Is media violence REALLY turning us into thugs? [Archive]

Lonewulf

17th April 2007, 06:49 PM

That's the same assumption I just called unwarranted. :p

So is the idea that people are "born" to commit crimes.

But you're right. I don't want a lesson in sociology; I've had them. Not worth derailing a thread over.

Not quite derailing the thread over, it's a key point of the issue. Are people born to commit crimes and do bad things to others? I don't think so.

Talking majority-wise (not minority-wise, as there's always exceptions):

1) A person's beliefs are usually decided or heavily influenced by the society he grows up in, and the people he grows up around.

2) A person's attitutes are like number 1.

3) A person's values are like number 1.

Really, I have yet to see these points refuted, and I see tons of evidence for it; anecdotal, statistical, personal, etc.

Videogames and violent media tend not to affect individuals, from my personal understanding of the issue (but this part is speculation) because the average person can differentiate fiction from reality. Videogames don't decide whether or not you will become violent because they are fiction, involving fictional characters and pixels.

Marquis de Carabas

17th April 2007, 07:01 PM

So is the idea that people are "born" to commit crimes.
Well, as soon as I see someone making that assumption, I'll tell them the same. Although I do note that if it is framed in terms of commission of crime, you have already brought society into it, since it is society who defines what is a crime. Nifty trap, that.

The capacity for violence is a part of the program. Violence is really nothing more than a (very effective) conflict resolution technique. Whether or not that technique is ever used by any particular human is, of course, determined heavily by his circumstances, but society does not create the potential.

Not quite derailing the thread over, it's a key point of the issue. Are people born to commit crimes and do bad things to others? I don't think so.

Talking majority-wise (not minority-wise, as there's always exceptions):

1) A person's beliefs are usually decided or heavily influenced by the society he grows up in, and the people he grows up around.
Strong genetic predisposition to conform.

2) A person's attitutes are like number 1.
See above.

3) A person's values are like number 1.
See above.

Really, I have yet to see these points refuted, and I see tons of evidence for it; anecdotal, statistical, personal, etc.
Try Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate for an engaging book attacking the (in his words) Standard Social Science Model. Even if you don't agree with him, I'm sure you'll enjoy the read.

Lonewulf

17th April 2007, 07:10 PM

The capacity for violence is a part of the program. Violence is really nothing more than a (very effective) conflict resolution technique. Whether or not that technique is ever used by any particular human is, of course, determined heavily by his circumstances, but society does not create the potential.

On the contrary.

Society creates laws, dictates social norms, and social mores. Most are brought up to not commit mores, and follow social norms. The majority in a society usually do so.

Strong genetic predisposition to conform.

Only genetic? Everything a person is is genetic or biological?

Try Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate for an engaging book attacking the (in his words) Standard Social Science Model. Even if you don't agree with him, I'm sure you'll enjoy the read.

Possibly.

Marquis de Carabas

17th April 2007, 07:20 PM

Only genetic? Everything a person is is genetic or biological?
Nothing a person does can be completely extricated from their biology, no. Nor can anything (beyond perhaps breathing) be extricated from their society. It's not so much that I am strictly on the side of nature in the nature/nurture debate, but that I think the debate itself is ill-formed. Society is something that comes naturally to humanity. We are genetically predisposed to belong to a society and to let that society in large part mould who we are. To say that one side is dominant, to even say that there are "sides", is to me meaningless.

Lonewulf

17th April 2007, 07:48 PM

Nothing a person does can be completely extricated from their biology, no. Nor can anything (beyond perhaps breathing) be extricated from their society. It's not so much that I am strictly on the side of nature in the nature/nurture debate, but that I think the debate itself is ill-formed. Society is something that comes naturally to humanity. We are genetically predisposed to belong to a society and to let that society in large part mould who we are. To say that one side is dominant, to even say that there are "sides", is to me meaningless.

Meh, maybe.

Violence levels still fluctuate depending on culture, society, etc. I don't think that violence is biological, nor is "thuggery" biological. I think that it's mostly a learned behavior.

Marquis de Carabas

17th April 2007, 08:00 PM

Meh, maybe.

Violence levels still fluctuate depending on culture, society, etc. I don't think that violence is biological, nor is "thuggery" biological. I think that it's mostly a learned behavior.
Musical taste fluctuates depending on culture, society, etc. I do think that the ability to appreciate music is biological. Consumption of sugary foods fluctuates depnding on culture, society, etc. I do believe the sweet tooth is biological.

"Learned behavior" is such a loaded phrase. That something is learned, or must be taught, makes it a nurture thing, as opposed to nature? We teach our children to walk. Is walking not natural? Society may "teach" us behavior, but the fact is the human brain cannot be taught anything it is not naturally predisposed to handle.

Lonewulf

17th April 2007, 08:06 PM

Y'know, Marquis, you shouldn't lie. It's kinda obvious my views don't "fascinate" you...

Anyways, I see what you're saying, and I somewhat agree, but I still think that much of our behavior is still based on our upbringing.

Marquis de Carabas

17th April 2007, 08:11 PM

Y'know, Marquis, you shouldn't lie.
Sorry. I learned it from society. ;)

It's kinda obvious my views don't "fascinate" you...
On the contrary, I am still here, aren't I?

Anyways, I see what you're saying, and I somewhat agree, but I still think that much of our behavior is still based on our upbringing.
I still recommend the book. Of course, I'd be more than happy to read a book you would recommend on the subject, since I really was not lying about the fascination.

Lonewulf

17th April 2007, 08:13 PM

Sorry. I learned it from society. ;)

Haha. :D

On the contrary, I am still here, aren't I?

Point. :D

I still recommend the book. Of course, I'd be more than happy to read a book you would recommend on the subject, since I really was not lying about the fascination.

The only thing I could recommend is the sociology textbook I read for Del Mar College, and it's a college schoolbook, so it's prolly not worth it.

It has pretty pictures and a lot of interesting examples, though.

Marquis de Carabas

17th April 2007, 08:15 PM

The only thing I could recommend is the sociology textbook I read for Del Mar College, and it's a college schoolbook, so it's prolly not worth it.

It has pretty pictures and a lot of interesting examples, though.
If you remember the name, supply it, please. I work at a Uni. I can prolly swipe borrow a copy easy.

Lonewulf

17th April 2007, 08:35 PM

If you remember the name, supply it, please. I work at a Uni. I can prolly swipe borrow a copy easy.

Meh, it's around here somewhere. I'll look for it, and if I find it, I'll tell you the title and author.

Marquis de Carabas

17th April 2007, 08:35 PM

Danke.

shemp

17th April 2007, 10:05 PM

Is media violence REALLY turning us into thugs?

No. AND I'LL BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF ANYONE WHO SAYS IT DOES!*

* Disclaimer: This statement is not to be construed as an actual threat against anyone.** It is presented for entertainment purposes only. Also, please, no wagering.

** AND I'LL BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF ANYONE WHO SAYS IT IS!*

osmosis

18th April 2007, 01:02 AM

hmm seems like this has morphed into a nature/nurture debate. So be it.

(Re: the OP: my opinion is the people blaming TV and video games for violence, just don't want to admit they screwed up as parents)

Curnir

18th April 2007, 01:46 AM

To quote Al Bundy:

"... but our point here is we know where real violence comes from. And it's not from that magic box I like to call TV. Oh sure, the tube can be blamed for a lot of things:
Brent Musberger
'Full House'
any show where overweight female cops dress up as hookers...

But violence? That's too easy. We've all been brought up on Roadrunner cartoones and The Three Stooges, but how many of us have run a saw across a bald guy's head? How many of us have drawn a tunnel on the side of a mountain, only to watch our loved ones smash themselves into it?
And you know why?
Because we had parents, ladies and gentlemen, parents who said 'don't do what TV tells you to do, do what we tell you to do,

or it's five across the eyes!"

brodski

18th April 2007, 02:27 AM

According to How To Think Straight About Psychology, children who view violent media have an increased probability of committing violent acts. Is is not large, but it does exist. Do you want me to provide the obscure references?

I would be interested to see how they draw a causative conclusion from that weak correlation.

Lonewulf

18th April 2007, 05:22 AM

But violence? That's too easy. We've all been brought up on Roadrunner cartoones and The Three Stooges, but how many of us have run a saw across a bald guy's head? How many of us have drawn a tunnel on the side of a mountain, only to watch our loved ones smash themselves into it?
And you know why?
Because we had parents, ladies and gentlemen, parents who said 'don't do what TV tells you to do, do what we tell you to do, or it's five across the eyes!"

I'm skeptical.

So you're saying that if you remove the parents, then the child will be completely influenced by violent material? That he'd dress up in a plumbing suit and start whacking giant monkeys with a hammer? That he'd dress up as Link from Legend of Zelda and run around collecting coins while shooting energy beams out of his sword? That he'd dress up in a yellow suit that makes him look like Pacman, then run around to random people going, "Get in mah BELLY!"?

I don't buy it. People have a natural disposition for recognizing the difference between fact and fiction. Even if you remove the parents, you cannot ignore this.

While there are exceptions, they are few and far between.

trvlr2

18th April 2007, 05:59 AM

I'm skeptical.

Ok, that's good.

So you're saying that if you remove the parents, then the child will be completely influenced by violent material? That he'd dress up in a plumbing suit and start whacking giant monkeys with a hammer? That he'd dress up as Link from Legend of Zelda and run around collecting coins while shooting energy beams out of his sword? That he'd dress up in a yellow suit that makes him look like Pacman, then run around to random people going, "Get in mah BELLY!"?

No, that would be learned behavior.

I don't buy it. People have a natural disposition for recognizing the difference between fact and fiction. Even if you remove the parents, you cannot ignore this.

While there are exceptions, they are few and far between.

People confabulate fact and fiction all the time. Look around.
Italics mine.
I would venture that society changes behavior. As more and more people enter society,perhaps the crowding, or the perception of crowding, bends people towards violence.
Certainly people love their violence-why football,why Roman circuses,why gawk at traffic accidents?
We do seem to have innate violent tendencies.Watch very small children at play, for instance.
An interesting exhibit at FSU many years ago, dealt with rat "society", changing with time and crowding-actually resulting in a king-rat hierarchy, with violent behavior towards the members lower down the ranks.
Chickens do the same thing.
Obviously, we are not chickens or rats. But, we are somewhat related.
The idea that our nature may be violent should be considered carefully,given our history.
No need to lose hope-we also seem to be able to re-program ourselves.(with a bunch of caveats).

Just thinking out loud.

flimflam_machine

18th April 2007, 06:10 AM

I don't buy it. People have a natural disposition for recognizing the difference between fact and fiction. Even if you remove the parents, you cannot ignore this.

While there are exceptions, they are few and far between.

Christianity? Creationism? That's quite a lot of people who accept a fiction as a fact.

I think the problem is not exposure to violence in the media per se: as people have pointed out Tom & Jerry and fairy tales are horrendously violent but there's often some sort of inbuilt moral. My take is that the real problem is that violence is increasingly portrayed as a legitimate way to respond to a grievance. Anyone see The Punisher? (yep it was pretty poor).

Lonewulf

18th April 2007, 08:07 AM

Christianity? Creationism? That's quite a lot of people who accept a fiction as a fact.

Christianity and Creationism are taught and displayed as fact. Games and movies are not.

I think the problem is not exposure to violence in the media per se: as people have pointed out Tom & Jerry and fairy tales are horrendously violent but there's often some sort of inbuilt moral. My take is that the real problem is that violence is increasingly portrayed as a legitimate way to respond to a grievance. Anyone see The Punisher? (yep it was pretty poor).

I liked The Punisher. Both the comic strip and the movie. I also liked Sin City, but that doesn't mean I'll go bang whores or sadistically torture people.

However, "violence being a legitimate way to respond to a grievance", with The Punisher as an example? In The Punisher, a man's entire extended family was brutally murdered, and the police weren't able to, or willing to, do anything about it. You're using a very extreme example here.

Sometimes violence is necessary, I'd add. That's what self defense courses usually teach: Proactive violence to prevent violence at a certain point in time.

Juustin

18th April 2007, 08:26 AM

I'm going by nothing but looking at myself as the subject on this one. I love gory, brutal, violent movies. I listen to heavy music, always have. I've been described by almost everyone I know as the most laid back, least confrontational person they know.

I can watch Saw and Hostel all day long or watch 1000 people in a movie get blown up and the violence doesn't really affect me, but I'm extremely bothered whenever I hear about any story like the VA Tech shootings, or even a news story about a woman getting hit by a car.

I will concede that there are people who get off on violence in movies and perhaps if their mind is warped enough, it may have an encouraging effect on them. However, IMO, that's a symptom of a bigger underlying cause. A "normal" person can see violence in a film/video game and not think "I should go out and kill someone". A certain percentage of people may be the "loose cannon" for whom a violent movie acts as a slight catalyst, but violence has been around much longer than technology, it seems unfair to declare it the cause of violence.

joesixpack

18th April 2007, 08:46 AM

Conventional wisdom has it that exposure to violence on TV and in video games is directly linked to violent behavior in the real world. It seems a lot of people just take this as a given, but I've been skeptical from the beginning. (I have a habit of being skeptical)

This claim seems to come from the apparent assumption that people (especially children) can't differentiate between TV and reality. Exposure to violent media, so the theory goes, desensitizes us to the real thing. And there's the 'monkey see, monkey do' aspect, which points out that children imitate what they see. I've seen evidence that this last part is true on inanimate objects.

Can someone please show me the money? Is there any actual evidence showing a causal relationship between media violence and social violence? I've yet to see any.

Though there is no clear evidence either way on the causal relationship between TV and real violence, anyone who tells you that there is no connection is huffing glue.

I volounteer at my kids pre-school several days a month and I see children interacting and playing all the time. Some kids are naturally more aggressive (violent) than others, clearly. It's impossible for me to know if TV viewing is creating this aggression, but it is obvious that it influences the FORM that this aggression takes. I don't often have the opportunity to see the "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers", but I've seen it often enough to recognize when a child is imitating it. I'm sure that there are kids who watch the same crap but who do not act out the TV violence, and there are some kids that are aggresive who don't see those shows. But it would be reckless to think that kids can watch anything on television and not be influenced by what they see.

I think that the other obvious problem with TV viewing is the effect that it has on social interaction. There are some parents who, for whatever reason, have been parking their kids in front of the TV from infancy for hours at a stretch. It's generally not educational programming (though most of the educational programming I've seen lately is excrementaly awful) and it takes the place of parent-child interaction. In this case, it's not the TV, but what it displaces that is the problem.

I will say this, I do think that media violence is bad for a kid. I have no real evidence to back this up, but I do hevily regulate what my child sees on television. I have noticed that other parents who do the same have better behaved children. The kids with the worst behaviour problems seem to have parents who are more insouciant with the child's TV viewing. It could easily be that time spent in front of the TV is merely an INDICATOR of parental involvment, that more parental involvment is the real determining factor of anti-social behaviour.

Either way, my five year old won't be watching Power Rangers, or any of that other crap. Period.

flimflam_machine

18th April 2007, 09:02 AM

However, "violence being a legitimate way to respond to a grievance", with The Punisher as an example? In The Punisher, a man's entire extended family was brutally murdered, and the police weren't able to, or willing to, do anything about it. You're using a very extreme example here.Yeah LoneWulf, the thought did occur to me that I had picked a pretty poor example.

I think that my main point, which I didn't really state explicitly, is that stories (fictional, mythical or factual) are a big part of how we pass on ideas about morality/ethics. Jesus' parables and Aesop's fables are fairly obvious examples. Even if we are fully aware that these things are fictional, my impression (and I admit that it is no more than that) is that they do influence our impression of what is normal and acceptable.

Also, if we're talking about kids being exposed to violence, I think you may be overestimating their ability to discriminate fact from fiction. They believe in santa and the tooth fairy after all. A story is often made more powerful if it is portrayed as real; witness all the urban legends that start "My friend's cousin's ex-girlfriend..."

I still can't claim to have like The Punisher, although it wasn't without redeeming features. Sin City was better, but casual violence really isn't my thing.

boooeee

18th April 2007, 09:08 AM

I love violent movies, and I have it on good authority that I'm not a thug.

Oh, and I love some violent FPS video games, too.

:p

I have done some truly unspeakable things in the Grand Theft Auto universe.

In real life, I'm a frickin' hamster.

Lonewulf

18th April 2007, 09:20 AM

Also, if we're talking about kids being exposed to violence, I think you may be overestimating their ability to discriminate fact from fiction. They believe in santa and the tooth fairy after all.

Name me the statistics of adults that continue to believe in santa and the tooth fairy.

I still can't claim to have like The Punisher, although it wasn't without redeeming features. Sin City was better, but casual violence really isn't my thing.

That's fine.

Just don't claim that I'm going to be a horrible monster because I watched slasher flicks and played violent videogames since age 8.

ImaginalDisc

18th April 2007, 11:37 AM

Lonewulf

18th April 2007, 12:06 PM

Violent crime rates are down.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6958462664a0ca5d0.gif

Property crimes rates are down.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6958462664e98de87.gif

Have the number of depictions of violence in the media increased? It's difficult to quantify, but looking for a source of the imagined epidemic of crime is doomed to failure because there's no such epidemic.

Well, allow me to chip in:

Playstation was launched in 1994. That's part of that downward slope thingy.

Then there's the Playstation 2, X-Box, etc. Most of these things came out around the time of that large huge downward spike in violence.

Correlation == Causation can be a fallacy. But in this case, I don't see any evidence that playing videogames increases chances of violence.

Marquis de Carabas

18th April 2007, 12:17 PM

Video games decrease violence because they take up so much time which would otherwise be used up commiting crime. Furthermore, kids who play video games all day turn into fat, lazy slobs, incapable of the athletic feats a good criminal needs to perform.

dsm

18th April 2007, 12:28 PM

Are we a reflection of our art or is our art a reflection of us?
Why is that an "or"?

:confused:

Bikewer

18th April 2007, 04:52 PM

I have always maintained that humans have an innate tendency to violence; no media input required.
Most of the more horrific actions of various segments of humanity have occurred before there was any form of "media" (outside of the written word) whatever.
World wars, pogroms, inquisitions, genocides....Take your pick.

We have regrettable tendencies towards acts of rage, revenge, and territorial protection. We are also capable of dehumanizing the "other".

flimflam_machine

19th April 2007, 03:18 AM

Name me the statistics of adults that continue to believe in santa and the tooth fairy.

Very few I should imagine, what's your point?

That's fine.

Just don't claim that I'm going to be a horrible monster because I watched slasher flicks and played violent videogames since age 8.If I were to make that claim (which I haven't) then you could refute it. But don't tell me what I can and can't claim.

Any response to the main point of my post? Namely, that stories are a large part of how we are taught about morality and what is acceptable.

Lonewulf

19th April 2007, 05:09 AM

Very few I should imagine, what's your point?

I thought it was pretty obvious, really.

"Kids can't seperate fact from fiction, except when they do, which is most of the time, albeit eventually".

Any response to the main point of my post? Namely, that stories are a large part of how we are taught about morality and what is acceptable.

Got any actual hard evidence for that? Studies? People raised in controlled conditions? Probably not, really, it just seems like you're speculating.

I know that I certainly learned more by actually dealing with other people moreso than I did by listening to some Aesop's Fables.

Speculation proves nothing, especially when you talk about "violent media". If you can show me evidence that violence has increased while kids have been playing violent videogames and watching violent movies and the like, then we can talk. Otherwise, it's just speculation and opinion.

flimflam_machine

19th April 2007, 06:45 AM

I thought it was pretty obvious, really.

"Kids can't seperate fact from fiction, except when they do, which is most of the time, albeit eventually".I don't think that's so obvious, or that it makes a point at all. What you appear to be saying is that kids can't tell fact from fiction until they're not kids any more. I never claimed that we don't revise our views of what is real and what isn't as we grow up, in fact that's probably a large part of becoming an adult. I'm just entertaining the possibility that things we hold as true when we are children affect our adult behaviour, even though we now recognise them to be fiction.

Got any actual hard evidence for that? Studies? People raised in controlled conditions? Probably not, really, it just seems like you're speculating.Not so much speculation as historical observation. You seem to think that I'm claiming something that I'm not. I'm not claiming that our moral compass is determined entirely by stories that we are told, simply that stories (fictional or factual) are one of the ways that we pass on our ideas of what is moral. As such, they form part of our moral landscape. The simple existence of parables and fables, stories with a blindingly obvious moral, is evidence of that.

What is speculation is (i) whether stories (and other media) that aren't explicitly presented as moral influence our perception of what is acceptable, and (ii) whether the nature of such stories has changed. I think it may have done: fairy tales and kids stories can be very violent but they often have a sense of people getting what they deserve, or a sense of sadness when something unjust happens. There are some pretty clear examples of media where that sense is absent, GTA being one where random violence is rewarded.

I know that I certainly learned more by actually dealing with other people moreso than I did by listening to some Aesop's Fables.Any proof of that, or are you just speculating? The idea seems slightly circular to me: that you learn how you should deal with people by dealing with people. I accept that sort of interaction may teach you how you can deal with people, but in order for it to tell you how you should deal with people (morally) I think it requires an extra factor. Perhaps what you are told about how you should treat other people when you are young is this factor and you just learn to temper it with practicality later.

Speculation proves nothing, especially when you talk about "violent media". If you can show me evidence that violence has increased while kids have been playing violent videogames and watching violent movies and the like, then we can talk. Otherwise, it's just speculation and opinion.You're right, speculation doesn't prove anything, in fact this whole thread has been fairly evidence-light. I don't think that violent media necessarily cause people to become violent but I think it makes violence appear more normal. I'm sure that violence has always existed, but it seems (and no I don't have any data) that we now see more of a really nasty kind of nihilistic violence such as mass shootings. In the UK there have been a load of killings recently some of which seem to have had really trivial motives. Last year a bloke was attacked with a meat cleaver after asking two guys to keep their dog in order, hardly a proportionate response. Whether this is down to violent media, or a change in our perception of our own role in society and our own importance, is open to debate.

aggle-rithm

19th April 2007, 08:06 AM

Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but my sister noticed something disturbing with her five kids in their formative years.

The first two and a half or so could be easily freaked out by scary images, such that a Disney movie could leave them in tears. The second half were so numb to disturbing imagery that they would eat popcorn and laugh at horror movies that would leave many adults laying awake at night. They all grew up in basically the same environment, except that the media had changed in the intervening years, with more access to different kinds of entertainment.

And yet, they all pretty much turned out the same. No violent tendencies in any of them.

Curnir

19th April 2007, 08:06 AM

I'm skeptical.
Good.

So you're saying that if you remove the parents, then the child will be completely influenced by violent material?Where did I write that? That he'd dress up in a plumbing suit and start whacking giant monkeys with a hammer?
Or that? That he'd dress up as Link from Legend of Zelda and run around collecting coins while shooting energy beams out of his sword?Or that?
That he'd dress up in a yellow suit that makes him look like Pacman, then run around to random people going, "Get in mah BELLY!"?You know I keep reading through the Al Bundy quote I posted... And I can't find even a hint of that.

I don't buy it. People have a natural disposition for recognizing the difference between fact and fiction. Even if you remove the parents, you cannot ignore this.
Ah yes. People would never believe in things like magic, healing, ESP, PKMB, ghosts, monsters, Aliens/UFOs...
While there are exceptions, they are few and far between.

For good measure, here's one of the exceptions:

When I grew up there was a family down the block: A pair of their kids started a fire in the living room, on the floor... because they had seen it in a commercial for a power company.
Their mum blamed TV.
I used to play with her oldest son, and had seen how she raised her kids... I blame the parents.

Lonewulf

19th April 2007, 11:22 AM

Not so much speculation as historical observation.

No, you're still speculating, no matter how "historical" the basis is.

You seem to think that I'm claiming something that I'm not. I'm not claiming that our moral compass is determined entirely by stories that we are told, simply that stories (fictional or factual) are one of the ways that we pass on our ideas of what is moral.

Yes, and I question it's effectiveness.

As such, they form part of our moral landscape.

I question the degree.

The simple existence of parables and fables, stories with a blindingly obvious moral, is evidence of that.

No it is not. That parables exist does not prove that they form our moral structure, it merely proves that people attempted to spread their moral structure to others through parables. It has no bearing at all on effectiveness.

Any proof of that, or are you just speculating? The idea seems slightly circular to me: that you learn how you should deal with people by dealing with people. I accept that sort of interaction may teach you how you can deal with people, but in order for it to tell you how you should deal with people (morally) I think it requires an extra factor.

And you, sir, are continuing with your own speculation.

Lonewulf

19th April 2007, 11:30 AM

Where did I write that?

Allow me to quote you (again):

But violence? That's too easy. We've all been brought up on Roadrunner cartoones and The Three Stooges, but how many of us have run a saw across a bald guy's head? How many of us have drawn a tunnel on the side of a mountain, only to watch our loved ones smash themselves into it?

And you know why?

Because we had parents, ladies and gentlemen, parents who said 'don't do what TV tells you to do, do what we tell you to do,

The reason why we don't "draw tunnels" or "run a saw across a bald guy's head" is because we "have parents". So if you remove the parents, the assumption is that we will commit those actions.

Which is a statement that is a vast oversimplification.

Or that? Or that?

Dressing up in a plumbing suit and jumping on turtles makes about as much sense as attempting to act like Wile E. Coyote and draw tunnels to lure people into running into a wall.

You know I keep reading through the Al Bundy quote I posted... And I can't find even a hint of that.

See above.

I didn't realize that you were still quoting Al Bundy, though. With the format, it looked like you went from one paragraph to the other, and I thought you closed the quotation marks. My bad.

But I don't quite see what you don't get here.

Claim:

1) We don't do violent things that we're exposed to.
2) The reason why is because parents do "five across the eyes!", and beat you if you do.

My conclusion: Therefore, remove the parents and the beatings, and you have the violent things.

What am I missing here?

Ah yes. People would never believe in things like magic

Today? A small minority of people truly believe in "magic" in modern society. In less modern societies, views of reality can become obscured.

healing

Minority.

ESP

Minority.

Aliens/UFOs...

There's nothing wrong with believing that aliens could exist. UFOs on the other hand, show a lack of skepticism and there is little valid evidence that they exist.

But if you can show me that a very very very significant amount of the population (say, greater than 25% of the population) really believe in these things, then I may retract my statements.

Though, I'll be fair. What I stated was an oversimplification. But there is a vast difference between thinking Grand Theft Auto is reality, and thinking that bible study is based on reality. If you can't tell the difference... well, sorry then.

For good measure, here's one of the exceptions:

When I grew up there was a family down the block: A pair of their kids started a fire in the living room, on the floor... because they had seen it in a commercial for a power company.
Their mum blamed TV.
I used to play with her oldest son, and had seen how she raised her kids... I blame the parents.

And I still say that it's a false dichotomy.

Though, yes, I would agree with you, in that I do not think that videogames or television makes people do bad things. Which has been my point, really.

andyandy

19th April 2007, 12:48 PM

From NS editorial this week.

HERE'S a startling statistic. By the time the average US schoolchild leaves elementary school, he or she will have witnessed more than 8000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television. If the child also has access to violent computer games or films, or cable TV, these figures will be far, far higher. Anyone who claims that art reflects society might want to take a good hard look at their neighbourhood.

Yet every time a study claims to have found a link between aggression, violence, educational or behavioural problems and TV programmes or computer games, there are cries of incredulity, even (ironically) anger. People seem to doubt that such a link exists, or think the evidence is generally weak.

That view is not shared by the vast majority of researchers who study the subject. They see a clear link between media consumption and aggression, and also mounting evidence for an increased risk of attentional, behavioural and educational problems with extended exposure to TV and computer games. They have been in little doubt for around half a century (see "Mind-altering media"), and over that time scientific confidence in the detrimental effects of media violence has only increased. Why, then, the disconnect with public perception?

Scientists involved in the violence debate regularly draw parallels between the tactics of the film industry and those of tobacco companies, which continued to deny a link between smoking and lung cancer long after the scientific case was firmly established. The film industry has funded books, legal defences and interpretations of research that routinely deny any ill effects of on-screen violence.

snip

The nature of science also makes it difficult to present a clear message. The ideal controlled experiment can never be done, which leaves a clutch of imperfect alternatives. Long-term studies of viewing trends are criticised for the many confounding factors of lifestyle, behavioural predisposition and socio-economic status. Lab experiments are condemned for not showing lasting effects. Brain imaging studies are slammed for being too small or divorced from the real world.

Just as in the climate change debate, public confidence in a scientific conclusion backed by overwhelming evidence is being undermined by naysayers who point out minor errors and inconsistencies. The public is sidetracked by the positive effects on dexterity, spatial skills and education.

News media must accept some of the blame. In striving to present both sides of the argument, reporters have mostly failed to convey the lopsided nature of the evidence. So too must researchers, some of whom modestly dwell on the limits of their work, while others extrapolate and speculate wildly. Both actions undermine the clarity of the public message.

Here's one way to weigh up the evidence. Meta-analysis shows that the statistical correlation between exposure to media violence and aggression is not quite as strong as that linking smoking to an increased risk of lung cancer. It is, however, double the strength of the correlation between passive smoking and lung cancer, twice as strong as the link between condom use and reduction in risk of catching HIV, about three times the strength of the idea that calcium increases bone strength, and more than three times as strong as the correlation between time spent doing homework and academic achievement.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19426003.600-editorial-in-denial-about-onscreen-violence.html;jsessionid=NMMFPPOKAPIF

andyandy

19th April 2007, 12:54 PM

more.....

Experiments in the lab have addressed the causal question, by dishing out particular viewing or gaming experiences followed by behavioural tests or questionnaires. This kind of study has shown that after watching just half an hour of violence, children have more devious and aggressive thoughts, are more likely to inflict punishments, and are less likely to cooperate.

Brain imaging and other physiological measures also reveal changes in emotional responses to violent images as a result of viewing violence or playing violent games. Bruce Bartholow of the University of Missouri, Columbia, has found that people with a history of game playing have a reduced brain response to shocking pictures, suggesting that people begin to see such imagery as more normal. Another study found that frontal lobe activity was reduced in youngsters who played a violent video game for 30 minutes, compared with those playing an equally exciting but non-violent game. This brain region is important for concentration and impulse control, among other things. A region called the amygdala, important for emotional control, was more aroused in those who experienced the violent game.

Other studies show that children store memories of violent media acts in brain regions reserved for long-term storage of significant events. These memories can pop back into the mind very rapidly, even when not wanted, as flashbacks.

The effects fall into three categories, says Murray. There's a kind of imitation effect, where we seem to learn by example how to behave in certain situations. There's desensitisation, which means we become less shocked by and more tolerant of violence. Finally, there is the "mean world" effect, where people feel more vulnerable after seeing images of bad situations.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426001.900-mindaltering-media.html

Lonewulf

19th April 2007, 08:40 PM

If you remember the name, supply it, please. I work at a Uni. I can prolly swipe borrow a copy easy.

"Essentials of Sociology, A Down to Earth Approach", Sixth Edition.

By James M. Henslin.

Marquis de Carabas

19th April 2007, 08:48 PM

Danke.

Lonewulf

19th April 2007, 08:59 PM

Danke.

Welcome. :)

ImaginalDisc

20th April 2007, 12:01 AM

andyandy, how does this reconcile with steadily decreasing crime rates?

andyandy

20th April 2007, 01:39 AM

andyandy, how does this reconcile with steadily decreasing crime rates?

well let's say a set exposure to violent images increased violent crime propensity from ratios 1;100,000 to 1;90,000,

that would only constitute one aspect of the recorded crime statistics - it would be possible for such an increase to be outweighed by other decreasing factors, giving an overall reduction in crime figure. So it isn't as simple as saying "crime has decreased, violent images have increased, therefore there is no correlating causation."

the trouble with reliance upon crime statistics is also well documented - if as home secretary i wanted to reduce the "street crime" statistics i would be best advised to reduce the number of policemen on the streets. In absolute terms this would likely lead to an increase in crime, but in statistical terms this would most likely result in a drop - simply because the vast majority of street crime goes unreported - and more police on the streets mean more data collection points.....

so it's a complicated issue :)

H3LL

20th April 2007, 01:41 AM

Quick skip to the end of the thread. Apologies if this has been mentioned.

IMHO.

Media depictions must surely have an effect on people otherwise advertising is a waste of money.

Is media violence linked to violent behaviour? I have seen little evidence for this, however, I understand violent people will watch violent movies with a level of immersion not experienced by the non-violent.

Is this something new?

I suspect not. Most of the world is desensitised to violent death on a regular basis purely from selecting, slaughtering and preparing food.

Watching the selection and slaughter of animals in street markets around the would is a whole different experience than any 'violent' movie I have ever watched.

If you have slaughtered a chicken, pig, cow or goat does that violent, practical experience make you a violent person? I think not.

Most people are able to seperate violence for food, hunting, movies and literature from their normal behavior. Those few that cannot, have a problem. That problem will remain, media or not.

Most of western society is used to plastic-wrapped steak and forgets how bloody food acquisition is for most of the world.

.

flimflam_machine

20th April 2007, 02:22 AM

No, you're still speculating, no matter how "historical" the basis is.

Goodness me Lonewulf, you seem very keen to polarise this debate. Are you always this confrontational? I am not just speculating on this issue, you only think I am because you are inferring a much stronger claim than I am actually making. I am simply making a historical (and possibly, current sociological) observation: that stories are one way that we attempt to pass on our opinions of morality.

No it is not. That parables exist does not prove that they form our moral structure, it merely proves that people attempted to spread their moral structure to others through parables. Exactly.

It has no bearing at all on effectiveness.
Yes, and I question it's effectiveness.
I question the degree.
I never made any claim about the effectiveness, nor the degree. Again, you appear to be keen to polarise this debate by implying that I'm making a claim that I'm not. I'm very aware that at this point we enter the realm of speculation and hypothesis: if stories have no bearing on how we behave, why do people continue to use them to teach morality? Why do parents use them if simply saying "don't do that" is enough to influence a child's behaviour? Yet more speculatively we can ask, do stories that aren't explicitly stated as moral influence our view of what is right?

It has been shown that people reason differently if they are given a story or analogy. I can't remember the reference but the study used a logical task requiring the person to devise a way of achieving something. They were better at doing this if they were given an appropriate analogy compared to an unrelated story (and they weren't told that the analogy was relevant to the task). Maybe relevant, maybe not?

And you, sir, are continuing with your own speculation.But so are you. You claimed that you learned more from dealing with people than from hearing fables and stories. How do you know that? It is possible that your ideas of how you should deal with people were laid down by exactly such stories, but the real-world manifestations of that only became apparent when you started dealing with people. This problem is one that has been pointed out before, we have no decent control group to say how people would turn out if violent media (and only violent media) were absent.

Just to pick up on andyandy's point, in the UK I think the general crime rate is falling (perhaps due to some dodgy statistics) but violent crime is rising.

ImaginalDisc

20th April 2007, 05:05 AM

the trouble with reliance upon crime statistics is also well documented - if as home secretary i wanted to reduce the "street crime" statistics i would be best advised to reduce the number of policemen on the streets. In absolute terms this would likely lead to an increase in crime, but in statistical terms this would most likely result in a drop - simply because the vast majority of street crime goes unreported - and more police on the streets mean more data collection points.....

I'm sorry, if one's home is burglarized, does the number of cops in the neighborhood change the likelihood of calling the police? If someone is murdered, the police get involved.

andyandy

20th April 2007, 06:02 AM

I'm sorry, if one's home is burglarized, does the number of cops in the neighborhood change the likelihood of calling the police? If someone is murdered, the police get involved.

you missed the part of my post where i said "street crime."

ImaginalDisc

20th April 2007, 06:10 AM

you missed the part of my post where i said "street crime."

Yeah, but the graphs (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2531795#post2531795) I provided say that "Property crimes include burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft." And, it says "The violent crimes included are rape, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and homicide" and their data are compiled from the National Crime Victimization Survey (http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cvict.htm), not police reports.

Their methodology seems pretty tight.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the Nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of 77,200 households comprising nearly 134,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The survey enables BJS to estimate the likelihood of victimization by rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a whole as well as for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, members of various racial groups, city dwellers, or other groups. The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders.
Ongoing from 1973; Redesign 1992.

aggle-rithm

20th April 2007, 06:14 AM

Though there is no clear evidence either way on the causal relationship between TV and real violence, anyone who tells you that there is no connection is huffing glue.

I volounteer at my kids pre-school several days a month and I see children interacting and playing all the time. Some kids are naturally more aggressive (violent) than others, clearly. It's impossible for me to know if TV viewing is creating this aggression, but it is obvious that it influences the FORM that this aggression takes. I don't often have the opportunity to see the "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers", but I've seen it often enough to recognize when a child is imitating it. I'm sure that there are kids who watch the same crap but who do not act out the TV violence, and there are some kids that are aggresive who don't see those shows. But it would be reckless to think that kids can watch anything on television and not be influenced by what they see.

I think that the other obvious problem with TV viewing is the effect that it has on social interaction. There are some parents who, for whatever reason, have been parking their kids in front of the TV from infancy for hours at a stretch. It's generally not educational programming (though most of the educational programming I've seen lately is excrementaly awful) and it takes the place of parent-child interaction. In this case, it's not the TV, but what it displaces that is the problem.

I will say this, I do think that media violence is bad for a kid. I have no real evidence to back this up, but I do hevily regulate what my child sees on television. I have noticed that other parents who do the same have better behaved children. The kids with the worst behaviour problems seem to have parents who are more insouciant with the child's TV viewing. It could easily be that time spent in front of the TV is merely an INDICATOR of parental involvment, that more parental involvment is the real determining factor of anti-social behaviour.

Either way, my five year old won't be watching Power Rangers, or any of that other crap. Period.

"Mighty Morphin Power Rangers"? Are you a time traveler?

andyandy

20th April 2007, 06:27 AM

Yeah, but the graphs (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2531795#post2531795) I provided say that "Property crimes include burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft." And, it says "The violent crimes included are rape, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and homicide" and their data are compiled from the National Crime Victimization Survey (http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cvict.htm), not police reports.

Their methodology seems pretty tight.

ok - that does appear a more reliable measure than police statistics. :)

The trouble is declining statistics are not proof of a position that violent images have no affect, and with so many variables it's difficult to know how much evidence [if at all] they do provide....

joesixpack

20th April 2007, 06:43 AM

"Mighty Morphin Power Rangers"? Are you a time traveler?

OK, I'll admit to being old, but that show is still on, at least in re-runs. My five year old had never even seen actual television untill very recently, yet he still seems to know quite a bit about that show and others (I think the Ninja Turtles are making a comeback too, by the way) just from his contact with other kids at pre-school.

andyandy

20th April 2007, 07:00 AM

This site (http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/index.cfm) seems quite informative...

Whether or not exposure to media violence causes increased levels of aggression and violence in young people is the perennial question of media effects research. Some experts, like University of Michigan professor L. Rowell Huesmann, argue that fifty years of evidence show "that exposure to media violence causes children to behave more aggressively and affects them as adults years later." Others, like Jonathan Freedman of the University of Toronto, maintain that "the scientific evidence simply does not show that watching violence either produces violence in people, or desensitizes them to it."

Many Studies, Many Conclusions

Andrea Martinez at the University of Ottawa conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific literature for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in 1994. She concluded that the lack of consensus about media effects reflects three "grey areas" or constraints contained in the research itself.

First, media violence is notoriously hard to define and measure. Some experts who track violence in television programming, such as George Gerbner of Temple University, define violence as the act (or threat) of injuring or killing someone, independent of the method used or the surrounding context. Accordingly, Gerber includes cartoon violence in his data-set. But others, such as University of Laval professors Guy Paquette and Jacques de Guise, specifically exclude cartoon violence from their research because of its comical and unrealistic presentation.

Second, researchers disagree over the type of relationship the data supports. Some argue that exposure to media violence causes aggression. Others say that the two are associated, but that there is no causal connection. (That both, for instance, may be caused by some third factor.) And others say the data supports the conclusion that there is no relationship between the two at all.

Third, even those who agree that there is a connection between media violence and aggression disagree about how the one effects the other. Some say that the mechanism is a psychological one, rooted in the ways we learn. For example, Huesmann argues that children develop "cognitive scripts" that guide their own behaviour by imitating the actions of media heroes. As they watch violent shows, children learn to internalize scripts that use violence as an appropriate method of problem-solving.

Other researchers argue that it is the physiological effects of media violence that cause aggressive behaviour. Exposure to violent imagery is linked to increased heart rate, faster respiration and higher blood pressure. Some think that this simulated "fight-or-flight" response predisposes people to act aggressively in the real world.

Still others focus on the ways in which media violence primes or cues pre-existing aggressive thoughts and feelings. They argue that an individual’s desire to strike out is justified by media images in which both the hero and the villain use violence to seek revenge, often without consequences.

In her final report to the CRTC, Martinez concluded that most studies support "a positive, though weak, relation between exposure to television violence and aggressive behaviour." Although that relationship cannot be "confirmed systematically," she agrees with Dutch researcher Tom Van der Voot who argues that it would be illogical to conclude that "a phenomenon does not exist simply because it is found at times not to occur, or only to occur under certain circumstances."
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

the rest of the linked page has an in depth look at some studies into media and violence over the years....

ImaginalDisc

20th April 2007, 07:10 AM

ok - that does appear a more reliable measure than police statistics. :)

The trouble is declining statistics are not proof of a position that violent images have no affect, and with so many variables it's difficult to know how much evidence [if at all] they do provide....

But the proliferation of video game consoles just kept rising and rising from the 80's onward, meanwhile the crime rates dropped.

Lonewulf

20th April 2007, 07:10 AM

But so are you. You claimed that you learned more from dealing with people than from hearing fables and stories. How do you know that? It is possible that your ideas of how you should deal with people were laid down by exactly such stories, but the real-world manifestations of that only became apparent when you started dealing with people. This problem is one that has been pointed out before, we have no decent control group to say how people would turn out if violent media (and only violent media) were absent.

Considering that I was raised on greek mythology (my mom would tell me the tales, and read them aloud to me), and I would get disturbed at perceived injustices (I.E., Artemis causing a man to die simply because he accidentally saw her naked), I'm skeptical that those stories constructed the majority of my moral code.

And that was a story that I heard at a very young age. Later on, I got introduced to slasher flicks; I saw almost all of the Friday the Thirteenths, and saw them over and over again at a young age.

I played violent videogames at a very young age, including Darklands and other similar videogames. I loved the part where I killed innocent people for the hell of it, sometimes. I played bad guys a lot of the time, too.

Even today, I play violent videogames. I have Dystopia and Halflife 2 on my computer. I played Deus Ex and Deux Ex II. I haven't played GTA, but I certainly played Oblivion, where you wonder around fighting random monsters and enemies. I could name many other games that I've played through, if I could recall 'em.

And yet... here I am. No criminal record. No record of violence. No drugs. No alcohol. I'd hesitate to see that I'm cleaner than many of the students that attended Holy Cross High School; many of which didn't actually play games or watch violent movies at all (from what conversations I had with them... none of 'em even heard of Starcraft, for frick's sakes), and yet all they could think about was sex and ... uhm... sex. Not to mention pushing around people they considered inferior, but that's high school for you.

So yes, I'm very skeptical that I was "created", even in majority, by simply stories. You call it speculation, but I do not see it as that. See, I actually remember these things.

andyandy

20th April 2007, 07:13 AM

But the proliferation of video game consoles just kept rising and rising from the 80's onward, meanwhile the crime rates dropped.

sure, but exposure to violent image may have an affect which is insignificant when taken alongside other societal/governmental variables - but exists nonetheless.

andyandy

20th April 2007, 07:16 AM

And yet... here I am. No criminal record. No record of violence. No drugs. No alcohol.

but this is irrelevant, unless you wish to polarise the debate into either

1) everyone who views violent images goes onto commit violent acts as a result

or

2) no one who views violent images goes onto commit violent acts as a result.

I don't think anyone is arguing (1) and so "I did X and I'm ok" has no weight.

Lonewulf

20th April 2007, 07:34 AM

but this is irrelevant, unless you wish to polarise the debate into either

1) everyone who views violent images goes onto commit violent acts as a result

or

2) no one who views violent images goes onto commit violent acts as a result.

I don't think anyone is arguing (1) and so "I did X and I'm ok" has no weight.

I think that someone that edges into the extreme of exposure to violent content (which I'm pretty sure I'd rate; slasher flicks, even those that involve eyeballs falling out and guts everywhere, have no effect on me; I'm 100% desensitized to much of video violence, except for those that are more scary on a psychological level), while showing little to no effect in violence levels, might very well be representational that violent media has little influence. But okay, let's continue with the debate.

I see no reason to assume that violent media causes people to become violent. Most things point to the opposite: My anecdote, the fact that violence levels have been decreasing since the release of not only violent media, but all of the videogaming systems (which sell millions and millions nationwide), etc. Then there's the fact that violence has existed before all of our media; and in even worse levels than you see today.

Also, I'd remark that I was responding to Flimflam. My point was towards him, that I do not think that stories and media constructed my moral compass. His point was different than yours. His involved where we get our moral compass, yours states that people with exposure to violence have their brain fried (frontal lobe problems, etc.), and are willing to be more impulsive.

A not-too-subtle difference in argument, don't you think?

andyandy

20th April 2007, 07:48 AM

I see no reason to assume that violent media causes people to become violent. Most things point to the opposite: My anecdote, the fact that violence levels have been decreasing since the release of not only violent media, but all of the videogaming systems (which sell millions and millions nationwide), etc. Then there's the fact that violence has existed before all of our media; and in even worse levels than you see today.

None of the things you reference have much weight simply because of the unaccounted societal variables. That's not to say your assumption is wrong, just that you shouldn't place too much emphasis on such evidence.

Also, I'd remark that I was responding to Flimflam. My point was towards him, that I do not think that stories and media constructed my moral compass. His point was different than yours. His involved where we get our moral compass, yours states that people with exposure to violence have their brain fried (frontal lobe problems, etc.), and are willing to be more impulsive.

ok we can split propensity to violent action and "moral" compass if you like, but i'd assume you'd agree in a certain overlap.

Lonewulf

20th April 2007, 08:43 AM

None of the things you reference have much weight simply because of the unaccounted societal variables. That's not to say your assumption is wrong, just that you shouldn't place too much emphasis on such evidence.

Maybe not, but I have yet to have a good reason to assume that violent media makes people more violent.

ok we can split propensity to violent action and "moral" compass if you like, but i'd assume you'd agree in a certain overlap.

Yes, a certain overlap, but something that *causes* you to become violent (I.E., taking PCP) is different than gaining a moral compass since birth.

flimflam_machine

20th April 2007, 09:52 AM

Maybe not, but I have yet to have a good reason to assume that violent media makes people more violent.

It depends what you mean by "more violent". Violent more often? More likely to respond to a specific situation in a violent way? Likely respond with a specific form of violence? That the Virginia Tech killer appeared to be acting out scenes from a violent movie suggests that violent media can influence the precise way that people act. Whether the perpetrators of such terrible situations would still have resorted to the same level of violence in the absence of such media is unknown.

Yes, a certain overlap, but something that *causes* you to become violent (I.E., taking PCP) is different than gaining a moral compass since birth.

True enough, but I don't think that anyone is arguing that the two are equivalent. I think that there is overlap simply in that our sense of morality includes an opinion of whether violence is itself moral (in a given situation). Two different societies can agree that a certain offence should be punished but disagree on what level of violence is a proportionate response to it. The response to someone breaking into your house seems quite different in the US and UK, but that could also be down to a greater perceived threat from guns. Nevertheless someone breaking into your house could cause you to act violently, but your moral compass might influence your exact response.

Lonewulf

20th April 2007, 10:02 AM

It depends what you mean by "more violent". Violent more often? More likely to respond to a specific situation in a violent way? Likely respond with a specific form of violence? That the Virginia Tech killer appeared to be acting out scenes from a violent movie suggests that violent media can influence the precise way that people act. Whether the perpetrators of such terrible situations would still have resorted to the same level of violence in the absence of such media is unknown.

The VA killer was a paranoid schizophrenic, dude. You make a very poor example.

aggle-rithm

20th April 2007, 10:21 AM

When I woke up this morning, I found I'd become a thug. I checked my diary, and found that I had, in fact, been watching violent TV shows and movies for the last 40 years.

Thus, the hypothesis is scientifically proven. ;)

Fnord

20th April 2007, 10:30 AM

drkitten

20th April 2007, 10:49 AM

[OPINION]

The only things that our advanced technology has contributed to violence are more efficient, effective, and economical methods of committing violence.

Unfortunately, our reliance on technology for establishing and maintaining interpersonal relations has atrophied our ability to get along when confronted with a real person.

Well, that's part of the question, isn't it? Technology has certainly made violence more efficient and effective. I would also argue, however, that it has also actively weakened "establishing and maintaining interpersonal relations."

As a simple example, advances in transportation technology have led to a culture of lengthy commutes and dissociation from our neighbors. What percentage of the people on your street do you know the names of? What do you think the corresponding percentage would have been in 1907? 1957? To what do you attribute that change?

Advances in transportation technology have also lead to an increased number of people who have been displaced from their social support structure. How far do you live from your nearest relative? What do you think the distance would have been in 1907? 1957?

Advances in communications technology mean that people no longer interact with their immediate neighbors.

Sounds like a recipe for thuggery to me, frankly....

ImaginalDisc

20th April 2007, 11:21 AM

Sounds like a recipe for thuggery to me, frankly....

How do you reconcile the "recipe for thuggery" with the steady decline seen in crime rates over the last three decades?

drkitten

20th April 2007, 11:50 AM

How do you reconcile the "recipe for thuggery" with the steady decline seen in crime rates over the last three decades?

Better policing would be one possibility.

ImaginalDisc

20th April 2007, 12:13 PM

Better policing would be one possibility.

That just leads to the question of whether better policing means more apprehensions, stronger deterrents, or both.

drkitten

20th April 2007, 12:28 PM

That just leads to the question of whether better policing means more apprehensions, stronger deterrents, or both.

It does. I believe that if you check the stats, there's some degree of support for the "better deterrence" theory. One of the most significant aspects of deterrence is the likelihood of punishment, and investigative techniques have gotten sufficiently better that a much larger number of crimes are cleared by arrest now than they were thirty years ago. This means that the likelihood of punishment (and therefore the deterrent effect) is substantially increased.

However, this, of course, presumes that deterrence is a factor. Not all crimes can be deterred. To a first approximation, we can distinguish betwen "crimes of profit," which can be deterred, and "crimes of passion," which cannot. In extreme cases (such as the VT slaughter or a more normal murder-suicide), the idea of "deterrence" is silly. If the perp intends to kill himself afterwards, he need have no fear of the consequences. I'm not sure what, if anything, could have "deterred" the VT perp. He's a nutcase, and nutcases need not have reasons that the rest of us understand.

Lonewulf

20th April 2007, 12:30 PM

The only things that our advanced technology has contributed to violence are more efficient, effective, and economical methods of committing violence.

Unfortunately, our reliance on technology for establishing and maintaining interpersonal relations has atrophied our ability to get along when confronted with a real person.

I assert that it is not so much the content of the video games themselves (and the Internet) as it is the diversion of people from the development of social skills in preference to the instant gratification of a point-and-click interface.

Of course, Browning, Colt, Glock, and Smith & Wesson make some of the most efficient and effective point-and-click devices, even if they are a bit pricey.

So, rather than negotiate a resolution to one's inter-personal problems, the best solution for such people seems to be to erase the source of the problem, whether by left-click, DELETE key, or the pull of a trigger.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

I had a problem with someone recently.

I wish I read your post earlier. I tried to work it out with him through a lengthy debate/discussion. I now see that I should have shot him, as that's what I'm apparently supposed to do.

Thank you.

The problem with your hypothesis is a pretty simple one:

Crime today is nothing compared to crime hundreds of years ago.

Yet hundreds of years ago, you didn't have the "point and click" interfaces.

Hm.

Food for thought?

Skeptic Ginger

20th April 2007, 12:58 PM

andyandy, how does this reconcile with steadily decreasing crime rates?
multiple variables

Fnord

20th April 2007, 01:00 PM

I had a problem with someone recently.

I wish I read your post earlier. I tried to work it out with him through a lengthy debate/discussion. I now see that I should have shot him, as that's what I'm apparently supposed to do.

Thank you.

The problem with your hypothesis is a pretty simple one:

Crime today is nothing compared to crime hundreds of years ago.

Yet hundreds of years ago, you didn't have the "point and click" interfaces.

Hm.

Food for thought?

"Supposed to do"? Not necessarily (nudge, wink) ...

No, I see the situation like this:

1) Readily available means of easily killing several people in rapid succession are available to us that weren't available a thousand years ago. Even the best archers can't peal off more than one round every few seconds, and their aim won't guaranty that the first shot will be fatal (they don't make dum-dum arrows, do they?). Of course, this ignores gangrene and other infections induced by a dung-smeared arrow.

2) Technology allows us to deal with others through an impersonal medium. Even people in the same household are, at times, forced to resort to texting or paging to notify each other that supper is ready.

3) And yes, some video games do reinforce the idea that if someone bothers you, shooting them is the best solution (Bonus Points for one-shot/one-kill). Those that emphasise negotiation and puzzle solving don't seem to rank high in popularity -- "Tomb Raider" is a notable exception, but there is still shooting.

So, while I believe that video games are a contributory cause of the rise in violence, I also believe that they are not the sole cause. I've noticed that anything that is popular with young people has, at one time or another, been blamed for youth violence, including Boy Scouting, high school sports, pool/billiards playing (you think "Music Man" was a joke?), and even too much studying.

Want to incriminate some activity you don't understand? Blame it for some sociopath's murderous rampage or some lonely emo's suicide.

Google "Dallas Egbert" sometime.

Skeptic Ginger

20th April 2007, 01:02 PM

The VA killer was a paranoid schizophrenic, dude. You make a very poor example.A paranoid schizophrenic is exactly the kind of personality most likely to be influenced by the constant bombardment of violent images.

Lonewulf

20th April 2007, 01:08 PM

A paranoid schizophrenic is exactly the kind of personality most likely to be influenced by the constant bombardment of violent images.

So this makes a paranoid schizophrenic a good comparison for the average person... how?

Oh, wait, it doesn't.

Moving on. :)

Lonewulf

20th April 2007, 01:16 PM

"Supposed to do"? Not necessarily (nudge, wink) ...

No, I see the situation like this:

1) Readily available means of easily killing several people in rapid succession are available to us that weren't available a thousand years ago. Even the best archers can't peal off more than one round every few seconds, and their aim won't guaranty that the first shot will be fatal (they don't make dum-dum arrows, do they?). Of course, this ignores gangrene and other infections induced by a dung-smeared arrow.

Depends. A good archer could get in a shot every couple seconds, if he was close enough and didn't want to deal with accuracy.

But note that I said "hundreds of years ago". That includes the 1700's, or 1600's. That also includes a time of black powder weapons; but still you had people fighting each other with rapiers (swashbucklers, etc.), not to mention the French executions through the guillotine.

2) Technology allows us to deal with others through an impersonal medium. Even people in the same household are, at times, forced to resort to texting or paging to notify each other that supper is ready.

This honestly sounds overexaggerated, and even if it was through text, that does not give me any reason to think that this is somehow innately "worse".

3) And yes, some video games do reinforce the idea that if someone bothers you, shooting them is the best solution (Bonus Points for one-shot/one-kill).

Bullspit. Now you're sounding a lot like Jack Thompson.

I played Counterstrike; it was boring. Dystopia is similar, and still rewards you for headshots.

But that does not mean that it reinforces the idea that shooting real live poeple is the way to resolve problems. It reinforces the idea that when playing a game, an accurate shot is a good shot.

Those that emphasise negotiation and puzzle solving don't seem to rank high in popularity -- "Tomb Raider" is a notable exception, but there is still shooting.

On the contrary, Tetris is one of the most popular games there is. And Pacman... well, I guess Pacman taught kids that eating little dots was the solution to their problems. And Mario Brothers taught kids that jumping on turtles kills the evil Koopa. ;)

So, while I believe that video games are a contributory cause of the rise in violence...

Contributory cause of the rise in violence? With declining crime rates? :rolleyes:

Speculative at best. You have yet to show that there is even an "increasing" problem while videogames are out, and now you're blaming them for a "rise in violence". So basically...

1) There is no evidence that there is a rise in violence, and in fact evidence to the contrary.

2) To explain this rise in violence (???), videogames are the cause.

Sorry, but... no.

The only thing that makes school violence seem "on the rise" is media attention. Even school violence (as in, violence by age) has been going down through time. And I mean it; actual studies *by age*, not just an overall crime rate. So no, I don't think that there's a rise in violence; whether in schools and amongst the youth, whether in adults, and whether in anything else. America has had declining crime rates, and quite frankly, if there is no rise in violence, why should we blame anything for a rise in violence?

I also believe that they are not the sole cause.

Well, at least you get one point for obviousness.

I've noticed that anything that is popular with young people has, at one time or another, been blamed for youth violence, including Boy Scouting, high school sports, pool/billiards playing (you think "Music Man" was a joke?), and even too much studying.

Not to mention music that the youth listen to while the old fogeys don't, right?

Anything that the youth tends to do, and the old fogeys don't, tends to be blamed on violence.

"Why do we have violence? The same violence that's been around with the human race since it's first conception? Well, I know! I'll blame whatever the youth is doing most as a hobby! Damn you kids!"

Want to incriminate some activity you don't understand? Blame it for some sociopath's murderous rampage or some lonely emo's suicide.

Dungeons and Dragons is an example of that...

But yes, exactly.

Skeptic Ginger

20th April 2007, 02:15 PM

The issue of the effect of violence in the media is difficult to sort through from a skeptical point of view because there are so many variables, it is easy to list a few, show some data and claim there is a relationship. You've shown an association. To then go on and determine cause and effect takes more than merely showing a relationship. And even showing the relationship doesn't rule out coincidence.

This is the reason Lonewulf (sorry, I am picking on you but with good intentions), often posts invalid conclusions. He (she?) draws conclusions about the information he is aware of without considering the evidence for cause and effect is not simply showing a relationship.

This debate is like so many on the JREF forums. People remember the data they have heard which supports one's preconceived beliefs. With an issue that is subject to so many variables, you can find the evidence you want to support your preconceived belief. That doesn't mean the evidence is necessarily wrong, it more than likely means the interpretation of the evidence is wrong.

Here's a critical review of some of the research conclusions that have been cited to support the claim media violence has a causal relationship to actual violence. It's a thorough analysis on the impact of video violence (http://www.videostandards.org.uk/main.html) by the Video Standards Committee, a pro video game group.

Compare that to the meta-analysis andyandy cited in the New Scientist editorial (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19426003.600-editorial-in-denial-about-onscreen-violence.html;jsessionid=NMMFPPOKAPIF) for a different view. (See quote in post 57 since the link requires a subscription to read the article.)

As skeptics, we are not immune to personal bias and selective memory. But if we want to look at the evidence for controversial issues like whether media violence has a negative effect on behavior, we have to make an effort to look objectively at the research supporting opposing viewpoints. In this case in particular, it offers insight into those fallacious assumptions about data indicating cause and effect when other variables have not been sufficiently controlled for.

It may be less of an issue to see a Sam Peckinpaw guts-flying movie than to see 'clean' murders where no one cries for the loss of the victim and no messy brains are spilling onto your dinner table. The news media's choice not to show children blown in half in gory detail has an effect whether you approve of their decision or not. And while it's easy to assume the latter decision shows less violence, it actually may do more to promote violent actions since the consequences are edited out.

Research on the Effects of Media Violence (http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm), a summary by the Media Awareness Network, already cited by andyandy, has an excellent discussion of the various research outcomes and how those outcomes have been interpreted differently depending on what one's pre-existing view might be. As with any subject like this one with multiple variables confounding research conclusions, I always want to know the agenda and the source of the research or the discussion of the research. What is MNet?

MNet is a Canadian non-profit organization that has been pioneering the development of media literacy programs since its incorporation in 1996. Members of our team have backgrounds in education, journalism, mass communications, and cultural policy. Working out of offices in Ottawa and Montreal, we promote media and Internet education by producing online programs and resources, working in partnership with Canadian and international organizations, and speaking to audiences across Canada and around the world.

The idea behind our work

MNet’s work is based on the belief that to be functionally literate in the world today – to be able to "read" the messages that inform, entertain and sell to us daily – young people need critical thinking skills.The board of directors (http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/corporate/about_us/board/index.cfm) includes representatives of science, education, public interest, and corporate broadcasting.

The solution focus for Media Awareness isn't to over-ride market forces for violent entertainment, (though I would argue there's a chicken and egg argument over consumer demand and marketing promotion). Rather the goal is to be sure people exposed to the distorted world view of violence in the media are also exposed to a dose of reality along with it. In other words, we need to educate kids about how the media distorts one's view of reality. That's actually a separate issue from whether constant exposure to media violence either promotes aggressive behavior or attenuates the public to violence making it seem more acceptable than it is.

There's a lot to be said for the media awareness side.

Lonewulf

20th April 2007, 02:21 PM

This is the reason Lonewulf (sorry, I am picking on you but with good intentions), often posts invalid conclusions. He (she?)

He.

And I doubt that my conclusions are quite as invalid as you claim, but w/e.

Skeptic Ginger

20th April 2007, 02:23 PM

So this makes a paranoid schizophrenic a good comparison for the average person... how?

Oh, wait, it doesn't.

Moving on. :)Flimflam said, "That the Virginia Tech killer appeared to be acting out scenes from a violent movie suggests that violent media can influence the precise way that people act. Whether the perpetrators of such terrible situations would still have resorted to the same level of violence in the absence of such media is unknown."

Where in that statement is there a claim the average person is the one we need to worry about the violent media having an impact on? Is it the average person who is going to shoot 32 people to death? Is anyone saying violence in the media only matters if it affects average people even if it does affect average people?

Skeptic Ginger

20th April 2007, 02:25 PM

He.

And I doubt that my conclusions are quite as invalid as you claim, but w/e.
If you would make an effort to support those conclusions with some evidence, their credibility would be improved.

Without evidence, we are merely to respect your expertise. Care to provide the background of your expertise so we might also judge that?

Lonewulf

20th April 2007, 02:35 PM

Flimflam said, "That the Virginia Tech killer appeared to be acting out scenes from a violent movie suggests that violent media can influence the precise way that people act. Whether the perpetrators of such terrible situations would still have resorted to the same level of violence in the absence of such media is unknown."

Where in that statement is there a claim the average person is the one we need to worry about the violent media having an impact on? Is it the average person who is going to shoot 32 people to death? Is anyone saying violence in the media only matters if it affects average people even if it does affect average people?

So what's your point?

You're talking about the effect of media on the population, right?

Isn't a violent schizophrenic still going to be dangerous, or violent, even if you remove all the media? Do you have any evidence against that?

Until you provide evidence, we rely on your expertise. What expertise do you have?

If you use a schizophrenic as any kind of evidence as to what a sane person would do, then you are committing a fallacy. The two are not comparable.

If a person is insane, they're usually unpredictable in the first place, whether you have media or not. And that's more a case of individual treatment of the individuals that need mental health, moreso than it is against media that affects the majority of the population.

This goes against the OP. This is no longer a discussion about the media turning US into thugs. It's a discussion about the media turning an incredibly tiny amount of the population into thugs. Notably, those that were so insane as to be highly suggestable from any number of sources.

It's like claiming that D&D is bad because a minority of insane people get trapped into a fantasy world and can't get out (ever seen that one movie with Tom Hanks? Mazes or somesuch? It was an anti-D&D film that was specifically portraying D&D as a fantasy game that would draw people into the game world and section them off from reality).

This is a fallacy. It's committing the Overgeneralization Fallacy to suggest that something affects a large portion of the population, by bringing up a couple of extremely rare examples.

Skeptic Ginger

20th April 2007, 02:54 PM

Your thinking is rather narrow here, Lonewulf.

Here's the OP. "Conventional wisdom has it that exposure to violence on TV and in video games is directly linked to violent behavior in the real world. It seems a lot of people just take this as a given, but I've been skeptical from the beginning. (I have a habit of being skeptical)

This claim seems to come from the apparent assumption that people (especially children) can't differentiate between TV and reality. Exposure to violent media, so the theory goes, desensitizes us to the real thing. And there's the 'monkey see, monkey do' aspect, which points out that children imitate what they see. I've seen evidence that this last part is true on inanimate objects...." (emphasis mine)

Is it your premise that unless the average person moves toward extreme violence the hypothesis is null?

Wouldn't violence in the media only need to shift the curve of violence over a notch to have negative results? And in that case, the effect of violence in the media on a person like the VA Tech shooter is one of the extreme consequences.

If the average person, because of violence in the media views the world as violent, buys a gun they wouldn't otherwise have bought, their child sees it, plays with it after also viewing violence in the media, and shoots another child, you also would have a potential for media violence to have impacted violence in the real world.

So from your reply to ImaginalD, citing the extreme example to make a point was invalid. Imag was only to cite the "average" example to meet your standard of relevance?

Lonewulf

20th April 2007, 03:15 PM

Your thinking is rather narrow here, Lonewulf.

Yeah yeah. :rolleyes:

Here's the OP. "Conventional wisdom has it that exposure to violence on TV and in video games is directly linked to violent behavior in the real world. It seems a lot of people just take this as a given, but I've been skeptical from the beginning. (I have a habit of being skeptical)

This claim seems to come from the apparent assumption that people (especially children) can't differentiate between TV and reality. Exposure to violent media, so the theory goes, desensitizes us to the real thing. And there's the 'monkey see, monkey do' aspect, which points out that children imitate what they see. I've seen evidence that this last part is true on inanimate objects...." (emphasis mine)

Nice emphasis. And?

Is it your premise that unless the average person moves toward extreme violence the hypothesis is null?

It is not. Well, not completely.

So we recognize that if someone is subjected to a heavy amount of violent material in the media (with news casting, videogames, and movies), then it's not a guarantee he'll become a serial killer? Okay.

Is the claim that he's more likely to be a killer? Then, to what degree? At what degree does exposure to fictional violence cause nonfictional murders? I have no reason to assume that the violent media and videogames have caused a heavy increase in violence. It all seems to be a bunch of speculation based on no data points; many of the claims within here are, "Violent media is causing an increase in violence...", and then in the same breath, "Well, violence is going down, but..." What reason is there to assume that violence is increasing at all? All data points point to the opposite, so without the assumption that violence is increasing, then you're just speculating, seemingly for very biased reasons (wanting to blame the media).

Wouldn't violence in the media only need to shift the curve of violence over a notch to have negative results?

But there is no evidence that it is, for the average person.

And in that case, the effect of violence in the media on a person like the VA Tech shooter is one of the extreme consequences.

But the VA Tech Shooter is not an enigma or anything abnormal in society. The individual is abnormal, as are his actions, but there have been mass murderers of his cut and shape throughout time, before the mass media ever existed, before the violent videogames you know of today ever existed. You've had to prove that we have more mass murderers today than we did in the past, and I do not think you will find that so easy to prove.

If the average person, because of violence in the media views the world as violent, buys a gun they wouldn't otherwise have bought...

Now you're edging into speculation again.

...their child sees it, plays with it after also viewing violence in the media, and shoots another child, you also would have a potential for media violence to have impacted violence in the real world.

Perhaps, but you are also ignoring many other factors.

1) Gun safety.
2) Keeping the gun away from the child.
3) Teaching the child that Guns are Bad Things (tm), and should not be handled.

And yes, it may demonstrate some sort of implication, but nothing strong enough to be seriously considered IMO. At least, nothing worth actually advocating heavy changes for.

So from your reply to ImaginalD, citing the extreme example to make a point was invalid. Imag was only to cite the "average" example to meet your standard of relevance?

See above.

An insane man does not see the world as a sane man. That was what you said to me, and that was what you acted like I was ignorant about; maybe now I should treat you the same, and tell you the history of psychiatry just to demonstrate how ignorant you are, as you did to me. (And no, I'm not suggesting that you are really ignorant. I just become a bit bitter when people talk down to me).

But if you're going to talk about the effect of something upon a wide population, then yes, the wide population becomes of relevance.

If just talking about a minority of individuals, an incredibly small amount to the point that they're just a few black grains of sand in a desert; then why bother talking about how media affects the majority of people? It's more an argument for giving certain people with special needs those special needs, and less an argument against violent media.

Fnord

20th April 2007, 03:16 PM

Skeptic Ginger

20th April 2007, 03:19 PM

So what's your point?

You're talking about the effect of media on the population, right?

Isn't a violent schizophrenic still going to be dangerous, or violent, even if you remove all the media? Do you have any evidence against that?

Until you provide evidence, we rely on your expertise. What expertise do you have?

If you use a schizophrenic as any kind of evidence as to what a sane person would do, then you are committing a fallacy. The two are not comparable.

If a person is insane, they're usually unpredictable in the first place, whether you have media or not. And that's more a case of individual treatment of the individuals that need mental health, moreso than it is against media that affects the majority of the population.

This goes against the OP. This is no longer a discussion about the media turning US into thugs. It's a discussion about the media turning an incredibly tiny amount of the population into thugs. Notably, those that were so insane as to be highly suggestable from any number of sources.

It's like claiming that D&D is bad because a minority of insane people get trapped into a fantasy world and can't get out (ever seen that one movie with Tom Hanks? Mazes or somesuch? It was an anti-D&D film that was specifically portraying D&D as a fantasy game that would draw people into the game world and section them off from reality).

This is a fallacy. It's committing the Overgeneralization Fallacy to suggest that something affects a large portion of the population, by bringing up a couple of extremely rare examples.Firstly, I provided a wealth of evidence in the VA Tech evidence thread on paranoid schizophrenia, and on the symptoms of disorganized thought evidenced in Cho's writings and recordings that was diagnostic of paranoid schizophrenia. In addition, I cited two sources who interviewed psychiatrists (as opposed to every other unqualified person's opinion) who concluded that the writings were diagnostic. And I suggested you educate yourself a bit more on the subject of mental illnesses because you were arguing from a position of ignorance on the subject.

As to my expertise, I'm a Nurse Practitioner with 30 years of experience in a variety of medical practices. I've had my own practice for the last 16 years and while I specialize in infectious disease, I've had the position of Infection Control at a local inpatient psychiatric hospital for the last 3+ years as one of my contracts. Being the curious person I am, I've learned a lot about psychiatric medicine during that time.

On the impact of media violence, citations in my posts in this thread speak for themselves.

You OTOH, mentioned one sociology text in post 27 and 58 and with "pretty pictures" no credentials nor specific expertise except to say the book was a "college textbook".

I know this likely sounds like a snobby put down, but what I am really interested in pointing out to you, and anyone else who posts a lot of unsupported opinion is how to support your opinions or learn something new if you find the research and find out it doesn't support your conclusions. When you give an opinion, if you take a little time to find something which supports it, it leads to a lot of learning.

The whole point of skepticism is spreading the art of critical thinking. You just happen to be posting example after example of unsupported (and quite often unsupportable) opinion. And it isn't so much just that, since unsupported opinion is certainly common everywhere, but it's how over-confident your claims are. And you keep citing the standard errors in logic as reasons you don't accept what someone else has posted, but you apply those claims of logic error erroneously.

Lonewulf

20th April 2007, 03:24 PM

Lonewulf,

I know enough to know that I don't know everything. And if I had some real data to work from, I might draw different conclusions than the opinions I've stated. But while the truth may be out there, it's all tangled up in emotional commentary and political agendae.

How about this? Japan has everything we have to contend with; packed urban populations, violent media, media with sex in it that we would never see here in America, and videogames as far as the eyes can see...

And yet their violence rates are much lower than in the U.S.

Same with Korea. Videogaming is so popular there, everyone does it. And I mean everyone. The 90 year old grandma next door is probably at the local PC Bong, hitting up the computer for a game of Starcraft. (And they're frikkin' good at it, too...)

Yet violence rates in Korea usually rise when Americans decide to pay a visit.

And yes, in Korea, they're extremely technological; cell phones, computers, lack of personal communication... you got it all.

I could go into more detail and bring up something more verifiable if you wish, if I can get around to finding it.

Again, this is entirely my opinion. But consider the facts that I'm a relatively well-educated,

I'm not?

reasonably intelligent,

I'm not?

sane

Okay, I'm probably not.

individual with an average interest in current events,

An interest in current events does not preclude insight into the cause of those events.

and you might understand why there are so many people (like me) who believe the myths and misconceptions about violence, crime rates, insanity, and "What We Should Do About It."

Now you're just suggesting an Ad Hominem.

Alright, I'm an uneducated lout with no interest in current events, am insane, and not intelligent. So that explains why I disagree with you. :D

Lonewulf

20th April 2007, 03:31 PM

Firstly, I provided a wealth of evidence in the VA Tech evidence thread on paranoid schizophrenia, and on the symptoms of disorganized thought evidenced in Cho's writings and recordings that was diagnostic of paranoid schizophrenia. In addition, I cited two sources who interviewed psychiatrists (as opposed to every other unqualified person's opinion) who concluded that the writings were diagnostic.

Yes. And I never disagreed that Cho was schizophrenic, so thanks for the wasted effort to demonstrate how ignorant I supposedly am.

And I suggested you educate yourself a bit more on the subject of mental illnesses because you were arguing from a position of ignorance on the subject.

*Sigh* If you say so. :rolleyes:

As to my expertise, I'm a Nurse Practitioner with 30 years of experience in a variety of medical practices. I've had my own practice for the last 16 years and while I specialize in infectious disease, I've had the position of Infection Control at a local inpatient psychiatric hospital for the last 3+ years as one of my contracts. Being the curious person I am, I've learned a lot about psychiatric medicine during that time.

Neat. Do you have any kind of a degree involving psychology and mental health?

On the impact of media violence, citations in my posts in this thread speak for themselves.

You OTOH, mentioned one sociology text in post 27 and 58 and with "pretty pictures" no credentials nor specific expertise except to say the book was a "college textbook".

??? The "pretty pictures" bit was put in for comedic effect. Get a sense of humor.

But that's fine. James M. Henslin is a sociologist that travelled around the world studying individuals. I mainly pointed it out to someone that was mentioning Nature vs. Nurture, which had nothing to do with the conversation we currently are having, so I was unaware that I needed to provide that information to you.

Marquis was the one that was curious, and I gave him the book name under the assumption that he would look up the relevant information himself. The conversation that we had was just between him and I, as no one else was truly arguing the "nature/nurture" argument, and neither were you. So I don't quite get why you're acting so snobbish over this.

Anyways, if you really are interested, James M. Henslin:

Professor Emeritus, Department of Sociology, from Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville. His book has been reviewed by:

Charles A. Brawner III, Heartland Community College.
Shelly Breitenstein, Western Wisconsin Technical College.

...Ah, screw it, there's nearly 50 names in here of people that reviewed it.

Let's see here... I'm sure he talks about more of his background credentials in this book. Which section should I turn to?

I know this likely sounds like a snobby put down...

Why stop now? You've been absolutely great with them so far.

...but what I am really interested in pointing out to you, and anyone else who posts a lot of unsupported opinion is how to support your opinions or learn something new if you find the research and find out it doesn't support your conclusions. When you give an opinion, if you take a little time to find something which supports it, it leads to a lot of learning.

Okay.

The whole point of skepticism is spreading the art of critical thinking. You just happen to be posting example after example of unsupported (and quite often unsupportable) opinion. And it isn't so much just that, since unsupported opinion is certainly common everywhere, but it's how over-confident your claims are.

And the number of times that my claims seem to have been misunderstood has been intriguing. But you're right; I haven't thrown around website after website explaining how someone was schizophrenic, and then proclaiming, "See? Their behavior wouldn't have been altered at all if the scenario were different..." You call my claims overconfident? Many of the data points and links that you make don't have a direct affect on your claim.

I never denied that the individual in question had Schizophrenia. If I did, then 90% of your posts would have had an actual basis.

I never denied that schizophrenia can affect someone's ability to go on a rampage. You were the one, on the other hand, that stated that it was either one or the other: Bullying or mental illness, as if those that are mentally ill cannot be bullied. Why, I cannot comprehend, but you have yet to admit a flaw in this statement.

Maybe when you do, I will be more open to actual dialogue.

Skeptic Ginger

20th April 2007, 03:34 PM

The overgeneralizing fallacy you mention, lonewulf, would be reasonable except it isn't me that made the claims you speak of.

I pointed out the VA Tech example was valid and why. I didn't say whether I thought the research did or didn't support the example showed cause and effect.

But if cause and effect were established, why would violence in the media have to affect everyone equally in order to be an issue?

If your argument is the example only showed overgeneralizing, you need to counter it with something that supports the rare instance of the VA tech type shooter doesn't reflect on how violence in media impacts everyone else.

If the curve of violent behavior is shifted toward greater propensity for violence and that makes people like Cho cross the line then the fact little average johnny doesn't shoot up his school doesn't negate the impact violent media had on all of us.

Skeptic Ginger

20th April 2007, 03:38 PM

I did assume your reply would ignore the problems your posts have of unsupported and unsupportable opinion as well as dismissing other posts with incorrectly applied claims of logic error.

Too bad.

Lonewulf

20th April 2007, 03:41 PM

This post has been edited, as I have calmed down.

I will take time to review my position, watch posts, and not comment until a later date.

I apologize for any personal attacks I may have made in the process of this thread.

Darth Rotor

24th April 2007, 05:21 AM

Are we a reflection of our art or is our art a reflection of us?
Consider this case, and see if you can tell me where you think the art is.

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/178831/the_channon_christianchristopher_newsom.html)

Carjacked, bodily mutilated, raped (both of them, the boy and the girl) and then killed.

Have we heard a peep from Rosie O'Donnell on this one? :p No, but she is sure WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolitions.

Selective attention.

DR

osmosis

24th April 2007, 10:42 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9351462ee9c0be878.gif

osmosis

24th April 2007, 10:43 PM

In Freakonomics, the author argues very well that the decline in crime is directly caused by the legalization of abortion. And he's got numbers to back it up.

flimflam_machine

25th April 2007, 08:32 AM

Some interesting stuff here folks, although I’m glad that Lonewulf has calmed down a bit.

I’ve been thinking about this issue and have tried framing it in a different way. I’d be interested in people’s response to this thought process:

Media does affect our behaviour. If it didn’t advertising would be a huge waste of time and money (as someone has pointed out). So with this in mind:

1) Can media can affect us in unintended ways? One example that springs to mind is the “You know when you’ve been Tangoed!” adverts. One of these showed a big fat orange guy slapping someone in the face with both hands. Even though the intended effect was to make us buy more tango, one side effect (in my school at least) was a spate of people slapping each other in the face (along with accompanying dialogue).

2) If media can affect us in unintended ways, would violent media be exempt from this?

3) If we are affected by violent media, there are three options (in terms of our capacity/propensity for violence): (i) it makes us less violent, (ii) it makes us more violent, (iii) multiple effects actually balance out and have no net effect on our tendency to be violent.

My opinion, and it is only that, is that the balance of probability for these stages goes 1 = yes, 2 = no, 3 = (ii) i.e., violent media does make us more violent.

I know this seems like arguing things from the conclusion backward, but with something as complex as this, with so many possible variables it’s hugely difficult to get clean data. Also, I’d hazard a guess that this is the thought process that many people go through (if only tacitly) to come to the conclusion that violent media does make us more violent. Does anyone have a solid refutation of any or all of this, particularly of point 2?

Lonewulf

25th April 2007, 08:36 AM

flimflam_machine

25th April 2007, 08:56 AM

To move that up to SHOOTING each other in the face is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

You do seem to be derailing this discussion at every point by picking on the most trivial aspects of people's posts, really, really bizarre. I thought that this thread was about violence in general, not shooting specifically. I'd be interested to hear your argument for why it wouldn't generalise. Please note that I'm not arguing that seeing shooting on TV will necessarily cause sane people to shoot each other, just that it may make them more likely to do so.

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2007, 09:31 AM

You do seem to be derailing this discussion at every point by picking on the most trivial aspects of people's posts, really, really bizarre. I thought that this thread was about violence in general, not shooting specifically. I'd be interested to hear your argument for why it wouldn't generalise. Please note that I'm not arguing that seeing shooting on TV will necessarily cause sane people to shoot each other, just that it may make them more likely to do so.

When I brought in the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, violent crime included "assault" and even so, violent crime rates have dropped significantly. I'm still completely mystified about how anyone can actually say that media violence causes real violence when no A) U.S. violent crime rates have dropped, B) violent crime is depicted in the media Britain, Germany, Japan, Korea, and dozens of other countries with even lower violent crime rates.

The only thing playing violent video games and watching violent movies makes me want to do is play more violent video games and watch more violent movies.

ETA: Even assuming media violence actually does cause increased violence in otherwise stable people, have you ever read an old Dime Novel, Penny Dreadful, or 19th Century newspaper? Even the scriptwriters for Saw would blush. Media violence is hardly a recent phenomenon.

flimflam_machine

25th April 2007, 10:14 AM

ImaginalDisc

25th April 2007, 10:23 AM

Imaginal disc, it is possible that the rates would be dropping even faster if violent media were not around. I'm not playing the "everything's going to hell in a handcart" card since I'm sure that violence and violent media have been around since time immemorial.

However, to a lot of people it is a really obvious truth that violent media cause violence for the reasons that I laid out. I don't know whether this is true or not, but I'd be interested in how people who disagree think that the argument breaks down?

Is it that media do not influence our behaviour?

Is it that media affect our behaviour, but that violent media are exempt?

Is it that violent media do affect our behaviour, but that they make us less violent?

If you can provide a convincing yes to any of those questions it would go a long way to convincing people that violent media isn't inherently a bad thing.

Why do people need convincing? Violent media is art, and free expression. If someone merely wants to be able to control that art they and their children are exposed to, more power to them. They can change the channel or choose not to buy tickets to violent movies. If someone wants to censor art and free expression because they merely suspect A causes B, screw 'em. Unless someone actually can make the case that violent media is responsible for a significant amount of violence, I couldn't support curtailing art. Would you?

Lonewulf

25th April 2007, 11:10 AM

You do seem to be derailing this discussion at every point by picking on the most trivial aspects of people's posts, really, really bizarre.

No, it's not bizarre. I may have brought it into an extreme example, but I picked the premise that is the basis of your entire argument.

Notice:

"1) Can media can affect us in unintended ways? One example that springs to mind is the “You know when you’ve been Tangoed!” adverts. One of these showed a big fat orange guy slapping someone in the face with both hands. Even though the intended effect was to make us buy more tango, one side effect (in my school at least) was a spate of people slapping each other in the face (along with accompanying dialogue).

2) If media can affect us in unintended ways, would violent media be exempt from this?

3) If we are affected by violent media, there are three options (in terms of our capacity/propensity for violence): (i) it makes us less violent, (ii) it makes us more violent, (iii) multiple effects actually balance out and have no net effect on our tendency to be violent."

If 1 is invalidated, then 2 can be invalidated, or at the least have much less support for it.

I highly question that media caused people to go around slapping each other, any moreso than someone telling me a funny joke will make me any more likely to repeat that joke. It hasn't changed who I am, or what actions I am liable to commit; it has merely brought a humorous joke to my attention, and then I act that joke out.

This is an "influence", yes, but to make it sound like people actually slapped others because of the joke they saw on television, instead of coming up and enacting out another physical-based joke that they heard on the street, is stretching it.

I thought that this thread was about violence in general, not shooting specifically. I'd be interested to hear your argument for why it wouldn't generalise.

People would not have found the "Tango!" thing humorous if they did not already have a propensity for finding it humorous. In that same respect, they would not have been likely to enact what they saw on television if they did not actually enjoy what they saw.

It's like using "Hey Koolaid!" as an argument that violence levels rise thanks to media.

Please note that I'm not arguing that seeing shooting on TV will necessarily cause sane people to shoot each other, just that it may make them more likely to do so.

1) At how high a level? There has been no statistics provided on this.

2) Your premise was faulty. See above.

flimflam_machine

26th April 2007, 03:39 AM

I highly question that media caused people to go around slapping each other, any moreso than someone telling me a funny joke will make me any more likely to repeat that joke. It hasn't changed who I am, or what actions I am liable to commit; it has merely brought a humorous joke to my attention, and then I act that joke out.

This is an "influence", yes, but to make it sound like people actually slapped others because of the joke they saw on television, instead of coming up and enacting out another physical-based joke that they heard on the street, is stretching it.

And I highly question that question. If nobody had seen the advert, then they would not have gone around slapping people while repeating the tagline, I certainly didn't notice any slapping going on before the advert. They may have been acting out physical jokes before, but when they saw one on TV that included violence (not extreme violence admittedly), that's what they acted out. That seems like a very strong argument on my side.

Also, is there some, more subtle, definition of "cause" that I'm missing here? I don't think that violent media is the sole cause of violence, but in some situations (the two above being examples), certain behaviour just wouldn't happen without the relevant trigger; if you never heard a particular joke then you couldn't repeat it.

I'm still not seeing where my premise is faulty, media does influence our behaviour, although it does not dictate it absolutely. Why is violent media exempt from this?

joesixpack

26th April 2007, 07:52 AM

When I brought in the U.S. Department of Justice statistics, violent crime included "assault" and even so, violent crime rates have dropped significantly. I'm still completely mystified about how anyone can actually say that media violence causes real violence when no A) U.S. violent crime rates have dropped, B) violent crime is depicted in the media Britain, Germany, Japan, Korea, and dozens of other countries with even lower violent crime rates.

The only thing playing violent video games and watching violent movies makes me want to do is play more violent video games and watch more violent movies.

ETA: Even assuming media violence actually does cause increased violence in otherwise stable people, have you ever read an old Dime Novel, Penny Dreadful, or 19th Century newspaper? Even the scriptwriters for Saw would blush. Media violence is hardly a recent phenomenon.

Maybe what these statistics demonstrate is that media violence, instead of making people more violent, is actually making people more fearfull. The very fact that we would have this discussion seems to imply that we need to discover a cause of violence because it's getting worse. It's as if I were trying to find a cure for my cold after I've already gotten over it.

I can't remember where, but a few years ago I was reading about the falling crime rates in the US being overshadowed by the increased coverage of crime on the news. This article stated that the coverage of violent criminal acts had increased by 300% on local news broadcasts over the past decade. The same time period that saw one of the greatest declines in crime rates nationally.

Having said that, I will say that I DO think that violent content in entertainment is bad for kids. I don't let my kid watch that sort of crap, and I wish other parents would do the same. Of course, I think that 99% of what's on TV (and yes, that includes most of the "educational" programing) is absoloute rubbish and children shouldn't be exposed to it except in very small doses.

Lonewulf

26th April 2007, 11:07 AM

And I highly question that question. If nobody had seen the advert, then they would not have gone around slapping people while repeating the tagline, I certainly didn't notice any slapping going on before the advert. They may have been acting out physical jokes before, but when they saw one on TV that included violence (not extreme violence admittedly), that's what they acted out. That seems like a very strong argument on my side.

It may seem so to you, but it does not seem so to me.

Also, is there some, more subtle, definition of "cause" that I'm missing here? I don't think that violent media is the sole cause of violence, but in some situations (the two above being examples), certain behaviour just wouldn't happen without the relevant trigger; if you never heard a particular joke then you couldn't repeat it.

There have been physical-based humor before the invention of television. We already have the propensity for that brand of humor. Media did not "create" it within us.

I'm still not seeing where my premise is faulty, media does influence our behaviour, although it does not dictate it absolutely. Why is violent media exempt from this?

You're stating that media causes people, on an above average scale, to commit deeds of violence. I dispute that point, and I would like something more to go with than simply, "it seems like..."

ImaginalDisc

26th April 2007, 12:19 PM

Maybe what these statistics demonstrate is that media violence, instead of making people more violent, is actually making people more fearfull. The very fact that we would have this discussion seems to imply that we need to discover a cause of violence because it's getting worse. It's as if I were trying to find a cure for my cold after I've already gotten over it.

I can't remember where, but a few years ago I was reading about the falling crime rates in the US being overshadowed by the increased coverage of crime on the news. This article stated that the coverage of violent criminal acts had increased by 300% on local news broadcasts over the past decade. The same time period that saw one of the greatest declines in crime rates nationally.

Increasing coverage of violence in the news? We've had Vietnam war footage, Rodney King beatings, and breathless reporting on grisly homicide trials for decades. And, network television viewership is down. Sure, there's more violence on NBC, but fewer people even watch NBC. What, are there more violent movies? The year Friday the 13th came out, there was no rash of camp counselor stabbings. Media violence = real violence is a moral panic. It's a fiction. It's a witch hunt. We don't need a scapegoat to lure away the wolf because there is no wolf.

Having said that, I will say that I DO think that violent content in entertainment is bad for kids. I don't let my kid watch that sort of crap, and I wish other parents would do the same. Of course, I think that 99% of what's on TV (and yes, that includes most of the "educational" programing) is absoloute rubbish and children shouldn't be exposed to it except in very small doses.

If you want to prevent your children from watching realistic pretend violence, feel free. They can just watch Tom and Jerry playfully attempt homicide at a rate of about eight times per fifteen minute cartoon. Or, they can read about genocide in the Bible, and go to sleep hearing fairy tales about children who shove old women into ovens, and wake up to sing nursery rhymes about smashing the heads of field mice and then go to school to analyze a play about an incestuous man who poisons his own brother in the ear.

Entertaining a macabre fascination/repulsion for fictionalized violence is part of the human condition.

joesixpack

26th April 2007, 01:10 PM

Increasing coverage of violence in the news? We've had Vietnam war footage, Rodney King beatings, and breathless reporting on grisly homicide trials for decades.

Are you arguing that because there was coverage of violence in the past that it could not increase?

And, network television viewership is down. Sure, there's more violence on NBC, but fewer people even watch NBC.

My point was that local news programs tend to cover violent crime more now, even when it isn't local.

What, are there more violent movies? The year Friday the 13th came out, there was no rash of camp counselor stabbings. Media violence = real violence is a moral panic. It's a fiction. It's a witch hunt. We don't need a scapegoat to lure away the wolf because there is no wolf.

Did you read my post?

If you want to prevent your children from watching realistic pretend violence, feel free.

Thanks for allowing me to raise my kid as I see fit. You may be a bit surprised to learn, though, that I wasn't seeking your approval.

They can just watch Tom and Jerry playfully attempt homicide at a rate of about eight times per fifteen minute cartoon.

I keep re-reading my post, and I can't see where I said that 'Tom and Jerry' was an acceptable alternative to television in general.

Or, they can read about genocide in the Bible, and go to sleep hearing fairy tales about children who shove old women into ovens, and wake up to sing nursery rhymes about smashing the heads of field mice and then go to school to analyze a play about an incestuous man who poisons his own brother in the ear.

Occasional exposure to violence in liturature or on screen is not the issue I have. It's the prevalance of violent content on TV and the fact that many kids watch hours of it without any adult supervision. I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and bet that you don't actually have any children yourself.

Entertaining a macabre fascination/repulsion for fictionalized violence is part of the human condition.

Again, not something I was arguing against. I accept that, but I also try exert some parental control, too.

ImaginalDisc

26th April 2007, 01:13 PM

Lonewulf

26th April 2007, 01:15 PM

joesixpack

26th April 2007, 02:02 PM

Joe, I will respond to your post when you can show that fictional violence is related to violence in society. Until then, I maintain that this is all a moral panic akin to blaming the troubles of todays youth on secret Satanic cults.

You are the only guy I know who will argue with someone who agrees with you.

Here's what I said;

"Maybe what these statistics demonstrate is that media violence, instead of making people more violent, is actually making people more fearfull. The very fact that we would have this discussion seems to imply that we need to discover a cause of violence because it's getting worse. It's as if I were trying to find a cure for my cold after I've already gotten over it.

I can't remember where, but a few years ago I was reading about the falling crime rates in the US being overshadowed by the increased coverage of crime on the news. This article stated that the coverage of violent criminal acts had increased by 300% on local news broadcasts over the past decade. The same time period that saw one of the greatest declines in crime rates nationally."

Read what I wrote. I'm saying it is moral panic

osmosis

27th April 2007, 12:44 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9351462ee9c0be878.gif

Wow, I'm really surprised at the response this thread has elicited, in both volume and tone. It seems that without any real data to go by, we're left to argue amongst ourselves. Not that argument is a bad thing, on the contrary I believe it's necessary to reach well-thought-out positions.

I'm going to try to build some consensus here though. It seems like there are a few straw men floating around this thread, and there's no point letting the non-issues muddy the discussion of the real issues. (not that I'm attempting to dictate what the "real issues" are.)

I think we can mostly agree that an average person of a certain mental maturity will not be significantly affected by violent media. By the time one is all-growed-up they already have a moral foundation that is not likely to collapse simply by viewing nasty material. Probably not by seeing the real thing either.

The increasing coverage of violence in the news DOES have an impact on us in that it tends to make us more fearful. The more we see it, the more likely it seems that it will happen to us as individuals. This is also a byproduct of increasing population density -- even though there may be fewer murders per capita, those murders are happening in our back yards, so to speak.

It is true that although violent (and other) crime rates are on the decline, this does not, in and of itself, have anything to do with whether or not exposure to violent images increase our tendency towards violence. But what about the increasing proliferation of these violent images all the while? I don't think it's safe to conclude that there's an inverse relationship working here, but then where does that leave us?

Lastly, we have the children. It seems to me that this is the "real issue". Does anyone here have a degree in developmental psychology?

flimflam_machine

27th April 2007, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by flimflam_machine http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2552397#post2552397)
And I highly question that question. If nobody had seen the advert, then they would not have gone around slapping people while repeating the tagline, I certainly didn't notice any slapping going on before the advert. They may have been acting out physical jokes before, but when they saw one on TV that included violence (not extreme violence admittedly), that's what they acted out. That seems like a very strong argument on my side.

It may seem so to you, but it does not seem so to me.

I find this really bizarre. Are you arguing that those kids would have spontaneously started slapping each other and shouting "You've been tangoed!" if they hadn't seen the adverts? I understand that they may have just continued give each other chinese burns and wedgies etc. But the problem is that if you slap someone around the side of the head with both hands as copied from the ad it is actually possible to rupture their eardrums (which apparently did happen).

You accept (I think) that kids will copy acts of physical humour that they have seen on TV, but that when those things that they see on TV include violence (on any level) you don't think that they copy them? Why? This is what I want to know. Why do you think that the ability of media to affect our behaviour does not extend to violent media?

You're stating that media causes people, on an above average scale, to commit deeds of violence. I dispute that point, and I would like something more to go with than simply, "it seems like..."

Yes, in the same way that advertising causes us to buy stuff. Many other things are necessary as well: stuff, money, shops, a supply chain and our natural propensity to acquire things for ourselves. Although all these things are necessary, advertising is certainly a cause.

Niobe

27th April 2007, 04:22 AM

I think this implies at one point we weren't callous thugs beating people up for no reason at all. *checks history books* yep same human race.

Lonewulf

27th April 2007, 06:53 AM

I find this really bizarre. Are you arguing that those kids would have spontaneously started slapping each other and shouting "You've been tangoed!" if they hadn't seen the adverts? I understand that they may have just continued give each other chinese burns and wedgies etc. But the problem is that if you slap someone around the side of the head with both hands as copied from the ad it is actually possible to rupture their eardrums (which apparently did happen).

Did the children know that it was possible before initiating such contact? You're drawing assumptions that children intentionally ruptured eardrums because of television. If it was not intentional, then I don't quite get your point.

You accept (I think) that kids will copy acts of physical humour that they have seen on TV, but that when those things that they see on TV include violence (on any level) you don't think that they copy them? Why?

Because I assume humans are capable of reason?

They copy what is reasonable, and what they already have a tendency to find funny. Children that enjoy physical humor (What? Did "indian burns" come from television automagically?) have a tendency to find a certain brand of humor funny. They saw that brand of humor on television, and thus copied it to be funny to their peers. If the joke is not funny, then they would not copy it.

What I want to know is, do you think that children don't copy shooting each other in the face most of the time? And, if they don't, then why do you accept that they copy other brands of violence? Where's this "stopping point"? Where's the line? The limit? The tendency? How violent do kids grow, if they do, by being exposed to media? If not exposed to media, would they be far less violent? It's bizarre that you think that people copy some kinds of violence but not others. ;) At least, using your same argument.

This is what I want to know. Why do you think that the ability of media to affect our behaviour does not extend to violent media?

See above.

Yes, in the same way that advertising causes us to buy stuff.

No it doesn't. Advertising doesn't "cause" us to do anything. Advertising informs us that there is a product out there. If we do not have any desire to buy that product, advertising does not "change" that decision.

Many other things are necessary as well: stuff, money, shops, a supply chain and our natural propensity to acquire things for ourselves. Although all these things are necessary, advertising is certainly a cause.

Advertising is the giving of information, not a cause. Do you have evidence of otherwise?

Those that would wish to buy a new shiny toy for christmas would be predisposed to pay attention to advertising for that shiny toy. There is no cause here; they already wanted that toy, the advertising just informed them that there was one available. There is no mind control here. There is no brainwashing. For advertising to cause you to do anything, you'd have to insert some sort of conspiracy theory about brain-wave-control-thingies that comes out of our television, making humans into zombies and forcing them against their will to buy objects...

flimflam_machine

27th April 2007, 08:53 AM

Did the children know that it was possible before initiating such contact? You're drawing assumptions that children intentionally ruptured eardrums because of television. If it was not intentional, then I don't quite get your point.No, I'm not drawing that assumption at all, in fact exactly the opposite. Because children don't necessarily appreciate the consequences of their actions what they are exposed to is pretty crucial. If you consider chinese burns and the face slapping to be equally violent then, no, the adverts didn't cause them to become more violent. What they did cause them to do is carry out a specific act of violence that was actually physically damaging rather than transiently painful.

What I want to know is, do you think that children don't copy shooting each other in the face most of the time? And, if they don't, then why do you accept that they copy other brands of violence? Where's this "stopping point"? Where's the line? The limit? The tendency? How violent do kids grow, if they do, by being exposed to media? If not exposed to media, would they be far less violent? It's bizarre that you think that people copy some kinds of violence but not others. :wink: At least, using your same argument.I reckon that this is the crux of the matter and we are approaching it from completely different angles. You seem to assume that because watching a violent film does not automatically make every sane adult go out and shoot someone in the face, violent media cannot make us more violent. That seems to me like saying that because not every smoker instantly dies of lung cancer, tobacco doesn't affect our health.

I'm starting from the observation that things that we observe affect our behaviour and asking why that does not extend to violent media. There are several possibilities, one is that violent media isn't intended to make us violent and so it doesn't. Another is that we may actually immediately know that the violence is unacceptable and so do not let violent media affect us. But where is the line? How violent does something have to be before we filter out its influence? How does the strength of this influence change with age? Does the effect only occur with people predisposed to violence or does it shift the whole population imperceptibly towards the violent end of the spectrum?

No it doesn't. Advertising doesn't "cause" us to do anything. Advertising informs us that there is a product out there. If we do not have any desire to buy that product, advertising does not "change" that decision.No, that's what advertising used to do. Now, in addition to informing us of the product's existence, it tries to make us want one by associating it with wealth, health, beauty, sex etc. If you buy this you will be happy!

Lonewulf

27th April 2007, 09:02 AM

No, I'm not drawing that assumption at all, in fact exactly the opposite. Because children don't necessarily appreciate the consequences of their actions what they are exposed to is pretty crucial. If you consider chinese burns and the face slapping to be equally violent then, no, the adverts didn't cause them to become more violent. What they did cause them to do is carry out a specific act of violence that was actually physically damaging rather than transiently painful.

Because it can cause damage if it happens to slap the ears? Okay, whatever... doesn't really prove anything.

I reckon that this is the crux of the matter and we are approaching it from completely different angles. You seem to assume that because watching a violent film does not automatically make every sane adult go out and shoot someone in the face, violent media cannot make us more violent.

Wrong. I just highly question the presumption. Saying, "Oh, well, it makes sense to me..." isn't enough to prove a point at all.

That seems to me like saying that because not every smoker instantly dies of lung cancer, tobacco doesn't affect our health. Again, wrong. You're good at being it...

If I smoked since I was 12, steadily and constantly all the way up until age 22, I would have very obvious effects of my health, irrespective of who I was (Sure, it affects some more than others, but in this case it's use would be obvious).

Once more, I've played violent games and watched violent videos since I was young. I have been subjected to much of it even to today; I play a game much like Counterstrike (It's called Dystopia), I like FPSes, I play fantasy games where you get money for killing pixels, and I watch television and the violent media. There have been no obvious detrimental effects on my mental health; so your cigarette analogy falls to pieces. I did not develop brain cancer, nor have I demonstrated truly violent behavior thanks to my exposure. If it was comparable to cigarettes, the effects would be obvious. The effects are not obvious. You need something far more quantative to demonstrate that violent media has as dangerous an effect on the mind as do cigarettes on the body.

I'm starting from the observation that things that we observe affect our behaviour and asking why that does not extend to violent media. There are several possibilities, one is that violent media isn't intended to make us violent and so it doesn't. Another is that we may actually immediately know that the violence is unacceptable and so do not let violent media affect us. But where is the line? How violent does something have to be before we filter out its influence? How does the strength of this influence change with age? Does the effect only occur with people predisposed to violence or does it shift the whole population imperceptibly towards the violent end of the spectrum?

Dunno. Tell me when you come up with something quantitative.

No, that's what advertising used to do. Now, in addition to informing us of the product's existence, it tries to make us want one by associating it with wealth, health, beauty, sex etc. If you buy this you will be happy!

And if you truly assume that a large amount of consumers buy the product for that reason, it is no wonder you are paranoid over media.

ImaginalDisc

27th April 2007, 09:35 AM

You are the only guy I know who will argue with someone who agrees with you.

Here's what I said;

"Maybe what these statistics demonstrate is that media violence, instead of making people more violent, is actually making people more fearfull. The very fact that we would have this discussion seems to imply that we need to discover a cause of violence because it's getting worse. It's as if I were trying to find a cure for my cold after I've already gotten over it.

I can't remember where, but a few years ago I was reading about the falling crime rates in the US being overshadowed by the increased coverage of crime on the news. This article stated that the coverage of violent criminal acts had increased by 300% on local news broadcasts over the past decade. The same time period that saw one of the greatest declines in crime rates nationally."

Read what I wrote. I'm saying it is moral panic

If that was what you intended, I didn't mean to misrepresent it. My apologies.

flimflam_machine

27th April 2007, 09:54 AM

I'm not sure I can be bothered with this much longer, mainly because I find you annoyingly abrasive and dismissive by turns...

Again, wrong. You're good at being it......like that, but also because you seem to be completely missing my point.

Once more, I've played violent games and watched violent videos since I was young. I have been subjected to much of it even to today; I play a game much like Counterstrike (It's called Dystopia), I like FPSes, I play fantasy games where you get money for killing pixels, and I watch television and the violent media. There have been no obvious detrimental effects on my mental health; so your cigarette analogy falls to pieces.Right. Because you (obviously an unbiased observer) think that you have not been affected by violent media (compared to what exactly, where's the "control you"), violent media has no effect. That's not a convincing counter argument. Mainly because, as I've said many times, I'm not arguing that violent media will cause everyone to become a psychotic murderer.

I did not develop brain cancer, nor have I demonstrated truly violent behavior thanks to my exposure. If it was comparable to cigarettes, the effects would be obvious. The effects are not obvious. You need something far more quantative to demonstrate that violent media has as dangerous an effect on the mind as do cigarettes on the body.Nor does every smoker develop lung cancer. But they increase their chances of doing so. I am not arguing that the effects are equivalent. It is precisely because effects of violent media are not obvious that this is actually a matter for debate.

I am not offering proof, I am not 100% convinced one way or the other, nor am I asking you to prove a negative. What I have done is present the chain of thought that I think leads most people to assume that violent media makes us more violent, and asked you where you think it is not valid. If you could do so then it would be an enormous boost to the side of the argument that you are defending so vehemently, especially because it is difficult to get clean data with all the confounding social variables. So far I haven't seen you come up with a decent response.

Dunno.Exactly. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just asking you to present a counter argument to this specific point: things that we interact with affect our behaviour. If you want proof, take this discussion: your behaviour is determined by the content of my posts. Why are violent media exempt from this?

And if you truly assume that a large amount of consumers buy the product for that reason, it is no wonder you are paranoid over media.What country do you live in? Am I right in thinking that all the adverts where you are consist of black-on-white text with catchy slogans like "Grubbo dog food. It exists." with a picture of an ugly, poor-looking person holding the product. No? Perhaps they show happy and/or successful and/or attractive people using and enjoying the product? Why do you think that is? Obviously it's not because it actually works. Of course people could never be so stupid as to be affected by such simple tricks. Genuinely, are you a martian?

joesixpack

27th April 2007, 10:13 AM

... "Grubbo dog food. It exists." ...

That is about the funniest thing I've read all week. I have tears in my eyes. Seriously

joesixpack

27th April 2007, 10:16 AM

If that was what you intended, I didn't mean to misrepresent it. My apologies.

No worries. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the clearest writing style.

Lonewulf

27th April 2007, 01:38 PM

Right. Because you (obviously an unbiased observer) think that you have not been affected by violent media (compared to what exactly, where's the "control you"), violent media has no effect. That's not a convincing counter argument. Mainly because, as I've said many times, I'm not arguing that violent media will cause everyone to become a psychotic murderer.

You missed the point. I was stating that cigarettes and violent media had no comparison at all whatsoever.

Kahalachan

23rd May 2007, 02:53 AM

I don't have 15 posts yet so can't post links, but use google scholar to find psychological literature for it.

There are good correlations between children observing violence and performing it. One famous experiment had children viewing violence and a control group who didn't view violence on TV. They had Bobo dolls in the room and the children who were exposed to violence punched the dolls more than the children who didn't. The control group didn't seem to think of punching the doll.

For older children, this is harder to tell since they should be able to rationalize the consequences of violent behavior.

So your topic title uses the word thugs, and I'm assuming you mean teenagers. I think they can be influenced by viewing violence but should still have some ability to understand why violence is wrong, unless they were brainwashed or raised poorly.

Edit: I just realized that you did mention inanimate objects so I'm guessing you know about the Bobo dolls.

One thing to note is that correlation doesn't mean causation and many psychological experiments are correlational studies. I don't think causality between witnessing violence and performing violence is apparent in older children.

baskett_case

23rd May 2007, 09:11 AM

What kind of violence? In our society, only government-sanctioned violence is acceptable for most people.

osmosis

23rd May 2007, 09:53 AM

So your topic title uses the word thugs, and I'm assuming you mean teenagers. I think they can be influenced by viewing violence but should still have some ability to understand why violence is wrong, unless they were brainwashed or raised poorly.

I wasn't specifying any particular age group, although it seems likely that the less-mentally-developed would be more susceptible to any kind of media influence.

I just realized that you did mention inanimate objects so I'm guessing you know about the Bobo dolls.

Yes I took Psych101 and saw the experiment with the bobo dolls. The problem I have with the supposed implications of this study, is that the bobo dolls don't react to abuse. A real person would fight back or cry, and that reaction would be witnessed by the abuser and a connection would likely be made between the causative actions and the consequential results. I'm just not convinced that the bobo dolls experiment gives evidence of any correlation in a real social situation.