Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

The studies says lots of different things, plus you have to conclude there really is no objective definitions to measure, how violent is hitting someone VS stabbing them VS insulting them; what if video games make people less likely to insult them but more likely to kill them, but the base probability of insulting people is far higher to begin with?   

I think they measure by police reports of violence by minors, which seems like a meaningful measure.  I could be wrong, but that's how I'd do it.

I think your example actually means "more likely to kill and even more likely to insult", so the more important information would show up in police reports.  If video games made people kill, it would be relatively unimportant that they encourage rudeness.

We have to think here about what makes sense, if it were not a genuine reason to think that violent media caused violence, then nobody would be motivated to invent one.  If there were however there would be every motivation from the fans of said media to deny there was.  To put it one way only one side has a motivation to be wrong and that is the side arguing there is no relationship.

That's... quite a claim.  The politicians who demonize videogames have clear motivation to do so.  People demand answers in the wake of tragedies, targets even.  "Something must be done!"  Legislating against video games only offended a minority of weird hobbyists and minors (in the 90's, when this was mostly done).  It gave people comfort via scapegoat, and the politicians got to "protect the children". 

They might have believed what they said, but they didn't need to - it made simple political sense.  Some politicians believe it still does.  If there was a scientific study showing video games causing violence, it would be one of the ones they funded.

As for the other side, if you gave me proof that video games (or movies, say) caused children to be more violent, I'd want action.  Preferably very specific action, but something would need to be done.  Gamers don't generally value gaming more than human life.

In any case, I am not arguing wrong in the context of mental health.  I am arguing that it is the appearances that are ethically relevant.  I am wrong if I appear to be doing wrong (to myself), it does not matter if the appearance is illusory.

Oh, my fault, I had been skimming.  I'll have to reread some of your posts sometime!

Yeah, a 3 year old girl ripping off a doll's head probably does NOT mean that she would do that to her brother.

It is reasonable however to assume that a girl that loves to rip off doll's head is more likely to rip off her brother's head than another girl that does not do this.

It's... a hypothesis, but I don't think it's true.  A child butchering their toys is creepy, and there should probably be a conversation about it, but creepy is just a feeling.  It could be a healthy outlet.
Whereas torturing insects or other animals has (last I heard) actually been connected with later violent behavior.  There's a difference.  Children just need to be taught that difference before they engage in fantasy violence.

[Reelya]

I think the dissonance is that aspects of two things can share the same mathematical equations. We have plenty of examples of that such as how often the Fibonacci sequence arises. Seeing the Fibonacci sequence in two places doesn't mean both things are "the same", they just have some parts which have a similar set of inter-relationships to another thing's parts. Math represents the relation between different things, so you can have the same relation appearing in unrelated contexts. Math isn't the "thing" itself, it's just a measure of relations.

I haven't read the sources on quantum minds theory, but imagine a hypothetical example where there were aspects of cognition which have the same probability spreads as the Schrodinger equation. But the relations happen at a cellular level, not a sub-atomic level. The schrodinger equation dictates a set of relations that occur at the sub-atomic level, not the cellular level, so while the math might appear similar, the cause is in face different.

[strainer]

For two different things to seemingly share an identical complex model, is pretty a big deal in mathematics and metaphysics, until the similarity and difference is clearly explained. Its not normal to just put coinciding theories down to... coincidence. Accepting, if two things seem to be different, like conciousness and quantum particles, they are in some respect /point of view, certainly different.

On the deeper meaning meaning of child play - it is well established that problematic situations and behaviour in children can be observed with some confidence in how they play with toys, as well as with animals, and with people.

The historical 60s experiment is the Bobo Doll Experiment. But its not confined to history, its totally routine in normal child care and education and therapeutic practice to observe and interpret how children play with toys. 

[Reelya]

The interesting thing about the Bobo Doll experiment as mentioned, is that if any of the kids had seen a Bobo doll before, they were 5 times less likely to imitate the aggressive behavior against the Bobo Doll.

So it was imitative aggressive behavior, but it was also much more pronounced when it was combined with novelty. Any sort of pre-familiarity with the thing in question seemed to heavily damp down on the act of imitation. What that suggests to me is that rather than strict "aggression" the act of imitation more likely signifies a type of exploration / curiosity that the child was on in response to a novel set of stimuli, and that the long-term applicability of the study is in fact hard to verify.

EDIT: just because they "hit" the doll doesn't mean anger or aggression at all. For example, imagine you gave the kid a drum, he's never seen a drum before and you demostrate by hitting the drum with a stick and going "bang bang" when you do so. Would we say the child has internalized aggressive behavior when he also drums. Similarly, when shown a Bobo Doll and explained that Bobo Dolls are played with by throwing them in the air, whacking them and saying "Kapow!" is it really evidence of aggression when they copy that, but only if they haven't played with the doll before?

EDIT2: or, a more real-world example: imagine that there's some TV show in which a boy punches his sister, according to the Bobo Doll experiment, the boy viewing is also likely to punch his sister ... if and only if he's never seen nor played with his sister beforehand. Like the Bobo Doll experiment the likelihood of hitting preexisting sisters because it happened on TV is minimal.

[strainer]

Point taken - I referenced a whackier study than I had expected. But as afaik there is really widespread practical and clinical agreement on the significance of child play - its common sense where im coming from, if you see your kid/ little brother / niece abusing some toy - something is troubling them.

[Eschar]

We have to think here about what makes sense, if it were not a genuine reason to think that violent media caused violence, then nobody would be motivated to invent one.

Actually, no. That's ad populum.

[Reelya]

Point taken - I referenced a whackier study than I had expected.

Yeah, rather than a critique of any specific point you made, what I wrote was really just a general critique on being careful with reading too much into any lab study. Even if they put in good quality experimental controls, there's often a huge whopping flaw in the interpretation side of things. They clearly measured something but there's little proof that the thing they measured is what they were looking for.

~~~

I missed that GoblinCookie quote, but you' could easily Godwin that with something like "if it were not a genuine reason to think that the Jews control society, then nobody would be motivated to invent one."

The argument just plainly doesn't make a lick of sense. People are motivated to blame random things for causing random other things constantly. It's like history's biggest problem ever. It's so silly to say "if violent movies aren't the problem then why would people be upset?" because that applies to every "witch hunt" since the dawn of time. Hell, remember the moral panic about satanic D&D? It's the same exact deal.

[strainer]

Its not fair to reframe Goblincookies statement in a political/racisit/bigotted sense. It has some validity as an inductive argument for violence in video games, its saying its a popular position and we can see no poltical/racist/bigotted etc motive to generate it, and genuine reasons do also generate popular positions.

Often when people site a formal fallacy things seem clear cut, but fallacy identification is more of a rhetorical device than philosophical/logical insightfulness, which requires more consideration than to summarize a position with the most dismissive phrase available, though its very tempting to do that in rhetorical/competitive debate.

Personally, I was exposed to some video nasties as a child which I really wish I hadnt. Im in no doubt that graphic violence in media has a stressful and numbing effect on the unfamiliarised viewer except in disciplined, work like context. But it seems some decided wed just all have to get used to it if we want to stay in touch with modern culture.

[KittyTac]

GC is a self-admitted thread derailer. Look at that family lineage thread.

Geez, I see now why your reputation is thin on the ground. And yet you are complaining about it being bad. You are, in effect, a troll.

I didn't realise I was advocating having pointless off-topic mud-slinging matches, I was just pointing out that ironically such a pointless mud-slinging match may well actually cause a proposal to rise up the lists faster than a constructive, civil and on-topic debates.  If you are OP make sure to promote mayhem on your thread, as long as it does not actually get your thread locked.

[Rolan7]

Hey, come on.  I know you want the thread to die, but no need for personal attacks.

[Eschar]

Judging from the last few pages, KT may have been mistaken about Bay12's only flamewars being quantum mechanics discussions.

Also, the thread has derailed. It needs to be split off somehow, preferably to the lower forums.
If the original poster does not wish to or cannot split off parts (I don't know whether SMF allows moving only parts of a thread), one of those interested in continuing the new, not-quite-related-to-OP discussion can quote all the relevant posts in a new General Discussion post, and we can allow this thread to sink out of sight of the first page.

[Egan_BW]

B12: Not many flames. A lot of smug arrogance and ego-inflation about this fact.

[ArmokGoB]

Sometimes I have to wonder if all systems achieve some form of arcane self awareness upon reaching a certain level of complexity.

[Egan_BW]

Obviously the atmosphere is sentient.

[KittyTac]

Obviously the atmosphere is sentient.

Oxygen is sentient. Breathing is genocide.