Slashdot Mirror
Brain Changes When Viewing Violent Media
Ponca City, We Love You writes "Scientists at Columbia University have used Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to show that a brain network responsible for suppressing inappropriate or unwarranted aggressive behaviors became less active after study subjects watched several short clips from popular movies depicting acts of violence. These changes could render people less able to control their own aggressive behavior. Although research has shown some correlation between exposure to media violence and real-life violent behavior, there has been little direct neuroscientific support for this theory until now. 'Depictions of violent acts have become very common in the popular media,' said researcher Christopher Kelly. 'Our findings demonstrate for the first time that watching media depictions of violence does influence processing in parts of the brain that control behaviors like aggression.' The full research paper is published on the The Public Library of Science, a peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication, that publishes all its articles under a Creative Commons Attribution License."
Okay, but how long does it last? Given the fact that I am not very likely to take off my shoe and bludgeon the person in front of me in the theater to death, how does this effect my likelyhood to do the same thing after the movie when I see someone I am not fond of?
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
I'd be more interested in seeing the results of people watching real violence on T.V and knowing it, or seeing the results of a child who doesn't know that fake violence in a movie is not real.
I would propose that perhaps the age-old argument for the presence of violent media - that it mitigates real violence by offering a release valve - would be the explanation here. I'm not a neuro-scientist (IANANS), but wouldn't less activity mean that that portion of the brain is not working as hard at blocking violent impulses, maybe because there are fewer of these impulses?
the issue of unwanted expression of violence isn't that you can't suppress it, but that you have too much rage. it doesn't matter if your ability to decipher right and wrong is pristine when you are in a fit of madness: the gates of reason may be strong, but the flood can be worse
therefore, a superior way to prevent spasms of violence in real life is to allow for some way to express violence in harmless ways
such as violent videogames
what gets released harmlessly on a keyboard or joystick is that which will not be released in real life situations
it's not like the violent videogame creates violence. what made the ancient romans violent? violent is inherent to human nature. look at a roomful of 4 year olds if you don't believe this. a violent videogame can only catalyze the release of violent potential that is already in the person
so certainly, if someone is already unstable, a violent videogame could serve as the flashpoint which makes a previously unstable person blow up. but this still isn't a ding against violent videogames, since something else would have eventually set an unstable person off
by and large, violent videogames reduce violence in society
the daily friction of life creates a build up of rage. the question is how is that rage released. a violent videogame provides that release, in exaclt the mechanism described above. but it's not like that rage has anywhere else to go were it not for violent videogames
i think we as a society should play more violent videogames to reduce real world violence
i am not in the least joking
there are unstable individuals who can't differentiate from reality who should not play them, sure. as if the existence of violent videogames or not makes them any more or less unstable
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense
FTFY.
If this was the case, then why doesn't every boxing match break out into 50,000 individual boxing fights? Apparently it only affects people who would not only reenact something that on the surface is dangerous, but also explicitly says "DONT DO THIS" in effort to dissuade people from ... trying to do it.
stuff |
Evidently, not many people who read
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I wonder if there is in fact a connection. The kind of short term warfare in the Classical period did not lend itself to desensitisation. The audience had probably seen arrows and spears sticking in people they knew. They knew what war was about, and they did not need or want a graphic representation in a tragedy.
If this bit of cod philosophising is right, then perhaps violent games do have a desensitising effect similar to that experienced by real soldiers in prolonged wars.
If so it is worrying, because desensitisation is part of the military process of overcoming the reluctance of citizens to be soldiers. (This is necessary to keep soldiers alive on the battlefield. My father had the job of landing boatloads of Canadians on the beaches on D-Day. When I asked what happened to them, he simply looked very miserable and said "They were too nice", and would not be drawn further.) Perhaps the US Government is covertly keen on the idea of producing a large pool of potential killers without the expense of all that military training. But the worry must be that after a period in which violence in society has in general been in decline, as the violent game generation grows up it may start to rise again. The corollary of which is that the research needs to be done, and the opposing sides need to do what comes so hard to bigots, which is shut the fsck up and pay attention to the results of that research, wherever it leads.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
You may joke. I remember one time my wife asked me a question while I was playing Warcraft II years ago. It was a perfectly innocent question but I turned round and shouted at her horribly. It took me a few seconds to realise what had happened. I was on an adrenaline high. The game was fantasy, but the adrenaline was real. (And probably someone had just ogre rushed me...)
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Good point. There is a big difference between Bugs Bunny violence and hyper realistic violence - whether movies or todays super 3D performance video games. There would also seem to be some survival value in the response. If there is a lot of violence going on around you, you need to be ready to respond in kind (or find a good hiding place).
There is a pretty convincing body of evidence which suggests that the "Werther" effect is in fact real. I.e. that reading about a sympathetic character who commits suicide makes one more likely to do the same. So yes, I would say that reading does invoke the same effect.
Here is an interesting link for you: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Conf/MemePap/Marsden.html
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Except the study does not touch on whether children can differentiate between reality and fantasy.
And there still aren't. This study shows the brain reacts to violent imagery in specific ways. Going directly from there to 'adverse affect [sic] on children' is skipping quite a few steps.
According to the documentary you can condition yourself out of the behaviour by developing a reaction that takes you out of that moment, e.g when you were playing warcraft by programming your self to say "one moment" calmly as a reaction to any interruption.
Adrenaline may have been flowing but you should still be able to exert control, and thats a lot better than yelling at your wife dood.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.