Let me begin with several quotes from a once-notable psychologist on a certain popular pastime for youths: “A strain on young eyes and young nervous systems...” “...the effect... is that of a violent stimulant.” “...their hypodermic injection of sex and murder make the child impatient with better, though quieter, stories.” But best of all: “Unless we want a coming generation even more ferocious than the present one, parents and teachers throughout America must band together...” Are these statements about the effects of video games on the minds of impressionable youth? Actually, they're not. They are statements from a book by Fredric Wertham (M.D.) about the effects of comic books on youth. A book published in 1954.
Of course, these statements read exactly like the vocal cries of violent video-game decriers today. Similar 'studies' – supported by tenuous science and collective social fear – became popular in the 1960s, when television became widespread. They became popular again in the 1970s with the introduction of colour television; the videogame arcades of the 1980s proved to be another convenient scapegoat for the emergence of delinquent youths; and of course the 1990s introduced violent first-person shooters, games that could be played on one's own home computer – games that brought with them a whole new public outcry. Ban this filth! Ban it all, and our children will be safe.
I won't go into the purported science behind the effects of violent video games here. There isn't room, and frankly what exists is difficult to take seriously – there are too many conflicting opinions in the scientific community, and what little unity exists on the issue comes almost exclusively from well-wishing but uninformed parents who base their judgements overwhelmingly on fear-laced protectiveness and little solid fact. It's an understandable attitude, but it makes for exceptionally poor conclusions. Little Johnny didn't become a serial killer after reading Superman back in the '50s, and it's just as doubtful that he'll be pushed over the edge after a marathon of Assassins Creed now.
Yet serial killers DO exist. Why? Well, studies conducted by the psychologists R. Ressler, A. Burgess, and J. Douglas on 36 incarcerated serial killers concluded that serial killers share several common characteristics. First, the majority of serial killers were the subject of abuse (physical and/or sexual) during their childhood. Second, in half the cases the biological father had left the family before the child was 12 – in the other half of cases he was “domineering and abusive.” Third, delinquent acts (including pyromania, theft, and cruelty to animals) were present in the childhoods of most serial killers.
And here is where the edge of our scientific knowledge falls away, and we enter the land of rampant speculation. But if history is any indicator, the staples of escapist popular culture throughout the last century – from comic books to video games – do not cause delinquency in children or adolescents. A definite pattern emerges out of the research above; neglect and abuse from parents themselves are the primary causes of psychological damage in children (damage that can and often does carry into adulthood). Perhaps those loving but misguided parents who forbid chocolate to their kids in the interests of 'health', who beat their kids in the interests of 'discipline', who hide their children from M15+ films at the age of 18 in the interests of 'protection'... perhaps they are the problem. Perhaps they should be thankful that little Johnny has a taste for playing Gears of War instead of setting the neighbour's house alight.
And perhaps if we say it enough, they will finally get the picture.
Of course, these statements read exactly like the vocal cries of violent video-game decriers today. Similar 'studies' – supported by tenuous science and collective social fear – became popular in the 1960s, when television became widespread. They became popular again in the 1970s with the introduction of colour television; the videogame arcades of the 1980s proved to be another convenient scapegoat for the emergence of delinquent youths; and of course the 1990s introduced violent first-person shooters, games that could be played on one's own home computer – games that brought with them a whole new public outcry. Ban this filth! Ban it all, and our children will be safe.
I won't go into the purported science behind the effects of violent video games here. There isn't room, and frankly what exists is difficult to take seriously – there are too many conflicting opinions in the scientific community, and what little unity exists on the issue comes almost exclusively from well-wishing but uninformed parents who base their judgements overwhelmingly on fear-laced protectiveness and little solid fact. It's an understandable attitude, but it makes for exceptionally poor conclusions. Little Johnny didn't become a serial killer after reading Superman back in the '50s, and it's just as doubtful that he'll be pushed over the edge after a marathon of Assassins Creed now.
Yet serial killers DO exist. Why? Well, studies conducted by the psychologists R. Ressler, A. Burgess, and J. Douglas on 36 incarcerated serial killers concluded that serial killers share several common characteristics. First, the majority of serial killers were the subject of abuse (physical and/or sexual) during their childhood. Second, in half the cases the biological father had left the family before the child was 12 – in the other half of cases he was “domineering and abusive.” Third, delinquent acts (including pyromania, theft, and cruelty to animals) were present in the childhoods of most serial killers.
And here is where the edge of our scientific knowledge falls away, and we enter the land of rampant speculation. But if history is any indicator, the staples of escapist popular culture throughout the last century – from comic books to video games – do not cause delinquency in children or adolescents. A definite pattern emerges out of the research above; neglect and abuse from parents themselves are the primary causes of psychological damage in children (damage that can and often does carry into adulthood). Perhaps those loving but misguided parents who forbid chocolate to their kids in the interests of 'health', who beat their kids in the interests of 'discipline', who hide their children from M15+ films at the age of 18 in the interests of 'protection'... perhaps they are the problem. Perhaps they should be thankful that little Johnny has a taste for playing Gears of War instead of setting the neighbour's house alight.
And perhaps if we say it enough, they will finally get the picture.
