The ruler’s time was fading away. He needed to train soldiers and workers and find more resources. He also had to make some donations to the neighboring villages, as he knew that the more they all helped one another, the more likely they would be to defend their territory. Jack was still happy because they had at least put up walls around the village, built barracks for people, and two camps for soldiers. He was spending four or five hours checking the village every day, because he knew the ruler had to take care of his home. Suddenly, he heard the voice coming from the old and loyal tower. It was telling news of the war. Jack gathered all his soldiers because he was the only one to command them. Strategy was so important, because bad planning would mean the end of all the villages. After a brave speech, they started to march. All the soldiers’ attention was directed to Jack, waiting for his commands.

But suddenly, Jack lost all his soldiers. He was mad and ran away from his room to check the router and saw that there was no internet connection. What was he going to do now? Jack sighed. He supposed he would do homework instead. Exams were getting closer; all his enthusiasm faded away.

It does not matter what age you are, most people find it difficult to concentrate on the task they are required to do. There are books, seminars and many activities to motivate people to finish their work. These all show that we face an important problem with handling our responsibilities.

This is also one of the key issues in education. Much research has focused on how to improve the engagement and motivation of young people towards their school work. As you have probably heard, it’s almost a cliché that most parents complain about young people’s irresponsibility regarding school work and work around the home. While this has been a problem standing in front of us for a while now, we must ask: what makes these kinds of distracting video games so appealing?

The story told above is happening every day. That video game has been downloaded more than 50 million times and is being played every day by millions of people of various ages. The first time I had heard of this game was when I conducted interviews with children using a tablet PC in school. Although my focus of the research was not about mobile games, this was brought up when I wanted to make informal conversation before initiating the interview. One boy was so enthusiastic when we started to talk about this game, that he mentioned he would stop playing the game, go to sleep, but set his alarm for five hours later – his worker would have finished the task he’d been assigned, and the boy would wake up to assign a new task Not finishing such a task would mean lagging behind his peers, for his village would not develop.

I asked him, “what is so nice about this game? You are just building and upgrading buildings and fighting against others.”

The answer was, “I don’t know; it is just fun.”

I also installed the game. I had played it for two months until I woke up at 3 a.m. with a notification. One of my workers had finished his work and I assigned him another task. Then I tried to sleep. I opened my eyes again after a couple of seconds and saw my wife’s shocked eyes. She could not believe I woke up just for this. It was the last time I played the game. But the question was still in my mind: how could we trigger our sense of responsibility by exemplifying the methods of the game in real life?

We – people in education, parents – spend a considerable amount of time and resources to nurture children in a manner so that they become aware of their responsibilities. However, schools, teachers, homework, etc. are seen as boring and something to be escaped by most children.

Gamification is a trendy jargon nowadays. It aims at transforming real life context in a manner that adopts game thinking in online platforms. From this perspective, it proposes to increase motivation, engagement, sense of enjoyment, and the positive attitudes of people towards work (Huanng and Soman, 2013). While there is much research in the sector of business, gamification is also widely recognized in education. The educational purpose of gamification is that instead of blunting the way children best learn, the way they enjoy to learn should be adapted in an educational context. This is not a new idea, as this was also expressed in other contexts. For example, Said Nursi touches on a crucial point:

One reason why preachers’ advice is ineffective nowadays is that they invite people to change their nature. They advise: “Do not be envious or ambitious, do not feel enmity or be obstinate, do not love the world,” and so on. Such advice is useless, for it is against human nature. Instead, these energies can and should be channeled into good deeds and directed toward positive aims. (The Ninth Letter, p. 53)

If we want to apply this method in education, the first thing we should consider is what children like and enjoy most. Obviously, many of them enjoy playing games and any advice like, “Don’t play games! Don’t laugh during the lesson! Don’t spend time in front of the computer! Be quiet in class!” will be counter-productive. As in Said Nursi’s statement, this is asking the impossible from a child who is created to learn in an environment that offers play, social interaction, and competition.

Jean Piaget is a well-known theorist about play and the cognitive development of children. He emphasizes the importance of play and its contribution to healthy development of children (Sutton-Smith, 1983). Vygotsky (1967) also underlines social play and peer interaction in child development. However, while Vygotsky gives the example of a child who rides an imaginary horse with a stick, today’s children’s perception of play has changed and continues to change dramatically. Therefore, it should be understood how Jack’s and my sense of responsibility were piqued. While we both cognitively focused and spent a considerable amount of time on this game, we also enjoyed doing so.

From the perspectives above, the stimulating dynamics used in games could be transformed in a suitable manner into curriculum and the classroom environment could be redesigned. This can also be adapted into work environments, as in Google whose office buildings are colorful rather than plain, and there is even a slide for their workers to use instead of stairs. Their aim is to make the environment flexible so people in the firm do not perceive what they are doing as a work.

There is also educational technology that pays attention to gamification. ClassDojo is one of them. It is a simple but effective idea to attract student’s attention and change their behavior. Each student chooses an avatar that looks like a small monster and the teacher assesses various things on behalf of the students’ avatars. Teachers can give immediate feedback to students. For example, when a student shows a negative behavior in class or solves a question, students will see the changes in his/her ClassDojo app on their mobile device. The children I interviewed showed great enthusiasm about this application and interestingly, they perceive this application as a game, although the only differences between this application and normal assessment sheets were the avatars and the template. Kahoot and Socrative are two other mobile applications that these students have experience with. These mobile applications are also perceived as joyful, competitive, and rich learning platforms.

While considering how to transfer the strategies of the game into the real life context, it should not be forgotten that there are parents and teachers who have serious reservations about games, as some of their children are addicted to these kinds of games. They are right to have these doubts and I do not think games are absolutely innocent. In fact, most strategy games, including the one that me and Jack became addicted to, have many negative messages, from stealing to killing people. But when it is impossible to avoid them completely, it is best to focus on the positive themes and actualize them for productive outcomes in schools and family life.

All in all, I am still thinking about the situation of my village and neighborhoods. The rulers of neighboring villages were sad and angry when I said that I was leaving: “Winter” was getting closer and they needed my donations and the soldiers I trained. I am now consoling myself as my wife, who is a child psychologist, assigned me to do cleaning and made me think of all the bacteria as my enemies and a big threat to our lovely village (home). As parents and educators, it is our duty to discover the way your children and students learn and produce your own real games.

Ahmet Tugra is a PhD candidate in the department of Learning, Technology and Education in the UK.

Cost-benefit analysis of piracy

To begin, I want to analyze piracy free from any ethical or normative judgments. Piracy is an act, and like any other act, it has costs and benefits. A utility calculation or a cost-benefit analysis shows that the material benefits far outweigh the minimal material costs of piracy. Entertainment media usually has a monetary price that must be paid in order to consume it, like buying tickets to watch a movie at the theater. On the other hand, given that the individual possesses the technical knowledge, the individual can receive the same entertainment for free if he chooses to pirate the media instead of buying it. While some individuals who pirate are caught and do pay fees, the probability of these negative consequences are very small. Given no other external factors, this cost-benefit analysis indicates that the materialistic benefits outweigh the materialistic costs.

Additionally, from a behavioral perspective, piracy makes sense. When a person commits piracy, they are immediately presented with the benefit of entertainment or utility. The behavior is immediately rewarded and reinforced. The costs are not immediately evident, and can be easily overlooked, because the probability of being caught and punished for pirating is very small. In contrast to the act of physically stealing the DVD of a movie, the act of illegally downloading the movie is much less risky and only entails the seemingly innocent pressing of buttons. When contemplating whether to physically steal another DVD of a movie, the person would weigh whether the entertainment benefit is really worth suffering the stress and energy as well as the high risk of being caught and punished by the law. When contemplating whether to illegally download a movie, the person would only need to weigh whether the entertainment benefit is greater than pressing some buttons. With such low risks and such immediate gratification, the behavior of piracy is easily engrained.

This cost-benefit analysis in a vacuum free from any external forces like ethics, morality, and religion sufficiently shows why piracy is so prevalent. It is easy and rewarding. However, people do not live in a vacuum.

The ethical factor

If piracy is theft, then it is unethical, immoral, and wrong. And it is indeed theft. All digital media whether film, music, ebooks, or games are products of another’s hard work. Just like a farmer’s crops or an author’s book, digital media would not exist but for the producer. Thus, similarly, the producer has taken ownership of digital media by production. Modern copyright and digital rights laws are evidence of this societal norm. So, if it is wrong, why do some people pirate digital media anyway?

When a person is given the choice between paying for the entertainment and consuming it for free, ethical principles clash with desire. In order to resolve cognitive dissonance, the discomfort caused by the clash of conflicting inner-beliefs, individuals will attempt to justify their actions and alter their beliefs (1). In the case of piracy, an individual might conclude that the producers of the entertainment media are already wealthy and do not need more money. Alternatively, the individual may decide that his financial circumstances do not allow him to pay for the products, forcing him to illegally obtain them. Ultimately, these justifications allow the individual to live more comfortably with their decision to pirate the product.

Justifying piracy

In addition to common justifications for any other ethical violations, piracy has a unique justification due to the unique nature of digital media. This unique justification is that the illegal downloading of digital media does not harm the producer, because it does not represent a loss of revenue for the producer of the game, movie, or song. Given the digital nature of entertainment media, a pirated copy of a game does not directly mean a loss of revenue equal to the price of the game. For example, when an item in the physical world, such as a watch, is stolen from a store, the store loses money that is equal to the sum of the cost of the watch and the profit from the sale of the watch. If the thief had not stolen the watch, the store could have sold it to someone else. In contrast, when an individual obtains a pirated copy of a digital media, the ability of the producer to sell a copy of the digital media to someone else is not inhibited in anyway. In other words, the benefits or entertainment experienced by the individual who chooses to pirate does not result in a loss for the producer. Those who have this justification would then conclude that piracy only has positive consequences.

This justification, unique to digital products, has two main deficiencies. First, piracy can lead to loss of revenue to the producer if a person who would have otherwise purchased the product chooses to pirate it. Aggregating all the individual acts of piracy can lead to a cumulative loss of revenue of many millions of dollars. Second, loss of revenue is not the only reason piracy is immoral. The primary reason why piracy is unethical is because it constitutes a taking of another property, violating another’s fundamental property rights. If a producer chooses to share its property with only those who pay for it, then the taking of that property without paying for it is a violation of fundamental property rights. An independent showing of damage or loss of revenue is not necessary to prove its wrongness.

Habit

Another possible explanation for the prevalence of piracy is habit. Once an individual has committed piracy, despite ethical prescriptive to the contrary, the individual experiences the benefits and joys of that piece of entertainment. As previously mentioned, this immediate reward can lead to a cycle that constantly reinforces the behavior until it has become habitual. The case study of the video game, Proun, can provide some insight.

Proun, a low budget game, was released under the pay-what-you-want pricing method which allows consumers to legally obtain the product at whatever price they decide to pay including for zero dollars. In other words, people could legally get the game for free from the developer’s official website. Essentially, the developer removed monetary concerns from the utility calculation. According to the released statistics, approximately 40% of used copies were pirated (2). Individuals chose to pirate the game, despite being able to obtain the game legally for free.

The implication of the Proun case study is that price may not be the sole determinant for pirating behavior. A possible explanation for the observed pirating behavior could be that obtaining entertainment media through illegal means has become habitual to a significant portion of the population. Due to the low risks associated with piracy, individuals who have chosen to pirate media experience no consequences that would deter their actions, making piracy their normal means of acquiring any form of software, irrelevant of whether or not the software is free. In other words, habitual piracy has become legitimate in their eyes. After the initial act, the individual no longer considers the ethicality of their actions. Every subsequent act merely reinforces the habit.

References

1. See also Yerli, Selnur Hatice. “Cognitive Dissonance and the Psychology of Sin.” The Fountain 80, March-April 2011.
2. van Dongen, Joost. “Proun sales data revealed: Proun is a big success! Pay What You Want is not!.” <http://joostdevblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/proun-is-big-success-pay-what-you-want.html>

Art, on its quest for refinement, is the expression of the ethos and values of society. It serves to remind us that life must be permeated with physical, spiritual and emotional beauty. The objects in these Met Galleries are the memoirs of civilization, yet they are not cast in the amber of the past. They pulse with life. They help us to understand how the cultures touched by Islam were built and evolved through the present day. A balanced display of objects of all types and techniques leads the visitor on a rich ride through the artistic, cultural and religious contexts of regional spheres stretching from Rabat to Ulan Bator, from Trabzon to Jakarta.

A paradise of artistic delight

Selecting these outstanding pieces must have been an emotional and challenging experience for the curators. How to choose only 1200 pieces from the Museum’s vast collections of 12,000 objects to tell the story of the interlinking themes across centuries and continents? The galleries explore the richness of Islamic art in objects big and small: from monumental bronze salvers of princely palaces to humble ceramic bowls, from stylish illuminated manuscripts to Qur’an pages filled with graceful calligraphy, from steel sabers to gardens of textile delights.

Some of the stunning artifacts on exhibit include miniatures from the most famous series of paintings in Islamic art, the celebrated 16th century Shahnama of Shah Tahmasp, ornamental doors from the 9th century royal residence at Samarra in Iraq, a monumental 12th century Seljuk feline incense burner from Iran, a 12th century astrolabe from Yemen, and carved stucco panels from a 10th century house in Nishapur, Iran. Turkish and Mamluk carpets are presented in a room under a newly-assembled wooden ceiling from a 15th century Spanish monastery crafted by Muslim artisans, offering visitors a constellation of stars above and below.

Architecture, one of the most visible and unifying manifestations of the Islamic heritage, has a place here as well. Peeking into the Damascus Room, an intact 18th century reception room from an upper-class Syrian Ottoman house, gives insight onto the daily life of the era. The 11-foot high turquoise tiled prayer niche from a 14th century theological school in Isfahan has been moved to a more prominent place in the galleries (and respectfully reset to its correct kibla orientation), which allows visitors to feel its architectural impact. One of the most popular attractions is the Moroccan Courtyard – a room built from scratch to resemble a 14th century home interior, with intricately carved niches and a bubbling fountain. This graceful gem was created by craftsmen from Fez brought in especially for the project.

Innovative objectives

A desire to rethink the presentation of the galleries prompted the museum to close them for renovation in 2003, two years after the events of 9/11. The curatorial staff set out to sensitively join the galaxy of cultures touched by Islam, and to make its appreciation more accessible by the general public through a judicious intermingling of art objects. The curators chose three major strategies to achieve this monumental task.

Firstly, the official name change from the former reductive “Islamic Galleries” was a bold one. The new name is indeed a mouthful, but it removes the stigma of Islam as opposed to the West and alien, as well as the stereotype of an art produced only in relationship to religion. It effectively dismantles the notion that Islamic art is a single, uniform production.

Secondly, intelligent architecture, using an open plan, created more square footage and brightened the former dim and mysterious rooms into a light and positive space. Lattice screens made in Egypt point the way and provide awareness of the mutual visibility of the cultures. The floors are paved in a different stone for each section, ranging from Egyptian marble inlaid with stars to soft Indian sandstone. Created as well are two new galleries, one linking Spain and North Africa, and the second for the South Asian sphere. The circular path though the galleries encourages visitors to make intuitive cultural interconnections as they rove.

Lastly, and most importantly, the curatorial approach is groundbreaking. The galleries are arranged not in a chronological order, but attempt a more geographical transverse. Particular attention is paid to display objects that emphasize the exchange of artistic influences with surrounding cultures. One gallery is devoted to depicting the imprint of the late Roman, Sassanid and Coptic traditions on the formation of this art. Objects from the Byzantine Empire, China, and Europe are skillfully sprinkled in the cases to highlight the interplay of cultures. Particularly intriguing is portrayal of the hybrid Buddhist-Jain-Hindu-Muslim-Colonial context of the Indian subcontinent. Effort was also paid to present objects which highlight secular and cosmopolitan aspects, not just those exclusively linked to liturgical needs.

In this fashion, the Met galleries help us break with the idea of art compartmentalized solely in reference to a single religious or cultural tradition. Our eyes are lifted towards a more universal vision. The voyage through trans-regional history presented in these Galleries opens new lines of conversation and leads us to contemplate the artistic and historical traditions of our own practices in relation to those of a different civilization.

A reinterpretation of misconceptions

Interpretation of Islamic art in the past by the Western world has often dismissively focused on the visual differences of this art: Islamic art “bans human representation,” Islamic artists “did not understand perspective” in their miniature painting, Islamic art is limited only to the “flat surface” and to the production of the “minor arts,” and “uses only geometry and calligraphy” to express the aesthetic, and so forth. The current presentation allows visitors to see the contrary, persuading them to make up their own mind about how these artists sought to depict the divine and mundane in ways different, yet just as powerful, as those in Western art: flowing calligraphy soars off Qur’an pages as high as the arches of Gothic cathedrals, glass mosque lamps sparkle with the intensity of a king’s gold treasure, colossal wall tiles shine forth with the same inspiration as stained glass windows, and carpets sing as brightly as a Cezanne or Klee painting.

The revised perspective of these galleries, filled with a respectful, reconciliatory motivation, allows visitors to appreciate the distinctive themes and the monumentality of this production, as well as the complexity and diversity of artistic expression. By providing objects illustrating the universal human aspiration towards beauty and refinement in society, we are led to reassess our present relations to these cultures accordingly.

Many examples here illustrate universal human aspirations and the interconnection of the peoples of the earth. Through excellence in craft, these objects poignantly illustrate the hope-filled quest of the honored verse of the Qur’an: “We created you nations and tribes that ye may know one another.” (49:13). The first piece visitors view upon entering the galleries is a large, 10th century white ceramic bowl from Nishapur in Iran, inscribed in a boldly powerful black calligraphy. It sets the tone for harmony, for the potter and the calligrapher needed to work closely hand in hand to produce such a masterpiece. On an Iznik plate from 16th century Ottoman Turkey, the artist has depicted 4 types of flowers – a rose, a hyacinth, a honeysuckle sprig and a tulip – all gracefully springing from the same clump of roots. A special grouping of manuscripts side by side explores the triple traditions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity that lived together harmoniously in medieval Spain. A folio illustrating the preparation of medicine from honey, copied in Baghdad 1224 from the Greek medical manuscript De Materia Medica by Discorides, illustrates the respectful heritage of scientific thought from one culture to the next. A judiciously-situated doorway pulls visitors out of the Egypt/Syria gallery into the room containing the Met’s 19th century “Orientalism” collection. These paintings depict the Middle East as seen through the eyes of European painters. Pausing to look at these colorful and often fanciful interpretations forces us to ask ourselves how we view these cultures today.

A Courtyard of Hope

The mainstream portrayal of Islam is not always kind, and does not usually deal with transcendent beauty, refined ornamentation, or intricate arabesques. Yet one of the most famous hadith, or sayings of the Prophet declares: “God is beautiful and He loves beauty.” Should it thus come as a surprise that this culture has led to the creation of so many great works of art? Perhaps the art at the new Met Galleries will close some chasms and conflicts that plague Muslim-West relations, especially over the last 10 years. Instead of blaring headlines on a newspaper article, perhaps scrutiny of the elegant calligraphy of a Qur’an page will offer grounds for reflection of the other face of the story and provide hope for well-needed harmony. The spiral of galleries ends in the serene Moroccan courtyard. Visitors are invited to linger there a moment and take home with them its restorative light and spirit of tranquility.

A new game

One of the most engaging pieces on display is a 12th century chess set from Iran, one of the earliest to come down to us. Crafted from glazed clay, the modern-looking pieces challenge us to a game. Yet, we cannot play because one piece is missing. Somewhere along the march of time, through earthquakes, Mongol invasions, wars and strife, one pawn has gone missing from this stunning set.

Looking at this chessboard, one cannot help but reflect on the still-charged game of misunderstandings which pits East and West on opposing sides. Does the loss of this representative of castles and conflicts auger a more peaceful society? Perhaps this missing foot soldier can presage the beginning of a new game, one where we are all on the same side of the chessboard; a game without confronting pieces and with reconciliation as the victor.

May the art in these Met Galleries inspire us to write the rules for this new Game of Peace.

Katharine Branning is the author of a series of essays on Turkey, “Yes I would love another glass of tea” and the curator of the exhibit “Song of Stones” dedicated to Seljuk art held at the Turkish Cultural Center in New York in the fall of 2011.

People with different personality traits respond differently to immediacy-provoking incentives. A critical trait that should be given particular attention is the delay of gratification. The delay of gratification is an interesting concept because it is connected with many other widely-accepted ideas in psychology. Sigmund Freud (1949/1989), for example, conceptualized human personality as being under the influence of the id, which represents human needs and desires, and the superego, which resembles the social restrictions that influence the id. The ego represents the mechanism that manages the two in order to maintain psychological health. Due to the relative consistency of personality traits, we are able to predict human characteristics and behavior even from an early age.

The ability to delay gratification indicates a special potential for deciding what is good for oneself in the short and long term; something that is fundamental for self-management. We have empirical evidence which demonstrates that the delay of gratification is related to higher intelligence, ability to resist temptation, greater social responsibility, and commitment to tasks (see Mischel, Shoda & Rodriguez, 1989). Contemporary social problems such as eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, impulsive and aggressive behaviors, and behavioral disorders underline the pivotal role of the ability to delay gratification for a healthy, balanced, and successful life. While resisting and delaying temptations is considered to be a symptom of “ego strength” and “impulse control,” the failure to do so is regarded as a factor that underlies psychopathology (Mowrer & Ullman, 1945).

In a study with forty-two sixth graders, researchers asked children to complete a task (shooting a ray-gun) in a game; this task served as a measure of temptation allowing the observers to assess how the children adhered to the rules of the game and how they cheated. They designed the game in such a way that unless the child cheated and violated the rules of the game he/she would fail. In this sense, the game created a double approach-avoidance conflict as the children were eager to win (approach) and had to comply with the rules (avoidance). After promising several rewards (marksmen, sharpshooter, and expert badge) according to their performance in the game, the supervisor left the room so that children can behave in a natural way. It was expected that children who are more highly motivated would break the rules to obtain gratification and those who were less able to delay gratification would be less resistant to temptation. There were 17 items connected to measuring the delay of gratification, each requiring choosing a smaller/less valuable reward immediately or a larger/more valuable item later. For example, they were asked to choose either “a small notebook now or a larger notebook in one week.” The results were remarkable: The cheaters were more likely to be unable to delay gratification, asking for the rewards immediately rather than those who were patient enough to wait for a better reward. Those who were able to delay gratification (and therefore selected a better reward at a later time) waited longer to begin cheating than their friends who asked the rewards immediately. Also, those who were more successful in the game tended to delay the reward to get a better reward later than those who were less successful.

Following the progress of these students, Shoda, Mischel and Peake (1990) collected their SAT scores, as an indication of their academic and cognitive competency, and parental ratings of those children who differed in their response to gratification more than ten years ago. The researchers found that adolescents with higher SAT scores were more likely to wait longer for the gratification. Moreover, they were better able to cope with frustration and stress in adolescence. This result has been supported by finds in more recent studies as well (Ayduk, 1999).

The ability to delay gratification is much more than a personal trait. Mischel (1961) investigated the relationship between social responsibility and the delay of gratification. This makes a great deal of sense, as people who are able to put others’ welfare before their own interests can behave altruistically and be socially responsible. As expected, children who choose the delayed reward were more socially responsible than those who preferred the immediate reward. Likewise the proportion of children preferring the delayed reward was higher in the non-delinquent group than the delinquent group.

In a recent study, Wulfert et al (2002) investigated the possibility of using the delay of gratification as an indicator of self-regulation in adolescents. The adolescents who were invited to participate in the study were offered either a smaller but immediate fee or a larger fee for one week’s participation. Two groups of students were compared in terms of use of cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana use, as well as self-perception and academic achievement. The results were interesting: those adolescents who selected the immediate reward, and thus failing to delay gratification, reported a higher use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. They also had a lower self-concept and were less successful at school.

As with many other psychological concepts, the delay of gratification also has a strong association with the religion and the basic principles of religion. For example, in all three monotheistic religions, an afterlife is promised to every human being. Those who avoid the seductive features of life are promised a heaven, which is described with all its attractions being beyond anything that can be compared to this life. God asks people to restrain themselves from temporary and prohibited acts in this life in exchange for an unending life where pure bliss is to be attained, like children who have been promised better candy or larger and better toys if they are patient. Thus, people who are patient and able to delay their gratification will be more responsive to religious limitations and directions. Worldly benefits represent the immediate rewards, while delayed responses can be connected to the benefits in the afterlife; in this way, everyone makes some choice between the two. So, it is possible to argue that the ability to delay gratification is a very good predictor for religiosity.

Different religions underline the importance of delay of gratification. We see a clear connection between the delay of gratification and intelligence or cognitive competence in several verses of Qur’an: “And the present, worldly life is nothing but a play and pastime, and better is the abode of the Hereafter for those who keep from disobedience to God in reverence for Him and piety. Will you not, then, reason and understand?” (6:32), “However, certainly the reward of the Hereafter is better for those who believe and keep from disobedience to God in reverence for Him and piety” (12:57), and “Those who are patient (persevering in adversity, worshipping God, and refraining from sins) will surely be given their reward without measure” (39:10). In the Bible, later happiness is encouraged and patience is appreciated: “Those who shed tears as they plant will shout for joy when they reap the harvest” (Psalm, 126); or “Know that suffering produces endurance, and endurance, character, and character, hope” (Romans, 5).

It is also important to note that religions are not only concerned with the afterlife. They regulate our lives at all times, and direct people to behave in a particular manner. Thus, religious principles increase the quality of life. The contribution of the delay of gratification to the quality of life is something that we should be aware of. A religious education in school or family provided in the early years of life can educate individuals in how to delay their desires and gratification toward their goals in the long-run, allowing them to have a balanced and healthy life. Religious teaching involves patience and resistance against extravagant worldly comfort, suggesting sacrifice and dedication in this world to earn a better life after death. With such discipline, people will also be able to manage their own life more effectively, because even long-term benefits in the worldly life can be gained if one expends time, effort, and energy.

The importance of the delay of gratification seems to become more obvious given the scandals in the lives of eminent people who are successful in arts, sciences, sports, or politics; such people have failed to delay some of their desires and instant gratification. From another perspective, although they had financial and social freedom, they lost their inner freedom as they became passive responders to their instincts and desires. After centuries of physical slavery, which benefitted some classes to the detriment of another, the modern world has created a new form of slavery which pits the human mind and reason against their instinct. In this system, amusement parks, substance addiction, adultery, violence and a number sources of satisfaction have been given great value; people have simply became dependent and demand gratification. This sort of enslavement is no less dangerous than the traditional slavery; the modern “slaves” seem to be content with their status and demand even more. Under these circumstances, people tended to spend less time thinking, reasoning, feeling, and understanding themselves, their environment, and other people.

The delay of gratification allows modern people to manage their time, goals, tasks, and responsibilities, all of which are keys to success. People who resist their desires have real freedom and are able to shape their own lives. It actually makes people control themselves, and become the rulers of their lives. From this point of view, the delay of gratification as a psychological personality attribute as well as a means of religious instruction-reveals an essential principle of happiness in this world and in the next world.

References

• Ayduk, O. N. (1999). Impact of Self-Control Strategies on the Link Between Rejection Sensitivity and Hostility: Risk Negotiation Through Strategic Control, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York.
• Freud, S. & Strachey, J. (1949/1989). An outline of psychoanalysis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
• Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933-938.
• Mischel, W. (1961). Delay of gratification, need for achievement and acquiescence in another culture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 543-552.
• Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and social competence from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26, 978-986.
• Wulfert, E., Block, J. A., Santa Ana, E., Rodriguez, M. L., Colsman, M. (2002). Delay of gratification: Impulsive choices and problem behaviors in early and late adolescence. Journal of Personality, 70, 533-552.

But if you look at nature more carefully, you will find that it does not always seem that way. You may see animals that are strikingly unselfish, most of the time for their own species, such as giving a warning of approaching predators, sharing food, licking others to remove parasites, adopting orphans. And occasionally they are unselfish to other species as well. They fight without killing or even injuring their enemies. Such behavior poses a problem for the Darwinian view of nature; this behavior is known as altruism. But is there really a problem?

Yes, there is!

One of Darwin’s greatest challenges was explaining how altruism could have evolved. For example, consider how a single bird within a flock might act as an emergency alarm, giving a warning call when a predator approaches. By receiving advance warning, the other birds in the flock have a better chance of escaping from the predator. But this comes at a price to the bird that guards the flock. A warning call attracts a lot of attention, making the guard an easier target for the predator.

How could a character for such altruism be passed on from generation to generation if it is the altruists who are more easily eliminated, and should there not be some kind of reward or motivation for this self-sacrifice? At first glance, it seems that if altruistic birds are more likely to be preyed upon, then fewer altruists would survive to reproduce. Eventually, altruism should die out. In fact, it should have died out before we discovered it.

Altruistic behavior

How can we explain this behavior? It is not possible to do so from an organism-centered view. So, let’s imagine a gene that causes the organism containing that gene to behave in such a way that copies of it are made in other organisms. In other words, a bird is only helping the other birds if they have the same type of gene. A gene that makes its owner behave in this particular way, all other things being equal, is likely to survive. But then the natural question is that altruism is only directed to those with the altruistic gene. If the birds without the altruistic gene benefit from the help as much as those with it then how does the survival of the fittest theory favor this gene? It is not easy for a gene to recognize other such genes in other individuals. There must be another solution.

Sharing the same gene

One way of increasing the likelihood for altruism to reach its true target is to keep it within the “family.” If there is a gene for behaving altruistically, then the members of the family are more likely to inherit the same gene than a random member of the population. The closer the family member, the greater the possibility of sharing the gene.

If, for example, an individual had the choice of saving his own life or the lives of two sisters or eight cousins then the survival of the fittest theory should be indifferent about the choice as they will save the same number of genes. But on the other hand if I could save three sisters instead or nine of my cousins then the theory would favor the self-sacrificial act, “saving my kin rather than saving my skin!” Hmm, what do we know, maybe indeed there is a way to be both Darwinist and altruist.

The idea of the “fittest” in Darwin’s theory is the ability of an individual to survive and reproduce and therefore to pass on some of their genes. If a mother gives up her life for her offspring, the mother ceases to exist. But, from another point of view, the mother continues to live on in her child genetically. Although the mother as an individual has not benefited from her altruism, half of her genetic code survives.

This new definition of fitness shifts the focus from individual fitness to family fitness, which takes into account the survival of an individual’s relatives. Evolution is no longer seen simply to be a process of individual selection, but also one of family selection.

Although this selection based on family seems to be a good explanation for our puzzle, at least in theory, there are many immediate questions that spring to mind. Assisting one’s kin often goes in one direction, although one would expect it to be a two-way process as there is symmetry between the genes. And how practical is the process of selecting one’s relatives? How would you differentiate the members of the same flock as to whether they are family or not, the ones that are getting the help secretly “connected”!?

Mathematics and game theory

At this point at least we have arrived at the conclusion that it is quite difficult to explain altruistic behavior in all circumstances. Maybe there is a solution to be found in mathematics, which has solved so many abstract problems.

It would be useful to take a different point of view for the entire matter. Maybe what looks like altruism is indeed to the advantage of the altruist. Two parties could be exchanging altruistic favors and in the end they both are better off. Another question that comes to mind is “Even when everybody knows that cooperation is good for all, why shouldn’t one cheat as this is more beneficial from a selfish point of view?” If everyone were to cooperate, everyone would be better off; but the best for an individual is to pursue their own self-interest, in which case therefore everybody ends up worse off.

A similar change of understanding also happened in economic theory in the 1950’s when the game theory was first introduced into economics. Initially, this theory was intended to deal with the problem of providing a theory for economic and strategic behavior where people interact directly, rather than through the market. Here, games are only used as a metaphor for more serious interactions in a general ecosystem. But the game theory addresses the serious interactions using the metaphor of a game: in these serious interactions, as in games, the individual’s choice is essentially a choice of a strategy, and the outcome of the interaction depends on the strategies chosen by each of the participants. On this interpretation, a study of games may indeed tell us something about serious interactions.

In neoclassical economic theory, to choose rationally is to maximize the rewards for the individual. From one point of view, this is a problem in mathematics: choose the activity that maximizes rewards in any given circumstances. Thus, we may think of rational economic choices as the solution to a mathematical problem. But in the game theory, the case is more complex, since the outcome depends not only on one’s own strategies but also directly on the strategies that have been chosen by other individuals; we can still think of the rational choice of strategies as a mathematical problem – and maximize the rewards of a group of interacting decision makers (Nash equilibrium).

Now that we have realized that we have to move in a somewhat similar direction to the economists, maybe we should consult the experts of the game theory at this point. In the 1980’s Axelrod and Hamilton worked on a famous problem in the game theory, the Prisoner’s Dilemma, exactly because it deals with this problem. The rational pursuit of individual self-interest drives everybody into an outcome that is not favored by anybody. Imagine two partners in a crime being interrogated at the same time. Each one has two options, cooperate with the other and keep quiet or betray the other and confess. Case C, we can say, is if both cooperate then the police cannot get much out of them and they will both get a light sentence (2 years); if one defects and the other keeps quiet then the traitor will get an even lighter sentence (1 year) – this is case B. If the one who cooperates gets the longest sentence (10 years), this is the worst end of the deal and we can call this case S. In a case when both betray one another they will both get a sentence (6 years) longer than if they had cooperated but lighter than if one had kept quiet and the other spoke, and this is case D.

Out of the four outcomes, B is the best and S is the worst from an individualistic point of view, while the order of preference is B, C, S, D. We should realize that this is a non-zero sum game. In a zero-sum game, my loss is your gain; for example, if we are trying to divide a certain amount of money in the bank into two, anything over fifty percent for me is a loss for you. On the other hand, in a non-zero sum game I can actually win without you losing. Each suspect has to make their decision without knowing what the other has done. What would a rational suspect do?

The answer is simple; he would betray his partner in crime! Regardless of what the other suspect does, betrayal always pays better than cooperating. Here is the simple reasoning one would follow. Suppose my partner in crime cooperates. I could do quite well by also cooperating, I would get 2 years, (C). But it is even better to betray him, since I would then get 1 year instead of 2, (B). What if he betrays me? If I keep quiet then the worst is going to happen and I will get 10 years, (S), therefore I should defect and get 6 years, (D). In summary, all we are saying is that the second row in the chart is always more favorable than the first row, hence no matter what, a rational prisoner would always betray his partner!

“And here comes the dilemma: it pays each of them to defect, whatever the other one does, yet if both defect, each does less well than if both had cooperated. What is best for each individual leads to a mutual defection, while everybody would be better off with mutual cooperation.”

Fortunately, the dilemma has a solution in our case. So far, we have only played the game once. What happens if the parties play the game repeatedly and for an indefinite number of times? After every single time they play they know that they are likely to meet again later. Under such conditions there is actually a cooperative strategy for the players that could be successful; this is a somewhat twisted version of the cooperation defined earlier in the prisoner’s dilemma case. First of all, we immediately realize that always defecting is clearly not the smartest strategy, knowing that you will meet the other individual again in the future. Instead, consider this natural strategy, called Tit for Tat, which is never to be the first to defect, always imitate the other from his previous move and retaliate only when you have been betrayed. It turns out that this highly cooperative strategy can survive, even though initially it withstands the challenges of readily defecting strategies. And it can be stable against diminishing altogether.

In order for this Tit for Tat strategy to have a chance to work, a critical proportion of the individuals have to cooperate. Otherwise the readily defective strategies would simply destroy the cooperative ones and dominate the whole system. But once the number of individuals who adopt a Tit for Tat strategy exceeds a critical ratio in the population then it survives and reaches a stable ratio able to withstand any other strategy.

Axelrod’s theory is nice and easy to understand, but once again it prompts all sorts of other issues. How frequently the population is able to reach that critical level in the first place? On the other hand, what kind of a memory do individuals need in order to be able to execute a Tit for Tat strategy?

What do we make of it?

We could keep working on expanding these explanations and models, or at least the biologists should. But in any case, in order for any of these models to apply in what we see in nature we have to be demanding of the individuals who form the population. Every single time we come up with a new approach or an extended model it is difficult to explain many of the characteristics of altruistic behavior, even in idealized cases. Either there must be altruistic genes that can recognize the other altruistic genes carried in other individuals, or we all individuals have a well-developed memory that actually remembers all the moves that have been made by other individuals in the population, or one starts from an idealistic state in order to maintain the stability of the system without knowing how we are able to get there in the first place.

It seems that the smarter we get, the better our theories are developed, and the more flawless our models become, the more we realize that all the individuals in the great ecosystem of nature that show some kind of altruistic behavior must have a great deal of knowledge and power over the rest, they must have eyes that see many things about the whole picture and they must have an authority that has a great impact on others, on and on and on.

Such sceneries are very common now in many houses and internet cafes. Children and youth are spending most of their times playing computer games. While parents favor computers as necessities of modern age and as assistants for their children’s homework, children mostly consider them as toy boxes. They initially start with innocent intentions, but in time they lose their original purpose. “Uncontrolled use of computers,” the common problem of many parents, is also a matter very difficult to solve for the experts.

How do computer games affect the children’s subconscious and their future lives? Do games with positive effects have an appealing presentation?

Computer games can be grouped under two categories. First are the games that help developing talents, understanding the life experiments and ethical values by using an entertaining method; Second are the games that do not contribute anything to the child’s imagination and thinking abilities and inciting violent and immoral behavior. For the game to positively affect the child’s intellectual, physical and spiritual development depends upon both the content and the duration of the game. This period of playing time should neither be too short, nor too long. To be able to obtain a proper balance in this matter, we should first equip the child with an education of using the time wisely. Children wasting their time for useless activities, can also be insensitive to effective use of time when they grow up. Concisely, children must acquire the consciousness of valuing time. Wasted time in front of computers cause children and youth to get passive. This increases the stress experienced by the children. Especially in active boys, this inactiveness causes an energy accumulation which negatively affects the child’s behaviors. The use of excessive energy by ways of different sports is very useful for the physical and mental development and raising of a social conscious. Moreover, spending time in front of computers, deprives children and youth from cultural activities like playing group games, studying together and engaging with a sports activity.

Many of us complain that our children cannot express themselves properly and are not clear at communicating with their environment. When we ask a question to our child, either we get a very brief or a routine answer. Times elapsed aimlessly in front of computers have a significant effect on this.

We see that violence increase in each level of any new computer game. The game producers consider every type of method as permissible just to be able to attract children to the screen. Scenes which are not suitable for the age form the subconscious of a child. Children who have been exposed to several violent scenes are mostly inclined to aggression, anxiety and panic and they are generally furious and quick-tempered and consider violence as an ordinary matter. Reactions of children who watch violent films and play fierce and crimson computer games change in time and start applying more and more force to people and children around them. They tend to hit and kick others even after a slight disagreement. Being affected from destructive violent scenes, children reveal problems like over anxiety, sleep disturbances and behavioral disorders. Since the causes and effects of behaviors affected by the five senses are not questioned so much in pre-school children, abnormalities mentioned earlier can be seen more on them. We can give these as example: “A three year old child who watched violent films, applied what he watched on TV and stabbed and killed his little brother with a knife. Another child who thought himself to be a pokemon (a cartoon character), threw himself from the seventh floor with the intention of flying. And another child in France who could not win any computer games became epileptic because of having too frequent and excessive anger fits due to the unsuccessful playing sessions.” Unfortunately we often hear such news. In order to illuminate the subconscious of our children with beauties, favors, affection, and altruism, we should offer them alternative useful and educational games.

Harmful games also prevent children to learn their own culture, thus cause a cultural corrosion. Such games take our children to a world of weird clothes and hairstyles, weapons being the accessories. In this virtual world, no values exist except for “might is right.” Furthermore, in most of these games Islam is shown as a boogeyman and Muslims are shown as terrorists deserved to be killed. Children who are seized by the computer games become alienated to their environment. Having difficulty to make friends around them, children become enslaved by the computer and isolate themselves from the society. The only friend of the child is the computer, and in spite of elapsing the time, child still feels great loneliness inside. Hence, parents should provide suitable activities for their children and reasonably arrange the time spent for computer games.

Many bad characters shown on computer games also have perverse effects upon the child’s personal development. It is definite that messages given by these games like being strong and unchallengeable, inconsideration of other people’s lives, killing for the sake of living, disdaining ethical values, despising other people’s feelings, disrespecting the person addressed, categorizing the people, negatively affect the child’s personal development. Such games also impose unfavorable impacts upon learning abilities and awareness of the child. Scenes that are rapidly changing on computer screen distract the child greatly, make him confused and disturb his mind. This triggers a difficulty in concentrating when learning. Besides, excessive light changes may cause epileptic fits for some children.

Conclusively, computer games inspire children that the life is only a game and lead children to think too much about the characters in the game and mentally and physically to be with them all the time. Children playing too much computer games, carry the same concepts in the game to their relations with their family and friends, cause the child to confuse between the reality and imagination and eventually, the time spent together decreases and unsocial behaviors settle in the child’s personality.

Surely, we cannot underestimate the beneficial sides of the computer which is a must in modern age. But the ideal is to benefit from the positive services of the computer and to ensure a protection against its harmful usage. The playing time which is essential for the child’s healthy growth, should be distributed fairly between virtual games and real group games. For this, we must prefer games;

• in which they can play an active role,

• that are suggested by specialists and other experts,

• which can provide national awareness and cultural identity,

• which support comprehension and intelligence of the child,

• which contribute to virtues like sharing, team spirit, caring for others, honesty, and diligence,

• which instigate curiosity and make learning fun,

• which include parents into the game,

• which infuse consciousness of performing duties and responsibility,

• which help developing imagination, thinking ability, exploring and inventing capability.

If eyes, ears and other organs that are bestowed upon us by the All-Compassionate Creator are engaged with only entertaining computer games, then they are being used out of their innate purposes. Therefore, the vital responsibility of parents is to be very careful for guiding their children to use their sight, hearing, feeling, judging faculties in the right direction and to prepare an environment that provides the child a rich learning background and to bloom his mental abilities.

Electronic and video games are one of the most important branches of technology entertainment. During the last several decades, interactive video games have emerged as one of the most popular forms of entertainment, particularly among adolescents. Video game content is extremely varied. In addition to their entertainment value, reflected in their enormous popularity, video game proponents point to their constructive uses in education, medicine, and other fields.

However, some observers find certain game-playing trends disturbing. For example, newer generations of video games often feature graphic depictions of violence. This has intensified public concern of potential harmful effects.

Video Game Violence

Video games first appeared during the 1970s. In the last 3 decades, they have gone from bouncing a little white ball from side to side on a screen to virtual reality games in which one is a character in the game itself. Newly emerging on-line games enable a person to play and compete with many others in cyberspace. The majority of games developed with this evolving technology are entertaining, engaging, and appropriate for children.

One segment of the market, however, features violence as a theme. Its depiction of violence has evolved from early shooting games blasting mostly spaceships out of the sky to gory violence, where characters literally tear each other apart with all the realistic details accompanying the act. Many of these games often require the use of increasing levels and intensities of violence to advance through the levels. Thus, violence is used as a problem-solving technique.

Toys and Children

Toys are commonly associated with children. Technology has produced many electronic toys, more specifically, computer and video games. Since there is no extensive body of research on the effects of video game violence, some people state that it does not harm children. The same argument was used to defend television violence for more than 3 decades.

Others assert, theoretically, that video violence actually may benefit children, because it gives them an outlet for aggression. This “catharsis” hypothesis was advanced in the earliest days of the television violence debate, and even compared to the violent elements in literature and art. After many years of research, however, it was abandoned. In Shakespeare the violence is offstage; we see the effects and learn the evil of violence without seeing the act. Classic mystery dramas focus on crime solving, not crime commission; the chief weapon against the villain is intellect, not brute force; and a hero is selected for his or her strength of character, not his or her physical power to dominate. Today’s video game “heroes” often show a violent response as the only effective-and frequently first-response to any conflict.

Is There Any Impact?

There are a few reasons why the games are violent. One is economics: violent games really bring in the quarters for an arcade. Many modern games are designed to let a player fight for a certain amount of time, then compulsively buy more coins to continue. Another reason is that they let you do something that, in real life, is impossible, which is the whole idea of virtual reality and simulation anyway. If you want to unwind after a tough day at work, you cannot take your AK-47 and destroy McDonald’s. However, you can go to an arcade, sit down at an X-Men console, fight a few hundred bad guys and then leave thinking about your game instead of your worries.

Games are just that-games. But when applying these concepts to children, the picture changes, for young children are in immediate danger of copying antisocial behavior. Values are formed very early, and antisocial programming negatively impacts one’s respect for authority, for others, and for self. Given this, parents are asking what effect video violence has on their most frequent players: children 8 to 14 years old and younger.

Research is beginning to give us a picture of what these effects might be. Due to the recent arrival of ultra-violent video games, few studies are available. Research done by the Mediascope Nonprofit Organization shows that heavy exposure to entertainment violence negatively affects children.

Research done by the Media Analysis Laboratory in Simon Fraser University shows that 95 percent of teens surveyed had access to either a video game machine or a home computer, and a similar proportion (90 percent) said they owned at least some video games. The majority said that playing computer games produced a pleasant, exciting, challenging, and interesting experience. Many also felt gaming to be involving (77 percent) and sometimes frustrating (63 percent). Boys and girls experienced games differently, with boys more likely to associate positive emotions with play (e.g., pleasing, exciting, and involving) and girls more likely to associate negative emotions with play (e.g., frustrating, boring, and stressful).

Jeanne B. Funk and her colleagues surveyed the video game habits of more than 900 teenagers, primarily fourth through eighth graders. They found that almost half of the favorite games chosen were of the fantasy violence or human violence type. Girls more often chose games with fantasy violence; boys preferred games with human violence.

A 1998 study examined thirty-three popular video games, and found that almost in 80 percent of them, kids preferred to have violence or aggression as part of the play. Almost half of this violence was directed toward other characters. Twenty-one percent of the games had violence toward women.

There seems to be an imitative effect of playing and observing video game violence, especially among young children. For example, researchers found that in a group of 5 to 7 year olds, children imitated during free play what they had just been exposed to on video games. Children playing active but nonviolent games reflected that in their play, while children playing games with violent themes showed more aggression. The followings facts are taken from Screen Smarts:A Family Guide to Media Literacy by Gloria DeGaetano and Kathleen Bander:

Violent video games send the following messages:

• Problems can be resolved quickly and with little personal investment.

• The best way to solve a problem is to eliminate its source.

• Problems are basically black or white, right or wrong.

• It is acceptable to immerse oneself in the video game’s rule-driven reality without questioning the rules.

• It is better to use instinctual, rather than thoughtful, responsible behaviors to react to problems.

• Personal imagination is not an important problem-solving skill.

In contrast, playing maze games, puzzles, and simulation or treasure hunt video games teaches children that:

• Problems are solved through patience, personal initiative, perseverance, tolerance, and flexibility.

• Gathering information requires work, and information must be analyzed carefully so that informed decisions can be made.

• Problem definition and solving require the use of complex skills.

• A solution in one instance might not be suitable in another one.

• It is important to use such critical and creative mental skills as planning actions, organizing information, predicting outcomes, experimenting with trial solutions, evaluating ideas, and analyzing solutions and their consequences.

• Use imagination and thinking abilities to cocreate, with the game’s writer, inventive situations.

• Use personally-generated, thoughtful responses to solve problems.

In Time magazine’s cyberguide, video games were classified according to their educational value and violence. The authors write that the most child-appropriate hardware is that which encourages them to think and formulate ideas. Games like Carmen San Diego and Where in the USA? make learning fun. Even though the battles are bloody, children learn fast with strategy games like Age of Empires and Warcraft, because looking ahead, plotting strategy, and husbanding resources are the only ways to win.

In any computer hardware store, you also will find a lot of so-called splatter games. Unfortunately, there is a huge diversity in choice for such games. Games like Doom and Quake put guns in the hands of players and reward them for blasting everything that moves. Residential Evil is nothing less than blowing off a zombie’s head and hacking off its limbs. Home computer games can be even more disturbing: I once saw a 14-year-old kid playing a game in which the winning creature actually urinates over its victim’s body.

Rating Systems and Other Alternatives

With the progress of technology and consequently video games, society began to express concern about growing violence. Funk et al’s report stated that in late 1993, video game and software manufacturers began discussing a rating system. Two eventually emerged: the video game system sponsored by the Interactive Digital Software Association (including Nintendo and Sega) and a set of age-based categories developed by Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) (formerly the Interactive Digital Software Ratings Board). They developed joint content-based guidelines for video games through the Recreational Software Advisory Council (RSAC).

The ESRB initially proposed four rating categories: Universal (appropriate for all ages), Teen (13 and older), Mature (17 and older), and Adults Only. The board then responded to the concerns of professionals, including the first author, that the categories were too broad at the lower age levels by adding an Early Childhood (ages 3 and older) category. The ESRB also changed Universal to K-A (Kids to Adult, suitable for 6 and older), and added content descriptors that give a general indication of the level of violence, sexual themes, and crude language.

Although such ranking and debating appears to be designed to stop producing violent games, their main purpose should be to let parents know exactly what they are buying. Parents usually purchase the software and decide what games their children will play. Many video games are toxic and inappropriate for children. The best antidote is to teach children to find such games repugnant.

It also is crucial to teach them nonaggressive problem solving techniques through discussions with adults about the consequences of using violence to solve problems. While living in Japan, I noticed that Japan has almost as much entertainment violence as the United States. However, Japanese society is far less violent. The key may be that Japanese films, television programs, and society as a whole tend to show the consequences of violent acts, whereas their American counterparts do not. Finally, trying to keep children from seeing violence in the home, community, and media is the most effective method of ensuring that they grow up mentally normal.

Conclusion

This article points out how much our lives revolve around computerization. Computers dominate the lives of adults, children, and adolescents. At the same time, American youth have become increasingly involved in extremely violent crime, both as victims and offenders. Every aspect of our society, starting with parents, schools, and organizations to the mass media, the entertainment and software industries, and the federal government should be involved in controlling, rating and, if necessary, prohibiting interactive violent video and computer games. Not to sound too cliché, but it is our children who will have to adapt, live, and survive in this automated world. The “game medium” may be an obstacle in achieving their survival.

References

• DeGaetano, Gloria and Kathleen Bander. Screen Smarts: A Family Guide to Media Literacy. Boston: Honghton, 1996. (Taken from: Media Awareness Network. March 1999 ).
• Funk, Jeanne B., et. al. “Rating Electronic Games” Youth & Society (March 1999). (Taken from: Masterfile Premier. 24 May 1999 <http://gw11.epnet. com/st.asp?key=ehbeuwg&site= ehost>).
• Qnittner, Joshua. “Are Video Games Really So Bad?” Time (10 May 1999): 50-59.
• “The Social Effects of Electronic Interactive Games: An Annotated
• Bibliography.” Oct. 1998. (Taken from: Medioscope Network 25 May 1999 <http://www.mediaecope.org/vidbib.htm#Excerpts>.
• “Video Game Culture: Leisure and Play Preferences of B.C. Teens.” (Oct. 1998). Simon Fraser University. (Taken from: Media Awareness Network. 25 May 1999. http://www. media-awareness.ca/eng/issues/violence/resource/reports vgames.htm).