Playing video games for boys is a sign of social competence.

[Moatilliatta]

Clicky

I thought people might find this interesting as we have had discussions on this exact subject.

 

It is obviously hard to tell through a video but I think this might actually be a proper research on the subject.

[Nick_i_am]

As you say, it's nice that someone has done a study with some actual grounding in reality rather than the normal lab crap.

 

Still, I wonder how this is going to pan out.

[Humodour]

I don't have the bandwidth to watch a video. I'm downloading important old TV shows whose torrents may not exist in a weeks time due to the seedy nature of torrents (haha get it?).

 

So um, a recap?

[Tigranes]

Edit: Recap for Krezack. They say:

 

1. Our book seeks to redress some of the bad research and media hype surrounding violence. We suggest that there is no concrete evidence linking violence to videogames - I mean, violence has gone down a lot the last 20 years, vidgames have gone up!

2. The methods of some of the research are very questionable. For example, they have someone plya a violent game for 20 minutes then have them blow an air horn or something; then they find that those who played the game blow the horn for a fraction longer or something. The thing is, with violent films for example it's well documented that there are SHORT-TERM effects where you're more likely to be violent or try to emulate it,but long-term, it wears off (you watch a jackie chan film, you imitate it, but you aren't going to be doing that a month later). Same with games.

3. Their findings suggest that there are two demograhpics most predisposed to 'making trouble', whatever that may be. One, applying for both boys and girls, is those who play M-rated games for over 15 hours a week; the other, applying only to boys, is those who dont play videogames at all. The key point is that playing games seems to be a social marker of confidence for boys, and its notable that the Virginia shooter kid report quoted a roommate as saying, he never touched videogames, and that was odd because all boys play some video games.

 

Note that the above is the opinions of the authors, not me or the interviewer.

 

----

 

Well, some of it is definitely good, such as their pointing out the idiocies in the air horn experiment method (i have heard of similar elsewhere, but they are not really scrutinised in media, are they? --;, but I have reservations about what they've done as well. Naturally, in 6 minutes they couldn't take the time to describe their own methods or go in depth, but they seem to be very, well, populationistic about their conclusions; they just count statistics, its eems, and work out correlations between statistics (i.e. how many % of boys who dont play vidgames at all get into trouble? That's the very worst of quantitative fudging). What counts as 'trouble'? If the people who dont play games at all get in trouble, what are some of the sources of their behaviour? What's defined as trouble, does that mean delinquency or also anti-socialness? Again, they might well clear all this up in the actual book, so it's a provisional critique.

 

I was very satisfied again to hear the debunking of the Virginia Tech myth though, it was absolutely stupid how the media did their very best to prove a certain mister Debord right.

[thepixiesrock]

it's just too bad that it's on G4 and not a serious and reliable station.

[taks]

my son plays up to an hour a day on the PS3. we have one game: lego star wars. he's at home playing it with his grandmother (my mom) right now, as a matter of fact. he's bossy when playing, but so am i (the two of us playing is a trip). i think it is a good thing. he's only 5 (today is his bday, in fact), but this gives us an opportunity to "bond" even if there is a little stress involved. we have to work as a team to complete a lot of it, which is a good thing. the "violence" is cartoonish, and he has already demonstrated that he clearly separates fantasy from reality in this respect. also, these games improve his ability to solve problems (he's gotten through areas that i would have cheated), some of which are quite complex for a pre-schooler. he has to use a fair bit of hand-eye coordination as well, just to get through some of the areas.

 

certainly i won't let him play the M-rated games (like assassin's creed, or even FPS games), as those make a bit more of an attempt at realistic death, but it is not hard for me to prevent him from playing such games. i just don't buy them. should i choose to get the more hard-core games, he won't know we have them and i'll only play when he's already in bed or off doing something else.

 

ultimately the solution to any perceived problems with violence in video games is GOOD PARENTING. it is a parent's job to limit the amount of time the child plays (john gets an hour a day except today which i let grandma decide when he's done). it's also a parent's job to point out the "game" aspect of video games and drive home the the differences between fantasy and reality. it is NOT the government's job to tell us what is right and wrong. it may be the government's (or self-imposed regulation groups) to require information allowing accurate assessment by parents, but that's a far cry from limitation, or even censorship. from my standpoint, john is automatically allowed to play anything E or E10+, with some scrutiny placed on T games (not all are really that bad, and i don't mind language because he gets more of it from me, the wanna be sailor, anyway).

 

oh, and we will be getting the new lego indiana jones when it comes out, too. i'll eventually get some of the games geared towards me as well, though i don't have time for them at the moment. after may 23, that all changes... free time will abound!

 

taks

[Slowtrain]

my son plays up to an hour a day on the PS3. we have one game: lego star wars. he's at home playing it with his grandmother (my mom) right now, as a matter of fact. he's bossy when playing, but so am i (the two of us playing is a trip). i think it is a good thing. he's only 5 (today is his bday, in fact), but this gives us an opportunity to "bond" even if there is a little stress involved. we have to work as a team to complete a lot of it, which is a good thing. the "violence" is cartoonish, and he has already demonstrated that he clearly separates fantasy from reality in this respect. also, these games improve his ability to solve problems (he's gotten through areas that i would have cheated), some of which are quite complex for a pre-schooler. he has to use a fair bit of hand-eye coordination as well, just to get through some of the areas.

 

certainly i won't let him play the M-rated games (like assassin's creed, or even FPS games), as those make a bit more of an attempt at realistic death, but it is not hard for me to prevent him from playing such games. i just don't buy them. should i choose to get the more hard-core games, he won't know we have them and i'll only play when he's already in bed or off doing something else.

 

ultimately the solution to any perceived problems with violence in video games is GOOD PARENTING. it is a parent's job to limit the amount of time the child plays (john gets an hour a day except today which i let grandma decide when he's done). it's also a parent's job to point out the "game" aspect of video games and drive home the the differences between fantasy and reality. it is NOT the government's job to tell us what is right and wrong. it may be the government's (or self-imposed regulation groups) to require information allowing accurate assessment by parents, but that's a far cry from limitation, or even censorship. from my standpoint, john is automatically allowed to play anything E or E10+, with some scrutiny placed on T games (not all are really that bad, and i don't mind language because he gets more of it from me, the wanna be sailor, anyway).

 

oh, and we will be getting the new lego indiana jones when it comes out, too. i'll eventually get some of the games geared towards me as well, though i don't have time for them at the moment. after may 23, that all changes... free time will abound!

 

taks

 

It's too bad we can't clone you and use you as a replicant parent throughout the world.

[taks]

i guess i'll find out if my tactics are working when john is 21 and, hopefully, gainfully employed.

 

john's getting a bike and a kinex roller coaster tonight, btw. no games that i know of will be added to the list (unless one of his little friends or another family member decides to give him one).

 

taks

[Meshugger]

my son plays up to an hour a day on the PS3. we have one game: lego star wars. he's at home playing it with his grandmother (my mom) right now, as a matter of fact. he's bossy when playing, but so am i (the two of us playing is a trip). i think it is a good thing. he's only 5 (today is his bday, in fact), but this gives us an opportunity to "bond" even if there is a little stress involved. we have to work as a team to complete a lot of it, which is a good thing. the "violence" is cartoonish, and he has already demonstrated that he clearly separates fantasy from reality in this respect. also, these games improve his ability to solve problems (he's gotten through areas that i would have cheated), some of which are quite complex for a pre-schooler. he has to use a fair bit of hand-eye coordination as well, just to get through some of the areas.

 

certainly i won't let him play the M-rated games (like assassin's creed, or even FPS games), as those make a bit more of an attempt at realistic death, but it is not hard for me to prevent him from playing such games. i just don't buy them. should i choose to get the more hard-core games, he won't know we have them and i'll only play when he's already in bed or off doing something else.

 

ultimately the solution to any perceived problems with violence in video games is GOOD PARENTING. it is a parent's job to limit the amount of time the child plays (john gets an hour a day except today which i let grandma decide when he's done). it's also a parent's job to point out the "game" aspect of video games and drive home the the differences between fantasy and reality. it is NOT the government's job to tell us what is right and wrong. it may be the government's (or self-imposed regulation groups) to require information allowing accurate assessment by parents, but that's a far cry from limitation, or even censorship. from my standpoint, john is automatically allowed to play anything E or E10+, with some scrutiny placed on T games (not all are really that bad, and i don't mind language because he gets more of it from me, the wanna be sailor, anyway).

 

oh, and we will be getting the new lego indiana jones when it comes out, too. i'll eventually get some of the games geared towards me as well, though i don't have time for them at the moment. after may 23, that all changes... free time will abound!

 

taks

 

You sound like my parents. You're on the right path

 

As with violent games, kids (boys really) aren't even interest in such things, as in "Hehe, look at all that blood, kewl!", until puberty sets in with all the testosterone pumping in their veins.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Meshugger

[thepixiesrock]

oh, and we will be getting the new lego indiana jones when it comes out, too. i'll eventually get some of the games geared towards me as well, though i don't have time for them at the moment. after may 23, that all changes... free time will abound!

 

taks

 

Don't forget about Lego Batman.

[Hurlshort]

My dad got me into games when I was young. It taught me how to use computers (Atari ST was first) and it was definitely a bonding experience. Even today, it's a big connection for us. My little future gamer is only 1, but I plan on following the same plan as taks with her.

 

I don't get how parents can be disconnected with anything their child does. I don't love watching the Wiggles, but I love watching my daughter enjoy the Wiggles.

[Tigranes]

Speaking of parentage, yeah, my parents were very sensible about stuff like that. They got me a Sega Genesis when I was 5, and got me hooked on Sonic for most of my youth; my cousin had an SNES and later N64. But they absolutely forbid me from playing shooters or fighting games, like the ones you see in the arcade. I wasn't really part of a crowd that goes to arcade when they're 8, anyway, and so I never, ever, played a single shooter/fighter game till, I think, 10 years old.

 

But by then I was already hooked on FF7, so yeah. I suppose my parents set me on my gaming path.

[mkreku]

I sent my 7 year old half-brother Resident Evil 4 for his birthday. If he can't see the difference between reality and virus infected Spaniards, so be it. I honestly don't think that's bad for him. But this constant brainwash of the American youth through Call of Duty 4 or America's Army (or whatever it's called) is MUCH worse than seeing blood splatter from zombies. It teaches kids that certain nationalities means you can call them terrorists (like such a thing even existed..) and kill them at will. It's not quite reality (which is what they use for excuse for even existing) but it's close enough for noone to mistake the evil Arabs for brave Americans at least. Disgusting.

 

Read up on Call of Jihadi and learn how hypocrisy manifests itself throughout the American society without anyone less than semi-intelligent noticing.

[thepixiesrock]

I think people have an incorrect perception of what America's youths think, and how games impact their lives, not only in terms of violence, but also in terms of the above statement.

[mkreku]

I think people have an incorrect perception of what America's youths think, and how games impact their lives, not only in terms of violence, but also in terms of the above statement.

Go to any gaming forum and you'll see comments like "I love killing me some terrorist" or "kill the ****ing Arabs" in every thread about a popular FPS right now. It's absolutely horrible.

 

For reference, check the Gamespot forums.

[Nick_i_am]

Call of Jihadi

 

Interesting article.

[Humodour]

Edit: Recap for Krezack. They say:

 

1. Our book seeks to redress some of the bad research and media hype surrounding violence. We suggest that there is no concrete evidence linking violence to videogames - I mean, violence has gone down a lot the last 20 years, vidgames have gone up!

2. The methods of some of the research are very questionable. For example, they have someone plya a violent game for 20 minutes then have them blow an air horn or something; then they find that those who played the game blow the horn for a fraction longer or something. The thing is, with violent films for example it's well documented that there are SHORT-TERM effects where you're more likely to be violent or try to emulate it,but long-term, it wears off (you watch a jackie chan film, you imitate it, but you aren't going to be doing that a month later). Same with games.

3. Their findings suggest that there are two demograhpics most predisposed to 'making trouble', whatever that may be. One, applying for both boys and girls, is those who play M-rated games for over 15 hours a week; the other, applying only to boys, is those who dont play videogames at all. The key point is that playing games seems to be a social marker of confidence for boys, and its notable that the Virginia shooter kid report quoted a roommate as saying, he never touched videogames, and that was odd because all boys play some video games.

 

Note that the above is the opinions of the authors, not me or the interviewer.

 

----

 

Thanks muchly, Tigranes!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Read up on Call of Jihadi and learn how hypocrisy manifests itself throughout the American society without anyone less than semi-intelligent noticing.

 

I really have more of a problem with the original game than I do with the mod - although I am not thrilled with either of them. In my eyes, the latter is more like a parody of the former, and not something to take seriously until it has been proven to be harmful.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Go to any gaming forum and you'll see comments like "I love killing me some terrorist" or "kill the ****ing Arabs" in every thread about a popular FPS right now.

 

And would also guess, and hope, that you would find posts chastising those members.

[thepixiesrock]

I think people have an incorrect perception of what America's youths think, and how games impact their lives, not only in terms of violence, but also in terms of the above statement.

Go to any gaming forum and you'll see comments like "I love killing me some terrorist" or "kill the ****ing Arabs" in every thread about a popular FPS right now. It's absolutely horrible.

 

For reference, check the Gamespot forums.

 

Right, and my claim is that internet forums are not acurate representations of a typical person of any demographic.