Conditioned To Kill?

[CplFerro]

Then why is violence at an all-time low? You still haven't given a reason why. If games are causing people to be violent, then why is violence low, especially compared to twenty years ago?

Dear Lonewulf,

Violence against whom? Against Africans? Against Iraqis? Against New Orleanians? "Violence" is not merely who decides to go berserk with an automatic rifle, it is also the violence inherent in the system of common human political-economic behaviour that game-addicts and their ideological kin support. Someone addicted to murder-sims is almost guaranteed to be afflicted by a kind of social schizophrenia, the kind that leads to the ruin of nation-states.

Add this to the potential violence already mentioned; people who obsessively enjoy killing other human beings, on a sensory-existentialist level, harbour a certain murderous rage within them, on however deep a level.

Otherwise, again why would they preferentially wish to kill human-like images, over and over and over? Are they training to fight in a war? If not, why not shoot Pac Man and the Ghosts? Why not bull's-eye targets? Why is the pleasure of the experience of target shooting enhanced by simulating murder?

Cpl Ferro

 

[Lonewulf]

Dear Lonewulf,

Violence against whom? Against Africans?

We're attacking Africans?

Against Iraqis? Against New Orleanians?

We're fighting a war against New Orleans? What?

As for Iraq... are you saying that video games are responsible for the Vietnam War, Civil War, Revolutionary War, WWII, WWI, Operation Desert Storm, and all of the wars that have preceded any of us in history?

Or are you just drawing a convenient link here?

"Violence" is not merely who decides to go berserk with an automatic rifle, it is also the violence inherent in the system of common human political-economic behaviour that game-addicts and their ideological kin support. Someone addicted to murder-sims is almost guaranteed to be afflicted by a kind of social schizophrenia, the kind that leads to the ruin of nation-states.

Evidence?

Add this to the potential violence already mentioned; people who obsessively enjoy killing other human beings, on a sensory-existentialist level, harbour a certain murderous rage within them, on however deep a level.

Evidence?

Otherwise, again why would they preferentially wish to kill human-like images, over and over and over?

Because it's fun, and just a game?

Are they training to fight in a war?

No.

If not, why not shoot Pac Man and the Ghosts? Why not bull's-eye targets? Why is the pleasure of the experience of target shooting enhanced by simulating murder?

Not sure, but you have yet to show any evidence for any of your claims. Rampant speculation is not evidence.

Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to play Dystopia. A First Person Shooter where the Punks and Corps fight each other in a cyberpunkish type setting. It involves killing each other with firearms of different types, using big heavy cyborgs to small little lights and more soldier-like mediums.

During this, I will be cordial and polite to other players. I will say things like "good game" after a game, because, after all, we, unlike you, can tell the difference between a game and reality.

It will be fun, and I will have no desire to murder in the real world. And you will have yet to show any evidence of any of your claims.

 

[CplFerro]

As for Iraq... are you saying that video games are responsible for the Vietnam War, Civil War, Revolutionary War, WWII, WWI, Operation Desert Storm, and all of the wars that have preceded any of us in history?

Dear Lonewulf,

The ideology embedded in murder-sim-style video games is the same ideology that informs those various assaults on humanity--descending into a noncognitive fantasy realm as a precursor to unjust killing and enslavement.

Is the Devil in Your Laptop?

Because it's fun, and just a game?

Why do you find simulating murdering human beings fun? Why not bulls'-eye targets or floating polygons?

What is it about simulating murdering humans that makes it more pleasurable than shooting abstract targets, for you?

Cpl Ferro

 

[Lonewulf]

Dear Lonewulf,

The ideology embedded in murder-sim-style video games is the same ideology that informs those various assaults on humanity--descending into a noncognitive fantasy realm as a precursor to unjust killing and enslavement.

Yeah yeah yeah, you keep claiming that. No one's buying it.

Games are going to be the doom of society, it's turning all kids into sociopathic nightmares, yeah yeah. Then you bring up one case of a murderer, and... hey, yeah, that's right, they never existed before games, right?

Why do you find simulating murdering human beings fun?

You know, most of my games don't simulate murder. Unless you count any war or battle as "murder". However, I do not define murder as fighting enemy combatants that are currently fighting back.

Why not bulls'-eye targets or floating polygons?

What is it about simulating murdering humans that makes it more pleasurable than shooting abstract targets, for you?

Because us humans are programmed that way. Humans, on average, enjoy violence as much as they enjoy sex and other forms of entertainment, especially for males. We are animals, and like any animals, we like to playfight. It's why such sports as fencing, football, soccer, and heavy weapons fighting in the SCA are fun. It's also why virtual reality can bring out more realism in games, because no one can get hurt.

Harmless fantasy will never translate into real life for the average person. As-is, there are FAR more people playing videogames than there are people going on shooting sprees... but you will keep thinking that all of us gamers are cut of the same cloth.

It's really hilarious, but then, you're the same guy that takes seriously the claim that all African Americans have 70 IQ, so I don't really care.

 

[JonnyFive]

The ideology embedded in murder-sim-style video games is the same ideology that informs those various assaults on humanity--descending into a noncognitive fantasy realm as a precursor to unjust killing and enslavement.

Is the Devil in Your Laptop?

Ha! I always knew that serial killers, Wikipedia, socialism, communism, the British in general, H.G. Wells in particular, and video games were linked up somehow!

Do you have some slightly more objective studies into actual links between video games and an increased propensity for violent actions of the sort you mention?

But how can one argue with such turgid prose as this:

One day, you just may wake up from the haze to find the Coliseum cheering and blood on your hands. Snap out of it! Don’t be duped by these "Dungeons and Dragons" gamers. Imagine Karl "turd blossom" Rove, like a roly-poly little grub, sitting in his mother’s basement next to the nerdy Bill Gates, decked out in gladiator gear, thinking of ways to engineer society’s discussion and destruction.

Steamy!

Why do you find simulating murdering human beings fun? Why not bulls'-eye targets or floating polygons?

What is it about simulating murdering humans that makes it more pleasurable than shooting abstract targets, for you?

This is avoiding the actual discussion in favor of making appeals to emotion (something I notice your linked LaRouche paper was chock full of). Do you have evidence that the playing of video games even has a positive correlation with violent behavior, let alone a causal relationship?

Video games as a medium have been around for around thirty years. Video games that might be classed as "violent" in any kind of graphic way for about twenty/twenty-five. Movies that could be classed as graphically violent have been around for, what, fourty years now?

Even the much-touted "murder simulators" you refer to have been around for over fifteen years (if you want to pick the well-worn ground of blaming "Doom", for example, that particular game is almost 15 years old).

Books that could be described as graphically, descriptively violent have been around for several thousand years.

That's plenty of time to show a causal relationship in many different areas, if there truly is one.

One thing I take particular issue with (especially as it is described in the LaRouche paper) is the conflating of the decrease in psychological resistance implied by the increased firing rate during the Vietnam War with the assumption that the use of realistic simulations of killing somehow predispose someone to kill.

Bear in mind that the issue with military training is to overcome a kind of final psychological barrier that would otherwise make it difficult for someone to fire at an enemy combatant in the context of battlefield combat. Nothing in these studies says anything about civilian behavior at all, let alone propensity for violence as it connects to realistic simulations involving killing, shooting, etc.

You continue to make statements about game players having "murderous rage" inside them, among other things, but these statements are not borne out even by the underlying data of the paper you linked to.

If you wish to make a broad statement about game players as a whole and be taken seriously, you will need to find much more convincing data addressing the impact of video games on society.

We are no longer at a point where you can say "well, those video games are sure new-fangled and I'm sure that their real impact is right around the corner." No, that ship sailed years ago. Video games have become a very large part of modern culture, and we are certainly at a point where their impact would be felt, if what you say were true.

So, where is this link between the rise of the video game as a means of entertainment and an increase in violence, atrocities, murders, etc?

 

[CplFerro]

We are no longer at a point where you can say "well, those video games are sure new-fangled and I'm sure that their real impact is right around the corner." No, that ship sailed years ago. Video games have become a very large part of modern culture, and we are certainly at a point where their impact would be felt, if what you say were true.

So, where is this link between the rise of the video game as a means of entertainment and an increase in violence, atrocities, murders, etc?

Dear Jonny,

Modern culture is the problem. Read more of what LaRouche is talking about and work through the material instead of skimming it for your favourite narcotising trigger words.

Again, Iraq I, Iraq II, New Orleans-Katrina, Universal Eternal Terror War, "Casino Capitalism," et cetera. Popular stupidity, cupidity, and escapism together as an organising ideology translates into these things. The mass murders are just the sideshow, pay attention to the elephants and lions in the centre ring, and you'll begin to fathom what is going on.

One day you will wake up, as Mr. LaRouche says, to find that someone is being executed on pay-per-view, or would-be Ultimate Fighting Champions are using blades instead of bare knuckles and knees. And you, and your like, so long as you continue to sit and type your cud, are the type, like unsavoury things in the sewer, to "go with the flow" toward a numbing, shoulder-shrugging, "Well, what can ya do, it's just da way a' da world!"

Jreffies are like a slow clock: always being moved ahead.

If you can't understand what I'm trying to tell you, I do not know how to deprogram you.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

Because us humans are programmed that way. Humans, on average, enjoy violence as much as they enjoy sex and other forms of entertainment, especially for males. We are animals, and like any animals, we like to playfight. It's why such sports as fencing, football, soccer, and heavy weapons fighting in the SCA are fun. It's also why virtual reality can bring out more realism in games, because no one can get hurt.

Harmless fantasy will never translate into real life for the average person. As-is, there are FAR more people playing videogames than there are people going on shooting sprees... but you will keep thinking that all of us gamers are cut of the same cloth.

Dear Lonewulf,

Humans, male ones at least, are also programmed to rape. Why aren't there any rape-simulator games out there? 'Twould be all in good fun, right?

What about rigging up a murder-sim to feature your friends and co-workers as victims? Or your family? Would you like to shoot your parents and siblings to death?

Why do you implicitly applaud people feeding their basest instincts?

Do you think a society that encourages people to feed their basest instincts regarding fantasies of murder and rape will generate a populace more or less democratically effective at policy-shaping than a society that educates people to find healthier outlets for their instincts?

Cpl Ferro

 

[Lonewulf]

<One long meaningless rant snipped.>

I really can't think of anything to say to this, besides, nice speculation. Too bad speculation will never substitute for science and research.

Dear Lonewulf,

Humans, male ones at least, are also programmed to rape. Why aren't there any rape-simulator games out there? 'Twould be all in good fun, right?

There are rape simulators... you should see some of those hentai games. Taffer's an expert on those, he's got a collection.

Oh, and he has yet to rape a real woman as far as I understand.

What about rigging up a murder-sim to feature your friends and co-workers as victims? Or your family? Would you like to shoot your parents and siblings to death?

Not really. I'd rather shoot up nazis.

Why do you implicitly applaud people feeding their basest instincts?

Because it's just a game.

Do you think a society that encourages people to feed their basest instincts regarding fantasies of murder and rape will generate a populace more or less democratically effective at policy-shaping than a society that educates people to find healthier outlets for their instincts?

Yes.

Because as long as we're doing in fantasy, we aren't doing it in reality. In fact, I wouldn't hesitate to say that videogames and movie violence are "healthy" outlets for our instincts. It's up to you to demonstrate that it's not healthy. And you have yet to demonstrate that violence is at all linked with videogames. At all. No research, no studies, nothing scientific at all.

And yet, the world's greatest atrocities have occurred since before the invention of the computer, or any form of videogame violence whatsoever. WWII and Hitler, WWI and the trenches, the civil war in the U.S., the civil war in Russia, the Armenian massacre.

But you ignore that, because you can't attribute videogames to it. Instead, you assume that videogames are responsible for today's violence. Which is absurd, since violence as a whole has been going down. And I do not just mean that in the context of criminal activities, but also violence in wars. If you think that Iraq is in any way comparable to the horror of WWII or WWI... well, then, you're more than just ignorant. You're also ****ing crazy.

 

[fuelair]

This post is on the topic of conditioning to kill, and whether computer games do this.

"Aha!" I hear some of you cry. "This belong in politics!"

No, indeed it does not. I'm not really interested in discussing whether guns should be banned or whatever, I'm interested in discussing the actual psychological process of killing.

The basis of my interest is the book On Killing by Lt Col Dave Grossman.

Grossman is a former US Army paratrooper and Ranger, and taught Psychology at West Point. He is currently Professor of Military Science at Arkansas State University.

In his book he establishes a number of key points:

1. Human beings have a basic biological resistance to killing other human beings, sort of like a safeguard.

2. Overcoming this safeguard requires enormous psychological stress, and killing another human results in serious psychological trauma.

3. Various factors influence the effectiveness of the safeguard such as proximity of the victim to the killer (physically, emotionally, and also in terms of the killing methodology), and proximity of authority to the killer (se: Milgram Experiment).

4. Evidence indicates that historically in warfare few combatants actively killed the enemy. In WW2, for example, an estimated 90% of soldiers in a given engagement would not fire at the enemy unless under direct supervision of an authority figure (officer).

5. Post WW2, Samuel Marshall, a chief US Army Official Historian, wrote the book Men Against Fire in which he claimed that humans naturally resisted killing others, and that otherwise healthy, alert, and courageous soldiers consistently failed to directly engage enemy forces in WW2 - often instead choosing to undertake other far more dangerous tasks such as rescuing wounded. He concluded that the US army needed to devote significant time to developing a training method to overcome this resistance.

6. As a result of this work the US Army developed new training methods. Key elements were:
A) - Human shaped targets
B) - Immediate feedback on a successful "kill" in the form of the target falling down
C) - Target behaviour characteristics such as moving targets, targets that appear suddenly, etc.
D) - High rates of repetition, with soldiers spending hours shooting at targets.

7. The result of these new training methods was that rates of fire amongst US forces rose to 98% by the Vietnam War.

8. The key elements of these conditioning methods are mimicked by the First Person Shooter genre of computer games.

Therefore, FPS computer games disable the biological resistance against killing.

Anyone else familiar with the book?

Thoughts?

-Gumboot

Excellent precis on the subject, I personally doubt that the regu;lar computer games can do this to any normal person. I was lucky to have discovered early that I am not subject to this problem (the inability one) because a close relative threatened me with a rifle (loaded .22) and I realized I had no fear of it. At that point, I told him that he could of course shoot at me if he decided to - but if the shot did not kill me, I would take the rifle from him and beat him to death with it (I was more precise in the details but....). The key to this (by me) is to be willing to kill, you must be able to accept you may be killed/harmed by your opponent - so you must take them out first. Most people do not want to/are not able to understand they are vulnerable or that someone else might really wish to kill them.

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Lonewulf,

See my response to Jonny. If you're sane, I count myself blessed to be mad; but, you'll might never have any concept of why I would say such a thing.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

...The key to this (by me) is to be willing to kill, you must be able to accept you may be killed/harmed by your opponent - so you must take them out first. Most people do not want to/are not able to understand they are vulnerable or that someone else might really wish to kill them.

Dear fuelair,

Unless you've lapsed into a schizophrenic fantasy world and imagine you get 200 points for every head shot. These shooters go into conveniently marked out "Gun Free Zones" so subconsciously they know they're not in any danger...except from themselves when they blow their heads off, but, that's just part of the scenario.

Cpl Ferro

 

[jimbob]

There was a documented ancient battle with large (WWI) casualty figures: Canae.

 

[fuelair]

Dear fuelair,

Unless you've lapsed into a schizophrenic fantasy world and imagine you get 200 points for every head shot. These shooters go into conveniently marked out "Gun Free Zones" so subconsciously they know they're not in any danger...except from themselves when they blow their heads off, but, that's just part of the scenario.

Cpl Ferro

You assume I follow the rules of that type of location don't you. You also may be unaware that guns are not the only deadly weapon.

 

[Lonewulf]

See my response to Jonny. If you're sane, I count myself blessed to be mad; but, you'll might never have any concept of why I would say such a thing.

Y'know what I love about you, Ferro? You're so good at pretending to be the "good guy". I mean, at the beginning of all your posts, you start with a polite "Dear Lonewulf" or "Dear Johnny"...

Then you go on and say insulting things like,

And you, and your like, so long as you continue to sit and type your cud, are the type, like unsavoury things in the sewer, to "go with the flow" toward a numbing, shoulder-shrugging, "Well, what can ya do, it's just da way a' da world!"

Oh well. At least you're not calling us n*****s and blaming all of the problems on the evil blacks.

Maybe some day you'll come to realize how utterly inane and stupid all of what you say is. Until that day comes, though, I'll just sit and smirk.

If you're sane, then I'm blessed to be mad. And you're... well, just ****ing crazy.

But don't worry, just be happy. Continue to live in your delusional fantasy world where all of us EEEEVIL GAMERS are out to get you, and all of the BILLIONS of people that watch violent movies and play violent videogames are just a second from snapping out of control and killing you. Or keep calling them "things that came out of the sewer"... actually, you know what? You should meet this gentleman: Jack Thompson

You two seem to share the same ideology... and also the same general intellectual capability.

But yes, continue to wallow into your self righteousness. Continue to live in the delusional grandeur that you are so much better, more moral, and more intelligent than all of us EEEEVIL GAMERS. Because while you do, you're a great source of entertainment for the rest of us.

 

[JonnyFive]

Modern culture is the problem. Read more of what LaRouche is talking about and work through the material instead of skimming it for your favourite narcotising trigger words.

Please provide evidence for your statements instead of making ridiculous assumptions about my reading habits.

LaRouche's paper is laced with emotionally loaded language, lies, and distortions. It is not scientifically-conducted study on anything. It is not even a well-researched piece.

My point about modern culture was quite clear: video games have existed long enough to show up as a factor on statistical studies. You have so far failed to provide any kind of proof that your statements match reality.

Again, Iraq I, Iraq II, New Orleans-Katrina, Universal Eternal Terror War, "Casino Capitalism," et cetera. Popular stupidity, cupidity, and escapism together as an organising ideology translates into these things. The mass murders are just the sideshow, pay attention to the elephants and lions in the centre ring, and you'll begin to fathom what is going on.

No, this is the blather of an ideologue. Warfare has existed for thousands upon thousands of years, long before even the invention of the written word. If you are attempting to claim that something like the war in Iraq (pick which one, it doesn't matter for our purposes) are somehow connected to video games you really need to show proof of such.

I'm not sure why you mentioned the Katrina disaster in this list, as it was not a war nor did it share any characteristics with a war. It was a poorly-managed disaster, but the majority of the damage was done by the hurricane itself. Also, what does it have to do with video games or the "conditioning to kill" this thread has been about?

One day you will wake up, as Mr. LaRouche says, to find that someone is being executed on pay-per-view, or would-be Ultimate Fighting Champions are using blades instead of bare knuckles and knees.

Alternatively, you could provide proof for any of your various assertions. It may placate you to believe that I am simply a cow-like entity that is incapable of independant thought, but that doesn't change the fact that you don't seem to be able to support your position on this matter with evidence.

As an interesting aside, perhaps you could tell me about the video games that existed in the various cultures in which public executions or displays or violence (such as the gladatorial games or Circus Maximus) were commonplace.

For that matter, maybe you should do some research into the original form of some of the Olympic games (wrestling in particular).

Unless, of course, you're trying to draw this conversation away from the original topic into general violence in society. If that is the case... well, you still need to show that society is actually more violent than ever before. I don't think it is.

And you, and your like, so long as you continue to sit and type your cud, are the type, like unsavoury things in the sewer, to "go with the flow" toward a numbing, shoulder-shrugging, "Well, what can ya do, it's just da way a' da world!"

That you continue to try to bolster your position with insults instead of evidence speaks volumes about the validity of your claims.

Jreffies are like a slow clock: always being moved ahead.

See above.

If you can't understand what I'm trying to tell you, I do not know how to deprogram you.

You're mixing up the words "understand" and "agree." I have absolutely no problem understanding you, I simply think you're incorrect and unable to support your position with credible evidence so you fall back on child-like behavior to try to bully others into agreeing with you.

 

[CplFerro]

You're mixing up the words "understand" and "agree." I have absolutely no problem understanding you, I simply think you're incorrect and unable to support your position with credible evidence so you fall back on child-like behavior to try to bully others into agreeing with you.

Dear Jonny,

If you understood, you would agree. That you don't agree indicates you can't, or won't allow yourself to, understand.

You would dismiss Plato as up in Socrate's basket, wouldn't you? It doesn't really mean anything to you, does it? Every edition of Plato's works could be consigned to the flames and to your thinking the world wouldn't be a jot worse, indeed it would be better, for there would be less talk of all that airy-fairy "transcendental world" or whatever those religionist fools blather about as they prepare to execute heretics.

If truth-telling be childlike, I bow to your complement.

Good day, sir,

Cpl Ferro

 

[rocketdodger]

You assume I follow the rules of that type of location don't you. You also may be unaware that guns are not the only deadly weapon.

What also hasn't occured to Ferro is that perhaps if more people had your sentiment and were already conditioned, fuelair, maybe shooting sprees wouldn't be shooting sprees -- bystanders might actively try to stop the shooter instead of cowering and waiting to be shot.

 

[rocketdodger]

Therefore, FPS computer games disable the biological resistance against killing.

I hope so. If there is any problem in the world today, it is that the good guys aren't mentally predisposed to do what they need to do to protect their way of life. Not only should everyone have little resistance against killing, they should be taught how to effectively as well.

On a more serious note, Ferro, even if the above conclusion is true, it would be only one component of what is needed to create a killer. Biological resistance might be the problem in warfare, but in normal society people don't kill each other because they don't want to.

How many times have you wanted to kill someone, picked up a gun, aimed it at them, only to be stopped by your "biological resistance?" I find the idea you have that we are living in a world where mass murder is prevented only by a biological mechanism rather than common sense and good will to be both frightening and thankfully absurd.

Furthermore, as both an avid gamer and MA rated game developer I can tell you that your assumptions regarding the reasons people enjoy violence in games are nonsense. No normal people enjoy any type of "murder" and virtual "murder" is no exception. A wide variety of conditions and factors contribute to the fact that when people shoot human characters in video games they decisively feel as though there is no harm being done.

 

[JonnyFive]

If you understood, you would agree. That you don't agree indicates you can't, or won't allow yourself to, understand.

That is a serious fallacy of thinking. You honestly do not believe that anyone can both understand your argument and disagree with you? You believe, therefore, that your position is unassailable and that no amount of evidence would make you wrong? Stop me if I'm generalizing too much, but what you just said makes you sound like a fanatic unwilling to consider the simply possibility that you might be wrong about something.

That is a ridiculous stance to take. All you need to do to convince me is provide evidence (obviously, subject to the verifiability and quality of aforementioned evidence). Apparently, all I need to do to convince you is become god and magically change your mind.

You would dismiss Plato as up in Socrate's basket, wouldn't you? It doesn't really mean anything to you, does it? Every edition of Plato's works could be consigned to the flames and to your thinking the world wouldn't be a jot worse, indeed it would be better, for there would be less talk of all that airy-fairy "transcendental world" or whatever those religionist fools blather about as they prepare to execute heretics.

What in the world are you talking about? You have systematically failed to either address the points I bring up or provide the evidence I continue to ask you for. Moreover, you have now introduced a series of new assertions with no basis whatsoever in reality.

I'm unfamiliar with the turn of phrase "up in x's basket." Could you provide clarification? Was that somehow inspired by my passing mention of the ancient Olympic games? If so, I think you missed the point.

If truth-telling be childlike, I bow to your complement.

Again, you miss the point. Your simplistic insults ("cud typing," "instead of skimming it for your favourite narcotising trigger words," etc.) are what I find childish. Whether or not you are telling the truth is utterly irrelevant to this matter.

Good day, sir,

Are you planning to provide the evidence I requested? Would you be more amiable if I asked in a more polite manner?

Would you please provide some evidence for your various assertions, good sir. I do not wish to trouble you overly, but you have made a number of statements that appear to be unsupported by any evidence based in reality. If you could kindly provide some kind of statistical evidence for the claims relating to statistical causality you are making, I would very much appreciate it.

 

[Lonewulf]

Furthermore, as both an avid gamer and MA rated game developer...

What have you helped develop? Which company do you work for?