# Playing Video Games "Definitely" Doesn't Harm Children



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2013)

​Video games and their influence on the human psyche, especially that of children, have been a subject of heated debates since their invention. Each side has their own strong proponents but neither had any truly conclusive proof that _"they're right"_.​​This subject pops up whenever we hear of school shootings or terrorist attacks committed by young perpetrators - it's often stressed that they _"played video games"_. Some call that a relevant fact regarding the cases, others call it shifting blame.​​This mist of confusion might be partially dispelled by a recent study published in the British Medical Journal, a part of the UK Millennium Cohort Study... although it's only _"recent"_ in terms of the publication date - the study itself actually began a decade ago.​​Some 11,000 children were being observed throughout the decade with their mothers periodically filling out surveys. The researchers wanted to find out if exposure to video games or television has a negative impact on their behavior and/or mood and... video games don't. It was watching TV _(for over 3 hours a day)_ that turned out to lead to behavioral problems between the ages of four and seven... checkmate, television?​​So what does this study change? Probably not much - people won't change their minds overnight... but it's certainly a step towards proving what gaming enthusiasts have been saying for ages - that video games are a positive way of spending your spare time, and if not positive, at least they don't do any harm.​​ Source​


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Nov 19, 2013)

Oh good, now we have scientific evidence we can throw at people's faces when they cry about how video games make our children murder-rage-hate filled machines.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2013)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Oh good, now we have scientific evidence we can throw at people's faces when they cry about how video games make our children murder-rage-hate filled machines.


Damn right. I was a murder-rage-hate filled machine before I even touched a computer game, said computer games just allowed me to hone my talents.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Damn right. I was a murder-rage-hate filled machine before I even touched a computer game, said computer games just allowed me to hone my talents.


 
Ah, you mean the famous murder simulators?


----------



## Gahars (Nov 19, 2013)

Video games corrupt the youth. Just like rock and roll, heavy metal, rap, comic books, movies, television, the cartoons, anime/mangos, and pogs.

Won't somebody please think of the children?


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 19, 2013)

Okay...nice argument. Unfortunately, this issue isn't a discussion but a debate. In other words: people aren't going to change their minds over it, no matter what happens. And this study is just going to illustrate that.

pro-gamer: hey...did you hear that a study of 11'000 people didn't show any behavioral difference in playing video games?
game-hater: yeah, well...but I know for a fact that some criminals played video games at some point, so video games are STILL EVIL!!!
pro-gamer: ehm...yeah. So...what WILL take you to believe my view?
game-hater: hmm...if the full hundred percent of those 11'000 people turned out to have never committed ANY form of crime...then I MIGHT consider it. Until another maniac video gamer shows up, that is.
pro-gamer: 


Also...I wouldn't call it checkmate on the television, as I think it's more to do with the longitude than anything else. Three hours a day in front of television is three hours they aren't spend making friends at school, kindergarten or whatever them four-to-seven'ers hang out nowadays. And it would surprise me if that study shows that that DOESN'T go for video games as well.


----------



## Blaze163 (Nov 19, 2013)

Just gonna leave this here, kthanxbai


----------



## slingblade1170 (Nov 19, 2013)

I've been playing games for 23 years and i've only killed 4 people and done a bunch of drugs while having unprotected sex, nothing too bad. Haha not really

Video games doesn't hurt anyone with self-control, but there are some kids/teens out there that get obsessive with games and take it a bit too far reenacting them in real life. Although, kids/teens that are like that, it isn't just video games, they are that way with movies, music, tv shows etc. Personally, GTA isn't really that bad compared to some other games but who cares its called "video games" not "real life", its all just an excuse for bad parenting.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2013)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay...nice argument. Unfortunately, this issue isn't a discussion but a debate. In other words: people aren't going to change their minds over it, no matter what happens. And this study is just going to illustrate that.
> 
> pro-gamer: hey...did you hear that a study of 11'000 people didn't show any behavioral difference in playing video games?
> game-hater: yeah, well...but I know for a fact that some criminals played video games at some point, so video games are STILL EVIL!!!
> ...


 
That's not how debates work - in a debate, you need to support your standpoint with arguments. If you don't, you lose the debate. 

I used the phrase _"Checkmate, television?"_ in a cheeky manner, obviously television alone isn't to blame either.


----------



## Blaze163 (Nov 19, 2013)

I dunno, Foxi. Ten seconds of watching The Only Way Is Essex is enough to drive even the most mentally sound person to a Postal 2 style killing spree.


----------



## Dork (Nov 19, 2013)

b-but if video games don't harm children what will i use as a scapegoat now


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Nov 19, 2013)

Dark S. said:


> b-but if video games don't harm children what will i use as a scapegoat now


 
Let's give bad parenting a try


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> I dunno, Foxi. Ten seconds of watching The Only Way Is Essex is enough to drive even the most mentally sound person to a Postal 2 style killing spree.


 
MTV Poland announced a new series called _"Warsaw Shore"_.

I'd like to point something out:






...because rivers don't have _shores_ - they have _banks_.

...you know nothing about life, my friend.


----------



## Ritsuki (Nov 19, 2013)

Life ruined my video games.


----------



## Kalker3 (Nov 19, 2013)

Meh, what's the point?
People will eventually see another "Kid brings a gun to school, it was a present from his father"
and go all "OMFG, Did u see diz? IT's ALL GTA I TELL YOU!!!".

I wonder how long it'll take for people to realize that if games change one's way of thinking 
and influence him to "go nuts", the person is question wasn't that sane to begin with.


----------



## mkdms14 (Nov 19, 2013)

You mean video games aren't destroying our lives?????!!!!! You mean politicians have been lying to us for years?????!!!! Well I could of told you that I have been playing video games regularly since the NES days and so far I am fine.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 19, 2013)

I dont think video games can make kid violents but when I see all these three years old playing plain odd stupid shitz on tablets I'm still kinda worried...


----------



## Kalker3 (Nov 19, 2013)

Idaho said:


> I dont think video games can make kid violents but when I see all these three years old playing plain odd stupid shitz on tablets I'm still kinda worried...


 

It's even worse when the tablet belongs to them, they get all cocky and stuff.
For f**** sake, my first electronic gadget was a secondhand Nokia when I was 10, and it was taken from
me 1 week later because I spammed my sister all the time.
Kids these days have literally everything, a cousin of mine received a freaking iPad for his 8th anniversary.
That thing costs more than all my stuff combined, and I'm twice his age!


----------



## Blaze163 (Nov 19, 2013)

Video games can bring out a little bit of rage every now and then. Example, some of the language my fiancee is using right now to express her distaste with the AI in Mass Effect fem-shep run (Kaiden keeps blocking her shots) is somewhat....colourful. But I don't think video games can turn people into psychopaths like the media would have us believe. If anything, a little escapism and tension relief is good for mental health. If someone goes on a killing spree, chances are they had much bigger issues in their lives than a scene in GTA 5 that 'scarred them for life' or whatever the latest scapegoat bullshit is.

Having said that I don't necessarily think my beloved yelling out 'Honestly, I don't know whether to fuck him or shoot him' when I'm trying to get Freya to sleep is the best thing for a life of sanity.


----------



## spinal_cord (Nov 19, 2013)

Kalker3 said:


> It's even worse when the tablet belongs to them, they get all cocky and stuff.
> For f**** sake, my first electronic gadget was a secondhand Nokia when I was 10, and it was taken from
> me 1 week later because I spammed my sister all the time.


 

10!!!!!!! I didn't get a phone until I was 16 and I bought it myself!! Also, back then, phones were expensive and crap, 10x2 character screen (no dot matrix gfx for us), custom ringtones only if you could fit into 10 notes. not even a calculator built in, nope, had to carry an actual calculator around if I wanted to do complicated maths.


----------



## Kalker3 (Nov 19, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> 10!!!!!!! I didn't get a phone until I was 16 and I bought it myself!! Also, back then, phones were expensive and crap, 10x2 character screen (no dot matrix gfx for us), custom ringtones only if you could fit into 10 notes. not even a calculator built in, nope, had to carry an actual calculator around if I wanted to do complicated maths.


 

My father had that phone for 6 years and went full PDA, since everyone in the family already had one, they gave it to me.
It was one of those 3310 Nokia's. They had a calculator IIRC, but it didn't allow for much.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 19, 2013)

Yeah well its not about complaining about how we didn't get those things as early as those kids (I myself began to play on a computer before even knowing how to properly read)...

Its about how inadequate it is to provide such things to a child which hasnt even develloped rational thinking yet as his brain won't understand it as machine but more as an interface and he will tend to consider it as a tool and therefore won't try to understand how it works but only what use of it is provided to him.

Bringing a generation of lazy users who will deface the use people should have of computers, could even destroy hacking or any will from the users of doing something with their own computers, just people waiting for stuff being provided (We're all at some degree but I'm afraid this will drastically lower the average degree of computer laziness).


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 19, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> ...video games are a positive way of spending your spare time, and if not positive, at least they don't do any harm.


 
That's great and all, but I'm guessing you didn't bother to look at or read the study? They didn't specify what "game" they played or tv/dvd they watched. Could have been pong or leapstar or mathblaster. Seriously, you're insinuating this has something to do with violent video games. Please at least put forth an effort to bother reading the bloody thing before you start touting it as proof that there are no negative effects. Even if you're right there are no negative effects, this is NOT evidence of that. If you want to make a strong case for violent video games, this is not how you do it.

>5 year olds and 7 year olds were tested
>was comparing and contrasting to TV viewing
>what was watched/played wasn't documented
>not a study on video games and their effects so much as media on small children
>other scientific things that will probably not be terribly understood in this discussion

http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/21/archdischild-2011-301508.full.pdf html


----------



## Kalker3 (Nov 19, 2013)

osaka35 said:


> That's great and all, but I'm guessing you didn't bother to look at or read the study? They didn't specify what "game" they played or tv/dvd they watched. Could have been pong or leapstar or mathblaster. Seriously, you're insinuating this has something to do with violent video games. Please at least put forth an effort to bother reading the bloody thing before you start touting it as proof that there are no negative effects. Even if you're right there are no negative effects, this is NOT evidence of that. If you want to make a strong case for violent video games, this is not how you do it.
> 
> >5 year olds and 7 year olds were tested
> >was comparing and contrasting to TV viewing
> ...


 

If the test subjects were 5 and 7 years old, isn't it only natural that they didn't play violent games, which have age recommendations higher than theirs?
Violent games, can and will affect a young child mold-able mind, and since parents shouldn't allow 5 or 7 year old children to play those games, a study about them would be pointless.


----------



## Blaze163 (Nov 19, 2013)

It's not the video games that directly harm the children. It's the bone idle attitude of the parents who just dump their kids in front of the idiot box so they don't have to do anything. Freya's only just coming up to a month old at this point so it's not something I have to worry about for a while, but I still take the time to read to her, talk to her, even though she doesn't understand me yet she at least knows that I'm there and I care. I don't plan on letting Microsoft or Sony raise my child. That's my job. 

Unfortunately no amount of research into how video games are a positive or negative influence will ever change anything because when you boil it down to the bare bones basics, nobody wants to openly admit that they're bad parents for letting their kids get hold of the more violent games. I've seen kids as young as 8 walking out of the game stores with Mortal Kombat, GTA 5 and Manhunt. Parents don't even bat an eyelid. Their reaction is 'That's nice, kid. Go play. Mummy needs to talk her pills and watch Loose Women'. If they actually took any interest in their kids lives instead of wanting technology to do it all for them, then even if video games WERE a negative influence on kids, it'd be greatly diminished. But it's never gonna happen because the parents that look to video games and any other form of media as a scapegoat are the kind of scum that take no genuine interest in their own offspring until it's too late and they're running around their schools with a submachine gun.


----------



## mkdms14 (Nov 19, 2013)

spinal_cord said:


> 10!!!!!!! I didn't get a phone until I was 16 and I bought it myself!! Also, back then, phones were expensive and crap, 10x2 character screen (no dot matrix gfx for us), custom ringtones only if you could fit into 10 notes. not even a calculator built in, nope, had to carry an actual calculator around if I wanted to do complicated maths.


 
I remember my first cell phone it was one of those flip phones.  I got it my Senior year of high school soo I was 18 years old.  it had no color screen as well and I had no texting plan either.


----------



## Kalker3 (Nov 19, 2013)

mkdms14 said:


> I remember my first cell phone it was one of those flip phones. I got it my Senior year of high school soo I was 18 years old. it had no color screen as well and I had no texting plan either.


 

Googled a bit, those phones look pretty cool.


----------



## tbgtbg (Nov 19, 2013)

slingblade1170 said:


> I've been playing games for 23 years and i've only killed 4 people and done a bunch of drugs while having unprotected sex, nothing too bad.



n00b


----------



## mkdms14 (Nov 19, 2013)

Kalker3 said:


> Googled a bit, those phones look pretty cool.


 
Oh I loved that cell phone it couldn't do much but was cool I only got one because i was getting ready to graduate and go to college far away and my parents wanted an easy way to get in contact with me.


----------



## allanj87 (Nov 19, 2013)

I was made to suffer an amstrad CPC with a monochrome monitor which at the time was shit hot awesome, the only violence it makes me feel like commiting is against spoiled brats now a days that are like omg I'm 5 and have an iPad even though all I use it for is making adults jealous

Yes I am validating child abuse with this post


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2013)

osaka35 said:


> That's great and all, but I'm guessing you didn't bother to look at or read the study?
> *I have now, beforehand I read cliffnotes. Nothing that'd disprove anything I've said.*
> They didn't specify what "game" they played or tv/dvd they watched.
> *And...? That's not what the study was testing - the study was testing whether watching TV and playing video (electronic) games has* *any impa**ct at all.*
> ...


Here's where your reading comprehension skills failed you. You're welcome. 

You seem to be under the impression that my post is a whole article about the study - it isn't, it's a news post, it's informative to a degree. Anyone interested in the actual results of the study can follow the Source links to find out more.


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Nov 19, 2013)

THE MEDIA INDUSTRY IS ALL ABOUT RATINGS, RATINGS, RATINGS BUT SOME PEOPLE DON'T SEEM TO SEE  THEM.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2013)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> THE MEDIA INDUSTRY IS ALL ABOUT RATINGS, RATINGS, RATINGS BUT SOME PEOPLE DON'T SEEM TO SEE THEM.


I always found this to be odd-bizzare - a parent wouldn't be inclined to walk into a store and buy an 18+ movie on DVD for their kid because _"Naughty Nurses"_ doesn't exactly scream _"appropriate material"_, but if it's a video game with ratings plastered all over it, _"Slaughterhouse"_ seems to be a bit confusing.


----------



## Blaze163 (Nov 19, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I always found this to be odd-bizzare - a parent wouldn't be inclined to walk into a store and buy an 18+ movie on DVD for their kid because _"Naughty Nurses"_ doesn't exactly scream _"appropriate material"_, but if it's a video game with ratings plastered all over it, _"Slaughterhouse"_ seems to be a bit confusing.


 
It's because the kids get hyper over the latest games and the parents just buy them to avoid having to do any teaching about appropriate content, not getting sucked into fads, etc. The game can be relied on to shut the kid up and keep him out the way for at least 10 hours and it stops an argument. Nothing else registers in their minds.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> It's because the kids get hyper over the latest games and the parents just buy them to avoid having to do any teaching about appropriate content, not getting sucked into fads, etc. The game can be relied on to shut the kid up and keep him out the way for at least 10 hours and it stops an argument. Nothing else registers in their minds.


 
So what you're practically saying is that as a child all I had to do to get _"Naughty Nurses V: Revenge of the Speculum"_ was making a huge fuss about it?

Dang it, I spent what must've been _hundreds_ in Internet Cafe's instead of just asking!


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Nov 19, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> It's because the kids get hyper over the latest games and the parents just buy them to avoid having to do any teaching about appropriate content, not getting sucked into fads, etc. The game can be relied on to shut the kid up and keep him out the way for at least 10 hours and it stops an argument. Nothing else registers in their minds.


 
Don't forget the lack of care from retail store providers such as Game Stop and  i quote ".....You are to young to by this game but _*If your parent says its okay then*_....."
Unless im not mistaken but nowadays it does not seem like the parents have to be told a million  times and beg for the new Call of duty but insead just go "can i get this game"


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2013)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> Don't forget the lack of care from retail store providers such as Game Stop and i quote ".....You are to young to by this game but _*If your parent says its okay then*_....."
> Unless im not mistaken but nowadays it does not seem like the parents have to be told a million times and beg for the new Call of duty but insead just go "can i get this game"


I disagree with your approach - if the parent is okay with this, there shouldn't be anything in the way. The parent is _(or should be)_ familiar with the level of development of his/her child, if he/she believes that the kid is mentally ready to play some title then that's final - video games are not alcohol, cigarettes or drugs, they don't cause any immediate harm, at worst they may cause distress at which point you can just _"stop playing the game"_. Labels are suggestions, not legal restrictions for parents. Naturally the parent also takes responsibility for any and all results of such choices - it's called parenting.


----------



## Blaze163 (Nov 19, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> So what you're practically saying is that as a child all I had to do to get _"Naughty Nurses V: Revenge of the Speculum"_ was making a huge fuss about it?
> 
> Dang it, I spent what must've been _hundreds_ in Internet Cafe's instead of just asking!


 
When kids make a fuss a lot of parents I see around my area, it's not necessarily world-wide, just what I've observed, they can only react in two ways. They either get angry and slap the kid and cause a scene, or capitulate to shut the kid up and the kid ends up playing some gorey game they shouldn't have access to. and then everyone wonders why these kids end up with no job, no prospects, more kids that GCSE's. It's not the fault of the game, it's a product, it's to be used responsibly. It's the fault of the parents who don't give a crap.

As for the store staff, I agree that they need to be more responsible, but most of them in this area at least get paid minimum wage and get treated like crap by everyone when they sell out of the latest killer app. They become so jaded by it all that they stop giving a shit, for the most part. I do know a couple of exceptions that have even ID'd me before even though they all know I'm old enough it's still procedure, etc. But the majority of the staff are in the same place as the parents. Life isn't what they wanted it to be and they can't cope so they just give up. It's the biggest problem in modern western society, IMHO. People hold themselves up against celebrities and multi-millionaire tramps famous for being tramps (Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, etc) and when life doesn't bring them any of it they don't have the spirit to just get on with it. Everyone expects the easy life and nobody actually gets it. Whereas I've been through hell and back on my journey so far, pretty much any minor improvement to my life can be a game-changer to me.


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Nov 19, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> if the parent is okay with this, there shouldn't be anything in the way.


 
Of course


Foxi4 said:


> I disagree with your approach - if the parent is okay with this, there shouldn't be anything in the way. The parent familiar with the level of development of his/her child, if he/she believes that the kid is mentally ready to play some title then that's final - video games are not alcohol or cigarettes,


 
This what people sometimes don't understand. I dont believe video games cause mental or violent out burst in the behavior of a kid *as much* because its still something they imitate, sheeeyt i used to imitate many game characters when i was younger but its not like i just finish watching two Nurses strip in front of me and know i wanna go around touching women.
If the parent wants to buy there child a game that's over rated but are well aware what there child is mentally capable of handling then sure but just dont blame video games for all of the problems.


----------



## calmwaters (Nov 19, 2013)

I didn't have any friends, but it wasn't because I was constantly playing video games. But I do blame Star Wars for creating my addiction to poles (small ones, not the ones that hold up the electricity wires) and Digimon for my love of laptops. I could go into Power Rangers and Dragonball Z, but that'd actually be a really long, boring story.


----------



## Blaze163 (Nov 19, 2013)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> Of course
> 
> 
> This what people sometimes don't understand. I dont believe video games cause mental or violent out burst in the behavior of a kid *as much* because its still something they imitate, sheeeyt i used to imitate many game characters when i was younger but its not like i just finish watching two Nurses strip in front of me and know i wanna go around touching women.
> If the parent wants to buy there child a game that's over rated but are well aware what there child is mentally capable of handling then sure but just dont blame video games for all of the problems.


 
I agree that if the parents believe the child can handle it then the rules can be bent, but that's responsible behavior on the part of the parents, thinking about whether or not the child will understand. So someone who's 15 but mature about it shouldn't have an issue playing 18 rated gamed. Giving said 18 rated games to 9 year olds because they throw a tantrum is another matter.

Interesting side note, consider. You can have sex when you're 16 in the UK, but you can't watch porn until you're 18. Anyone think they got that a bit backwards? Not that anyone actually obeys either rule these days.


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Nov 19, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> I agree that if the parents believe the child can handle it then the rules can be bent, but that's responsible behavior on the part of the parents, thinking about whether or not the child will understand. So someone who's 15 but mature about it shouldn't have an issue playing 18 rated gamed. Giving said 18 rated games to 9 year olds because they throw a tantrum is another matter.
> 
> Interesting side note, consider. You can have sex when you're 16 in the UK, but you can't watch porn until you're 18. Anyone think they got that a bit backwards? Not that anyone actually obeys either rule these days.


 
Yeah i can understand if your like 8-9 trying to play call of duty with all these grown people around then no that is not a good site to be at.

"Interesting side note, consider. You can have sex when you're 16 in the UK, but you can't watch porn until you're 18. Anyone think they got that a bit backwards? Not that anyone actually obeys either rule these day"
Wow thats pretty much restricts you to nothing at all because you can do one thing legally while still being on the low and doing the other.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> When kids make a fuss a lot of parents I see around my area, it's not necessarily world-wide, just what I've observed, they can only react in two ways. They either get angry and slap the kid and cause a scene, or capitulate to shut the kid up and the kid ends up playing some gorey game they shouldn't have access to. and then everyone wonders why these kids end up with no job, no prospects, more kids that GCSE's. It's not the fault of the game, it's a product, it's to be used responsibly. It's the fault of the parents who don't give a crap.
> 
> As for the store staff, I agree that they need to be more responsible, but most of them in this area at least get paid minimum wage and get treated like crap by everyone when they sell out of the latest killer app. They become so jaded by it all that they stop giving a shit, for the most part. I do know a couple of exceptions that have even ID'd me before even though they all know I'm old enough it's still procedure, etc. But the majority of the staff are in the same place as the parents. Life isn't what they wanted it to be and they can't cope so they just give up. It's the biggest problem in modern western society, IMHO. People hold themselves up against celebrities and multi-millionaire tramps famous for being tramps (Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, etc) and when life doesn't bring them any of it they don't have the spirit to just get on with it. Everyone expects the easy life and nobody actually gets it. Whereas I've been through hell and back on my journey so far, pretty much any minor improvement to my life can be a game-changer to me.


Your observation is very apt, I studied about it during my psychology course and it has to do with the very simple mechanism of rewards and punishments, although it may not seem to do so on first glance.

What happens mentally is that the child is subconciously checking its footing with the parent to see how far it can go in negotiations. The parents are afraid of the social stigma of _"causing a racket in a store"_ and for the sake of keeping up appearances, they bend to the child's wishes wheras from the start, the answer should just be _"No."_ and if the fuss continues, they should finish their shopping quickly and leave the store.

Bending to the crocodile tears _teaches_ the child that goals can be quickly achieved by means of aggression, be it mental such as yelling or physical like tugging at the sleeve etc. This is a _"reward"_ which instills aggressive behavior and the more often it occurs the more frequent and elaborate will be the scenes as time goes by. It looks innocent enough, but it's actually a _very_ effective way to teach a child that by being aggressive, it can obtain immediate real life benefits.

The parent should make it clear that no negotiations are about to take place and that his/her decision is final - instead, they engage in banter with the child which informs the child that it has equal footing, which it shouldn't have since the parent is supposed to be a figure of authority.

Of course this is a complex subject and I'm only touching the tip of the ice berg, not to mention that I'm not exactly an authority on the subject, but long story short, by allowing this to happen, you're _"tickling the kid's Pavlov"_ so to speak.


----------



## nando (Nov 19, 2013)

crappy parents make crappy children. i got my son when he was 4 and he was a total mess, with a tantrum here and a tantrum there… but i never resorted to placate him by giving into his demands or distracting him with anything - i simply gave him a time-out. wether at a firend's house, at the park, the grocery store, didn't matter where at the first sign of a tantrum i put him facing a wall with nothing to do till he calmed down. i didn't care who was watching, who gave me dirty looks, they would all later thank me for not bringing another turd teenager into the world. 

… he is now quite delightful and outgoing.

please parents, don't create asshole children.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2013)

nando said:


> crappy parents make crappy children. i got my son when he was 4 and he was a total mess, with a tantrum here and a tantrum there… but i never resorted to placate him by giving into his demands or distracting him with anything - i simply gave him a time-out. wether at a firend's house, at the park, the grocery store, didn't matter where at the first sign of a tantrum i put him facing a wall with nothing to do till he calmed down. i didn't care who was watching, who gave me dirty looks, they would all later thank me for not bringing another turd teenager into the world.
> 
> … he is now quite delightful and outgoing.
> 
> please parents, don't create asshole children.


 
...and as cruel as it looks to the outside viewer, this is precisely what a parent _should_ do. Now, I'm not entirely jolly about the whole _"facing the wall"_ situation in public places, you could subscribe that to slight public humiliation, but a _"time-out with nothing else to do"_ is a very effective parenting strategy and it is widely used.



Now, _"Super Nanny"_ is a so-called _"Pop Psychology"_ programme, it doesn't reflect the results of psychological studies in their entirety nor does it give reasons why certain strategies work - it's obviously crafted to be a TV show first and foremost, but this clip shows the _"time-out"_ in motion.

A violent alternative such as spanking has an obvious negative impact when you look into it - you're showing the child that if another person acts against his/her wishes, it's perfectly acceptable to hit them and _"straighten them out"_. All it amounts to at the end of the day is teaching the kid that it's okay to respond violently to violence.

_"Time-out"_ has no such negative connotation - it just gives the child time to calm down and reevaluate the situation. Kids aren't dumb - they understand a whole lot more than parents assume they do and they sure as hell aren't going to show the parents how much they're mistaken.

...yes, I know I've gotten terribly off-topic - I'm just posting fun facts at this point.


----------



## nando (Nov 19, 2013)

30 minutes is a very long time out. when my son was 4 i never did more than 2 minutes and that's like eternity for a child.

i did take him out of the store at first to administer a time out, but with him, any disruption of my work was a point for him, and me walking out of the store showed some defeat on my part, so i started doing it on the spot and behavior changed quicker.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2013)

nando said:


> 30 minutes is a very long time out. when my son was 4 i never did more than 2 minutes and that's like eternity for a child.
> 
> i did take him out of the store at first to administer a time out, but with him, any disruption of my work was a point for him, and me walking out of the store showed some defeat on my part, so i started doing it on the spot and behavior changed quicker.


The trick some parents use is saying that the child will _"sit as many minutes as old it is"_ - if the kid's four then it's four minutes, and it has to be four minutes straight _(of course this only applies to young kids - you're not exactly going to "time-out" a 15-year-old by making him/her sit in a chair for 15 minutes - that's just silly. It's merely working with the kid's imagination)_.

Now, I don't know the whole history of the family above, but from what I can understand, their previous methods have taught the girl that _"time-out"_ can be terminated whenever she feels like it with no consequences, the parents were just _"giving up"_ rather than persisting which made the situation worse, hence she was getting up and _"extending"_ her own _"time-out"_.

You implemented the technique effectively early on which is why your kid didn't need such long _"time-outs"_, the case above is considered _"extreme"_ which is why the struggle takes much more time, but gradually shortens as the kid figures out how the system works and that by resisting it only extends the punishment.


----------



## Xexyz (Nov 20, 2013)

Kalker3 said:


> It's even worse when the tablet belongs to them, they get all cocky and stuff.
> For f**** sake, my first electronic gadget was a secondhand Nokia when I was 10, and it was taken from
> me 1 week later because I spammed my sister all the time.
> *Kids these days have* *literally* *everything,* a cousin of mine received a freaking iPad for his 8th anniversary.
> That thing costs more than all my stuff combined, and I'm twice his age!


No they don't.


----------



## Kalker3 (Nov 20, 2013)

Xexyz said:


> No they don't.



They do where I live, I'm not sure about the US.


----------



## zachtheninja (Nov 20, 2013)

Kalker3 said:


> They do where I live, I'm not sure about the US.


From my observations, it seems that the more money a family has, the less time the parents want to spend correcting their child's behaviour themselves. Instead, they rely on "outside sources", whether that be a toy, a gadget, a friend, or a nanny, to shut their kid up in public; Whereas the lower-class families aren’t afraid to discipline their children in public (for better or worse).
source- Observing the general public in the DFW area (Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas) and Seattle, Washington.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Nov 20, 2013)

except they fuck up your eyes later on i'm proof of that been playing since i was 5 and i'm already half blind


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 20, 2013)

Bladexdsl said:


> except they fuck up your eyes later on i'm proof of that been playing since i was 5 and i'm already half blind


 
...yeah, I've been playing since I was a kid myself and my vision's perfectly fine... so...


----------



## anhminh (Nov 20, 2013)

Does making children killing people to steal their money to play MMO count as harm children?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 20, 2013)

Bladexdsl said:


> except they fuck up your eyes later on i'm proof of that been playing since i was 5 and i'm already half blind


 

On the contrary, numerous studies suggest videogames help with amblyopia or lazy eye. If anything, sitting to close to the screen will jack up your vision. Been playing videogames for twenty years and my vision is just fine.


----------



## Duo8 (Nov 20, 2013)

anhminh said:


> Does making children killing people to steal their money to play MMO count as harm children?


 
It's bad parenting.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 20, 2013)

Duo8 said:


> It's bad parenting.


 

Pretty much. Don't blame the games, blame the parents.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Nov 20, 2013)

That's cool, I wonder what the effect of a online community that teaches kids to pirate is?

Oh wait nvm maybe we shouldn't


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Nov 20, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> That's cool, I wonder what the effect of a online community that teaches kids to pirate is?
> 
> Oh wait nvm maybe we shouldn't


A community that teaches how to steal things? Um, hello, that's called public schools.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Nov 20, 2013)

Long time looking at a screen no good? Isn't that counted as "Harm by playing video games"?
That's a point I've seen a lot of times...


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 20, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> That's cool, I wonder what the effect of a online community that teaches kids to pirate is?



Several people end up learning deep and dark sides of computing that few others do, many more learn to apply the lessons of those in the previous entry and those of us that enjoy a fine whine get to experience a less common flavour.


----------



## Obveron (Nov 20, 2013)

I wouldn't let young kids playing GTA.  but Video Games in general help to excercise many components of the brain.  There is a great deal of neurological evidence that supports the theory that regular excercising of the brain can lead to long term improvements to various brain functions.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 20, 2013)

Kalker3 said:


> Violent games, can and will affect a young child mold-able mind, and since parents shouldn't allow 5 or 7 year old children to play those games, a study about them would be pointless.


 
You should tell OP that. That's my point exactly.


----------



## Kalker3 (Nov 20, 2013)

osaka35 said:


> You should tell OP that. That's my point exactly.


 

The title says children, not adults, children should play stuff suitable to them, by violent games, I mean FPS, GoW, and any other game with gore.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 20, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm insinuating nothing - not once have I brought up the classification of content - you have.....


 


Foxi4 said:


> This subject pops up whenever we hear of school shootings or terrorist attacks committed by young perpetrators - it's often stressed that they _"played video games"_. Some call that a relevant fact regarding the cases, others call it shifting blame.





Foxi4 said:


> ​...​​​So what does this study change?...it's certainly a step towards proving what gaming enthusiasts have been saying for ages...they don't do any harm.​​


 
As far as your other block quotes, yes...what you said was reiterating what I said. Not sure how that counts as me lacking reading comprehension when you just reword what I said.

My point of contention is you using school shootings and terrorist attacks as the counterpoint to this study. In those situations, they always talk about VIOLENT video games and their impact. So using that as a counterpoint insinuates that this study has something to say on the matter of violent video games. It doesn't. You agreed with me and insulted me at the same time. 

The only point of contention we have is that you said you insinuated nothing. You did, though probably by accident. It's cool, it's just misleading.



Kalker3 said:


> The title says children, not adults, children should play stuff suitable to them, by violent games, I mean FPS, GoW, and any other game with gore.


 
yeah....you sound like you're trying to correct me on something, but we're in complete agreement.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 20, 2013)

osaka35 said:


> As far as your other block quotes, yes...what you said was reiterating what I said. Not sure how that counts as me lacking reading comprehension when you just reword what I said.​
> My point of contention is you using school shootings and terrorist attacks as the counterpoint to this study. In those situations, they always talk about VIOLENT video games and their impact. So using that as a counterpoint insinuates that this study has something to say on the matter of violent video games. It doesn't. You agreed with me and insulted me at the same time.
> 
> The only point of contention we have is that you said you insinuated nothing. You did, though probably by accident. It's cool, it's just misleading.
> ...


Fair enough, thank you for elaborating, now I understand what you mean. I didn't plan to come across like that when writing, so just to be clear, kids should play games appropriate to them.

I was actually touching upon the idea that I heard many times from absolute die-hard anti-gamers, namely that playing games makes children develop a difficulty in establishing the difference beween what is real and what is virtual, teaching them that people have multiple "lives" and they "respawn" so it's okay to harm others and other such innane drivel.


----------



## Kalker3 (Nov 20, 2013)

osaka35 said:


> yeah....you sound like you're trying to correct me on something, but we're in complete agreement.


 
Sorry 'bout that, it's been a long day and I didn't sleep well.


----------



## Qtis (Nov 20, 2013)

Hmm.. Don't know about you peeps, but I for one have seen video games as educational in many ways. Most of my friends speak perfect (or close to) English and most of them play video games. I sure as hell can say that they don't manage as well due to the education or motivation (not saying it's bad in Finland, just saying the talking and accent part is due to other things).

Games can affect people in many ways just as any other activity. Some people may be traumatized by a stranger taking their hand and screaming in joy that they finally got a job after 20 years of unemployment. Some people may be traumatized by their Pikachu being knocked out in a virtual battle.


----------



## BORTZ (Nov 20, 2013)

I guess there is a new "game" in town that teens are playing. The media claims it spawn from GTA, but I dont really know. Its called "Knockout" where you target an unsuspecting pedestrian with a punch to the back of the head. The object is to see if you can knock someone out with your raw physical strength. I just thought I would alert readers here.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 20, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> I guess there is a new "game" in town that teens are playing. The media claims it spawn from GTA, but I dont really know. Its called "Knockout" where you target an unsuspecting pedestrian with a punch to the back of the head. The object is to see if you can knock someone out with your raw physical strength. I just thought I would alert readers here.



Such things have happened in various forms over the years. For a slightly more distant one look up "happy slapping".


----------



## DS1 (Nov 20, 2013)

They waste a whole lot of time though, wish I'd spent it doing something else, like learning a useful skill. I did teach myself Japanese, but go figure that the language is absolutely useless for anything but playing video games.


----------



## Gemuzuki (Nov 21, 2013)

I know a kid who gets to play shooting games like Call of Duty: Ghosts demo or battlefield 3 because his dad has those on his ps3.
He has mainly toy guns, or small plastic knives, he also has normal toys, like BayBlades or balls but i rarely see him playing with those.

The kid is not aggressive, mostly he just points the toy gun at random people in house, or keeps a pirate sword with him using his shirt to hold it.
Sometimes it does worry me a bit, it is not like he plays them every day (the parents only let him play in the weekend and sometimes he also plays non aggressive games) but that he gets interested so deep so easily :/.

If atleast if he knows what is good and what is bad, all should go well.
I guess some kids can handle video games better than others.


----------



## Duo8 (Nov 22, 2013)

Gemuzuki said:


> I know a kid who gets to play shooting games like Call of Duty: Ghosts demo or battlefield 3 because his dad has those on his ps3.
> He has mainly toy guns, or small plastic knives, he also has normal toys, like BayBlades or balls but i rarely see him playing with those.
> 
> The kid is not aggressive, mostly he just points the toy gun at random people in house, or keeps a pirate sword with him using his shirt to hold it.
> ...


 
He'll be fine  I have a friend who acts like that too.


----------

