Derp. I've always had trouble with theory vs hypothesis. I Managed to memorize hypothesis=1st part of scientific method but I do use theory incorrectly a lot.
I had never really seen what in my mind would be conclusive results from studies on violence in media because it seems like it would be really hard to control for but towards the end of our debate yesterday I started to get sloppy and distracted.
I think moving forward this is a reasonable starting point: "Little By Little, Violent Video Games Make Us More Aggressive"
"In the latest work to address the question, published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, scientists led by Craig Anderson, director of the center for the study of violence at Iowa State University, found hints that violent video games may set kids up to react in more hostile and violent ways."
For an attentive parent, this is like... Uh, "duh." Not rocket science, give them sugar and they really do react. It's obvious. People react to fear more than any other stimulus in their environment. It releases chemicals in the brain that not only can aid w\ fight or flight reaction, but also calcium which significantly increases the mind's ability to imprint memory. The mind is hard wired for fear so that we know what to do if we ever get into that situation again. My source is an npr interview w\ an "Outdoor" magazine writer who specializes in extreme sports. She was a guest speaker on the subject of Ebola virus reaction in the news late last night.
Whats this got to do with violent video games? Well, I'm not exactly sure, but they scare me, so I avoid them but some people are attracted to them. Fear=violence though. And it is my hypothesis/conjecture that some kids and teens are being damaged by these games and ALL the other violent media that presents a skewed reality that is filled with fear to them. It was an influence in the Columbine massacre, IMO. Just because the media is sensationalist doesn't mean it's always wrong.