NIMF's David Walsh Talks Game Addiction, Game Violence with GameCyte

The thing I hate about this Walsh guy and his NIMF group is how they claim to be against censorship, and yet gleefully stand aside as certain snakes use them as sources to push anti-free-speech agendas on us.  Until the NIMF actively makes it clear they truly are against censorship and support adults rights to play adult games (and they do not- read between the lines), I consider them to be just another group of snakes.

and I think that it would be wise for the NIMF and other Psychologists to acknowledge that they just need to focus on the socisty issues instead of labeling Videogames as the problem of society, and for them to actually become part of the solution by trying to solve real life issues like School Bullying and Violence in the Homes...

But they won't because they only focus on trying to blame videogames and that is what they always will be.

Heres a thought.... let the aprents teach as they see fit, it beats making us all into childern....

Shearing/Downloading will never be a mainstream market.

Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes
of transportation of story and thought, to take them from
society and you create a society of children and nannys

I'm curious why there's never been an uproar about TV addiction?

I grew up watching 8-10 hours a night.  On SCHOOL nights!  I'd watch a lot more on weekends or holidays.  I game a lot, but no where near that much (not even in WoW).

I have a lot of friends who watch just about as much tv as I do... some even more.  And yet... there's no AMA conferences, covers of magazines, etc about that.

This is the biggest thing that bugs me about this whole "game addiction" problem. Everyone focuses on the game addiction as if it is the only problem. The game is not the problem. The compulsive gaming is a symptom of the real problem.

Just like all medical professions, these psychologists would rather treat symptoms than find and fix the actual problem. Why do they do this? It is easier to do and makes them more money in the long run.

They would rather treat your gaming addiction by having you pay for therepy sessions 2 times a week and talk about what you are doing to curb your addiction, than helping you confront whatever ghost they are hiding from.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091

Again, the singling out of a media format, or a genre of media, or anything else shows the actual misrepresentation in the very singling out for the purpose of a personal agenda.

The argument isn't that exposure to the video/computer game medium doesn't affect anyone, it's that exposure to ANYTHING can affect ANY individual in ANY number of ways, positively or negatively.  It isn't, in fact, the PRODUCT that the individual is exposed to that is the problem.  It's the complexity of the individual and how they RESPOND to ANY stimuli.  But instead of focusing on the individual, instead of finding out PRECISELY why an individual reacts to certain stimuli, they seek to alter the STIMULI overall, simply because a few individuals react badly to it.

Comparisons/contrasts:

A few years ago, a woman enrolled in a military academy that had been male dominated for decades.  "My God!  The first woman!  She'll prove women can do it!"  She washed out.  What did, in fact, she prove or fail to prove?  Did she prove women in general can not keep up with the existing design of the academy?  Or did she prove that ONLY SHE could not keep up with the existing design of the academy?  Note that, little reported, there was at least one man who also washed out and that it isn't uncommon for men to wash out as well.  Additionally, the "solution" was that the high requirements needed to be lowered so that "women" (as many felt that her failure was evidence that the bar was set too high for ALL women) could pass the requirements, instead of accepting only the highest quality individuals, male or female, who were able to succeed.

In another example, we know that there are a number of religious sects that promote bigotry, hate, and abuse, as well as a number of other acts some may consider "immoral".  Not all sects of the major religion act the same way.  Yet, because a few DO act this way, perhaps limitations on religion as a whole should be enforced so as to protect society in general.

Both of these examples can be compared to the argument made that the industry, ANY industry in fact, must take note of the negative reactions of SOME individuals to being exposed to certain products.  That those industries MUST place limitations and deny ALL consumers (whether those consumers are obtaining a product or receiving a service) the fullest extent and range of products and services.

In so arguing, we also see the contrast in NIMF's and Dr. Walsh's arguments, because religion, as a genre in writing and other media formats, as well as live exposure, DOES potentially present a negative reaction in some individuals, yet there is no call for legislative hearings on the potential harm to SOME individuals to said exposure, but he feels there SHOULD be legislative hearings on OTHER genres, content, and media formats.  Why would there be a call for such research and hearings on SOME products/services but not others?  Again, INDIVIDUAL could be positively or negatively affected by ANY particular exposure, so why limit the research or legislative hearings?

BTW, I'd like to reiterate the comment I made long ago that, for the most part, I do like Dr. Walsh better than ANY other opposing individual.  Even some other individuals within NIMF have been less rational and unworthy of respect.  But Dr. Walsh is definitely worthy of some, if not great, resepect. 

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl