A Conversation for Ask h2g2
GTA IV
Mister Matty Posted May 3, 2008
"People will always look for scapegoat, the way sociaty is today makes us baleve that there is always somone wls to blame acadents dont just happen, you only did that becsue of your chiuld hood or you where inflacend by that latest evil thing its pathetic people will never be able to eradicate violent crime untill we admit that it is in our nature as humans to be predesposed to violence yes some people may get ideas from games and tv but the perpensaty for vioence was always there and if they did not have the self controle to see a violent image and not try to copy it then they would have done somthing any way"
Erm, you might want to try some puntuation.
GTA IV
Mister Matty Posted May 3, 2008
And I might want to try some spelling: *punctuation*
*grumbles about lack of edit function*
GTA IV
Dogster Posted May 3, 2008
Regarding this correlation thingy - isn't it possible that the causative effect is the other way round? That violent people are more likely to play violent computer games? If anything, this seems much more likely to me than the other way round.
GTA IV
Effers;England. Posted May 3, 2008
I think this whole subject of 'violence' is very interesting. I've spoken about it recently on another thread in relation to the film 'A Clockwork Orange' (one of my all time favourite films.)
From my POV I make a huge distinction between metaphorical and literal violence. Games, novels, films etc deal with the metaphorical kind which I find really exciting and enjoyable. (I'm happy to admit that, because it's nothing at all to do with wanting to *really* hurt anyone; except in the heat of the moment as we all do). It's something in my temperament that needs that cathartic experience. Human beings have needed to experience catharsis in drama/games for thousands of years. GTA is just the latest version of it. I think it relates a lot to sex as well. After all, intense feelings of love/passion can often be described as 'violent', but NOT violent if you know what I mean. There is *all*the difference in the world. I think it's really healthy to be able to accept that part of ourselves. Denying it, is harmful I think.
I'm not quite sure how much of the way I am is genetic or upbringing. I do have bipolar, which is known for its intensity of mood and emotion. But I was also physically hit a lot as a child by my mother. (And a bit from my father). If she hadn't repressed her own natural/normal feelings of violence so much, she might not have had to act them out so much literally. Though I may add I had an awful lot of love in my childhood too, from both parents. Which is maybe a bit why I sometimes muddle up love and violence in my mind emotionally a bit.
The web of causes and effect is a massively complex thing. And a lot of simplistic rubbish, and hypocrisy is written in tabloid type media about it.
(And as an aside, as far as I'm concerned the kind of violence I fear by far, is the abusive psychological kind, not the biff boff stuff).
GTA IV
Mister Matty Posted May 4, 2008
"Regarding this correlation thingy - isn't it possible that the causative effect is the other way round? That violent people are more likely to play violent computer games? If anything, this seems much more likely to me than the other way round."
Everyone plays violent video games, though, including people with little or no violent tendencies so this idea doesn't really wash.
To understand the correlation the study found you'll have to read the NS article but it involves having to sign-up.
GTA IV
Mister Matty Posted May 4, 2008
"From my POV I make a huge distinction between metaphorical and literal violence. Games, novels, films etc deal with the metaphorical kind which I find really exciting and enjoyable. (I'm happy to admit that, because it's nothing at all to do with wanting to *really* hurt anyone; except in the heat of the moment as we all do). It's something in my temperament that needs that cathartic experience. Human beings have needed to experience catharsis in drama/games for thousands of years. GTA is just the latest version of it. I think it relates a lot to sex as well. After all, intense feelings of love/passion can often be described as 'violent', but NOT violent if you know what I mean. There is *all*the difference in the world. I think it's really healthy to be able to accept that part of ourselves. Denying it, is harmful I think."
I see your point but I've always wondered about the supposed "cathartic" effect of seeing violence; I've always felt it's more likely to increase aggression rather than disperse it. Certainly I've noticed that if I see a film which has *any* emotional impact on me it tends to leave me in a different state of mood (a particularly uplifting film can leave you feeling more confident; a depressing one can leave you feeling down) and I think the corolation between violent films and violence in society is down to this (ie having witnessed screen violence you leave feeling slightly more aggressive than normal). I think, interestingly, that the more we're desensitised to screen violence the less likely it is to have this effect as it becomes more "normal" to us. Early horror films which look extremely shonky by today's standards terrified audiences of the 1930s; similarly a halfway-realistic screen punch-up on early-evening BBC1 might have been considered very extreme sixty years ago.
GTA IV
Alfster Posted May 4, 2008
Effers< After all, intense feelings of love/passion can often be described as 'violent', but NOT violent if you know what I mean. >
The reason we are where we are in evolution and sitting here in front of TV screens on a Sunday morning, drinking fresh coffee, listening to a podcast from Radio 4 and wearing a rather smart Batik dresssgown made in Sri Lanka and bought 500miles away, from where am sitting on, the Isle of Skye from the English husband of the Sri Lankan woman whose family makes them IS because when our ancestors came down from the trees we had a sexual drive and the propensity for controlled violence to a) procreate and b) kill animals for food that were much stronger natural hunters than we are.
That evolutionary drive and the way in which we had to invent artificial means to become better than the other animals that had evolved to survive in that environment meant our brains started to become more complex, we still needed that sexual/violent drive to survive but now we can send people to the moon, we still need a sexual rive but not as overt and unthinking as before and we have now domesticated animals for food so ost of us are removed from the need to go out and kill animals for food so that skill of killing is not necessary...but it is still there but subconcious.
That evolutionary drive is very difficult to gte rid of. It is hardcoded into us now and without the outlets to safely satiate these urges we get violence and sexual attacks, domestic violence, verbal abuse as an outlet for it, we still get people going to boxing matches, bull fights, even people following religions have sex and violence undercurrents (corporal punishments in church schools has been rife, sexual abuse is still rife, Christian schools are just being made to stop using smacking, caning as a punishment in school due to a loop hole in the law that they thought they could get away with) most 'normal' people like watching a bit of porn etc etc.
If we deny these urges exist people will still do it anyway, if we ban 'violent' games/films/literature/poems/religious stories/pastimes it will still happen...in fact rather than having an outet for this sort of thing you get a pressure cooker that will just explode and people will get hurt.
Take 'Hitman' a brilliantly designed game concept where to be the best you do not hurt civilians and you go after certain targets assassinating them in the cleanest, quickest method you can. One goes out of the way to avoid hurting civilians, restarting games time and again to make sure you don't. Of course, you can play the game by trying to kill every person on that level...the thing is...they aren't real people...they are coloured pixels on a screen in a form that looks like 'a person'.
I find running around on some games and shooting anything that moves cathartic..it's fun, it gets rid of stress, there is a joy from completing a game. Do I feel uncomfortable about realising I get pleasure from this? No, I am not really killing anyone and it is how we are programmed.
To control what people can and can't do from an artificial moral viewpoint misses all the points above and from what I have seen the poeple wanting that control are religious and trying to stop moral decline...I've read the Bible and it's one of the most gratuitously sadistic books I have read where the main character who is basically an invisible superbeing who can do anything he wants to tends to bring down death, famine, suffering on anyone he wishes at his whim.
GTA IV
Alfster Posted May 4, 2008
Zagreb
It destresses and disperses any pent up anger in me...maybe you should stop watching it then and get some help to find out why watching violence makes you more violent...does not sound healthy? The problem there isn;t the viewing matter but you. Semi- to make a point.
GTA IV
Mister Matty Posted May 4, 2008
"It destresses and disperses any pent up anger in me...maybe you should stop watching it then and get some help to find out why watching violence makes you more violent...does not sound healthy? The problem there isn;t the viewing matter but you. Semi-tongueincheek to make a point."
I never said it makes me more violent, it doesn't, but then I'm not society as a whole. With me, personally, on-screen violence tends to feel either exciting, shocking, or disinteresting and it rarely has a lasting-impact unless it's especially unpleasant. On the other hand I've never had pent-up anger released by watching screen violence so I can't claim to understand the effect you say it has on you.
GTA IV
Mister Matty Posted May 4, 2008
"To control what people can and can't do from an artificial moral viewpoint misses all the points above and from what I have seen the poeple wanting that control are religious and trying to stop moral decline...I've read the Bible and it's one of the most gratuitously sadistic books I have read where the main character who is basically an invisible superbeing who can do anything he wants to tends to bring down death, famine, suffering on anyone he wishes at his whim."
This is a strawman argument. The people who put together the long-term study into the effects of screen violence aren't religious, nor are New Scientist.
And, to take up another strawman you use, nobody is arguing for banning violent media (except a few extremists) largely because everyone here, for one, seems to agree that violent media is not the *cause* of violence in society, it's simply one of many things that seem to contribute to it in a small way. There are other, more pressing, reasons for violence and it's far more worthwhile pursuing them.
The argument is more than we should acknowledge the link. For example, if we take the argument that screen violence has "no effect" on those watching it (which I've not seen anyone here make but have encountered those who do) then we would have to agree that someone watching extremely-violent films for twelve hours each day every day would be psychologically unaffected by it. The study suggests this isn't true so we should, for example, agree that violent media should be tempered by non-violent media and good old getting out a bit more often. It's like acknowledging that consumer capitalism brings problems that we should acknowledge and deal with without accepting that it needs to be done away with altogether. It's about being, well, a bit grown-up.
GTA IV
Dogster Posted May 4, 2008
Replying to my:
"Regarding this correlation thingy - isn't it possible that the causative effect is the other way round? That violent people are more likely to play violent computer games? If anything, this seems much more likely to me than the other way round."
Zagreb said:
"Everyone plays violent video games, though, including people with little or no violent tendencies so this idea doesn't really wash."
Well by that theory, there couldn't be a correlation either.
I would guess that whatever the study is correlating could be explained by violent people being more likely to indulge it in than non-violent. But I'll go take a look at the study and see what it says.
GTA IV
Mister Matty Posted May 4, 2008
http://www.ldys.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12258
cut-n-paste of the NS editorial there.
"The issue is no longer whether there is an effect, but what it means to each one of us, and how much we care. Like cigarette smoke, screen violence will not affect us all. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of violent behaviour. The effects are subtle and it will remain impossible to pin any specific act - such as the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech University - to a single media experience."
"The film and gaming industries are not about to go away, and indeed, in a free society, why should they? But we can all make choices as individuals and parents. Each time you bawl out a stranger over the phone, or lose it with another driver from the safety of your car, consider that these too are aggressive acts which studies have shown are more likely after repeated exposure to on-screen violence; the impact is not limited to assault and murder. It seems inappropriate to keep calling this harmless entertainment."
So there we go; there's no serious argument for banning everything violent and the "Daily Mail" hasn't won. Maybe that means people will approach this with more of an open mind now the bogeyman has been scared off. But, like Global Warming, the evidence points to there being a link and if we're responsible adults we need to take that on board rather than worrying that it'll lose us political points or hiding behind "alternative views" that give us what we want to hear.
GTA IV
Dogster Posted May 4, 2008
Well I agree with the libertarian point that even if there was a connection, that doesn't mean it should be banned, but I'm still dubious about this evidence. I read the NS editorial and it's very thin on details, so I looked at the one thing they actually cite by name, another NS article "Mind-altering media":
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426001.900-mindaltering-media.html
Here's one thing that jumped out at me (it's about TV not computer games):
"Perhaps no wonder then that in the 1980s, Lesley Joy of the University of British Columbia in Canada and her colleagues showed that it doesn't matter whether the content is the best of public service broadcasting or the worst commercial drivel, it is the hours, not the content, that count."
The only reference to the problem of discriminating which is cause and which is effect was this:
"Experiments in the lab have addressed the causal question, by dishing out particular viewing or gaming experiences followed by behavioural tests or questionnaires. This kind of study has shown that after watching just half an hour of violence, children have more devious and aggressive thoughts, are more likely to inflict punishments, and are less likely to cooperate."
But that doesn't even begin to address it. It's like the "studies" that show that abstinence programmes cut teen pregnancies by asking people "will you be less likely to have sex outside marriage?" after subjecting them to a lecture on the benefits of abstinence. Surprise surprise, they say yes - but actually the number of pregnancies doesn't go down.
Looks to me like the NS line on this is not backed by very solid evidence.
GTA IV
pedro Posted May 4, 2008
Assuming that there is a connection, does anywhere mention the *strength* of the connection? After all, it could state with 95% confidence that, say, one person in the UK is affected by it, which is a lot different than saying it causes 20% of violent crimes.
GTA IV
Ferrettbadger. The Renegade Master Posted May 4, 2008
Well I for one think that as well as violence and fun the GTA series does some of the funniest (if deeply unsubtle) satire around.
I challenge anyone to not think that "Republican Space Rangers" on the telly in GTA is a hoot!
GTA IV
Mister Matty Posted May 4, 2008
>Looks to me like the NS line on this is not backed by very solid evidence.
But your own take on this is backed-up by nothing more than conjecture. Ultimately, these findings have been arrived at by experts doing research and then drawing conclusions; your own response is based on little more than guesswork. I think there's a reason to be sceptical of evidence based around questionaires (especially because, as I've argued in other threads, people sometimes answer dishonestly because they think something is the answer the questioner wants to hear) but behavioural tests are rather more solid. Sorry, but if you're going to take on the experts then you're going to need something a lot more solid than "I think..."
GTA IV
Mister Matty Posted May 4, 2008
"Well I for one think that as well as violence and fun the GTA series does some of the funniest (if deeply unsubtle) satire around.
I challenge anyone to not think that "Republican Space Rangers" on the telly in GTA is a hoot!"
Interestingly, this touches on a reason I've always defended the GTA series against its accusations of violence which is that it's essentially a comic series of games. The violence is slapstick and the environments are only superficially realistic. If the player pulls a gun and shoots people the police belatedly respond; in a real life situation the player would be gunned-down as soon as they drew the gun and that's the major different: at the end of the day it's a game. What makes violent games distinct from violent film is their lack of realism. If, after the violent beatings in "Goodfellas" the mobsters had jumped into a car and ridden it off the top of a building for a joke before knocking down a line of pedestrians who were brought back to life by paramedics would anyone consider it a dark, serious tale of gangsterism?
GTA IV
Mister Matty Posted May 4, 2008
"Assuming that there is a connection, does anywhere mention the *strength* of the connection? After all, it could state with 95% confidence that, say, one person in the UK is affected by it, which is a lot different than saying it causes 20% of violent crimes."
This seems to be the sore point which is why the NS is intelligently calm about the findings and dismisses censorship. It says the link is similar to the passive-smoking/cancer link but there's nothing *direct*. You can't take a person who killed someone, find they liked playing a violent game and say "this is what did it" and then ban the game for the public good. This direct link is the one the more stupid tabloid press and public morals demoagogues tend to aim for; it's also used as a strawman by those who deny any link between violent media and violent behaviour.
GTA IV
Mister Matty Posted May 4, 2008
Dogster, I can't read the article so can you clarify something for me:
"Perhaps no wonder then that in the 1980s, Lesley Joy of the University of British Columbia in Canada and her colleagues showed that it doesn't matter whether the content is the best of public service broadcasting or the worst commercial drivel, it is the hours, not the content, that count."
This is interesting. Does it mean that the researchers found that the *hours* spent in front a television were likely to have an effect rather than the content being viewed?
Key: Complain about this post
GTA IV
- 21: fords - number 1 all over heaven (May 2, 2008)
- 22: Mister Matty (May 3, 2008)
- 23: Mister Matty (May 3, 2008)
- 24: Dogster (May 3, 2008)
- 25: Effers;England. (May 3, 2008)
- 26: Mister Matty (May 4, 2008)
- 27: Mister Matty (May 4, 2008)
- 28: Alfster (May 4, 2008)
- 29: Alfster (May 4, 2008)
- 30: Mister Matty (May 4, 2008)
- 31: Mister Matty (May 4, 2008)
- 32: Dogster (May 4, 2008)
- 33: Mister Matty (May 4, 2008)
- 34: Dogster (May 4, 2008)
- 35: pedro (May 4, 2008)
- 36: Ferrettbadger. The Renegade Master (May 4, 2008)
- 37: Mister Matty (May 4, 2008)
- 38: Mister Matty (May 4, 2008)
- 39: Mister Matty (May 4, 2008)
- 40: Mister Matty (May 4, 2008)
More Conversations for Ask h2g2
- For those who have been shut out of h2g2 and managed to get back in again [28]
Last Week - What can we blame 2legs for? [19024]
5 Weeks Ago - Radio Paradise introduces a Rule 42 based channel [1]
5 Weeks Ago - What did you learn today? (TIL) [274]
Nov 6, 2024 - What scams have you encountered lately? [10]
Sep 2, 2024
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."