My dear, you say "gender-fluid infertile square-eyed prostitute with limited mental capacity and pronounced violent tendencies" as if it's a *bad* thing.

I have some slight sympathy for the "videogames maketh psychos" crowd. I've often been criticised for violent language and imagery, and, while my anger issues are my own, it can't be denied that videogames and violent films etc. give me a pleasurable buzz of the sort that encourages me to seek out more and greater thrills. Now I have disposable income, my horror DVD collection has swelled, as has my weapon collection and my videogame collection, including some controversial titles. Thankfully I'm too stable to take one of my growing collection of pointy things out into the street and do someone a mischief, but some of these people/children are not. The kind of person who can't control their temper and lashes out physically should not, I would argue, end up in a situation where they're losing their temper, while, due to lax controls over their viewing habits (be they the fault of the person, the state, or their guardian), they're currently hocked up on a buzzing mind full of Itchi the Killer and Manhunt.

However, having said that, I also enjoy varied interests. Right next to my copy of Manhunt is Klonoa: Door to Phantomile, which is an adorable game about a little cat who runs around a pretty world trying to save the world from bad dreams. Similarly, next to my DVD of Hostel, is a copy of Wind in the Willows. I think if I met someone who only *ever* played violent videogames, then I'd be slightly worried, especially if their books and film collections continued the theme.

There's big difference between enjoying fake violence, and obsessing about it (or worse, enjoying or obsessing about real violence), which I think is what eventually pushes people over the edge into doing stupid things. So, while I have sympathy for the "gamers gon' kill us all" crowd, I'd also ask them to consider that a some people are of such a personality that their descent into such actions is going to be very hard to prevent. I suppose the only argument the crowd would have over that point is, if they're going to hurt people anyway, why give them material to fuel their fantasies and either catalyse the event, or make it easier for them to indulge it?

Well, the counterargument to that is "just because a very few people may not be able to handle some varieties of entertainment, why should we deprive everyone else of the right to free expression?" Also, it's very difficult to say whether having access to violent games would feed someone's violent streak or let them indulge it in a safe way - and by doing so, disperse it a little.

I'm always at peace after playing a good, well-designed, violent game, catharsis draining me of all my cares and worries. Now, if it's a badly designed game which is a frustrating nightmare to play, that provokes a whole different kind of violence...

This was entirely polemic so my points are exaggerated for affect. Hyperbole, on the internet, never!

But sensible points all; yes if somebody was *only* interested in extreme violence I'd be damn scared, to say nothing of slightly bored. But I think the point is not that they're glutting themselves on an orgy of simulated violence prior to going Columbine, it's the fact they're blatantly on some kind of dodgy psycho edge anyway. Like if you went into somebody's house and everything was bright pink and you discovered they only owned movies about cute cartoon animals I reckon you'd pretty damn scared too. Obsessive attention paid to *anything* (up to and including the Earl of Rochester) is creepy and unhealthy. Violence doesn't come into it.

Similarly, people who lash out in violent displays of temper are going to do that regardless of whether they just played Manhunt. I think that people who are generally "into" violence may seek out more violence in fantasy form but I don't think it necessarily follows that the latter fuels the former. Also most people who are out there committing acts of violence neither need nor want to play games or watch movies about it.

I think people as a general rule like to seek out *reasons* for things; that's natural, it makes the vagaries of life understandable and less threatening. But to say a violent personality is the consequence of having played Bioshock one too many times at an impressionable age strikes me as so grossly simplistic as to be barely worth the time investigating. As I say in the article: correlation is not causation.

Also I'm kind of curious as to what this study is going to involve. Are they going to strap the kids to a chair with their eyelids pinned open and force them to watch Saw III while listening to Beethoven?

No, you see you have three kids.

Kid A is the control. You leave him alone in the waiting room reading magazines.

Kid B you take out into an abandoned urban wasteland with brutal gang members prowling around. You give him an earpiece, through which Brian Cox will encourage him to go and kill as many of those gang members as he can, and give advice on where to find lethal weapons like plastic bags.

Kid C will be asked to play Manhunt.

If Kid C manages to kill more people in the game than Kid B did in real life, then clearly videogames make you disproportionately violent.

If Kid B manages to kill more people than Kid C, then videogames are harmless.

If Kid A kills more people than either of them, something is wrong with the magazines.

To Arthur:
"just because a very few people may not be able to handle some varieties of entertainment, why should we deprive everyone else of the right to free expression?"

I agree. Unfortunately some people have to decide if the threat of those few people who can't handle it is big enough to warrant censorship - I'm not saying that the study is a good idea or use of money, but the poor bugger who's had this land on their desk probably couldn't think of a better way to approach the problem.

You feel cathartic after a videogame, and I feel buzzed, and little Jimmy Chainsaw down the road goes out and strangles a puppy. Everyone reacts differently to experiences. But when the reaction incur a potential threat to people it needs investigation. The study is hoping to find out if there is a threat, or if, like you say, videogames actually help violent people to indulge their urges in safer ways.

Surely..

Kid A sits alone listening to Radiohead and reading the magazine.

Kid B gets sent out to the killing fields.

Kid C plays Manhunt for a set period of time and THEN gets sent out to the killing fields.

If Kid C causes more deaths than Kid B, then video games are clearly making him violent.

To Kyra:
"Obsessive attention paid to *anything* (up to and including the Earl of Rochester) is creepy and unhealthy. Violence doesn't come into it."

I'd argue that it does dependent on how the obsession manifests itself. An obsession with an author results in the collecting of books and information etc. about/by them, or possibly even copying their manner of speech or dress. Obsessing about weapons results in collecting weapons, and books etc. about them, and possibly learning how to use them. Or just using them. The problem is, at least in my opinion you can't disassociate "obsession" with what the obsession is about, cause the subject of your obsession will have a direct effect on the world around you as you indulge in it. The people directing this study are concerned that videogames are a media collected by violence-lovers, and hence they want to find out if a)that is the case, and b)what that means is likely to happen to people nearby to those people.

"I think that people who are generally "into" violence may seek out more violence in fantasy form but I don't think it necessarily follows that the latter fuels the former."

Not necessarily, but surely a part of the aim of the study is to find out if such is in fact the case. If it is, then maybe we (meaning society) do have something to worry about.

"But to say a violent personality is the consequence of having played Bioshock one too many times at an impressionable age strikes me as so grossly simplistic as to be barely worth the time investigating."

I agree, it is overly simplistic. However so are some people - there have been enough (either justified or not) claims of videogame involvement in violence. Those people who've been affected by that want to know if that's the case or not once and for all. I don't object to them gleaning closure or peace of mind if that's what the study will give them, but I think that it wont produce anything worthwhile beyond that because, like you say, what makes a person violent is a hugely complex psychological issue that even most psychologists can't understand entirely.

I find the example of Little Jimmy Chainsaw unconvincing; I think puppy strangling is there or it's not there, I don't think too long in front of Puppy Srangler 3D is going to make much difference.

Furthermore, I think, despite the tactful twostep, that this study is going to provide anything of any use to the debate. Firstly, how do you *measure* something like that? I've read previous studies that have basically concluded that video-gaming kids are more likely to be verbally aggressive to teachers but could that, be, perhaps because they've grown up a bit? Could it be, as Dan says, the fact that kids who play violent computer games from the sort of background that is permissive enough to let them and are, therefore, going to be leary of authority and a little bit difficult anyway? Whereas kids who don't are being brought up by nice middle class people who want young Crispin to be a lawyer like Daddy.

The results of the study are either going to be inconclusive OR they're going to come up with a tiny fragment of almost entirely circumstantial evidence that the media and certain types of people are going to go into a frothing frenzy over.

They might as well just give me the fucking money. I'd give it Aylesbury Grammar School who need it.

I have to say, if the study's done correctly it'll be a nice change of pace to have proper empirical data to inform the debate. Even though the Jack Thompsons of this world have never let the facts get in the way of a good witch-hunt...

Children are like dogs, it's always the parents' faults. You can train children, even to repress their inner puppy-strangler. I say study the videogames, study the children, but then put secret cameras in the homes and see how many times little Jimmy Chainsaw gets clipped round the ear and called a little sh*t by his parents.

> It'll be a nice change of page to have proper empirical data to inform the debate

Erm. Proper empirical data? In a psychological study, of a medium- to long-term effect? You must be joking! Unless they dramatically change the methodology they've used in all the previous incarnations of such studies I've read about, there's no actual science going on. Of course, it's a popular thing to harp on about in the media, which means politicians will approve grant money to throw at it...

That's why I said "if the study's done correctly". It is entirely possible to conduct proper, empirical psychological studies that get actually useful results.

That said, according to the article Tanya Byron is heading the study, and she doesn't actually have much in the way of academic credentials - she's done a lot of clinical work (which is very different from research) and she's done TV. So I don't hold out especially high hopes for it; I'm willing to bet the message that comes out is "Stop being lazy parents - buy my book to find out how!"

Also, check out the actual press release from the government about this: the study seems to be about internet porns first, computer games second. (Arguably, the internet is actually a bigger concern; you can control access to computer games relatively easily simply by making sure outlets are adhering to the age guidelines on the games, but you can't put a doorman on the front page of a website to check people's ID.) The BBC News website is presumably emphasising the computer game angle because they consider it more newsworthy, or because they want to protect the tender feelings of the internet or something.

I think it would be interesting to find out what the people who believe violent games create violent people think of multiplayer or playing people through the internet. Killing my brother and his friends on multiplayer hardly means I want to do that in real life, so I don't see how killing bots means I would want to kill random people on the street. I'm not a violent person and don't have any sort of violent streaks but I enjoy killing aliens/people. But I'm not the sort of person to play Manhunt, or any horror video games. Not that I could anyway, Manhunt being banned in New Zealand (It isn't in England?).

Actually, I don't like killing humans very much in games. Especially if there is not much of a reason, like in Saints Row (gaining respect or whatever the hell that game was about). It kind of disturbs me, but I don't mind other people. If there is a war, or they are attacking me first, I'd probably do it. Well. Not really, I'd get my brother to do it. I watch him play Battlefield but I only really enjoy the game if it is online. Is it really that bad that killing people controlled by real people is far more satisfying?

The amount of times I have to use "correlation does not imply causation" in argument is crazy. It annoys me that people think it is valid.

Also in terms of this scientific study business, surely the point is that "being more violent" is kind of an immeasurable quantity until the actual guns come out.

Hmmm...it's an interesting point about why enacting violence on computer people controlled by someone you know (i.e. your brother) is more satisfying than killing computer people controlled by the computer... I think perhaps it is less to do with the violence and death than the element in competition. I mean, wiping out your brother's or your friend's troops is the equivalent to, I don't know, winning a game of tennis or whatever?

I'm not sure how I feel about killing people in computer games. I usually play roleplaying games so the killing is less evident than in first person shooters or wargames. But sometimes I'm in a bad mood and I mow down pedestrians in the fastest car I can nick in Grand Theft Auto, usually to classical music but I'm a psycho like that ;)

perhaps the difference between killing avatars of people and computer people lies in the fact that killing another persons avatar connects up in your mind with your own experience of having your avatar killed ie the mild inconvenience of having to respawn or the like whereas in a way we invest the computer people with more life because we are accustomed from fiction and cartoons and so on to invest some kind of life energy or being energy or something into purely fictional beings, who within the context of that fiction have some sort of real life and killing them in that sense feels more like actual killing would or at least it resonates with some part of ourself which is repulsed by killing its sort of like killing a puppet that you have invested some of your own life energy or consciousness energy in or something damn it is difficult to write coherently without punctuation

> damn it is difficult to write coherently without punctuation

Is there a reason you're doing this? Ferretbrain won't crash on punctuation anymore, I promise!

Hmm... alright, if you promise. I was burned - BURNED, I TELL YOU - by previous experiences and adopted the punctuationless style in defence. On the subject of which, have you seen this?
http://xkcd.com/327/

Of course I have -- and, frankly, I live in terror of SQL injection attacks! I would hope Ferretbrain's not vulnerable, what with parameterized queries and all, but still...

Gosh, Guy darling you're a walking advert for the virtues of adequate punctuation. Seriously, you could have being saying the most insightful and intelligent thing in the world but all I could think about was the lack of commas. Help, help, I am inescapably erecting the power structures of academic discourse! Rise up and rebel! Throw off your semi-colons!

But, yes, that's is an interesting point. I have just deciphered it now.

I think when I speak, and write, I tend ordinarily to use long sentences with multiple clauses and possible even with multiple connecting clauses interlaced with each other, which particularly in the case of speaking can be confusing, but in writing need not be so if one punctuates with sufficient punctiliousness. Ooh! Those words are related! Along with puncture and punctual... Anyway, I promise never again to make you suffer through an unpunctuated sentences of mine. :P

This article helped me get excellence in my formal writing for NCEA level one!

Gosh, well, I suppose it's nice to have been useful... And congratulations. Being a bastion of ignorance, I have no idea what an NCEA level one is but, err, it sounds impressive.

I'm guessing the NCEA is this? Either way, congrats to M.

Wow, I am *educative* I've never been educative before.

NCEA must be something like GCSE? We are given a selection of topics and about half an hour depending on how much time we spend on our other essays to write a piece of formal writing. I chose the topic of violence in video games and films. And remembered examples and arguments from this! So yes, you are educative!

And my name is Magdalen/Maggie/Mags.