Violent video games as analyzed by general semantics (Griggers, 2009)

My reaction to the abstract

Camilla Griggers (California State University, Channel Islands) has published a weird paper about the use of general semantics, which is itself weird, in evaluating violent video games and how it lead Seung-Hui Cho to commit the Virginia Tech Massacre. I can’t get a hold of her paper, but just reading the abstract is enough to raise weird looks, like that one.

Abstract

This article uses general semantics and somatics to evaluate the age-appropriate use of violent first-person shooter computer games. The paper argues that the natural development sequence for children and teens is from physiologic language to natural language, and from somatic-emotional patterning to higher level cognitive abstractions. Reversing this natural sequence can create psychotic breaks in which semantics become separated from somatic reality. References are made to Alfred Korzybski’s examples of semantic breakdowns in Science and sanity (1933) and to discussion of the role of mirror neurons in somatic-emotional development (Ramachandran and Oberman, Scientific American 295: 62–69, 2006). Seung-Hui Cho of the Virginia Tech shooting spree, who compulsively played computer games, is used as a case study.

According to the Virginia Tech Review Panel, Cho did not compulsively played computer games. He actually did not play any computer games. So, I wonder where her sources came from. I found a related website written by the same author and deals with the same topic as this academic article.

Griggers, C. B. (2009). The writing on the screen: A meditation on the Virginia Tech shooting spree: Age-appropriate use of violent first-person computer games. Semiotica, 177, 189-196.

Time spent playing video games affects our personal income (MacLeod, 2009)

Tatsuhiro Satou (Welcome to the N.H.K.) checking his dwindling chequing account

This is a freakonomics-type post. I stumbled upon a news article of an economics student’s research who found that for every minute of playing video games corresponded to a 0.4% decrease in personal income.

The nature of his data is from Statistics Canada’s general social survey. So we can’t make a lot of inferences or get any more details about the nature of video game playing, as MacLeod was cited: “The effect is a lot more complicated than this and it’s probably not always negative depending on if you’re playing Halo or a shooter game versus a puzzle or educational game designed for the classroom.” Apparently demonstrating a paradoxical finding:  “My work confirms that, in general, the more income a person has, the more time they spent playing video games, But that playing video games could also have a negative effect on a person’s income.”

Some thoughts about the causes could be that most video game players are students, which may explain the general decrease in income, the type of job they have don’t require much work or responsibilities leading them to have more spare time, or the more hardcore a gamer is, the less motivated in achieving a lot in real life, or certain type of gamers may lead them into unhealthy lifestyle which can influence their job choice. There are many possible explanations, so let’s not give up our video games right away because it decreases our personal income. There is still much work to be done for Ryan MacLeod.

Source: http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/843485

University press release: http://www.mta.ca/news/index.php?id=2187#2187

http://www.mta.ca/faculty/socsci/economic/student_research.html

Mature-rated video games and its association with problem behaviours among young teenagers (Olson et al., 2009)

Koyomi Araragi (Bakemonogatari) pouting

I often wonder what kind of impact my blog has and to whom it affects…

Cheryl Olson and Lawrence Kutner (with colleagues) have published a study based on data that created their book “Grand Theft Childhood” and propelled their fame with the video game community. I became aware of this study through gamepolitics, the study didn’t show up in a database search through informaworld. Oh well…

Abstract

This research examined the potential relationship between adolescent problem behaviors and amount of time spent with violent electronic games. Survey data were collected from 1,254 7th and 8th grade students in two states. A ‘‘dose’’ of exposure to Mature-rated games was calculated using Entertainment Software Rating Board ratings of titles children reported playing ‘‘a lot in the past six months,’’ and average days per week of video game play. Analyses were conducted using simultaneous logistic regression for binary outcome variables, and simultaneous multiple linear regression for continuous outcome variables, controlling for a series of potential confounders. M-rated game dose predicted greater risk for bullying (p<.01) and physical fights (p<.001), but not for delinquent behaviors or being a victim of bullies. When analyzed separately, these associations became weaker for boys and stronger for girls.

A full-text link to the study is available through gamepolitics.

GRE results

The results of my GRE indicate a good performance, however I fear the analytical writing section may be disappointing. Now on to the TOEFL, because two grad schools don’t give any exemptions for a Canadian applicant.

College students blog posts on video game violence

Last year, google alert sent me blog posts from undergrad students from the University of Oregon. I commented on some students on their take of the topic, which is of course video game violence.

This year, I stumbled upon college students from Brookdale Community College. Again, on video game violence (prof’s class assignment post). I read their posts, some are good, some are one-sided, some can’t differentiate “there, their, and they’re”, one even used Fox News as a reference, and some use colour schemes that makes reading a pain. I would want to grade their posts based on how good their arguments are, their use of references and their fact-finding skills, but I’ve got important things to do.

There are two thoughts that runs through all the posts: everyone should know better and they should be aware of misinformation on the internet.

Short-term effects of playing video games on attention (Tahiroglu et al., in press)

In about a week, I’ll be doing my GRE and I have been delaying some readings to prepare myself, although I don’t feel that I would be ready by the appointed time. Well, here goes +200$ down the drain.

Gamepolitics reported a study from Iowa State University. Kira Bailey (grad student) and Robert West (faculty advisor) about video game experience and its association with a decrease in cognitive control (type: proactive). Press release here. Reactions from the crowd were swift and rowdy. Christopher Ferguson sent his retort. And I decided not to review the article since the study is outside my academic boundaries; I get vertigo if I read neuro-stuff. Instead, I’ll review a Turkish study (still in press) from the Journal of Attention Disorders.

Abstract

Objective: The main aim of the present study is to investigate the short-term cognitive effects of computer games in children with different psychiatric disorders and normal controls.

Method: 101 children are recruited for the study (aged between 9 and 12 years). All participants played a motor-racing game on the computer for 1 hour. The Stroop TBAG test was applied to all participants twice (pretest: before playing the computer game, posttest: then immediately after playing the game.

Results: Participants with improved posttest scores, compared to their pretest scores, used the computer on average 0.67 ± 1.1 hr/day, while the average use of computers was measured at 1.6 ± 1.4 hr/day and 1.3 ± 0.9 hr/day for participants with worsened or unaltered scores, respectively. According to the regression model, male gender, younger ages, duration of daily computer use, and ADAD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) inattention type were found to be independent risk factors for worsened posttest scores.

Conclusions: Time spent playing computer games can exert a shortterm effect on attention as measured by the Stroop test.

I guess this is more relevant to the audience’s interest…but the study’s writing is something to look forward to…

Pixel Counts vs Death Counts: Videogames, Wargames and Simulation (Mantello, 2009)

Peter Mantello is a video game analyst and media studies lecturer at Ritsumeikan University (can’t find his faculty page), who examines the aesthetics, dynamics and politics of first person shooters. I came across this news article about his latest lecture at the Age. I searched throughout the internet for a video of his latest lecture, which is about the gameplay of FPS perpetuating stereotypes about the enemies of the United States and how it flattens their adversary into simplistic “bots” (IMO).

I couldn’t find what I was looking for, but I found another video from an earlier lecture (in July 2009) that should give us an idea of his work. I’m watching this hour long video as of this writing, almost half-way done… It’s so far removed from psychology lectures, with no discussion on data. It’s like being in a media analysis class talking about symbolism and old movies.

Update (09/10/09): Found the podcast of what I was looking for. His lecture starts around 1:01:00. Other non-gaming podcasts from the symposium can be found here.

Mantello, P. (2009). Pixel Counts vs Death Counts: Videogames, Wargames and Simulation. http://hdl.handle.net/10367/856

Neils Clark’s ten game addiction fallacies (Clark, 2009)

Via gamepolitics, Neils Clark wrote a very thorough post about the fallacies of video game addiction perpetuated in the media and through society. Clark offered an expert opinion regarding video game addiction, many of the fallacies are focused on the nuances surrounding addiction research and gamer experiences. Although, he would’ve scolded me if he were to read my addiction posts, he did presented fair observations how it’s not easy to get straight answers.

There are questions I’d like to add: Where do these fallacies come from? How they come about in the general public’s mind?

It’s amazing reading comments from an average reader, it shows how much of a difference in knowledge one has.

Clark, N. (2009) Big trouble in little articles: Ten game addiction fallacies. http://neilsclark.blogspot.com/2009/10/big-trouble-in-little-articles-ten-game.html

Hormonal responses differences when playing against an ingroup or outgroup (Oxford et al., 2009)

Via gamepolitics, this study examined FPS players’ hormonal responses towards an in-group versus an out-group in a competitive setting. I can understand the evolution part, but I’m a complete beginner in neurobiology, I can’t understand the entire results section.

Abstract

For 14 teams of three young men, salivary testosterone and cortisol were assessed twice before and twice after competing in within-group and between-group video games that simulated violent male–male competition. Men who contributed the most to their teams’ between-group victory showed testosterone increases immediately after the competition, but only if this competition was played before the within-group tournament. High-scoring men on losing teams did not show this immediate effect, but they did show a delayed increase in testosterone. In contrast, high-ranking men tended to have lower testosterone and higher cortisol during within-group tournaments. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that men’s competitive testosterone response varies across ingroup and outgroup competitions and is muted during the former. The testosterone response during the between-group competition also suggests that violent multiplayer video games may be appealing to young men because they simulate male–male coalitional competition.

I’ve emailed one of the authors for clarification, if the study has an implied link with aggression.

Facepalm: TEEN GAMING ADDICTIONS ON THE RISE IN U.S. (The pinnacle schools inc., 2009)

*sigh*

This (troubledteenhelp.com) came in this morning in my google alert mailbox and when I read the contents, well the above image is the best descriptor. The website reports on a study that found 10% of teens (wrong!) being addicted to online and video games, the study has already been discussed more than five months ago (See Gentile, 2009).

I don’t mind the late reports since I see them quite often, but this particular report has so many faults and biases. It’s so bad that’s both funny and depressing, I have to take it apart so everyone can mock them for their apparent ignorance.