Aren't males naturaly violent?
by Dominik Grabiec · in General Discussion · 12/19/2002 (4:29 pm) · 11 replies
I was watching late night tv here last night, and tuned into the American "today" programme that's on NBC I think? Anyways they were running this article about this doctor that's been studying people playing violent videogames, and they showed that from a normal population, the two groups of people, one exposed to a lot of violent video games, and the other not. Showed that the violent videogame group got into fights 38% of the time, while the other one was only 4% of the time. Also the doctor guy said that a person's heart rate is heightened, so as their blood pressure when they are playing violent videogames.
But I'm asking, aren't males naturally more violent? In most (nearly all?) animal species the males are usually terratorial and aggressive. That would mean that we should be getting into fights (not with guns, but brawling etc). So then what's the big problem with violent video games, if anything playing some quake or counter strike against other people should help us fit in with our instincts somewhat.
Although I agreed with the idea that parents should exert some control and authority over what games thier children play on the computer - that I do not dispute.
Anyways I'm babbling now, so that's it.
But I'm asking, aren't males naturally more violent? In most (nearly all?) animal species the males are usually terratorial and aggressive. That would mean that we should be getting into fights (not with guns, but brawling etc). So then what's the big problem with violent video games, if anything playing some quake or counter strike against other people should help us fit in with our instincts somewhat.
Although I agreed with the idea that parents should exert some control and authority over what games thier children play on the computer - that I do not dispute.
Anyways I'm babbling now, so that's it.
About the author
#2
Aren't we talking about the chicken and the egg here? I mean, is it videogames that made that group violent, or the fact that they like violence that allowed them to gravitate towards the violent games?
I agree, it is well-established that males of almost all species are violent, as nature designed. Whether it's genetic in humans is another question, though I remember watching a program on criminal profiling some years back where a psychologist said(paraphrased)"We know exactly the type of person who commits a crime. He is a human male."
IMHO, the study is much ado created out of nothing, about nothing. Humans have been violent throughout our evolutionary history, even to the point of being suspected of wiping out other species of humans. So I don't think that the introduction of video games over the last 20/30 years have made the impact that some studies claim to observe. I think they are observing those with violent tendancies enacting that violence on virtual opponents, even though they do get violent in public as well(which may not be a side effect of the games at all). Hell, the most violent people I know don't play video games much if at all, though their age also makes them old enough not to have grown up with them.
So there you have it: Did video games make us violent, or are we violent to begin with. I think it's the latter, with obvious influences from the surrounding environment contributing to the end result.
12/19/2002 (4:56 pm)
An age-old debate, and one that won't be solved anytime soon. But here's my take on the study(and any study, on either side of this debate):Aren't we talking about the chicken and the egg here? I mean, is it videogames that made that group violent, or the fact that they like violence that allowed them to gravitate towards the violent games?
I agree, it is well-established that males of almost all species are violent, as nature designed. Whether it's genetic in humans is another question, though I remember watching a program on criminal profiling some years back where a psychologist said(paraphrased)"We know exactly the type of person who commits a crime. He is a human male."
IMHO, the study is much ado created out of nothing, about nothing. Humans have been violent throughout our evolutionary history, even to the point of being suspected of wiping out other species of humans. So I don't think that the introduction of video games over the last 20/30 years have made the impact that some studies claim to observe. I think they are observing those with violent tendancies enacting that violence on virtual opponents, even though they do get violent in public as well(which may not be a side effect of the games at all). Hell, the most violent people I know don't play video games much if at all, though their age also makes them old enough not to have grown up with them.
So there you have it: Did video games make us violent, or are we violent to begin with. I think it's the latter, with obvious influences from the surrounding environment contributing to the end result.
#3
Just a few years ago they were talking about teenage super predators who would gun down thier class mates with automatic weapons on a daily basis.
12/19/2002 (5:06 pm)
The media is bad about this violence stuff.Just a few years ago they were talking about teenage super predators who would gun down thier class mates with automatic weapons on a daily basis.
#5
Aggressiveness isn't neccessarily a bad thing as it promotes competition.
However, violence simply leads to angry/bitterness and injury. Its very counter productive.
Theres a fine line between aggression and violence, basically the latter tends to occur because of poor rationalizing and poor social controls/outlets.
12/20/2002 (5:54 am)
As I've said before... don't confuse aggressive with violent.Aggressiveness isn't neccessarily a bad thing as it promotes competition.
However, violence simply leads to angry/bitterness and injury. Its very counter productive.
Theres a fine line between aggression and violence, basically the latter tends to occur because of poor rationalizing and poor social controls/outlets.
#6
Essentially, when an M.D. does a study like this, ignore it. They generally don't know a lot about scientific method as it applies in these cases.
When you see a social psychologist do a study, then you sit up and take notice.
12/20/2002 (6:13 am)
Classic case of a 'self selecting sample.'Essentially, when an M.D. does a study like this, ignore it. They generally don't know a lot about scientific method as it applies in these cases.
When you see a social psychologist do a study, then you sit up and take notice.
#7
Now, the current application of the data is a shot in the dark like most of the other studies. It 's always interesting to see groups start with a conclusion (violent videogames = violent youths) and work their way backwards.
BTW, Bryan's separation of aggression and violence was one of the best things to keep in mind whenever one of these studies comes up, because it is so true.
12/20/2002 (7:19 am)
The thing that I found interesting about the study was the fact that the people tested had an outward calm and concentration while their bodies were extremely active on the inside: their brains, their hearts, their blood pressure. The actual data from the tests would be an interesting read because it would help us as designers and developers understand the physilogical stress that we happily give gamers. When looking at your audience, you need as much data as possible.Now, the current application of the data is a shot in the dark like most of the other studies. It 's always interesting to see groups start with a conclusion (violent videogames = violent youths) and work their way backwards.
BTW, Bryan's separation of aggression and violence was one of the best things to keep in mind whenever one of these studies comes up, because it is so true.
#8
12/22/2002 (2:47 pm)
Certainly playing a video game is much better than staring at a television and watching a movie for two hours. At least your brain is coordinating something when you play a game. Heck, if it's strategy, you're actually improving your logic and reasoning skills, like chess.
#9
However, I do that for the same reason that I climb very tall steep rocks, and snowboard, and do all of the other things I do that cause my body physical harm.
There is a MASSIVE difference between VIOLENCE and "getting in fights". I get in lots of fights, but they're of the "Quiet Man" variety -- a brawl to settle a slight or percieved slight between two men. (Or boys, if you want to argue maturity ;) ). Half of the time, a fight is a good way of making a new friend, because you know a lot about someone after you fight them.
I mean, hell yes we need to fight. We need to take out our agression in SOME way, need to use up the fight-or-flight response chemicals in our bodies that build up from ordinary stress.
'Normal', 'well-adjusted' people just let it build up, then explode at a spouse or child or co-worker, which tends to just worsen the situation, create more stress, and create a continued buildup of immediate stress chemicals, which are pretty bad for you.
Note: or they work it out in a gym. However, for people that aren't very self-confident, or are very self-conscious, the experience can be robbed of its usefulness by their constant self-image insecurities, which don't allow them to focus on getting the release they need.
Whereas I, who get in at least one fight a week (on average) and am constantly banged up from doing other similarly stupid shit, am one of the most relaxed, cheerful guys you're ever going to meet on planet Earth.
12/23/2002 (4:55 am)
I get in lots of fights. I never start them, but I never run away, either.However, I do that for the same reason that I climb very tall steep rocks, and snowboard, and do all of the other things I do that cause my body physical harm.
There is a MASSIVE difference between VIOLENCE and "getting in fights". I get in lots of fights, but they're of the "Quiet Man" variety -- a brawl to settle a slight or percieved slight between two men. (Or boys, if you want to argue maturity ;) ). Half of the time, a fight is a good way of making a new friend, because you know a lot about someone after you fight them.
I mean, hell yes we need to fight. We need to take out our agression in SOME way, need to use up the fight-or-flight response chemicals in our bodies that build up from ordinary stress.
'Normal', 'well-adjusted' people just let it build up, then explode at a spouse or child or co-worker, which tends to just worsen the situation, create more stress, and create a continued buildup of immediate stress chemicals, which are pretty bad for you.
Note: or they work it out in a gym. However, for people that aren't very self-confident, or are very self-conscious, the experience can be robbed of its usefulness by their constant self-image insecurities, which don't allow them to focus on getting the release they need.
Whereas I, who get in at least one fight a week (on average) and am constantly banged up from doing other similarly stupid shit, am one of the most relaxed, cheerful guys you're ever going to meet on planet Earth.
#10
Look at the state of our male dominated world.
12/23/2002 (6:08 am)
Apocalypse here we come! yeah aggressive competition can hurt as much help. No good can ever come from hurting anyone in anyway. Even in video games when were just hitting buttons to hurt each other. Look at the state of our male dominated world.
#11
12/23/2002 (6:51 am)
only read the first post but here's my opinion... I weigh 170 pounds, can bench 270 (just so its clear that I'm not just a skinny little wuss), I play games all the time and I've never gotten in a fight 
Torque Owner Bryan Robertson
Aggressive is simple bravado , with a tendancy of threat displays.
Violent is when your react with physical violence.
The problem with most of these studies is the improper coorelation in regards to other factors in a particular groups conditions.
Heck, I've grown up with violent material around me my entire life. But do I go out and start fights, nope.
Alot my friends have grown up in the same enviroment, are they out commiting assualts. Well only one, but he was diagnosed a sociopath with violent tendancies. ( It runs in his family.)
All this is, is an attempt to create an easy answer to a problem thats too hard to fully explain.