OT: Teen violence and video games
Related Topics
Pogo Possum pogos...@earthlink.net
From The New York Times Magazine, Aug 5, "Here Come the Alpha Pups" by John Tierney (p. 43): "But while this was happening, the news media all but ignored a larger trend that has been evident since those two graphically violent games were introduced -- Mortal Kombat in September 1993, Doom four months later. Up until that point, the national rate of youth violence, as measured by arrests of juveniles for homicide, had been rising for nearly a decade. Then the trend promptly reversed.
"'Just as violent games were pouring into American homes on the crest of the personal computer wave, juvenile violence began to plummet,' said Lawrence Sherman, a criminologist at the University of Pennsylvania. 'Juvenile murder charges dropped by about two-thirds from 1993 to the end of the decade and show no signs of going back up. The rate of violence in schools hasn't increased, either -- it just gets more media coverage. If video games are so deadly, why has their widespread use been followed by reductions in murder?'
"Rick" pl1_alpha_g...@juNOSPAM.com
Gee... I wonder if there might be other factors involved?
Seriously, this excerpt is pretty much irrelevant as it provides no information on any studies of the correlation, or lack thereof, between violence and video games. Do you know if any studies exist?
The article did cover the game "Pox", which seems quite interesting. I think there's a huge untapped potential for games and software that can facilitate development of various skills... creative, cognitive, etc. Something like the Logo computer language could be cool way for kids to develop their own games. The article also has some comments on the "digital gender gap". It's worth reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/05/magazine/05POX.html
- Rick
"Maddi Hausmann Sojourner" madhausnos...@alumni.nospam.edu
I thought researchers knew enough about statistics to understand that correlation does not imply causation.
Anyway, I prefer the Roe v Wade argument over the intense video game one: the kids most likely to have throwawaay lives who would grow up to become violent criminals were aborted, starting in 1973. The drop in abortion, due to unavailability of the procedure, should result in a significant increase in teen violence, expressed as: rV(n) = k/rA(n-14) where rV(n) is the rate of violence in a given year, n, and rA(n-14) is the rate of abortion 14 years previously; k is a constant. I don't know if 14 is the correct time series offset; I believe the original suggestion of this relationship might have pegged it at 18. I suspect the problem there is not logging the youth violence stats, only the adult ones.
trdm Blames Columbine on the evil Andy S.
Pogo Possum pogos...@earthlink.net
Here, the guy writing the article (not the researcher he cited) is not saying that video games reduced violence. He is saying that if video games were responsible for violence you would expect to see the murder rates go up, not down.
There can't be any question of causation if there isn't even a correlation.
corvus-mari ...@home.com (Corvus Marinus)
In other words, he doesn't know enough about statistics to understand that correlation doesn't imply causation. He is clearly implying that reductions in murder rates demonstrate that video games are *not* responsible for violence, i.e., that reduced murder rates correlate to the harmlessness of video games.
The Right Reverend Mr. Corvus Marinus Pastor, First Church of Vogelism (Reformed)
--
there's a ribbon in the willow and a tire swing rope and a briar patch of berries takin over the slope the cat'll sleep in the mailbox and we'll never go to town till we bury every dream in the cold cold ground cold cold ground -Tom Waits
Pogo Possum pogos...@earthlink.net
In other words, correlation does not imply causation but lack of correlation implies there cannot be causation. The reason why correlation does not imply causation is that (1) there can be third variables that are influencing both correlated variables, or (2) the direction of the effect is not obvious from the fact of correlation. Where there is no correlation at all, neither of these problems is a concern.
Further, he isn't saying anything about correlation. There are no correlation statistics offered. He is saying that video game usage increased but teen murders decreased over the same period of time. He didn't say they varied together or were related. He asked why murders did not go up if video games cause increased violence. In other words, he did not ***ert a correlation, he asked why a correlation was not observed where one was expected.
corvus-mari ...@home.com (Corvus Marinus)
Or (3), coincidence has created an illusion of correlation.
Tierney isn't a statistician, he's a New York Times columnist. It seems to me reasonable to infer from the extract you quoted (and even more from the full article) that his knowledge of statistics is weak.
Because he didn't realize that correlation does not imply causation, and that the obverse is also true: *lack of* correlation does not imply *lack of* causation.
The Right Reverend Mr. Corvus Marinus Pastor, First Church of Vogelism (Reformed)
--
there's a ribbon in the willow and a tire swing rope and a briar patch of berries takin over the slope the cat'll sleep in the mailbox and we'll never go to town till we bury every dream in the cold cold ground cold cold ground -Tom Waits
random ...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity)
Let me syep in a minute Pogo because this must be getting frustrating. How many thousands of articles following the school shootings attributed the "rise in teen violence" to video games. The ***umption was that teen violence had reached new heights and that video games might be partially responsible. Grim pundits showed shocking examples of violent video games and concluded that it was no coincidence that teens were becoming insensitive an violent. Talk about being weak in statistics, they didn't even check to see whether there was a rise in teen violence. The truth is that despite some spectacular incidents, violence across the board is down. If anything we should be looking for correlations and causations to account for the decrease in violence.
I think the point being made in the article is somewhat whimsical. It is tweaking the knee jerk commentators who actually introduced the correlation as causation. Jack Valenti made a similar point when asked about the impact of violence in movies. "If we were being blamed for an increase in violent crimes then shouldn't we get some credit for the decrease?" It would be like blaming the increasing use of catsup for the fact that the sky is redder every day.
Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
Randomity
corvus-mari ...@home.com (Corvus Marinus)
[snip] I don't know, how many thousands? Were there even a thousand? Let's see some figures.
And it's committing the same fallacy as the "knee jerk commentators," but in reverse. Hey, here's a professor who says violent crimes by teens went down - that proves that video games are A-OK! I really don't see why you find either position tenable.
Please understand that I am not arguing that video games cause violent behavior. It annoys me, however, to see this sort of ignorant reliance on an 'authority,' whether it comes from someone supporting a position I hold or otherwise. Nothing in the article led me to believe that Tierney knew what the hell he was talking about.
Yours, The Right Reverend Mr. Corvus Marinus Pastor, First Church of Vogelism (Reformed)
--
there's a ribbon in the willow and a tire swing rope and a briar patch of berries takin over the slope the cat'll sleep in the mailbox and we'll never go to town till we bury every dream in the cold cold ground cold cold ground -Tom Waits
fre ...@juno.com (Fred Rosenblatt)
Which is not to say that any particular incident may be traced at least partly to that influence, not statistically but forensically.
The truth is that the majority of "teen violence", as shown by those debunking the myth of gun accidents in the home, is gang related, and thus unlikely to be influenced by video games.
Pogo Possum pogos...@earthlink.net
Except that he didn't say that. He asked why violence was down if video games caused increased violence. He asked a question. He didn't ***ert a correlation, much less causation. Please go back and read the original quote.
If you believed what you are saying -- that there is no causation involved because correlation is not causation, then you would conclude that video games are neutral -- have no effect on violence one way or the other. That's what no causation means. In that case, why wouldn't video games be A-OK (from the standpoint of encouraging teen violence)?
I don't recall commenting on this article one way or the other, so I'm not sure why you are referring to my position.
Both Randomity and I have been trying to explain the statistics to you.
I wouldn't call the comments of a criminology professor on teen violence "ignorant reliance on an authority". I think someone who makes it his life's work to study a subject is qualified to express ideas on the subject and worth listening to. The author of the article itself is just a journalist. I think you need to separate the ideas of the journalist from those of the various experts he was quoting.
I wouldn't throw out the whole article just because the author quotes an idiot or reject the opinions quoted because they are used to support a specious argument.
random ...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity)
Corvus, you ignorant fool tangled up in your own verbiage. What if I made this statement. The reason nasal cancer has increased over the last ten years is that people are picking their noses more. And you then presented evidence that nasal cancer has, in fact, plummeted in the last 10 years. Would not my search for causes of the increase be thereby rendered moot? What part don't you understand?
Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
Randomity
corvus-mari ...@home.com (Corvus Marinus)
I've read the original quote, and I've also read the entire article that it came from. My ***essment stands. Please note that I am *not* commenting on Lawrence Sherman, or his work; I'm commenting on the use that Tierney made of it. Sherman asked a question; Tierney evidently took the answer as a given.
Or at least that such effect on violence as they may have is not easily determined by statistics.
I didn't say they weren't. I said it was ignorant of Tierney to act as though Sherman's work *proved* that they weren't.
I'm not. I was referring specifically to Randomity's position, in a response to a message from Randomity. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
And it's the author that I've been criticizing; it's the author - Tierney -
whom I was referring to as ignorantly relying on an 'authority,' in this case, Lawrence Sherman. I saw nothing in the article to indicate that Tierney was qualified to ***ess Sherman's statements.
That's what I *was* doing. And I did read the entire article.
Neither would I; I'd throw out the whole article because it's poorly-
written rubbish.
Yours, The Right Reverend Mr. Corvus Marinus Pastor, First Church of Vogelism (Reformed)
--
there's a ribbon in the willow and a tire swing rope and a briar patch of berries takin over the slope the cat'll sleep in the mailbox and we'll never go to town till we bury every dream in the cold cold ground cold cold ground -Tom Waits
corvus-mari ...@home.com (Corvus Marinus)
[posted and mailed] Hw?¦t! We have heard of the glory of random...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity) that wrote , on the day of 10 Aug 2001: I have sufficient difficulty finding time to deal with intelligent, non-
abusive people; I have no time to waste dealing with people like you. Goodbye.
Corvus Marinus
--
there's a ribbon in the willow and a tire swing rope and a briar patch of berries takin over the slope the cat'll sleep in the mailbox and we'll never go to town till we bury every dream in the cold cold ground cold cold ground -Tom Waits
"Bushman" jimlew...@compuserve.com
Well, at least you won't get your tail slammed in the door when you leave -
it's well tucked in between your legs.
Bushman
mste ...@home.com (Mark Steese)
I was saying 'goodbye' to Randomity, not to the newsgroup. There are still a few people here worth talking to. Sorry if that disappoints you. Nice job of defending his stupid analogy, by the way.
(Dissed by an AOL'er and a CompuServer! The shame! Someday someone with a *real* ISP is going to come after me.) The Right Reverend Mr. Corvus Marinus Pastor, First Church of Vogelism (Reformed) working on his second bowl of Grumpy Flakes
--
The next plague and the nearest that I know in affinity to a consumption is long depending hope frivolously defeated, than which there is no greater misery on earth, and *per consequens* no men in earth more miserable than courtiers. -Thomas Nashe
lgar ...@spit.ca (Lawrence)
Real cyber-doodz don't draw attention to their internet service providers... they don't have to.
Lawrence cyber-dood
Mark Steese a/k/a Corvus Marinus corvus-mari...@home.com
Hw?¦t! We have heard how on 11 Aug 2001 01:08:42 GMT, Since you and Bushman evidently took my offense at your obnoxious sense of 'humor' as evidence that I couldn't answer your misleading analogy, I have changed my mind about arguing with you. Lucky you.
From your analogy above, I gather you thought that I was endorsing the view that a) there was an upsurge in teen violence and that b) video games were responsible; therefore, disproving a) makes b) irrelevant.
That ain't what I said. See if you can understand this: 1. Even if there *had been* an upsurge in teen violence, it wouldn't necessarily have had anything to do with video games. Therefore, it wouldn't prove that video games are harmful.
2. Thus, the fact that there was a reduction in teen violence doesn't prove that video games are harmless.
3. Tierney is evidently ignorant of 1) and 2).
Clear?
By the way, I'm still waiting to find out "how many thousands of articles following the school shootings attributed the 'rise in teen violence' to video games." You made the claim, so let's see the numbers.
Yours, The Right Reverend Mr. Corvus Marinus Pastor, First Church of Vogelism (Reformed)
--
"I'm an impulse buyer. The primitive little *knot* at the top of my *spine* says I'll have *all* this stuff." -Max, "Beast from the Cereal Aisle"
random ...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity)
I am so honored that the great Corvus Marinus has deigned to argue with a lowly AOLer. Corvus you have a serious ego problem, maybe that is why your tender feelings are so easily hurt.
The point you make is exactly the point I was making. There is no proven correlation between teen violence and video games. The point about video games causing a drop in violence was what we call a "joke" - something one could not see through brows as tightly furrowed as your own. It was a reversal of the argument that video game opponents (ignorant of the true crime statistics) made. So when you went ahead a reversed the reversal, all the while thinking what a clever boy you are, what you really did was show that you weren't paying attention.The thousands of articles were in the thousands of newspapers that analysed the Columbine shootings. The two murderers had been fans of first person shooter games. On tv they showed excerpts from the games over and over and then compared them to the actual event. (BTW, do you follow the news at all, Corvus? It would help inform your opinions if you did.) Congressional hearings were held analysing the connection. I'm sure I could find thousands of cites - maybe hundreds of thousands - if I thought your bankrupt question was anything but a red herring. I just did a google search on "teen violence video games" and it came up with 38,300 hits in .23 seconds. You have really painted yourself into a corner here and made yourself look petty and inattentive. Your hurt feelings got the better of you. Toughen up, man. You're better than this.
Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
Randomity
corvus-mari ...@home.com (Corvus Marinus)
[posted and mailed] Hw?¦t! We have heard of the glory of random...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity) that wrote , on the day of 12 Aug 2001: Lighten up, man! It's a joke!
My feelings? I'm not the one who has an AOL account.
It's that darned "serious ego problem" again. Luckily I've discovered that trying to see things through your brows, rather than, say, your *eyes*, is difficult whether they're furrowed or not. (And no matter *how* tightly I furrow my brows, I can't get them over my eyes!) And if you think Tierney was joking, you didn't read the whole article.
And now you're a mind reader! You can't fool Cleo Randomity.
Oh, *there's* an impressive reference. Thousands of articles in thousands of newspapers, and you can't cite a single one. But I should just accept that, or else I have a "serious ego problem." You've been taking lessons from Bill Bonde again.
You *are* Bill Bonde! As he said to me when I challenged his spurious claims about attempts to censor "The Bell Curve": So, you and Bonde *both* think that I just don't pay enough attention to the news, and for the same reason. Nice.
Translation: I could do it, but I won't, 'cause you're a big poop head! So there!
Wow! A google search! You've really gone all out.
Petty and inattentive. Yes, I was the one who pulled a claim out of my *** and then got huffy when someone asked me to back it up. I was the one who dragged in a lame variation on a hoary Saturday Night Live gag to insult the person I was arguing with. I believe *I* was the one who was willing to let this go.
So, I should just shrug off your post full of insults and accept your misrepresentation of my arguments because that's what real stup-- er, tough guys would do. I don't need to be lectured by you on my "hurt feelings." Let's see those citations.
Yours, The Right Reverend Mr. Corvus Marinus Pastor, First Church of Vogelism (Reformed) who likes Grumpy Flakes so much, he bought the company!
--
"I'm an impulse buyer. The primitive little *knot* at the top of my *spine* says I'll have *all* this stuff." -Max, "Beast from the Cereal Aisle"
random ...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity)
OK, the La Crosse Tribune, Time Magazine, CBS news, ABC news, Fox News (of course), USA today, almost every Christian tv and radio show, Newsweek did a big article. AP put out a few stories that were picked up all over the country, Laura has said it over and over. Her ill-fated tv show devoted a program to it.
Are you honestly questioning that this connection has been in the news or are you just Bill Bonding me with another red herring. Video games are right up there with song lyrics as whipping boys In fact about the only thing the righties think is not responsible is guns. I'm so damn confused now I don't know who's being sarcastic and who isn't. Shall we agree not to flog this dead horse any more. You got a couple good ones in on me though. Do I still need to walk on eggshells around you? I won't, of course, but I just needed to know where we were going with all this.
Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
Randomity
corvus-mari ...@home.com (Corvus Marinus)
[snip] I thought perhaps you might be making that mistake. If you'd said that "lots of people blamed the school shootings on video games," I would've agreed. It was your saying "How many thousands of articles following the school shootings attributed the 'rise in teen violence' to video games" that I bridled at; it sounded to me as though you were claiming that there were, in fact, multiple thousands of articles making that claim. And for all I know, there are multiple thousands, but it sounded to me like you made the number up. Yes, I overreacted, and yes, I'm touchy.
Sure. I'm sorry I reacted so badly in the first place.
Hey, so long as you don't call me ignorant (either in jest or in earnest), I'm fine.
Yours, The Right Reverend Mr. Corvus Marinus Pastor, First Church of Vogelism (Reformed)
--
"I'm an impulse buyer. The primitive little *knot* at the top of my *spine* says I'll have *all* this stuff." -Max, "Beast from the Cereal Aisle"
random ...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity)
Fair enough, you have proved yourself to be anything but ignorant. I can always tell when a person is open minded and this ***ures me that learning is an ongoing process. I am an avid reader of the two great Skeptic magazines Skeptic and Skeptical Enquirer. It occurred to me that they wouldn't let me get away with throwing numbers around so cavalierly either. On the other hand they have both been a voice of reason in separating the science from the pseudo science in this whole teen violence debate. They have several times (not thousands) expressed the view that there is no good evidence correlating video games to teen violence. Statistics ignore the overwhelming majority of kids who just play the games for the hell of it (the way we used to play cowboys and Indians) and never act out with real violence. Things are so interrelated that it is hard to easily factor one condition out. However, I think a science feller could reasonably make the statement that if video games are an important indicator of teen violence then one would expect to see an increase in teen violence if there were a tremendous increase in video game violence. In fact, the opposite is true. Violence has gone steadily down over the same period that the violence in video games has steadily increased. Now you can draw whatever conclusions you want from these facts but I think we can both agree that the most unwarranted conclusion would be that these video games increase violent behaviour.
Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
Randomity
Mark Steese a/k/a Corvus Marinus corvus-mari...@home.com
Hw?¦t! We have heard how on 14 Aug 2001 05:28:17 GMT, [snip] I read them fairly frequently as well, and they are very good magazines. It's too bad I couldn't have come off more like the people who write for them, and less like an arrogant jerk, but I'm working on it!
For sure. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I thought video games *do* increase violent behavior. Fearmongers like Sam Brownback ("We cannot expect that the hours spent in school will mold and instruct a child's mind but that hours spent playing violent games will not") remind me a little of the people who produced movies like 'Reefer Madness,' irresponsibly exploiting the fears of parents (although at least 'Reefer Madness' had the virtue of being unintentionally funny), and I think we've all seen similarly irresponsible nonsense about the dangers of the Internet (e.g., Time's infamous 'Cyberporn' cover story, back in '95). Frankly, it's made me suspicious of almost everything I see in print, even if it *supports* my point of view -
but I suppose I could stand to curb my paranoia!
Yours, The Right Reverend Mr. Corvus Marinus Pastor, First Church of Vogelism (Reformed)
--
"I'm an impulse buyer. The primitive little *knot* at the top of my *spine* says I'll have *all* this stuff." -Max, "Beast from the Cereal Aisle"
random ...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity)
I read a book a while back called The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things by Barry Gl***ner. He totally puts the lie to a lot of urban myths - like the kidnaped children thing. All those pictures on milk cartons have done nothing but make some people feel like they are doing something. Meanwhile the incidence of stranger abuse is negligible compared to parental abuse. Almost all "kidnapings" are by relatives. That's not to say there isn't some danger with strangers but it is blown way out of proportion.
The underlying point of the book is that we are getting all worked up over over video games and computer sex and not nearly worried enough about health care and decent living conditions which are a much more real threat to the safety of children than roving bands of sexual predators. Crusaders always like to say, "If this saves one life it is worth it". I disagree. We don't have unlimited resources and if some quixotic mission diverts funds and attention from a more pragmatic program then maybe several lives were lost as a result and it definitely is not worth it.
Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
Randomity
| To Top |