Video games linked to aggression in boys (Reuters)
by Vladimir Cole 
{ Aug 22nd 2005 at 9:00AM }
Researchers at St. Leo University, a Catholic college with facilities throughout the southern
United States, have concluded that violent video games make adolescents violent.
Other violence-inducing stimuli curiously omitted from the study but which we're sure were just overlooked: high-sugar beverages, playing with little plastic green Army toys, rambunctious outdoor games like Cowboys and Indians and Red Rover, Faux News, nursery rhymes that reinforce negative gender stereotypes (that one about "snips and snails and puppy dog tails" is particularly violent), and of course, inadequate parenting.
Wasn't it just a few days ago that researchers at a secular university found no link between games and agression? Agenda much?
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
boneyard @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
lol, wasn't there a study some time ago saying exactly the opposite thing. hopeless these studies.
ChronoZaga @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Well, it's a good thing we have a rating system in place then, huh?
Dan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
As the post above hints, what we really need is a study on the propensity of videogames to make boys violent relative to every other activity they're likely to engage in (pretty sure when I was a kid our major pastime was playing one variant or another of "beating the living hell out of each other, just because").
Unless of course the unstated assumption of these researchers is that if it weren't for videogames we'd be keeping these kids pent up like factory-farm veal. Which is probably about right considering that the biggest unstated assumption in these studies is that aggressiveness is always and everywhere a bad thing.
Imp @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Just because a study goes against what you beleive does not mean they are fufilling a secret agenda. I happen to feel that a young child playing an overtly violent game does have an impact on that childs agression; as well as numerous other things of course.
vladimir cole @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
My cousins were playing "red rover" the other day. Have you heard of this dreadful game? It encourages children to collide into each other.
Not very nice at all. I'm hoping to get an AO rating for Red Rover.
vladimir cole @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Barbaric and shocking: http://www.gameskidsplay.net/games/strength_games/redrover.htm
Myria @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Yes, absolutely, agenda much?
I mean the poster's agenda, of course. Obviously any study which says that video games are the salvation of humanity must be right, any study showing any negative effect must be wrong. A most wise and enlightened attitude, that.
Nice swing at religion there, by the way... Very mature and rational, definitely proves your point.
I don't know if there's a link between video games and aggression or not, nor do I particularly care. What does worry me, based on what I read on gamer blogs, is the apparent link between video games and mental and emotional retardation. That is worrisome and a subject in need of serious study. This post would be a good starting point.
ROG27 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
"Nice swing at religion there, by the way..."
Hey, I bet you think you are one of the more mature, well-balanced god-faring people out there. You know truth be told that religion has had a negative impact on every event that has happened over the course of written history. Religion enslaved the Jews in Egypt. Religion caught wave and made an already Roman Empire more corrupt than it already was. Religion caused that empire to split and ultimately fail. Religion caused the Holy Wars - the crusades. Religion and missionaries caused the massive enslaught of indiginous people that came with European and Middle-eastern imperialism from the Renassaince era forward all over the world. That's just to name a few things. Sure, certain religious firgures have done nice things for people at the micro-level (Mother Theresa, for instance) and figure-heads like certain Popes have pushed for civil-rights reforms. But overall, religion has fucked everything in every imaginable way. It keeps people divided ideologically. It makes people arrogant and think they are better than others and that their way is the only right way. Religion is pure shit. It is the materialization of evil ulterior motives of the few with assets to protect facaded by moral high-horsing directed at the religious illiterate. Get this straight - morality and religion are two completely different things. Religion is a man-made idea. Morality is the inclination for wanting to feel safe and protected in a harsh environment, which is completely natural for the human animal. Or as "god" supposedly put it...Don't do unto others, what you would not have done unto yourself. Ninety-percent of you relgious zealots out there do not know anything about the history, or foundation, of religion. Your knowledge is hear say and ignorance...not based under any factual pretences. I went to a Catholic University, and I know a thing or two about ulterior motives and political agendas.
All I have to say is that, "Today's religion is tomorrow's mythology." Don't believe me. Take out your history book and see for yourself.
With educational enlightenment, there is less and less need for religion to explain the unexplainable. In that way, religion is really a pessamistic view of the universe. It assumes we will not ever come to a conclusion about our essence and our beginnings. Wow, I can't wait until that idea goes down the tubes.
mark @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
a little crack with your cornflakes this morning?
Imp @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
ROG27, human did those.
But if you wish to credit religion for those, so be it. Then you ,must also credit religion for where man is today. Religion has always been with us, and by your logic, is responsible for us living in such a prosperous world.
jc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
umm, wow... ok
Maybe it is just me, but I tend to drive faster in real life after playing a racing game. I don't see it being that far fetched to believe violence in kids can be affected by violence in media.
vladimir cole @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
JC: I tend to drive better after playing a racing game. ;) If one were to combine actuarial statistics with tracking of game playing, perhaps games save lives? That's a question for a researcher somewhere.
Brian @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
At #7:
I am currently 16, I have been playing videogames since before I could walk. I have an IQ of 200+, and I've been in college for close to four years (no joke). So I can safely say that videogames do not cause mental retardation. Of course, I never played mindles games growing up, either. I played mostly Zelda, Dragon Quest, and Final Fantasy, and RPGs are my favorite genre, however I also played things like F-Zero, Mario, and Megaman. I can also attribute some games to my reading, as well. For instance, Megaman X single handedly made me want to read, because I was sick of asking people what Megaman and Zero were saying ^_^. I also have learned many mythical monsters, and some larger vocabulary (like promontory) from games such as Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy.
That and I've been playing 'violent' videogames for as long as I can remember, and most of them are pretty boring (all of Rockstar's games are stupid and monotonous), however, Mortal Kombat is a timeless classic :-)
Anyhow, to wrap this up, I am hardly retarded, and I've never gone out on killing sprees (Though taking a magnifying glass to an army man brings endless hours of fun), but then again I am hardly like the average adolescent.
jc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
I think part of the problem is perspective. Just ask the tobacco farmer if he thinks cigarettes are 100% evil... (maybe a bad choice, but you get the point)
I am up for discussing videogames, and their role in society. It is just as important, in my opinion, to look at the good as well as the bad. Let's get the whole picture.
Vlad, I agree with your last point. I would like to think that GT3 has made me a better driver, however using videogames as an excuse for getting out of a speeding ticket... I don't think so.
There comes a point when we have to differentiate between cause and influence.
GT3 may have made me a more competant driver, but if it triggers me to drive faster too, there may be a problem. If I know that it tends to influence my speeding then I need to recognize that and take precautions appropiately.
If videogames cause, and not just influence 'said' behaviors then we need to take action. If they just influence, then all we might need is just some caution...
I don't want things to change (I love games), but I don't want to see more people being violent to each other either.
What does it hurt to find out more information through studies and then decide what we are going to do.
$.02
Spartacus @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
ROG27: While quite a tangent from the topic at hand, I find your arguement (and logic) flawed. Though many terrible events have occured under the guise of religion, it is usually extremists that cause the problems, not the mainstream believers. Some of your points were historically correct, though the motivation for such events is debatable. However POLITICS is usually more to blame than religion in those examples, so if you'd like to denounce one, be ready to denounce them both.
While your comment about religion being the myth of tomorrow has a grain of truth to it, Judaism and Christianity, along with Islam and a few others have been around for a LONG time and I don't expect any of them to fade in the future. Judaism is AT LEAST been around for 4000 years and Christianity is a continuance of this faith and has been around for 2000 as well. To say these beliefs are but shadows and dust would be a huge fallacy.
And finally, your closing comment on "educational enlightenment", while entertaining, was slightly innaccurate. Science attempts to explain many things, and does a pretty good job most of the time. However one thing that science has NOT been able to explain is our origins. I say this as a graduate in Anthroplology and an extreme interest in origin theory and evolutionary science. I could type pages of evidence that shows HUGE problems with our currently accepted theories. Big bang, spontaneous generation, macro-evolution and even plate tectonics have some serious issues that to the unbiased eye could cast serious doubt on their validity. Science is based on observation, since no human was around for the formation of the universe, very little origin theory is based on science. Evolution is just as much faith based as Intelligent Design and the latter has just as much supporting evidence as the former, it's just less popular.
So while I respect your point of view, it would be appreciated if you would also respect the views and beliefs of others.
huzzah @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
"Evolution is just as much faith based as Intelligent Design and the latter has just as much supporting evidence as the former, it's just less popular."
We've got a bunch of very funny people here on this blog. ;)
Intelligent Design: Evolution
as
Alchemy: Chemistry
as
Magic: Physics
as
Astrology: Astronomy
as
Phrenology: Neurology
as
Palm Reading: Psychology
I apologize for the off-topic post, but the propaganda machine can't go unchecked.
JimyD @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
ROG27 - Right on Man!
Vlad - You forgot to add Fox News as "other violence-inducing stimuli."
This is the same crap that has been spewed out from comic books to rock & roll music. Parents should be responsible for what their kids are exposed to and that is why there is a rating system for video games. End of study.
Spartacus @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
huzzah: I have a degree in anthropology with a minor in geology. I'm currently working on my master's degree and I have read many articles, books and papers on the topic. I have listened to many debates, have written several research papers and keep myself up to date on the issues as this is my primary interest, so pardon me if I question your credability... If you'd like more information or would like to question me, you can email me at kstate_ham@hotmail.com. I would love to discuss it in detail if you'd care to.
huzzah @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
I have been palm reading for years, and have accurately predicted the astrological sign of my last 12 hookups. I know when a fortune cookie is telling the truth and when it is lying. Admittedly, I have not yet successfully transmuted lead into gold, but I am sure that I am only a year away from doing so.
Degrees do not credibility make. Where was the researcher from who put together this study in the first place?
I can tell the future: none of us is going to win an argument about religion on the Internet.
Christian theories like intelligent design have nothing to do with real science, and nothing that any of us posts on Joystiq.com will change that.
Phonecian in a time of Romans @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
"I have a degree in anthropology with a minor in geology. I'm currently working on my master's degree and I have read many articles, books and papers on the topic. I have listened to many debates, have written several research papers and keep myself up to date on the issues as this is my primary interest"
I'm sure you also have a supermodel girlfriend, several years' experience as a government Black Ops trooper, and an enormous penis.
Funny how many sucn pinnacles of human achievement you find pissing their lives away on the internet.
jc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
There is, IMHO, a real discussion lurking in this post...
This is your last chance to stop the bickering before I have to take away you videogames!
Spartacus @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
"Christian theories like intelligent design have nothing to do with real science, and nothing that any of us posts on Joystiq.com will change that."
That is an icredibly ignorant statement. I don't say that in a jeering tone, but you obviously haven't done much research in this matter. However I agree that here is not the place for such a discussion, which is why I offered my email address. In fact ANYONE who would like to ask me questions on this topic may feel free to email me.
Spartacus @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Phonecian in a time of Romans: Lol. True, I could say anything on a blog. However, feel free to email me and I can offer proof of my claims. But no, I'm actually single, have no military experience and have a... well a gentleman wouldn't speak of such things ;)
As for spending time on the internet, I work at a computer all day and find myself bored a lot of the time, so forums are my friend as most other websites are blocked by WebSense.
ROG27 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
This is directed at everyone that's objected to my original post. Different degrees of response have been included and intended for different responses, although not clearly defined. So, only feel offended if the jibe was directed at you.
Hey, religion has not been with man forever...where did you get that from. I never said politics weren't evil, either. They both are, and they'll both wind up destroying everything in the end. You are short-sighted. You think 6,000 years is a long time for Judeo-christian culture to have existed--for a planet that's existed for billions of years in harmony before the discordance of humanity. You're smoking crack. I'm sure you probably advocate the American way of life as being numero uno, since we are so culturally-wise at 300 years young. What archeological records can you show me that man has religion since his inception? No you can't show me any. You can show me cave paintings you think were religious. But they are perceptual drawings of the unexplainable at the time. In light of the fact that science is grounded in reality and religion is grounded in the nether-realm, or metaphysical realm...in which we so conveniently think we are sensorially deficient to unfortunately proliferate that point of view, how can you even begin to compare science and religion? Science can stimulate and advance our concept of reality through the sensory perception. Science is OBJECTIVE...not subjective--and that is why it is taught in our classrooms today. Even the root of the word objective is 'object', meaning physical in nature--material. Hell, science doesn't need to be 100% correct because by definition it is always a work in progress to which an endpoint in unachievable. And that is in line with reality. Nothing is ever perfect. If you know anything about math, you'd know that approaching or approximating something is useful and better than having no reference of relativity at all. Religion can pay no homage to the idea of objectivity. And don't get me wrong. I certainly think humans are spiritual. But then I think anything that is alive is spiritual. I believe that the intersection of the mind and body and surrounding environment creates a spirtual transcendence...the essence of spirituality. But spirituality is something that was artificially grafted into religion, as was morality. Like the idea of premarital chastity, or sexual abstinence. Did you know the Greeks philosophers (the Stoics, Pythagorians, and the like) grafted that idea into Catholicism? It wasn't even a religious idea at first. These are all known facts that people refuse to even pay attention to because they are stubbornly blind. Blinded by the story-book ending. Blinded by thinking that going into the ground when you die is somehow not good enough for 'me'. That 'I'm' somehow too good to go back to this earth from where I came. Humans are filthy, arrogant creatures to think this. They are self-destructive and foolish to be living in hopes of having another life after this life. They are wasting their precious time and everyone elses. Everyone in the back of their mind knows how ridiculous the concept of religion is. They just don't have the balls to admit it. That's why today's world is secular and religion is just hanging on by a thread. It's so desperate to stay alive that it's causing people to blow up buildings.
I never said that reality isn't harsh and that most of you don't want to hear it. But don't take it out on me because I speak objective truth and objective truth is the only thing of which we can be pretty certain. Life is not fair. And every belief is not equal.
Plus, the past can be studied via objective truth because of archeological and fossilized evidence...its the whole basis of that kind of science. That's why there is darwinism and the theory of evolution...not because it's an all out belief system like religion.
jc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Every belief may not be equal, but the fact is we are the product of everything that came before us.
metaphor time: we are traveling on a very loose raft made of logs, you may want to be careful what logs you untie from under your feet. There is a good chance that one log alone will not support us down our path.
ROG27 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
You know...you are absolutely right...one log will not support us. But we must engage in the art of replacing logs no longer suitable for use (being weathered and broken) with new and improved logs better suited for sailing the seven seas. After all, we are treading deep water here.
Hehe.
Spartacus @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
ROG27:
"You think 6,000 years is a long time for Judeo-christian culture to have existed--for a planet that's existed for billions of years in harmony before the discordance of humanity."
That's assuming the universe has beeen around for billions of years. There is much evidence that contradicts this such as solar neutrino emission, lunar dust levels, slowing spin of the earth, atmospheric carbon 14 levels etc.
Darwin's theory was based on as-yet-discovered evidence. He claimed that his theory WOULD be proven in the future when we had thoroughly examined the fossil record. Well, we have, and there is no supporting evidence for transitional species. Because of this embarrassing fact, a new theory has been introduced called Punctuated Equilibrium- read up on this theory and see how rediculous it is.
As for your views on religion, you are more than welcome to hold them, but don't assume most people would agree with you nor criticize those who do not.
As far as being able to study the past via archaeology and fossils, yes, to some degree. Though dating methods are extremely unprecise and usually very innacurate as well. Dating methods are highly speculative and usually must be "calibrated" using another method or technique- which is usually the geologic column which has many problems and assumptions of its own. Like I said, I cannot give an adequate answer here, for time and space issues, but I would love to hear from you via email.
b @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
I made a study in which I found that religious people are morons, and that therefore they can't be trusted to make studies.
ROG27 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Again, my friend...in this relative comparison of science to religion, I state that science is objective, whereas religion is not. Science may be, in fact, imprecise...but to compare as a viable alternative religion with science is preposterous, as in religion there a complete lack of precision and objectivity...or, you could say, religion is completely devoid of these things. In a relative comparison, science makes some sense (because in science, senses are actually involved) and religion makes no sense...just like the XBOX360 Core Package (accept to the illiterate masses with their heads on backwards, and their priorities not straight, of course).
Love me or hate me...you have to admit I have a point (and a smug face to boot). I will admit possessing knowledge makes one look arrogant, and I don't think I know everything. I am wise enought to know that. I just know that I know nothing. Everyone else admits naught.
Spartacus @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
ROG27:
You're comparing science to religion as in religious belief rather than a theory (Intelligent Design) based on scientific data... ID vs Evolution is science vs science, or faith vs faith- whichever way you'd like to look at it. One is simply based off the assumption that a creator does not exist while the other does. The arguements used for both sides use scientific data.
And while quoting Socrates is noble, if you truly believed you knew nothing then you would be willing to admit the high probability that you are absolutely wrong.
ROG27 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
Haha..."high probability of me being absolutely wrong" in response is a testament to how deeply hurt you are by just a sliver of the truth. It's sad. But someone has to shed light on new ideas sometime. The fact that I'm siding with what is based on what is known in the physical world and you are siding with what you consider might be real in the (a?) metaphysical world tells all. And there is nothing scientific at all about religion. Nothing (period). And if you think siding with science is faith based...to some degree you are correct. It's just less faith based than religion--much less. In fact, religion is based on nothing but ignorance. And maybe you are happier than I because, as they so aptly say, ignorance is bliss. So there, are you happy now?
GMack @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
I would like to thank everyone for a mostly civil and interesting discussion. Spartacus I am afraid that I have to side with ROG27 in that Intelligent Design is not a science back it is ass backwards. It start with a conclusion then attempts to support that conclusion with a myriad of facts. The problem being that the conclusion is not based on the evidence the evidence is based on the conclusion. Still I believe in (notice to word believe) in God and that not everything in the universe is random. Yet, I understand and accept evolution as a fact and a theory which are two separate concepts though related. This has been the most fun I have had reading a gaming blog of an off topic conversation that has not degenerated into a flame war. Thanks and for a different check out this website now try to keep and open mind. Anyone like pasta? ;-)
Spartacus @ Dec 18th 2005 9:07PM
ROG27:
I am neither hurt nor affected by your statements. I did not claim religion was scientifically based, I said Inteligent Design was scientifically based. I am a scientist, I have a logical and critical mind, but I am also a Christian. Being both has never caused me any grief nor cast any doubt on either practice. I'm not sure what chip is on your shoulder regarding religion, but to say that it is based on ignorance is quite frankly the most ignorant statement I've heard in a while. What universal truth do you know that I must have missed in order for me to be "ignorant"? That science has disproven the existence of a god? Far from it,in fact there is much evidence pointing to the contrary. You don't have to agree with it, but the maturity to be able to respect other's beliefs and views isn't too much to ask. In all your rambling of physical and metaphysical jibberish, I have yet to make out a logical arguement that disproves the Christian worldview. I respect your position, though I may not agree with it, all I ask is that you do the same. I only see the irony, not the logic, in you claiming wisdom in that you "know that you know nothing", then ridiculing someone else for being "ignorant".