Is Society Overlooking the Bad Aspects of Gaming?

In order to determine if video games are beneficial or detrimental to children is next to impossible because of the multitude of variables. Games are divided into different sub-categories (sports, crime, educational, etc.),  different consoles (Wii, Xbox, smartphones, etc.), and different target audiences. Because of the variety of video games available, gaming has become a ubiquitous form of entertainment in our present-day culture. Our modern culture, as a whole, is becoming a gaming societies. However, the studies that have been conducted on the effects of gaming on people have been varied and have produced different, sometimes contradictory results.

“Video Game Playing and Academic Performance in College Students” by researchers at Southwestern Oklahoma State University and Oklahoma State University concludes that increased gaming and lower GPA scores are positively correlated,—more in males than in females—and the study shows less racial bias and a large group (671 participants) but regional bias (all participants attended college in the Midwestern United States). However, individuals, such as Dr. Christopher J. Ferguson, argue that researchers are over exaggerating the negative effects of video games, and he is not alone. Many researchers have found that video games can have positive effects on children’s education.

The varying and contradictory results of these experiments have confused the public. Are video games good or bad? And if video games are bad, why are they still an acceptable form of entertainment?

As a girl, I only have one perspective on video games. I asked myself, “Why do I play video games?” Rather, the question should be, “Why don’t I play video games?” This afternoon, in the name of “research,” I played Temple Run. The pace of the game and the little-effort interactive quality dissolved my initial reservations. However, after a couple rounds, I abruptly stopped playing. Why? I felt that I was becoming too absorbed into the game. Turning off the game was an instinctive reaction to the feeling of losing my footing in reality.

(http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/temple-run/id420009108?mt=8)

However, I can see the appeal and the possible “benefits” of the game. I was thinking faster, reacting faster, and it was improving my hand-eye coordination. (After playing for only five minutes.)

Still, my reaction to the game is puzzling. Is this a common reaction others have? Is it a phenomenon that only females experience, or do men react the same?

When I asked in my Writing I class why guys play games, one of the guys in my class answered, “It’s a pride thing.” Studies have shown that male adolescents who play video games regularly are more violent. Other studies claim that video games have positive effects on male adolescents, that games help develop problem-solving skills and improve visual reaction times.

Perhaps we are overlooking the negative effects. Our society places importance on thinking positively. We encourage ourselves and others to have a bright outlook on life, and we call those who look for the negative aspects of life cynics. There’s no question that games have a negative effect on users. Children could be doing something more educational, but because one study proved that games do help develop problem-solving skills and help kids be creative, people overlook the negative impacts.

“APlea for Caution: Violent Video Games, the Supreme Court, and the Role of Science” explores how the Comics Code Authority standards came to fruition. Certain members of the public claimed that comics were fostering violence and a lack of morality. Because of that, the US Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency adopted a code in 1954, which regulated the content in comic books and blurred the lines of acceptable free speech (Hall).

If comic books were censored because of its violent content, why aren’t present-day video games censored? Aren’t they fostering violence and a lack of morality? Even certain books are banned from public libraries because parents and community leaders have contested that the content is too controversial or inappropriate.

The video gaming industry has been fighting for the seal of approval for their games since the day it went on the market. The Wii console was developed because of the complaint that gaming was a sedentary activity. The Wii allows users to be interactive in a physical way.

Big Brain Academy and other purely education games were developed for other consoles. These games are sold right next to Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto, and because they are sold side-by-side, video games have become acceptable.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brain_Academy)

While I am not advocating the banning of video games, I am one of the many who are confused by the experts. Are there more pros than cons to video gaming, or vice versa? And if video gaming is bad, are we, as a society, willing to overlook the bad because of one good effect?

Works Cited

Day, Terri and Richard C.W. Hall and Ryan C.W. Hall. “A Plea for Caution: Violent Video Games, the Supreme Court, and the Role of Science.” Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

The Unconscious, Unnecessary Fear of Changing Technology

Humans are fearful and ambivalent about technology. In the 19^th century, a time before the age of computers and artificial intelligence, Mary Shelly wrote about the destructiveness of a man-made monster in Frankenstein. In Mary Shelly’s novel, the scientist responsible for making Frankenstein made him because he wanted to bring his dead mother back to life. Technology, in turn, has progressed to become ubiquitous in our lives. Our phones have become our personal assistants, our computers our teachers and scribes, and our TV has become our entertainers. Machines perform the tasks that we would have spent hours on or that we would have paid someone else to perform for us. Answering why humans are fearful about technology leads us to an existentialist question. Why is there a need for humans on the Earth if machines can replace us?  

The articles from Chapter 1 of Academic Writing, Real World Topics, all contain a certain tone of technophobia. Nicholas Carr’s essay explores how Web surfing has detrimental effects to our reading and focusing ability. In Henry Jenkins’ piece, he writes that “[e]veryone will survive [technological convergence] if everyone works together” (Jenkins). He suggests that the adaptation of technology is something we need to “survive.” Gary Small and Gigi Vorgan show evidence that the Internet is changing how our brain works. As the Internet is becoming more and more efficient, humans tend to question their own minds more. Which leads to the same question: Why is there a need for humans if machines can replace us? It is because of this question that humans are ambivalent towards technology. As technology advances, people seem more replaceable and irrelevant. We are all unconsciously becoming technophobes.

The definition of a phobia is: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation (Merriam-Webster). A phobia is also an anxiety disorder, a mental illness. So, while the need to ponder the existentialist question (mentioned above) is necessary and important, the fear of technology is not. Technology will always advance to the make our lives a little simpler. That does not mean that technology is replacing humans.

Carr researched Google in his article and writes that the company “seeks to develop ‘the perfect search engine’” that “’understands exactly what you mean and gives you back exactly what you want’” (Carr). Search engines eliminated the need for hours in the library. Now, what Google is trying to do is to eliminate the need for specificity in the wording humans use to search. The former is a technological advancement that humans can easily be in favor for. The hours that could have been spent in a library are now spent developing ideas and publishing thoughts. However, the fact that the search engine is now smarter than the searcher eliminates the need for the human researcher.  But what skill is being replaced? The thinking and deducing is still part of what the researcher does. Google will not offer a little section at the bottom of each article, explaining its reactions toward the text. The skill being lost is the ability to be specific in a search. This skill is useful, but not necessary. Google is working towards artificial intelligence, but it is not replacing the cognitive role of the researcher.

People will always be at the center of any technological revolution because the very idea of convergence centers around consumers’ demands. Jenkins says that “[c]onsumption has become a collective process” (Jenkins, 4). He also writes that “[c]orporations—and even individuals within corporate media—still exert greater power than any individual consumer or even the aggregate of consumers” (Jenkins). This statement is misleading. Yes, corporations make decisions on the convergence of technology. They make decisions on how to present the public with information through the media, Internet, etc., but the consumer is always in control. A successful corporation makes decisions based on consumers’ wants and needs, and it is in their economic interest to do so. The study of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) exists solely to examine the public’s reaction towards new and existing technology. In class, we realized that Apple, as well as other companies, are aware of the “ambivalent relationship between…users and their device,” and they are working to repackage their products to reiterate that humans control the technology (Blythe).

In Carr’s essay, he mentions the claims of Joseph Weizenbaum who observed that the “use of timekeeping instruments” changed our biological functions (Carr). Our brain now tells us when to eat according to what time of the day it, rather than the message our stomach send to our brains (Carr). It is true, the invention of timekeeping instruments has led humans to keep daily schedules. Newer technology also changes our daily habits. For example, the iPad has replaced my nightly routine of reading for pleasure. However, the change in habits is not necessarily for the worst, and it remains to be proven that lifestyle changes lead to significant biological changes. Carr, Small, and Vorgan use the plasticity of the brain as part of their arguments. Therefore, if “digital natives” suddenly decided to quit technology, their brains would adapt to the lack of technology.

While there are many other elements of technology that factor in people’s fear of technology, the few factors mentioned are often hyped up by the media. Technology will adapt, but it will adapt to the needs of humans. It will replace human tasks, but it has not yet replaced human thought. Just as it is natural for humans to philosophize and contemplate over existentialist questions, it is in human nature to overdramatize, especially fears.

Works Cited

Blythe, Mark and Paul Cairns. “Critical Methods and UserGenerated Content: The iPhone on YouTube.” Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid.” The Atlantic: n. pag. Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

Jenkins, Henry. “Worship at the Altar of Convergence: A NewParadigm for Understanding Media Change.” Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

Merriam-Webster. “Phobia.” Merriam-Webster. N.p. n.d. Web 16 Sept. 2012. <http://www.merrriamwebster.com/dictionary/phobia>

Small, Gary and Gigi Vorgan. “Meet your iBrain: How the Technologies that have become Part of our Daily Lives are Changing the Way we Think.” Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

image: http://www.karlonia.com/2007/06/05/causes-of-technophobia-why-some-people-refuse-to-learn-about-computers/