Study: Violent videogames destroy brain function

Post Reply New Topic

I think these are the same scientists that claimed to have cloned a human being and also the ones that say they have the cure for AIDS!

I think they are working on time travel as we speak !

Oh, whatever...I guess we should all just deny the violent sides of our human nature and then everything would be oh-so sparkly and perfect! Because as we all know, repression of natural instincts is the healthiest thing ever.

Not.

Like many above me have said, this study is very flawed.

There is a difference between repressing an emotion (which can back-fire) and cultivating that emotion by rewarding people for expressing that response for hour after hour, day after day. Really, doesn't playing violent video games strengthen those circuits in the brain, which then requires that people repress what they have learned from the game? BANG! BANG! I showed you, M-Fer!!

Many have said this study is flawed, yet they have not offered any specific criticisms which are valid.

Last edited by monty on 27 Dec 2007, 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'll accept it promotes obesity and violence but it's not convincing enough to make me believe that it will lower one's intelligence.

I'm not sure that it will lower intelligence, as measured by standard IQ tests. But if it does have negative effects on the frontal lobe and the anterior cingulate gyrus, which are associated with speech, thought, decisions, impulse control, and emotional response ... ?

My two cents.

This article - not surprisingly - comes from a poor and biased source. Fox - as in Fox News. They never do their proper homework and sensationalise something chronic. All they're about is trying to get rid of something they just plain don't like - and violent video games have always been high on their target list.

Any individual (no exceptions) could respond incorrectly to video games. It's an indication of a pre existing problem that has nothing whatsoever to do with the game. A game is a game - that's all.

If anything - playing games (no matter what game) too much MIGHT be an issue. But that would be more to do with staring at a monitor or TV screen for too long and something like this (in theory) would take YEARS to develop. And only if the individual played video games literally all day every day without fail.

A ridiculous article.

And a joke is a joke - that's all. If a joke disparages racial minorities or people with different mental capacities, then it is OK? People can tell such jokes without being racist or neuroelite? And if anyone develops a bad attitude towards people after being exposed to jokes (or other words, which are abstract), then the problem is with the person with the attitude, not the jokes? I disagree.


You don't like Fox News? Me either. Here's a summary of a different perspective - from a psychologist that has spent some serious time on looking at the evidence. These are just the bulleted points; you can read the details via the link.

No.

If players of violent games were really just building up to use what they have learned from the game,they'd all be running around with chainsaws,flame throwers,shotguns and katanas.

And not shooting up schools at Columbine or Virginia Tech?

People who frequently play such games have a fuse that is measurably shorter. Few will turn into homicidal maniacs. Most of them will find a healthier outlet for their aggression - like garden variety bullying. I guess that is ok.

Last edited by monty on 27 Dec 2007, 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Somehow, I'll bet people will be chanting "hogwash" no matter how many studies and reports are made, even if proven beyond a doubt.

Why?

...because people LIKE playing those video games, and don't want to be told it's "bad". The creators of those games also don't want to hurt their billion-dollar industry.


People have been coming up with evidence for and against for almost 30 years now, I think it'd be wise to consider both sides and not immediately dismiss the claims.

I like the way it's from the "Taipei Veterans General Hospital’s Department of Psychiatry"

Is that a hospital for people mentally hurt by playing Taipei.

I used to have Taipei for the computer and I used to feel pretty dumb after playing that for a few hours.

What do mean by fuse? bombs?

What games caused columbine and VT?
The shooters from both schools both had very complex problems going on,games have not been blamed and anything could have been a set off-they blamed the film-childs play for the two children who killed Jamie Bulger,
there are lots of things in life that can influence a person,games cannot only be blamed if the person is mentally vulnerable or immature already.

Am do not believe they can have no negative effects on a person,have long thought BBFC 18 rated games [not sure of US equivilent? M? AO?] should be behind the counter in shops,and age ID required to buy them,with awareness posters about 'adult' games ratings up in shops to discourage parents buying them for their children.

Have been/still am a player of Manhunt,soldier of fortune,Quake III,all the GTAs etc,and have never knowingly killed an insect,bullied a person,been abusive....sisters' boyfriend [NT] has 'controlpad rage' and he only plays football,football manager or platform based games on his 360,he's a kind person and doesn't bully either.



BlueMax,
There is a 'bad' side to most things,eg one research will come out saying chocolate is bad for people,another will come out recommending a bit every day.
With gaming,more needs to be done to minimize risks,it should firstly start with parents-stop buying their children adult games.
But games shouldn't be censored altogether at the expense of those who can handle them/things that aren't real.

Not this BS again.

The Baby Boomer culture warriors are going to keep demanding studies until they get the results they want (or, if they can't get the results they want they'll just distort and cherry-pick the results), and then will yap about the results on the news while at the same time ignore everything else that contradicts the one study.

A 'short fuse' is an expression that means someone is quicker to anger or lose their temper. Study after study has shown that the more people are involved in fantasizing about violence, the less likely they are to calmly respond to a challenging situation, and the more likely they are to use aggressive language, gestures, etc.




Yes, complex problems. But they did fetishize violence. From repeatedly watching films such as Natural Born Killers to living in violent video games, they became committed to violence as an ideology.





Sure, and I know people who drink alcohol from time to time that aren't alcoholics, that don't fall into a pattern where they lose control and end up driving while drunk, they have never neglected or abused their family in a drunken stupor. That doesn't mean that alcohol is not a causative factor in many such tragedies. And as a person who occasionally drinks, I can admit that alcohol contributes to social problems.

I think BlueMax hit the nail on the head. People choose to believe what they want to believe, not the conclusion that the evidence leads to. I have come across a suprising (to me) number of people that still do not believe that smoking causes cancer. They are addicted, and they prefer cute platitudes like "smoking has only been proven to cause statistics." They invent alternative explanations ("the cancer is from modern pollution" or "its really from the additives that big corporations add to the smokes."). Because they are irrational addicts.

It shouldn't surprise me that video game enthusiasts will passionately defend their activities as completely harmless.

Its like for every study that says something there is another study that says the opposite

Like which is better to eat? Butter or margarin?

Your 'reasoning' is fact-free. It doesn't address the research that has been done, except to paint anything that you disagree with as the product of tainted or corrupt old fogeys with sticks up their ass. That is a pseudo-rational justification for not having to examine the evidence.

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html



Again, fact-free reasoning. That was the first false belief from the review of the research:
"Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results." In fact, there is a large body of research that suggests that violent video games are not good for mental health. Is it unanimous? No, rarely is science unanimous. There is experimental error from randomness and poorly designed study. But over time, a pattern does emerge.

Yes, margarine is not the healthy replacement for butter that many thought it would be. Just like heroin is not the non-addicting replacement for morphine that it's inventor hoped for. Mistakes do get made. But switching margarine for butter was done without bothering to check to see if it actually was healthier or not. It was based on faith that anything less saturated than butter would be healthier. The research piled up for several decades before anyone bothered to acknowledge it - other than some naturopaths and whole-food cranks, who stopped eating margarine decades ago.

Last edited by monty on 27 Dec 2007, 8:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.