Even if supporters of the main hypothesis do not make this irrational conclusion, there are still other major problems with the data presented by the Caranagey researchers. A different research team has a possible explanation for the phenomenon that violent video games cause greater desensitization; they believe that "because the video game violence exposure measure used here combines the frequency of game play with the violence of game content, it is possible that the effects just reported are due to a more general phenomenon associated with frequently playing any video games, not violent games per se" (Bartholow).
Even if there are studies undertaken that account for the frequency of game play with respect to desensitization and debunk these findings by the Bartholow research group, we still would not have solid empirical evidence that desensitization actually causes aggressive behavior in the real world - there would only be evidence that there is desensitization taking place. There is a major difference between the correlation of desensitization and violent behavior and causation of the violent behavior due to desensitization. Taking all of this into account, there is no hard evidence at this time that violent video games cause desensitization more than nonviolent video games; it is still a possibility, but just like the previous question, it must be studied and tested in depth before a link between violent video games and higher rates of desensitization can be established.
Does desensitization equate to negative effects?
The last question posed on the subject of desensitization is even if we assume video games do cause desensitization, does that really translate into negative effects, or is it possible that desensitization in reality can actually be beneficial? There is evidence that the latter is true, and for video game developers it "should be feasible to design games to produce such desensitization in desired populations and contexts" instead of just during undesirable situations. The Carnagey researchers suggest that it might be possible to "systematically desensitize individuals who need to be desensitized to specific stimuli that cause them problems (e.g., auto accident victims afraid of riding or driving again)" or to "help medical students become comfortable with the types of physical and emotional trauma they will experience in emergency rooms" (Carnagey).
Even today, we are already beginning to see signs of this theory in action. The Nintendo Wii, a revolutionary gaming console that gives unprecedented control to its users via infrared and accelerometer technology, has used these technological advances to create games that literally hand you the doctor's scalpel and judge you on how accurately and how fast you can perform a series of operations. The game, entitled Trauma Center: Second Opinion (as well as its sequel, Trauma Center: New Blood) provide the player both with the experience of having to scrupulously attend to wounds as well as the enormous pressure that a doctor is under to get the job done as quickly as possible before more serious problems arise. While there has yet to be any specific examples of medical students using this game to desensitize themselves to the various traumas that they will experience during their time spent in the emergency room, it is not at all a stretch to say that the game could offer some sort of beneficial desensitization to its users.
Even if this particular game down the road is proven not to cause this positive desensitization, as technology progresses there will be chances for other games to take this idea to the next level and actually incorporate a system of positive desensitization within a game. When presented with this information, it is easy to see that not all desensitization is negative and that positive effects could be derived from a game that desensitizes its players. This, coupled with the previous statement that there is no sufficient evidence that violent video games cause desensitization more than nonviolent games, shows that while desensitization is definitely a topic worth discussing when looking at the effects of violent video games on society, at this point in time there is no way that a supporter of the main hypothesis could claim that desensitization is what proves that violent video games causes violence and aggression in the real world.
Social Dilemmas
One of the final arguments that supporters of the "violent games equals violent behavior" hypothesis will use to defend their view is that violent video games create major social dilemmas for the user; they are more likely to withdraw from social interaction, and even during the rare times that they do interact with their peers they will be more hostile during these interactions, only furthering the gap between themselves and their peer group. Like many of the aforementioned claims by the hypothesis supporters, these concerns at first glance seem to be valid arguments. Parents make the assumption that if they are spending all of their time playing video games, then that is time not being spent interacting with their peers. I don't blame these parents at all, because until recently this was completely true (unless a player had a friend over to come physically play alongside them).
