Video games make you aggressive - Page 3
Forum Index > General Forum |
stapla05
Australia64 Posts
| ||
pebble444
Italy2477 Posts
If you are shooting people all day or waging war on your enemies all day of course it will make you more aggresive. If on the other hand you are playing as a medic.. Mderance people, its all about moderatly enjoying things | ||
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
| ||
quirinus
Croatia2489 Posts
Their study shows that violent games don't cause violent behavior any more than non-violent games. This is great news as it will shut up people shouting that FPS and other violent games make serial killers (I'm exaggerating, but you get the point). Also, boo-hoo to all people saying research on some basic things isn't useful. If we used common sense for everything and didn't actually check and verify if it's true, we'd still have many misconceptions and silly beliefs and ways of thinking. Plus it opens up the door for other researchers to build and expand upon it, thus advancing the field toward the level where something 'useful' will be concluded or found. Learning the basics is worth it. | ||
Pangpootata
1838 Posts
In fact, I would say the short term increase in aggressiveness from playing video games (which only a portion of players will experience), is a product of frustration (which very well may come from another source, and still produce the same effect). So video games are not the root cause of the problem, but rather, how people use displacement as a defence mechanism i.e. taking out their frustration on unrelated things. | ||
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
This kind of research consists of a series of researches, which is very much as legit as it gets. The research series was started by Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in a effort to explain how athetles achieved an optimum experience during competition and pressure, more known as "Flow". His conclusion can be seen in the bellow graphic: + Show Spoiler + The result of his studies shows that optimal performance is attained when the skill of the person in question is alligned just right with the amount of challenge in the task at hand. If the skill is too high and challenge too low people either get bored or even worse becomes depressed which in turn can lead to apathy and suicidal tendencies. If challenge is too high and skill is to low then it can lead to anxiety and in worse case agressivness and lack of empaty towards other. Have you ever seen a Golfer get so mad after a failed shot that he throws away the golfclub or swears at his bagcarrier? One famous "rager" was The English tennis pro John McEnroe. He was famous for swearing at the judges, screaming at the crowd, telling them to come down and fight him, not to mention how many rackets he destroyed. The reason for this is because the challenge is too high compared to their skill which causes them anxiety and eventually even becoming agressive. Same effects can be seen during boredome where people who have boring jobs and feeling forced to continue eventually becomes depressed and apathic towars other and decides to end it all by killing themselfs and maybe others since they see no other way out. Can videogames make someone more violent? Yes it can but so can anything else that gives someone a challenge which they don't have the skills to cope with. This study is aimed at explaining the above mentioned concept as a whole, gaming itself is only a tool since it's fairly easy to construct challenges with videogames. The videogame itself is not important in this study, unless you actually are a gamer yourself or someone who writes for a webpage and wants some page hits and easily distorts this into some video bashing campaign, which it is not. | ||
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
Paramo
Mexico138 Posts
On April 17 2014 12:45 Cyx. wrote: Okay, maybe I'm crazy but I took this as more of an attack on studies that link VIOLENT video games to violent behaviour than a real serious attempt to teach us anything. Like... I'm pretty sure the authors of the paper were aware that you get pissed off when things don't work. They even refer to other psychological studies on the same issue in their paper. The point of the paper seems to have been more this: 'Overall, this pattern of effects was found to be independent of the presence or absence of violent game contents' (from the abstract) - how can anyone on THIS forum possibly condemn a study that focuses in THAT direction? But, but... I want to formulate very strong opinions with minimal effort! Who has time to read the first paragraph of something I can criticize right away? =[ In all seriousness, this thread should reaaally have a title (or video) that does not directly contradict the research it’s talking about. | ||
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
The research actually feels pro video games as people have already mentioned. It's also kinda nice having some simple things "proven", after all, gotta challenge everything. Was just putting that "Flow" chart into perspective with difficulty of ski slopes and peoples attitudes towards aspects of skiing. | ||
[Agony]x90
United States853 Posts
| ||
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On April 17 2014 23:05 [Agony]x90 wrote: How much do you guys wanna bet that this thread itself is a social study being conducted by the op on misleading people andppeoples reaction to misinterpreted analyses lol. Don't even joke about that, psychologists are infamous for those kinds of things lol. Some of the more famous are the studies that examines the individuals ability to accept authority and obey by it, no matter what. The most famous is prolly the electric shock experiment where they invite the test subjects to deliver a electric shock to someone else that was in another room every time they gave a wrong answer to the questions they were being asked. Of course it was all an act except for the subject giving the shock which knows nothing and actually thought it was for real. The study showed that the majority of people kept giving shocks until the person they were shocking literally screamed in agony in the other room and eventually become quiet as if they had died. They did all this just because some fancy professor with high authority told them to go on. The person who was being shocked even asked beforehand if the shock was dangerous since he had an heart condition, despite all this they kept going giving shocks, they even had a meter in front of them telling them voltage number with a danger rating (mild, painful, dangerous, lethal, electrocution, etc). | ||
o29
United States220 Posts
On April 17 2014 23:16 Integra wrote: Don't even joke about that, psychologists are infamous for those kinds of things lol. Some of the more famous are the studies that examines the individuals ability to accept authority and obey by it, no matter what. The most famous is prolly the electric shock experiment where they invite the test subjects to deliver a electric shock to someone else that was in another room every time they gave a wrong answer to the questions they were being asked. Of course it was all an act except for the subject giving the shock which knows nothing and actually thought it was for real. The study showed that the majority of people kept giving shocks until the person they were shocking literally screamed in agony in the other room and eventually become quiet as if they had died. They did all this just because some fancy professor with high authority told them to go on. The person who was being shocked even asked beforehand if the shock was dangerous since he had an heart condition, despite all this they kept going giving shocks, they even had a meter in front of them telling them voltage number with a danger rating (mild, painful, dangerous, lethal, electrocution, etc). Not sure why you're using the Milgram experiment, but not fully briefing participants is done all the time and is the equivalent of using a placebo in a double-blind drug trial. The IRB now requires that a full debriefing be done at the conlcusion of an experiment whereby the participant is fully informed of the study. | ||
pebble444
Italy2477 Posts
On April 17 2014 20:46 quirinus wrote: Eh, some people need to actually learn to pay attention to what they read... Their study shows that violent games don't cause violent behavior any more than non-violent games. This is great news as it will shut up people shouting that FPS and other violent games make serial killers (I'm exaggerating, but you get the point). Also, boo-hoo to all people saying research on some basic things isn't useful. If we used common sense for everything and didn't actually check and verify if it's true, we'd still have many misconceptions and silly beliefs and ways of thinking. Plus it opens up the door for other researchers to build and expand upon it, thus advancing the field toward the level where something 'useful' will be concluded or found. Learning the basics is worth it. I for one did not see the video in question. I don' t need to see a psychological study to understand that violence generates violence. Whether it is real or not, it doesn' t matter. I could argue that you are right, since the concept of the joystick from the playstation came from firing a rifle. Can' t give you the source for of that, i' m sorry. My concern is that they are not any popular games (or that i know of) where people aiding people, instead of waking each other out. It seems to me like you have a "concerned" person around your life that thinks that video-games are concentrated evil. Try and convince that person, not people in this thread. (i mean feel free to do anything you want of course, i would suggest putting efforts in that way) I agree with your second statement, going back and working on the basics for me many times is the best way to objectivlely deal with things | ||
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On April 17 2014 23:38 o29 wrote: Not sure why you're using the Milgram experiment, but not fully briefing participants is done all the time and is the equivalent of using a placebo in a double-blind drug trial. The IRB now requires that a full debriefing be done at the conlcusion of an experiment whereby the participant is fully informed of the study. I used it as a mean of showing in a half serious and half fun attempt that it actually was quite possible for this thread to be a social study by comparing it to something more absurd, such as the Milgram experiment. EDIT: OMG, you are one of them, aren't you? I Better stop posting in this thread | ||
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
| ||
HeatEXTEND
Netherlands836 Posts
| ||
DeepElemBlues
United States5075 Posts
| ||
29 fps
United States5717 Posts
| ||
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Perhaps we should spend less time talking about people being playfully angry and spend more time doing things that matter, like pretending to care about the various problems that exist in the world. | ||
barbsq
United States5348 Posts
On April 17 2014 20:46 quirinus wrote: Eh, some people need to actually learn to pay attention to what they read... Their study shows that violent games don't cause violent behavior any more than non-violent games. This is great news as it will shut up people shouting that FPS and other violent games make serial killers (I'm exaggerating, but you get the point). Also, boo-hoo to all people saying research on some basic things isn't useful. If we used common sense for everything and didn't actually check and verify if it's true, we'd still have many misconceptions and silly beliefs and ways of thinking. Plus it opens up the door for other researchers to build and expand upon it, thus advancing the field toward the level where something 'useful' will be concluded or found. Learning the basics is worth it. I often refer to the tongue map as a recent(ish) example of people just making assumptions without bothering to actually check them. For myself, I'm not particularly upset about the research itself, more about media outlets distorting the research and making it click-bait trying to rehash the controversy about video games and violence. If you just read the articles about this research, it's actually pretty easy to misunderstand what's actually going on. The sole reason for all of this attention on the research is that video games and violence/aggression appear in the same sentence and has nothing to do with what the paper is actually about. edit: On April 18 2014 01:36 Djzapz wrote: A lot of things make me aggressive, I think the biggest one is being hungry... I think history agrees with me, too - hungry people will fuck shit up. Perhaps we should spend less time talking about people being playfully angry and spend more time doing things that matter, like pretending to care about the various problems that exist in the world. see, the problem is that if you can't first prove that 1 + 1 = 2, how on earth can you be certain that the passage of time changes slightly depending on forces acting upon it? People who complain about research that is supposedly 'obvious' or 'trivial' don't know the first thing about how the scientific process works. | ||
| ||