The idea of a link between violence in games and behavior is an interesting one that only gets more interesting the further you look into it. How did the idea ever get as far as it has? Consider the situation:
'Violence' in videogames bears no resemblance to actual violence. Not in visual appearance, sound, consequence, destructive potential, irreversibility, nothing. Other than using the word 'violence' to describe what occurs in a game, there isn't another similarity. On top of that, the idea that the author of a medium can remote-control the behavior of the audience is typically relegated to the insane ramblings of schizo-affective disorders. It suggests a total disassociation from reality.
Does re-using some terminology really have such a tremendous ability to trick, mislead, and concern people? Just because we call a collection of pixels a "person" or "character", and because humans are good at telling stories... we jump to the conclusion that these figments must feel pain, wish not to die, etc?
Then you have the mirror neurons. They do fire when seeing even crude depictions of human beings on a screen -- after extensive training of the viewer. We know from encounters with pre-literate tribes and other un-exposed peoples that interpretation of images is a skill which must be learned. And the brain is not stupid. It knows when it is processing an image and interpreting it versus perceiving it directly. But, perceiving and understanding the fictional situations depicted actually does include stimulation of some similar parts of the brain. Some, not all, and not at an extremity of degree necessary to ever cause any sort of damage. Enough that some studies will get to say "oh look, amygdala activity" and radically conjecture that to lead to rampant murder or whatnot.
Overall, I think we should hang in every school and public place a print of 'The Treachery of Images'. That's the painting with the pipe that says 'This is not a pipe' in French under it. Perhaps if enough people stare at it long enough they will realize just how amazingly stupid they've been for so long attributing so much weight to just... images.
'Violence' in videogames bears no resemblance to actual violence. Not in visual appearance, sound, consequence, destructive potential, irreversibility, nothing. Other than using the word 'violence' to describe what occurs in a game, there isn't another similarity. On top of that, the idea that the author of a medium can remote-control the behavior of the audience is typically relegated to the insane ramblings of schizo-affective disorders. It suggests a total disassociation from reality.
Does re-using some terminology really have such a tremendous ability to trick, mislead, and concern people? Just because we call a collection of pixels a "person" or "character", and because humans are good at telling stories... we jump to the conclusion that these figments must feel pain, wish not to die, etc?
Then you have the mirror neurons. They do fire when seeing even crude depictions of human beings on a screen -- after extensive training of the viewer. We know from encounters with pre-literate tribes and other un-exposed peoples that interpretation of images is a skill which must be learned. And the brain is not stupid. It knows when it is processing an image and interpreting it versus perceiving it directly. But, perceiving and understanding the fictional situations depicted actually does include stimulation of some similar parts of the brain. Some, not all, and not at an extremity of degree necessary to ever cause any sort of damage. Enough that some studies will get to say "oh look, amygdala activity" and radically conjecture that to lead to rampant murder or whatnot.
Overall, I think we should hang in every school and public place a print of 'The Treachery of Images'. That's the painting with the pipe that says 'This is not a pipe' in French under it. Perhaps if enough people stare at it long enough they will realize just how amazingly stupid they've been for so long attributing so much weight to just... images.