Mammoth Jones
Member
And yea, FFS report that kid.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
School Shooting at Elementary School in Connecticut [27+ dead including 20+ children]
- Thread starter Kwhit10
- Start date
- Status
And yea, FFS report that kid.
Yeah, he said ALL of that...you're something else man.
I don't know why people bother engaging in conversations with you.
NullPointer
Member
You sure got your heckles up didn't ya? Are you positive that there isn't at least some kind of sociological impact due to violent games?
My rebuttal to this would be Japan. They have the same violent entertainment media but violent crime is very low there. They also have tough restrictions on guns...
Uh...he did say that. His exact quote was "...but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that video games are completely irrelevant just because we happen to like them."
Nope! Which is precisely why I haven't tried to dismiss the opinions of those who believe there is a connection by speculating about what might be clouding their judgment.
(I would also point out it would be tough to prove a negative and I didn't make a claim in the first place)
vincent vega
Member
it sounds like he already did
cpp_is_king
Member
The big difference between the US and Japan is that in Japan it's deeply rooted into their culture that all problems should be internalized and not spoken about, whereas in the US it's the exact opposite, we teach people to externalize their problems. Talk about them, tell people how you feel. Get it out in the open.
The point is, you can't take everything in a vaccuum. You have to start from a baseline, and that baseline determines how the evolution will progress. To compare this with biology, suppose you've got 2 different species of insect which have some similarities but are otherwise different. Then you expose these 2 species to the same conditions for many years. They will evolve slightly differently because they were different to begin with.
Violence is rooted in Japanese culture as well, but it's a different kind of violence. Their history is that of the noble samurais, ours is of the wild west. Different beast.
You can't look at "violent games" in a vacuum. It's possible that violent media (including games, movies, and so on) is responsible for exacerbating issues leading to violent outbursts in the mentally unstable, but what's responsible for the existence, prevalence, and general approval of violent media? There's a likely answer: a culture that glorifies violence, glorifies tools of violence, and glorifies the military, whose purpose is near solely to inflict violence. (I do not mean any disrespect to military folk with this, I am not saying that we shouldn't give respect those who are serving or have served our country, it's the disturbing near-deification that I take issue with)
Look at any textual analysis of historical works of fiction. They often delve into how certain aspects of it reflect the culture of the time. It is no different here.
NullPointer
Member
Absolutely.
For my part I'm less worried about the possibility of violent games triggering the mentally disturbed, since a myriad of things could do exactly that. What bugs me is the repetition of violent acts day after day, and the affect that could have on children. Not meaning they turn into monsters, or even that they'd be prone to more aggression, but that a lowered sensitivity to hardcore violence and engaging in some HD warfare as a game could lead to some distorted personal and world views when it comes to the reality of those events.
I'm still, at this moment disgusted by more than half of the games in my collection. I just don't want to think about them, and I am more than capable of separating illusions from reality. It just feels crass. Wrong. Its not games alone that bug me, but as somebody who games quite a bit, who also likes to opine and share on this very gaming forum, its been on my mind, and its been just under the surface for a while now.
cpp_is_king
Member
And the effect on children need not even be direct. For example, a miniscule effect on a child which is largely undetectable throughout their entire life could subtly affect their general outlook on life and things in general. They will in turn raise other children and these subtle changes may be passed down to their children. Over time the changes will accumulate and be much more meaningful.
I just heard the game he was most obsessed with was Dance Dance Revolution, so now what?
la flama blanca
Banned
Ok, getting the "Inside Job" posts on Facebook now with some weird connection to TDKR because someone points to a "Sandy Hook" on a map for like a few seconds. I fucking hate these people.
Mammoth Jones
Member
This.
I mean, I know this event was tragic and horrific but crime is still at a 40 year low.
I don't think so. He was being home schooled. She was, alegidly, a survivalist and had six guns. She had been teaching her son to shoot. No clear motive yet.
So video games actually lower crime!
I don't necessarily disagree. I haven't bought games of that nature in years now (CoD, BF, etc. Scifi stuff like Halo I'm still alright with though) because I gradually found them more and more repulsive and disturbing to the point where I didn't even want to play them at all. Stomach turning.
It's just not a games only thing though. It's a deep-rooted issue within all forms of media that comes back to the way our culture is, like many of the issues that come up in the discussion after this attack.
NullPointer
Member
For the record I'm not saying that relationship exists. And I know people keep bringing up the rate of violent crime, but I'm pretty sure the rate is not the issue nearly as much as the potency of some of these attacks. A single person, killing so many, so quickly.
Not only are we seeing too many of these attacks, but the bodycounts and depravity is staggering.
My personal gripe with violent media and gaming in particular has more to do with stunting empathy as well as a lack of creativity on the part of our digital artists (including designers). I do think that the images that make up the bulk of your mental diet are important and game developers should strive to do more than stroke that violent id.
I sure as hell don't hold any games, or gaming, or the media, or any simplistic area as the cause for Friday's tragedy.
Yep.
Why would she need to be a survivalist if his dad was paying the bills?
They were "preparing" for whatever survivalists think is coming, the collapse of the way of life we are used to.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
It was the end of the demo. The title card came up. People applauded.
Blown way out of proportion.
God, and they say crazy isn't contagious.
Arrowgigantic
Member
They were both rich. She was a stockbroker. She was obviously one of the ones who bought more guns because she was afraid Obama was coming for her guns. I guess he probably should have.
shanshan310
Member
That's the way its been reported over in Australia. We're getting a lot of coverage as well, and the only time I've heard the shooter's name was when they were doing a direct broadcast from American TV.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I don't get the logic of people saying "if the victims had guns then she/he could defend her/himself more properly against crazy people with guns."
It's like saying, "to solve gun problems, use guns!" ...What?
It's like something a gun peddler would say in an infomercial or something.
It's like saying, "to solve gun problems, use guns!" ...What?
It's like something a gun peddler would say in an infomercial or something.
cpp_is_king
Member
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Crossfire is an awesome cure for ADHD
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Pro gun people tend to have some serious self-defense fantasies going on...
And it's the logic of a literal arms race. People are armed? Better get armed yourself. And now more people are armed. Which means more of an incentive to get armed. (rinse repeat).
cpp_is_king
Member
You know what just occurred to me. People who want more guns always say "if someone wants to find a way to kill people, they'll do it with or without guns". Well you know something, most of these mass shooters end up taking themselves. Do you think they are going to be discouraged by the possibility of themselves getting killed during the rampage? They plan on dying ANYWAY.
And the exact same argument, that "if guns are illegal then you won't have any way to defend against the guy with the gun" can be used against you. Instead of bring an assault rifle, now they'll just use a bomb instead . or wear body / face armor like the guy in Aurora so they can get off some more damage before the 800 people with guns take them down.
And yet these same people would say "we need to disarm North Korea and Iran of nuclear weapons because it leads to an arms race". That's exactly what this is, an arms race!
And the exact same argument, that "if guns are illegal then you won't have any way to defend against the guy with the gun" can be used against you. Instead of bring an assault rifle, now they'll just use a bomb instead . or wear body / face armor like the guy in Aurora so they can get off some more damage before the 800 people with guns take them down.
And yet these same people would say "we need to disarm North Korea and Iran of nuclear weapons because it leads to an arms race". That's exactly what this is, an arms race!
GillianSeed79
Member
What I don't get is even in their perfect self-defense fantasy someone still ends up dead. Shouldn't the goal of a humane society be to ensure that nobody gets blown away, bad guy or not? I'm not saying lethal force isn't justified in cases where you are in danger of imminent serious bodily injury or death, but wouldn't it be better to try to address the causes of violence before someone goes on a mass shooting spree? If the answer to the lack of mental health services in our country is to ignore it and wait until to people snap so we can kill them, it just sounds weird.
Exactly. Arming teachers isn't proactive, it's reactive.
Changing mental health care is proactive.
GillianSeed79
Member
Hate to bump this, but you've made some good posts. The stunting of empathy thing really got got to me and thinking to some extent. It's probably more of a question for gaming side, but why is the anti-hero the model for the popular protagonist these days? When I was growning up games were like a power fantasy, but a power fantasy for doing good, being the hero, being selfless, etc.
Today, lets just take Bioware games for example, where you are given the choice of being moral or immoral, I often hear from the majority of gamers that these games are more fun when you slam the red first or play evil. Why is that? I usually play these games as a paragon saint-like person because that's the kind of person I'd like to be but could never imagine to be like. Even with The Old Republic playing as an Imperial Agent, I chose "paragon" stuff instead of the "cool" bad stuff or whatever. Maybe it's because I tend to "role play" more when I play a game like that and I put myself into that character's shoes. It's just something that I've noticed in the last decade or so that being the "hero" isn't as "fun" or "cool" in a lot of games these days. Why is that?
That's not really to say I only like games where you are the hero and all that. I'm old enough now that I appreciate games with characters that give you a grey moral ground. I just find it weird sometimes that as a person that grew up idolizing characters like Luke Skywalker and ET that a lot of young gamers would probably look at them as squares or boring.
lawlohwhat
Banned
Care to substantiate this claim? I'd like to take a look at those studies. My hunch is that 'aggressive behavior' is poorly defined and that the young male demographic, which tends to commit more violent crime, also happens to be the same demographic that most often plays violent video games.
Dominican Power
Member
Aren't a lot of legal guns stolen and used in crimes?
You post a vague summary with more theorizing and guess work than facts? You could be a politician!
cpp_is_king
Member
It references quite a few papers, one of which is a survey of 130 something other papers. Do I need to go find links to the referenced papers for you, or do you think you can handle that by yourself?
Alx
Member
Honestly. When people are starting to suggest that teachers in elementary schools should carry weapons, it's time to admit there's something very wrong in your society. I'm not saying that banning guns would be a perfect solution, but the "more guns" route is going absurd places. What next ? Guns in restaurants, hospitals and churches ? I don't even think those would be worse than "guns in kindergarten".
D
Deleted member 20920
Unconfirmed Member
Do video game flight simulators really make people learn flying better?... -_-"
The problem with the whole "video games are active!" argument is that they always overestimate the ability of games when it comes to replicating actual motions...
cpp_is_king
Member
They use them in the Navy for training. So I imagine they probably do.
Clay Davis
Member
watching fox news has been very weird the past few days. they can't criticise obama even though you can see they would love to and their entire take on the story seems to be one of a lack of god in school and life in general. as I said, it's been very strange watching fox news the past few days.
Flight sims are a bit different to murder sims. You use the same motion/controls for the sim as a real aircraft, so you can work on the actual skillsets involved.
D
Deleted member 20920
Unconfirmed Member
But from what I understand these sims are generally not available/sold as video games right?
MS Flight Simulator and others are pretty damn detailed in how they handle things.
Lockheed Martin use it as the base for one of their products: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Prepar3D
D
Deleted member 20920
Unconfirmed Member
The problem is if you look over 130 cases with a set agenda, you'll find enough to prove your point, especially when you don't list how these tests were conducted or what the conditions were. There are so many variables in this situation that one well conducted experiment would have more grounding than 130 vague assertions.
cpp_is_king
Member
You think all 130 of these apparently scientific, peer-reviewed papers are simply vague assertions with a set agenda that don't list how the tests were conducted?
Oh I get it, you want ME to go read every single one of those papers and then do the analysis for you. Well here's a news flash: I wasn't the one that requested them. And I don't imagine anyone else is going to do your work for you either. If you want studies that have looked at this problem, then go find the papers referenced above and read them yourself.
For all you know they could be 130 well conducted experiments that you apparently just don't feel like reading. Not my problem.
lawlohwhat
Banned
I'm honestly not sure if you're defending your point with this article, or are you referring to specific studies?
In terms of the article, I guess I'll quickly respond.
I would think that you would learn best by flying an airplane. This is a throwaway quote, though, in that I am throwing it away because it is stupid and unsubstantiated.
Pay as a reward being directly tied to performance is kind of an outdated idea in psychology, is it not? And going to work the next day because of a reward is a bit different than punching someone in the face because it was modeled as rewarding in a video game.article said:
Here's a compilation of the problems I have with some of the quoted studies:
Konijn, E. A., Nije Bijvank, M., & Bushman, B. J. (2007).
•Testing for sensation seeking is a questionnaire of 15[mean] year old children with the following two questions: “I like to do risky things, even if they are dangerous” and “I sometimes do dangerous things, just for fun.” In addition, they used a similar questionnaire to determine baseline aggressiveness. Criticizing self-response questionnaires is kind of picking at low hanging fruit, so think what you will.
•I find it incredibly difficult to believe that they found a large enough sample size in 112 fifteen[mean] year old children to account for a wide enough variety in their answers, in addition to enough variety in the 'amount of video games played' trait, gender differences, etc.
•There is no mention of the lasting effect of this data. There is no capability for this study to account for long-term violence. I'd say it's equally likely that the stronger identification with a violent character causes an increase in sensitized neurons related to a fighting response. Would this sensitization eventually become habit forming? Who knows. Maybe.
•The study concludes that only 'low education ability adolescents' showed a correlation toward more aggression. This trait was not controlled for, nor is it adequately explained.
•Honestly this study is pretty poor, though at least they recommend further testing.
Polman, de Castro, & Van Aken, 2008
•Couldn't get the full study, only the abstract.
•I'm not sure what "nominations" means here but, "Aggression was measured through peer nominations of real-life aggressive incidents during a free play session at school. After the active participation of actually playing the violent video game, boys behaved more aggressively than did the boys in the passive game condition. For girls, game condition was not related to aggression." Okay, so again, tiny sample size, and no correlation with the girls? Hmmmmm. Might be a red flag there. If hitting pushing and kicking is more common amongst boys and not girls, then maybe it isn't the video game... Girls tend not to be as violent with outdoor activity from 10-13.
Anderson et al., 2010
•This "meta analysis" is a joke. They pretty much googled a bunch of search terms and included dissertations, non-published studies, just anything that had certain terms related to their study.
•Questionnaires, questionnaires, questionnaires. Is this how psychological science is conducted? This shit would get ripped apart in any hard science journal. They go so far as to claim "high quality non-experimental studies" include second hand reports of the students from NON FAMILY MEMBERS (teachers, etc).
•Their physiological arousal standards were a little better (heart rate, blood pressure, etc), but again there is no standardization of sources for this information.
This is an interesting topic and I'm sure there is decent work being done on it, but I cannot do much but laugh when so much of these conclusions are based on self-reports.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked