McFreedom

Excellent editiorial in the LA Times today pointing out that real violence among kids has declined in real life as it has increased in video games:

On to the issue of aggression, and what causes it in kids, especially teenage boys. Congress should be interested in the facts: The last 10 years have seen the release of many popular violent games, including "Quake" and "Grand Theft Auto"; that period has also seen the most dramatic drop in violent crime in recent memory. According to Duke University's Child Well-Being Index, today's kids are less violent than kids have been at any time since the study began in 1975. 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. Many juvenile crimes — such as the carjacking that is so central to "Grand Theft Auto" — are conventionally described as "thrill-seeking" crimes. Isn't it possible that kids no longer need real-world environments to get those thrills, now that the games simulate them so vividly? The national carjacking rate has dropped substantially since "Grand Theft Auto" came out. Isn't it conceivable that the would-be carjackers are now getting their thrills on the screen instead of the street?

I especially like his point that any analysis of video games and kids should also ask "as compared to what?" He notes that "it's not as though kids have been reading Henry James for 100 years and then suddenly dropped him for Pokemon. " Another point he drives home - the thesis of the recent book Everything Bad is Good For You - is that today's games are terribly complicated, requiring players to "earn complex rule systems, master challenging new interfaces, follow dozens of shifting variables in real time and prioritize between multiple objectives" - all real life world skills that are actually useful outside of video games, too.