Video Game Rape Fest

[gumboot]

Fallacy of the middle ground. Just because there are two "extreme" positions doesn't mean the truth is somewhere in between. Has it occurred to you that many of these "irrational" and "extremist" people might have given the issue consideration and rejected due to it being completely unfounded speculation without so much as one tiny bit of credible data to back it up despite ideologues trying for two decades to find and/or straight-up manufacture it?

What, on both sides?

It's pretty clear the people I'm talking about haven't "given the issue consideration" because they don't seem to be able to even grasp the basics of what others are debating.

On this thread alone there's so many strawmen being thrown about it feels like it's the 5th of November.

After the Columbine Massacre FOX did a stupid "Face Off" thing where they debate two sides or whatever the dumb idea is. Grossman on one side and some computer game guy on the other. Dunno who he was - head of some computer magazine or game company or whatever. Anyway.

Grossman presented an argument that the military conditioning techniques used to improve a soldier's ability to kill are virtually identical to the mechanisms that occur when someone plays a FPS computer game. That's the crux of his anti-game position. He even cited examples of the military using actual FPS computer games as part of their conditioning training.

The computer game guy's only response was to firstly flat out reject the notion that the military was utilising computer games (a position from incredulity, and hilariously inept given the subsequent release of games like "America's Army") and then to declare that if the army really was using games like Doom to train soldiers he was going to leave the country because it meant the army was inept and they couldn't protect us.

Well. That's not an argument. That's worse than pathetic. Maybe FOX looked for the biggest retard they could find to present the pro-game view (actually, they probably did exactly that, let's face it, it's FOX), but his remarks reflect the exact sort of thinking I've heard time and time again from people who reject the concerns of people like Grossman without having even the most basic grasp of what their concerns actually are.

This doesn't go one way, mind you. On the pro-game side you've got plenty of reasoned, robust argument from people who know what they're talking about, whose views are 100% worthy of listening to. Indeed, even the computer game industry itself (which would be the last people to admit to there being any harm from playing their product) put age restrictions on certain games.

And on the anti-game side you've got rabid-mouthed ideologues slavering to shut down porn and horror films and video games and loud music and anything else they don't like.

 

[Irony]

What, on both sides?

It's pretty clear the people I'm talking about haven't "given the issue consideration" because they don't seem to be able to even grasp the basics of what others are debating.

On this thread alone there's so many strawmen being thrown about it feels like it's the 5th of November.

After the Columbine Massacre FOX did a stupid "Face Off" thing where they debate two sides or whatever the dumb idea is. Grossman on one side and some computer game guy on the other. Dunno who he was - head of some computer magazine or game company or whatever. Anyway.

Grossman presented an argument that the military conditioning techniques used to improve a soldier's ability to kill are virtually identical to the mechanisms that occur when someone plays a FPS computer game. That's the crux of his anti-game position. He even cited examples of the military using actual FPS computer games as part of their conditioning training.

The computer game guy's only response was to firstly flat out reject the notion that the military was utilising computer games (a position from incredulity, and hilariously inept given the subsequent release of games like "America's Army") and then to declare that if the army really was using games like Doom to train soldiers he was going to leave the country because it meant the army was inept and they couldn't protect us.

Well. That's not an argument. That's worse than pathetic. Maybe FOX looked for the biggest retard they could find to present the pro-game view (actually, they probably did exactly that, let's face it, it's FOX), but his remarks reflect the exact sort of thinking I've heard time and time again from people who reject the concerns of people like Grossman without having even the most basic grasp of what their concerns actually are.

This doesn't go one way, mind you. On the pro-game side you've got plenty of reasoned, robust argument from people who know what they're talking about, whose views are 100% worthy of listening to. Indeed, even the computer game industry itself (which would be the last people to admit to there being any harm from playing their product) put age restrictions on certain games.

And on the anti-game side you've got rabid-mouthed ideologues slavering to shut down porn and horror films and video games and loud music and anything else they don't like.

I suppose the bit about ideologues on both sides is true, but at this point I wouldn't call someone who dismissed it out-of-hand an extremist any more than I would call someone who similarly dismissed claims of the dangers of garden gnomes. The simple fact is that games are not new. There has been a generation now raised on them, and that generation is one of the least violent ones in history. Speculation just isn't evidence no matter how much thought you put into it.

 

[Normal Dude]

From his own career experience and from his research, he can probably be regarded as a leading expert on desensitisation. The army, in general, are experts in it as they have deliberately developed sophisticated training regimes with that exact purpose in mind, and the results speak for themselves. During WW2 an estimated 10-15% of combat troops would engage the enemy. By Vietnam, new training techniques had risen that over 90%.

I'm not familiar with Grossman's work and so I'm going to have to ask you: what are examples of these training regimes? I was in the infantry myself and I think the biggest conditioner to killing was the culture fostered within the training unit and the unit itself - we sure never played any flashy simulators or other training gimmicks, just shot at each other with MILES gear (VERY occasionally) and got all riled up to stab dummies with bayonets a couple times. It was peer pressure and a "kill kill kill!" attitude encouraged by superiors and the unit culture, not pointing rifles at human-shaped targets.

ETA: For context, this was relatively recent experience in front-line units.

 

[gumboot]

I don't know how it is in all stores but at Target now they card you if you buy a game. It doesn't matter how old you are. There was a granny in front of me one time and they carded her for a game. Amazing. Anyway I think most retailers are already responsible enough when it comes to not selling youngsters M rated games. The rest is up to the parents. That is unless they just give their kids a credit card. Then they can just go on steam or the PSN or XBL and download whatever they want.

I think it's harder for the USA, in a way, because as I understand it there's only voluntarily age restrictions. Here it's done by the government. If a computer game is set as R16 it's illegal for anyone to allow a child to play it or access it. I do agree though, that ultimately it comes down to the parents. But again, establishing that young children playing violent games can cause real harm would go a long way towards motivating parents to do more about it. Heck, the government could prosecute a parent for neglect if they allow it.

I've never heard of Grossman. I might look into some of what he's said.

I would recommend his book "On Killing" to get a more detailed grounding of what his concerns are. It's just a really fascinating read in general.

I guess I don't understand why his focus is on light gun games? Just because you are holding a peripheral and also happens to be one way how the military/police train?

Basically, yes. His book goes into great detail about the specifics, but basically it's not just "one way how the military train" is a very specific system they developed for the express purpose of overcoming a natural resistance to killing.

What if there was a Kinect game where you pointed your fingers like it was a gun and that was the weapon? Would this also be a danger?

I'm only speculating here but I think Grossman would view such a game as doing the same thing, but not as effectively.

I think most light gun games (especially arcade ones) are not even realistic.

They don't need to be. The systems used by the military are even less realistic in terms of graphic appearance. There's other factors to the "realism" that are more important, but I'll get to that in a moment.

You are mostly fighting terminators, animals (in those abysmal yet endless supply of hunting games) aliens and zombies (oh and ducks if you were a murderous child with a zapper during the NES days). The only ones that comes to mind where you fight people exclusively are Time Crisis and Virtua Cop.

The New Zealand Army shoot at old caricatures of Nazi soldiers, which aren't particularly realistic either. That's not the point.

I don't really get the correlation here. I never seem to hear this kind of outrage when it comes to airsoft or paintball where you are actually firing something that shoots projectiles which hurt other people. They are regarded as fun and recreational sports. Games are, of course, murder simulators though.

This is probably a really good place to outline the reason these games mimic conditioning techniques and why something like airsoft or paintball doesn't have the same effect.

Firstly, just to reiterate, this is only a very basic summary. Grossman's book goes into far more detail.

Basically, a kill simulator needs to follow basic conditioning principles in order to be effective. When it comes to army training, what the military found was that the following basic changes were vital to improving rates of engagement.

1. Human-shaped targets
2. Immediate feedback
3. Target behaviour
4. High repetition rates
5. Ongoing reward and reinforcement
6. Youth

1. is obvious. Historically soldiers practiced by shooting at round or other generic shape targets. Now shooting at human shaped targets is virtually universal.

2. On modern military shooting ranges, when a target is hit it drops down, providing a soldier with immediate feedback of a successful hit. This is different from the old method of repeatedly shooting at the same static target.

3. Relating to 2. on modern sophisticated shooting ranges targets appear randomly and even move, exhibiting behaviour that conditions a rapid reflex response. This conditions soldiers to fire the moment a target appears.

4. Solders spend far, far more time on a gun range now than they did historically. This is because the military realises that repetition is what makes conditioning work.

5. Over and above the immediate feedback of a successful "kill" soldiers receive rewards which reinforce successful killing behaviour. The marksmanship badges are a perfect example.

6. Finally, the military discovered that young people are far, far more susceptible to these conditioning techniques. That's why the average age of a combat soldier in WW2 was 26, but in Vietnam it had dropped to 22.


Your typical modern FPS computer game does all of first five things, and in many cases does them far more effectively than the military training does.


ETA. I forgot to address Paintball games. Crucially, these games don't result in the same level of immediate feedback that a gun range or a computer game does. They also don't offer even remotely the same level of repetition. A typical paintball game might last 45 minutes, and you might be lucky if you score a dozen kills. Even if you play every day, your not performing the kill action anywhere near as frequently. On a shooting range, or in a computer game, you'll clock up hundreds and hundreds of kills in a very short space of time.

 

[Normal Dude]

OK, so I'm guessing that below is the training regime.

Basically, a kill simulator needs to follow basic conditioning principles in order to be effective. When it comes to army training, what the military found was that the following basic changes were vital to improving rates of engagement.

1. Human-shaped targets
2. Immediate feedback
3. Target behaviour
4. High repetition rates
5. Ongoing reward and reinforcement
6. Youth

1. is obvious. Historically soldiers practiced by shooting at round or other generic shape targets. Now shooting at human shaped targets is virtually universal.

2. On modern military shooting ranges, when a target is hit it drops down, providing a soldier with immediate feedback of a successful hit. This is different from the old method of repeatedly shooting at the same static target.

3. Relating to 2. on modern sophisticated shooting ranges targets appear randomly and even move, exhibiting behaviour that conditions a rapid reflex response. This conditions soldiers to fire the moment a target appears.

4. Solders spend far, far more time on a gun range now than they did historically. This is because the military realises that repetition is what makes conditioning work.

5. Over and above the immediate feedback of a successful "kill" soldiers receive rewards which reinforce successful killing behaviour. The marksmanship badges are a perfect example.

6. Finally, the military discovered that young people are far, far more susceptible to these conditioning techniques. That's why the average age of a combat soldier in WW2 was 26, but in Vietnam it had dropped to 22.

I think this is an utterly simplistic view on the subject. If this is how Grossman thinks the military really gets their soldiers to shoot, then I think he has it wrong. Points 1-5 are also equally explained as being better marksmanship training. Yeah, they'll make you a better killer... by making you a better marksman. The real path to overcoming the desire to avoiding killing comes from the super-macho tough guy culture that these units maintain which encourages controlled violence against the enemy. You can liken it to gang behavior if you like - a guy who normally wouldn't do an act on his own might do terrible things if he's got a bunch of friends egging him on or judging him.

 

[gumboot]

I think this is an utterly simplistic view on the subject. If this is how Grossman thinks the military really gets their soldiers to shoot, then I think he has it wrong. Points 1-5 are also equally explained as being better marksmanship training. Yeah, they'll make you a better killer... by making you a better marksman.

You might think that. But the army researched these changes for the specific purpose of improving firing rates after WW2, not to improve accuracy. Combat accuracy in Vietnam was appalling; tens of thousands of rounds fired for every kill, and most engagements at incredibly close range. The purpose was to improve firing rates, not accuracy.

This is not a simplistic view at all. Grossman has written an entire very complex and detailed book on this topic. As I said, what I gave was a very, very simple summary.

The real path to overcoming the desire to avoiding killing comes from the super-macho tough guy culture that these units maintain which encourages controlled violence against the enemy. You can liken it to gang behavior if you like - a guy who normally wouldn't do an act on his own might do terrible things if he's got a bunch of friends egging him on or judging him.

This is another part of the process, which Grossman also discusses in detail in his book. We see the same culture in gaming. Believe me, I know. My brother is a very hardcore gamer - in fact I believe currently he's the best Quake 3 player in the entire country - and I've listened to him playing. There's absolutely the same super-macho tough-guy culture which reinforces the violence. And another important factor is desensitisation - showing soldiers video of horrific violence and so forth, which is pretty routine in military training. Grossman covers that in his book too.

 

[Policenaut]

I see where he's coming from. It's more rational than I was thinking. I see how someone could argue for these correlations. I still don't agree with it but it is logical and there are several similarities. I'll probably check out some of his writings tomorrow. From that list yeah these things fit with fps/light gun games but they also fit with plenty of other game genres.

1 - Human shaped enemies are universal but again not the only thing you shoot at in fps/light gun games. Cabelas just released a shotgun peripheral/bear hunting game. Also the violence in most of these games is over the top and/or stylized. Of course the military type games are usually more realistic but then again they are trying to emulate real life, not Duke Nukem killing pig cops. It's definitely "realistic" though for some of the most popular games like CoD.

2 - Feedback is also immediate on just about any game I can think of. We even have rumble effects. I guess that is desensitizing kids to recoil?

3 - Smart AI that reacts to your actions? This is yet again in every video game though the effectiveness is highly variable.

4 - Kids do spend lots of time playing games. But video games are relatively new. 18 year olds going to Vietnam never even had a chance to play something as basic as pong. Now video games are a given luxury for many kids and they've been playing since they could hold a controller. I haven't seen an increase in murderous youth. Repetition is standard especially in online games like Counterstrike or CoD. Can't argue with this. But repetition is also standard in racing games and MMOs and RPGS plenty of other genres.

I think everything here that is being attributed to "murder/killing simulators" relates to many games. Now because in a FPS you are killing people or shooting them with a light gun you are desensitized to the point that you could kill humans just like that? I think the real difference is that these training games/simulations for the military are all part of a lengthy process to take away or control reaction/emotion. These people are going to be in constant danger and being prepped to shoot real enemies and expect their friends and even they themselves very possibly could die in the conflict. It's life and death. The average gamer plays for fun, to let off steam or maybe because we are competitive. People aren't playing CoD to train for real life killing. And if they are then they belong in a psychiatric ward. Though this does bring up a point. If the military training games are so lackluster compared to consumer games why don't they commission Treyarch or some other developer to make a highly polished and realistic game for them (and they can leave out the perks and killstreaks)? So I guess my point is that I don't see fps/light gun games leading to murder much like I don't see GTA causing people to pillage, rape, and murder just for the fun of it.

5 - Rewards have been in games forever. Take your pick be it unlocks or powerups or trophies or achievements. And in the arcade heydays the reward for your repetition/skills was you spending less quarters and having your initials immortalized.

This kind of feels like that ******** scene in The Last Samurai when Tom Cruise stands in front of the japanese soldier he's training and tells him to shoot him which he obviously refuses to. Of course he wasn't going to shoot his instructor. But if Cruise got out of the way and plopped down a samurai in his place the solider would have likely shot him instantly. If you put a kid in front of an arcade cabinet and hand him a plastic gun and tell him to shoot the bad guy on the screen they would probably without hesitation before you even told them why. If you gave them a real, loaded gun and told them to shoot their best friend I think the reaction would be different. I think this point was actually made really well in an episode of P&T BS. They get a young kid who really likes fps games and have him shoot some kind of large gun at a target range. After one shot he starts crying and doesn't want to shoot it anymore. The rational people (which is 99.9% of us I think...just guessing) get the difference and while we may be desensitized and even conditioned to unflinchingly play these "murder simulators" we are not automatically perfect automaton real world killing machines that have detached actions and consequences and now disregard human life.

 

[Normal Dude]

You might think that. But the army researched these changes for the specific purpose of improving firing rates after WW2, not to improve accuracy. Combat accuracy in Vietnam was appalling; tens of thousands of rounds fired for every kill, and most engagements at incredibly close range. The purpose was to improve firing rates, not accuracy.

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. The training program supposedly didn't improve accuracy, therefore it was meant to condition to kill? Points 1-5 all also can be explained by a better program for marksmanship. Heck, the moving target course is very rare. I did it just once in basic training. Just because guys shot like crap in Vietnam (those numbers also sound very fishy to me with zero context around them) doesn't mean it wasn't the intent of the program.

This is another part of the process, which Grossman also discusses in detail in his book. We see the same culture in gaming. Believe me, I know. My brother is a very hardcore gamer - in fact I believe currently he's the best Quake 3 player in the entire country - and I've listened to him playing. There's absolutely the same super-macho tough-guy culture which reinforces the violence.

No, they aren't even close to the same. Not even close. And I have traveled in both circles. Gamers talking crap and verbally high-fiving over teamspeak and ventrilo is so different from the culture of a military unit... that I don't even know where to start. Everything.

And another important factor is desensitisation - showing soldiers video of horrific violence and so forth, which is pretty routine in military training. .

No, it isn't routine. The worst thing I was ever shown was a goat collapsing after being exposed to nerve gas. And I have never had anyone tell me about any messed up videos they were shown as part of training. As far as I am concerned, it is a myth in the current day.

Let's review my first hand experience in the matter:
- No videos of violence. Or shooting. Or anything like that. The only videos we watched were of some nerve gas and wrestling.
- During rifle training, all focus was on shooter accuracy.
- No gadgets or programs or simulators or anything representing humans.
- LOTS of verbal encouragement to kill from authority figures.
- LOTS of peer pressure to perform to expectations.
- LOTS of hands-on training so that when the time came to do the dirty deed our roiling emotions wouldn't mess up our performance as much.
The above three are what worked in the two combat tours I did. Overwhelmingly.

That was our conditioning. If they did it the way you describe before my time for that intended purpose, then they were wrong and have since rescinded that "conditioning".

 

[gumboot]

1 - Human shaped enemies are universal but again not the only thing you shoot at in fps/light gun games. Cabelas just released a shotgun peripheral/bear hunting game. Also the violence in most of these games is over the top and/or stylized. Of course the military type games are usually more realistic but then again they are trying to emulate real life, not Duke Nukem killing pig cops. It's definitely "realistic" though for some of the most popular games like CoD.

I think the violence aspect relates to a separate issue, which is desensitisation. Traditional military shooting range techniques that we're discussing here don't involve any violence at all. Often the targets don't even depict a face - they're just human shaped (this actually goes into another realm entirely which is dehumanising the enemy).

2 - Feedback is also immediate on just about any game I can think of. We even have rumble effects. I guess that is desensitizing kids to recoil?

Just to clarify again, this process isn't desensitising people, it's conditioning them to shoot at and kill people. Many of these features exist in other games, but those other games aren't conditioning people to shoot and kill so they're not relevant.

3 - Smart AI that reacts to your actions? This is yet again in every video game though the effectiveness is highly variable.

Other way around. It doesn't need to be smart AI at all. It just needs to be seemingly random activity which the shooter reacts to. At it's most basic level in military reactive shooting training an instructor calls out random numbers for targets to be shot at in sequence. The purpose is to condition the response time so that it's so quick, the shooter doesn't even think about what they're doing, they just react. The same thing happens in sport. If we take cricket, a fast bowler will send a delivery down the pitch at speeds in excess of 160km/h. It's a biological fact that a batsman is already committed to playing a specific shot before the ball has even been released from the bowler's hand. No conscious decision is actually made. They just react. And if they've been trained well they'll react the right way.

4 - Kids do spend lots of time playing games. But video games are relatively new. 18 year olds going to Vietnam never even had a chance to play something as basic as pong. Now video games are a given luxury for many kids and they've been playing since they could hold a controller. I haven't seen an increase in murderous youth.

Grossman likens it to a safety on a gun. We're all born with a safety. Conditioning removes the safety. Removing the safety on a gun doesn't make it fire, but it does make it more dangerous. More importantly, the military trainers deliberately removed the safety and they're only just starting to discover the consequences of that and how to deal with it. Initially they just blundered ahead and removed the safety without thinking through what would happen, and it destroyed an entire generation of veterans.

If Grossman's theory is correct we have an entire generation of young people whose safety has been unintentionally removed. The repercussions could be severe, and that's what he's really warning about.

I think everything here that is being attributed to "murder/killing simulators" relates to many games. Now because in a FPS you are killing people or shooting them with a light gun you are desensitized to the point that you could kill humans just like that?

No. They condition killing as an automatic response and remove the natural "safety" that makes it difficult for a person to normally kill another person.

I think the real difference is that these training games/simulations for the military are all part of a lengthy process to take away or control reaction/emotion.

Somewhat. It makes killing an instinctive response.

These people are going to be in constant danger and being prepped to shoot real enemies and expect their friends and even they themselves very possibly could die in the conflict. It's life and death.

This is one of the first things Grossman presents in his book, after the "non-firers through history" argument. He makes a pretty solid case for the argument that "shell shock" or PTSD in soldiers is primarily a result of being required to kill and not a result of having their own lives or those of their comrades imperiled.

The military has had "battlefield" training in place for much, much longer, which prepares soldiers for the noise and chaos and so forth of the battlefield. And they still use that in today's training with things like live-fire obstacle courses. This is a separate and specific issue relating to soldiers refusing to fire their weapons at the enemy. This problem was identified after WW2, and the regime I've described was developed specifically to address that problem.

As Normal Dude pointed out, it does have other benefits as well, but that's not what it was developed for.

The average gamer plays for fun, to let off steam or maybe because we are competitive. People aren't playing CoD to train for real life killing.

Grossman makes it clear that the disabling of that natural safety is an unintended consequence of these games. The features I've described exist for obvious and innocent reasons that relate directly to more enjoyable game play. Grossman is merely arguing that they have other, unintended but potentially serious consequences, and that we should bear that in mind.

I don't think motive has much to do with the effectiveness of the conditioning, really. Historically soldiers were always training for war and real life killing in life and death situations, and yet they still wouldn't fire their guns at the enemy - an enemy that was trying to kill them. Even soldiers with every reason to fire, have found themselves, in the heat of battle, unable to do so.

If the military training games are so lackluster compared to consumer games why don't they commission Treyarch or some other developer to make a highly polished and realistic game for them (and they can leave out the perks and killstreaks)?

Again I think you've missed the point. The purpose of these methods is not desensitisation - the military do that with videos, which are far more realistic than computer games. In fact they are real, sometimes. It's about conditioning. Conditioning doesn't need to look highly realistic, because it's about enacting certain basic operations with simple physical mechanisms.

For what it's worth, though, the US Army at least, has been putting large amounts of money into highly realistic war simulator games for the purpose of training.

So I guess my point is that I don't see fps/light gun games leading to murder much like I don't see GTA causing people to pillage, rape, and murder just for the fun of it.

Again the misunderstanding. The game conditions a person to kill. If you like it enables them. It doesn't motivate them to kill. And a game like GTA doesn't have the same configuration so doesn't have the same effect.

5 - Rewards have been in games forever. Take your pick be it unlocks or powerups or trophies or achievements. And in the arcade heydays the reward for your repetition/skills was you spending less quarters and having your initials immortalized.

Yes. I know.

This kind of feels like that ******** scene in The Last Samurai when Tom Cruise stands in front of the japanese soldier he's training and tells him to shoot him which he obviously refuses to. Of course he wasn't going to shoot his instructor. But if Cruise got out of the way and plopped down a samurai in his place the solider would have likely shot him instantly. If you put a kid in front of an arcade cabinet and hand him a plastic gun and tell him to shoot the bad guy on the screen they would probably without hesitation before you even told them why. If you gave them a real, loaded gun and told them to shoot their best friend I think the reaction would be different. I think this point was actually made really well in an episode of P&T BS. They get a young kid who really likes fps games and have him shoot some kind of large gun at a target range. After one shot he starts crying and doesn't want to shoot it anymore. The rational people (which is 99.9% of us I think...just guessing) get the difference and while we may be desensitized and even conditioned to unflinchingly play these "murder simulators" we are not automatically perfect automaton real world killing machines that have detached actions and consequences and now disregard human life.

Again, that's not the argument. All the conditioning does is remove the safeguard. What it means is when it comes to it, at that moment of when the person has the gun pointed at their intended victim, when they're looking in their eyes and about to pull the trigger, and they've decided the person has to die, odds are with an unconditioned person they won't be able to pull that trigger. Even if it means saving their own life, they won't be able to do it. The natural resistance is too great.

However if they've been conditioned by these techniques, if that safeguard has been released, when that moment comes and they've decided the person has to die, they'll pull that trigger without batting an eyelid.

I think I can illustrate this using a familiar theme - guns in society. I like illustrations.

Imagine a society where no one has a gun. Not a single person. They just don't exist. Everyone goes about their days gun-less.

Now imagine every single person in society is walking around with a loaded gun on their hip 24/7. Everywhere they go. Everyone. All the time.

Now, having a gun on your hip doesn't turn you into a homicidal killer. Having a gun on your hip doesn't magically make you want to kill anyone. Having that gun there can't compel you to use it.

But the second society is undoubtedly more dangerous. That doesn't mean it shouldn't necessarily happen - in some gun control threads that's exactly how some people seem to think society should be. But if everyone is walking around with a loaded gun on their hip it's probably a good idea that everyone knows that, and you'll probably find that laws will change and people's behaviour will change.

 

[gumboot]

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. The training program supposedly didn't improve accuracy, therefore it was meant to condition to kill?

I'm telling you why they implemented it, and I'm telling you how effective it was. If you don't believe it you'll need to do better than your own personal incredulity. I've already cited my source, repeatedly. This isn't something I invented.

No, they aren't even close to the same. Not even close. And I have traveled in both circles. Gamers talking crap and verbally high-fiving over teamspeak and ventrilo is so different from the culture of a military unit... that I don't even know where to start. Everything.

I've found it to be quite similar. Actually I've found it to be quite disturbingly similar at times. In fact it's a common topic that crops up whenever a video comes out of some US military war crime.

For computer gamers it might be ironic, while for soldiers they might think it's "real", but more importantly, the psychology behind it is identical. The last episode of the TV series Generation Kill has an audio interview with one of the soldiers (one of the actual soldiers, not a cast member) during the end credits in which they discuss the very topic and describe what I consider to be a very perceptive explanation for their distinct macho culture. It's not even remotely unique to the military. Exaggerated maybe, but in essence it's basic inter-male interaction that has existed forever. And it has always served the same purpose; loyalty to the group.

No, it isn't routine. The worst thing I was ever shown was a goat collapsing after being exposed to nerve gas. And I have never had anyone tell me about any messed up videos they were shown as part of training. As far as I am concerned, it is a myth in the current day.

Maybe the army's decided you're all so desensitised from movies and video games they don't need to bother any more...

Let's review my first hand experience in the matter:
- No videos of violence. Or shooting. Or anything like that. The only videos we watched were of some nerve gas and wrestling.

Okay.

- During rifle training, all focus was on shooter accuracy.

You've never shot on a non-static range, on a reactive range, with silhouette targets, with pop-up targets, anything like that?

I'm not calling you a liar, just clarifying. If you haven't, I'm quite surprised.

- LOTS of verbal encouragement to kill from authority figures.

That's another issue altogether.

- LOTS of peer pressure to perform to expectations.

Part of it.

- LOTS of hands-on training so that when the time came to do the dirty deed our roiling emotions wouldn't mess up our performance as much.
The above three are what worked in the two combat tours I did. Overwhelmingly.

That was our conditioning. If they did it the way you describe before my time for that intended purpose, then they were wrong and have since rescinded that "conditioning".

Well it's possible they have, although I can find a plethora of stuff online that seems to clearly indicate they haven't, and I know for a fact our own military hasn't.

Without knowing more specifics about the nature of your training and service it's hard to really comment, and that's not information I feel I have any right to, nor that you should disclose.

The real problem, however, comes back, in a circular way, to this notion that gamers claim they aren't desensitised. You say that all of your rifle range work was entirely focused on accuracy. It certainly might have seemed that way. The army might even want you to think that's what happening. But that doesn't mean it's true.

Let me just ask you a couple of questions. I'd be grateful if you could answer.

1) Do you think humans have a natural resistance to killing other humans, that is difficult to overcome?
2) If yes, do you think this resistance has been disabled in you?
3) If yes again, when and how do you think this happened?

 

[Stray Cat]

I'm telling you why they implemented it, and I'm telling you how effective it was. If you don't believe it you'll need to do better than your own personal incredulity. I've already cited my source, repeatedly. This isn't something I invented.

I don't see the problem here with a programme designed to make people more effective killing machines in the military actually making people more effective killing machines in the military.

This is however a whole universe away from engaging in the fantasy of playing a game for fun and recreation and to compare an organisation that is specifically training killers to a group of people who like playing games is not really valid. If it were, then we would be able to see studies that correlate game playing to real world violence.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Gumboot. I appreciate your posts. It is an interesting concept to consider. Personally I suspect there is a major flaw in Grossman's ideas. He has proposed a mechanism but has found no correlation. Many elements of both military training and vidoe game playing may in fact be similar. My military experiences are completely vicarious through friends as I have no interest in joining. My experience in video games I feel is adequate, though not immune to confirmation bias.

When playing video games I think there is one major factor that is lacking that exists within a military training regime. An intentional connection to future activities. When one joins the military they do so with, usually, full understanding one may find themself in life or death live fire situations. This understanding may not be at the forefront of the thought process during the training, but it is there. One knows that these practices are for the future possibility of killing someone. The same does not generally exist for video games. When I play an FPS I do not suspect my mind is processing it in a way that would be applicable to a situation where I am acting violent towards another person. Video games produced by military departments usually come in two flavors. Training and recruitment. They have different mentalities when played. Though I could imagine a prospective recruit who decides to join the military to begin treating the recruitment enterprises as training enterprises. At this point the intention could add that factor I suspect is missing.

Additionally and possibly more powerful is the reflexes trained in video are quite different from those of the similarly designed training regimes. After playing a violent video game for two days straight my reaction would be to pull the right shoulder button, not squeeze the trigger. The type of reflexives being trained may be the same and require the same class of instinctual cognitive responses, but the physical responses are very different. This does leave room open for light gun games to possibly fall within Grossman's speculation. Has there been an actual study done on light gun games in specific? They tend to be more rare in my experience.

Lastly, as said above video game violence has desensitized me to video game violence. Or more accurately, fictional violence.Which is tied to my first point. I am unaware of any credible studies that have managed to link video game violance to actual acts of violence. If video game violence could be more accurately tied to actual violence we might see correllation. No one knows since there are very clear reminders of the fantasy situation of video games. Reminders that are unlikely to disappear in the near future.

As is my conjecture is based on my personal experience and my understanding of what studies have been done on video games in particular. Grossman's conjecture is not necessarily dismissable as being implausible, but without data supporting that it is happening we need a stronger support for his proposed mechanisms applying equally to video games as it does to training regiments where the soldiers are explicitly there to train to kill.

 

[Cuddles]

You're right, and I suppose I shouldn't let myself be swayed so much by that single experience. I blame empathy. On the other hand, this is a somewhat unique scenario. The colloquial usage of "gay" has literally nothing to do with the insulting usage of it. The colloquial usage of "rape" in online gaming is pretty much unchanged from the original, excluding the sexual undertone. It still means violated/dominated/etc. This is a unique transformation in meaning since it's essentially just excising one portion of the original meaning. I'm not personally offended by it, but I do think that viewed by outsiders, it could be perceived as callous or what have you.

Well, I was writing a post to say how I disagreed and thought that "gay" and "rape" were similar, but in doing so I managed to convince myself otherwise. I still disagree to some extent - the meaning of "gay" as "bad" comes directly from homosexuality being seen as a bad thing, just as using "rape" to mean "dominated" comes from domination being an integral part of rape.

However, there's an important difference not in the new usage of the word, but in the original. Rape is still generally considered a bad thing, so the new meaning still holds a direct connection to the original meaning. With "gay", on the other hand, society has changed so that being gay is no longer seen as necessarily bad, so the new meaning no longer has that direct connection to the original.

Edit: Yes, I realise that some people do consider homosexuality to be bad. But things have still changed very much from the time being gay was a criminal act that could have you committed to an asylum indefinitely. The change is far from complete, but still very much evident.

I don't believe that's what I said at all. I don't think you read my post properly.

This isn't what I said at all. Please re-read my post.

Weird. You claim I didn't read your post properly, then repeat exactly what I said. Let's have a look at one of your next posts:

I don't know.

One would presume there would need to be some sort of objective way of determining desensitisation.

You don't know what being desensitised would look like, and you have no idea if there's even a way to find out if it exists. In other words, your idea of desensitisation has absolutely no effect on how people actually act, and no evidence to support its existence. Just as I said. Actually, The Fallen Serpent says it best:

Personally I suspect there is a major flaw in Grossman's ideas. He has proposed a mechanism but has found no correlation.

Couldn't (and didn't) say it better myself. What you have is a plausible-sounding idea of what could happen. What you lack is any evidence that it is actually the case. Being a skeptical sort of person, I reject your idea until such time as evidence is provided to support it.

 

[Stray Cat]

However, there's an important difference not in the new usage of the word, but in the original. Rape is still generally considered a bad thing, so the new meaning still holds a direct connection to the original meaning. With "gay", on the other hand, society has changed so that being gay is no longer seen as necessarily bad, so the new meaning no longer has that direct connection to the original.

I think this still doesn't go far enough.
The original use of the word gay had nothing to do with homosexuality, but simply meant 'happy'. The word has transformed so much that it's original useage can not be used (except ironically) in it's original context so the word has really transformed by popular use, then as you rightly say, it's gone on another transformation from someone being gay (either happy or homosexual), to something being gay (as in bad, poor quality).

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

*Scans with sarcasm detector...Readings ambiguous*

No. No sarcasm there, sir

 

[Darat]

I think this still doesn't go far enough.
The original use of the word gay had nothing to do with homosexuality, but simply meant 'happy'. The word has transformed so much that it's original useage can not be used (except ironically) in it's original context so the word has really transformed by popular use, then as you rightly say, it's gone on another transformation from someone being gay (either happy or homosexual), to something being gay (as in bad, poor quality).

Well the reason gay became a synonym for homosexual is more than likely tied into one of the century long meanings of the word gay. Most people today are still aware of one of the other meanings (the "full of joy/mirth") but there was also the sense of (quoting from the OED print) "Addicted to social pleasure and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose or immoral life. Esp in gay dog a man givien to revelling or self-indulgence". - Always find it funny (and not aiming this at you) those who complain that "the homosexuals have taken over the word" given its meanings over the years.

 

[Stray Cat]

I just mourn the loss of the Famous Five and Secret Seven being able to go off for the day on an adventure and have a gay time with lashings of ginger beer.

I guess my life isn't all messed up by playing violent games if I can still appreciate a bit of Edin Blyton.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Ever since Dig Dug came out I've had the urge to pump gophers full of air until they explode.

I thought you were going to say that you "had the urge to penetrate a dirty manhole"

At least, back when Dig Dug came out that's what apparently upset all the moral majority types

 

[gumboot]

I don't see the problem here with a programme designed to make people more effective killing machines in the military actually making people more effective killing machines in the military.

This is however a whole universe away from engaging in the fantasy of playing a game for fun and recreation and to compare an organisation that is specifically training killers to a group of people who like playing games is not really valid. If it were, then we would be able to see studies that correlate game playing to real world violence.

The point being made is that the same features that make the programme so effective are also present in certain computer games.

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot. I appreciate your posts. It is an interesting concept to consider. Personally I suspect there is a major flaw in Grossman's ideas. He has proposed a mechanism but has found no correlation. Many elements of both military training and vidoe game playing may in fact be similar. My military experiences are completely vicarious through friends as I have no interest in joining. My experience in video games I feel is adequate, though not immune to confirmation bias.

I think the big problem with Grossman's hypothesis is that it can't actually be tested, at least not ethically. Basically his argument can be broken down as follows. I'll identify where he provides a case, and where it starts to fall apart for him.

1. Humans have a natural resistance to killing - I think he makes a solid case for this
2. The resistance is incredibly strong and difficult to overcome - again, he makes an excellent case for this
3. This resistance proves a problem for the military - this is simple logic
4. The military investigated how to address this problem - again, a well made case
5. The military developed a system for disabling the resistance - again, well made case
6. The system proved highly effective - again, clearly demonstrated
7. Certain computer games mimic the same system - I aren't sure I explained myself sufficiently, but I think he makes a good case for this too in his work
8. Therefore these games also disable the resistance in gamers

The last is a logical conclusion based on accepting 1-7, but there's no actual independent evidence to support it that I'm aware of. Basically the only way you could really test it is to get gamers and non-gamers to kill people. Obviously not particularly ethical!

It becomes a problematic issue, because if he's right it's a serious issue that needs addressing, but obviously if he's not right there's no need to do anything. Once we realise it's impossible to actually prove it, then what?

However, there's also room for some of 1-7 to be wrong, which would automatically undermine 8. For me, the obvious point is 6 and 7. It could be there's other aspects of the military training that Grossman has missed, which are missing in computer games. It could be computer games feature aspects that neutralise the features found in 6. It could be the particulars of why the system works in 6 are actually minute little details that no one understands. Maybe the configuration has to be just right.

They're all possibilities. Like I say, I am not 100% behind his point of view at all.

When playing video games I think there is one major factor that is lacking that exists within a military training regime. An intentional connection to future activities. When one joins the military they do so with, usually, full understanding one may find themself in life or death live fire situations. This understanding may not be at the forefront of the thought process during the training, but it is there. One knows that these practices are for the future possibility of killing someone. The same does not generally exist for video games. When I play an FPS I do not suspect my mind is processing it in a way that would be applicable to a situation where I am acting violent towards another person. Video games produced by military departments usually come in two flavors. Training and recruitment. They have different mentalities when played. Though I could imagine a prospective recruit who decides to join the military to begin treating the recruitment enterprises as training enterprises. At this point the intention could add that factor I suspect is missing.

This is a valid point, and it's what I'm referring to above. As you describe could be one of those unaccounted features that's present in the military training system that isn't present in games. It could be the (or a) crucial factor that makes all the difference.

Obviously Grossman doesn't think it does, and I can see his point; soldiers have always known their training was intended to one day be used in warfare to take lives, but this didn't stop them from refraining from firing when the time came.

It could be that knowledge needs to be used in conjunction with the training system. Or it could be that knowledge has no bearing and it's the training system alone that makes the difference.

Additionally and possibly more powerful is the reflexes trained in video are quite different from those of the similarly designed training regimes. After playing a violent video game for two days straight my reaction would be to pull the right shoulder button, not squeeze the trigger.

Well this is another aspect up for discussion, but I do want to point out that Grossman does address this. That's why he specifically identifies light-gun FPS games as his biggest concern. He clearly things the interface is a component in the entire process.

Mechanically speaking, I can see how pulling a trigger and pushing a controller button are quite different, and on that point, I think Grossman would agree that the process isn't quite the same. But on a psychological level the difference between pulling a trigger and pushing a button is pretty insignificant.

Lastly, as said above video game violence has desensitized me to video game violence. Or more accurately, fictional violence.Which is tied to my first point. I am unaware of any credible studies that have managed to link video game violance to actual acts of violence. If video game violence could be more accurately tied to actual violence we might see correllation. No one knows since there are very clear reminders of the fantasy situation of video games. Reminders that are unlikely to disappear in the near future.

Just holding you up for a moment. It's really crucial here that we maintain the distinction between the different aspects of what's being debated here. Conditioning (removing the safe guard) is not desensitisation is not violent action.

They're separate issues.

You can be conditioned to kill without being desensitised to violence, and you can be desensitised to violence without being conditioned to kill. You can also actually be violent without being desensitised or being conditioned, and you can be conditioned and be desensitised without being violent.

They collectively (at least in theory), contribute to violence, but you can't jump on one and use it to reject the others. For example you say:

If video game violence could be more accurately tied to actual violence we might see correllation.

But you're jumping the gun here. You've missed the vital step which is desensitisation. There are plenty of studies that have made it clear that exposure to violence in media and computer games causes real-world desensitisation to violence.

There's also plenty of studies that make it clear that desensitisation to real-world violence is linked to increased violent behaviour. But that's just one factor.

To break it down as a logical fomula...

I'm saying:

If X
and If Y
then Z

You're asking for

If A, then Z

Grossman's conjecture is not necessarily dismissable as being implausible, but without data supporting that it is happening we need a stronger support for his proposed mechanisms applying equally to video games as it does to training regiments where the soldiers are explicitly there to train to kill.

I'd agree with this. I guess my main thing is that Grossman's entire idea of this resistance to killing and conditioning to remove the resistance is pretty new - as far as I know his book is the first to actually present that notion as a cohesive theory. If the theory has merit, and I think it does, it has quite significant implications for our society, and the sort of studies that will shed more light on the issue should be given priority.

If you like, I see Grossman's work as serving to say "hey guys, this could be serious, we need to look into this". I don't think it's the final word by any measure.

But because it offers a distinctly separate way of approaching killing (and something I really want to underscore here is that Grossman's work is specifically about killing, not violence in general, and he has identified killing behaviour as distinctly different to general violence), it means that in order to investigate this idea we have to develop distinctly different ways of approaching the issue.