Can video games really to blame for violence among the younger generation? (legal, statistics)

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by Rggr

People in modern warfare are able to kill on their own as you put it. This has not always been the case. Again, I would suggest reading On Killing. It demonstrates that historically, people were not always able to kill on their own because it is not natural to kill another person. In fact the data is pretty amazing and shows evidence of people trying not kill others. One of the benefits of the more modern advanced training and weapons that allow soldiers to kill at a distance is that they also allow people to dehumanize the enemy and make it easier to kill.

Actually you are a little off and although I have a lot of respect for Grossman, he is a bit wrong. I know he has based a lot of his hypothesis on S.L.A. Marshall's book Men Against Fire which has been pretty much proven to be a fraud. Marshall claimed to have conducted several studies ranging from meta-analysis of battlefield reports to interviews with over a thousand soldiers and he claimed that only 2% of soldiers fired their weapons regularly in every battle. Now, Marshall only interviewed a few soldiers and not all of them were combat troops and he didn't do a composite study of battlefield reports. He basically exaggerated the very little he had and made up the rest. For instance, he made no distinction between combat soldiers and let's say medics, he made no distinction between cases where soldiers might not be able to fire their weapon (like let's say being pinned down by enemy fire or malfunction) or not firing due to limited visibility or doing non-combat role or doing something other than actively trying to kill the enemy (running up to a machine gun nest to retrieve a wounded friend would not be considered to be combat).

Now, Marshall was an accomplished historian, but I think he created the "study" and wrote his book to prolong his usefulness to the Department of War (later the Department of Defense). Considering everyone who has actually looked into the study itself and declared it a fraud (considering that Marshall kept no records or paperwork, there has only been one or two soldiers that have admitted to being interviewed by him), I think Grossman using highly dubious claims as the baseline for his theories really weakens his case and makes his ideas look more questionable than valid.

Not saying he doesn't have a point at all. A lot of his work on how soldiers deal with aftermath of killing is pretty spot on. A soldier who has killed someone is far more likely to develop PTSD than a soldier who has not killed someone. So his observations on lessening the trauma of soldiers who have killed are pretty spot on, just not his ideas on the development of the ability to kill. Especially since comparing the kill ratios and rate of fire of the Second World War to that of Vietnam War are merely simple "correlation=causation" claims and don't take into account things like that the Vietnam had a lot more professional soldiers (better trained, wanted to be in the military, and so on), the engagements were at closer range (which means automatic fire was more useful and small arms were more important than other weapons), and that the enemy was poorly trained. When you take those factors into account (and the fact that half of his claim is supported by bulls--t), his theories on training a certain way is not so solid anymore.

And just for fun, here is a debate between David Grossman and the Police Policy Studies Council (an organization that focuses on the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers) about Grossman's claims:

The Col Dave Grossman Debate - How Mistaken Is He?

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

Actually you are a little off and although I have a lot of respect for Grossman, he is a bit wrong. I know he has based a lot of his hypothesis on S.L.A. Marshall's book Men Against Fire which has been pretty much proven to be a fraud. Marshall claimed to have conducted several studies ranging from meta-analysis of battlefield reports to interviews with over a thousand soldiers and he claimed that only 2% of soldiers fired their weapons regularly in every battle. Now, Marshall only interviewed a few soldiers and not all of them were combat troops and he didn't do a composite study of battlefield reports. He basically exaggerated the very little he had and made up the rest. For instance, he made no distinction between combat soldiers and let's say medics, he made no distinction between cases where soldiers might not be able to fire their weapon (like let's say being pinned down by enemy fire or malfunction) or not firing due to limited visibility or doing non-combat role or doing something other than actively trying to kill the enemy (running up to a machine gun nest to retrieve a wounded friend would not be considered to be combat).

Now, Marshall was an accomplished historian, but I think he created the "study" and wrote his book to prolong his usefulness to the Department of War (later the Department of Defense). Considering everyone who has actually looked into the study itself and declared it a fraud (considering that Marshall kept no records or paperwork, there has only been one or two soldiers that have admitted to being interviewed by him), I think Grossman using highly dubious claims as the baseline for his theories really weakens his case and makes his ideas look more questionable than valid.

Not saying he doesn't have a point at all. A lot of his work on how soldiers deal with aftermath of killing is pretty spot on. A soldier who has killed someone is far more likely to develop PTSD than a soldier who has not killed someone. So his observations on lessening the trauma of soldiers who have killed are pretty spot on, just not his ideas on the development of the ability to kill. Especially since comparing the kill ratios and rate of fire of the Second World War to that of Vietnam War are merely simple "correlation=causation" claims and don't take into account things like that the Vietnam had a lot more professional soldiers (better trained, wanted to be in the military, and so on), the engagements were at closer range (which means automatic fire was more useful and small arms were more important than other weapons), and that the enemy was poorly trained. When you take those factors into account (and the fact that half of his claim is supported by bulls--t), his theories on training a certain way is not so solid anymore.

And just for fun, here is a debate between David Grossman and the Police Policy Studies Council (an organization that focuses on the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers) about Grossman's claims:

The Col Dave Grossman Debate - How Mistaken Is He?

That's a very interesting post. I will admit that I was not aware of the debates surrounding the methodology used in the battlefield studies. Thanks for posting that.

Your point about correlation = causation is a good one. The problem is that this kind of question does not easily lend itself to true experimental research so we will likely be limited to correlational studies which do have their limits.

[manicotti]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Probably because it is a significant and real problem:

Myths and Facts
Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable.

Myth 9. The effects of violent video games are trivially small.
Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass. Furthermore, the fact that so many youths are exposed to such high levels of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this risk factor.


Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions

Statistics can be made to say anything. This is a fine example. How do we know that there really is a correlation between these video games and violence. It is just as likely that the absence of the parents who are using the electronic babysitter can be just as much of a causal factor of the violence and behavior. To be more clear on this point, let me explain further. Most homes where children are exposed to high levels of video games are clearly homes where the parents do not have much interaction with their children. If these parents are not responsible enough to interact with their children, they are most likely deficient in parenting in other areas. That would be the sensible conclusion for me to draw.

[Huckleberry3911948]

blame belongs to those who do it and those who allow it to happen-- not on home electronics. oh i almost forgot, by far the worst to blame, conflict deescalation. it reinforces bad behavior.

[The_Fairfaxian]

I have owned and played video games since the 1990s, from the SNES and Genesis to the 360, PS3 and Wii. I have played some of the most violent games such as Mortal Kombat, Grand Theft Auto, and other shooter and gory games. And honestly, side to the 2D Beat 'em ups and fighting games, first-person shooters are among my favorite games. And I have played these since I was five. This has been the same case for my friends. And I can attest to all of you that these games, while a leading cause of killing time, lowered grades, and apathy about playing outdoors, has not caused us to be violent in any way whatsoever. And the only ones who became violent were individuals who were already aggressive and/or were raised in abusive households. In any case, I'm really tired of these "parents" who blame everything else except their lack of parenting for the way their kids are. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things that are influencing kids these days to grow up faster and more aggressive, but video games are the least of our problems.

[wclac]

Sorry to go off topic here, but man, I miss Sega Genesis. That thing broke down in 2000 and I had to give up most of my SG games to an old friend. I regret giving those games away.

Originally Posted by The_Fairfaxian

I have owned and played video games since the 1990s, from the SNES and Genesis to the 360, PS3 and Wii. I have played some of the most violent games such as Mortal Kombat, Grand Theft Auto, and other shooter and gory games. And honestly, side to the 2D Beat 'em ups and fighting games, first-person shooters are among my favorite games. And I have played these since I was five. This has been the same case for my friends. And I can attest to all of you that these games, while a leading cause of killing time, lowered grades, and apathy about playing outdoors, has not caused us to be violent in any way whatsoever. And the only ones who became violent were individuals who were already aggressive and/or were raised in abusive households. In any case, I'm really tired of these "parents" who blame everything else except their lack of parenting for the way their kids are. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things that are influencing kids these days to grow up faster and more aggressive, but video games are the least of our problems.

[The_Fairfaxian]

Originally Posted by wclac

Sorry to go off topic here, but man, I miss Sega Genesis. That thing broke down in 2000 and I had to give up most of my SG games to an old friend. I regret giving those games away.

Bummer dude. My Genesis from 1992 still works. Too bad the same quality can't be said for those damned X-Boxes (both of them). I just got my 360 refurbished and returned last week. Remind me when I get to Seattle to kick Gates and M$ associates in the nuts.

[wclac]

Originally Posted by The_Fairfaxian

Bummer dude. My Genesis from 1992 still works. Too bad the same quality can't be said for those damned X-Boxes (both of them). I just got my 360 refurbished and returned last week. Remind me when I get to Seattle to kick Gates and M$ associates in the nuts.

I still have old SG games. I tried to get my dad to get me a SG for Christmas, but as ignorant as he is, he says people don't play those kinds of games anymore.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by manicotti

Statistics can be made to say anything. This is a fine example. How do we know that there really is a correlation between these video games and violence. It is just as likely that the absence of the parents who are using the electronic babysitter can be just as much of a causal factor of the violence and behavior. To be more clear on this point, let me explain further. Most homes where children are exposed to high levels of video games are clearly homes where the parents do not have much interaction with their children. If these parents are not responsible enough to interact with their children, they are most likely deficient in parenting in other areas. That would be the sensible conclusion for me to draw.

All you've done is add in more variables. It doesn't negate the impact of the observations from the study. All it does is hypothesize that other attributes, such as lack of parental supervision may also contribute toward more violent behavior. My guess is it does too, but that requires another study which isolates this specific attribute within an otherwise controlled environment.

It doesn't negate the observations from his study.

[jfre81]

Did Pac-Man ever turn anyone into pill-popping cannibals?