What If Hilary Was in Office

That remark makes me think of the movie "Gamer".
Now that is some top drawer violent gaming goodness there, don't cha know.

 

I could be mistaken, but it seems this kid spent some time in a juvenile detention center and continued to commit violent acts throughout the following years. I could have him mixed up with someone else, I've followed so many cases over the years.

I'm not blaming, I just follow correlations between social trends and psychological consequences. There is a big picture to be seen here in the relationship of the rising trend of explicit violence in the media and the rise of violence in society.

One person's experience proves nothing for either side of this issue. If this was a case of everyone being influenced to violence by media, we probably would be in a state of anarchy. The people who are affected are the one's like the kids I referenced, the kid who killed the child with a wrestling move was mentally disabled while Ronnie Zamora was a slow learner who was neglected by his parents.

What this does do for our society at large is make violence more acceptable, less abhorrent. We love to see the bad guys killed in the most vicious and bloody ways possible. Street justice with a baseball bat too often prevails over criminal convictions.

And just why do you think that is so popular today and unheard of in the 50s.

That is a big factor, but only one of many.

.

 

Even Plato said that "Theater is not for the young because they cannot understand the allegorical." (quoted from memory)

.

 

I think you just make my case for me. thanks

.

 

Shit, drunk posting, I'm typing over the speed limit.

 

Here is an experiment you can do at home:

ingredients:
2 glasses app. 3 inches in diameter
1 glass the same height but only 1 inch in dia.
water
one 5 year old child.

insert into the 3" glasses unequal amounts of water.

ask child to point to the one with the most water. he/she will likely get it right

Then take the glass with the least amount of water and pour it into the 1" glass, (having made sure all the water will fit before hand). This should raise the water to a height above the other 3" glass that held the most water previously.

Ask the child again, who has been watching you do all of this, which one has the most water. He/she will pick the 1 inch glass despite the fact that it is clear to an adult that there is less water in it.

There is no way you can convince the child that he is wrong, I've tried. This is Piaget's theory of conservation in childhood development. Point is, a child's brain does not work like an adult brain, and, therefore, must be protected from stimulus that can damage their development.

I just did this earlier this evening for a friend who was suggesting that his 5 yr. old daughter should be able to understand what he does with the proper explaining.

.

 

accidental post.
ARRGH. my keyboard has a mind of it's own sometimes. Damn cheap Microsoft crap!!!

 

Depends on the kid. My two teen daughters would have gotten it right when they were 5, easily.

Some kids are pretty friggin sharp and most can distinguish between fantasy and reality.

One time when my 14 year old was in preschool she was supposed to go over to a schoolmates for a party, but we had lost the invitation and phone number.
As the wife and I searched for the invite, my daughter took a lunch schedule from the school, called the school and explained the situation to the secretary and asked for her friends number. As I was still searching she came over and handed me the number she wrote down.
She was only five.

I'm not completely disagreeing with your position, just not accepting it as being as universal as you are presenting it.

It still really comes down to parenting. If you feel your children can not make the distinction between real and fantasy or just don't want them exposed to objectionable material, it is in your power to control it. One of the biggest issues surrounding this, IMHO, is too many parents are frankly wimps when it comes to discipline and setting limits and boundaries for their children.
Then you have a compounded problem of the child not having respect and not possessing an internal sense of boundaries.

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but that isn't possible. It's not a question of intelligence, reality or parenting, it is developmentally impossible. A child's brain at 5 is not developed in the area that is responsible of spacial relationships. The Human brain is not fully developed until 18 to 20 years old.

try this"
http://condor.depaul.edu/~lcamras/conswat.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_(psychology)
http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch10_development/conservation_experiments.html

If you want to see it in action:
Videos for piaget conservation of liquid

.

 

It depends who I am talking to and If I think it will help.
In this case mad' first said Hilary wanted to ban violent video games and then said she didn't, she just wanted age restrictions on there sale.
Then said that was enough for him to conclude she wanted a total ban.
Basically he was all over the place and likely to twist anything I posted for his own ends.
Also, It really wasn't worth throwing around a lot of data for a personal opinion on why I think age restrictions are worth it (or not).
I really did not want to get into a pissing contest.
I was also about to log off for the night and just wanted to wrap things up quickly.
So perhaps I was a tad lazy on this occasion.

Not at all. You clearly do not know me that well.
In the past I have been accused of posting way too many links and dissecting peoples posts too much.
I could have spent a hour looking up info, carefully organising it into a coherent post etc etc etc, but I had a feeling it would be ignored or dismissed, so I didn't bother.
I was totally nice about it though wasn't I?

I just don't put so much energy into every post I make now.
Particularly given mad' didn't provide anything to back himself up either.
I tend to balance my energy with the person I am talking to, so if they can't be arsed to back themselves up, I can't either.
If you have noticed me making claims with out backing things up, pull me up on it if you like, like you have now.
I'll do the same thing to you...
This particular time and the other e.g you gave...seriously not worth getting my knickers into a twist about.
This time I was up against a person who had initially lied.
That really doesn't give me the confidence to try and counter the argument with a plethora of data...when they could lie about the data right in front of their faces.
On the whole I like mad' and the way he posts, but this time I was put off by the lies.
The other e.g you gave (driving under the influence)...
I said: "I don't think..." rather than : "There is no data..."
I had read the articles you posted but came to the conclusion they were not comparing like for like.
If somebody responded and said: "Oh, there is..." I would have said: "Thanks for the heads up".
I have to admit to missing your response, however after reading it I can't see...actually I'll just respond to it soon.

I use them all the time, thanks.

 

To a degree I agree with you, but I still think ratings on violent video games is a good idea.
It gives parents the choice to decide if they think they should give them to their child, and prevents children buying content their parents might not want them to view.
It might not make sense to you or I but this is what parents asked for (not just Hilary Clinton).

...and studies to show what it has done:

The Effects of Television Violence

Concern on the part of the public and Congress about the harmful influence of media violence on children dates back to the 1950s and 1960s, and remains strong today. The legitimacy of that concern is corroborated by extensive scientific research that has accumulated over the past 40 years. Indeed, in reviewing the totality of empirical evidence regarding the impact of media violence, the conclusion that exposure to violent portrayals poses a risk of harmful effects on children has been reached by the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Institutes of Mental Health, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and a host of other scientific and public health agencies and organizations.
http://www.apa.org/about/gr/pi/advocacy/2008/kunkel-tv.aspx

Television content rating systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_content_rating_systems

Perhaps they do not have it quite right with video games...But I'm not a huge fan of them or know of most of the games you have mentioned.
I do know that I would not want my 8 year old sitting in their room blasting seven shades of shit out of some baddie...that much I do know.

 

You realize that broad sweeping statements such as this are never accurate when dealing with the individual.

My wife for years has worked providing science lessons and instruction for elementary school children, and has even done such experiments. Granted the majority of young children don't see the relation, but I have witnessed myself some who where not fooled at all by that very demonstration.

Considering your stand concerning issues of racism, I'm surprised that you would make such broad statements as if the apply to everyone.
Oh and the wiki link goes nowhere.

 

In this instance, they are. So would the statement "newborns cannot dance." I've been studying Psychology and Sociology for 40 years with 6+ of those in Universities. The human brain develops in a predictable manner, particularly from birth through the teens, and it actually continues to develop throughout life. A note here would be that this is not my theory and Piaget is a well recognized Psychologist whose works are taught throughout the world.

Considering that elementary school is the age at which children develop this ability that's not surprising, that's why I used the age of 5 for the experiment.

Everyone was born and everyone dies, is abroad statement that applies to everyone, yet I doubt you would have a problem with that one. All I'm saying is that the human brain develops at a predictable rate, something that Psychologists, Psychiatrists and medical professionals would all agree with.

When it comes to violent content in media, this is the very reason for ratings. Children are not just small inexperienced adults as some people seem to think, and they do need special protections under the law.

The wika link works fine for me, so I don't know what's wrong on your end. Google "Piaget" "conservation" and you will find more than enough material to keep you busy for a while (261,000 hits). I would suggest reading his book on cognitive development (don't remember the name of it).

.

 

Some wiki links that have brackets don't always link directly to the particular article.
It kinda did and didn't work...it did lead to something (the correct article) rather than nothing.

 

You people are still on the video game thing?

It doesn't even fucking matter, the world is crumbling and this is the shit you talk about?

 

I beg to differ. Some professionals contend that violence in the media (includes video games) is one of the major reasons our society is so violent, or as you say, "crumbling."

If you don't like the topic you don't have to participate.

.

 

i think it's more a symptom than a cause

 

It's symbiotic. Violence in media causes social violence to increase, which means more violence in media, which means more violence in society, ad infinitum. Media is a reflection of culture that, at the same time reinforces social trends; it tells us where we are and keeps us moving in that direction.

A good example that even the younger crowd can see is smoking. Characters in movies and TV no longer smoke cigarettes, smoking in society is decreasing. Warning labels had little effect, but Hollywood did. TV has had a profound effect on American culture and the cultures of other nations as well. What people see on TV every day becomes accepted as mainstream cultural values, like it or not.

.

 

well, cigarettes are also $5 a pack now

i always wonder about the media's influence, it doesn't do much to or for me

but it's hard to tell what other people get from it . . .

 

I don't think Hillary would be as destructive as Obama. BJ wasn't too bad, and Hillary would be farther left I think, but not as far as Obama. So we wouldn't be as bad as we are.