Free will can be defined as the ability of an individual to make decisions based on his/her discretion. In psychology, however, it is difficult to find a commonplace between free will and the workings of the human mind.Skinner’s approach to radical behaviorism makes it clear that he did not believe in the idea of an individual obtaining free will. Skinner believed that an individual’s actions and behavior are based on the sequences of prior physical events, which is a direct contradiction to the definition of free will which states that the past, present, and future are distinct aspects of life, and the individual has the ability to make a decision based on current feelings despite of what happened in the past.

According to Psychology Today, no matter who you study in Psychology, free will is always considered a false theory. Freud discussed about unconscious conflicts which caused behavior, while Skinner discussed about the environment and prior sequences of events which caused behavior. Despite which view was chosen, the answer never proved that an individual could use free will to produce a behavior. Moreover, geneticists have been discovering that the works of the brain are not “free”, and that our behavior is linked to neurobiology, biology, our environment, or both.

Based on the scientific studies that have been conducted behind this topic, and the results many of these studies show, it is very useful in understanding how the human brain works and how it impacts the decisions we make. Many believe that the brain is able to any decision that it wants to without being affected by anything, but according to the research, that is far from the truth. Both the article, and the article by Psychology Today on free will/radical behaviorism can be used as credible sources for the understanding of how free will cannot be supported because of extensive research done behind the study of the brain, and how the environment shapes our behaviors.They also support their arguments by backing them up with external credible sources, which allows the reader to truly understand whether the research was reliable.

References

You can find kids these days sitting on the couch playing the latest “Call of Duty” video game for hours each day. Eventually, does all this time staring at the screen and shooting people actually take a toll on the kids? Does it affect them in any way? People today are saying kids who play violent video games have an increase in aggression and can lead to violence. There are also other people stating how that simply isn’t true. I was not able to find two articles that each explained one side to the debate, however I did encounter two articles that contained both sides of the argument.

U.S. News Health wrote an article called, “To Play or Not To Play: The Great Debate about Video Games”  which discusses two studies about whether or not video games are bad for kids. They started by discussing the recent case of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, explaining how the gunman was an avid video game player. With that being said, researchers evaluated 5,000 males and female teenagers between the ages of 13 and 18 for four years and found those who “played violent video games were more rebellious and eager to take risks. The effect was greatest among those who played the most as well as those who played games with antisocial main characters.” There was another study right after that that discovered children who play video games “for less than an hour a day were better adjusted than children who either played no video games or played for three or more hours a day. These children were found to have fewer emotional problems and less hyperactivity, and they were more sociable overall.” In the end of the article, it discusses pros and cons of video games such as:

• No negative consequences for bad behavior, players are rewarded for violence.
• Time spent playing video games is not spent doing activities like reading, playing outside, or engaging with friends
• Improves in hand-eye coordination, faster reaction time, improved visuospatial skills, and peripheral awareness

The other article I read was on HealthlineNews, which focused on the research done by the American Psychological Association (APA). “Scientists have looked into the use of violent video games for more than 20 years, but task force chairman Mark Applebaum, Ph.D., said, ‘There is very limited research addressing whether violent video games cause people to commit acts of criminal violence” The APA report says that “no single risk factor consistently leads a person to act aggressively or violently, but rather it is an accumulation of risk factors that leads to the aggressive or violent behavior. Violent video game use is one such risk factor.” APA is stressing how video games should have increased parental control over the amount of violence video games contain. They end this article by stating that it is impossible to do a scientific study on linking first-person shooter video games and mass murderers, but they still are probably not healthy for children.

I personally do care about whether or not video games lead to violence later on in children’s lives, because my little brother plays violent video games, however fortunately I do not see any changes in his behavior. I think both of these articles are trustworthy  enough to believe, because both articles are unbiased towards the debate between video game violence. I agree with the U.S Health News article on how video games should be monitored by the parents, because they are the ones who can put a stop to the kids playing the video games.

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/violent-video-games-create-aggression-but-they-do-cause-kids-to-commit-081415

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-violent-games-lead-to-criminal-behavior/

With many adults having concern on wether or not violent video games have an effect on their child, many researchers have given the pros and cons on how they view this controversial topic. Many youngsters play video games such as Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, and many more others, but parents are worried that it may make the young child violent. Some people view them as not violent and others do. With the help of research we got the pros and cons of video games.

For the pros:

• Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting.
• There is broad consensus among medical associations, pediatricians, parents, and researchers that violent video games increase aggressive behavior.
• Simulating violence such as shooting guns and hand-to-hand combat in video games can cause real-life violent behavior.
• Many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games.
• Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence.
• By inhabiting violent characters in video games, children are more likely to imitate the behaviors of those characters and have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy.
• Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness.
• Video games that portray violence against women lead to more harmful attitudes and sexually violent actions towards women.
• The American Psychological Association (APA) lists violent video games as a risk factor for aggressive behavior.
• Video games encourage and reward violent behavior.
• The US military uses violent video games to train soldiers to kill.

For the cons:

• Sales of violent video games have significantly increased while violent juvenile crime rates have significantly decreased.
• Studies claiming a causal link between video game violence and real life violence are flawed.
• The US Supreme Court ruled that violent video games do not cause youth to act aggressively.
• Playing violent video games does not cause kids to commit mass shootings.
• Violent video games allow players to release their stress and anger (catharsis) in the game, leading to less real world aggression.
• Violent video game players know the difference between virtual violence in the context of a game and appropriate behavior in the real world.
• Studies have shown that violent video games can have a positive effect on kindness, civic engagement, and “prosocial” behaviors.
• Nearly all young men play video games, so the fact that some people who commit violent acts also played games should not be surprising, nor does it imply a causal relationship.
• Many risk factors are associated with youth violence, but video games are not among them.
• Violent video games provide opportunities for children to explore virtually the consequences of violent actions and to develop their moral compasses.
• Violent video games may decrease crime because people are busy playing the games instead of committing violent acts.
• Gun violence is less prevalent in countries with high video game use.
• The competitive nature of a video game is what arouses aggression, not the level of violent content.
• Older generations often unfairly disparage new things that youth like, such as video games.

Now that we have seen the pros and cons, it now leads us to know a little bit more information that we didn’t know in the past. As for a parents it’s their decision to let their child play the game, but if they do, it relies some what on them for purchasing and approving their child to play it. As I view this article I believe it was a good article with some eye opening facts. I honestly don’t think that the violent video games should be banned due to it all depends on the player if he/she wants to become violent or do bad things.

“Violent Video Games – ProCon.org.” ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.

Benedict Carey of the New York Times looked into the effects of playing video games because of an open fire at Columbine High School and at a movie theater in Colorado. The two shooters both were active video game players. Researchers used three categories to guide their research: short-term, long-term, and correlation studies. They took various measures of arousal, “both physical and psychological”. They found, compared with others who played a nonviolent video game, those who had played “Mortal Kombat” were tested more aggressive. Of course there are several factors that would influence a shooter, but video game violence could very well be one of the contributing factors.

On the other hand, Rick Nauert wrote about a study that shows video game violence does not influence real-life aggression. Surprisingly, they found playing violent video games can actually calm the mood of players. The researchers could not relate the findings to circumstances such as mass homicides, but to smaller acts of aggression.

I found the first article to be more reliable than the second. The study was explained and clarified much better than the second. The second article did not talk about the process or experiment as much as it just stated what the results were. I am more to believe the first article that says violent video games do have affect on aggression because the information provided is more trustworthy than the other side.

I do believe video games can have an affect on acts of aggression, but not to the point video games should be banned entirely.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/studying-the-effects-of-playing-violent-video-games.html?_r=0

There has always been a debate on violent video games filled with worrying parents and angst-filled teenagers. I personally have never thought violent video games would have much of an effect on teens and their attitudes. I was never an avid gamer but I would occasionally play and was usually surrounded by a fair number of gamers. From what I’ve observed and played, violent video games may have great graphics and blood and guts but the feel of it is not realistic enough to trick someone into thinking shooting people is ok. ProCon.org lists some reasons that people are for and against violent video games and the way each side is presented seem quite fair and unbiased.

Some of the pros that prove video games contribute to teen violence is that they can cause aggression and fighting and it desensitizes people to violence. These are the common arguments that I’ve heard and while it may seem to make sense from the outside that those results would occur, I do not think that they have a direct link. There may be some people who take video games too seriously or think they can copy what they’re playing in the game but I do not think that the vast majority of gamers have that thought process. The de-sensitivity of youth to violence may come from video games but that also comes from the news, movies and television shows so video games cannot be held solely responsible for that.

Some of the points made that claim video games do not cause teen violence are that the US Supreme Court ruled that violent video games do not cause violence and video games can be an outlet for stress and anger. The US Supreme Court ruling cannot really be argued with since the ruling was 7-2, we can assume they did their homework on the studies involved and had a reason to believe that video games do not cause violence. The belief that video games can be an outlet for stress and anger is a view many gamers I know take and that can be compared to a lot of other people’s hobbies.

This website seems credible because it lays out all of the options, all of which are backed up and appear reasonable to the average reader. The lack of bias also adds to the credibility of the website.

“Violent Video Games- Pros and Cons.” ProConorg Headlines. ProCon, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

Video games have become increasingly bought in todays’ society, with the most popular for adolescent boys being violent. Games such as “Call of Duty”, “Grand Theft Auto”, and “Assassins Creed”, involve first-person visuals of mass amounts of violence and are some of the most popular games. The actions of fighting, stealing, and shooting involved in these games has been accused of causing aggression leading to public violence in the world. On the other hand, some might view violent war games as propaganda that can help prepare future soldiers for the traumatic events they will encounter.

The website, http://videogames.procon.org/#Background, provides valid evidence for both sides of the argument on video game violence. Below are the two sides of the argument listed on the website:

Pro-games:

• Game sales have increased while juvenile crime rate has decreased
• Studies claiming a causal link between video game violence and real life violence are flawed
• The US Supreme Court ruled that violent video games do not cause aggressive actions
• Players are able to release stress and anger in games
• Gamers can distinguish between violence within a game and appropriate behavior in the real world
• The population that plays violent games is too large to show a causal relationship with people who commit violent crimes
• Many risk factors are associated with youth violence, but video games are not among them.
• Violent video games provide opportunities for children to explore virtually the consequences of violent actions and to develop their moral compasses.
• Statistically, gun violence is less prevalent in countries with high video game use.
• The competitive nature of a video game is what arouses aggression, not the level of violent content.

Anti-games:

• Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting
• There is broad consensus among medical associations, pediatricians, parents, and researchers that violent video games increase aggressive behavior
• Many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games
• Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence
• By inhabiting violent characters in video games, children are more likely to imitate the behaviors of those characters and have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy
• Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness
• Video games that portray violence against women lead to more harmful attitudes and sexually violent actions towards women
• The American Psychological Association (APA) lists violent video games as a risk factor for aggressive behavior
• Video games encourage and reward violent behavior
• The US military uses violent video games to train soldiers to kill

The website provides a strong argument for both sides that is backed up with observed evidence. I personally am not a fan of violent video games because I find it unnecessarily aggressive, but I do not believe they have a connection to violent acts in the community.

I chose to review The American Psychological Association’s Review and the U.S. News’ article.

The APA’s segment does provide sufficient evidence that there is a correlation between increased aggression and playing violent video games. There isn’t enough conclusive data to say that there is a link between criminal violence and playing violent video games. This is mainly because there are too many other circumstances surrounding the people who play these video games to absolutely connect the two.

The U.S. News article focuses more on the subject of free speech and artistic expression than on scientific data backing the claim of video games don’t produce violence. The author points out that there is a rating system for video games that consumers can review before purchasing a game, and that there is no difference between game development and other artistic endeavors such as painting or film animation. The author uses FBI statistics of youth violence and consumer reports to prove that the increase of purchasing violent video games doesn’t increase actual violence (the FBI reports it has decreased over the years).

I tend to believe the APA’s review is more trustworthy than the U.S. News’ piece. First, the U.S. News article was written by the man who is the president/CEO of the Entertainment Software Association, or ESA, the company that represents video and computer games in trade. Some members of the ESA include Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Nintendo, Ubisoft, and Sega. Why would he want to write about something that could hurt his prospers? The article also provides no true or cited numerical data over the issue. Here is the APA’s full report over their review. On the other hand, critics have claimed the APA report doesn’t define aggression well at all, and that many people conducting the research are adamantly against video games, creating a bias.

Personally, I could care less about what happens with the future of video games. If one replaced video games with books or movies, however, then I would have a different opinion over the matter. I don’t believe video games are on the same playing field as movies, books, or art (specifically paintings). These three things have characters that exist of themselves; you are not those characters. A person can see aspects or representation of themselves in the character, but the consumer does not control the character at all. I can cry and throw my book against the wall, but it doesn’t change the fate or plot of my favorite characters.

Video games exist as an entirely different media. You can change the entire outcome of the game whenever you choose. You are controlling a meta-representation of a multitude of your own characteristics through an avatar of some sorts. Maybe these characteristics suggest you’re just really competitive, you really like how the game makes a ding noise every time you level up, or maybe you do like to be violent and act through those impulses in a virtual environment. Whatever the case, the controlling part of the violent video game makes it so much different than a violent book or movie. This is mainly my defense for why violent art, books, or movies should not be banned at all as compared to video games. Actually, a question I’d like answered would be why people are okay with banning certain books and movies, but when it comes to video games, it’s suddenly hurting a work of art or an abomination of free thought and expression.

Anyways, I am suggesting violent video games should probably be banned to a certain age demographic. Kids are more likely to be modeling to a certain degree the media they consume, especially when they are the ones controlling the character. This is no reason to have kids completely stop playing them at all. Even though I have a distinct lack of knowledge about the gaming world, I know there are plenty of video games interesting and engaging enough for young kids without the violence aspect. A ban would open the doors for those games to flourish, hopefully keep parents more aware of what their child is being exposed to, and create ways for more aggressive video games to exclusively cater to older consumers without having to worry about younger children being involved or exposed.