The idea is that venting provides a sort of release so that people will not have to take out their rage on others. However, recent evidence by Bushman (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2002; not available on-line for free) suggests that venting actually increases anger. He ran an experiment in which he angered subjects, then distracted them to think about something else or allowed them to hit a punching bag to "vent" their anger. The punching bag group became more, not less, angry.
Having them punch a bag may have kept the focus of their anger more fully in mind. It may have also raised their physical arousal level (a correlate of anger) allowing them to better maintain their anger level.
Okay, I'll buy that. (Especially since I can't check the article.) However, this doesn't address the issue of whether or not violent video games make children more prone to violence - only that it isn't a 'release of anger'. It also doesn't address whether or not venting behaviour helps to PREVENT anger - only points out that the use of venting as an anger management tool is a fallacy.
This is essentially a distraction from the real question, and as such is a logical fallacy. It addresses a different concern.
Now, are you going to tell me that the experience of playing cops and robbers or football is similiar to playing GTA3? Obviously, the kinds of images imprinted in the minds of those who play very violent video games is very different than that of making a gun with your finger and shooting someone.
Well, of course it is a different experience. After all, playing football is a peaceful, relaxing exercise, without any violence whatsoever!
Sarcasm aside, there's a lot of inherent violence in contact sports. There's a reason that people wear padding and helmets in football, and it isn't because it makes the players look buff. What's the difference in the image in a kids mind between robbing someone at gunpoint virtually and having his coach yell at him to 'go out and kill those guys'? Not much, IMHO.
Why is it that those who love violent video games will prop up any study that supports their cause and ignore or discredit any that goes against it? Obviously, it's a tactic that all sorts of groups like but I would hope that "nerds" could be a bit more scientific than that.
Sorry, had to break in here. It's for the same reason that people who DON'T like violent video games (or video games in general) prop up any study that supports THEIR cause and ignore or attempt to discredit any that goes against it... to try and 'win' the argument. 'Tis an old debating trick, much like the use of strawmen, but it's not very ethical. Of course, the ethics of debate are another topic entirely.
It seems a bit obvious to me that engaging in agressive behavior, whether it is in the form of a video game or not, will result in a more agressive personality. ...and you don't see the inherent contradiction in this and what you claimed in your previous paragraph?
No matter how many times you hear it, and no matter how much you don't WANT to hear it, this really IS a matter of parental responsibility. If you think your child might be harmed by exposure to something, don't allow them to be exposed. Just remember that the seedlings which are most shaded by the parent tree rarely grow to their fullest potential.
Please provide attributions and/or links to these studies... or are they all done by such 'scientifically rigorous' methods as innuendo and unprovable anecdotes as the 'studies' in the 1980s which 'proved' that D&D caused a higher rate of suicide in teens?
Re:Could not find a link to the Pittsburgh story
on
That Link Is Illegal
·
· Score: 1
I have to point this out: 'constitutional' is only a phrase that applies to LAWS passed by the Government. You can't, for example, sue CmdrTaco for deleting a post on/. on the grounds that 'censorship is unconstitutional'. (Not that he would, just making a point.)
If the Federal Government - or rather, a representative thereof, say Agent Johnson of the FBI - had told the Che Cafe Collective to remove the hyperlink, there would be grounds for a challenge on this basis. However, this is a case of a (mostly spineless) school administration buckling before the fact - and trying to be held blameless for any charges which may be brought.
This issue, and similar, have been the subject of a lot of flame and smoke on the 'Net for a long time. Remember, folks: voluntary censorship is not what the First Amendment is designed to prevent. The free speech provision is intended to stop MANDATORY censorship imposed by the government.
I can relate to this. I've amazed end-users with my ability to install network cards on machines which are using foreign languages, simply because I know what all the buttons on the wizards are. (They don't change even when the language does.) So far I've done so in French, Spanish, Japanese and Korean... and I have no real knowledge of those languages.
Fortunately for me, I'm also a 'take the top off and look at the hardware' kinda guy, so I'm not dependent on MicroSloth's wizards to troubleshoot problems. 8-)
That's because this system really ISN'T intended to screen out terrorists, despite what they're saying. What it IS intended to do is get the American public used to the idea that the authorities can stop and search you on any pretext - and not even tell you why!
I've taken some business trips since 9/11/01. On the first one, I was searched 5 times in a row - that's every single time I boarded a plane, both to and from my destination. During the first three of those searches, I had a small amount of a controlled substance on me, which wasn't detected even when I walked by a group of MP's and their guard dog... (Note to law enforcement personnel: Prove it. 8-p )
For the non-math inclined, if they randomly search one person in ten, the odds against my being selected 5 times in a row is 1 in 100000 - not as bad as winning the lottery on one ticket, but bad enough. If it's one in twenty, the odds jump to 1 chance in 3.2 million. I just wish they would ADMIT that they're profiling instead of claiming that all of the checks are random.
The next trip was even better. I went through 4 airport security checks that time - and was randomly searched only before boarding the last flight. In my personal belongings, the lady searching discovered a box knife (which I had completely forgotten was in there)... mind you, this is after 4 separate XRays of my baggage. In their defense, I suppose, the knife was mixed in with a bunch of pens and pencils... but shouldn't they have checked that out sooner?
Nice to know all this extra security is working, isn't it? I had a knife with a 4 inch blade available to me on 3 different flights (the fact that I didn't remember it is immaterial). Fortunately, the security person who found it didn't press the issue - probably because I told her to throw it away when she brought it to my attention...
There. Doesn't that make you feel safer?
Ah, yes. 'If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.'
It didn't help the Jewish people in Germany during WWII. It didn't help the Japanese-American citizens on the west coast, either. And it didn't help hundreds of people summoned to appear before Congress in the 1950's, who tried to stand on their rights under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution - and whose only crime was being a member of a political organization, or being affiliated with someone who was a member of said organization.
The simple fact is, the Federal Government has arrogated to itself the right to decide who is and isn't a terrorist - then decided to shop out that right to independent contractors. They are going to be gathering up this huge database to 'protect the citizens of this, our great country'... even those who don't WANT their ineffectual attempts mucking with their personal privacy.
How would you like it if you got tagged as a terrorist because some policeman got pissed at you for flipping him off as you pulled away from a routine traffic stop? Couldn't happen, you say? Well, if this system works as it seems to be designed, input from law enforcement agencies will be heavily weighted...
Face it, most of us have things that we don't want to show up in any kind of 'official record'. Remember when your high school teachers threatened you with black marks on your 'permanent record'? THIS is a lot more permanent, and damaging, than that ever was. And I'm not talking about things like murder - I'm talking about unpaid parking tickets, or being a man who wants to dress in womens clothing from time to time.
Basically, it comes down to this: the government has no business poking about in my private life until AFTER I have proven myself a threat. Or would you feel comfortable living in the world of Minority Report?
"claude_juan, you're under arrest for the future treason of posting on slashdot...."
Of course, if this doesn't bother you, why not invite an FBI agent to read your email, a CIA agent to tap your phone, and a policeman to move in with you? After all, you've got nothing to hide, right?
Slashdot Mirror
The idea is that venting provides a sort of release so that people will not have to take out their rage on others. However, recent evidence by Bushman (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2002; not available on-line for free) suggests that venting actually increases anger. He ran an experiment in which he angered subjects, then distracted them to think about something else or allowed them to hit a punching bag to "vent" their anger. The punching bag group became more, not less, angry. Having them punch a bag may have kept the focus of their anger more fully in mind. It may have also raised their physical arousal level (a correlate of anger) allowing them to better maintain their anger level. Okay, I'll buy that. (Especially since I can't check the article.) However, this doesn't address the issue of whether or not violent video games make children more prone to violence - only that it isn't a 'release of anger'. It also doesn't address whether or not venting behaviour helps to PREVENT anger - only points out that the use of venting as an anger management tool is a fallacy. This is essentially a distraction from the real question, and as such is a logical fallacy. It addresses a different concern.
Now, are you going to tell me that the experience of playing cops and robbers or football is similiar to playing GTA3? Obviously, the kinds of images imprinted in the minds of those who play very violent video games is very different than that of making a gun with your finger and shooting someone.
...and you don't see the inherent contradiction in this and what you claimed in your previous paragraph?
Well, of course it is a different experience. After all, playing football is a peaceful, relaxing exercise, without any violence whatsoever!
Sarcasm aside, there's a lot of inherent violence in contact sports. There's a reason that people wear padding and helmets in football, and it isn't because it makes the players look buff. What's the difference in the image in a kids mind between robbing someone at gunpoint virtually and having his coach yell at him to 'go out and kill those guys'? Not much, IMHO.
Why is it that those who love violent video games will prop up any study that supports their cause and ignore or discredit any that goes against it? Obviously, it's a tactic that all sorts of groups like but I would hope that "nerds" could be a bit more scientific than that.
Sorry, had to break in here. It's for the same reason that people who DON'T like violent video games (or video games in general) prop up any study that supports THEIR cause and ignore or attempt to discredit any that goes against it... to try and 'win' the argument. 'Tis an old debating trick, much like the use of strawmen, but it's not very ethical. Of course, the ethics of debate are another topic entirely.
It seems a bit obvious to me that engaging in agressive behavior, whether it is in the form of a video game or not, will result in a more agressive personality.
No matter how many times you hear it, and no matter how much you don't WANT to hear it, this really IS a matter of parental responsibility. If you think your child might be harmed by exposure to something, don't allow them to be exposed. Just remember that the seedlings which are most shaded by the parent tree rarely grow to their fullest potential.
... he gets cranky when his schedule is disrupted.
Please provide attributions and/or links to these studies... or are they all done by such 'scientifically rigorous' methods as innuendo and unprovable anecdotes as the 'studies' in the 1980s which 'proved' that D&D caused a higher rate of suicide in teens?
Here's one story
I have to point this out: 'constitutional' is only a phrase that applies to LAWS passed by the Government. You can't, for example, sue CmdrTaco for deleting a post on /. on the grounds that 'censorship is unconstitutional'. (Not that he would, just making a point.)
If the Federal Government - or rather, a representative thereof, say Agent Johnson of the FBI - had told the Che Cafe Collective to remove the hyperlink, there would be grounds for a challenge on this basis. However, this is a case of a (mostly spineless) school administration buckling before the fact - and trying to be held blameless for any charges which may be brought.
This issue, and similar, have been the subject of a lot of flame and smoke on the 'Net for a long time. Remember, folks: voluntary censorship is not what the First Amendment is designed to prevent. The free speech provision is intended to stop MANDATORY censorship imposed by the government.
And that's all I have to say about that.
I can relate to this. I've amazed end-users with my ability to install network cards on machines which are using foreign languages, simply because I know what all the buttons on the wizards are. (They don't change even when the language does.) So far I've done so in French, Spanish, Japanese and Korean... and I have no real knowledge of those languages.
Fortunately for me, I'm also a 'take the top off and look at the hardware' kinda guy, so I'm not dependent on MicroSloth's wizards to troubleshoot problems. 8-)
That's because this system really ISN'T intended to screen out terrorists, despite what they're saying. What it IS intended to do is get the American public used to the idea that the authorities can stop and search you on any pretext - and not even tell you why! I've taken some business trips since 9/11/01. On the first one, I was searched 5 times in a row - that's every single time I boarded a plane, both to and from my destination. During the first three of those searches, I had a small amount of a controlled substance on me, which wasn't detected even when I walked by a group of MP's and their guard dog... (Note to law enforcement personnel: Prove it. 8-p ) For the non-math inclined, if they randomly search one person in ten, the odds against my being selected 5 times in a row is 1 in 100000 - not as bad as winning the lottery on one ticket, but bad enough. If it's one in twenty, the odds jump to 1 chance in 3.2 million. I just wish they would ADMIT that they're profiling instead of claiming that all of the checks are random. The next trip was even better. I went through 4 airport security checks that time - and was randomly searched only before boarding the last flight. In my personal belongings, the lady searching discovered a box knife (which I had completely forgotten was in there)... mind you, this is after 4 separate XRays of my baggage. In their defense, I suppose, the knife was mixed in with a bunch of pens and pencils... but shouldn't they have checked that out sooner? Nice to know all this extra security is working, isn't it? I had a knife with a 4 inch blade available to me on 3 different flights (the fact that I didn't remember it is immaterial). Fortunately, the security person who found it didn't press the issue - probably because I told her to throw it away when she brought it to my attention... There. Doesn't that make you feel safer?
Ah, yes. 'If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.'
It didn't help the Jewish people in Germany during WWII. It didn't help the Japanese-American citizens on the west coast, either. And it didn't help hundreds of people summoned to appear before Congress in the 1950's, who tried to stand on their rights under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution - and whose only crime was being a member of a political organization, or being affiliated with someone who was a member of said organization.
The simple fact is, the Federal Government has arrogated to itself the right to decide who is and isn't a terrorist - then decided to shop out that right to independent contractors. They are going to be gathering up this huge database to 'protect the citizens of this, our great country'... even those who don't WANT their ineffectual attempts mucking with their personal privacy.
How would you like it if you got tagged as a terrorist because some policeman got pissed at you for flipping him off as you pulled away from a routine traffic stop? Couldn't happen, you say? Well, if this system works as it seems to be designed, input from law enforcement agencies will be heavily weighted...
Face it, most of us have things that we don't want to show up in any kind of 'official record'. Remember when your high school teachers threatened you with black marks on your 'permanent record'? THIS is a lot more permanent, and damaging, than that ever was. And I'm not talking about things like murder - I'm talking about unpaid parking tickets, or being a man who wants to dress in womens clothing from time to time.
Basically, it comes down to this: the government has no business poking about in my private life until AFTER I have proven myself a threat. Or would you feel comfortable living in the world of Minority Report?
"claude_juan, you're under arrest for the future treason of posting on slashdot...."
Of course, if this doesn't bother you, why not invite an FBI agent to read your email, a CIA agent to tap your phone, and a policeman to move in with you? After all, you've got nothing to hide, right?