A Professor Claimed Video Games Make People Better Shooters — Then His Study Got Retracted
War Is Boring
216

“On Violence” by Grossman doesn’t need an introduction by me. If you clicked on this article you should have already read that book. Grossman outlines the small changes in training throughout American wars and the strong correlation to firing rate increases. Changes such as switching from ambiguous shapes to body silhouettes for targets may account for a 25% increase in firing rates (off the top of my head) between WWII and Vietnam. Additionally modern repetitive target acquisition training has increased the firing rate to beyond 90%. (CQB/SRM in step by step drills, practiced over and over including the pulling of the trigger at the end of the drills, which is included now in nearly all modern military and civilian tactical shooting classes).

If such small changes to make training more realistic, and make pulling the trigger reflexive, what impact would be far more repetitive and quite realistic practice in modern first person shooters?

There isn’t enough evidence for causation and certainty, but a reasonable person who accepts Grossman’s convincing arguments must acknowledge that modern first person shooters must have an impact on a human firing rates. (the rate at which a human being aiming a weapon at another human being will pull the trigger, or not)

People that deny outright that modern first person shooter video games can or must have no (even minor) impact on human beings and their capacity, capability, or frequency of violence are fools. Just as much so as those that claim to know how much of an impact based on poor data.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.