November 1, 2006
"Medical and health experts agree video game violence contributes to aggressive behavior in youth."That's one of the primary conclusions offered by the National Institute on Media & the Family, which has released a recap of its recent National Summit on Video Games, Youth and Public Policy. The event, held in Minnesota on October 20-21, was sponsored in association with Iowa State University.
Organizers termed the summit a success. In addition to a number of academics and healthcare panelists, ESRB president Patricia Vance participated on the behalf of the video game industry. Of the summit, NIMF president Dr. David Walsh said:
For the first time ever, academic scholars, medical experts, child health advocates and representatives from the video game industry had a thoughtful discussion on the video game rating system and research on the impact these games have on our children.
Dr. Douglas Gentile of Iowa State University added:
I am optimistic that if researchers and health experts continue to have a meaningful dialogue with the video game industry, we can make great strides in improving the ratings, public education about how important it is to use the ratings, and in creating public policies that make
sense.
A NIMF press release says that on the summit's final day:
Medical and health experts and organizations agreed to a joint statement regarding the devastating effects of video games on children and youth.
Devastating? Pretty strong language... The NIMF release continues:
Behavior science research demonstrates that playing violent video games can increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior in children and youth.
NIMF says that in coming weeks, summit participants will release a "10-year plan" to outline benchmarks and offer solutions to addressing children's access to violent and sexually explicit video games. Part of the plan involves making the summit a yearly event.
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6101726.stm
However since they do not say it "makes children violent" then the logical meaning behind their usage seems to be "these games excite kids and makes them more apt to wrestle with each other, be hyper and noisy."
Sounds like their next step is to have a hearing regarding the abuse and exploitation of easy sales made by the candy industry and the effects that their unfettered product makes "children likely to be more agressive".
So a possibility - not an invariable cause-effect relationship, but "Object A might or might not cause Object B" - of an increase of aggression is a 100% across the board devastating effect now?
Well, guess we shouldn't be driving cars because of the devastating effect of the likelihood of being in a car accident. And no, that was not supposed to make sense.
Doesn't "Increase the likelihood" mean that they still can't establish a causative and direct effect between videogames and teen violence?
Maybe.
I'm curious to see the report, though I doubt it'll be very constructive. The fact he's proclaiming games to be "Devastating" on kids means he probably didn't listen to the two or three game industry reps who did show up.
"experts"? experts on what? It seems when ever some one brings up this topic, every one and their mother has an expert. JT had his expert gamer trying to find "violent content" in bully. NIMF has its medical health experts saying games are "devistating". Who are these "experts"? How do we know they even exist?
Also, Where is the proof that video games are "devistating" to our youth? The sad part is that they say stuff like this and no one has the guts to ask why? Or if they do ask why the people who said that it was devistating give no hard evidence to back it up. They just say some generalized statement we have herd before over and over again. Again, making this summit totally worthless!
While we may dislike the NIMF, you have to admit that out of all the anti-gaming groups out there, they've been more even-handed than most. And while we may dislike David Walsh, he has at least been willing to listen to us and has addressed us in a respectful manner instead of insulting us like Jack Thompson. And he's not a brick wall like Lelnd Yee, Keith Vaz or Liz Wooley. His past exchanges with us indicates to me that he's at least willing to listen, is open to our points of view, and seems genuinely interested in working with the gaming industry in working towards a solution that is accpetable to both sides. SWo with that in mind, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Exactly. I was going to type up this long-winded anti-academia/research group/"parental activists" rant, but you summed it up so succinctly.
Now my tax dollars go toward destrying my hobby. What a steaming pile.
@ NIMF
"Behavior science research demonstrates that playing violent video games can increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior in children and youth."
How?
@ Gaming Industry
Ask that one question. All you had to do was accept the invite and ask that one tiny question - How?
“Medical and health experts agree video game violence contributes to aggressive behavior in youth.”
-What medical and health 'experts' is he talking about? For all we know they could have a foot doctor an a proctologist agreeing with them.
"For the first time ever, academic scholars, medical experts, child health advocates and representative!S! from the video game industry-"
-I thought it I was only Ms. Vance who was polite enough to humor these guys with a discussion... Is she really more than one person?
Last thing I want to point out is that their still use the same flawed and pitiful arguement that every anti-gaming mouthpiece uses. They want to defend young kids against explicitly violent videogames they should never have access to in the first place(that part alone makes the entire summit a waste of time)... Shouldn't they just be making sure parents know not to buy these for their 5 year old instead of messing with one of the biggest industries in the world?
Year 1: Make scary "Joint" statements about video games
Year 2-9: ???
Year 10: Profit!
This plan is being countered by the games industry's 25 year plan, which is:
Year 1: Do nothing to defend itself
Year 2-24: ???
Year 25: Profit! (since all of the anti-game advocates will be dead, in nursing homes, or off fighting some new cultural phenomenon)
Guess what that means? It means, "we have no proof, but we refuse to shut up." These guys are like a more dignified Jack Thompson. They're one-hundred percent committed to their views despite the complete and utter lack of physical evidence (as is clear from that quote), and they'll continue to parrot their lies until people stop sending them checks.
The worst part of groups like this is that they go about everything in an entirely wrong way. The problem is little kids gaining access to games created for adults, and that problem is proliferated by stupid parents who don't pay enough attention to their kids. Yet, groups like this try to change the ratings system and get games pulled from shelves when they should be going door to door and kicking bad parents in the sack.
A bit too late aren't we?
"I am optimistic that if researchers and health experts continue to have a meaningful dialogue with the video game industry, we can make great strides in improving the ratings, public education about how important it is to use the ratings, and in creating public policies that make
sense."
You say that as if the ESRB is broken, which it is not.
"Medical and health experts and organizations agreed to a joint statement regarding the devastating effects of video games on children and youth."
1. Prove that they were "experts"
2. Prove that the effect of videogames is "devastating"
"Behavior science research demonstrates that playing violent video games can increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior in children and youth."
Yeah, and behavior science research demonstrates that watching violent television, "play fighting" and other violent acts CAN increase the likelihood of aggressive behaviour, but it's actually the parents job to ensure they know what their kid is playing.
Here is a list of studies published by Dr. Gentile. I actually worked with Dr. Gentile for an internship sort of thing. There is a big misunderstanding involved in a lot of what people say about these studies. The main thing they are trying to discover is whether violent media is a risk factor (like poverty, drug use, childhood abuse, etc.) as if it is, it is one of the most easily controlled.
"...there is one important difference between media violence and most of the other risk factors for aggression--it is the one that is easily controlled. Even the parent in a family living poverty... can say, 'No, you can't play that game. Play this one instead'"
Directly from the first study on that page. Take a look at the actual studies. It's important to look at the science and not the lobbyists.
Seriously, I always find your posts incredibly enlightening. Not that I don't love all of you equally. I do, I really do.
:)
NIMF Hasn't changed much.
Cites vague sources.
Holds conference in state far away from game development.
Will give plan to make video games more Jes-- child friendly.
There. Now just copy and paste that to every release they give out and you won't have to bother reading it.
It's so cheap it's beneath nasty.
Why am I somehow not surprised that the first part of the plan they release is the one that gives them job security for the next ten years?
Eductate the public about the ratings? Isn't the public going to be confused considering how you've been saying the ratings are broken, meaningless, misleading, deceptive, and ineffective?
I'd love to hear what these "improvements" will be. There are some improvements that will help make the ratings more effective and informative. However if anyone mentions "playing the game all the way through", I'll remind them that other ratings groups (some government run) across the planet all looked at GTA:SA and Oblivion, and NONE OF THEM spotted the naughty content. Some of them even play the games they rate... So please, stop using those as examples of how the system is broken.
This just reeks of NIMF trying to justif their own existence and, as someone so accurately said earlier, giving themselves job security for the next 10 years.
Let's face it, neither the American nor British censor groups spotted a man exposing his genitals directly behind M.J.Fox in Teenwolf (iirc), and that went out in cinemas across both countries, and that only takes 2 hours to watch the whole thing, so 'playing it all through' actually gives people more excuses to pick as to why they think the ESRB is 'broken' it's not about fixing it, it's about making the odd error seem even more serious than it actually is.
This might be paraphrased a bit since I'm just remembering it off the top of my head.
"Even among primates there is a clear distinction between play fighting and actual voilence."
What amazes me the most is that all these "experts" can't seem to grasp that concept.
I’d love to hear what these “improvements” will be.
My best guess? A red tape-laden, heavily bureaucratic system where every last thing about the game has to be properly documented and broken down into a series of codes and/or labels. The end result would be a heavy, complex system that nobody understands because instead of a quick E or T, games would have long, indescribable ratings like 5/5/3/red/blue/double-black.
Think, HHGttG Vogons and you get the idea.
Comics are still around, there was no doom. That expert was wrong. So what does NIMF have that Dr. Fredric Wertham didnt?
But "Rated 5/5/3/red/blue/double-black" is completely obvious! It's instantly clear how appropriate it is for children... ;)
http://www.cjcj.org/press/hype_skews.html (sorry, from 2001)
and also: http://www.cjcj.org/jjic/myths_facts.php
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Never trust them to support either side.
Why stop at primates? Look at my friends' cats. The bite, claw, and scratch at each other, but it's just for fun. Neither of them get hurt or anything, and a moment later, one will start grooming the other.
Anyone who suggests that children can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality is effectively saying that children are less inteligent than cats.
That being said, it can sometimes be difficult for a small child to tell where to draw the line. That's why it's important for a parent to sit down with their child and teach them wrong from right. Trying to shelter them completely from violence isn't going to work. Violence is everywhere. TV, movies, books, sports. It didn't start with video games.
If this is the same guy i think it is from an Iowa State psychologist study that was completed recently that part of my report uses as a source, then the study that i looked at is a total piece of ****. I read up on it and they used they used some violent games and non violent games, took some heart rates and such, and then showed the study group violent TV EPISODES of some shows, then took more heartrates and such to try and prove that violent game desensetizes college students from real violence.
Problem with the study that basically negates the whole study, they used television as the medium for the real life violence, television that included crime dramas, shootings, and prision fights amoung other things. All of what the study classified as real violence was just another type of fictional violence, and i do stress fictional. Real violence and violence on TV are two different entities. The entire Iowa study is a farce.
That evidence has been around for a while, but the anti-gamers never acknowledge it for some reason. Probably because it would deflate their entire argument if they did. To borrow a phrase from Al Gore, it is "an inconvenient truth" for them.
I would also like to know who the experts were at this panel. Was Steven Kent there? Henry Jenkins? No, not likely.
So I'm calling bullshit on this NIMF ridiculousness.
However, our time will come, when most of us understand what gaming means and have a "license" to be considered experts in different fields.
Yes, we are revolutionaries.
Looks like NIMF reviewed Bully without playing it!
*Feigns Shocked Gasp*
If you honestly care about this issue to the point that you wish to avoid repeating their errors, however much good that will do you, figure out why the Democrats are in the picure and understand the meaning of federalism. Consider the difference between trying your best in an overwhelming situation and being prideful enough to believe you can "try your best" by focussing on problems that you feel are controlable, yet have nothing to do with you.
I'll tell you right now that video game violence does result in real-life violence, in the same way owning a hangun doesn't force you to murder someone. Legalitic control of morality and ethics though, is man's pathetic method of pretending that he is even capable of doing what is productive, that he is winning whatever fight he's cooked up in his head.
There is a difference between seeing a hooker's head bashed in with a baseball bat on tv and doing it yourself in a game. I don't care what science has to say about this, everyone already knows and has forever. We can't control the world and it's a good thing to do what you think is right, because the consequences are outside the logical grasp of any human being no matter how paralyzed and quirky. So you can't easily fix a danger because you honestly can't comprehend any of the real factors.
Everyone believes they have the answer in some form (consider how preachy my own writing sounds) and it is out there, but arrogance nullifies truth. People like JT shouldn't exist, logic should be plain enough, but they are there. In fact, you are a crazy fanatical monkey incapable of understanding reality, you might even choose to believe the world has no basis, as if your stupidity and ignorance proves the immaterial foundation of our world. And we all believe that on some level because we're all crazy ignorant fanatical monkys, it is pride that makes us deny the state of our species as a self-representing testemant to that very fact. I firmly admit to being an idiot, I admit that I do not know what I'm talking about on any level, but incredibly I believe the same of everyone I have ever spoken to. Yet we still converse and as long as we eventually do end up somewhere other than what we intended we know that we have made the effort to not be completely stupid.
Every word contains its own poison and sugar and people must be seeking something incredibly darker to waste everything on a lifelong of witch hunts and voluntarily rabid personalities. People like Jack Thompson suffer from the same illness as everyone else and thus the only way to "win" is to actually care about the negative content people spew in hatred and provide an example of the result. We can't fight our own ignorance and all destructive intents serve to do nothing more than destroy. If you set out to destroy pedophilia for instance, you will make human beings bleed and if you seek to solve not the problem, but the human being you're still only halfway there. If you intend to win in a situation you will find it incredibly easy, because people are very easy to infuriate, to mutilate and otherwise twist, destruction intended is destruction performed if you will.
So "activism" by many definitions will simply bring more pain outside it's intended bubble of reality. If people are willing to villainize games and go out of their way to detroy the evil, they destroy much more in the process. Essentially any solution not enveloping the whole of humanity and beyond is usess (if not openly maliscous). To seek action against people that oppose your beliefs (such as Jack Thompson or scientists restating common knowledge) is to do exactly what they are doing and it is not any more noble to try to protect something by deestroying with activism. "Bible-Thumping Parents" want to protect their children by destroying art and imagination, "Smelly Hippies" want to stop world war by making people late to work, "Dirty-Harry Rethuglicans" want to stop murderous mass slaughter by taking unwilling human lives, the list goes on and on because it includes the basic activities of the human race for the last ten-thousand or so years.
Activism creates the governments they intended to fix. We can't seem to stop hating because our ignorance doesn't provide alternatives.
So you can give up caring, or you can take every kick in the face until you can figure out what you're actually supposed to be doing.
Sacrifice...is a different sort of thing than destruction though. It may exist only because it is the corresponding irony to our life. To let someone kick you in the face and not ask for "anything" in return. To let the man keep you down because you don't wanna be like him. To be the loser, not because it isn't worth it, but because your sacrifice is the only thing different thaan the destruction you could bring the world.
Catholics are sometimes known for whipping themeselves for sins they have commited. for destruction they put on destruction and that isn't real sacrifice, simply more destruction. If both guilt and will allow you to, go deep into the inner city in the dangerous places for no other reason than you feel you might be needed there. See what people think of your religeon, be beaten, stabbed, even raped, not because you sought that pain (for that indeed is self-mutilation), but because the alternative was to destroy human beings in some way. If you can do that 24/7, you might become noble, might even begin to escape the cycle of ignorance that makes you stupid. I mentioned the Catholic self-punishment not because I condemn it, but because if taken at face value it seemed to make a reasonable example.
And I certainly can't do what I mentioned (I could, yet won't) and I'm not ordering because it's not my business.
News like above will keep coming, in one form or another and you're no better. If you want to change the world, you can't play by the rules. And if you don't, then it's you against everything mankind has done since its conception. Good luck keeping "the man" from taking our games.
Babus
PS: If you havn't already noticed, that might have been a tad longer than I intended. And actually, I meant it when I said good luck, I'm a tad frustrated right now and have opted to go play Disgaea.
The first one mind you, I sadly get distracted and don't finish very much.
Ever
And what is this sexually explicit crap they throw out at us? WHAT SEXUAL EXPLICITY?! 007 movies have more sex than GTA. Why are games the target?
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!!! :p
Seriously though everything from rock and roll to videogames has been considered harmful to youth. What makes NIMF think that they are right?
Take me for instance. Until I went to high school, I was an agressive, unsociable monster. Exactly the sort of person you would expect to grow up with violent tendanceis. However, due to a number of factors that hardly includes video games (as I've been playing them since I was 5), I have become an extremely polite, intelligent, and empathitc person in my teen years. This is the underlying flaw in these "studies", they often don't monitor what behavior the subject exibits AFTER the study is finished.
You've also got the problem that most of the studies only deal subjects of only one or two age groups and/or only one of two walks of life. Then they use their already inconclusive findings and make it look like they represent the whole of humanity. For example, the recent "study" that indicated that people who play violent video games will have more permissive attitudes towards drugs and alcohol comprised mostly of college students. I shouldn't have to explain the inherent problems in finding increased permissive attitudes towards drugs and alcohol with such people.
What really needs to be done is a nationwide, 10-year (at least), meta-analysis on the effects on ALL violent entertainment (not just games) on a fairly large sample of people from many different age groups, economic classes , and occupations. Sadly, this is not likely to ever happen because 1: Such a study would take a riduculous amount of money (not to mention time) to put together. & 2: Such an objective, unbiased study would not be likely to produce the results wanted by those who have the money for such an endaevor (namely, people like Joe Liberman and David Walsh).