Slashdot Mirror

I have long thought attempts to do this kind of thing were stupid and intrusive.

But think, those of you with kids, how many times have you refused your kids desire to watch a program because it is too violent? If you are any kind of parent, then that happens often. Desensitization is a long time practice in the military and kids watching/playing violent shows/games is very similar to the process the military goes through.

I think it's time that this subject is given a hard look. Unfortunately, any solution I can think of (in the five minutes I've been writing this post) would be a big legal mess, running afoul of any number of existing rights and freedoms.

You will be arrested at your next port of call. Which part of "illegal automatic weapons" did you not comprehend?

As for the morality - I am talking about your Joe Average not being a coldhearted killer.
Being social and tribal animals, most of us are actually empathic towards other humans, regardless of their orientation towards us.
It hurts you when you hurt another human being. Unless you're a psychopath.

That is why actual shooting is a very small part of basic infantry training.
You are not there to learn to shoot - you are there to learn to FOLLOW ORDERS WITHOUT THINKING OR QUESTIONING.
Shoot when told and shoot to kill - every time.
And it takes a bit of an effort to override millenia of evolution and to condition your Joe Average into a G.I. Joe. And even then, they may be unable to actually shoot someone.

So you would either first have to train your civilian mariners to be killers, and then deal with the problem of releasing them on your streets with PTSD they picked up along the way, or you can just as well give them brooms instead of guns.
Cause they will shoot into the sky, into the sea, into the deck - just not into another human being.

What you're saying about people paralyzed by fear of guns - I think LTC(R) Dave Grossman described it best as the human aggression is the universal human phobia.

Read this by Dave Grossman http://www.killology.com/print/print_teachkid.htm

I have read it, and I'm sorry, but I'm far from convinced: he makes some good points in his book, but this one is just silly. It's one thing to take a soldier who's going through the brutalising process of basic training, teach them to shoot a gun at a target, then throw them into a war-zone with a gun and people shooting back at them and expect them to shoot back; it's a huge jump to go from there to claiming that shooting a few pixels on a screen using a mouse button in the comfort of your own home will make the average person more likely to go on a killing spree.

Read this by Dave Grossman http://www.killology.com/print/print_teachkid.htm
It's about teaching kids to kill. I'm sure there are many anecdotes out there about how "I played games for years and I haven't killed anyone" but the man has a point...

Some quotes from the text:

"Healthy members of most species have a powerful, natural resistance to killing their own kind. Animals with antlers and horns fight one another by butting heads. Against other species they go to the side to gut and gore. Piranha turn their fangs on everything, but they fight one another with flicks of the tail. Rattlesnakes bite anything, but they wrestle one another.

When we human beings are overwhelmed with anger and fear our thought processes become very primitive, and we slam head on into that hardwired resistance against killing. During World War II, we discovered that only 15-20 percent of the individual riflemen would fire at an exposed enemy soldier (Marshall, 1998). [...]

That's the reality of the battlefield. Only a small percentage of soldiers are willing and able to kill. When the military became aware of this, they systematically went about the process of âoefixingâ this âoeproblem.â And fix it they did. By Vietnam the firing rate rose to over 90 percent (Grossman, 1999a).

[...]

  The training methods the military uses are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling. Let us explain these and then observe how the media does the same thing to our children, but without the safeguards.

Brutalization, or âoevalues inculcation,â is what happens at boot camp. Your head is shaved, you are herded together naked, and dressed alike, losing all vestiges of individuality. You are trained relentlessly in a total immersion environment. In the end you embrace violence and discipline and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world.

Something very similar is happening to our children through violence in the media. [...]

Classical conditioning is like Pavlov's dog in Psych 101. Remember the ringing bell, the food, and the dog could not hear the bell without salivating?

In World War II, the Japanese would make some of their young, unblooded soldiers bayonet innocent prisoners to death. Their friends would cheer them on. Afterwards, all these soldiers were treated to the best meal they've had in months, sake, and to so-called "comfort girls." The result? They learned to associate violence with pleasure.

This technique is so morally reprehensible that there are very few examples of it in modern U.S. military training, but the media is doing it to our children. Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with: laughter, cheers, popcorn, soda, and their girlfriend's perfume (Grossman & DeGaetano, 1999).
[...]
The third method the military uses is operant conditioning, a powerful procedure of stimulus-response training. We see this with pilots in flight simulators, or children in fire drills. When the fire alarm is set off, the children learn to file out in orderly fashion. One day there's a real fire and they're frightened out of their little wits, but they do exactly what they've been conditioned to do (Grossman & DeGaetano, 1999).

In World War II we taught our soldiers to fire at bullseye targets, but that training failed miserably because we have no known instances of any soldiers being attacked by bullseyes. Now soldiers learn to fire at realistic, man-shaped silhouettes that pop up in their field of view. That's the stimulus. The conditioned response is to shoot the target and then it drops. Stimulus-response, stimulus-response, repeated hundreds of times."

http://www.killology.com/bio.htm

It's not just the US. Schools have been targets of significantly worse violence than this in a variety of other countries, the difference is that typically it has resulted from organized groups. Ltc. Dave Grossman is a leading authority on violence (previously nominated for a Pulitzer for his work) cites some examples of schools as targets and the difficulty/importance of protecting them here:

http://www.killology.com/schoolattack.htm

He also has an essay that I strongly recommend reading for perspectives on why some of the concealed carry advocates are so passionate.

http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

Disclaimer: I'm an Army infantry officer, so I tend to fall under the "sheepdog" category. His books are also on several of the US Army's recommended reading list.

It's not just the US. Schools have been targets of significantly worse violence than this in a variety of other countries, the difference is that typically it has resulted from organized groups. Ltc. Dave Grossman is a leading authority on violence (previously nominated for a Pulitzer for his work) cites some examples of schools as targets and the difficulty/importance of protecting them here:

http://www.killology.com/schoolattack.htm

He also has an essay that I strongly recommend reading for perspectives on why some of the concealed carry advocates are so passionate.

http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

Disclaimer: I'm an Army infantry officer, so I tend to fall under the "sheepdog" category. His books are also on several of the US Army's recommended reading list.

After all, someone who won't kill will make very bad soldiers so anyone not flagged should be banned from service.

It's ok, the military uses very efficient conditioning methods to get ordinary people to kill.

Since you list humorous books, I'm not sure what your definition of "technical" is. I'll assume you meant "non-fiction". Here's a few titles that are recommended for anyone who has a brain and wants to think hard about the state of the world.

• Books by Edward Tufte on how graphs, PowerPoint presentations, and other sources of technical information can mislead rather than inform (and how to correct this).
• _A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper_ or any other books by John Allen Paulos which focus on how a misunderstanding of mathematics has consequences for our society.
• The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan.
• On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by West Point psychologist, military historian, and former Army Ranger Lt. Col. Grossman. Anyone who thinks that they would be able to "do what must be done" and kill anyone who threatened their family ought to read this. Also recommended reading for all the hawks out there that are so anxious to send our young out to fight unnecessary wars.

GMD

What was that place called... My Lai I think. Go read up on killology and Milgram experiment.

Also, even if they would not fall for psy-ops, they will fire if attacked. Just send few provocators into the crowd...

I recommend that people interested in the effects of violents in the media should this book/site. The guy makes some very interesting points, one of them being that the effects of being desensitized don't surface until someone is actually confronted with a violent situation.

go here if you are interested in the link between killing and violent games:

http://www.killology.com/

Former West Point instructor Lt. Col. Dave Grossman wrote a fascinating book called On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society that addresses, among other things, techniques used by the military to train soldiers to kill.
He brings up some interesting points, including only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier and Conditioning in flight simulators enables pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations even when frightened. And similar application and perfection of basic conditioning techniques increased the rate of fire to approximately 55 percent in Korea and around 95 percent in Vietnam.

In other words, simulation and conditioning absolutely has an effect on people.

It's something that Lt. Col. Dave Grossman calls "distance." This means simply as distance from the violent act increases, the psychological resistance to committing that violent act decreases.

For example, I used to throw Tomahawk Cruise Missiles at people. I have probably killed, or caused to be killed, hundreds of people. While I'm not really thrilled about that fact, I don't lose sleep over it. On the other hand, a friend of mine knifed a sentry in Vietnam (a "personal" kill in Grossman's words) and has nightmares about it to this day.

Now, I'm not saying that GTA or Rome: Total War is liable to cause an otherwise normal person to go on a killing spree. But GTA, due to the desensitization to the personal kill, is much more likely to push a sociopath over the edge than other games.

Sometimes you have to scare people, and riskless killing from heartless robots would probably break morale very quickly.

Isn't it what we have now the grunts for?
http://www.killology.com/

It is the perfect tool to frag a comander that you don't like. Or to settle scores. Though that is more novel stuff, give it time, and someone will probably try it.

It's not new. People in the armies have been doing such things since ancient times.

Actually, the problem with that is that David Grossman's arguments about video games have been that they are bad because they are used by the military. Therefore, more widely documented use of video games by the official military and by soldiers tends to reinforce his points, if you agree with his central premise. I don't personally agree with it, but the people on the pro-censorship side of the video game debate like to use it.

I had the opportunity while attending a meeting of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Crime Prevention Committee to hear Lt. Col. David Grossman make a rather compelling case for how first person shooters are the same technology used to both desensitize and improve the kill rates of cops and soldiers. The difference being that the cops and soldiers are also drilled in appropriate use of force and work in a context that demands discipline and self-control.

I tend to agree that uber-violent video games, and particularly first person shooters have no redeeming artistic value and that the world would generally be better off if they didn't exist. Also, turn off your T.V.s -- they are a social cancer as well.

Whether they "cause" actual violence or merely facilitate and promote it is a symantic distinction.

While there is little hope that a penal law will be 100% effective in restricting access to kids, it seems likely that it would serve 2 worthy goals: 1. Increased Parental awareness and 2. Delegitimization.

I am against prohibition of BAD THINGS since it just doesn't work. However the regulation of this social toxin is completely appropriate.

Take a look at the following statistics on your beloved Canadian crime rate stats, and it will become clear while Canada may have fewer murders largely due to lower population density, we have NO monopoly on violent crime.

(All data represents incidents per 100,000 population)

In 1977, Canada and the USA were at 447 and 241 serious assults respectively. In 1993, Canada and the USA were at 916 and 440 serious assults respectively. Canada not only went up way more, but already dwarfed the US in serious assults. (2.0 vs 1.8 increase)

In 1977, Canada and the USA were at 3 and 8.8 murders respectively. In 1993, Canada and the USA were at 2 and 9.5 murders respectively. The difference is not that breath taking.

In conclusion, Canada sucks.

http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_worldwide.ht m

His statistics likely came from here. Though, the way he presented them was a bit screwed up.

The relevant quotes are:

During World War II U.S. Army Brigadier General S. L. A. Marshall asked . . . average soldiers what it was they did in battle. His singularly unexpected discovery was that, of every hundred men along the line of fire during the period of and encounter, an average of only 15 to 20 "would take any part with their weapons." (p. 3)

Swank and Marchand's much cited World Ward II study determined that after sixty days of continuous [emphasis his] combat, 98 percent of all surviving soldiers will have become psychiatric casualties of one kind or another. Swank and Marchand also found a common trait among the 2 percent who are able to endure sustained combat: a predisposition toward "agressive psychopathic personalities." (pp. 43-44)

It's just as important to note that these are WWII studies. Grossman goes on to show how the U.S. Military raised firing rates into the 90 percent range by Vietnam, primarily through operant conditioning, and this is at least part of the reason post-traumatic stress disorder is so much more common in Vietnam-era vets than in previous wars. He also hypothesizes that a very similar form of operant conditioning is occurring in society at large due to violent movies, tv, and video games.

In a kind of reverse Clockwork Orange classical conditioning process, adolescents . . . are learning to associate this killing and suffering with entertainment. . . . (p. 302)

Operant conditioning firing ranges with pop-up targets and immediate feedback, just like those used to train soldiers in modern armies, are found in the interactive video games that our children play today. (pp. 302-303)

Now, for what it's worth, every combat veteran I've talked to on this matter falls into one of two camps: those that think Grossman's right on the money, and those that think he's completely full of shit. I am taking neither stance for the purposes of today's discussion.

Oh, as for why the Allies weren't decimated? Simple. Most of the Germans didn't shoot, either.

• One common myth in this area involves the increasing "deadliness" of modern small arms, which is largely without foundation. For example, the high-velocity, small-caliber (5.56 mm/.223-caliber) ammunition used in most assault rifles today (e.g., the M-16 and the AK-74) were designed to wound rather than kill. The theory is that wounding an enemy soldier is better than killing him because a wounded soldier eliminates three people: the wounded man and two others to evacuate him.

I don't see how the writings of a former Army Lieutenant Colonel and West Point instructor, on the subject of military history, quite qualifies as a "rant site".

Perhaps "rant site" was a poor choince of words on my part, although "killology" does seem deliberately sensationalistic. The basic problem I have with the style of that site is that it's intended to sell things. That last seems to be a pretty full speaking calendar for a "West Point Instructor". Perhaps a better request would have been for a non-commercial citation.

As to what actual West Point instructors had to say about S.L.A. Marshall, I was able to find a Journal reference:

I largely agree with Garland's comments regarding Marshall's suspect methodology. I, my peers and fellow West Point instructors are fully aware of recent literature, appearing in a variety of forums, that effectively debunks Marshall's methodology. I agree that Marshall's data were not properly obtained in the scientific sense. Garland should rest knowing that US Military Academy cadets are not required to spout Men Against Fire dogma before graduating.
MAJ Kelly C. Jordan, USA, 2d Infantry Division,Republic of Korea
from the letters section of the journal Military Review

I don't see how the writings of a former Army Lieutenant Colonel and West Point instructor, on the subject of military history, quite qualifies as a "rant site".

Perhaps "rant site" was a poor choince of words on my part, although "killology" does seem deliberately sensationalistic. The basic problem I have with the style of that site is that it's intended to sell things. That last seems to be a pretty full speaking calendar for a "West Point Instructor". Perhaps a better request would have been for a non-commercial citation.

As to what actual West Point instructors had to say about S.L.A. Marshall, I was able to find a Journal reference:

I largely agree with Garland's comments regarding Marshall's suspect methodology. I, my peers and fellow West Point instructors are fully aware of recent literature, appearing in a variety of forums, that effectively debunks Marshall's methodology. I agree that Marshall's data were not properly obtained in the scientific sense. Garland should rest knowing that US Military Academy cadets are not required to spout Men Against Fire dogma before graduating.
MAJ Kelly C. Jordan, USA, 2d Infantry Division,Republic of Korea
from the letters section of the journal Military Review

I don't see how the writings of a former Army Lieutenant Colonel and West Point instructor, on the subject of military history, quite qualifies as a "rant site".

Perhaps "rant site" was a poor choince of words on my part, although "killology" does seem deliberately sensationalistic. The basic problem I have with the style of that site is that it's intended to sell things. That last seems to be a pretty full speaking calendar for a "West Point Instructor". Perhaps a better request would have been for a non-commercial citation.

As to what actual West Point instructors had to say about S.L.A. Marshall, I was able to find a Journal reference:

I largely agree with Garland's comments regarding Marshall's suspect methodology. I, my peers and fellow West Point instructors are fully aware of recent literature, appearing in a variety of forums, that effectively debunks Marshall's methodology. I agree that Marshall's data were not properly obtained in the scientific sense. Garland should rest knowing that US Military Academy cadets are not required to spout Men Against Fire dogma before graduating.
MAJ Kelly C. Jordan, USA, 2d Infantry Division,Republic of Korea
from the letters section of the journal Military Review

I don't see how the writings of a former Army Lieutenant Colonel and West Point instructor, on the subject of military history, quite qualifies as a "rant site".

Perhaps "rant site" was a poor choince of words on my part, although "killology" does seem deliberately sensationalistic. The basic problem I have with the style of that site is that it's intended to sell things. That last seems to be a pretty full speaking calendar for a "West Point Instructor". Perhaps a better request would have been for a non-commercial citation.

As to what actual West Point instructors had to say about S.L.A. Marshall, I was able to find a Journal reference:

I largely agree with Garland's comments regarding Marshall's suspect methodology. I, my peers and fellow West Point instructors are fully aware of recent literature, appearing in a variety of forums, that effectively debunks Marshall's methodology. I agree that Marshall's data were not properly obtained in the scientific sense. Garland should rest knowing that US Military Academy cadets are not required to spout Men Against Fire dogma before graduating.
MAJ Kelly C. Jordan, USA, 2d Infantry Division,Republic of Korea
from the letters section of the journal Military Review

I'd suggest that removing freedom from the majority only to stop a *very* small minority from doing what they may like have done anyway (sure, I'll admit the evidence is out) is a REALLY stupid idea.

Don't be so quick on the trigger. The post to which you're replying made no suggestion of removing freedom.

Exposing immature or incompetent people to portrayals of violence is not a good idea. Exposing older kids to portrayals of violence without placing them in a proper context is not a good idea. But that bit of gatekeeping is the job or parents, teachers, and other caretakers, not of state censors.

Interesting reading from Lt. Col Dave Grossman, a West Point psychology and Military Science professor. (I disagree with his proposed solutions, which involve legislation and litigation, but his data on the problem is pretty solid):

• Due to incredible advances in trauma medicine, murder rates are a bad indicator of violence - an act of violence that killed someone 30 years ago may be highly survivable today. Better is the aggravated assault rate - which, in the U.S., which, per capita, increased seven times between 1957 and 1997, and has gone up similarly all over the world in the past few decades.
• Killing one's own species is a rare occurance in the animal kingdom. Even in wartime, up until WWII, most riflemen would not shoot - the rate of fire for individual riflemen was only 15-20%. Operant conditioning methods brought that over 90% in Vietnam. (A cynic might mention something about brainwashing, turing men into killing machines.)
• Some video games are very similar to these conditioning methods - but lack the training and discipine that tell a soldier when not shooting is the correct choice.
• Media portrayls of violence are often beautiful examples of classical conditioning. As Grossman puts it, "Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with: laughter, cheers, popcorn, soda, and their girlfriend's perfume". Many video games also perform classical conditioning, rewarding violence with victory.
• The media coverage these kids get turns them into role models.

So will Quake turn you into a monster? By itself, no. If there are other factors pushing you towards violence, it can be a strong influence. And it is conditioning you towards an acceptance of violence; be aware of that, be mindful of what's going on in your brain (always good advice) and be sure to balance it out with counter-influences.

I'd suggest that removing freedom from the majority only to stop a *very* small minority from doing what they may like have done anyway (sure, I'll admit the evidence is out) is a REALLY stupid idea.

Don't be so quick on the trigger. The post to which you're replying made no suggestion of removing freedom.

Exposing immature or incompetent people to portrayals of violence is not a good idea. Exposing older kids to portrayals of violence without placing them in a proper context is not a good idea. But that bit of gatekeeping is the job or parents, teachers, and other caretakers, not of state censors.

Interesting reading from Lt. Col Dave Grossman, a West Point psychology and Military Science professor. (I disagree with his proposed solutions, which involve legislation and litigation, but his data on the problem is pretty solid):

• Due to incredible advances in trauma medicine, murder rates are a bad indicator of violence - an act of violence that killed someone 30 years ago may be highly survivable today. Better is the aggravated assault rate - which, in the U.S., which, per capita, increased seven times between 1957 and 1997, and has gone up similarly all over the world in the past few decades.
• Killing one's own species is a rare occurance in the animal kingdom. Even in wartime, up until WWII, most riflemen would not shoot - the rate of fire for individual riflemen was only 15-20%. Operant conditioning methods brought that over 90% in Vietnam. (A cynic might mention something about brainwashing, turing men into killing machines.)
• Some video games are very similar to these conditioning methods - but lack the training and discipine that tell a soldier when not shooting is the correct choice.
• Media portrayls of violence are often beautiful examples of classical conditioning. As Grossman puts it, "Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with: laughter, cheers, popcorn, soda, and their girlfriend's perfume". Many video games also perform classical conditioning, rewarding violence with victory.
• The media coverage these kids get turns them into role models.

So will Quake turn you into a monster? By itself, no. If there are other factors pushing you towards violence, it can be a strong influence. And it is conditioning you towards an acceptance of violence; be aware of that, be mindful of what's going on in your brain (always good advice) and be sure to balance it out with counter-influences.

I'd suggest that removing freedom from the majority only to stop a *very* small minority from doing what they may like have done anyway (sure, I'll admit the evidence is out) is a REALLY stupid idea.

Don't be so quick on the trigger. The post to which you're replying made no suggestion of removing freedom.

Exposing immature or incompetent people to portrayals of violence is not a good idea. Exposing older kids to portrayals of violence without placing them in a proper context is not a good idea. But that bit of gatekeeping is the job or parents, teachers, and other caretakers, not of state censors.

Interesting reading from Lt. Col Dave Grossman, a West Point psychology and Military Science professor. (I disagree with his proposed solutions, which involve legislation and litigation, but his data on the problem is pretty solid):

• Due to incredible advances in trauma medicine, murder rates are a bad indicator of violence - an act of violence that killed someone 30 years ago may be highly survivable today. Better is the aggravated assault rate - which, in the U.S., which, per capita, increased seven times between 1957 and 1997, and has gone up similarly all over the world in the past few decades.
• Killing one's own species is a rare occurance in the animal kingdom. Even in wartime, up until WWII, most riflemen would not shoot - the rate of fire for individual riflemen was only 15-20%. Operant conditioning methods brought that over 90% in Vietnam. (A cynic might mention something about brainwashing, turing men into killing machines.)
• Some video games are very similar to these conditioning methods - but lack the training and discipine that tell a soldier when not shooting is the correct choice.
• Media portrayls of violence are often beautiful examples of classical conditioning. As Grossman puts it, "Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with: laughter, cheers, popcorn, soda, and their girlfriend's perfume". Many video games also perform classical conditioning, rewarding violence with victory.
• The media coverage these kids get turns them into role models.

So will Quake turn you into a monster? By itself, no. If there are other factors pushing you towards violence, it can be a strong influence. And it is conditioning you towards an acceptance of violence; be aware of that, be mindful of what's going on in your brain (always good advice) and be sure to balance it out with counter-influences.

I'd suggest that removing freedom from the majority only to stop a *very* small minority from doing what they may like have done anyway (sure, I'll admit the evidence is out) is a REALLY stupid idea.

Don't be so quick on the trigger. The post to which you're replying made no suggestion of removing freedom.

Exposing immature or incompetent people to portrayals of violence is not a good idea. Exposing older kids to portrayals of violence without placing them in a proper context is not a good idea. But that bit of gatekeeping is the job or parents, teachers, and other caretakers, not of state censors.

Interesting reading from Lt. Col Dave Grossman, a West Point psychology and Military Science professor. (I disagree with his proposed solutions, which involve legislation and litigation, but his data on the problem is pretty solid):

• Due to incredible advances in trauma medicine, murder rates are a bad indicator of violence - an act of violence that killed someone 30 years ago may be highly survivable today. Better is the aggravated assault rate - which, in the U.S., which, per capita, increased seven times between 1957 and 1997, and has gone up similarly all over the world in the past few decades.
• Killing one's own species is a rare occurance in the animal kingdom. Even in wartime, up until WWII, most riflemen would not shoot - the rate of fire for individual riflemen was only 15-20%. Operant conditioning methods brought that over 90% in Vietnam. (A cynic might mention something about brainwashing, turing men into killing machines.)
• Some video games are very similar to these conditioning methods - but lack the training and discipine that tell a soldier when not shooting is the correct choice.
• Media portrayls of violence are often beautiful examples of classical conditioning. As Grossman puts it, "Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with: laughter, cheers, popcorn, soda, and their girlfriend's perfume". Many video games also perform classical conditioning, rewarding violence with victory.
• The media coverage these kids get turns them into role models.

So will Quake turn you into a monster? By itself, no. If there are other factors pushing you towards violence, it can be a strong influence. And it is conditioning you towards an acceptance of violence; be aware of that, be mindful of what's going on in your brain (always good advice) and be sure to balance it out with counter-influences.

I'd suggest that removing freedom from the majority only to stop a *very* small minority from doing what they may like have done anyway (sure, I'll admit the evidence is out) is a REALLY stupid idea.

Don't be so quick on the trigger. The post to which you're replying made no suggestion of removing freedom.

Exposing immature or incompetent people to portrayals of violence is not a good idea. Exposing older kids to portrayals of violence without placing them in a proper context is not a good idea. But that bit of gatekeeping is the job or parents, teachers, and other caretakers, not of state censors.

Interesting reading from Lt. Col Dave Grossman, a West Point psychology and Military Science professor. (I disagree with his proposed solutions, which involve legislation and litigation, but his data on the problem is pretty solid):

• Due to incredible advances in trauma medicine, murder rates are a bad indicator of violence - an act of violence that killed someone 30 years ago may be highly survivable today. Better is the aggravated assault rate - which, in the U.S., which, per capita, increased seven times between 1957 and 1997, and has gone up similarly all over the world in the past few decades.
• Killing one's own species is a rare occurance in the animal kingdom. Even in wartime, up until WWII, most riflemen would not shoot - the rate of fire for individual riflemen was only 15-20%. Operant conditioning methods brought that over 90% in Vietnam. (A cynic might mention something about brainwashing, turing men into killing machines.)
• Some video games are very similar to these conditioning methods - but lack the training and discipine that tell a soldier when not shooting is the correct choice.
• Media portrayls of violence are often beautiful examples of classical conditioning. As Grossman puts it, "Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with: laughter, cheers, popcorn, soda, and their girlfriend's perfume". Many video games also perform classical conditioning, rewarding violence with victory.
• The media coverage these kids get turns them into role models.

So will Quake turn you into a monster? By itself, no. If there are other factors pushing you towards violence, it can be a strong influence. And it is conditioning you towards an acceptance of violence; be aware of that, be mindful of what's going on in your brain (always good advice) and be sure to balance it out with counter-influences.

I'd suggest that removing freedom from the majority only to stop a *very* small minority from doing what they may like have done anyway (sure, I'll admit the evidence is out) is a REALLY stupid idea.

Don't be so quick on the trigger. The post to which you're replying made no suggestion of removing freedom.

Exposing immature or incompetent people to portrayals of violence is not a good idea. Exposing older kids to portrayals of violence without placing them in a proper context is not a good idea. But that bit of gatekeeping is the job or parents, teachers, and other caretakers, not of state censors.

Interesting reading from Lt. Col Dave Grossman, a West Point psychology and Military Science professor. (I disagree with his proposed solutions, which involve legislation and litigation, but his data on the problem is pretty solid):

• Due to incredible advances in trauma medicine, murder rates are a bad indicator of violence - an act of violence that killed someone 30 years ago may be highly survivable today. Better is the aggravated assault rate - which, in the U.S., which, per capita, increased seven times between 1957 and 1997, and has gone up similarly all over the world in the past few decades.
• Killing one's own species is a rare occurance in the animal kingdom. Even in wartime, up until WWII, most riflemen would not shoot - the rate of fire for individual riflemen was only 15-20%. Operant conditioning methods brought that over 90% in Vietnam. (A cynic might mention something about brainwashing, turing men into killing machines.)
• Some video games are very similar to these conditioning methods - but lack the training and discipine that tell a soldier when not shooting is the correct choice.
• Media portrayls of violence are often beautiful examples of classical conditioning. As Grossman puts it, "Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with: laughter, cheers, popcorn, soda, and their girlfriend's perfume". Many video games also perform classical conditioning, rewarding violence with victory.
• The media coverage these kids get turns them into role models.

So will Quake turn you into a monster? By itself, no. If there are other factors pushing you towards violence, it can be a strong influence. And it is conditioning you towards an acceptance of violence; be aware of that, be mindful of what's going on in your brain (always good advice) and be sure to balance it out with counter-influences.

Your argument is pretty much the same one that Dave Grossman uses to assert that videogames make people killers. Well, the fact that the marines use videogames isn't necessarilly proof that videogames cause x, y, or z. The marines also make people march and make their beds. So are we to assume that marching and making beds makes one a better killer? Of course not, these activities have other purposes, like discipline and such. So maybe the marines use of videogmaes has other purposes as well and is not simply about desensitizing.

Nobody in this discussion has quoted a study yet... so I'm going to throw down the gauntlet here and present a website devoted to this very topic. This link is to the "publications" page, which may yield some references to digest. Start here.

I believe most people are not killers, and will never be. However, by your argument, propaganda and brainwashing are myths, fallacy, can't happen. The diet that your mind digests DOES affect you, I firmly believe that.... the question becomes "how much?"

Heheheh... I'm really laughing at the next part of your post. I'm not laughing at you, or minimizing your beef, but it's so stereotypical; tell someone you're a cop, and they always want to tell you about the last traffic tickets they got, and why they didn't deserve them. I'm sorry, but it happens so often... it's just funny.

It sounds to me like you've had some bad experiences with your local police... sorry about that. However, we have only your account of these incidents. Also, were you present with your mother each time she was stopped? Were you hanging your head out the window the entire drive, to make SURE she didn't cross over the white line, even once? On what do you base your profiling charge that your mom was mistaken for "some teenage kid" based on her car? You're making lots of accusations, with little to back them up. It's obvious you're angry... you should consider whether that angst is coloring your perception of these incidents.

Think about what you wrote... do you REALLY want cops that are NOT working hard for that next big bust? Cops that are lazy and don't give a shit? What would you rather have them do instead, traffic enforcement? You attacked cops for doing too much minor traffic enforcement... which is it? Sheesh, guy... what do you want? Looks like the police can do no right in your world.

By the way, you can spend your money on the cameras, but it's legal for cops to lie during investigation... but it's very ILLEGAL for them to do so under oath, and you may not be able to submit your tape for evidence, based on local laws regarding consent for taping; better check it out before you spend the money. Also, smugly advising them that you are "taping them" is going to get you tagged as a troublemaker.

Your attitude about this is all wrong. WHY would you attempt to confront a "bad cop" when you're at his mercy (ie. at the traffic stop)? Why would you confront your enemy where he is strong, and you are weak (to paraphrase Sun-Tzu)? If you think you're being faced with a bad cop, be polite... do whatever he asks... cooperate... don't be a ass. If you get smart, you are giving him an excuse to do what he wants to do anyway... Why oh why would you play into his hands? You've gotta be smarter about it than that.

I have been in that position, and I did exactly as I'm advising you; I got my pound of flesh later after I talked to his sergeant and chief (he pulled me over and took my license for an expired tag that wasn't). Greater satisfaction can be had by filing a citizen complaint, and embarassing the officer in front of his peers later. It frames you as a responsible, reasonable citizen, and builds cred if you happen to run into problems later. NOTHING will get you written off faster than being a disgruntled "cop hater."

The last paragraphs of your post worry me though... are you really advocating a violent uprising against the police because of a few "unjustified" traffic stops?

I'm gonna have to call bs on this one... I want to see a source...

Checkout Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's killology website. He is a retired West Point professor and has some very interesting ideas.

This is kinda odd, considering Powerful Dumb People's usually fruity reactions to violence in videogames.

Since the media loves blaming games for bad behaviour, will this be touted as a "government-sponsored murder simulator" by Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman and his ilk?

Then there's the kneejerk reaction that creating a game that teaches people effective command of groups of soldiers might be assisting terrorism...

All complete rubbish of course, but dont be surprised to see people frothing about it sometime soon.

shut up man