Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ten year study: No link between violent video games and aggressive behavior

gamesage.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 593 posts

Re: Ten year study: No link between violent video games and aggressive behavior

#541

Post by neop1x »

Thlom wrote: post #536
greggman3 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something is special about sex. People have sex. People don't kill others (generally). Compare how many people you personally know that have had sex vs how many people you personally know that have killed someone. As the study above points out, violent videos games don't make you more violent but I'm pretty confident sexy media (games, movies, music, etc) make people more horny and therefore more likely to seek out s…

I don't think sexualized media makes people more horny, but it can alter young peoples expectations of sex and possibly adults fantasies/sexuality.

Can it? Is there a study confirming that sexual development can be altered that way? Maybe to some degree, I have no idea, but in the past people also thought homosexuality is "learned" which proved to be false.

Re: Ten year study: No link between violent video games and aggressive behavior

#542

Post by GTP »

adamredwoods wrote: post #538
hellotomyrars wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the millions who buy Call of Duty every year somehow keep it in check and don’t commit mass murder.

My point is that it doesn't guarantee reduction in anger or stress, therefore should probably not be prescribed as such.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm not saying this should be prescribed as a cure to people with actual psychological problems, just that in my case sometimes I felt better after discharging playing some FPS videogame.

Re: Ten year study: No link between violent video games and aggressive behavior

#543

Post by eeZah7Ux »

giantg2 wrote: post #458
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again you kept assuming that I support the zero tolerance policy, to then even accusing me of trolling. > If the zero tolerance policy isn't the school policy you were speaking about, then what is? There is extensive literature on the topic in pedagogy and it often applies to adults surprisingly well. - hire psychologists instead of cops - fire any teacher that sees bullying and ignores it on purpose - require t…

You were clearly against the people defending themselves in your original reply (saying it won't fix anything) and want school policies to fix things. The policies you are listing are already in use! Why hasn't the issue been solved?

> You were clearly against the people defending themselves in your original reply

No, don't twist my words: I'm against the culture of pushing the burden of defending oneself onto the victim. Because it's literally victim blaming.

I'm also against punishing the victim in case they defend themselves, because it's also victim blaming.

This is nothing new. Most legal systems treat adults crime victims with a similar principle.

Re: Ten year study: No link between violent video games and aggressive behavior

#545

Post by giantg2 »

Thlom wrote: post #537
rgblambda wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I forget how America centric HN is. The internal walls in my house are made of stone. But it's an old house. Most in my country are made of brick.

I read the first sentence and thought you would comment on the fantasy of the ultra violent burglar who is intent on murdering someone who has barricaded themselves in a closet …

Why would he? He was the one that said someone is breaking in to beat him to death in the first place.

Re: Ten year study: No link between violent video games and aggressive behavior

#546

Post by chiefalchemist »

esperent wrote: post #510
chiefalchemist wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has any _one_ of those things been proven to be dangerous? Not really. Has the collective impact of multiple violences been studied? Put another way: Will a mouthful of soda do you in? Not really. But multiply that exposure to sugar across different drinks and processed foods multiple times per day and before you know there's an obesity crisis. But the mouthful of soda is proven to be safe. We are what we consume - p…

In the absence of studies, you could look at different cultures to see whether this holds up. For example, in most European countries, levels of violence are very low, and the likelihood/desire for an average person to own a weapon is also low (aside from hunters/the Swiss). Compare this to the US where violence is comparatively more common and gun ownership is high. Do Europeans consume large amounts of violent medi…

Some thoughts to add:

- What of the USA's willingness to use war as a proxy for foreign policy? Is not war a collective "enforcement" of violence? So much so that the masses have become numb and/or blind to war? Why is the USA _so much_ more violent? Because we have more guns? Point being, let's be clear, violence takes many forms.

- What if there are long term effects? What if the children of a player of violent video games are more effected? Maybe the parents are less likely to discipline for acts of toddler violence? What happens when that child grows up?

- The study looked at a particular group of kids, _10 y/o and up_. In terms of development, that's relatively late. The affect of violence on say 5 y/o's could be different, perhaps very.

- It's important to note that this "study" made no mention - at least in the non-pay material available about sample size. How they assessed violence vs non, and so on. The data collected also appears to be self-reported. Read: red flag. But confirmation bias runs strong on HN, yes?

- That said, the article does say:

"Participants were assessed through various behavioral characteristics such as aggression, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and prosocial behavior."

To be clear, the study doesn't connect violence to video games for the sample. However, it also fails to mention whether there are other less positive outcomes (e.g., increase in depression, obesity, or something else).

Re: Ten year study: No link between violent video games and aggressive behavior

#547

Post by giantg2 »

speedgoose wrote: post #527
stjohnswarts wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep a baseball bat by the bed and a shotgun in the corner. That's my plan on resolving a burglary. Somewhere in there it would be nice to call the police. But they are a good 15-20 minutes away and would only be coming to see if I made it out alive or not.

You should get rid of the gun or put it in a safe when you are not using it for sport. It's too dangerous to have it just in the corner. It's more likely that you or a family member will use it against yourself or someone else you love.

Do you have the stats on that?

It's really only valid if the person in question or his family have abuse or suicide issues.

Re: Ten year study: No link between violent video games and aggressive behavior

#548

Post by giantg2 »

yurishimo wrote: post #525
HeWhoLurksLate wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a fairly recent graduate from school- I accidentally carried a pocketknife in the bottom of my bag from grade 6 to 11, never had amy problems with it.

You obviously didn't go to a school with metal detectors...

None of mine did either. I think they are still pretty rare unless you are in a city or a very large school.

Re: Ten year study: No link between violent video games and aggressive behavior

#549

Post by giantg2 »

taurath wrote: post #511
giantg2 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

' ..."violence is sometimes okay" when its literally a crime as an adult.' Self defense is not a crime.

Is it only bullying if the bully throws a punch first?

If you look look at my comments, I do say there can be verbal bullying. I'm not recommending that someone escalate a verbal altercation into a physical one. I'm saying that zero tolerance policies prevent people who are bullied from fighting back in a physical altercation.

On a side note, depending on the state and the specific circumstances, if a bully utters fighting words, one could be justified to get physical if there was an imminent threat to violence. Of course, law and school policy are different.

Re: Ten year study: No link between violent video games and aggressive behavior

#550

Post by chiefalchemist »

tomnipotent wrote: post #509
chiefalchemist wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neuro-plasticity means what it says: the brain is moldable. It's not static. It's not set in stone. Prior to neuro-plasticity the brain was perceived as being set in stone, so to speak. The brain is a result of how you "exercise" it, or not. It's the result of what you feed it, or not. It's not static. Neuro-plasticity enables stroke victims to recover. And the depth and breadth of that recovery is a function of how…

I think we're agreed on the definition of neuroplasticity, just not that it defines you somehow. It's like saying "you are what you eat", which is mostly nonsensical. Exercising your brain causes structural changes, whereby neuronal circuity is "rewired" to create more optimal paths. Stroke victim recovery is functional, in which parts of the brain take over responsibilities for what was damaged (but it's not "transf…

Right. What you do - stroke or no stroke - becomes paths in the brain. Habits are simply more well established paths. What you do today influeces what you'll do tomorrow. And so on.

That is, what you "feed" your brain will manifest itself physically as paths in the brain. Full stop.

When you develop a habit of consuming violece - and enjoying it - those paths are real. Pretending they don't exist doesn't make them magically disappear. Confirmation bias works that way, the science does not.

Furthermore, human behavior is often learned for the collective. That is, for example, given a group of cigarette smokers, the more who quit smoking, the more likely others in the group are likely to quit.

Put another way, going in the other direction, humans naturally gravitate to broader norms. That is, the more I see others with excessive weight, the more likely others will join that club. So yes actually, you are what you eat. Literally.

Now please explain - not being snatky - how that's nonsensical.

Post reply on HN