Comments on: This is your brain on video games

Study shows the brain treats digital violence as if it's real. That doesn't mean gamers are gun-toting bullies.

[taznar]

Its all how you interpret

Am I the only one who actually thinks it bodes well that "when
violent situations arose.., the cognitive parts of the brain fired
up and the emotional parts shut down"?

When a violent situation arises, IMO the last thing you want in
the real world is for the opposite to happen: reason shut down
and emotions "fire up".

Of course we've also known for decades that "similar cognitive
brain activity" occurs when thinking about doing something and
actually doing it.

[Fray9]

I agree

And furthermore Id like to point out that the scientists own conclusions twist logic rather severely.

Point in fact: they state that during game playing the brain shut down their emotional responses and stimulated their congnative abilities.

And this is a bad thing? It teaches and encourages people to control their emotions and re-enforces the instincts that allow us to survive violent situations.

By their own results they contradict themselves since it doesnt take a scientist to realize that initiating violence towards someone else is almost always an uncontrolled emotional response.

Their results tell me that games make people more patient and gives them better self-control, not make them more violent.

Which coincides well with my own unscientific observations of the many many gamers I know, most of whom, when punched in the jaw, will often pause, then calmly ask "why did you do that?" then when told say "oh.. yeah I guess I deserved that" and smile.

[Raife]

This "study" is NON-SENSE, ...NOT Science

First, the reality is that cognitive-science today simply does not know (to any level of certainty) how the brain functions, at anything but the coarsest levels. Therefore, there is no way, what-so-ever, to reach any "scientific" conclusion regarding causal-effects upon general, or specific, psychology.

Furthermore, the simple fact is that monitoring the brain, using this technique, and trying to deduce the intricate ongoing processes that form real behaviors and perceptions, is akin to placing a few hundred light-sensors around a city, and then trying to determine what the mayor of the city is having for dinner, based upon the data collected.

Or, as another example, if you were merely monitoring the data-transfer rates within your computer, as well as recording calls to video-resources, ...could you actually tell the difference between the computer running a non-violent, yet sophisticated, 3D-simulation, or a violence-based game? No, you could not. And, the human-brain is a billion times more complex than even the most powerful computer-system, currently on the planet.

And finally, assuming that this analysis could actually demonstrate any correlation, at all, between the "test-cases" (which would only be statistical-similarities, not a scientific "cause and effect" relationship) ...all this "study" would actually be showing, would be a marked similarity between a subjects reaction to two similar forms of an artificial "violence-scenario" stimulus.

Therefore, this "study" in no way provides, nor could it provide, any "connection" between illusory, simulated "violence" and actual inducement to violent behaviors.

In short, this "study" is FLUFF. But, I also share an anxiety that this, scientific-non-event, WILL be used for "political-purposes" (as is clearly the standard-procedure for politicians, and extremists, these days).

One thing to consider

I agree with much of your argument--it is important not to confuse causation with correlation. The study compared people interacting with violent simulations on a screen to people imagining violent events. This is much less indicative of a link between violent simulations and violent acts than some have implied. Whether or not it is a good thing for people to engage themselves in envisioning violent acts is a different discussion entirely.

One flaw in your analogy is apparent to me--monitoring data transfer rates implies little about the meaning of the content, only it's complexity. In the brain, there are pathways and patterns of activity associated with certain emotional states. Localized brain activity is, as far as we can tell, related to emotional state; hence one could probably make an inference as to the emotional interpretation of an experience given the data analyzed.

I'm obviously not a brain researcher, but it seems plausible to me that these results could indicate more of a link than your analogy implies.

[fredmenace]

Good interpretation

This is the first coverage of this story that I've seen that comes up with the most sensible interpretation - that what they're seeing reflects problem-solving activity, not anything specifically related to violence. Kudos, John, for pointing this out (and to the other sensible comments so far).

[fredmenace]

(clarification)

(Kudos are to John Borland, the author, as well as to the comments so far)

And if they played math games?

I'll bet that if the kids were doing quick math problems as the walked into the room it would cause the exact same brain activity as shooting. Or maybe a spelling bee? I agree that this type of "evidence" is useless, but I would love to be able to look into a crystal ball 10 years from now to see if a real corolation appears.

[ajbright]

hmmm

I think for every wackjob that actually goes out and kills his fellow workers, students or whatever after playing games, you'll probably find a couple of billion that don't.

The real empirical proof as the author puts it, is that the only people that appear to be affected by "violent games" are the ones that have expensive lawyers trying to get them off serious criminal charges - or if there's a lawsuit involved.

I know people argue that because you interact with violence in games, it may be that you are training yourself to be blase when it comes to violence, thus because you're imune to blood baths you'll happily shoot up a group of real people without blinking.

The other school of thinking is that emptying the magazine on virtual targets relieves the daily stress of life, and makes it less likely that you'll go to work and shoot up the office.

The truth I think is neither. Yes video games can relieve some stress, but it is also true to say that you can get stressed playing an uncooperated game. I can see a day when we wake up to hearing that because all a guys Sims died, he was so emotionally overwraught he committed suicide.

Also, maybe killing vast numbers of aliens or bad guys would emotionally deaden you to real world violence, but even today, with so-called advanced 3D graphics, the action look nothing like real life, there is no accompanying smell of blood and gore, no tactileness - e.g. when you stab someone through the ribs, the grating feeling of the knife against bone can't be felt, or whatever.

So in fact, it's nothing like real life at all, and no, a sane person would not be able to stomache playing out the kind of free flowing death march that he can in a video game.

However I can see that in ten or twenty years this particular argument won't hold up, unless there are some real checks and balances on what is allowed in a game.

So at the moment I don't believe that just because you can really get scared or excited by a video game, that it would ever turn someone into a killer.

I also don't believe that there is a game that would tip the balance for someone right on the edge of going postal.

Lawyers will use anything they can get their hands on to win a trial, and exploiting the latest media frenzy is hardly beyond that group of vaguely humanity related organisms.

Scientists are also guilty of being swayed by these fads, especially those that are either payed by media/political groups to produce a desired finding, or those that want to make a name for themselves.

[JMWZ]

Video Games Are Good For You

Thanks to Steven Johnson, James Gee, Richard Haier, Daphne Bavelier, Shawn Green, James Rosser, Jaak Panksepp, Gregory Burns, Discover/Disney, MIT, Harvard Business School, University of Wisconsin, University of California at Irvine, University of Rochester, The Advanced Medical Center at Beth Israel Medical Center, The Falk Center of Medical Therapeutics at Northwestern University, Emory University School of Medicine ...

http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-05/features/brain-on-video-games/

'Nuf said.

; )

--JMZ

[anticitizen one]

have they once asked a teens point of view?

Ok im 16 years old, ive been playing games that have killing and blood in it since i was like 8. With like mortal combat and stuff. Now i play violent video games all the time like Halo 2, all the Grand theft autos, and half life 2. they all have blood and killing but that doesnt make me want to go kill some one or physically harm some one. video games are a way to be another person and like live in their shoes. As the article said, video games are puzzles, problem solving. one has to get around a certain object or flick that switch to open the door. they are away to maybe do some death defying stunt and not be hurt in real life. If this whole thing about how video games make u "violent" and it should be about "family oriented values" go throughs, i will protest...me and about 40 million other gamers. and its not like violent games r the only thing out there,there are many fun and challenging games out there are rated E. Man i play them like a personal retro favorite, Sonic the Hedgehog.Well this was my little "rant" about this because ive seen it in the news, i hope people read this.
-kyle

[chinooka]

Hey!

Hi Anti! I can really feel what you are saying! I am nota teen but I am an online player (EQ and SWG) We are the majority here not the minority, so we prolly wont need to worry about the normies taking our games away. I think normies are the reason for the increase of violence. We have our other worlds to act out in, they don't.