Lethal recreations: computer games afecting teenage brains?

I played violent computer games for a long time. I started playing when I was little. I have, as of yet, not found that explicit use of violence doesn't affect me, or affect me only a little bit.
If there is something, I think, which is to blame for the desensitising of young/old minds to violence it's the constatnt barrage of murders/deadly accidents/wars/terrorist attacks/victims of disasters that come under our attention every day.
I think that becoming more emotionally disattached from the victims is one of the few ways to cope with all this violence around us... Otherwise one would/could go screaming mad.

Tis does not mean that you just shouldn't care, that's going too far. Try to help when you can, try to prevent any violence happening while you're in a position to stop it, then you do the best you can do to stop violence.
Well, just my 2 cents here.
Naj.

Walter- I don't play those games, but I would not doubt the conclusions. I think that people become accustomed to seeing these things, and after awhile, it loses its shock value.

This reminds me of a question that I once had, many many years ago, in a psych test. If I remember, it was about whether a stimulus which continues for a length of time gets stronger, weaker or stays the same. I was not sure of the answer, so I put a pencil over my hand, and waited to see what happened. Sure enough, after a few moments, I could not feel the pencil.

I would assume that the same sort of thing would happen to kids who play violent video games. After awhile the brain gets used to the violence, and the kid no longer has any aversive reaction to the violence. Not good!

The 'violence' actions of computer games transfers to real life situations with little thought of the reality, and makes it easier for them to 'react' in a similar way. Repitition of the violence on computer games makes them insensitive to violence. c.i.

That's what I think, Phoenix and c.i., too.

I think a propensity is required for games to negatively affect.

I agree. It's not like kids weren't violent before the advent of computer games. I think things have to come together in a specific way.

I have a friend who is a game designer (does graphics) and he has really vehemently argued against this way of thinking for a long time. (That the games cause anything, rather than allowing pent-up hostility/ teenage hormone stuff to be vented.)

A game is a game is a game and no matter how realistic, shooting someone on screen is NOT the same as actually shooting a real person. This doesn't mean that, as Craven says, some people who are already on the edge could be sent over. And I certainly don't think that kids should be sitting on their butts for hours on end, whether watching TV or playing video games. But I think it's a bit simplistic tojust blame the games.

I'm not sure - it makes a lot of sense but for example my kid has played Doom and right now his favorite game is SOCOM US Navy S.E.A.L.S., played on the PS2 over the net.
Yet he still remains a pacifist.

husker, When speaking to generalities, there will always be exceptions. c.i.

Sozobe- Of course it isn't JUST the games, and it does not affect every kid the same way. I can remember when my son's nursery school banned Batman paraphrenalia.

The thing about the computer games is the realism, intensity and the amount of time that the kids spend surrounded by all the mayhem.

I dunno. I've had arguments with this friend taking your position, Phoenix, and he's pretty convincing. He brings up the comic book flap of the 50's in which America's youth were supposed to be going down the drain because of the horrible terrible influence of comics.

If a child was to go out and shoot someone thinking that it wouldn't hurt, I don't think its a game to blame.
However, if the child has other areas lacking or missing or not already established then, the game certainly wont help but certainly could be the only reality a disturbed child could want to know or believe in as a reality.
There are many number of factors, environmental and parenting issues that would have to be reviewed, and should have been in place before a child is able to operate such a game. Although more and more younger and younger children are becoming more adaptable to computers, etc.
Also, a child with an unrealistic view of a game, has the same problems so no, I don't think violent games alone can have such a negative effect.

quinn, There's a thing called "parental supervision," but that's easier said than done. Two kids in the same family, playing the same games, can turn out differently. It's not a simple issue that can be addressed, but in general, any kid exposed to these games will have an easier time desensitizing to violence. c.i.

theres things also called sociopaths which have non sociopathic siblings, doesnt mean a game is going to change the outcome.
Like I said...lots of factors can contribute to violence and/or violent tendancies, and desensitizing has also has a scale..it doesnt mean that playing a game and becoming desensitized to its particular violent tendancies/effect, etc means that in real life you would be decensitized to the same thing.

Maybe, maybe not. c.i.

Well, like I said before, I sincerely doubt it is the games.
It's a question of being able to seperate reality from fiction, no matte rhow convincing it looks.
I've never heard anybody complain about the violence rating in cartoons, yet the stuff these caracters do to each other is extremely horrible. I wouldn't wish for my worst enemy to end up in a situation like that. Still, this is viewed as harmless fun.
Why? Because it is easily seperable from reality. These are cute little drawn figures, often talking animals, and thus stand far apart from real life.
Computer games have to be bought, installed, and started. Presumably, the rating system attached to them (which I don't oppose btw.) should safeguard that the most violent games don't end up in the hands of young people. Still, sometimes I think there's much ado about nothing.
Take Carmageddon for instance. As far as I know(I've never played it) the purpose of the game is to collect points by driving asocially and destructively. You get points for hitting pedestrians etc. The press, as well as several leading political figures, had a field day with this. The resulting presscoverage made sure carmageddon sold. Big.
Now I ask, you, more then four years after the release of carmageddon, and the resulting hype in sales, has there been a noticeable increase in 'demolition derby' kind of violence? Deliberately killing pedestrians by hitting them with cars?
I have not heard of any significant increase so far, but to be honest I must conclude that I did not keep up with this specific game, especially after it's release. I used to focus more or less on the FPS(First Person Shooter), Racing, Simulation(Civ), RPG(Roleplaying Game) and strategy markets.
So if anyone can tell me with statistical evidence that this is indeed the case (and it's been more then 4 years since it's release... they should be available now), then I will rest my case and stop arguing against this hype against realistic gameviolence.

regards,
naj.

A visit to my cousins who were given computer games as young children and are now in their late teens, to see the state that they are in mentally and physically.
Their mother and father gave them the games to 'babysit' them, and now they are a bunch of fat morons.
It doesnt help that they also have ADHD and bipolar.

My kids arent allowed one in the house, and the result, more active children both mentally and physically. I dont care how much they drive me up the wall, they aint getting one!

Celticclover : So you state that these guys have become fat morons because they got computer games? That's generalising and hardly true for everybody. There are bound to be other explanations for their behavior.

a great deal of gaming information can be found here:

www.game-culture.com

Most interestingly, and perhaps parallel to the topic at hand and observations listed there would be:

Freedom of Expression Policy Project Combats Notions About Violent Videogames
27 September 2002

Thirty-three scholars from educational institutions worldwide have collaborated on a rebuttal to the US District Court Judgment passed last Spring by Judge John Limbaugh, in which he determined that videogames could not be classified as speech and are therefore not subject to protection under the First Amendment (see May 1st posting on this page). Their brief details why videogames do not necessarily lead to real-life violence among youth. The IGDA has also filed an amicus brief in support of the IDSA's appeal, which can be found here.

I hope that you will accept that this is what the whole family know because we see it with our own eyes. We are a very close family, and luckily when one was born another would soon follow, so we all interact. They play no sports, they sit in their dark rooms and play all the latest games. They dont like sharing them and if their mother suggests they do anything, she gets no cooperation.

I will say, it is my Aunties fault as she has allowed it to get this bad, where no restrictions were placed on them.
Trust me, you have to see them to believe what I know. Im not talking about it being a world wide thing they all grow fat, Im just referring to my cousins. Its enough to frighten anybody.

As it is this topic has been in the news lately, with children getting RSI and having brittle bones from lack of physical movement. Im not leaving anything to chance, my kids arent getting one, there is nothing wrong with a good book, oh and playing outside.