Effects of Media Violence on Aggression

First of all I just want freedom lovers to stop pretending the effect doesn't exist.

 

That's a load of bloody pish is that.

Someone with violent tendencies will have them, whatever. I admit media violence can act as a trigger for these people, but so can loads of stuff. You can't remove all catalysts from these peoples lives, so we should be concentrating on trying to find ways to chill them out, rather than going on about violent games and films all the time.

Nobody is 'exposed' to passive smoking unless they choose to be, just like violent media. But for me, you can't reasonably compare the two.

 

Chev, what do you mean by that? Who do you classify as freedom lovers?

It would appear to me that seeing violence anywhere is going to subconsciously increase your chance of acting aggressively. It seems that this is just stating the obvious... I mean, if you expose something to anyone for a long enough time will make them subconsciously accept it.

 

That's one thing. What I fail to understand is why the catalysts have to be removed from everyone's life.

Of course media violence is going to increase the likelihood that a violent person will commit a violent act. That does not prove in any way that media violence makes otherwise non-violent people commit violent acts.

 

Those who will pretend the ill effects of something doesn't exist just because they think, or rather feel, the thing itself should be legal, acceptable, free to do etc. In other words, freedom to act, at the cost of the truth about the consequences. An example would be protecting the sale of 18+ material to minors under freedom of speech - something which insults a lawyer's intelligence.

Depends. I firmly believe that violence in some aggressive kids' behaviour is amplified by the violent cartoons they watch. That's not as much the access to banned materials, as the invasion of violence into what's actually meant for children. The same goes for sex. I remember toons for teens (lower teens) with nudity and blood and it's not like it has improved since when I was younger.

The problem with violence and exposure to it is that those kids who are exposed to lavish amounts of violence, they will see it as less real or as more acceptable, more a part of daily life. They won't believe the colleague whom they hit will not perhaps stand up - characters always do. They won't see what's wrong with it - in their world everyone does that.

 

Smoking in my country is allowed only in outside areas, and well away from building entrances/exits. We've gone to those lengths to 'protect' non-smokers from the effect of secondary smoke, and still people find cause to moan. I honestly can't find a single reason for people to be against smoking in the UK.

 

I personally don't know a single person with a problem with cigarette smoke. So from that, it's pretty understandable I'd make a comment like that really.

Obviously you've had a horrid and tormented past of people holding you down by the balls, breathing smoke through a cylinder directly into your nose. I feel for you for that kidda.

No need to fly off at a comment anyway, but it's obviously something you feel strongly about I guess. Sorry about the comment, next time I'll provide a full and thorough explanation of my background and give a full detail of the context on which the post is meant.

 

Death. That's a pretty good reason for me. I watched my grandfather die of lung cancer -- he smoked until the day he died (literally).

Medical costs. That's another good reason. I would think it would even be a better reason in nations with socialized medicine -- treating ailments related to smoking is the single largest drain on US medical insurance companies and Medicare. Spending so much to treat smokers, of course, leaves less money other government funded projects.

I did not have a choice about being around my step-father when he smoked. I sat there and inhaled his smoke. Any complaint had rather severe retribution -- it would be foolish to believe such parental actions have stopped.

However, back on topic. I've been on record about this subject on SP for quite a while. I agree with the article -- violence in various entertainment media has a profound effect on a small, but significant, portion of the population. I personally don't believe violent games, shows, sports, etc. provide enough value to society to overcome the problems caused by those prone to act out the violence they see.

 

Well, having edited my first post (and then having it properly deleted by Tal )...

Agreed, but I don't think younger children (say, under 12) should be exposed to media violence. And more extreme violence should be restricted to even older children (and to an extent it already is).

 

Please define 'violence'. IMO boxing is violent, kick boxing is certainly violent. Football USA style is violent. Violence of some sort is a natural part of humans, especially the male of the specie. Dates back to needing to protect the clan from predators and the need to get food for the clan.

Oblivion is a violent game. Kill or be killed. It is at best an amoral game but I enjoy playing it. I enjoyed playing cowboys and Indians or knights in shinning armor as a child. We had violent people then. I lived in the country had my own pony or horse and rode unsupervised from as young as 10 or 11. I knew there were certain places I shouldn't go and most of the neighbors knew me. So what has changed? (Rhetorical question)

The media. In the last 50 years the world has grown much smaller and much more interrelated. We now can see real life violence as it actual happens. I have played online games with people from Hong Kong, Israel, Britain, Australia, Europe. I go to FAI and 'talk' to people in England, Scotland, Wisconsin, Greece, Finland....

Family life has changed, at least here in the USA. Some of the changes I like and some I don't like. Parents are and should be responsible for the children they bring into this world. To feed them, clothe, house, love and train them. The state should only take charge in extreme instances and the parents should be punished if their dependent children need to be punished.

We are all exposed to a great deal more violence via movies, TV and computers then when I was a child. We see both real life violence and fiction violence and it reaches many more people.

We do need rules and regulations as to what a 6, 10, 15 yr old may see and do but ultimately the problem falls on the parents. No way can the State supply the manpower to oversee each and every child and what he or she is watching or playing.

However repressing the tendency towards violence is not the answer. When I was much younger someone told me that I was the type of person who worried them the most because I was quiet, not expressive. I do have a berserk temper when it gets loose and it took me 5 years of therapy to learn how to control it and properly express it. Little me can still scare the (censored) out of a 6+ foot, muscular man but at least now I know what I am doing and have control of it. Both men and women need appropriate, acceptable ways to express their feelings and instincts. Sports is one way. Computer games are another way. But there should be limits and we should be aware of what affect it can have on certain people.

I do not think a well balanced, loved and cared for individual would suddenly go on a killing spree just because he played Diablo or WoW for 400 hrs. Unless it was 400 hrs with little sleep, food or attention from others.

I've played Oblivion for more than 400 hrs and I still think the wolves should be protected. The big momma spiders I don't mind.

So there's my worth.

As to the second hand smoke. There may be a vague correlation there but personally I just don't see them as in any way equal. The smoking thing is primarily an adult thing. The violence thing starts way back in childhood and may not even be obvious until it suddenly errupts. Trust me I know a bit about that.

 

Speaking to the notion that the only people who are exposed to secondhand smoke are those that choose to be:

California, Arkansas, and Louisiana have all passed laws recently banning smoking in cars. Why? Because a child in a car has no option but to breathe that smoke (without the benefit of a filter that the parent has, might I add). It is unfortunate that law makers need to step in at times like this and legislate what a parent should have the decency, common sense, and love to do on their own and not expose their child to the adverse effects of their habit. Parenting is all about sacrifice and giving up a smoke while around your children should be one of them. If not, your priorities are way out of whack.

Speaking to the notion that exposure to electronic media violence increases the risk of both children and adults behaving aggressively in the short-run and of children behaving aggressively in the long-run (to make my post on topic):

I think violence in electronic media can glorify violence, gore, and killing. The Columbine guys talked about how what they were going to do was going to be like "Doom", did they not? Now, I think those guys were messed up, with or without Doom, but the graphic and violent nature of the game was like pouring white gas on their smoldering teen angst. There are a lot of people out there that think that violence and aggression and being able to bring those things upon another person (or at least appear to be able to do so) are the keys to respect. I see them all around me. They usually have their names tattooed somewhere on their bodies (what? so they don't forget it??) These people did not get this way because of video game violence, but violent video games are an avenue for them to have their stupid and twisted view of the world become a reality. In some games, you can shoot whoever you want and there are no permanent consequences. You can always reload your game. You can get away from the cops. How many crimes have been committed because someone's grasp on reality slipped and they did something stupid, thinking that there would be no real life consequences, like in a game (drugs and alcohol help with this)? Just some food for thought.