pseth

Let me just start out by saying that I agree that there is little reason to be concerned about video games and I don't believe they should be banned or restricted. I have conducted research on video games and read the literature - and while I agree that violent games can increase aggression, the aggression tends to be pretty mild and the literature is very sparse to support the idea that violent video games will lead to actual violence rather than just aggression.

But, there are a couple of flaws in your argument as well. First, although there have been some studies showing cognitive benefits of video games, the benefits are very limited. Specifically, the benefits tend to only be found for people with cognitive deficits - mostly the elderly.

Additionally, a game doesn't have to be violent to provide benefits to cognitive skills. Both Tetris and FPS have been shown to increase visuospatial skills. When selecting a game to help someone develop these skills, it's probably best to go with the nonviolent rather than the violent game. Given the potential risk of violent games, it doesn't seem wise to suggest that people engage in them to train their cognitive skills, when there are other ways of doing so. It's like telling someone to drink red wine regularly for the antioxidants - there are plenty of other foods/drinks that can provide antioxidants that don't carry with them the risk of liver disease.

As for the "contagion" issue - Research has shown that children who interact with other deviant children tend to become more deviant themselves. As such there is the risk of contagion. This would require, however, that video games have a stronger effect on aggression than they really do. Additionally, what the author might be talking about (but not clearly elucidating) is the idea that others could be harmed physically by a child made to be violent by playing video games. Again, not the best argument, but not an entirely flawed argument.

As for the parents - yes, parents should be aware. But many of them ignore (or are completely ignorant to) the evidence concerning violent video games and consequently ignore ESRB ratings. There have been several studies showing that the majority of parents don't attend to ESRB ratings, others don't understand them, and still others who don't care, even though they are aware. Of course one can hardly blame video game companies on this one. They shouldn't really be responsible for monitoring other people's children. But perhaps a greater effort on the part of video game companies to raise awareness and encourage parents to follow the guidelines. Additionally, even if the parents are aware, some video games stores will still sell M rated games to minors. And why not, it's a sale for them and if they get caught, there's no risk of punishment. The employee might get fired, but the business will continue.

Finally, I would agree with you that the addictive component of games is of more concern than the violent content. Clearly, video games can be addictive to some individuals and severely interfere with their normal lives. If anything is going to be done concerning video games, helping people with an addiction find treatment is a much better task for the government.

What about Werewolf Barmitzvah? Why isn't that included in the Halloween Track pack?

That article isn't very well written or thought out. For example, when critiquing that Anderson doesn't clearly define aggression, he then cites Anderson's definition of aggression "Social and developmental psychologists typically define ‘aggression’ as behavior that is intended to harm another person who is motivated to avoid that harm. In other words, aggression is an act conducted by 1 person with the intent of hurting another person; it is not an emotion, thought, or intention.”. he then goes on to say that Anderson contradicts the statement that aggression is not an "emotion, thought, or intention" by saying "Existing experimental studies demonstrate that playing a violent video game causes an immediate increase in aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, and aggressive emotions.” All that statement is saying that, in addition to aggressive behavior, it can also influence aggressive thoughts and emotion. Aggressive emotions and thoughts are still NOT being defined as aggression, rather they are separate aspects of human psychological processes that can lead to aggressive behavior. Trust me, there are a lot of better issues to critique Anderson's research on.

And yes, a lot of Anderson's research does show that media leads to aggressive behavior, thoughts and emotions. But that isn't any reason to discount his findings. He's trying to support a theoretical model of aggression. To do that, he needs to examine factors that are leading to aggression.

And he does indeed sometimes find that things do not lead to aggression, they just aren't the main focus of the article, so most people ignore it. For example, in one of his papers, Anderson, Carnagey, and Eubanks (2003), they found that while violent lyrics lead to increases in aggression, violent sounding music (e.g. metal) does not - unless that music also has aggressive lyrics.

Don't discount research solely because of the person who conducted it. Rather, you should read the article and evaluate it's merit.

Actually, I'm a scientist who studies video games, and I'm a gamer. And a lot of my colleagues are gamers as well.

And yes it's a generalization, but it's still information and on average there is a relationship. It won't hold true for everyone, and without reading the study I myself have questions about the directionality of the relationship, but at the very least the results should encourage you to think about your own game playing habits and whether it is having an effect on your cognitive abilities (or other aspects of your behavior). It's very easy to just discount it all as hooey, but perhaps if you looked at your own behavior more actively you might notice that games are having an effect. They might not, but then again, you never know if you never actively look into it.

As for games training our abilities (as some have brought up here and elsewhere) there is very limited evidence that games (including games specifically marketed as "brain training") have any benefits on developing faster reaction time, better mental processes, etc. The effect only seems to occur for people who have deficits in those areas, rather than improving the abilities of average people. So one study found that the elderly, who often show declines in spatial abilities, can improve their spatial abilities by playing tetris. When the average person plays tetris, they get better at tetris, but not much else.

And one thing to keep in mind is that most scientist don't want to ban video games. Most scientist don't want to ban anything. Rather, they want to provide information that the public can use to make decisions about their own behavior. Yes, there are some scientists who have a personal mission, but most don't. I don't. I study video games and swearing, and most of my research shows that they are generally bad for people, but that doesn't lead me to lobby congress to ban people from swearing or playing video games. Rather, I use that information to change my own behavior, and I advise others to do the same. It's more the Jack Thompsons of the world who are trying to restrict your ability to do the things you love than scientists.

Never mind, study 3 of the paper suggests that imagining your boss to be the enemy might not work.

I just looked into it and found a more recent article that I hadn't read that is quite interesting. Apparently, there is a "cathartic" type effect that can reduce aggression. Unfortunately, it still doesn't bode well for video games (or other nonspecific catharsis techniques like hitting a pillow) as a cathartic tool.

Denzler, Forster, & Lieberman (2008) found that fulfilling a goal left unfulfilled by a provoking situation, can lead to a decrease in aggression. But it has to be specific to the unfulfilled goal. So if your boss ticks you off, you have to get catharsis against your boss (on the basis of the study, it seems that imaging getting revenge works just fine). Apparently the goal fulfillment unprimes (reduces the accessibility of) the aggressive thoughts. So video games would only be effective in reducing aggression if they were the cause of the aggression in the first place (e.g. inability to beat a level), and only if you resolved the unfulfilled goal (beating the level).

It might work, however, if you imagine your boss (or whoever provoked you) is the enemy you are killing in the game.

1) My guess is that a Buddhist leader is not going to be playing violent games.

2) The Karmapa is referring to negative feelings, not specifically aggression and

3) Catharsis - as defined in the research referred I'm assuming they are referring to in this article, is the release of aggression through aggressive acts.

In line with points 1, 2 and 3, what the Karmapa is saying is not in direct opposition to the research on this issue. You very easily could get a release of stress by playing a nonviolent video game. You could even get a release of stress by playing a violent game. In fact, research shows that some people do feel better (in terms of having higher positive affect) after engaging in cathartic aggression.

Based on the available evidence, however, you cannot reduce aggression by engaging in aggression. All research the research that I know on the subjects suggests just the opposite happens - acting with cathartic aggression just leads to more aggression. This does not mean it is not possible, there just isn't any evidence that this type of catharsis works.

yes. yes it does

Maturity is like beauty, it's all in the eye of the beholder. I personally still think that games are rather immature. Even those with mature content. Very few of the games that I have played that are considered "mature" could really be considered mature other than their graphic nature. For example, GTA IV is hardly mature. Sure it has mature content, but it's presented in such a way that is very immature. To me, it's a very angst-ridden-teen's representation of the the relationship between good and evil and the anti-hero. But that's just my perspective