Myth: Violence in movies will make you violent

From supermemo.guru
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Myth

Children should be sheltered from violent movies and violent computer games

Fact

Censorship is predominantly harmful. The best form of censorship is auto-censorship in which a child (or an adult) will naturally rejects content that is exceedingly distressing. Incremental self-directed adaptation maximizes well-being of an individual.

Censorship

Censorship is more risky than free exposure to digital media.

An immortal theme among authoritarian parents and coercive educators speaks of violence in books, movies and computer games. Allegedly, these all should be screened to protect the audiences, esp. children.

There are two points that are poorly understood about this erroneous strategy:

  • self-directed adaptation to processing questionable content works best (adult assistance is part of that adaptation as long as it is requested)
  • if violence turns out harmful, the real culprit is not violence in the media, but adversities encountered in real life, primarily those associated with limits on freedom
Censoring violence prevents natural adaptation, and may backfire in vulnerable individuals

Solutions

The best remedy against negative outcomes stemming from the violence in media is self-dosed exposure, in which the brain can optimize its adaptation trajectory. Incremental exposure maximizes benefits (knowledge and habituation), and minimizes the chance of negative outcomes such as bad example, acute stress, chronic stress, let alone trauma.

A violent movie may inspire violence in a person who already has anger issues. Violence will never make a contented person violent. It is more likely to raise opposition to violence. Violent movies such as Squid Games reach new heights of popularity. Parents with an inclination to shelter or control children, either condemn the depicted behavior or condemn the series itself.

To address the real problem, we should being with providing new generations with conditions for fulfilling lives. This means that we have to abandon ideas such as daycare, coercive learning or compulsory schooling. Life without rich rewards that come from free learning is a sad life, it leads to learned helplessness, addiction, depression, or worse. Alternatively, in a more rebellious character, limits on freedom may result in anger issues. Ideations such as a violent revenge on a hated teachers are dangerously common (see: Students with murder in mind). A free child or a free adult is likely to find contentment in its well explored niche in life, and never show any inclination for violence beyond an occasional need to defends her niche.

Freedom is the simplest remedy against unhealthy reactions to violence

Research

Researchers who study correlations between the function of the brain and exposure to violence often conclude that violence is dangerous. This nearly always can be attributed to wrong interpretation of results.

Adaptation to the perception of violence is an important component of well-being. In the world full of human tragedy, we need a brain that is capable to interpret human drama in a composed rational manner. We need to be able to analytically solve problems without losing the empathy component. This happens by incremental exposure that occurs naturally in free learning.

When the exposure is sudden, instead of adaptation and attenuation, we may experience trauma and hypersensitivity. This is exactly the outcome in sheltered/stressless education. We protect children from violence only to expose them to risk of being exposed in dosages or degrees that may be traumatic. This is the opposite of what we want to achieve.

As valuations of knowledge are done to a large degree in the orbitofrontal cortex (see knowledge valuation), and threat levels may involve responses from the amygdala, controlled exposure to violence may result in habituation, i.e. reduced responses to violence in those areas of the brain. This is the result of healthy adaptation. However, low response may also show up in violent unempathetic individuals for who violence does not produce significant negative valuations. That similarity leads to wrong conclusions (e.g. Brain on violent media). It is easy to recognize the parental/authoritarian bias in similar research: it makes instant and wide rounds in mass media. It affects the public and is picked up by those who use research as a weapon in controlling children. It does not help that principal author, famed Joy Hirsch warned that "increased inclination to violence" might be just one of many possible interpretations of her results (see: interview).

Habituation observed in violent individuals and in healthy controls says little of proneness to violence

It is a bit similar to the adaptation and response to other noxious stimuli. A habitual drinker may show increased tolerance for alcohol. So will the alcoholic. The adaptation is biochemical, but it involves also a neural component that provides the parallel to violence in the media.

The response to a stimulus will show in relevant areas of the brain. Similarity of responses does not imply that a moderate habitual drinker is or will become an alcoholic. A ban on violent movies is similar to a total ban on alcohol. Without adaptation, a single wedding can put a teetotaler under the table. A single exposure to a violent movie cause true trauma. If the person in question is subjected to drastic limits on freedom (e.g. due to compulsory schooling), she may be at higher risk of becoming an alcoholic or a person who exhibits violent reactions. The same metaphor is used by Joy Hirsch when discussing her results.

In all cases, the remedy is freedom and a rich constellation of rewards, which provides gradual adaptation to adversities of life without negative side effects such us hypersensitivity or the risk of addiction.

Exposure to violence or to addictive agents will primarily affect individuals with reward deficits

Mechanism

In terms of pattern recognition in a concept network, we can see attenuation as a discrimination between two pairs of stimuli based on Empathy (E) and Fiction (F). If the brain detects E+F, it elicits limited emotional response, which may differ from E encountered in real life. This is a discrimination that is very similar to learning at school. In the context of school, all knowledge is labeled as unimportant/uninteresting (see: How school turns off memory). Such a signal may even prevent knowledge valuation, which is the starting point to the loss of the learn drive. As pattern recognition training should be incremental, exposure to strong E+F signal may still elicit exaggerated E response. Habituation may also occur in other innocent context. For example, surgeon may be unmoved by the sight of blood in the context of operations that save lives.

Incremental exposure is the basis of habituation based on pattern discrimination

Blame school

By censoring movies we only add restrictions to young lives, and make them less bearable. A global lead in the field belongs to China that seems to be willing to micromanage all aspect's of a child life from learning, private tutoring, worship of celebrities, censorship to even, more recently, drastic limits on screen time. Instead of taking care of a child and its well-being, China seems to be focuses on disciplining a perfect citizen than will add to Chinese economic power. This policy will backfire big time. In the extreme case, in the life deprived of reward, an act of violent revenge on the oppressor may become a reward. When the brain expects a reward, it acts.

When Joy Hirsh wonders who is susceptible to being negatively affected by violent media, I know the answer: people whose personalities have been injured by unfreedom. These are primarily young people subjected to coercive learning. Compulsory schooling must end

Instead of censoring violent media, free your child from coercive learning

Myth busting is an important mission at SuperMemo Guru. We tackle myths about memory, learning, creativity, SuperMemo, and incremental reading. Please write if you want a myth busted or if you disagree