Conditioned To Kill?

[gumboot]

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

 

[blutoski]

You may be interested in Philip Zimbardo's work. He believes that the willingness to kill or harm others can be fostered by manipulating the environment. He is famous for conducting the Stanford Prison Experiment, and recently testified for the defense in trials relating to the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal.

His most recent book is called: "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil"

I haven't read about any opinion of his on the role of computer games in fostering an environment. He seems to argue that the prime factor is the perception of reward/punishment, typically in the form of peer acceptance/rejection &c.


Question about the flag in your .sig... does the logo in the corner mean that New Zealand is sponsored by Reebok?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Unfortunately I have not yet read the book.

Does he address the context of the activities at all? The training being done in preparation to actually kill while the FPS being part of a fantasy world?

 

[AZCat]

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

I know of the book, but have not read it. I am skeptical, though, of anyone who claims a causal relationship based on such logic. I think the work of James Alan Fox and Jack Levin better explains the majority of shooting sprees in the United States.

 

[gumboot]

You may be interested in Philip Zimbardo's work. He believes that the willingness to kill or harm others can be fostered by manipulating the environment. He is famous for conducting the Stanford Prison Experiment, and recently testified for the defense in trials relating to the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal.

His most recent book is called: "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil"

I haven't read about any opinion of his on the role of computer games in fostering an environment. He seems to argue that the prime factor is the perception of reward/punishment, typically in the form of peer acceptance/rejection &c.


Question about the flag in your .sig... does the logo in the corner mean that New Zealand is sponsored by Reebok?

Hey, sounds interesting. Grossman references things such as that in his study, along with the Milgram Experiment, in explaining how the safeguard's effectiveness varies depending on environment factors.

Grossman also cites how the group act of atrocity plays a key role, as once a group has committed atrocity they are much more likely to continue committing atrocities. The other fact is that a major hurdle to killing is empathy for the victim - the more the killer is able to identify with and acknowledge the humanity of their victim - the harder it is to kill. Mistreatment of prisoners etc. fosters (or may be a byproduct of) the dehumanisation of the enemy, which is required in order to facilitate killing.

Regarding reward and rejection:

Grossman contends a key component of conditioning is both instant and long term reward for a successful kill. In military training this comes in the form of targets that fall down when you hit them, approval from commanding officers, marksman badges, and so forth. In computer games it comes in the form of enemy avatars dying when hit, and kill scores/statistics, etc.

Grossman also cites post-act punishment as a key factor in psychological trauma. He cites WW2 veterans who were hailed by their nations as heroes, their actions vindicated, and contrasts it with Vietnam War vets who were labelled murderers, spat on, assaulted, and in some countries, denied the parades and other public acts of recognition that WW2 vets received in bucket loads.

Grossman argues that this (combined with much higher rates of fire against enemy) is the primary reasons Vietnam War veterans suffered significantly higher rates of psychological trauma than WW2 veterans.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Unfortunately I have not yet read the book.

Does he address the context of the activities at all? The training being done in preparation to actually kill while the FPS being part of a fantasy world?

He doesn't address that overly. The primary thrust of this book is to study the actual safeguard, and how it has affected combat and military training. The application to civilian society is only a small part. I understand he has written subsequent books focusing on civilian society, which I haven't yet read.

I'm not sure that context actually applies, so much as appearance. For example soldiers actually in combat, but removed somehow from their victim, do not suffer trauma. Examples include snipers, crewed weapon operators, pilots, naval gunners, and so forth.

It would be interesting to do a study between players of games such as Half Life - with demonic non-human targets - and games such as Call of Duty and Medal of Honor in which the enemy display realistic human behaviour and emotions including fear, anger, and so forth.

Grossman's theory would seem to suggest that games like this would be more effective at disabling the safeguard than military conditioning.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

I know of the book, but have not read it. I am skeptical, though, of anyone who claims a causal relationship based on such logic. I think the work of James Alan Fox and Jack Levin better explains the majority of shooting sprees in the United States.

The theory is not that conditioning causes killings, but that it enables it. The study suggest that even in a situation with moral justification for killing (such as in a war with others trying to kill you), most people, unless conditioned, will not kill. In contrast, once conditioned to kill, given a cause, 98% of people will kill.

Perhaps the most sensible outcome of this study is to conclude that, given many more people are now able to kill, it is much more imperative to do something about the causes.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Question about the flag in your .sig... does the logo in the corner mean that New Zealand is sponsored by Reebok?

New Zealand has the Union Jack in our flag, like Australia and many other countries, because we are a former colony of Great Britain, and members of the Commonwealth.

-Gumboot

 

[Bikewer]

My standard line on this question has always been that human violence is innate, and that we humans have gleefully killed and abused each other throughout history without the impetus of any "media" whatever.

I am familar with the military aspects of resistance to killing; even Chuck Yeager observed that only 10% of fighter pilots actively sought out and engaged the enemy; the rest were "along for the ride". We also understand that far and away more enemy were killed by artillery and such than by small arms fire; the ratio of small-arms ammunition expended to enemy killed is something on the order of 1-100,000.
Still, even with such figures in mind, our ancestors seem to have gotten on with the job of warfare quite well throughout history; perhaps the "glory" aspect helps the psychological adjustment?
And what of other forms of violence?
We have never been short of individuals willing to engage in persecution, torture, genocide, religious/political violence, and so forth.
Did all those English archers at Agincourt and Crecy find the French easier targets because they had spent their youth shooting at the popinjay?
I have my doubts. I started playing computer games rather late in life, and at 60 I thoroughly enjoy blasting a bunch of Ravenholm zombies.
But I'm a police officer, and have never shot any actual persons in some 40 years of experience....

 

[Davo]

I don`t believe playing computer games makes one more likely to kill.

But for those nutters out there who want to shoot and kill someone/many people, playing certain games would help hone those skills to shoot someone, especially with the one shot kill to the head, encouraged in most games.

 

[AZCat]

The theory is not that conditioning causes killings, but that it enables it. The study suggest that even in a situation with moral justification for killing (such as in a war with others trying to kill you), most people, unless conditioned, will not kill. In contrast, once conditioned to kill, given a cause, 98% of people will kill.

Perhaps the most sensible outcome of this study is to conclude that, given many more people are now able to kill, it is much more imperative to do something about the causes.

-Gumboot

Except that this study will need to provide substantial data to back up their premise. People have killed prior to the invention of FPS games and it would require proving that the numbers of killers has increased substantially since their invention in order to give any weight to Grossman's arguments.

Here in the U.S. we have becomed accostomed to people claiming they have figured out why our children are growing up wrong (if that is actually the case -which I doubt). Back in the 50's we were all aflutter, mainly because this guy wrote something called "Seduction of the Innocent" that tried to blame juvenile delinquency on comic books. Yes, they may have had some effect on children who read them, but in comparison to much more important factors the effect is negligible, much like what I consider the effect of FPS games is on children.

 

[AZCat]

Let me get this straight. Grossman claims:

1. There exists a biological resistance to killing.
2. This biological resistance can be overcome by first person shooter-style computer games (thru conditioning).
3. This biological resistance can also be overcome by "enormous psychological stress".

How is it possible to determine when 2 has happened versus 3 in the case of high school shootings?

 

[gumboot]

Still, even with such figures in mind, our ancestors seem to have gotten on with the job of warfare quite well throughout history; perhaps the "glory" aspect helps the psychological adjustment?

I think there's several explanations for this.

One Grossman offers up:

Historically, the vast majority of battles involved a long period of posturing, a brief engagement, and then one side breaking and fleeing. The overwhelming majority of combat deaths occurred in this last stage in which the enemy were running away.

Another consideration, which Grossman discusses in comparisons between WW2 and Vietnam War vets, is the role of the warrior in society plays a big role. It seems that social affirmation of the act of killing plays a role in the conditioning process. Thus in a society where the warrior who had killed many in battle was exalted above all others, killing was easier. If you consider two militaristic societies with highly effective armies, both the Romans and Spartans have extensive conditioning programmes for their soldiers that encouraged aggression and violence.

And what of other forms of violence?
We have never been short of individuals willing to engage in persecution, torture, genocide, religious/political violence, and so forth.

Grossman also addresses the role of atrocity in the process. Bear in mind he is making a key distinction between inflicting violence and intentionally killing.

Did all those English archers at Agincourt and Crecy find the French easier targets because they had spent their youth shooting at the popinjay?

Well I think Grossman would argue that archers are removed physically from their targets - they kill them from long range. They are also removed emotionally - because they're so far away they can't distinguish their victim's humanity. They're also removed rationally - they fired en masse at packed formations, thus they could rationalise that they personally hadn't killed anyone. In addition, there is detachment because they didn't kill anyone - the arrow did.

I started playing computer games rather late in life, and at 60 I thoroughly enjoy blasting a bunch of Ravenholm zombies.
But I'm a police officer, and have never shot any actual persons in some 40 years of experience....

I think it's important to continually reiterate that conditioning to kill does not in itself mean you WILL kill. The actual motivation for killing comes from a range of course. I think the thing is, society has a history of studying and understanding why people kill, and we focus on addressing those issues. No one has ever really actually studied the act of killing itself, and the psychological processes that occur before, during and after the act.

In other words, psychologically speaking, we try to understand why people kill, but not how.

I, like yourself, have played plenty of computer games. If Grossman is right, I am conditioned to kill. Like yourself, I have never killed anyone.

Another interesting thing to note is you state I thoroughly enjoy blasting a bunch of Ravenholm zombies. You didn't say, I notice, I thoroughly enjoy blasting a bunch of human beings. This in itself has profound importance in the conditioning theory.

For what it's worth, though this is more of a politics discussion, I do not advocate the banning of FPS computer games.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

I don`t believe playing computer games makes one more likely to kill.

But for those nutters out there who want to shoot and kill someone/many people, playing certain games would help hone those skills to shoot someone, especially with the one shot kill to the head, encouraged in most games.

Grossman's point is not that these games make one more likely to kill, but that they make one more able to kill.

Nutters, of course, by definition are already able to kill. The issue is people who aren't nutters. People who are not nutters do kill. But they kill one or two people close to them and then kill themselves.

-Gumboot

 

[Jackalgirl]

I'm not going to word this correctly, so I apologize in advance.

I've just been thinking, though, about the idea that humans are naturally resistant to killing, and the various numbers that have been cited in warfare, and the reminder that we, as a species, have been killing each other for a while (a lot longer than military conditioning and FPS have existed, that is).

First off -- and I will simply have to order "On Killing" myself and read it -- I wonder if the information that the author has used to come to the conclusion that humans are naturally resistant to killing has been truly cross-cultural, and that whether the statement that a large amount of conditioning is required to overcome this resistance was made at the tail end of a cross-cultural study also. Is the resistance to killing a) real? b) cultural? or c) biological? or d) a combination?

I guess I'll have to hit Lexis-Nexis and start doing some research. Sorry for the disorganized ramble; I'm just thinking aloud, I guess.

 

[gumboot]

I've put your posts together for a response. Hope you don't mind.

Except that this study will need to provide substantial data to back up their premise. People have killed prior to the invention of FPS games and it would require proving that the numbers of killers has increased substantially since their invention in order to give any weight to Grossman's arguments.

I don't think that's necessarily true. There is substantial well documented evidence on how conditioning works, and its effectiveness. The military has put a great deal of effort into it.

If the only factors that affect conditioning are ALSO present in FPS computer games, it follow that these games also affect conditioning. (It's worth noting that the military also use computer games for training).

Personally I'm not as interested in the cause of killings, but specifically in the issue of conditioning. I think they're somewhat separate (though related).

Think of it this way. If the speed limit is 100km/h, and my car can go faster than 100km/h, I am able to speed. This doesn't mean I will. However, if my car cannot travel faster than 100km/h (say, if I go faster than that the engine automatically turns off), no matter how much I might want to speed, I cannot do it.

In this thread I'd like to discuss whether there is anything naturally stopping us speeding, and whether certain things do overcome that safeguard. I'm not so much interested in discussing why people might choose to speed.

Here in the U.S. we have becomed accostomed to people claiming they have figured out why our children are growing up wrong (if that is actually the case -which I doubt). Back in the 50's we were all aflutter, mainly because this guy wrote something called "Seduction of the Innocent" that tried to blame juvenile delinquency on comic books. Yes, they may have had some effect on children who read them, but in comparison to much more important factors the effect is negligible, much like what I consider the effect of FPS games is on children.

Well this would be the area of discussion I am interested in. Grossman has offered up a compelling argument about an anti-killing safeguard. I'm interested in discussing his work, and any other work that counters it.

Let me get this straight. Grossman claims:

1. There exists a biological resistance to killing.
2. This biological resistance can be overcome by first person shooter-style computer games (thru conditioning).
3. This biological resistance can also be overcome by "enormous psychological stress".

How is it possible to determine when 2 has happened versus 3 in the case of high school shootings?

No not quite. Overcoming the resistance results in enormous psychological stress.

It's something of a complicated thing - the first 250 pages of Grossman's book deals exclusively with the safeguard and only 50 pages looks at how this relates to Vietnam War vets, and only 30 pages looks at how it might related to wider society.

Basically, if not conditioned, the safeguard can be overcome. A highly emotional situation can do so - say being furiously angry at a loved one. However I suppose it could be seen as an "equal and opposite" dynamic, where by such a situation results in a severe almost immediate psychological "backlash". Hence why most murders involve loved ones (able to overcome resistance through emotional nature of conflict) and very often result in the killer immediately killing themselves (immediate psychological trauma).

Grossman cites, for example, that the most "intimate" form of killing (resistance is greater) is to penetrate another person's body with an object - say stabbing them with a knife. He offers that there's no documented case of a soldier killing this way. He cites special forces soldiers trained to silently kill sentries by stabbing, yet offers evidence that no soldier has done this - instead it is more common for them to use a less effective slicing action, often cutting themselves or allowing the sentry to raise the alarm in the process. In contrast, a high number of domestic murders involve repeated stab wounds.

In contrast, if conditioned to kill, no emotional incident is required to overcome the safeguard, and the psychological "backlash" is delayed - perhaps by years.

As such, a conditioned person can remain in a psychological state where killing others is possible for substantially longer. There is also no need for the killing to have a strong emotional attachment to their victims.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

I've just been thinking, though, about the idea that humans are naturally resistant to killing, and the various numbers that have been cited in warfare, and the reminder that we, as a species, have been killing each other for a while (a lot longer than military conditioning and FPS have existed, that is).

It's certainly a very interesting point. As far as I am aware Grossman is the first person to really delve into this topic outside of its application to military training. I think the subject area could benefit from more detailed study in specific areas, especially historically.

A cursory consideration of historic warfare does seem to support the basic premise, however a more detailed study may conclude otherwise. Grossman appears to be focused on modern society, so perhaps it is something someone else will look into.

First off -- and I will simply have to order "On Killing" myself and read it -- I wonder if the information that the author has used to come to the conclusion that humans are naturally resistant to killing has been truly cross-cultural, and that whether the statement that a large amount of conditioning is required to overcome this resistance was made at the tail end of a cross-cultural study also. Is the resistance to killing a) real? b) cultural? or c) biological? or d) a combination?

You certainly raise some very good points, and I think it would be beneficial for someone to investigate these very matters. I think there is some argument in support of the resistance to killing being biological. Grossman identifies the safeguard as being in the Fight or Flight, Posture or Submit instinctive response. The concept is that animals of the same species (especially social animals) tend to interact by Posturing and Submitting, rather than by killing each other (Fight or Flight). The notion is that death resulting from Posture and Submit is accidental, not intentional.

This does appear to be supported by historic warfare, in which the outcome of battles was more often than not decided by Posturing rather than Fighting. In addition, the overwhelming majority of combat deaths occurred once one side had broken and was fleeing, which seems to suggest the "Fight or Flight" response had kicked in. Soldiers that broke and ran were far more likely to be killed than soldiers who held their ground and surrendered (surrendering constituting Submission in response to the enemy's Posturing).

-Gumboot

 

[strathmeyer]

I don't know much about video games, but chess certainly did a great job of conditioning me to send others to their death in order to progress my personal agenda.

 

[Solus]

This topic makes me think of the Nanking massacre in China by the Japanese near the beginning of WW2. A key reason the Japanese were able to commit such acts of horror is because they regarded the Chinese as non-humans. I won't go into great details of the massacre but people were herded into buildings and those buildings were then set on fire. Solders would laugh as the people inside burned to death or jumped off a roof to their death. Officers would cut off the heads of people just for fun. A nice game right? Let's see who can cleanly cut off the most heads.

About 250,000 people were murdered in a period of a month. Beyond horrific. Wiki is ok for infomation but always go for a real book if interest is there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre#Atrocities_begin
That goes into more detail, I won't even go into the rape part.

The points raised above are interesting though however history shows great violence in human nature and there were no guns in the past. It used to be that a person had to be killed face to face. I'd like to believe there is a biological resistance to murdering another human being. Hopefully a scientific study of the brain will prove there is indeed such a resistance one day.

 

[Corsair 115]

Grossman cites, for example, that the most "intimate" form of killing (resistance is greater) is to penetrate another person's body with an object - say stabbing them with a knife. He offers that there's no documented case of a soldier killing this way.

I find that a difficult assertion to accept; how exactly is Grossman defining "documented" here?

I can recall seeing interviews with those who served in the First Special Service Force in WWII talking about instances where they used their knives to kill German soldiers during a mission.