An interesting infographic made its way across the news desk here at Big Shiny Robot! An organization known as OnlineUniversities.com sent the information that apparently comes from their study of the effects of video games on the human brain. This organization clearly felt the audience of BSR! would be interested in these effects, but they apparently don’t know that audience very well. Our readership generally tends to be reasonably intelligent and discerning. This means most of you will recognize the information they provided as bullshit.
Question 1: Who is OnlineUniversities.com? Most, if not all, of the reputable universities in the United States offer online classes. But this group certainly doesn’t seem to be affiliated with any known research institute.
Question 2: If you’re looking to publish your scientific findings about the neurological effects of video games, would you use a graphic that looks like it belongs in Highlights magazine? [You’ll need to click the picture a few times to make it big enough to read.]
Question 3: What is the agenda of this infographic? There are some salient points that can certainly be backed up by other data (basically the top half that includes the boy). But the focus is obviously on violent video games. Why this specific sub-genre?
Question 4: What is OnlineUniversities.com’s definition of violent? The cliched example of paying a prostitute, shooting her in the head, and reclaiming your money is likely part of this definition. But what about a hammer-throwing dragon in a game which sees the protagonist killing turtles by jumping on their heads? The graphic references activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex immediately after firing an in-game weapon. For example? It doesn’t seem like they mean Duck Hunt.
Frankly, the whole thing seems biased and unclear at best. At worst, it’s downright irresponsible. At no point does this simplistic chart address any factors of causality and correlation. The fine folks at OnlineUniversities.com may need an explanation of that one. “Those who play high-aggression games are significantly more anxious than those who don’t.” This statement is incomplete. Is one thing caused by the other, or are they just correlating facts? Are anxious people are drawn to violent video games, or do violent games make people anxious?
Further, where is the comparison of games to other activities? If playing violent video games “increases aggressive responses” and “active suppression of of emotional responses” what would would be the result of other “violent” activities? Specifically, do football, wrestling, karate, or other kid-friendly sports do anything different? The contention is clearly that gaming is bad for your child’s mental stability, but have any other options been suggested instead?
“Long-term playing can lead to obesity, poor attention span, and poor school performance.” What’s missing from this statement? Perhaps that reading and watching television can also lead to obesity? Is there any research to show whether Kinect, Move, or Wii motion controls affect a gamer’s BMI? That adults who can’t focus on a simple conversation because they’re distracted by a Facebook status update on their smartphone also have poor attention spans? Or that poor school performance isn’t a concern for the average gamer? According to last year’s ESA statistics, the median age of gamers is 37. Does that fact put a damper on a study that clearly looks to hype the negative effects of gaming on children? Obviously. If it didn’t, OnlineUniversities.com would have included the simple note that women over 18 make up a larger portion of the U.S. gaming audience than boys under 17 (37% versus 13%).
Regardless of how much of this chart is based on scientific study, it’s clearly been created with an agenda. In our modern “journalism” it will probably accomplish its goal. This handy little chart is the perfect tool for parental outrage based on “science.” Look for it on all of your national cable news shows soon. Some family values congressperson from California will certainly be citing it as evidence in the next law they create to ban the sale of interactive entertainment.
And yet, the actual neurological effects of gaming are important, and there is a good reason to study it. Those studies should be handled by scientists with no agenda other than finding answers. Those same scientists will certainly have pedigrees from more responsbile organizations, like an accredited university with some regulation for curriculum.
Actually, a fairly comprehensive study has already been done by Drs. Olson and Kutner, Center for Mental Health and Media (Massachusetts General Hospital / Harvard Medical School). While their book’s title,Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and, is also sensationalist, the actual content is balanced and informative. It also acknowledges the obstacles to a true, long-term study of the effects of video games on children and adults.
Unfortunately, a book requires some commitment to read and understand. OnlineUniversities.com’s infographic also has the added benefit of being simple to wave around hysterically in a PTA meeting. How many parents are going to turn off their iPhone long enough to read a book when they can get the information they want to get from the internet in five seconds?
Take this infographic for what it is: sensationalism designed to get noticed. Even if OnlineUniversities.com isn’t trying to demonize vdeo games, they know what people want to see about them. This is a quick way to get someone to look at their site, and maybe even join one of their degree programs. With that goal in mind, it’s not a bad tactic. Potential students can see how little effort it will take to publish a study with them.