Originally Posted by Flaropri
Guess I'll go with the long version.
Agreed, as I said in previous posts, it's all in gradients, and it effects different people differently. It isn't some "black and white" thing, and the amount of effect depends on the person. Some people will be less effected by repeated exposure than others (and that will likely vary from subject to subject as well).
There's also the flipside potential, particularly when accompanied by trauma, that something could become overly sensitive or even a phobia. While a fictional character, Ranma (of Ranma 1/2) gained a phobia of cats due to repeated trauma from his father. But these cases are relatively rare. Also, again as I said previously, there are multiple differences between reality and video games that add additional details that people won't be desensitized to regardless. Scent, emotional burden, etc.
On the other hand, those that are repeatedly exposed to certain things will get acclimated to it. Another poster talked about being in a radiology program. While that person has chosen to avoid looking at the real thing, I think that they would, like the surgeons they work with, eventually get used to it if they did.
Another interesting example that draws a lot of what we've discussed together:
For a soldier on a battlefield, the first real combat is generally the most shocking. Subsequent battles are less shocking, but still have an impact on most people, to the point that many soldiers unfortunately kill themselves because the nature of war isn't something they can adjust to (and/or they don't like the idea of what they'd become if they did).
Individual leanings and pliability, general acclimation, and social norms all play a role in what people are sensitive to, and to what degree. When it comes to "genetics" vs. "education" I'm a firm believer that both play a role in the development of a personality. I think it's oversimplifying it to wholly blame environment when someone does something wrong (blame the people that do bad things, I say), but it is also oversimplifying it to say that people will do things as they do regardless of culture, education, or other outside stimulus.
Propaganda for example, while generally different from what we're talking about here, very much has an impact on societies. With "The West" constantly talking about how Iran is going to attack Israel or some other nation any moment now, people get used to the idea that Iran is a dangerous nation poised to start a war, even if they have no other information outside the talking points put out by the propagandists. Painting a target as a "threat" isn't something you can usually do over-night with just rhetoric, but it can be done without solid proof by acclimating people to the idea over time, even if the basic premise is a lie like the invasion of Iraq.
Propaganda can have a profound effect on an individuals outlook, again, pending initial leanings, mental or emotional pliability, and other factors. For example, many will be swayed by propaganda and support a given agenda without looking further into it. Some will reject propaganda and refuse to support the agenda, or even actively try to undermine it. Propaganda is a large-scale intentional effort to direct social and political discussion and thought, but that doesn't mean that small scale or unintentional directing occurs as part of societal growth, via the emergence of new situations, etc.
Desensitizing and propaganda are two different things, but they aren't unrelated. It is important, I guess, to repeat this: Desensitizing someone does not incite them to action. All it really means is that they are less likely to react to it, that it is "acceptable" and "normalized." Greater degrees of it can result in an escalation based on a desire to react to it. For example, someone might get bored of porn (work with me here) so they look for kinkier stuff to get them excited, or need to get a real sex partner to get the same or greater level of excitement that they used to get when they first got into it.
Someone who likes seeing blood that gets desensitized to it due to saturation would seek out greater graphical detail or something similar. However, in neither case does the desensitizing increase or inspire the initial desire to get that excitement, and for most people, it won't degrade enough from the initial activity to make a real difference in behavior.
Also, being desensitized to something isn't always bad. A surgeon that is unable to get over the shock of blood isn't going to do very well for very long. A police officer that is able to get over having killed a criminal and the possibility of having to do so again will generally have a healthier mental and emotional outlook than one that can't. Race car drivers that freak out at acceleration are also not going to do particularly well in their field.
I don't think that the effect video games and other media have on people is strong or damaging enough that I would try to stop them or censor them. I much prefer liberty. However, that isn't going to keep me from expressing disappointment when people ask for the imagery of literally blowing bodies apart. I'm also not going to pretend that there is no effect.
TL;DR: In the argument of "Nature vs. Nurture" I believe both play a role, and trying to say it's only one or the other is oversimplifying things. Violence in media has a desensitizing effect, though the strength of that effect (and possibility of rejection) varies from person to person. For the third time: Desensitizing someone is not the same as inciting them. People that argue that video games cause violence (likely the opposite honestly) are just as wrong as people that say that media has no effect on society or individuals.
|
2012-08-06, 10:47 AM
Linear Mode
