Any article that quotes 'a study' and doesn't link it, is making it up.
We are what we pretend to be... Really?
- Thread starter Bran Tse Mallory
- Start date
But I don't understand how the study shows that the games influence the recklessness of someone, and not the other way around. Does one become reckless because he plays violent games, or does he play violent games because he is reckless?
I suspect that such studies may more likely point out correlations instead of causality.
With age comes wisdom but not always intelligence! What you point out is quite correct, every form of popular entertainment is nothing more than the spawn of the devil and yet oddly it is these same 'older' people who are now the ones making video games for the younger people to play. Braben is only a bit older than me - as I look around the office the younguns are the ones coding, the ones making all the important choices are time served game playing veterans.
Agreed, the study took parental values and control into account as it should have done and yet the data and conclusions still show an increased rick of reckless not violent behavior. I would put at least some of that down to young people always pushing their limits - a normal thing in all humans.
I have provided the link to the original study in two places in this thread. It's a real study and the summary is actually based of the full report.
Would you if there were no consequences and lots of other people were doing it and it was borderline socially acceptable?
I worry about these kinds of studies because their finding may well be true but that doesn't indicate in any way, cause and effect.
I actually have to agree with the line "you are what you pretend to be" as I am certainly what I am in the game as I am in real life. I have had polite chats, social light flashing and wing wagging and also defended a CMDR Python I found floating aimlessly, from a load of NPC's while it seemed the player wasn't paying attention (turns out he was away and thanked me when he got back). So for me, my character is me.
I'm not saying everyone is the same though but I can't help believing there is an undercurrent of negative feeling in those that get enjoyment out of annoying or even just inconveniencing others.
All I see is yet another attempt to blame videogames as 'the cause', while they are, in fact, another symptom.
One thing to consider, is that a lot of people who argue that "I would never do that in real life", is that they only look at the extreme aspects — Like the shooting people or any physical violence.
Not aimed at any responses here, but frankly that's the easy and dare I say cop-out answer. Of course most people wouldn't do that, it's flat out illegal and will get you in jail or shot by the police.
---------
So no, I don't believe that video games cause physical violence, but some video games given the right context/situation do affect behaviour - Especially in competitive multiplayer games. Ragequits and people yelling at each other are real.
Heck, the article isn't even about what causes, it IS about correlation. People with edgy personalities do edgy stuff and will naturally choose to play seemingly edgy games - This really isn't a shocker to me.
Not aimed at any responses here, but frankly that's the easy and dare I say cop-out answer. Of course most people wouldn't do that, it's flat out illegal and will get you in jail or shot by the police.
---------
So no, I don't believe that video games cause physical violence, but some video games given the right context/situation do affect behaviour - Especially in competitive multiplayer games. Ragequits and people yelling at each other are real.
Heck, the article isn't even about what causes, it IS about correlation. People with edgy personalities do edgy stuff and will naturally choose to play seemingly edgy games - This really isn't a shocker to me.
For Elite to be Dangerous in open, we need the bad guys to. Its a game, and what is a game without danger and risk. But in the real world we don´t need the "psychos" and "sociopaths" because they ruin life for normal good people.
In the game world it would become boring without them, but to be evil and psycho should not be a way without danger and repercussion for them as well. We need more police to jump in with bigger guns and these maniacs need to be hunted down by "player missions" on the bulletin board. Where commanders can chase them down. I don´t understand why Frontier haven´t done this yet, because it would have made the whole PVP community satisfied. Frontier should listen to the community more because we have many good ideas which would have enhanced the game. And the feedback of what is good or bad in the game need to be analyzed and a solution based on these analyzes implemented into the game. A happy fan base, makes for happy/happier Frontier developers And more quids in the bank.
In the game world it would become boring without them, but to be evil and psycho should not be a way without danger and repercussion for them as well. We need more police to jump in with bigger guns and these maniacs need to be hunted down by "player missions" on the bulletin board. Where commanders can chase them down. I don´t understand why Frontier haven´t done this yet, because it would have made the whole PVP community satisfied. Frontier should listen to the community more because we have many good ideas which would have enhanced the game. And the feedback of what is good or bad in the game need to be analyzed and a solution based on these analyzes implemented into the game. A happy fan base, makes for happy/happier Frontier developers
And more quids in the bank.
They can also ruin someone day in game, depens on what someone likes. I certainly never had any need for the players who play the bad guys in over a year I spend in the game so far.
If there were no consequences other than knowing I'd ended someone's life - no, of course not. I'd have no problem exterminating the scum that would though
How about the question of cause and effect?
Do violent computer games cause violent or otherwise problematic behaviour or does somebody with already antisocial tendencies rather choose games which allow them to live them out?
WHAT??? Teenagers playing killer games are more likely to have sex??? Obviously something changed dramatically since I was that age.
Do violent computer games cause violent or otherwise problematic behaviour or does somebody with already antisocial tendencies rather choose games which allow them to live them out?
WHAT??? Teenagers playing killer games are more likely to have sex??? Obviously something changed dramatically since I was that age
.No, more RISKY sex... so like ... you know ... not missionary .. and in a public place .. all because they played GTA V.WHAT??? Teenagers playing killer games are more likely to have sex??? Obviously something changed dramatically since I was that age
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
One of the most memorable games I played was Torquemados (at least he was the main character - from the 2000AD comic).
It was a platform game, where you had to build your own platforms to progress across the screen.
What made it so much fun was that you built the platforms from the bodies of 'people' by chopping them down with a humungous sword. You had to time things right to get a body to fly though the air and land in the right place....
Hasn't affected me at all..... (where is my whetstone?)
It was a platform game, where you had to build your own platforms to progress across the screen.
What made it so much fun was that you built the platforms from the bodies of 'people' by chopping them down with a humungous sword. You had to time things right to get a body to fly though the air and land in the right place....
Hasn't affected me at all..... (where is my whetstone?)
I've take the time to read the paper fully (and not just the report). Its interesting and seems well constructed, the following comments are more about how it should be read than how it was written.
One very important question came to mind as I read it, and I was wondering how they would address it. Well, its addressed by this phrase "Causal Interpretations Remain Speculative" in the "Limitations" section. Said more simply: All though they find statistically significant data that (risk-glorifying) gaming precedes risky driving, that have not shown that such games causes risky driving. As the report mentions, the first time respondents are interviewed, they are even too young to drive. How do we know that this is not simply a case of people who are pre-disposed to risky driving may also be more attracted to gaming? Some people seek thrills, and gaming is one way to get your thrills.
The paper also finds that this gaming correlates more strongly to driving accidents than gender or parenting style. 50% of their survey played these games. Despite those findings, teenage driving fatality rates have been in long term decline since 1975, when I assume very few teenagers were playing GTA III.(http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers). Sure other things have changed too (safer cars, better driver training), but some of the finding are somewhat counter-intuitive - this does not make them wrong, but I will to see further research before I reach any sweeping conclusions.
The final sentence of the paper reads: "More work is needed to understand how game playing behaviors might lead to higher risk taking generally, but the present study provides key evidence about this association in the domain of driving." Don't read more into the data that is actually present: "Association" is not the same as "Cause".
One very important question came to mind as I read it, and I was wondering how they would address it. Well, its addressed by this phrase "Causal Interpretations Remain Speculative" in the "Limitations" section. Said more simply: All though they find statistically significant data that (risk-glorifying) gaming precedes risky driving, that have not shown that such games causes risky driving. As the report mentions, the first time respondents are interviewed, they are even too young to drive. How do we know that this is not simply a case of people who are pre-disposed to risky driving may also be more attracted to gaming? Some people seek thrills, and gaming is one way to get your thrills.
The paper also finds that this gaming correlates more strongly to driving accidents than gender or parenting style. 50% of their survey played these games. Despite those findings, teenage driving fatality rates have been in long term decline since 1975, when I assume very few teenagers were playing GTA III.(http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers). Sure other things have changed too (safer cars, better driver training), but some of the finding are somewhat counter-intuitive - this does not make them wrong, but I will to see further research before I reach any sweeping conclusions.
The final sentence of the paper reads: "More work is needed to understand how game playing behaviors might lead to higher risk taking generally, but the present study provides key evidence about this association in the domain of driving." Don't read more into the data that is actually present: "Association" is not the same as "Cause".
Thanks for taking the time to read the whole thing John. I think this debate will never truly be over and with the advent of mainstream VR it will only get deeper as more reports look into the effects.
Is the report right/wrong? I have no idea, I just find these kind of things interesting
I'm 32, with mild-mid ADHD. II've been gaming since we'll, I don't remember, because I had ADHD. Lol but more or less since atarti days.
I also think I'm mildly autistic. I don't get on well with 'real' people. (Example: Moved to a new town 350miles from my old own. Nearly 2 years later and I still don't have a friend. Lol)
But other than wanting things from games (or movies) to happen in real life. I doubt it effects me. I can be a mass murderer in GTA, then go on Eve online and donate 10,000,000isk to a new player cos I want to help. Then go play battlefield and murder more people. Then play ED, and desperately try to save a fellow CMDR.
Then go to work, chat and be polite to everyone. I've neither murdered, or donated a large chunk of my wealth (none) go a stranger... To me, games are just games. Even with ADHD I can disconnected the two.
Not sure if that was on topic or not. But in ED, I play as a freelancer combat pilot. That's pretty much my backstory. Lol
I'm not very imaginative. I hold no allegence to any faction. I just go where the money is. I would LIKE to have a deeper character in game, but I don't like reading lore or news... Lol
I also think I'm mildly autistic. I don't get on well with 'real' people. (Example: Moved to a new town 350miles from my old own. Nearly 2 years later and I still don't have a friend. Lol)
But other than wanting things from games (or movies) to happen in real life. I doubt it effects me. I can be a mass murderer in GTA, then go on Eve online and donate 10,000,000isk to a new player cos I want to help. Then go play battlefield and murder more people. Then play ED, and desperately try to save a fellow CMDR.
Then go to work, chat and be polite to everyone. I've neither murdered, or donated a large chunk of my wealth (none) go a stranger... To me, games are just games. Even with ADHD I can disconnected the two.
Not sure if that was on topic or not. But in ED, I play as a freelancer combat pilot. That's pretty much my backstory. Lol
I'm not very imaginative. I hold no allegence to any faction. I just go where the money is. I would LIKE to have a deeper character in game, but I don't like reading lore or news... Lol
A lecturer once helpfully described human culture as a rolling mechanism that humanity feeds on and creates (a work colleague likened this to a Katamari). Because it ("culture") is constantly changing thanks to our own actions and behaviours we cannot be fully aware of it and the effect that it has on our decision making. Also explains the "They don't understand us" we all say when we're young, and the "We did things different in my day" type rubbish we all come out with, and why my mum is an avid fan of WhatsApp.
This should perhaps have the qualifier "while we are pretending".
My own thoughts - I don't understand psychologies well enough to dispute the research that was done, but I remember my teenage years and that the risky behaviours described (smoking, risky sex, fast driving, drinking, drugs, skinny dipping, breaking and entering, raving, whatever) are things that were not influenced by computer games. The study itself seems mostly concerned with dangerous driving - perhaps it becomes a tiny bit more relevant to Elite with Horizons?
The question seems to be about empathy, which in my opinion is vital for considerate driving. This article in the WSJ lacks references but suggests that empathy in men is experienced a lot later than in women.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304561004579137514122387446
And this (tiny sample) study suggests that there are major differences in admitted empathetic responses between men and women:
http://ujpb.org/research/volume-7/are-there-gender-differences-in-empathy/
I've also heard that men cannot fully empathise with someone else until the age of 24, though that comes with a pile of salt as I can't find any scientific research to prove it.
With respect to Elite Dangerous I wonder if the questions could be applied to slavery. With all these Slave traders roaming around in Elite, does that mean that players' attitudes to real world slavery may be being changed? Or is it a reflection of people's real world attitudes to slavery? I really hope that it's more a reflection of capitalism and an understanding that within the game "slavery" is rarely chattel slavery. (Ingame they are generally indentured.)
Insightful post +Rep.
I'll be sure to read both links at some point today. You raise the interesting emotion, empathy, which I too have heard kicks in later with men than with women - (Mods and everyone else do not mistake this for sexism please) I'd always put this down to primal instincts based on Women looking after the children of the tribe while the men go out to hunt.
I'll be sure to read both links at some point today. You raise the interesting emotion, empathy, which I too have heard kicks in later with men than with women - (Mods and everyone else do not mistake this for sexism please) I'd always put this down to primal instincts based on Women looking after the children of the tribe while the men go out to hunt.
I believe our true character shows when we are relatively free of consequence.
Games, in a way, show this. There are studies that show this too.
I also believe you change as you get older and develop a stronger sense of empathy due to personal experiences.
Me for example: when I first played SWTOR when I was in college, I was a dark side character bent on acquiring as much power as possible. I'm Mass Effect 3 and Witcher 3, I was good side ending all the way.
If I played this game in college, I'd be sporting an FDL and breaking other players' expensive toys. Now, I'm in a tradeconda, doing missions and experiencing the whole game, helping other players when opportunities present themselves.
My thoughts.
Edit: however, if you're using a DC and going through that mailbox, I have no mercy. Sub 100, four pips to shields, and moving on through ;-).... I drive a standard in real life and believe every one else should do the same.
Games, in a way, show this. There are studies that show this too.
I also believe you change as you get older and develop a stronger sense of empathy due to personal experiences.
Me for example: when I first played SWTOR when I was in college, I was a dark side character bent on acquiring as much power as possible. I'm Mass Effect 3 and Witcher 3, I was good side ending all the way.
If I played this game in college, I'd be sporting an FDL and breaking other players' expensive toys. Now, I'm in a tradeconda, doing missions and experiencing the whole game, helping other players when opportunities present themselves.
My thoughts.
Edit: however, if you're using a DC and going through that mailbox, I have no mercy. Sub 100, four pips to shields, and moving on through ;-).... I drive a standard in real life and believe every one else should do the same.
Last edited:
digitalscream
Banned
It's not instinct at all - neurologically, there's essentially no difference between boys' and girls' capacity for empathy; in that respect, it's more nurture than nature. However, it's expressed very differently between the genders because boys are generally taught to suppress "weaker" emotions ("boys don't cry!").
How did we get to that point? Well, it's most likely because the men those boys will grow into will be physically stronger than their female counterparts and thus (in previous generations) more responsible for protection and - as you say - hunting.
With that said...there are differences (and don't forget, empathy can have negative uses - it's simply the understanding of another's emotional state). Whereas boys will use physicality more than empathy to establish a relatively stable hierarchy, girls will often try to manipulate emotional states to establish their hierarchy. Neither is particularly good or bad; I think the problems come when you try to force one gender to develop like the other, both socially and emotionally.