Play, fifth grade style.
In the lab we were recording a few 9-10 year olds as maskers in a listening study. We did two at a time and they were all friends so comraderie was in high gear. The two boys were all about WWII, and could easily discuss the invasion of Normandy as well as the difference between the terms "Russian Soldier" and "Red Army Soldier" (great vigor reserved for the latter discussion.) They both claimed to love playing "Call of Duty" that is until the father of one of the boys took it away because he didn't like him playing it. They asked if I knew about it, and said yes but I didn't play it, as I had played "Battlefield 1942" instead. That scored me a modicum of cred as it was an 'old' game.
As the boys were pretending that the anechoic chamber was a bombproof bunker and making machine gun sounds I thought about the implications of their play, wondering if they really knew what it is they were mimicking.
My conclusion was that they have no idea. War to them is an exciting game of danger, intrigue, strategy and history. I saw no malice in either boy, no intent to go out with an uzi and take out a high school or start a gang. Just two boys just starting to get a sense of their own aggressiveness with overactive imaginations. And all those critics who claim that violent videogames will encourage armies of little killers to take over the world faded into the background as these two discussed what to do with a German Prisoner of War, if they ever found one (the consensus would be to talk to him, give him a cup of soup, and lock him up.) If anything, I wouldn't want them to play those video games because they are just real enough to drive home the horror of war; and well, they still have some imagination in them yet; why spoil it?
