Violence and Video Games

Your last sentence stating "There are much more plausible studies done on emotionally disturbed people and their predisposition to commit violent crimes than the ones done on thie subject matter." comes very interesting to me. I completely agree that there are way more studies done to back up this research, and the studies have way more logical sense behind them. It is understandable that people link a connection between violent video games and TV shows having a negative effect on a child's behavior, but it really all depends on the child or individual. The environment the child is surrounded by, their personality and many other aspects have a great deal to do with their response to violent TV shows and video games. A child is going to react to these things in the way they were grew up to react to them. If they grew up being told that violence was bad, then most likely they will not react negatively to them.

I was a little shocked as well by how people that violent games and T.V. was so closely related to children's violence. I also play violent video games, yet I'm extremely non violent and somewhat passive when it comes to conflict in generally. I was also raised in a family where violence is simply not tolerated at all. Which I believe is a big influence on how I act. People need to realize that there is rarely one thing that causes to children to be aggressive, and that perhaps violent media adds to it, but with the studies out now, they simply don't have enough proof to put all the blame on violent games or T.V.

To me this is a case of people believing in "popular" science. When some highly viewed entertainment program or magazine puts out information about violent content and behavior (or any other subject or that matter) it has been known that sometimes the studies they are reviewing haven't been fully explained. Sometimes it's a journalist writing about a scientific study where they don't understand how to generalize the information to the public. And just because part of the findings will make a catchy headline doesnt mean that that certain information should be blown out of proportion. You make a good point that there is some availability heuristic that goes on when the average joe reads an article in a popular media form.

I definitely agree with you on this one. When we watched the video in class about the children's playtime activities after they had watched Power Rangers and Barney. In both cases the children were not heavily supervised afterwards which I think had a huge effect on their behavior. They had absolutely no incentive to not act that way. I think that in a lot of cases the main reason that kids think it's okay to act that way is due to lack of parental supervision in a good majority of their life. While I know it's kind of a broad idea to apply to all violent media I think that it can be one of the many causes of violence.

Why do you think that this correlation exists? Given that there are a lot of variables that go into violence (not just video games) it is possible, but not likely that violence caused by video game playing has actually gone up. There is no way for us to know, but it is an interesting concept. Also, why do you think violence has gone down? I know that you mentioned that graphics are getting better and better, do you think it serves as stress relief to commit gruesome acts, on the screen? Do you think that it replaces our aggression in real life?

To say that no correlation exists is overlooking the mass amounts of violent video games that children play. However, I see a distinction between "influence" and "cause". There is something to be said for the ideas which violent video games instill, and perpetuate in the minds of children. To say that this media intake is the only explanation for violent behavior in young children is an insufficient answer. Violence existed before violent video games. Violence in and of itself can influence children just as much, and/or more than violent video games.

You make a good point. I also do not believe the correlation that watching violent television shows or playing violent video games will make a child become more aggressive. The video clip that we watched in discussion tried to heavily sway the opinion that the violent television show did cause aggression within the children. However, there are many factors as to why this could be proven false. I personally believe that the children were "feeding off" each others actions, therefore, causing more aggression and more children joining in. It became more of a sense of "fitting in" rather than "fighting". If the adult supervisor would have stepped in and told the children that fighting was wrong and that they needed to stop, the actions would have stopped immediately. In general, I feel that violent television shows and video games do not cause aggression. It all depends on how the "adult" handles the situation and teaches their child that it is wrong.

I have a similar view on the topic of violence in video games and violence in real life. Logically it is hard to assume that violent video games and images actually cause children to become more violent. Why? Well, think about it in terms of mumbers. How many people watch or see at least one hour of violent images everyday? 1 billion? 2? 3, maybe? Now think about how many people commit violent crimes every year? Is it really 1, 2, or 3 billion people? Clearly not. Is there a correlation between the two? Yes, of course. People who are pre-disposed to violence are going to be drawn to violent video games and violent images, so my question is are all of these people falling into the correlation vs. causation fallacy?

Agreed, if violent video games really caused people to be more violent there should be many more killers on the loose. Like everybody else here has said people who act on violence in movies and games tend to have a predisposition for violence. I don't even think that violent video games/tv even make people more comfortable with violence for example I have played violent games but I still deplore violence in real life as does our society. I think violent video games as entertainment are a step up from gladiator battles in the Roman times and other gruesome forms of entertainment.

You are making a bold statement. Crime has gone down over the years but there are so many variables that could be effecting that. Your statements make it seem like you are implying that more and more people watch/play violent games but crime has gone down, so that means that violent imagery has caused that. You cannot possibly claim that is true. For me, this will need to be studied more before you can draw conclusions.

Agreed that video games are not the reason for children violence. Most of us probably encounter games that are extrememly violent probably around the age of 11 maybe older. By then our parents tell us that its just a game and we always respond with yes mom I know. In some ways it might help us vent a little of the anger that has been created during the day. This may be a stretch but it would be interesting to see if there is any truth to that. one thing from your blog that I would disagree with is the reason for why crimes have gone down. I dont think video games or television has anything to do with it. Its more along the lines of our increase security. Everything has become 10 times more strict. There are police almost everywhere and people arent willing to pay the consequences for the actions they make.

I mostly agree with your argument. I do not think violent televisions shows, movies, video games, etc. cause violence in children. I think that it certainly could affect the child's ideas of violence, such as how to act violent. However, I don't think you can say violent media causes kids to act violently. There are many other factors that determine this, such as parenting, friends, personality, etc. I think our society always looks for immediate answers, and, therefore, they just jumped to the conclusion that there is a direct correlation.