Conditioned To Kill?

[CplFerro]

Dear Corsair,

Fads come and go, the essence remains the core subject matter. This isn’t bullseyes being shot, or planes being shot, it’s people being shot, and the only emotion for wanting to do that is rage, or, more intensely, hatred. People used to grow out of “toy guns” at a very early age, if those were ever healthy in the first place. Now we have people practising killing until we get a Paduka, Kentucky. Or in the case of other similar games, practising theft, rape, probably practising torture. I wonder when we will have the first Death Camp Sim where players can practise siccing the German Shepherds on the prisoners. That would be interesting. It’s all in good fun, right? Experiencing things we’d never want to experience in real life? What about digitising one’s family and murdering them virtually over and over? Just good fun.

Ultimately all video games and virtually all modern media are just wastes of time distorting people’s perception of reality and training their emotions in ways contradictory to a characteristically human culture. But, if you want to read about that just visit www.larouchepub.com or www.schillerinstitute.org. They’re cultural totalitarians and I find myself increasingly agreeing with them. My present responses are not making the case against modern media, however; I am merely pointing out that to find killing fun, even fake killing, is degenerate. To tolerate these games is, spiritually, to tolerate Virginia Tech. What to do? Here’s a suggestion:

We Need An International Protocol For The Banning Of Violent Videos!
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/new_viol/hzl_banviol_502.html

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

Dear gumboot,

Two questions:

1) What other factors do you think could explain the rise in violence in America since the 1950s? And specifically the rise of school shooters? It obviously must be cultural, it can't be strife or hard upbringings, since there were plenty of difficult times prior to 1950 and yet no such shootings.

2) Does Grossman, or have you read anyone else, address the question of sex different in willingness to kill? The % willingness given were for men throughout history, but now we have women in our armies. Are women just as bloodthirsty?

Cpl Ferro

 

[Kaarjuus]

This isn’t bullseyes being shot, or planes being shot, it’s people being shot, and the only emotion for wanting to do that is rage, or, more intensely, hatred.

As experienced gamers in this thread have repeatedly pointed out, this is completely false.

If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it on.

Ultimately all video games and virtually all modern media are just wastes of time distorting people’s perception of reality and training their emotions in ways contradictory to a characteristically human culture.

Whoah.. So much nonsense, it's difficult to find where to begin.

Mostly everything is a waste of time. Video games, movies, books, poetry, sculpting, throwing darts, seesawing, squash, watching a play, cultivating bonsai trees, participating in web forum discussions.. it's all a waste of time. A pretty damn good waste of time. It sucks that so much time and effort in life must be wasted on tedious tasks like earning money, so that we can afford to waste time in a more enjoyable manner.

And characteristic human culture contains everything video games and modern media contain, and much, much more.

Distorting reality? Heh.

What exactly is reality in your opinion?

I am merely pointing out that to find killing fun, even fake killing, is degenerate.

To fail to understand the difference between reality and non-reality is, well, not degenerate, but certainly quite.. dense.

We Need An International Protocol For The Banning Of Violent Videos!

Jesus.. And burn the violent books while you're at it.

 

[Corsair 115]

Fads come and go, the essence remains the core subject matter. This isn’t bullseyes being shot, or planes being shot, it’s people being shot, and the only emotion for wanting to do that is rage, or, more intensely, hatred.

Really? So, without ever having met me, or bikewar, or cuddles, or lonewulf, all of whom have played and enjoyed FPS games, you say we are all playing these games because we hate? Wow.

That's an amazing claim to make. In my case, it's certainly interesting because I'm about the least violent person there is. I've never been in a real fight in my entire life, not once. I've never hit or punched anybody.

By the way, you didn't answer these questions:

What does that make all the game players out there who simply play an FPS game like they would any other game and never do anything violent or criminal? Where does your assessment leave us? Are we evil by extension because the games are evil? Are we corrupted by them without even knowing it?

1) What other factors do you think could explain the rise in violence in America since the 1950s?

Why do you use the 1950s as the starting date? Why not the 1930s or 1900s or 1880s? Might it be starting with those years won't support your assertion?

 

[Hellbound]

Yes, it is and it does. Killing is violence. You are arguing about the level of violence that people will use when they are violent. My point is that this cannot be seperated from the cause of violence in the first place.

Huntsman said in his post to me, which you agreed with:


A person "more open" to violence is a more violent person. That's what it means. You cannot argue that a person is more likely to kill but is not more violent, that just doesn't make any sense. The problem is that you are trying to seperate one issue into two different issues - whether a person will become violent, which you say you are not interested in, and what a person will do when they are violent.

.[/quote]

I think that maybe even violence is not the word we're looking for here, because violence is one of those words that can cause confusion due to varying definitions. Some include any physical act against another as violence, but I think gumboot (and myself) are referring more to the violent mindset: rages, highly emotional states, etc. Often, the physical acts associated with this are intended to dominate another person, to cause them to act in a certain manner or stop acting in a certain manner. Often, these can get out of hand when emotions run high and lead to killings, but these high-emotion killings are discussed in the thread (and lend some support to the idea of some in-built resistence to the concept of murder). The idea is that violence is one thing, but it doesn't always lead to death. And the level of violence in an attack is not necessarily related to whether a person is killed or not (many assaults are more violent than a lot of murders). In fact, even some of the most violent assaulters often do not intend to kill their victims (spouse or child abuse, for example, this seems to be more common).

What gumboot is looking at here is a reasoned decision to kill, I think. A conscious decision that "I am going to try to kill this person", or an intention to kill rather than something that happened as a result of other actions (a beating carried too far, say).

I think it could be an interesting issue. The questions are:
Is there some sort of built-in resistence to killing?
Can this resistence be lowered by certain types of FPS games?

If gumboot's theory were right, I'd supect we'd see a reflection in certain demopgrpahic data. Say you look at violent crime stats among several groups: A control, general population group (group A), a soldiers group (group B, preferrably soldiers who are trained, but have not been in combat, to remove the possibility of psychological issues resulting from combat), and an FPS-gamers group (group C, say those that play more than x hours of FPS games per week). In examining these, there's several things being tested.

First, if there is no biological "kill resistence", I'd expect all three groups to be similar in the number of violent crimes, and the number of deaths as a result of those crimes.

Second, if there is a biological resistence to killing, then are FPS games comparable to military conditioning? Assuming no, then while all three groups still have the same rate of violent crimes (number of crimes per capita), the number of deaths would be higher in group B. Likewise, if FPS games did cause some level of removal for this anti-kill mechanism, then I'd expect to see both group B and group C with higher-than-control number of deaths, but not a higher number of violent incidents.

Of course, a higher number of violent incidents in either or both of group B and group C would lend support to CplFerro's stance.

Hopefully that makes it a bit clearer what he's wanting to look into, and what I have been (ineloquently) trying to elucidate

 

[Corsair 115]

Talk about good timing.

I just saw this news article discussing a new study on so-called violent video games from the Journal of Adolescent Health. The article mentions one of the conclusions from the study found that, "...many of those playing violent games are playing to vent anger and stress."

So, it's a way of venting and relieving anger and stress... in other words, rather than hitting somebody for real, you hit a fake person in a game instead. That would seem preferrable to me that someone commit violence against a fake, non-existant person rather than a real flesh-and-blood one.

The article also mentions another study published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. This one looked at the social activities of gamers. A quote from the article speaking about the study: "'Contrary to the stereotype of the solitary gamer with no social skills, we found that children who play M-rated games are actually more likely to play in groups - in the same room, or over the internet,' says Olson. 'Boys' friendships in particular often centre around video games.'"

Maybe things aren't as dire as CplFerro is making them out to be...

 

[luchog]

I can't really disagree with you, even excluding your expertise in the topic. When I say "the SAS play paintball for training" I'm not really being that honest. They don't really play paintball. They use paintball markers in some very specific exercises. These exercises would not doubt be tailor made to the objectives of the exercise, and probably bear little resemblance to a game of paintball.

There's pretty much zero difference between military and LE exercises and paintball gaming, even "scenario" paintball. Even the equipment they use is dramatically different. The paintball markers used in training are made to very closely resemble the look and feel of actual firearms, even to the extent of kicking out simulated shell casings. (I've got a friend who is an LE trainer, who I'm going to be hooking up with later this summer for some LE-style paintballing).

 

[luchog]

BTW, it was my understanding that at least parts of the US armed forces aklready use computer games in training? Notably their own version of Doom?

The US military has used various games and electronic simulators for decades, to varying degrees.

However, people who haven't been involved in these programs don't really understand their purpose. They have nothing to do with conditioning or training people to kill. Their use is to develop tactically-useful skills, including weapon control and accuracy, improving reaction time, observation, and coordination.

Training specifically to enable soldiers to kill is generally done, as others have mentioned, by putting soldiers in envronments and scenarios as close to actual combat as possible.

 

[luchog]

The conditioning process is psychological, not mechanical. It follows that, as long as the person is psychologically firing a gun, it works. It does not have to be an actual gun.

The interview CplFerro cites is Grossman talking about a second issue; desensitisation to violence and increased aggression. Grossman contends these are caused by violent games and violent movies. I don't agree.

And in, fact, it appears that hemay have gotten the correlation exactly backwards.

Teens using M-rated games to vent anger by Ciara O'Brien, ElectricNews.net

Excerpt:

According to the Massachusetts General Hospital's (MGH) Centre for Mental Health and Media, many young people play video games to manage their feelings, such as stress and anger, and those who play violent video games are among those more likely to play to deal with their anger.


The study found that almost all young teenagers play video games, with only six per cent not playing any in the six months prior to the survey.

Not only that, young teenagers seem to prefer to play violent games; most of those between the age of 12 and 14 who took part in the study had played violent video games regularly, while two-thirds of boys and more than a quarter of girls said they had played at least one M-rated (has a mature rating) game "a lot" during the previous six months.

eta: crap, Corsair 115 beat me to it.

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Corsair,

If you don't feel an aversion, even in simulation, to shooting someone in the face, there's something wrong with you.

On your other questions,

1) These players are participating in cultural degeneration, of a kind that produces mass murderers and increases crime rates. Asking are you "evil" doesn't mean very much, it's a loaded question. How evil does someone have to be before we dare to call them evil? Hitting their kid? Murder? How evil were the Roman populi cheering on the gladiators?

2) With the 1950s I was referencing something I think gumboot referenced, if not I apologise; here is a kindred reference:

The Increase in Violence in Society
http://www.killology.com/art_trained_virus.htm

Cpl Ferro

P.S. On your cited article, thank God we have video games now to stop us from committing real violence! Think of what a nightmare of violence we'd be living in without those precious video games - what a nightmare the Amish are living in right now, without them. The creator of Pong must deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Lonewulf]

Dear Corsair,

If you don't feel an aversion, even in simulation, to shooting someone in the face, there's something wrong with you.

Evidence?

1) These players are participating in cultural degeneration, of a kind that produces mass murderers and increases crime rates.

Evidence?

Asking are you "evil" doesn't mean very much, it's a loaded question. How evil does someone have to be before we dare to call them evil? Hitting their kid? Murder? How evil were the Roman populi cheering on the gladiators?

Playing a videogame sure ain't evil.

The rest is just propaganda and trash.

In fact, all of your BS is.

 

[luchog]

1) What other factors do you think could explain the rise in violence in America since the 1950s? And specifically the rise of school shooters? It obviously must be cultural, it can't be strife or hard upbringings, since there were plenty of difficult times prior to 1950 and yet no such shootings.

The majority of the rise in violence in the US since the '50s, more specifically the late '60s, can be directly attributed to drug prohibition and the gang culture that grew up around it, particularly since the late 1970s and early 1980s; directly paralleling a similar rise in violence during the 1920s and alcohol prohibition. The violence inherent in the black market trade as gangs fight over distribution channels and sales territory has increased as the potential profits from illicit drug sales have increased. The gang culture has established itself very strongly among a number of communities, creating an extended culture of violence that predates and is independent of any increase in violence in entertainment, and certainly pre-dating the violent video-games credited with contemporary "cultural degeneration".

School shootings and similar violence hasn't increased nearly as much as propagandists like Michael Moore would have us believe; they're merely more widely reported. Admittedly, they have become slightly more lethal as firearms are increasingly used as the weapon of choice, whereas in the past it would have been more likely been knives or improvised weapons. However, death from school violence is still very rare. The few that occur are more likely to be gang/drug-related than any other reason. The most lethal and high-profile school killing was actually a bombing that occurred in 1927.

Reading the literature of the 1950s and 1960s shows that violence at school was already a huge problem, with a number of high-profile cases; and a substantial number of pundits expounding on what they believed were the causes and solutions. The Blackboard Jungle, a novel written in 1954, is a commentary on violence in inner-city schools.

There was a brief spike in school shootings and violence in the early '90s, but that subsided almost as fast as it rose, and can in large part be attributed to the intense publicity surrounding a couple of high-profile cases, and a rash of publicity-seeking copycats.

 

[Corsair 115]

If you don't feel an aversion, even in simulation, to shooting someone in the face, there's something wrong with you.

Why on earth should I feel aversion for something which is completely fake? And which I know ahead of time is completely fake? Games are not real. They're made up. Imaginary. Pretend. Fictional. Make believe. Fantasy. They're nothing more than lines of code interpreted by silicon and shown on a cathode ray tube as glowing pixels. That's it. I don't feel any aversion precisely because I know it's fake.

Are you are familiar with the concept of the unreal and imaginary?

I no more confuse the action in a game with reality than I do X-Wings blowing up the Death Star in Star Wars or with the cyclops chasing Sinbad in The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad.

How evil were the Roman populi cheering on the gladiators?

Actually, the majority of gladitorial combats were NOT to the death. This is a popular misconception. Gladiators were too expensive to waste in that way.

With the 1950s I was referencing something I think gumboot referenced, if not I apologise; here is a kindred reference...

Let's check back before 1950. I came across the following as the rate of homicides in the United States per 100,000 population; a few select years for comparitive purposes:

1950 = 5.3
1946 = 6.4
1940 = 6.3
1934 = 9.5
1930 = 8.8
1921 = 8.1
1917 = 6.9
1913 = 6.1
1911 = 5.5

Hmmm, it seems the years before 1950 may not have been as idyllic in terms of a lack of homicides as you were implying.

 

[TX50]

A small point of trivia perhaps, but Grossman, in the interview cited by
CplFerro says:

"You see, in World War II, there really was a cultural taboo against
practicing shooting depictions of human beings. It just was not done.
We couldn't really fully grasp the fact that we're going to kill human beings,
and so we taught them to shoot at bulls-eye targets. Once the military
transitioned into shooting at man-shaped silhouettes..." (my emphasis)

This may be true for US forces but the British and Commonwealth armies
were already shooting at man-shaped silhouettes well before the start of
World War 2. There existed at least three types; one a plain man-shaped
silhouette (very similar to a modern US Army "Type E" target), another
representing a prone figure and another shaped so as to represent an enemy
aiming a rifle at the firer. Instructions for firing at such targets are in the
official training pamphlets.

I would also add that "bullseye" targets were also used but only in the inital
stages of training, since it was considered easier for a soldier to learn how to
use his rifle with a target with a distinct aiming mark. Later stages of training
used the man-shaped targets.

 

[Bikewer]

We'd point out as well that bayonet (much more up-close and personal!) targets were always anthromorphic.

Sgt. York didn't seem to have much trouble transitioning from paper targets to German infantry....

 

[gumboot]

Yes, it is and it does. Killing is violence.

Sometimes killing is violent. Not always. I think you're missing the point. Resistance to killing, as a biological function, is entirely independent of any willingness to commit violence.

You are arguing about the level of violence that people will use when they are violent.

No I'm not. I'm arguing about whether people have a natural biological resistance to killing, and whether people can be conditioned so that resistance no longer exists.

The problem is that you are trying to seperate one issue into two different issues - whether a person will become violent, which you say you are not interested in, and what a person will do when they are violent.

No, I'm not. I'm separating the top into two issues - whether their is a biological resistance to killing (which I am interested in), and why people commit violence (which I am not interested in).

People keep derailing this topic with violent behaviour. That's not the topic of this thread.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Hi everyone,

I'd like to please just make a request to you all. It's only a request, so take it as you will.

The purpose of this thread is to discussing a theoretical biological resistance to killing, the nature of that resistance, how it is overcome, and how it can be disabled.

That is all. The topic of this thread is not violence in society. It is not desensitisation or causes for violence and aggressive behaviour.

For those that think the two are the same thing, I would humbly suggest you have missed the entire point of the premise.

-Gumboot

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Corsair,

How would you feel about shooting an image of your own mother in the face, seeing the resultant mutilation? All in good fun?

The Roman games were as degenerate as they come, killing and maiming all sorts of people and animals. Trying to whitewash them as "not so bad" really is disturbing.

On your murder rates, what are the rates from 1950 to today for comparison. Also, bear in mind Grossman's point about how the murder rates today are lower than they should be, solely because of advanced medical technology - plenty of wounds that would have resulted in a murder in the past are now survivable.

"Since 1957 in the US, the per capita aggravated assault rate (which is, essentially, the rate of attempted murder) has gone up nearly sevenfold, while the per capita murder rate has less than doubled. Vast progress in medical technology since 1957 to include everything from mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, to the national "9-1-1" emergency telephone system, to medical technology advances is the reason for this disparity. Otherwise murder would be going up at the same rate as attempted murder..."
--Advances in Medical Effectiveness
http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_medical.htm

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

Dear luchog,

Can you cite any school shootings whatsoever prior to 1950? Or even 1970? Or any instance when someone went on a mass murderous rampage? I'm guessing the bombing incident was gang-related?

How's this for cultural degeneration?

"The observation that violence in the media is causing violence in our streets is nothing new. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, and their equivalents in many other nations have all made unequivocal statements about the link between media violence and violence in our society. The APA, in their 1992 report Big World, Small Screen, concluded that the "scientific debate is over." And in 1993 the APA's commission on violence and youth concluded that "there is absolutely no doubt that higher levels of viewing violence on television are correlated with increased acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behavior." The evidence is quite simply overwhelming.

"Dr. Brandon Centerwall, professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington, has summarized the overwhelming nature of this body of evidence. His research demonstrates that anywhere in the world that television is introduced, within 15 years the murder rate will double. (And remember, across 15 years, the murder rate will significantly underrepresented the problem because medical technology will be saving ever more lives each year.)"

--Military Conditioning as Entertainment for Children
http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_military.htm

Cpl Ferro

 

[gumboot]

The Roman games were as degenerate as they come, killing and maiming all sorts of people and animals. Trying to whitewash them as "not so bad" really is disturbing.

The Roman Blood Sports are not the way you think they are.

To begin with, they were never as popular as other events such as Chariot Racing and theatre. Secondly, a large part of the activities were not "blood sports" at all, but public executions of prisoners and dissidents.

Thirdly, a large number of combats did not end in death.

Lastly, attendance at blood sport events during the reign of Emperors such as Commodus had less to do with enjoyment in the sports and much more to do with the free bread that was distributed to the starving crowd.

-Gumboot