Would young men be rioting in the streets if they didn’t have video games to pacify them?
Hear me out.
We are seeing record levels of young men unemployed and living with their parents: The future for them is bleak. Saddled with college debt, they can barely get a job that pays miimum wage, while living independently is forever out of reach.
I feel like at other points of history, there would be more social unrest, but things are exceedingly calm given the economics.
I was watching a video by Healthy Gamer, a gamer bro-turned psychiatrist. He points out that video games are very addictive and seductive because they MIMIC accomplishment. You can grind to get to the next level, you can gain new skills, you are continually put on a treadmill of constant progress. It’s very satisfying in a hollow way, satisfying in a way that might make you forget that society has nothing to offer you but debt and homelessness after you followed all the rules.
Are video games weapons of mass distraction, the metaphysical equivalent of a million Christians being fed to a million lions every day?
I think there are more media-related distractions available, such as movies, tv shows, porn, sports, music, social media (though sm can also be used to incite/organize protests/riots), plus the old mainstay of religion (which is also a propaganda tool, but in most cases pro-government). But yeah, all these distractions definitely help. It’s like Rome’s Bread And Circus.
I think social media and video games are in a class of their own, because they are something you can put EFFORT in and get REWARD out. Movies and TV just kill time without rewarding you with any senses of accomplishment.
I think SM is a net negative, too. Hear rumors that research shows that people engaged in twitter combat are less likely to do anything actually effective.
I think you’re kind of on to something, and I think your ideas cohere with C. Thi Nguyen’s research (for an easy intro, listen to his interviews with Ezra Klein or Adam Connover).
I’m not sure I agree with everything though… I think games and social media are different in lots of ways. E.g. games simulate agency, and it can feel like video games are giving you choices, when really you’re quite tightly constrained by the developer’s ideas of how the world works mechanically and narratively.
Social Media is different in that you’re not constrained by narrative options, but your experience has massive feedback loops with ideas from others you interact with and algorithms (the latter strongly constraining the former). I don’t think social media gives agency-vibes, but it gives other forms of catharsis and other emotion triggers.
IDK, stuff like online petitions, online arguments and general virtue signaling behavior (which isn’t inherently bad TBF) can sure feel like you’re doing something without actually accomplishing much if you’re not also doing concrete things like rioting, striking etc.
Yeah, exactly. I actually worry that social media acts as junk food activism, an activity that feels like activism but really just takes up time and energy that could be used well to no effect.
How many times have you seen someone raging online arguing that they’re fighting for X and will always fight for them?
Yeah, true, they probably can sometimes.
Oh, thought leader Ezra “I’m Against Genocide Now That Israel is Unpopular” Klein? I like Adam Conover. Got that interview queued… 90 minutes! That’s a walking-the-dog-in-the-park video!
I don’t think games and SM are exactly the same, but they do each have reward loops that are more engaging than passive traditional media.
I think getting positive feedback for something you posted does fall under “agency vibes”", rewarding you with fake social points, whereas a video game would give a fake digital asset or ability.
Yeah, that Ezra… I know he has wack opinions on some things - they don’t really come up in that interview though.
I think I would consider agency and reward as distinct issues (that sometimes overlap). Agency to me is the feeling that your actions are leading to external effects that align with your intentions. That may or may not be associated with rewards.
Oh, well, if you are defining ACTUAL agency, yes, obviously, you want real-world effects. But I’m talking about the ILLUSION of agency, which is what video games and (more debatably) SM provide.
I think you need to take a close look at Ezra Klein and the very many people like him who get to the top of the pundit game by seeming independent but conveniently always seem to have opinions that line up with the power structure.
Think about it this way:
If you say, “I’m a bootlicking piece of shit,” nobody will care what you say.
If you say, “The rich control everything and the obvious implication is that we should make it so they control much less,” you will not get on any platforms owned by wealthy people (which is most of them).
The sweet spot is Ezra Klein: someone who can simulate independenct thought while at the same time serving the power strucutre.
His turn around on Israel was absolutely illustrative. “I am now against Israel because of all these facts that were public knowledge for all the time that I was supporting Israel.” His first instinct is to support Israel, because that’s where the money and the power are, But now that Israel is politically unpopular, he needs to abandon that position to maintain his credibility.
I wouldn’t waste any more time on him.
edit: ezra asks the tough questions like: what is right? what is true? But he only answers the question"what is right for ezra klein? As such, his only utility is as a ruling class bellweather.