While browsing the internet yesterday, I stumbled across an article centering around a $90 million study you have proposed on the so-called "effects of video game violence." Please realize what a huge waste of not only taxpayer's dollars this is, but also how simple the answer is to all of this. It has nothing to do at all with the content of these rated video games, but everything to do with lackluster parenting.
Studies like these have been conducted already, multiple times actually. There have been countless books published on the subject. There is no need for anything further. These studies have shown both sides of an argument that should not exist, much like the war against comic books in the early 1960s, Dungeons and Dragons in the 1980s, and rap music in the 1990s. Those have of course been dropped and the focus has been shifted simply because video games are now a major (and rapidly expanding) industry. Oddly, comic books, D & D, and rap music do still exist. Why is there no mention of these "evils" any longer?
This is nothing more than either a blatantly political move to attract votes from the older demographic (while completely shunning those who play the games) who do not understand the video game medium or yet another attempt to blame something on the country's woes. This is wrong, plain and simple. We have become a country filled with citizens who absolutely refuse to put the blame on themselves for their actions. Instead, they look towards the entertainment medium.
A video games content is no worse than a feature film with an "R" rating, which can also be picked up at a local video store. Why does this study only apply to video games? Why are movies not coming under attack? Why are books not a part of this? I have read countless books which feature decapitation, sex, drug use, and all-out violence with more graphic depictions of said actions than any video game, and I've played those for nearly 20 years. The same can be said for feature films.
The big question here, one that even studies that supposedly prove a link cannot prove, is how a series like "Grand Theft Auto" can sell 25 million+ (estimated) copies worldwide, yet all of .000001% of game players actually commit violent crime. That's common sense and logic at work, something no $90 million study can possibly provide. As a side note, I've played "Grand Theft Auto," "Mortal Kombat," or the soon to be discovered by politicians "God of War." Never once have I been involved in a fistfight, handled a gun, or even have thoughts of doing so. The same can be said for the millions of people around the world who play video games everyday.
Article comments
1 - Tony Dalmyn
If the study is going to be a predictable denunciation by feminists and self-esteem psychologists of the bad effects of exposing children to fictional violence, save the money.
But I think Matt hasn't been very clear about bad parenting, and maybe that's where some research might be useful. Is it bad to let kinds play any games, or too play too much, or at an early age, or to play the wrong games? Is it bad because it takes time away from school, sports, clubs, or from watching TV? Can you tell if your kid is becoming compulsive about gaming or using games to bail out of family life? Is video gaming addictive, like computer gambling? So tell me Matt, what do you mean by bad parenting?
2 - gonzo marx
well said Matt...
/golfclap
and to Tony Dalmyn..
i think Matt has been pretty clear in his article..but let me take a stab at elucidation..
"bad parenting" in this case is being disconnected form the child's hobbies and habits...for instance..in the example above...the child expressed an interest in a book, but the parent bought a game..one with an obvious rating well beyond the childs age..thus tossing aside the blatant Rating put there to inform the parent
a better choice might have been to do a little checking up on the book, reading the dust jacket..and perhaps renting the game and playing it themselves for an evening to see what it's about..if found acceptable..playing it for a bit WITH the child..
too often, the TV and/or games are left as a de facto "baby sitter" with the parent being completely un-involved with what the child is ACTUALLY playing or watching..thus 10 year olds see R rated movies with content that parent might find unsuitable...or games meant for teens or adult gamers , with no clue as to the content of the game the child is involved in..
and that is the key word..involvement
"bad parenting" is demonstrated constantly by parent who are either unwilling, or unthinking..about what their children are doing or involved in
if you are engaged with your child..then you know who their friends are..and where they are going, keeping tabs on them...this helps keep them out of trouble on the street....even more important when they are younger...to pay attention, and be involved in their choices of media...tv, music, games, books..and ensure that the material is what YOU..as a parent...find acceptable..
the PARENT is supposed to be the adult here..and should be looking out for the child's best interest...online,schoolwork and so on and on..
apathy causes more harm to children than anything else in our Society
but it's easier to blame games...a lot less of a Constituency than indifferent parents...and so they can score easy Political points..
as Matt pointed out...it has been done by Politicians since forever (that devil music..Rock and Roll!!)
it's known as "scapegoating"...look it up..
Excelsior!
3 - Matt Paprocki
Bad parenting is a general idea, covering a myraid of issues. My example in the letter is perfect: Buying a violent video game instead of a book your kid actually wants. It's hard enough to get kids to read nowadays and denying them a book is just wrong. Bad parenting is not monitoring your kid as he makes bombs in your garage.
Actually, it's everything you mentioned. Parents simply either do not realize that their kids are playing these games or simply do not care. They do not discuss them. That's where all the problems start. If the parents show the kid the diference between make believe and reality at a young age, it's not going to be an issue when they get older.
4 - Tony Dalmyn
Fair enough, but home console games have only been out for about 10 years. We don't know that much about how kids interact with them. We do know that parents find them to be a good resource to keep kids safe at home and out of other trouble. We could probably learn a bit more about them, other than the fact that they are expensive and unending.
The other point is about parenting. You have set up a dialectic of games vs. parenting as the reason kids screw up. Aren't there other factors? What about Fox News, Howard Stern, the Congress of the United States? Kids start to connect with other kids at an early age and peer culture seems to be beyond parental influence from a very early age.
5 - gonzo marx
Tony sez...
*Fair enough, but home console games have only been out for about 10 years.*
ummm..factually incorrect..
i bought the first home console video game in 1979..it was Pong
this is 2005...do the math
anyone under 35 years old in the United States has NEVER known a world without console video games
i might suggest begining your education at your local rental store..rent a suystem and some games for a weekend and give them a try...
comic books don't cause teen violence...neither does D&D, movies, music(devil jazz/rock&roll,rap/hip-hop etc), or even video games...
we will be much better off when we stop trying to lay the blame on everything but the perpetrator...look inside them to find the cause....
and be engaged with your kids...to quote G.I. Joe "and knowing is half the battle"
Excelsior!
6 - Matt Paprocki
Tony, the Magnavox Odessey launched in 1972, the first home console. However, the whole violence debate didn't really come into play until 1992 with Mortal Kombat. However, there were some games my mom was leary of like Contra which has lots of shooting and such, and hence, I was not allowed to have it. Why? She was a good parent. I was limited in my playtime and when my grades slipped, I would come home with me NES unplugged, the AC adapter in an undisclosed location until I brought home something with a high grade. It worked.
That's what parents aren't doing. The effects of video games on children are no different/better/worse than regular TV and movies. Kids enjoy all three. There's no line to be drawn anywhere. That's something I have a major problem with.
7 - Tony
I meant the Playstation and the later console games which changed the gaming model. After the Playstation, everyone with kids had consoles.
I am trying to figure out if you are saying bad parents cause teen violence, or good parents are able to produce happy safe teens. If we are looking at nurture - the influence of environment - we should look at the whole environment. And the proverbial elephant in the living room is the entertainment industry. The entertainment industry produces products that have unpredictable and untested effects for some individuals, and predictably bad effects for some individuals.
I don't think anyone is going to try to regulate the products, the marketing or the use of the products. I don't know why anyone would think there is any chance of that happening. It's like the Ford Pinto. We know most people will be fine with the product. We know shit will happen but shit can happen if it doesn't come back on the manufacturer.
I think the logic of blaming parents for teen behaviour isn't very good. I don't know if that's what your are saying though. Who is "the perpetrator" If you're saying it's the parent, you're just laying in on a different scapegoat There are a lot of reasons for teen problems and each teen has a different story. Parents are in the stories, but their role may not be large. The teen is usually the center of the story.
Thanks for the math lesson and the advice, but I have other toys and other plans.
8 - gonzo marx
Tony sez..
* Parents are in the stories, but their role may not be large.*
THAT is the nut of my Point, Tony..
up until their teen years..Parents are and should be, the single largest Influence on the raising of children
it is up to them to remain engaged with their children...regulate what and how much of ANY entertainment the child takes in...you wouldn't let a 7 year old watch the cable porn channel, would ya?
the same Principle applies to EVERYTHING a child comes in contact with..for those Variables uncontrollable by the Parent..it is up to them to explain it to the child, and place the information in context so they can understand it better..
when i met my sifu's Master on a trip to Hong Kong, so he could evaluate if i was qualified to teach the Style...one of the things he told me, that has stuck with me ever since was.."there is no such thing as a bad Student, only bad Teacher's"
that simple statement had a Profound effect on my thinking and approach to many of Life's endeavors..and i believe applies here..
now, Logically..the Parent cannot be a "scapegoat"..since it is inherently THEIR Responsibility for the raising of a child
now..once a kid hits their late teens..all bets are usually off..it is far too late to begin the process, one must then rely on the Foundation that has been built up until that point..that will go a long way into influencing their present and future behaviour..
as for the old "Nature versus Nurture" argument...i have always contended it is a mixture of both, with some Free Will tossed in..
it's definately True that, no matter what..some kids will flip out...some will be President..and some will be axe murderers...
i stand by my Contention that a much larger percentage will turn out in a more Positive fashion with the help of Parents being engaged in their lives..and that that single Factor will be a FAR greater Influence on those kids than all the books, movies, music or games they come across in their lifetimes since those experiences will be absorbed thru the Filters of their Parents guidance...for good or ill
nuff said?
Excelsior!
9 - kacz
Your source is an article at ign.com that starts off by saying Clinton has taken sides: "the wrong one." Not exactly an unbiased source. In the parts of the original interview that were quoted, Clinton says absolutely nothing about violence committed by children who play these games. Instead, she focuses on attitudes, saying that her concern is children will take away the idea that it's okay to treat women, non-whites, etc., as inherently inferior, NOT that these kids will run around re-enacting scenes from the game itself. I think it's a valid concern, because we really don't know to what extent the entertainment that we surround ourselves with affects our attitudes in real life.
If you concede the point, just hypothetically, that there are people in the world who think that women have innately less ability than men, and if you think this is wrong, then you might wonder why a person comes to think that way. Probably it's a variety of influences from throughout their lives, everything from the TV they watch to their teachers and their parents, but by the time they're, for example, at a level in business or in academia where they're able to put these ideas into play, it's too jumbled to be able to figure out what had what effect.
So maybe there isn't a connection between violence in games and real world violence. But that doesn't rule out some other kind of pernicious consequence.
10 - Mike
It has to be about the parents here. How can it not be? To correct something, every kid had gaming consoles when the NES came out, long before the playstation was even a valid concept. I've been playing games since I was 6 years old or so, some violent, some not. I'm 26 now and have never been in a fight, never held a gun, and in fact am frightened by violence in the real time. I think that video games serve as a vent for people to turn to instead of performing real life acts of violence.
Violence in video games, movies, television and such content on the radio are all a product of what we have become as a society, not the cause. We are fascinated with violence and the money brought in by violent movies, games and cable programs speak for themselves.
People always want to make the claim that our times have become more violent, and those people would be wrong. Times haven't become more violent, they've just become more televised. If the vultures we call the media were around during the civil war, you can bet that they would have been there to cover it just like they are with war and violent acts now. You can see more poison watching the news and the difference is that is REAL. Video games, movies and most of the time, television violence is either animated or not real.
Violence has been around since and before America's conception. George Washington and back there has been violence, wars, black markets and crime associated with those markets.
You want to blame someone for violence in video games and movies? Blame the government and the citizens for turning a blind eye to this and adopting a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude towards violence and war. Parents need to look at themselves here. Accountability in this country is nowhere to be found anymore and it pisses me off to no end to see how everyone wants to point the finger instead of looking at themselves.
Video games do not CAUSE violence; they are simply a product of a society that is fascinated with it and it will never go away. Just because you like violent movies and games does not mean you are a violent person. End of story.