You mean that boys are more likely to gravitate to situations where there are aggressive contests? Man, I never saw that coming, even with all that million years of evolution on the African savanna. I'm shocked. Shocked!
Although there's yet to be a study that conclusively proves a direct causal relationship between video game violence and real-life violence, psychologists are continuing to examine the effect violent media can have on children. A new study by Simmons College Communications Professor Edward T. Vieira, Jr., Ph.D. and published in the 2011 spring/summer edition of the Journal of Children and Media, notes that violent video game exposure can actually hinder a child's moral development.
... The research found that frequent exposure to violent video games can impact children's perception that some types of violence are acceptable. "The study also found that children who spend a great deal of time playing violent video games (as defined by the Entertainment Software Rating Board) have an increased likelihood of accepting all types of violence," reads the report. "The study confirmed that boys spend twice the amount of time playing violent video games as girls do, and highlighted the increased risk faced by boys who can become desensitized to violence because of frequent exposure to violent video play."
So let's see: there's no actual, you know, proof that violent video games cause kids to be violent (see the very first sentence in the article). And there's lots of evidence that kids with violent role models (either in the home or in their peer groups) are, well, violent.
"Certainly not every child who continues to play violent video games is going to go out and perpetrate a violent act, but the research suggests that children — particularly boys — who are frequently exposed to these violent games are absorbing a sanitized message of 'no consequences for violence' from this play behavior," said Vieira. "The concern arises when children are taking in this message and there is a convergence of other negative environmental factors at the same time, such as poor parental communication and unhealthy peer relationships." [all emphasis mine - Borepatch]
The problem, of course, is that communications professors will never get grants - or tenure - for studies showing that kids from violence-prone homes or communities are likely to be violent. Probably this would be considered double-plus ungood in the Ivory Tower, anyway. So quick, Robin, to the Junk-Sciencemobile!
Idiots. But remember, a village in Texas is missing its idiot, or something.
11 comments:
You appear to have missed the clear and uncontroverted evidence. Maybe if I layed it out for you in mathematical notation
violence=bad
video games=violence
boys=2/3 x video games
boys=violence
boys=bad
Violent video games make a lot of money.
I don't need a study. Allow a kid to do things over and over - training - and they will want to do things over and over.
Reward a kid that uses virtual violence, he will want that reward in real life.
On the other hand: w00t for equality! One third of violent video-game players are girls!
Have I mentioned how much I hate my psych book? Among other things, it explains that there is a clear link between violent video games and violent children who grow up to be violent adults being all violenty. Like North, they don't need a study. *headdesk*
I'm with Sean Sorrentino: Sounds like they established a correlation between testosterone and violent video games, put that together with the correlation between testosterone and violence, and concluded that Quake gives people testicles. Even an idiot would have to be drunk to come up with that one.
They should have a nurse examine that 1/3 of players who are girls. Maybe they've got a real biological breakthrough on their hands.
North: Your reasoning does sound kinda plausible, doesn't it? There's a word for an idea that's kinda plausible: "Hypothesis". You know what you do with those? You use something called the "scientific method" and find out if your idea accurately describes reality, or if it's just plausible-sounding bullshit.
People have actually your hypothesis and tested it against reality. Again and again. They keep finding that it's plausible-sounding bullshit. OK? It's bullshit. So go back to your homeopathy and chill out.
I'm gonna find a stupid picture of a cat and put a caption on it saying "THE NULL HYPOTHESIS PWNS AGAIN!"
So what do we blame the violence in Afghanistan on? They didn't grow up playing video games or watching TV.
"So what do we blame the violence in Afghanistan on?"
Treating boys like girls.
http://tinyurl.com/38zwac6
Has it never occurred to the researchers that possibly they have it backwards? It could be that violent children are just more drawn to violent video games than non-violent children.
Researcher: it appears that the investigators used structural equation modeling and a p of over .95 means that the data and model fit well. It is not a significant test. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Sorry.
Afghanistan? Two different situations.
I read the study and it is valid science. Some of the negative comments are based on obtuse thinking.
Post a Comment