Would you say that violent video games are good or bad for kids?

[Cowboy Karimov]

I know putting something like this on this forum will end up as extremely biased, but why not.

Now, we all know that the games make all the killing and stuff seem less bad(especially to naive kids). That's why school shootings have started coming up recently. The pros(better multitasking, teamwork[if applicable], etc) apply to pretty much all games. With that in mind I can say that violent video games are not good for kids. Teenagers? Depends on their maturity. If you're raising a respectable and mature teen, it's probably fine. Immature and maybe even stereotypical ones? Absolutely not. That, paired with the mood swings characteristic of adolescence make bam bam in school.

Edited June 4, 2014 by HeavyBrawlsGuy

[dondon151]

it's hard to say that they're good for kids, but the causation between violent video games and violent crime is, to my knowledge, a red herring.

[Excellen Browning]

Oh boy here we go with this again.

[scientific] Consensus on this topic is summed up as "harmful for small children, does absolutely nothing harmful to larger ones. A clear border between these two groups does not exist". You can follow up wikipedia links on that as a source.

The thing is that the ability to discern 'real' from 'non-real' (for those interested, the idea of what reality is, is a paradigm, not a straight definition) grows with age/gained experience etc(again, see paradigm)

Furthermore, video games are a product of the human imagination as much as books, films, painting and other such expressions are and I do not see why video games are inherently a different experience (in the sense of how you deal with them) and so it warrants a discussion into video games specifically.

[Florete]

it's hard to say that they're good for kids, but the causation between violent video games and violent crime is, to my knowledge, a red herring.

That.

It also depends on how violent the game and how young the kid. A 7-year-old probably shouldn't be playing Grand Theft Auto or Mortal Kombat, for example, but age ratings exist for a reason and a kid that age also shouldn't be watching R-rated movies or reading books with violent and grotesque imagery, etc. So there's no point in singling out video games when the real question should be, "Is violent media good or bad for kids?"

In addition, I recall reading a study that found that competitive video games such as Call of Duty cause more aggression than single player experiences and that the competitive nature does more than the violence, though to what extent on either factor I don't remember.

[Phoenix Wright]

Oh boy here we go with this again.

[scientific] Consensus on this topic is summed up as "harmful for small children, does absolutely nothing harmful to larger ones. A clear border between these two groups does not exist". You can follow up wikipedia links on that as a source.

i doubt even this. i know, pemn, but my brothers and i all played violent video games growing up and have been unaffected by them. everyone i know who has played violent video games when they were young is also seemingly unaffected. i'll look it up, but my initial reaction is that i'm skeptical of them being harmful at all. really, i think competitive multiplayer games are probably the most straining on people's psyches haha.

[Tryhard]

A 7-year-old probably shouldn't be playing Grand Theft Auto or Mortal Kombat

Haha. As a 7 year old who was playing GTA and MK, and at 5 playing Doom, I ended up mostly alright.

I'm not so sure that small children should be playing these types of games frequently, though. I didn't play that much, but I have heard like above that they may be harmful to smaller children. As well as other violent media.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Tryhard

[Rewjeo]

really, i think competitive multiplayer games are probably the most straining on people's psyches haha.

I would buy much more easily than violent video games being a problem.

[eclipse]

DEPENDS ON THE KID.

While it probably won't result in a mass shooting, it may cause other issues. Whether or not it causes issues (or the severity of those issues) depends on a lot of things.

(source: my past nine-year-old self who had nightmares due to the stuff I chose to watch. . .wasn't long-lasting harm or anything, but wasn't pleasant while they existed)

[Parrhesia]

It isn't good. It's probably not bad unless the kid is like five fucking years old, and like all 5-year olds a total impressionable stoner idiot.

Either way you won't stop mass shootings by cracking down on fucking media. It may shock you but the answer is in fact gun control. I'd like the answer to be something besides either of those two things but I'm nothing if not a pragmatist.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Parrhesia

[Snowy_One]

The first question that needs to be answered is 'do violent videogames make violent kids, or do violent kids play violent video games'. I'm sure someone wouldn't connect a kid killing his classmate to a game like Nintendogs or Candy Crush (even if it was to stop those invites), so when games are 'non-violent' they aren't an issue, but a kid who just happens to like playing Goldeneye with his friends and snapped on Candy-Crush related requests on Facebook is an issue (the game, not the kid)?

Now, regardless of the answer, I think we can agree on some things. Games like Eternal Darkness are not meant for young children for example and I'm fairly sure that almost everyone would want to steer their kids away from that Japanese dating sim until they're at least old enough to realize that real girls don't act like that. Meanwhile Animal Crossings, despite that you can hit fellow townsfolk with an axe and has ghosts, is basically okay for any age.

So what are my thoughts exactly? My personal answer is 'Violent kids are attracted to violent video games, as are far more people just looking to have some fun'. However I do understand why a controversy exists in the first place. A lot of it is parents being outright ignorant about games. I don't work at Gamestop, but I've seen a lot of parents buy... questionable... games for their kids and, despite the employee warning them that it isn't age-appropriate for their kid to be playing God of War, they basically roll their eyes and say 'Its a video game. All they're gonna do is stomp on goombas or raise dem pokethingys'. I understand that being a parent is really stressful and hard and it sucks having the blame laid on you constantly, but learning to listen or reading the back of the box, sometimes even looking at the box, is something that should be very obvious to do.

[AMCC4728]

I think we need more research on topics that are parallel to the subject but not directly "Are games bad for people?"

Albert Bandura's Bobo doll experiment show that violent media atleast has SOME influence on younger children, if not a huge one.

Some questions that I think would be more prudent and efficient to examine would be 1. Are video games inherently more influential than other media because of their imersive natue? 2. As other people have stated, do the video games affect the person or does the person select the game specifically because it appeals to their personality(violent kids buy violent games)? and 3. How great is this influence? Is it lasting? What is the magnitude of the impact that it has on different age groups?

If there were two things that Bandura's experiment failed to provide clarity on, it was age group differences(only little kids) and longevity of influence. Bandura only showed the immediate impact of violent media. He didn't show how that influence might disperse/grow with continued exposure.

Overall, I think that(along with the majority) ratings are necessary, but it in the end is the responsibility of the parents to look at the games and explain any scenes that might be risque to their children.

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

I wouldn't say violent videogames are bad in general. It mainly depends on the intention to play them.

I played Goldeneye64, when I was seven and later Counterstrike and other stuff, because I love shooting and killing enemies in videogames. But I absolute detest any kind of violence in real life, because I can distinguish between real life and a videogame.

But there are also young children and teenagers, who play it to let off steam because to suppress their private problems in school, family or friendship. If they fall into the addiction, the psychological cognition will be influenced negativly. The worst case would be, if they cannot see the difference between a videogame and real life. I'm not a psychologist, but that's one of the reasons, why rampages happened in schools in the past years.

[Ciarre]

I agree on competitive multiplayer being worse lol. That always ends up bringing out the worst in people. As for actual violent games, as long as the kid is of an old enough age to differentiate between fiction and reality, I think it's fine. I definitely don't think 5 year olds should be playing those, but young kids grow up extremely fast and they'll learn that shooting people irl isn't ok in at least a year or two, that just because it's in a video game doesn't mean they should do it too.

[Naughx]

I agree on competitive multiplayer being worse lol. That always ends up bringing out the worst in people. As for actual violent games, as long as the kid is of an old enough age to differentiate between fiction and reality, I think it's fine. I definitely don't think 5 year olds should be playing those, but young kids grow up extremely fast and they'll learn that shooting people irl isn't ok in at least a year or two, that just because it's in a video game doesn't mean they should do it too.

But 5 years old kids don't commit mass shootings.

It is usually around ~20 years old...

[Tryhard]

Crazy people who go on mass shootings go on mass shootings because they are crazy, not because they play violent video games. Parenting would be in most cases more relevant.

I mean, there has always been a scapegoat for this, before, it was rock or metal music.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Tryhard

[Naughx]

It isn't good. It's probably not bad unless the kid is like five fucking years old, and like all 5-year olds a total impressionable stoner idiot.

Either way you won't stop mass shootings by cracking down on fucking media. It may shock you but the answer is in fact gun control. I'd like the answer to be something besides either of those two things but I'm nothing if not a pragmatist.

Gun Control and better mental healthcare.

[FionordeQuester]

I'd say it depends on the kind of violence. If we're talking just shooting up some guys on Doom, then it's nothing. You're just killing some "bad guys" n' stuff like that, which is really absolutely nothing. It's not as though the kid is going to suddenly start hallucinating that people are monsters or anything like that, and shoot at them...

However, if we're talking about Grand Theft Auto-like violence, where you're stomping on hookers, watching really graphic scenes of police officers getting shot, and hearing all kinds of foul language and racial epithets being thrown around (as in stuff like

CUNT!, BITCH!, HEY YA FUCKING BASTARD!!

) being thrown back and forth...Then yeah, THAT I can definitely see being bad for kids, desensitizing them to the impact of swearing and violence, and if you're really unlucky, perhaps teaching them that whores are people who don't deserve to be treated like human beings or something (I mean, I don't agree with their career choice, but they're really hurting themselves more than anyone else...).

[AMCC4728]

I'd say it depends on the kind of violence. If we're talking just shooting up some guys on Doom, then it's nothing. You're just killing some "bad guys" n' stuff like that, which is really absolutely nothing. It's not as though the kid is going to suddenly start hallucinating that people are monsters or anything like that, and shoot at them...

However, if we're talking about Grand Theft Auto-like violence, where you're stomping on hookers, watching really graphic scenes of police officers getting shot, and hearing all kinds of foul language and racial epithets being thrown around (as in stuff like

CUNT!, BITCH!, HEY YA FUCKING BASTARD!!

) being thrown back and forth...Then yeah, THAT I can definitely see being bad for kids, desensitizing them to the impact of swearing and violence, and if you're really unlucky, perhaps teaching them that whores are people who don't deserve to be treated like human beings or something (I mean, I don't agree with their career choice, but they're really hurting themselves more than anyone else...).

While I agree with the desensitizing point, swearing isn't inherently bad. Swear words are just words. When shit, crap, and poo mean the same thing what makes one worse than the other? Societal Perception.

Also swearing is a powerful painkiller as it releases endorphins. This is probably why people swear when they are hurt(stubbing your toe for example).

http://www.healthnews.com/en/news/Profanity-Can-Be-a-Powerful-Painkiller/0NCd03NvX9NAvuoOOjwQt3/

[FionordeQuester]

Yeah, but I mean, look at the connotations of those words.

Bitch, Cunt, and Bastard

are all derogatory terms for people who were born in adultery or who are perceived as being whores, so when you toss words like that around, it, at best, desensitizes us to the tragedy of those people. And at worst? I can very easily see it creating a discriminatory attitude towards those kinds of people (even if only on a subconscious level), especially when we're talking about children.

[peener weener]

Yeah, but I mean, look at the connotations of those words.

Bitch, Cunt, and Bastard

are all derogatory terms for people who were born in adultery or who are perceived as being whores

This is not even true

Edited June 12, 2014 by fuccboi

[AMCC4728]

Yeah, but I mean, look at the connotations of those words.

Bitch, Cunt, and Bastard

are all derogatory terms for people who were born in adultery or who are perceived as being whores, so when you toss words like that around, it, at best, desensitizes us to the tragedy of those people. And at worst? I can very easily see it creating a discriminatory attitude towards those kinds of people (even if only on a subconscious level), especially when we're talking about children.

First off, what you are talking about is etymology, not connotation.

Connotation is the general "feeling" behind the word. For example, Childish and Childlike have virtually the exact same denotation.

Childish(adj.)-Having qualities or attributes relating to children.

Childlike(adj.)-Possessing traits associated with children.

Switch a couple synonyms around and it is identical. Now being called childish is bad because it carries the connotation of immaturity, while being called childlike is good because it carries the connotation of youthful. Connotation=Societal Perception of the word.

Etymology is the history of words.(roots, past uses, etc.)

For example, bitch derives from bicce in old english, which derives from bikkjuna("female of the dog") in old norse. The past uses you refer to are mostly recent. In fact this word describes men who were gay for most of it's history. I don't think many gay men are offended by the word bitch any more than another would be. The only reason it was considered an offensive word was because of the roman catholic church making it offensive to speak on matters they disagreed with in the dark ages.(homosexuality, sun-centric solar system, etc.)

Bastard has been used mostly to describe a child who was born outside of wedlocke or whose father abandoned them. Same as above, I don't think this group takes more offense to this word. Me being one can vouch for that. Bastard isn't very offensive in today's world because of the increased number of babies born into this situation. Again Catholic Church, Divorce, Fornication, yada yada yada.

Cunt is actually derived from several sources. The most prominent one is kunta from the middle east. Cuneiform(earliest form of writing) is derived from the same meaning. Surprisingly, this origin's meaning hasn't changed. It meant female genitalia back then and now. This one, other names for genitalia, and things relating to sexual intercourse in general I don't advocate saying around young children.

I would like to disagree with the last point but since it has happened before(slavery, segregation) in recent times, I'm having a hard time doing it. This is where we must ask ourselves "Which came first, the situation or the word?" In the case of the n word(censoring for other people) I would say the former. Slaves arrived in America for the first time in the 1600s. The n word didn't come into use until the lates 1700s, derived from the spanish negro, which meant black.

EDIT: This thread is getting derailed pretty hard. I won't post on this subject anymore.

Edited June 12, 2014 by AMCC4728

[jiodi]

The question itself is probably not framed correctly in the first place. I would love to see a compelling argument for "violent video games are GOOD for kids".

I don't think discussing the nature of desensitization via gaming and words uttered over multiplayer, etc is necessarily outside the scope of this conversation. Connecting to the Internet must be pretty difficult for kids to cope with before they've developed the necessary skills to handle all the information and stigmatizing data they will come across. Thankfully we have this time-tested method of nurturing kids and making sure they don't get wrecked by this hyper-connectivity and violence in media. I'm trying to remember the name....ohhh right, PARENTING. Bold, upper-cased and italicized for good measure.

Parents love to treat their spawn like special little snowflakes. But sometimes they don't pay attention and let them get raised by tv. Then it's time to blame the tv! Sometimes the kid has mental issues but since their child is perfect it must be the fault of a doctor or the school or Obama or Bush or Al Qaeda and not the stark reality that the kid is just a shit head and needs a lot of help to not be one. We can go further down that rabbit hole deep into the soul-crushing shame-or-blame culture strangling us with cynicism, too. But eh, that's lame.

I think the dude using "connotation" meant it as connotation, just didn't present the argument clearly. We forget that most communication is based on inference and perception (no matter how many times you say "fag" or "bitch" or "shit dawg i raped that bitch" cause of a headshot or something and don't mean it in any other way than saying a word, you are inadvertently propagating all of the connotations that go with it).

Also, every time this stuff gets brought up I think of this and it makes me happy:

[WhiskeySickFive]

Violent video games have been linked to increased aggression.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/virtual-violence.aspx

http://www.pamf.org/parenting-teens/general/media-web/violentgames.html

Of course, "good" is a relative term, and down here in the USA, being aggressive (in whatever you choose to do) is sometimes needed to survive, with our "savage capitalism."

I don't really care either way, but the facts are the facts.

[Raven]

I was 8 years old and playing GTA1, and have been playing every mainstream GTA game since - aside from GTAV.

My mother bought it for me because I nagged and said all my friends at school were playing it.

Anyway, I didn't turn into a murdering psychopath.

I'm going to say that violent video games are not bad for children as long as they are brought up knowing these things seen in video games should not be repeated in real life.

[FionordeQuester]

I was 8 years old and playing GTA1, and have been playing every mainstream GTA game since - aside from GTAV.

My mother bought it for me because I nagged and said all my friends at school were playing it.

Anyway, I didn't turn into a murdering psychopath.

I'm going to say that violent video games are not bad for children as long as they are brought up knowing these things seen in video games should not be repeated in real life.

However, everyone is different, so you can't necessarily say that your experience applies to all. So when you're deciding what's good and what's bad, you have to think in terms of "ok, how bad or good will this be for MOST children? Is this guy an indication that we're wrong, or is he an outlier"? Because there's always going to be exceptions to the rule.

Edited June 12, 2014 by FionordeQuester