GAMES
FRANCK DIBOUES
After the murder of a taxi driver by a teenager, the Thai press quickly pointed the finger of blame at the harmful effects of a video game. In Western countries, we have long been debating the supposed effects of violent films or video games on wrongful behaviour and copycat crimes. We do not have any scientific evidence indicating that films, video games or external factors are the sole cause of delinquent acts such as murder or other offences. But we do realise that the repetitive influence of playing video games, watching films or displays of outlawed behaviour can infiltrate part of one's psychological, vulnerability zones.
In the aftermath of this murder, amplified by the effect of media criticism, our society has called for a culprit, someone or something responsible for this incident, which in this case is the video game and the teenager. And we want to get rid of them as fast as we can.
Yes, we can understand this. But still, in terms of a scientific explanation, we have to examine the factors of various elements in order to understand the whole situation well.
These factors include genes, psychology and sociology. The young criminal has possibly been presented with psychological problems and he probably concealed these troubles from his family and surrounding people.
Unfortunately, they cannot interpret his behaviour, such as spending many long hours playing video games which takes time away from his other daily-life activities like getting involved in emotional relationships and working.
These problems probably have genetic and sociological origins (family and society) and could have generated the psychological problems which lay dormant in him.
Then, one day, factors such as a relationship involving a bad influence, watching many violent films or repetitive exposure to violent video games, can exacerbate his psychological troubles and turn them into a negative attitude towards society and towards himself as well.
Banning the video game in question will not have any protective effect for the Thai people. In Western countries, we have had this type of debate for a long time and the controversy has yet to be settled.
We know, for example, that some young users of marijuana with psychiatric vulnerabilities are more likely to break down into schizophrenia, than those who smoke marijuana but do not have such vulnerabilities _ i.e. those who can still smoke marijuana but do not develop schizophrenia.
Even if some triggering factors of the illness are shown to be of genetic origin (the genetic predisposition which produces the vulnerability to the sickness), some people still prefer to explain the disease by claiming the effect of marijuana to be a major determinant, for political or ideological reasons.
But it is not. It is just a piece of the jigsaw. For this reason, the environmental/sociological factor in this instance is the marijuana, and in the case of this crime, it is the video game.
The people who want to use this news to ban the video game do it in order to fight for their jobs and they can easily find a person or an object which they can portray as the guilty one. So, the video game here is like the marijuana. It has produced nothing but permitted an invisible trouble to express itself. It's like the immersed part of an iceberg. We cannot see it but it is the most important part. The video game has permitted the psychological problems to be expressed.
This perspective makes it more difficult to find a single guilt factor. To prove this, we would have to find out how many people who do not have genetic and social vulnerabilities can play the game without committing a crime.
It is always easy to think that one problem has a single origin, a sole reason. We have to resist this approach. A youth who has psychological problems presents some zones of vulnerability. Sometimes, the etiology of the disease is biological such as schizophrenia and various forms of autism. But sometimes, these shadow zones are not identified as a disease.
However, these dark zones of human beings can be infiltrated by group phenomena, influence of young offenders, gangs, varieties of addiction (legal and illegal drug addiction, addiction to video games, sex, work, delinquent actions). Human and social sciences and biology have taught us that the reality is more complex. The video game does not cause the crime, it just permits it. The shade is subtle, but it is important to recognise it. Probably, the video game was only the starting factor in this situation.
This youth may sooner or later suffer a breakdown (troubled behaviour, suicidal tendencies, illness, homicide, aggressive and violent behaviour, etc). For another side of the explanation, we ought to have compassionate thoughts for the taxi driver who found himself in a bad place, at a bad moment, and for his family. But also for the family of the boy, who probably could have chosen another destiny for their child.
These explanations of a scientific nature do not seek to exonerate his responsibility _ every citizen must respect the law because we have to protect society. And the judges are there for that. But it is reasonable that we should refrain from trying to find an easy culprit, which, in this case, is a video game, no matter how detestable the game may be.
Franck Diboues is a clinical psychologist providing training for medical staff at French hospitals. Since 2004, he has been sharing his time between France and Thailand.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Next
