Video games don't turn kids into psychop-

The significant difference that was found between the two groups comes from survey opinions from individuals that pointed out who thought it had potential to a "factor" in violent behavior expressed in school. Only an extremely small subset (around 4-6 individuals) were found to directly imitate or observe imitation of violence from violent games. These survey answers are based on comparisons between roughly two categories one which plays mostly Call of Duty then grand there auto/ sports games and the other who play mostly Mario/ The Sims. Other games were listed but we're not significant in popularity or emphasized in the study.

Also

>109 students from seven elementary schools in Ontario
>even study admitted not to apply generalizations to the overall population beyond the sample given

Thread is mostly bait for conversations to those with the patience to review the study given.

How do you know kids already predisposed towards violence aren't just more likely to prefer violent video games?

Doesn't it work more like this though?

>Violent person begins to play violent video games, which encourages him to be more violent

Rather than:

>Non-violent person begins to play violent video games. Becomes violent.

There's a lot of context being missed when you view people and their behaviour in such black and white, cause and effect ways. If a non-violent person can be encourarged to be violent by a video game, were they really non-violent in the first place? And if video games didn't exist, wouldn't those kinds of people find encouragement from other forms of violence that have always existed in this world?

Are you going to stop them from watching movies with friends or pleasure reading in a literature club? Something tells me this isn't going to turn out as you expect.
Besides, if you actually succeed, your kids are going to fucking suck at video games which is kind of pathetic.

It could be the case that there's something intrinsic in certain people that make them susceptible to violent media but what reason do we have to believe this is the case generally? It could just as easily be the case that inherently violent people are made to become violent. I don't think the question is terribly important. We have a justified assumption that the totality of media we consume shape our personalities to some extent so the question becomes by how much. How much is this or that media affecting us and should kids be exposed to it? The question if whether or not people are predisposed to violence is a bit of a red herring.

>It could just as easily be the case that inherently non-violent people are made to become violent

Fixed

>We have a justified assumption that the totality of media we consume shape our personalities to some extent so the question becomes by how much

But the answer is "It depends on the person".

The question then becomes what type of person will it effect the most adversely, and why is that person like that in the first place (can it be prevented?).

The more I read about marketing the more I buy into this idea of violent videogames and movies causing people to become violent. People don't realize how easily they're influenced by the smallest things and I don't see how marketing could work if people weren't influenced by the things they see and hear.

>/pol/ doesn't radicalize stupid people

They could have found out with a real dataset and some more sophisticated methodology.
However, the authors being education majors, that was unlikely to happen from the beginning.

What if she was right the whole time?

correlation vs causation

>poll shows majority of Trump voters shown to have low level of education
>from this we must conclude people who vote for Trump are having their PHDs and diplomas revoked, thereby reducing their official level of education.
>This is possibly in retaliation for voting Trump.

I turned out fine.

>correlation vs causation

I'm starting to hate this phrase because it seems like everyone who uses it has no idea what it means. Nobody is saying violent people play video games therefore videogames cause violence.

Correlation does not neccesarily imply causation

>communism has never been tried

>Nobody is saying violent people play video games

Which is why I brought it up. Violent people need an outlet for their violent tenancies. Video games are that outlet. Simple.

It's so simple that it can never be mentioned in public because it would utterly destroy the narrative the NRA has concocted. They need their scapegoat to draw people away from the fact that the problem is violent people with guns cause gun violence. Video games is a scape goat that's perfect, because it's stood the test of time. It can't be defeated and go away, nor can it be exonerated and go away. As a scapegoat, it'll endure forever and protect them.

What reason do you have to believe that violent media works as an outlet rather than an agitator?

Any evidence that suggests video games is an "agitator" is also evidence that it works as an outlet for violence.
Also, your post is clear evidence you don't understand correlation vs causation.

If videogames causing people to be more violent than they're obviously not alleviating violent attitudes. You can't have it both ways. You said videogames are alleviating violent attitudes, that it's an outlet for violence. We'll tell me why you think that is.

Please enlighten me on correlation vs causation. Explain to how it's relevant when nobody has claimed videogames are causing violence simply because some violent people videogames. That's a strawman.

>I am not a virgin

7k hours of TF2 autistic comp pyro main here. I'd lie if I said the game hasn't changed me in any way, but it didn't make me violent.
Because of TF2 I started running (all the way up to 10 kms a day) because I wanted to be as fast and have as much stamina as the characters from the game. Tf2 also taught me the value of competence, the unforgiving nature of the world and interpersonal relations. Before I started playing tf2 I was your typical soft tomatokid chubber, feeling entitled to everything. Video games can shape character in an extremely positive way as long as they are the kind of games that take work to get good at.

>Going to the gym makes people aggressive too.

No, it's the opposite. It makes you calm and relaxed. You are thinking of roids.

Maybe it's just me, then, but during the periods when I go to the gym, if I skip a day or even have a rest day I feel unrelenting rage at everything around me, and if I don't skip a day I really wanna fuck every woman I see.

"The Attitude Towards violence scale"
Get your middle school tier trash out of here. What the fuck does that even mean?

gay

This is lame shit, it seems like people who do play violent video games would obviously be a group that is selected for more lax attitudes towards violence. And people who avoid violent video games are probably just big moral guardians about muh violence. Great correlation boys

This.
Then they go and vent their frustration with video games.

Meant to quote ^

Mge me, nerd

>what is self control

Something that doesn't exist

No, no, people who play Donkey Kong will be more likely to attack gorillas with hammers and be very good at jumping over barrels.

>anita plays hitman after no video game experience
>immediately starts killing random women and playing with the corpses
Hmm, she was on to something.

Way to focus on the substance of the argument, Thunderf00t.

Back to pol pablo

Not playing vidya as a child probably makes you into some sort of liberal faggot, unless you play sports. Nancies who cry out
> muh violence
when violence is responsible for them living in luxury, hah

Chess? Really? Do you even play Chess? Have you ever joined a Chess club?

Honestly, you'd be better off letting them play Starcraft.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. What's your point? Chess is an objectively better game for developing kids to play.

cesr.ua.edu/chess-studies-summary/

video games turn kids into brainlet CS majors who say that calculus and linear algebra are too useless and difficult and just wanna make videogames.

Really?
Have you never stopped yourself from doing something you felt urged to do?

> no comparison with alternative strategic games

Maybe they were already psychopaths before, and that's the reason they play violent video games, faggot?

hi

Imo being subjected to a constant barrage of flashing colors and lights for 20 hours a week as a developing child will turn anyone into a bit of a psycho, at least temporarily.
I don't think it will necessarily make you act violently, but it will probably fry your brain a little and make you crave similar stimuli.

t. sheltered kid who never owned a videgam

I think the problem of chess is that to compete you have to get through a huge wall of learning positions and openings because the game is rigid enough in its rules for such knowledge based approach to be effective. It makes it really fucking boring from intermediate to (allegedly, I never made it there, I just quit the club) master level. No time limit chess is fine in that regard but tournaments last days.
Why not SupCom ?

I'm sorry but your twitch based toys that are called strategy are not comparable in any way to a game like chess. There's no problem solving in Starcraft.

Chess are cool, but it's not like it's the only puzzle pvp game in existance.
Take Worms Armageddon for instance.

Also while most real time strategy games are micro based there are rts games that focus on long term planning and resource optimisation and production logistics, like supreme commander, and virtually every rts on the market requires improvisation and multitasking/

Openings are the last you learn in chess because they're the least important. This is why Magnus Carlson says people shouldn't even bother studying them until they're in the 2000+ Elo range. If you're only memorizing positions you're only hurting yourself as a player because you're not learning how to think and react. This is unfortunately a common approach toward the game which is why guys like Ben Finegold love to take the piss out of midrange players by opening the game with silly shit like a4 and winning. They're focusing too much on theory and they burn out when they run into a developmental wall.

My chess club sucked dick, then.

Where's the science behind your claim?

>If it was true that the media has no effect on our personality then wouldn't it also be true that the people we surround ourselves with have no effect?
that is largely true though
when it does have an effect it's very often reinforcing things they already believe, either through agreement or opposition

>you are what you do
amazing that it takes scientists this fucking LONG to realize something the ancient greeks did over 2000 years ago.

The only people really denying it are the overly defensive gamers.

Nintendo Switch turn Wojaks into SoyBoys

Animated Gif version

>love guro
>dislike real violence
cool study

There's no research to say that chess isn't comparable to Starcraft because it's not a scientific claim.