Once again I find myself getting annoyed with the problems of both sides of an argument - this time on the matter of video games and connection with real life violence.
On the conservative American Right: of course the claim about the connection of violent video games to shootings is not an argument put in good faith - it is (along with general bleating about mental health) primarily a diversionary excuse for not doing anything very serious about gun control.
On the Left (and libertarian) side: the point about the low international rates of violence despite the popularity of violent games everywhere is overly simplistic - isn't that obvious? If people who might be triggered to live out a gaming fantasy in real life are prevented doing so by the sensible gun restricting laws of most countries, that tells us nothing reliable about the possible connection between games and shooting in the USA. Do those game defenders think that those who worry about a connection are making an argument so unsubtle that it along the lines of "violent games make players want to kill in any manner possible - knives, bombs, cars - any way"?
Part of the problem here is probably the whole question of "causation" in this context. I have had my say on the dubious relevance of psychological studies on the effect of video games before - see my posts "Useless Violence Studies" and "Video Violence and Empathy" - I think they stand up well.
I get the impression that studies on video violence are in a similar position as was research on marijuana use and mental illness about 40 years ago - when there was a great deal of expert doubt that there could be any connection, versus the more common sense reasoning of parents who hadn't seen a psychotic episode in their child until they were smoking cannabis. Finally, the expert opinion swung around to "well, yeah, it can cause serious problems particularly with young smokers in a real, causative sense - although it's still tangled up with pre-existing susceptibility to mental illness as well."
The problem is that video violence is even harder to study than cannabis, given that it's not as if there are plenty of mass murders to study, and identifying those who are having thoughts of mass murder before they commit it is never going to be easy.
There is also the question of the degree to which one contemplates interference with an entertainment business just because it may implant a bad idea in the mind of some viewer. This guy, in the Conversation, makes this point - there have moral panics over movie violence which seem quaint today. But as I have argued before, there is something about the repetitive nature, and the involvement in directing the action, of video games which common sense ought to suggest may have different and more worrying effects than watching a movie on screen violence. Although of course, I have great concerns about the morally numbing effect of movie violence as well.
It would, in my opinion, be a healthier society if violence in games and movies was decreased from its current excesses. I am annoyed that there are few mainstream cultural commentators who put that line forward - I am stuck with pointing to a string of recent Popes who haven't liked violence in video games. On this matter, as with many other social issues (as long at they are not to do with sex and reproduction!) the Catholic Church does maintain pretty sensible views.
6 comments:
Video games are ubiquitous across the world. Violence isn't. Japan and Korea are huge on video games and have very little violence. You'll see more violence from people leaving a sporting arena than an esport event. We are far more likely to be attacked by a sports fan than a computer game fan. Then of course is the fact that many popular sports are major causes of brain injury. A study released just week stated that even in absence of concussion brain damage can occur which wasn't news to me because that was demonstrated nearly 20 years ago. Video games don't promote ideological violence and a number of the mass murders in recent years have been aimed at specific political targets. Violence in the West has been decreasing in recent decades just as movies and video games have become major entertainment industries.
You are making the same mistake so many are making: you are refusing to recognise that mass murders are specifically a USA problem and must be understood by what is peculiar to USA culture. No, it isn't just guns.
Even the development of the novel stirred ill-founded concerns.
Some have noted that the rise of mass shootings over the past couple of decades in the US has coincided with a decline in the number of active serial killers. Maybe violence is as subject to the whims of fashion as anything else, perhaps even a variation on 'the medium is the message'. More cynically, perhaps it has to do with shortening attention spans.
Here's a much more interesting cause: social exclusion.
https://neurosciencenews.com/social-exclusion-extremism-14691/
John: Of course, I am not suggesting that video games are the only "cause" of mass shootings. And the whole question of "causation" of human behaviour is a complicated thing.
But my complaint is perhaps that "no connection" people are over-thinking it.
Can I put it this way: if you were the parent of a socially awkward teenager who had trouble making friends and claimed to be bullied for being "different" who lived in a house with hunting guns, would you prefer:
a. that he spent many hours a day on highly realistic first person shooter games with bleak and blood thirsty storylines; or
b. spent all day playing Minecraft?
I would say that any parent would justifiably be more comfortable in situation b than situation a, and I don't need a psychologist study to tell me why.
Steve it might depend on the type of shooter game. Many are set in fantasy style settings but in recent years there has been a distinct shift to more real world settings and those games have been very big sellers(PUBG, Fortnite) with online multiplayer formats so in effect the gamer is "killing" other humans in the multiplayer game. I don't know if that distinction has been made in the analysis of violent video games but it is worth thinking about because the rapid rise in mass killings in the USA over recent years does coincide with the huge popularity of games like PUBG and Fortnite.
The other approach is to do a national comparison of what types of shooter games are played. Are games like PUBG and Fortnite played much more in the USA while the fantasy setting games are more likely to be played in Asian nations?
The point I'm making here is that the category of First Person Shooter games needs to be further delineated.
John: I agree that the style of a FPS matters a lot. I've obviously not a liberal who is horrified that boys might use a toy gun in a war game in the back yard.
And I have seen a bit of Fortnite - it's not realistic and not at all sadistic in intent.
But there are obviously FPS games which are high on blood and cold, sadistic killing. Have a look at some examples of game play in this youtube, helpfully entitled: Top 10 Bloodiest FPS Games of All Time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Rg41-ysSc
Post a Comment