Exposure to Media Violence lowers violence inhibition in the brain

[Skybird]

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001268


http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/26/26811/26811_1.jpg


I think this should be taken into account with regard to the disucssion of wether or no video games can be a stimulus for players to act violant on the street or even start a school schooting, or not.

I rechecked the statistcial measures they describe (means: I had a look in one of my old statistics book, since I do not have all details on how to do such calculations in my memory anymore, and found their method to be reasonable and accurate. All in all I would have used the same calculation models, when being in their place.

I consider it to be a reasonable guess that if exposure to media violence now is proven on the hardware level - the brain - to weaken inhibitory processes in the brain that usually dampen aggressive behavior, that then something comparable must be expected from violent games as well, because here it is not only passively viewing violence, but actually cimmiting it, and beeing embedded in it.

a theory that explains it I could imagine to focus on this: if you view violence against people like you, it signals the brain a potential conflict situation that eventually may increase and confront you as well - so your organism prepares to fight, and aggression inhibition gets lowered. If your brain receives an even more intense stimulus by witnessing such a situation, but now you even already are surrounded by the conlfict situation and praticipate in it and fight in it in your imagination, this mechanism should lead to an even more lowering of your brain'S agression-inhibiting schemes.

some weeks ago, another study showed that the brain basically DOES NOT DIFFER - on a hardware-level - between abtract, imagined violence (your fantasy), and violence that actually and physically and "for real" is carried out (your actual deed), or is received. It does not need much imgination to see the relevance of that finding for the experiment above.

I have not managed to re-find the link to the second study, sorry.

This is not subjective opinion and political correctness and a given world viev in action anymore, but hard, solid physiological finding, that also hint at the ways of our evolutionary past.

It must find enterance into the usual bla-bla-discussion of wether or not violent games do harm or not. On a neural level, it is clear: such games do affect the organism in favour of a more violent behavior, or a lowering of agression inhibition what means an increase in probability that the indovidual eventually will show aggression in a situation where normally it would not have done so.

[August]

I've been saying this for years, usually to the ridicule of people who didn't want to believe it.

[STEED]

Are the gravy train strikes again. :lol: ;)

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I've been saying this for years, usually to the ridicule of people who didn't want to believe it.


I think it can, but not to extent alot of people claim. Its certainly not to the extent that soldiers wonder where the respawn point is on the field, but some people can be more succeptable to suggestion than others. Its not as simple as saying "Playing Grand Theft Auto turns everyone into common thugs"

I can speak from experience, too. I posess a fair few violent video games that I play frequently (Soldier of Fortune 2, GTA et al.) but I dont feel any different nor do I act such.

Then again, the major flaw is you cant generalise me to everyone.

[Skybird]

I can speak from experience, too. I posess a fair few violent video games that I play frequently (Soldier of Fortune 2, GTA et al.) but I dont feel any different nor do I act such.



That is nice, but the brain scan may show something different.

Me, for example, I must not jump onto every female I find attractive and who fails to climb onto a tree when I have counted to three, and maybe I even have no more thought on her, and no more reaction I am aware of. It is possible that I even do not take note of that my subconsciousness considers her to be attractive - and still my brain would have chnaged activation levels in parts of it, and still my eye'S pupils may have slighty widened in a reaction of involantile dilation of the iris, and a changed hormone level, sweat production, breathing rythm, etc.

the point is that here are solid clues that add some more substantial argument to the discussion about violent games (perception of violence) than just educational well-meaningness and political program and subjective beliefs. It says instead: yes, if you perceive violence, than your body/your brain alters it's state to easier act violently itself by lowering hard-wired inhibition mechanisms.

So the discussion should better shift and focus on these two points instead:

1. what cognitive factors now work against display of violence after the inhibitory treshholds got lowered when perceiving/when playing violence? Obviously not every gamers becomes a mass killer. But are there indicators others than violence that gaming alters behavior? I see such changes in young people's behavior, yes.

2. If it is clear that violence is having a solid, hardwired effects on human being, what consequences should a society draw by this finding with regard to the daily display of violence in fiction stories shown on TV? What ethic is there in supporting a business that in film or game produces products showing such levels of violence that they have a negatively altering effect on the consumer, negrtaive in the meaning of increasing the probability that he/she will show aggression more easily, in a wider variety of situations, and by that running the increasing risk of being violent in situations where the level of violence is not adequate for the given contexts, but is excessively overdosed. Schools for exmaple are a far more violent place today than they were 20, 30 years ago - and I do not talk about drug-related crime and school shootings, but general behavior, and an massive increase in general willingness to become violent if one feels like it. At the same time, media have become far more violent in their content, and computer games started their march of victory amongst the young.

I would like to see now a study focussing on brain scans not only concerning perception of violence, but general changes of brain acivity during computer gaming as it is conducted by clan-players, profi players, short: those playing excessively and all the day, and if these effects in any way are making lasting changes in the activation patterns of the brain after some time. for it seems to me that excessive, fanatical computer gaming is not only changing one's inhibition mechnaisms of aggression, but behavior in general, and cognitive focusses of social life. It probbaly is not so easy that "PC gaming leads to social isolation", but that the behavior of an individual outside the gaming sessons and even beyond the age of when gaming dominated and then faded due to job, university, freinds etc may have already been altered due to brain processes having been altered and thus "hard-coded" these chnages for the future behavior. My working hypothesis is that brain activation patterns are getting altered not only during game sessions, but that they create persisting alterations of hard-wired brain activity beyond these situation as well. It would be nice to see if this could be linked to regions of the brain that control emotions, social behavior, and abstract thinking. It is often said in defense of games that they train eye-hand-coordination, and reflexes, and quick perception of (easy-levelled) systemic contexts in a situation (pattern recognition). but this could hardly compensate deficits in social competence, short and long term memory, abstract thinking. For it are the latter factors deciding on our ability to learn, to study, to run our lifes, live a social life, being comopetent in academic jobs, etc. What games are training, accroding to these defending arguments, is reflexes for the most. And that may be fine for primitives in the wild, but our evolution has led us beyind this stage of our race's developement. reflexes neither help you toi find a loving wife or husband and live a fulfilled social life, nor does it help you to study mathemtics, become a good business man or engineer, or invent the medicine of the future. and even when you are stranded in the wild you may realise very soon, that you are messed up if your only cognitive competence is in fast reflexes and good hand-eye-coordination.

Old advise, but so true: do not exaggerate it. Be moderate. Excessive behavior and consuming will make you need to pay a bill. Excessive consumation of violence alters your mind. Excessive gaming does chnage your approach on reality and your life.

Does one really need brainscans to know this...?;) It seems it mostly are junkeys that demand black on white evidence and until then refuse to alter their behavior. And if that evidence is there , they find other excuses and demands. ;) In other words: "change the world, chnage other people - but don't dare to try changing me!"

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Another thread pwned by Skybird

:rotfl:

[Skybird]

pwned?

Wthk r ytrtosy...? Pawn?

[Chock]

Well, personally I can't wait to laugh my ass off as some armed robber gets gunned down by the police after their efforts to avoid fire by 'bunny hopping' in a Counterstrike stylee fail to prevent them from being cut to ribbons ina hail of lead.

:D Chock

[Stealth Hunter]

^ @Chock


I think the fine line on this matter comes down to "Can you separate reality from fiction/fantasy?"

If you can't, well you have problems and it's not the games that are causing it, it's just your mental system.

Most of the time though (in cases like kids shooting friends and blaming it on games) it comes down to looking for a scapegoat so you can move on without much fuss towards you at all. Like that teen who stole a car and shot an officer.
Blamed it on Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, but he was plenty old enough to know damn well that it was wrong to do such things all the way around. If he continues to claim he doesn't, then *obviously* he's mentally unstable and should be put away.

EDIT:

Don't forget that it's also the burden of the parents to make sure that their kids aren't exposed to violence and such too early. Wait till they get older, then let them on their way. Everyone has got to grow up and start taking charge of your life sometime. We have a rating system that is also to be followed. If parents don't pay attention to it and their child goes on a rampage "due to video games", the punish the parents and send the kid off to a ward for rehab, don't punish the game companies.

[STEED]

Attention all kids out there become a scientist and you can keep yourselves on the gravy train for life.

Money and backhanders and more money.

[Stealth Hunter]

And GET ON THE LOVE TRAIN! LOVE TRAIN!

[NEON DEON]

I wonder how much money they got for testing 14 people?

Anyways, cause for further study:

"Although these results are suggestive, further data will be required to assess the specific effects of these functional changes on behavior. Because numerous studies have already linked exposure to violent media with an increase in aggressive behavior [6] (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001268#pone.0 001268-Anderson2), it seems reasonable to consider the effect observed here as a plausible component of a mechanism; however, it is important to note that in an otherwise pacific individual, it is very unlikely that these exposure-related changes are a sufficient catalyst for the emergence of criminal aggression. The strongest evidence for this claim is the fact that, although many individuals watch violent media, relatively few go on to commit criminally violent acts."

[August]

Does one really need brainscans to know this...?;) It seems it mostly are junkeys that demand black on white evidence and until then refuse to alter their behavior. And if that evidence is there , they find other excuses and demands. ;) In other words: "change the world, chnage other people - but don't dare to try changing me!"

That pretty much nails it I think.

[Chock]

Media violence hasn't affected me, and I'll fight any man in the room who dares to suggest it has!

:D Chock

[d@rk51d3]

Media violence hasn't affected me, and I'll fight any man in the room who dares to suggest it has!

:D Chock
:rotfl:

SILENCE!!!!! I KEEEEEEEL YOU!

[Skybird]

I think the fine line on this matter comes down to "Can you separate reality from fiction/fantasy?"

Again, some weeks ago a study was published clearly showing that your brain does not differ between imagined violence as in movies or games, an dreal violence in fron of your nose. the brain processes both inputs the same, and this leads to the same brain areas being aroused or lowered in their activity.

That people do not start to gun down their neighbourhood when playing a wargame on their PC, obviously is becasue of other variables coming into play that counter the initial drop in inhibitory mechanisms concerning aggression.

but do not be mistaken: neurophysiological, it does not matter if you just imagine violence, or are witnessing it for real. On a basic level, for your brain, both are just one and the same thing.

[Skybird]

I wonder how much money they got for testing 14 people?

Anyways, cause for further study:

"Although these results are suggestive, further data will be required to assess the specific effects of these functional changes on behavior. Because numerous studies have already linked exposure to violent media with an increase in aggressive behavior [6] (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001268#pone.0 001268-Anderson2), it seems reasonable to consider the effect observed here as a plausible component of a mechanism; however, it is important to note that in an otherwise pacific individual, it is very unlikely that these exposure-related changes are a sufficient catalyst for the emergence of criminal aggression. The strongest evidence for this claim is the fact that, although many individuals watch violent media, relatively few go on to commit criminally violent acts."

Small examination groups are not unlikely in psychological research projects. Although psychologists bring the statistic art to determine how many subjects are needed to make any findings statistically reliable, to extremes at times. :) For historical reasons, in probably no other science (including medicine) statistics get so excessively used and get pushed that far like in psychology.

but I included the graphs (from another report on the study) in the first posting. If you compare the two, you see with one glimps that there was something going on. The statistics were done only to make sure that it is not random chance that produced these deviations between the aggression group, and the two other groups.

[micky1up]

so what do you blame for the mass murders and monsters of the 20th century and even further back long before video games and movies the fact is human nature itself creates people of a violent disposition playing video games has never made me want to get violent towards anyone and ive been playing for around 30 years nor has watching videos . parental influences have more of an effect on violence than any game or movie

[August]

so what do you blame for the mass murders and monsters of the 20th century and even further back long before video games and movies the fact is human nature itself creates people of a violent disposition playing video games has never made me want to get violent towards anyone and ive been playing for around 30 years nor has watching videos . parental influences have more of an effect on violence than any game or movie

Why do you insist on a single all encompassing reason? Many people can smoke tobacco all their lives and not get cancer. That does not mean it doesn't increase ones chances of getting the disease.

Yes there were mass murderers and monsters in the times before video games and movies but school shootings are nowhere near as common as they are these days. Has human nature just become more violent or have the factors which shape human nature become more violent. I'm betting the it's latter.

[Skybird]

so what do you blame for the mass murders and monsters of the 20th century and even further back long before video games and movies
Nothing. It was not focus of their study, nor of my reasoning.

And both them and me said that other variables must be involved as well. to explain why some people fall victim to lowered inhibitory levels, and others not. But the nature of these variables is not covered by them, or my assumptions. I just said that your cognitions enter a state where you are more willing to become violent yourself, when you perceive violence. That'S what has been found in the brain's activity level. and obviously, other variables are needed, to counter this, and let people remain non-violent nevertheless.

One could jump from here to general chnages in social behavior of juveneiles when they consume comoter games excessively. Teenage years are an age when the brain really hard-wires learned content and behavior and habits, and constantly ,make chnages to these. the older you get, the lesser this seem to be the case - like it is said that old people do not easily chnage their habits. It is unreasonable that excessive consuming of PC games does not alter young people's social behavior, cognitions, etc. And yes, these can stay if not being countered by sufficient compensations, in different activities, different interests, that chalöennge young people in different ways than computer games.

Really, one does not need long empirical studies and brain scans for concluding this. Isn't it just healthy reason telling you that?

[Skybird]

Having August to somewhat cover my general arguments makes for a strange feeling! :lol: :-j

[joea]

Having August to somewhat cover my general arguments makes for a strange feeling! :lol: :-j

Indeed it does. Sorry, didn't see that but is there any distinction made:

1) by age?

2) and type of video game?

I am not trying to justify long hours in the past spent with Il-2 or Silent Hunter 3 (or maybe I am :oops: ) but I wonder about the different levels of abstraction between, to use two extreme examples, Risk and oh Call of Duty. What about games like Doom that are very violent but have completely imaginary settings / adversaries?

[Letum]

I wonder if violent sports have similar effects. :hmm:

[Skybird]

Having August to somewhat cover my general arguments makes for a strange feeling! :lol: :-j

Indeed it does. Sorry, didn't see that but is there any distinction made:

1) by age?

2) and type of video game?

The study l linked did not focus on games, but general visual presentation of stimuli. The second study also did not focus on games in special. Note that I made a jump from the study's focus on mdia presentation, to PC games, and gave the reasons why I thinbk these finding sare to be taken into account with regard to games as well.

I would expect to see age being a deciding factor in this debate, due to the higher formability and suggestibility of the brain in that it more easily reforms hard-wired neural connections. an old brain does that, too, but not that easily, or not that often anymore, like young ones. Most if not all shootings I can recall out of the blue and where the killer was brought into connection with having been an excessive video player, were no older, but younger persons. Older persons committing multiple killings, at a court for example or their former job, had different motives, and were mostly (if not always) not seen in combination with excessive violent gaming.

[CCIP]

Having August to somewhat cover my general arguments makes for a strange feeling! :lol: :-j
Indeed it does. Sorry, didn't see that but is there any distinction made:

1) by age?

2) and type of video game?

I am not trying to justify long hours in the past spent with Il-2 or Silent Hunter 3 (or maybe I am :oops: ) but I wonder about the different levels of abstraction between, to use two extreme examples, Risk and oh Call of Duty. What about games like Doom that are very violent but have completely imaginary settings / adversaries?
Yes, and I actually have an even bigger and more philosophical question - what is "violence"? Can we really make such a grossly broad category for entertainment media? Do you really believe that all violence (or portrayal thereof) is basically the same? Does everyone perceive violence, realistic or otherwise, the same way?

I think there's huge differences. Psychology loves "proving" things with narrow, controlled tests - I seriously doubt any generalizability here. Not to say the study's trash, but we need sociologists - whose methods would account for a lot of my questions above - to go in and study this proper before claiming anything.

[TteFAboB]

All you people have lives, violence is not the center of your existence around which everything else revolves. You can safely ingest the pill of violence encapsuled in entertainment as it will harmlessly turn into turd and be ejected in short notice.

By definition, no healthy man can commit a violent crime. You guys don't have to come here and present yourself as an exemplum in contrarium. Nobody expects any different. Criminals are, afterall, a minority.

An act of aggression can only be commited when all motivational factors involved are stronger than the restraints against it. These restraints can be altered one way or another by habit or even training. That's where exposure to violence comes in. They offer a tiny fraction of the real experience, but an addict soon learns how to make the most out of every little piece, and there is no short supply of little pieces out there.

It is often said in defense of games that they train eye-hand-coordination, and reflexes, and quick perception of (easy-levelled) systemic contexts in a situation (pattern recognition).

So does Dodgeball, with random playing fields (to cover the pattern recognition thing). The difference is that the virtual deaths in Dodgeball are far less graphic and the whole thing is too silly to be taken seriously by anyone but the most retarded.

[August]

Having August to somewhat cover my general arguments makes for a strange feeling! :lol: :-j

I fail to see why. If you were to say the daytime sky is often blue you'd get no argument from me. I might comment on the fact you took 5000 words to say it but if I think you're right i will say so.

[Skybird]

Yes, and I actually have an even bigger and more philosophical question - what is "violence"? Can we really make such a grossly broad category for entertainment media? Do you really believe that all violence (or portrayal thereof) is basically the same? Does everyone perceive violence, realistic or otherwise, the same way?

I think there's huge differences. Psychology loves "proving" things with narrow, controlled tests - I seriously doubt any generalizability here. Not to say the study's trash, but we need sociologists - whose methods would account for a lot of my questions above - to go in and study this proper before claiming anything.

The study text says clearly that the defined violance like this: displays of one human physically going for another, kicking and beating, up to a broken glass bottles being used to hit somebody elses skull. They did not mean any meaningless subtleties.

If you want to learn more about what violence is, find a rocker, tell him he looks lovely in his little sister's pink dress, and then wait and learn. ;D

And you claim it all being "entertainment media" - well, that is the questions, if it really all is "just" entertainment.

[Skybird]

An act of aggression can only be commited when all motivational factors involved are stronger than the restraints against it. .

Yes, or differently said: an act of aggression can only be committed when the motivational factors to remain peaceful are no longer strong enough to compensate for the decreasing inhibition of violent behavior in the brain. Becasue as the study says, this neurological inhibition is getting weaker when perceiving violence.

thus my comments above on what is able to counter this inhibitory deficit the perception of violence is creating.

and when it is clear that such a lowering of inhibitory "safeties" to not show aggressive behavior is caused by consuming a given something, than one could and should ask, if it is really wise to produce and consume this given something.

I mean most sensible and reasonable parents will not allow there 14 year old to see garbage movies like Hostel, for example, excusing it as "just being a movie, just being entertainment". there is even far worse crap on the video market. I assume most if not all here do agree on that parents should not allow young children this crap to consume. Now ask yourself why you think that. ;)

It is often said in defense of games that they train eye-hand-coordination, and reflexes, and quick perception of (easy-levelled) systemic contexts in a situation (pattern recognition).

So does Dodgeball, with random playing fields (to cover the pattern recognition thing). The difference is that the virtual deaths in Dodgeball are far less graphic and the whole thing is too silly to be taken seriously by anyone but the most retarded.
There is a very serious, most important difference. Aggression in sports sees an immediate, physical expression of the arousment and alertness your body experiences when being engaged in a competitive sport. the energy created by your ecictement and aggression is immediateoly used for foriming a reactionand acting of your body, so the neergy gets "consumed" and tzransformed, and so most of it is gone afterwards, and you feel relaxed. Aggression is a physical state in the first, you already see it in the latin origin of the word, the movement in space: ad greddi, to move towards something (an etwas herantreten, sich auf etwas zu-bewegen). Aggression that sees no ohical expression, get's stowed in your mind and body - you do not get rid of it. You ncannot dissolve it by imagining to be agressive, or write a violent story, or paint a cruel picture - you must kick that ball, you must hit that sand-bag, you must run defeat that other team.

During my very first praction time in a psychiatry, I saw them trying to deny that agression is something physical, and they tried to dela with violent patients like this: they gave them a heavy ball filled with sand, and a piece of paper, which they folded until it was a little stick, and with that stick people should try to push the wall to the other side of the room. what of course never worked. patients got frustrated by that, hitting the thing lik crazy sometimes, and acchieving nothing. Like it is a kind patient's duty they said they felt better. Often on the sawme day, they nevertheless got seriously envolved in confrontations and angry fights with other people. Becausee the paper and the ball - they did not got relieved of their aggression - the paper was to light as to give them the feedback that they really landed a hit, that they really managed to move something, get something done, to acchieve something, to overcome a challenge. If you use shadow boxing to deal with some anger you feel, you will see that your body gets tired - but the aggression eventually still is on your mind, you did not got rid of it. Bu if you box against the sandbag or a sparring partner, you are not only tired, but your aggression is substantially reduced, and you feel more balöanced again than before.

Violent game do not provide this relief, for they are not physically real. Everything you do - you do in your mind only. and that is a problem, because that way you do not really reduce your aggression, but the game keeps on to increase the aggression level in you. So obviously, somewhere in your sub-consciousness this aggression gets stored. It just dont disappear by counting one-two-three.

Most people, especially older ones, obviously have sufficient alternatives to deal with that problem. the most reasonable guess is that other factors in their life and personality, as well as their the-higher-the-better age does not even allow the perceived events in the first to create agression of such high levels (or does not allow the inihibition to drop so severly) that the lacking physical expression of it becomes a problem. Family life and education, friends, social life, other and diverse interests, the perceived stand of oneself in this life and the meaning of it - all that probably plays a role here, I assume.

Now take away these positive counter-variables. then you are left with an individual that pratcices something that constntly increases the aggression in itself, without ever expressing it physically and reducing it by that, and no other balancing factors that would dampen it. And there you are - Bang!

These are the two extremes: counter-variables not redcuing the raise in aggression at all, and the same variables compensating for it completely. Between is a wide spectrum of constellations that form the individual life, and you have a wide range of possible influences it all has on the individual's life. and that oincludes a perspon not becoming violent, but changing it's behavior, interests, personality.

[SUBMAN1]

Crud! If this is all true, I'm doomed! I've been playing violent games since the 1970's, so there is no escape for me. Got to go home an get the AK-47 prepped I guess for the inevitable. :D

But wait, hmm... Nothing has happened in almost how many years? No assault charges, no mass murders, no murders for that matter, and well, I am kind and hospitable to those I meet. I must be a fluke.

-S

PS. Does arguing in a forum count as violence? I may be guilty of that. I hereby decree that Violent Video Games has made me guilty of the VIOLENT ACT OF arguing in internet forums! :p

[TteFAboB]

Actually, I have shocked a person in the past with Operation Flashpoint. I was testing a mission when the person, older, had no contact with computer games, approached me and asked what was that. I proceeded to tell that it was a computer game based on a military simulator and sniped some enemy soldiers in the distance. For those who don't know, OFP is quite realistic, especially when you fire from hundreds of meters of distance, and so as the enemy characters fell down to their death in realism (i.e., unlike Counter-Strike et al) and under the zoom of a scope, this person got shocked, turned away and told me seeing that evoked feelings of anguish and disturbance.

Now, how many gamers have ever felt bad after sniping virtual enemies? I can't even remember if I ever did when I first played a sufficiently realistic game. The fact is that you are all accustomed to it already, so by far and large you are not in a position to say that you haven't been affected, on the contrary even.

[SUBMAN1]

Don't even compare me to someone who is obviously over-sensitive. I've showed OFP to people who had never seen such a game before as well, and I didn't get a reaction like that.

-S

[micky1up]

so what do you blame for the mass murders and monsters of the 20th century and even further back long before video games and movies
Nothing. It was not focus of their study, nor of my reasoning.

And both them and me said that other variables must be involved as well. to explain why some people fall victim to lowered inhibitory levels, and others not. But the nature of these variables is not covered by them, or my assumptions. I just said that your cognitions enter a state where you are more willing to become violent yourself, when you perceive violence. That'S what has been found in the brain's activity level. and obviously, other variables are needed, to counter this, and let people remain non-violent nevertheless.

One could jump from here to general chnages in social behavior of juveneiles when they consume comoter games excessively. Teenage years are an age when the brain really hard-wires learned content and behavior and habits, and constantly ,make chnages to these. the older you get, the lesser this seem to be the case - like it is said that old people do not easily chnage their habits. It is unreasonable that excessive consuming of PC games does not alter young people's social behavior, cognitions, etc. And yes, these can stay if not being countered by sufficient compensations, in different activities, different interests, that chalöennge young people in different ways than computer games.

Really, one does not need long empirical studies and brain scans for concluding this. Isn't it just healthy reason telling you that?



wrong the hard wiring takes place much younger than the teenage years more around 3-7 years


and if your disposition is correct then why havent we seen a plague of violence young people have been subjected to years of games and videos myself over 30 years i see no decernable increase i do see an increase on how crime is reported and shown on t.v but thats a different kettle of fish

[August]

and if your disposition is correct then why havent we seen a plague of violence young people have been subjected to years of games and videos myself over 30 years i see no decernable increase i do see an increase on how crime is reported and shown on t.v but thats a different kettle of fish

No plague, really? How common were school shootings before 1977?

[SUBMAN1]

No plague, really? How common were school shootings before 1977?How common did a kid get his ass kicked for getting out of line? What happened to spankings? What happened to parenting? This is your root problem. Now days, you have both parents working, not parenting. Their children run amuck because they have no control over their children. We grow them up in a positive world that is only positive, and when these kids get into high school and realize that their are negative things and they have no idea how to deal with it, they whack out.

The media as presented here is a scapegoat for the much much much larger problem. Welcome to your future. Raising a bunch of spoiled brats.

Don't even get me started.

-S

[Skybird]

wrong the hard wiring takes place much younger than the teenage years more around 3-7 years

Wrong again, for since some years we know that it takes place almost all life, but at decreasing pace. ergo: children learn easier and faster than adults.

and if your disposition is correct then why havent we seen a plague of violence young people have been subjected to years of games and videos myself over 30 years i see no decernable increase i do see an increase on how crime is reported and shown on t.v but thats a different kettle of fish

Obviously you haven't read this thread carefully enough, since I already have adressed this several times now.

[Skybird]

No plague, really? How common were school shootings before 1977?How common did a kid get his ass kicked for getting out of line? What happened to spankings? What happened to parenting? This is your root problem. Now days, you have both parents working, not parenting. Their children run amuck because they have no control over their children. We grow them up in a positive world that is only positive, and when these kids get into high school and realize that their are negative things and they have no idea how to deal with it, they whack out.

The media as presented here is a scapegoat for the much much much larger problem. Welcome to your future. Raising a bunch of spoiled brats.
-S

Well, it is a little bit more complex, isn't it. and while I agree that parents often do not care for parenting anymore, due to some suspect paedagogic ideas and rosy exaggerations, I certainly will not agree that spanking should be brought back. Not everything in the old days was really better. there are so many middle ways possible between spanking, and exaggerated paedagogics.

[August]

No plague, really? How common were school shootings before 1977?How common did a kid get his ass kicked for getting out of line? What happened to spankings? What happened to parenting? This is your root problem. Now days, you have both parents working, not parenting. Their children run amuck because they have no control over their children. We grow them up in a positive world that is only positive, and when these kids get into high school and realize that their are negative things and they have no idea how to deal with it, they whack out.

The media as presented here is a scapegoat for the much much much larger problem. Welcome to your future. Raising a bunch of spoiled brats.

Don't even get me started.

-S

Both my parents worked and i've never had a desire to shoot up a school, therefore by some peoples standards here in this thread, that can't have anything to do with it right? ;)

Personally I think your theory has merit just as Skybirds does. Wouldn't it be probably more accurate to say that it might be a combination of ALL these things?

[SUBMAN1]

Well, it is a little bit more complex, isn't it. and while I agree that parents often do not care for parenting anymore, due to some suspect paedagogic ideas and rosy exaggerations, I certainly will not agree that spanking should be brought back. Not everything in the old days was really better. there are so many middle ways possible between spanking, and exaggerated paedagogics.Your data is old - approximately 1994 to 1997. Read up on the latest research, you will find it is benneficially phycologically if kept in moderation - approximately 1 to 25 times per year. It is still found to have a detrimental effect if used up to 156 times per year (according to Strauss who did the initial research on heavily spanked children). It is the ultimate last resort however, and it is an easy thing to understand for an undeveloped mind and should only be used sparingly, but it should not be stopped.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Both my parents worked and i've never had a desire to shoot up a school, therefore by some peoples standards here in this thread, that can't have anything to do with it right? ;)

Personally I think your theory has merit just as Skybirds does. Wouldn't it be probably more accurate to say that it might be a combination of ALL these things?Let me elaborate from what I've seen - the both parent working thing is not the problem. It is the modern reasoning that you don't want to punsish your children lately for misbehaving simply because you want your very limited time together to be as positive as possible. So the end result is spoiled children regardless of how they act. Your parents probably still operated in a normal role. The role I describe is a direct symptom of limited time avaialble for family time these days. Parents have too much to do and not enough time to spend with their children lately, so punishing their children is the last thing on their minds regardless of what happens. Is that a better perspective?

-S

[Skybird]

Well, it is a little bit more complex, isn't it. and while I agree that parents often do not care for parenting anymore, due to some suspect paedagogic ideas and rosy exaggerations, I certainly will not agree that spanking should be brought back. Not everything in the old days was really better. there are so many middle ways possible between spanking, and exaggerated paedagogics.Your data is old - approximately 1994 to 1997. Read up on the latest research, you will find it is benneficially phycologically if kept in moderation - approximately 1 to 25 times per year. It is still found to have a detrimental effect if used up to 156 times per year (according to Strauss who did the initial research on heavily spanked children). It is the ultimate last resort however, and it is an easy thing to understand for an undeveloped mind and should only be used sparingly, but it should not be stopped.

-S
BS. Better question the individual's mind who seriously thinks about it in statistical numbers as if it were any medication to be prescribed. that is almost perverse. Again: total BS. Back in those days, they also made links between size and form of skull, and intelligence, you know, and they used precise measurements and pendantic log-keeping. Of that quality your suggestion is.