Page 2 of 2 First 12
Results 26 to 32 of 32

  1. Post
    #26
    Pickle Rick wrote:
    What are you saying here? I still don't follow I'm afraid.

    I want to take a stab at what you mean, but you're being so vague it's hard to see the point you are making.
    Nah, I'm good. I'd end up sitting here debating with you forever and I think you would mentally drain me. No offence.

  2. Post
    #27
    Pickle Rick wrote:
    Okay, so your argument is that games don't influence player behaviour in any way at all. I disagree.

    I don't think violent games make people violent, but I do think all forms of media can influence attitudes about all sorts of things, including body image, gender roles, how men and women should act, and how women (and men) should be treated, and so forth.

    It's not just games that are capable of this it's all media. Advertising and propaganda rely on that fact. And it's the cumulative effect of all these media inputs (your beliefs, your interactions with people, and a million other things) rather than one game that will do it. But one game can have an effect.

    So if that's true, why doesn't playing violent games make you violent? Completely theorising here, but I'd say because it's a much smaller step to "a woman's place is in the kitchen" than it is to "I should murder everyone with an axe".
    But that's kinda the point, isn't it? You're just theorising. It doesn't matter the size of the step. If there is a causal link, there is a causal link.

    We should also get Propaganda out of the way right at the beginning. Yes, all media can influence attitudes. But unless it is directed intentionally towards changing attitudes and behavior, it will merely reinforce attitudes and behavior.

    Related directly to the topic at hand, that means that unless a game is specifically intended to change attitudes or behavior towards real world violence, it is only going to, at best, reinforce violent tendencies in violent people - leaving people who aren't violent relatively unchanged. This is supported by numerous studies, some of them you have even read yourself. Thus, people who are not violent are not prone to extra violence after playing violent games.

    It stands to reason that the same is true of other attitudes and behaviors. And as gamers over the years have expressed, shooting hookers in GTA has not made them hate or disrespect women. The ones who do that... hold those attitudes before playing the game. So games would not influence the average gamer to hate or disrespect women any more than it would influence them to be more violent.

    UNLESS, of course, if they already had those tendencies.

    Which means that the problem is a psychological one to do with the individual and generalizing about games (whether violence towards women or violence towards everyone) isn't going to solve anything.

    My problem is that both Trump and Sarkeesian are using the same argument with slightly different focuses. No, Sarkeesian did not specifically mention that games enhance physical violence towards women. But there are other kinds of violence and the root cause, according to both, is the same. Video games.

    Both completely ignore the same things and point to a causal link that is actually just a correlation. Anyone versed in critical thought will tell you that correlation is not causation.

    It isn't video games that are the problem. It is specific individuals who have large flaws in their character.

    And unlike guns, video games don't even facilitate acting on those character flaws to kill.

    So, no. I don't believe games don't affect us in any way at all. At worst, they reinforce attitudes and behavior. But it is those attitudes and behavior that must change, not the games. If you change the games, those attitudes and behavior will still be there. And people will still find ways to share their attitudes and behavior that we don't consider good.

    So when Sarkeesian sits there calling Trump an idiot for using the same argument she has used... that's just silly.

  3. Post
    #28

  4. Post
    #29
    Wow, we have been here before, remember Marilyn Manson and Eminem also caused school shootings (Bowling for Columbine).

    Mostly the school shooters are bullied horrendously throughout most their life and/or have underlying mental issues. That combined with bad guns laws = shootings.

    Video games have zero relevance and I believe it's a deflection of attention around the hard decisions America is about to make (or not make) regarding gun laws.

  5. Post
    #30
    ChrisB wrote:
    how societal norms, or existing detrimental patterns of behavior are being reinforced through interactive media..
    Just curious, is there any empirical studies to show this is the case, because I've heard it a lot, but never sourced...

  6. Post
    #31
    Feliz wrote:
    Just curious, is there any empirical studies to show this is the case, because I've heard it a lot, but never sourced...
    It's a generally accepted truth these days much like the Earth not being flat.

    It's generally accepted because of the original studies around media of any kind and propaganda.

    For a primer, you can start at this Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_through_media

    Jacques Ellul in particular is someone to read since he is widely recognized as the authority on Propaganda. Most modern studies are based off his work. His book Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes defines the models of propaganda used and the language is easy to follow.

    If you are really interested in the subject, pick up his book. It's not a large book and makes for fascinating reading.

    In the end, though, the key word in ChrisB's statement there is "reinforced". He isn't wrong, it does that. All media, not just interactive media, affects us. But unless it is specifically designed (which is hard to do) to change attitudes, it just reinforces.

    "Just". Sure there is a large degree of detrimental effects this has, but only because the patterns of behavior are already present. If they weren't, it wouldn't have much effect at all. That's what is being selectively acknowledged.

    As to pointing to exact studies... there are many and varied. Everything affects your behavior. There are studies in all fields from education to politics to marketing to health to food to ect.

    You want a random sample?

    I doubt you're going to get a response from ChrisB on this. He has declared he will not take part in the conversation if he has to talk about the whole topic and not just selected specifics. Yes, that's a dig at closed minds.

    But I'm hoping that I've provided impartial sources so you can make up your own mind.

  7. Post
    #32
    Case and point.

    "while the controller is already intuitive for the submarine’s sailors."

    “we already have this generation that’s already trained up in their use. So why would we try to use different systems that we’d have to train them how to utilize?”

    https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/18/1...box-controller
    Last edited by Britneys Spear; 19th March 2018 at 3:18 pm.