to the parents to pry their childrens' hands from the controllers/keyboards/etc. when enough is enough.

Can you spell P A R A N O I A ?

Firstly you weren't in the shooter's head--how would you know that? Did you actually know someone who was a school shooter?

Secondly I think you are making Columbine out to be... much more commonplace than it actually is/was.

So they were a couple kids who claimed they were bad souls? If the individual is a "bad soul" then all you can really do is your absolute best as a parent in that situation.

Can you look at your kindergarten aged kids and *really* see another Columbine in their future (perpetrated by them) for sure? Hmm?

I grew up in an adverse environment. I was an angry child. I got in nasty fights right on up to adulthood. Despite it all, though, I just really wanted to be who I was and came to realize if other people are ********ed up--that is *their* problem. Not mine. My parents had no control over how nasty other kids were to me. I suppose if it got too nasty they could have intervened and taken me out of the system. Found some alternative education.

Consider that an option if you believe the school system your children go to is not adequate, and in your judgment doing real harm. You'll find a way, I've no doubt of it given the concern you've already shown.

Besides, If I were just like those two columbine students, we wouldn't be talking. We'll just leave it at that.

wishful thinking


Oh, I think I got you quite right, however--

It sounds so easy, doesn't it? Especially the part where I make my kids unable to use any controller/keyboard/computer outside of their home.


Oh, err, then how can you know that:
I'd say if you gonna take that guess for "non-shooter-people", I can as well say it's true for "shooter-people".


Columbine?


Did they have control how nasty you were to other kids?


So far I have not yet shown any 'concerns' about any school system?



Odd, I thought the violence attribute would mainly focus on "shootin' biotches" and "grabbin' a perp by the collar and shoving him up against a" instead of determining product numbers and typical use of involved items.


how about realising my butt, fancy pants :dozey:

Trying to keep video games out of the hands of children is becoming increasingly difficult as games become easier to obtain. When I was a kid, there were dozens of games available on Nintendo, PC, and a few on the MAC. Now there are literally thousands of them available at very cheap prices as they become obsolete. I have had only Apple-based video games all my life, so I hadn't had many options compared to those who had an N64, Sega, gamecube, playstation I,II,III, xbox (360)

The internet had become a source of easily-obtainable and free games. It allowed for online enhancement for getting game platforms, games to go with them, the fact that video games had become more common. They are highly addictive, widely available, and relatively cheap in comparison to what you could get with your money.

I only spent about $20 for KOTOR I and II, and much less for JA and JK II. I have no idea how many hours of entertainment I got from them, but it was worth it to me. In terms of how many hours I lost from my life because of them... that's another matter. The idea of restricting video games from children isn't really a realistic solution because there are now so many video game platforms and so many games out there that children will figure a way past parent supervision.

Gotcha.

It's not my job to tell you how to be a parent. I suggest, however, if you don't care to take a proactive role in your child's development to make sure your kids don't end up impersonating Niko Bellic or somesuch, put them up for adoption where they can get the supervision they need.

No, it doesn't. Nor did I imply it was. Difficult as it is, it still has to be done.

You appear to talk as if parents have no effect on their children over the inevitable outside influences. Why? I thought being the parent meant pretty much being all that child has to rely upon?

Are *you* having problems in these areas? Are your kids acting up because of these influences? Are you unable to get them to change their behavioral conduct? Otherwise, if the answer is no, I think you're going a bit too Nth degree in your speculation if that situation has not yet arisen.

Because that's what people DO. You even did that--didn't you? There is more to life than pong, or super maro, or Liberty City as Niko Bellic, right?

Hair splitting much? Playing with semantics again? Where are you getting this rationale from?

Are you concerned your child is going to shoot the school up? Just a suggestion: while the child is still impressionable, you might show the consequences of actions related to such.

Well...You said earlier:
That's what came to mind--Columbine. Were you referring to another school shooting?

If school shooting is not what you were referring to, then would you care to share what you were referring to? Were you implying I'm a homicidal maniac because "GTA" is in my username? :p

Not directly, but in eventuality, yes they did. Teaching me perspective and what is realistic. Such actions did have consequences in the outside world. As well there were consequences within the home, as there should be. The more malicious what I did, the steeper the punishment was at home for me besides facing the school system or the law for what I did.

You've shown concern for influences outside your home. Most of that time (I would think) for children is spent primarily in school. Is your situation different?

If you home school your kids, do you not have any control whatsoever as to their other social/daily outings?

While not at me...
Red herring (possbily bordering on ad hominem--in which case read the rules)? :indif:

This isn't an argument.

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

violant games do not corrupt my youth! so die!!!!!
:xp:
i've never been stressed out or angry from video games

I always hate it when people do that. I hate how you could spend several minutes, or even an hour composing a response and you still get only one post under your belt. You just as easily could write something like this for another +1.

But this will have some content, so it won't be marked as spam.

I think that video games do inspire violence within children, but the issue is by much much it influences the child. Parents can influence their children and those who've never played a video game could simply be violent for other reasons.

I would say mario brothers isn't exactly a violent game, although it does have all the elements of one without the realism to it. Dark Forces was not bloody, but it had guns, grenades, and assault cannons. First person shooters are very inspirational to physical violence, but there are many others that direct violent tendencies in the wrong ways.

Flight simulators are not what I would call violent, but they do involve competition where one person is firing missiles and dropping bombs on enemy forces in order to kill or to survive. That's something to consider is the level upon which the violence is directed. Virtually anything that inspires people to want to hurt digital people is likely going to pour into their real lives to some degree.

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

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

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

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

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

And I agree that these are all possibilities.

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

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

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



[quote=GTA:SWcity]While not at me...
Red herring (possbily bordering on ad hominem--in which case read the rules)?



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

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

Oh, you're confused?

Allow me to help.

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

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

Obviously.

Ditto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about educational games?

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


Please, allow me to help.




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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In essence, it's not actually the game giving the person an idea to go out and shoot or hurt people... the idea is already there. in fact, one can argue that the game could be acting as an outlet for said individual. If so, the game industry could be saving millions of lives a year... I would even say they deserve a tax write off for their noble deeds :thmbup1:...

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

* Just under 90 percent of survey respondents reported playing video games.
* The average boy in the survey spent 16.4 hours a week playing games, while the average for girls was just over nine hours every week.
* The average "addicted" gamer played 24 hours a week -- twice as much as casual gamers.
* 8.5 percent of the young gamers exhibited "pathological patterns of play," which was described as the presence of at least six of the 11 clinical symptoms (as defined by the American Psychiatric Association).
* One-fourth of the surveyed gamers reported turning to video games in an attempt to escape problems, and nearly as many said they played instead of doing homework.
* Twenty percent of the young video game enthusiasts said that their schoolwork had suffered because of the time they spent playing the games.

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

* Having game systems in their bedrooms
* Receiving poor grades in school
* Feeling "addicted" to game systems
* Experiencing a higher than normal number of health problems
* Stealing to support their video game habit

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

--http://www.video-game-addiction.org/...deo-gamers.htm



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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--http://www.reuters.com/article/techn...070624?sp=true

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the links.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for the context of this discussion.


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


No, thank you.