Is media violence REALLY turning us into thugs?

[osmosis]

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.

[korenyx]

There does seem to be more acceptance of violence overall in the media. Most movie reviews I have read lately act like violence is nothing to complain about; but sex is going to rot everyone's morals.

Kore

[Fronzel]

Are we a reflection of our art or is our art a reflection of us?

[Kaarjuus]

Humankind, children included, was violent before widespread media coverage and continues to be so now.

[The Great Hairy One]

Humans are violent animals - in the past this was a "Good Thing"(tm) as it helped put food on the table, fend of predators and the like. It's a lot more complex these days, with the weapons we have access too, and much larger numbers of people living in closer proximity to each other. The root cause of violence is probably hardwired into us, at the genetic level.

Whether or not the media can desensitise us to violent acts, and thus make violent acts more common, is a question which is yet to be answered. I'm aware of several studies and articles on the issue (can't think of any links right now, though, sorry - try searching for "violence" and "media" on PubMed), but I'm pretty sure that an overall conclusion is yet to be reached.

PS: I've just done a quick search on PubMed myself and read a few articles. The conclusions are very mixed, and there seems to be conflicting views.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Osmosis

Is media violence REALLY turning us into thugs?

No.

Next?

[Marquis de Carabas]

The question makes the unwarranted assumption we were not born thugs.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

The question makes the unwarranted assumption we were not born thugs.

We're not. Thuggery is a learned social behavior.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

We're not. Thuggery is a learned social behavior.

Your views fascinate me. Care to elaborate?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Your views fascinate me. Care to elaborate?

I'm pretty much going with what I view as mainstream theory in sociology. Nature vs. Nurture, sociologists assume more nurture than nature.

If you want actual specifics, I'll try to provide them, but I'm not sure you want a whole lesson in sociology from me.

[thisninjascrazy]

Surely if there was, I and everybody like me would be up the clocktower with a rifle. But despite years of watching Silence Of The Lambs, listening to death metal and playing violent video games, I've yet to throw a punch in my life.

Perhaps another question would be - in regard to people being 'influenced' by violent media - whether or not they're aware of the difference between fiction and reality as it pertains to violence? If one can differentiate, there's usually no problem. I can watch gory horror movies without batting an eyelid, but I had to turn off half-way through a documentary about the Nanking massacre. I still wince every time I see stock Concentration Camp footage. Then again, I'd be worried if I didn't.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I'm pretty much going with what I view as mainstream theory in sociology. Nature vs. Nurture, sociologists assume more nurture than nature.

That's the same assumption I just called unwarranted.

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

[Katana]

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.

[Raphael]

What motivates a thug? We've probably been violent since before we split from chimps.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Katana

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.

And that is called an anecdote !

[Katana]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

And that is called an anecdote !

Oh, and...



Oh, and another thing...



OK. Maybe you're right.

[Hamradioguy]

I don't watch a lot of TV, but do confess to being a news junkie, and of course both national and local news is filled with stories of violence and mayhem ("We warn you our next story contains some graphic images")

And I've been shooting firearms since I was 9 or 10- paper targets, cans, bottles, dump rats, and occasional larger critters. For all that I've never acted violently toward anyone. (Waiting here for someone to add, "not yet")

Media violence may be a part of it, but I think a rather small part.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

That's the same assumption I just called unwarranted.

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

See above.

Quote:

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

See above.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

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.

Quote:

Strong genetic predisposition to conform.

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

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]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

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]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Y'know, Marquis, you shouldn't lie.

Sorry. I learned it from society.

Quote:

It's kinda obvious my views don't "fascinate" you...

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Sorry. I learned it from society.

Haha.

Quote:

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

Point.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

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]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

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]

Danke.

[shemp]

Quote:

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

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]

Originally Posted by Curnir

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]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by flimflam_machine

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.

Quote:

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]

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]

Originally Posted by osmosis

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.