16 year-old boy attacks parents over . . . Halo 3

Originally Posted by The Readeemer

So the parents taking away Halo 3 was bad parenting. The parents letting him play Halo 3 was also bad parenting. The two situations are kinda paradoxical.

~read~

I never said taking away the game was bad parenting, I said taking away the game was the trigger mechanism. Allowing someone who likely showed signs of emotional or behavioral problems access to something violent was bad parenting.

Originally Posted by Enuf3

I'm one of those "the eyes say everything that needs to be said" people. Let me tell you.. Those eyes say a lot.

He reminds me of a few people I've met... who were all deeply screwed up. There's something very wrong with the kid, clearly. And his eyes say it all.

I knew my step mom was a nasty human being by her eyes.. and for a year she had everyone believe she was an angel. Lets just say.. she is now the most hated person in my family and in every court/lawyer's office I've been in this year.

The eyes are the key.

I can see your point, eyes are windows to the soul, but we can't use that as evidence against someone. You can't arrest someone on suspicion of murder because they have "cold, staring eyes" or "eyes that seem to look right through you" for... well obvious reasons.

Plenty of the most notorious serial killers are the ones who have charming eyes. Also, no one looks pleasant in a police mugshot.

OMFG. I would say a 16 year old is mature enough to play Halo, but he must he must be a retard or something to murder his parents.

This kind of thing scares the s*** out of me !
Its the same with he kids who go and shoot all their classmates. I don't think I could ever understand those kind of people, how deeply disturbed they are, and I hope I never do.

And the whole thing about the eyes, I agree that they can tell you alot about someone. On the other hand whenever I see a murderer or a pedophile or anyhthing else like that on the T.V then I always think they look creepy or evil and like they would be one. Maybe its just psychological?

Originally Posted by Presiding Judge

The Court must enter a finding of guilty on the counts set forth in the indictment. That being said, it’s my firm belief as a human being - and not as a jurist - that Daniel does suffer from a serious defect of the mind.

This Court’s opinion is that we don’t know enough about these video games. In this particular case, not so much the violence of the game because I believe in the Halo 3, what it amounts to is a contest to see who can shoot the most aliens who attack.

It’s my firm belief that after a while the same physiological responses occur that occur in the ingestion of some drugs. And I believe that an addiction to these games can do the same thing. The dopamine surge, the stimulation of the nucleus accumbens - the same as an addiction. Such that when you stop, your brain won’t stand for it.

The other dangerous thing about these games, in my opinion, is that when these changes occur, they occur in an environment that is delusional. Because you can shoot these aliens, and they’re there again the next day. You have to shoot them again. And I firmly believe that Daniel Petric had no idea, at the time he hatched this plot, that if he killed his parents, they would be dead forever.

This Judge sounds like the smartest person ever. Video games do indeed produce this reaction and work to the detriment of a person's mental wellbeing if overindulged. I would say that videogames are like heroin. Think about it - you're perfectly happy to sit in one spot, barely moving, with zero human interaction and a feeling of euphoria while you hide from reality. The dude was housebound for a year after a spinal injury! If this kid was actually playing for 18-hour stints then I can only imagine what was happening to his mental state.

It doesn't excuse what he did but DAMN, that's an awful lot of unreality to expose your brain to. When I started reading the article I thought 'WTF, how can his father forgive this evil bastard?' but looking at how long he had been housebound and playing games, plus from the sounds of it he was fairly sheltered beforehand, now I'm not so sure. I certainly hope that the family can move on from this; I don't think I could but fair play to the father for trying to find it in himself to forgive.

Originally Posted by insamity

And the whole thing about the eyes, I agree that they can tell you alot about someone.

They really can't.

They can tell you someone's general mood. (in combination with the rest of their face, general body cues, and voice.) but they can't tell you their "soul", or whatever.

On the other hand whenever I see a murderer or a pedophile or anyhthing else like that on the T.V then I always think they look creepy or evil and like they would be one. Maybe its just psychological?

Indeed, it's one part psychological and one part news outlets choosing pictures that make these people look evil.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

This Judge sounds like the smartest person ever. Video games do indeed produce this reaction and work to the detriment of a person's mental wellbeing if overindulged.

Source? Repeated studies have failed to find a link.

I would say that videogames are like heroin. Think about it - you're perfectly happy to sit in one spot, barely moving,

Just like listening to music, watching a play, reading a book, watching TV, appreciating nature, painting, writing, every office job on the planet...

And Heroin? Seriously? You're comparing a casual pastime with one of the most addictive drugs out there?

with zero human interaction

Video games with an online component (or if you have a friend over) provide more human interaction than all those things in my above list.

and a feeling of euphoria

Everything on my above list (other than office work, most likely) can give the same feeling.

while you hide from reality.

See above list (again, sans most office work.)

The dude was housebound for a year after a spinal injury! If this kid was actually playing for 18-hour stints then I can only imagine what was happening to his mental state.

Probably the same thing that happens to anyone who has to sit around not doing much for a year.

At least he was keeping his brain active.

It doesn't excuse what he did but DAMN, that's an awful lot of unreality to expose your brain to.

For most of my life I was an insatiable reader. That should be, if anything, worse than video games, since I'm emotionally invested in imagining what's going on.

I've slowly transitioned to reading less (hard to find good books) and playing more games.

And yet, here I am, perfectly capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality.

Sure, one anecdote is not data, but video games went mainstream about 25 years ago. The violent crime rate has happily stayed exactly the same or dropped the world over since then.

I never said taking away the game was bad parenting, I said taking away the game was the trigger mechanism. Allowing someone who likely showed signs of emotional or behavioral problems access to something violent was bad parenting.

Emotional/behavioural problems? As I've stated already, this guy didn't appear to have any problems until he started playing. He had (what appears to be) a fairly healthy relationship with his parents, went out snowboarding, etc. You seem to make it sound like he was already some sociopath before he picked up the XBox.

Furthermore, you have parents that are threatening him with kicking him out of the house. His parents lock the game up. His parents forbid him from playing, his parents do this, his parents do that. Somehow, it's still their fault.

How is that justified?

~read~

There have been studies in the Telecom department that show correlations between violence and aggression, but there's no evidence showing that is is a direct cause and effect, as well as there is no way to link violent media watched to violence acted out.

Originally Posted by The Readeemer

Emotional/behavioural problems? As I've stated already, this guy didn't appear to have any problems until he started playing. He had (what appears to be) a fairly healthy relationship with his parents, went out snowboarding, etc. You seem to make it sound like he was already some sociopath before he picked up the XBox.

Maybe not an actual mental illness, but certainly a supseptability that made him translate violence he saw on his TV to violence in real life, which most people would never do.

Furthermore, you have parents that are threatening him with kicking him out of the house. His parents lock the game up. His parents forbid him from playing, his parents do this, his parents do that. Somehow, it's still their fault.
How is that justified?

It is not soley the parents fault. It is the parents fualt for allowing thier child to overindulge in violent games, but the child fault for allowing those games to affect his judgement and emotional well being.

Saying videogames make you violent is like saying peanutbutter makes you die. Peanutbutter in a perfectly normal person is harmless, but if you already have an allergy to it, it can kill you. Its the same with violent games. Most people can play a violent game like Manhunt for example and then have no urge to strangle someone with a plastic bag in real life. Some people cannot, as we see with this kid.

Okay let's look at a few things here.

Petric's father had kicked him out of the house after a fight and Petric crashed with Johnson's family.

Petric's father, Mark, testified on Monday that he and his son had a great relationship, but that he put his foot down when his son wanted to play the Halo games

Yeah let's believe that Mark is a decent father with a great relationship when he just recently kicked his son out of the hour. And he's banning the game on the pretense of violence while owning a gun.

Now one might excuse the hypocrisy on the basis of self defense but locking it up with his gun? Really? After the obsessive behavior this sixteen year old had displayed you want him to find a gun with it if he tries to get it?

Now I'm not defending the actions of Petric, but honestly the father seems like a dumbass of Darwin Award proportions.

Now I'm not going to be some cliched anime character and say that the boy has the eyes of a killer from looking at one photo shot of him. Quite frankly, pictures taken in the courthouse aren't photo shopped for the papers. But I can say that he kind of looks like someone I would have seen at my high school before I graduated. You're average neanderthal-like high school student. Someone who was angry and didn't have the proper judgment to handle it when he found a weapon.

I could see how this could be Murder 2 case.

Originally Posted by John

Source? Repeated studies have failed to find a link.

Personal experience and observation of others. I wouldn't need a study to tell me that fire is hot, either.

Just like listening to music, watching a play, reading a book, watching TV, appreciating nature, painting, writing, every office job on the planet...

And Heroin? Seriously? You're comparing a casual pastime with one of the most addictive drugs out there?

How long have you sat listening to music or appreciating nature? And unless you ENJOY an office job, where's the comparison?

Video games with an online component (or if you have a friend over) provide more human interaction than all those things in my above list.

An online opponent gives only the illusion of human interaction, but I'll grant you the having a friend over.

Probably the same thing that happens to anyone who has to sit around not doing much for a year.

At least he was keeping his brain active.

Correction: he was keeping a specific part of his brain active. The rest was being neglected.

For most of my life I was an insatiable reader. That should be, if anything, worse than video games, since I'm emotionally invested in imagining what's going on.

I've slowly transitioned to reading less (hard to find good books) and playing more games.

And yet, here I am, perfectly capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that playing videogames makes you incapable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy, I'm saying that spending so much time neglecting the real world has an effect on your mentality.

Sure, one anecdote is not data, but video games went mainstream about 25 years ago. The violent crime rate has happily stayed exactly the same or dropped the world over since then.

Again, you misunderstand me. I'm not trying to link videogames with violent crime. I'm linking them, if overused, with a diminished capacity for real-world human interaction and diminished human empathy through lack of time spent maintaining these attributes. If a childhood is not spent developing social skills, they don't come easily in later life. Withdrawing from the world for ANY reason (TV, videogames, etc) produces this, not sporadic casual use. Most of the time, it results in a person being antisocial. In fact, the very WORD 'antisocial' describes the phenomenon pretty well.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Personal experience and observation of others. I wouldn't need a study to tell me that fire is hot, either.

There's a common saying in the skeptical community: "The plural of anecdote is not data."

Personal experience, especially of very complex issues (such as psychology), is not evidence.

Selection bias, confusing correlation and causation, all sorts of things work against you if you aren't doing a controlled study.

How long have you sat listening to music or appreciating nature?

Hours at a time.

And unless you ENJOY an office job, where's the comparison?

You simply said that video games were bad, at least in part, because they involve sitting still for a long time. So does almost all human entertainment.

An online opponent gives only the illusion of human interaction, but I'll grant you the having a friend over.

Really? I can talk to them (either through typing or voice, depending on the game.) if I have team mates we talk, joke, plan strategies...

Correction: he was keeping a specific part of his brain active. The rest was being neglected.

Alright, and? Your brain doesn't atrophy over a year.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that playing videogames makes you incapable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy, I'm saying that spending so much time neglecting the real world has an effect on your mentality.

I've spent almost my whole life neglecting the real world. I've yet to shoot anyone.

Again, you misunderstand me. I'm not trying to link videogames with violent crime. I'm linking them, if overused, with a diminished capacity for real-world human interaction and diminished human empathy through lack of time spent maintaining these attributes.

Social skills, probably.

Empathy? Empathy is something innate and in-born to all non-psychopaths.

If a childhood is not spent developing social skills, they don't come easily in later life. Withdrawing from the world for ANY reason (TV, videogames, etc) produces this, not sporadic casual use. Most of the time, it results in a person being antisocial. In fact, the very WORD 'antisocial' describes the phenomenon pretty well.

And antisocial people are more likely to shoot their parents?

Originally Posted by John

There's a common saying in the skeptical community: "The plural of anecdote is not data."

Personal experience, especially of very complex issues (such as psychology), is not evidence.

Selection bias, confusing correlation and causation, all sorts of things work against you if you aren't doing a controlled study.

You let me know when they've figured out how the human brain works. Until then...

Hours at a time.

7-8 hours a day, with the occasional 16-18 hour session?

You simply said that video games were bad, at least in part, because they involve sitting still for a long time. So does almost all human entertainment.

And I never said that TV was good.

Really? I can talk to them (either through typing or voice, depending on the game.) if I have team mates we talk, joke, plan strategies...

Let me know when you make eye contact with them.

Alright, and? Your brain doesn't atrophy over a year.

Source?

I've spent almost my whole life neglecting the real world. I've yet to shoot anyone.

Sigh... "Again, you misunderstand me. I'm not trying to link videogames with violent crime. I'm linking them, if overused, with a diminished capacity for real-world human interaction and diminished human empathy"

Social skills, probably.

Empathy? Empathy is something innate and in-born to all non-psychopaths.

So are muscles. But muscles need to be exercised in order to function.

And antisocial people are more likely to shoot their parents?

Siiiiiiiigh..."Again, you misunderstand me. I'm not trying to link videogames with violent crime. I'm linking them, if overused, with a diminished capacity for real-world human interaction and diminished human empathy".

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

You let me know when they've figured out how the human brain works. Until then...

Perfect solution fallacy (or something related to it).

The fact that we don't know exactly how 100% of the brain works doesn't mean that what we do know about it is wrong.

And I never said that TV was good.

What of reading? Writing? Listening to music? Watching plays? Learning simple crafts?

Let me know when you make eye contact with them.

With webcams that becomes more and more possible, but why is eye contact needed? Are the people you're talking to somehow not real if you can't see them?

Sigh... "Again, you misunderstand me. I'm not trying to link videogames with violent crime. I'm linking them, if overused, with a diminished capacity for real-world human interaction and diminished human empathy"

Then why bring that up in a thread on videogames causing violence?

So are muscles. But muscles need to be exercised in order to function.

Empathy, fortunately, seems to lack such a criteria. Or, even if it does develop more the more you use it, the baseline level seems to be enough for ordinary human interaction and compassion.

Originally Posted by John

Perfect solution fallacy (or something related to it).

The fact that we don't know exactly how 100% of the brain works doesn't mean that what we do know about it is wrong

What DOES science know about how videogames affect the brain?

What of reading? Writing? Listening to music? Watching plays? Learning simple crafts?

When pursued to the point of obsession, all are bad. When pursued to the point of detriment of the person's social life, all are bad.

With webcams that becomes more and more possible, but why is eye contact needed? Are the people you're talking to somehow not real if you can't see them?

Yes.

Then why bring that up in a thread on videogames causing violence?

I thought your point was that they DON'T cause violence.

Empathy, fortunately, seems to lack such a criteria. Or, even if it does develop more the more you use it, the baseline level seems to be enough for ordinary human interaction and compassion.

Nazi Germany says you're wrong. Stanley Milgram says you're wrong. If one becomes able to depersonalise another human being, they become capable of quite a bit. And the Milgram experiments weren't on psychopaths.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

What DOES science know about how videogames affect the brain?

So far? That there's no measurable influence. At least, not any more than watching TV.

I thought your point was that they DON'T cause violence.

Indeed.

Nazi Germany says you're wrong. Stanley Milgram says you're wrong. If one becomes able to depersonalise another human being, they become capable of quite a bit. And the Milgram experiments weren't on psychopaths.

Humans have empathy for those in our little groups, rarely do we have it for people outside of them. That's not something that can be taught, either, any more than you can teach someone to breathe.

Nazi Germany and the Milgram experiments show that human empathy can be overruled. Most of those people (4/5, apparently) were not psychopaths, and did indeed have a sense of empathy. However, authority always overrules empathy in humans, it would seem.

Originally Posted by John

So far? That there's no measurable influence. At least, not any more than watching TV.

And TV is good?

Indeed.

Then why do you dislike an opinion that agrees on that but merely says that they can be harmful to a certain degree?

Humans have empathy for those in our little groups, rarely do we have it for people outside of them. That's not something that can be taught, either, any more than you can teach someone to breathe.

Nazi Germany and the Milgram experiments show that human empathy can be overruled. Most of those people (4/5, apparently) were not psychopaths, and did indeed have a sense of empathy. However, authority always overrules empathy in humans, it would seem.

So what else can override empathy? It's not an absolute.

Originally Posted by John

Humans have empathy for those in our little groups, rarely do we have it for people outside of them. That's not something that can be taught, either, any more than you can teach someone to breathe.

Nazi Germany and the Milgram experiments show that human empathy can be overruled. Most of those people (4/5, apparently) were not psychopaths, and did indeed have a sense of empathy. However, authority always overrules empathy in humans, it would seem.

That's not an absolute truth for all humankind John. Just for modern society. The question one must ask is why does authority overrule empathy in this case? Perhaps it is because society always expects authority to overrule empathy. Then what if someone were to subvert that authority?

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

And TV is good?

It isn't harmful.

Then why do you dislike an opinion that agrees on that but merely says that they can be harmful to a certain degree?

You're making a false dichotomy, there are more than two stances here. We're all just espousing different ones.

So what else can override empathy? It's not an absolute.

Authority is a big one, self interest sometimes, mob mentality, etc.

Originally Posted by Red Dingo

That's not an absolute truth for all humankind John. Just for modern society. The question one must ask is why does authority overrule empathy in this case? Perhaps it is because society always expects authority to overrule empathy. Then what if someone were to subvert that authority?

No, it's been true for all of human history. Some people resist some of the time, which is excellent, but humans are hard-wired to, first and foremost, respect authority, it would seem.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

What DOES science know about how videogames affect the brain?

Will Wright has a segment in this that discusses how gender and society plays into video games and how video games mimic the players' minds.