Video games and Paul Pelosi

As far as I recall, video games linked to violence against people doesn't hold up. At least over multiple studies. It IS linked to more aggression.

But there's always talk on the left or the right about connections to what people say. We're just at the latest incarnation with Pelosi.

What I wonder though, is video games don't generally use real life people in their simulations. If they do, they're usually dead people in a historical context.

So, maybe that is the difference. People may look very real and die in very real bloody ways in video games, but they don't have a real life counterpart with an address where a nutcase can show up to.

I am not sure that I fully understand the premise of this thread, but video games do not cause violence (anymore than movies, TV, books ,etc....)

If you are saying video can promote violence against individuals if they include real life people, I don't know. I can't think of many examples either. Maybe the only living (at the time) example I can think of is Bin Laden. And most such current examples and historic (IE Hitler, various Nazis, Japan, individuals etc...) are people that the vast majority of society would have violent inclinations towards anyway.

There are certainly endless games that feature very real depictions of generic people (military) in countries (U.S. Marines v China, UK Army Taliban etc....), but on the individual level I cannot think of any offhand. And, some that even feature potential conflict that have not (yet) occurred, do these depictions make such conflicts more likely?

There are plenty of games based on movies that feature characters from movies with exact likeness to the actors (which you can argue goes back to the actor), plenty of which in which the actors are villains. And, there are some actors who do independent work for games where their (sometimes scarily close) likeness is captured. This is probably the largest character of individuals that I can think of. To take a classic example, Goldeneye 64 (1997), virtually every character was either an actor from the movie (or past Bond movies) or a member of the studio (who they modeled the random faces for guards and random enemies after). I don't think this increased any of them being expose to violence.

But, I am missing the connection to Paul Pelosi (who I don't know much of to begin with, before the recent attack I did not even know who her husband was). Was he in some kind of game I am assuming based on the inference?

Quote: Gandler

I am not sure that I fully understand the premise of this thread, but video games do not cause violence (anymore than movies, TV, books ,etc....)

No I'm saying the evidence doesn't support it. First sentence

"As far as I recall, video games linked to violence against people doesn't hold up. At least over multiple studies. It IS linked to more aggression."



But I'm linking the possibility that people seem to bring up that people demonizing actual living people does incite violence. That's the difference.

Yes, actors themselves may become a target playing a divisive role continuously. Disturbed people attacking the actor aren't attacking the actor, but the person they have come to imagine is that person.

Btw, I think movies are too short of an exposure, unlike weekly shows where a character returns week after week as far as actor attacks.

Quote: rxwine

No I'm saying the evidence doesn't support it. First sentence

"As far as I recall, video games linked to violence against people doesn't hold up. At least over multiple studies. It IS linked to more aggression."



But I'm linking the possibility that people seem to bring up that people demonizing actual living people does incite violence. That's the difference.

Yes, actors themselves may become a target playing a divisive role continuously. Disturbed people attacking the actor aren't attacking the actor, but the person they have come to imagine is that person.

I am not sure that I even accept "more aggression", what does that mean?

BTW, I brought up video games because it is also media that people have accused of negative behavior.

Quote: Gandler

I am not sure that I even accept "more aggression", what does that mean?

Google violence and video games. Multiple links to peruse.

Quote: rxwine

Google violence and video games. Multiple links to peruse.

I have with mixed results (most focus on short term observations and behaviors right after playing), but I am not the one making the claim.

I would bet results would be identical to how an opposing team is regarded immediately after a sports match.

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2000/04/video-games
(Here is one from 2000, which is very evident with the games that they focus on).

Quote: Gandler

I have with mixed results (most focus on short term observations and behaviors right after playing), but I am not the one making the claim.

I would bet results would be identical to how an opposing team is regarded immediately after a sports match.

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2000/04/video-games
(Here is one from 2000, which is very evident with the games that they focus on).

When I hear, aggressive, I imagine anything from more restless to boisterous to rough play. So, I don't consider that to automatically be violent attacks.

What I was getting at overall is the whole censorship of speech or why personalizing hate speech may be dangerous to other people, but more generalized violent speech may not be as dangerous, or even not at all.