Follow Topics

9 January 2013, 6.23am EST

Violent videogames should worry us (but shouldn’t be banned)

The Connecticut town of Southington last week introduced a videogames return program, offering a $25 gift card to parents who wanted to rid their households of violent titles. The program comes in the wake of the December 14 shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown – roughly 50km south…

Rn3t3k4z-1357605715 — In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, we need to more concerned than ever about the effects of violent videogames. JBLivin/Flickr

The Connecticut town of Southington last week introduced a videogames return program, offering a $25 gift card to parents who wanted to rid their households of violent titles.

The program comes in the wake of the December 14 shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown – roughly 50km south west of Southington – which claimed the lives of 20 children and six staff members.

The main aim of the “buy-back” initiative is to create a forum where the media’s role in cultures of violence can be discussed. It is not an attempt to demonise games or the people who play them.

School officials recognise violence as a complicated social problem. They are aware that the media violence debate is but a strand of a much bigger conversation on the causes of the real thing.

The Southington buy-back scheme demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the lessons of research on the effects of playing violent videogames. It finds unlikely allies within the games community, as gamers have stepped forward to consider what a love of violent videogames really means, after Newtown.

In this sense, while elements of the National Rifle Association (NRA) seek to divert attention from the role that gun ownership plays in mass murder, gamers appear more willing to grasp the JFK nettle, asking what they can do for their country.

Right after the Sandy Hook massacre, the NRA pointed an accusing finger at the videogames industry. Their position has attracted congressional support. One reaction to these developments has been to argue that studies on the effects of videogame violence on gamers are inconclusive.

They are not.

In 2010, the noted effects researcher Craig Anderson was lead author of a survey which carefully analysed the results of 130 studies on videogame violence. Anderson’s findings were quite clear.

There is reliable evidence that a long-term diet of violent game playing leads to an increase in real-life aggression. The size of the effects noted in these studies were small, but statistically and socially significant.

In other words, gaming violence isn’t the major cause of real-world violence, but it probably is enough of a catalyst to warrant concern. All the more so because while many things can provoke aggression – for instance, non-violent games can do the same thing if they are frustratingly difficult to play – violent videogames are designed to spark aggressive responses.

At the same time, Anderson and colleagues cautioned that the policy implications of these findings are unclear.

First, where the research addresses aggression, social anxieties are focused on physical violence. In this way, most of what we know about (aggression) doesn’t directly address that which worries us most (physical violence).

Second, it may also be that videogame violence also has a range of positive effects. The problem, in this regard, is that there is a bias in effects studies toward looking for the damage games can cause among some groups.

In either case, the confident conclusion that videogame violence is bad for a significant number of people does not imply prohibition. Instead, Anderson argues that videogame violence is an environmental risk that has to be managed.

The problem, then, is that the research on videogame violence does not lend itself to quick and easy, crowd-pleasing policy action. In the resultant political vacuum, it’s been interesting to see gaming insiders step up to reflect on their role in glamorising guns.

Games reviewers have challenged the industry and its consumers to take action. The games industry has been accused of playing into the hands of the NRA, by becoming over-reliant on violence as a quick and easy narrative device.

This laziness has been criticised as an abrogation of creative responsibility; a failure of games and gaming as a form of creative expression.

Perhaps the most chilling exemplar here has been the collusion between the games and gun industries, where the former has become a product placement vehicle for the latter.

Approaching gaming as an art form, games reviewers have called for the industry to take more responsibility in making the genre about expression, rather than commerce.

This mirrors the argument put forward by MIT media scholar Henry Jenkins, in the wake of the 1999 Columbine Massacre which claimed 13 lives. There, too, first-person shooter games were identified as catalysts for mass murder.

Jenkins argued against banning games, but acknowledged there were reasons to worry about the prevalence of violence in them. The trouble with most gaming violence, for Jenkins, was that it was boring.

Gamers were offered the same scenarios and options time and time again, which meant that the genre rarely fulfilled its unique capacity to make users reflect on the morality of the choices they made.

Jenkins argued that videogames could spark a productive conversation about the motivations toward violence, and the fact that they rarely did was cause for concern indeed.

This is why the positions being taken by the Southington school system and the gaming community are so smart. Reviewers who are, in the end, part of a promotional machine that popularises the gaming industry, are exploring how they can become part of the solution by embracing a position as part of the problem.

By doing so, they enable a dialogue with people who are quite legitimately concerned about violent videogames – including parents and teachers in Southington.

Together, these groups have set a leadership standard for a debate on media and violence that might actually achieve something.

Articles also by This Author

23 May 2013 A global abomination: Woolwich and the politics of violent images

15 April 2013 Will history remember the ‘Ding-Dong!’ over Margaret Thatcher?

6 April 2013 Soccer and homophobia: why even homophobes are sick of it

3 April 2013 Fascism and racism: does it really matter what Sunderland’s Paolo Di Canio thinks?

18 December 2012 From copy cats to child witnesses – the ethics of reporting school shootings

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

154 Comments sorted by

Mike Pottenger

Lecturer, Statistics & Political Economy at University of Melbourne

As an aside, and at the risk of sounding pedantic, using an image from Spec Ops: The Line doesn't necessarily strengthen your case - this game is quite self-reflexive and critical about violence and war, and deliberately presents players with some sobering scenarios that made it uncomfortable to play. That screenshot is of one of those very scenes. The game is more Platoon or Apocalypse Now than Rambo or Commando. That said, I haven't had a chance to read the meta-study yet, so it may be that the effects described were observed regardless of whether or not the violence was presented in a glorified and/or uncritical manner (though I would imagine such distinctions would be difficult to make in such a study).

5 months ago report
1. Andy Ruddock
  
  Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University
  
  In reply to Mike Pottenger
  
  Funnily enough that game did come up in the editing of this article.
  
  A few points. I think Henry Jenkins and the reviewers I have mentioned in this article would make the point that one game doesn't change general trends in the industry as a whole. Perhaps the fact that this game is such a different, uncomfortable experience simply draws attention to how infrequent these sorts of games, which indeed exploit the full potential of the genre, truly are.
  
  In some ways, that's not the point here. I think it's really interesting that many who do love gaming, and would no doubt pull all kinds of holes in Anderson's research, are nevertheless making the case that the games industry does need to do more to reflect on how it uses violence. Although this is a familiar debate, for me, this has taken it in a new direction.
  
  5 months ago report
2. Mike Pottenger
  
  Lecturer, Statistics & Political Economy at University of Melbourne
  
  In reply to Mike Pottenger
  
  "...one game doesn't change general trends in the industry as a whole"
  
  Sure - there's no point trying to focus on an outlier to disprove a case!
  
  Will have to read over the study at some today. Interested to see (a) what they used as a compatible measure of aggression between studies, (b) what sort of modelling they used, and (c) whether the effects found were practically as well as statistically significant.
  
  5 months ago report
3. Matt de Neef
  
  Editor at The Conversation
  
  In reply to Mike Pottenger
  
  Hi Mike, the use of that image was my suggestion. And as Andy has mentioned, we also discussed adding a section about The Line to the piece - again, my suggestion.
  
  I think the use of the image from Spec Ops fits well with the headline and the tone of the piece - i.e. we should be concerned about violence, as Walker appears to be in that shot.
  
  5 months ago report
4. Mike Pottenger
  
  Lecturer, Statistics & Political Economy at University of Melbourne
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  Gotcha - as noted, it was more of an aside than a direct criticism.
  
  Some recognition of The Line, or The Walking Dead, or even something like Hotline Miami in terms of the way these games involve but also confront players with quite extreme violence would have been interesting.
  
  4 months ago report
5. Andy Ruddock
  
  Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University
  
  In reply to Mike Pottenger
  
  That's true, Mike.
  
  The thing is, you get 800 words for these things. Matt did suggest that angle, and I tried to imply your position by indicating that gamers are taking the industry to task for certain things that they find troubling-like gun placement in games-this based on their understanding that there is 'good' violence that does exactly as you describe. And in this sense, the gamers are doing just what Jenkins predicted they would do back in 2006.
  
  4 months ago report
Peter Miller

Digital Artist/Sound Designer/Composer at Scribbletronics

Y'know, everytime I read an article like this I remember the exact same kinds of things being written when I was a teenager. In those days, there was no such thing as 'video games' (or even 'video' or computers) - the bête noire was the game that my friends and I played with paper and pencils and little metal figures and polyhedral dice - Dungeons and Dragons. D&D, the psychologists told us, was turning the young folk into suicidally motivated homicidal psychopaths. We thought the psychologists were…
Read more

Y'know, everytime I read an article like this I remember the exact same kinds of things being written when I was a teenager. In those days, there was no such thing as 'video games' (or even 'video' or computers) - the bête noire was the game that my friends and I played with paper and pencils and little metal figures and polyhedral dice - Dungeons and Dragons. D&D, the psychologists told us, was turning the young folk into suicidally motivated homicidal psychopaths. We thought the psychologists were just plain bonkers.

Of course, whenever it turned out that some poor dysfunctional kid - seeking any kind of escape he could from a shitty world - had some tenuous link to D&D, then that was 'proof' that these games were implicated in his ultimate anti-social behaviour, and it was trumpeted all over the media. I'm sure you could find dozens of useless studies done on the phenomenon at the time, too.

When I read things like "The size of the effects noted in these studies were small, but statistically and socially significant" all I hear is alarm bells. Small effects? In a metastudy? With an already-assumed agenda? How many things got under the wire there? (For instance, how was the violent behaviour determined to be the *result* of the games, and separated from the social circumstances of the person playing them? How could you even *do* that?)

I'm sorry, but I think this kind of assessment is about as valuable as asserting that kids with brooms and wooden spoons playing cowboys and Indians is a cause of violent behaviour.

The fact is, lots of sane, normal, nice people play fantasy games. They live nice, normal, functional lives and even have friends. Another fact is that some damaged individuals get immersed in these games too, and sometimes those individuals go out and do antisocial and horrific things. But correlation does not equal causation. Saying that these games are "the catalysts for mass murder" sounds to my ears risible and banal, because I heard the very same kinds of words being said about a game I played with trolls and elves and swords and spells.

Blaming games for the problems we face with antisocial and violent behaviour is just convenient. The real reasons are deeper, darker, complicated and ugly.

Even if we accept that the metastudy that shows a *small* effect from games is valid, that begs the question: what's the large effect that we *should* be addressing?

5 months ago report
1. Mike Pottenger
  
  Lecturer, Statistics & Political Economy at University of Melbourne
  
  In reply to Peter Miller
  
  "The size of the effects noted in these studies were small, but statistically and socially significant"
  
  I'm not familiar with the definition of 'socially significant', either. Now I really will have to sit down and read through this thing.
  
  5 months ago report
2. Daniel Teghe
  
  Sociologist
  
  In reply to Peter Miller
  
  Video games are part of broader media context. Players are enculturated into certain games (first-shooters, mainly) by a diet of junk movies, survivalist fiction, peer pressure, apocalyptic narratives, and glorification of 'heroic' militarism. There could well be some link between cultural drivers and deranged, if not dangerous, individual behaviour. Yet this link needs to be more convincingly established, and leaving out the sociocultural context which as a whole influences individual actors is…
  Read more
  
  Video games are part of broader media context. Players are enculturated into certain games (first-shooters, mainly) by a diet of junk movies, survivalist fiction, peer pressure, apocalyptic narratives, and glorification of 'heroic' militarism. There could well be some link between cultural drivers and deranged, if not dangerous, individual behaviour. Yet this link needs to be more convincingly established, and leaving out the sociocultural context which as a whole influences individual actors is not going to provide many insights.
  Meanwhile, the gaming industry continues to contribute education and entertainment which far surpasses anything we had before. I tend to agree with you, Peter. I am probably even older than you, because I still remember the arrival of TV and how it was predicated to corrupt every young person who watched it too much, not to mention all the other evils which I am still waiting to befall me. And now, I rather enjoy my World of Warcraft, it is simply a fantastic way to relax and make friends all over the world. It is just beyond anything I imagined when, as a kid, I was reading Jules Verne.
  Anyway, here are some highly recommended TED clips:
  http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_the_game_that_can_give_you_10_extra_years_of_life.html
  http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_better_world.html
  http://www.ted.com/talks/daphne_bavelier_your_brain_on_video_games.html
  
  5 months ago report
3. Andy Ruddock
  
  Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University
  
  In reply to Daniel Teghe
  
  Daniel, there is nothing in my article which argues that videogames are independently responsible for any sort of social effect, and I explicitly draw attention to the recognition of positive effects, one of which is that gamers are leading a discussion on the causes of violence. There is nothing in this article which is anti-gamer.
  
  This is *precisely* the sort of thinking I'm seeking to avoid. A close examination of Anderson's work shows that effects researchers *agree* that media influence…
  Read more
  
  Daniel, there is nothing in my article which argues that videogames are independently responsible for any sort of social effect, and I explicitly draw attention to the recognition of positive effects, one of which is that gamers are leading a discussion on the causes of violence. There is nothing in this article which is anti-gamer.
  
  This is *precisely* the sort of thinking I'm seeking to avoid. A close examination of Anderson's work shows that effects researchers *agree* that media influence, when it happens, if it happens, does so in conjunction with other social factors. I've written more extensively on this in all of my books.
  
  The problem, as I see it, is that the work of people like Anderson, who's a sort of latter day Albert Bandura, is largely misunderstood. He, alongside many other effects researchers since the Payne Fund Studies of the 1930s, have spent most of their time explaining why media DON'T have direct effects on their audiences.
  
  Given this, there is more to be gained by thinking about what effects researchers share with qualitative researchers, because we do this, we see that the driving research question is how media become involved in the social framing of violence, sex or whatever, and how their influence varies according to the milieu of the user.
  
  In short, effects research does not leave out the social context of the user. It just doesn't. And effects researchers agree that media have many positive effects. Bandura said that, Anderson said that.
  
  5 months ago report
4. Daniel Teghe
  
  Sociologist
  
  In reply to Andy Ruddock
  
  Andy, I don't think I said anything in my posting about your article being anti-gamers. Indeed, you explicitly make the point about it not being so in a few places. However, your article implicitly discusses the moral panic derived from the effects of violence in the media, including games, even if you might not realise that that's what you're actually writing about. My original point-in-response was that video games, including violent ones, reflect broader cultural contexts. I understand the work…
  Read more
  
  Andy, I don't think I said anything in my posting about your article being anti-gamers. Indeed, you explicitly make the point about it not being so in a few places. However, your article implicitly discusses the moral panic derived from the effects of violence in the media, including games, even if you might not realise that that's what you're actually writing about. My original point-in-response was that video games, including violent ones, reflect broader cultural contexts. I understand the work of cognitive psychologists, such as that of Anderson et al, to which you refer. It is very valuable as far as psychological research goes. You are demonstrably wrong to state that Anderson doesn't say media has no direct effects on audiences (even if couched as "risk factors"). Here's what Anderson et al say (quoted from the article you linked to):
  "Concerning public policy, we believe that debates can and should finally move beyond the simple question of whether violent video game play is a causal risk factor for aggressive behavior; the scientific literature has effectively and clearly shown the answer to be “yes.” "
  However, as I said, the research Anderson et al undertake is behavioural, not social research (they measure: Aggressive behavior, Aggressive cognition, Aggressive affect, Prosocial behavior, Empathy/desensitization, Physiological arousal). I think your article misses this point, and furthermore makes sociological statements based on results generated by cognitive science. This is immediately apparent in the (involuntary?) link made with gun politics in the US, and the latest school massacre there. It would be useful to instead draw on social research (sociology, cultural anthropology, history) if the aim is to provide a social analysis. This would do away with the risk of confusing behavioural effects with sociological ones. Your topic is more about what sociologists refer to as the manufacture of moral panics, except you draw on behavioural rather than sociological research to discuss it. A little like asking a plumber to explain your house's electrical wiring.
  Here is a nice little explanation of the errors inherent in behavioural explanations (including Anderson et al's) of sociological phenomena: http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/schools/eindhoven_university_of_technology.pdf Reference and abstract here: http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=18288
  Also, see this sociological critique of the general topic you're concerned with: article: http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=18288 and this http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2010/03/research-methods-statistics-and-video-games.html (which includes reasons why we should mistrust meta analyses).
  
  5 months ago report
5. Andy Ruddock
  
  Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University
  
  In reply to Daniel Teghe
  
  Daniel, you miss the fact that Anderson identifies video game violence as a risk factor, alongside other environmental factors, where those risks are only actualised when combined with other risk factors. So the effects aren't direct, and that isn't what the quote you cite claims.
  
  Behavioral researchers do engage with sociological contexts. George Comstock being a case in point.
  
  5 months ago report
6. Daniel Teghe
  
  Sociologist
  
  In reply to Andy Ruddock
  
  Andy, I know how to read literature of this kind. Anderson et al conclude that "exposure to violent video games is a CAUSAL risk factor for ..." [my emphasis]. In other words, they say research shows that violent gaming content can cause aggressive behaviour in individuals (you are consistently leaving out the concept "causal"). I am at pains to see other interpretations for this stark statement. The 'variables' which they consider are (6) methodological conditions. Then they briefly consider cultural…
  Read more
  
  Andy, I know how to read literature of this kind. Anderson et al conclude that "exposure to violent video games is a CAUSAL risk factor for ..." [my emphasis]. In other words, they say research shows that violent gaming content can cause aggressive behaviour in individuals (you are consistently leaving out the concept "causal"). I am at pains to see other interpretations for this stark statement. The 'variables' which they consider are (6) methodological conditions. Then they briefly consider cultural uses of media, comparing Japanese & South Korean kids with British, German and American kids in how they use media, concluding that "...most basic emotion and behavior processes are universal". In this they do not take a sociological perspective on culture, but a methodological one: "The effect of culture (Eastern vs. Western) was not significant in any of the research designs".
  Engaging with sociological contexts is not the same as doing sociological research. Leaving aside the semantics, sociological research is concerned with social/normative structures as they shape patterns of behaviour for social actors, and where social actors shape and adapt these structures. E.g., the family, education, gender, class, and so on. It seems you don't wish to take on board constructive comments, and that's unfortunate.
  
  5 months ago report
7. Andy Ruddock
  
  Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University
  
  In reply to Daniel Teghe
  
  On the contrary. I'm saying there are ways of combining insights from effects research with the sociological perspectives you mention. The combination of causal with risk factor is important.
  
  5 months ago report
8. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Daniel Teghe
  
  To be honest I suspect that any examination of "causaliy" that does not confront the glaring cultural specificity of this phenomenon.
  
  We do not see kiddies with Kalashnikovs in Mumbai taking out mum and her school. Or picture theatres. Or shopping centres. More schools... With the madness of Breivik there is an "outlier" - but, fundamentally this is an American problem. 27 random massacres since 1983 from memory. Gotta be more than 4 full DOAs to get on the list.
  
  It is not so much whether video games kill people. I think no more than violent and angry TV, music videos, movies and the whole package. It's as if Bruce Willis had taken over the school curriculum.
  
  You need fertile soil to plant a seed like this I reckon.
  
  5 months ago report
9. Daniel Teghe
  
  Sociologist
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter, I am not so sure that deranged behaviour of the sort you mention is entirely an American problem.
  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/man-arrested-over-school-machete-attack-1328052.html
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/14/chinese-children-knife-primary-school
  List of school shootings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
  
  5 months ago report
David Doe

Videogame Producer

Is that the same Craig Anderson that measured aggression as "punishing" an opponent by blasting them with a loud noise?

And the same Brad Bushman that compared playing games to smoking cigarettes?

It is? Oh good, more exposure for their roundly ridiculed study. In this episode of duelling psychologists, Anderson and Bushman have already been roundly defeated.

Many courts have already decided that "we note that other courts have either rejected Dr. Anderson’s research or found it insufficient…
Read more

Is that the same Craig Anderson that measured aggression as "punishing" an opponent by blasting them with a loud noise?

And the same Brad Bushman that compared playing games to smoking cigarettes?

It is? Oh good, more exposure for their roundly ridiculed study. In this episode of duelling psychologists, Anderson and Bushman have already been roundly defeated.

Many courts have already decided that "we note that other courts have either rejected Dr. Anderson’s research or found it insufficient to establish a causal link between violence in video games and psychological harm."

But I understand that whenever the topic of videogame violence comes up, this study will be cited, however often it is shown to be full of poor methodology and false assumptions.

Suggested reading :

"Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Video Games and What Parents Can do," Harvard Medical School psychology professors Lawrence Kutner, PH.D., and Cheryl K. Olson.

"The Public Health Risks of Media Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review," Drs. Christopher J. Ferguson and John Kilburn of Texas A&M University’s Department of Behavioral, Applied Sciences and Criminal Justice - Incidentally, which found that there was no support “for either a causal or correlational link between violent media and subsequent aggression in viewers. Why the belief of media violence effects persists despite inherent weaknesses of research is somewhat of an open question."

And coming back to the article above, only in America could the gun lobby paint videogames as the real reason for the shooting, not the lack of easy access to mental health facilities, or the over-abundance of military grade rifles in civilian hands. Even then, this ignores that most firearm related deaths in the US are by handguns, not assault weapons.

There are no easy solutions, but the videogame buyback appears ludicrous. Instead of actually having a substantive discussion about the causes of the Newtown shooting and coming to reasoned conclusions, it appears to be a kneejerk "blame something else" response that will allay some, but ultimately help none.

5 months ago report
Michael Shand

Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.

Software Tester

The Author here is full of it, If you want to talk about rela studies into violence in society and our environment take a look at the effects of Lead Exposure or Superstitious beliefs that teach children to externalise blame and to judge things as plain right or wrong.

You know they have violent video games and movies in japan?...they also have them here in Australia?

Why are we not overwhelmingly violent?

You have failed to establish any causation nor did you show that you had a strong correlation in this study, all and all, the Author is only expressing his own private prejudice and written a fluff piece

I am disappointed

5 months ago report
Peter Ormonde

Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

Farmer

Excellent and considered piece.

It's chicken and egg stuff a bit isn't it - this vicious circle of violence and guns in everyday life - from schools to post offices, the street and the bedroom.

Correlation between the lonely isolated perpetrators of mass murder and obsessive playing of violent videos is well established. Seems they all do it. Causality on the other hand is difficult and disputed.

But connected they are.

And I would urge those involved in the industry not to react defensively to these criticisms (no crouching and shooting from cover) but to seriously consider the evidence of these studies and seek to apply the best science and psychology in designing their gadgets. Too important to play hunches this.

5 months ago report
1. Stephen Pritchard
  
  Researcher, cognitive science
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  "Correlation between the lonely isolated perpetrators of mass murder and obsessive playing of violent videos is well established. Seems they all do it."
  
  Actually, I would think that a very large majority of young males would play violent video games, not just the ones who commit mass murder.
  
  ""Too important to play hunches"
  Indeed.
  
  Reports are that Adam Lanza played games like Starcraft and Warcraft, which, are strategy and role playing games. While they contain violence, are a long way…
  Read more
  
  "Correlation between the lonely isolated perpetrators of mass murder and obsessive playing of violent videos is well established. Seems they all do it."
  
  Actually, I would think that a very large majority of young males would play violent video games, not just the ones who commit mass murder.
  
  ""Too important to play hunches"
  Indeed.
  
  Reports are that Adam Lanza played games like Starcraft and Warcraft, which, are strategy and role playing games. While they contain violence, are a long way short of first-person shooters when it comes to being a violent video game.
  http://www.voxxi.com/starcraft-turn-adam-lanza-into-killer/
  
  While, in agreement with the author, I think video game violence needs to be studied and it is increasingly the games industry and players that are driving this reflection, I get frustrated that it is mass shootings that seem to frame the discussion. Mass shootings should prompt conversations about access to guns and mental illness and comparisons between cultures (e.g. US vs Australian vs Japanese). A discussion of the effect of videogame violence always seems to get in the way of these more critical issues though.
  
  Regarding games containing "boring" violence. Jenkins was writing a decade ago. The games industry has changed a lot since then, and I think the author of this article understates this.
  
  Yes, there are still violent video games that proffer violence uncritically and in a bland, straightforward manner (e.g. Call of Duty). However, the games industry in general has, in the last half decade, seen:
  
  * a big increase in casual gaming and non-violent casual gaming titles
  * a burgeoning indie game sector, supported by platforms such as steam, and recognised for creativity and originality, not for violence
  * A growing number of titles that put violence in the context of moral choices, complex or reflective situations, and accompanied by uncomfortable or challenging decisions. Spec Ops is an obvious one here, but before spec ops there was also Bioshock, and the Mass Effect Series.
  
  Articles like this one could do more to identify these significant and ongoing changes in the industry.
  
  5 months ago report
2. Peter Miller
  
  Digital Artist/Sound Designer/Composer at Scribbletronics
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  But they don't necessarily "all do it", Peter. There's cognitive bias at work here. Martin Bryant didn't play video games. Charles Manson didn't play video games. Ivan Milat didn't play video games. You may as well say 'they all eat exclusively (obsessively?) at McDonalds' - it's the same logic. The fact that people with these kinds of behavioural problems are *attracted* to violence really tells us only that they are attracted to violence. Before video games, such people tortured cats and read war comics.
  
  Don't get me wrong, I think there's something deeply strange in our culture that it's acceptable in a film to show people getting their heads blown off, but the moment a woman exposes her breasts that's shocking. But the *reasons* we're attracted to seeing this kind of violence are what we should be examining here, not the manifestation of those reasons. Games don't kill people. People kill people.
  
  5 months ago report
3. Peter Miller
  
  Digital Artist/Sound Designer/Composer at Scribbletronics
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  And Stephen Pritchard - darn tootin'.
  
  5 months ago report
Michael Kasumovic

Lecturer, ARC DECRA Fellow at University of New South Wales

Should we enter into a discourse about how video games portray violence? Of course! But we should also be discussing how depictions of violence in other media or sports affect our view of violence. We should then continue on to discuss how mental illness and socio-economic disparity are also correlated with violence. There is no one cause.

Despite the pleasant ending to your article, your message seems overly negative. You tote Anderson’s argument that violent video games conclusively cause violence…
Read more

Should we enter into a discourse about how video games portray violence? Of course! But we should also be discussing how depictions of violence in other media or sports affect our view of violence. We should then continue on to discuss how mental illness and socio-economic disparity are also correlated with violence. There is no one cause.

Despite the pleasant ending to your article, your message seems overly negative. You tote Anderson’s argument that violent video games conclusively cause violence (or warrant enough of a concern) which is equivalent to saying petrol causes car accidents. Car accidents are a result of complex interactions between numerous factors such as visibility, driver attentiveness, road quality, driver density, etc. Removing petrol from the equation will not stop car accidents (especially now because we have electric cars). The point is that no matter how long-term the study, it is and always will be a correlation where the strength of it is determined by the quality of the factors included. To determine the quality of the meta-analysis, you need to examine the studies they used.

Anderson loves poking holes in studies that do not demonstrate a correlation between violence and video games. The same can be done with his research, which is why we need to be careful about all this and why these studies are inconclusive. Despite you saying that they are not.

In this day and age, it seems silly to conclude that there is one overriding factor causing violence and large scale massacres. Pointing the finger like this results in people ignoring other important factors. Hopefully the positive discussions you mention at the end will be publicized enough that parents learn that things are not so simple.

5 months ago report
Benjamin Arrow

Benjamin Arrow is a Friend of The Conversation.

logged in via Facebook

Sport appears to conjure up violent acts in almost every arena, and these violent acts are supported by spectators cheering on the perpetrators of violence. Sport is not rated and so can be consumed by people of all ages. Should we be seeking to abolish all violence in all areas of our lives or should we realise that fantasy violence portrayed in video games may only be a tiny part of a larger problem?

I suppose adults are becoming less and less responsible as its more easy to blame something else than yourself.

5 months ago report
Kim Kleidon

logged in via Facebook

I am a mother of 2 children who were raised in the Atari to Playstation era. I believe it's the responsibility of parents to set the parameters of what's acceptable, and I refused to allow violent games into our home, in fact the internet was only introduced when they were 17/18.
I had several reasons, firstly I had been raised in a physically violent household and wanted to remove as much as possible, secondly there had been talk of 'virtual reality' technology being used in the conditioning of…
Read more

I am a mother of 2 children who were raised in the Atari to Playstation era. I believe it's the responsibility of parents to set the parameters of what's acceptable, and I refused to allow violent games into our home, in fact the internet was only introduced when they were 17/18.
I had several reasons, firstly I had been raised in a physically violent household and wanted to remove as much as possible, secondly there had been talk of 'virtual reality' technology being used in the conditioning of soldiers following World War 1 and 2 where men had been confronted by their humanity in battle - which had led to many deaths in combat. Why unleash it on our youth? Whether it was true or not I can't be sure...made sense at the time. It's a serious breach of humanity to break down the human instinct not to kill...where's the study on that?

What hasn't been discussed here is the apparent acceptance of violence in society as a whole, (as witnessed in movies and even television), and for anyone to say we are immune is missing the weekly news of gun, knife and physical violence we see today. It was the Port Arthur massacre which changed the gun laws in Australia - who can say how any individual will react to repeated exposure to violence? For what it's worth - violence is the last resort of people who can't control their aggression, and don't have the ability to effectively communicate their intentions...great discussion, I'll be doing more research as a result....BTW this is my opinion and in no way represents those of my employer.

5 months ago report
Andy Ruddock

Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University

Thanks for the comments.

This article congratulates gamers-people who play and enjoy video violence-for taking a leadership role in a discussion on the causes of the real thing. It recognizes that violent video games are a useful resource for thinking about why violence appears glamourous to some. It points out that many people who enjoy violent video games are behaving more responsibly than people who own guns in leading discussions about what is to be done, after Sandy Hook.

In this sense…
Read more

Thanks for the comments.

This article congratulates gamers-people who play and enjoy video violence-for taking a leadership role in a discussion on the causes of the real thing. It recognizes that violent video games are a useful resource for thinking about why violence appears glamourous to some. It points out that many people who enjoy violent video games are behaving more responsibly than people who own guns in leading discussions about what is to be done, after Sandy Hook.

In this sense, to borrow a line from Henry Jenkins, it may well be that we need more video violence; games that portray violence in different ways, that is motivated for different reasons, and which is carried out by different characters, and which is contextualised in different sorts of narratives. All of this encouraging the gamer to reflect on her/his motivation for putting that violence in the game.

This is a complaint coming from gamers, not effects researchers, but it does complement the work of the latter.

It isn't surprising that courts have rejected Anderson's work as a basis for adjudication, because the linked study notes a number of important qualifications to the conclusion that video game violence does increase aggression (which, as the article notes, is not the same thing as arguing that is causes violence), notes that there are pro-social effects to violence (which can only increase if the industry starts doing what many gamers are now asking them to do), and also concedes that education rather than legislation is the best option.

In other words, even those who are most convinced about the negative influence of these games think that gaming can be good for society.

Sure, that research has inherent validity problems, due to its reliance on violence proxies. Like blasting people with loud music. That can't be avoided, because you can't have samples of young people play FPS, then send them down to the mall with semi-automatic weapons. But as proxies of aggression go, blasting loud music isn't a bad one. See Jonathan Pieslak's Sound Targets, on the use of music in Iraq, for that.

For me, one of the most compelling ways to think about media violence is as a political narrative; a story about who has power, and who does not. This was an argument developed by a scholar called George Gerbner, in relation to film and TV.

The great thing about gaming, as games reviewers have been pointing out, is that it's a mode of media consumption that gives the player more of an insight, and indeed a say, into how these narratives are made, and why they are repeated over and over again.

This is what's so interesting about the response of the gaming community; gamers are asking how society tells itself a story about violence; who does it, why they act, and what causes them to act. They are asking how games contribute to these stories, and how the act of gaming can create more of a public voice in shaping media violence.

As such, gamers are leading a change in how debates over media violence usually go, realizing there is little to be gained in treating anyone who might be concerned about media violence like an idiot. There's a world of difference, for example, between the reactions in Southington, and the self-serving rhetoric of the NRA.

So, in asking how video game violence might contribute to the glamorization of violence, or at least fail to raise the sorts of questions about violence that the form is capable of doing, we see how gamers and gaming position themselves as positive influences in debates on the causes of violence.

5 months ago report
1. Michael Shand
  
  Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Software Tester
  
  In reply to Andy Ruddock
  
  Backpedal Backpedal Backpedal....what I meant when I said
  
  "One reaction to these developments has been to argue that studies on the effects of videogame violence on gamers are inconclusive.
  
  They are not."
  
  Yeah, What I Actually meant was that the studies are inconclusive......Nice one Andy, I feel you had good intentions with this piece but your framing was way off and propaghandist in nature
  
  5 months ago report
2. Daniel Teghe
  
  Sociologist
  
  In reply to Andy Ruddock
  
  Hi Andy. These are useful clarifications on the argument you're making. However, I must say that the statement about "having power" really grates with me ("a story about who has power, and who does not"). Power cannot "be had", I haven't yet seen anyone carrying it around. There can only be capacity to exercise and/or resist power.
  Sorry, I guess I am just a pedantic sociologist.
  
  5 months ago report
Noely

logged in via Twitter

I am not an academic, but I am a 45 year old that hear a lot of the same when I was a teenager, now my daughter is 19 and I am still seeing the same comments. I don't think violence in video games is the biggest problem here, the violence in the games seems to have increased at around the same rate as violence in movies, TV Shows, hell even the News reports?

I feel they are just an easy target and it really annoys me as there is, in my opinion, a much bigger issue with gaming and that is the…
Read more

I am not an academic, but I am a 45 year old that hear a lot of the same when I was a teenager, now my daughter is 19 and I am still seeing the same comments. I don't think violence in video games is the biggest problem here, the violence in the games seems to have increased at around the same rate as violence in movies, TV Shows, hell even the News reports?

I feel they are just an easy target and it really annoys me as there is, in my opinion, a much bigger issue with gaming and that is the attraction for kids with 'issues' to become reliant on them. I saw it back in my day and still see it now with kids my daughters age. So many become socially isolated, escape to the game, end up with poor communication and interaction skills which has to be detrimental to their mental health in their future lives? This is a situation I see getting worse as more parents don't have as much time and more kids are being babysat by games? Therefore the numbers I see now are larger than they were when I was a teenager?

Everytime the violence in video games topic comes up all over the news, the parents try to ban it, making it even more attractive for younger kids. Worse, it becomes the only focus in regard to gaming when poor socially developed future adults might be way more of an issue?

5 months ago report
1. Andy Ruddock
  
  Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University
  
  In reply to Noely
  
  But Noely, Southington isn't trying to ban it, and what I'm saying is that gaming can be a place where society can consider violence in all its forms. The article is positioning games as a resource, not a target.
  
  5 months ago report
2. Noely
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to Noely
  
  I understand that is what you are trying to put across, unfortunately it will be used as "another eminent academic advocates for caution with violent video games"... Sorry, but I am sure at some stage some comments from your article will be pulled out and tossed with others in future to add to the ridiculous hysteria that the likes of ACA & Today Tonight like to toss out to hype up hysteria out in the suburbs :(
  
  5 months ago report
Mike Imelfort

Bioinformatician

Would book burning by any other name smell as sour?

5 months ago report
Clifford Chapman

Retired English Teacher

Peter Miller

Very much agree with you - these games reveal far more about us as a being than we'd like to admit, I reckon, and it's not much of a leap to connect their manufacture, sale and use with governments worldwide researching, purchasing, selling and using 'legitimate' weaponry.

And when you juxtapose that with the sort of reaction you've alluded to with the bare breast, that's one sick puppy we're talking about.

5 months ago report
1. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Clifford Chapman
  
  It's 'not much of a leap' to equate the sale of computer games to the sale of weaponry?
  
  This is an utterly ridiculous, ignorant, and archaic thing to say. Shame on you.
  
  5 months ago report
David Elliott

PhD Student, Monash University

Dr. Ruddock has written a disconcertingly facile and shallow appraisal of the relationship between video game violence and real world violence here, and I'd be most interested to know what his actual experience with the medium is. One does not become an authority on cinema by virtue of having 'seen movies', and there are a number of points here which cause me to seriously question the legitimacy of this commentary.

This argument is cyclical. It occurs once a generation. Many years ago, rock music…
Read more

Dr. Ruddock has written a disconcertingly facile and shallow appraisal of the relationship between video game violence and real world violence here, and I'd be most interested to know what his actual experience with the medium is. One does not become an authority on cinema by virtue of having 'seen movies', and there are a number of points here which cause me to seriously question the legitimacy of this commentary.

This argument is cyclical. It occurs once a generation. Many years ago, rock music was going to be the thing which destroyed Western civilization. Dungeons & Dragons was poised to push children over the brink of madness. Heavy metal. Slasher movies. All of these things have, at one time or another, been 'linked' to real-world examples of violence, murder, and suicide. Can anyone seriously look at 'Friday The 13th', or listen to Judas Priest's 'Stained Class' album, and tell me that they are clear triggers for murder and suicide? At one point, they were absolutely held up as 'proven' triggers, validated by 'studies'.

Now, apparently, video games are fingered as the culprits for societies in decline. Kids playing 'Call Of Duty' in Mum and Dad's lounge room are being secretly groomed for slaughter.

This is an unreasonable, alarmist perspective, which ignores history and - as is the case here - draws on biased and discredited 'data' to prove a pre-set agenda. The 'noted effects researcher Craig Anderson' has been discredited multiple times - as multiple posters have already mentioned. Andy Ruddock also neglects to mention the overwhelming number of studies which suggest that there is either an unconfirmable, or simply no link between depicted violence and real-world violence. To suggest that we have somehow found 'the answer' is extremely simplistic.

Sandy Hook, or Port Arthur, or Denver - these are events which take place for many, many reasons. Socio-economic contexts, political contexts, access to mental health services, micro and macro-social management of communities, access to firearms and firearm culture, sports, geopolitics, warfare - these elements combine and result in exceptionally complex and troubling events. Yet, despite all of these possible combinations of external forces which shape the behaviours of these people, conservative media and conservative researchers fall back on the cliches of history.

Falling back on eminent theorists is an interesting tactic - but a flawed one. You point to Henry Jenkins, and quote his assertion that 'gaming violence' is 'boring'.

Boring? Says who? Henry Jenkins?

I have several hundred million reasons why he is incorrect - and why you are incorrect. 'Call Of Duty' didn't become the most successful media product in human history despite being 'boring'.

Jenkins may find it boring. YOU may find it boring. In the context of this conversation, both points are largely irrelevant. Again, I am curious as to how embedded in video game culture and history you are, Dr. Ruddock. What games do YOU play? How many decades of playing are under your belt? What about Jenkins?

'Gamers were offered the same scenarios and options time and time again, which meant that the genre rarely fulfilled its unique capacity to make users reflect on the morality of the choices they made.'

This is an outrageous and false assertion, and it demonstrates an almost total non-understanding of the medium in question. You may believe that the average first person shooter offers 'the same scenarios and options time and time again', but that is simply untrue. On the contrary, these games offer an incredible range of interpretive events, of moral choice, of visual and spatial literacies, and of collaboration and community. Have you ever played an FPS online, Dr. Ruddock? Have you ever been actively involved in a community of players? I have. The morality of game play is constantly at the center of online games. Protecting one's teammates. Protecting oneself. Prioritising goals based on personal achievement versus the good of the collective. Role delegation and project management. The emergent nature of game play ensures that NO two moments are ever alike - unless you are playing a completely scripted, locked-down title, which haven't been in fashion for at least ten years. And, the ones that remain - 'Mass Effect', 'The Walking Dead', 'Deus Ex: Human Revolution', and 'Spec Ops: The Line' are absolutely about moral and ethical choice.

There are no 'gamers' anymore, Dr. Ruddock. Just as there are no 'movie-ers' or 'readers'. Digital games, and their consumption, are now utterly embedded within the narrative of 21st century life, and with the majority of the population - particularly our young people - interacting with a multitude of titles, on a multitude of levels, with a multitude of purposes, sweeping statements like 'One reaction to these developments has been to argue that studies on the effects of videogame violence on gamers are inconclusive. They are not.' are a misleading and archaic contribution to the debate.

5 months ago report
1. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to David Elliott
  
  Anyone else hearing echoes of Charlton Heston in all this?
  
  5 months ago report
2. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to David Elliott
  
  Peter,
  
  In what way? Could you expand on that? Are you suggesting that any defence of a cultural/technological medium is the equivalent of a proselytizing pro-firearms evangelist?
  
  5 months ago report
3. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to David Elliott
  
  As an infrequent visitor to the world of popular culture I am routinely concussed after a scroot at what you folks - well someone - most of them out there - watch for fun and relaxation.
  
  Wall-to-wall American cop shows - formulaic and re-assuring in a brutally graphic violent kinda way. Titles thrown together like a heap of useless scrabble letters. The forces of Good and their guns and pretend science always win against Bad. Even the "dialogue" seems to have been generated by some sort of single…
  Read more
  
  As an infrequent visitor to the world of popular culture I am routinely concussed after a scroot at what you folks - well someone - most of them out there - watch for fun and relaxation.
  
  Wall-to-wall American cop shows - formulaic and re-assuring in a brutally graphic violent kinda way. Titles thrown together like a heap of useless scrabble letters. The forces of Good and their guns and pretend science always win against Bad. Even the "dialogue" seems to have been generated by some sort of single line language assembly unit in the corner. Conversations sound like bursts of fire from a pack of Uzis.
  
  But everywhere guns. Everywhere violence. Graphically and lovingly protrayed.
  
  I even find violence of a sort in the comedies - I assume they are comedies, they have canned laughter cuing me to split my sides..For the yanks at least - sit-coms seem to have descended into a one gag routine based on abuse and put-downs.
  
  And in the middle of all this is symptom of violent video games.
  
  I'd argue it's the game of choice for a violent culture, rather than directly causal. Doesn't "make folks violent" but it plays a role - one opf many - making violence and guns and mass mayhem and murder just part of the wallpaper of everyday life.
  
  So it's not just guns that kill people, it's all of it - and the creeping acceptance of violence into all aspects of life is deeply disturbing, particularly when young fellas in black t-shirts retreat into the bedroom for weeks on end doing nothing else, like Breivik.
  
  So I'm finding these determined denials and denunciations smack of the NRA and it's selective distribution of "blame" and culpability. It just ain't so. Not true. No link. Guns kill people, or people kill people, but no - not Call of Duty 73 - not my pet game! I'm not a mass murderer. See it can't be true.
  
  It's the same logic and tactic - to deny any link - to deny causality ... to distance oneself from the issue and point towards others more "obviously" responsible. Like kids with autism now apparently according to the NRA.
  
  I'm not saying video games cause massacres. Certainly not everyone playing shoot 'em up games becomes a mass murderer. Certainly no more than watching a dozen or so beautifully choreographed murders each night on prime time. Or perhaps even listening to the canned laughter hit the roof at the fat man or the mexican. It's all of it. It is contagious. And it drips with violence and anger. Almost incoherent with anger.
  
  Perhaps no cultural/technological medium that uncritically and unceasingly transmits a violent gun based culture can really be entirely innocent.
  
  In short, I don't think anyone should be happy to just give their hobby horse a clean bill of health and mozey on over to the exit just yet.
  
  5 months ago report
4. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to David Elliott
  
  Peter,
  
  I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It seems that you are suggesting that there is an overwhelmingly pervasive media atmosphere of amoral violence, and that you do not like it - all the way down to conversations which 'sound like bursts of fire from a pack of Uzis'.
  
  I suppose what I'm interested in is why you believe that 'video games' are 'violent'?
  
  Video games, Peter, are a medium. Some are violent. Many are not. In fact, many of the most popular ones are not. Pokemon is…
  Read more
  
  Peter,
  
  I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It seems that you are suggesting that there is an overwhelmingly pervasive media atmosphere of amoral violence, and that you do not like it - all the way down to conversations which 'sound like bursts of fire from a pack of Uzis'.
  
  I suppose what I'm interested in is why you believe that 'video games' are 'violent'?
  
  Video games, Peter, are a medium. Some are violent. Many are not. In fact, many of the most popular ones are not. Pokemon is not violent. The Mario games are not violent. Casual, Facebook-style games are generally not violent.
  
  And, of the ones that are violent, many are tempered with extremely powerful moral messages - whether from within the text, as with 'Spec Ops: The Line', or through the collaboration required between multiple players.
  
  Peter, which games do you play? What is your experience with the medium? Have you ever been a part of a game-playing community? I ask this, because you seem to be making a number of assertions which have no real basis in anything other than what you believe to be true.
  
  And, throughout it all, you certainly go out of your way to imply that all of these cultural objects are somehow implicit in real-world violence - but, th en, you tell us that 'I'm not saying video games cause massacres'.
  
  Well, what ARE you saying?
  
  Video games are 'dripping with violence and anger'? But, that's simply not true. Perhaps if you spent some time in a video game community, you'd learn that. People do get angry with each other. They also laugh, share their lives, fall in love, make enemies, and make friends. The stories of the games being played are shocking, but also beautiful and uplifting, and often life-changing - in a way that novels and films often are.
  
  I would suggest that you spend some time familiarising yourself with the medium in question. And, Peter, you may find that part of the reason that these young men 'retreat into the bedroom for weeks on end doing nothing else' is that the communities are often so welcoming and inclusive. I'm sure they'd extend you the same courtesy - and I suggest that you take it.
  
  5 months ago report
5. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to David Elliott
  
  The detail of the violence culture turns up in things like this for example
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2212899/Marine-marksman-sheds-light-gunmen-hood-unwittingly-use-known-aiming-technique.html
  
  Now who or what is to blame - gangsta rap videos? TV cop shows? Video games? Movies? or all of it?
  
  I'm not saying that it makes them better markmen at all - the jury is still out on tat and the US Army is doing serious comparative research using screen-based RPG training…
  Read more
  
  The detail of the violence culture turns up in things like this for example
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2212899/Marine-marksman-sheds-light-gunmen-hood-unwittingly-use-known-aiming-technique.html
  
  Now who or what is to blame - gangsta rap videos? TV cop shows? Video games? Movies? or all of it?
  
  I'm not saying that it makes them better markmen at all - the jury is still out on tat and the US Army is doing serious comparative research using screen-based RPG training having invested a few billion in 'em.
  
  No what I implied was that the jury is still out on whether gaming improves your physical co-ordination and shooting. What is striking in the comments of the coppers who end up shooting these guys more often than not is the way they moved "in the field", how they loaded a second clip in advance, how they kept concealed while watching, and ran in zig-zag patterns and belly rolls. How they didn't make mistakes and were cool and collected. In other words, military training.
  
  You don't have to be a good shot with something like a Bushmaster. But gee some of them are. But they move and plan and think like combat troops. They think they are combat troops perhaps. Who will ever know. But some really act like trained combat troops according to the shocked coppers who shot them.
  
  The articles discussing this come from a former senior copper in California. A shooting instructor from memory. I can't remember his name but as a proficianado of this particular paddock you might know of him.
  
  He presents some very detailed assessments of the actual observable effects of games and other aspects of popular culture - the professionalisation of our killers. I'll track him down.
  
  But it was his analysis that separated out the aim and shooting ability with the more logistical and tactical aspects of holding off 40 SWAT squad snipers.
  
  I'll get back to you with a link.
  
  5 months ago report
6. Clifford Chapman
  
  Retired English Teacher
  
  In reply to David Elliott
  
  David Elliot
  
  Do you do it consciously or are you unaware of how, even in this latest post, you reveal yourself, like with your last sentence? Matter of fact, reading such words you provided even more evidence in support of my position, and the very admission on your part that you can't see that, drips like irony onto the whole question of why such games reflect a sick society.
  
  You protested to someone else regarding insults, yet in a post to him rudely said something like: 'Go play in your garden.' Are you really unaware of just what you keep saying about yourself?
  
  In your first post to me, which initiated the communication, you referred to me and/or my comments as being 'ignorant'.
  
  Like I said earlier: 'The laddie doth protest too much, methinks.'
  
  5 months ago report
7. lavinia kay moore
  
  child and family counsellor
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Well said Peter.
  I consider that any medium that dulls an individual's tendency to make ethical choices about not being violent/abusive seems to me to be conducive to that same individual making unethical choices, including choosing to abuse or violate another.
  The problem is that for them it may seem like just another game. Sometimes reality and fantasy have no boundaries between them.
  And by the way when Obama displayed "concern" about the recent shooting he said that their children are our…
  Read more
  
  Well said Peter.
  I consider that any medium that dulls an individual's tendency to make ethical choices about not being violent/abusive seems to me to be conducive to that same individual making unethical choices, including choosing to abuse or violate another.
  The problem is that for them it may seem like just another game. Sometimes reality and fantasy have no boundaries between them.
  And by the way when Obama displayed "concern" about the recent shooting he said that their children are our children and their pain is our pain etc
  But what he failed to recognise admit that that violence "is our violence".
  I agree with you about the violence endemic to American culture.
  And before anyone jumps down my throat about being anti-American, I know that other cultures historically have also been violent.
  But the ethos of dog eat dog combined with an attitude that says "others" can become our playthings has its source in those aspects of our culture that influence us along the way: videos, films, games- and our leaders and other wielders of infuence.
  
  5 months ago report
Tim Comber

logged in via Facebook

When I was little comics caused violence, then of course it was TV. In the late 60's it was violence in the movies and now it is video games. I can imagine a wise man in ancient Greece blaming the Iliad for the breakdown in society! Personally I believe that when some thug is caught the first excuse that they think of is that the devil (comics, TV, movies...) made me do it.

5 months ago report
1. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Tim Comber
  
  Peter,
  
  You've linked a tabloid article and given me an anecdote and some things that you MIGHT believe, maybe.
  
  You have claimed that you have access to strong evidence which proves your arguments - could you post it?
  
  5 months ago report
2. Trent Yarwood
  
  Infectious Diseases Physician at Queensland Health and Associate Lecturer at University of Queensland
  
  In reply to Tim Comber
  
  Oh, yes, this exactly. In reverse chronological order:
  
  * Social Networks
  * Video Games
  * Dungeons & Dragons
  * Drugs
  * Free Love
  * Rock and Roll
  * Dance Halls
  * Alcohol
  etc etc back to the Iliad. All responsible for the complete destruction of humanity.
  
  5 months ago report
3. Clifford Chapman
  
  Retired English Teacher
  
  In reply to Tim Comber
  
  David Elliot
  
  'Insult me all you like'!
  
  You need to take a cold, hard look at yourself, preferably with the word 'hypocrisy' written large before you.
  
  Let me assure you that it's only in your fevered imagination that I 'posted something foolish, and have attempted to defend it with nonsense'. Your inability to think outside the square makes you reveal your cards for all to see. And as for your straw: 'As others have pointed out', that's news to me. What is that, a variation on a theme of security in numbers? By all means take comfort in being supported by the crowd cos there's a fearfulness loneliness in their core, that's for sure.
  
  'Continue with the ad hominem insults' - Your gall takes the breath away, I'll grant you that.
  
  5 months ago report
4. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Tim Comber
  
  Clifford,
  
  Please - point out where I have insulted you. I described your posts as 'nonsensical'. I did that because your posts are, in fact, nonsensical.
  
  You have contributed nothing to this discussion, and you are wasting everybody's time.
  
  5 months ago report
Matt de Neef

Editor at The Conversation

"Jenkins argued that videogames could spark a productive conversation about the motivations toward violence, and the fact that they rarely did was cause for concern indeed."

A recent exception to this is the excellent third-person shooter Spec Ops: The Line. One of the most thought-provoking and emotionally challenging games I've played in a while. If you've got some spare time and want to play a game that DOES spark a productive conversation about our attitudes towards violence, pick up a copy of The Line.

I'd also highly recommend Killing is Harmless (http://stolenprojects.com/), a book-length critical analysis of Spec Ops: The Line, written by Brendan Keogh (who's also written a number of great pieces for The Conversation: https://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/brendan-keogh-8315). It's a great read.

5 months ago report
1. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  This is an excellent reference, Matt. I'd say that there are a LOT of games which are provocative and complex, requiring real emotional and ethical responses to situations. 'The Walking Dead' is one example, and has been singled out as a highlight of 2012. The 'Mass Effect' games are a clear example, as is 'The Elder Scrolls' and 'Fallout' series. The later 'Grand Theft Auto' games are operatic crime dramas which balance their excesses with rich, complex narratives and characters, and 'Hitman: Absolution…
  Read more
  
  This is an excellent reference, Matt. I'd say that there are a LOT of games which are provocative and complex, requiring real emotional and ethical responses to situations. 'The Walking Dead' is one example, and has been singled out as a highlight of 2012. The 'Mass Effect' games are a clear example, as is 'The Elder Scrolls' and 'Fallout' series. The later 'Grand Theft Auto' games are operatic crime dramas which balance their excesses with rich, complex narratives and characters, and 'Hitman: Absolution' deals with violence, spirituality, and redemption in interesting and sophisticated ways.
  
  Then, there's the titles which require players to interact with one another, to live with one another, to collaborate with and challenge one another, and to co-exist in various kinds of digital space. The controversies of 'EVE Online' are exercises in real-world moral decision making that can never be replicated by any monologic, legacy text.
  
  These are all titles which, while exceptionally popular, are often excluded from these debates - which is unfortunate, as they shed light on the sheer scale of the medium being discussed, and on the enormous diversity of cultural/cognitive experiences offered. The assertion that games 'rarely' require players to act with serious moral depth is, quite simply, false.
  
  5 months ago report
2. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  Not "amoral" violence - just violence and anger. Not just in what is being shown - but also how it is shown - how it is scripted.
  
  To be honest my personal experience of the gaming community is most limited. Playing a few rounds with my son aged 14. It was too boring. Not my cup of tea at all. Not his either eventually after all the testosterone wore off. All too "real" ... the sounds more than the rather crude graphics. I remember he had one where you could charge a bunker with a bayonette…
  Read more
  
  Not "amoral" violence - just violence and anger. Not just in what is being shown - but also how it is shown - how it is scripted.
  
  To be honest my personal experience of the gaming community is most limited. Playing a few rounds with my son aged 14. It was too boring. Not my cup of tea at all. Not his either eventually after all the testosterone wore off. All too "real" ... the sounds more than the rather crude graphics. I remember he had one where you could charge a bunker with a bayonette ... replete with gurgles as the blade plunged into the gook.
  
  Now in fairness I should also point out that I am not a hunter nor am I a member of any gun clubs or sporting shooters associations. I am advised by joiners that such outfits too are warm, inviting and supportive. So is the KKK by all accounts. So are posses and vigilante groups.
  
  Don't get me wrong - I think anything that provides a modicum of "social" interaction for the deep fringe groups of society is probably a good idea... be they all-night gamers or folks that own semi-automatic "hunting rifles".
  
  I'd just rather listen to the birds, look after my trees and garden, talk to the chooks and the dogs and not have my day splattered with viscera, virtual or otherwise.
  
  I find the whole business most odd and incomprehensible actually.
  
  Incidentally, if we're getting sciency ... not this endless clash of ideas called social bloody science - anyone got any info on fMRI studies of violent FPS gamers? Be most interesting to see what bits are lighting up on whom.
  
  5 months ago report
3. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  But, Peter, don't you see that there is something quite strange about your desire to comment on a medium that you've admitted you have no interest in, no understanding of, and no desire to learn about?
  
  I suggested that the communities you are critiquing would be happy to try to teach you about the appeal of these texts, and to include you in their activities - yet, bizarrely, you equated this olive branch with recruitment by gun clubs and the Ku Klux Klan?
  
  I think that you are reading into video games what you WANT to read into them, and not what is objectively real. This is part of the reason why conversations surrounding video games are often plagued with misinformation, alarmist rhetoric, and falsehood.
  
  5 months ago report
4. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  Or PS
  
  I should point out that I have a touch of PTSD - one aspect of which is a hypersensitivity to sound - loud noises repell me like aeroguard - sudden noises have me jumping out of my skin.
  
  Perhaps it also makes me overly sensitive to violence and anger. I cannot - will not - yell at my dogs. Cannot stand others doing it. Cannot stand overhearing it. Like they were talking to the kids or something.
  
  Perhaps it's the very pervasiveness of anger and violence in our "entertainment" that…
  Read more
  
  Or PS
  
  I should point out that I have a touch of PTSD - one aspect of which is a hypersensitivity to sound - loud noises repell me like aeroguard - sudden noises have me jumping out of my skin.
  
  Perhaps it also makes me overly sensitive to violence and anger. I cannot - will not - yell at my dogs. Cannot stand others doing it. Cannot stand overhearing it. Like they were talking to the kids or something.
  
  Perhaps it's the very pervasiveness of anger and violence in our "entertainment" that desensitises the rest of us. Maybe I'm hypersensitive. Certainly desensitises the angry white boys who decide one morning to take out their school mates with mum's Bushmaster.
  
  All I know is Dave - that the quieter and gentler I seek to make my life - the more exhausting and alarming is a night spent watching channel 9. And the legitimacy of violence - some personal right to be angry - is becoming evident in how our kids talk to each other and behave. Talk about assembly language. Whatever.
  
  5 months ago report
5. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  Peter,
  
  I'm very sorry to hear that you suffer from PTSD. That would be awful. And I, like you, abhor violence in all forms - particularly towards animals.
  
  But, don't make the mistake of using the surface features of these texts as an indicator of how they are being used. Some games are violent - some of the time. But, there is an enormous amount of socially responsible, collaborative, communal activity being conducted between participants. You find a night in front of Channel 9 disturbing and exhausting? I don't blame you. One alternative is to spend a night engaged in a video game community, watching young people shunning the shallowness and artifice of mass-produced pop culture, and engaging in collaborative adventures, helping one another, teaching one another the game mechanics, bringing in people need help, and protecting those who are still learning.
  
  You look at a game and see a maelstrom of antisocial activity? I see the absolute opposite.
  
  5 months ago report
6. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  Yep - dead right - no interest in pretending to shoot folks whatsoever. I should just get out of the way and leave you gamers to decide the issue amongst yourselves I guess.
  
  Along the same lines, Charlton, how can I understand the gun issue if I am not an active participant in my local warm affectionate gun-toting community? How could I understand?
  
  Or, to quote the Grand Wizard, how can I understand the thinking of racialists or their consequences without a few months in the KKK getting to…
  Read more
  
  Yep - dead right - no interest in pretending to shoot folks whatsoever. I should just get out of the way and leave you gamers to decide the issue amongst yourselves I guess.
  
  Along the same lines, Charlton, how can I understand the gun issue if I am not an active participant in my local warm affectionate gun-toting community? How could I understand?
  
  Or, to quote the Grand Wizard, how can I understand the thinking of racialists or their consequences without a few months in the KKK getting to know the gold ole boys and their families over a few beers and cross-burnings?
  
  This is a rather strange line of reasoning David. Effectively you'd appear to be suggesting that only those with "experience" of FPS and the community can possibly have a valid view, or have a right to one at all...that this matter is beyond public scrutiny and determination. Too much time alone in the games room Dave in the bosom of a co-thinking community.
  
  What a pity democracy doesn't actually work like that. All sorts of dudes who are not members of your community - politicians, judges, coroners, coppers, journalists - will end up deciding these issues David.
  
  I'd be trying to exhibit some of that personal warmth and charming hospitality you gamey folks are reknown for. Get some convincing science under your belts rather than this NRA "special pleading" auto exemption clause - "wasn't us mum" - you gamer lot keep repeating. I think you'll have trouble myself.
  
  5 months ago report
7. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  Well, Peter, yes - I do think that it is rather important that one have prior knowledge of a medium before one presumes to question the morality of it. You have admitted that you have no knowledge of games, no interest in games, and no experience with games - yet, you both reject an invitation to join the community and learn about them, and you continue to insist that you are making valid points in evaluating their morality, and their alleged power to corrupt.
  
  You're trying to equate the playing…
  Read more
  
  Well, Peter, yes - I do think that it is rather important that one have prior knowledge of a medium before one presumes to question the morality of it. You have admitted that you have no knowledge of games, no interest in games, and no experience with games - yet, you both reject an invitation to join the community and learn about them, and you continue to insist that you are making valid points in evaluating their morality, and their alleged power to corrupt.
  
  You're trying to equate the playing of video games with firearm ownership and use. Calling me 'Charlton' is a terribly cheap and infantile thing to do - and I'm not sure where that's coming from. Do I need to be a part of a firearms enthusiast community in order to evaluate the impact of firearm use? No. Of course I don't.
  
  The difference is, Peter, that video games do not kill people. Regardless of how badly you want this to be true, it simply isn't - and it never will be.
  
  You've also attempted to, quite strangle, suggest that 'politicians, judges, coroners, coppers, journalists' will 'end up deciding these issues'. What does that even mean, Peter? What are you suggesting, here?
  
  Again, your entire contention rests on your ignorance of what video games are in 2013, and your insistence that you shouldn't HAVE to know anything about the subject you are attempting to discuss. I find it quite amusing that you are attempting to turn a connection with a community of practitioners who ARE intimately familiar with the medium in question into some kind of pejorative.
  
  There's no special pleading here, Peter. The onus is on you to prove that you are speaking out of something other than ignorance, arrogance, and a deliberate refusal to actively engage with the very thing you have taken it upon yourself to critique. Until that happens, our conversation will be increasingly circular and irritating.
  
  5 months ago report
8. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  David,
  
  Now I'd be assuming here that the subject in question is not far removed from your field of PhD study - that be right?
  
  So here's a question that mystifies me: Who actually studies this stuff and its social impacts? Or are there none?
  
  For example - here's a neat PhD topic - the impact of the on-line gaming community on instances of self-harm and suicide amongst vulnerable groups.
  
  See this "argument" seems to be profoundly devoid of facts - save for the observable fact that…
  Read more
  
  David,
  
  Now I'd be assuming here that the subject in question is not far removed from your field of PhD study - that be right?
  
  So here's a question that mystifies me: Who actually studies this stuff and its social impacts? Or are there none?
  
  For example - here's a neat PhD topic - the impact of the on-line gaming community on instances of self-harm and suicide amongst vulnerable groups.
  
  See this "argument" seems to be profoundly devoid of facts - save for the observable fact that a heck of a lot of folks - predominantly male are spending a heck of a lot of their lives playing FPS games and being immersed in a virtual interweb world.
  
  There appears to be some evidence linking obsessive personally isolated gaming behaviour with instances of random mass murder of the type seen recently in Connecticut. Chicken and egg stuff in he first instance I'd guess - does the game make the killers or are killers attracted to the game?
  
  There is also some serious data suggesting that the kill rate achieved in such massacres is proportional to the amount of time spent gaming. Helps make them better shots perhaps, but more likely teaches them the strategic skills of moving, firing from cover, planning escape routes etc...
  
  I would be nice to see some serious science introduced into the discussion - some accepted facts where we could try and establish what if any causal effects exist - and why some folks are still playing toy soldiers into their 50s!
  
  But as is the nature of modern scientific discourse - there are no facts - only endless disputation.
  
  5 months ago report
9. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  Peter,
  
  I'm not sure why you're attempting to attack or discredit me via my work - but, in answer to your question, people study video games for myriad reasons. Some study the educational benefits of video games in various formal settings, others are interested in the power of video games as simulations, and others stuff explore the cultural and social dimensions of networked communities.
  
  Could you link us to this 'serious data' linking 'success' as a mass murderer to success in a video game…
  Read more
  
  Peter,
  
  I'm not sure why you're attempting to attack or discredit me via my work - but, in answer to your question, people study video games for myriad reasons. Some study the educational benefits of video games in various formal settings, others are interested in the power of video games as simulations, and others stuff explore the cultural and social dimensions of networked communities.
  
  Could you link us to this 'serious data' linking 'success' as a mass murderer to success in a video game? I'm absolutely fascinated to read it. Apparently, you believe that 'Call Of Duty' can train someone to be a marksman with a real weapon. Could you show us some of the 'scientific proof' that you've acquired?
  
  The fact that you describe people who play video games as 'playing toy soldiers' demonstrates your sheer ignorance. I've been civil with you throughout this discussion, yet you continue to be condescending towards me, and I'm not sure why. And, again, you conveniently sidestep the fact that for all of your bluster and assertion - you know absolutely nothing about the topic at hand, and you are simply talking off the top of your head.
  
  And, again, I invite you to actually involve yourself in a video game community, and learn a little bit about the medium you are attempting to baselessly critique. I'll even volunteer myself as a guide, if you like. I'd be more than happy to introduce you to a world of video game titles that you might enjoy. You only have to ask.
  
  5 months ago report
10. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  David,
  
  There is no need to crouch behind the bush and fire from a concealed forward position. I am not seeking to attack or discredit you or your work in any way.
  
  I have no interest in playing games of any sort. Nor do I have any interest in watching CSI, NCIS, etc etc or immersing myself in anything violent or angry.
  
  Now you say this is not a sincere characterisation of the on-line gaming community or of individual players - yet you react defensively to any comment or criticism. Hardly the warm welcoming open sort of acceptance one would expect is it?
  
  Only gamers can know. It's not about the violence it's about making friends and playing with them without leaving my room.
  
  Only gamers can know - like only Charlton Heston could know. Like only a Grand Wizard could know.
  
  Got any decent data on the market shares between violent games and non-violent David? Who buys what? That should be easy to get.
  
  Or are you PhD fellas just blowing folks up all day?
  
  5 months ago report
11. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  Peter,
  
  Absolutely. Why don't we look at the sales charts for the week ending December 29th, 2012?
  
  http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/41273/Global/
  
  'Call Of Duty - Black Ops 2' is, I'm sure you would describe, a 'violent' game.
  
  Halo 4 is a science-fiction FPS, in which players must defeat cartoonish monsters in a Star Wars-esque game world.
  
  Just Dance 4 is a dancing game.
  
  Far Cry 3 is another game which you would describe as 'violent'.
  
  New Super Mario Brothers 2 is a cartoon platform…
  Read more
  
  Peter,
  
  Absolutely. Why don't we look at the sales charts for the week ending December 29th, 2012?
  
  http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/41273/Global/
  
  'Call Of Duty - Black Ops 2' is, I'm sure you would describe, a 'violent' game.
  
  Halo 4 is a science-fiction FPS, in which players must defeat cartoonish monsters in a Star Wars-esque game world.
  
  Just Dance 4 is a dancing game.
  
  Far Cry 3 is another game which you would describe as 'violent'.
  
  New Super Mario Brothers 2 is a cartoon platform game.
  
  FIFA Soccer 13 is a sports simulation.
  
  Assassin's Creed III is a historical adventure game set in frontier America.
  
  Kinect Adventures! is a children's game.
  
  Nintendo Land is a set of cartoon minigames.
  
  Animal Crossing is a cartoon game for children, in which they build, share, and collaborate.
  
  Need For Speed is a car racing simulation.
  
  Hitman: Absolution is a third person strategy game - for adults.
  
  Mario Kart 7 is a racing game for portables.
  
  Wii Sports is a family game.
  
  Super Mario 3D Land is a cartoon platform game.
  
  Of the 15 unique games in the top 20, only three could be considered to contain the kinds of violence you believe permeates throughout the video game landscape - and of those three, only one is in any way 'realistic'.
  
  This is the problem with assumptions, Peter. You may cross your fingers and HOPE that you're correct - but, in this case, you are not. No, the majority of the best selling video game titles in December were utterly benign, non-violent, family-oriented games.
  
  If entering this conversation with a contradictory, real-world based opinion is 'reacting defensively' and not being welcoming, then I am guilty. Nevertheless, I still offer myself as a guide of the medium, should you wish to take it up.
  
  Again, Peter - there's no excuse for your level of ignorance, not when I'm actively encouraging you to enjoy an exciting, dynamic, emergent medium. But, please, do not expect the general public to take your half-truths and poorly imagined assumptions on face value.
  
  5 months ago report
12. Clifford Chapman
  
  Retired English Teacher
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  David Elliot
  
  You know, you really do reveal a lot of aggression in just a few of your posts on this thread, and not only to me, I hasten to add, just in case I get added to a list of 'enemies to nuke' in a video game you're playing.
  
  As for me justifying my assertion that 'the sale of games can be equated with the sale of firearms', my actual words were: 'and it's not much of a leap to connect their manufacture, sale and use with governments researching, purchasing, selling and using' etc.
  
  Is that linguistic sleight of hand on your part indicative of the research skills and standards you employ at Monash?
  
  5 months ago report
13. Grant Phillips
  
  project officer
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  @ Peter
  
  I think what should be made clear about depictions of violence.
  
  Like you said, the violence is pretend. I think it needs to be mentioned, for people like yourself, that depictions of violence in movies and games are simply depictions.
  
  This is a very important distinction to make,
  
  5 months ago report
14. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  Clifford,
  
  Insult me all you like. I don't especially care.
  
  The fact is - you posted something foolish, and have attempted to defend it with nonsense. As others have pointed out.
  
  But, please. Continue with the ad hominem insults.
  
  5 months ago report
15. Dania Ng
  
  Retired factory worker
  
  In reply to Matt de Neef
  
  David. I have been reading this thread with interest, and I appreciate the points you're trying to make. Unfortunately, you have run into a couple of inveterate trolls here, who have targeted you for their own self-gratification. It has been my experience previously with them that they do not have a principled or informed stand, and are only interested in demeaning their target. They use the exchanges they seed with ad hom attacks to rise the tone of the exchanges and they become increasingly aggressive…
  Read more
  
  David. I have been reading this thread with interest, and I appreciate the points you're trying to make. Unfortunately, you have run into a couple of inveterate trolls here, who have targeted you for their own self-gratification. It has been my experience previously with them that they do not have a principled or informed stand, and are only interested in demeaning their target. They use the exchanges they seed with ad hom attacks to rise the tone of the exchanges and they become increasingly aggressive and unpleasant in the course of doing so. I wouldn't give them the time of day, though I personally enjoy taking the mickey out of them and showing them for who they are and what they're doing.
  Anyway, I enjoyed reading your perspective, which has been couched politely, and is well-informed and -argued. I certainly learned a fair bit from your contributions, pity that some others here are too arrogant and patronising to provide any meaningful and civil insights to this conversation, regardless of their stance on gaming. Thanks for the time you have taken to argue your point, I certainly appreciate what you and the other more civil commentators have had to say here.
  
  5 months ago report
Clifford Chapman

Retired English Teacher

David Elliot

Save your misplaced outrage for the ignorance in your own mirror - I'll not be served morality and ethics by apologists for corrupt and rotten governments. Shame on you, sir, for accepting the rationalisation of language that calls Ministries for War and their Ministers, Defence. We may not like the realities but I'll plump for Blake's 'The Tyger' in its analysis of man over your wishful thinking and the nonsense of The Geneva Convention.

You tell me, Mr. Elliot, what is legitimate about scientists developing land mines that are so fine in their responses that even a child will set them off, all of which research is funded by governments world-wide.

5 months ago report
1. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Clifford Chapman
  
  Clifford,
  
  I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
  
  You suggested that the manufacture and sale of computer games could be equated with the manufacture and sale of firearms.
  
  This is an utterly ridiculous thing to say, and has absolutely no basis in reality.
  
  Your response is nonsensical and confused. Could you elaborate?
  
  5 months ago report
2. Clifford Chapman
  
  Retired English Teacher
  
  In reply to Clifford Chapman
  
  David Elliot
  
  Really? So how, then, do you explain something to someone who has to ask?
  
  And why, pray (prey?), label me 'ignorant' if you were unaware of the actual points I was raising and making? There is irony, aplenty, in governments advocating peace, is there not?
  
  You need to look below the surface and the superficial. A deadly creature lurks within, where in the daily war of human existence, everyone becomes enemy, and far from my reply being, as you subjectively assert, 'nonsensical and confused', it is a revelation of oneself. Thus I would not explain to you but ask that you read Blake's phenomenal poem 'The Tyger'.
  
  Notice how he changed the one word 'Could' in the first line to the word 'Dare' in the last. There spoke a poet that saw into man's soul.
  
  5 months ago report
3. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Clifford Chapman
  
  Clifford,
  
  Your bizarre rants don't really do a lot of elaborate on your assertion that the manufacture and sale of computer games should/could/is equated with the sale of firearms.
  
  I reiterate that your responses are confused, nonsensical non-answers - and I ask you, again, to justify this position, without the forced theatrics.
  
  5 months ago report
4. Clifford Chapman
  
  Retired English Teacher
  
  In reply to Clifford Chapman
  
  David Elliot
  
  Em so it's 'bizarre rants' now, is it?
  
  You need to be careful of what you are writing - half the time your comments come across as being little more than knee-jerk reactions to what you seem to perceive as almost personal criticisms, and make me think along Shakespeare's lines, as in 'the laddie doth protest too much, methinks'.
  
  Of course, I doubt if you'd be interested in knowing that one of Jung's most perceptive comments on Blake related to his being so frequently termed…
  Read more
  
  David Elliot
  
  Em so it's 'bizarre rants' now, is it?
  
  You need to be careful of what you are writing - half the time your comments come across as being little more than knee-jerk reactions to what you seem to perceive as almost personal criticisms, and make me think along Shakespeare's lines, as in 'the laddie doth protest too much, methinks'.
  
  Of course, I doubt if you'd be interested in knowing that one of Jung's most perceptive comments on Blake related to his being so frequently termed 'mad' by people, something Jung argued revealed far more about their reaction to his work, and particularly how he raises awkward questions and the way it puts the ball so often in the reader's court, so much so, that: 'If I call him mad, I don't have to bother about the questions he asks me', or words to that effect, just like in the many labels you have thrown my way, as with your 'bizarre rants'. If it makes you feel happier, go for it, but in front of me as I write, is a book I recently bought called: '3,000 Years Of War' by Dwight Jon Zimmerman, and it gives details of many wars and battles, and each one would have their individual 'time and place reason(s)', but you'd not have that much upstairs if you didn't see that the LCD in all of them is the insane creature called Man.
  
  5 months ago report
5. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Clifford Chapman
  
  Clifford,
  
  That's nice.
  
  Are you going to justify your assertion that the sale of games can be equated with the sale of firearms, or are you simply going to spew incoherent nonsense?
  
  5 months ago report
6. Grant Phillips
  
  project officer
  
  In reply to Clifford Chapman
  
  @ Clifford
  
  I am having trouble following your comment trail regarding violence in media.
  
  Can you clarify your position?
  
  5 months ago report
Phillip Dawson

Lecturer in Learning and Teaching at Monash University

I'm an avid reader of meta-analyses and systematic reviews in my own discipline of education. The effect sizes in the Anderson et al. article would be considered very small if they related to an educational intervention and we wouldn't really recommend any action be taken as a result. Could someone with a psychology or social science background help me understand why I should be concerned by such small effect sizes?

5 months ago report
Dave Satterthwaite

logged in via Facebook

I'd be supremely hesitant in declaring that one, or even a handful, of studies on such a nebulous topic was 'conclusive' via a dramatic solo par.

5 months ago report
Richard Hockey

logged in via Facebook

Just like Craig Andersen you have cherry picked your sources. For an academic this is a poorly researched piece of work. You have even fallen into the trap of associating the Columbine shootings with computer games, which were later shown to have played little or no part. If this piece had been handed in by one of your students you would give it a an F.

5 months ago report
1. Alan John Hunter
  
  Retired
  
  In reply to Richard Hockey
  
  "Columbine shootings with computer games, which were later shown to have played little or no part"
  Shown by whom?.
  In quoting any "research" from the USA one must follow the money, there are some there who will give you a tailor made response on just about any subject under the sun, for a price or because of their idealogical bent.
  
  5 months ago report
2. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Richard Hockey
  
  Alan, the burden of proof is on those making the assertion.
  
  There has never been a causal relationship established between video games and violence - particularly after Columbine. It incorrect and misleading to imply that there has.
  
  5 months ago report
3. Grant Phillips
  
  project officer
  
  In reply to Richard Hockey
  
  @ Alan
  
  Here you go:
  
  "The Final report and findings of the safe school initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States" will probably answer your questions about columbine.
  
  http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf
  
  It's findings indicated that:
  
  "Over half of the attackers demonstrated some interest in violence, through movies,video games, books, and other media (59 percent, n=24). However, there was no one common type of interest in violence…
  Read more
  
  @ Alan
  
  Here you go:
  
  "The Final report and findings of the safe school initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States" will probably answer your questions about columbine.
  
  http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf
  
  It's findings indicated that:
  
  "Over half of the attackers demonstrated some interest in violence, through movies,video games, books, and other media (59 percent, n=24). However, there was no one common type of interest in violence indicated. Instead, the attackers’ interest in violent themes took various forms.
  
  Explanation
  • Approximately one-quarter of the attackers had exhibited an interest in violent movies (27 percent, n=11).
  • Approximately one-quarter of the attackers had exhibited an interest in violent books (24 percent, n=10).
  • One-eighth of the attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games (12 percent, n=5).
  • The largest group of attackers exhibited an interest in violence in their own writings, such as poems, essays or journal entries (37 percent, n=15)."
  
  5 months ago report
4. Andy Ruddock
  
  Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University
  
  In reply to Richard Hockey
  
  see above re Columbine.
  
  5 months ago report
5. Richard Hockey
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Andy Ruddock
  
  "One-eighth of the attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games (12 percent, n=5)."
  
  Hardly convincing evidence of an association!
  
  also have a look at
  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.html
  R
  
  5 months ago report
Alan John Hunter

Retired

Judging by the aggressive responses by progamers , one would assume.
(1) Video games cause aggression.
or
(2) Aggressive people play video games.

Of course they won’t see that as aggression, as aggression is or has become so ingrained in their psyche they can’t recognise it.

If advertising made McDonalds what they are today, then violent video games must surely have a role in violence in society, as by any standard you would like apply these games are advertising and glorifying violence, and propagating the concept of solving your problems with violence i.e. if you have a problem killing people will fix it.

5 months ago report
1. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Alan John Hunter
  
  Alan,
  
  I think you'll find that many of the posters here are frustrated at these relentless and slanderous attacks on an emergent medium. Expressing that frustration is appropriate, in this context.
  
  Why do you believe that video games 'advertise and glorify violence'? Which games are you referring to? Could you tell us a little bit about your experience with them, and which parts you felt had these antisocial side effects?
  
  5 months ago report
2. Alan John Hunter
  
  Retired
  
  In reply to Alan John Hunter
  
  "relentless and slanderous attacks"
  I would venture you have a wee persecution problem.
  
  'advertise and glorify violence' well thats pretty simple, all violent video games.
  In short MacDonalds have been successful through saturation advertising, violent videos, TV and movies are saturating society.
  
  Do any of them say " lets have hug and sit down and try to resolve our differences like mature adults without killing each other".
  
  I have no experience with any of them, so I am not polluted by them.
  
  Please explain the positive social effects of violence?
  
  And by the by I include violent movies and television in my prevoius comment.
  
  5 months ago report
3. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Alan John Hunter
  
  Alan,
  
  You clearly have not been following the debate surrounding video games that has raged for decades. If you had, you would understand why the discussion can, at times, seem exhausting.
  
  Do any games say 'let's hug and sit down and try to resolve our differences like mature adults without killing each other'?
  
  Absolutely. Without question, yes - they absolutely do.
  
  'Mass Effect' can be played without killing a single person - and there are bonuses awarded for doing so. Ditto, 'Deus Ex…
  Read more
  
  Alan,
  
  You clearly have not been following the debate surrounding video games that has raged for decades. If you had, you would understand why the discussion can, at times, seem exhausting.
  
  Do any games say 'let's hug and sit down and try to resolve our differences like mature adults without killing each other'?
  
  Absolutely. Without question, yes - they absolutely do.
  
  'Mass Effect' can be played without killing a single person - and there are bonuses awarded for doing so. Ditto, 'Deus Ex: Human Revolution'. There are endless strategy games which encourage non-military resolutions to conflict - whether through diplomacy, trade, or cultural victory.
  
  Some games emphasise stealth rather than action. Others are dialogue based, such as 'The Walking Dead' or 'The Secret Of Monkey Island'. There is no violence.
  
  Then, there are games that are warm, inviting, and funny. 'The Binding Of Isaac' or 'Super Meat Boy'. There are no 'differences' to be found.
  
  Unfortunately, Alan, you are attempting to engage with a medium which you don't understand, and which you have no knowledge of. You have attempted to position video games as generators of cultural violence, which 'advertise and glorify violence'. That is utterly untrue.
  
  If you'd actually bothered to play a game, you would already know that.
  
  5 months ago report
4. Alan John Hunter
  
  Retired
  
  In reply to Alan John Hunter
  
  Dear David Where oh where did I say anything about non violent video, my comments are directed solely towards violent video, TV, movies.
  I was unaware that there were hugging video games, however I would venture that there are not many and that they are not very popular.
  
  5 months ago report
5. Alan John Hunter
  
  Retired
  
  In reply to Alan John Hunter
  
  By the way you seem pretty immersed in this stuff, shouldn't you be studying, chasing girls or blokes, going to parties and stuff like that?.
  
  5 months ago report
6. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Alan John Hunter
  
  Alan,
  
  I'm a little too old to be chasing girls, blokes, or parties.
  
  And, you're too old to be discussing a medium you have no interest in.
  
  Why don't we do each other a favour and end this conversation now?
  
  5 months ago report
7. Grant Phillips
  
  project officer
  
  In reply to Alan John Hunter
  
  @ Alan
  
  Should probably reduce the argumentum ad hominem.
  
  5 months ago report
Comment removed by moderator.
Grant Phillips

project officer

Andy appears to be a new entrant to the ongoing and much argued field of video games and violence, as you have cited Dr Craig Anderson.

Dr Craig Anderson is well known in this area and his research has been discredited; in the US supreme court no less.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf

The court states that:

"The State’s evidence is not compelling. California relies primarily on the research of Dr. Craig Anderson and a few other research psychologists whose studies…
Read more

Andy appears to be a new entrant to the ongoing and much argued field of video games and violence, as you have cited Dr Craig Anderson.

Dr Craig Anderson is well known in this area and his research has been discredited; in the US supreme court no less.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf

The court states that:

"The State’s evidence is not compelling. California relies primarily on the research of Dr. Craig Anderson and a few other research psychologists whose studies purport toshow a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children. These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them and with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively (which would at least be a beginning). Instead, “[n]early all of the researchis based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology.”

Key points from an article in the Havard Medical Journal titled "Violent video games and young people"

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/October/violent-video-games-and-young-people

States that:

"Much of the research on violent video game use relies on measures to assess aggression that don't correlate with real-world violence. Some studies are observational and don't prove cause and effect.

Federal crime statistics suggest that serious violent crimes among youths have decreased since 1996, even as video game sales have soared.

Parents can protect children from potential harm by limiting use of video games and taking other common-sense precautions."

US National Library of Medicine has similar statements:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC558687/

5 months ago report
1. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Grant Phillips
  
  Well said, Grant.
  
  5 months ago report
2. Andy Ruddock
  
  Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University
  
  In reply to Grant Phillips
  
  Thanks Grant.
  
  I've actually addressed these these reservations in my earlier comment.
  
  The Supreme Court's reservations about Anderson's work do not amount to a discrediting of his work. Indeed, Anderson has agreed with their recent decisions on media violence.
  
  http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/Multimedia/VGV-SC-OpEdDDAGCAA.pdf
  
  Again, the linked meta-analysis agrees that the nature of the evidence on media violence does not support prohibition.
  
  The problem of using violence proxies, for ethical reasons, is well discussed in the literature on effects, but does not amount to the conclusion that the case for effects is bankrupt. See Barry Gunter in 2008's American Behavioral Scientist on this.
  
  5 months ago report
Peter Miller

Digital Artist/Sound Designer/Composer at Scribbletronics

Another subtext at work here is the unspoken (but quite emphatic) assumption by pretty much everyone that we are seeing a general societal increase in violence. I'd love to see some science on that. The popular view is always that the age in which one lives is more violent than previous times - people of today tend to forget the horrendous grimness of fin de siecle London or Paris, or the relentless dog-eat-dog of early New York and the American wild west, for example.

We have many, many more humans than ever before, and an instant, ubiquitous and voyeuristic media presence that picks up any violent infraction and puts it before the eyes of all. I wonder if there's any evidence at all that violent behaviour is *really* increasing in any proportionate way...

5 months ago report
1. Tristan Vanyai
  
  PhD Candidate, Centre for Hypersonics at University of Queensland
  
  In reply to Peter Miller
  
  I think this article might be helpful here:
  
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/19/as-video-game-sales-climb-year-over-year-violent-crime-continues-to-fall/
  
  And this one:
  
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/12/30/violence-and-video-games-in-america/
  
  5 months ago report
2. Andy Ruddock
  
  Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University
  
  In reply to Peter Miller
  
  That isn't the subtext of the article.
  
  Although it is, of course, the argument that the NRA are using to resist gun control.
  
  5 months ago report
3. Peter Miller
  
  Digital Artist/Sound Designer/Composer at Scribbletronics
  
  In reply to Andy Ruddock
  
  @Andy: It's a subtext of the discussion in general. If the quotient of violence and aggression present in the community is stable or decreasing, then the whole discussion is fairly meaningless. It only has meaning if you assert that for some reason violence in games is causing an abnormal shift in behaviour which contributes to something novel in this respect (that is, violent behaviour that is above and beyond that which we would see anyway). Otherwise it's fairly reasonable to presume that games are just a part of a cultural phenomenon in which violence is present.
  
  I don't know if there is more violence in our contemporary affluent societies. My hunch (and my knowledge of history) tells me that we're seeing an emergent phenomenon arising from massive media ubiquity, and while we might *think* there's more violence, most of us live in relative safety. But I don't know. That's why I asked the question: 'Is there evidence of such a thing?'
  
  5 months ago report
Grant Phillips

project officer

Andy

Wrong and wrong. Seriously...

"This mirrors the argument put forward by MIT media scholar Henry Jenkins, in the wake of the 1999 Columbine Massacre which claimed 13 lives. There, too, first-person shooter games were identified as catalysts for mass murder."

http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf

5 months ago report
1. Andy Ruddock
  
  Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University
  
  In reply to Grant Phillips
  
  No, Grant, my point was that Jenkins used the fact that FPS were mentioned as catalysts for the violence to explain why banning video games was a bad idea, since these games are an important resource and teaching tool, especially when it comes to discussing violence.
  
  And, once again, what I am saying is that gaming communities are doing an admirable job in leading a discussion on the social causes of violence, which is one of the positive aspects of violent game play that even Anderson admits probably exist.
  
  5 months ago report
2. Grant Phillips
  
  project officer
  
  In reply to Grant Phillips
  
  @ Andy
  
  Thanks for the reply.
  
  I think I understand what you mean.
  
  Putting all of your arguments together though, the theme of your article, to me anyway, is that that video games equal violent outcomes.
  
  But, the evidence isn't there; except from two well known advocates, Anderson and Jenkins. One who has produced research in the area which has been publically acknowledged to have serious flaws in methodology, and the other who thinks that people build moral frameworks around consumed media and can’t differentiate between depicted and real violence.
  
  5 months ago report
3. Andy Ruddock
  
  Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University
  
  In reply to Grant Phillips
  
  Grant, those aren't accurate descriptions of Anderson and Jenkins. What you call serious flaws are methodological limitations that Anderson acknowledges when making the case that his work cannot be used as a justification for banning games.
  
  And Jenkins believes that most of the people, most of the time, use media in positive ways, know fact from fantasy, and further that banning violent games would harm the cultural environment of young people. What I've done in this article is report on the less…
  Read more
  
  Grant, those aren't accurate descriptions of Anderson and Jenkins. What you call serious flaws are methodological limitations that Anderson acknowledges when making the case that his work cannot be used as a justification for banning games.
  
  And Jenkins believes that most of the people, most of the time, use media in positive ways, know fact from fantasy, and further that banning violent games would harm the cultural environment of young people. What I've done in this article is report on the less acknowledged aspects of his work, where he seeks to establish a dialogue with effects researchers. Jenkins is pro game, pro popular culture, and pro gamer, and in that sense it's interesting that even he thinks there are questions that need to be asked about gaming content.
  
  In this sense, the interesting thing is that Anderson and Jenkins completely disagree on what gaming does, but completely agree that discussions about gaming have a place in a wider social debate about violence, bullying and the like.
  
  Too much time in these debates is spent looking at the differences between researchers. There's more to be gained by looking at what they agree about.
  
  5 months ago report
4. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Grant Phillips
  
  @ Andy Ruddock
  
  Indeed, Craig Anderson notes:
  
  "Unanswered Questions
  
  Several major gaps remain in the violent video game literature. One especially large gap is the lack of longitudinal studies testing the link between habitual violent video game exposure and later aggression, while controlling for earlier levels of aggression and other risk factors. Indeed, of the four major types of empirical studies mentioned earlier, this is the only type missing. There are such studies focusing on television…
  Read more
  
  @ Andy Ruddock
  
  Indeed, Craig Anderson notes:
  
  "Unanswered Questions
  
  Several major gaps remain in the violent video game literature. One especially large gap is the lack of longitudinal studies testing the link between habitual violent video game exposure and later aggression, while controlling for earlier levels of aggression and other risk factors. Indeed, of the four major types of empirical studies mentioned earlier, this is the only type missing. There are such studies focusing on television violence but none on video games.
  
  Another gap concerns potential differences in effect sizes of television versus video game violence. There are theoretical reasons to believe that violent video game effects may prove larger, primarily because of the active and repetitive learning aspects of video games. However, this is a very difficult question to investigate, especially with experimental designs. How does one select violent video game and television stimuli that are matched on other dimensions? On what dimensions should they be equivalent? Number of bodies? Amount of blood and gore? Realism of the images? There are a couple of unpublished correlational studies that have compared the effects of television and video game violence on aggression, using comparable measures of violence exposure. Both yielded results suggesting a larger effect of video game violence. But the issue is not settled.
  
  Finally, more research is needed to:
  (a) refine emerging general models of human aggression;
  (b) delineate the processes underlying short and long term media violence effects;
  (c) broaden these models to encompass aggression at the level of subcultures and nations.
  Several different research groups around the world are working on these various issues."
  
  http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx
  
  5 months ago report
Trent Yarwood

Infectious Diseases Physician at Queensland Health and Associate Lecturer at University of Queensland

I agree with the general thread of the comments.

While it is laudable that the author wants games and gamers to take ownership of the issue and play a greater role in dealing with this, the "evidence" is poorly selected.

An Australian article on videogame violence that ignores the fact our own government has done a comprehensive literature review on this topic ( http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/Public/Media-And-Student-Resources/Other%20Resources/Literature%20review%20on%20the%20impact…
Read more

I agree with the general thread of the comments.

While it is laudable that the author wants games and gamers to take ownership of the issue and play a greater role in dealing with this, the "evidence" is poorly selected.

An Australian article on videogame violence that ignores the fact our own government has done a comprehensive literature review on this topic ( http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/Public/Media-And-Student-Resources/Other%20Resources/Literature%20review%20on%20the%20impact%20of%20playing%20violent%20video%20games%20on%20aggression.pdf) has made a fundamental oversight.

This review found the effect was small (r = 0.24, r=0.15 corrected for aggression and gender). I too would like to know exactly what "socially significant" means.

The rest of the conclusion of the literature review was (hopefully counting as fair use):

However, there are a number of issues that have been raised with the VVG effect literature that arguably reduce the literature’s policy relevance. These include:
* the divided nature of the literature, which is embroiled in a larger social and political controversy
* the contested definitions and measures of ‘aggression’ and ‘violent video games’
* that insufficient attention has been directed at third variables which may explain some of the effect
* that the strongest evidence has been found for short term VVG effects, and
conclusions regarding long term effects have not been as strong
* that there is little evidence there is any difference in the effect of VVGs on children, adolescents and young adults
* that some studies appear to show games featuring cartoonish violence are just as harmful as games featuring realistic violence, and
* there is no conclusive evidence that VVGs are more harmful than other violent media.

Significant harmful effects from VVGs have not been persuasively proven or disproven. There is some consensus that VVGs may be harmful to certain populations, such as people with aggressive and psychotic personality traits. Overall, most studies have consistently shown a small statistical effect of VVG exposure on aggressive behaviour, but there are problems with these findings that reduce their policy relevance. Overall, as illustrated in this
review, research into the effects of VVGs on aggression is contested and inconclusive.

I can only wonder what the point would be in gamers engaging in debate when people continue to cherry-pick evidence that supports their pre-existing position.

5 months ago report
1. Trent Yarwood
  
  Infectious Diseases Physician at Queensland Health and Associate Lecturer at University of Queensland
  
  In reply to Trent Yarwood
  
  Also: forgot to include a link to this article, published shortly after the school shooting.
  
  http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/326760,mass-shootings-and-games.aspx
  
  5 months ago report
2. Andy Ruddock
  
  Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University
  
  In reply to Trent Yarwood
  
  No, I don't want gamers to do anything. I just think it's interesting that many are choosing to do so.
  
  5 months ago report
George Naumovski

Online Political Activist

Banning something will not do anything. As to worry us, well before the electronic age, wars started WW1, WW2 people were killing each other, mass murders and so on. To ban guns to ban the games to ban things will not do anything.

What about movies, since the 1980’s the movies “action movies” were full of violence, guns blazing, blowing up this and that or everything in their way!

We humans like watching violence and it seems some are now doing it when we go out to have fun as in looking for a fight as they are intoxicated, so might as well ban alcohol as well if you want to just ban things!

What needs to be done is to study why we like violence and is it imprinted in us to like this to do this?

5 months ago report
1. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to George Naumovski
  
  Jings I usually know when I'm launching into an ad hominem and I'm sorry you take my comments as a personal attack. Damn John Howard and his nanny state gun laws!
  
  Here's a neat little summary of where we're up to with video games and the link to violence. It's from that mob of moralising do- gooders the American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx, written by this self same Anderson fella.
  
  Doesn't look good does it David?
  
  I am still trying to get my head around the notion of a non-violent shooter game. There's some sort of sliding scale at work under this.
  
  5 months ago report
2. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to George Naumovski
  
  What doesn't look good, Peter?
  
  You posted a discredited article by a discredited researcher. What would you like me to say?
  
  You don't understand games, Peter. You know nothing about them. Don't 'try to get your head around them'. Just let it go. They're not for you. Go play in your garden.
  
  5 months ago report
Peter Ormonde

Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

Farmer

I'm sorry David but your categorisation of that list I would describe as desensitised to violence.

And poor statistical sampling.

I would not regard, for example, Halo 4 as Bambi benign, nor Assassin's Creed ... all about death and weapons and violence in the end - no matter how convoluted and enchanted the story. But still hardly military grade.

In like fashion I - and most of the NSW Police Force - would not regard Need for Speed as a bit of a lighthearted family drive. Half the kids…
Read more

I'm sorry David but your categorisation of that list I would describe as desensitised to violence.

And poor statistical sampling.

I would not regard, for example, Halo 4 as Bambi benign, nor Assassin's Creed ... all about death and weapons and violence in the end - no matter how convoluted and enchanted the story. But still hardly military grade.

In like fashion I - and most of the NSW Police Force - would not regard Need for Speed as a bit of a lighthearted family drive. Half the kids the coppers chase all over town honed their skills here. On this training effect there is little argument.

So not knowing the games in detail it is difficult to categorise them.
But let us move away from Christmas when mum dad and gran are buying little Berthilde a cute pink gam. Let's have a look at http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/40993/USA/.

Ohh that's a bit different isn't it ... all those self-described "shooters" - 10 out of the top 20. I'd be including an "action" one as well cause I have a hunch it involves at least fisticuffs if not kalashnikovs.

I think I'd be calling shooting games violent as an entire genre... just to varying degrees. Same even at the "historical/adventure/fantasy" genres as well - depends how much is story and how much is weaponry, martial skills and powers and slaughtering whatever comes to hand. Yep some of that is violent. Sometimes quite a lot of it.

Now I'm not saying that frolicking about like a gnome slicing three headed monsters into mince will turn you into a serial killer. All I am saying is that video games, along with all the other "value-free" media we are enfatuated with, are filling with violence and anger, from TV to dance music to sit-coms and yes even a large slice of video games.

Or are you Games scientists alleging that this technology alone is neutral and has no impacts on us at all? And that " a bit of virtual biff" is OK - it's just like the Telly innit? Not real. Not to me.

5 months ago report
1. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter,
  
  Again, you seem to believe that making baseless assertions and launching ad hominem attacks is somehow a decent and valuable substitute for data and reasoned, researched arguments.
  
  You admit that you've never played any of the games listed - yet, you feel qualified to make value judgements on their contents.
  
  Apparently, you've now decided that 'Need For Speed' trains people for hoon driving. YOu're basing that on absolutely nothing.
  
  I'm not sure what your point is with the link…
  Read more
  
  Peter,
  
  Again, you seem to believe that making baseless assertions and launching ad hominem attacks is somehow a decent and valuable substitute for data and reasoned, researched arguments.
  
  You admit that you've never played any of the games listed - yet, you feel qualified to make value judgements on their contents.
  
  Apparently, you've now decided that 'Need For Speed' trains people for hoon driving. YOu're basing that on absolutely nothing.
  
  I'm not sure what your point is with the link you posted - again, the majority of those titles are not violent.
  
  You are labouring under the misbelief that your appraisal of the content of these texts - which you have no knowledge of and have never experienced - is the morally correct one, and it is somehow up to their defends to prove you wrong. This is childish, and you know it.
  
  Put up or shut up, Peter. Provide something besides baseless scaremongering and hamfisted social commentary. You've been making ridiculous claims all day - and not a single one has been backed up by a single piece of evidence. I get the feeling that you are deliberately wasting my time.
  
  5 months ago report
Alan John Hunter

Retired

To sum up this debate, we have basically 3 camps.
(1) Those who believe violent video games, TV and movies contribute to violence., probably non gamers.
(2)Those who believe violent video games, TV and movies don't contribute to violence., probably gamers.
(3)Those who believe nothing should be banned, which was never a proposition anyway.
Nobody is going to change anybody else's mind, so the whole debate is pointless, there have been some relevant points raised but mostly it is just crap, people arguing from an entrenched position, who won't concede a millimetre, which basically means its not a objective debate but a subjective arguement.

5 months ago report
Dianna Arthur

Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.

Environmentalist

I have never been able to 'get' the humour of the Three Stooges, yet many of my most trusted and beloved male friends do and some like to play violent video games as well. I have yet to see signs of them running amok with an Uzi.

That said, I do not believe we can unscramble the very real violence that permeates our world from all the pretend. How to prove that violence can be inculcated in people via gaming when our world is already violent?

Similar arguments occur with the viewing of violent…
Read more

I have never been able to 'get' the humour of the Three Stooges, yet many of my most trusted and beloved male friends do and some like to play violent video games as well. I have yet to see signs of them running amok with an Uzi.

That said, I do not believe we can unscramble the very real violence that permeates our world from all the pretend. How to prove that violence can be inculcated in people via gaming when our world is already violent?

Similar arguments occur with the viewing of violent porn or films.

Perhaps a better question would be to ask why we are so violent in real life?

When are we going to place the onus on the perpetrators of crime? How can we bring people to account for their actions when so much of our culture reinforces the use of violence?

I am still in shock from the beyond reprehensible actions of the gang rape in India. From the deliberate planning to the final tossing of a woman's body onto the road and then to drive the bus over her and her partner. How could anyone even think this up as something to do?

We can't know if the perpetrators indulged in violent games or porn, however, I believe it is counter intuitive to claim that such forms of entertainment have zero effect on anyone.

5 months ago report
1. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna,
  
  Are you claiming that there may have been a causal link between the gang rape of the Indian student, and computer games?
  
  Is that really what you suspect? You believe that, in some way, an act so heinous, reprehensible, and monstrous had it's genesis on an Xbox?
  
  5 months ago report
2. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  David
  
  The point I was making is simply we cannot be 100% sure that violent games do not have an adverse effect on people, given that our world is already violent.
  
  5 months ago report
3. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  Why are you singling out video games, though?
  
  Are you interested in finding out if the perpetrators indulged in the viewing of organized sport, too?
  
  5 months ago report
4. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  Que?
  
  The topic is about violent video games.
  
  You have read the article haven't you?
  
  5 months ago report
5. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  Yes, Dianna.
  
  And, you said that 'it is counter intuitive to claim that such forms of entertainment have zero effect on anyone'.
  
  Therefore, I am asking you if that is a claim that you apply to multiple forms of media - or just video games.
  
  5 months ago report
6. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  David
  
  I have already stated that our society is one of violence and that violent video games constitute a part of what is considered by many as acceptable.
  
  My questions were asking why we have to accept a violent society, given that there are alternatives to behavioural conflict by way of reasoned resolution.
  
  To which I will add a further question.
  
  Why are you so defensive?
  
  5 months ago report
7. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna,
  
  Why on earth would you find my responses defensive? You introduced the awful case in India into a conversation about video games, and I asked you to expand on some of your points. Nothing defensive at all.
  
  5 months ago report
8. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  David
  
  You have systematically attacked everyone who holds a differing view point to your own on this thread.
  
  You do understand that no-one is going to take your Xbox away? Therefore, chill out.
  
  We know that violence is a dark and ever present part of our society and to dismiss the influence of games that rely on violent actions is the behaviour of denial.
  
  5 months ago report
9. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna,
  
  That is a lie. I have not 'attacked everyone who holds a differing viewpoint'. I have defended a medium, and asked people to justify their positions. On the contrary, I have been insulted and treated with disrespect by a number of posters here, despite treating them with civility.
  
  Your assertion is false, and I stand by that. Your posts are the equivalent of saying 'Oh, I know I have no evidence to PROVE what, I'm saying - but, come on! EVERYONE knows this is true!'
  
  I'm asking for…
  Read more
  
  Dianna,
  
  That is a lie. I have not 'attacked everyone who holds a differing viewpoint'. I have defended a medium, and asked people to justify their positions. On the contrary, I have been insulted and treated with disrespect by a number of posters here, despite treating them with civility.
  
  Your assertion is false, and I stand by that. Your posts are the equivalent of saying 'Oh, I know I have no evidence to PROVE what, I'm saying - but, come on! EVERYONE knows this is true!'
  
  I'm asking for evidence - hard, quantifiable evidence - establishing a causal relationship between the playing of video games and violent behaviours. Thus far, nobody has been able to provide a single piece of said evidence, other than irrelevant anecdotes and ancient, inconclusive, or discredited studies.
  
  Don't tell me to 'chill out' - that is exceptionally condescending and arrogant. I am asking you to back up your arguments. If you can't do that, don't attempt to shift the blame to me, as though I am 'attacking' you. Grow up.
  
  5 months ago report
10. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  In light of your latest riposte:
  
  I rest my case.
  
  5 months ago report
11. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  As do I, Dianna.
  
  I've asked you for evidence of your contention - rather than simply provide it, you have chosen to engage in childish ad hominem. Disappointing.
  
  5 months ago report
Tim Scanlon

Debunker

So it is okay to send people off to war but video games need to be controlled? Should we also only have the news report on puppies so that people aren't exposed to violence in the media?

Fallacies aside, one researcher with a couple of inconclusive papers (no differences found between non-violent and violent video games for responses) http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2005-2009/07CAB.pdf is not really the basis for a conclusion on what is a very complex subject. Most studies…
Read more

So it is okay to send people off to war but video games need to be controlled? Should we also only have the news report on puppies so that people aren't exposed to violence in the media?

Fallacies aside, one researcher with a couple of inconclusive papers (no differences found between non-violent and violent video games for responses) http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2005-2009/07CAB.pdf is not really the basis for a conclusion on what is a very complex subject. Most studies have concluded no real effects unless the subjects are already prone to violence/aggression, in fact these people often use violent media as an outlet for their frustrations in a controlled manner that doesn't harm anyone.

As such, the article here is not drawing enough background material in to draw the conclusions made. Also, the video game burnings is the sort of knee jerk blame game crap that people like to play after a tragedy so that they don't have to admit any responsibility for their actual wrongs. Allowing a mother to raise a child in a doomsday prepping mentality of "us or them" "kill or be killed" fashion, with easy access to weapons and little discipline/morals, is the issue. Blaming games is like saying you're fat because you like apples.

5 months ago report
Alan John Hunter

Retired

David.
I once had a 16 year old juvenile delinquent, working for me, he had nowhere to live, I had a spare bed, he moved in temporarily along with a heap of stolen property. I questioned about this, he was using relatively sophisticated burglary techniques (for a 16 year old), I asked where he learnt how to do all this stuff, TV he replied.
I realise that this is only one case, but then he is the burglar I have ever met, so your contention that people don’t learn from video, movies TV is utter garbage.

5 months ago report
1. David Elliott
  
  PhD Student, Monash University
  
  In reply to Alan John Hunter
  
  Alan,
  
  Could you point me to the television show that teaches people how to become professional criminals? I'm interested in seeing where this anecdote comes from.
  
  5 months ago report
2. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Alan John Hunter
  
  Methinks we have aroused some sort of demon beast worth at 2000 points, Ms A.
  
  A hydra headed monster spewing defensive denial at any and all who would impugn the honour - indeed the spiritual and moral integrity - of Vault of Loathing IV.
  
  I'm off to hunt the snark elsewhere.
  
  5 months ago report
3. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Alan John Hunter
  
  I know I am a much more proficient murderer thanks to CSI the other night ... could have been NCIS or any other of 'em, not sure - everyone was beautiful though ...
  
  I would not wrap the corpse in my dog's blanket. And I would hold the gun sideways. I would use someone else's gun, gloves and throw it away in the ocean many miles away. I would dispose of the body in a fridge 5 miles offshore. And it would not be anyone I knew directly and I would leave for a long holiday that afternoon - somewhere cool. And I would pay absolutely no attention to glamorous police models lounging about the pool all hot-wired to the van out front.
  
  5 months ago report
Anthony Nolan

Ruminant

I just think gamers are pussies who are scared of real violence. I'd have more respect for youse if yez got on the mat or went piggin' boys and girls.

5 months ago report
1. Alan John Hunter
  
  Retired
  
  In reply to Anthony Nolan
  
  That was 45 years ago, I can however point you to thousands of video games, TV shows and movies that teach you how to kill people.
  
  5 months ago report
2. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Anthony Nolan
  
  Bonus points for jelly.
  
  5 months ago report
Dianna Arthur

Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.

Environmentalist

Both meditation and playing video games require being seated and a level of concentration. However, it is interesting that it is the practice of meditation used to mitigate violent tendencies (and not playing at violence).

http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-1982/Meditation-Reduces-Violence-in-Alabama-Prison.html

5 months ago report
Clifford Chapman

Retired English Teacher

Grant Phillips

Em, you write to me: 'I am having trouble following your comment trail regarding violence in the media', and I'm not surprised, I haven't laid any baits on that topic, so there's no trail to follow.

I guess if I had to settle for something, it would mirror the perceptive words attributed to Herbert Marshall McLuhan: 'If it bleeds, it leads', and I think this not only has it in a nutshell but also well fits with his idea that the medium is (or becomes) the message.

Both these ideas reflect not just the content presented but the presenter of it - thus the media is not a neutral factor in the equation, a view examined by Ben Elton in his novel 'Popcorn'.

5 months ago report
1. Grant Phillips
  
  project officer
  
  In reply to Clifford Chapman
  
  So you have nothing to contribute?
  
  5 months ago report
2. Clifford Chapman
  
  Retired English Teacher
  
  In reply to Clifford Chapman
  
  Not that you are capable of following.
  
  5 months ago report
3. Grant Phillips
  
  project officer
  
  In reply to Clifford Chapman
  
  @ Clifford
  
  That was very hurtful.
  
  5 months ago report
Jonathan Marshall

Founder

Video Game buy-back !!!!

How misguided

Why not a Gun buy-back effort - the instrument I think we can all agree did the killing

5 months ago report
Dave Satterthwaite

logged in via Facebook

Is it time to revisit the 'violence in written texts' argument yet? I actually prefer that one to the discussions of visual media such as games and movies, given that more sophistication is required to discuss the alleged effects or lack thereof.

The simplicity of the 'monkey see, monkey do' notional thinking is to my mind a serious blinder and limits forward movement on the issue.

5 months ago report
1. Clifford Chapman
  
  Retired English Teacher
  
  In reply to Dave Satterthwaite
  
  That's a very interesting post and viewpoint you've raised, Dave Satterthwaite, and vastly superior, in my view, to the knee-jerk reactions of the video games apologists.
  
  It's like you are saying that while our visual perception is obviously strong and immediate, the sixth sense offers a deeper and more implicit fertility. Am I rightly reading that into your post or am I on the wrong lines?
  
  I do like it, though, the idea. Would you say the reading of such texts, is, then, more reflective in its likely or possible influences and effects? It would be hard to argue that their effects were neutral or they would have no effects, unless the reading of them was simply an act of the present so that once shut, the book would not feature in the consciousness. But such a position would be reducing us to a very basic level of sensory perception.
  
  I'll have to think about it for a while but thanks for raising the bar.
  
  5 months ago report
2. Dave Satterthwaite
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Dave Satterthwaite
  
  Hi Clifford,
  
  That's exactly what I am saying. As someone who is both a prolific reader and game player, I guess I am also a prime candidate for observation :)
  
  It's clearly a different form of sensory intake and I think the discussion of how that may then find its way into behavioural outputs is a more practical examination than general hand-waving about imitative behaviour.
  
  The real discussion here is *how* observation, in any way, can become behaviour-affective. There's no 'moral' difference between a violent video game and a violent novel on a functional level - and functionality is where these discussions should focus, not on moralising from any camp.
  
  5 months ago report
Clifford Chapman

Retired English Teacher

Dave Satterthwaite

This is also well said by you and far more intelligent in its possible implicit links between the texts and their effects upon us than crass populism. In fact, in a way, it's possible that if we could reflect more on this aspect of our being, we might be able to move forward morally and ethically.

I do appreciate this angle of looking at the argument - it's much more thoughtful, and it shows an awareness that we have to move beyond the simplistic view that what we do and how we behave is not open to an in-depth analysis.

5 months ago report
Clifford Chapman

Retired English Teacher

Grant Phillips

Why ask the original question in the first place, if you were not seeking a sincere dialogue?

It doesn't say much for you, does it?

A little disingenuous, I'd say, and not befitting a man.

5 months ago report
1. Grant Phillips
  
  project officer
  
  In reply to Clifford Chapman
  
  Requesting sincere dialogue then launching into ad hominem attack either demonstrates an unwillingness to argue the issues or is simply an error in reasoning.
  
  Just stating that someone is disingenuous or not a man doesn't mean that your argument is correct. This is just a way of removing arguments from the debate.
  
  So, one example, using the evidence from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, instead of argumentum ad hominem is:
  
  A ten-country comparison shows lower gun crime in…
  Read more
  
  Requesting sincere dialogue then launching into ad hominem attack either demonstrates an unwillingness to argue the issues or is simply an error in reasoning.
  
  Just stating that someone is disingenuous or not a man doesn't mean that your argument is correct. This is just a way of removing arguments from the debate.
  
  So, one example, using the evidence from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, instead of argumentum ad hominem is:
  
  A ten-country comparison shows lower gun crime in countries with significantly higher rates of computer game purchases.
  
  So the actual data collected doesn't support the relationship between video games and crime. In fact, this shows the opposite, that there is "a slight downward shift in violence as video game consumption increases."
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-country-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-and-gun-murders/
  
  United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: www.unodc.org
  
  4 months ago report
2. Clifford Chapman
  
  Retired English Teacher
  
  In reply to Grant Phillips
  
  Why don't you tel me something I don't already know?
  
  Try to rewrite the history as much as you like, you initiated an unsolicited communication directly to me with:
  
  'I am having trouble following your comment thread regarding violence in the media.
  
  Can you clarify your position?'
  
  And when I replied sincerely that basically I'd agree with the idea: 'If it bleeds, it leads', and 'the message is the medium', you immediately responded with: 'So you have nothing to contribute?', a response…
  Read more
  
  Why don't you tel me something I don't already know?
  
  Try to rewrite the history as much as you like, you initiated an unsolicited communication directly to me with:
  
  'I am having trouble following your comment thread regarding violence in the media.
  
  Can you clarify your position?'
  
  And when I replied sincerely that basically I'd agree with the idea: 'If it bleeds, it leads', and 'the message is the medium', you immediately responded with: 'So you have nothing to contribute?', a response that well illustrates the fact that you did not ask the question with a genuine desire to know in the first place.
  
  Your lack of sincerity in first asking the question, as well as your contemptuous reply to my genuine response, makes your appeal to ad hominem hypocritical. On the implicit level, you had no intention of debating with me honestly.
  
  I didn't just state that someone is disingenuous, I let their own words say it for them.
  
  Incidentally, do you really think that 'if it bleeds, it leads', is not relevant regarding violence in the media, let alone the interesting idea, 'the medium becomes the message'.
  
  4 months ago report
3. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Grant Phillips
  
  I don't think anyone would be suggesting anything so blunt and crude as a direct equation of violent games = violent crime = gun deaths. The issue is not about the background level of violence in a society - it is about a particular form of violence: the random massacre with crowd killer weaponry - the "statement in slaughter".
  
  I don't think everyone who picks up a joystick is destined to follow the footsteps of Martin Bryant or that Norwegian hate-monger. But some do. As do folks who watch…
  Read more
  
  I don't think anyone would be suggesting anything so blunt and crude as a direct equation of violent games = violent crime = gun deaths. The issue is not about the background level of violence in a society - it is about a particular form of violence: the random massacre with crowd killer weaponry - the "statement in slaughter".
  
  I don't think everyone who picks up a joystick is destined to follow the footsteps of Martin Bryant or that Norwegian hate-monger. But some do. As do folks who watch Dexter, or graphic torture, or violent porn or CSI or any of the rest of the parade of psychopathic violence we now call the media. Or folks who torture animals in childhood or light fires.
  
  The methods of calculating such statistics on crime and violence at a global scale often tend to obscure as much as they clarify. The devil is in the detail - are we counting the same things?
  
  My curiosity in this issue arises from the psychological reward offered by violence - at least for some folks. Take the violence and the realism out of these games and they sink without trace. The developers employ senior ex-officers to advise on "realism" - so the folks coming back from Afghanistan can't spot the difference with the real business.
  
  It is the same backdrop of violence and its increasingly realistic portrayal that seems to becoming our dominant form of "relaxation".
  
  Here's something to ponder: " An average American child will see 200,000 violent acts and 16,000 murders on TV by age 18" . That's from a 1998 Study - god knows what that number would look like now. And they see it bigger, in high def and with cutting edge computerised "added realism".
  
  Nice piece about kids and violence in the media here at Uni of Michigan: http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/tv.htm
  
  It is not, I think, that violent games makes psychopathic kids grab mum's Bushmaster and go on a "mission" - it's that psychopaths seem to like violent games FPS in particular. It's a comfortable "empowering" place for them, when nowehere else offers sanctuary and control. The pathology is built-in. It's in the world-view.... this endless binary game of "us" and "them". It becomes how they see the world. They are "immersed" in it.
  
  Not everyone. It is a sickness. You have to be sick. You have to have access to crowd-killer weaponry and know how to use it.
  
  For some - a frightened angry few - all isolated and all twitter and bisted as they are - Call of Duty 1V all too easily moves from goodies and baddies - "us" and "them" - to become "me" and "everyone else".
  
  4 months ago report
4. Andy Ruddock
  
  Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter
  
  Much of that might be true, but what I wanted to focus attention on in this piece is the way that people who indulge in and enjoy videogame violence are using what they have learned as members of gaming communities to try to lead the media/violence debate in new directions-as such indicating how this media form is good for many, and indeed how the world would be a poorer place without it.
  
  Others on this thread have commented on the similarities between this case and earlier ones where…
  Read more
  
  Peter
  
  Much of that might be true, but what I wanted to focus attention on in this piece is the way that people who indulge in and enjoy videogame violence are using what they have learned as members of gaming communities to try to lead the media/violence debate in new directions-as such indicating how this media form is good for many, and indeed how the world would be a poorer place without it.
  
  Others on this thread have commented on the similarities between this case and earlier ones where horrific acts of violence have been blamed on the media. They have rightly pointed out that these attacks are frequently politically expedient ways of avoiding complicated analyses of the social causes of violence.
  
  The thing that struck me about this story, as something that is different, is the way that some gamers, while maintaining that games do not *independently* contribute to violence, have argued that the games industry plays into the hands of its political opponents by doing things like allowing gun product placement in certain titles. What's impressed me has been the way that gamers have organised themselves to make sure they can mount more effective defences, and have challenged the industry to do the same. So, what this shows is how media violence has acted as a medium through which gamers become citizens.
  
  On the other hand, just as gamers are sick and tired for being blamed for things that aren't their fault, it's just as unhelpful to lump any group that objects to gaming violence as poor fools who have drunk the media-effects-sponsored-by-the-NRA kool aid. Sure, burning games isn't a great way to present yourself as rational, but at the same time statements from the group do locate the 'problem' as relating to discourses about violence that pervade media and society.
  
  In this sense, and what I'm saying here, is there is a difference in this iteration of the debate where we can see common points of view among gamers, concerned teachers and peers, and effects researchers, even of the most determined kind.
  
  Elsewhere on here, I've been accused of cherry picking Anderson. Yes, I've done that. I've done that to show that even the most determined advocate of the 'videogames pose a significant threat to some people' position think the answer is dialogue, not prohibition, because there is a bias toward looking for negative effects, and the possibility that games are GOOD for significant numbers of people is under-researched.
  
  The link to the article on the connections between the gaming and gun industries-a link which gamers have exposed and protested against-demonstrates the subtext to my interest in the topic, which is about the role that media violence plays as a political discourse, and the light it sheds on what it means to live in a world where many of the resources for cultural well-being have been outsourced to media industries.
  
  4 months ago report
5. lavinia kay moore
  
  child and family counsellor
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter. hello again.
  The whole thing about violence is that it is an option for those who think that the very act of violence will let them win: something.
  If a person plays games that link "winning" with the death /destruction of another, surely they would not continue unless they got some enjoyment out of it. And the question is, does the enjoyment stem more from the winning, per se, or how they achieved the win?
  Family court counsellors for many years had to work hard to convince legally trained…
  Read more
  
  Peter. hello again.
  The whole thing about violence is that it is an option for those who think that the very act of violence will let them win: something.
  If a person plays games that link "winning" with the death /destruction of another, surely they would not continue unless they got some enjoyment out of it. And the question is, does the enjoyment stem more from the winning, per se, or how they achieved the win?
  Family court counsellors for many years had to work hard to convince legally trained persons that witnessing violence impacted emotionally on a child.
  Linking that with the fact that children learn through observation and through practising behaviours that please their parents/teachers etc.
  What if those who have power over you - directly or surruptitiously- have no real concern about your welfare or emotional wellbeing, what lessons do you learn from them? Do you learn that you are either a loser of a winner?
  If you have developed that kind of mindset, and also equate aggression/violence with winning, then why would anyone be surprised if you exhibit violent behaviour.
  Video gaming is not only observed when children play. they participate.
  Anyone knowing about how humans learn would surely understand that violent video games do imact on children's mind set.
  That is not to say that all children who play such games will become mass murderers.
  But in my opinion, such violent videos are not conducive to developing cooperative or respectful behaviour.
  And monky see monkey do! And when the child practises violence in fantasy games at young ages when their cognitive development may not be able to differentiate between pretend and reality, especially when they get in tight spots or feel thwarted, they may believe that it is alright putting in to practicxe the skills they learned through gaming.
  
  4 months ago report
6. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to lavinia kay moore
  
  G'day Lavinia
  
  As a fella who has spent far too much of his allotted span in Family Courts for various three ring events, I don't know how you folks do it. A monument to intransigence the whole business. And so sad.
  
  To unleash even the nicest lawyers into such circumstances is just adding fuel to the whole business - like they all come with a bottle of shellite under their robes. It builds us and them into it as it must. Very hard to get the kids or grandparents a decent run.
  
  Returning…
  Read more
  
  G'day Lavinia
  
  As a fella who has spent far too much of his allotted span in Family Courts for various three ring events, I don't know how you folks do it. A monument to intransigence the whole business. And so sad.
  
  To unleash even the nicest lawyers into such circumstances is just adding fuel to the whole business - like they all come with a bottle of shellite under their robes. It builds us and them into it as it must. Very hard to get the kids or grandparents a decent run.
  
  Returning to less civilised violence - all of it - from well-tanned coppers crashing through doors with SWAT teams 23 times a week through to decapitating the last head of the Zorg Beast even if it is a cartoony little horror - it's all about winning, the end use of force that settles the show... like life really innit? Seems to get that way.
  
  I grew up playing cowboys and indians and a lot of it involved running around in long-suffering shrubbery pointing fingers and going pow pow pow. Yet I have not become a psycopathic mass murderer (to date) but I have an utter disdain for cattle and horses to this very day. And they me. Never liked 'em - even when they were imaginary.
  
  4 months ago report
Richard Hockey

logged in via Facebook

Andersen's meta analysis of video game violence is not the only one. There is another by FERGUSON and KILBURN with found:
"Results from the current analysis do not support the conclusion that media violence leads to aggressive behavior. It cannot be concluded at this time that media violence presents a significant public health risk. (J Pediatr 2009;154:759-63) "
As I said before you cherry picked your sources.
R

5 months ago report
1. Richard Hockey
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Richard Hockey
  
  Ferguson and Kilburn also published a critique of Anderson's analysis.
  "Much Ado About Nothing: The Misestimation and Overinterpretation
  of Violent Video Game Effects in Eastern and Western Nations:
  Comment on Anderson et al. (2010)" Psychological Bulletin 2010, Vol. 136, No. 2, 174–178
  
  In the same issue there was another article by one of Anderson's fanboys which was critical of Ferguson and others accusing them of having a vested interest in defending video games, one of the worst cases of ad hominem attacks in a scholarly journal I have seen.
  It has been claimed elsewhere that the NRA fund research into the link between media violence and aggression.
  R
  
  5 months ago report
Comment removed by moderator.
Alan John Hunter

Retired

I object to my comment being removed, I think you should look more closely at David Elliott's comments to Peter Ormonde and myself, mine might have went a tad further than his, but his were contemptuous and insulting as well as in correct.
Could you please return mine, so I can remove the offensive sections.
Cheers Alan

5 months ago report
Byron Smith

PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh

Thanks for an interesting piece.

I would encourage those interested in social violence to look carefully at a variety of recent studies that have examined the links between exposure to lead and violent crime rates. There are some compelling features of these studies, which are considerably more complex than noting the rise and fall of lead exposure has mirrored the rise and fall of social violence from the mid-20thC.

You can read a good summary with links to the research here: http://www.monbiot.com/2013/01/07/the-grime-behind-the-crime/.

5 months ago report
1. Daniel Teghe
  
  Sociologist
  
  In reply to Byron Smith
  
  Brilliant, thanks Byron. The link made by the studies mentioned makes sense.
  
  5 months ago report
aligatorhardt

logged in via Twitter

Violence in society has gone down during the time video games have existed. The number of people who commit murder is insignificant compared to the number of people playing violent video games. All manner of speculative conclusions can be imagined by those hoping to advance an agenda, but the numbers show that video games are not increasing violence in society. The crimes of psychopaths are their own, not everyone else's.

5 months ago report
Richard Hockey

logged in via Facebook

To keep all this in perspective you should read:
Pinker,S. (2011) The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking 2011.

R

4 months ago report
Andy Ruddock

Senior Lecturer, Research Unit in Media Studies, Monash University at Monash University

This is the first article I read about Southington.
http://www.gamesradar.com/connecticut-town-collects-violent-games-parents/

I see subsequent coverage has dropped the quote about parents talking to their kids in favour of a focus on the game burning thing.

4 months ago report

Articles also by This Author

Want to follow The Conversation?

Republish

Join the conversation