Maybe, but mentally its also probably not the greatest, especially if you grew up in a generation that was more used to interacting with people face to face then online.
Yeh he's again more specifically on about the content of the games not social interaction kind.
Ehh, not really, but with how they marketed it and such, I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking it and I'm sure the devs are tools.
You could make the argument that VR shooters, especially those with realistic gun handling are though and it would be hard to really argue against that.
I don't think Hatred ever marketed itself as teaching people how to kill. Hell I've shot air rifles before and that really couldn't be argued it's teaching people how to kill. We have air rifle stands at fairs in the UK is that teaching kids to kill? They're actual guns as such but they've been round for years and people aren't going round killing.
I don't know. I think it would probably reduce the violence, I don't know about get rid of but I think it would reduce it. If you can learn something from media then you can be influenced by it. To what amount it would be reduced is up for debate though, reducing lead in water and air probably reduced it more. But, all people at one time or another dream of spin kicking some total dick in the throat, might not be as many without media influence.
Humans have been killing one another for a long time. Societies have had violence for a long time. The Vikings didn't need violent media to happily go round killing people and fighting.
As for learning stuff, well Piaget's theories on learning position it as the schema doing so. As such you can only learn from media what you don't already know or contradicts you schema. Add to that other psychologists pointing out the fictional divide also means people are somewhat less receptive and Vygotsky's theories about how we learn more from our peers than other and it's not media doing it. Anita and co keep using the claim "You don't have a magic shield protecting you" well modern understanding of mental development says we actually do have a shield as such built up by our years of development and the fact we use age ratings and other stuff to help prevent children being exposed to things deemed to not be appropriate or them to be ready for. It's actually oddly a weird case of illusory superiority from Anita and others that think they are somehow enlightened and are able to see the truth while everyone else is just drones who do what pieces of media tell them.
There is a kind of media designed to influence people. It's called propaganda, or advertising techniques. They are only somewhat effective at best. You know who uses a lot of such techniques in her work? Anita.
Quick cuts and rapid sequences of images disorientate the viewers senses making a person more open to suggested.
Using terms like "We" to try to include the viewer using sort of tribal grouping techniques to stop people wanting to object or question.
Relying on the natural laziness of the brain to not question statistics and to accept what's being deemed to come from sources of authority.
Relying on the natural trusting state of humanity to push lies thinking people won't check them because why lie right?
Presenting ones self as trustworthy and an authority to listen to.
Playing on primal fear of members of the group being harmed or even benevolent sexist beliefs.
You know why her 15 minutes of fame is over? Because the techniques only work for so long. Without McIntosh season 2 of Tropes vs Women wasn't anywhere near as well crafted in using techniques to influence people so she fell out of favour because she didn't seem needed now.
I always bring this advert up if you want to see media influence techniques on show
Watch it then watch it again with the following questions in mind.
"Do you worry when you get a paper cut about your finger falling off?"
"What else could blood from brushing you teeth be a sign of? Maybe Brushing a bit hard?"
"Clinically proven by who?"
