"Theory of Mind" and Videogames

[aozgolo]

So, according to Wikipedia:

Theory of mind (often abbreviated "ToM") is the ability to attribute mental states?beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.?to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own.

ToM is basically a fundamental part of developmental psychology. Barring certain individuals with mental disorders such as autism or schizophrenia, every normally functioning human has a "Theory of Mind".

Most children playing with toys exhibit this theory of mind as they are able to attribute various persona, attitudes, and judgement different to their own to toys they are playing with. Many critics have argued the direct control aspect of being able to interact with video games makes them more culpable of inducing sociopathic or anti-social behaviors. Recent studies: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/129738-Massive-U-K-Study-Finds-No-Link-Between-Gaming-and-Behavior have even disproved this assertion.

The bottom line of course being that we can play any kind of character, even one we are allowed to create ourselves, as a homophobe, misogynist, racist, or any other manner of anti-social or bigoted individuals without it negatively impacting our real world views. The simplest explanation for which is "Theory of Mind" we immediately attribute a different persona unto our virtual avatars. Even if we roleplay as a character that looks like us and makes similar decisions as us, we are not playing ourselves, but rather a fictionalized version there-of. My Saints Row Character might look like me, but I sure wouldn't get in a cross-fire shootout with the police.

So what are your thoughts on the whole "Theory of Mind" and it's link to videogame behavior?

 

[Reed Spacer]

I see the whole point of a video game is that you're being something you aren't and/or having the abilities you never would. This is also why I enjoy them. I can be whatever I want, with no strings attached, and when I tire of that I can stop being 'me' and go back to being me again.

It's like acting - the character you play is just that. A character. But once the show ends the costume comes off, the wigs and makeup are stored away and the actor goes on with his life, leaving his role behind until the next show.

 

[Gronk]

I think both agree and disagree. I have kids and my opinion (based on experience) is that when kids set up scenes and situations with toys it is not roles that they just make up, but instead they use the toys to process situations they have experienced in real life. It can be that someone is angry with someone else or a situation where someone steals something or bullying or something similar. So in that sense it is not fully made up.

When it comes to playing characters, I am a long time roleplayer and live roleplayer and it is my (not very popular) opinion that it is impossible to play a character that is totally removed from yourself. When you roleplay you are basically playing a version of yourself, but with other clothes and in other situations. Sure, you may never start shooting people or kill people, but there is still a part of you in that character, if only the way you talk or think. This is for the same reason as it is impossible to imagine what it is like to be a horse. We simply do not have the ability to fully grasp what it is like to be someone or something else. We can only pretend to be what we THINK it would be like, which ofcourse is totally subjective.

This is also apparent when it comes to actors in theatre and movies. If the actor does not have anything in common with the character he is playing, chances are his or her portrayal will not be a very good one. Wonder why Anthony Hopkins was so good as Hannibal Lecter? He himself said is was because he had a background of drinking and domestic violence where he could pull inspiration from. This is ofcourse not the only reason people are good or bad actors, but it is a not-so-small factor. Being a good actor is very much a matter of choosing the right parts to play.

In computer games i don't think this applies very well, because although the game claims to be "free-roaming" and "you can do whatever you want", you never can. You are always limited to the actions the developers have decided. In GTA you can shoot people , run them over, steal cars and be rude, but you can not give flowers to people or help old ladies across the street. So this is not really you pretending to be someone else, its just you choosing between the very limited actions the developer created.

Now this is not a universal truth, but my opinion, and i might be wrong.

 

[Strazdas]

So, according to Wikipedia:

Theory of mind (often abbreviated "ToM") is the ability to attribute mental states?beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.?to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own.

ToM is basically a fundamental part of developmental psychology. Barring certain individuals with mental disorders such as autism or schizophrenia, every normally functioning human has a "Theory of Mind".

So according to WIkipedia, most of human race are retarded?

Spoiler: example

On the other hand, i think Gronk has a fair counterargument that i agree much more with. Roleplaying is when you pretend to know what other people think, but in reality you just pretend about what you would do in their situation.

I think videogames are not something that stands out here. Theater, movies, radio shows, heck even books have people you pretend to know how they think. When you read a book you end up "knowing" how character feels in the situation even if it wasnt explained. in fact its considered good writing that infuse such feelings in your reader, that means the reader can associate. And i do not think this causes antisocial behaviuor. We often pretend to do things others did in our mind even without media, this is due to another problem in our thinking.

 

[briankoontz]

So what are your thoughts on the whole "Theory of Mind" and it's link to videogame behavior?

Virtual behavior doesn't translate to traditional reality ("real life") behavior because the rules of each medium are entirely different. In traditional reality we live in a complex society with one life and no reload function. In virtual reality we rarely live in a society at all, our reality is a simple physics program, we have infinite time travel (reloads) and typically much greater power (relative to the program) in the shallow virtual program.

A much more interesting question is the ultimate virtual reality program, Star Trek's Holodeck. The Holodeck can simulate to a remarkable degree human society, with only the user's knowledge that "it's not real" to separate the program from traditional reality. Under such a sophisticated program, it's not just possible but likely that actions taken within the program will influence actions taken in traditional reality. For example, when faced with a difficult decision in traditional reality, one could go to the Holodeck, load up a simulation of the very traditional reality in question, then try out multiple decisions and experience the outcomes of all decisions. Then the person would return to traditional reality and select the decision that they believe worked out the best in the Holodeck, since it will also work out best in traditional reality.