h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Dave,

Likewise, I'm not interested in going to the original research. If anything, I've already read more about this subject than I want to in the course of this conversation.

"On (2) that's a valid argument, but surely it's the same as saying "I refuse to believe this because they might be wrong", in which case you could apply it to everything?"

Well, I just meant that I wasn't going to believe it just because they say it. In general, I am more sceptical of social science research than physical science research, because my experience has been that research in social sciences sneaks in lots of assumptions about human nature. Also, methods which are applicable in physical sciences are often rather more dubious when applied in social sciences.

"If they were decent studies then they must have accounted for this. A study that merely allowed participants to choose their entertainment would indeed be open to all sorts of interpretations."

I'm not convinced that this isn't what they did. It certainly sounds like what they did. I mean - how many people will agree to let someone else choose their forms of entertainment over long periods of time (which you'd need to do to get the effect presumably)?

The article you posted a link to was also interesting, but again I don't find myself very swayed by their evidence. Two bits in particular jump out at me. Firstly, they say "But when the players were subsequently given the opportunity to “punish” a fake opponent in another game, those with the greatest reduction in P300 brain responses meted out the most severe punishments." In other words, they assessed 'violence' using another game! Seems to me like this doesn't offer any evidence about what they would do in the real world. To say that it does, you'd have to assume that someone's actions in the virtual world will be the same as their actions in the real world - which is exactly the point under contention. On a methodological note, there was also this: "Even when the team controlled for the subjects’ natural hostility, assessed by standard questionnaires...". Whoah! You can assess someone's 'natural hostility' with a questionnaire? I'd love to see that.

Incidentally, that article is much better than the other two and presents critical responses to the research. I found the comment by one critic quoted in the full article to express how I felt about it: "All we are really getting is desensitisation to images. There’s no way to show that this relates to real-life aggression."

"In general, I am more sceptical of social science research than physical science research, because my experience has been that research in social sciences sneaks in lots of assumptions about human nature. Also, methods which are applicable in physical sciences are often rather more dubious when applied in social sciences."

I agree with this for the basic reason that the physical sciences deal in absolutes and the social sciences, psychiatry and the like do not and are more in-hoc to speculation. In this case, the findings are still based on research and experimentation, though, and the problem remains that the counterpoints to them are based on conjecture and nothing more. For this reason, as I said before, it's probably wise (from a scientific perspective) to assume that the research has a point, especially since (as NS argues) there's no cause for any real action based on the findings.

"In other words, they assessed 'violence' using another game! Seems to me like this doesn't offer any evidence about what they would do in the real world. To say that it does, you'd have to assume that someone's actions in the virtual world will be the same as their actions in the real world - which is exactly the point under contention."

Weren't they testing for aggression, though, and so wouldn't "virtual" actions count as aggressive? Aggression is not the same as physical violence, although there's an obvious link.

"In this case, the findings are still based on research and experimentation, though, and the problem remains that the counterpoints to them are based on conjecture and nothing more."

But you have to be careful about what the research actually says. What it says, it seems unambiguously, is that there is a correlation between violent behaviour and number of hours spent playing games or watching TV. I don't dispute this, it's quantitative, unambiguous and relatively interpretation-free data. What I dispute is the interpretation put on this. Here is a lovely little quote from Frank Herbert's sci-fi novel "Heretic of Dune":

"There was a man who sat each day looking out through a narrow vertical opening where a single board had been removed from a tall wooden fence. Each day a wild ass of the desert passed outside the fence and across the narrow opening — first the nose, then the head, the forelegs, the long brown back, the hindlegs, and lastly the tail. One day, the man leaped to his feet with the light of discovery in his eyes and he shouted for all who could hear him: "It is obvious! The nose causes the tail!""

Jumping from a correlation to a causal link is precisely the mistake I think social sciences are prone to. Evolutionary psychology is the worst offender, but that's another story.

"Weren't they testing for aggression, though, and so wouldn't "virtual" actions count as aggressive? Aggression is not the same as physical violence, although there's an obvious link."

Well OK then, so is there a reason to expect that aggressive virtual behaviour should mean aggressive real world behaviour?

FWIW, I did a quick google search to see what others are saying about computer games causing violence (some highlights below), and I didn't get the feeling that there was a scientific consensus that they do. I searched for "do computer games cause violent behaviour", and the first link was:

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/goldstein.html

I'd really recommend reading this paper (it's short because it's a conference paper). One highlight for me was:

"Studies of violent video games do not always distinguish aggressive play from aggressive behavior (for example, Schutte et al., 1988; Silvern & Williamson, 1987). Observations of children on the playground may confuse mock aggression (pretending to engage in martial arts) with real aggression (attempting to hurt someone). Confusing aggressive play with aggressive behavior can lead to faulty conclusions. What appears to an observer to be aggressive behavior may instead be aggressive play, where there is no intent to injure anyone. In the rare study that measures both aggressive play and aggressive behavior (e.g., Cooper & Mackie, 1986), violent video games affect the former and not the latter."

This one was published in the Lancet last month, and concludes that the evidence is not strong enough to make any public health conclusions:

http://www.contentagenda.com/articleXml/LN770619632.html

"The effects of violence in video games on negative behaviour in children and adolescents have been intensely studied and debated. Some studies show that violent imagery increases the likelihood of short-term aggressive or fearful behaviour, especially in boys. The effects in older children are less clear and no long-term increase in aggressiveness or violence has been shown. There is no evidence to suggest that individuals exposed to media violence go on to commit crimes. However, it is not clear whether this largely experimental research can be applied to situations in everyday life. Studies are small with non-representative samples; they do not look at present-day games or measure the exposure to violence. The focus is on finding harm; evidence for actual harm is scant. Not all aggression is bad. In fact it can be quite positive. And the assumption that everyone is at risk of being violent disregards the fact that some people are more susceptible to violence and may seek out violent material."

Finally (for balance), this one is a response to the criticisms by someone who it seems has published quite a few of these papers arguing that there is a connection:

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

The one most relevant to the point I'm making here is:

"Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations."

I actually agree with each of the things he says here, but I don't see how they address the particular point about the studies of the effect of playing games on violent behaviour.

"What it says, it seems unambiguously, is that there is a correlation between violent behaviour and number of hours spent playing games or watching TV. I don't dispute this, it's quantitative, unambiguous and relatively interpretation-free data."

Isn't the problem though, as NS argues, that the strength of the link is comparable to the link between passive smoking and lung cancer and bases its argument on the fact that there is a correlation and not a direct link. I think we can assume that NS has taken-onboard all the arguments you put forward which is just one reason why it doesn't think there's any real need for action - the argument is more one of "keep in mind that there is probably a link" rather than "there is a definite link".

"Well OK then, so is there a reason to expect that aggressive virtual behaviour should mean aggressive real world behaviour?"

Well... yes. Aggression is aggression. This is like saying aggression on the football field, whilst driving or during a debate is markedly different from aggression in a potentially-violent situation; it's not, aggression is pretty much the same anywhere. What *is* different is where that aggression might lead and how well people can control it. Someone who is aggressive during a sport would probably control their aggression more when arguing with a stranger in a street because the consequences and the "rules" are extremely different. As a previous poster said, the personality and psychology of someone is much more important than things like their aggresssion levels but if we take 1000 people and make them all more aggressive in some way then the minority amongst those who are pre-disposed to violence become more dangerous whilst the majority who don't have smiliar issues do not. It's this problem in a society of millions that is highlighted by issues such as the possible aggression-increasing effects of violent or other media.

"Well... yes. Aggression is aggression."

I'm not so sure. Anecdotal evidence: me. I'm not a very aggressive person in real life (quite the opposite), but there are certain situations where the way I act could be perceived as very aggressive. For example, debating on online forums . Or a better example, when I play poker. Now I know that the way to win at poker against weaker opponents is often to repeatedly put the other player to the test, to give them hard decisions to make, to repeatedly raise their bets and take them out of their comfort zone. So if you're playing poker with me you'll probably have the idea that I'm a pretty nasty guy. The thing is though, I'm just playing a game and I consider it entirely separate to real life. It's the same with computer games. I don't consider that I'm an aggressive person naturally who only truly expresses himself when he's playing competitive games, and is holding himself back the rest of the time. I consider myself to be very much not aggressive, but I understand the nature of games and so when I play them I play to win and often the way to do that is to turn up the 'aggression'. A scientific study that doesn't make this distinction, it seems to me, is missing out on something crucial. Of course it could be that someone else has done a study that shows that these two forms of aggression are linked in general - I'm only giving anecdotal evidence here. YMMV.

"As a previous poster said, the personality and psychology of someone is much more important than things like their aggresssion levels but if we take 1000 people and make them all more aggressive in some way then the minority amongst those who are pre-disposed to violence become more dangerous whilst the majority who don't have smiliar issues do not. It's this problem in a society of millions that is highlighted by issues such as the possible aggression-increasing effects of violent or other media.

Hold your horses there Zagreb!

We all "know" that boxing makes people less agressive out o the ring dont we? Well we dont or atleast we should know better than to assume it just because people say it. Its the kind of received wisdom I try to be wary of just adopting, but I know some people whose behaviour and lives improved because of boxing and other agressive sports. Now Im not saying that the regimentation of the sport, the sense of fulfilment, growth in self esteem or just increasing maturity as the people got older werent factors too, but you seem to be saying immersion in regulated violence is at best nuetral. I can think of many examples where its been positive for people and these far out-weight the few who continued to have problems controlling their agression.

"I'm not so sure. Anecdotal evidence: me. I'm not a very aggressive person in real life (quite the opposite), but there are certain situations where the way I act could be perceived as very aggressive. For example, debating on online forums winkeye . Or a better example, when I play poker. Now I know that the way to win at poker against weaker opponents is often to repeatedly put the other player to the test, to give them hard decisions to make, to repeatedly raise their bets and take them out of their comfort zone. So if you're playing poker with me you'll probably have the idea that I'm a pretty nasty guy. The thing is though, I'm just playing a game and I consider it entirely separate to real life."

Well, to some extent that's what I was referring to regarding "able to control it" by which I meant understanding the outcome of aggression and how appropriate it is in a certain situation (as I said, being aggressive in a game has a very different outcome to being aggressive with a stranger in a real-world situation). I think aggression is the same no matter where it's found, it's about how a person applies and controls it. Ultimately, it comes down to our old friend differing personalities.

I agree with FB. "Republican Space Rangers" is hilarious.

Thought you might.... The Radio is class as well no?

The talk shows are immensely funny, yeah.