Sunday, February 04, 2007
Ethics of Simulation
Penny says the goal of this article was to enhance critical discussion considering the implications of embodied involvement and raise questions of ethical responsibility. I don't know about anyone else but this article just made me angry. I felt like he was providing excuses for people to not have to take reponsibility for their actions just because they played a simulation. Did anyone else feel that? I guess maybe because I am not gammer, I don't understand a lot of what he says, and more often I disagree with what he says. Penny claims both yoga and boot camp and any training is only effective when they produce reflex in an individual. I think most soliders would agree that you have to have reflexes in order to survive in combat, and vey few yoga followers would say reflexes are necessary. What do you think? Penny goes on to aruge that games produce real life consequences and defends this by psyhotherapists use of games to help people overcome fears. The problem with this is psychotherapists know that the simulations will only help people if the person is willing to consciously transfer the simulation into real life. Hence, people who play games must consciously transfer what they've learned in simulation to real life, ruining Penny's excuse for them. I will agree that simulations can be good for training because they give some idea of what to expect in real life. However, just because someone flys a plane in simulation I don't think that person is dumb enough to expect to be able to fly a plane in real life. Penny at one point says games are a product of the 'dog-eat-dog business world' I'm sorry but thats crap. Business men don't go around shooting each other and blowing up buildings. This is just one example of Penny stretching things too far I think. I agree that the more accurate accomodation of bodily behaviors results in a more persusaive simulation. Without first hand knowledge this makes sense because if your brain senses your movements then has a visual response it will increase your agency of the game producing a more convincing effect of 'being there'. However, I don't believe that a player at any time believes he is really in the game no matter how much agency is percieved. Can anyone say otherwise? I think my biggest complaint with Penny is when he says learned responses (talking about what has been learned in the game) can also transfer to the real world. Learned responses are from a simulation and in that simulation can be apporpriate. However, these learned responses are processed and carried out by the limbic system of the brain. In normal brain development, the frontal lobe begins to override the limbic system supressing it. Hence, as the brain develops people should be supressing those 'learned responses' This begins to happen around age 12 so I find this arguement to be a horrible excuse for people carrying out game action in real life. Does anyone seriously believe that just because you learn something in a game it's okay to do it in real life? Overall, Penny reached his goal of enhancing critical discussion simply becuase we are going to talk about the article. However, I found that he had no solid points with any real support. Did anyone believe him? Does anyone think that because you play a simulation in which your body actions affect the game your mind is tricked into thinking you can do it in real life? Does anyone think you can become so conditioned to a game the lines between game and reality become blurred to point of being indistinguishable? Or, do you think people have mental problems and are just using games as an excuse?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Penny states that repetitive physical action leads to automatic reflex. Thus discouraging thought and encouraging immediate action. This is what any effective training strives to achieve, and it has been proven successful. The example with the military shooting seems to be the most clear of these examples. We looked at the statistics of the men who shot on sight in WWII versus Vietnam and we found an incredible difference. This was largely attributed to realistic game training. The video games are realistic. They are able to effectively train individuals to be a good shot and very specifically what to shoot.
Penny argues that ‘interactive “representation” is more than a representation’. People feel connected to the simulation they are experiencing. “When soldiers shoot at targets shaped like people, this trains them to shoot real people.” I think it could easily be interpreted that Penny is stating this makes individuals shoot people but I do not believe this is the message he is trying to get across. It is simply one more thing that desensitizes people to shooting people and makes them “able” to do so; it sends the message of what is acceptable to shoot.
Furthermore, Penny states that “Such learned behaviors are triggered without conscious decision making, when the current context matches the conditions of the training context.” This, to me, is the most dramatic thing that he suggests, although I was not offended by this idea. We are constantly trained by influences and thus react to particular stimulation without much, it any, forethought. For example: someone on the street yells “OU” we yell back “Oh Yeah”. Admittedly, this is a bad example, but an example nonetheless. He is not saying that playing games makes people shoot people, rather that it sends the message that it is okay, that it is normal, and that they are able to do it successfully.
I'm happy I wasn't the only one extremely displeased with this article. Games don't give reflex, they give simulation that causes stimulation. In a war situation, presuming you played video games, if shooting at someone is a "reflex" then you would automatically start pulling the trigger while pointing your gun in the general direction of a target...but that is more of a panic reaction to the situation. During wartime, you don't just fire on reflex, you are still taught to take your time, aim, then fire...this proces requires thought, not reflex. In wars, we don't have lines of soldiers, running and firing out of reflex; we have snipers, rifle men, and guerlla warfare...all of which require time, patients, and conscious thought.
I don't even think that video games teach us that killing is OK. I think history classes do that...the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusade, all the World and Civil Wars. Us humans have an indisputable history of violence...it's in our blood whethere we want to aknowledge it or not. If a misquito bits you, is it not your first "natural" reaction to slap it?
One argument I want to bring up, even if it is a off-topic, is that we've had humans shooting humans LONG, LONG before video games, movies, and even recorded music...so why all the fuss about killing now? It's been going on for thousands of years...yet people blame the violence on new technoloy. It's border-line amusing to read articles like Penny's. If the point of the artile is to show that video games make us think violence is normal, then it failed. Because the things, I think, that made me think violence is normal was reading about it in almost every novel, story, textbook and newspaper. It's not the visuals that make me think it...it's the written, factual history that violence IS a means to solve problems that is shoved down our throats since day one. What father doesn't teach his son to throw a punch? How many women walking around New York City are without pepper spray?
This might be a bold statement, but I think humans are violent, reguardless of what outside sources are acting upon them.
I think penny is wrong in alot of areas, and that he reaches really far for an argument. I do not believe video games are the problem, or the cause of violence among those who play them. The columbine kids didnt shot up their school because any video game or band told them that it was ok. I believe they did it because they are a product of their environment. They were teased and pushed around too many times. I know all kinds of "gammers" and to my knowledge, none of them have killed anything outside the virtual world.
However, i do believe that games, especially simulators, can teach us. I dont think a pilot would aquire enough knowledge in a simulator to fly a plane, but i do believe it will make him/her more prepared when they are in the air (with an instructor of course). There, of course, are alot of missing factors when using a simulator compared to real life, but we work with what we got. That is the best example of a usefull simulator, because i dont really believe the army and police sims are that helpful, but i havent ever used one, so i cant say for sure.
I know that I have had the feeling of being so wrapped up in a game that I forget about everything else. It is like the world pauses for a minute while you are in another “world”. Yet this feeling is only temporary. It is as easy to snap out of it as it is to snap into it.
I agree that flying an airplane in a game is not the same to flying one in real life. Flying a real plane is very dangerous and serious. That is why you must be certified to fly. You can learn several things about planes from flying them in simulation as to what the controls are, etc. However there are many other factors that can not be taught or “felt” from flying a simulated plane.
Some children may believe that just because you learn something in a game it's okay to do it in real life. They have to learn or be mature enough to understand right from wrong. That is why they have ratings (like mature only).
I wasn't extremely please with what Penny had to say, but there were a few points that I guess I somewhat agreed with. I do not think games are the root of all evil and make people kill or harm others. I do think that some people have a predisposition that allows games to trigger something in their head that may give them violent ideas. It then depends on the person wether they act on them or not.
Sometimes people can get wrapped up in a game and feel like they are really in that situation. I still think they people remove themselves from that atmosphere once the game ends. And those that don't maybe have psychological problems that may or may not lead them to do dangerous things.
I do agree with Penny that people can feel connected to simulation and feel involved, but I still think that people kill people and video games don't.
I really didn't agree with this article. I feel that games effect everyone differently. It's really about the mindset of the gamer. Even though some games do simulate shooting guns and killing people, most people know that it wouldn't be right to go around shooting people in real life. The military uses these games as training... which is a different context than most people use the games... so I can see how it would be helpful for them.
I couldn't agree more when you say Penny had no solid evidence in his argument. Reading this makes me think about when we played the game in class when we had to perform surgery on patients. After we played no one in class (at least I hope not) thought they could go and do a surgery on someone just like that. I do agree that some simulations are helpful and do help perpare you for real life situations however you will never be able actaully know what the real thing is like until you experience first hand in real life. No matter how much practice someone has on a simulator they can't know what it is actually like until they do it for real. And I especially don't think anyone in their right mind would think they could become an expert on anything by practing on a simulator or a videogame. I did not agree with this article and to me the entire thing makes no sense
In response to the questions at the end of this posting, no I do not think that just because you can do something in a game that you can do it in real life. And no playing a lot of video games does not blur the line between reality and the virtual world. I have been playing video games my entire life and I am a very easy going, calm, and relaxed guy. I rarely get angry and try to fight someone and and I don't drive all crazy like I do when I play Grand Theft Auto. I have always used video games as an escape from reality. Sometimes I have a bad day and a good way to put me in a better mood is to play some XBox live and shoot dudes faces off. But like I said it is just a way to escape what is going on in my life. I understand the difference between the real world and the virtual world. I have been taught the difference. Basically what I am saying is that kids need to be told that there is a difference between the video game world and the real world. Parents need to establish this fact early on and then their kids won't blur the line and go on a shooting rampage.
When we jerk our leg upward, after a doctor hits us in the kneecap, this is an unconcious reflex. Penny refers to the act of killing people in a virtual war game as an automatic reflex that is unconcious. Although, I myself am not a gamer, I would think this action is more of a learned behavior, different from a reflexive response. Just because we learn to kill enemies in a game setting doesn't mean that if we are given a gun we could necessarily kill in a similar situation. It can be easily compared with that arcade game with the gophers or alligators and players are given mallets for bopping them, when they pop out of the hole. I've learned through practice over the years that my main goal is to gain points by hitting the animal as soon as it jumps out of its hole. If I given a real hammer and told that I may incounter gophers in the wild.. I don't think I would necessary kills them because I subconciously was trained to do so. I know it is kind of a stretch, but Penny suggests that these learned behaviors trigger similar responses in same settings which I do not believe to be the case. I think most games are simply for entertainment purposes and it is up to the gamer to responsibly find the line of what is reality and what is not acceptable outside of a virtual environment.
i think that it depends on the person. some people play these games and get way to into them and take those feelings out in real life. in my case i play video games and i do get into them but i know the difference between rl and the online world. i would never act the way i do online in real life, i was taught better by my parents. i think parents just need to establish that knowledge into their kids and we will have less problems in youth who play video games.
This article was very frustrating to read at times. I disagree when people say that video games can be blamed for the violence today. There is violence all around us in our every day lives, in the news, movies, etc. and none of these can be blamed for the violent actions of individuals. I find it hard to believe that a young man or women would feel the need to hurt someone simply from playing a video game. In the end it comes down to individuals taking responsibility for their own actions.
Post a Comment