Ever since the Newton shooting everyone has been up in arms about gun violence (pun intended). However, there has also been a smaller movement against violent video games. Information has come out saying that shooter Adam Lanza partook in violent video games. People have then tried to link his actions to his activity with such games. I personally don't see how this connection can be made. Of course if someone has aggressive tendencies they are going to play violent video games, what would you expect them to play, Mario Kart? People have tried to link violent video games to violent people numerous times as encouraging their behavior, but any statistic that comes out is flawed. I would suggest that whatever relationship exists is not causal at all.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that violent video games can have the exact opposite effect than what critics suggest. Violent video games could provide a release of aggression rather than spark more aggression. Of course, this can't be proven, because there is no way to know if there would be more shootings without the presence of violent video games. Still, one should be careful when finding connections like the one between Adam Lanza and violent video games, while they may tell us something about the character of Adam Lanza, it doesn't tell us necessarily about the effects of violent video games.
After reading this one might assume that I am a strong supporter of violent video games, or video games in general. The truth is, I couldn't tell you the last time I played a video game. Everyone is into XBOX these days, and quite frankly, those controllers are way to big for my hands. I miss the days of Gamecube controllers, but anyways, I'm going off on a tangent, and that could be a blog post all on its own. My point is people should be cautious of drawing causal connections concerning any kind of correlation.
Good point: correlation is not causation. It seems likely that it is the violent qualities of some people that will cause them to seek out violent media, not make them violent. I think the argument that some outlet for violence may actually be a good thing is sound as well (I remember reading an essay on this a few years back). There's probably some research on this topic for anyone so inclined to look for it.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree and as Dr. Herron said, correlation doesn't prove causation. They are just looking for a reason to explain something they cannot simply explain. Violent video games and violent movies are there scapegoat. Most people even people who are mentally unstable and children know that what violent movies and video games promote, are not actually being promoted in the real world.
ReplyDeleteI'm not completely disagreeing with you, however I remeber when my brother first got the idea to join the army he was at a tournament for Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon. The main sponsor of the event was an Army Recruiter, and shortly after that tournament my brother decided to join the military. Not saying their is a direct correlation but if someone likes to kill people in video games I am sure they would be slightly more likely to want to try it in real life.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we need to get rid of violent video games. I think they account for a very small amount of issues and can only be a grain of sand in a bigger picture. I will say, though, that in the Newtown example, CBS reported that the shooter was reloading clips before they were dry. I rarely play Call of Duty, but I have been taught to always reload as soon as possible. This is a sign that maybe the Newtown shooter was almost treating this as a real life Call of Duty. I think games like Call of Duty have become so realistic that they make a larger impact than, say, Mario Kart, and I do think some tendencies come from such games, but I don't believe that they are the problem.
ReplyDelete