Violent Video Games -- Do They Harm Our Youth?

[OKCCrime]

Here's another observation: if someone is spending much of their time playing video games, even violent video games -how are they going to have to time to go out and commit acts of mayhem in the real world?

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that children 8-18 play on average 1 hour of video games per day. Thus, they have plenty of opportunities to 'commit acts of mayhem'. Funny enough, kids also spend on average 1 hour per day on homework. We assume the homework is teaching them something. Safe to assume that the video games are too given that children spend as much time playing games as on their homework. What exactly does GTA teach children if not to be aggressive?

[Midtowner]

What's wrong with being aggressive? Assuming all of your premises are accurate, if channeled properly, aggression = success.

[Karried]

What exactly does GTA teach children if not to be aggressive?

That's easy, it teaches them how to steal a car. j/k

[OKCCrime]

Assuming all of your premises are accurate, if channeled properly, aggression = success.

Yes, controlled aggression can be extremely valuable in certain situations, for example, when self defense is required. If only, somehow, GTA also taught self control, sound ethics, personal responsibility, and critical thinking....

I'm surprised someone hasn't mentioned it already, but a violent video game that does teach ethics is America's Army. Apparently the US Army (who created and maintains the free to download and play game) believes that video games do influence young minds, even if most of you do not.

[Karried]

Halo is our favorite family game ever...

The UNSC Marine Corps is a branch of the United Nations Space Command Defense Force that is primarily responsible for land-based military operations, and protecting Naval vessels and bases from attack.

"ohh rah"

I believe young minds can be influenced of course, I'm sure we all do, but I don't think playing a video game that has violence in it will automatically make them serial killers.

[OKCCrime]

I believe young minds can be influenced of course, I'm sure we all do, but I don't think playing a video game that has violence in it will automatically make them serial killers.

Bravo Karried. A tour de force - really, You started with an ad homenim argument and are now onto ignoratio elenchi. No one ever claimed that playing violent video games makes you a serial killer.

The article that I cited claims that playing violent video games is a factor contributing to aggressive behavior in children.

[Karried]

You started with an ad homenim argument and are now onto ignoratio elenchi. No one ever claimed that playing violent video games makes you a serial killer.

I never said anyone claimed anything.

I said I don't think ...... I was giving my opinion.

I don't think playing a video game that has violence in it will automatically make them serial killers.

That is my opinion.

Nevermind. I don't even know why I'm even continuing this conversation. It's a discussion board, not a debate club.

Goodbye, I'm off to go have fun and slay aliens.

[OKCCrime]

I was giving my opinion. It's a discussion board, not a debate club.

Hmm. Note to self: Discussion boards are only for opinions, no debate allowed. Avoid all critical thinking.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Hmm. Note to self: Discussion boards are only for opinions, no debate allowed. Avoid all critical thinking.

Don't forget to take yourself entirely too seriously.

[PennyQuilts]

Some thoughts -

Passively watching television, even violent shows, is NOT the same thing as the interaction that goes on with a video game.

Young children's brains, judgment and moral development vary, depending on developmental stage. The impact of a video game on a 5 year old is not going to be the same as on a 17 year old or a 30 year old. If you are 15 and wouldn't be inspired to be violent that does not mean a 5 year old wouldn't, either.

Kids who are too young to understand that making violent threats and acting tough (even if they are actually kind hearted souls) run a greater risk of attracting violent peers by virture of their accepting attitude toward violence and the things they say. A correlation is that children who are acting like little gangsters are going to be avoided by families who don't want that sort of behavior in their kids - thus increasing the likelihood that hoods of a feather will flock together. Parents who allow a child to act like a thug and think that is cute and harmless are so lacking in basic parenting skills and common sense that video game or not, their children are going to have problems. This matches up with earlier comments about poor parenting, in general.

For whatever reason, some of the most violent families that I work with in my job allow young children to play video games, even violent ones.

Notwithstanding the stats that have been mentioned related to a declining crime rate, I have been working with children in the courts for years and know probation officers who have been doing it for decades. The consensus is that not only are we seeing violent crime at a younger age, the truly horrifying part is the lack of remorse and the mercilessness that comes with it. Younger children's brains are not developed. A 17 year old might rob a liquor store for the money. A 14 year old might beat and torture the victim just for the hell of it and not even "get" that what he/she is doing is horrific. The stats will tell you that there were, say, ten robberies. The stats don't necessarily tell you just how vicious the attacks were. The pure brutality of many of the assaults I've been seeing, even in the past 5 years, makes my blood run cold. Some of the girls are the worst and violent female crime is definitely up.

[Karried]

East Coast Okie, you make some very valid points.

There is no way I would have let my 5 year old ever play GTA. I don't think any responsible parent would.

Of course, in many cases you are dealing with the very issues that I think causes these behaviors in the first place - uninvolved and irresponsible parenting.

Some of the girls are the worst and violent female crime is definitely up.

I'm online playing video games pretty frequently and typically, I can count on one hand the number of girls who play violent video games if I ever run across them at all.

So, whatever the reason is that girls have become more violent, I don't believe it's caused by playing video games.

[bandnerd]

A society that is more accepting of that type of girl behavior, in my opinion, is at least partly to blame. It's not popular to be a lady anymore. I'll admit, I'm not the most lady-like woman out there (you can ask my husband) but I don't act like I'm on Jerry Springer, either. A lot of these girls don't have good female role models.

[Midtowner]

Yes, controlled aggression can be extremely valuable in certain situations, for example, when self defense is required. If only, somehow, GTA also taught self control, sound ethics, personal responsibility, and critical thinking....

I'm surprised someone hasn't mentioned it already, but a violent video game that does teach ethics is America's Army. Apparently the US Army (who created and maintains the free to download and play game) believes that video games do influence young minds, even if most of you do not.

There have been violent games which have taught ethics since Ultima IV came out in 1985 (the game was primarily structured around the hero being virtuous rather than killing stuff, it was filled with moral dilemmas, etc.)

More recently, games like BioShock, Mass Effect and others allow moral choices to be made by the player.

[OKCCrime]

More recently, games like BioShock, Mass Effect and others allow moral choices to be made by the player.

Interesting. I wonder what code of ethics, if any, guides the game designer in the development of these in-game situations, especially with respect to deciding which choices end up being most beneficial for the player.

[OKCCrime]

Don't forget to take yourself entirely too seriously.

Good point OGTS.

When the issue is the welfare of our children, we should make jokes, discuss the issue flippantly, ignore the scientific evidence at hand, and generally discount any arguments that might be made regarding appropriate regulatory policies. What was I thinking?

[Bobby H]

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that children 8-18 play on average 1 hour of video games per day. Thus, they have plenty of opportunities to 'commit acts of mayhem'.

First of all, kids who are into video games play for longer durations than just 1 hour. I wonder if that "1 hour" number isn't the result of an across the board average to include many children who don't have $400 gaming consoles or $3000 gaming PCs.

Even if those kids had plenty of free time to commit acts of mayhem they wouldn't have any opportunity to do so if their parents were in the picture and actually involved in their lives. Too many parents are asleep at the job or just not even around at all. Let's dope up our kid on Ritalin and stick him in his bedroom with an electronic pacifier called a video game so we can have enough peace and quiet to watch our TV shows.

Passively watching television, even violent shows, is NOT the same thing as the interaction that goes on with a video game.

Harmful messages from TV and radio still hit their mark and influence people, especially young people, in many different ways. This doesn't require a game pad or joystick to accomplish. We would have no advertising industry at all if this wasn't true.

Young children's brains, judgment and moral development vary, depending on developmental stage. The impact of a video game on a 5 year old is not going to be the same as on a 17 year old or a 30 year old. If you are 15 and wouldn't be inspired to be violent that does not mean a 5 year old wouldn't, either.

Who in their right mind is going to allow a 5 year old kid to play Grand Theft Auto 4? I wouldn't even let a 15 year old boy play it much less a child of Kindergarten age.

The biggest harm happening to kids 5 years old and younger is poor quality parents or absentee parents. Video games are hardly a factor at all on the list on things emotionally damaging young children and getting them screwed up for life.

And the notion that we need to ban something or censor something kind of gets back to the habit of so many parents to just not be properly involved with their children. It's just so much more simple to make a certain kind of entertainment not be available to anyone at all. It's easier to do that rather than have a discussion with one's child about the subject matter and put it in its proper context.

We don't live in a G-rated world. It is impossible to make the world G-rated for 5 year olds. Anyone hoping to do that will be hoping in vain. Instead, parents actually have to do their jobs as parents.

I believe that someone who is willing to bring a child into this world must also make that child his/her top priority and primary fixation of interest in life. Lots of parents say their kids are the most important things in their lives, but for many it's just talk. The career, favorite hobbies and pastimes, partying on the weekend at clubs and lots of other stuff has to pushed down to a lower priority and the child truly has to come first. In practice, many parents are just not willing to do that. Some aren't willing to do that at all, dumping the kids off at the grandparents' place or anywhere else they can be dumped so they can go out and drink with their friends.

[Midtowner]

Good point OGTS.

When the issue is the welfare of our children, we should make jokes, discuss the issue flippantly, ignore the scientific evidence at hand, and generally discount any arguments that might be made regarding appropriate regulatory policies. What was I thinking?

Or we can be skeptical of anyone who wants to use scientific "studies" of questionable value to limit our free speech to "save the children" when good parenting would be a perfect substitute.

If we concede even one small bit of our speech to lawmakers in order to 'protect the children,' what comes next? Our kids don't need a nanny state to protect them from whatever harmful mental stimulation they might encounter.

The "for the children" line has been used to justify horrible legislation in the past, it will continue to be used in the future.

-- I guess this means that I'm "against the children" now.

[OKCCrime]

Or we can be skeptical of anyone who wants to use scientific "studies" of questionable value to limit our free speech to "save the children" when good parenting would be a perfect substitute.

Just to be clear, to date, I've only argued the scientific evidence in this thread, never any policy position. I certainly never argued that violent video games should be off limits to adults.

Who will go out and convince all parents to be good parents? Many parents don't have the time or education to decide what media is or is not appropriate for their children. Most need help, and that is why a legally enforced rating system governed by a body independent of the video gaming industry is a good idea. Children should have no access to violent video games, in the same way that children should have no access to pornography. Anyone caught allowing children to play violent video games should similarly be charged with "corruption of a minor". A child's rights to play violent video games is out-weighted by the potential harm to the minor and other individuals by the minor. For adults, I think that the balance tips the other way because there isn't strong enough evidence to support the conclusion that violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior in adults.

The "for the children" line has been used to justify horrible legislation in the past, it will continue to be used in the future.

Can you give us some examples where horrible legislation aimed at protecting children has been passed into law?

The child pornography laws come to mind as "for the children", but I'm sure you wouldn't argue that this is horrible legislation on the grounds that it oversteps our first amendment rights to free speech, would you?

[Karried]

Most need help, and that is why a legally enforced rating system governed by a body independent of the video gaming industry is a good idea.

We already have a rating system in place.

But say it got even more invasive.

How would you enforce that law? Neighor A looks into Neighbor B's home and sees Junior playing a video game, calls CPS, child is taken away and put in foster care? Is that how it would work?

And I'm curious about another thing, how would you define 'violence'?

Everyone has different ideas, beliefs and theories about what constitutes violence.

Would you take away a Sports Video game?

Would you consider a Football game violent?
I think it is. Slamming men to the ground and jumping on top of them and tackling them seems pretty violent.

So, who decides and where do you draw the line?

[Midtowner]

Can you give us some examples where horrible legislation aimed at protecting children has been passed into law?

Sure. How about just about the entire child protective services scheme? Our laws "protecting children" have created a program where DHS often pulls kids out of homes based upon false reports (sure it's illegal to make a false report, but how many prosecutions do you think there really are?).

The entire scheme of the foster care system is fundamentally flawed in that it often eliminates kinship placements based upon irrelevant criteria.

The entire "No Child Left Behind" schem.

In the FDR years, numerous milk industry protective schemes were founded upon a "it's for the children" basis.

Essentially, the advocates of many bad laws will defend those laws with the flawed premise that if it's "for the children," it has to be good. Well, in this case and many cases, the children don't want or need the additional regulation and in many cases would be better with less regulation.

The child pornography laws come to mind as "for the children", but I'm sure you wouldn't argue that this is horrible legislation on the grounds that it oversteps our first amendment rights to free speech, would you?

Child pornography isn't a speech issue. It's an exploitation issue. It's a physical and serious mental harm that the children endure. To compare child pornography to video games is absurd and you know it.

Aside from that, child pornography is not "protected speech," but guess what -- virtual images of child pornography [e.g. 3-d models, drawings, cartoons] win the Nobel Prize according to our first amendment case law. To try to argue video games should be 'unprotected speech' flies in the face of what we know protected speech today.

Unless you're advocating that the United States Supreme Court suddenly decide that video games are unprotected speech (ain't going to happen), then to do what you propose to do would probably take a Constitutional Amendment. Again, not going to happen.

[darnell]

look, this whole topic is Lame!
it would be pretty easy to say Yes, it does harm under the right circumstances with parents that are violent to there kids & offer no role model & spend no time & allow their kids to do as they please. and to say that kids can be violent even with good parenting is possible, but to say those parents were good is to say you knew what happened behind closed doors in their household. no one knows certain abuses that may happen in a household but the witnesses. people can lead dual lives, but i'm sure some never considered that that's one of the most basic behaviors of abuse.

everyone's idea of what violent is in accordance to a video game has to be the same in order to even begin to argue the merits of either side of what it may or may not cause to children playing said games.

from the responses so far, i imagine paint ball or dodgeball would be considered violent to some. and some aren't remotely familiar with video games in the first place.
there's no real way to have a discussion over this without defining "violence" & "appropriate ages."

OKCrime, please quit with the child porn talk. this has nothing to do with that.

[OKCCrime]

We already have a rating system in place.

Yes. ESRB and I'm glad that it is in place. However, it is not mandatory and there are no legal consequences for parents or children associated with violating the ratings.

How would you enforce that law?

The police would enforce the law in the same way they currently enforce laws that protect children from pornography, alcohol and tobacco.

And I'm curious about another thing, how would you define 'violence'? Everyone has different ideas, beliefs and theories about what constitutes violence. Would you take away a Sports Video game? Would you consider a Football game violent? I think it is. Slamming men to the ground and jumping on top of them and tackling them seems pretty violent.
So, who decides and where do you draw the line?

It isn't black and white, there are shades of grey. Violence is like obscenity. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Stewart, "I know it when I see it". Just because it is hard to draw a bright white line that delineates violence, doesn't mean that it is impossible to regulate. Take a look at the ERSB ratings procedure. They manage to differentiate among at least 6 different levels of game appropriateness using independent raters.

[Karried]

Violence is like obscenity. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Stewart, "I know it when I see it".

That's exactly what I'm afraid of.

When it comes to morality or even video games - I don't want people like Stewart, Jerry Falwell or Sally Kern telling me what they think is violent or moral.

What I might deem appropriate, they wouldn't.. uh, uh, stay out of my house.

[Midtowner]

It isn't black and white, there are shades of grey. Violence is like obscenity. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Stewart, "I know it when I see it". Just because it is hard to draw a bright white line that delineates violence, doesn't mean that it is impossible to regulate.

The "I know it when I see it" example is not the law. Justice Stewart wrote that in a concurring opinion, so really, it never was the law. Still, he backed off of it in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

In that case, they announced this three factor test:

1) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions [1] specifically defined by applicable state law; and
3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

So no, violence is not like obscenity. In fact, I think most games would pass all three prongs -- even GTA IV.

[darnell]

Just to be clear, to date, I've only argued the scientific evidence in this thread, never any policy position. I certainly never argued that violent video games should be off limits to adults.

Who will go out and convince all parents to be good parents? Many parents don't have the time or education to decide what media is or is not appropriate for their children. Most need help, and that is why a legally enforced rating system governed by a body independent of the video gaming industry is a good idea. Children should have no access to violent video games, in the same way that children should have no access to pornography. Anyone caught allowing children to play violent video games should similarly be charged with "corruption of a minor". A child's rights to play violent video games is out-weighted by the potential harm to the minor and other individuals by the minor. For adults, I think that the balance tips the other way because there isn't strong enough evidence to support the conclusion that violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior in adults.

i just don't understand your thinking. we should all agree that children develop at different speeds toward maturity. if something could be considered educational by the parents, they should have the ability to be with their kids & allow the kids to play that particular activity whether it be video games or books that are considered mature reading. you certainly wouldn't argue a child's education if he/she were smart enough to go to college at age 13, so the same would be to material that the parent may regard as appropriate for their children.

i won't fall victim to the dumbing down of america & bad parenting by being told how to raise my children because of the many morons that are bad at parenting. watch the movie "idiocracy" & get back to me on your thoughts with educating our youth.