The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[PaulF]

I'd also like to comment that there is a difference in enjoying fantasy violence and enjoying real violence.

People who enjoy real violence may also enjoy fantansy violence, but I don't think the same can be said in reverse.

For instance...I don't look at traffic accidents or watch "Violent Justice" videos on youtube because I don't enjoy watching real people - even "bad" ones - get hurt...but I love to watch John Wick tear through the Red Circle stacking bodies in his wake. It's fantasy violence...appropriate in its context: as a storytelling device.

 

[BugI02]

Definitely open to studies proving otherwise, too. I just don't think it's there right now.

Regardless, I think far more good comes from the gaming industry than any perceived bad. The communities, interactions with peers, cooperation skills. Education is a huge benefit, too.

That and it's a hugely profitable hobby, brings great stories and experiences to people much like movies/books. I have a hard time leveling with a politician that wants to restrict the medium when it brings so much positive and good. Some of the best stories I've taken in were from video games. Some of the best art I've seen has originated from video games. Even violent ones.

So, this post would seem to indicate there are studies proving these enumerated benefits from gaming?

And the statement "Some of the best art I've seen has originated from video games" just makes me sad. Perhaps we are the new Phillistines

 

[PaulF]

So, this post would seem to indicate there are studies proving these enumerated benefits from gaming?

And the statement "Some of the best art I've seen has originated from video games" just makes me sad. Perhaps we are the new Phillistines

I'm sorry Bug...the first time I saw Rapture in "Bioshock" I was moved the same way I was when I got to see Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks" in person. The difference is that I got to spend hours reveling in that feeling in my own home on my own time as I explored the content of the game.

There really is art there. You have to be open to it, I guess.

 

[printcraft]

I know since I started playing R6 Siege I instinctively want to shoot every video camera I see in real life.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So, this post would seem to indicate there are studies proving these enumerated benefits from gaming?

And the statement "Some of the best art I've seen has originated from video games" just makes me sad. Perhaps we are the new Phillistines

I'm sorry Bug...the first time I saw Rapture in "Bioshock" I was moved the same way I was when I got to see Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks" in person. The difference is that I got to spend hours reveling in that feeling in my own home on my own time as I explored the content of the game.

There really is art there. You have to be open to it, I guess.

Heck, I wasn't even talking about the video games themselves as art, but that's certainly another factor. I was talking about the art that people have created based on video game characters/worlds.

And it's not like there's a finite amount of appreciation that people can have for art. Games are just another medium. I'd consider some TV series to be "art", and certainly many modern movies. I can't say I have much of an eye for banana's taped to a wall when it comes to "art", though...

 

[nonobaddog]

Definitely open to studies proving otherwise, too. I just don't think it's there right now.

Regardless, I think far more good comes from the gaming industry than any perceived bad. The communities, interactions with peers, cooperation skills. Education is a huge benefit, too.

That and it's a hugely profitable hobby, brings great stories and experiences to people much like movies/books. I have a hard time leveling with a politician that wants to restrict the medium when it brings so much positive and good. Some of the best stories I've taken in were from video games. Some of the best art I've seen has originated from video games. Even violent ones.

What games are you talking about? I am not much of a gamer and I have never considered games as a source of art or story lines of any quality let alone the best quality. I would like to see these games.

 

[BugI02]

I'm saying we need to know why the data was excluded, not that it precludes your points. The graph you show definitely shows an uptick, but I can present a graph that shows a correlation between real butter vs margarine and the effects it has on divorce rates. (this is an actual graph that exists that shows higher divorce rates coincide with couples that use margarine instead of real butter) Does that mean using real butter will make your marriage better? Of course not. What it might show is that people with traditional values tend to use real butter and traditional values make marriages last. Without all the information, the graph is useless and is mostly pointless correlation anyway. Even if we say there was an uptick in violence, we can't outright say "Video games did this." as anything more than conjecture.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

Here's a graph showing the trend for the last 27 years nationwide minus the most recent two. This is arguably the time that video games have been most harshly impacting the youth in our culture.

I would note two caveats

1) The information I presented was specific to murder, with information where available on type of victim since the subject was random murder. Your information is for the less focused 'violent crime', the precise definition of which used I cannot determine without an account. I also cannot determine what reporting organizations and standards were used (you yourself were concerned about excluded/unreported data) and my source was transparent and held by some to be definitive (FBI)

2) Your data was in the form of per capita reports of 'violent crime' rather than raw numbers, this will only show trends that are growing faster than the rate of population growth. If Ilhan Omar's district has an increase of 'violent crime' by 6% but a 10% increase in population what would a per capita crime rate show. Following are made up numbers to show the point:

2018 80000 people 2000 'violent crimes' 2000/80000 gives 0.025 crimes/person or 2500 'violent crimes' per 100000 in the scale of your cite

2019 88000 people 2120 'violent crimes' 2120/88000 gives 0.02409 crimes/person or 2409 'violent crimes' per 100000 in the scale of the cite. So, is crime increasing or decreasing in her district?

 

[PaulF]

What games are you talking about? I am not much of a gamer and I have never considered games as a source of art or story lines of any quality let alone the best quality. I would like to see these games.

Stories:
The last of Us
Red Dead Redemption 2
Bioshock (and sequals)
Half-Life (and sequals)

Visuals:
The Legend of Zelda series (highlights are Wind Waker and Breath of the Wild)
No Man's Sky
Forza (Xbox) Grand Turismo (PS)

The single most frightening media experience I have ever had:
Alien Isolation - with all the lights off and surround sound on high.

(this list is severely incomplete)

 

[nonobaddog]

I would note two caveats

1) The information I presented was specific to murder, with information where available on type of victim since the subject was random murder. Your information is for the less focused 'violent crime', the precise definition of which used I cannot determine without an account. I also cannot determine what reporting organizations and standards were used (you yourself were concerned about excluded/unreported data) and my source was transparent and held by some to be definitive (FBI)

2) Your data was in the form of per capita reports of 'violent crime' rather than raw numbers, this will only show trends that are growing faster than the rate of population growth. If Ilhan Omar's district has an increase of 'violent crime' by 6% but a 10% increase in population what would a per capita crime rate show. Following are made up numbers to show the point:

2018 80000 people 2000 'violent crimes' 2000/80000 gives 0.025 crimes/person or 2500 'violent crimes' per 100000 in the scale of your cite

2019 88000 people 2120 'violent crimes' 2120/88000 gives 0.02409 crimes/person or 2409 'violent crimes' per 100000 in the scale of the cite. So, is crime increasing or decreasing in her district?

It seems that too many people go into this type of data analysis with an agenda. The choices, such as the definition of 'violent crime', definition of the geographical area or population, definition of the years or time to include, etc. all can be manipulated to suit the agenda. Then one can also rationalize excluding some data as outliers and such if it doesn't help the agenda.
It seems the same data can be made to support opposite conclusions if one plays the analysis game right.

These days one needs the complete set of raw data so one can analyze the analysis for agenda driven manipulation.

 

[BugI02]

It seems that too many people go into this type of data analysis with an agenda. The choices, such as the definition of 'violent crime', definition of the geographical area or population, definition of the years or time to include, etc. all can be manipulated to suit the agenda. Then one can also rationalize excluding some data as outliers and such if it doesn't help the agenda.
It seems the same data can be made to support opposite conclusions if one plays the analysis game right.

These days one needs the complete set of raw data so one can analyze the analysis for agenda driven manipulation.

Bingo!

/Internet (today)

It's why, if you look, just about all alarmist climate data is presented graphed in some bull**** scale like "deviation from expected temperature"

 

[VulpesForge]

I would note two caveats

1) The information I presented was specific to murder, with information where available on type of victim since the subject was random murder. Your information is for the less focused 'violent crime', the precise definition of which used I cannot determine without an account. I also cannot determine what reporting organizations and standards were used (you yourself were concerned about excluded/unreported data) and my source was transparent and held by some to be definitive (FBI)

2) Your data was in the form of per capita reports of 'violent crime' rather than raw numbers, this will only show trends that are growing faster than the rate of population growth. If Ilhan Omar's district has an increase of 'violent crime' by 6% but a 10% increase in population what would a per capita crime rate show. Following are made up numbers to show the point:

2018 80000 people 2000 'violent crimes' 2000/80000 gives 0.025 crimes/person or 2500 'violent crimes' per 100000 in the scale of your cite

2019 88000 people 2120 'violent crimes' 2120/88000 gives 0.02409 crimes/person or 2409 'violent crimes' per 100000 in the scale of the cite. So, is crime increasing or decreasing in her district?

I think we needed to look at violent crime in general as the theory of video games cause violence and not just a specified target area in a specific year as that gets too specific and is easily skewed. What we're looking at is the generally accepted "violent crime is going down since the repeal or expiration of the Clinton era AWB". Raw numbers are easily manipulated. Per capita is the only accurate way to acknowledge statistics. I understand how it might seem nothing is changing but density on the surface. If there is a set amount of crime within a population and the population increases yet the crime remains the same, the crime rate per capita reduces. This means that a core group is causing the problem and not necessarily birth rates or immigration to the populace. This indicates an overall decrease in crime as the likelihood of crime committed per person has decreased. There are concentrated areas of crime versus new people committing new crimes.

Her district has a reduced crime rate because the likelihood per person to commit a crime has decreased. Yes the raw number of crimes has increased, but you have to account for population growth and this is why raw numbers are so thoroughly misleading.

 

[VulpesForge]

Also these are the generally accepted FBI statistics for federally reported violent crime.

 

[VulpesForge]

It seems that too many people go into this type of data analysis with an agenda. The choices, such as the definition of 'violent crime', definition of the geographical area or population, definition of the years or time to include, etc. all can be manipulated to suit the agenda. Then one can also rationalize excluding some data as outliers and such if it doesn't help the agenda.
It seems the same data can be made to support opposite conclusions if one plays the analysis game right.

These days one needs the complete set of raw data so one can analyze the analysis for agenda driven manipulation.

This is what I was stating earlier with the whole %10 missing data issue. And also why I chose FBI reported violent crime as a baseline as violent crime was the metric used to determine whether or not video games usage and violence correlated. Big tip, they're opposing graph lines.

 

[Leadeye]

I'm curious how and if the numbers take into account rises and falls in the rather disputatious drug business. I often hear statistics spouted by gun control groups about the deaths of children and find that the numbers include age 18 and below with no allowance for the drug business. Personally I think it's a stretch to say video games are a big influence on violent behavior unless you can extract drug business related behavior.

 

[BugI02]

Also these are the generally accepted FBI statistics for federally reported violent crime.

But one question I would have (which I can't see in your presentation) is, is it just the FBI data that is used and what crimes are included as violent crimes. When the subject is random killing, presenting data on robbery or assault is just as likely to open avenues for manipulation of stats as anything else

And the thought occurs, what would be the response in there were 'First person Rapist' games - that they would be a good way to harmlessly vent sexual frustration? The question is ever where to draw the line

 

[Ingomike]

Sure. If you're playing games which could improve skills for surgery, and you're focusing on sharpening those skills, yeah. And, maybe playing FPS games will make people better shooters. Maybe paying racing games will make people better race car drivers. We're talking about intent here. There's no credible evidence that age appropriate video games make people want to harm people, though I might concede that playing certain video games may make them better at it if they decide to. But I seriously doubt they make people who didn't want to harm people before they played, want to harm people after they played.

But. I might also concede that some players may be violent idiots already, and perhaps they should stay away from video games that might trigger them. For example, the ********** in Honduras who cussed me out in broken English in a PM because I kept shooting the n00b in the face during a BF4 session. It was like 3 or 4 times in a row. And it wasn't that I'm all that good. It's just that he was even worse. I had no desire to physically harm him IRL. But I'm pretty sure he wanted to punch me in the face. He sure knew how to spell mother****er in English.

I once had a Camaro Z28, after watching Smokey And The Bandit I wanted to go drive fast, and did some in the out country roads, I was a teen that watched a movie then wanted to emulate it. It was in my wheelhouse and I had the car. Many shooting instructors say women have fewer built in bad habits than men because the rarely watched western and army movies and got enthused, whereas boys would emulate what they saw including poor gun handling techniques. When most girls watched there was not much affect because it was not in their wheelhouse like it was for boys.

I am not calling for games to be controlled or censored in any way, just an acknowledgment that they can provide a mindset in some people to do atrocious things. Take the Sandy Hook kid, disturbed, maladjusted, on psychotic drugs, spent his days and nights playing violent video games. He then decided to take the games to real life, in the video in his mind he was not killing innocent elementary kids, he was visualizing being the star like in the video game while lashing out at a society he did not fit in.

There will never be a "study" that will quell this debate as the issue is based on thoughts raging through a damaged mind. I am completely confident that most of us could be shown a constant stream of movies or play games that went against our core values and they are never going to make us change those values. But in the hands of some in our communities they can be a skills boot as well as a visualization of how to perform it.

Just as we acknowledge that we should keep unsupervised guns out of the hands of young children and mentally ill or unstable, so it should be with violent video games...

 

[nonobaddog]

I think we needed to look at violent crime in general as the theory of video games cause violence and not just a specified target area in a specific year as that gets too specific and is easily skewed. What we're looking at is the generally accepted "violent crime is going down since the repeal or expiration of the Clinton era AWB". Raw numbers are easily manipulated. Per capita is the only accurate way to acknowledge statistics. I understand how it might seem nothing is changing but density on the surface. If there is a set amount of crime within a population and the population increases yet the crime remains the same, the crime rate per capita reduces. This means that a core group is causing the problem and not necessarily birth rates or immigration to the populace. This indicates an overall decrease in crime as the likelihood of crime committed per person has decreased. There are concentrated areas of crime versus new people committing new crimes.

Her district has a reduced crime rate because the likelihood per person to commit a crime has decreased. Yes the raw number of crimes has increased, but you have to account for population growth and this is why raw numbers are so thoroughly misleading.

I disagree. The raw numbers are the 'facts'. Raw numbers include the crime numbers and include the population numbers. What you do with the numbers is the analysis. The manipulation comes in during the analysis. It is always best to have the raw numbers available.
If you want to look at crime per capita that is fine and a very good way to analyze this. But the raw numbers should always be available. The population numbers are often behind reality for recent data so it may happen that one gets access to more accurate population numbers. If the raw numbers are available you can reanalyze the crime per capita statistic more accurately. If all you have is the processed numbers you may not be able to reanalyze. Not in this case but in general someone may disagree with the processing used. If the raw numbers are available different processing can be done.

Raw data is the gold standard. Processed data is for easy digestion.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Take the Sandy Hook kid, disturbed, maladjusted, on psychotic drugs, spent his days and nights playing violent video games. He then decided to take the games to real life, in the video in his mind he was not killing innocent elementary kids, he was visualizing being the star like in the video game while lashing out at a society he did not fit in.

I have many issues with this.

First:

Lanza was playing DDR (Dance Dance Revolution) "most every Friday through Sunday," for "four to ten hours," says the report.

It's quite a different picture of Lanza than what emerged in mainstream media—and particularly in a fulminating news conference held by the National Rifle Association—about Lanza's gaming habits and the implications they influenced his behavior.

To be sure, investigators recovered several video games from the family home, and among them are titles very familiar to the violent video games debate: Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, Doom and Left 4 Dead. But other titles cameo in the report, too, including Pikmin, Paper Mario, Shin Megami Tensei, LEGO Star Wars and Kingdom Hearts.

Second:

As gun owners, we should be very aware of how small details can be stretched to mean something they aren't. Yes? If something tragic were to happen to "INGO User X", and police found a small collection of... oh... four guns in his home... Some in the media would justify calling that an arsenal. I have literally hundreds of games, probably near 1000. Any "journalist" could probably cherry-pick a few of them to create an image of me that would be wholly inaccurate.

Finally:

"He then decided to take the games to real life, in the video in his mind he was not killing innocent elementary kids, he was visualizing being the star like in the video game while lashing out at a society he did not fit in."

This is created by you. This is fiction. This is how you believe it played out, (possibly) presented as fact. Just want to clear that up.

 

[BugI02]

I'm curious how and if the numbers take into account rises and falls in the rather disputatious drug business. I often hear statistics spouted by gun control groups about the deaths of children and find that the numbers include age 18 and below with no allowance for the drug business. Personally I think it's a stretch to say video games are a big influence on violent behavior unless you can extract drug business related behavior.

Are people taught to place a low value on another human's life, or is it in the genome?

If they are taught, why couldn't carnage-infused video games be a contributor to that 'education' just as well as absent father figures or lack of a moral framework. No one influence can be said to be the critical one, but to my mind that just suggests all the potentially corrupting influences should be considered

 

[VulpesForge]

But one question I would have (which I can't see in your presentation) is, is it just the FBI data that is used and what crimes are included as violent crimes. When the subject is random killing, presenting data on robbery or assault is just as likely to open avenues for manipulation of stats as anything else

And the thought occurs, what would be the response in there were 'First person Rapist' games - that they would be a good way to harmlessly vent sexual frustration? The question is ever where to draw the line

There is a standard the FBI uses that list five types of crimes. Violent crime consists of five criminal offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and gang violence; taken from the Wikipedia that links to the FBI website, which can be followed easily enough. The chart I linked is consistent with the FBI data. If there is other data in there it simply follows the same trend. All of this is available on the fbi.(gov) website.

First person rapist video games don't exist to my knowledge, but I can appreciate the thought experiment. FPS games activate different parts of the brain than actually shooting people or violence does, and I would have to see the data on whether or not these "FPR" games affected the users psyche in a significant way and whether or not sexual crime increases could be directly linked to the usage of such a game. I would personally find such a game rather abhorrent as I'm sure most of the market would, which is most of the point of your using it as an example, correct? Either way, without that data point and the knowledge of how it affects the brain we can't tell. They would almost certainly be two different avenues. However, to my knowledge you can over the shoulder perspective bang a hooker in some of the Grand theft auto games and then kill her to get your money back, and I'm sure there are other examples, but the violent crime rate according to the FBI statistics is still at a 30 year low.