Media and societal violence: Identifying the two camps on the debate

The second discussion highlighted by Terra Nova in respond to a never-ending fascination by some quarters to link media with violence in society was also started by Edward Castronova. Castronova provides a scathing attack on the authors of a paper "The Effect of Videogame Violence on Physiological desensitization to Real-World Violence" (see left).

Now I have not read the paper yet but Castronova's review brought to my attention the individuals from the two polarized camps on this issue. I am familiar with works of people in Castronova's camp but not that of Carnagey, Anderson and Bushman. I need to be familiar with their works, how their works are cited and who cited them , and also critics of their works. I need to explore more of such works as they will be useful for my literature review and help extend the discussion of my research topic from psychological perspective.

Social bonds created in MMOGs: With who and how players choose as friends?

Face with never-ending fascination by some quarters to link media with violence in society, Terra Nova highlights a series of discussions held in the past on the issue. I start with my commentary of the discussion entitiled: Why Do Kids Kill? by Edward Castronova.

Castronova brings to attention the works of two family therapy scholars, Ken Hardy and Tracy Laszloffy, who according to him, "warn (us) from blaming simple environment factors like video games and guns...(but) trace the roots of teen violence to four things: devaluation, erosion of community, dehumanized loss, and rage".

Castronova then goes onto suggest that video games can potentially help teens with such background overcome the impacts of their experiences. One of the discussion paths centres on social bond players create in MMOGs. The contention is that the four roots of violence are "elements that damage an individual's bonds with a social group" or more specifically with the "mainstream" social structure. So the issue is, if affected teens are only exposed to teens who share similar experience, their bonds potentially will serve as "social reinforcements that make (their) group stronger, perhaps even increasing the isolation from... or the animosity toward... the "mainstream" (social structure)".

This discussion makes me thinks of a possible primary and many secondary research questions for my study. I wonder whether players my research subjects play with most often are those that share similar real-life profile as them or are they opened to play with just about anybody. I have read a paper that reports that players commonly establish clan (guild, faction, etc) consisting of individuals from their off-line networks in order to reduce the risk of cooperating with strangers. I guess it is always fun playing with real-life friends in MMOGs but subsequently, how open are players to embrace the community of strangers out there in the game world. Is there a rule of thumb that they use to decide who they can get closer with and who they should stay away? Or do these work on hunches? Or do they have like a self-imposed "probation period" to find out more about strangers from playing with them before finally loosen down their guard and become friends. I am sure the kinds of friends players have in the game world potentially mediate the kinds of conversations they have in game which in the end, impact how they "read" and what they take away from playing the game.