The problem i have with this whole argument is that everyone, from the media to the gamers trying to defend video games, gets it wrong. The main issue that people are getting wrong regarding the influence of video game, and in general all media violence, on children is the difference between correlations and causation. Video game violence, just like other violent forms of media, correlates with higher levels of violence in children. However, and this is important, this does not mean that video games cause violent behavior. A correlation, even and abnormally strong one, can never completely explain any kind of behavior. For example, the average correlation that has been found across millions of different studies averages out to about eight percent. This means that the average study that finds an average corollary effect will explain about eight percent of any kind of behavior. Video games have been found to have a below average correlation on violent behavior, which means it might explain about five or six percent of the violent behavior. So overall, video games may have a small influence on behavior, but there are other more important factors, such as parenting style, temperament, and upbringing.
I agree that exposing your kids to mature content at a young age can be beneficial. It depends, however, on why and how you do it. When I was 5 my mom told me about sex (I don't remember if I asked about it or not). She told me how it works pretty much exactly how a biology textbook would put it. She didn't have to show me porn. I just thought at the time that it sounded like the grossest thing ever and decided I never wanted to have sex. Because I was 5, I had never heard much about it before, this was my first exposure to it, and it was successful (I knew what it was, but didn't want to do it myself or watch it). When I was older I wanted to know what people looked like naked (I either told her or she figured it out), so my mom got me a kids picture book with naked people in it to show me what naked people look like. Therefore I knew what naked people looked like, and that was it. No need to find porn or anything with my friends.
I'm using myself as an example because I think this is a good approach to exposing kids to mature content. I remember when I would be around my friends (mainly the boys) when they were playing "violent" video games. (At the time the games were considered violent, but of course today they are nothing). They would be so excited about this new exposure to violence that they would mimic the game because it was something they had never really seen. (I still don't get why their parents wouldn't let them watch violent movies, but let them play those games). Remember Mortal Kombat? Boys loved to copy some of those moves on each other, and it got pretty dangerous sometimes. I remember watching Power Rangers once and I got so excited that I jumped up onto a glass coffee table at my friend's house and tried to do their fancy 80s style moves. I ended up smashing right through it and was banned from coming back to his house (I didn't get hurt, though, thankfully). But I never tried kicking other kids because my parents made it very clear that it was wrong.
I am not trying to say that video games cause kids to be violent. Keep in mind I am referring to the kind of extreme violence you see in the media (movies, video games, etc.). I am saying that video games are ONE way that kids can be exposed. I think that keeping the kids sheltered from the violence might cause them to react in a bad way when they are exposed eventually. Unfortunately, some kids will be exposed to violence when they go to their friend's house and see them playing violent games (or watching movies, etc.) Then again, other kids will have parents that will sit with them during a violent movie and explain why these violent actions are considered violent in the first place, and that they should not copy this violence. So what Andrew meant was that if the kid really wants to play a mature game, it would be wise for the parent to be involved in this experience, rather than letting little Johnny play his shoot em' up game by himself while Mommy cooks supper and Daddy is at work. He did not say that you should purposefully expose the kid to violence to teach them a lesson, but to be responsible when your child gets to that age or starts getting curious about video games and R movies and such.
I agree that exposing your kids to mature content at a young age can be beneficial. It depends, however, on why and how you do it. When I was 5 my mom told me about sex (I don't remember if I asked about it or not). She told me how it works pretty much exactly how a biology textbook would put it. She didn't have to show me porn. I just thought at the time that it sounded like the grossest thing ever and decided I never wanted to have sex. Because I was 5, I had never heard much about it before, this was my first exposure to it, and it was successful (I knew what it was, but didn't want to do it myself or watch it). When I was older I wanted to know what people looked like naked (I either told her or she figured it out), so my mom got me a kids picture book with naked people in it to show me what naked people look like. Therefore I knew what naked people looked like, and that was it. No need to find porn or anything with my friends.
I'm using myself as an example because I think this is a good approach to exposing kids to mature content. I remember when I would be around my friends (mainly the boys) when they were playing "violent" video games. (At the time the games were considered violent, but of course today they are nothing). They would be so excited about this new exposure to violence that they would mimic the game because it was something they had never really seen. (I still don't get why their parents wouldn't let them watch violent movies, but let them play those games). Remember Mortal Kombat? Boys loved to copy some of those moves on each other, and it got pretty dangerous sometimes. I remember watching Power Rangers once and I got so excited that I jumped up onto a glass coffee table at my friend's house and tried to do their fancy 80s style moves. I ended up smashing right through it and was banned from coming back to his house (I didn't get hurt, though, thankfully). But I never tried kicking other kids because my parents made it very clear that it was wrong.
I am not trying to say that video games cause kids to be violent. Keep in mind I am referring to the kind of extreme violence you see in the media (movies, video games, etc.). I am saying that video games are ONE way that kids can be exposed. I think that keeping the kids sheltered from the violence might cause them to react in a bad way when they are exposed eventually. Unfortunately, some kids will be exposed to violence when they go to their friend's house and see them playing violent games (or watching movies, etc.) Then again, other kids will have parents that will sit with them during a violent movie and explain why these violent actions are considered violent in the first place, and that they should not copy this violence. So what Andrew meant was that if the kid really wants to play a mature game, it would be wise for the parent to be involved in this experience, rather than letting little Johnny play his shoot em' up game by himself while Mommy cooks supper and Daddy is at work. He did not say that you should purposefully expose the kid to violence to teach them a lesson, but to be responsible when your child gets to that age or starts getting curious about video games and R movies and such.
There is a difference between mature ideas and mature content. I am all for letting kids know about sex, the nature of violence, etc. I just would never use GTA to express that idea, as the content - while adult - is not "mature" by any sense. It deals with hyper-violent and unrealistic scenarios and sex involves getting in a car and making your health bar go up. How is this helpful?
There is a difference between mature ideas and mature content. I am all for letting kids know about sex, the nature of violence, etc. I just would never use GTA to express that idea, as the content - while adult - is not "mature" by any sense. It deals with hyper-violent and unrealistic scenarios and sex involves getting in a car and making your health bar go up. How is this helpful?
Just a question, but have you played GTA IV for any significant amount of time?
There is a difference between mature ideas and mature content. I am all for letting kids know about sex, the nature of violence, etc. I just would never use GTA to express that idea, as the content - while adult - is not "mature" by any sense. It deals with hyper-violent and unrealistic scenarios and sex involves getting in a car and making your health bar go up. How is this helpful?
Just a question, but have you played GTA IV for any significant amount of time?
Not IV, but several other GTA games, thus I have not cited GTA IV specifically. I played the earlier games a couple of years ago for weeks to write a piece on for my college paper that addressed some of the concerns raised by our Womens' Studies group on campus because it was on one of the consoles in our the campuses main gaming area, and it couldn't be avoided if you were in that room. Some ladies raised a stink. The point of my article was that there were more students that wanted to play the game than wanted to it removed, and thus democracy should win out and the majority should be served. Why?
Not IV, but several other GTA games, thus I have not cited GTA IV specifically. I played the earlier games a couple of years ago for weeks to write a piece on for my college paper that addressed some of the concerns raised by our Womens' Studies group on campus because it was on one of the consoles in our the campuses main gaming area, and it couldn't be avoided if you were in that room. Some ladies raised a stink. The point of my article was that there were more students that wanted to play the game than wanted to it removed, and thus democracy should win out and the majority should be served. Why?
Your diction of "hyper-violent" sounds like something many interests groups use in their reports when they want restrictions on video games. Most people who are vehemently opposed to video games more than like have never even played one for any significant amount of time. I didn't mean it to come across as an accusation, just a question.
Not IV, but several other GTA games, thus I have not cited GTA IV specifically. I played the earlier games a couple of years ago for weeks to write a piece on for my college paper that addressed some of the concerns raised by our Womens' Studies group on campus because it was on one of the consoles in our the campuses main gaming area, and it couldn't be avoided if you were in that room. Some ladies raised a stink. The point of my article was that there were more students that wanted to play the game than wanted to it removed, and thus democracy should win out and the majority should be served. Why?
Your diction of "hyper-violent" sounds like something many interests groups use in their reports when they want restrictions on video games. Most people who are vehemently opposed to video games more than like have never even played one for any significant amount of time. I didn't mean it to come across as an accusation, just a question.
I am not against video games, and I am not anti-GTA. It isn't my taste, and I think it is inappropriate for four year olds. That is all I am saying.
I definitely think parents should pay attention to what the game is rated before giving it to their kids. I don't even like games like GTA, so I hope my kids wouldn't want to play it (if this was a perfect world). When kids get to a certain age, however, they will want the games their friends have, and they will bug you to death about it. I was always that kid that had to say "But Mommy, why do the other kids get to see that R rated movie and I don't?" And she would always reply "Because they are not your parents, but I am, so I say you can't." I know my mom did that because she thought I wasn't old enough yet. But if the parent does decide to give in to their kid and buy them the newest greatest violent video game, at whatever age they decide is appropriate, I think the parent should sit there with them while they play and explain things to them instead of letting them play it on their own. Sometimes the parents don't even realize just how violent and mature the game can get, so they need to look at it for themselves anyway. If I had a 5 year old and all of his/her friends were playing these games (this would probably never happen, but since we are talking about 5 year olds in this thread, I'm using them as an example) I would rather buy or rent the game and sit through it with them myself instead of letting them go somewhere else and play it. Or I could just not let my kid visit those other kids to keep them away. But still, if we were talking about older kids, you know they would find ways to play that stuff on their own eventually.
The topic of this thread is about a parent playing a very mature game in front of his 5 year old. The parent was playing it because he wanted to and didn't care that the kid was there. That is why what he was doing was wrong. If he REALLY wanted to play that game in front of his kid for whatever reason, instead of saying "this isn't real," like magic and unicorns, he should have explained what was going on: why killing in a game is very different than in real life, why it is wrong, why someone would want to do it in a game instead of real life, etc. These are obviously not concepts a normal 5 year old would understand, which is why it is a bad idea in the first place. That was his choice, however.
Furthermore, you would rather have research dollars go into that than, I don't know, curing a disease.
Wait, aren't you the guys who are saying this is a big deal? If it's such a big deal, wouldn't it be better to actually understand what's going on? I guess it's just easier to be afraid of the boogey man than actually go in a find out if it really even exists.
Just a quick note - and I don't mean to attack - but the reason why they don't research things like that is probably because of morality issues. If you cause serious harm to anyone through such research, usually they don't allow it.
The topic of this thread is about a parent playing a very mature game in front of his 5 year old.
Actually, my problem was that it was the kid's uncle - my brother. *tilts head* I didn't actually mean for this thread to become as it is, but I don't care. It's interesting, if a bit full of fire.
This doesn't really pertain to the argument going on here, but I thought it was interesting that you get into a discussion about the nature of a soul in GTA IV. Carry on with the discussion.
Just a quick note - and I don't mean to attack - but the reason why they don't research things like that is probably because of morality issues. If you cause serious harm to anyone through such research, usually they don't allow it.
Are you an experimental psychologist? Didn't think so.
BTW, here are just a few examples of said research that has been performed:
The biggest fear of clinicians and the public alike—that violent video games turn ordinary children and adolescents into violent people in the real world—is not borne out by the data. Analyses of school shooting incidents from the US Secret Service5 and the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime6 do not support a link between violent games and real-world attacks.
In an appendix to its chapter on risk factors, the Surgeon General's 2001 report on youth violence reviewed effects of exposure to violent media. The report noted that there is evidence for a small to moderate short-term increase in physically and verbally aggressive behavior. However, the sum of findings from cross-sectional, experimental, and longitudinal studies "suggest that media violence has a relatively small impact on violence" and that "the impact of video games on violent behavior remains to be determined"
In summary, it's very difficult to document whether and how violent video and computer games contribute to serious violence such as criminal assault or murder. (Practically speaking, this would require a massive and expensive study because game playing is common, and murder is rare.) It is feasible, however, to study how violent games may contribute to some types of everyday violence and aggression and to the beliefs, attitudes, and interpretations of behavior that support them.
We might take a lesson from America's history of media hysteria. It's time to move beyond blanket condemnations and frightening anecdotes and focus on developing targeted educational and policy interventions based on solid data. As with the entertainment media of earlier generations, we may look back on some of today's games with nostalgia, and our grandchildren may wonder what the fuss was about.
The authors conduct focus groups with 42 boys ages 12 to 14. Boys use games to experience fantasies of power and fame, to explore and master what they perceive as exciting and realistic environments (but distinct from real life), to work through angry feelings or relieve stress, and as social tools. Boys did not believe they had been harmed by violent games but were concerned that younger children might imitate game behavior (especially swearing).
CONCLUSIONS: Content analysis suggests a significant amount of violence in some E-rated video games. The content descriptors provide some information to parents and should be used along with the rating, but the game's genre also appears to play a role in the amount of violent play. Physicians and parents should understand that popular E-rated video games may be a source of exposure to violence and other unexpected content for children and that games may reward the players for violent actions.
The longer this thread goes on, the more I realize that most of my exposure to "mature" content was around the time that I was five years old and up. It would be inappropriate to expose a young child to mature content, but being educated about the fact that such content exists is necessary. When I was younger, my father and his friends would drink and curse while I was around. I was maybe 7 or 8 at the time. My father would always be concerned that I would start using foul language because I was exposed to it. The knowledge that I would be in trouble if I used language like that though kept me from cursing. The first time I used a cuss word was in middle school, and I thought I was going to be struck by lightning after I said it! It really all comes down to how you educate your children, and how much of an example you set for them.
I must say that I'm glad this thread hasn't demoralized into a "fist fight" per say, because I find it educational and appreciate the information I have gathered from it.
For the record, if my kid asks for a video game (no matter the rating) I will rent it and play it for a while myself before I decide to purchase it (or not) for my child. Some things that do not warrant an "M" rating, I may not want my kid playing (not only for content, but for quality - I am not sinking money into a crappy game that my kid will play for two hours and never touch again). Also, if a game has a higher rating, but I feel my child is mature enough to play it, or that the content is not offensive, and it is a decent game, then my kid should have it. It is all about knowing FIRST HAND what you are purchasing for your kid.
For the record, if my kid asks for a video game (no matter the rating) I will rent it and play it for a while myself before I decide to purchase it (or not) for my child. Some things that do not warrant an "M" rating, I may not want my kid playing (not only for content, but for quality - I am not sinking money into a crappy game that my kid will play for two hours and never touch again). Also, if a game has a higher rating, but I feel my child is mature enough to play it, or that the content is not offensive, and it is a decent game, then my kid should have it. It is all about knowing FIRST HAND what you are purchasing for your kid.
I'm the same way with manga and books that my daughter wants. I always make it a point to read the same things she reads.
This serves two purposes:
1) I know the content of what she is reading and therefor have an approximation of what "mature" content and ideas she has been exposed to. 2) It gives us more things to talk about.
I can't do much about the stuff she gets exposed to when she is away from home but hey, everyone grows up and my goal is not to raise a sheltered child.
Keeping the lines of communication open is most important to me. If we share a lot of the same interests and talk about things I figure she is more apt to ask me about things that are bothering her.
I know it is not a very good way to educate, but my parents are not perfect. I apologize for the cliche. I agree with Apreche wholeheartedly. A persons upbringing is more important than the content that is exposed to them. Parenting is probably one of the most challenging things we will ever do in our lives, and it all comes down to personal judgment in the end.
Comments
I'm using myself as an example because I think this is a good approach to exposing kids to mature content. I remember when I would be around my friends (mainly the boys) when they were playing "violent" video games. (At the time the games were considered violent, but of course today they are nothing). They would be so excited about this new exposure to violence that they would mimic the game because it was something they had never really seen. (I still don't get why their parents wouldn't let them watch violent movies, but let them play those games). Remember Mortal Kombat? Boys loved to copy some of those moves on each other, and it got pretty dangerous sometimes. I remember watching Power Rangers once and I got so excited that I jumped up onto a glass coffee table at my friend's house and tried to do their fancy 80s style moves. I ended up smashing right through it and was banned from coming back to his house (I didn't get hurt, though, thankfully). But I never tried kicking other kids because my parents made it very clear that it was wrong.
I am not trying to say that video games cause kids to be violent. Keep in mind I am referring to the kind of extreme violence you see in the media (movies, video games, etc.). I am saying that video games are ONE way that kids can be exposed. I think that keeping the kids sheltered from the violence might cause them to react in a bad way when they are exposed eventually. Unfortunately, some kids will be exposed to violence when they go to their friend's house and see them playing violent games (or watching movies, etc.) Then again, other kids will have parents that will sit with them during a violent movie and explain why these violent actions are considered violent in the first place, and that they should not copy this violence. So what Andrew meant was that if the kid really wants to play a mature game, it would be wise for the parent to be involved in this experience, rather than letting little Johnny play his shoot em' up game by himself while Mommy cooks supper and Daddy is at work. He did not say that you should purposefully expose the kid to violence to teach them a lesson, but to be responsible when your child gets to that age or starts getting curious about video games and R movies and such.
The topic of this thread is about a parent playing a very mature game in front of his 5 year old. The parent was playing it because he wanted to and didn't care that the kid was there. That is why what he was doing was wrong. If he REALLY wanted to play that game in front of his kid for whatever reason, instead of saying "this isn't real," like magic and unicorns, he should have explained what was going on: why killing in a game is very different than in real life, why it is wrong, why someone would want to do it in a game instead of real life, etc. These are obviously not concepts a normal 5 year old would understand, which is why it is a bad idea in the first place. That was his choice, however.
BTW, here are just a few examples of said research that has been performed:
Children and Video Games: How Much Do We Know? Media Violence Research and Youth Violence Data: Why Do They Conflict?
The Role of Violent Video Game Content in Adolescent Development
Factors correlated with violent video game use by adolescent boys and girls.
Violence in E-rated video games. Myths about violent video games
I must say that I'm glad this thread hasn't demoralized into a "fist fight" per say, because I find it educational and appreciate the information I have gathered from it.
This serves two purposes:
1) I know the content of what she is reading and therefor have an approximation of what "mature" content and ideas she has been exposed to.
2) It gives us more things to talk about.
I can't do much about the stuff she gets exposed to when she is away from home but hey, everyone grows up and my goal is not to raise a sheltered child.
Keeping the lines of communication open is most important to me. If we share a lot of the same interests and talk about things I figure she is more apt to ask me about things that are bothering her.