Over at Computerworld, Ben Rothke makes the case for “Why Information Must Be Destroyed.”  “Given the vast amount of paper and digital media that amasses over time,” he argues, “effective information destruction policies and practices are now a necessary part of doing business and will likely save organizations time, effort and heartache, legal costs as well as embarrassment and more.”  He continues:

Every organization has data that needs to be destroyed. Besides taxes, what unites every business is that they possess highly sensitive information that should not be seen by unauthorized persons.  While some documents can be destroyed minutes after printing, regulations may require others to be archived from a few years to permanently.  But between these two ends of the scale, your organization can potentially have a large volume of hard copy data occupying space as a liability, both from a legal and information security perspective.  Depending on how long you’ve been in business, the number of physical sites and the number of people you employ, it’s possible to have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pages of hard copy stored throughout your company — much of which is confidential data that can be destroyed.

He’s no doubt correct that it makes good business sense to routinely purge data — both physical and digital — to guard against theft, misplacement, leaks, abuse, or whatever else.  Of course, in the context of digital information, there are many folks who would like to see digital records purged more frequently to avoid growing concerns about online privacy.  I think most of those concerns are over-stated, but it can’t hurt to destroy most collected information after a certain period to play it safe and keep customers happy.

Problem is, as we discussed here last week, if some lawmakers in Washington get their way, it might be illegal to do that!  Quite obviously, data retention mandates are at odds with data destruction efforts.  [Mitch Wagner has more coverage of the data retention debate over at Information Week and he quotes my PFF colleague Sid Rosenzweig.]

Many folks are discussing Christopher Ferguson’s latest paper on “The School Shooting / Violent Video Game Link: Causal Relationship or Moral Panic?” And with good reason. It’s an important look at how “moral panics” develop in modern society, in this case around video games. [Moral panics is a subject I have written on at length here many times before.  Alice Marwick’s brilliant article on “technopanics” is also worth reading in this regard].

As I’ve noted here before, Ferguson has penned many important articles raising questions about the claims made by some other psychologists (and politicians) that there is causal relationship between exposure to violent video games and youth aggression. Ferguson has shown there are reasons to be skeptical of such claims — both methodologically and practically-speaking. More on that down below.

In his latest piece, however, Ferguson, a professor at Texas A&M’s Department of Behavioral, Applied Sciences and Criminal Justice, is more fully developing moral panic theory, which he describes as follows: “A moral panic occurs when a segment of society believes that the behavior or moral choices of others within that society poses a significant risk to the society as a whole.”  To illustrate the various forces at work that drive moral panics, Ferguson uses this “Moral Panic Wheel”:

This image makes it clear that there is no one group or factor responsible for moral panics. Rather, it is the combination of many forces and influences that ultimately bring such panic about. Activist groups and agenda-driven researchers obviously play a part. Ferguson notes that:

As for social scientists, it has been observed that a small group of researchers have been most vocal in promoting the anti-game message (Kutner & Olson, 2008), oftentimes ignoring research from other researchers, or failing to disclose problems with their own research. As some researchers have staked their professional reputation on anti-game activism, it may be difficult for these researchers to maintain scientific objectivity regarding the subject of their study. Similarly, it may be argued that granting agencies are more likely to provide grant money when a potential problem is identified, rather than for studying a topic with the possibility that the outcome may reveal that there is nothing to worry about…

Ferguson points out that the media and politicians also play a key role in whipping up a frenzy:

The media dutifully reports on the most negative results, as these results ‘sell’ to an already anxious public. Politicians seize upon the panic, eager to be seen as doing something particular as it gives them an opportunity to appear to be ‘concerned for children’. Media violence, in particular, is an odd social issue with the ability to appeal both to voters on the far right, who typically are concerned for religious reasons, and on the far left, who are typically motivated by pacifism…

Importantly, Ferguson also notes that the generation gap fuels the fires of moral panics: “[T]he majority of individuals critical of video games are above the age of 35 (many are elderly) and oftentimes admit to not having directly experienced the games. Some commentators make claims betraying their unfamiliarity,” he says.

Now, let’s get back to Ferguson’s more general skepticism of what other psychologists or social scientists have said about violent video games causing real world violence. [I highly recommend this layman-friendly essay that Ferguson wrote as an introduction to his thinking on the topic]. In his latest piece, he summarizes what is wrong — both from a methodological and real-world perspective — with that research. Here’s some of what he has to say:

• “Seldom are actual physical acts of aggression examined” in that research
• “there are considerable difficulties in generalizing the results from laboratory tests of aggression to real world serious acts of aggression”
• “the generalisability of these results to real world acts of serious violence is dubious”
• “most correlational studies fail to take account of potentially confounding ‘third’ variables such as personality, family violence, or genetics. A few do, and consistently find that the link between video game violence and aggression is greatly weakened by the inclusion of ‘third’ variables.”
• “[there are] significant problems in the violent games literature related to the use of unstandardized, unreliable aggression measures, as well as publication bias.”
• “the empirical link between violent gameplay and serious acts of aggression or violent behavior appears to be slim at best.”
• “In at least one recent court case, it was pointed out that even some social scientists have cherry-picked data that support the panic view, ignoring unsupportive research.”

Next, Ferguson does something I have been trying to do in all the papers and essays I have penned on this subject in recent years: Introduce real-world data! After all, if there is anything to the ‘monkey see-monkey do’ theory of media effects, then the lab research should be showing up somehow in the data we have about actual societal trends. Of course, when you do look at real-world data you find the exact opposite story, as Ferguson illustrates:

as violent video games have become more prevalent, violent crimes have decreased dramatically. This is true both for police arrest data, as well as crime victimization data. Similar statistics for reduced crime have been found in Canada, Australia, the European Union, and the United Kingdom using both arrest and victimization data. This is certainly not to say that violent video games are necessarily responsible for this decline, even partially. However, this certainly cuts away the basis of any belief that violent games are promoting societal violence. The correlation (an astonishing r = -0.95) is simply in the wrong direction. This would be akin to lung cancer decreasing radically after smoking cigarettes was introduced into a population, which is simply not the case.

(Sources: C.F. Ferguson, ESA, Childsats.org)

I highly recommend Prof. Ferguson’s latest paper and hope that it can contribute to the shaping of a new dialogue about youth and media. We do need to be good stewards of our children and be mindful of watch they watch, listen to, download, and play. [I’ve written an entire book about how to do so.]  But we first need to bring this moral panic over games to an end so we can get on with a serious, level-headed conversation about how to better mentor our kids in an age of media abundance.  The current hysteria is not helpful.

My Kid is the Man of Steel! ... in his mind.

Regular readers will recall my great interest in video games and the public policy debates surrounding efforts to regulate “violent” games in particular. One thing I bring up in almost every essay I write on this subject is how fears about kids and video games are almost always overblown and that kids can typically separate fantasy from reality. Nonetheless, kids have active imaginations and adults sometimes fear that which they cannot understand or appreciate.  Friendly mentoring and open-minding parenting can go a long way to encouraging kids to make smart choices and understand where to draw lines, whereas efforts to demonize video games and youth culture almost always backfire.

Anyway, what got me thinking about all this again was an entertaining column in today’s Washington Post by Ron Stanley (“Who Needs a TV to Play Video Games“), which describes the author’s experiences with his nephew when they played out video game-like scenarios using traditional toys and household items. It’s a wonderful piece worth reading in its entirety, but here’s the key takeaway that I’d like to discuss:

There was no evidence that television and video games had stifled the kids’ creativity. Nor was there any evidence that technology had made them smarter than earlier generations. They simply had a different frame of reference, one that included video games and computers as well as ponies, pet stores and sword fights. Children play with the tools at hand, and they’re great at thinking metaphorically — at imagining that a landspeeder is a sentient robot or that a stick is a gun or that salt-and-pepper shakers are a bride and groom or that a card table is a horse’s stable. They’re also geniuses at figuring out simple mechanics. My 6-year-old nephew had to explain to me that miniature low-rider cars don’t roll very well on carpet and will flip over more than if racing on hardwood floors. Novice that I was, I was choosing cars that looked the coolest. And they are geniuses at intuiting rules and systems, and at re-creating these rules and systems in their own play. Children who play lots of card games will invent their own card games. Children who play lots of board games will invent their own board games. And children who play lots of video games will invent their own video-game-like games when they don’t have access to the game controllers.

What Stanley was discovering with his nephew is that (1) kids have rich imaginations and love play-acting and just being creative, and (2) video games have become part of the new narrative of adolescent play-acting and creativity. Kids adapt and learn to cope with new cultural and technological realities; often much quicker than their parents. More importantly, much of their play-acting, including that in which they play out “violent” scenarios, is an entirely natural part of childhood.

Henry Jenkins has done some brilliant work on this front, and the new book Grand Theft Childhood by Kutner and Olson is also essential reading in this regard [my lengthy review is here]. But the best thing every written on this subject is Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super-Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence, by Gerald Jones. It is a masterpiece, and I wish every parent and policymaker in America could read it before they propose the regulation of video games. As Jones correctly notes, “Video games are most threatening to adults who have seen images of them but never tried to play them.” He continues:

One of the functions of stories and games is to help children rehearse for what they’ll be in later life. Anthropologists and psychologists who study play, however, have shown that there are many other functions as well–one of which is to enable children to pretend to be just what they know they’ll never be. Exploring, in a safe and controlled context, what is impossible or too dangerous or forbidden to them is a crucial tool in accepting the limits of reality. Playing with rage is a valuable way to reduce its power. Being evil and destructive in imagination is a vital compensation for the wildness we all have to surrender on our way to being good people.

And “playing with rage” is exactly what we old farts were doing as kids too when we played (politically incorrect) games like “Cowboys and Indians” or countless other games that involved toy guns, cap guns, slingshots, bows-and-arrows, and the like. Of course, my generation gradually traded in our BB guns and slingshots for digital equivalents as video games came on the scene. And that was probably a good thing since, as Ralphie’s mom always warned us, “You’ll shoot your eye out” with those things!)

Bottom line: Cultures and the nature of childhood play-acting fantasies may change, but what will never change is the fact that kids need their fantasies. This is why I get down on my knees every night with my two kids and “play monster” with them. I stuff pillows in my shirt and let them bop me good as my dog and I chase them around and try to put them in “the dungeon” (which is usually a laundry basket or cardboard box). The X-Mas season is always great because we have a ton of those left-over cardboard tubes from wrapping paper, which still make the best toy swords. The game typically ends after Dad gets tired of getting bopped and plays “dead” so that the kids can declare victory and return to their castle and go to bed. But lately we’ve been playing video games together that play out in similar ways. (Lego Star Wars and Little Big Planet are big hits in our house currently.)

In the end, it’s just a different sort of fantasy. And they need all of them to become well-functioning adults. As Judge Richard Posner argued in his tour-de-force opinion in the 2000 case of American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick:

“Self-defense, protection of others, dread of the ‘undead,’ fighting against overwhelming odds—these are all age-old themes of literature, and ones particularly appealing to the young.” … “To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.” … “People are unlikely to become well-functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble.”

Exactly. Why can’t others see this?

Incidentally, I should mention that I just bought my son his first set of boxing gloves and a punching bag for a Christmas present. I’m going to let him beat up the bag a little to give my belly and head a rest!

Dr. Kourosh Dini is a Chicago-based adolescent and adult psychiatrist who has just published a new book entitled, Video Game Play and Addiction: A Guide for Parents. [You can learn more about him and his many talents and interests at his blog, “Mind, Music and Technology.“] Dini’s book arrives fresh on the heels of the fine book, “Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do,” by Drs. Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson. [See my review of that book here.]

Like Kutner & Olson’s book, Dini’s provides a refreshingly balanced and open-minded look at the impact of video games on our kids. One of the things I liked about it is how Dr. Dini tells us right up front that he has been a gamer his entire life and explains how that has helped him frame the issues he discusses in his book. “I have played games both online and off since I was about six years of age, and I have also been involved in child psychiatry, so I felt that I would be in a good position to discuss some inherent positives and negatives associated with playing games,” he says. Dini goes into greater detail about his gaming habits later in the book and it makes it clear that he still enjoys games very much.

Some may find Dini’s gaming background less relevant than his academic credentials, but I think it is important if for no other reason than it shows how we are seeing more and more life-long gamers attain positions of prominence in various professions and writing about these issues using a sensible frame of reference that begins with their own personal experiences. For far too long now, nearly every book and article I have read about video games and their impact on society at some point includes a line like, “I’ve never really played many games” or even “I don’t much care for video games,” but then–without missing a breath–the author or analyst goes on to tell us how imminently qualified they are to be discussing the impact of video games on kids or culture. Whenever I read or hear things like that, I’m reminded of the famous line from an old TV commercial: “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV.” Seriously, why is it that we should continue to listen to those critics who denounce video games but who have never picked up a controller in their lives? It’s really quite insulting. Would you take automotive advice from someone who’s never tinkered with cars in their lives but instead based their opinions merely upon watching them pass by on the road? I think not. Anyway, I found it refreshing to see Dr. Dini talking about his gaming experiences right off the bat, and I look forward to the day when I can meet or hear from other accomplished figures in positions of importance throughout our nation (lawmakers, lawyers, educators, etc) who are also gamers and don’t come at the issue blindly or arrogantly, as many still do. The reason this issue is so important is nicely summarized by Dr. Dini much later in his book when he correctly notes:

the irrational fear of the unknown is age-old, and the capability of this fear to prejudice people against useful, new phenomena can be pervasive. Approaching games with the sole purpose of finding their negative aspects will only confirm existing fears; potential benefits will then be lost. An excellent way to reduce these fears is to learn about the subject with an open mind. (p. 85)

Open Minds & The Current State of the “Science” of Media Effects

Dr. Dini has it exactly right. Regrettably, however, open minds have been in short supply when it comes to video game issues. Those less familiar with games have been skeptical about their worth to society, and they have formed pre-conceived biases about their supposed negative impact on kids. Dr. Dini powerfully illustrates how this has become a problem regarding much of the psychological research that has been conducted so far about kids and media:

A pattern noted in psychology suggests that we see only the things we look to see—sometimes termed selective attention, tunnel vision, mental filter, or blinders. Although the research that looks for negative aspects of gaming is certainly warranted, the findings, unfortunately, serve to accentuate the notion that games have little to offer. In such circumstances, video games can readily become scapegoats, as rock & roll’s Elvis and comic books’ superheroes have been. The potential strengths present, even by some more violent offerings, become lost when researchers are only searching for negative qualities. (p. 85)

Again, exactly right. However, Dr. Dini points out that “this is not to say that games are entirely benign.” Games can have a negative impact on certain kids in certain circumstances. It is here where Dr. Dini gets into the more refined sort of analysis regarding the impact of games on kids that has long been missing in so much of the existing literature.

Let me explain what I mean by that. As I have pointed out in some of my writing on this issue, far too much of the “research” out there right now on this issue makes sweeping, illogical conclusions that might best be summarized as “monkey see-monkey do.” In the minds of some psychologists, kids are all just Skinnerian rats or Pavlovian dogs, ready and willing to be conditioned to be killers or anything else. (Anti-gaming activists like David Grossman and Jack Thompson have built an entire cottage industry for themselves around this notion).

But rational people have long realized that such theories cannot possibly hold water. If there was any truth to such “monkey see-monkey do” media effects theories, then people right now across America would be walking down the road hacking at each other with machetes and chainsaws. After all, isn’t that what violent video games (and movies) have conditioned us to do?

In reality, Dr. Dini correctly notes, “most people are able to distinguish thought—and, by extension, fantasy—from reality.” He continues:

Even people involved in violent activities, such as contact sports, can separate that aspect of the self from other parts of life. Football players typically do not tackle people outside of a game. Arguably, such sports are more intensive in involving the entire person in violent acts than are video games. (p. 84)

Moreover, we now how fairly solid real-world evidence that makes it clear that the “monkey see-monkey do” theories cannot be correct. As Dr. Dini notes:

If one were to believe that violence is directly related to the increasingly graphic and realistic nature of video games, then a corresponding increase of violence should be seen. However, the overall trends are exactly the opposite, with a notable decrease in violence since the mid-1990s. (p. 81)

[If you want more solid evidence documenting these trends, see this article in Commentary magazine by Peter Wehner and Yuval Levin entitled “Crime, Drugs, Welfare—and Other Good News” which points out that just about all the important social indicators (murder, rape, robbery, etc) have witnessed steady decreases. And I provide additional supporting statistics in this paper, starting on page 20].

The Complexity of the Human Mind & The Many Potential Causes of Aggression

More importantly, and getting back to Dr. Dini’s more refined analysis of the impact of games on kids, he notes that:

The causes of violence are most likely multifactorial and cannot be isolated down to one or two influences. Factors that have been implicated with increasing adolescent violence include history of aggressive behavior, lack of parental involvement, tumultuous family environment, low IQ, substance abuse, parental substance abuse, overly strict or excessively lenient rules, lack of parent, and inconsistent enforcement of rules. (p. 81-82)

It is true, of course, that violent video games may be one of those “multifactorial” causes of aggressive or violent behavior. It would be wrong to say, for example, that games never have any impact on kids or their behavior. But the real question is: how much of an influence do games have relative to those other factors? That is the key question that has long been missing in the discussion about games and their impact on kids and society.

In my opinion, while games deserve to be studied as one potential cause of juvenile aggression or violence, they should probably be near the bottom of the list of things to worry about. There are just so many other factors in play regarding what makes the human brain tick that I find it utterly preposterous to think that video games are somehow the dominant force in shaping the behavior of adolescents. All too often, we overlook the far more important variables that Dr. Dini identifies above, especially the problem of broken homes and bad relationships.

In my research on Internet safety issues, I often find the same thing at work. Critics blame the Internet or social networking sites for the woes of the world, but all too often the real problem lies somewhere else. Many youngsters who get themselves in trouble online are the victims of broken homes and bad relationships. They are “at-risk” youth who need mentoring, love, and understanding. But our lawmakers propose silver-bullet quick fixes like bans on social networking sites and comprehensive regulation of the Internet, including the prohibition of anonymous communications. How is that suppose to help those kids again?

In any event, Dr. Dini sums it up best when he argues that, “If we devote excessive focus to video games as a cause of adolescent aggression, then our collective resource of attention toward understanding societal malady is likely to be ill spent.”

Amen, brother.

The Benefits of Play

Anyway, I have focused too much here on the elements of Dr. Dini’s book that will be of most interest to the crowd reading this blog (politicos, policy wonks, free speech advocates, and gamers). But I should mention that his book is really about much, much more than just the debate about media effects research. He asks more fundamental questions like: What are games? Why do so many people play them? Why do people (even adults) need play time in their lives? How do games contribute to critical learning? And what sort of skills can be learned from playing games?

I particularly liked a short section at the end of Chapter 1 about the importance of play and human creativity:

The greatest artistic and scientific works seem to be the constructs of play. From the human mind, by divine or natural forces, the inspiration by which the great masters create their works is delivered via the conduit of play. When something is termed childish, perhaps it is better considered with awe and wonder. Childhood is the beginning of life. It is a time of power and energy. It is a time of growth and creativity. […] We associate play with children, as if it were something we “grow out of.” But what if play is something that is not purely associated with childhood and that, instead, our rules, regulations, and adult-centric expectations of “success” stamp out the ability to play? Rather than “teach” by viewing knowledge as something bestowed upon others, we could defer to the students’ strength of creativity, attempting to foster their growth as carefully as we would tend a garden. Growth and creativity are inseparable. If we wish for our society to progress, then we must make allowances for the greatest creative powerhouses we have—namely, our children and adolescents. (p. 27-28)

Incidentally, these are themes that have been developed more fully in the brilliant work of Henry Jenkins, founder and director of the MIT Comparative Media Studies Program and author of Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide and Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers.

Dr. Dini also spends time discussing the relationship between video games and learning, themes also developed in recent books like How Computer Games Help Children Learn, by David Williamson Shaffer and James Paul Gee’s What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy.

Addiction: The More Legitimate Problem for Study

Perhaps the most important part of Dr. Dini’s book is that he offers a serious–but still quite level-headed–examination of the issue of video game addiction. He offers a detailed blueprint that other psychologists, as well as average parents, can use to go about diagnosing gaming addiction and what can be done about it. But, again, he puts things in the proper perspective:

Eating, shopping, and having sex are perfectly normal activities, but some people take them to extremes or engage in them problematically. These people usually have some predisposition—biological, psychological, or often both—toward the type of addiction presented. There is some factor motivating the person toward the addiction, either consciously or otherwise. Video games can, similarly, provide an addictive outlet.(p. 45)

I have long believed that this was the more serious problem with which psychologists, social workers, and parents should be spending their time. Many gamers will freely admit that they spend too much time playing games. The question is, have they crossed the line into addiction, and what can be done about it? Dr. Dini’s book provides some good answers and approaches to the problem. Dr. Jerald Block has also been doing some interesting work lately to help people to identify the “S.I.G.N.S.” of Internet or video game addiction.

I believe that many kids probably do spend a bit too much time playing video games, but most don’t cross the line into serious addiction. That being said, the best course of action in this–and all things, for that matter–was offered to us long ago by Aristotle when he counseled moderation in all things.

Toward that end, in my book on Parental Controls and Online Child Safety, I argued that parents should consider taking a “food pyramid” approach to all media consumption by teaching their kids the importance of a balanced media diet, which includes teaching them the types of things that they think they should probably avoid altogether (or at least only consume in limited portions). The federal government has a recommended food pyramid for nutritional purposes, of course. But just as government doesn’t enforce the food pyramid through regulation, neither should it enforce a media food pyramid through mandates or restrictions. In fact, we don’t need the government to tell families what is in a “media food pyramid” at all. This is something that parents can do quite effectively on their own, especially in light of the differing values each household will bring to the job.

Regardless, while different families will always have different values and approaches, there is something to be said for a balanced diet when it comes to media consumption, just as is the case with child nutrition. And this is certainly true for video games. Parents can determine the right “portions” that that think make sense for their kids–both in terms of the substance of the games and aggregate amount of time that kids are allowed to play games.

In conclusion, I highly recommend. Dr. Dini’s book on “Video Game Play & Addiction.” It’s a very accessible book that offers a great deal of sensible advice for parents who might be wondering about how to best manage video games in the lives of their children. It strikes just the right tone and it serves as an important contribution to the field.

Don’t judge a book by its cover (or its title, for that matter). I’m usually faithful to that maxim, but I must admit that when I first saw the title and cover of “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Theft-Childhood-Surprising-Violent/dp/0743299515/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208179493&sr=8-1″>Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do,” I rolled my eyes and thought to myself, “here we go again.” I figured that I was in for another tedious anti-gaming screed full of myths and hysteria about games and gamers. Boy, was I wrong. Massively wrong.