RWarehall: Apology accepted. And I apologize for calling you out so hard. I don't know if you've read much of this thread in the past, but we get a lot of people who jump into the thread just to argue and call us wrong about everything. You can see some of the "usual suspects" in some of the intervening posts. In some ways, you've come off the same way. But at least you seem to be willing to talk about the issues.
What is your take on the study that seems to indicate that the reason video games appear to cause short-term aggression is really a factor of frustration? I found that one interesting. That by giving one group a tutorial on how to play the game and comparing it to another group with no instructions, the group who were given instructions showed less of the "aggressive" behavior than the other group.
Of course the implication is that "violence" in these videogames isn't the issue, but that aggressive after-effects may be a product of the initial frustration in learning a new game.
Because seriously, who isn't a little frustrated by getting used to a new game, new controls, getting used to the new "rules" of the game. If that leads to a bit of aggression, what does the subsequent conquering or mastery of the game give one? Does this mean if the same study could be stretched out to a week per respondent, would the results all of a sudden turn into an increase in self-esteem and maybe even more calm after the game was successfully completed?
Not saying this would necessarily be the case, but it does pose quite a quandary about how much value there is in these very short-term micro studies...
I never put any real significance on those short term studies. I said they were there, but you can't use them to say violent media causes violence. My point was there was a lot of them over many years and they all found the same thing. That's the consensus I was talking about. Have someone watch rambo and complete sentences, and they choose more aggressive words. It doesn't show real world anything. The study that found it was a result of frustration is interesting, yes. But do violent movies cause the same level of frustration? Why the difference in media? If you notice, I didn't say shit about that one. It was published in a psychology journal and had 20 citations. I assume its good research, but I don't know if its been reproduced or not. I'm not really trained to evaluate it. I also don't know anything about the cohort. Were they teenagers, were they adults, was it mixed? The paper is not open access, but they only discuss one of six studies in the paper. I wonder what the other five were and what they showed? Does anyone cite that specific study for anything?
Actually, my main thought was how the hell do you say the PIs name.
The incarceration rate/abortion stuff comes up a lot in an area where I do real life advocacy. Quite a few sociology and penology speakers have brought it up. I'm involved with my church in advocacy against handing down a ton of felony convictions for nonviolent crime. They do nothing but make private prisons money, and create a permanent underclass.
The other thing is children. There strong observational learners. To me its not even a matter of science. You let a four or five year old watch TV, and they will imitate the behavior. I'll never forget my niece, she was watching old laurel and hardy skits. One of them stomped on the other's foot. She went to school (1st grade), and got in trouble for stomping on a few feet.
I just don't think you can say video games don't contribute to violent behavior in certain individuals. I also don't think you can say they do. I don't know how many papers are published on this topic a year, but we've only looked at like 3 or 4 of them. It will be interesting to see what the APA changes in their statement, as they will likely be aware and knowledgeable of most of the studies published in this area.
Edit:
I also acknowledged those correlational studies. I said we don't need to censor games, like that california law did.