Decius wrote:
] We have a real problem in America with oversimplified
] responses to complex problems. When kids are shooting up their
] high schools we march on the video game companies. Obviously
] most people who play video games don't kill people. Obviously
] some video games can encourage some people to become more
] violent. Inconsistent results mean we are dealing with
] a symptom and not the source of the problem.

I am reminded of my recent post about the MediaWise report card on violence in video games. I can't help but think there's a connection here.

In your first statement above, in bold, I am reminded of a discussion we had not too long ago about the limited success of sound-bite op-ed as foreign policy in particular, and the problem with the public's short attention span in general. Not only is it becoming increasingly rare to find people making long-term commitments, it is perhaps even more rare to find people thinking deeply for themselves. Although I do not plan to engage on this thread, I very much appreciated your essay.

When it comes to the use of statistics in root cause analysis of human behavior, members of the general public, most scientists included, are ill equipped to make logically sound arguments. A few thoughts:

Most people who play video games don't kill people because most people don't kill people. Video games are no more relevant than hair color.

Violent video games can provoke violent people to action. Silence and isolation can also provoke violent people to action.

People can argue all manner of chains of logic to support their beliefs. One might be inclined to say that violent video games lead to actual violence. The basis may vary. In counter, I might point out that the crime rate is often higher in low income areas. More poor children play video games, and they play more of them. Public education delivered in low income areas is, on average, of lower quality in comparison to that of other income groups. Poor children are thus more likely to play action games like "Manhunt" than intellectual games like Sim City 4 or Flight Simulator 2004. The positive correlation between violent video games and actual violence confers no causality. I would argue that the root causes are closer to the lack of quality education and real opportunities for personal growth. Ultimately, it is difficult to prove anything without controlled experiments, which are impossible to conduct properly in a free society.

Suppose we discovered that people with blue (dyed) hair were X% more likely to commit a felony than people with brown or blond hair. What does this mean? What is the appropriate response? If we decided to ban blue hair dye, would we expect it to reduce the number of felonies? Does blue hair dye cause the felony? Does denying it prevent that person from committing the felony? In a world where people are free to choose whether or not to dye their hair blue, how could we ever know?

Thinking about, Studying, and Solving, Problems