Question Technology

Video Game Utopia

In a Wired column from last week*, Will Wright, creator of The Sims, tries to convince us of the new, unprecedented learning potential of video games.  Excerpts:

[An] entire generation has grown up with a different set of games than any before it - and it plays these games in different ways. Just watch a kid with a new videogame. The last thing they do is read the manual.  Instead, they pick up the controller and start mashing buttons to see what happens. This isn't a random process; it's the essence of the scientific method. [...] it's a fundamentally different take on problem-solving than the linear, read-the-manual-first approach of their parents.

In an era of structured education and standardized testing, this generational difference might not yet be evident. But the gamers' mindset - the fact that they are learning in a totally new way - means they'll treat the world as a place for creation, not consumption. This is the true impact videogames will have on our culture.

Learning in a totally new way?  Nonsense.  You want unstructured play, go outside!  Sure, video games have progressed in the past 20 years, but it's an incredibly restricted medium.  You exercise a tiny fraction of your senses and play within a fantasy world created by programmer geeks who probably haven't read a novel since high school.  (Okay, more writing is done these days by professional script writers, but the story depth still doesn't usually approach good literature.)

It should go without saying that kids have been playing, and learning, for a lot longer than video games have been around.  Only someone isolated in the short-sighted gaming world could imagine spinning the improvements in games in the past few years as heralding a "totally new way" of learning.

Society, however, notices only the negative. Most people on the far side of the generational divide - elders - look at games and see a list of ills (they're violent, addictive, childish, worthless). Some of these labels may be deserved. But the positive aspects of gaming - creativity, community, self-esteem, problem-solving - are somehow less visible to nongamers.

Video games aren't without their pleasures, but they offer very few, if any, that can't be found through more natural, healthier means.  They're an entertaining diversion, but not much more.

And not all critics of video games are old fuddy-duddies who've never played one, nor does that particularly matter.  (For the record, this fuddy-duddy is a 30-something computer science PhD who has played games, developed games and virtual reality systems, and known many avid gamers.)

Link: Wired 14.04: Dream Machines.

*Edit: Actually it's the intro to the April issue of the magazine, which he guest-edits.  The theme of the issue is The New World of Games.

Nissan/Microsoft Video Game Concept Car

Nissan and Microsoft have partnered to design a concept car that doubles as a video game console.  Drive it in the real world or the virtual world.  Gosh, I can't think of any safety problems that might create.  Great idea, guys.

From The Register:

"Conceived by Nissan Design America Inc. (NDA) and equipped with the Xbox 360 next-generation video game and entertainment system from Microsoft, the Nissan URGE concept car allows drivers (while parked) to play 'Project Gotham Racing 3' using the car's own steering wheel, gas pedal and brake pedal while viewing the game on a flip-down seven-inch LCD screen," Nissan and Microsoft said in a statement.

Link: Nissan and MS team on 'URGE to sit on your rear' concept car | The Register.

APA: Violent Video Games Increase Aggressive Behavior

The American Psychological Association has issued a new resolution concerning violent video games.  From USA Today/AP:

Violence in video games is bad for children's health. So says the American Psychological Association, which is calling on the industry to cut it back.

Research indicates exposure to violence in video games increases aggressive thoughts, aggressive behavior and angry feelings among youth, the association said in a statement issued Wednesday. [...]

Link: USATODAY.com - Psychologists call for reduction of game violence.

Here is the APA's press release:  APA CALLS FOR REDUCTION OF VIOLENCE IN INTERACTIVE MEDIA USED BY CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS.  The APA recommends:

• Teach media literacy to children so they will have the ability to critically evaluate interactive media.
• Encourage the entertainment industry to link violent behaviors with negative social consequences.
• Develop and disseminate a content-based rating system that accurately reflects the content of the video games and interactive media.
• Developers of violent video games and interactive media address the issues that playing these games may increase aggressive thoughts and behaviors in children and adolescents and that these effects may potentially be greater than the effects of exposure to violent television and movies.

New Study of Video Games and Violence Shows... Nothing

Or nothing much, anyway.  That would have been a more accurate headline for a CNET News.com story yesterday by Daniel Terdiman.  Instead it's Study: No link between games and violence.  Same goes for Techdirt who relayed it as New Research Can't Find Any Link Between Video Games And Violence.

I know that headlines are never very reliable, but the articles themselves are also wrong in their interpretations of the study and the press release about it.  (The press release from UIUC is here: No strong link seen between violent video games and aggression.  You can also find the actual academic paper called "Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an Online Game" here.)

From CNET:

"I'm not saying some games don't lead to aggression, but I am saying the data are not there yet," said Williams in a release. "Until we have more long-term studies, I don't think we should make strong predictions about long-term effects, especially given this finding."

So, in effect, Williams is hedging his bet. Maybe there's a link, he's saying, but no one can prove it definitively. And that, my friends, in scientific terms, means that there's no link. [emphasis added]

Umm... what?  No it doesn't.  It means what Williams says it means -- he's the scientist here.  I don't know where Mr. Terdiman learned science, but he might want to go back for a refresher.

Why does this research not say what CNET and Techdirt say it does?  First, a bit of Statistics 101.  Failing to prove a hypothesis does not necessarily mean you've proven the inverse hypothesis.  It depends on the statistical power of your experiment and other details.  Sure it's technical, but a science journalist should know this.  As the authors of this paper point out, they had limited statistical power (to show only medium or large effects and not small ones) and it's possible the measurement model they used, called GAM (General Aggression Model), isn't the best one for studying video games.

Furthermore, the authors caution against drawing conclusions outside the scope of the experiment (a certain type of fantasy game played online).  From the UIUC press release:

The results of the new study, Williams said, support the contention of those who suggest that some violent games do not necessarily lead to increased real-world aggression.

But he and Skoric concede that other types of games and contexts might have negative impacts.

“This game featured fantasy violence, while others featuring outer space or even everyday urban violence may yield different outcomes.”

Williams and Skoric also concede that because their study didn’t concentrate solely on younger teenagers, “we cannot say that teenagers might not experience different effects.”

It's still a very interesting and valuable study, of course, and an important part of ongoing research.  But it's by no means the end of the story, despite the spin it's given in the popular press and by sloppy journalists.

Video Game Violence Discussion

Over at Steven Johnson's blog the discussion continues about video games and violence.  He and a child psychiatrist have started discussing specific research studies.

Given the extended debate going on here about violence and games, I thought it might make sense to take a closer look at one of these studies, and walk through the problems that I have in more detail. Thanks to Mike S. for pointing towards this 2004 study from the Journal Of Adolescence, "The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance." [...]

Link: stevenberlinjohnson.com: A Close Reading.

Hillary Clinton vs. Steven Johnson

Steven Johnson (Everything Bad Is Good for You) takes on Hillary in a rather snarky op-ed in the form of a letter in today's LA Times (Link: Hillary vs. the Xbox: Game over).

He's probably correct on some points (sure, the politicians may not have entirely unselfish motives for intervening in the Grand Theft Auto fiasco -- do they ever?).  But he comes off as being opposed to any study of the effects of video games on children.  We should apparently just read his book and accept that "the kids are all right" and not worry about it.

From the article:

Your current concern is over explicit sex in "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." Yet there's not much to investigate, is there? It should get rated appropriately, and that's that.

True -- the software company screwed up, and they should be dealt with the same way as a movie studio or TV network when they skirt the ratings system.  Clinton's July 20th statement seems in agreement with this.

But there's more to your proposed study: You want to examine how video games shape children's values and cognitive development.

Kids have always played games. A hundred years ago they were playing stickball and kick the can; now they're playing "World of Warcraft," "Halo 2" and "Madden 2005." And parents have to drag their kids away from the games to get them to do their algebra homework, but parents have been dragging kids away from whatever the kids were into since the dawn of civilization.

The fact that kids have always played games doesn't make it any less worthy a topic for social scientists to study, does it?  Determining how or if "video games shape children's values and cognitive development" seems like a good research topic.  We should know more about it, especially when you consider that games are in fact getting more violent, and that desensitization and conditioning are real psychological phenomena.  Why not care about what games do to kids?  Maybe the study will even prove you right?

So any sensible investigation into video games must ask the "compared to what" question. If the alternative to playing "Halo 2" is reading "The Portrait of a Lady," then of course "The Portrait of a Lady" is better for you. But it's not as though kids have been reading Henry James for 100 years and then suddenly dropped him for Pokemon.

Here Johnson seems to be drifting off into his book... Is this relevant?  Surely there's a proper theoretical context in which to place video game studies, and competent researchers will consider that.  (Politicians may not, of course.)

Perhaps, Sen. Clinton, your investigation should explore the theory that violent games function as a safety valve, letting children explore their natural aggression without acting it out in the real world.

I agree completely -- the study should investigate the "safety valve" idea as well as others.  Why wouldn't it?  The National Institute of Child Health & Human Development is not a political organization, as far as I know.  The researchers who would be doing the study are probably close colleagues of the Duke researchers Johnson refers to.

Isn't more serious research to answer these questions a good thing for both camps?

More on this topic in an earlier post: Violence and Video Games.

See also the discussion at Steven Johnson's blog: stevenberlinjohnson.com: Open Letter To Hillary.

Violence and Video Games

Techdirt today has another post about whether video games do or do not cause youth violence.  (Link: Techdirt: A Look At Video Games And Youth Violence.)

Techdirt obviously comes down on the "do not" side, citing the "safety valve" argument -- better for kids to release their aggression harmlessly through virtual violence in video games than through real violence in real life.  It sounds intuitive, but is it true?  Techdirt says "most studies have suggested that there's no real link between violent video gaming and violent acts," but doesn't give a reference (Update: Mike at Techdirt referred me to this article).  I'm sure there are in fact some studies that have shown this effect.  Whether it's true of most studies is probably debatable, if it's even possible to measure.

There are quite rational arguments on the other side as well.  In his book On Killing : The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Dave Grossman states some of them.  (His later books apparently address media violence in more depth, but I'm not familiar with them.)  He argues that simulated violence can be used to override a person's natural inhibitions and reluctance to commit violence.  It does this in two main ways: desensitization and conditioning.  This is what the military has learned and it has informed the way they train soldiers.  In fact, they now use video games as part of training.

With proper conditioning, a soldier will react automatically in a situation where they need to kill an enemy.  Without this training, most soldiers are extremely reluctant to fire their weapons, and in fact many didn't in earlier wars, including WWI and WWII.  This changed in Vietnam; because of conditioning, Grossman claims, many more soldiers were willing to kill (over 90%).

Obviously there are shades of grey here.  How violent is violent enough to condition someone to kill unthinkingly, and where exactly do today's popular games rate?  But it's naive to dismiss the arguments about desensitization and conditioning out of hand.  Obviously the military thinks there's something to this, and they should know.

Grossman also made a surprisingly strong (to me) blanket statement to the effect that in the 1990s, the American Psychological Assocation stated that there is no doubt whatsoever that increased media violence is correlated with increased real-life violence.  (I don't have the exact quote handy.)  That surprised me because I think most popular media reports give the impression that this question hasn't been answered adequately.

So which is it?  Each side can and does claim that "most studies" are on their side, and unless you're prepared to really dig into the research it's hard for the layperson to know who to believe.

Do Games Prime the Brain for Violence?

New Scientist reports on a new study of brain activity and video game violence.  Excerpt:

Klaus Mathiak at the University of Aachen in Germany set out to discover what is happening in gamers' brains as they encounter violent situations. [...]

He found that as violence became imminent, the cognitive parts of the brain became more active. And during a fight, emotional parts of the brain, such as the amygdala and parts of the anterior cingulate cortex, were shut down. This pattern is the same as that seen in subjects who have had brain scans during other simulated violent situations such as imagining an aggressive encounter. It is impossible to scan people's brains during acts of real aggression so Mathiak argues that this is as close as you can get to the real thing. It suggests that video games are a "training for the brain to react with this pattern," he says.

Niels Birbaumer of the University of Tübingen in Germany speculates that playing violent video games regularly would strengthen these circuits in the brain. A regular player confronted with a similar real-life situation, might be more primed for aggression, Birbaumer says.

Link: New Scientist News - Do games prime brain for violence?.

This appears to support arguments that Dave Grossman has been making for several years -- see his classic book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society and more at his website Killology.

"Exertainment" Nonsense

Mark at the Families and Technology blog points out the insanity of one school district's plan to use PlayStation games for phys-ed.

Quoting the original Wired story:

    The proposed program would require space in the school for exertainment, with five to seven different stations capable of handling a full class of 35 children for the 50 minutes they'd ordinarily spend on the basketball court.

    ...the district is looking into other types of exertainment software, such as products that marry stationary bikes with video-game displays and devices that use special controllers to teach students how to throw a baseball correctly.

Quoting Families and Technology:

They're going to replace traditional physical education with video game-based exertainment. I think that's insane. A stationary bike can provide aerobic exercise, but it doesn't do anything for developing coordination, agility, and physical skills that you can get by playing basketball, baseball, tennis, kickball, hockey... It's simple aerobic exercise combine with the mind-numbing qualities of video games.

When they talk of special controllers to teach sudents how to throw a baseball correctly, I'm simply floored. When I was a kid, we had coaches and phys. ed. teachers that fulfilled this role very well.

Link: Families and Technology: School Sees Exertainment as a Valid Solution, but Seems to Miss the Obvious.

Yes, TV is good... for me to poop on!

Salon today has a review advertisement for Steven Johnson's new book, called Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter.  An excerpt appeared last weekend in the NYT Magazine: "Watching TV Makes You Smarter".

I'm not a total TV hater -- I watch TV (even during TV turnoff week), and I've played video games (and programmed them) -- but Johnson's arguments sound like utter bullshit to me.  Faster cuts and more characters somehow means TV is smarter and more "nutritional"?  His self-described "riff" on video games vs. books sounds ludicrous.

But I should probably reserve judgment until the book is actually out and I've read the whole thing.  And I'm sure more serious, critical reviews will appear; Salon's is disappointing.

Link: Salon.com Books | Don't kill your television.
(Apologies to Triumph the comic dog.)