First Impression Post; Learning

--Original published at olivyahvanek

Violence in video games have been very controversial when it comes to whether or not it affects how children view violence and how it affects them mentally. I think that when there is violence in video games it can go either one way or another when it comes to affecting children’s views on violence.

Children who play video games with violence in the games can either be affected mentally scarring them from the violence and gore that occurs in the game and this has the potential to make children scared of the games and scared that it could happen in real life. This could really affect their mental state and make them too scared to do certain things because they are scared of what could happen to them because of what they saw in their video games.

I think that another way that this could go would be the children could potentially be inspired by these video games, which could make them think it is okay to do and start participating in violent actions. Video games could make kids think that it is okay for them to do violent things to other people because they saw it in the game and everyone in the game participates in these violent actions.

I think that violent video games can affect all children differently because they could either scar them by scaring them and making them nervous to go out and do things on their own. These video games also have the potential to make children think that violence is the answer, but I think that these video games can be dangerous for children to play because of the potential they have on their mentality when it comes to violence.

Violence in Video Games

--Original published at Rickster's Psychology Blog

My perspective on violent video games will be slightly biased. I’m on the verge of playing Call of Duty as a career so I think I could offer a unique opinion on the subject.

From my perspective, video games have always offered me an escape from life. I have had extremely strict parents. I was never allowed to go out as a kid. Nowadays, I’m still required to go through a 15 minute interview with each parent before I go anywhere. Most days I can’t put up with it so I lock myself in my room and I take my anger and frustration out on the game.

I’ve met many people and made many friends throughout the course of my e-sports career. They all play video games for similar reasons as me. Some play to stay out of trouble. Some play because they’re severely injured or have some sort of medical or mental problem so they can’t function normally in society. Some have lost everything and games are all they have left.

I don’t believe video games make people violent. If anything, they keep people from committing violent acts because they can get the violent vibes out of their system by playing video games.

I think its ludicrous people are calling for the banning of video games. These games have changed in recent years. For example, in Call of Duty, much more teamwork, communication, and self sacrifice is required in order to win consistently. Players need to learn to communicate efficiently. A much quicker reaction time is required now so this would help people when driving or when quick decision needs to be made. These games are helping children with poor eye sight have better cognitive recognition and better peripheral vision.

I think video games have helped many more people than they have hurt.

Chapter 7 First Impression Post

--Original published at Noah'sPSY105blog

For my first impression post on Chapter 7, I have decided to discuss the second prompt about violent video games.

My prospective on violent video games is fairly neutral. Although I could see why many people could think that violent video games may be one of the causes as to why children are becoming violent as a whole, I think that it may be somewhat unfair to pin the blame solely on the games themselves.

In my opinion, it would be absurd to try and ban violent video games altogether for several different reasons. The first being that it would be unfair for individuals above this certain age range who enjoy playing these certain violent video games. Not only that, but children are already prohibited from buying certain violent games until they reach a certain age. Due to this, I think the blame should be shifted from the developers of the video games, and be placed on the parents and guardians of these children, because without their assistance the children would not be able to get their hands on the games in the first place.

Chapter 7 First Impression Post

--Original published at Courtney's College Blog

I believe that violent video games should be permitted, as long as parents use the correct precautions. Young children are easily influenced by their environment, but once they enter the formal operations stage, they can handle it responsibly. Around age 12, children have the capability to understand that even though they can engage in violence in a video game, they can not engage in it in the real world. Piaget’s formal operations stage allows children to think abstractly. This is why their brains can distinguish between what is appropriate for a video game and real life.

I have two younger brothers, ages 12 and 15, and they have been engaging in violent video games for years. For one of my brothers’ eighth birthday, he wanted Grand Theft Auto for his Play Station. My parents were hesitant, so they asked some of their friends with children of the same age. An overwhelming amount of those parents allowed their children to play violent video games, so my brother received the game for his birthday. He is not a violent child, no more than any typical boy, but that is only one case.

Before video games are permanently banned, there should be a research study of the correlation between violent video games and violence in the real world. There can be longitudinal study with three groups: children exposed to violent games before age twelve, after age twelve, and not at all. If there is an overwhelming correlation between video game players and violence regardless of age, then they should be banned. If there are much less children that were over the age of twelve that engaged in violence in the real world, video games should be permitted as long as parents use the correct precautions. When the child becomes interested in these types of games, parents should ask them why they want the game, and determine if they are responsible enough to handle it.

Violence in the Media

--Original published at Sherika's Psych Blog

Cries of video games or other variations of media that depict extreme violence for decades have been pointed at as the source of many problems over the past several decades. From being blamed as a contributing factor to school shootings, mass shootings, and dozens of other largely devastating events, politicians and government leaders alike have pushed back against violence in the media and in some cases have argued for video game addiction to be listed as an actual psychiatric condition in the World Health Organization’s guidelines.

On an issue that is both hotly contested and argued about, my personal belief is that there’s no or very little correlation between violence in the media and an increase in aggressive behavior. According to a recent article by Forbes, the same conclusion is also met. According to the article, the Oxford Internet Institute and the University of Oxford conducted a study in which a combination of subjective and objective data was used in order to determine the correlation between teen aggression and violence in video games. The study utilized data from not only teens, but their parents and caretakers to judge levels of aggression. Something previous studies, the article notes, had never been done. Furthermore, the level of violence in video games was determined by the current standard and classification of video game ratings that are used today instead of the subjects determination about what constituted “violence” in one.

While the sample of the subjects was mostly confined to British teens aged 14 to 15, along with their parental units or caretakers who totaled for 2,008 subjects in all. The study as researchers noted found no correlation between violence and video games, with researchers expanding upon their findings further with Professor Andrew Przybylski clarifying:

” The idea that violent video games drive real-world aggression is a popular one, but it hasn’t tested very well over time. Despite interest in the topic by parents and policy-makers, the research has not demonstrated that there is cause for concern. “

Calls to permanently ban video games from consumer consumption has always been merely a call to find a scapegoat to blame these horrible events that happen universally on a single monomer. Instead of confronting and researching the root causes behind why mass shootings occur, or the purveyor’s intent, instead, the easy cause is to blame something that people already are wary about. This has been done with not only video games, but metal music, as well as differing fashion subcultures as well. It’s easier to blame something that people lack an understanding of, rather than to blame something that people refuse to believe.

Chapter 7 First Impression

--Original published at JVershinski's Blog

My perspective on violent video games is that they do not insinuate for children, or anyone playing them for that matter, to go do something similar to what they are doing in the game. I do not think that violent video games are making children more violent and I think these criticisms of the video game industry are unsupported by meaningful research.

As far as I know, there is little to no research dictating that violent video games promote violence in children. There is research that supports the notion that video games, while some may be considered violent, do help to improve social skills as well as hand-eye coordination in many people. Additionally, who is to be the judge of what is considered violent and what isn’t? Why should a first person shooting game be considered more violent than Mario? Both games promote violence and the killing of “bad people”, yet the shooting game is considered more violent.

Also, the idea to permanently ban “violent” video games is just baffling. First and foremost, I can’t think of one game that does not have some sort of violence in it. This ban, if it were to ban all violent video games, would essentially wipe out the entire video game industry. The video game industry is worth more than $100 billion, and wiping it out would not go without economic consequences. I also think the irresponsibility of parents to allow their child to play a game that is rated for an older age group does not help the situation. Just because you let little 10 year old Timmy play Call of Duty does not mean the video game is to blame.

Can We Read Each Other’s Minds?

--Original published at Rickster's Psychology Blog

For the Chapter 2 First Impression Post, I selected the “How We Read Each Other’s Minds” TED talk presented by Rebecca Saxe.

I chose this talk because I was interested how we could already read minds. Then I thought maybe this video teaches telepathy. The title of the talk made me feel like I was missing out on something so it was an easy choice for me.

The talk started out with the special part of the brain called the RTPJ. It is the part of the brain which focuses on figuring out what other people are thinking. Then Dr. Saxe talked about the early development of this brain region. She showed a video of the difference in this brain region between a 3, 5, and a 7 year old.

The test was called the False Belief Task. The task involved 2 Pirates. 1 Pirate left his cheese sandwich on a chest to get a drink and the wind blew it over. Another Pirate had a cheese sandwich and put his sandwich on the same chest to go get a drink. Then the first Pirate came back. Then Dr. Saxe asked each participant which sandwich was the first Pirate going to take. The 3 year old chose the one on the ground. The 5 and 7 year old said the one on the Chest. The correct answer was the one on the chest. Then she asked the kids should the first Pirate get in trouble for taking the other’s sandwich? The 3 and 5 year old said yes. The 7 year old said the wind should get in trouble.

Then Dr. Saxe presented the adult version of the test. It turned out there is a negative correlation between the amount of blame people put on the defendant to the amount of RTPJ response so the more the RTPJ was functioning, the less amount of blame the defendant would recieve.

Lastly, she talked about a device called TMS. It sends a magnetic pulse to specific part of the brain and interferes with neurons. She used this device on people’s RTPJ and repeated the False Belief Task. The results showed the people thought defendant should receive less blame.

I found the TMS part to be the most interesting because it suggests building on the TMS could eventually lead to brain control or even curing mental diseases where certain parts of the brain don’t function at all.

I found the presenter trustworthy. She reported exactly how she conducted each experiment and showed videos for 2 of them. She said much more testing needs to be conducted and she said nothing controversial.

My research idea would be to see if it’s possible to use the TMS technology to prevent someone from lying. I would identify the parts of the brain involved in lying using FMRI. I would give them questions where lying would benefit them. Then I would use the TMS to send a magnetic pulse to the part of the brain which helps the person think about their ego. If the TMS eliminates the ego protection thought process, the person should never lie.

What Makes a Killer?

--Original published at Sherika's Psych Blog

Jim Fallon, a notable neuroscientist from the University of California, discusses what contributes to the makings of a serial killer, whether it’s the old age argument of nature vs nurture or something more complex like a person’s genes. Choosing this topic as I found the title of it to be intriguing; Fallon explores how society ends up with news or cases of psychopathic killers. Fallon describes how his colleagues give him brains to analyze, however, it’s a blind experiment as he isn’t given information on which brain belongs to a killer and which one is a regular person. Overall, Fallon notes that he’s analyzed over 70 different brains and because of the analyzation has come up with a bunch of differing data.

The data goes over different variables, such as genetics, brain damage, interaction with the environment, with a study on how each variable impacts which section of the brain and how much. In his research, Fallon attempted to look for a connection between all 3 variables and how that relates to ending up with a psychopathic killer, which all depends on when as he puts it “the damage occurs.” Fallon points out that at all of the brains he looked at, those who were a serial killer had damage to their orbital cortex. Along with that a high risk gene known as MAOA, which is mostly transmitted from mother to son’s because it can be given via the X chromosome. The MAOA gene is typically shown to lead to severe aggressiveness and is commonly found in male’s, many of whom end up as killers. The MAOA gene develops due to too much serotonin in the brain during fetal development which makes the brain become sensitive to the presence of it later on in life.

Fallon then goes on to say that in order for the MAOA gene to be expressed, young boys have to be exposed to cases of extreme violence which can lead to disaster. And with these genes, they can tend to become concentrated in the population especially if the genes continue to be passed on. Fallon then slips into his own anecdotal story about his family, in which his mother after hearing he’d been giving talks about psychotic killers explores their family tree and how Fallon discovered his relation to Lizzie Borden and several other murders throughout history on his father’s side of the family.

What I found interesting about Fallon’s talk however is that even though he goes on constantly about how there are certain variables that can be found that are common among psychotic killers, these same variables can be found in people around the world who object to war or live morally good lives. People like Fallon’s own family as well. Overall this talk seemed to be fairly trustworthy as Fallon had his own extensive set of research, even going so far as to do scans of his own family’s brains to bolster the points he was making in his TED talk.

Based on the information presented in the TED talk, it would be interesting to have a research study that analyzes how brains in a comatose state function and what happens to the brain when a comatose person wakes up. In order to conduct such an experiment there would need to be a large sample pool of brain scans of people who were comatose, people who aren’t, and people who were comatose either due to medical intervention or other reasons but woke up.

Introduction Post; Neuroscience

--Original published at olivyahvanek

I chose to watch the TED Talk Jim Fallon: Exploring the mind of a killer. I was drawn to choose this post because I have always been interested in different serial killers and their stories. I have also always been interested in what makes them kill people and why they are the way that they are. This TED talk talked about how there are different chromosomes in males and females and there is a certain gene that people can inherit and if kids with that gene experience a major trauma in their life, then this can lead to them being a killer themselves.

I did find this presenter and the information to be trustworthy because of his background and his knowledge of killers previously. Also, Jim Fallon, the author, was a Sloan Scholar, a Fulbright Fellow, and he was a Professor if Neuroscience. He has researched towards the subject of psychopaths and he focused on killers, so he has a large, reliable background on the topic of his TED talk.

A research idea I could do to test this would be to compare the data of a human brains at a young age with the potential psychotic gene and compare them to the brains of children who have the gene and have experienced trauma to see the difference in the brain scans of someone who is sane compared to the brain of someone who is considered to be a psychopath.

Chapter 2 First Impression Post

--Original published at Noah'sPSY105blog

For my First Impression post on chapter two, I decided to watch the TED talk on brain to brain communication by Miguel Nicolelis.

I decided to choose this TED talk because I did not believe that it was possible to transmit information between one mind to another without either expressing the information verbally, or writing the information down.

Mr.Nicolelis started off his presentation by using a young man as an example of how far modern technology has come. This young man was in a terrible car accident that rendered him immobile from his torso to the tips of his toes. But utilizing technology that Mr.Nicolelis had been working on for roughly 15 years, used the electrical signals from his brain to move an exoskeleton which had let him kick off the FIFA World Cup that was being hosted in Brasil that year. After the numerous years of research, Nicolelis and his colleague were able to develop the sensors that made this massive feat possible. The sensors were not only able to pick up on the brains electrical signals, but could also translate these signals into digital commands. Not only can these sensors control a variety of different specialized equipment, the equipment can send signals back to the brain to let the user know that they have either succeeded or failed to complete the task or motion they meant to do. What Nicolelis also mentions later in the talk is that he proposed the idea of the kickoff to FIFA and the Brazilian government 18 months in advance to the World Cup, although apprehensive at first both parties eventually agreed on the idea and Nicolelis had to find test subjects and finalize an exoskeleton within this 18 month period. Whilst developing the exoskeleton, the developers not only wanted for the subjects to be able to walk on their own again, but also worked in conjunction with other researchers so that the exoskeleton would make the subjects experience the sensation that they were walking without any assistance at all. The final technology that Nicolelis discusses in the talk is the actual technology that allows brain to brain contact. This was best represented by tests in which monkeys had to collaborate to achieve a common goal in simple mental tests, and had no way of communicating with one another other than utilizing this technology.

I found the part where the monkeys had to communicate through the brain to brain interface the most interesting part of this lecture.

I think that the presenter was very trustworthy whilst presenting this information because he was one of the founders of the technology, and has been working to advance this technology from the time the initial prototype was created.

I would research how effectively this technology could work with humans. A test could be as simple as giving one person a simple map to a maze, and having to direct another person through the maze by just using the brain to brain interface, and see how effective this method truly is when it comes to people.