Supernormal Stimulus

-edited to increase number of sequiturs -


The question of an R18 classifications for videogames is wandering the ether in Australia.  There is a distinction being drawn between violent media and interactive violence, so R18 content can appear in films, but if a game uses the same event involving the player, then it is refused classification.  Some gamers say that the net result is that a lot of material that is not bad enough for a Refused Classification is released at M15+, the unintended consequences being that teenagers get access to what should be R18.


I think the interactivity question is actually secondary, because people consume so much of their media from the internet, which is always interactive.  We are all in some control of and choose the imagery we consume. 


Some psychological research into images of violence shows that we automatically identify with the dominant party in a violent act, so that it is almost impossible to show violence in story, moving image, without causing identification with the strong.  It is obviously an adaptive trait to admire and side with the powerful. The brain is always interacting, and the parts that take action are busily calculating what they would do, will do if called on. In watching violence, we see ourselves, and usually we see ourselves committing it.


I think what frightens people about these games is that otherwise healthy, normal people are powerfully engaged by them, and don't behave the way we might wish at other times. Games become interests that powerfully draw attention from people.  And attention = care = love.


Brains are built to be sensitive to some things - food, sex and violence most obviously in humans.  In nature, the vulnerability to stimuli is a vital survival trait - birds are addicted to feeding their young, and that's a good thing (this much is borne out by science) - but it's surely not unreasonable to think that most animals would be similar.  But it is possible to hack that addiction for benefit.  





This reed warbler (I think?) has what it thinks is the biggest, hungriest reed warbler chick in the world.  And long after the cuckoo chick's appetites have outstripped the hunger of a nest of young reed warblers, the parents will continue to work harder, exhausting themselves to the point that they are less likely to survive another winter. 


This is supernormal stimulus - it's when your brain has a monotonic valuation function for certain stimuli* - the more it goes up, the better your brain tells you it is, the more it absorbs your attention and overwhelms the other things you should consider.  Supernormal stimulus is too much of a good thing. Your anime girlfriend has eyes the size of her breasts and both are three times the size of her mouth and waist, better than any real girlfriend, or physically possible human. Even though she only interacts with you through your phone.  And of course, pornography.  And opera.


Is there a defence against supernormal stimulus?  I'm not sure. Controls of context are good, but the vulnerability itself can only be undone if you can stop the consciousness capture, stopping it being monotonic, by plumbing in all of life.  If the reed warbler could see the possibility of fledging next season's nestlings, this season's monster child would appear for what it is.


For further reading, you could maybe try Harvard psychologist Diedre Kemp's Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose. 


Related subject - a guy called Arch Hart has some books advocating against sensation-seeking as a way of life - he wants to help people with exciting jobs, exciting hobbies, exciting lives who are exhausted and dejected take pleasure in a simple stroll through a place of their own. This is all very well, Arch, but can't we find a way to have our cake and eat it?


*By this, I mean it just keeps going up and up and up.