Slashdot Mirror
Do Violent Games Hinder Development of Empathy?
donniebaseball23 writes "Although there's yet to be a study that conclusively proves a direct causal relationship between video game violence and real-life violence, psychologists are continuing to examine the effect violent media can have on children. A new study in the Journal of Children and Media notes that violent video game exposure can actually hinder a child's moral development. 'Certainly not every child who continues to play violent video games is going to go out and perpetrate a violent act, but the research suggests that children — particularly boys — who are frequently exposed to these violent games are absorbing a sanitized message of "no consequences for violence" from this play behavior,' said Professor Edward T. Vieira Jr."
I believe that only a few of them would get that message. But even if they did, instead of having parents ban the games for the child, why don't they teach them otherwise and then let them play them?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Shut up or I'll punch you.
Given the behavior I see in multiplayer games and forums, I'd say it's not violent content that destroys empathy.
It's anonymity and the lack of consequences for bad behavior.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Ok, this one has really bugged me. Does anyone else think most studies like this miss a huge glaring point?
We don't live in a void. If you remove one form of entertainment, another will fill it's place. Throughout history our great entertainments, our plays, our songs, our stories, have had tales of battle and the glory to be won through conquest of our foes.
So while i feel it's obvious exposing people to violence alters their worldview, I want to see some data on how that compares to the other things that would normally be occupying their time if they weren't playing the violent game or watching the violent movie.
ya know, like how does playing cowboys and indians, vs soccer, vs football, vs violent movies, vs video games, vs read books like world war z and 1984.
Help us find the lesser evil! Because sorry, blowing stuff up will never be less cool.
Looks like Professor Edward T. Vieira, Jr. is in need of an ass-kicking.
Right after I finish clubbing this baby seal to death in Grand Theft Orca.
Maybe it's boys (and girls for that matter) that spend all their time playing video games (violent or not) and no time socializing. The lack of social interaction would hinder the development of empathy. How are you supposed to empathize, with "that which has no life?" (Oblig. southpark quote)
I wonder what they would find if they ran a similar study of a semi-controlled environment filled with their peers with regular violence that was inconsistently punished rather than video games.
Personally I think violent TV is probably worse than violent games. Kids learn to behave by copying behaviors they see in other people, so when they see violence on TV it's a passive experience that may leave them wanting to try it out for themselves, to see what it feels like, etc.
In a game, they've already committed the violent act so perhaps there will be relatively less chance they will want to act it out in real life as they will have to some degree gotten the violent acts "out of their systems".
G.
I've read about quite a few studies in the media into causality between video game violence and criminal activities. They all said that there was none as I recollect. I wonder if there is there a purient reason why people must cast around to locate a brick to lob at video games (or television / film as used to occur in bygone eras). If you don't like video games, don't play them – that's the morally correct response as you are then not interfering with someone else’s property and personal boundaries.
The purpose of existence is to make money.
Fark user FloydA: I think if boys play this game, they will grow up to abuse women, in exactly the same way that I played Asteroids when I was young, and I grew up to be a triangle.
(said in regards to the "Capture the Babe" multiplayer level category in Duke Nukem Forever)
I have a feeling that game violence desensitizes people to real violence, but it doesn't appear that stats back that up. However, I do know for a fact that entertainment violence produces a Hollywood impression of how violence goes down in real life; like bullet effects, injury stamina, etc.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Yes but only violent videogames. Other forms of media that depict violence such as movies, magazines, books, comics, and songs no. Actual violence no. Videogames yes. THEY ARE THE WORK OF ALAN TURING'S HOMOSEXUAL DEVIL MACHINE.
I don't know. Let me punch you in the face after I play GTA and I'll get back to you on how much I can empathize with how your broken nose makes you feel.
then he/she or it should have been killed violently? again, the trouble with part-non-fiction? bring it home for a moment with, say, us?
do we seek the truth?
do we really know how queer we are?
is all life more important than anything else?
do we hide our feelings for/hurt others?
are we always afraid of somethings we can't see, & the deception that we can see?
a little queer? jesus (or a nameless cave dweller?) could have been like us? all the same. line up.
Probably, but not as much as killing and torturing smalls animals. There is nothing like removing the skin of a living thing while keeping it alive to hinder a child's moral development.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Even when playing a violent game as a child, I hated to lose the game or die and have to start over.
So when you die in a game it hurts. If they don't think it hurts enough then perhaps the punishment for death in the new games should be like it was in the old games. When you died in some of the old school games that was it, or you'd get 3 lives and after losing all 3 that was it, and you had to start from scratch to get back to where you were. So dying in a game meant something.
Such as if you play a game and you play violently, maybe your enemy just attacks you harder, forcing you to be more tactical rather than just trying to rambo your way through the AI.
Also dying in a game should be a bit more painful. You lose all your gear and you start at the first level, thats how it was when I played growing up. They didn't have a "save" feature.
I think that one aspect of violent games is that you lean to realise that the violence is fake (did not actually happen), even though is right in front of you. This can then be extended to all acting real actors. Of course less social interaction stunts growth as well. As for types of more types violence being acceptable to them this influence comes from all media they watch from the tv and internet as well.
If you show a bunch of (potentially very badly) acted out videos to them then ask them how they feel then i could defiantly see some differences.
The 'no consequence because you can try again' idea, i think is bullshit unless you are talking about some really thick kids. Generally i would think less real experience would make them more scared to try things.
But they never make the connection that most violent adults were bullied as kids.
For quite a while I was an advocate of the idea that since I've played games for years and it hasn't had an effect on me that its not an issue. However, one cannot ignore a drastic change in the behavior of kids today, empathy being one of the biggest changes I have noticed. I have witnessed some truly horrible things that have happened at my kids schools that simply didn't happen or were even thought of when I was young. I can remember when I was a kid shooting a bird with a bb gun, I felt so guilty about it that I don't think I ever used that bb gun again, but here in my neighborhood we had a couple of kids going around and killing pets repeatedly and after being caught they laughed about it.
One difference I have realized that I had ignored previously is that I didn't grow up with even semi realistic games, in fact when I was a small child games didn't even exist beyond pong, space invaders, etc...in fact the most violent games I can remember were things like death race and boot hill. While I know one of the popular arguments has been that movies, tv and books have depicted violence since their beginnings, but there is a big difference that I think is ignored. In other media the person perpetuating the violence is someone else, in modern games even if the character is visually on screen its still the player directing their actions. As adults we are able to separate fantasy from reality, for kids thats not so clear. While I would never advocate banning games, I do think that children can be far more susceptible to influence than we want to believe. It should be a parents job to mold and guide their children, I know that I try to, but many parents don't which brings up the dilemma of how to deal with it when parents dont do their jobs. The easy answer is to blame bad parents but that doesn't fix problem and society is still left to deal with it.
Once again, what excuse did Hitler have? Or Charles Manson? Or the biblical Cain? Here in the states, I don't know if it is even possible for people to have less empathy than they do.
And they live in a violent neighborhood? What good would any of this censorship do when they get to see people being shot and stabbed IRL?
"no consequences for violence"
Not in any game I've ever played. You take a level 1 trainee mage up against a "boss" dragon, you get turned into ashes. Not fun at all.
I think a better way to study the influence of violent video games would be to study attitudes in boys about sizing up the opposition, and estimating the oppositions abilities, having a plan for running for it, and sharing gossip with their buddies about the best way to beat the other kid.
I'm thinking there is no influence... Stories about my grandfather getting into fights as a little kid sound about like my sons stories, yet my grandfather was too young for video games by about half a century.
Typical boy fight for the last couple centuries or longer: "Well he said some $#%^ so I decided to whack him one to teach him a lesson and one thing led to another and next thing you know we're in the principals office getting disciplined"
Theoretical boy fight, when affected by video games: "Well I heard he drops phat loot and my buddy told me he's vulnerable to bludgeoning weapons and I need a defense against his poisonous spit, and I figured he's about a level 9 boy based on his STR and CON, and I'm about a level 10 boy based on my WIS and INT and CHA, so I figured I can take him pretty easily, and I got a cellphone-rune-of-recall if I need help, and a level 2 flask of bactine and a healers kit of bandaids, so I'm all good, I'm gonna camp his respawn point and get him when he steps off the school bus".
Pretty obvious which is more realistic.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Video games aren't the only thing that represents violence as a consequence-free and effective way to solve problems: TV has been doing that for a lot longer. Most children in the US are exposed to a lot of violence that is presented as good, or fun, or useful.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I spoke to the devs and they say that violent video games will not change their code. In fact, they will continue to make Empathy the best IM client they can, even if it is used to coordinate attacks in WoW.
Parents don't know anything; they're so out of touch with the way the world works today.
Fear Propaganda To Support Development of Empathy?
Yes... of course!
As a result children have less empathy. Empathy isn't rewarded in society. Look at this society and tell me why you'd expect any other result besides less empathy from children?
Do the corporations have any empathy? So why expect it from children?
Nowadays I barely have to read a source article to establish the likelihood that the latest "discovery" supporting a liberal issue is crap. Primus, the link is not to a scientific paper, secundus, there is no mention or hint that the "researcher" has eliminated self selection among the players of video games. Logic suggests that persons who had fewer issues with violence (perhaps because of their environment) would be attracted to violent games. Maybe this researcher should use his "U Beaut" test to compare "moral development" between different cultures in the USA? Or between the Arapesh and the Mugdugumor?
THEY DO NOT!
NO!
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
A parent may work for a violent corporation that builds weapons to kill people, but expect that banning violent games will keep their kids from having violent thoughts.
The real world is a violent place, get used to it.
Why don't they go to the slums, or to the prisons and talk to some liberals in there about whether or not banning violent video games or movies would have changed their life in a significant way.
Honestly, there are neighborhoods which are so violent that kids have to carry knives or join gangs to feel safe. Try telling that kid that banning violent video games and movies will make any difference. It will only make a difference to the kid going to the elite school with the elite parents.
Nuff said... and no, I've never played violent video games. The closest I've ever come to playing violent games was playing Quake 1 CTF for weeks and weeks almost 24/7 in college... but Quake isn't that violent... :p
Stalin, Hitler, and Mao all loved video games.
Garbage in, garbage out. Just like anything else. Children are influenced by what they experience. It's obvious.
Not that every kid who ever played a violent video game will grow up to be a violent thug, but that exposing children to anything influences their psychology and attitudes. No shit. Who would have guessed it? I mean, wow, that's some next-level stuff right there.
What's important to remember is that it's the day-to-day influences that effect kids the most. What they see their parents and peers do every day over and over again is what really messes them up or nurtures them in healthy ways. Video games effect kids (and anyone else who plays them), but they're really only "dangerous" to those kids who play a whole lot of games every day, all the time. Why is anyone arguing over this either way? Let's acknowledge the obvious facts so we can all move on and get down to the business of actually raising children.
You know, I was just thinking how you'd teach a kid that they're not supposed to do that. And then I look at the whole "no consequences for actions" idea again, and I'm thinking... as opposed to what? As opposed to their just needing to not live under a rock to notice that there are no consequences if a few bankers cause yet another bubble, and they even get to congratulate themselves and give themselves millions of dollars each in bonuses for a job well done, just as the government is taxing everyone else to bail them out? Getting to watch them give interviews to the effect of, "the computer is to blame! We just fiddled with the parameters (e.g., risk percentage) until the computer gave us the answer we wanted (yep, give money to no-income no-job applicants), and then only did what the computer told us, so we're not to blame"... and still keep their lofty posts and bonuses in spite just having admitted that they're too fucking stupid to even be trusted to tie their own shoes, much less handle the world's finances? Watching CEOs getting paid tens of millions and actually get bonuses, for driving a company into the fucking ground and selling it at bargain basement prices? Yeah, great message about personal responsibility and consequences for actions that gives.
Oh, wait, stupid me... that's only for the rich enough guys, isn't it? If as a shitkicker from Bronx you drive your finances into the ground, you get the collection agency at your door. You have to be too big to fail to get bailed and get a bonus.
So here's my plan: any violent game will have to have the protagonist be a multi-billionaire. Iron Man and Batman are still ok to make games about because they're loaded. Guys like The Punisher or the Postal guy or the humble delivery guy from Fallout New Vegas are, sad to say, out. The next Duke Nukem instalment (which probably will happen around 2085;) will have to feature a Duke who inherited a bank. Or an actual duke. Actually the latter would work for the next The Elder Scrolls too. Or for that matter, just make a game where Scrooge McDuck is mowing down gangsters. Seeing him dive into a vault full of money should drive the point home that whatever stuff he gets away with, is totally not the kind of stuff you get away with.
That should work, right? :p
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Part of showing higher intelligence and empathy is being able to empathize with that which has no life.
That the southpark makers cannot do this, is telling.
:)
What is the emotional state of the above? Of two symbols? How many immediately thought "happy face"? How can you think two symbols next to each other are happy?
A lower animal seeing another animal will feel next to nothing, it will register it is as either food, a mate, or a hunter. It does not have "emotions" about it. Higher animals do have some capacity for emotion. How far this goes is not a debate I want to get into today but there is some proof that some animals can become attached to other animals (including us) and regonize feelings, state of emotion, in that other.
We humans are so good at it, that we can even do it in object that really have no emotion one way or another. Cartoons are one of them. CGI characters in a game are another.
In the game Mafia, if you shoot somebody, they don't die instantly, instead they might get wounded and try to crawl away, begging for mercy. It is a very easy to believe animation. It ain't all that hard to act as if they are real. So you walk up to them, and still kill them for little to no motivation in game... why?
Because it is just a game? It ain't real?
That is what the various evil people out there claimed about their victims. Blacks are not real people so enslaving them is okay. Jews are only sub-humans so killing them is okay. Children are not real, so raping them is okay.
No vicious criminals has ever been found to have a high sense of empathy. Find yourself a killer in jail and you find yourself someone who pulled the wings of flies or set cats on fire and STILL cannot see what is wrong with it.
Empathy is what we human beings need to avoid being reptiles who happily eat their own young. It allows us to live in large groups because hurting someone else on purpose makes us feel bad so we don't.
What is kinda amusing is to see those who lack empathic skills is to defend their lack by attacking those who have empathy as being to soft. "Oh how could you cry when Bambi's mother was shot, it is only a cartoon". Yes, it is, and I am only human and humans do that. You don't, what does this make you then?
That this field of study generates such hatred among some gamers is proof enough in itself. It is well known that what the parent said is true, an animal that does not socialize is not socialized. The most obvious and common examples are cats. If a kitten does not get used to human interaction early on, it becomes a wild cat. Socialize, and it will not only live happily in a pack with humans but even with other cats. A social animal becomes social from interaction with others.
Do violent video games change this more then other ways of non-socializing? Consider this, a cat raised in a barn with barely any human interaction will still be less hostile to humans then an animal constently mistreated by humans. A barn cat will simply see humans as other animals that are to big to eat, don't hunt it and don't want to be mated with. Ignore and move on. A mistreated cat will see a hunter and seek to avoid.
Young children are NOT automatically nice responsible social creatures. Their interactions with the world around them, shapes them. This includes everything from the time spend with their parents, to advertizing, to video games.
Some kids play video games, and this shapes them. Some kids play ONLY violent video games and go out of their way to make them more violent. This shapes them. There are ways to play violent video games that makes any observer chill to the bone. When a player goes out of his way to be violent, take PLEASURE in killing that which has no life, then you got a disturbed mind.
BECAUSE IF A VIDEO GAME CHARACTER IS NOT REAL, WHY DO YOU DELIGHT IN HURTING IT?
It is here that the "violent video games have no effect" crowd often fails. If it doesn't make you feel anything, why do it?
There are s
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Good thing video games hadn't been invented during the Crusades or violence may have broken out.
+1 Informative
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
That really depends on what else that 'child' is being fed while he's growing up. If someone grows up in an environment with absolutely no empathy they will have little tolerance or understanding for it. If a child is already in a bubble devoid of any normal interactions, they will obviously skew towards what they know best. A healthy look at feral children who grow up in an enviornment completely devoid of social interaction is all the proof you really need. There are plenty of famous psychological studies done around this as well. A violent video game could easily be countered (for the children that don't know better) by telling the child that they love him and they shouldn't do those things in real life.
Society isn't responsible for raising children. Violent video games are no different then growing up around the typical violent movies. People in midevil, roman, and greek days grew up around violence as well (especially REAL war). They built empires and eventually reached the Renaissance era even after midevil days. This is just another jump on the violent video game bandwagon.
looks like any way it was re-written, sub-deities & cave dwellers almost always get the ax. the violenter, the better?
I always have my doubts about crap studies like this....No real details are given. Info on the children should be mentioned as well, do they come from divorced homes? How about homes where the parent's don't interact with the kids on much more than a "have to" basis? Where do the kids come from, an "inner city" environment or rural areas? What kind of interaction do the kids get beside playing the video games? Is there structured "family time" there or merely leaving the kids to their own devices? More of the issue actually comes from "parents" using a device like a video game to pass for entertainment rather than actually doing something with the kid, pitching around a ball or going for walks. There's just way too damn many variables to consider before a real valid opinion can be formed, as it stands this is little more than an "it would appear that" piece. The only thing that bugs me are people who are "against" games reading stuff like this and yelling "See!"
Dont let children play violent games and give me my R18+ category. Problem Solved.
Every sponsor of the study has its own angle on the issue, as such the result of the study is already predestine to prove the sponsor right. It's largely irrelevant what the result is as the result is pegged long before any data is collected or interpreted.
Studies that disproved their sponsors' views have ways of disappearing into unfunded abyss.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
hey, you did it to yourself. I don't feel bad for y--
hmm, they might be on to something
If there were any zombies!
In other news, studies suggest that some children are more suggestible than others. This correlates with, among other variables, the degree of parental involvement in rearing the child.
What say we focus on identifying at risk children and make sure their parents have the tools to handle this special case?
One of the problems with violent games, the study suggests, is that they often do not provide the perspective of the victim of a violent act.
I'm gonna guess that the researchers have never been repeatedly pwned by a twelve-year-old until they ragequit.
We should react and just ban violent video games? I played violent video games and turned out just fine. I blame the parents on this one for not instilling proper morals. It seems like Americans want politicians to do their thinking/parenting for them. I rarely see some policy created by a politician truly succeed. Makes me sick. Censorship won't solve the problem at all. Instead, it creates new ones.
"Certainly not every child who continues to play violent video games is going to go out and perpetrate a violent act, but the research suggests that children — particularly boys — who are frequently exposed to these violent games are absorbing a sanitized message of 'no consequences for violence' from this play behavior," said Vieira. "The concern arises when children are taking in this message and there is a convergence of other negative environmental factors at the same time, such as poor parental communication and unhealthy peer relationships."
But don't let me get in the way of your flame wars
No exceptional soul is exempt from a mixture of madness -- Aristotle
I'm too busy playing Bejeweled to care what Professor Edward T. Vieira Jr. thinks or feels about whatever the hell it is that he's going on about.
objectify people, turning them into "things", on the same level as rocks. Just something to shoot at. Further they simplify everything to fights and good guys and bad guys, which leads to the same type of thinking in everyday life. It is hard for an immature mind to separate virtual and TV vs. reality. And from what I've seen, so far, mature, minds, too.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
I think, just abstractly that there is less violence in the world on a person to person (or street gang) level then 100 years ago. Killing in GTA is far less troublesome then going out and committing those crimes in the real world. MAYBE on a certain type of person it allows them to perpetrate carnage, but Rawand didn't happen after a bunch of youths were playing Wolfinstine. Crime rates continue to go down and even if video games remove some barrier in some people its dropping really fast in other segments of the population.
They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
IIRC, there was another study recently that indicated decreasing levels of empathy in all of the young, accompanied by increasing levels of narcissism. Don't recall the name or anything, so I can't provide links. Either way, I'd be hard pressed to not make a correlation between the two, rather than with video games. How exactly different is playing video games to paintball/airsoft or the time honored pastimes of cops & robbers? I didn't RTFA, so is it simply the pervasiveness of video games or is there something more?
Look, I don't believe this. I play violent games sinceI have 9 years old, never make me more angry, disturbed, or even mental damaged. Some of my friends, want play games like GTA, only to have fun. So I Desagree.
I type this from a federal penitentiary. When I was 12 my parents bought me a game for my Sega Genesis called "Mortal Kombat." "It's only a game," right? If only that "game" had done a better job of explaining the consequences of one's actions, I wouldn't be doing 30 consecutive life sentences for ripping the heads off two dozen of my classmates (spines attached) and then tearing the skin off my face and proceeding to breath searing flames on my teachers, burning them alive until they were just charred skeletons.
Parents, talk to you kids about the REAL cost of a "Fatality!" Before it's too late.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Are they testing with pictures/videos of real violence? I (and everyone I've ever talked to about this) can watch the worst that games and Hollywood can imagine and it has absolutely no effect on me, but one stop at something like Ogrish and my stomach turns. Knowing that the violence is real is a total game changer. I don't even like to look at people in casts, but brains and intestines on TV are pretty blase because I know they aren't real.
Kids who are regularly parked in front of violent video games have crappy, un-empathetic parents to begin with.
Violent people are more attracted to violent games, and as a result you will see slightly higher rates of violence amongst those who play them. This is not games causing violence.
Time and time again, they've tried to prove a link, only to find none whatsoever. The simple fact is, violent games don't cause violence any more than violent music, violent movies, violent comic books, violent regular books, or violent [Insert whatever form of entertainment people will have in 20 years that the 50+ crowd mostly won't understand here]. This same debate happens generation after generation after generation, and all that changes is what the new form of media is. Politicians like easy targets to get easy votes, and many others like to be able to blame all of society's ills on an inanimate object so they don't have to take responsibility and actually try to fix anything. Some things never change, and unfortunately, this is one of them.
And yet another study trying to drop all behavioral problems on video games. Lets not mention all the other things that kids are exposed to on a daily basis that could also cause kids to not be overly empathetic. Like movies, tv shows, news stories (As a parent I'm well aware that even if -I- were not to allow my kids access to the news, they will certainly hear about it at school, parents need to sit down and -talk- with their kids!), not to mention at least in the US two wars that have been plagued with problems that one could relate to "lack of empathy for the outcome" that have been going on for most of these children's lives. I've sat around and watched multiple politicians straight up say violence is a great answer to problems, and then they expect kids to not pick up on that general attitude of society?
In thousands of years of human history, what's the one single thing we've actually been able to prove makes a huge difference on how kids turn out? Parenting, and if they have any. Maybe with that record we should start giving parenting classes to parents with troubled children, rather than worry to much about video games, or books, or whathaveyou so specifically...
Whats the problem with "family entertainment"?
much much worse its sex, sex do nothing to empathy
Whenever there is doubt or confusion, the Armchair Experts will be there.
Whenever science fails to come to a conclusion, the Armchair Experts will be there.
Whenever science fails to come to the right conclusion, the Armchair Experts will be there.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
This study mixes cause and effect, and pays not even lip service to the fact that there may be a biological interaction at play. This is the story with the vast majority of media research, and research on childhood development. The reason why researchers do this, is because it is considered unconscionable that the environment may not be the ultimate cause, and therefore solution, to all our "problems". This may seem odd, but consider positing a biological basis to patriarchy to an academic feminist. Such a theory would be "morally" wrong. Same goes for media violence. In fact, it is usually the very same ideologues promoting both cases.
It is all very unscientific. I wrote an essay on the politics of media violence research, called The Utopian Pseudo-Science of Media Effects. Freedman (2002), and Trend (2007) (in references) wrote the best scholarly rebuttals of media violence research, but it has fallen on deaf (ideological) ears.
For more information on the ideologies behind the debate, see Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature", and Judith Rich Harris' "The Nurture Assumption". These books expose a lot of "save-the-children" academic research as flap-doodle. I wrote a short essay on the ideologies behind modern academia child research, called Regarding Turkheimer’s Proclamation.
It will take the fall of Margaret Mead-esk feminism before we can put the media violence debate behind us. (I am an old-school feminist -- we want equality, not some naive social re-engineering.) The media violence debate is just one example of how environmental determinism and moral rectitude have produced a kind of race-condition. Don't hold your breath for this heady bubble to burst: social constructionists decry "masculinist" objectivity -- a required point of view if you are going to close your ears to all of the empirical evidence that just says....
There is little to no evidence that media violence is of any cause for concern.
See:
Trend, D. (2007). The myth of media violence: A critical introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Freedman, J., L. (2002). Media violence and its effects on aggression: Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
If you want kids to grow up with more empathy, I'd suggest starting by not rewarding anti-social behavior when it begins to surface in primary school. You know, instead of ignoring the little monster, letting him or her do and get away with whatever, and then punishing any of the other kids that stand up to him or her like now. Yeah, the little hell-spawn may be a future career criminal, has bitchy parents that are blinded by their own self righteous delusions, and there's nothing you can do about that. But, you can stop other kids from adopting it as acceptable behavior. Because, when they see _you_ following _him_ as if he's your leader, guess who they are going to look to for leadership and as a guide for acceptable behavior. No one wants to be a loser.
Welcome to the real game.
Lets actually find out how few in number it is.
Your sentiment is noble, but unfortunately, media violence researchers are not interested in their own numbers -- just a political agenda. Objectively speaking, the burden of proof is on media violence researchers to show any type of causal link at all. They have failed for eighty years. (Going back to the Payne Fund Studies.) See here for more information on what is going on.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bqq38WZctA
Why defend against accusations of immorality? EMBRACE THEM!
what ever happened to parents teaching their children the difference between reality and VIRTUAL reality? my parents obviously did a great job ... i grew up playing Duke Nukem 3D, Mortal Kombat, GTA, Resident Evil, etc and I (in my humble opinion) turned out just fine. i understand that i can be considered an isolated incident, but my parents took great care to limit my exposure to only a couple hours a day and to talk with me about the difference between a consequences in a game and consequences in the real world. i don't think they should be wasting money on studying children; if anything, the money would be better spent studying the parents and their parenting techniques.
This study will only gain relevance when violent video games start producing their own offspring.
Does anyone really know where empathy comes from? If we don't then this is all guesswork.
Oblig XKCD. What's nice about this one is that it's so recent.
Make violent children.
I was not raised with video games. The earliest I recall an arcade game is asteroids.
I was raised by people who believed violence and pain were acceptable to be used on a child.
This continued until I knew that I could crush the fist that beat me. Then they were nothing.
To this day violence is my constant friend. I will use intimidation and the threats of violence to achieve my goals.
Pain is an excellent teacher. Beat your parents the teacher with the ruler, the principle with the kayak paddled to death to prove your love.
How about all those viloent games like umm.. say Dragon Age? Mass Effect There is so many others not to be a Bioware fanboy. Growing up with games such as Doom and Duke Nukem hasn't made me a killer nor, has made me some one who abuses females. The most immersive games these days usualy require you to make a jugement on what is right or wrong. Sure playing through Fallout 3 and killing everyone you see is fun but everyone at least will have to choose the right path to do certian postitve things. Its like the whole "You are going to be a rapeist if you play Bulletstorm" or Duke Nukem Forever encourages you to use and abuse females. Can we just grow up and enjoy this artform as it is? It's seriously not that hard. /End Rant.
Pylons?
And just who decided that this "empathy" is a good thing? What you call "Empathy", I call "coddling the weak"!
I once used Civilization (3, perhaps?) as a supplement to teach sixth graders about the rise of civilizations. After talking a bit about how geography affected human development, just as tile placement affects what path you might take in the game, we came across an unprotected worker from another civilization in a square adjacent to our exploring warrior. To the question "Should be attack that worker or not? They're defenseless, and we have big clubs", several of the more vocal boys shouted "kill them!" All it took was a moment for me as the teacher to say, "Are you really willing to slaughter a person so easily? You're taking a human life. Are you really prepared to kill somebody's mother, father, or child?" Just thinking about what it represented for a second was enough to get a unanimous decision from the class to spare the worker's life, and several kids even offered help him with the farm he was building. I thought it was awesome.
Teachable moments are everywhere, and all it takes is somebody paying attention to make an "empathy-hindering" moment an empathy-teaching moment.
I see two levels of empathy. The first is that you understand what another person feels and their motivations and understand how that affects their behavior and beliefs. The second is that you somehow "share" or replicate their emotional state. From my viewpoint, the second level leaves you vulnerable by making you more susceptible to deception (via false emotion on another's part) and because you are feeling an emotion rather than thinking.
Then consider what elucido notes, namely, that it might not be healthy in today's society (or frankly most societies throughout history) to be too empathetic.
As I see it, you don't want children to have so little empathy that other people are viewed either as mysterious black boxes or tools to be used. But at the same time, you do want children to have enough emotional defenses so that they can't be conned by someone with ulterior motives who merely fakes the right emotions.
Have you ever seen lion cubs play? We all know from National Geographic that playing is a very important part of their development. It teaches them the skills they will need in life to survive. It also teaches them which skills they will need in life.
The question is, what are the most important skills we can teach our young people? If we think that it is important to know how to fight others in order to survive then violent video games are an important source of education. If we think it's more important to share, care, and so on, then our games should reflect that instead.
The force of the environment has a very strong effect on children. We can see that even though they play violent video games, most of them will not grow up to be violent criminals or soldiers because the force of law in society is stronger than any video game. Aside from this, there's also the forces of family and so on.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
This kind of reporting really frustrates me. 'Activity X CAN CAUSE consequence Y'.
/. gets trolled by these kinds of articles far too often.
Well, you could say just about anything there. What kind of crappy science is this? Is it just another headline grabber? Or were the balls of the psychologists legally removed by 'insert game vendor here'.
Methinks
I think it's less about exposure to violent media and more about not being exposed to day-to-day social activities. For all they can be immersive, video games and TV do not interact with you, they do not have feelings or original thoughts.
Of course, studies of this sort don't actually study criminal violence. Invariably, they study some other behavior which is taken to be a proxy for violence--aggressive play, for example, or in this case, answers to questions that are presumed to measure "moral reasoning."
Balanced against these behavioral studies under highly artificial conditions, we have the incontrovertible fact that as video games have massively increased in popularity, particularly among the demographic (young males) that is responsible for most violence, and as the realism of game violence has increased dramatically, the incidence of real-world violence has declined dramatically.
Of course, that is merely association. We cannot conclude that the inverse relationship between videogame violence and actual violence reflects an anti-violence effect of videogaming. What we can conclude is that any hypothetical pro-violence effect of videogames must be so small as to be completely swamped by other social, economic, or cultural factors impacting the incidence of violent crime.
Which raises the question: why is there so much research effort, and research funding, being directed toward a "problem" that either does not exist in the real world, or else is negligible compared to other factors? Is this merely another manifestation of the perpetual suspicion of an older generation that any activity that children engage in, but their parents did not, must necessarily be harmful?
Thats all my kid nephew keeps telling me.
He's been trying this for a while now. But he cant get the hat to spin right. Should I be more worried that he cant get the hat spinning or that he's trying in the first place?
and maybe could not be one of the good ones. You "learn" empathy hearing stories, reading books and watching movies. And culture is taking good care of the 1st 2 and hollywood of the 3rd one. With the actual teaching from those sources, maybe is better to not have that meme.
It's worth pointing out that the author of this study is an associate professor of communications at a very small upscale women's college in Boston with a grand total of one graduate level science program, namely behavior analysis. Said program's website proudly announces two recent studies, "Task Analysis, Correspondence Training, and General Case Instruction for Teaching Personal Hygiene Skills" and "Learning to Ride: Pedaling Made Possible Through Positive Behavioral Interventions".
The short version is that questioning the credentials of the author and whether he even has the resources to conduct a meaningful study in this area are fair game.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Instead of copying the text here's a link my comment I made before.
By the way, it's interesting to see how the slashdot tune changes. Two months ago there was an article about limiting access to violent games, and the overall response was ridicule over the idea that violent games mights have negative impacts. Now that research shows that there may be a connection (but no-one is suggesting limiting your access) then the overall response is one of understanding.
What about TV ?
I think the point is more about kids getting desensitized to violence because of playing these graphic games. I think there is certainly something to that.
Once something is no longer shocking, it tends not to be something you spend much time to consider. Just think about your first time on \b.
More likely, the simple act of owning a pet probably contributes more toward instilling empathy into a child, than any video game could do to decay it. Sure there's violence in games and movies/tv, but much of it is short term and probably forgotten, versus something like living with an abusive parent or similar issues.
Havin a child learn about responsibility through caring for an animal is long term, meaning the child eventually develops an emotional bond with it. Children quickly learn failing to act responsibly wth an animal can have serious consequences, including death of the animal itself. And, while that could be somewhat traumatizing to learn about harsh topics like death that way, it will make them far more empathetic toward others versus any short-term habit changes like taking away their video games.
8==8 Bones 8==8
These are the same kids who perform comedy because of all the sitcoms on television, right?
I guess we are on the verge of an epidemic of comedy in the streets; these sitcoms must be stopped!
-- Terry
I play them all the time.
And I still cry like a baby at scenes in Twin Peaks, Grave of the Fireflies, Schindler's List, etc.
Here we go again.
Violence video games do not hinder my empathy at all.
How can it, the video game isn't real, i don't think it's real, and i don't treat it like it's real.
Basic fucking logic.
Now, stupid people, they make me less empathic to their needs. You go about being stupid, doing stupid shit, then when that shit hits the fan, you start crying "why me, life is unfair, wah, wah, wah". Well, that makes me laugh, at you, for being a stupid wanker.
Video games are, video games. Reminds me of the early 90's, when peeps in the various BBS's were getting into Vampires (some rpg, pen & paper rpg) and a lot of them were taking it too far. Pretending it's real, etc. And you know what it told me? There's some fucking stupid people out there, that make stupid choices about shit that ain't real. And they deserve whatever happens to them, because they decided to be stupid.
What really hinders my empathy is when stupid people start blaming other stuff for making stupid people stupid. Stupid comes from within, once you accept that, you can stop being stupid.
Be seeing you...
A thinking and grown person is clearly able to distinguish between video games and the real world. If i think that my beloved first person shooters could get forbidden then i want to take my railgun and lower the percentage of lawyers who obviously can't do something good !
I've definitely noticed a change in my gut reaction when I encounter aggressive behavior in real life.
I'm interested. Could you give us an example of this, please?
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
It may be true that there is too much violence in video games. For instance, in the CoD series, it's just about dominating the enemy. There is a plus side of teamwork in a lot of these games, however, and that is a valuable skill.
But my main thesis is that there isn't enough sex in video games; this would offset the violence. There isn't enough claiming of the real-world rewards that follow domination. And so the violence gets ramped up and up, to the point where a lad wouldn't believe he could get laid even if he laid waste to a hundred opponents. He wouldn't believe he could get a simple blowjob. This is a great problem.
Honestly, I grew up with a healthy dose of video games constantly. Whenever I read about some sort of atrocity in real life, I feel a pull in my heart and I get a little weepy. I think the kids sneaking in to see Hostel might be a bit more jacked up than the kids who play Halo. All that video games teach us is that if we could survive 400 bullets to the face while pumping a constant stream of lead and energy beams into a field of people who run into walls and stand around letting us do it, we would totally kill everything.
The media industry is just scared that video games will replace their dying models. I don't see any effort to make killing seem like a terrible thing. Hell, in some movies people die and we don't even pause to show the hero feeling bad about it. Just look at Avatar: no one's complaining that Jake had no trouble completely killing off all those humans in the final battle. Paint him as a good guy all day and night, and paint the bad guys as just plain stupidly evil, but he still made a couple hundred wives and children lose their man. Where's the study showing that violence in movies is desensitizing us? Or the news showing mangled -real- corpses?
...in families with parents who don't pay attention to their kids, the kids generally turn out badly. Really, how shocking.
Look, I know a fair number of neighborhood kids.
Some of them play a lot of GTAx and Black Ops and are horrible kids.
The horrible ones would be good examples for anyone looking to "prove" that videogames have a negative effect. Of course, for the previous 12+ years, I've seen these same kids wandering around the neighborhood at 11pm or later, as little kids they were typically carrying a bag of candy, sucking down Mountain Dew (at age 4), their lunches on field trips would be snackables and a Coke, they never participated in sports, music, or community activities, etc. etc.etc. These kids probably play videogames at all hours, whatever they want, whenever they want. Their parents laugh "scandalized" when they see 9-yr-old Johnny jacking a hooker in GTA and killing her for his cash back.
However, some kids play a lot of GTAx and Black Ops and are great kids.
They've generally done lots of things with their parents, had fairly regular and reasonable boundaries on their behavior (curfew, etc), participated in sports, drama, etc. These kids play GTA and Black Ops, but do their homework first, have other commitments that take priority, and play video games simply as part of a suite of entertainments.
So, do we REALLY think videogames are the causal difference here?
-Styopa
Can anyone explain to me why children are allowed to play extremely violent games but are not allowed to play sex games, let alone see sex videos? If shooting someone virtually has no consequences how come watching someone making love is forbidden? Which of the two could be more shocking?
This society is sick.
I'm thinking of RPGs where violence is common but often you are fighting "for good" or saving someone or something. Is that still the same? Is it just the violence or the type of violence? Does an adventure game like King's quest teach people "good morals"?
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):
---
Static vs. Dynamic (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Only thing constantly changing's your "math", 3x ++ or more no less:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686444
and
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686566
as well as this:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686630
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student).
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk
So, again, the premise falls on taking something relatively rare (violent behavior) and blaming it on something very common (video games). All the people that play these games and don't hurt anybody are already proof that the theory is shaky.
Other research at Texas A&M University shows indications that violent/action video games actually may increase pro-social behavior and civic engagement.
Perhaps the kind of inflammatory and socially divisive rhetoric put out by publishing flawed studies that prove nothing shows a lack of empathy on the part of the publishers, and antisocial self indulgence on the part of the researchers, both groups apparently fomenting further division in an already overly fractionated society.
Let's get some research on how we can really empathize. - by learning to accept and live gracefully amongst others with possibly diametrically opposing views, instead of trying to homogenize our species out of existence.
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
because every child has a parent or two who know how to raise children?
I think part of the cause, especially with shooters, is the deviation from catering to normalcore gamers to casual gamers. Sure the market is expanded, but it also desensitizes you to the community.
A comparison that I like to use (partly because I played so much of it when I was younger) is with Jedi Knight, Jedi Academy and Tribes. In both of these games, stats weren't tracked, there was no emphasis on winning or scoring points, the servers had a lot of sandboxing features, the chat system was fairly dynamic (you could chat with everyone, your team, target other people to chat, write in colors, make chat bindings, etc).
What that meant was that there was a fine balance between action (fighting, scoring points) and just idly sitting around and shooting-the-bull. I met a lot of interesting people, and met someone new just about every time I logged in. Because the combat system was so deep and dynamic, I learned not only names/personalities, but also appreciated the nuances that made different people play different ways.
Compare that to something like MW2 or BC2, where most of the players are socially retarded rage/flame filled asshats who spend most of their headset/short messages cursing out other players that kill them. I don't blame the generation, I blame the games that are set up for packing as much action into as short a time as possible to keep the casuals entertained without designing the game for some more community oriented depth. This is also one of the reasons why MMO's are so popular.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
I knew violent video games were entertaining, but I didn't realize that they were taking development time away from Empathy http://live.gnome.org/Empathy. We need things like Empathy to communicate effectively.
I can't believe no one has mentioned it already, but correlation does not imply causation. It's entirely possible (Probable, even) that children who are already violent are more likely to spend larger amounts of time playing violent games.
Right.
Because Mortal Kombat is way worse than CONSCRIPTION into an army (military, armed forces, etc.) where you are not only taught to KILL and maim without question (murder is only when you don't have governmental permission), but to do it with precision and WITHOUT EMPATHY or regard for the declared enemy. And then you're supposed to magically get your empathy back after you leave...
What a bunch of fucking MONKEYS.
Knowing that everyone is seeing what a complete failure you are, hell they don't even respond to your crazy rants anymore, does it make you cry? Does it hurt, alone in the dark, to know what a miserable failure you are? How you have to keep MEK_Lovebug and Kingsjowkers as you sockpuppet pals, and even then the only time anyone responds is to make fun of you? Does it make you feel lonely, there in the dark? I find that....delightful. So enjoy some nice laughs at your complete failures, enjoy!
I have also shown repeatedly that at the absolute reported minimum number of new pieces of malweare and infections, which you are free to pick whichever reputable website you like Securina, MSFT's malware reports, AVG, which ever, that at an absolute minimum we are talking about 1.2 million sites PER DAY with that number changing by 15,000+ PER HOUR which means even if you typed at 1 IP address PER SECOND, and never slept, and had a perfect list (which doesn't exist) you would be 14 days behind by the very first day with that number growing linearly every single day, making Petey farther and farther behind.
But if you weren't completely batshit insane Petey I wouldn't have to explain this, because this is why everyone makes fun of you. It is so obvious it is like someone arguing gravity is actually invisible pants gnomes trying to steal your underwear. It is the classic "default allow" which has NEVER EVER worked. Because if a piece of malware isn't in magical HOPES file Petey you are royally fucked, and yet again I have shown that it is simply a roll of the dice whether you get creamed or not, simply because you will always be behind
I would be happy to give you the figures, feel free to check. Comodo AV = 98% hit rate and ZERO infections, Malwarebytes? 97% and ZERO infections. Type both into Youtube and feel free to watch Petey. I have also shown repeatedly, again feel free to choose ANY figures from ANY reputable site you like, you are talking on average 180,000 PER DAY of infected websites PLUS 1.8 million current PLUS 15,000 pieces of malware PLUS anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 websites revolving from the list. You see the difference between actual solutions and Petey's magical woobie is a little thing known as heuristics, along with a nice word known as sandboxing, neither of which his magical .txt file can do.
So it is all on Petey and his magical HOPES woobie now. He made the extravagant claims, back them up with the math. If he can't? Well then he is full of shit, case closed. Notice how ALL PETEY CAN DO is throw insults and trollbomb? Why is that? I'll tell you why, because math doesn't lie and he just can't show the math He just can't, it would be like trying to mathematically prove PETEY is not an idiot. It just can't be done.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You're certainly "ReSpOnDiNg" though, though, aren't you? LMAO, to this next below (& why I state that fact):
"Knowing that everyone is seeing what a complete failure you are, hell they don't even respond to your crazy rants anymore, does it make you cry?" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Tuesday April 05, @04:30PM (#35724264)
First of all, you're the one with the "MaSSiVe FAILS" list here, especially vs. myself & some of your b.s./lies-N-libel even/your technical blunders, etc./et al, from my last post you just replied to -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2068590&cid=35719426
Says it all for me. Funniest part is, YOU do all the saying, & lmao - paying... you only bring it on yourself, everytime. Have you considered a change?
---
"But if you weren't completely batshit insane Petey" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Tuesday April 05, @04:30PM (#35724264)
Listen, unless they offered doctoral/post doctoral degrees & such in Psychiatry over there @ ITT Tech (which you went to, right?), plus, you having a license to practice it, years-to-decades of hands on experience, and a formal examination of myself given in a professional settings? That's libel again out of you. You're not very smart are you?? Obviously not.
(Suggestion - Try using your head instead, instead of "losing it", because the second you start that up with people, & you're not a licensed pro in it? Dumb. Plus, it shows you're losing your cool, but for the wrong reasons - after all, I did was post a list of your FAILS against myself, lol! You did that, to yourself...)
Plus this isn't the "WaNNaBe SidE-WaLk PsYcHoLoGiSt ShOw On sLaShDoT", it's not a forums on psychology either, nor is the topic about that. You're off-topic, troll.
---
"Comodo AV = 98% hit rate and ZERO infections, Malwarebytes? 97% and ZERO infections" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Tuesday April 05, @04:30PM (#35724264)
That's a WEE-BIT SHY of "perfect" all by themselves, because I see no 100% up there... so, "*thanks*", because you're only strengthening the case I used against you, since you used it on myself on HOSTS files as a good layered security add-on, & you fell short... you only did it to yourself.
Care to give us a link to your sources as well? We've seen you change sourcedata, use OLD stale data, & more before, so... see question above. Amazing changes in your "math" too, lol!
---
"I have also shown repeatedly, again feel free to choose ANY figures from ANY reputable site you like, you are talking on average 180,000 PER DAY of infected websites PLUS 1.8 million current PLUS 15,000 pieces of malware PLUS anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 websites revolving from the list" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Tuesday April 05, @04:30PM (#35724264)
LOL - that's again, YOU "falling short"... That's NOT the "1.2 MILLION NEW BAD SITES PER DAY" you said happen here & THAT LIE alone, nothing else:
"at an absolute minimum we are talking about 1.2 million sites PER DAY" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Thursday March 31, @05:09AM (#35675892)
And, again, like to see your sources on THAT number alone, please (why do I get the feeling he'll run?), as your absolute minimum... not that it'd matter - I've SEEN people go from 200++ malware infestation rates in a month, down to MAYBE 2 per year, which they admitted they brought on themselves. It can be done.
You had better hope that they don't cure "Stupid" though, as it's folks with no clue who still get you paid as a techie, so you'll never make 'nothing' I suppose... but having folks be "layered security secured"? Probably NOT in your "Be$t Financial Intere$t$", now is it?? Is that your 'hidden motivation' for railing against HOSTS files & then Opera before it with me??
In closing
We live in a regime of violence. All of society is based on violence, and that's where violence comes from. Otherwise knows as "use of force". Business, politics, law, there are violent punishments embedded into the ultimate "solutions" in all of these areas. Everyone is taught to agree to authority - or else. No debate, no questioning. Disagree, and they'll send more men with more weapons. If that's not teaching that the use of force, therefore violence, is always the solution and debate and discussion never are an option, I don't know what violence is at all. Economic violence, religious violence, racial violence, sexual violence, psychological violence, you name it.
But let's blame the violence of all of society on kids and their games. In other words, discriminate against young people and their natural rebellion against a rotten society, even if it's just a protest inside video games, art, music and computers, is already a threat to the regime. Of violence.
I have, as of today, a HOSTS file with # of known bad sites/servers blocked off currently (& a 100 of my own as favorites to access them faster as well, hardcoded) automatically fed in "realtime" (as real as can be online lol) via a program & set of programs that does the rest of the needed processing of the data, for me, even while I sleep... but I don't "miss any" even if servers reset (1 source does, big name one too, well known) due to err trapping & recovery/restart of that 1 of 8 child thread processes.
Because of THAT?
Yes - I can say that I'm safe vs. that many known bad sites here, literally AND that I have added yet another layer of armor for security, redundant layered security...
HOWEVER - The thing is, can you same & GUARANTEE the same on YOUR end, Hairyfeet? No, and not with one that speeds you up with such a simple design premise: A file filter!
No, you can't/ I don't think so, and certainly not one that's not only multi-browser, or multi-webbound app for that matter, but multi-OS &/or multi-platform as well (as long as there's an IP stack, because that's the super-efficient layer it works as a mere FILTER for, nothing more, no code to break)...
It all boils down to your math being chasing a wild goose, but so what? It's a moving target numbers-wise (BOTH up & down), so is mine with the HOSTS portion @ least!
However, on laboring here, especially since I code?? I have it doing the work for me, "automagically" with my not raising a finger really, or not much, 24x7, automation!
(Now with 3 ways here to do the processes now too, in done in 3 diff. languages/tools (Python, Delphi/ObjectPascal/FreePascal, & SQL (so I always have backup processes that do the same thing IF need be (good secure design of a process is that, redundant systems...))
APK
P.S.=>
"which means even if you typed at 1 IP address PER SECOND, and never slept" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Tuesday April 05, @04:30PM (#35724264)
See above... you're forgetting 1 thing: I'm one of the people that build things people like YOU, merely use... ok?
---
", and had a perfect list (which doesn't exist) you would be 14 days behind by the very first day with that number growing linearly every single day, making Petey farther and farther behind." - by hairyfeet (841228) on Tuesday April 05, @04:30PM (#35724264)
Your solutions' lists in tools you merely USE, lol, & suggested? You've shown us YOURSELF, that they are NOT PERFECT 100%... & I've never said you "only need HOSTS files" as you seem to imply either!
Grow up, & get used to losing... because you're certainly not winning here, or in the past vs. myself, which these 2 "Hairyfeet CLASSICS" illustrate for me, clearly & cleanly:
---
DNS Client Cache turn off for HOSTS Blunder by Hairyfeet:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054
---
"STATIC vs. DYNAMIC" on ad-banner addressing in HOSTS files, by 'the FAIL' -> "Pwuffesuh HaiwyPheet" (lol):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
Yea, those "oldies but goodies" (wait a minute - they're "FRESH THIS WEEK" no less, and YOU HAVE REPEATED THEM BEFORE IN THE PAST TOO! )... lmao! apk