The video game industry is a multi-billion industry, one that has tens of thousands of workers in the U.S alone. It is an industry that has affected hundreds of millions of americans and even more outside the U.S. However, there are many who protest the industry, claiming that the games it produces cause aggression in youth that carries on into adulthood, especially games that are violent, as well as claiming that they cause those who play them to do poorly in school as well as be less intelligent in general. There is very little proof to these allegations however, and in fact there are studies and research that show the opposite, with little proof that video games cause aggressive thought as well as some findings discovering they improve critical thinking skills and other important skills.
	Firstly the claim on aggressive thought must be examined, as it is one of the largest claims made. There is a good deal of research done on the effect of video games on aggressive thought within youth, but little of it is specific and most of it is highly flawed. For example, according to Steven J. Kirsh, no study has ever taken into consideration the “role of frustration” in the observed aggression of the players participating in the studies (243). Nor had they ever considered the lack of play time they gave the participants either, giving them less than 15 minute sessions, which could result in further frustration (243). Both of these factors would of course add themselves to any positive correlation that is found in the studies that have done, rendering their findings incomplete. There are also the findings of a different study discussed by Kirsh, which used the violent game Mortal Kombat II, in order to study the effects of violent games on youth. In this study the participants were quite young, far too young to be playing the M-rated game, which is probably what attributed to the findings of the study, which was that the violent game caused negative responses to the provocation questions that were used to gauge negative thought (240). Additionally, there is little consideration to developmental issues within the studies, with only one being cross-sectional and very few studying youth (Kirsh 242). In other words, the studies did not use multiple age groups at once, and thus did not consider increased maturity due to age or other factors such as gender differences. This even further causes some doubt to the evidence against video games, as the individual differences within the group or indeed the communalities within it could have caused the results that came with the study. Moving forward, a study found that “Children do not think violent thoughts while playing, but think of the strategy of the game”  (Keller 16). This certainly makes sense, as even violent games require a good deal of skill, strategy, and planning in order to successfully complete, especially older games or actual strategy games. In addition, according to the Canadian Council on Learning, some experts say that recreational video games, even violent ones, can have benefits, such as “engaging the player in a problem-solving cycle similar to the scientific method” (3). Similar to the previous point, this makes sense as in most games, certain actions may result in multiple attempts to complete it, resulting in an apt learning session in adaptation to change as well as learning from past mistakes.
	Anyone who’s played a game has probably at some point heard something along the lines of “stop playing that, you’re rotting your brain”. However, some studies have shown that contrary to popular belief, video games do not decrease mental ability or capacity, and in fact, can have benefits on learning and skills used for everyday life. For example, Suzzane M Keller found that students that played more video games scored higher on the Cornell Critical thinking test than those that did not (10). Since these were all recreational games that were considered, given that they used the nintendo,  it can then be deduced that any type of game can increase some facets of intelligence. Further supporting that recreational games can be a useful teaching source, the Canadian Council on learning says, “lasting improvement on spatial cognition has been demonstrated among novice players of first-person shooter games” (3). They also say on the same page that “among training surgeons, video game skill is correlated with laparoscopic surgical skills” Although the second is somewhat niche, it is still a useful skill for those attempting to master it, and is still something that can be used by the average person in terms of precision in daily life, and the first is useful for anyone. There is also the more obvious benefit of games which are considered educational, which was also studied by the Canadian Council, who found that “ 97% of students who engage in exploratory learning with multimedia software (video games) will outperform students who learn with just textbooks” (4). The margin of difference between the two categories is so great in between them  that it would be illogical to refute these findings, and it would be prudent to assume them as true for the same reason, and as such. In a different study they found “reading instruction tutorial/drill-and-practice programs (educational games) have been shown to be substantially more effective than regular instruction with respect to developing phonological awareness skills” and that “at least 84% of students exposed to computer-based phonological awareness training outperform their peers exposed to regular instruction.” (4).  Once again, such a huge figure cannot be ignored, and is indicative of the overall ability of games to increase the learning of those that interact with them. Moving on in terms of field to mathematics “sixth grade students exposed to computer programs involving the manipulation of two- and three-dimensional shapes while learning about area and volume outperform eighth grade students in problem-solving and understanding geometrical concepts” (4). This piece of evidence is a particularly interesting one, as those that are in a higher grade level should have had a better understanding of the concepts and thus have scored better than the other students, however the opposite was true, showing that a superior level of teaching through this medium overcame the previous method despite the experience edge the others had on the lower grade students, meaning that this method of learning can be said to be far superior to the traditional method.
	In terms of the argument against the industry of gaming is a phenomenon known as desensitization, where repeated viewings of violence are attributed to a lack of response to real world violence. Many of those that are against video games like to use this as a point against playing games, their logic being that since certain video games have such heavy levels of violence, would not they provide a large level of desensitization and thus a lack to respond to or even the desire to carry out violence? The answer is a definitive maybe considering whether desensitization occurs at all, as any kind of violence has the potential to both habitualize or desensitize. The difference between the two being that habitualization refers to lack of response to media violence and desensitization refers to lack of response to real life violence. In terms of habituation, very few studies have occurred, but they found that it did indeed occur by analyzing vital patterns (Kirsh 221). However, as already discussed, this isn’t as important a factor as actual desensitization to real violence. Coincidentally, there aren't very many conclusive studies on this either, but most have found some amount of correlation in the extremely young (Kirsh 224). It is also prudent to mention that the recency effect may have had a place in this phenomenon, as if immediately after being shown the media violence they were shown the actual violence, it would certainly have more of an impact, especially on their young minds. The factor of age might be a factor not considered either as according to Kirsh, “[they] found evidence of desensitization for 3rd graders (ie, slower to summon help) but not for 1st graders (who were generally slow regardless of condition)” (223).  As mentioned earlier, there are no studies on adolescents, only young, impressionable children whose maturity would likely not be able to fully handle the violence that they had viewed. There is also the fact that most of the studies performed were testing response to violent film rather than violent games, bar one, in which the positive correlation found suffers many of the faults that have been mentioned up until this point. Outside of these studies is the simple statement of, so what? The desensitization is more a benefit than some kind of detriment, after all we as humans live in a world of violence, if one were not able to handle the violence they hear about or see, they’d be a wreck in today’s world of reporting every minor death or accident that occurs. In addition to this, there is no evidence which correlates to a larger desire to carry out violence to desensitization, and if there was such an effect, anyone who watched the news would be a criminal or murderer. In short, the whole thing can be summed up with one simple question, If violent video games cause people to carry out acts of violence, would not sport games cause the player to want to become an athlete? Or a puzzle game cause one to become a detective? Or any niche that the video game industry can produce cause a desire for the profession or trait that is within that game? It would certainly seem to be a ridiculous question, but using the logic of those people, it would have to be a reality, but given the large popularity of modern sporting games, as well as other genres, and the severe lack of those in the field they cover, it is certainly beyond foolish to assume that playing a few violent games would lead to a higher rate of violent crime.
In conclusion, the large majority of research is inherently flawed, however, certain cross sectional studies have found that playing violent games does not lead to violence in those that are actually old enough to play the game, and some studies have found that educational games are terrific for learning, and certain games can give the player skills used for later in life. Desensitization is a subject of great complexity, as there are many factors that can be desensitized, as well as needing additional research on the subject. In short, every type of media has at some point been demonized by others, causing those of the past generations to do so as well, however just as was discovered with writing, radio, and television before, this medium is here to stay, and has many upsides along with its introduction to society, even though society itself is what has perpetrated this demonization, in short, what society needs is more research that cover multiple age groups and carefully consider background and gender differences in those that participate so that we can better understand something that has rapidly become a favorite among many in our modern world.