--Original published at Kealey's PSY105 Blog

              First-person shooter video games have desensitized people, especially teenage boys, to visual displays of violence in the past couple decades. Comparatively, media coverage following the rise in the number of mass shootings in recent years has made the public less sensitive to the exposure of terrible violence. No matter how devastating the event is, we are less and less shocked by incidents which would have been earth-shattering decades ago. This is not because we are bad people, or care less about victims of violence, but it is because it is how we learn to cope with the emotional shock that these tragedies bring. The rise in gun violence has, I think, caused people to care more about politics and mental illness in America. There are many factors which have contributed to the rise in gun violence in this country, however, I do not think video games are notable enough to blame. It may be true that video games display scenes of avatars shooting enemies and hijacking cars, but I believe that children are still able to distinguish between the virtual world and reality.

The pressures of society’s values and rules in real life are much too strong to abandon just because someone has been exposed to virtual violence while playing a video game. It is important to note that video games are designed to entertain and challenge players, not fulfill a twisted thirst for blood. In many cases, real life shooters have a mental illness or a dark motivation that leads them to hurt others. Also, there is no evidence that violence in other forms has increased. The action and adventure of games such as Call of Duty is what draws consumers in, not the shock value or gore of violence. Grand Theft Auto is a very popular video game, yet you do not see an increase in young men stealing Ferraris and running over prostitutes. Most first-person shooter games are designed to immerse the player in a narrative story. The alter-ego or avatars in many of these games are American soldiers and nothing at all like psychopathic murderers. The topic of violence in video games is widely disputed and there are valid points to both sides of reasoning. In my opinion, I do not think violent video games have a strong correlation with real life gun violence and banning them would not be a solution to the problem.

--Original published at KatieMillerPSY105

For this chapter I chose to respond to Skinner’s answer on free will. When looking at his experiment, I would agree with him that we do not really have any free will. When Skinner is asked the question of whether we do have free will, he discussed the issue of people believing in free will because we know about our behaviors, but we do not know about its causes. BF Skinner showed in his pigeon experiment that the pigeons learned behaviors in order to get rewarded. The pigeon’s behavior was being shaped by controlling its environment. Skinner kept the pigeons lighter than the average size so that they would always be hungry. Since the pigeons were hungry, a food reward was used to attempt to control behavior. The pigeon was kept in a box where it would could peck at a red dot. The pigeon learned that when it would peck at the dot, it would gain its food reward. Skinner also changed the timing of the food rewards to measure the impact on the pigeon’s behavior. For example, sometimes the reward would be released every minute while at other times, the food would only be released every tenth time that the pigeon pecked at the dot. Skinner experimented with the timing of the reinforcement to determine if the pigeons would change behavior. His research showed that once a pigeon learned that a reward would be delivered at some point after pecking at the red dot, the pigeon would continue to do so until they received their food. Skinner correlated that the variable ratio scheduling of the reward did not change the pigeon’s determination to peck the red dot. He compared this type of behavior to that of humans with gambling at a slot machine. Just as their pigeon pecking for their food, humans gamble for the schedule of reinforcement. At some point a gambler knows that the slot machine will pay out, but they just don’t know when. So, a gambler will continue to play until the payout occurs or they run out of resources. I believe that people want to think that we have the power of free will, but I do not believe that we actually have free will. A lot of our own behaviors are learned behaviors that we have been taught from a young age. Also, similar to the pigeon, humans look for rewards based on the things they do. Skinner used the example of gambling as receiving a reward. An example that I know from personal experience is doing something nice for someone in school to get a “green card”. I learned that I needed to be a good person and be nice towards others in order to get rewarded at the end of each week. While developing kindness is a great trait, the system used to develop those behaviors was built on a reward system. I think that, as humans, we have our own choices, but we make these choices based on behaviors that we have either learned or have experienced previously.

--Original published at Tiffany'sCollegeBlog

For chapter 7’s first impression post, I chose to do the second option, discussing the fact of whether or not violence video games cause children to be more violent and whether video games should be banned. I agree and disagree with this statement. It’s very controversial and for some it’s true and others it’s false. 

The reasons that I don’t think that video games cause violence are because some people use it as a way to “relieve stress” or get away from the world. Another reason is that the kids only play fr a few hours and it’s not like they believe it and it just depends on the game. For many kids, video games are like their “safe zone.” That’s what it is for my brothers, both of them. They both play on the computer and they play violent games and non-violent games. It’s just a safe zone for them so that they can play with their emotions, not their physical lives. I think that most people who do play video games tend to be the “nerdy” and they are the “soft” people. Not everyone plays violent games and the ones that do might not even play them for a long time. Theres not that many issues with violence in video games as there are with school shootings. In the past year, there have been more school shootings. The mass shooters who have attacked schools have showed signs of mental illnesses and that the mental illness was what caused them to do it. 

I agree with the statement that some video games do cause violence though. In video games, the realism is intensifying the game and making it real life. The graphics create a false reality. An example: older video games were more based on cartoons, when a character was injured, there was no sound of blood or a breaking bones. It was imaginary and not real. The player could tell it’s not real. While technology is wonderful, the background effects and sound effects, the games give off virtual reality. These online games are now involving virtual reality and role-playing scenarios. Unless society brings children away from the games and outside, playing with actual friends, they will most likely start to believe that they are the actual people in the video games. People who play for hours and don’t tend to move for a long time get focused with the game and start to believe that they are the robber they are playing, the shooter they are playing. Mental illnesses are becoming to be a bigger part of society. A lot of people have them and with the proper help, they can get help and not be so violent. 

I also didn’t finish what I had to say because of the deadline. It’s very controversial, with and without violence. 

--Original published at Kirsten's Kreations

There are many criticism nowadays about video games. More specifically, how violent video games influence people to become violent themselves. There are arguments about how playing first person shooter games can affect the subconscious of children which influences them to be more violent as they get older. I think this is a ridiculous thought. I myself know many people who have been playing violent video games almost their whole lives, most of which are the first person shooter games. Not a single one of them are violent, in fact they are the least violent people I know. But the most concrete evidence I know of show how video games are one of the last things making people violent, are the school shooters.

The U.S. has endured way too many school shootings. The some of the most famous ones are Columbine and Sandy Hook. After the Sandy Hook shooting people across the country swore up and down it was because the shooter played video games which influenced him to do what he did. However, it was later discovered that he never played the violent video games like everyone thought, he just had a mental illness which influenced him to do what he did. In fact it has been determined that most of the mass shooters played little to no video games. If anything, what influenced children to grow to be violent it is the way they are raised or there is a chemical imbalance causing a mental illness. Most of the mass killings wouldn’t have happened if these people had the proper diagnoses and help.

Banning video games won’t help anything. If anything, it would take away most kids outlet. Video games now a days are becoming more life like than ever. With kids turning to video games more it is giving them an outlet to get some of their emotions out. If kids don’t have that outlet anymore they are going to turn to do these things in real life which create a worse situation than there already is.

 

--Original published at Jenna'sPSY105blog

For this week’s first impression post, I chose the prompt discussing whether or not video games lead to more violent children. Personally, I do not feel that they do.

For starters, the United States is known for having one of (if not the) largest amounts of gun violence in the world. But these violent video games are not just specific to the U.S. Most games are able to be purchased in many countries. So it doesn’t make sense that we would have more gun violence than these other countries if video games are to blame.

Secondly, I feel that violence is not always a learned thing, and that it is just a part of human nature. You will see little boys, who are way too young to be playing video games yet, playing with toy guns, pretending things are guns, or using imaginary guns with their hands when playing with their friends. They are too young to be influenced by society to have learned that these things are violent, but they still fake shoot each other when playing at the park or in the back yard. Going along with this, maybe toy companies who are creating toy guns for boys to play with should also be at blame for causing violence, but you never really hear about that because all of the criticism is usually on video game companies.

Lastly, I don’t believe that the blood and gore in video games causes mass shooters. I think it could be somewhat therapeutic for people. Teenagers especially are dealing with a lot of emotions and stress as they go through puberty and school and all of the things that come with growing up. Coming home from a stressful day at school and playing video games can be an outlet for built up anger and emotions for teens. If they spend hours shooting imaginary people, the anger is able to diminish, thus allowing them to release their aggression before releasing it in real life.

In conclusion, gun violence is growing in the United States, but I don’t think video games are the culprit, nor do I believe that banning violence in video games is going to solve anything. There is no direct evidence that video games create more violent people. Violence is everywhere, and it is impossible to avoid. So don’t take away something that kids enjoy.

 

--Original published at CatherinesCollegeBlog

I chose option 2 for this chapter’s first impression post, regarding violence in video games. I believe that children are exposed to violent video games before they are ready or mature enough to handle them. There are restrictions protecting young children for things like violent or inappropriate movies at the theater, but video games are more easily accessible. Unless the parents strictly enforce rules about not playing any violent video games, kids can easily play them at home or at friends houses. It would be very difficult to permanently ban violent video games due to the market that has been created for them. Everyone plays video games, from kids to adults, some of whom even get paid for their above average skill. Violence in the media is a bit different, as these news stories still contain important information aside from the violence, providing valuable takeaway messages for the viewers. Some of these video games are strictly about killing with no purpose, and they are extremely visual which may numb children to the pain actually felt from events involving this kind of violence. The repetition and norm of killing in these violent video games may make children think it is acceptable to respond with violence in real life before they have developed and matured enough. I think there need to be steps taken to restrict violent video games from ending up in the hands of children, but they will be hard to ban altogether.

--Original published at Loretta Gabrielle

If video game were shown to be traumatic for children and to cause more shooting based off of the violence they saw than most people would be raging psychopaths. So possible.

If we were to say that video games alone cause this to occur than it would mean that no other form of video interactive would cause this violence as well. It seems to imply that this is a psychodynamic theory where the individual is engaged in more violence which causes their unconscious to be insensitive to death based off of video games alone. Well if this is true than how does it differ from the news or TV? It wouldn’t.

If this idea was true than we would see similar brain scans from each of the individuals that had violence tendencies AND played excessive video games. Not only this but if this theory was true it would be untestable as you cannot possibly separate every factor which would play in. For example, if it was video games that caused more violence than you would have to eliminate possible trauma, no violence in news or media other than video games, no genetic marker of a psychopath in the family, no history of violence, no excessive amount of serotonin in the womb, no trait carried from the mom which is seen in most male psychopaths, and cannot live in a high intensity stressful environment (such as Gaza or parts of Israel). Not only would I conclude this as false but if this was the cause of violence I find it highly difficult, if not impossible to test.