So if everyone is different and violent media can affect us in different ways should there be some sort of process forumulated that would determine whether or not someone's mental stability was suitable to play a violent game? Then perhaps make some sort of special requirement to purchase or view violent media? Which is the way some poeple think it needs to head in order to get control of the rampages that are supposedly induced by playing games with lots of violence.
Or do we leave it as is and make education available for parents and make stores accountable and enforce ratings from the ESRB? If we were to educate parents how would we go about doing that?
It would be nice if there was a process like that, but who knows how/when a person's mind may/may not become unstable? Some people have more of a tendency to go down that route than others, but at the end of the day, a stressful, bad situation could cause a person to snap if they repeatedly have to experience said problems over and over again. Playing any kind of violent game during that kind of situation, probably wouldn't be the best thing for them to be doing during that point in time.
As for education, it would certainly be of help to an extent. But it is up to the parents to keep an eye on the children to make sure that they're not playing something that can do more harm than good to them.
/FAQ and Rules & Conduct//FAQ about reports/Forum Team info//WC Forum Resources/ PSN friends thread/Life and Gaming -- My blog
Playstation customer support numbers: 1-877-971-7669 (for billing and Playstation Network); 1-800-345-7669 (for technical support)
I don't think violence in video games makes you act one way or another over any other factor in your life. Violence in real life affects you far more completely than any movie, game, song, tv show, or what have you. Most children who are highly susceptible to violence in the media tend to have or have experienced violence in their own homes. Multiple studies done on children find that even at a somewhat young age (at least from an age old enough to actually control a video game) children can tell real life from not real life. Yeah they may still believe in Santa Claus, and may have some issue with TV shows where people play a part (so do some adults), but in the main children really do know the difference between make believe and real life. After all, Santa Claus is as much an issue of honesty from adults as it is perception of reality.
What video games do is show you how you deal with situations, whether violent, scary, frustrating, calculating, irritating, silly, or satisfying. If you deal well with video game frustration, you'll likely do well dealing with your personal, real life frustrations. If you can take the frustration of failure, try again and actually succeed it shows that you can percevere in your real life as well. If you can maintain a cool head when you are scared as heck, then you have the ability to deal with scary situations. And if you don't have these qualities, then games can provide the opportunity for you to practice these skills.
I think violence in video games is minor compared to greater influences such as gun control.
But ultimately people are affected by their environments and are a direct result from its teachings. I wouldn't be typing in English right now or typing at all if I wasn't.
But when it comes down to statistics its hard to find evidence. Yes, different people are influenced differently. Some take things to heart greater than others, while some dismiss things entirely.
Some people naturally accept certain things more than others, while others are more reluctant to accept projections on them.
When it comes down to violence in video games (which I think are no less than violence in movies) you have to realize how mature a individual is, and this is where the ESRB comes in and the age restrictions don't fall in place as much as its real purpose to serve as maturity restrictions.
I've seen brighter 12 year olds who act maturer for their age than certain 26 year olds.
When a video game projects something onto you, and you feel immersed thats a good thing as its serving as a form of entertainment and you arguably sought that feeling. But when you are finished with that form of media, you should be able to dismiss it as nothing more than a game, as a form of entertainment and shouldn't take much of it seriously or at the very least take it lightly to real world analogies. Discussion upon fictional situations becomes more of a hobbyist thing between fans and likely don't influence the real world.
tl;dr but when it comes to violence affecting us as individuals it depends on each individual as everyone reacts differently and some people can easily dismiss things more than others.
The people who are considerably impacted by violence in video games or other forms of entertainment shouldn't be able to enjoy them if they are not capable of handling them. And yes these inviduals exist, its just a matter of sorting them out which is difficult.
I think violence in video games is minor compared to greater influences such as gun control.
I found this intial statement interesting. I want to touch on it for just one second *****but I would prefer this thread to not turn into a discussion on guns please and thank you*****
Gun control is not an influence, it is an issue of how that particular item is to be made avaialable. Gun control laws and how guns can be obtained doesn not constanly influence someone unless they are in a home or area with guns always visible. Gun control and how certain people can get them is an issue of course but I think that strays somewhat from what I was asking about.
Violence in media (not just games) is a far more accessible and blatant display of actions and behaviors that people are trying to figure out exactly how displays of these actions affect our psyche. How does watching some virtual thug go on rage campagins, violent shooting sprees, stealing, and being the one controlling those actions in a virtual envirnoment transfer to us in reality? If for example: a teenager snaps and does attrocites and just happened to like to play violent games who do we blame? How do we test to see exactly how games affect people when everyone is different? Is it just convienant to say "violent games are bad for us" when in fact there are muliple other issues that contribute?
Gun control is an issue, one that always needs to be discussed like educated adults, there are definitely some comparisons that could be made between environment, availability, and education in use of the two. Gun control though I would not consider an influence like media can be, I would consider gun contorl more of a topic or method to control influence and not he influence itself.
I hope that made sense... I may have rambled a bit. *****Again I would like to stay on topic of violence in media and how it affects us***** I just had to get that little bit out
laurannichole25 made me laugh out loud by the way!!!
As far as what other people said, it is totally possible to test this. How do psychologists receive any data on any "typical" pattern. One guy even separated twins at birth and put one in poverty and one in a rich household to see of they would be different. Cruel and unusual? YES!! But they were able to gather data. If you get the permission, you could set up different scenarios with a control group (playing a bad video game with no positive or negative attention, but just general attention), a violent group (playing bad video games with bad parenting) and the last group would have the same video game, but with healthy positive attention from parents. After like two months, you would see a difference in how the kids behave in school. The younger the kids, the more quickly you'll see the changes. Hope this information was useful. Don't go testing without a license! Happy psychological tripping!
Psychological research is incredibly difficult, and controversial, due to the items I have listed above. To obtain proper, unbiased, results a researcher would need to have a large number of individuals all having the same psychological/physical influence aside from the one item that you are investigating. E.G. they would all need to eat the same food, drink the same drinks, spend the same amount of time playing the game, have the same social interactions with the same people, and be of the same age. This simply is not possible to do. The only way to do this would be to confine the individuals into a location and monitor everything that they do. This is not allowed for ethical reasons, and would also produce biased results as the act of isolating someone from the real world would cause its own psychological effects!
There simply isn't a way to ethically, and properly, conduct an investigation on this without the results being strongly biased in one form or another. Governments don't ever look into the actual analysis because our elected politicians are only in office for a set period of time, therefore they want to get results during their tenure in office so they can get credit for whatever comes of it. Politicians simply lack the intelligence to properly perform clinical research.
In addition, videogames are still too "young" to be able to properly conduct research involving them. Every few years, something major changes whether that be improved graphics, sound, online interactivity, etc. etc. which makes trying to properly setup a research study impossible as the item that you are investigating is changing so much.
All types of "research" into this topic is wrought with the analytical fallacy of "Item A produced Item B. Item B produced Item C, therefore ALL Item C is caused by Item A." It's like saying "Alcohol is present in Whiskey. Bourbon is a type of Whiskey, therefore all Whiskey is Bourbon." which is simply wrong.
Another common fallacy that is put into place with typical research into this topic is stating that "Well it doesn't affect ME, therefore it's completely wrong." The only thing that you ca provde by saying it does/doesn't affect ME is that it is not an aboslute and that is common sense.
What is completely wrong about all of this research is that people out there are trying to come up with a conclusion that is a generality without being willing to spend the time needed to account for all other bias and influence on the end result.
I work in clinical research. The amount of time and effort spent to remove any sort of bias or external influence on our results is astounding. I have YET to see any type of research study on this topic of videogame violence be free of egregious errors in procedure or analysis. I feel that is all due to the nature of what is trying to be investigated. It simply cannot be done.