5 ms·
Or to say the introduction of violent video games in the mid to late 90s and the rise in gun violence in schools in the last few years? Young children growing
by taf2 13y ago
Or to say the introduction of violent video games in the mid to late 90s and the rise in gun violence in schools in the last few years? Young children growing up with the increase exposure to violence could be related?
- mikeash 13y agoPac-Man was introduced in 1980. Many of the children who grew up with it have gone on to spend a lot of time eating pills in the dark while listening to electronic music. The link is clear.
- gjm11 13y agoI think you should give credit where it's due for that joke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Brigstocke#Pac-Man_joke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Brigstocke#Pac-Man_joke.
- mikeash 13y agoHuh, I had no idea it had any origin besides "some anonymous coward on the internet". Appreciate the link.
- CamperBob2 13y agoOr to say the introduction of violent video games in the mid to late 90s and the rise in gun violence in schools in the last few years? Oh, you must mean this ( http://www.theesa.com/policy/scotus_chart.gif http://www.theesa.com/policy/scotus_chart.gif ) rise in violence.
- bnegreve 13y agoI genuinely don't know whether violent video games implies more violent behaviour, but I am 100% sure that this chart doesn't prove or disprove anything.
- sergiosgc 13y agoThe chart plots video game revenue and youngster violent crimes over time. If there is a correlation there, it is negative. It does disprove the theory of video game caused violence.
- bnegreve 13y ago> If there is a correlation there, it is negative Yes that's my main point: this plot does not prove the correlation. If you look at a bigger picture e.g. (maybe here [1], altough it's not technically the same metric) there was a peak around 94. The peak and the relative low value before the peak cannot be explained by video games. And that my second point: no one ever claimed that violence is only caused by video games. Clearly the blue curve is under the influence of (many) other factors, so it's very hard to determine whether there is a correlation without knowing these other factors. But let me say it once again, it's a possibility that video games reduce violence. I am simply saying that if think this is the case because of this plot, you're probably biased. [1] http://www.eji.org/files/juv%20murder%20rate%20drop_0.jpg http://www.eji.org/files/juv%20murder%20rate%20drop_0.jpg
- sergiosgc 13y ago> Yes that's my main point: this plot does not prove the correlation. I don't get your line of reasoning. Let's go through all the scientific method steps: The hypothesis is: Videogames cause violent behaviour in youngsters. The test for this hypothesis is: If videogames cause violent behaviour in youngsters, then we should find a positive correlation between the rise in popularity of videogames and youngster violence. The hypothesis failed the test. The correlation either is not there, or it is there but is negative. We can conclude, from the fact that we did not find a positive correlation, that the hypothesis is false.
- bnegreve 13y ago> We can conclude, from the fact that we did not find a positive correlation, that the hypothesis is false. We could if it was a lab experiment where the only factor that varies would be the popularity of violent video games. But it's not. It's entirely plausible the the increase of home entertainment has indeed reduced the rate of juvenile crimes. (kids don't stay in the street any more). Yet it doesn't say much about how violent games induce violent behaviours.
- err4nt 13y agoOkay, would you mind pointing out to me just when during this timeline you believe video games made a big impact... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the...