In a previous post about whether or not child sex bots should be banned many posters said that they should be banned. The recurring justification for the ban is that it contributes to criminal sexual urges against children. As a counter argument I brought up the example of violent video games and mentioned that if these sex bots can be banned as a way to regulate the thinking patterns of pedophiles then it could set a precedent and that the argument being used is logically the same argument people use to ban violent video games or pornography.
In the discussion I asked if anyone could cite a single scientific study in support of the ban? In addition I cited the study on violent video games which proved:
The psychological questionnaire revealed no differences in measures of aggression and empathy between gamers and non-gamers. This finding was backed up by the fMRI data, which demonstrated that both gamers and non-gamers had similar neural responses to the emotionally provocative images. These results surprised the researchers, as they were contrary to their initial hypothesis, and suggest that any negative effects of violent video games on perception or behavior may be short-lived.
Violent video games found not to affect empathy
Playing violent video games is proven not to affect empathy. A person can kill innocent people all day in their fantasy world and there is no evidence which shows it will turn them into a psychopath in the real world. So it seems a person can behave as a psychopath in the game but this according to the study has no impact on their empathy in the real world.
I would say that there could be games which are more dangerous than others where the lines are perhaps blurred, but this study applies specifically to video games and so the result narrowly should be applied to that example.
Should violent video games be banned?
References
Frontiers. (2017, March 8). Violent video games found not to affect empathy: Study finds no link between long-term playing of violent video games and changes in empathetic neural responses. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 6, 2017 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170308081057.htm
I think the opposite, actually. Violent videogames can serve as an exhaust valve for aggression, letting it out digitally rather than in real life.
I'm not sure, but I think that one has been disproven: http://news.wisc.edu/study-finds-violent-video-games-provide-quick-stress-relief-but-at-a-price/
The playing of games is a great mood elevator, but the violence part can make us perceive the world as more hostile.
Plus, using different violence as a way to mitigate anger actually serves to prime us for more anger. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/200909/you-cant-punch-your-way-out-anger
So play can relive stress and curb aggression, but violence only begets more violence it seems. Fascinating topic, but I do find I like my media violence cartoony and ridiculous rather than realistic and visceral as it feels a bit different to me.
This post received a 2.4% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @ericwoelk! For more information, click here!
In cases like these I have always been on the wall. I love gaming, even though I rarely play anymore. But my second job involves indie work with game companies, so yes I have a deep connection to gaming. But in cases like these it always comes down to the minds involved. Some minds are strong and have a good grasp on reality, while some are very easily manipulated by basic imagery and story telling. Sometimes real life involvement isn't the only element of environment that can affect a mind/growing mind. Again I'm more or less on the wall.
So people who have been diagnosed can be banned from playing video games but why ban video games for everyone? I don't think anyone is specifically advocating that we give violent video games to people in a mental hospital for self control related issues.
But what percentage of the population is that?
I'm not saying anything about banning. That's something I won't confront. Too unstable of ground. My point being here, is that saying video games or any kind of imagination based activity or source of entertainment not having any affect on the psyche is not true. Whether it is a positive or a negative affect. Especially long term, in which even those involved in the article admit needs further research. The psyche is constantly changing due to internal and external factors, like environment. Entertainment is very much a part of environment. Even in the article it admits that the affects can be "short-lived", meaning there is an affect. But again it can change due to exposure time and other environmental factors. Also those with self control issues aren't all in institute. Whether it is a personality disorder or a mental illness. They are a part of the general population like it or not, and can't be ruled out completely for something as broad as entertainment. My main point here again, to keep this short, is to say that there isn't any affect on the mind is too far fetched. But to say violent entertainment causes murders is also far fetched.
Not true based on what evidence? Are you saying you've done everything you've imagined yourself doing because it affected your psyche? Why wouldn't you be able to use your conscious mind?
Again even in the article they say there is an affect. It is short lived, but there still is a change. The mind is built to change, the entire human nature is built this way. Evolution, survival, reaction and adaptation is key to human existence.
When it comes to choice, no not every time I imagined something I did it. One thing to note though is your overall investment in that choice. When you make a choice you aren't always 100% in backing it. Of course you use your consciousness to act, but your sub-conscious still takes a roll. It is a part of the mind that can't be fully ignored as a human being. Both can be affected by the world and entertainment, and both are used frequently at the same time during full consciousness.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-media-psychology-effect/201203/brain-behavior-and-media
I like this article because it highlights the positives and negatives of entertainment on the human mind.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evol-psy/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201212/periodic-table-human-psychological-adaptations
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_adaptation
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-mind-in-the-world-culture-and-the-brain#.WV-hDIVMGaM
So yes one is a wiki article, but it contains a good bulk of other articles out there that could be listed. These are just a few of the numerous articles/notes about the minds evolutionary traits and how it reacts to every external force including entertainment and culture in general. Again I do not agree or disagree with banning anything in media or entertainment, but I do recognize the effects it has on the mind.
My point is there are no actual studies showing the dangers. If there is no science behind a ban then there is no basis to justify a ban except subconscious feelings.
I would agree with this, media or entertainment does not make someone a homicidal maniac, sex crazed rapist, etc. That level of instability would come from more extreme tangible/physical/psychological environmental factors. Media and imagery couldn't have that drastic of an impact on the mind even subconsciously without other external actions at work. I couldn't justify the ban on any media either nor can I justify not banning it. Luckily I would never have to make such a decision in my life.
You can say the same about a McDonald's big mac. Some people are weak and can't control the urge to eat big macs. Does that mean we should go around banning big macs?
Again as posted already my argument is NOT about banning anything, but about the claim that video games and entertainment or any imaginative activity doesn't have any impact over the psyche. Even those involved in the article say more research is needed. Again I am not arguing for what can and cannot be banned, but simply the claim about external exposures and their affects on the human mind.
I'm pretty sure the way parents and other treat children has a huge effect on how they in turn treat others. If children encounter double standards and unfair treatment, they will learn it. They also understand very well that a game world is a game world, and you are supposed to play the game. But if in the game world they are teased or treated unfairly, it will have a negative effect on their personality - just like in the real world.
So I don't think violent games should be banned, but bad behavior towards children.
This is was always a no issue like the old targets that "corrupt the young people" like the rock and roll the movies the comics and the tv
This comment has received a sweet gift of Dank Amps in the flavor of 6.41 % upvote from @lovejuice thanks to: @ukato. Vote for Aggroed!
That's a relief. I've massacred thousands in video games!! It's nice to know society is safe from me.
It's crazy that people think violent video games promote violence. If anything it most likely is a deterrent from it as you can take out your frustrations in the digital world.
I don't really like to blame video games for people's actions. People need to learn to not copy everything they see in movies and games.
@dana-edwards, in a way violate video games promote violence I remember when everyone used to play Call of duty and then when they got outside in the real world they would use these skills such as even when we payed paintball. Young children should avoid these violating games because children's mind as developing minds , if they are exposed to this, it is bad for their future
Before video games little children played Cowboys and Indians. Does that mean Cowboys and Indians cause racism and interracial murder?
I don't think anyone can police the mind of anyone else with the current technology. With technology of the future it might be possible for a community to police your mind, but would you want your thoughts regulated by communal standards?
At what point does society move on from policing behavior and onto policing thoughts? If it's not morally wrong to police violent video games then when the technology becomes sophisticated enough where does it end and what can't be policed? If we are logically consistent about it then why would thoughts be sacred?
It does not produce racism , racism is created from thoughts and history that we have yet to forget . There is not end to violent video games because one part comes out then the next and so on, and indivuals even grown ups look forward to it as well . Just because we use a gun in call of duty does not mean we use a gun in real life
Nice post sir , love to Read it .
Keep going .
Please upload some more post like this .
To me i think violent video games kills empathy, my lil nephew wouldn't greet or say sorry if you fell or cough.....We had to ban his games for a while and the lad is just 8.
It really affects kids
How do you explain the scientific study I cited which proves the exact opposite of what you claim?
Because, some scientific studies are horsecrap. My son gets so hyped up when he plays first shooters, I banned them! He can only play sports games and minecraft! Maybe the scientists need to study actual children and not do a study paid for by Sony and Microsoft!
Yes but that particular study isn't.
I do not think it's any effect ,,,,?
there should be age limit in violent games. under 17 should not be allowed to play these type of games
but how can you prevent younger people not to play
it is there parent responsibility to take take interest in there children's daily life and prevent them in playing these violent games
Why?
because if children plays these games they became more insensitive and behave's as an adult at an early age which is not good
every thing should be learned gradually
So ultimately when technologically possible you will morally support policies to police all human thought so that bad thoughts can be regulated out of existence?
How is the banning of violent video games not inevitably going to result in a future where even the mere thought of doing something violent is policed on the exact same argument you made?
I understand and i agree that its a slippery slope but you have to draw a line somewhere otherwise kids would be trying cigarettes at ten and alcohol at 12. And, you're right, the theoretical science is there but then there are also real-life incidents where a kid snatches a gun from a police officer because he saw it in GTA or a sick kid jumps off a roof thinking he'd 'respawn' with full health, just like in his games.
Perhaps an all out complete ban may not be the answer, but don't you think that some kind of age-related control is required when the stakes are this high?
And wouldn't the same attitude you apply to your kids be used by governments to apply to adults?
Great post !
Resteemed this is pure gold, thanks for sharing!
Im following you !
Honestly, whether studies support it or not, I can't see Violent Video games NOT affecting people - especially children.
I'm in the camp that children and young adults should not be exposed to the gratuitous violence found in these video games. Maybe it doesn't effect "empathy" but it sure does have a (negative) effect.
So are you saying, if the science points to a result which feels wrong then you'll ignore the science?
The study says what it says and the evidence points where it points, with a good deal of statistical certainty.
@dana-edwards - Excellent comment. I have nothing against science.
Yet, I do believe they we all should judge for ourselves whether we believe the evidence shown is in alignment with our own thoughts/beliefs.
There are too many studies funded by parties that have a conflict of interest and too many ways to slant the results.
Just saying healthy skepticism is a good starting point when looking at new data.
"The recurring justification for the ban is that it contributes to criminal sexual urges against children. "
Does anyone offer even the slightest bit of evidence for this, or do they just expect you to believe it because it "feels right to them"?
"So it seems a person can behave as a psychopath in the game but this according to the study has no impact on their empathy in the real world."
Yeah, it's almost as if they aren't the complete drooling, brainwashed morons the pro-censorship liars think they are.
"Should violent video games be banned?"
Obviously no more than violent TV, violent movies, violent music. So, no.
In these debates so far none of them have offered any rational or science based justification for their position beyond "it should be banned". The only argument offered was an argument not based on the latest studies which seem to show that violent video games have no lasting impact on empathy.
Life desensitizes people more than violent video games. It's a violent world that a lot of us have to live in and grow up in. There are wars going on, there are people getting shot and killed left and right, yet violent video games are blamed? Couldn't we just as easily blame politics?
It is fine if a person comes out and says they support censorship and then take a logically consistent position on that. A person who supports censorship all the way will support regulating all human thought once the technology connects us to a degree where thoughts can be monitored and policed. Because if you can ban violent video games even when there are no victims and no scientific evidence showing anyone is harmed, then you can ban anything. If you can ban anything by the argument that it corrupts the mind then you can ban thoughts because if a person has violent thoughts wouldn't this also desensitize them over time and cause them to become a violent person?
Consider that with video games we are discussing what goes on in the brains of the players and people are discussing creating policies to police the mind.
"A person who supports censorship all the way will support regulating all human thought once the technology connects us to a degree where thoughts can be monitored and policed."
This is exactly why this is a topic I can get more emphatic about than I intend to. I see this as a literal crime against humanity and I would place the magnitude of its sinister-ity (should be a word) at potentially comparable to genocide.
The thing about virtual reality, is eventually violent virtual reality will be a thing. In addition virtual reality eventually will be photo realistic. So people who are more sensitive to seeing violence than others will be in a position to declare that everyone should be just as sensitive to seeing it as them, or in essence the logic being that everyone should feel and react to violence as they do. The ban might start at violent video games but what is really going on?
The problem is, if we look at it like this, then we can see anything which disturbs group A can eventually be banned. It might be violent video games today but really whatever the zeitgeist determines is the fashionable thing to ban from the global mind will be banned. This could have a long lasting impact on the species and on the individual. In fact, how will individualism survive in a world where certain thought patterns are systematically disapproved and everything associated with these thoughts banned?
It might not be possible to directly ban violent thoughts, but they can ban violent video games, violent movies, violent lyrics, etc.
"or in essence the logic being that everyone should feel and react to violence as they do"
It always seems to come back to collectivism for these "feels" arguers, doesn't it? They quite literally want to enforce the same feelings for everyone at the barrel of the State's gun.
I gotta be honest, when I decided I would take up the mantle of reason and logic in every discussion, I did not see myself being forced to defend pedo-bots from...not even basic logical fallacies, but the complete and total absence of even an argument. It's not wasted effort for all the reasons you point out in your second-to-last paragraph, but, ick.
Some folks are always looking for something other than themselves to blame. And I don't necessarily mean there are gamers out there who want to blame video games for their violent behavior. Sure, that exists too. However, the typical pushers behind such anti-idea propaganda are normally parents or politicians. Seems they alternate who's antagonizing whom into galvanized action.
Games are games. Whoever plays them knows they are games. There is a clear distinction between a game universe and real world. Child robots belong to real world. If you dont ban child robots u are changing the real world and real perceptions of humans..
Really? So if you play a game with your friends in the "real world" where does the distinction happen?