Slashdot Log In
What Came First, the Violence or the Videogame?
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:59 PM
from the i-think-the-muffins-came-first dept.
from the i-think-the-muffins-came-first dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Another wave of video-game-violence panic is upon us. The pressed suits who read the pop news on television are wagging their so-called neutral fingers at an industry they have never understood. Planet Xbox 360 considers the many games they have played and the real-life murderers they have known in their own lives, and how little the talking heads know about either."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Which came first? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the 60's, they blamed it on the rock 'n' roll.
In the 50's, they blamed it on Elvis' hips.
As far back as history records, there has been violence. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is just grabbing for straws that aren't there.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Back in 1989 another 25-year-old, Marc Lepine, killed 14 people in a similar incident at another Montreal college."
"Charles Whitman killed 16 people and wounded 31 at the University of Texas in 1966"
Since videogames are cheaper than a college education, they are more prevalent. Therefore there seems to be more of a link between college education and violence. Ban all c
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What are these murderers using to kill people: the game consoles themselves, or guns/knives/etc.? Lotsa folks have these weapons in their houses, but manage not to kill people...same goes for games. Frame it in this way, and the NRA is suddenly on your side! In fact....
"Games don't kill people...psychotic sociopaths kill people."
"If games are outlawed, only outlaws will have games."
etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm relatively sure the crusades came before pac-man. . . So my guess is the violence, just a hunch though.
Yeah, they intentionally phrased the question so as to mislead you. The crusades were started by people influenced by the graphically violent board game chess, which has since become a video game. It is games in general that are the root of all violent behavior, not just video games.
Parent
Re:wtf? (Score:4, Interesting)
From the first time I saw the rook piece fuckin' swallow the queen whole in Battle Chess, I knew computers were going someplace.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad BattleChess was about as hard to beat as playing my ten your old nephew...
Kinda off topic (but not really), the eye candy was neat but the challenge wasn't there. I guess games that display violence as being incredibly simple may help the frustrated through the day with a bit of relief but, believe me, the last time I held a loaded AK a little cross hairs didn't appear i
Re:wtf? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
A atock AK trigger has a much heavier pull than a mouse button. With enough practice you get used to it. Or find a good gunsmith.
Re: (Score:2)
Playing chess against the computer isn't so easy when the computer is cheating (and calling you "Dan" in HAL's voice).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it was the other side who played chess. At any rate, I'm sure you two and the "video games are caused by muslims" guy can have a fruitful discussion on your various points...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it was the other side who played chess.
Amusingly, modern historians have pretty well established that chess reached Europe in the 700's and became popular in many parts of Europe by the turn of the millennium, a few generations before the first crusade. Coincidence or Causation?
Chess ruined me (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Chess ruined me (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Wii brings in a new angle (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Mortal Combat Zero: Kane vs. Abel (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm mistaken but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Violence is a part of human nature. The only reasons you hear so much about the kids who kill other kids is a) the news media is pretty much 24/7 and spends a lot of that time twiddling its thumbs, and so it jumps on a story like Columbine; and b) because there are MORE OF US so it's more likely to happen.
It's not the fault of the video games. It's the fault of negligent parents and a society that doesn't seem to take any interest in disciplining children anymore.
Re:Correct me if I'm mistaken but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ummm... when did parents ever take any interest in disciplining children? Parents have never known "the right way" of raising kids for them not to be violent sociopaths, and that's why there have been 20 year old violent sociopaths throughout history. In the past, it was just considered good parenting to discipline your kids by hitting them when they display bad or violent tendencies.
Parent
Oh man, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh man, (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oblig Simpsons: (Score:5, Funny)
Kent: I see. Fascinating.
Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance. Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went on for thirty years.
Kent: And this was before cartoons were invented?
Meyers: That's right, Kent.
Mirror Neurons (Score:2)
Mirror neurons are noticeably absent from the debate.
Have a look at an essay by V S Ramachandran [edge.org] a leading neuroscientist.
The mirror neuron, scientists tell us, takes things that we see others do and makes us feel like we're doing it ourselves. It's why we like watching things like TV and dancing. It's how we learn to imitate.
15 years ago, were graphics real enough to trigger a mirror neuron response in a human? Possibly -- I don't know. However, as we approach photorealism, isn't it time we studied t
Re:Mirror Neurons (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if studies consistently showed a mirror neuron response while playing shooters, would we not be obliged to take violent games off the shelf...?
No, we wouldn't. It undermines several principals of our government. The first is liberty. You might note boxing is not illegal. Watching boxing is a lot more likely to stimulate that part of the brain than video games are. Participating in boxing has been statistically shown to correlate with violent crime and sexual assault. It doesn't matter. We have free will and are responsible for what we do. Does red meat increase testosterone and increase the likelihood of violence? If so should we ban it? Meat in general? All sports? Walking into high oxygen areas in lower altitudes? Not taking hormone suppressants and sedatives to keep us passive and nonviolent?
It is not the government's job to take measures to force individuals to not take any action that might increase their chances of commiting crimes by running their lives for them. Arguably it is the job of parents to do that for their children, but never the government.
It's called personal responsibility.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mirror Neurons (Score:5, Interesting)
Should it be legal to drive a tank? After all, it is the pesronal responsibility of the person driving the tank to not..you know.. kill everyone. Yet we restrict access to tanks, because letting an individual own a tank is just not in the publics best interest.
There is a guy here in town that owns a tank. He needs permission to take it on public roads, because of the potential damage to public property, but her does own one and drive it on his own land.
We let government regulate someones actions for the greater good. Freedom certainly has limits, and it is up to the government to set those limits.
Actually, we theoretically allow the government to arbitrate certain freedoms and situations where one person's freedoms come in conflict with others. For example, your freedom to fire a cannon, is restricted by the damage it causes to the property of physical persons of others. So long as you're firing it on private property and not damaging anything belonging to another, or hurting anyone the government has no legal or ethical right to restrict you. Realistically, the government has become corrupt and exceeded their authority by claiming additional power for a few individuals who would be our rulers.
The problem is determining what is truly in the best interest of a society is REALLY hard.
No it isn't. The US was founded on the principal that consolidated decision making is dangerous, because overriding the decisions of individuals easily leads to abuse and power corrupts. Thus, the government must demonstrate not only a majority opinion, but an overriding public interest in some action that does not conflict with a predefined set of rights and which is within certain areas the government is allowed to regulate. Take the issue of video games. Will playing a video game result in a person becoming a murderer? Can you prove that with reasonable scientific certainty? If so then, with two thirds or representatives voting you can overturn the freedom of speech that allows people to distribute said video game. Otherwise, the government has no business and the choice should be left to the individual (or individual's parents) to decide.
Those are the types of questions we face, and we (as a world community) will be struggling with them for as long as we exist.
Certainly individuals should be considering these issues, but until there is a real, provable consensus and a clear mandate from the people, governments should not.
Parent
wait wait wait hold on there back up (Score:5, Funny)
I thought it was a "genre".
Wow.
See: Dave Grossman / On Killing (Score:5, Interesting)
The general idea is that a human ape actually is more or less genetically programmed not to kill its species. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger sounds easy enough, but most untrained ppl will miss at point-blank range or will just be unable to shoot at another person. The "fix" the armies came up w/was programming shooting at ppl-shaped targets. It's like in boxing, one does eventually get the punches and the slips programmed into the brain, and will react w/o a second thought. So, what one does to train soldiers to shoot at human shaped figures is to make them do that. Repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at a human-shaped silhoutte, and you end up w/soldiers that are programmed/conditioned to shoot at human-shaped figures in the battle-field. This works very, very well.
However, as it is psyhologically very damaging to kill one's own species, this type of training makes the psychological costs of going to war even more severe. The ppl who would normally be unable to kill will kill out of conditioned reactions and will many tymes be emotionally crippled for life for the things they have done.
Now what does this have to do w/FPS ? Well, you repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at human-shaped figures. You get the conditioning that is used for soldiers. Now I am not saying that this will make you necessarily more violent, but this will for sure make a person having done this much more efficient in killing others if this person happens to lose it and go on a rampage.
So, the truth of the matter to me appears to be that the games actually do help in making a shooting a lot more lethal in ways of enabling the shooter to actually shoot at ppl proper and keep on hitting the target w/ease because of having conditioned the appropriate responses out of hir system.
Make of it what you will, this is what some of the experts say.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read On Killing, and I find most of his data to be quite fascinating, but the conclusions, I take exception to.
Putting a man in a fox hole, handing him a rifle, and yelling at him to shoot while man-shaped popups will train him to shoot and kill, yes.
Putting him in front of a computer, and putting a mouse in his hand? Well, if that worked, the army would be doing it, don't you think? Probably alot cheaper to train that way than the old fashinoned way....
Oh, and Grossman also points out, as I re
Re:See: Dave Grossman / On Killing (Score:5, Informative)
The military in the United States uses first person shooters to teach small unit tactics, leadership, and teamwork skills. The goal is for the team to assess the situation, make the right tactical decisions, and then execute the plan in a coordinated fashion. The part where they shoot people is incidental to the purpose of the training.
Parent
Re:See: Dave Grossman / On Killing (Score:5, Interesting)
While I do somewhat sympathize w/the writer of the text, I think it's important to point out that some soldiers and security experts actually do think that playing FPS - type games does do one thing for you, which is called `operant conditioning'. That is the exact method that the armies have used to get the soldier to shoot at each other.
Okay, I think you're a little confused. Video games are effective means to operant conditioning. They do not, however, condition people to kill. Conditioning is reflexive reaction and unless you're playing the video game with a gun, it is not going to make you more willing to kill. The army and police forces do use FPS game sin training, but mostly to develop teamwork and tactics (and because it is fun). The army does use psychology to make people more willing to kill others, but this is not operant conditioning. They do this by breaking down a person's emotional base and self confidence. In this way they overcome personal beliefs that killing is wrong and individual decision making is important and instead teach soldiers to believe obeying orders is more important and killing is not even considered in terms of right and wrong for the most part.
The general idea is that a human ape actually is more or less genetically programmed not to kill its species.
This also, is misguided. Man has been killing man for a long time and our "genetic programming" is made up of three, very recognizable parts. The first part is pain/pleasure/instinct/hardwired reactions. The second is emotional responses. The third is rational thought. A blend of these three parts results in our actions. The emotion called anger is the genetic program to destroy a threat and is usually why we kill. Anger can be invoked by fear and they are closely related. In a given situation we might be pumped full of adrenaline by a fight or flight reaction and then kill something that threatens us. Military training is designed to make this behavior controlled and predictably directed.
So, what one does to train soldiers to shoot at human shaped figures is to make them do that. Repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at a human-shaped silhoutte, and you end up w/soldiers that are programmed/conditioned to shoot at human-shaped figures in the battle-field. This works very, very well.
Sort of. The thing is, there are lots of human shaped targets on a battlefield. They need to be trained to shoot the right ones at the right time. Have you seen the pop-up man targets? They spring up suddenly and they all used to have red stars on their helmets.
Now what does this have to do w/FPS ? Well, you repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at human-shaped figures.
Here's where we disagree. You don't want people conditioned to make a mouse clicking gesture when someone pops up in front of them. You want them to aim their rifle. The FPS programs are used more to train higher functions and learn tactics and teamwork. Not to condition a response to sit perfectly still except for twitching your mouse hand.
Games certainly can be useful, but they don't make you a better shot and are not a primary method for overcoming the aversion to killing. I suspect most "experts" who claim otherwise don't really know what they are talking about.
Parent
Duh (Score:2)
Answer: Violence Came First (Score:5, Interesting)
As a sporadic member of the video game industry, the issue of violence-in-video-games is not at all new or novel to us. Nor have we been deliberately ignoring it. Far from it. Game authors have been considering the issue for about as long as video games have existed.
In 1977, a man named Steve Dompier wrote a game for the Sol-20 Terminal Computer [thebattles.net] called TARGET. Ships flew across the screen, and it was your job to shoot them down. I'd like to share with you a thought from the game's author, printed in the manual [thebattles.net]. It seems that video game violence was on his mind as well:
The above quote serves as evidence that video game authors have been thinking about violence in games for thirty years, if not longer. So if you think some zeitgeist-chasing politician or religious extremist who just started shrieking about the issue last week has any deeper insights than we do... Well, then you may be interested in this bridge I have for sale.
Schwab
P.S: If you're interested in finding out what was so horrific about TARGET, download the Sol-20 emulator [thebattles.net] and try it yourself:
EX 0
and press Enter. You must enter the command in upper case.
Two words... (Score:2)
Two words - "Space War".
The very first video game (yes, a full decade before "Pong") had, as its theme, a scifi twist on mankind's second oldest form of recreation - Killing one another for fun and profit, framed as a team sport.
Of course, once upon a time that served a purpose, since our oldest form of recreation tended to lead to overpopulation before the availability of effective birth control methods, but some of the more foolish packs of domesticate
sheltered (Score:2, Interesting)
the sad thing is, that some people get so wrapped up in the game that they cant seperate themselves from it. there was one guy in the local news who was playing a game while looking after his baby daughter. he ended up getting so annoyed with his daughter for disrupting his gaming that he put a pillow over her head and killed her. i unde
Shouldnt the question be... (Score:2)
There are no studies I am aware of which demonstrate a marked increase in violence due to any particular stimuli. I'm sure the Army has them though to refine their trai
Aggressive society (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, let's, for a moment, forget about extreme violent crime in today's world: war, murder, rape, etc. and step back and look at more pallatable problems: the aggression of youth in schools to each other. Now, I'm not talking about the rare cases like Columbine, but your everyday shoving, name calling, and overall, aggressive behavior. There is an extreme increase in the aggression in school kids today, but I'm not sure whether or not it's being fed by games, or whether the games are simply catering to the rising levels of aggression. I'm going to take a leap here and suggest that 20 years ago, in the days of Super Mario Bros., GTAIII would have bored the shit out of most kids. "Why do I have to go around beating people up? What's the point here?" I'm not saying that it wouldn't appeal to anyone, but the threshold of kids that would be fascinated by this kind of activity would have been a lot lower.
But America has changed a lot in the past decade, you can blame the terrorists, you can blame Bush, you can blame videogames, but whatever, the results are pretty damn clear: we're becoming a more and more aggressive culture day by day. The acceptability of actions that would have, just years ago been considered socially taboo, are now encouraged by our peers, our parents, our leaders, and everyone else.
Video games isn't a large problem in the grand scheme of things. It's no more a cause of violence than the movies kids watch every day, and it CERTAINLY doesn't encourage aggressive behavior any more than watching our leaders point to groups of people and encourage their slaughter. Let's face it, an SUV says, "I'm bigger than you, and I'll fuck you up", yeah yeah, I hear all the "but I want to protect my family" bullshit, but the statistics aren't there to back it up. Our culture is becoming mean. A society where you are either a bully, or you're going to get bullied.
Entertainment is a reflection of culture, and in turn, ligitimize and spread the ideals of that culture, making it it more potent. Do videogames promote violence, then? Sure, but really it's US that are promoting the violence. Game companies have no particular reason to promote violence unless it's what the people want.
I'm sorry, but you're totally wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Second point: Have you read much (non fiction) about life 50 years ago? Kids then were just as bad as they are now- probably worse, because you would get beat up more often. And heaven help you if you were black, Jewish, Italian, etc.
Third point: You are complaining that kids are ruder today than they were- and I'll agree with this. Americans have definitely gotten ruder as a society. However, I also think that we are much less toleran
Quick question. (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess statistics are a bit hard to come by on that one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And I laughed quite a bit, so take a bow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the whole point of tfa is exactly what i've been saying for years: violent kids are going to play violent games. They're going to watch violent movies and listen to violent music and probably hang out with violent friends. They're making such choices because they appeal to them.