Pavlovs Kids entertained? Violent video games monetize (virtually reward) virtual mass killings, page 1


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
Topic started on 17-12-2012 @ 02:05 AM by minnow
The concept of scoring some 100 points for every killing or some 1000 for jumbo/mass killings in a fantasy/make believe setting, and otherwise also passively seen in many violent movies, is very commonly accepted across our youth, our society, today.

There are studies that defend extreme video game violence, by showing that video games do not necessarily desensitize the player to real-life instances of these depictions or actions.

Soo..what do you guys think is about the author of the vid's proposals? How would you answer these fundamental issues at hand:

1. Why do youth/adults choose to play extremely violent video games, for sometimes hours every day, in the first place?

2. If there were no "score" or other reward system to keep track of kill count, would the game(s) be less appealing?

3. Are violent video games physically, mentally a healthy outlet for children, teenagers, young adults, or unhealthy? How?


I agree with the guy in the vid, that video games don't necessarily "desensitize" us to mass killings.

From the various studies out there, it seems they are not numbed but rather, more susceptible to being entertained by real-life instances afterall why would they go for the extreme games and extreme scored in the first place? In other words, what is the motivation for playing violent video games such as ones focused on shooter mass-killings??

For video games is it functionally for the virtual experience (of doing extreme, often reckless things one would ordinarily be killed in the process of, or imprisoned for life or disciplined by their militant employer) and possibly the illusion of activity? Yet in fact, the player would burn more calories sleeping, than fidgeting with a joystick for hours.

Or, is there no repercussion whatsoever, of routinely occupying one's brain not with a good book or good read on ats, but rather, drawing virtual rewards through virtual mass killing in violent video games?

(Pavlov's Children - Pavlov's experiments on children showed unconscious reinforcement (reward) conditioning)

www.dailymail.co.uk...

edit on 17-12-2012 by minnow because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 17-12-2012 @ 03:36 AM by Lulzaroonie
Originally posted by minnow
The concept of scoring some 100 points for every killing or some 1000 for jumbo/mass killings in a fantasy/make believe setting, and otherwise also passively seen in many violent movies, is very commonly accepted across our youth, our society, today.

There are studies that defend extreme video game violence, by showing that video games do not necessarily desensitize the player to real-life instances of these depictions or actions.

Soo..what do you guys think is about the author of the vid's proposals? How would you answer these fundamental issues at hand:

1. Why do youth/adults choose to play extremely violent video games, for sometimes hours every day, in the first place?

2. If there were no "score" or other reward system to keep track of kill count, would the game(s) be less appealing?

3. Are violent video games physically, mentally a healthy outlet for children, teenagers, young adults, or unhealthy? How?


I agree with the guy in the vid, that video games don't necessarily "desensitize" us to mass killings.

From the various studies out there, it seems they are not numbed but rather, more susceptible to being entertained by real-life instances afterall why would they go for the extreme games and extreme scored in the first place? In other words, what is the motivation for playing violent video games such as ones focused on shooter mass-killings??

For video games is it functionally for the virtual experience (of doing extreme, often reckless things one would ordinarily be killed in the process of, or imprisoned for life or disciplined by their militant employer) and possibly the illusion of activity? Yet in fact, the player would burn more calories sleeping, than fidgeting with a joystick for hours.

Or, is there no repercussion whatsoever, of routinely occupying one's brain not with a good book or good read on ats, but rather, drawing virtual rewards through virtual mass killing in violent video games?

(Pavlov's Children - Pavlov's experiments on children showed unconscious reinforcement (reward) conditioning)

www.dailymail.co.uk...

edit on 17-12-2012 by minnow because: (no reason given)


1 - Show us sources for these 'studies' done. I have sources for studies done by American Universities which show that violence in the media and videogames do not cause aggression in minors, and that minors who play violent games and commit crimes are from less stable backgrounds and homes.

In answer to your questions:
Have you ever played any of these "extreme" violence games? Do you know any?
They are bombarded with children, minors, some as young as 8 some have claimed, but I have played with an 11 year old before. Eleven years old, playing a game with an 18+ rating. First port of call, is to not blame the child for playing, but blaming the parent for not caring what they stick their kid in front of.

Most games have a reward system these days, mainly in the form of achievements or trophies. This isn't just for violent games, but for 99% of ALL games. It's not a physical reward. It isn't redeemable in anyway.

Video games should be strictly monitored by parents of the child, discretion should be used. The ratings are on the box for a reason.
It has been said that videogames can be extremely beneficial for children and young people with dyslexia. I personally use video games as a winding down mechanism. Not just "violent games" but all kinds of games.
I would much rather use a games console to take out any feelings of stress and aggression than to turn that into a real physical assault.

I read all the time. I exercise all the time. I have a four year old son, and I don't play violent games around him, and I don't let him play violent games. He loves Sonic the Hedgehog and Super Mario Bros. He doesn't spend hours playing them, he's four years old...

Video games, and violent media is not to blame. Hundreds of millions of people play video games these days. Hundreds of millions of people listen to anti-social music. Millions of people do both. I bet less than 1% of those people are likely to even develop the urge to go on a mass killing spree.

Why violent video games? Because people like to be shocked. People like to do something in a game, and think "OMFG I can't believe I did that. I can't believe they put that in." I mean, this is coming from someone who can't play a Fable game without always actively taking the "good" path

There is a massive difference between seeing something as a portrayal of violence, and actual violence.
Reality is much more disturbing. KNOWING you're seeing a real dead person who once lived and breathed, who loved, who cried, who had a life, is much more disturbing than seeing a prone bunch of pixels that looks like a person.

ETA: Title.... Monetize? How exactly?
edit on 17-12-2012 by Lulzaroonie because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 6-1-2013 @ 12:06 AM by burdman30ott6
Follow me here.

I am a wintertime hardcore gamer. My favorite genre is FPS and yes, I enjoy virtual headshots as much as anyone else does. I've never shot, stabbed, or taken a baseball bat to another human being. I am also an avid hunter. I've shot, field dressed, and processed pretty much everything on hooves, everything with fur, and most critters with feathers.

...but I don't play hunting games.

Why? Easy, it isn't realistic. I don't play first person shooters because I want the thrill of actually killing another human being and I don't go hunting because I want to vent frustrations with Cabellas Big Game Hunter for Xbox 360. Similarly I kinda doubt serial killers and spree killers get their rocks off playing Doom and Halo. The argument is as asinine as calling cigarettes a "gateway drug" to crystal meth. Most meth heads smoke ciggys... doesn't mean there's any major correlation between the two nor that busting open a pack of Winstons will have you slamming ice a couple weeks down the road.

I feel the same about the gun control issue. Guns don't make murderers... murderers make a gun into a weapon of murder. Simple as that. The real culprit here, as with so many other issues, is that there is a minority of the population which is crazy as hell, should be locked up, and has no business occupying the same space as those of us who are sane. The tangible threat is located between their ears, not next to their TV or leaning in a corner of their closet.


reply posted on 6-1-2013 @ 12:07 AM by twfau
There are many factors other than video games that may desensitize an individual towards other people or their society, as well as further factors that induce de-humanization, all of which have lead to severe violence in the past.

If you want to look at the effect of video games on severe violence, one method might be to ascertain whether the frequency of mass shootings has increased since the onset of violent video games (a date would have to be decided).

en.wikipedia.org...

That link might be useful, of the fifteen school shootings, only four occurred before 1996. You can't infer causality with just that of course, but since that contradicts the strong evidence that violence has decreased significantly through the twentieth century, it does suggest that the increase in mass shootings (in schools at least) is important.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^