*points at Jack, laughs* Funny, if it's bad socialization, it might be that video games and violent animations are a way of controlling that impulse through catharsis...
it might be... but i don't think its a great idea to cultivate those tendancies in every case. I mean, if you do, at least make sure the kid with viloent tendancies is also taking some sort of role-playing communication/problem solving lessons.
just like anything, some people are pascified by a little indulgence, and some people indulge a little, and it increases their need... that's why some people are social drinkers, and some are alcoholics. Violence releases endorphins... those can become addictive to the wrong person.
Always the risk of addiction runs in us all, but Mr. Thompson seems to consistently believe that almost everyone who picks up a controller and plays a violent game is then going to replicate that violence in their regular lives. As with drinkers and alcoholics, this isn't the case. All things in moderation, and such.
Ah, I see... well I have never followed Jack Thompson, so I have been unaware of his philosophy concerning this. My philosophy is simply that people need to be aware of what things they and their kids need to moderate, and what things they need to avoid altogether, and for some people it is intoxicating or mind altering substances, for some people it's dessert, for some people it's violence, heck, for some people it's golf! ;-)
It would be a great day if everyone were to be so self-aware. More people, however, seem to trust that people who are not medical professionals know better what is and isn't good for them, and place their trust in those others rather than knowing themselves. And others, banking on this, make careers out of telling other people what is and isn't good for them. Some are famous, but many become infamous, instead. Mr. Thompson is half-infamous, three-quarters dismissed crackpot.
We go from a study showing a genetic and epigenetic correlation and with violent tendencies to violence on TV doesn't make children more violent. There is NO link between the two statements.
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF SCIENCE READ THE ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
The comment about violent cartoons was a throwaway line at the beginning of the SciAm article, the main article focuses on the genetic/factor study. Clearly, there was violence before television and that certain individuals are predisposed by genetics and epigenetics and upbringing at a young age to violence. That doesn't mean that television isn't making it worse, it only means that television watching isn't the only factor (which we knew anyway, there are millions of kids watching way too much television and who don't go on shooting rampages).
Here's a few hypotheses that could easily satisfy both the recent research AND still support Jack Thompson's claims:
1) Television shifts the MODE of the aggression. Previous to television, violent children would bite and kick and rail against their parents. But with television (and internet), they learn behaviors like shooting a gun, building bombs and can connect with other people who build on these. So television is making it worse, but the innate difference in violent tendencies are there at the start.
2) Television/video games removes checks to aggression. Violent behaviors are checked by social norms (it's not OK to kill, eg.) but overexposure to television violence removes such checks as the murderous behavior goes unpunished and is often rewarded. This leads to the extension of such behavior (only in individuals predisposed to perform them in the first place) to real life, leading to school shootings.
3) Television and violent video games reinforce violent tendencies. Before video games, a violent child would have a spat and calm down, but now, he can exercise and nurture this side of his personality and it will expand, begetting more violence.
This study hardly counters any of the arguments that Jack Thompson proposed. It merely deals with aggressive tendencies. Jack Thompson's arguments deal with violence in the more severe sense.
PS. For you mathematically inclined, consider the following argument:
100 Million children. Suppose the study shows that 1% of children have the genetic makeup for chronic aggression, that's 1 Million children. Now suppose that 0.5% of these children would "naturally" escalate to violent crime that causes death, that's 5,000 murderers. But with violent video games that figure is 0.6%, a 0.1% increase. That's 1,000 more murders, and something that would be absolutely shocking and certainly lead to Congressional mandates on video games. However going back to this study, that's a 0.001% difference in the statistics, something well within the noise.
Because the percentage of the chronically aggressive who actually commit violent crime is so low, it's impossible to draw conclusions as to whether any outside factor affects violent crime based on studies that cover the whole population.
...You know, I'm really quite sick of you being a complete and total pedant all over my journal.
I know perfectly well that this study doesn't conclusively prove that TV has no correlation with violence, but it's a pretty darn good argument that the "TV causes violence" thing is at least somewhat in error.
Actually it does nothing of the sort. It merely establishes that there is a genetic correlation to aggressive behavior in children. As far as I could tell (and maybe I'm reading Jack Thompson too loosely), no one is arguing that television is the sole factor in shaping a child's life, that all children will be perfect angels until television hits them. All we have is the argument that television can cause some percentage of violent crime and this study in no way reflects upon that statement.
As for being a pedant all over your journal, I'm sorry. It's actually a great read most of the time, but I hate when people make a big deal out of a study or a statement that far overstates the original research. The media does this to some degree but most respectable journalists stretch just a little. By the time it hits the LJ circuit, it's ballooned into something totally insane. You get the brunt of my retaliation because you're often the first journal I read that comments on any given issue.
Actually, as far as I can tell, Jack Thompson does, in fact, believe that video games and TV are the entire and sole cause of all violence in youth. It sure sounds like it. He certainly says that TV and games caused the specific violent behavior in every single case I've seen him comment on, even when the child in question didn't play violent games.
I just would appreciate you not condescending to me, talking down to me, or shouting at me. Particularly when all I did was LINK to a flipping article. I never said anything whatsoever about my beliefs or opinions on this subject.
And no, in fact, I didn't read the original research. You know why? BECAUSE I'M NOT YOU and I'm an flipping artist, not a scientist. I try to be educated, but I can't make heads or tails of 90% of original research I see. That doesn't make me an idiot, it makes me a person who was educated in an entirely different field, and it doesn't give you any right to talk to me like I'm 12 either.
Just wondering what any of you think about the idea and if you explain why you think so. For example, are we predisposed to violent behavior or do we learn it as we age. I have my own ideas but am curious to hear other. thank rav
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-10-21 08:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-21 06:21 pm (UTC)just like anything, some people are pascified by a little indulgence, and some people indulge a little, and it increases their need... that's why some people are social drinkers, and some are alcoholics. Violence releases endorphins... those can become addictive to the wrong person.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-22 05:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-22 02:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-22 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-21 09:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-22 05:30 am (UTC)We go from a study showing a genetic and epigenetic correlation and with violent tendencies to violence on TV doesn't make children more violent. There is NO link between the two statements.
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF SCIENCE READ THE ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
The comment about violent cartoons was a throwaway line at the beginning of the SciAm article, the main article focuses on the genetic/factor study. Clearly, there was violence before television and that certain individuals are predisposed by genetics and epigenetics and upbringing at a young age to violence. That doesn't mean that television isn't making it worse, it only means that television watching isn't the only factor (which we knew anyway, there are millions of kids watching way too much television and who don't go on shooting rampages).
Here's a few hypotheses that could easily satisfy both the recent research AND still support Jack Thompson's claims:
1) Television shifts the MODE of the aggression. Previous to television, violent children would bite and kick and rail against their parents. But with television (and internet), they learn behaviors like shooting a gun, building bombs and can connect with other people who build on these. So television is making it worse, but the innate difference in violent tendencies are there at the start.
2) Television/video games removes checks to aggression. Violent behaviors are checked by social norms (it's not OK to kill, eg.) but overexposure to television violence removes such checks as the murderous behavior goes unpunished and is often rewarded. This leads to the extension of such behavior (only in individuals predisposed to perform them in the first place) to real life, leading to school shootings.
3) Television and violent video games reinforce violent tendencies. Before video games, a violent child would have a spat and calm down, but now, he can exercise and nurture this side of his personality and it will expand, begetting more violence.
This study hardly counters any of the arguments that Jack Thompson proposed. It merely deals with aggressive tendencies. Jack Thompson's arguments deal with violence in the more severe sense.
PS. For you mathematically inclined, consider the following argument:
100 Million children. Suppose the study shows that 1% of children have the genetic makeup for chronic aggression, that's 1 Million children. Now suppose that 0.5% of these children would "naturally" escalate to violent crime that causes death, that's 5,000 murderers. But with violent video games that figure is 0.6%, a 0.1% increase. That's 1,000 more murders, and something that would be absolutely shocking and certainly lead to Congressional mandates on video games. However going back to this study, that's a 0.001% difference in the statistics, something well within the noise.
Because the percentage of the chronically aggressive who actually commit violent crime is so low, it's impossible to draw conclusions as to whether any outside factor affects violent crime based on studies that cover the whole population.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-22 05:33 am (UTC)I know perfectly well that this study doesn't conclusively prove that TV has no correlation with violence, but it's a pretty darn good argument that the "TV causes violence" thing is at least somewhat in error.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-22 09:30 pm (UTC)As for being a pedant all over your journal, I'm sorry. It's actually a great read most of the time, but I hate when people make a big deal out of a study or a statement that far overstates the original research. The media does this to some degree but most respectable journalists stretch just a little. By the time it hits the LJ circuit, it's ballooned into something totally insane. You get the brunt of my retaliation because you're often the first journal I read that comments on any given issue.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-22 09:43 pm (UTC)I just would appreciate you not condescending to me, talking down to me, or shouting at me. Particularly when all I did was LINK to a flipping article. I never said anything whatsoever about my beliefs or opinions on this subject.
And no, in fact, I didn't read the original research. You know why? BECAUSE I'M NOT YOU and I'm an flipping artist, not a scientist. I try to be educated, but I can't make heads or tails of 90% of original research I see. That doesn't make me an idiot, it makes me a person who was educated in an entirely different field, and it doesn't give you any right to talk to me like I'm 12 either.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-22 06:31 am (UTC)violent behavior aquired or inherited
Date: 2007-10-24 07:38 am (UTC)