What Came First, the Violence or the Videogame?

An anonymous reader writes "Another wave of video-game-violence panic is upon us. The pressed suits who read the pop news on television are wagging their so-called neutral fingers at an industry they have never understood. Planet Xbox 360 considers the many games they have played and the real-life murderers they have known in their own lives, and how little the talking heads know about either."

Comments

Wii brings in a new angle

[UbuntuDupe]

I suspect that the Wii is likely to re-invigorate the controversy of video games. For example, in Red Steel, instead of just pushing buttons and killing fake people, you are moving your full upper body, which if intense enough, will get your heart pumping and feel more "real". You're then going through the actual motions. While I wouldn't agree with the complaints of people like Jack Thompson, I can see why it would worry them more.

Re:wtf?

[voice_of_all_reason]

I remember when I was like 4 or 5, going to my dad's office for the first time. He sat me down on his lap, booted up his copy of Windows 2.0, and then said "watch this..."

From the first time I saw the rook piece fuckin' swallow the queen whole in Battle Chess, I knew computers were going someplace.

See: Dave Grossman / On Killing

[SuurMyy]

While I do somewhat sympathize w/the writer of the text, I think it's important to point out that some soldiers and security experts actually do think that playing FPS - type games does do one thing for you, which is called `operant conditioning'. That is the exact method that the armies have used to get the soldier to shoot at each other. Most untrained ppl actually DO NOT shoot at each other in the battle-field. I'm not going to elaborate on this for very long, but rather ask you to get the book that Grossmaan wrote - it's called `On Killing'.

The general idea is that a human ape actually is more or less genetically programmed not to kill its species. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger sounds easy enough, but most untrained ppl will miss at point-blank range or will just be unable to shoot at another person. The "fix" the armies came up w/was programming shooting at ppl-shaped targets. It's like in boxing, one does eventually get the punches and the slips programmed into the brain, and will react w/o a second thought. So, what one does to train soldiers to shoot at human shaped figures is to make them do that. Repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at a human-shaped silhoutte, and you end up w/soldiers that are programmed/conditioned to shoot at human-shaped figures in the battle-field. This works very, very well.

However, as it is psyhologically very damaging to kill one's own species, this type of training makes the psychological costs of going to war even more severe. The ppl who would normally be unable to kill will kill out of conditioned reactions and will many tymes be emotionally crippled for life for the things they have done.

Now what does this have to do w/FPS ? Well, you repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at human-shaped figures. You get the conditioning that is used for soldiers. Now I am not saying that this will make you necessarily more violent, but this will for sure make a person having done this much more efficient in killing others if this person happens to lose it and go on a rampage.

So, the truth of the matter to me appears to be that the games actually do help in making a shooting a lot more lethal in ways of enabling the shooter to actually shoot at ppl proper and keep on hitting the target w/ease because of having conditioned the appropriate responses out of hir system.

Make of it what you will, this is what some of the experts say.

Re:See: Dave Grossman / On Killing

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

While I do somewhat sympathize w/the writer of the text, I think it's important to point out that some soldiers and security experts actually do think that playing FPS - type games does do one thing for you, which is called `operant conditioning'. That is the exact method that the armies have used to get the soldier to shoot at each other.

Okay, I think you're a little confused. Video games are effective means to operant conditioning. They do not, however, condition people to kill. Conditioning is reflexive reaction and unless you're playing the video game with a gun, it is not going to make you more willing to kill. The army and police forces do use FPS game sin training, but mostly to develop teamwork and tactics (and because it is fun). The army does use psychology to make people more willing to kill others, but this is not operant conditioning. They do this by breaking down a person's emotional base and self confidence. In this way they overcome personal beliefs that killing is wrong and individual decision making is important and instead teach soldiers to believe obeying orders is more important and killing is not even considered in terms of right and wrong for the most part.

The general idea is that a human ape actually is more or less genetically programmed not to kill its species.

This also, is misguided. Man has been killing man for a long time and our "genetic programming" is made up of three, very recognizable parts. The first part is pain/pleasure/instinct/hardwired reactions. The second is emotional responses. The third is rational thought. A blend of these three parts results in our actions. The emotion called anger is the genetic program to destroy a threat and is usually why we kill. Anger can be invoked by fear and they are closely related. In a given situation we might be pumped full of adrenaline by a fight or flight reaction and then kill something that threatens us. Military training is designed to make this behavior controlled and predictably directed.

So, what one does to train soldiers to shoot at human shaped figures is to make them do that. Repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at a human-shaped silhoutte, and you end up w/soldiers that are programmed/conditioned to shoot at human-shaped figures in the battle-field. This works very, very well.

Sort of. The thing is, there are lots of human shaped targets on a battlefield. They need to be trained to shoot the right ones at the right time. Have you seen the pop-up man targets? They spring up suddenly and they all used to have red stars on their helmets.

Now what does this have to do w/FPS ? Well, you repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at human-shaped figures.

Here's where we disagree. You don't want people conditioned to make a mouse clicking gesture when someone pops up in front of them. You want them to aim their rifle. The FPS programs are used more to train higher functions and learn tactics and teamwork. Not to condition a response to sit perfectly still except for twitching your mouse hand.

Games certainly can be useful, but they don't make you a better shot and are not a primary method for overcoming the aversion to killing. I suspect most "experts" who claim otherwise don't really know what they are talking about.

Answer: Violence Came First

[ewhac]

It should be obvious to anyone not pushing a socio-political agenda that aggression and violence are innate human traits.

As a sporadic member of the video game industry, the issue of violence-in-video-games is not at all new or novel to us. Nor have we been deliberately ignoring it. Far from it. Game authors have been considering the issue for about as long as video games have existed.

In 1977, a man named Steve Dompier wrote a game for the Sol-20 Terminal Computer called TARGET. Ships flew across the screen, and it was your job to shoot them down. I'd like to share with you a thought from the game's author, printed in the manual. It seems that video game violence was on his mind as well:

There are several types of spaceships containing dangerous cargoes of pesticides, DNA experiments, artificial flavorings, TV commercials and so on. They should be stopped before they reach a civilized area of the universe and endanger the populace. [ ... ]

[Author's note: The game player may relate to the ships and missiles of TARGET as objects personally imagined by him. The above scenario is provided for those with an aversion to the destructive type games who may otherwise mistake the robot spaceships as earthly in origin. Aggression, still being a common human trait in 1977, is better exercised with a zero-sum game than spent on the physical real world. Besides--it's fun.]

The above quote serves as evidence that video game authors have been thinking about violence in games for thirty years, if not longer. So if you think some zeitgeist-chasing politician or religious extremist who just started shrieking about the issue last week has any deeper insights than we do... Well, then you may be interested in this bridge I have for sale.

Schwab

P.S: If you're interested in finding out what was so horrific about TARGET, download the Sol-20 emulator and try it yourself:

1. In the release folder, run the program solace.exe. You will be presented with a very unhelpful command prompt window.
2. From the File menu, select "Load Program..."
3. Select "targ.ent" and click OK.
4. In the command prompt window, enter the command:
   EX 0
   and press Enter. You must enter the command in upper case.
5. The game will launch. Follow the on-screen instructions. (You can steer the missiles in flight with the aiming keys, crucial for getting high-value combo shots.)

Re:Mirror Neurons

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Should it be legal to drive a tank? After all, it is the pesronal responsibility of the person driving the tank to not..you know.. kill everyone. Yet we restrict access to tanks, because letting an individual own a tank is just not in the publics best interest.

There is a guy here in town that owns a tank. He needs permission to take it on public roads, because of the potential damage to public property, but her does own one and drive it on his own land.

We let government regulate someones actions for the greater good. Freedom certainly has limits, and it is up to the government to set those limits.

Actually, we theoretically allow the government to arbitrate certain freedoms and situations where one person's freedoms come in conflict with others. For example, your freedom to fire a cannon, is restricted by the damage it causes to the property of physical persons of others. So long as you're firing it on private property and not damaging anything belonging to another, or hurting anyone the government has no legal or ethical right to restrict you. Realistically, the government has become corrupt and exceeded their authority by claiming additional power for a few individuals who would be our rulers.

The problem is determining what is truly in the best interest of a society is REALLY hard.

No it isn't. The US was founded on the principal that consolidated decision making is dangerous, because overriding the decisions of individuals easily leads to abuse and power corrupts. Thus, the government must demonstrate not only a majority opinion, but an overriding public interest in some action that does not conflict with a predefined set of rights and which is within certain areas the government is allowed to regulate. Take the issue of video games. Will playing a video game result in a person becoming a murderer? Can you prove that with reasonable scientific certainty? If so then, with two thirds or representatives voting you can overturn the freedom of speech that allows people to distribute said video game. Otherwise, the government has no business and the choice should be left to the individual (or individual's parents) to decide.

Those are the types of questions we face, and we (as a world community) will be struggling with them for as long as we exist.

Certainly individuals should be considering these issues, but until there is a real, provable consensus and a clear mandate from the people, governments should not.

Re:Which came first?

[yams69]

Another good point that should always appear in these "debates":

What are these murderers using to kill people: the game consoles themselves, or guns/knives/etc.? Lotsa folks have these weapons in their houses, but manage not to kill people...same goes for games. Frame it in this way, and the NRA is suddenly on your side! In fact....

"Games don't kill people...psychotic sociopaths kill people."

"If games are outlawed, only outlaws will have games."

etc.

Quick question.

[thewils]

How many people didn't go out and perform real-life violence today, because they found relief in a violent videogame?

I guess statistics are a bit hard to come by on that one.

Re:Correct me if I'm mistaken but...

[nEoN nOoDlE]

It's not the fault of the video games. It's the fault of negligent parents and a society that doesn't seem to take any interest in disciplining children anymore.

Ummm... when did parents ever take any interest in disciplining children? Parents have never known "the right way" of raising kids for them not to be violent sociopaths, and that's why there have been 20 year old violent sociopaths throughout history. In the past, it was just considered good parenting to discipline your kids by hitting them when they display bad or violent tendencies.