A violence control thread

[hanleyclifford]

Pure unadulterated BS. Not to mention that the games you are referring too have a rating which parents should be aware of, and adhere to. If a parent is allowing a child to partake of activities inappropriate for their age, then that is all on the parent.

Your post actually contradicts itself. At the end intelligence begins to emerge: it is on the parent, and teaching violence thru video games or any thing else for that matter is "inappropriate".

[Vince Brennan]

I was thinking about this too but couldn't find a reference re the 'efficiency' of infantrymen now compared to say WW2 and how they are trained. Reaction times, accuracy and natural resistance to killing can be trained out and 'video games' are part of it. Flying an armed drone remotely is just another video game..

"Ender's Game"

[Old Dryfoot]

Your post actually contradicts itself. At the end intelligence begins to emerge: it is on the parent, and teaching violence thru video games or any thing else for that matter is "inappropriate".

The games are rated, if you look at the material you are railing against, you will understand my post. Would you let your 9 year old child go to an R rated movie?

[hanleyclifford]

The games are rated, if you look at the material you are railing against, you will understand my post. Would you let your 9 year old child go to an R rated movie?

You and "Rubber" up there are still not getting it: it isn't just about video games but rather the whole range of trivializations of gratuitous violence that permeates the cultural environment of our youth; anybody who thinks we can expose our youth to current levels of such insidious propaganda disguised as entertainment without reaping a statistically significant number of sociopaths and psychopaths has their head in the sand, as it were.

[McMike]

You and "Rubber" up there are still not getting it: it isn't just about video games but rather the whole range of trivializations of gratuitous violence that permeates the cultural environment of our youth; anybody who thinks we can expose our youth to current levels of such insidious propaganda disguised as entertainment without reaping a statistically significant number of sociopaths and psychopaths has their head in the sand, as it were.

Have you played any videogames? Better yet, assuming you are a responsible adult, would you take a young child to a violent batman movie? I wouldn't.

Some of The media I consume is not for children, it is violent. I am not violent. Explain

[Old Dryfoot]

You and "Rubber" up there are still not getting it: it isn't just about video games but rather the whole range of trivializations of gratuitous violence that permeates the cultural environment of our youth; anybody who thinks we can expose our youth to current levels of such insidious propaganda disguised as entertainment without reaping a statistically significant number of sociopaths and psychopaths has their head in the sand, as it were.

I understand full well what you are saying, I just think that it's wrong. IT's the same argument that was trotted out decades ago when Rock & Roll was ruining a generation, the logic was flawed then and it's flawed now. Violent behavior is seldom a learned condition unless we are discussing the process of brain washing. In fact there is strong evidence to suggest that this type of behavior is something a person is genetically predisposed too.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1458834/

Each year >1.6 million people are killed through violence (1). Preventing violence is one of the most important global concerns. The political, social, or economic causes of violence are well studied, but more recently the awareness has grown that biological causes, which may explain individual differences in predisposition to violence, also need to be investigated. Here it is crucial to distinguish between impulsive reactive violence and predatory violence because the biological bases of these two types of aggression are likely to be different (2). Predatory violence particularly characterizes a smaller group of true psychopaths, whereas reactive violence is common across antisocial groups (3). An important theoretical advance in our knowledge about the brain basis of reactive violence has been made by Meyer-Lindenberg et al.(4) in this issue of PNAS.

More here

http://discovermagazine.com/1994/nov...cegenesand446/

[Old Dryfoot]

Part 2

[Kaa]

anybody who thinks we can expose our youth to current levels of such insidious propaganda disguised as entertainment without reaping a statistically significant number of sociopaths and psychopaths has their head in the sand, as it were.

Do you, perhaps, have statistics which show how the percentage of sociopaths in the population skyrockets after video games are introducted?

Kaa

[John Smith]

The games are rated, if you look at the material you are railing against, you will understand my post. Would you let your 9 year old child go to an R rated movie?

This is an entirely different area. Movie ratings: making love is bad, making violence okay. Never understood that.

Do we remember the westerns: "The only good indian is a dead indian."? And the magic guns that never ran out of bullets?

[John Smith]

It is easy for many to point the finger of blame at someone or something, sans any real connection.

I remember when taking prayer out of school was the cause.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

People get angry all the time, everywhere in the world. Show them that gun use is acceptable, make guns accessible...... when they get mad, they use them. When they get desperate, they use them. When they get depressed, they use them. It's easy, and almost surreal for most people to pick up a gun and shoot it at something or someone.

I don't mind people who hunt and eat what they kill. It isn't necessary, and I don't find someone using a huge gun to shoot an animal to be 'sport' but nevertheless, if they eat it I can live with that. Personally, I don't find the need or desire to deprive some animal or person of their life.

I understand the anger, but I have moved on. For the most part, so has the society and country I live in.

[Kaa]

Have you played any videogames?

Ah, excellent point. hanleyclifford, which videogames have you played? on the basis of which experience have you come to your conclusions?

Kaa

[Old Dryfoot]

This is an entirely different area. Movie ratings: making love is bad, making violence okay. Never understood that.

Do we remember the westerns: "The only good indian is a dead indian."? And the magic guns that never ran out of bullets?

Very true, the ratings used by the MPAA are not as well founded perhaps as the ESRB but movies have never received the same scrutiny that video games have.

[Chris Coose]

on the basis of which experience have you come to your conclusions?

Kaa

He believes it, so it is true. This is a new fundamental code emerging in the US

[John Smith]

Had this thought on another thread, but it belongs in this one.

Humans suffer many emotions and some of those are destructive. Hate and jealously can be blinding.

Maybe there's a way to begin with young children in elementary school and try to teach them that hate, and actions based on it, are usually counter productive.

There are a few people I don't care for and would rather not associate with, but I can't say as I hate anyone. The impression I get, which may be inaccuarate, from the judge shows my wife and I watch, is if a girlfriend cheats on her boyfriend, the boyfriend tends to get very angry at the guy she cheated with, and not so much with his girlfriend, who seems to be the unfaithful one.

The impression I get from these, and other shows my daughter likes, is that the frequent response when angry is to destroy property; key their car.

While I view these things with great skeptisim as to whether any of it is real, and through the eyes of an older person. the young folks may view all of this as normal and acceptable behavior.

People tend to do things out of anger that they, hopefully, regret having done. I argued frequently at work that, except in cases where some immediate threat of harm was involved, that the supervisoe should have a 48 hour cooling off period before taking an action against what he perceived as a "wrong doing" employee.

The way things were working is the supervisor would get angry (maybe even from an argument with his wife) and run into the office and write a disciplinary letter to the employee. Employee would come to me, and I would file a grievance. Mostly I won. Frequently because the supervisor in his angry haste screwed up.

My belief was that if he had to wait 48 hours, 9 times out of 10, he'd never write the letter, as he'd look back with a cooler head and see no real point in it.

I think it's also a good idea to add to modern day courses one on how to fact check and the importance of doing so. I find myself possibly losing friends because I ask them why they forward stuff without making sure it's true. Anything without links to reliable supporting documentation is likely not true. The believed misinformation, however, forms opinions based on falsehoods, and that leads to problems.

I do remember in the mid 50's my brother's friends and my friends came to our house after school because their parents wouldn't let them listen to black artists. I'm not so sure but that the music of that generation didn't help end a lot of racism for that generation.

[Dave Wright]

As I said, I have played violent videogames extensively throughout my childhood and adulthood. I would rather die than kill another innocent person, even if by accident. I've seen three dead bodies as a result of traffic accidents within the past six months and it was very difficult for me to process. I had tears running down my face while waiting for the officer to direct me past the accident.

Videogames do not teach normal people how to be violent nor do they desensitize one to violent actions. A mentally unhealthy person can be driven to violence by a smile, so no removal of fictional violent imagery will stop them from acting out violently. That said, I would not advocate young children being exposed to violent imagery as a norm but sheltering them from it totally is also bad.

A quick google search produces support for hanley clifford:

http://ithp.org/articles/violentvideogames.html

[Kaa]

A quick google search produces support for hanley clifford:

http://ithp.org/articles/violentvideogames.html

His viewpoint is not unique :-) it's just wrong :-D

Kaa

[Dave Wright]

.

His viewpoint is not unique :-) it's just wrong :-D

Kaa

Another quick and irrelevant line from the anonymous expert! Welcome back from your long absence.

[John Smith]

A quick google search produces support for hanley clifford:

http://ithp.org/articles/violentvideogames.html

You can find many "expert" opinions in this area, but, as I said, I believe WWII came before the John Wayne movies.

For every person who watches porn and does something evil, millions watch and do nothing evil. Same goes for video games.

If you found several serial killers drove Fords, would you connect Ford to the killings?

I think there are many areas to explore and questions to ask. Why, for example, is the NRA so sure Obama wants to take their guns away.

[Kaa]

.

Another quick and irrelevant line from the anonymous expert! Welcome back from your long absence.

Than you :-) I'll try to be more relevantly irreverent in the future :-D

Kaa

[Dave Wright]

"In summary, the Statement contained in the Appendix of the Gruel Brief was written and endorsed by the most recognized experts on violent media effects and violence generally. These experts concluded that violent video games cause cognitive and other harm to children and adolescents. Over one hundred additional researchers endorsed the Gruel Brief, many of whom specialize in violence, violent media, and the effects of media on children. In contrast, the signatories to the Millett Brief opposing the California law have minimal expertise conducting specific research on the effects of violent media or even research on aggression or violence more generally. As such, the Millet Brief signatories are relatively unqualified to offer "expert" opinions on the effects of violent video games on children."

from: http://colloquy.law.northwestern.edu...n-v-enter.html

[Kaa]

...by the most recognized experts on violent media effects and violence generally."

LOL. You do realize that if there are no significant effects of violent media, all these people would be out of a job? :-D

In any case, knowing a little bit of history helps. The cry of "corrupting our children by teaching them violence" was raised with the publication of serial novels in the magazines, with the movies, with the TV, with the comics, and in its latest incarnation, with computer games. It's the same old arguments and the same old lack of empirical evidence.

Kaa

[Dave Wright]

LOL. You do realize that if there are no significant effects of violent media, all these people would be out of a job? :-D
Kaa

Would I be wrong in assuming that if you had a "real" job you'd post less? :-D

[Kaa]

Would I be wrong in assuming that if you had a "real" job you'd post less? :-D

Yes :-D

Kaa

[PhaseLockedLoop]

[QUOTE=John Smith;3493615]
Why do people kill people?
[quote]

A great many US killings, mostly gang-related, are to intimidate the survivors, avenge attacks, punish disrespect, and secure domination. Political killings.

[QUOTE=John Smith;3493615]
Somewhere along the way we've developed what seems to be an enormous number of Americans who simply seem to not value human life.[quote]

Yes, well I've noticed that. I suppose you'll say I'm trying to hijack the thread, but if, as it seems, you're wondering about the Americans who don't value human life, you have to look at the values of the country. Just in the past dozen years we've embraced attacks on other countries that have killed hundreds of thousands, we've idolized the hunter/killer image of our troops and such outfits as Blackwater, and we've got a President who personally decides (in absolute secrecy) who to target with drones. Our idea of diplomacy is to impose sanctions on countries who don't support us--sanctions which always cause large numbers of deaths--while threatening large-scale military attack. Our media demonizes any foreign leader (or anybody) who disrespects the USA.

It's true that some people have objected to the wars, but only after they'd got bored and realized that some of our guys were getting killed. You find very few people who are concerned about the death-dealing itself, and hardly any who object to picking off foreigners if the President OKs it.

So there's no need to look at violent video games when there's plenty of the real thing going on every day. Bush II and Obama didn't get that way from video games.

[Dave Wright]

[So there's no need to look at violent video games when there's plenty of the real thing going on every day. Bush II and Obama didn't get that way from video games.

Very true, but violent games are part of the total package, perhaps just a very small part, but the salt in the stew if you will. I find it interesting that advocates for violent video games often sound like gun rights defenders. I have nothing against either side, I'd just like them both to acknowledge the potential (and real) anti social elements in their particular interests.

[Kaa]

...but violent games are part of the total package, perhaps just a very small part, but the salt in the stew if you will.

Evidence, please? Some facts (as opposed to opinions of the so-called "experts")..?

Kaa

[S/V Laura Ellen]

The violent crime offenders are not a homogeneous bunch.
The underlying factors to someone to become criminally violent can be:
mental health issues,
poverty,
greed,
social pressures,
and the list goes on

Each of the factors need to be addressed, each in a way that would be effective for that particular influence.

[hanleyclifford]

A quick google search produces support for hanley clifford:

http://ithp.org/articles/violentvideogames.html

It is remarkable the extent to which some people will go to deny human responsibility and instead fix blame on an object, in this case a gun.

[Dave Wright]

Evidence, please? Some facts (as opposed to opinions of the so-called "experts")..?

Kaa

Hanneke Polman,, 2008

[Kaa]

Hanneke Polman,, 2008

Do you have a link to an ungated version?

Kaa

[Dave Wright]

Do you have a link to an ungated version?

Kaa

Yes.

[Old Dryfoot]

From Grand Theft Childhood, authored by Dr. Lawrence Kutner and Dr. Cheryl K. Olson of the Harvard Medical School - Center for Mental Health and Media.

In 2004, we began a two-year, $1.5-million multifaceted study of violent video games and children at the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media, a division of the Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. The U.S. Department of Justice (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) funded the research.

Our researchers came from a variety of fields: child and adolescent psychiatry, adult psychiatry, public health, clinical psychology, developmental psychology, educational psychology, public policy—we even had an evolutionary biologist working with us. This allowed us to look at the issue from a broad set of perspectives. (Our research assistants, who were recent college graduates preparing themselves for doctoral programs in psychology, relished telling their friends and parents that they had found a job that actually paid them to play video games!)

Two things separated our study from most of the research that came before us:

•We didn't have a political or social agenda, or other vested interests. We weren't out to prove a point or to defend an industry. Studying video game violence was only a small part of what we did professionally, so the outcomes of the research didn’t affect our careers. We didn’t own stock in the companies that developed the games or sold the hardware. Although we each had ideas about what we might find, we disagreed amongst ourselves. Some of us were gamers; others were not. Some of us were the parents of teenage children; others were not. As researchers, we simply went wherever the data took us.

•We interviewed and surveyed a large number of children and parents to find out what they actually did, why they did it, how they felt, what they thought and what they feared. Much of the earlier research on violent video games involved artificial situations, such as having college sophomores play a new game for a few minutes in a research laboratory, or measuring fraction-of-a-second differences in how long someone blasts an air horn or triggers white noise from a computer (a surrogate, the researchers claim, for aggression or for violent behavior) after playing a violent game. Instead, we studied real families in real situations.

Much of what we found surprised us. The data were both encouraging and, at times, disturbing. The more we analyzed our own data and looked at other research, the more we realized that we—parents, politicians, researchers and child advocates—are probably worried too much about the wrong things, and too little about more subtle issues and complex effects that are much more likely to affect our children.

It's clear that the "big fears" bandied about in the press—that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that they will engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games—are not supported by the current research, at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy.

It's also clear that parents are both concerned and confused about violent video games. They are the first generation of parents to deal with children who use this technology. (Although, as we describe in Chapter 2, their own parents and grandparents and great-grandparents had similar fears about the new media of their day.) We want to protect our children from potentially harmful consequences, but we don't know how to do that or what those consequences might be.

We may be asking the wrong questions, and making the wrong assumptions. For example, instead of looking for a simple, direct relationship between video game violence and violent behavior in all children, we should be asking how we might identify those children who are at greatest risk for being influenced by these games.

We should look at why children say they play both violent and nonviolent video games. (Some of the most popular games, even among teenage boys, are not violent. Our research also found that, contrary to popular belief, a few of the most popular games among teenage girls are extremely violent.) We should ask whether children who spend a lot of time playing video games are failing to learn important interpersonal and social skills, or whether they're using the games to improve their social relationships with peers....

[hanleyclifford]

I think this one has more credibility http://psychology.about.com/od/class...experiment.htm

[Old Dryfoot]

"The experiment involved exposing children to two different adult models..."

Irrelevant, the topic is video games, not adults.

[htom]

Was talking to a local police chief this evening, Neighborhood Night Out. The Guns thing came up, and I offered that when I had gone to high school, we'd all taken guns to school for hunting after class. He had too. We didn't shoot each other. He opined that when we got into fist fights then, it hurt, win or lose. Fighting was pain-filled. Now fighting is video, and if physical, the kids are separated before they feel much physical pain.

[skipper68]

I went into a NJ girl in Jr. High.True. I punched her in the nose-only choice into 5 girls. Between doors. Principle let me go, kicked her and her gang outa there. Gotta get the first one in. Then get the s*it kicked outa you. MAYBE. The world is tough. Personal protection can get you a Manslaughter now.

[Dave Wright]

Old Dryfoot, if you're going to compare and contrast competing "experts" then you need to have a systematic method for doing that. I provided one in my post number 73 from: http://colloquy.law.northwestern.edu...n-v-enter.html

If some of the "experts" here on the forum don't have seamless access to papers through technical library services, there are plenty available for "free."

Here's one for you: http://www2.psy.uq.edu.au/~uqbbast1/...ESP%202012.pdf

Now you come up with your own unique way to compare one expert versus another please.

[Old Dryfoot]

There are studies out there for everyone that will support just about any position. Furthermore, lab studies by psychology professors and students are not the real-world, they are artificial constructs of reality.

Youth crime is on the decline while video game consumption is up, these are statistical facts. If indeed video games are the root cause of violence then shouldn't the two increase apace?




We want to blame comic books, or cartoons, or TV, or movies, and now video games. It's all bunk, people want a scapegoat... video games don't kill people, people kill people. Sound familiar?

What motivated Manson, or McLendon, or Berkowitz, or Pickton? I don't think they were real big video game players.

[hanleyclifford]

"The experiment involved exposing children to two different adult models..."

Irrelevant, the topic is video games, not adults.

Wrong; video games are only one component of the teaching of violence. The topic is not limited to video games.

[Meli]

Come now, you're not suggesting that's actually possible, are you? I was thinking more of the two or three people who read the thread and might actually be interested in results...

An observation.
which countries place property ownership above social justice?
which countries have more fatalities during simple robberies
which countries allow and even encourage property owners to protect their property with lethal force?

work it out, it's not rocket science

[Kaa]

Yes.

Excellent. Would you mind sharing it?

Kaa

[Kaa]

An observation.
which countries place property ownership above social justice?

All of them, more or less?

Countries which placed social justice above property ownership.... let's just say they didn't do too well.

Kaa