Does game violence make you aggressive or is it competition?

[Hatta]

An interesting study just came out that challenges some of the notions about videogame violence promoting aggression. They claim that the studies on videogame violence neglect to account for the potential confounding effects of how competitive the game is (since the violent games in these studies are usually more competitive). They have evidence to back themselves up.

This is obvious. All the claims of increased aggression found in the literature are short lived and well within the range of behaviors we see in other circumstances. If you did the "does X cause aggression" experiment on kids watching basketball, you'd see the exact same effect even though there's no gore.

I'd say I was surprised that it took so long for someone to ask this question. But I'm not. Research into video game violence is funded and performed by prudes with an agenda. I'm actually more surprised these results have been reported without a metric ass ton of hedging. (Edit: the research is out of Canada, so that explains that)

Still, I don't expect anyone to remember this when it comes time to make policy. Our leaders are more than willing to reject scientific evidence if it means they can throw more people in jail (c.f. The War on Drug Users).

[MrPopo]

Still, I don't expect anyone to remember this when it comes time to make policy. Our leaders are more than willing to reject scientific evidence if it means they can throw more people in jail (c.f. The War on Drug Users).

Yes, because all the politicians wake up in the morning and say "You know, Bill, we don't have enough people in jail." A better statement would be "Our leaders are more than willing to reject scientific evidence if it means that they can shut up the whiniest members of their constituency," as that's what it's really about. If 80% of the population is silent and 20% is condemning something our leaders will condemn it to shut those people up.

[Hatta]

Does that make it defensible?

[MrPopo]

In a representative democracy our leadership is the voice of the people. If you don't make your voice heard to the leaders then you have no right to complain when they do something you think is stupid.

[J T]

In a representative democracy our leadership is the voice of the people. If you don't make your voice heard to the leaders then you have no right to complain when they do something you think is stupid.

I think you do have a right to complain. It's not like I would write my representatives to say "I think video games have just the right amount of violence. Don't make any new laws against them." unless I thought they were going to make laws against them and I was trying to counteract all the groups out there against media violence.

People get heard because they complain, not because they are content.

I'm sure we all agree that this whole "squeaky wheel gets the most grease" thing becomes a huge problems in politics though.

[Hatta]

I'm not buying it. "I'm going to ruin your life because I hate you" isn't really any different than "I'm going to ruin your life because this other guy hates you". Both are equally despicable.

[MrPopo]

In a representative democracy our leadership is the voice of the people. If you don't make your voice heard to the leaders then you have no right to complain when they do something you think is stupid.

I think you do have a right to complain. It's not like I would write my representatives to say "I think video games have just the right amount of violence. Don't make any new laws against them." unless I thought they were going to make laws against them and I was trying to counteract all the groups out there against media violence.

People get heard because they complain, not because they are content.

I'm sure we all agree that this whole "squeaky wheel gets the most grease" thing becomes a huge problems in politics though.

That's just my point exactly. If we want our representatives to represent us we need to tell them what we want. Waiting until they're about to do something stupid might be too late. It is just as important to let our leadership know that we want to maintain the status quo on topic A or B instead of changing it if that's what we believe.

I'm not buying it. "I'm going to ruin your life because I hate you" isn't really any different than "I'm going to ruin your life because this other guy hates you". Both are equally despicable.

I have no idea where this is coming from.

[Hatta]

I'm not buying it. "I'm going to ruin your life because I hate you" isn't really any different than "I'm going to ruin your life because this other guy hates you". Both are equally despicable.

I have no idea where this is coming from.

You argued that it was OK for politicians to throw harmless people in jail if their motivation wasn't personal, but to get votes. I just wrote those two situations down in parallel form so you can see how little difference there is.

[MrPopo]

I'm not buying it. "I'm going to ruin your life because I hate you" isn't really any different than "I'm going to ruin your life because this other guy hates you". Both are equally despicable.

I have no idea where this is coming from.

You argued that it was OK for politicians to throw harmless people in jail if their motivation wasn't personal, but to get votes. I just wrote those two situations down in parallel form so you can see how little difference there is.

I really really really don't want to start the drug argument with you again. What I will say is that apparently those who are running afoul of the law apparently aren't a large enough majority to change the law. I'm sure the serial killers are pissed that murder is illegal too, after all.

[Hatta]

I just wonder what other atrocities you'd be willing to tolerate if enough people jumped on the bandwagon. Is there anything you won't permit with enough electioneering? Do you have any moral code besides "do whatever you can get away with and get reelected"?