War and Peace

There's a lot to talk about here.  Firstly, of the top-10 best-selling console games of all time, the first 8 and the 10th are all ESRB-rated E. Number 9 is indeed Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas,  but it's the only shooter of any variety in the top 20. Heck, it's the only one in the top-20 with a rating that isn't E.  This makes sense - the majority of games sold are not shooters, but are aimed at the wider audience of gamers, teenagers, parents of teenagers, and children themselves.  Much more money can be made catering to that audience than is possible designing games for only 17-35 year olds (which is the age-range that first person shooters target).  Shooters get the most coverage, thanks in no small part to the exciting controversies of GTA-obsessed former lawyer jack Thompson, but by and large they aren't what people play.  On the PC, for example, the best-selling game of all time is The Sims.  That game doesn't even offer a do-gooder hero, or heroics of any kind.  It's just household management.

Secondly, what's really interesting about PTSD and video games is the new research done showing that playing some video games reduces some instances of PTSD.  There has been some evidence that playing tetris after a stressful event can lessen memory of the stress, and therefore lessen the trauma.  Also, there is research being done into combat-specific virtual reality therapy, to help returning veterans cope with PTSD.

Lastly, all but the youngest children are really quite good at separating reality from fiction.  People are aware of the differences between norms in a world with no consequences (like GTA) and a world with them, and people respond accordingly.  VR therapy for soldiers is useful not because it is identical to combat, but because it is distinguishable from it.  A game that let them re-experience combat as it was would be re-traumatizing and cause more harm than good.  That disconnect between a game (no matter how convincing the graphics) and life is what makes such therapy possible.

OK, I am sick of people thinking that violent video games can make people violent. Violent video games, music, and movies do not have any effect on how violent people are, some people are just violent, it's as simple as that.

I know from experience, I know people that play GTA and are violent, and they were violent WAY before they ever picked that game up. As a kid I watched some of the most violent movies, and played violent games, I was one of those kids playing Grand Theft Auto 3 running over old ladies with glee, watching the blood splatter, and hearing the screams of fear, and it was wonderful. I am also one of the most peaceful people you will ever meet, I hate violence (unless it's FAKE, like a video game, or movie).

It doesn't matter how REAL the game seems, it doesn't change the fact that it's FAKE, and games, music, and movies DO NOT CHANGE THE WAY PEOPLE ACT.

Also, I think it's stupid that people even need studies for this, because it doesn't take much more than COMMON SENSE, if you actually go out and MEET a lot of these gamers, and see how they are, and learn how they've been their whole lives, you'll see that games have NO effect on how violent their personalities are.

First of all I didn't say it "makes me sick", I said "I'm sick of people thinking that violent video games can make people violent."

And I seemed like I was lashing out, but I have heard to many people think that if their kid plays GTA3, he's gonna start taking drugs and getting violent, and there have been studies showing that violent video games make kids violent, but there have also been studies showing that second hand smoke is more harmful than first hand (which is bull, you just have to see HOW those studies are taken).

OK, now you were telling me about "Marines who had turned war into a romantic thing", but really, that isn't because of movies, people have been doing that WAY before movies ever came around, people have been turning war into a "romantic" thing for centuries.

I really do not believe that a game will make anyone violent, I believe that ANYONE who becomes violent because of a video game already had traits like that, all the game did was give them the idea. However I don't think those studies are going to adress that. Just like the studies on second hand smoke didn't mention that they were taken in condemned buildings with asbestos (and they were probably hot boxing monkeys to simulate second hand smoke). A study means NOTHING unless you take in every aspect of it, and anything it may be leaving out.

studies can mean a lot without taking everything into consideration. A good study isolates one or two variables to measure the effect they have on another variable. Violent video games are not a direct cause of violence, but that is because this is behavioral science we are dealing with, not physics. Each person is going to respond differently based on genetics, upbringing, experience during the game (e.g. parents are around or they are playing alone in their room... I know of one study where parents co-viewing violent films lessened some of the negative impacts. Unfortunately I don't have the original study off-hand, but here's a site with a very brief overview http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_and_tv_violence). Performing a study on children with pre-existing behavioral problems will still tell you the truth about that sub-population. However, it will not mean that the effects will generalize to the general population. 

I agree that in many cases a person might have the potential/traits to head toward violence, but if more non-violent options were available, could this route be avoided? Obviously not in all cases, but decreasing violence by certain percentages is still moving in better directions. 

I've spent my time playing Unreal Tournament, Warcraft, GTA, and other games. The thought of violence in the real world boggles my mind. However, one person's experience does not tell the final story of whether the games have a positive, negative, or null impact. Studies on both sides of the argument are used to say that video games are 100% ok, or 100% bad, but that's missing the point of scientific research. The reason that research continues is because we do not have a definitive answer on how and when violent games are bad, versus how and when they can be a healthy activity (increasing visual processing speed, understanding team dynamics, creating friendships).

"A study means NOTHING unless you take in every aspect of it, and anything it may be leaving out"

Psychology finds trends. It does not give answers on the same level of gravity (release the pencil, and it will fall toward the earth). Just because you are part of the percentage who is relatively unaffected by video games does not mean that you can disregard the studies. For you to ignore it because of one person's life experience is to leave out or ignore more variables than the original researchers did. Yes, there are times when individual researchers will miss something, skew results, or otherwise miss the correct answers. 

While developing PTSD from playing a video game seems unlikely, it should not be discounted easily. However, I'd definitely agree that there is an overabundance of negative role models (real and fictional) who are poor examples of how to behave.

You still have to take into consideration how these studies are taken, people get PTSD, and I'm sure certain extra violent video games probably effect it, but I do not think they CAUSE it, how do you know the people in these studies did not allready have traits of it before they played these video games? For example, with the story about the kid who played GTA2 and was freaking out when someone woudn't shoot an old lady, he was probably a very spoiled child, which causes this kind of behavior, NOT playing GTA2.

I think this is a little more of complex than some people think. These studies are still very biased, you say "A good study isolates one or two variables to measure the effect they have on another variable.", which is true to an extent, but you can take "one or two variables" that have nothing to do, or very little, with the third variable, and make it look like they are brothers. For example, a study shows that majority of crime in America is committed by black and hispanic people, it takes in the variables of crime rate, and numbers of crimes by which races of people, and it gives majority of the people who hear it the impression that they commit crimes BECAUSE of their race, and this helps breed racism, however the variables it DOESN'T take into consideration is the fact that it is PEOPLE IN POVERTY that commit majority of the crime in America, and because of the way our system is set up (education system, mostly), it is these minority groups that are in most poverty.

So relating to games, a lot of the studies take into consideration the variables group A plays these kinds of video games, group plays these games, etc., and more people in group A have PTSD, therefore these games cause it in ____ percentage of people, however they don't take into consideration the very important variables that the people with PTSD may have been abused, neglected, teased at school, etc., there are a number of things that cause it. I have not seen any evidence in studies that it is the GAME that causes PTSD.

Actually, I was just reading your what you said above: "ON CHILDREN'S EXPERIENCE WITH VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES. Studies I've read show that some children, particularly those who have already been exposed to violence, experience hyper-vigilance, prolonged tension, increased risk of social aggression after the game, and potentially a desensitization to real life violence."

And this is what I'm talking about, children who have already been exposed to violence, I've known people like this, and they experience "hyper-vigilance, prolonged tension, increased risk of social aggression" after just about ANYTHING competitive, and just get into fights easilly in general, no JUST after a violent video game.

You are right to question the chain of cause-and-effect for correlational studies. The ones where they just gather information about two variables and say "violence is higher among people who play violent video games." 

When you combine these findings with experimental results, the case grows stronger. I'm going to use another example about watching violence rather than violent video games, but I think it is relevant. Experimenters brought in kids. Some of them saw an adult beat up a Bobo doll, some watched the adult play non-violently. The important part is that both groups of kids were randomly put into these groups, so we know that the groups are (more or less) only different in what they watched (violent adult, non-violent adult). As you might expect, the kids who watched the violent adult then played violently with the doll. Based on the experimental method, not just surveys, correlations, and stories, we can be quite certain that the cause of the violence was watching the violent adult. Violence may happen with and without violent video games, but we can still see specific instances of A causing B.

Again (for other studies with weaker results) in psychology we often don't find 100% of the cause. In physics, you can calculate the velocity of a pencil falling to the ground by only measuring the pull of Earth's mass. Now if you remember back in physics class, everything with mass is "attracted to" everything else with mass. The pencil has a gravitational pull toward the building that you stand next to, which you would need to account for if you were to describe the trajectory with 100% accuracy. However, Earth is huge, so the amount coming from the building is negligible. Imagine dropping the pencil between the earth and the moon, and now Earth affects the movement of the pencil less, and the role of the "building" (moon) next to you will play a stronger role in where the pencil moves. 

So, to explain my physics metaphor: yes, more than JUST video games play a role in establishing violent behavior. Some of the larger factors might be genetics and hormones (more testosterone = more physical violence), family and general environment during early development (not sure of any relevant studies off-hand). However, there is a certain "pull" toward violence that comes from video games. When performing a study, many researchers aren't just looking for "yes or no," they are trying to measure exactly how much violent media (video games, movies, news) increase violence.

Here is another, longer article summarizing a lot of the research done on violence stemming from video games. http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

Even assuming that you are right -- violent video games don't cause violence but only give people ideas -- wouldn't it be better if the ideas they received were a bit calmer? For example, "poke this person in the eye" compared to "blow this person's brains out." If someone feeling overwhelmed walked into your supermarket, which idea would you prefer they had bouncing around in their skull?

First of all, it isn't just that it gives people ideas, people are attracted to the game BECAUSE of the violence in it, there are plenty of games without as much violence, but those games will never give those people ideas, like the violent video games do, because they are not as attracted to the game.

Here is an example, 50 cent does not cause his fans to be violent, he is violent, has violent lyrics, and his game is supposedly extremely violent (never seen it, so don't know first hand), but that doesn't mean he is making others violent. His fans are violent, into the rap genre, and a lot of the time, gangs, and they lean towards him BECAUSE of his violence.

So I guess part of my argument is that people aren't violent because of media, they lean towards media BECAUSE it's violent.

However I DO agree when it comes to children of a certain age, they are VERY impressionistic, and however I would not say thata it causes PTSD (which is what this was sort of about), it is litterally just giving kids ideas, only at that age they follow through with thier ideas much more. Of course kids at THAT age shouldn't be playing violent video games, at THAT age you want them to be learning peaceful things, watching POSSITIVE media. Of course, like everything, it is always a lot more complicated, there is a whole science to raising kids to be good, you can actually have violent media in their lives as long as there is a whole lot more peaceful media.

Gawd, as a Military Veteran I just laugh at this stuff.

PTSD? I actually know Military Veterans with PTSD and they didn't get it from video games! If I told you what happened to one guy you'd have nightmares for a week.

Could this be another ploy by the therapeudic community to go after tax dollars?