By using meta-analysis – analysis and research designed to combine and critique results from a larger body of research articles – distinguished professor of psychology Craig Anderson and his team can “now say with the utmost confidence,” that exposure to violent video games increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior and thinking as well as decreases prosocial behavior.

We disagree — and we do understand we’re bound to seem biased here. After all, what do college students stereotypically do if not eat pizza, drink beer and play video games? But we think we’ve got a point here.

For one, there needs to be a clear distinction between “violent” and “aggressive.” Though they sound frightening and closely-related, the definition of aggressive is merely to become more enthusiastic and driven in pursuits. That doesn’t sound so bad, does it?

Second, just like there’s evidence for Anderson’s assertions, there’s evidence against it, too. For example, let’s look at the national rate of violent crimes published by the U.S. Department of Justice. In 1993 — that’d be the same year “Doom” came out — roughly 51 out of 1,000 people were victims of violent crime. Since then, the rate of violent crime decreased, reaching a level half of 1993’s in 2000. Though slowing, the trend continues downward, with a 2007 survey reporting 19.6 (per 1,000) victims of violent crime. Beyond this, Christopher Ferguson, a social psychology professor at Texas A&M’s department of behavioral, applied sciences and criminal justice, doubts not only the methodology of many video game studies, but their agendas as well. He also notes the generational and experiential gap. In his paper “The School Shooting/Violent Video Game Link: Causal Relationship or Moral Panic?” Ferguson noted that, “[T]he majority of individuals critical of video games are older than the age of 35 (many are elderly) and oftentimes admit to not having directly experienced the games.”

We wonder how many rounds of capture the flag Anderson has played. After all, we’ve seen this play out before — no pun intended. When “Mass Effect” was released in 2008, a Fox News segment, “The Live Desk With Martha MacCallum,” bashed the game for full-graphic sex and said that it “leaves nothing to the imagination.” Neither MacCallum nor her guest Cooper Lawrence had played and were promptly corrected on their multitude of factual errors.

Third, although Anderson doesn’t overtly position video games as dangers to children, many have — and used studies such as Anderson’s as justification. But the Entertainment Software Rating Board was reported by the Federal Trade Commission at the end of 2009 as the “most responsible” entertainment marketer due to an 80 percent prevention rate in keeping M-rated games from minors and ads for M-rated games off TV before 10 p.m. Even consoles that play the games have parental controls and allow limits to be set based on content.

Fourth, Anderson claims that video games decrease prosocial behavior. But this isn’t, as some might assume, the same as becoming antisocial. In fact, Amanda Lenhart, senior research specialist for the Pew Internet Project, said in an interview with ABC that “video games are an important piece of the social fabric of teens’ lives.”

We aren’t here to knock Anderson or discredit his research. In fact, he’s reminding us to be aware of our influences and behavior — something we readily agree with. We should be aware. We should be responsible. Saying — or implying — that video games make us violent? Sorry, that’s just a few too many castles short of a princess.