Effects of violent video games on youth behavior and aggression

Behavioral and Cognitive Consciousness and Cognitive Behavior Treatment

Prelude

In this modern era, technology has made us its slave. Life has never been this flexible and convenient bringing efficiency and speed too. The technology has certainly altered our methods of communication, socializing, entertainment and maybe the way we behave. In this research paper, both popular sources and scholarly sources will be employed to discuss the possible effects of video gaming on youth. The evidence is irrefutable while the popular opinion is different and favors gaming. Video games are alleged to cause violent behavior while society believes that different factors are at play.

Video games appeared in the entertainment industry 65 years ago. It was a simple 'Cathode ray tube amusement device' completely changed the way gamers play games today. There are multiple gaming platforms. These platforms are diverse ranging from computers, video game consoles, smart phones and arcade games which host these video games. These days, the video games have combined with the technology, providing high definition graphics and sound to the gamers delivering real life experience in a virtual gaming environment.

But, now there is an elephant in the room apparently. It's becoming a controversial issue. Video games are alleged to spark violent behavior in the young generation. This issue has elevated during the past many decades. The prime concern here is that gaming sparks violence and aggression in the youth which will become visible in the society soon enough.

However, the exponents of gamers voiced that games elevate competitiveness in humans, which can cause such irrational behaviors. Gaming is not the one to blame. The results of their hypothesis were not concrete, as violence due to video games was more accepted.

Video games sparked a new interest in the government ranks, policy makers and researchers, not to mention general population. This being said, video gaming is a two way street. On the bright side, the educational video games certainly raise IQ level and teach a gamer new tricks and tips whilst providing a greater learning edge. On the dark side, the violent video gamers are bound to show more aggressive tendencies in comparison to TV and cinema. All of this started way back in the 1990's when such violent and aggressive games were introduced. Since then the children and youth took interest in such games participating actively of their own accord. This unprecedented independence wasn't available to them before. Popular games (not named) gives money for killing innocent pedestrians, hijacking police and public cars and killing whores on the streets at random by using a variety of weapons such as baseball bat, swords, flamethrowers, knives, hands and not to mention a plethora of guns. Every controversial subject has its merits and demerits. The supporters propose that gaming vents out the anger of young generation and averts them from using violence in real life. The naysayers propose that video games spark violence and feelings of anger in real life visible to society. They think that they learn a lot of violence as brain as a tendency to learn.

In this research paper, one scholarly article and three mainstream sources will be shown which voices video games as hazardous to young generation. Then, one scholarly article and three mainstream sources will refute the claim as dismissive.

Conclusions drawn

While doing this research, it was found out that differences exist between popular sources and that of scholars. Their opinions are diverse and depend on the author of the source. In case of the scholarly sources, the authors are experts in their field. They have their reputation with personal information well listed everywhere. But, in case of popular sources, the writers are often freelance writers, students and non-qualified individuals with articles not signed. The scholarly articles have their designated audience (thesis students, researchers and scholars); their job is to furnish evidence of their research. While the popular sources have their own niche which comprises of general audience reading current news, entertainment news and summarized viewpoints.

The difference lies in the presentation of scholarly and popular sources. They are poles apart for that matter. The scholarly articles are generally well furnished with graphs, tables, estimates and technical analysis on the subject at hand. The research done is on a very narrow topic. The research is very well structured and properly formatted. The articles are solid and concrete with information. Their research is well prepared and convincing. In case of popular sources, the target audience is general population interested in daily news and entertainment section. The ideas are just given as food for thought and debatable. The articles are short and brief along with a beautiful image. The language is generally easier to read and comprehend.

Discussion

There are notable differences in the scholarly sources and popular sources for that matter. The difference is the credibility, which in case of scholarly articles is concrete while in case of popular sources is thin. It is imperative to admit the accuracy of both sources in this thesis.

In case of both sources, the academics will favor the work done by the scholars as it is more concrete, plausible and just very persuasive with valid repercussions. Their level of credibility is quite high and in depth analysis helps their case with validation. The popular sources are less redeeming in their case as the style of writing is very easy and straightforward voicing everyday opinions. The gap is as wide as the gap apparent in technological determinism and Theory of Society Construction of Technology. The scholarly research is certainly more nonbiased and open ended. It is subjective and objective with respect to the discussion at hand with a concrete conclusion. Since the topic at hand is controversial with wide repercussions, it pays to be open-minded and critical for that matter. The intention of the author, content, length and purpose of the author must be taken in consideration. They can voice certain ideas they believe in, rather than bringing up an open ended and logical conclusion to the matter at hand.

Applying the theory: Technology Determinism

While researching on the violence and its relation to video gaming, the matter of argumentative was quite similar to the one with society and technology. It's just similar to Social construction of technology and technological determinism (SCOT) (Kunz, 2006).

In the present society, people think that video games are the root cause of violent behavior in young generation. Thus, these people are similar who believe in technology determinism. According to technology determinism states that technology is means human advancement throughout history as it ran its course. It has shaped the humans and revolutionized the way society has functioned and influenced it accordingly. The scientists and psychologists along with some people in society think that video games are the root cause of violent behavior in young generation.

The critics favoring the video games think that society, caste, creed, race and personality are solely responsible for aggressive behavior in youth. Gaming can be held responsible singlehandedly. Youth's behavior is affected by a great many factors, not just gaming alone. Their idea is in conjunction with 'Social Construction of Technology'.

The association of violent behavior with video games is often made in the case of youth in particular. Technology is said to shape up the society. It is a side effect of excessive gaming apparently. This theory can be comprehended in the light of political, social-economic, environment and cultural aspects with respect to technological growth. This standpoint clearly contradicts the theory on technological determinism, which emphasizes the advent of technology on people as well as the society. Video games do affect the youngsters in some ways with extreme violence and beautiful scenery in the backdrop, the imperative component is the human element in it, which constitutes of race, caste, creed, culture and self-portrayal of humans. Fortifying this theory is the fact that, humans are the programmers and conceptualizers here, who are responsible for such behavior in our youngsters. Apparently, the youth falls prey to such wicked games and it plays on their minds. This has serious implications on the society. So, the point here being made is that cause and effect are both human made. Technology and society is a two way street bond. People have taken it as a concrete excuse to shift the blame from corrupt governments by blaming the youth and their indulgence in video games, thus leading to aggressive antics. On the other hand, media is also responsible for the violent culture they are fashioning. The present argument is quite similar to the one involving large scale irrigation system, which should be implemented by the hierarchical political system. It's a bit deterministic really. The political system was formed due to the way humans lived together as societies became advanced and educated (Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica are prime examples here). How is irrigation related is simply out of the discussion. So is the case with video games in this context. As William Mitchell puts it in perspective that the 'blame can't be placed on video games itself, but more on the human mind, which is subject to change'. Media of course, has consequences on the minds of the people too regardless.

While doing the research on this case, one fact became clear that controversial topic is always quite belligerent as it has a different sound to it, coming out from a society. These different 'sounds' come from people belonging to different walks of life. To put matters into perspective, there are various viewpoints from social, political and scientific backgrounds. Video games is a billion dollar industry in the world, bigger than Hollywood itself. Governments will apparently never pay heed to gaming and its corresponding violent behavior. People simply adore and love video games. They won't miss out on such exciting entertainment. They are well aware of the fact that, there are quite many factors at play here, which can be used to control the aggressive behavior in a society.

In case of scientific context, the scholars have proper and irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Psychologists and scientists are very qualified and have tangible evidence. They have shown that there is certainly some relation between violence and gaming in the society. Gaming leads to more aggression in the youth. Now, that they have made their point, it is quite believable that gaming has negative effects on humans and society. Their viewpoints are credible and concrete. This means that, although technology has been invented by humans themselves, it is certainly paying back to the society too. In the society perspective, there are more fun sources available on the matter at hand. It's because, opinions are free to be expressed and isn't bound by censored publishing. The society thinks that there is no logical and physical connection between gaming and violent behavior. This being said, they lack the evidence and logic behind it. Their analysis is doubtful and suggesting favoritism.

Conclusion

In the end, video games leave a huge question mark hovering over the violent tendencies in youngsters of today. This being said, there are certainly merits and demerits of playing video games. According to scientists, the violent behavior is due to indulging in gaming continuously, while the common populace believe that its due to the societal behavior and culture that shapes an individual. Video games can be held solely responsible for aggressive behavior. The society shapes up the personality of an individual as it teaches right from wrong. There are bad influences playing video games continuously. In conclusion, playing video games is a two way street, as violent/aggressive behavior will be blamed on the excessive video gaming. This is how the technology works; there are always merits and demerits.