Logic behind researchers’ claims that video games cause violence is suspect
To the Daily:
In response to the story More video games marketed toward adult audiences, (01/09/03), children are hostile after playing violent video games because it is a stimulating activity. Sit a kid in front of any video game and he’ll push a button faster, hit a ball harder or tend to be more aggressive simply because it’s arousing. It could be argued that getting out of my chair and walking to the fridge could make me more hostile. By the time I get there, my heart rate will be faster and I’ll be breathing harder and be more alert.
Violent video games have come under heavy criticism in recent years for their effect on society, especially because of Columbine. That exemplified the violent nature of the games as it became clear that the killers played many of them.
Dozens of psychological studies spanning three decades have tried to link aggression with watching grisly, violent media. Jonathan Freedman wrote an assessment of scientific “evidence” last year detailing that media violence has shown nothing of causation for violence. The results have not been consistent, he writes. Not one study has shown that those who are exposed to more media violence are more likely to become criminals, to hurt anyone, to commit any violent crime or any serious aggressive act. There is not the slightest significant indication that watching media violence for many years leads to more aggression or that ceasing to watch or play games leads to less aggression. Playing video games will not make me practice violence in real life. The skills are far too different. If I want to hurt someone, I can hardly use my “Doom” skills against them, because clicking a mouse won’t get me very far. The problem comes from being unable to distinguish fantasy from reality.
It’s not blood on the screen, it’s an off-colored red pixel and people who commit violence because of video games are psychopaths. I highly doubt that playing “Super Mario Bros.” will cause children to jump on each others’ heads.
Carr bears culpability for Michigan’s football struggles
To the Daily:
I just read James Clarahan’s viewpoint Lloyd Carr 2004 (01/09/03), and literally had my jaw drop at Clarahan’s twisted logic. How in the world is it Drew Henson’s fault that the 2000 season was a disappointment? The first loss was to UCLA, which happened when Henson was injured and in the other two losses the offense scored a combined 82 points! Personally I do not think that it is very much to ask a Michigan defense to hold their opponent under 30 points.
Also, Clarahan blaming Henson for the programs performance in ’98, ’99 and ’01, thereby taking the blame off Carr was laughable. No matter what Henson allegedly demanded, it was Carr who complied and if Clarahan’s allegations are correct then Carr should be fired instantly for letting a 19-year-old kid run the football team.
Student lends helping hand with her knowledge of science
To the Daily:
In this week’s Weekend Magazine (01/09/03), in the Elite Entertainment Exposition, there is a comment regarding the movie “Maid in Manhattan,” which incorrectly states that the plague is a virus. It is a bacterium.
School of Public Health