comScore
Uncategorized Tuesday, March 20th 2012 at 5:40 pm

Proposed “Violence in Video Games Labeling Act” Centered Around Logical Fallacy

By ( ) Comments

Not too long ago, Oklahoma House Representative William Fourkiller proposed a bill that would add a 1% violence tax to all video games rated Teen and above, whether or not the games themselves were violent. Luckily, it didn’t go very far. Now, Representatives Joe Baca and Frank Wolf — a California Democrat and a Virginia Republican respectively — have taken the opportunity not to learn from Fourkiller’s over-simplification at all. Their new “Violence in Video Games Labeling Act” aims to slap violence warnings on all video games not rated “Early Childhood.” If that wasn’t enough, the warning itself relies heavily on fallacious logic to get its point across.

The bill is elegant in its simplicity, and seems harmless enough from the outside looking in. The idea is to equip video games with warnings alerting consumers that “Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior.” There are, however, large, glaring, egregious problems with this bill. But first, let’s cover what it actually says.

The bill defines a “video game” as follows:

As used in this Act, the term ‘‘video game’’ means any product, whether distributed electronically or through a tangible device, consisting of data, programs, routines, instructions, applications, symbolic languages, or similar electronic information (collectively referred to as ‘‘software’’) that controls the operation of a computer or telecommunication device and that enables a user to interact with a computer controlled virtual environment for entertainment purposes.

And this is the warning label they want to start slapping around:

‘‘WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior.’’

And finally, this label is to be placed, within 180 days of enactment, on:

the packaging of any video game that is rated ‘‘E’’ (Everyone), ‘‘Everyone 10+’’ (Everyone 10 and older), ‘‘T’’ (Teen), ‘‘M’’ (Mature), or ‘‘A’’ (Adult) by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.

And you thought Fourkiller’s classification of games like Rock Band as “violent” was bad. In the bill’s defense, at no point does it seem to be actively accusing games rated E and E 10+ of being violent, but if that’s the case, why do those games need the warning? It seems like the bill’s authors are smart enough to realize they can’t explicitly call out games rated Everyone as being violent, but on the same level, they think that slapping a violence warning on them is still okay. In actuality, it’s like requiring copies of The Little Mermaid to come with a warning label “WARNING: Exposure to pornographic films has been linked to sexual behavior,” by virtue of the fact that it is a film.

Which brings us to the really, really offensive part of this bill: The phrase “linked to aggressive behavior,” specifically the word “linked.” This is a perfect instance of one of my favorite logical fallacies: Correlation does not imply causation. “Linked” means that violent video games may cause aggressive behavior or that aggressive behavior may lead individuals to play violent video games, or that there may be some third reason behind the whole deal. One could say that cancer has been “linked” to chemotherapy. “Linked” has nothing to do with causality, but the warning label seems to be ignoring that fact. Especially considering that “Aggressive people like violent video games” seems like a pretty reasonable way to interpret this particular correlation. And that’s to say nothing of the vagueness of the whole thing. You know what else can “linked” to aggressive behavior? Physical movement in general. You know, things like movement of the hands and feet.

You could expect that plenty of people might see such a warning and think “Oh my, violent video games cause aggressive behavior!” and they very well might because in this context, that is what the warning — fallaciously — implies. After all, if it wasn’t intended to imply a cause and effect relationship, what would be the logic behind alerting the consumer? Just as a fun fact? No, the presence of the word WARNING makes it pretty clear that the bill’s authors think there is something to warn about. So, what does this all mean?

It could mean that the authors of the bill don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation, have been looking at the numbers that “link” the two, and decided this calls for a warning. Troubling in its own right.

It could mean that the authors of the bill are aware that “linked” does not mean “causes” and realize that a great deal of consumers will infer the incorrect meaning, while the use of the word “linked” will prevent them from having to present concrete, causal data.

Or — in the interest of not presenting a false dichotomy in an article concerning logical fallacies — it could mean any number of other things, like maybe someone was busy half-watching Matlock when they worded that warning.

Regardless of the intent involved, the “Violence in Video Games Labeling Act” not only trades in unclear “warnings” that are all but guaranteed to imply causation where it may or may not actually exist, but it also aims to plaster said warnings all over video games that are only similar to violent games in that they share an artistic medium. While the bill wants to draw attention to the fact that violent video games may be linked to aggression, maybe it should instead draw attention to the fact that video games have ratings and that all games are not intended for children.

Unlike the Fourkiller bill, which was pretty much unconstitutional from the get-go, the “Violence in Video Games Labeling Act” seems to have no such Achilles’ heel. Moreover, from a non-gamer perspective, it seems pretty harmless, so why not? Even from a gamer perspective, it’s not likely to change your life one way or another. That is, unless you’re relying on Aunt Sally to buy you the new Just Dance game and the warning spooks her. It is, however,  likely to sully the name of the artistic medium you love by slapping a label of universal derision on it, failing to treat it with the respect it deserves, a respect that film, music, and literature all enjoy.

(h/t The Next Web)

Relevant to your interests

Filed Under | • • •
  • Lunaris

    How many times will we have to disprove that there is a link between increased aggressive behavior and video games? Rated E games as well? Really now? We are putting this on rated E games like Mario.

  • Dr Coene

    I’ve played violent video games obsessively for as long as I can remember, and I’m the most laid back, practically pacifistic person I know. Gamers are like pot heads. We’re not going to hurt you. We just want to be left alone to enjoy this thing we call existence. Chillax.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1509070894 Heather Anderson

    The only game I think this should be slapped on is Mario Kart and only because after I’m done playing and get behind the wheel of my real car I forget every reasonable defensive driving skill I was ever taught in driver’s ed.

  • Deborah

    Any time one of these politicians wants to mandate this or add tax to that it means more money, and for people who really don’t care about us beyond our ability to keep making them more money. Tickers underneath the news programs anchors read “exercise now thought to do absolutely squat for your balance if you’re elderly, study finds”, “dogs and cats linked to higher risk of restless legs syndrome…study finds”, “men and women and sex linked to possible pregnancy, study finds”…etc. etc. and the list of stupid goes on and on. Why, God? Why do people elect these political science majors who have obviously totally skipped Biology 100, never actually pass bills, amendments or even go one week without enough to eat, spend or feel certitude about much of their lives so they can continually make plenty of income from our taxes to be totally incompetent at actually serving THE PEOPLE. Obama’s not who I’m referring to. Common sense and the ability to work together as adults are supposed to because THAT IS HOW THEY SERVE US, not this other sad and sorry excuse for public service that their inability to compromise or even pretend to care about many of the citizens who live in the very country they think they are equipped to police. Give them an inch of time or interest to their pseudo-religious rejection of homosexuals, women’s rights to choose ANYTHING or allow them to call themselves things they are never, ever going to be is simply suicide.

  • Anon

    Well, until it’s proven, at least. I’ve read some good studies seeming to show the opposite.

  • Anon

    But….cancer *does* cause chemotherapy.

  • Not always simple

     In addition to being incredibly vague, this is also entirely off center, and perhaps more cynical than even myself, which is no mean feat.  Let’s start with the basics, shall we?  This has nothing to do with Obama, or the pretend republicans who want religious law.  Ergo, there was no reason to bring either of them up.  Period.  This proposed bill was made by 2 people.  Each of those 2 sit on opposite sides of the “party fence”, so that makes it somewhat clear that this has more to do with ignorance than political intent.

    It is very easy to play the role of the angry constituent and make claims about “those slack jawed idiots not serving the people”, but take 1 minute to contemplate the millions of equally slack jawed idiots these people are supposed to be “serving”.

    In this case, they really should not be pushing for this bill.  That much is certain.  Beyond that, though, you cannot possibly claim to know their intent without making generalizing assumptions, which is the very same thing you are mad at them for doing.  That is called hypocrisy. 

    What it really boils down to is that they should not be pursuing this bill because they are woefully uninformed about the medium that has them so concerned.  While they certainly carry a fair portion of the blame for this, as some simple research is not too difficult to do (or more so, have some assistants do, since they themselves have to deal with droves of inane crap on a daily basis).  That said, however, how many “activist” groups are out there, presenting what they call “genuine case studies”, which are in fact nothing more than well doctored lies?  These people carry just as much blame for crap like this happening as the politicians themselves.  When you have hundreds, if not thousands, of demands made of you every day, I can see it being pretty easy to miss out on details that somebody with more time, and more experience with the specifics of the issue, would find obvious.

    Lastly, gamers themselves carry some of the burden of guilt on this issue too.  We are finally entering an era where gaming is entering into the world of the mainstream.  This is our time to show that our chosen medium is just as valid as the others that are well established (film, literature, etc), and yet we have as our proverbial mascots people that would sooner throw out racial slurs or “your mom” jokes than act as a cohesive group comprised of decent human beings.