Video Game Rape Fest

[Normal Dude]

I'm telling you why they implemented it, and I'm telling you how effective it was.

I haven't seen any evidence to convince me of such. "Buy Grossman's book and read it " isn't very convincing to me.

I've found it to be quite similar.

No. They. Aren't. I'm honestly baffled that you can make this claim with a straight face.

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

I think you misunderstand me. Having to hit moving targets, and pop-up targets and the like is all part of building good marksmanship and combat skills. In real life the targets don't resemble a stationary range target that just sits there and let you shoot it, so solely learning to shoot at stationary range targets is not very good preparation.

I have yet to see any convincing evidence here that the moving silhouette targets that pop down when you shoot them were expressly introduced for the purpose of desensitizing people to kill. I find the idea silly because there are plenty of far better ways to do it, ones I've already pointed out. Even if they were, then it didn't work well and they kept the training tools around because they are good training tools for combat skills.

As far as the pop-up targets. The pop-up targets we usually used were large squares, circles, triangles, and Xs (as in, not very human-like at all). You were told that some of these shapes were "friendly" and some weren't, and etc. You had to make a snap decision whether to shoot or not, because on the battlefield that is an important skill. That is training to build marksmanship and combat skills, not some sneaky way to desensitize us.

That's another issue altogether.

The point I'm trying to get across is that this is how they actually get people ready to kill, and it is not via silhouette targets. Whatever operant conditioning effect that has is very small compared to the above.

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.

I'm not sure what this is in reference to.

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.

Doesn't mean it isn't true either, and I see nothing to convince me of it. Also, there is absolutely no reason to HIDE the desire to train people to kill. Anyone signing up for the infantry knows that that is what their job is. They talk about it all the time, and how you need to kill the enemy, etc. This isn't something they need to sneaky about. They are verbally encouraging it all the time. That, coming from an authority figure, is way more compelling than a silhouette target.

 

[gumboot]

I haven't seen any evidence to convince me of such. "Buy Grossman's book and read it " isn't very convincing to me.

You do realise how silly this sounds?

No. They. Aren't. I'm honestly baffled that you can make this claim with a straight face.

I guess we'll have to just disagree.

I think you misunderstand me. Having to hit moving targets, and pop-up targets and the like is all part of building good marksmanship and combat skills. In real life the targets don't resemble a stationary range target that just sits there and let you shoot it, so solely learning to shoot at stationary range targets is not very good preparation.

I have yet to see any convincing evidence here that the moving silhouette targets that pop down when you shoot them were expressly introduced for the purpose of desensitizing people to kill. I find the idea silly because there are plenty of far better ways to do it, ones I've already pointed out. Even if they were, then it didn't work well and they kept the training tools around because they are good training tools for combat skills.

I've bolded where you've utterly failed to grasp what I've been saying this entire time. Please go back and re-read my comments and respond once you know what I'm actually talking about, because right now you clearly don't.

As far as the pop-up targets. The pop-up targets we usually used were large squares, circles, triangles, and Xs (as in, not very human-like at all). You were told that some of these shapes were "friendly" and some weren't, and etc. You had to make a snap decision whether to shoot or not, because on the battlefield that is an important skill. That is training to build marksmanship and combat skills, not some sneaky way to desensitize us.

I've bolded where you've utterly failed to grasp what I've been saying this entire time. Please go back and re-read my comments and respond once you know what I'm actually talking about, because right now you clearly don't.

The point I'm trying to get across is that this is how they actually get people ready to kill, and it is not via silhouette targets. Whatever operant conditioning effect that has is very small compared to the above.

Just because you think that a particular exercise has a particular purpose doesn't mean you're right, nor that it's the only or even the primary purpose.

I'm inclined to accept the study of an expert in combat psychology over individual testimony of a regular soldier.

Doesn't mean it isn't true either, and I see nothing to convince me of it.

Of course not. You won't look at the evidence. You said so yourself at the top of this post.

Also, there is absolutely no reason to HIDE the desire to train people to kill.

An obvious reason would be if the conditioning process works better when soldiers don't know it's happening. Another could be that until very recently the military wasn't even entirely sure what was happening; they just knew it worked.

Anyone signing up for the infantry knows that that is what their job is. They talk about it all the time, and how you need to kill the enemy, etc. This isn't something they need to sneaky about. They are verbally encouraging it all the time. That, coming from an authority figure, is way more compelling than a silhouette target.

And yet, before those silhouette targets were introduced, when infantry knew what their job was, when they talked about it all the time and how you needed to kill the enemy and were verbally encouraged all the time by an authority figure... those infantry still wouldn't kill the enemy. Once the silhouette target was introduced (amongst other things), they would.

What's your explanation?

 

[Policenaut]

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

If he is purely limiting this talk to light gun games then he is studying a very narrow subset of games. Light gun games have been on life support for a long time now. And even back when they were popular in the arcade there were few very few home light gun games. Only very recently are they starting to slightly come back and this is because of the wii and ps move.

So after thinking for a while I think there might be a way to test his theory. It's not perfect but it's better than just a theory (a dangerous theory I think for video game fans if it was proven). Take 50 people. Put 25 through military or something closely resembling military training for a period of weeks. They are training for a skirmish with an unidentified hostile army. Have the other 25 train for the same thing but take the military spec training out of it. Teach them the same thing as the other group but in a more casual, civilian way (say lectures and gym instead of violent videos and brutal timed physical tasks). Both groups will do their shooting training on the same game. Now put them in a staged skirmish (I've seen some on the Discovery channel when they were showing Ranger training...something like that). Compare the performances. Run the experiment however many times until there is a decent amount of data to draw a conclusion.

Now this is obviously an imperfect attempt to prove his theory but I think if he can't prove it then it's just speculation. And obviously you can't prove it using real soldiers in a real situation but this would at least be vaguely analogous. Maybe this is not a realistic test but if there is a way to test this I would like to see it tested. If we can spend $400,000 on peanut research then we can spend that much for this.

 

[gumboot]

If he is purely limiting this talk to light gun games then he is studying a very narrow subset of games. Light gun games have been on life support for a long time now. And even back when they were popular in the arcade there were few very few home light gun games. Only very recently are they starting to slightly come back and this is because of the wii and ps move.

I have to confess I'm not sure what the particulars of his stance are on this. My main interest in reading his book was about the psychology of killing and the historic aspect of warfare, rather than any application to the modern era. My understanding, however, is that he sees all FPS games as an issue, but lightgun games in particular.

This is further confused because he also addresses desensitisation as a separate issue, which includes all forms of media violence.

So after thinking for a while I think there might be a way to test his theory. It's not perfect but it's better than just a theory (a dangerous theory I think for video game fans if it was proven). Take 50 people. Put 25 through military or something closely resembling military training for a period of weeks. They are training for a skirmish with an unidentified hostile army. Have the other 25 train for the same thing but take the military spec training out of it. Teach them the same thing as the other group but in a more casual, civilian way (say lectures and gym instead of violent videos and brutal timed physical tasks). Both groups will do their shooting training on the same game. Now put them in a staged skirmish (I've seen some on the Discovery channel when they were showing Ranger training...something like that). Compare the performances. Run the experiment however many times until there is a decent amount of data to draw a conclusion.

I'm not sure what you could hope to test with this. The matter being discussed is the resistance to killing. Unless you make the two groups try actually kill each other, you're not going to be able to test that. I suppose you could put them all through that training and then send all of them out hunting and see who was willing to shoot an animal, but even that isn't particularly useful because the resistance specifically relates to killing other humans.

The only scenario that would work is if each test subject was put in a situation where they believed they needed to kill someone. Then you could measure which group was more likely to pull the trigger. Of course you'd also need a control group which had not undertaken any of the conditioning training at all.

So group A undertakes the standard military kill conditioning techniques I've outlined (not full military training, as that would result in skill sets beyond kill conditioning which might affect the outcome).

Group B spends the same time playing FPS computer games.

Group C is a control group of people who have had no firearms training and do not regularly play FPS computer games.

Somehow create a scenario for each individual subject, in which they believe they are genuinely required to kill another human being (herein lies the unethical bit, even if it's fake, it only works if they aren't expecting it, and think it's real). Maybe you arm them with a blank firearm, telling them it's live, and then stage a home invasion or something.

If Grossman's hypothesis is correct most in Group C will fail to fire the weapon. In groups A and B there will be a statistically significant difference from Group C with (presumably) a large number, if not all, firing the weapon. I would personally expect a further distinction in that those in group A would be more likely to fire than those in group B, but both A and B would be more significantly likely to fire than group C.

This sort of experiment would test the hypothesis quite well, but would be incredibly difficult to implement and highly unethical.

Another alternative would be to do a military study and train three sets of recruits, one by traditional methods, another replacing computer games with standard military conditioning techniques, and the third by excluding kill conditioning training completely. All other aspects of their military training would need to be kept the same (fire and maneuver, weapon proficiency, radio communication, blah blah blah) then sticking them in combat and seeing which soldiers are more likely to fire.

Again, that's a really stupid study. If the hypothesis is right you've put the third group in grave danger. If the hypothesis is wrong you've put both the second and third group in grave danger (not to mention the wider consequences of sticking improperly trained soldiers in a warzone). It would also be impractical because you'd need to separate out the kill conditioning aspects of military training from the other aspects of military training, and they're deliberately integrated.

Now, as an amendment to that, we could take historical military data on firing, and use that in place of the third control group, and agree to accept that the resistance to killing does exist. That would leave you only needing to train two sets of soldiers, one entirely with computer games and one entirely with standard military techniques.

It still means you might be fielding soldiers into combat who haven't been adequately trained. Imagine the hue and cry from their mothers when one of them gets killed and the press get a hold of it.

Now this is obviously an imperfect attempt to prove his theory but I think if he can't prove it then it's just speculation.

I agree that the theory ideally needs to be tested, but I don't agree that without that testing it's nothing more than speculation. This isn't something that was pulled out of a guy's ass; it's a conclusion he's drawn from a series of other observations and studies about related and semi-related matters.

 

[Policenaut]

So there really isn't a way to test his theory because you would necessarily have to put people in real danger and/or lie to them (which I think would be illegal in any kind of legitimate study) to get any sort of real data.

My feelings now are that life experiences, environment, beliefs, training and teachings are all more vital to this "trigger" than just playing a game. I am, for the sake of the argument, assuming that there is a trigger and that these games desensitize young people and release this trigger. If this is the case then why aren't there school massacres every day? I'm sure there are thousands of kids that are hardcore games who get teased and bullied in school every day. Bullied to the point that they want to either kill themselves or the kids bullying them. This is not a war zone but still a real life or death situation for some kids. Yet school shootings are exceedingly rare and obviously not exclusively perpetrated by gamers.

Actually how about we study this in another country. One where there is compulsory military training. Say Israel where there is a chance of combat any day. Compare the stats of the kids that play games to the ones that don't before starting training. This still wouldn't be a be all, end all test but better than what I came up with before I think. If the gamers are less hesitant to shoot enemies then there might be some truth to this theory. If they are the same or more hesitant than anyone else maybe it is the opposite. Maybe violent games delude you into believing that all these horrible things will happen like gallons of blood shooting out of your victims and blowing off body parts with a single bullet which would make you more hesitant than the non-desensitized gamer to pull the trigger.

 

[gumboot]

So there really isn't a way to test his theory because you would necessarily have to put people in real danger and/or lie to them (which I think would be illegal in any kind of legitimate study) to get any sort of real data.

Exactly.

My feelings now are that life experiences, environment, beliefs, training and teachings are all more vital to this "trigger" than just playing a game.

Except we know they're not, because military history tells us they're not.
Although I don't like this idea of calling it a "trigger". A trigger implies it causes something to happen. I much prefer "safety" (if we're going with a gun metaphor).

I am, for the sake of the argument, assuming that there is a trigger and that these games desensitize young people and release this trigger.

Almost. There is a safety and the games condition young people and disable the safety. That's the notion. Again. Don't mix up conditioning with desensitisation.

If this is the case then why aren't there school massacres every day?

Why should there be?

I'm sure there are thousands of kids that are hardcore games who get teased and bullied in school every day. Bullied to the point that they want to either kill themselves or the kids bullying them. This is not a war zone but still a real life or death situation for some kids. Yet school shootings are exceedingly rare and obviously not exclusively perpetrated by gamers.

Yes, school shootings are rare, but the rate of school shootings has increased dramatically since the mid 1990s. Last year alone there were eleven school shootings in the USA. Now, granted, that's not many. But that's more than there were in two decades from 1966.

And this is not just an American problem. While considerably less common outside the USA, the rate of school shootings is increasing elsewhere as well.

That's not the end of it though. The average age of a murderer in the USA has been continually dropping since the 1970s (from 30 in 1976 to 26 in 1994), despite an increasingly aging population. Today, the largest single age range for murderers is 18-24, with the second and third most common being 14-17 and 25-34. Yet at the same time violent crime rates are dropping. Young people aren't becoming generally more violent. But they're increasingly becoming killers.

There's clearly a distinctly separate mechanism at work here between "violent" and "killer". And that's where kill conditioning comes into it. Kill conditioning does not make you more violent but it does make it easier to kill.

Actually how about we study this in another country. One where there is compulsory military training. Say Israel where there is a chance of combat any day. Compare the stats of the kids that play games to the ones that don't before starting training.

I fail to see how that would show you anything. When they go through training they're all going to be conditioned. It's not a open-ended thing where you become increasingly conditioned. Once the safety is gone, it's gone. Period. You can keep conditioning all you like after that and it won't make any difference.

If the gamers are less hesitant to shoot enemies then there might be some truth to this theory.

Why? They've all had the military training which ensures they don't hesitate at all. For your proposition to have any worth at all you'd first need to demonstrate the Israeli military conditioning wasn't effective.

If they are the same or more hesitant than anyone else maybe it is the opposite. Maybe violent games delude you into believing that all these horrible things will happen like gallons of blood shooting out of your victims and blowing off body parts with a single bullet which would make you more hesitant than the non-desensitized gamer to pull the trigger.

Please stop mixing up desensitisation to violence with conditioning to kill. This is getting a little tiresome.

 

[Stray Cat]

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

The point being missed is that motivations in the actual soldiers are not present in game players.

 

[gumboot]

The point being missed is that motivations in the actual soldiers are not present in game players.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, soldiers have always had the same motivation (to kill the enemy) and it didn't seem to make any difference because they still wouldn't kill the enemy. So clearly motivation isn't the magic ingredient.

In fact, prior to conditioning techniques being introduced, soldiers would refuse to fire their weapons at the enemy, even to preserve their own lives. You want to talk motivation? That's some pretty hefty motivation. Didn't make any difference.

Sense of duty, expectations to perform, warrior culture, repetitive drill, dehumanization of the enemy, punishment, reward, discipline, sense of comradeship, patriotism, all of these and more have been used to train soldiers for centuries. And yet for centuries soldiers just would not shoot at each other. Until the US Army introduced kill conditioning techniques after World War Two.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

It must be true. Playing a first person shooter must turn you into a merciless killer who can't help but slide down that inevitable slippery slope until nothing gives them any pleasure but killing real people in a never-ending gorefest, until the police shoot them, leaving them to respawn and do it again. All we have to do for proof is look at the news, and see all those causalties as the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of first person shooter players go on their rampages.

Oh, wait...

Ooopsie, mistook an internet rant for news. Nothing to see here.

 

[gumboot]

It must be true. Playing a first person shooter must turn you into a merciless killer who can't help but slide down that inevitable slippery slope until nothing gives them any pleasure but killing real people in a never-ending gorefest, until the police shoot them, leaving them to respawn and do it again. All we have to do for proof is look at the news, and see all those causalties as the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of first person shooter players go on their rampages.

Oh, wait...

Ooopsie, mistook an internet rant for news. Nothing to see here.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

 

[Stray Cat]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, soldiers have always had the same motivation (to kill the enemy) and it didn't seem to make any difference because they still wouldn't kill the enemy. So clearly motivation isn't the magic ingredient.

I think the hundreds of millions of soldiers who have died in wars over the centuries may disagree with you on that point. Remembering that 'remote killing' is a relatively new concept in warfare as opposed to hand to hand combat.

In fact, prior to conditioning techniques being introduced, soldiers would refuse to fire their weapons at the enemy, even to preserve their own lives. You want to talk motivation? That's some pretty hefty motivation. Didn't make any difference.

Some soldiers would be more accurate. And those soldiers would most likely still be fine with playing video game shoot em ups.

Sense of duty, expectations to perform, warrior culture, repetitive drill, dehumanization of the enemy, punishment, reward, discipline, sense of comradeship, patriotism, all of these and more have been used to train soldiers for centuries. And yet for centuries soldiers just would not shoot at each other. Until the US Army introduced kill conditioning techniques after World War Two.

Nonsense. To say that soldiers wouldn't shoot each other is to make a mockery of all those who died in both WWs and countless millions before that in other wars.
And it's inaccuracies like this and the other one that video games desensitise people toward real world violence (unevidenced) that leave people doubting your theory.

 

[Arus808]

Look, it's cartoonized violence. No matter what they show in Video games, even if its dismemberment, its still a rendered violence that wholly is unreal.

If a person cannot tell the difference between fake and realism, then they already suffer from social and personal issues that has nothing to do with the video game

Parents in the END have total control over what their children play at home.

The Game Console manufacturers have the tools in place for parents to stop their kids from playing objectionable material (and if you didn't buy you kids those games in the first place, YOU wouldn't have to use those controls).


The ESRB has done all it can do to educate parents about ratings, where to get information, work with the publishers and 1st party to make sure their games are adequately rated.

If parents aren't willing to learn, then what more can be done?

Not make these types of games anymore because some people just want to remain ignorant?

 

[Policenaut]

Yes, school shootings are rare, but the rate of school shootings has increased dramatically since the mid 1990s. Last year alone there were eleven school shootings in the USA. Now, granted, that's not many. But that's more than there were in two decades from 1966.

And this is not just an American problem. While considerably less common outside the USA, the rate of school shootings is increasing elsewhere as well.

That's not the end of it though. The average age of a murderer in the USA has been continually dropping since the 1970s (from 30 in 1976 to 26 in 1994), despite an increasingly aging population. Today, the largest single age range for murderers is 18-24, with the second and third most common being 14-17 and 25-34. Yet at the same time violent crime rates are dropping. Young people aren't becoming generally more violent. But they're increasingly becoming killers.

There's clearly a distinctly separate mechanism at work here between "violent" and "killer". And that's where kill conditioning comes into it. Kill conditioning does not make you more violent but it does make it easier to kill.

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_violence09-10.html

I don't see the game connection to most of these deaths/incidents. Killings might be increasing but if the killers in these cases (not counting the officers obviously) had their "safety" turned off it could have been from another source. We don't see many "Columbine-type" killings and even in that case it was a much different situation.

http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/

Harris was a psychopath. I don't think he had a safety to lose.

I fail to see how that would show you anything. When they go through training they're all going to be conditioned. It's not a open-ended thing where you become increasingly conditioned. Once the safety is gone, it's gone. Period. You can keep conditioning all you like after that and it won't make any difference.

Why? They've all had the military training which ensures they don't hesitate at all. For your proposition to have any worth at all you'd first need to demonstrate the Israeli military conditioning wasn't effective.

Please stop mixing up desensitisation to violence with conditioning to kill. This is getting a little tiresome.

I'm going to stop trying to present a hypothetical situation for testing it. I don't really know what I'm talking about anyway regarding soldier training. But I would like to see links about the claims that soldiers were hesitant to shoot in past wars. I haven't been able to find any except for a mention of it on a police training site (which said they used to shoot at bullseye targets which didn't prepare them for shooting at humans). I mean it does make sense I just haven't been able to find any documentation and I haven't heard that before you mentioned it in this thread.

 

[sadhatter]

I agree with you, but this is what really concerns me. The reality is that a huge portion of parents are actually clueless about video games, and buy them for their kids without paying attention to what they are.

That's just reality. In an ideal world, every parent is perfect, and kids are not given things meant for adults. But that's a total pipe dream. It's not being pragmatic to just /handwave such concerns as these, in this world.

I don't like regulations and restrictions. But I can't just throw my hands up and go "people are stupid, but I'm selfishly going to insist that I get everything I want and damn anyone else". And that is what I feel that most do with these subjects. They just completely blow off the concern, posting idealized nonsense about how the world should work and how parents should behave.

But the world doesn't work that way, and parents don't behave that way. Whatever happened to some kind of personal responsibility on the part of the company creating these things? They don't care about anything but making dollars.

All I see is people who are gleeful for such a game, not really giving a damn that it may get into the hands of kids. I repeat, I'm not a fan of regulation and restrictions. But I also am appalled the way people just handwave these concerns from their little dream worlds they call reality.

How dare an entertainment manufacturer make a product designed to entertain someone, when someone else could get ahold of it?

It is not the manufacturers fault that parents are lazy and stuck in the atari mindset that video games should be a stick person throwing blocks.

I mean by your logic we should ban porno too, kids can get ahold of that. And why not rated r movies in general? Kids often get ahold of them. And comics, we should make all comics have to be pg, because what of the children in the stores?

In fact why not make all media pg? If parents are not going to watch what their children view, then we have to do something, right?

The world should not have to cater to those of the population on the far end of an idiocy spectrum. If a parent buys their kid a game without reading the sticker that clearly indicates exactly what bad things will be in the game, that is not the manufacturer's fault.

Of course someone like myself is giddy at this game, it looks like a good game. I was pretty excited for the first few saw movies as well, and why? Because they are geared toward adults, and i am an adult. They are catering toward what i want to watch/play, the fact that kids are getting a hold of it, just like they got a hold of playboys, cigarettes, knives, matches, lighters, and anything else they shouldn't have , since the dawn of things kids should get ahold of , shouldn't be a factor in what they are marketing toward adults.

I have another good one, why don't gun manufacturers make all guns bright pink with the words " i am a sissy" on the side, to stop kids from wanting to play with them. Or make all porno magazines give off a high pitched whine so that kids can't hide them.

 

[sadhatter]

...oh and that they rated just like movies and the big "M" that is on the box means its for 17+ aged people

Why do parents buy games like this for their 8 year old son is beyond me.

You know to lighten up the debate a bit...

Back during my late public school/ early high school years, my parents owned a video store. And parents renting their kids the movie " Whore" was kinda funny, ( i watched the kid make a masterful case that the movie was a police drama. The movie was unrated and had about as much to do with police drama, as tentacle rape has to do with Science fiction. ) , but what was even funnier was the exact opposite.

We had a few parents, and i am not talking bat **** crazy religious folk ( for example, they rented movies that were rated r, for many reasons. ), who would get absolutely irate for us letting their kids rent movies that had age requirements much below the kids age.

One time i will always remember, was in my grade nine year. There was this guy in grade 12 who for some reason would not leave me alone. This sucked and all, but it was well worth it when he came in his mother hen-pecking him and stares at me angrily.

" Why did you let my son rent this" ( tosses the case, not at me, and not to damage it, but in disgust.)

** i look at the film, it is the princess bride**

" Because it is pg? "

" Well you didn't see the scene in which they hook someone up to a machine and torture them, torture!"

( obviously i had seen the movie, but it was impossible to pass this up. )

" You know, i have not watched the movie , i am sorry that this happened. Would you like me to put a notice on your account that we have to call you whenever he rents a movie over a g rating?" ( said in a serious, nice tone.)

" Well i would have thought you would have already done that. "

From that day on he didn't say a single thing to me at school, and every time i saw him at age 17 trying to find something to watch from the kids section i laughed a bit to myself.

The only game we ever had an issue with for something like that was Doom Troopers, standard " parents didn't read the warning" situation. Funny bit was that when the parent returned it ( the kid was about 10, or so, so good call on the parent's part. ) , i immediately put it aside to take home for a while.

 

[sadhatter]

The woman interviewed for the FOX News report
http://kotaku.com/#!5757307/the-doctor-who-said-video-games-cause-rape-explains-what-she-meant

Seems that even FOX quote mined the doctor that gave them their juicy news byte

She does however feel that violent video games breeds violent behavior

And the reaction by the "video gaming public" by sending her offensive laden emails doesn't help to prove her wrong.

Please explain how an offensive e-mail indicates a tendency toward violence. My speech pattern, at points could make a sailor blush, online or irl, and i am in no way a violent person.

 

[Crazycowbob]

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

I am kind of curious where Grossman gets his data, and how accurate it is. As was mentioned earlier by someone who had actually been in the military, the system Grossman describes is not used...

As for this list,
1, this I can agree with, it's an evolutionary thing, good for the species, it makes sense.

2, this I'm less sure of. You take a reasonably happy person in a normal environment, put them in front of a serial killer and give them a gun, telling them to kill them, then yeah, you are not going to get very many people who would do it, but you will get some. Put those same people into a stressful environment, where their life was in danger, one where killing was necessary to stay alive, and the number of people willing to pull the trigger is going to go up significantly. While true many people still would have a hard time of it, a lot of people would still be able to, which brings us to,

3. WWII, and Vietnam, were wars filled with draftees. This means you get about the same mix of people who could pull the trigger vs couldn't as you would in the general public, so naturally you are going to get a lot of people who have difficulty killing, especially when most of those soldiers are still practically kids. This is certainly an issue with a draft based army, however, between WWII and now things have changed. With a volunteer army comes the fact that people who actively decide to join the army are people who have made a conscious decision to be willing to die, and or kill, for their country, thus the number of people in the armed forces who are also willing to pull the trigger is going to be very high. Depending on when and where Grossman got his numbers to support point 6, this could have very much skewed the results, regardless of any program the army may have put in place, and given a very large false positive, rendering the claim that the program was highly effective baseless.

That some games mimic this system is meaningless, as the system may not actually even work, and even then, shooting a gun in a game in no way can compare or prepare you to fire a gun in real life. There is no reason to assume that killing in a game and killing in real life is any different.

To try another analog, I've probably landed a 747 hundreds of times in flight sim X (with a nice saitec setup too ), but I've never flown anything for real. I can assure you, if we were on a 747, and lost the pilot and co-pilot, we'd be in much better hands with the guy who doesn't have a clue what the cockpit of a 747 looks like, but has been flying Cessnas for years, than we would be with me, who know's what all those buttons do, and how to operate the computer, but have never touched a real control stick in my life.

 

[Policenaut]

Getting back to the rape allegations:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...trist-ratchets-up-anti-videogame-rhetoric.ars

My research (stuff I made up) along with countless studies (which don't exist) shows that there is an obvious correlation between violent games and rape.

 

[sadhatter]

I think the major problem with the argument that video games teach any kind of skill that would make someone a better soldier , is that the skills are not transferable.

Every time a new version of the game unreal comes out, i am absolutely ecstatic, and within a few weeks i am hanging out in the top 10-30 rankings. I've been playing the game since i was a kid, and have made it a goal to be as proficiant as possible.

Within the realm of the game, i can identify a target, aim, and fire with any weaponry available, and connect, with a nearly 100% success rate ( assuming i am using a single shot weapon, weapons designed fire rapidly are obviously not intended to land every single shot. ). But the problem is , i am not doing this using any skills that would translate in real life.

The target aquisition is done using the fact that i know the shape, size and color of all character models. Letting me almost instantly recognize friend from foe. In the real world there aren't 32, or so kinds of people. And they arn't as differentiated as the characters in the game. So my target acquisition skills, are practically useless.

Aiming , also is not a skill that translates at all. I aim by understanding that by moving my thumb X distance will produce movement of about X degrees in a certain direction. A far cry from having to maneuver a real weapon deal with the possibility of hitting a wall, or having the weapon snag on ones clothing or any of the other minutia of weapon handling. Not to mention the recoil factor.

Movement is even worse, i am in pretty good shape, but i have no where near the coordination required to jump 5 feet in the air, kick myself off of a wall, all while carrying a weapon and some kind of armor.

Playing the game has given me some skills, and mostly the likes that can be translated into other games. But what we can show is that in regards to combat, even someone who prides themselves on being within the top percent or so of players, has no real advantage from playing a game in which killing is encouraged and predominant.

Desensitization is a skill in combat, just like aiming , moving, etc. And we can show that the other skills from a video game do not transfer into similar situations in real life. The evidence weighs heavily against desensitization being the one thing that suddenly transfers from games to the real world. Just like how i do not have to worry about fumbling my rocket launcher in a game of unreal, i don't have to worry about a character model suddenly begging me for mercy, and even if i did ( which is a feature in a few games.), it is a collection of data. There is no long term effect at all, either to said data, or to my mental state ( thinking about the fact that i ended someone's life.) in regards to killing it. Unfortunately in real life, it is quite a bit different.

 

[Arcade22]

Getting back to the rape allegations:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...trist-ratchets-up-anti-videogame-rhetoric.ars

My research (stuff I made up) along with countless studies (which don't exist) shows that there is an obvious correlation between violent games and rape.

I wonder what her agenda is. Publicity? Fame? Scandals? Money? Some of these or all of them?

I have actually played games where rape is a huge part of the game (thank you Japan) but i have never actually had the urge to go around raping and hurting people like a sociopath. I'm sane enough to realize the difference between of the "pain and misery" of pixels on a computer screen and the actual real pain of a real human being. Even if i was a slobbering retard who has trouble understanding basic addition the makers of it were kind enough to include this warning:

The interactive game you are about to play contains artistically portrayed scenes of explicit sexual activity between fictional anime-style characters. Please note, however, that the completely fictional sexual relationships portrayed by this game's artwork do not always exhibit 'safe sex' practices, nor do they necessarily demonstrate the full range of sensitivity, communication and intimacy necessary to sustain a real life interpersonal relationship. This game is intended to be used only by mature, adult individuals for their personal entertainment and enjoyment. You must be 18 years of age or older to view the material contained in this game! No character engaged in any sexually explicit events is intended to be portrayed as being under 18 years of age, and no actual or identifiable minor was used during the process of creating the artwork or characters portrayed in this game. Any similarities of any character to any person living or dead is purely coincidental.

Wow, who could know that?!