Conditioned To Kill?

[JonnyFive]

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?

Ooh, he should pick the 1980's as a starting point! I think he'd be pleasantly surprised.

(snip)

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 Marines experimented with using Doom as a team tactics training aide, but they never used it widely. It's available for public use, although it's pretty crappy: Marine Doom

The US military does use a few games (some based on commercial video games) as infantry training aides. None are used for "conditioning" or anything like that, they're used for small unit tactics and combined arms training. A few (there are several others, not counting vehicle simulators):

VBS1 (small unit / combined arms based on the game Operation Flashpoint)

VBS2 (upgraded version of the above, similar to the consumer Armed Assault product)

DARWARS: Ambush (designed to train troops on convoy scenarios, not sure if it's actually being used by any service branches)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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.

What special data do you have access to make the claim that crime rates have risen since the 1950's? The U.S. Department of Justice has no record that far back to make such a determination. However, the data they do have indicates that since 1973, violent crime rates have dropped precipitiously, and curiously, have dropped the most sharply since the early 1990's, coninciding with the rise of video games.

 

[Lonewulf]

What special data do you have access to make the claim that crime rates have risen since the 1950's? The U.S. Department of Justice has no record that far back to make such a determination. However, the data they do have indicates that since 1973, violent crime rates have dropped precipitiously, and curiously, have dropped the most sharply since the early 1990's, coninciding with the rise of video games.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/6958468e40cbbd6c7.gif[/qimg]

Onose!

Looks like we can't go railing about video games!!11111

Let's go after Marilyn Manson and talk about killing family members again, as if it actually makes a point!!1111

People are stupid. The DC Sniper shootings occur, and people immediately speculate, because some tarot card with "I am God" or whatever was written on it, that kids that loved "godmode" in videogames must have done it. They don't draw the other, equally logical assumption, that it was done by gypsy assassins.

(Thanks to Tycho and Gabe for that last one)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Onose!

Looks like we can't go railing about video games!!11111

Let's go after Marilyn Manson and talk about killing family members again, as if it actually makes a point!!1111

People are stupid. The DC Sniper shootings occur, and people immediately speculate, because some tarot card with "I am God" or whatever was written on it, that kids that loved "godmode" in videogames must have done it. They don't draw the other, equally logical assumption, that it was done by gypsy assassins.

(Thanks to Tycho and Gabe for that last one)

I've linked to the Justice Department's data before when video games were discussed. You're right. It seems people inevitably blame something or other for the percieved increase in violence since whatever previous decade they incorrectly regard as a golden age, but the fact is that we're safer today than we were in any previous generation.

 

[JonnyFive]

I've linked to the Justice Department's data before when video games were discussed. You're right. It seems people inevitably blame something or other for the percieved increase in violence since whatever previous decade they incorrectly regard as a golden age, but the fact is that we're safer today than we were in any previous generation.

If you look at the statistics, you can clearly see that the violence escalated from the 1970's up to the late 1980's. Clearly something is there that was conditioning kids to kill.

As you may know, video games began to get their start in the 1970's with the game Pong. But it didn't stop there, the Atari 2600, the Intellivision, and finally the Nintendo Entertainment System all made gaming more popular every year with their vivid, colorful 8-bit graphic prowess. Notice that the violence escalated each year until the coming of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System in the 1990's.

I think we all know the cause of the violence: Eight Bit Graphics!

Think about it. The closer we got to the pinnacle of the 8-bit era (the NES), the more the violence escalated. As soon as the 16-bit era dawned, the violence started to drop, and it's been steadily declining as we move farther and farther from that God-forsaken time of having no more than 16 colors on-screen at a time, battery-backed save games, horrible sub-MIDI music, and nonsensical licsensed games where Mickey Mouse is being attacked by cats and bears for no good reason!

So, parents, don't let your children play those hellish, damnable games. You might think Space Invaders or Pitfall or Excitebike are cute and nostalgiac, but they're really training your kids to kill, rape, maim, and generally act in a disorderly fashion.

The data is all there. 8-bit games make kids kill, 16+ bit games make them calm. Any game system capable of displaying fewer than 64 colors on the screen at a time should be confiscated and burned immediately.<sup>*



*</sup>Except for the original Game Boy. That's some totally old skool ◊◊◊◊, yo.

 

[Lonewulf]

If you look at the statistics, you can clearly see that the violence escalated from the 1970's up to the late 1980's. Clearly something is there that was conditioning kids to kill.

As you may know, video games began to get their start in the 1970's with the game Pong. But it didn't stop there, the Atari 2600, the Intellivision, and finally the Nintendo Entertainment System all made gaming more popular every year with their vivid, colorful 8-bit graphic prowess. Notice that the violence escalated each year until the coming of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System in the 1990's.

I think we all know the cause of the violence: Eight Bit Graphics!

Think about it. The closer we got to the pinnacle of the 8-bit era (the NES), the more the violence escalated. As soon as the 16-bit era dawned, the violence started to drop, and it's been steadily declining as we move farther and farther from that God-forsaken time of having no more than 16 colors on-screen at a time, battery-backed save games, horrible sub-MIDI music, and nonsensical licsensed games where Mickey Mouse is being attacked by cats and bears for no good reason!

So, parents, don't let your children play those hellish, damnable games. You might think Space Invaders or Pitfall or Excitebike are cute and nostalgiac, but they're really training your kids to kill, rape, maim, and generally act in a disorderly fashion.

The data is all there. 8-bit games make kids kill, 16+ bit games make them calm. Any game system capable of displaying fewer than 64 colors on the screen at a time should be confiscated and burned immediately.<sup>*



*</sup>Except for the original Game Boy. That's some totally old skool ◊◊◊◊, yo.

 

[TX50]

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....

Sgt. York may well have been in the select top 2% that Grossman mentions.

German infantry before World War 2 also exercised on training areas which
included anthropomorphic dummies placed (often in "surprising" locations) so
as to represent enemy troops. These were to be engaged with fire and/or
bayonets as appropriate.

The US Army sniper manual from World War 2 includes diagrams showing
correct aiming points on humans dressed as German soldiers.

A particular British rifle target that dates from the first world war is
anthropomorphic too in clearly representing a human head with
a surly facial expression and wearing a German "coal scuttle" helmet.
Its common name (it is still used today in training British snipers) is
"Hun's head".

Anyway, when all the evidence is examined carefully it appears that
Grossman's assertion that "we couldn't really fully grasp the fact that
we're going to kill human beings" in World War 2 is not entirely
warranted.

 

[gumboot]

Sgt. York may well have been in the select top 2% that Grossman mentions.

They not so much the "top" 2% as the "psychopathic" 2%.

-Gumboot

 

[ImaginalDisc]

They not so much the "top" 2% as the "psychopathic" 2%.

-Gumboot

IIRC, he said there was a "psychopathic" 1%, and a "heroic" 1%. He cites one letter from WWII in which a county boy writes cheerfully about combat, and compares shooting Germans in the head favorably to turkey shoots, as an example of the "psychotic," and seems to genuinely enjoy combat.

Then there's an autobiographical story of a UN trooper who killed two men who were raping a nun, and feels proud of actions, and no remose, as an example of the "heroic."

 

[JonnyFive]

They not so much the "top" 2% as the "psychopathic" 2%.

Wouldn't it more be "sociopathic?" It sounds like he's talking about those people that don't feel strong emotion due to killing. That doesn't mean that they're out of touch with reality, only that they don't display standard emotional responses.

Out of curiosity, do you have any other books on the subject you could suggest? I've read Grossman's book already, and found it interesting, although his recent railing against video games as "murder simulators" leaves me in doubt as to his objectivity about this.

 

[Bikewer]

Some years back, the distraught parents of a young fellow who'd committed suicide brought a lawsuit against the heavy-metal band who's recording the kid had played obsessively prior to his demise.
The assertion was that the lyrics had caused the lad's death. As I recall, he had listened to the album (or maybe an individual song) continually for some 24 hours prior to his suicide.

The court found against the plaintiff, after being presented with massive evidence that the young man's suicide was caused by his mental condition, and that his obsessive listening was a symptom, not a cause.

Might we not be looking at something similar here? All of us gamers are of the opinion that regardless of content, games are merely games. We feel no more inclined to commit violence after a bang-up round of zombie killing than after reading the morning paper.
Certainly an individual who is psychopathic in some way might feel drawn to "building hatred and rage" by this same fantasy killing, but I think looking for a causative factor here is just too much.
Individuals of this sort are triggered by a variety of things, and as we've noted they have existed long before the availability of electronic media.

A factor not discussed in the seeming deadliness of certain recent mass-murders is the effectiveness of the weapons available. Prior to the notion of "going postal" becoming part of the culture, there was very little available in the way of weaponry that would facilitate such acts.
The contemporary mass murderer has access to auto pistols with high-capacity magazines, assault rifles, and so forth.

Here's another little bit to chew on. For the most part, the player's character in FPS-style games is functioning as a "hero". Rather than expressing hatred and rage, the character is presented in most cases with foes who are depicted as essentially evil.
Alien invaders, terrorists, and so forth. The goal of the player is often to "save the world", "save the hostages", "repel the invaders", or something similar.
There are a few games currently where the player's actions are at best ambiguous, but even these are often set up as role-playing scenarios where the player accumulates "reputation" for his/her actions. Most are set up to better reward "good" decisions.

 

[JonnyFive]

(snip)

Here's another little bit to chew on. For the most part, the player's character in FPS-style games is functioning as a "hero". Rather than expressing hatred and rage, the character is presented in most cases with foes who are depicted as essentially evil.
Alien invaders, terrorists, and so forth. The goal of the player is often to "save the world", "save the hostages", "repel the invaders", or something similar.
There are a few games currently where the player's actions are at best ambiguous, but even these are often set up as role-playing scenarios where the player accumulates "reputation" for his/her actions. Most are set up to better reward "good" decisions.

I think this might be part of the reason why Grand Theft Auto is focused on so much, along with a few other games where you either play the "bad guy" or are pretty much free to do whatever you want. I noticed that the truly awful game "State of Emergency" was mentioned in a few cases, even though the game was universally panned by critics and gamers alike, and I think probably eight people played the godawful thing.

ETA: Sometimes I wonder just how in touch with reality the anti-game crowd is. Jack Thompson was railing against, of all things, the game Bully. He described it as a "Columbine simulator." You know, the game Bully... where you never get a gun or knife, and can't kill anyone.

Then again, Jack Thompson is f-ing nuts.

 

[Corsair 115]

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

I'm at a loss as to understand how a game company would get access to a picture of my mom, short of me actually sending it to them.

Have you even seen the graphics in an FPS game? They're good for what they are, but they are not all that realistic. The way characters move is especially unrealistic.

You seem intent on personalizing the gaming experience when it most cases it's just competition. One of Unreal Tournament 2004's most popular game modes is Onslaught, which, while naturally involving lots of fragging, also required teamwork and the taking of specified objectives in order to win the match.

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.

Your original comment referenced gladatorial games, which I take to mean combat between gladiators.

Gumboot has already responded to that, but I'll add my own comments as well. What you see in the movie Gladiator is NOT how most actual gladiatorial combat was done. Gladiators usually only fought two or three times a year, they usually only fought as pairs with those pairs specifically set up to pit different types of weaponry and fighting styles against each other. The fights were overseen by what we would call today a referee, who ensured the rules were followed and who could step in and pause the combat to ensure fairness in the fight.

The gladiators losing a fight did not automatically die; it was most often left up to the crowd to decide if the defeated fighter lived or died. If he had fought well and given a good account of himself, the crowd would let him live to fight another day. And this was in fact the outcome of the majority of gladatorial fights, the defeated gladiator got to live and fight another day.

This is the historical reality; the representations shown in Hollywood movies is not.

 

[CplFerro]

Dear gumboot,

Can you name any blood sports in any other time and place in history that was worse?

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

What special data do you have access to make the claim that crime rates have risen since the 1950's? The U.S. Department of Justice has no record that far back to make such a determination. However, the data they do have indicates that since 1973, violent crime rates have dropped precipitiously, and curiously, have dropped the most sharply since the early 1990's, coninciding with the rise of video games.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/6958468e40cbbd6c7.gif[/qimg]

Dear ID,

http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_worldwide.htm

Also, here is a graph of US homicide rates for the past century. As Grossman points out, however, it must be corrected to account for increases in medical technology that ensure many otherwise homicides instead survive.

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/usa.htm

Cpl Ferro

 

[Corsair 115]

Also, here is a graph of US homicide rates for the past century. As Grossman points out, however, it must be corrected to account for increases in medical technology that ensure many otherwise homicides instead survive.

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/usa.htm

That's the same site I used when I posted the homicide rates a few posts back. Looking at the graph, I note that the rate in 2000 was the same as the rate in 1917 or so.

So, what's your explanation for the big dip in rates between 1933-1970, CplFerro? Or the explosive rise from the early 1900s?

 

[Lonewulf]

That's the same site I used when I posted the homicide rates a few posts back. Looking at the graph, I note that the rate in 2000 was the same as the rate in 1917 or so.

So, what's your explanation for the big dip in rates between 1933-1970, CplFerro? Or the explosive rise from the early 1900s?

Personally, I blame the music those damn teenagers listened to.

F***ing Jazz.

 

[CplFerro]

That's the same site I used when I posted the homicide rates a few posts back. Looking at the graph, I note that the rate in 2000 was the same as the rate in 1917 or so.

So, what's your explanation for the big dip in rates between 1933-1970, CplFerro? Or the explosive rise from the early 1900s?

Dear Corsair,

Prohibition spiked crime rates prior to 1933, other than that I don't know. Note that, again, those numbers have to be adjusted for improvements in medical care. The modern spike is much larger than before as many people who would otherwise have been counted as murdered instead survived due to better medical care they received.

Actually, Lonewulf is right, jazz "the art of destruction" probably didn't help, thought there must have been other factors at work.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Corsair 115]

The modern spike is much larger than before as many people who would otherwise have been counted as murdered instead survived due to better medical care they received.

So, you're telling me the jump shown on the graph which goes from under 2 in 1905 and soars up to 9.5 in 1934 is a greater jump than 4.5 in 1955 to 10.5 in 1980?

When I do the math, is says 9.5/2 = 4.75 while 10.5/4.5 = 2.333. So the jump in the early 20th century saw rates increase by 4.75 times while the jump in the middle of the century was an increase of only 2.333 times. This makes the jump in the early part of the 20th century twice that of the jump from the latter part of the 20th century. So how is this latter century jump greater than the early one?

 

[JoeEllison]

Hey. I've been trained to kill. No video game will do it. Hell, the training we got would barely do it.