Shock! Scientists say video games feed male need to dominate
I always thought video games were a modern day artform.
But Professor Allan Reiss of the Center for Interdisciplinary Brain Sciences Research at Stanford University has proved such an elevated idea to be mere liberal tripe.
His research shows that video games stimulate the parts of men that so many other activities just cannot reach: the need to conquer, stomp on, dominate, crush, destroy, maim, annihilate, and turn to ashes and dust.
Women, apparently, understand video games, but their neurology doesn't house the same desire to conquer, stomp on, etc., etc.
"These gender differences may help explain why males are more attracted to, and more likely to become 'hooked' on video games than females," Reiss was quoted in the Daily Telegraph. "I think it's fair to say that males tend to be more intrinsically territorial. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who historically are the conquerors and tyrants of our species--they're the males."
You mean Cleopatra just sat back, played with her asps, and refused to conquer? How sad.
For those of you who are more scientifically inclined, the area of the brain that was put to the test in this research is called the mesocorticolimbic center. And in the case of the men, their mesocorticolimbic center resembled a particularly powerful volcano the minute a simple console was placed before them.
"Most of the computer games that are really popular with males are territory and aggression-type games," explained Reiss.
It is so heartwarming when science confirms what so many secretly feared.
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 





- by Brent_Charlton December 30, 2008 1:46 AM PST
- First off, not every video game to is designed to make a player, "conquer, stomp on, dominate, crush, destroy, maim, annihilate, and turn to ashes and dust. (insert obligatory Psychonauts reference)". Someone seems to think that all video games are shooters or sports titles, which while prolific, do not deserve to account for the variety of video games available. <br />
<br />Second, I think that gamers (men & women) that do end up preferring 'possibly' violent, 'often' aggressive games more for their richness of challenges or experiences, than any need to destroy. Playing not for territory of some game space, but for the best understanding of that game space, to best exploit the full potential of the variety of entertainment available within each and every game. <br />
<br />Every game has it's own intricacies that must be found and explored, many not being intended (as is the case with glitches or mods, or playing online multiplayer). With updates and DLC, each game has the potential to be a megaverse. Even though a typical game is considered short at 8 or so hours (much longer than most things in life already) some games like Oblivion can clock in at way over 100 hours. Not to mention World of Warcraft. That's a lot of time to have a vast diversity of interactions and different experiences, to even accumulate skills. If that?s not art, you don?t know what art is.
<br />
<br />Yet generally one person has to try and summarize it into a short, written review. Most people glean little from a review, especially without screenshots, maybe a little more from a video, but still not enough. They are too flat. You need a demo, or in other words, you need to play it for yourself. The old media are just pieces of the total Video Game package. First there was print, then radio, then video, and now one medium that has all three, all interactive, over time. Sorta 1 Dimensional, then 2D, 3D, and now 4D. Video games are the currently the closest thing we can have to exploring what someone else wants us to experience.
<br />
<br />The best Video Game experiences are subjective to the user experiencing it. You get out what you put in. Based on values that adjust from person to person. A doctor may say I like Left 4 Dead because I get a thrill when a zombie is "killed", but I'll know that it was thrilling because that "kill" was not only skillfully executed, (utilizing skills and maneuvers that took time and training to adopt), but it also because it saved one of my friends "lives", allowing both of us to continue our existence in that game world. What's so destructive about survival? They are called games because they involve chance. The chance to "live" and make progress in a simulation. So the only reason I "kill" in a game is to so my chance to experience more does not "die". Survival of the fittest, in a digital world.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (40 Comments)