Did President Obama just order the government to study video game violence? | Hacker News Reader

Did President Obama just order the government to study video game violence?

arstechnica.com

20 pointsshawndumas45 comments

As someone who loves playing violent/FPS games, I'd say he's being reasonable. From the article:

In the more than 3,000 words President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden uttered during their nationally televised address today, only 16 dealt with video games in any way. Here are those words, highlighted in the context of the speech:

And while year after year, those who oppose even modest gun safety measures have threatened to de-fund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it. And Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds. We don’t benefit from ignorance. We don’t benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence.

This section of the speech refers to the fourteenth of 23 proposed executive actions Obama introduced today, regarding an "end [to] the freeze on gun violence research."

I feel like this joke quote provides some wider context

"Scientists baffled by Canadians' ability to watch movies, play video games and not shoot each other"

It's definitely worth studying. I'm not sure I've seen any real data on the subject. Just lots of extreme opinions from people convinced they do cause violence and those who believe they do not. Chances are the truth is somewhere in the middle. My guess is they will conclude there are certain individuals with existing psychological problems who are very influenced by video game violence. If they can be identified it may be possible to educate parents about the risks. Are there any doctors who are even looking for this type of thing now? Does a doctor ever suggest to parents they should limit exposure to violent video games/entertainment because their child happens to be in a high risk group? Maybe they do I honestly don't know.

There was a lot of experimental psychology research in the last fifteen years or so in this field. It generally concluded that exposure increased some measured antisocial behaviors and decreased some prosocial behaviors, but whether that translates into actual aggression against others is unclear.

A longitudinal study following about 1500 children for three years was recently published that claims "sustained violent video game play was significantly related to steeper increases in adolescents' trajectory of aggressive behavior over time."[1] Again, whether this translates into real world violence is unclear.

[1]Willoughby, T., Adachi, P. C., & Good, M. (2012). A longitudinal study of the association between violent video game play and aggression among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 1044-1057. doi:10.1037/a0026046

I love video games, both violent and non-violent. I'm not afraid of having rigorous scientific study of any links between video game violence and real violence.

Related: if violence in the real world were caused by popular media, wouldn't we have seen a spike in archery attacks last year? Between Brave and the Hunger Games and the Avengers and Skyrim, bows were everywhere.

> I'm not afraid of having rigorous scientific study of any links between video game violence and real violence.

When advocates of something oppose rigorous scientific studies of that thing, I become suspicious. For instance, if I were to see either a gun ban or a fracking ban on a ballot, I'd be inclined to vote for it just because major proponents of guns and fracking have tried hard to stop research. It makes me wonder what they are trying to keep us from finding out.

> wouldn't we have seen a spike in archery attacks last year?

But there has been an increase in people taking up archery.

You seem to be missing the point though. People who commit mass killings are trying to kill as many people as possible before they are caught. Bows are ill-suited for this purpose.

Anecdotally, there has been an increase in people taking up archery. I know several friends who have gotten into it primarily because of The Hunger Games' glorification of it.

Google seems to suggest an increase in interest, as well: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=archery

I remember reading (although I can't seem to find the reference) that there was an increase in med schools registrations when the tv show House began. If there is such an influence is there a way to use it for good purposes, like funding games and tv shows that could raise interest in issues, while still being actual games and tv shows that are worth playing and watching?

Thanks for Obama for exhuming the world's most boring debate. Again, evidence will appear inconclusive and even if it does or does not have a warping effect on children, there is already a good regulatory body in check for age classifications.

It is very easy to blame these things, but finding out how parents can be better educated and supported in communicating and dealing with problem children (which does include not buying them violent video games they are too young for) seems to be more of an important question. of course this is always going to be a no-no for conservatives since any solutions are almost certainly going to mean an increase in tax.

Let's assume the absolute worst: video games have caused mass shootings. Do we ban video games?

I personally don't think so. But it could just mean adjusting ratings and making sure that proof of age is required when purchasing classified content.

I think everyone would agree that certain types of content should not be available until you have reached a certain level of maturity.

We already have such a system. The reality is that these people are not going on rampage shootings, which is what is at issue, because they played Max Payne.

>But it could just mean adjusting ratings and making sure that proof of age is required when purchasing classified content.

For the government to do that would entail amending the constitution, since SCOTUS has already ruled that doing so violates the First Amendment.

Various exceptions to freedom of speech have been upheld by the Supreme Court; this constitutional right is not absolute. If significant new research results appeared, it would not be surprising if the court to revisited the issue to consider whether another exception is warranted.

We should probably ban cars and unhealthy food also, of course.

Lest we go into how the pros/cons of said bannable things - one could argue that shit food is the only option of the poor, and cars allow people to travel, but then, games are another piece of the puzzle that distract people enough that they don't need to think about the fucking delusion they buy into.

If we are going to ban violent games (and movies?), then I suggest we go ahead and ban refined sugar. And HFCS. ...oh..And cars.

That's a really good question.

I think right off the bat, we'd have hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits flying. Most game companies would simply cease to exist.. remember, Sega and Nintendo even had a gun!

The next steps would be interesting.. would they want registration of our games? Would there be "buy back" programs? Unlike a physical object, I can go ahead and give you my dvd or cd, but is the game really gone?

And that's not even considering the backlash. Many of us - like myself - grew up with video games. (Kid Icarus ftw!) And now many of us are technology professionals with massive platforms, discretionary funds, and near legendary stubbornness.

I think it would make the SOPA reaction look like a fart in the wind.

Yeah, lets ban violent video games. That way I'm forced to pirate them instead of buy them on Steam sales. I haven't had to pirate anything since I was a poor college waif.

Do we ban violent video games to prevent the mass slaughter and permanent traumatization of school children?

You find that a difficult question to answer?

Going with your assumption, I'd say the correct approach would be to mitigate the problem, eg make the ratings systems stricter or require gamer education in some fashion similar to driving education. Obviously, it depends - I'm sure nobody expects Pacman to drive people to violence, but I can see how some super-gory games combined with very repetitive gameplay could have potential ill-effects on vulnerable minds (say, someone with latent schizophrenia).

It's hard to deal with hypotheticals like this because you haven't been very specific about the nature or degree of the (hypothetical) causal link. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the repetitive and constrained context of video games were a risk factor, as opposed to the depiction of gore - so that Pacman or Space Invaders could indeed have an impact on the small number of vulnerable minds, in similar fashion to the small but real possibility that video games can trigger epileptic seizures in some people.

i dont understand how a video game can cause a mass shooting. is there some undocumented feature of the disc? or the case the games is sold inside?

ultimately, guns are the only things which can shoot.

The main problem I see is if there is a demonstrable correlation between real-life violence and video game violence, it'd be very difficult to tell which proceeded the other. I would think, for instance, that those predisposed to violence would be more likely to enjoy the violent aspects of video games.

The media's claims that the secluded white guy who shot up a school did it because they played violent games is ridiculous (for instance, I'd say a good 95% of secluded white guys played counter strike when I was at school - perhaps they also enjoy eating food and listening to music), but I don't think that we, as gamers, should be so averse to studies being done as to the potential effects of video game violence.

There is a habit (obviously not unique to gamers) of dismissing any studies they disagree with as being 'inconclusive' or having 'stupid methods', while shouting the results of studies that we agree with from the rooftops.

Studies like this can be valuable and useful. However, we need to be careful to use the scientific method in interpreting results and remember that correlation does not imply causation.

My main concern around studies like this is that the media outlets (and many people in society) don't apply scientific method and want to draw conclusions from such studies regardless of cause-effect scenarios.

Yes and it was a direct response to the NRA. He intends to use this as a means to deflate their arguments on the whole gun control debate. My guess is that the study will come back saying games aren't the cause of violence. The public will breath a sign of relief and then he'll continue with the proposal. The NRA's argument will be invalidated and he'll use their words against them to win the debate. Man, I don't agree with most of his policies, but Obama is one smart cookie.

Ohh, and I hate politicians. Nothing about the above has anything to do with the good of the nation. Where's the study into the state of mental health care in the US? Sigh...

If he really wants to get serious, look at movie ratings and what is shown on TV not video games. TV pervades more houses and influences from an earlier age than video games. If being exposed to violent media is the hypothesis, limit the amount of violence on television (and from movies).

R and PG-13 movies with lots of violence run all the time on cable television with little to no settings to limit it. Unfortunately, the people who like the status quo for films and television have large amounts of political sway and would rather deflect towards video games instead of revising their beloved MPAA ratings.

Video games are interactive. TVs are not. Now I am not a behavioural psychologist so I don't know to what extent interactivity affects changes in behaviour. I doubt you do either.

That is why studies are important.

While TVs are not interactive, when you watch TV your mind goes into passive mode and absorbs what it sees. I agree, studies (careful studies) are needed.

The major problem is that this sort of violence is actually, contrary to popular belief, fairly rare. So, that being the case, I don't how you draw a significant link, where would the numbers cone from? The last I checked the play these games and watch movies all over the world.

It's all a huge distraction from solving our real problems. It's made to order for a politician. Something emotionally charged that can consume attention, so our real problems which would require real leadership can be kicked down the road or under the carpet for a while longer.

Exactly. We have more pressing issues than funding a pointless study that is simply a foil for NRA arguments.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. There is a need to understand what causes certain crazy individuals to kill large numbers of people. Research into these causes, such as studying the effects of violent video games, would seem warranted. Even if we ban military assault weapons & require background checks on every gun purchase, the violent acts might still remain. Take for example the 2011 shooting in Norway, a country where guns are banned.

Yes, he did. Without solid research, it's far too easy for movies/TV/video games to get blamed for gun violence. It's a brilliant move as he's not saying if the NRA's claims that video games are to blame is true or not. He's just saying let's figure it out and go from there.

For the purposes of moving forward with the debate on gun safety, I think it's great to apply the scientific process and see what it says. Based on the results it may open up a rabbit hole around censorship, but at least we'll have some solid research to read on it. I suspect the initial research could point to follow up studies that would pinpoint specific factors that we as a society should be concerned about, rather than just "violence in video games".

I honestly have no idea what they'll find, but I'd wager that if there is a link that there are specific triggers or contextual combinations that make them a concern. The good news if that happens is that as an industry we can address those specific things rather than doing all out bans.

Who's pocket are these researchers in though?

Who's paying them?

Good studies document their methodology so the conclusions can be replicated by independent researchers. The peer review process is not immune from failure, but overall it works very well. It's not the case that researchers in general simply sell their conclusions to the highest bidder.

I wonder how sincere the US government is at wanting to end violence, when at the same time it nurtures the largest military in the world -- a military which has managed to kill the most people since WW2.

It also has one of the largest police forces and prison industries in the world, for whom violence is a very useful tool.

I'm not sure if the US government wants to end violence so much as monopolize it.

Nurturing violent tendencies in people can be quite useful to the US government, as long as those people can be persuaded to use their violence upon command, and at targets of the government's choice.

Really? You don't think that is a bit of a stretch? You think people in the White House cabinet are sitting around thinking about how theu can instill and nurture violence in people so they can have "kill bots" in the military? You've got to be joking -- that's tin foil hat stuff.

Besides, the military has a pretty straightforward program for training civilians to be soldiers, it's not this great big conspiracy as you suggest.

Have you ever played America's Army?

I recommend reading Dave Grossman's book On Killing.[1]

From the blurb:

"The good news is that most soldiers are loath to kill. But armies have developed sophisticated ways of overcoming this instinctive aversion. And contemporary civilian society, particularly the media, replicates the army's conditioning techniques, and, according to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's thesis, is responsible for our rising rate of murder among the young.

Upon its initial publication, ON KILLING was hailed as a landmark study of the techniques the military uses to overcome the powerful reluctance to kill, of how killing affects soldiers, and of the societal implications of escalating violence. Now, Grossman has updated this classic work to include information on 21st-century military conflicts, recent trends in crime, suicide bombings, school shootings, and more. The result is a work certain to be relevant and important for decades to come."

[1] - http://www.amazon.com/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-Soci...

Remember, in the 1950's comic books were blamed for violence.

While we should shy from studying anything, someone should first explain how the modern, massive expansion of video games in realism and reach doesn't correlate with overall increases in violent crimes. Both violent crime and homicide rates in the US have been in decline since the early 1990's. If correlation isn't causation, anti-correlation should have a much higher bar for causation.

Also, while I don't have any statistics on hand, I suspect the portion of the population playing video games has risen drastically since the early 1990s.

This is just poppycock, Obama may be playing into the hands of the NRA here. Why don't we study effects of religion. I suspect more minds have been influenced to kill because of religion than Call of Duty, thanks for playing though.

Honestly, these tragedies are no reason to overreact and reduce freedoms. I don't think there is much evidence that these rampage shootings have precursors in movies and video games. They seem to be related to delusions and mental illness. Look at Lanza, Gabbie Giffords shooter, Virginia Tech, and Holmes, all clearly mentally ill. There was a school shooter named Luke Woodham, very ill. Besides rampage shooters, gun violence occurs in concert with other crimes related to drugs, domestic altercations, etc.

I don't think we should take this film and game link seriously. Of all the gamers, there are so few rampage shooters and probably a small percentage of then are even "gamers." It's hard to take seriously.

Those rejoicing that we are going to have new gun laws to ban guns, better think again when they also make new laws to ban violent video games, movies, and TV shows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com