The Economist has a good piece on “Video Gaming: Chasing the Dream.” The graph above is priceless as a response to the nattering nabobs of negativism who insist that crime is somehow “caused” by video games.
Hat tip: Johan Norberg, author of the outstanding book In Defense of Global Capitalism.
If the trends on the two graphs continue, in 2027 the one remaining violent crime in America will be committed by the only person in the country not at that time playing a violent video game…
Excellent point.
Of course, once the social engineers figure this out, they’ll switch from trying to ban video games to making them mandatory.
Hello Tom!
Good starting point, but insufficient. Correlation is not the same thing as causality.
In order to prove causality you need to control(the “other things being equal”) for other independent variables that might affect the crime rate. It is possible to argue that even though crime rates have fallen the number of crimes “caused” by video games have increased. The Economist graph shows correlation but no proof of causality or non-causality. The mixture of causes might have changed, wvideo games being on the rise and becoming one of the maoin causes of crime, superseding drugs, greed, envy, etc, etc.
Luis’s point is well taken, but this graph still is sufficient to cut the debate off at the start, because almost invariably the “video-games-cause-crime” crowd starts by bemoaning the “fact” that violent crime is increasing and then correlate that “fact” with increasing availability of video games. But violent crime is not increasing. That by itself ought to silence them.
Luis is correct that correlation isn’t causation, but incorrect in his second sentence. Adding any number of additional RHS variables won’t ever prove causality. It is impossible to prove causation from statistical data — not even Granger causality does this.
But the evidence is good enough that I am contacting the video game industry for funds to start a foundation that campaigns for laws that force mandatory play of video games by everyone under 21.
A once avid gamer, I feel compelled to comment.
While it is conceded that this graph could probably be used to silence the Hillary Clintons of the world, it is a weak instrument to go into battle with. To employ this graph as The Economist has chosen to or label it “priceless” is to use the same poor logic that our enemies do.
Let’s hope the English anti-gaming lobby or Los Angeles school districts do not think to use a graph like this to attack video games and their increase in popularity by pointing to their rise in crime. So too are U.S. statistics skewed by looking at 2000 and 2003 (coincidentally, VIOLENT games have only been produced on a measurable scale the past 5 years or so) as both years show the direct effect that gaming consumption has on violent crime. Further, while Mr. Steele is correct in claiming the impossibility of proving causation from statistical data, you can look at the degree of likelihood using statistics and in this case, The Economist surely could/should have compiled much more refined variables. Besides, who among us would comdemn Rothbard, de Soto or Friedman for using statistics to show causation as they so often do.
A more credible argument would be what The Economist points to later in the article. As a result of something, the older generations have a habit of scorning the younger generations whether it is their attempt to employ novels in university English classes or joy of listening to 50’s & 60’s rock n’roll music. The enjoyment of playing violent video games is just the next in a long line. Another testament to the lunacy of the argument put forth by Hillary was made by Peter McWilliams when he spoke of the censorship of violence. His argument being that if people were exposed to the true ugliness of shooting, pillaging, fighting etc., as opposed to the clean & neat version portrayed on television, they would be less inclined to commit the atrocities.
I’m proof that violence does not stem from television. With my addiction to the Godfather series, according to Hillary and her reasoning, I would have been a mobster LONG ago. To help ensure our success against the idiocy of these ignorant do-gooders, we shoud defend video games instead by citing whatever is left of the 1st ammendment and using more precise data to back up our claims and leave the “priceless” graphs to them.
P.S. Mr. Palmer, I’m a 1st time caller on your blog and I really enjoy reading all your views on the world’s triumphs and tragedies. Thanks for keeping it up ~ Matthew
violent video games are the essence that sustains my life. The world would totally suck without them.
My name is tim and am doing a report for a Shcool project
I wanted todrop a note and say thanks for the ifo it has helped
me alot .
thanks too, loved this, this is one of the few sites where people open-mindedly argue about this, doing this for a school projewct too, thanks for sharting with a meager student like me these premises…