Demokk

@gamefreak9: Thanks for sharing that. I do need to read more on the subject, but that still doesn't rule the effect that the environment has on us (whether we pass it on or not), nor it confirms/denies anything in the nature vs nurture debate. It is hubristic to think that just because new findings can be adapted to old models, means that the theory is the defining truth and that these scientists were some kind of gods that knew it all. That would be falling into the same kind of fallacy that extremely religious people fall into, trying to match and twist the new findings to whatever the old book said.

Genetics still doesn't address the double standard that western society has towards responsibility. Meritocracy, freedom, free will, etc get thrown up a lot, yet when ethics come into play it is all about blaming genes and evolution. "It is human nature, sorry, can't do anything about it".

A group large enough that can produce their own media and then feed it to the new members of that group. A blogger and his/her followers is more than enough, but there has to be media that is created and transmitted within that group, or else we are not talking about media at all.

Obviously, there are individuals who are going to be the exception for several reasons (probably you and me both) one of them being sub-groups, and that is what I am trying to get at. Not every culture around the world revolves around the same Americanized media that glorifies militarization, violence, sexual objectification, macho-culture, reality shows, white people, extroversion, hedonism, and so on.

@gamefreak9: Ah, yes, that famous tunnel-vision gene-centered theory of evolution. I present to you epigenetics. Turns out that genes can be turned on or off by the environment, just because you can point at an active gene in someone doesn't mean that it will stay that way forever or vice versa. Not to mention that there are so many variables that affect a person throughout his/her life, it isn't just 0's or 1's in the DNA. It is just so ironic that humans (or should I say, the west?) take pride in concepts such as freedom or free will and then claim that genes are to blame for everything.

All in all this is just going to turn out into a nature vs nurture debate, which no one has the answer to yet. But I'd rather have people take responsibility for their actions than use genes as a cop out, when anybody who knows anything about science knows that it is just humanity trying to make sense of the world, in the end we can't label anything as the truth or not.

Quite easily in fact, just find a culture that displays specific values, interests and behaviors that they have not been exposed to in their entire lives. And that those characteristics are not reflected in the media they produce.

People in the US forget that the US is just one culture of the world (regardless of American imperialism). There are so many different cultures in other places that it is just plain dumb to assume that the way the US media portrays anything is somehow genetic or meant to be. That is why so many people make fun of America's extreme conservatism and "liberalism" that may as well be considered as conservatism too in other societies.

"At the core of social construction is the idea that there is no such thing as objective reality (Pearce, 1995). Instead, scholars who advocate for this foundation stress that all knowledge is historically and culturally specific (Allen, 2005). Media, as a powerful social system, plays an important role in creating a person’s sense of reality (Gergen, 1999). Even those persons who closely monitor their media consumption are not immune to media effects."

"As a socialization agent, the mass mediated images that appear on television, via the news, soap operas, situation comedies, dramas, talk shows, sporting events, and so forth, can have a tremendous influence on how people view themselves and others."

Media and Culture: The "Reality" of Media Effects

"Although the mass media send messages created specifically for public consumption, they also convey messages that are not properly defined as propaganda or persuasion. Some argue that these messages influence behavior, especially the behavior of young people.^[10]Violent, sexual, and compulsive behaviors have been linked to media consumption and thus raise important questions about the effects of media on culture."

"The media sends messages that reinforce cultural values. These values are perhaps most visible in celebrities and the roles that they adopt. Actors such as Jake Gyllenhaal and Scarlett Johansson have come to represent aspects of masculinity and femininity that have been adopted into mainstream culture in the last 10 years. In recent years, baseball player Derek Jeter appeared in television, film, magazines, and advertising campaigns as a model of athleticism and willpower. Singers such as Bono of U2 have represented a sense of freedom and rebellion against mainstream culture."

Understanding Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication

"Rarely are minorities depicted as complex characters with the full range of human emotions, motivations, and behaviors. Meanwhile, the stereotyping of women, gays and lesbians, and individuals with disabilities in mass media has also been a source of concern."

"Considering the profound influence mass media like television have on cultural perceptions and attitudes, it is important for the creators of media content to grapple with ethical issues."

Ethical Issues in Mass Media

More resources:

Cultural Selection: Mass Media

The Representation Project: Resources

Sure, different people react differently to media and absorb it in different ways, but if most of the media (specially the most marketed and mainstream) alludes to the same stereotypes, values, and behaviors; it is not hard to see why and how such biases may develop over time. People love to feel like they belong to a group, and the most obvious way of belonging to a group is by imitation/assimilation of the group's core values and interests.

By the way, I am referring to all media, not just video games. No type of media is special in that regard.

The thing is that media is a reflection of society and culture, and it directly feeds the society-media cycle.

Diversity, in my opinion, is important because it shows people (whether young or old) that humans come in all shapes, forms, colors, genders, beliefs and cultures. It indirectly tells the audience that everyone is as capable, that everybody is equal regardless of their superficial differences.

I lived most of my life in a country where most people there are not white, male, nor English speakers, yet there is an obvious bias in favor of white straight male people who speak English. Why? One of the reasons is that most of the media that country consumes comes from the US, where representation is hugely biased towards that stereotype. Most people there don't even speak English, so they can't go and look for "alternative" media, because most media is not even available in the local language. The media that gets localized is obviously the most marketed and mainstream movies, games, music, etc from the US.

Anyone that possesses basic knowledge of psychology and sociology knows that media is not independent from the culture that it is created in and its society. It doesn't matter how "mentally healthy" each person is, we all get shaped and molded to match the dominant culture that we are raised by.

The problem with this notion of idealized individualism is that it breaks apart rather quickly in our giant, multicultural societies. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the idea, but it starts to fall apart once you realize that as long as we coexist with other people in the same society, which imposes its own dominant culture and political ideas, there is bound to be conflict, and almost nobody is willing to open up about their perceptions because of this same individualistic approach. All that ingroup outgroup psychology. And if you add to that the fact that living in the same society means that our decisions and actions do affect others, it gets worse.

Isn't it that because of this the US has this huge religion vs science debate in schools? It is a really muddy grey area. If you really wanted to stress test this "free society" think about what would happen if some group of artists/people started promoting "outrageous" ideas such as sexual behavior on children, demilitarization of the US, matriarchy or, dare I say it, different economical systems other than capitalism. And none of these are wrong per se, but I'd be curious to see the general populace's reaction to something like that.

If our goal is to live in these super massive societies, then everybody has to be willing to give to reach a good balance.

That is mostly my point. 9 out of 10 big budget games misrepresent sexuality, genders (which are not binary, by the way) and impose false gender roles and ideals on people, and on other cultures that already have a different perspective on sexuality.

All that I ask for is more diversity, and the acknowledgement that there are many more ways of looking at "idealized" beauty and sexuality.

By the way, gender identity is not in any way a modern "issue". That is only what the church wanted you to believe:

http://www.academia.edu/3718444/Introduction_to_Medieval_Constructions_in_Gender_and_Identity_Essays_in_Honor_of_Joan_M._Ferrante

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dressing,_gender_identity,_and_sexuality_of_Joan_of_Arc

http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781409409878

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_medieval_Europe

@gamefreak9: Haha indeed. It has been enlightening nonetheless. Sorry, I tend to get a bit.. passionate about this stuff sometimes.

@gamefreak9: I am glad then that the US' fall hasn't had a global effect, at least not yet. The other article is not so positive though, it is just a playing with the statistics: "Perhaps most importantly, it is worth repeating what didn’t change between Tuesday and Wednesday. The people who have just been classified as ‘not absolutely poor’ don’t actually have any more money than they did yesterday, and will still struggle in terms of getting a decent job, and many still face grim daily tradeoffs between buying school supplies or ensuring their kids are well nourished. In fact, if the new PPP numbers suggest anything it is that the quality of health or education or access to services associated with a given income has just gone down."

@liquidprince: "Recorded history" isn't all there is, it is just what was dominant at the time. Not to mention that there are hundreds, if not thousands of different cultures right now. And some of them happen to be matriarchal. Another link.

Not every culture finds the same features attractive, and even in western culture, most of the people are not even close to the exaggerated ideal of beauty that we see in media.

@gamefreak9: Evolution isn't just biological, there is also cultural, spiritual, and psychological evolution; but still, that doesn't change the fact that different cultures have very different standards of beauty and role models. And there is no reason why an international product such as a game or a movie can't experiment a little and be more diverse.

Actually, no. If anything, it has increased between the 80s and now. "Over the past 25 years, income inequality [1] of OECD countries increased from 0.29 to 0.32 between the mid 1980s and late 2000s. This is a historic reversal amongst these countries, which since the Second World War seemed to progress towards more equal income distributions. For many this reversal results from an inability to reduce unemployment and create quality jobs for all."

That is actually what I mean. You can't trust the majority to make just and altruistic choices if they do what's obviously bad for them. I never said that we should ban it, just that the masses make rather questionable decisions.

Here is a report on poverty stating how "great" of a year 2014 was: http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/sotu/SOTU_2014_CPI.pdf