Google Analytics

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

What Sports Teach Our Kids and Why Video Games are Better.

Violence at a Youth Hockey Game.


Introduction

Recently I appeared on a local radio talk show to speak about some of the benefits of Video Games for education. It is a popular topic for radio talk shows because it is somewhat controversial and many people have strong opinions on the topic (not really based on fact but strong opinions never-the-less.) You can listen to the show and see some of the interesting comments at the link Educating through video games -- Radio Smart Talk, Tuesday, June 23

On the show one of the callers accused me of just pointing out the positive aspects of video games and ignoring the negative aspects and then he went on to explain why organized kids sports were so much better at teaching kids life skills like, teamwork, cooperation, sportsmanship, over coming adversity, etc. Then he contended that video games can't teach ethics, empathy or other important skills. The implication is that kids learn far more positive lessons in organized kids sports than playing video games.

This is a common argument and seems to have merit on the surface but it has always bothered me. Do sports always teach these laudable values? Are organized kids sports "perfect" teachers of morals and teamwork while video games are "evil."

To determine if this is right, I did some research to find out just what kids learn playing organized sports.

Lessons Taught via Organized Kids Sports

Here are some of the lessons:

Humiliation builds character.
This lesson was taught by basketball coach Micah Grimes who's high school girl's basketball team beat a winless opponent 100 to zero. According to one article "The defeated, scoreless team had eight girls on its varsity roster and about 20 girls total in its high school. The team was winless over four previous seasons. The school for those girls specializes in teaching students struggling with 'learning differences,' such as short attention spans or dyslexia."

The opposing coach denies running up the score (which is up for debate) and in a letter to the editor, he wrote "We experienced a blowout almost 4 years ago [not 100 to 0] and it was painful, but it made us who we are today. I believe in the lessons that sports teach us. Competition builds character, and teaches us to value selflessness, hard work, and perseverance." So I guess the lesson from coach is if you humiliate another team 100 to nothing you are making them better.

According to Coach Grimes, he wasn't humiliating that team or running up the score, he was simply teaching those girls a valuable sports lesson, he was building character by humiliating them by as large a margin as possible so they'd be better later...that's the sports logic. I'm sure those girls are better today having been beaten by 100 points, 80 just wouldn't have the same "positive impact."

Here is the coaches letter. And here is an article on the game.

Kick the other team when they are down.
While it is debatable if Coach Grimes ran up the score or not (although it is tough to score 100 points in basketball no matter who the opponent is without trying), I do know for a fact that in some soccer leagues, ties and ranking are not only based on how many games you've won but are based on score differentials. The difference between the number of goals your team scores and the number of goals scored against you. What that means is the more goals a team scores in one season the more likely they are to win ties and to even have a higher overall ranking. This practice encourages running up the score which I have witnessed (17-0 U10 boys.) The incentive is to score as much as you can against a weaker opponent because you then have more goals overall. Kick them when they are down, you'll be rewarded for it later.


Winning means everything so do it at all costs.
In an unfortunate incident, two men, Michael Costin, a hockey coach, and father Thomas Junta got into an altercation. It occurred when Junta became angry about slashing and checking in what was supposed to be a non-contact hockey scrimmage, which Costin was supervising. Junta saw another player elbow his son in the face and yelled. Costin replied, "That's hockey." The two men then got into a scuffle near the locker rooms. The boys father, Junta, punched Costin repeatedly in the head and Costinlater died of head trauma.

Read the article here.

Here are additional stories, not at the level of life or death, but of adult mis-behavior at kids sporting events..

The first paragraph from above referenced article is chilling: El Paso youth football games were always rowdy events. But in one memorable year there were two stabbings, a gunfight, and numerous attacks on officials -- all caused by parents taking their children's games too seriously...After one huge melee one parent stabbed another in the head with a down marker while 8- and 9-year-old players watched in horror."

Lessons learned? Perhaps a new use for a down marker. Maybe the kids were learning problem-solving...if you don't have a knife handy and you want to stab someone, think of outside the box...what else is sharp enough at a football game for me to insert it into someone's head. Another valuable sports lesson.

It is ok to scream, insult, yell obscenities and even injure certain people, if you don't agree with them.
Here a just a couple of referee and umpire abuse stories. I am sure you've witnessed some yourself. These are from the National Association of Sports Officials who, unfortunately, have a long list.

In November 2004, a soccer referee was attacked by a youth coach at halftime of a match between 8- and 9-year-olds in the East Bay city of Albany

A parent body-slammed a high school basketball referee after he ordered the man’s wife out of the gym for allegedly yelling obscenities during a basketball game. The referee was treated at a hospital for a concussion and released after the attack.

Roger Bratcher, a father of a T-ball player was briefly jailed after an outburst against an umpire during a game involving 5- and 6-year-olds. The accused threatened to beat the umpire moments before walking onto the field and starting a fight with Eddie Smith, who was officiating the game, according to the criminal complaint. A girl who was playing in the game suffered a minor injury when she was struck in the face during the scuffle.

Also see Violence in Kids Sports for more examples.

And read Abrasive coaches, parents threaten youth sports.

Cheat to win, lie if need be.
In order to win the Little League World Series, coaches illegally played a boy who was two years older than any other boy in the league. First time I saw the boy on TV, I knew he was older than 12 but apparently his parents, coaches and others were clueless...ask long as they were winning.

And the false birth certificate didn't help either. The boy who dominated the Little League World Series in 2005 with his 70 mph fastballs was ruled ineligible after government records experts determined he actually is 14, and that birth certificates showing he was two years younger were false..."Clearly, adults have used this boy and his teammates in a most contemptible and despicable way," said Stephen D. Keener, president and CEO of Little League Baseball in South Williamsport, PA.

However, the founder of the Bronx league in which the boy was allowed to play took no responsibility. He stated, "I trust all the parents in the league to present original documents," said Paulino, who was flanked by team members and parents. "If the parents lie to the league that is not my problem." Did he look at the kid? Didn't the obvious skills gap raise a red flag? The boy clearly not 12. When it means the difference between winning and loosing, some things like rules tend to get overlooked. Ooops. The lesson? cheat if you can get away with it and look the other way if it means you can win a few more games.

Read the story here.

If your team has bad players, get rid of them anyway you can.
Mark R. Downs, a T-ball coach, was convicted of offering an 8-year-old money ($25) to bean an autistic teammate so he couldn't play in an important game was convicted Thursday of two lesser charges against him, and evaded more serious charges. The lesson? Kill the weak, autistic kids shouldn't play baseball, not seeing sportsmanship here, empathy, ethics...anyone? Maybe the coach was teaching the value of money?

Here is the sad article.

Playing Time is Life and Death
In Philadelphia a father pulled a .357 Magnum on his son's football coach, enraged that his son wasn't getting enough playing time -- in an Under-7 Pee Wee football game. Teamwork is the lesson, the father and the coach were working together to get more playing time for the seven year old (sorry under 7).

This comes from an excellent article on the topic titled: Parents, coaches who need time-outs Adult violence at kids' sports sets a terrible example

Conclusion

Ok, ok, you say, "but Karl these are a few isolated incidents, you are just picking out the most violent incidents." Unfortunately, this is a growing trend. Nationwide, incidents of violence among parents involved in youth sports quadrupled between 2000 and 2005 according to Fred Engh, founder and CEO of the National Alliance for Youth Sports. The National Association of Sports Officials receives more than 100 reports annually that involve physical contact between coaches, players, fans and officials.

These are real incidents of violence as opposed to the fictitious violence portrayed in some video games. These are real people pulling real guns, using real fists and endangering real lives. I ask is a child safer playing a video game where the interactions are not real or participating in an event that is likely to turn violent? The kids are witnessing real role-models behaving horribly.

Contrast the violent, win-at-all-cost narcissistic attitude that exudes from kids sports with the traits taught by video games (according to a joint commission of the National Federation of Scientists, the National Science Foundation and the non-profit group, the Entertainment Software Association.) The positive traits of video games:
  • Many video games require players to master skills in demand by today’s employers—strategic and analytical thinking, problem solving, planning and execution, decision-making,and adaptation to rapid change.
  • Video games can be used to practice practical skills and important skills that are rarely used, to train for high-performance situations in a low-consequence-for-failure environment, and for team building.
  • Video Games offer attributes important for learning—clear goals, lessons that can be practiced repeatedly until mastered, monitoring learner progress and adjusting instruction to learner level of mastery, closing the gap between what is learned and its use, motivation that encourages time on task, personalization of learning, and infinite patience.
When you contrasts the lessons learned from kids sports and compare the worst in kids sports (which is becoming the norm) with the worst in video games...kids sports are far more violent, dangerous and corrupting than an innocent video game where no real persons are injured, threatened or endangered.
__

Catalog of Recommended Books, Games and Gadgets
Recommended Games and Gadgets
Recommended Books
Content Guide

25 comments:

Mark Viquesney said...

Great post Karl. The caller will probably point out that now you are just focusing on the negative aspects of youth sports. Just as they focused on the negative of gaming.

Mike said...

I'm pro-video games AND pro-sports but this is a pretty stupid argument. For every angry violent athlete or athlete's parent, you can find someone that murdered a person after playing Halo 3.

To try and throw sports under the bus just to make a point about video games means you're pretty weak at making your argument.

Karl Kapp said...

Mike,

First, thanks for the comment.

While their are incidents of someone shooting another person because of video games (notably Will and Josh Buckner and Daniel Petric), the numbers don't support your argument.

The amount of violence and abuse in kids sports far outweighs the few, but highly publicized, incidences of violence related to video games.

You will not find a one-to-one ratio of video game deaths to sports violence. Sports-related violence is much more prevalent.

In fact, the National Association of Sports Officials receives more than 100 reports annually that involve negative physical contact between coaches, players, fans and officials. There are not 100 video game related deaths per year.

Having said that, I too am pro-sports and pro-video games. It is just that the other side (pro sports-only side) is so PRO-sports they fail to see any negative aspects associated with kids sports.

Sports are not always the "great benevolent teacher" that the supporters claim. They have a dark side.

Karl

bpavlock said...

While I think video games can be good (as I work in the biz), this article reads extremely biased. I could pick out a number of extreme examples demonizing video games (Columbine anyone?) and use that as my case for sports being better for teaching kids life lessons.

And I assure you for every highly publicized killing that the media tries to blame on video games, there are countless arguments, scuffles, etc. over video games. Heck, I remember my brother and I getting so mad at each other over Street Fighter, that we would end up in fights. We were just kids, but the competitive spirit drove us to anger at times, just like it can in sports.

Just as we dismiss articles that unfairly attack games, articles like this will be summarily dismissed by anyone without a vested interest in video games.

I would prefer to see an article that presented pros/cons of both sides, and showing how video games can teach kids good/bad lessons in addition to sports. That would be more useful and meaningful, imho.

Anonymous said...

The reason why this article "reads extremely bias" is because it is a rebuttal to the implication "that kids learn far more positive lessons in organized kids sports than playing video games." The point is to show that video games have a positive learning side and sports has a negative learning side, obviously both have both positive and negative sides.

I think the article makes a decent argument and shows why the initial statement is false. And if you don't agree with me, I'm going to play Halo 3 for an hour so I can work up my violent tendencies (you know the tendencies that are only inside of me when I am plugged in), then I'm going to go and hit some people in the face with my limited edition Kobe Bryant basketball.

Anonymous said...

This post takes the cake. You are making a blanket statement about organized sports based on a couple of news stories, the very tactic used against you during your interview by the anti-video game listeners. News stories hardly constitute valid research, and as stated above I could so the same thing with video games. Both organized sports and video games have positives and negatives, but to claim one is superior to the other requires a little more backup than a few news stories.

Matt said...

Hey Karl,

This is Matt Meyer. I know it's been a while but I enjoyed this post (and I've only recently gotten into the blogging stuff). I don't have a lot of experience with the gaming lessons (I was never into gaming) but I'm starting to pick up on it now that my 5 year old clearly is. I know the incidents you've selected are anecdotal but you are right, there is a trend. I've coached 10-11 year old basketball since 2001 and seen some bad (nothing that would make your list) and a lot of good. The common denominator whether it's sports or video games (as I'm finding out) is the proper perspective and engagement from the ADULTS. The plain fact of today's youth sports is that there are more sports and leagues at younger ages than ever before and it is bringing along with it the "Helicopter" parents that this generation has produced.

A quote I keep in mind about character and sports is that "Sports do not so much build character as it reveals it". I'm seeing the same thing with my 5 year old in video games. People who are good coaches or teachers know the importance of shaping the experience of the player/student.

I think your caller was wrong in overstating the lessons that sports teach but I'm not sure the incidents you point to prove he's wrong. I think what you point out is that we need better adults at every level.

Aaron said...

The examples you've shown, and the statistics you quote, illustrate not so much the point that sports are not always a great teacher of morals, ethics, and so on, but instead illustrate that parents and coaches (that is, the adults) who never learned those lessons themselves really should stay away from kid sports. The kids in these stories are generally to be found watching in horror at the felonious conduct of the adults. Left to their own devices, they'll play, play well, and have fun.

I think it's important for kids (and adults) to learn lessons in an environment where there ARE consequences. Real consequences that are truly felt and not only experienced mentally.

I believe sports provides a few things that, at the present time, simply can't be replaced by video and computer games. Among them are physical exercise and full personal contact with the other players in the game (teammates and opponents). A lesson on the morality of foul play is much more concrete when the kid in question can witness first-hand the reactions and results in the faces of his teammates, friends, and opponents.

I have little doubt that the gap will narrow as technology advances, providing physical play with a richer inter-personal experience even on the computer (or hologram room or whatever), but for the time being I just don't agree that computer play can be a full substitute for the good things that physical team sport can provide.

As one final point, as I often feel when I read a game review trashing one game in favor of another... Can't we just play them all? I play computer games every chance I get (mainly once my 2-year-old is in bed), and I still enjoy "real life" sports and exercise. There's room for all these things in life, if you try.

dchertoff said...

First off, I'm pro-sports and pro-games. In fact, I'm very much in support of using games for learning (just leave the violence at the school door).

With that said, interesting article, but it never actually focused on the play aspect of sports. It was more about parents/coaches that weren't actively involved in the sport itself.

The down side of sports seems to be when coaches and parents take the sport far more seriously than is appropriate. While the numbers might state there is more violence in youth sports than in video games, you have to ask "who is committing the violent acts?" Is the sport inherently promoting bad behavior due to the rules of the game, or is the bad behavior coming from an outside source?

In the case of sports, the violent and bad behavior is being practiced by adults. Personally, I think it's due to the over-protected nature society imposes on kids. Don't yell, don't punish, don't let your kid get hurt, etc. This mentality has now moved on to the competitive nature of sports, where by definition someone MUST lose - feelings WILL get hurt. Parents seem to forget that you learn more by failing and recovering from failure, than never being wrong. This over-protective nature only hurts kids in the long run, where how you recover after a failure is more important than anything else.

This success after failure, and working to address our flaws is what sports should teach kids. But for some reason, society in general is ignoring that aspect of youth sports. Maybe it's the cost of college and the fact that without an athletic scholarship, college is impossible for some kids. Maybe parents are trying to live vicariously through their kids. In the end, it doesn't matter as parents are imposing their own worldview onto kids that simply want to have fun. And let's be honest, how much time a kid plays ball when they are 7 does not matter on getting the basketball scholarship to Duke.

In the few cases of claimed violence due to violent games, it is the actual game player that committed the violence. I've yet to hear of a kid that stole a car and ran over a prostitute because they watched their Dad play Grand Theft Auto - but there was a case of a kid that blamed his crime spree on having played too much GTA.

So, there is still a difference between the type of violence discussed in this article (parents modeling poor behavior outside of the rules of the sport) and violent games (kids actively performing bad behavior as directed by the rules of the game).

I'm not opposed to the case made here, I just don't feel it is a valid comparison. I think you would be far better off investigating off-the-field violence of youth/teens that play violent sports (hockey, football) - or if there is a correlation between lying and playing soccer (how many non-contact injuries have Soccer players flopped on). It would be a far more accurate and relevant comparison.

My Back Porch said...

Hello Karl,
I enjoyed reading your post. I have played sports for many years and they have had a very positive affect on my life. A few coaches have been real mentors to me. I would definitely agree though that times have changed and parents and coaches seem to be taking things a bit more seriously than when I was a kid. I am not a gamer, but don't hold it in disregard in any way, so I am not really on one side or the other of this debate. I would imagine both gaming and sports have great potential to have a positive affect on other aspects of one's life. I am curious is there any empirical data to support either sports' or gaming's negative or positive affect on learning?
Scott Eldridge

carmstrong said...

I think that, by and large, while a lot of the comments made are very level-headed and objective, they miss the point.

Mr. Kapp wasn't suggesting that sports are inherently bad. Rather, he was merely reacting to a caller. This isn't a study, so merely citing articles to shed light on the dark aspects of sports is an appropriate tactic. Also, I feel that - to a certain extent - Mr. Kapp is being somewhat hyperbolic.

While an in-depth study on the negative impacts of sports has, to my limited knowledge, yet to be undertaken, I think that it's time something like this is done. One can argue that the aspects Mr. Kapp points to are the fault of the adults ruining the game, etc. but that doesn't do much to dispel the fact that violence in youth sports is becoming something of an epidemic.

Still, I suspect that you could establish a causal relationship between sports and isolated acts of violence but, once again, I don't know if that's ever been undertaken. The link between video games and violence, however, has been known, for some time, to be strictly correlative.

The fact remains that there is inherent worth in both video games and sports but video games are currently receiving the treatment that literature, film, comic books, music, etc. were subject to. Namely, ignorant people looking to pass the buck. It seems somewhat appropriate that sports, and the horrible events that can occur in association with them, should now share some of that limelight.

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree with Carmstrong. Karl wrote "To determine if this is right, I did some research to find out just what kids learn playing organized sports." Is googling news stories with the goal of finding negative press the research? He then proceeds to present the evidence as undeniable fact that these incidents prove that organized sports as a whole are not as good as video games.
The only "fact" presented here is that anyone can google some negative press on any topic and put their own personal spin on the subject.
As just about everyone else is saying, there is a time and place for both organized sports and video games...it's not an either/or decision to be made.

Janet Clarey said...

I wonder in what year incidents of violence among parents involved in youth sports were first measured. Do you know? What's the definition of violence at youth sports events anyway? Is it consistent? Is shouting violent? If so what must be shouted to qualify as violent? What are the benefits of playing youth sports over a lifetime vs. exposure to possible violence and how does that compare to video games? Here's an interesting excerpt I ran across: (http://youthsports.rutgers.edu/resources/general-interest/parental-violence-in-youth-sports-facts-myths-and-videotape)

"Experts on youth violence have been asked for their thoughts on the subject of sports rage as well. Dan Macallair, vice president of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, recently indicated that he believes there is an increase in violence at youth sporting events – particularly among adults. However, "we really don't know because we don't have the evidence," Macallair said. "My guess is that it's probably less than we think. . . My gut is that it's being reported more frequently and more widely just because of modern-day media practices and media technology" (James & Ziemer, 2001)."

In that Purdue article, they not "there have been no scientific studies conducted to support that view" (more violence).

BTW, what's your own experience with youth sports? What % of all youth sporting events you have attended had elements of violence?

Karl Kapp said...

Thanks everyone for the great comments and input. Food for thought

A study by researchers at Pennsylvania State University published in the October 2007 issue of American Sociological Review suggests that athletes who participate in contact-heavy team sports, such as football, are more likely to commit violence off the field.

Analyzing data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health on nearly 100,000 students grades 7-12, the study found a positive relationship between participation in middle school and high school interscholastic sports and fighting off the field, with the strongest correlation for football players, who were nearly 40% more likely than non-athletes to be involved in a serious off-the-field fight, and wrestlers.

By contrast, the study found that involvement in a non-athletic extracurricular activity decreased the likelihood of getting into a fight by over 25% and that age, family and socioeconomic status, parent attachment and school commitment also made fighting less likely.

Note of caution about results

The study, however, does not suggest, much less establish, that playing aggressive contact sports causes kids to become more violent off the field, only that they are related.

Sources:
Kreager, Derek A. et. al. "Unnecessary Roughness? School Sports, Peer Networks, and Male Adolescent Violence." American Sociological Review 72:705-724 (2007).

De Lench, Brooke. Home Team Advantage: The Critical Role of Mothers in Youth Sports. New York. HarperCollins, 2006.

My Original Source:
Contact sports and off-field violence linked, study says Thanks to Taylor De Lench for the article.

Original article by Derek Kreager titled Unnecessary Roughness? School Sports, Peer Networks, and Male Adolescent Violence

Karl Kapp said...

Here is some more peer reviewed research on the topic to address some of the "research" concerns expressed in the comments.

"Sports violence can be defined as behavior which causes harm, occurs outside of the rules of the sport, and is unrelated to the competitive objectives of the sport (Terry and Jackson, p.2).

Leonard (p. 165) identifies two forms of aggression in sports. Instrumental aggression is non-emotional and task-oriented. Reactive aggression has an underlying emotional component, with harm as its goal. Violence is an outcome of reactive aggression.

An increase in both frequency and seriousness of acts of violence has been well documented. Violence is most prevalent in team contact sports, such as ice hockey, football, and rugby.

While most occurrences of violence emanate from players, others, including coaches, parents, fans, and the media, also contribute to what has been described as an epidemic of violence in sports today (Leonard, p. 166).

Considerable research has been done on spectator violence. A central issue is whether fans incite player violence or reflect it (Debenedotte, p. 207).

The evidence is inconclusive. Spectators do take cues from players, coaches, cheerleaders, and one another. Spectators often derive a sense of social identity and self-esteem from a team. Emulation of favorite players is an element of this identification.

Group solidarity with players and coaches leads to a view of opposing teams as enemies and fosters hostility towards the "outgroup" and, by extension, its supporters, geographical locale, ethnic group, and perceived social class (Lee, p. 45)."

References: Terry, Peter C. and Jackson, John J. (1985) The Determinants and Control of Violence in Sport. Quest, 37 (1) 27-37.

Leonard, Wilbert Marcellus. (1988) A Sociological Perspective of Sport (Third Edition). New York, Macmillan Publishing Company.

Debendotte, Valerie. (1988, March) Spectator Violence at Sports Events: What Keeps Enthusiastic Fans in Bounds? The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 16 (4) 203-11. EJ 372 800.

Lee, Martin J. (1985) From Rivalry to Hostility Among Sports Fans. Quest, 37 (1) 38-49.

Original Source: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC): Violence in Sports. ERIC Digest 1-89.

Anonymous said...

Karl,

What about the peer reviewed studies on the link between violence and video games?

From: http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

Myths and Facts
Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).

Karl Kapp said...

What about the peer reviewed studies of no links?

Myth: Violent Video game research has resulted in mixed reviews.

Fact:According to the study The Good, The Bad and the Ugly: A Meta-analytic* Review of Positive and Negative Effects of Violent Video Games conducted by Christopher John Ferguson at the Department of Behavioral, Applied Sciences and Criminal Justice, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, TX 78045, USA, published in Psychiatric Quarterly, Volume 78, Number 4 / December, 2007, violence is not correlated with video games.

*meta-analysis is a study of studies

The following conclusion was drawn from the study of video game studies:

"Results indicated that publication bias was a problem for studies of both aggressive behavior and visuospatial cognition. Once corrected for publication bias, studies of video game violence provided no support for the hypothesis that violent video game playing is associated with higher aggression. In conclusion...results from the current analysis did not support the conclusion that violent video game playing leads to aggressive behavior."

Source:
The Good, The Bad and the Ugly: A Meta-analytic Review of Positive and Negative Effects of Violent Video Game

dchertoff said...

One thing that I've always wondered, and is relevant to the violent video game debate as well, is whether or not the activity (sport/video game) produces violent kids, or if kids with violent tendencies gravitate towards violent activities.

Take high school football: you want big, tough guys that like hitting people for your O/D line. How many of this class of kids started playing football to express these feelings, vs how many were recruited by a coach?

Now, the higher level thought here is that these games provide a safer outlet to express our innate animal instincts. Crowd violence can be seen as an extension of that. Group/Crowd/Mob mentality is very well studied.

So the research fruit here is in figuring out what direction the relationship lies: do violent individuals gravitate towards violent activities, or do violent activities create violent individuals?

Nature vs nurture yet again!

Bob said...

This confirms my suspicion that the boomers are passing violent tendencies on to their gamer children. Karl needs to add a new chapter to Gadgets, Games, and Gizmos that discusses how to block the transfer of violent tendencies from boomers to gamers. We wouldn't want our future workforce battling out their conflicts in the office!

Anonymous said...

I think some one is bitter they got picked last for kickball... Looks like they failed how to write a research papper also.

Anonymous said...

I like both sports and video/computer games.This article is very biased.The article only points out the positives of games and negatives of sports. The article makes a fair point about sports.
However nothing is perfect. There are reports of violence relating to games, but games do improve hand-eye coordination and are educational.What about teamwork and social skills and exercise in sports.

Anonymous said...

I say amen to this blog. In our small town the parents are now choosing select teams in 5th grade to travel. Now my poor small 7th grader doesn't have a chance to get on the school team to play for fun. It seems to be more about scholarships and pride. Sports literally run this town but what I want to know is how are their minds developing?

Anonymous said...

Hi,

My friend and I just recently started a blog called The Free Sports Chronicle please visit it and tell us if you like it.

Thanks

Anonymous said...

Dude, have u seen some of the games we have today? Most Videogames on the market are filled with
1. Violence
2. Swearing
and they can get a kid mad enough to yell at said game, useing said profanitys they have learned from game play. i know this because i've dont it. i'm 15 and i scream at almost every single game i play, even the clean ones. also, what do video games teach us kids any way? i read mark viquesney's comment and he said that some one only concentrated on the negatives of video games. what are the positives? is it that it keeps your kid inside so he doesn't get hurt and dosn't build any immunitys so that when he grows up he'll be a big fat sissy? Video games cannot teach
1. Sportsmanship
2. Athletic abillity
I think its safe to say that sports are definatly a better thing for you kids then almost ANY video game.

killv1st4 said...

@ Mike:
No, you really can't find someone who murders people after playing video games. And if you can,you cannot prove that video games were a factor. In the past thirty years, about the time that video games came around, crime has been steadily dropping. The air force recruits gamers to pilot UAVs. Your "facts" (opinions) make no sense. They might if they existed, but they don't exist.