This first article was like a breath of fresh air to me. I'm glad Nelson finally realized that like all things, there are good and bad consequences. People get so consumed with pointing out the bad in a situation and not the good. In the case of videos games and violence, The positive affects on audiovisual cognition is something that should be duly noted. This is technically the only thing proven in this article because the violence correlation is nonexistent. I think we need to better understand the difference between violence and aggression  Video games would predictably make some one aggressive depending on action asked of the player. That's a psychological affect that everyone has doing something in their lives. But violence, in my opinion, is the action of taking out that aggression on something. The article mentions something about having family aggression and that may be a bias in their participants. I don't think video games cause violent behavior but instead i think violent behavior comes from the aggression already in a person and other factors such as environment and upbringing. The second article also backs up my statement about aggression vs violence. Of course kids shouldn't be exposed to as much violent material as others because they aren't developed enough in the mind to differentiate between whats right and wrong.Honestly, the 3rd article brings up a thought that i think was hinted on earlier in the article, isn't the interpretation of art left of to the people who view it, solely. So my interpretation of an art form should be different from  yours right?