SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Exposure to Media Violence lowers violence inhibition in the brain (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=126730)

TteFAboB 12-13-07 11:07 AM
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 12-13-07 11:16 AM
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 12-13-07 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 12-13-07 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by micky1up
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 12-13-07 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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

Skybird 12-13-07 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by micky1up
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.

Quote:
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 12-13-07 01:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
-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 12-13-07 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 12-13-07 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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

SUBMAN1 12-13-07 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by August
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 12-13-07 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 AM.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.