Dr. Wade on Video Games (Violence bologna within)

[Chaos Knux]

The heartbreaking story of a nine-year old Texas boy committing suicide at school led a Clinical Psychologist to attempt to pin part of the blame for kids acting out in ways outside of the norm on violent videogames.

The fourth-grader in question was a student at Stewart Creek Elementary School. He asked a nurse to use the restroom, locked himself inside and tragically hung himself. In a CNN video report on the story, Clinical Psychologist Dr. Brenda Wade was brought in for commentary.

The doctor cited two factors for why children are acting out in ways “never imagined possible”. The first was that there is now “more instability” in families, because of external stresses and the economy.

The second factor? Violent videogames of course.

Dr. Wade stated:

The other factor is that younger and younger children are exposed to very violent videogames with content that I would shudder to have an adult watch on a regular basis.

We just covered, a couple days ago, the story that children are watching as much as 52 hours a week of TV and sitting in front of a screen. A lot of that content is not uplifting and it's not teaching our children how to handle problems and feelings.


These statements came moments after the Doctor cautioned that we “don't want to blame and cast dispersions” at what role the boy's family may have played in the tragedy.

Dr. Wade bills herself as a nationally syndicated talk show host and best selling author (as seen on Oprah). Visitors to her website are also offered a free love lesson.

Source

So...blaming the family is bad, but blaming video games is ok?

...

...

Discuss

This is all I can add. Not even a disbarring can stop the will of Jack Thompson...

 

[XAlted]

It's like parents use video-games as a scapegoat for whenever something goes wrong in their life, when it's their own fault. Video-games/movies/etc. are not excuses for terrible parenting. It's their own fault for letting their underage child watch or play things they obviously shouldn't.

My mind is literally blown by the stupidity of some people.

 

[ZarroTsu]

Pong killed my baby! All the bouncing between the two panels made my baby think they were human beings, and then he shot jimmy thinking the bullet would bounce back and forth between them... It was horrible! Why would you do this, Atari? Why would you corrupt my baby, and ruin our family!?

That about sums up my two cents.

EDIT: Also,

<ZarroTsu> Also wait. What ******* video games is this kid playing? Virtual hang-self?
<ZarroTsu> Wait. Hang-man?
<ZarroTsu> <Kid> ****... I knew it was an S, but I had to say N... I... I have nothing to live for...

...Seriously, what.

I hate to break it to any and all adults in the video game faction of idolized blame, but violent video games, at "best", imply violence. They are virtual reality. It is a false world allowing people to do this without actually doing it. Hell, if the kid was given a gameboy before the time of death, he'd be distracted by it instead, and any depression leading up to the death would be avoided entirely.

Whatever bloody doctor this guy is, he needs to turn in everything he learned, now. It is the doctors duty to report truthful fact about human bodies, be it physical or mental ailment. This is in fact falsifying evidence with personal belief. Biology is a SCIENCE, Mr. Wade. SCIENTISTS do not assume, they PROVE. If they cannot PROVE, then they certainly do not ASSUME OUT LOUD.

 

[Wombatwarlord777]

Man alive, I do feel sorry for that poor kid. Whatever he was dealing with was more than any nine-year old (or really, anybody) should have to bear.

While I wouldn't rule out videogames as a potential factor indirectly contributing to his death, I wouldn't rule out anything else, either. The truth is that none of us know the circumstances surrounding this specific case, so it's really pointless to speculate. I guess that's the problem I have with the second half of that exerpt.

 

[JEV3]

If you don't think your child can't take the violence in the video games he plays, then don't let him play it until he can. Whether or not its flawed, overzealous, unnecessary, the ratings are there for the very purpose of helping parents make that decision. If your child is a sensitive soul, then don't get him an M-rated game... if your child isn't, then, well I'm not altogether fond of children playing M-rated games to begin with but I don't think its gonna do any psychological scarring.

I happen to be fairly sensitive myself... I feel sick when I see too much blood and I can't really stand to watch Left 4 Dead and its sequel. On the flip-side, I identify with characters in games quite readily. So its not like its a bad thing, but I think where I'm concerned, I'm better off staying away from L4D, God of War, Gears of War, Mad World, etc.

Also, from what little I've learned about psychology thus far... this sounds centered toward only one perspective of psychology, basically the concept that most of someone's behaviors are shaped by their environment. These are the guys that are going to pin the blame on video games, so we hear from them, but there are other perspectives that say its an imbalance of chemicals in the brain and others. I bet their viewpoint would be pretty similar to what seems to be the general consensus among gamers. "If he's not of sound mind, of course its gonna be a problem"

 

[ZarroTsu]

the ratings are there for the very purpose of helping parents make that decision. If your child is a sensitive soul, then don't get him an M-rated game... if your child isn't, then, well I'm not altogether fond of children playing M-rated games to begin with but I don't think its gonna do any psychological scarring.

The thing is, at no point was it even insinuated that the child -had- played video games. Ever. It was an assumption that ~Magically~ Violent video games caused it. Not that they even made him do it, just that they were the cause.

Even so, the rating system continues to be ignored by stupid parents, and then bought for stupid children who want them. If you asked your mom right now what {Insert mature rated game here} was, it's more than likely that she wouldn't know what you were talking about at all. From this, all you have to do is convince her to buy it for you under false pretense; or, for more lenient parents, simply ask her for money for it. Obviously as time goes on, this trick of asking isn't going to work, and will more likely be limited to birthdays; but at a pre-teen age, they're likely to allow such a thing, assuming the child hasn't asked once every-other day, and is otherwise a high-grade child.

I can almost guarantee you that even if the video game was entitled "If your child is under the age of 18, he or she will likely kill someone", the parent would still allow its purchase, then ***** about it -after- the child has played it. I know the assumption is "Okay, people aren't that stupid", but really, some of them are.


Also isn't this an old debate topic somewhere on the forum? Maybe not the specific article at all, but I'm pretty sure there's been a video game violence argument before.