![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.6){kind=small}
It was first published last summer, but a revealing piece by Game Revolution Editor Duke Ferris shows that youth violence is at historically low levels, even as politicians rush to enact laws targeting video game violence.
So why are we dredging this up now?
Duke's article, "The truth about violent youth and video games" turned up on Digg three days back, and has generated more than 1,500 votes, or "diggs," in that time. Numbers like those are a testament to how deeply this line of reasoning resonates with gamers.
Among Duke's points:
"There is no epidemic of youth violence in America.
The whole concept is a lie... Kids are not killing each other more frequently than they used to. In fact, it turns out the opposite is true.
Check out that ugly graph on the right... violent crime is at the lowest it has been in a good thirty years. For effect, I've also marked the release of the Playstation console, the first Grand Theft Auto game, the PS2 console, and the infamous GTA 3. Wow, look at those surges in violence!
Believe it or not, I got that graph... from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics. All I added was the video game timeline..."
One cautionary note - a GP reader who is deeply into research and statistics offers this caveat to the Game Rev piece.
Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →
Deleted comment
July 17 2006, 16:16:26 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
July 17 2006, 11:43:31 UTC 5 years ago
July 17 2006, 11:50:02 UTC 5 years ago
Great post!
I'd say videogames definitely help these numbers, as all of us have been saying from the start: it gives young people something else to do! It's a very logical argument, which would explain why senators and politicians refuse to believe it.July 17 2006, 11:51:15 UTC 5 years ago
July 17 2006, 12:03:42 UTC 5 years ago
Remember the Tom and Jerry Massacres. Never forget.
July 17 2006, 13:12:39 UTC 5 years ago
Oddly, I never tried it. I kind of figured the cartoons were, you know...fiction...you know?
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
July 17 2006, 12:16:22 UTC 5 years ago
Wow
I knew youth violence was down, but I was shocked to see just how much. It looks like about a 60% drop between 1994 and 2003. The real question is what caused this. I don't think human nature changed quickly and I'm not aware of any widespread changes in parenting techniques, schooling etc that correspond to this. The only significant, stable, widespread factors I can think of in youth culture for this period are the mainstreaming of video games and widespread internet availability. Or, to put it another way, kids are too busy playing video games and surfinf the net to get into trouble these days. I also don't feel so bad about getting picked on when I was younger now as it looks like about half of kids were.July 17 2006, 12:20:38 UTC 5 years ago
Its a shame none of the anti-gaming lot will take any notice of it.
July 17 2006, 16:18:54 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
July 17 2006, 12:29:27 UTC 5 years ago
July 17 2006, 13:00:40 UTC 5 years ago
Somebody...
...mail that to every politician we know.They still wont care.
July 17 2006, 13:29:11 UTC 5 years ago
Ignore that graph!
Don't let clear and and easy to understand evidence stand in the way of reactionism coupled with political goals! How is the world will that graph 'help' good politicians look out for people, like me, who cannot make our own decisions and may be at this very moment ready to kick someone's dog?Because it distorts of the message that video games are bad, no matter what, I think this graph, like the video games it protects, ought to be banned AND there ought to be a fine for a manufacturer of the monitor that shows such a graph on a computer. As well, there ought to be some sort of a fine for the manufacturers of the computer monitor 'ink' that writes the image of that graph on the monitor.
July 17 2006, 13:32:04 UTC 5 years ago
July 17 2006, 13:49:35 UTC 5 years ago
I merely cite the Digg entry because it shows the enduring popularity of this article... first published a year ago and still a high vote-getter on Digg
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
July 17 2006, 13:33:49 UTC 5 years ago
Argument against study/chart
But if you turn the chart upside down, it shows that youth violence is going up! AND if you were to flip it the other way around, it would show that youth violence is increasing.Of course, don't ask why GTA3 came out before the PS2 and GTA1, as well as the PS2 before the PS1....
July 17 2006, 13:46:39 UTC 5 years ago
I just read the WHOLE article...
... and it is AWESOME!!!! And ALL TRUE!! If you haven't already, read the whole thing RIGHT NOW using THIS: http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/aJuly 17 2006, 14:09:01 UTC 5 years ago
This is very easy to understand. If you want to get technical about it, a lot of violence on the streets was a product of sheer boredom. That's how a lot of street gangs started - bored kids (usually male) with a need for expressing their violent side. Video games have, in part, averted a great deal of that. There have been many other factors that contributed to the decrease in violence, but I know from experience, video games kept me off the streets and out of trouble. Thank goodness my Mother realized that, too (more games)!
July 17 2006, 14:54:17 UTC 5 years ago
good point!
" know from experience, video games kept me off the streets and out of trouble. Thank goodness my Mother realized that, too (more games)!"You know, I suspect that is an unexamined aspect of the entire debate. Teenage years can be risky times. I wonder how many parents feel safer about their kids having them home, comfortably playing - especially is home is in a dangerous neighborhood.
I'd love to hear some research on this...
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
July 17 2006, 14:51:39 UTC 5 years ago
I remember when it was first posted...
And IIRC, a day or so after, Duke got an angry e-mail from Jack Thompson. He didn't post it, only mentioned it.Which goes to show that Jack's perfect world is an epidemic of violent crime that he can benefit from.
July 17 2006, 15:07:34 UTC 5 years ago
An academic friend suggest caution...
A friend who is a stats whiz sent GP this:"While I don't believe that playing violent video games causes violent crime (although some evidence suggests that exposure to media violence may be a risk factor for already at-risk children), I found Duke Ferris's graph and conclusions to be grossly misleading. To be honest, I thought it was satire when I read it last summer.
Mr. Ferris makes one of the biggest errors in statistics by not accounting for other factors that changed over the same period. In fact, I could plot the same graph showing a steady increase in youth incarceration rates beginning in the mid-1990s, but it would be equally flawed (although somehow I doubt that it would get as many diggs). The point is that an analysis of crime needs to use multivariate regression. Simply making a two-dimensional plot and attributing the subsequent drop in violent youth crime to playing video games, as some people have unfortunately done based on this graph, is simply wrong when more significant factors like economic conditions, youth incarceration, and passage of state laws that try children as adults dramatically increased over the same period. In fact, it's theoretically possible for exposure to media violence to cause a small increase in violent youth crime and yet to observe the same downward trend when these other factors have a larger and negative influence on violent crime rates. Just my two cents. "
GP's brainy bud adds: "...Please note that I am not motivated or persuaded by the unsupported claim that playing violent video games causes violent crime, but that inferring conclusions from this graph is the wrong way to examine the relationship."
July 17 2006, 16:26:38 UTC 5 years ago
Re: An academic friend suggest caution...
I would consider that this graph, if anything, helps break the notion that there is a causal relationship between violent video games (or violent media in general) and violent actions. While it is, as your 'brainy bud' claims, an incomplete graph, it still makes a point -- that merely stating 'violent media causes violence', without any evidnce to support the claim, is rediculous.5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
July 17 2006, 15:40:24 UTC 5 years ago
maybe that's what's going on. someone got the graph mixed up.
July 17 2006, 15:54:08 UTC 5 years ago
First, it says "Adjusted Victimization Rates" - this just means crimes against other people. I suppose that that is all people care about as far as how many people are being hurt - but realize that these are only reported cases to the police. How many more 'bully fights' happen that aren't reported.
Second, it is a 'per 1000 persons' thing. I am not sure of the statistics of how many "1000 persons" over the age of 12 there were in 1993 as it is compared to 2003 but there could be a higher number of violent crimes - there are just more people who aren't committing them that helps drop the average.
Statistics can mean whatever you want to put them to mean.
But I also believe that it isn't the video game that's at fault here.
July 17 2006, 21:23:47 UTC 5 years ago
July 17 2006, 15:56:21 UTC 5 years ago
There is also evidence supporting the theory that Roe v. Wade and legalized abortion have far more to do with the drop in crime than any other contributor.
But you don't hear anyone touting that belief, do you? People will pick the justification they want to believe.
July 17 2006, 16:35:00 UTC 5 years ago
Why measure the victimization rate instead of number arrested for violent crimes? This could just as easily show that the violent criminals are committing less crimes before being put away/corrected, or that victims are less willing to step forward, much less as pointed out does not do any sort of sample-partitioning to actually figure out the effects of the different contributing factors (video games could still be increasing violence while other factors are lowering it by a greater amount). A much more straightforward approach would be to measure number of convicted felons per capita on violent crimes among both teenagers and young adults, and study the environmental factors (games, poverty, sex, family history, etc.).
While I don't like correlating games and violence, this reeks of counter-FUD propaganda since even if it does show the trend it appears to be trying to, it doesn't show anything about games in particular.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
July 17 2006, 16:33:30 UTC 5 years ago
They'll never give up
as long as someone dislikes videogames there will be people disregarding facts like this, and misinforming the masses, continueing the waste of time and money this issue is, when there's more important things to focus on, but i guess these politicians have nothing better to do, and they see it as a way to earn votes. and as for jack thompson he seems to be undeterred by facts, heresay and fantasy are good enough for him, i can't imagine how he comes up with all the creative lies he doesJuly 17 2006, 16:37:44 UTC 5 years ago
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/12/c
So actually just this last year, there's actually been a bit of a jump. Notice though that the people who actually know what they're talking about in no way blame games.
After all these years of decline, an increase was statistically inevitable I suppose.
July 17 2006, 18:06:58 UTC 5 years ago
July 17 2006, 18:31:06 UTC 5 years ago
Addendum
Jack Thompson Claim : SCHOOL violence is upOur claim : </b>YOUTH</b> violence is down
point: our team.
I am just saying it becuase it is something that he repeated a few times, in the public spotlight as well.
Is it not possible that a significant amount of the violence, though overall being lower is happening MORE in schools than in the streets or any place that isn't school?
.............exactly
Nice work though Dennis, perhaps there is another study proving this even more that's even more current? I'll check my RSS stuff and report back =p
July 17 2006, 19:06:54 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Addendum
the credit is all to Duke Ferris on this one...5 years ago
5 years ago
July 17 2006, 19:13:01 UTC 5 years ago
There are three kinds of lies...
"Lies", "Damn Lies" and "Statistics".With statistics you can proof that it is impossible for live itself to exist, yet here we are. Statistics are handy, but if you understand the fundamentals of making a statistic, you can fool anyone who DOESN'T understand it.
When using statistics, allways check how the statistics came to be. For one, where the statistics made by an impartial party (Usually people who care only in numbers and have no political agenda, or do not know the political agenda behind the research)
Two: How many relevant factors have been considered (Race, videogames, age, sex, finance etc...)
Thirdly: How many persons or samples have been used for making the statistics ?
You know all the lame ass commercials about creams and body lotions, where "80 percent of the researched women notice a positive change" ? Usually in the fine print that flashes by it says that they used about 100 or so people. From what I've learned at university (right before I quited) statistics mean something when at least 1500 subjects or samples are used.
July 17 2006, 20:18:43 UTC 5 years ago
Re: There are three kinds of lies...
While I can't fault the Mark Twain quote I must point out that sample size depends on what you are measuring, if you are studying very specific reactions (think a drug study, approx 10-100) you need fewer than if you are studying societal trends (poverty, violence, etc. 1000-millions)5 years ago
July 17 2006, 20:13:41 UTC 5 years ago
I just read it a moment ago.
Yeah! I just read this a moment ago on a Gaia Online Thread where someone brought this article into a quote box. It really tells us something here.Anyway, the people bring out this issue way too much.
But as the article says, Rock and Roll also went through the same crap.
July 18 2006, 15:51:19 UTC 5 years ago
Re: I just read it a moment ago.
Not only Rock & Roll, but D&D and Comic Books.Any new media that politicians think their older constituencies might not understand and thus might be able to feel threatened by.
Even Jack is nothing new under the sun. Search Wikipedia for Frederic Wertham sometime and a lot of the arguments will sound awfully familiar.
We'll eventually win once the politicians that start getting into office are either former or current gamers that know that all the scaremongering is utter hogwash, and it will all quietly fade away until the next big scary threat to the children pops up.
5 years ago
5 years ago
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →