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

571–580 of 593 posts

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

#571

Post by nathias »

afandian wrote: post #117

I'm one of those people who is entirely bemused by violent videogames and films (I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be bemused by my pastimes too). I'm not trying to argue to stop anyone doing it, but I would really like to understand it better. Many video games are essentially simulators of things that we're prevented from doing in reality, because of the laws of nature or society. Whether that's dropping…

Representations of things aren't things, realism can't be reduced to realism of perceived graphics. Sitting behind a computer, clicking a mouse and watching pixels is a fundamentally different experience to murdering someone.

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

#572

Post by DanBC »

giantg2 wrote: post #565
speedgoose wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your point. My perspective on having easily accessible firearms for self defense is different indeed, and is also related to the law where I live : weapons must be stored in an approved safe that is bolted to the house. I think the main issue with firearms and suicide is the easyness and effectiveness. For sure someone very sick and determined may find other methods. I don't know if it's easy to compare…

And given the relatively low occurence of situations that would require a gun if you don't use it for sport, your choice seems rational and reasonable. I think you're also right about the sick people comment. The two people I know who committed suicide were elderly and started experiencing alzheimer's. Their decisions seemed quite final. I suppose if I were in a similar situation, I would probably find it a rational…

> since the 80s

It's very difficult to compare US data from before 1999 because the method of coding changed.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a11.htm

> Because coding of the mortality data changed to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) beginning in 1999, analyses by year and race/ethnicity were conducted for 1999--2007 to examine rate changes during that period.

> I've heard the argument before (temporary idea and effective means), which probably is true of the non-terminally ill. I haven't seen any data supporting it so far.

There's a few natural experiments that are relevant: limiting pack sizes for paracetamol in the UK; change from coal gas to natural gas in the UK in the 1960s; change to cars with catalytic convertors.

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

#573

Post by notSupplied »

afandian wrote: post #117

I'm one of those people who is entirely bemused by violent videogames and films (I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be bemused by my pastimes too). I'm not trying to argue to stop anyone doing it, but I would really like to understand it better. Many video games are essentially simulators of things that we're prevented from doing in reality, because of the laws of nature or society. Whether that's dropping…

The difference between the "kill" taboo and "rape" taboo is: We have a narrative where killing is justified–Good guys killing bad guys–but we do not have a narrative where rape is justified.

Remember the controversy around the game "Hatred", where you play some random angry "antagonist" who just wants to kill innocent people? When the "good guy" narrative breaks down this far, society would reject violent video games as well.

There are games that toe the "good guy" line, most notably Grand Theft Auto. But GTA also has some of the most tame looking violence. I cannot imagine a GTA with the "sadistic gaze" of Mortal Kombat's finishers being widely accepted.

This is especially more palatable if non-humans on receiving the violence. There is strong interest in killing aliens/monsters/demons/robots, but I think it's safe to say there is comparatively little interest in having sex with them. I say "comparatively little" and not "none", because Rule 34.

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

#574

Post by ajuc »

troupe wrote: post #567
ajuc wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets say the effect is 1 additional violent crime per 1000 gamers per year. With 2.4 billion gamers we should have seen increase by 2.4 million violent crimes per year in last few decades. It's very unlikely that data hides such an increase, especially given the fact that in different countries game adoption and crime follows slightly different curves so it should be possible to separate changes caused by other facto…

If the question is whether or not there is a high chance of someone committing a violent crime caused by playing video games, then you are correct. If the question is whether there is any causation link between violent video games and committing real life violence, then you need more data than what you are using. We have roughly 380 violent crimes per 100k people each year in the US. Just to keep it simple, let's ass…

> Half of adults play video games and about half of those play violent video games

The outrage was mostly about children and permanent damage to their brains caused by games. Almost all children play games, and certainly more than half of all games (weighted by popularity) are violent.

> very high, say 1 out of 1,000

That seems the opposite of high. High would be 1 in 2 or 1 in 5.

If the effect of everyone playing video games is 1 additional crime per 100 000 people I don't see the problem TBH.

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

#575

Post by dang »

rgblambda wrote: post #402
giantg2 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Maybe you're referring to the locks in which case you have a point. But exterior doors in my area tend to have big glass panels on them." Locks, sure. But those don't mean much if you have doors and door frames made of wood and they aren't either extremely heavy or reinforced. "Are they bringing a ladder as well?" A ladder or chair from your own home should work fine. You might be suprised at how often burglars use…

[flagged]

Please avoid tit-for-tat spats on HN. They're break the site guidelines, inevitably degenerate, and are tedious to everybody else.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#576

Post by dang »

giantg2 wrote: post #451
rgblambda wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"But if they have some kind of head start, the police advice is to find a secure location from which to call the police. I'll take that over the advice of someone whose seen Home Alone too many times." LOL why ddo you assume that I'm the latter and not the former? You can live in your own reality. Clearly talking to you is pointless.

Please avoid tit-for-tat spats on HN. They're break the site guidelines, inevitably degenerate, and are tedious to everybody else.

In addition, please don't do personal attacks. We ban accounts that do that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#577

Post by giantg2 »

DanBC wrote: post #572
giantg2 wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And given the relatively low occurence of situations that would require a gun if you don't use it for sport, your choice seems rational and reasonable. I think you're also right about the sick people comment. The two people I know who committed suicide were elderly and started experiencing alzheimer's. Their decisions seemed quite final. I suppose if I were in a similar situation, I would probably find it a rational…

> since the 80s It's very difficult to compare US data from before 1999 because the method of coding changed. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a11.htm > Because coding of the mortality data changed to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) beginning in 1999, analyses by year and race/ethnicity were conducted for 1999--2007 to examine rate changes during that period. > I'v…

I see them mention a change in that study and that they did some binomial regression for ethnicity in those years. But it seems that's for secondary attributes like ethnicity, not for the main cause of death (suicide). Or am I missing something?

I'm aware of those examples. Those examples were before the internet, meaning people commit suicide they way they know how. Socially, you couldn't just ask someone how to commit suicide with an alternative method, but now you can look it up on online so you don't have to ask anyone.

The coal gas example does show a reasonable reduction (18-13). But after the conversion process was completed, you see it's still creeps back up to 15 just within a couple years.

The paracetamol example might actually go against your argument. We see that the suicide rate overall is very steady after the package size change, which suggests that people found other methods.

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

#578

Post by Groxx »

devenvdev wrote: post #528
Groxx wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because flying into a building doesn't gain you any benefits in the game. It's not part of a goal, it has no purpose. Since it's not part of the mechanics: as you point out, it's not (frequently) done. That seems to support the claim that it's not about seeking violence.

As someone who flew an airplain into the statue of liberty on purpose (in a simulator of course) - it was purely out of interest what will the game do, not violence. The same goes for the torture scene in GTA5, it didn't "feel" violent, it felt like you playing a part of the story in an alternative reality. Again, out of curiosity, going along with all the torture methods available.

There is definitely an element of "find the edges of the simulation" / "learn the system better" / "see everything" in a lot of these, along with just enjoying a spectacle.

E.g. in Kerbal Space Program I often "reset" bad airplane flights by crashing into the ground as fast as I can, or one of the space center buildings if I'm nearby. I could just hit esc and reset and be back faster, but then I don't see an explosion, nor have a chance to see messed up physics breaking the universe. I've also coordinated orbital collisions to do the same, but there it's more because it's extremely challenging to achieve at any reasonable velocity.

I have no desire to crash real planes or blow up space stations though. The closest that gets to the real world is "I like fireworks".

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

#579

Post by troupe »

ajuc wrote: post #574
troupe wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the question is whether or not there is a high chance of someone committing a violent crime caused by playing video games, then you are correct. If the question is whether there is any causation link between violent video games and committing real life violence, then you need more data than what you are using. We have roughly 380 violent crimes per 100k people each year in the US. Just to keep it simple, let's ass…

> Half of adults play video games and about half of those play violent video games The outrage was mostly about children and permanent damage to their brains caused by games. Almost all children play games, and certainly more than half of all games (weighted by popularity) are violent. > very high, say 1 out of 1,000 That seems the opposite of high. High would be 1 in 2 or 1 in 5. If the effect of everyone playing vi…

I get what you are saying. Keep in mind I'm just saying this would be how we look for causation, not whether it makes sense to actually do something about it.

> That seems the opposite of high. High would be 1 in 2 or 1 in 5.

I guess I'm thinking of how we'd view a side effect in medicine. If 1 out of 1,000 people who had the problem the medicine was supposed to cure were likely to die or cause a death when taking the medicine, it would seem like a high number of deaths. You'll routinely see side effects of things that happened 1 in 50,000 cases being listed as possible side effects of medicine.

> If the effect of everyone playing video games is 1 additional crime per 100 000 people I don't see the problem

Whether this matters probably depends on what violent thing they do. If it is an additional Columbine type event for every 100k people, that would be much less acceptable than one additional instance of verbal abuse by someone in a disagreement at a bar.

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

#580

Post by tomnipotent »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #550
tomnipotent wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

> When you develop a habit of consuming violece - and enjoying it - those paths are real.

Except that's exactly what is up for discussion, and so far there is no evidence that this is the case. There's a big difference between muscle memory, neuroplasticity, and playing the piano than their is for sitting on the couch and consuming violent media.

> Pretending they don't exist doesn't make them magically disappear.

Saying they exist doesn't make them magically appear.

> Furthermore, human behavior is often learned for the collective

Yes, that's also how morals work. The more people are exposed to something, the more morally acceptable it becomes.

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

Short witticisms like "you are what you eat" or "you are what you learn" are shallow and vastly underestimate the subjects at hand in exchange for a quick nod. Such as "we are greater than the sum of our parts".

Post reply on HN