That study doesn't show any difference between violent or nonviolent games though, just between doing the activity of playing the game and not. That's actually not a good design at all.

What a surprise. The military uses them big time to "help mask the reality of war" ... "most gamers may only ever see the casualties of modern wars as pixels on a screen - there one moment, gone the next"

Here comes the science Link (new window)

Not this BS again!

So, let me get this straight... there wasn't a 3rd group playing Mario Kart?

No mention of how brain functions were altered?

/off to grab a cup of tea
//zOMG CUPS OF TEA ALTER BRAIN FUNCTIONS. TONIGHT AT 11.

casual disregard: This study funded by the Lobby to Ruin a Multibillion Dollar Industry.

Seriously, why do they want to fark with this guaranteed economy-stimulating cash cow?

Becuz the childrens!

Far better article concerning the study which mentions the study has only been presented in the annual meeting, not peer-reviewed: Violent Video Games May Alter Brain Function

I used to punch by brother for pausing Super Mario Brothers as I was jumping over a pit.

do DO DO DO Do do do. My turn!

*WHAM*

Nice. The article fails to say what the possible consequences could be, leaving the article free to be grabbed by the "concerned parents of America" to justify more censorship on video gaming.

Wouldn't it be funny if they figured out that the changes simply mean that folks are better able to get their aggression out less destructively?

/she doesn't hate science, just the way people interpret it sometimes

geezergeek: What a surprise. The military uses them big time to "help mask the reality of war" ... "most gamers may only ever see the casualties of modern wars as pixels on a screen - there one moment, gone the next"

Here comes the science Link (new window)

Here comes the other science

casual disregard: This study funded by the Lobby to Ruin a Multibillion Dollar Industry.

Seriously, why do they want to fark with this guaranteed economy-stimulating cash cow?

And think of the synergy with the weapons industry. It's a [dollar] force multiplier.

The Lawnmower Man proved this years ago

U.S. researchers Dr. Yang Wang.....perhaps I am the only one that thought that was funny. Anyway, it is a crap study that proves nothing. As has been pointed out, they did not compare to non-violent group. My suspicion is the same result would be seen in that group and that is why they didn't include them which leads me to question their motives. Moreover, they did not show why this result is meaningful.

So the scans of game players were slightly different than non-players. So what? They never told us why we should care. I imagine if you scanned a bunch of guys playing a lot of chess vs a lot of guys just watching tv, I suspect you will see differences, but those differences aren't meaningful. Is it an indicator of more violent behavior in game players? We already know that isn't true as violent video games have been around for decades and there has been no measurable uptick in violent behavior of those kids. Finally, with such small Ns, I have to wonder if they are even reporting statistiically significant differences or just differences? I am guessing the latter.

And here is the gem in the article ""The findings indicate that violent video game play has a long-term effect on brain functioning,"

The study just concluded, how in the world does one generalize to such an extent? Regardless of the fact that these observed differences are probably meaningless, there is no basis for suggesting these changes are enduring. Now, if they looked at a sample of grown men that spent a significant amount of time playing violent games as teenagers vs another group of grown me that didn't play as teenagers, one is a little more able to speak of long term effects, but even a study like that has flaws that could end up in misleading results.

In short, this "researcher" probably has never taken a research design course and I would really be surprised if this was actually published in some reputable journal. I don't think it is.

This is such B.S. -- I've been playing violent video games since they were invented. My first console was PONG, but after that I had an Atari 2600 and several other consoles. I spent a lot of time in the arcades in the 1980s, and even won a couple Street Fighter 2 tournaments. I'm 40 now, and anyone who knows me would tell you that I'm a pacifist. I wouldn't hurt anyone unless I felt seriously threatened.

I propose that violent video games (and other media) don't alter brain function, but that some people who are already predisposed to violence, angst, what-have-you have also, coincidentally, played video games.

You can make the same observations and correlation with movies, music, sex, pills, fruit, vegetables, or employment.

Of course they do.

Everything alters brain function. That's why you're a motile, functioning human instead of a rutabaga.

IlGreven: Of course they do.

Everything alters brain function. That's why you're a motile, functioning human instead of a rutabaga.

You see, I think this is the problem. That's what you'd rationally assume, when most of these people are, in fact, rutabagas.

Here comes the other science

And even more:

In "False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant," two scientists from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, and a colleague from Berkeley, argue that modern academic psychologists have so much flexibility with numbers that they can literally prove anything.

Link (new window)

Pumpernickel bread: The study just concluded, how in the world does one generalize to such an extent?

Because the changes remained a week later despite lack of game playing. Changes which persist over the course of a week are long-term. This is a useful conclusion for continued research, but not one which is practical.

Pumpernickel bread: In short, this "researcher" probably has never taken a research design course and I would really be surprised if this was actually published in some reputable journal. I don't think it is.

This was presented in a meeting. You might consider doing a little additional research which readily says this and would clarify several aspects of this newspaper article on a scientific study.

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: I propose that violent video games (and other media) don't alter brain function

But they do...for the positive, negative, or neutral and in what ways is not concluded by or from the study. What this article does, however, is allow people to make a leap through confirmation bias from "violent video games" and "alter brain function" to "violent video games" and "violent brain function".

IlGreven: Of course they do.

Everything alters brain function. That's why you're a motile, functioning human instead of a rutabaga.

Speak for yourself. I come from a proud line of rutabagas.

/rutabaga
//rutabaga rutabaga rutabaga

The second group did not play a video game at all during the two-week period, Wang said.


So they were not testing the effects of violent video games they were testing the effects of video games. They need a control group of people playing pop cap games or some shiat next time if they want to claim that they have any information about violent video games.

Sitting in front of a computer doing anything for a week is going to do something to your brain.

lol headline, nice

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT I'M ALLOWED TO LAUGH

DesertEagle: So, let me get this straight... there wasn't a 3rd group playing Mario Kart?

To be honest, the anger of getting shelled just before crossing the finish was almost enough to kill a human

Does this mean I can sue Namco because Pac-Man made me fat?

Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: This is such B.S. -- I've been playing violent video games since they were invented. ... I'm 40 now, and anyone who knows me would tell you that I'm a pacifist. I wouldn't hurt anyone unless I felt seriously threatened.


Oh, yeah, you talk small when you are sitting behind a computer, but I would like to see you show that compassion and understanding to my face, buddy. Everybody's such a pacifist on the internet. "oh oh, I study transcendental meditation" "oh oh, I practice a philosophy of moral consideration and non-aggression"

I am so sick of keyboard pacifists.

It's a shame we know nothing about how a brain operates beyond "Well, there are periods were neurons get excited and periods where they don't. and some neurons in some places seem to be tied to specific actions".

Because if we knew what those changed neurons DID, then we could learn something from this study,

Once more into the breach, my brothers. And sisters.

Anyway, doesn't something like this come up every month or so?

"Video games cause violent behavior and we have the study to prove it."

"You're full of crap, and here's a study to disprove yours."

"Nuh uh, you are."

"No, you."

And back and forth it goes. I like video games, and think that much of the WHARRGARBLE is overblown, but the constant back and forth is grating and, by now, boring. I don't really think that any one article or study will change people's minds at this point.

n00b!

IlGreven: Of course they do.

Everything alters brain function. That's why you're a motile, functioning human instead of a rutabaga.

Pretty much this.

And, shiat, I'm not a neuroscientist.

PonceAlyosha: That study doesn't show any difference between violent or nonviolent games though, just between doing the activity of playing the game and not. That's actually not a good design at all.

This is correct.

geezergeek: What a surprise. The military uses them big time to "help mask the reality of war" ... "most gamers may only ever see the casualties of modern wars as pixels on a screen - there one moment, gone the next"

Here comes the science Link (new window)

This is not. I did five years, and never played any video game. If you think the DST3000 is a video game, you are literally the dumbest person alive.

Vangor: Far better article concerning the study which mentions the study has only been presented in the annual meeting, not peer-reviewed: Violent Video Games May Alter Brain Function

The title "X alters brain function" is scientist for "we wasted our grant money." Only failed studies are so nonspecific.

casual disregard: This study funded by the Lobby to Ruin a Multibillion Dollar Industry.

Seriously, why do they want to fark with this guaranteed economy-stimulating cash cow?

Because the gaming industry representatives don't pay anywhere nearly as much money as the other entertainment industries do. Sooner or later I guess the video game industry will figure it out and start paying to make the politicians shut up.

PonceAlyosha: That study doesn't show any difference between violent or nonviolent games though, just between doing the activity of playing the game and not. That's actually not a good design at all.

Reminds me of the Penn and Teller BS episode about violent video games where those two researchers were talking about agenda driven studies.

Link (new window)

Not really a big fan of the way they present some issues but this was a good one.

I was going to biatch about control groups, but I see it was already covered. Thanks.

Hey, psychologists: This is why scientists don't take you seriously. When someone outside your field can point out 3 or 4 (or more) fatal study errors 10 seconds after reading about your work, you have failed. In fact, you have failed so badly that you, your students, your entire PhD committee and everyone you've ever met at a conference should have your degrees revoked.

And for an encore, I'll complain about how 1 week of gaming can be considered "extended". I've been doing it since the 2600 was introduced. That's extended.

ChubbyTiger:
And for an encore, I'll complain about how 1 week of gaming can be considered "extended". I've been doing it since the 2600 was introduced. That's extended.

That's the really big joke. A lot of parents these days played and still play video games. Hell the guy who hooked up my cable when I got a place of my own saw a copy of GTA Vice City sitting near the tv and started talking to me about how far he'd gotten after picking it up the week before, and he was nearly 50.

ChubbyTiger: Hey, psychologists: This is why scientists don't take you seriously. When someone outside your field can point out 3 or 4 (or more) fatal study errors 10 seconds after reading about your work, you have failed. In fact, you have failed so badly that you, your students, your entire PhD committee and everyone you've ever met at a conference should have your degrees revoked.

Hey Chubs: Review the pic neaorin posted. When journalists report about psychological research, it gets dumbed down and sensationalized up. It's likely that the study was a first glance at one component of a complex puzzle, and the writeup for the presentation was sufficiently modest ("These preliminary data suggest..." "The following limitations should be dealt with in future studies..." and so on). Especially when we're talking about conference presentations, in which it is entirely legitimate to talk about ongoing studies, preliminary hints, tentative explorations, etc.

And BTW, research psychologists are scientists. Only those who do things as stupid as rely on media reports to be accurate describers of research believe otherwise.

Another "Anti-Video Game" study?

Too much of anything is bad and for some people, detrimental. It doesn't matter what it is.

But why single out video games? What about... sports? Oh wait, let me guess, single minded obsession with viewing and/or playing sports has no negative consequences at all and everything about sports is nothing but rainbows and sunshine? Except that's not true and we know it so why do we never see these same kinds of studies conducted on players or fans? Oh wait, I know, because you can stigmatize the video game players easily and they make a good target where as you will find yourself under fire from all sides if you dare to suggest sports has any negative problem at all.

The abuse scandal out of Penn state has shown us just one side of an ugly underbelly... You can get away with something for a long time provided you have a good "sports" cover in front of you, and when word gets out that one of the victims is a high school student he will be ridiculed and attacked endlessly because they blame HIM for getting some popular coach fired...?

Sports obsession. People don't care who does what or how bad it is if you'll just give them a winning team to cheer for.

neaorin: [theincidentaleconomist.com image 600x667]

i like that.

Seriously, scientists? All this crap with trying to find a potential link to begin with is stupid enough as every living person is wired differently, has had different events in his/her lives than others, etc, but then you go and use a farking pitifully small test sample like 28 people to back up your claims?

If a sample size isn't more than 100 at least, it's a completely worthless test IMO.

BigLuca: Nihilist's Guide to Reticent Entropy: This is such B.S. -- I've been playing violent video games since they were invented. ... I'm 40 now, and anyone who knows me would tell you that I'm a pacifist. I wouldn't hurt anyone unless I felt seriously threatened.


Oh, yeah, you talk small when you are sitting behind a computer, but I would like to see you show that compassion and understanding to my face, buddy. Everybody's such a pacifist on the internet. "oh oh, I study transcendental meditation" "oh oh, I practice a philosophy of moral consideration and non-aggression"

I am so sick of keyboard pacifists.

+1 Internets for you, sir

Lets throw in comically violent video games, too.


This game kicks ass. It's fun even when you lose.

geezergeek: What a surprise. The military uses them big time to "help mask the reality of war" ... "most gamers may only ever see the casualties of modern wars as pixels on a screen - there one moment, gone the next"

Here comes the science Link (new window)

Yeah, right. Show me a Marine who says that shooting at people while under fire felt the same as a video game. I laugh when my friends get blown ten feet in the air in MW.

I think Pepper Spray Assassin has done bad things to society. Can't stop playing it though.

RedPhoenix122: Standard Deviant: Yeah, right. Show me a Marine who says that shooting at people while under fire felt the same as a video game. I laugh when my friends get blown ten feet in the air in MW.

Been there, and between me, who was in the infantry, and my brother, who was an Airborne Ranger, we both look at the "realism" of those games and laugh. These games teach you to be a soldier in the same way that playing Burnout teaches you to drive, Burgertime teaches you to cook, or Q-bert teaches you to walk up and down stairs.

The first couple of missions in Operation Flashpoint are much more accurate: Stand with your squad while your Sergeant tells you your orders, drive a few miles, wait, drive some more, wait, drive some more, mission complete.

The degree of realism isn't the primary salient factor; the neural response to the stimulus is. The question is: do violent video games habituate and desensitize participants to actual violence?

"Vicariously I live while the whole world dies.
Much better you than I."

I don't know that my subjective and non-clinical evidence about this will help or hurt. But in my house we throttle the number of hours our kids get to play the more violent xbox games, based on our experience with the oldest kid. He's some kind of genius at Battlefield, scores very high, lots of kills. Thats not the issue.

The issue is that in Battlefield and sometimes HALO, the longer time he spends in online team play, the more of a jerky douchebag he becomes, and he has trouble leaving that behind, in-game, when he unplugs.

He gets more and more profane, even if he's doing well. He gets louder and louder on the teamspeak headset, sounding like a Tourettes patient. His reactions to corrective action and commentary become ever more violent, loud, and profane until he's just about out of control. He comes off the game talking crap like a channer, and it doesn't turn off for an hour or more: he lips off to his mom like he's still trash-talking some unnamed gamer who's been cheating with hacks and illegal mods. He gets my hands-on attention then, you betcha. And some stand-in-the-corner time, until he remembers where he lives and who feeds him. He's like those assholes on TV wrestling when they face off. He's abrupt and impolite and rude and impatient and just plain not himself.

Of course, HE can't see it, but everybody in the family agrees it's a Jekyl/Hyde thing, and only on those two games. He's pressed enough buttons on these events where he loses his impulse control, that we banninate him from access for anything from a day to a week, depending on just how obnoxious and unrepentant he is, and until he shapes up.

You're going to tell me: " that's just being a teenager". To a point, I would concur. He's a good kid in general, I don't like curtailing his favorite ways of recreating and letting off steam, and I like that he plays these games with his natural ability and not with purchased or stolen hacks or unsportsmanlike assistance. So I'm not one of these "OMG what about the children" people. I am strict but consistent. I set limits and they know where the limits are, and the consequences never vary. Because of that, we have a lot more peace in the house than some families.

But something about the live teamspeak version of his online play definitely triggers this unacceptable jerkiness. After the cooling-off period, he's once again a decent person and polite and respectful, as well as penitent and apologetic for sassing his mom.

When we try to have a chat about this duality of behavior, he reacts in classic denial, he swears up and down that his gaming has no effect on his *affect*. I'm thinking about videotaping him during play and showing him a playback of his douchiness.

I'm curious if any of you out there on the parenting side see this kind of thing, and how you deal with it.