So, here's the original piece for your consideration and review.
Originally written 4 Feb 2008:
Adults with many years of
experience cannot expect children to be able to relate easily or quickly to an
adult perspective. Neither should
they always try to persuade or convince the young to understand or accept their
particular point of view. However,
that is what we do when we try to communicate personal, family and cultural
values, transmitting our culture from one generation to the next.
I expect young people of today to
question and debate the issues that affect them and their generation.. And when there is disagreement, there
can and should be a conversation with respect for each other’s views and
positions. Then both will learn something of value.
Playing
violent video games can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior
both in laboratory settings and in actual life, according to two studies that
were in the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. (April 2000) Furthermore, violent video games may be
more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive,
very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor, say the
researchers.
Violent Video Games and Hostile Expectations: A Test of the
General Aggression Model.
B. J. Bushman and C. A. Anderson (2002) See also: Short-term and
Long-term Effects of Violent Media on Aggression in Children and Adults. B. J. Bushman and L. R. Huesmann (2006)
Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine 160, 348-352
What is clear is that the research is
divided and there are no easy or definite answers for any position – whether
the games contribute to more aggression or that they only contribute to
aggressive behavior in those who are already angry or that they contribute, but
in a small and insignificant way or that they make it possible for aggression
to occur but only under specific circumstances. More reliable research is indicated.
To understand some of the effects of video
games, you need to go back to debriefings conducted by the U.S. Army after
WWII. Interviewing soldiers returning from battle, researchers discovered a
disturbing fact. A significant number of soldiers had been face to face with an
enemy soldier, rifle in hand, enemy in their sights, gun not jammed, and had not
fired. Something deep in their being, some sort of innate humanity, or values
instilled early on, had prevented them from actually pulling the trigger.
This was very disturbing to the military.
They began a research effort to figure out what to do about this problem. They
discovered that in the heat of battle, under the incredible physical and
psychological stress of being faced with another human being you were supposed
to kill, the higher mental functions were largely absent. Under such
conditions, the mind reverts to much simpler modes of operation, to deeply
wired, almost instinctive behaviors. In other words, no amount of target
practice and classroom lectures about how you're supposed to kill the enemy had
much effect when it counted.
Over the following decades and wars, the
Army learned that the way to get soldiers to reliably pull the trigger was to
use very basic, repetitive operant conditioning, along the lines of standard
behaviorist theory. Behaviorism provides a poor model for how humans act in
everyday life, but it turns out to be a fairly good model for how humans act
when they are under stress and have to act quickly, and are responding
primarily to fear. Under stress, fearful people do what they have been
conditioned to do. That is one
reason we have repetitive fire drills, so that we know how to react in an
urgent situation.
The Army's solution was to replace dry
target practice with realistic training grounds, complete with pop-up targets,
loud noises, smoke, stress, the works. The goal was to condition the soldiers:
if it moves, shoot it now, don't think about it. Repetition, repetition,
repetition: Target pops up, you shoot. Target pops up, you shoot. Do that often
enough, and, research shows, next time you see something pop up, you are more
likely to shoot it, even if it's a real human in a real battle. Sometimes it’s
called “friendly fire” when it is a mistake. This is not just a theory, it is documented by exit
interviews from soldiers in later wars: The Army got what it wanted.
What does this have to do with video
games? The answer should be obvious. The whole point is, if it moves, shoot it.
Again and again and again. The
military uses all kinds of expensive simulators, basically high powered video
games, similar to what kids use every day, to train its recruits and to
overcome the aversion to killing.
And there is evidence to suggest that those who are expert at gaming are
some of the best and most effective fighter pilots and soldiers. In the end, if you believe in war,
maybe video gaming is a good thing for survival! The downside is that, in most cases, the enemy is also
trained in shoot to kill. Is it
that he who presses the right buttons faster wins?
The cost for soldiers who survive, as
witnessed by the increase in post-traumatic stress, is devastating. As many as one-third of the
homeless men in the U.S. are Viet Nam veterans, most of them suffering from
PTSD and we are only beginning to count the cost from the years of human
destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
What can we learn from this? Whether or not violent video games
cause aggressive behavior may not be the real issue. Perhaps the real question that needs to be explored is
whether video gaming might contribute to an acceptance of the need to destroy
the “enemy” without any need to feel anger or anything that can be consciously
identified as aggressive behavior.
After all, it’s just a game.
Here is a sample:
“Hunched with his troops in a
dusty, wind-swept courtyard, the squad leader signals the soldiers to line up
against a wall. Clasping automatic weapons, they inch single-file toward a
sandy road lined with swaying palm trees.
The squad leader orders a point
man to peer around the corner, his quick glance revealing several foes lying in
wait behind a smoldering car. A few hand signals, a quick flash of gunfire, and
it's over. The enemy is defeated,
but no blood is spilled, no bullet casings spent: All the action is in an Xbox-based
training simulator for the military, called Full Spectrum Warrior.” (Associated Press 10/03)
Finally, here is something which should
also concern all of us. When many
people see a real video, shot live, they think that because it’s seen on a
screen, that it’s not real when it is.
It’s just like a video game or worse, a television program with a script
and actors and made up in a studio or on a set somewhere like a movie. If you want to test that out on
yourself, take a look at some of the current, live, very real, military videos and register
your own cognitive and emotional response. This is somewhat the flip side of the video gaming issue and
equally important because it is very real and not a game.
Not every child playing video games will
develop aggressive behaviors and only a small percentage will become soldiers
who are trained to do what soldiers have to do. The point is that both children and adults can be easily
influenced by the media and high powered, well- conceived video games. What the short and long term results
are will continue to be debated but there is compelling evidence to suggest we
better take a hard look at what is happening as a result of violent video
gaming.
No comments:
Post a Comment