--Original published at MaddiesCollegeBlog

For this weeks first impression post, I decided to chose option #2, which discusses the ongoing debate about increase gun violence in first-person video games. I actually have a decent amount of personal experience with video games, I have played a decent amount of call of duty in my free time, along with my friends guy-friends also playing lots of “violent” video games before. But I mainly just stuck to games like Sims or Mario Kart. However, as there is a recent increase in mass shootings and gun violence it has made me reconsider my very strong consensus of this debate.

I feel as if video games are not the complete connection to one’s reason to commit such a crime. I believe that there are very many other contributing factors that push an individual or group to do this, such as a mental health issue, how they were raised, or peer pressure perhaps.

I believe that it is a very bombastic reason to completely ban violent video games. there is no real, significant or valid evidence that supports this case. I think that more research and studies need to be conducted in order to make this type of drastic change. I also feel that it is unrealistic to think that video game companies would just completely stop creating games without weapons, gore, and so on. They should definitely be aware of how far they are taking their graphics but should not totally shut their ideas down.

--Original published at Anneka's Blog

Video games have been the child’s game since its creation several decades ago. The once stick control, 2D animation, and box consoles have now evolved into motion sensors, realistic highly and detailed animation, and portable devices. As new systems and games are created and delivered to the hands of waiting fans, parents are becoming more concerned with the violence that has become increasingly common in video games. The graphic displays of death, shooting, and war have become increasingly realistic with the advanced animation. Video game criticism has risen on the claim that children have become more violent due to participation in such games.

Having grown up with video games and seen some of these violent games via my relatives, I can understand parents and the community’s concern with these games. Although I do not have any experience with video games with central themes of war, violence, and gore-like Call of Duty-I have had my share of violence. I cannot tell you how many hours I played Super Mario Bros. killing Bowsers, Kooplaings, and Goombas, and dying a fair amount of times myself. My sister and I would yell at the screen, and sometimes a remote got thrown in the process.

While I think there is a positive correlation between video games and violent behavior, I do not think that it is solely the cause of violent tendencies in people. Like we learned in class, a person is shaped by not just environment or genetics, but a mixture of both. Playing violent video games for days per week is going to have an effect on people, but there are also other environmental factors, such as living or parent situation, and genetics that can be altered and turned off or on. From my last “First Impressions” post, MAO-A violence gene is one gene that is passed down by the mother and can become active with a traumatic experience.

I do not think banning video games will fully solve this problem. As with many illegal laws, people find ways to skirt around them. It is up to the parent primarily if they will allow their children to play these games, but I do not believe children should be introduced early on. Developing young children will not understand fully the concepts of violence and war and its effects and are still learning proper behaviors and manners. There are age ratings for videos games that show the maturity needed to understand and play. Giving a seven-year-old a game meant for 18-year-olds is not beneficial. Monitoring children as they play, setting playing length, and researching game age restrictions, are ways to minimize the effects of violent video games.

--Original published at Brittany's Thoughts

According to B.F Skinner, there is no such thing as free will. From his experience of doing a study with pigeons, he determined that the pigeons did the desirable behaviors for food. The pigeons would peck at a colored disk until food would be revealed to them. The food was revealed in different reinforcement schedules, which Skinner said were like the schedules used on gambling machines. His argument is that we believe free will exists because we do not understand the behaviors behind the things we do.

I believe that Skinner is correct about this assumption. Our natural drives are fueled by our needs. We act based on what needs to be satisfied within our body, whether it be food, comfort, shelter. This needs could very well be why we end up in bad situations and feel as if  we have no control over them. This lack of free will can bring us into unhealthy situations. We do things because we need to. We eat because it is required to survive. We may choose what we eat and when we eat, but we eat because we must.

Skinner compared the scheduling to those on gambling machines. We believe that something like gambling is something we choose to do, but gambling can become an addiction. Does this inadvertently show that things like addiction become just like our natural drives? Do we completely lose our free will to things that are not required for survival? It appears that we, as humans, do not have the free will that we thought we did.

--Original published at Emily's Blog

--Original published at Rachel's Blog

Over the past few years there has been quite an increase in the amount of violence in a video game.  Due to an increase in today’s technology, it helps to advance these games to make them seem more realistic and make you feel like you are actually in the game.  I remember when I was younger I used to watch my older brother play video games and he would sometimes switch the game when I came in the room because he did not want me to see the violence happening in his game.  From when I was younger compared to now, these games have gotten better, graphics- wise, but increasingly more violent.

Even though some video games are a bit violent, I would say that it is extreme to ban them.  I think that the amount of time playing these games that are viewed as violent should be monitored and not be played as often.  I think that it is important for kids to play other games so that they are well rounded and not so used to games where there is always blood, guns, and violence.  I think that banning these games is not the answer because sometimes kids want to play a game more action filled than a racing game or another game they often play.  It is also a way for kids to get their anger out, but it can also show a different, more violent and aggressive side of kids that people may not be used to.  If kids do decide to play a violent game that does not mean that they are violent and bad people.  The game may have an influence on them to act out of violence, but most likely these games will not cause children to act aggressively or violently outside of playing the game.  Overall, video games are becoming increasingly violent, but if they are monitored carefully, then they should not have to be banned.

--Original published at Sidney's college blogs

For this week’s first impression post, I chose to write on the violence in video games. I have a little brother, so I know first hand that video games have gotten extremely graphic and cruel. I don’t believe that these video games should be banned, but I do believe that they should be monitored with what is allowed to be put out to the public. Although they have age requirements and suggestions on some games, it does not completely guarantee that the children will not get ahold of the game some way or another. Children are susceptible to many things and are influenced by everything they come in contact to. The impression that such violence and cruelty is okay can leave them with a misunderstanding between what is right and what is wrong. When children play video games, they become immersed in them. When shot and killed, they often throw a fit out of anger and a lot of them will use vulgar language. This shows that the violence in these games can bring out a darker side by just getting killed in a game. They often take them way too seriously.

The amount of school shootings, and just mass shootings in general, have been increasing. A number of them have been due to children. The thought that someone could shoot another person absolutely blows my mind. I think that the video games make it more appealing and makes it easier for them to do. As mentioned, children are developing and are influenced by everything they come in contact with. If they are exposed to such violence all the time, then they are going to have the impression of violence left on them.

If children are going to be exposed to violence, I think that the parents should be fully aware of the graphics and the events that take place in these video games. Playing in moderation would also help the children to not be fully emerged in violent acts all the time. With this being said, I do not think a ban should be placed, but I do think the companies should be more careful to what they give out to the public.

--Original published at Site Title

Throughout the past several years, violence in video games has grown to be more and more graphic and intense. There has been much controversy regarding these games and the effects that they may be having on the minds’ of the people, young and matured, who are spending their time playing them.

From my perspective, the criticism that the video game industry is receiving is unfair. Although I do agree that some of the violence in video games is unthinkable and unnecessary, I do not think that it is the reason behind people being outrageously violent in real life. Practically every teenage boy I know, and some girls too, have played extremely violent video games and did not turn out to be serial killers. In fact, many of them happen to be kindest, least violent people I know.

For some people, it may be so that the violence in video games does spark something from within them that gives them the motive to act violently in real life, but this is not the case for the majority of the people who are playing these games. If this is true, then the fault still cannot be placed on the video game industry because it likely that the person who is acting violently would have done so with or without the video game. Another argument that some people make is that some of the video gaming children are not  mature enough to handle the violence that they see on the screen in front of them, and I agree with that. However, the blame for this can once again not be placed upon the video game industry, but on the adults who are giving these young children access to these games that they are not yet ready to be exposed to.

With all of this being said, I do not think a permanent ban on all violent video games would make a difference on the violence that has been occurring.

--Original published at Miguel's College Blog

For this post, I want to focus on the topic of violent video games and the media. Are video games getting more violent over the years? Sure. As consumers of this type of entertainment we cannot turn a blind eye and say that video games have not gotten increasingly more detailed and realistic in their violence as graphics have increased. I cannot say that I agree with the claim that violent video games is a cause for increased violence in children because for one, there is not enough long term research for me to support that claim. Also, I think that violence among children has been apparent, even before video games were invented. I do think that violent video games are the scapegoat for a larger problem in society. It is easier to shift blame towards something like video games as a reason for increased violence than address problems within familial values or violence within the environment as the real problem. Parents should be paying attention to what games their children are playing and I know that it is difficult for not only the children, but also the parents to understand the ulterior motive in doing so when it is so ingrained in our society to allow children at a young age to be playing violent video games and spectate violent video games on a daily basis. Something needs to change within our society in order for real change to occur. For generations now, children have been desensitized from a young age to violence in video games, the media, entertainment, and the real world. Banning violent video games would not solve the problem of increased violence among children because it is not the problem. The problem is deeper and more ingrained in society and within our families than can be solved with one action such as that.

--Original published at The Core Techs

B.F. Skinner was a psychologist who strongly believed in operant conditioning (learning through a rewards and punishment system). He furthered his studies by using pigeons and having them do certain tasks to receive food (it’s literally food for thought). Skinner ultimately determined that operant conditioning had such a strong influence, humans could basically be manipulated to do whatever others wanted. Free will was simply an illusion.

Are you familiar with “The choice is yours” phrase? This can more commonly be related to a loose definition of free will. Free will basically states that people have the freedom to choose how they act and what they say. We are in control of our own behavior. But are we really?

In Skinner’s experiment, he slightly starved the birds, forcing them to see food as a reward. What would have happened if Skinner did not starve the pigeons? Would they still have done the tricks to receive food? Think of it in the terms of a human experiment; do we choose to eat, or are we forced to eat? We seemingly choose to eat at our own will. What we eat, when we eat, or who we eat with may all seem like things that we determine on our own. But, we also need food to survive. Do we eat because we want to or because we need to? Did we choose to eat what mom made for dinner, or did she force us? Do we eat when we want to, or do we have an underlying schedule to eat? What about our friends? When we eat can sometimes revolve around their schedule. This is a pure example of a rewards and punishment system. If we eat on our own desired time, we might not get to eat with our friends. If we change what time we want to eat based on others, we get the reward of eating with company. It may seem like we chose when we wanted to eat, but really we did not; our friends did. Another example of where free will can be seen as false is in children who grow up to be violent. People often say that we can “choose” our destinies. We can establish the difference between good and evil. We choose whether or not to commit a crime. Although some people believe this, eventually, everything comes back to biology. According psychologists, people who grow up to commit crimes often times have a biological disorder, they grew up watching their parents commit violent acts, or actions that are the cause of observations. It seems as though nearly everything has an underlying cause, and nothing is truly “free will.” Often times, people fail to realize the difference between free will and underlying causes because environmental factors go by unnoticed. According to Skinner, one would choose not to participate in illegal activities because of personal values and history, and other environmental contexts (punishment). Even still, it is also true that one would not choose to participate in a crime because of the rewarding aspects: having a clean record, not getting fined, etc. One last example is one that college students may be able to relate to; Why did you choose your career in college? Did you choose your career because you enjoyed it? Did you choose it because you wanted to follow in your family’s footsteps? What about money? In choosing your college, did you choose it because of location? Price? If free will was true, humans would be able to do whatever they wanted in this life, however, there seems to be an underlying factor to nearly all of our decisions.

Without thought, there is no purpose. Purpose requires determination. Determination requires questioning. Questioning is the result of many possible outcomes. Free will has, is, and always will be influenced.

What do you think, Core Techs? Is free will real or just an illusion?

-B

thebluediamondgallery.com

--Original published at Melissa's Blog

Video games are becoming increasingly violent with the help of technology. New technological advances have made video games extremely violent, graphic, and life-like. I think violent video games are intended for adults who are mature enough to handle death, guns, and blood. However, many teens and even young children are being exposed to this gruesome violence. Children should be refrained from playing violent video games because their brains are immature and underdeveloped. The vivid violence they observe, when playing video games, could lead to aggression and violent actions because their immature minds do not know how to process what they are seeing. Additionally, many teens are constantly playing video games and might find virtual killing as a stress and anger reliever. This virtual aggression could escalate into real-life violence. Although it is more concerning that children are being exposed to violent video games, some adults could also be unable to handle the violence. For example, people with mental illnesses or psychotic disorders may react negatively to video game violence because they have abnormal thinking and perceptions.

Although some extremists may believe that permanently banning all violent video games is the answer, I find that too extreme. Instead, a solution would be to decrease the amount of violence in these games, rather than trying to make the newest games even more gruesome and graphic. Another solution is to establish an 18 years and older age restriction on all violent video games, rather than just a select few. However, there are some downfalls to this option. Some adults are not mentally stable enough to play these games but have the right to purchase them. It would be discriminating to deny adults with mental or psychotic disabilities their right to play and buy violent video games, if other people their age can. Another concern is that parents are purchasing violent video games for their children. Many parents are unaware of the violent, graphic, and gory games they are exposing their children to. Parents need to be more involved and observant when purchasing video games for their children. Parents could play the game with their child, watch the minor play the game, set a time limit on how long their child can play, or they could research the game before buying it. Video games are an activity that can be used to relieve stress, relax, have alone time, or socialize with friends, but violent video games can send the wrong message. Video game companies should stop increases the violence and blood in their games, minors and those with mental disabilities should be monitored, and everyone should decrease their playing time.