Manage updates with the Download App
Recent neurological research has found that when players are shooting their way through violent games, their brains react much as when confronted with real violence. While interesting, this study should have a warning label attached to it.
If history is any guide, this research will soon be playing a key role in policy-making circles. State and federal lawmakers are in the middle of an anti-game violence push and are grasping for studies supporting the idea that digital blood and gunfire are genuinely harmful.Now, there are two ways to look at game violence. Some critics say it's simply an aesthetic and moral failure when our kids (and more often teens and adults) spend a good chunk of their time inside worlds where the highest apparent value is to kill everything that moves.
One of the key antiviolence crusaders, David Walsh of the National Institute on Media and the Family, contends that violent media is responsible for a "coarsening of the culture." I can't disagree with that, although anyone who opens "The Iliad" may find themselves surprised by the ancients' seeming addiction to graphic disembowelment on every page.
The other argument is that these games have demonstrable effects on their players. That's where we get into the realm of science, not aesthetics.
As my colleague Declan McCullagh pointed out several weeks ago, judges have thrown out most anti-video game laws to date, saying that the First Amendment's protection of expression is a trump card unless scientific research can prove the games are actually harmful.
In truth, the science has been foggy on this subject. A handful of studies have purported to show links between violent game playing and aggressive behavior. But results have been inconsistent, and the studies showing the strongest connection have borne little resemblance to the way games are actually experienced outside the labs.
The new study, wrapped in the hard science of brain imaging, may be seen as different, however.
How to read the science?
To reach their results, researchers funded by the USC Annenberg School for Communication used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to scan the brains of people playing "Tactical Ops," an extremely bloody "shooter" game.
According to media reports, the results showed that game players' brains looked very much like the scans of people engaged in other simulations of violence, such as imagining a violent encounter. Since you can't scan the brain of someone in an actual fistfight, that's about as close as laboratories can get to a real comparison, the researchers argue.
Does this make sense? Do the research and find out, I'd say, because that's an empirical question the data doesn't answer today. I'd also argue that anyone who actually plays video games will see a different interpretation staring them in the face.
Games, violent or not, are about problem-solving. The violence is essentially an interface to a puzzle. You have a goal--get to the other side of a room. You have to solve the problem of how to get there--in this case by shooting a certain number of people quickly. The metaphor of violence isn't interpreted by a player as actual violence.
What happens in a real violent situation? Sure, that small percentage of berserker warriors, trained since birth to relinquish all fear and empathy, might kill everyone in sight. Regular humans go into a kind of puzzle-solving mode, trying to figure the least costly way out. Fight? Flight? Crack a joke and hope the bully laughs?
Of course there is similar cognitive brain activity, because there is a similar cognitive--not necessarily aggressive--event going on.
But until that time, I have two appeals to policy-makers.
First, take the science for what it is, and not what you want it to be. Don't make assumptions and interpretations that aren't strictly justified by the data.
Second, try finding out how players really act. A good bet would be a visit to the upcoming QuakeCon gathering, which will be chock-full of "Doom 3" death match tournaments. I bet you'll find a bunch of really sweet kids there, some with their parents. Very likely some arrogant little snots (of any age) too, but you'll find those in Congress just as easily. I'm willing to bet you won't see a single fistfight.
Not a real one, anyway. And reality, in the end, is what matters.
Biography
John Borland is a senior staff writer at CNET News.com. In 2003, he co-authored a book about the culture of computer gaming, called "Dungeons and Dreamers."
16 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-05/features/brain-on-video-games/" target="_newWindow">http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-05/features/brain-on-video-games/</a>
'Nuf said.
; )
--JMZ
-kyle
The studies are full of as much bull as what my mother said!
That given they list less than a dozen people who play violent video games that had also commited violent crimes. Now if you add together all the people who don't play violent video games but still committed violent crimes, i think you would get a very clear view of the benefits of playing violent video games. i just tried to bring back up the conversation restating these things clearly and loudly. Then when she didn't answer i asked more softly if she heard me. she said plain and simply "no".
The studies are full of as much bull as what my mother said!
That given they list less than a dozen people who play violent video games that had also commited violent crimes. Now if you add together all the people who don't play violent video games but still committed violent crimes, i think you would get a very clear view of the benefits of playing violent video games. i just tried to bring back up the conversation restating these things clearly and loudly. Then when she didn't answer i asked more softly if she heard me. she said plain and simply "no".
A - have some sort of emotional problem
B - would have probably done so had they not played the violent games in the first place
I don't if many or any people have considered that maybe some people who have committed crimes play violent games because of that? Kind of the opposite of the anti-violent video game arguments.
In the words of Dennis Leary, "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong"