|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 17, 2017 19:49:05 GMT
Second and third links reference scientific studies, though I'm not sure how widely relevant their findings are. It's certainly worth pointing out that violence among youth has been decreasing for the past 20+ years, the same period as rap and violent video games ascended in popularity. The typical correlation/causation caveats apply here. Is that in the U.S? Because it's not the case in the UK. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/11/police-cuts-blamed-rise-in-youth-gang-offences-in-londonI think it's globally, but it's been a while since I read it. I'll see if I can find something. That article does note that, before then, violence had been on a decreasing trend: "The increases come after a period of several years where the number of offences has been falling. " |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2017 19:49:14 GMT
Cody, do you even read the links you post? I'm starting to think you just quickly scan google and link to the first thing that seems to support your position without actually investigating it. What that study actually says is that: "Watching violent movies really does make people more aggressive - but only if they have an abrasive personality to start with, a study shows... In the first study of its kind they found each person's reaction depended on how aggressive they were to begin with. " So as long as you aren't an aggressive person to start, it doesn't seem such media would have any effect; and it's not even clear from that study exactly how much of an effect it has. Further, the study still didn't have anything to say about linking media violence with violence in the real world, which is what superdude mentioned, so even under the most favorable interpretation it didn't debunk what superdude said. So what? Doesn't change the point. It just means aggressive people are even more likely to be aggressive when exposed to violent movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 17, 2017 19:55:15 GMT
Cody, do you even read the links you post? I'm starting to think you just quickly scan google and link to the first thing that seems to support your position without actually investigating it. What that study actually says is that: "Watching violent movies really does make people more aggressive - but only if they have an abrasive personality to start with, a study shows... In the first study of its kind they found each person's reaction depended on how aggressive they were to begin with. " So as long as you aren't an aggressive person to start, it doesn't seem such media would have any effect; and it's not even clear from that study exactly how much of an effect it has. Further, the study still didn't have anything to say about linking media violence with violence in the real world, which is what superdude mentioned, so even under the most favorable interpretation it didn't debunk what superdude said. So what? Doesn't change the point. It just means aggressive people are even more likely to be aggressive when exposed to violent movies.  So what? So your link did absolutely nothing to challenge superdude's point about media violence being correlated to real world violence. That IS the point! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2017 20:04:42 GMT
So what? Doesn't change the point. It just means aggressive people are even more likely to be aggressive when exposed to violent movies. So your link did absolutely nothing to challenge superdude's point about media violence being correlated to real world violence. That IS the point! Actually it did. 1) It demonstrated aggressive people are potentially more likely to be aggressive when influenced by violent movies. And 2) it once again refuted his bold claim that no credible peer reviewed scientific study links film violence to real life violence. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 17, 2017 20:14:08 GMT
So your link did absolutely nothing to challenge superdude's point about media violence being correlated to real world violence. That IS the point! Actually it did. 1) It demonstrated aggressive people are potentially more likely to be aggressive when influenced by violent movies. And 2) it once again refuted his bold claim that no credible peer reviewed scientific study links film violence to real life violence. I don't think you know what "real world violence" means. "Real world violence" means going out and doing violence in the real world, it doesn't mean having more violent/aggressive thoughts or personality. That aggressive people felt more aggressive after watching violent scenes doesn't mean they were more likely to go out afterwards and commit violent crimes. The study didn't even comment on how long the effect lasted (which is a pretty crucial point in determining any possible lingering or long-term behavioral effect). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2017 20:18:23 GMT
So your link did absolutely nothing to challenge superdude's point about media violence being correlated to real world violence. That IS the point! Actually it did. 1) It demonstrated aggressive people are potentially more likely to be aggressive when influenced by violent movies. And 2) it once again refuted his bold claim that no credible peer reviewed scientific study links film violence to real life violence. Yes and if violent thoughts equated to violent attacks you'd have a point,it doesn't so you don't. Unless this study can be replicated using actual violent felons verses average members of the public then it is meaningless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2017 20:26:35 GMT
Actually it did. 1) It demonstrated aggressive people are potentially more likely to be aggressive when influenced by violent movies. And 2) it once again refuted his bold claim that no credible peer reviewed scientific study links film violence to real life violence. I don't think you know what "real world violence" means. "Real world violence" means going out and doing violence in the real world, it doesn't mean having more violent/aggressive thoughts or personality. That aggressive people felt more aggressive after watching violent scenes doesn't mean they were more likely to go out afterwards and commit violent crimes. The study didn't even comment on how long the effect lasted (which is a pretty crucial point in determining any possible lingering or long-term behavioral effect). You don't think it makes sense that naturally aggresssive people who commit "real world violence" were to some degree influenced by movies, music and video games growing up? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 17, 2017 20:34:54 GMT
I don't think you know what "real world violence" means. "Real world violence" means going out and doing violence in the real world, it doesn't mean having more violent/aggressive thoughts or personality. That aggressive people felt more aggressive after watching violent scenes doesn't mean they were more likely to go out afterwards and commit violent crimes. The study didn't even comment on how long the effect lasted (which is a pretty crucial point in determining any possible lingering or long-term behavioral effect). You don't think it makes sense that naturally aggresssive people who commit "real world violence" were to some degree influenced by movies, music and video games growing up? I don't think it does. Unless it is your contention that violent video games somehow motivated the person to commit the act of violence. And I see no evidence that this has ever been the case. Someone with a naturally aggressive personality MAY be more inclined to commit an act of violence if they have a motive. But I doubt that most violent offenders were inspired by movies or video games growing up. Everyone I know (in my age group) grew up watching violent movies (Terminator 2, Aliens, Die Hard, etc) that were marketed towards children, as well as video games like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. None of them grew up to be violent offenders. And the few people I know who did become violent offenders did so either because they got caught up in drugs, or gangs, or they were just crazy from the start. So I don't see one thing as having anything to do with the other. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 17, 2017 20:36:09 GMT
^^Even IF there was some correlation, what would be your suggestion? Ban violent movies and video games?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 17, 2017 21:16:44 GMT
I don't think you know what "real world violence" means. "Real world violence" means going out and doing violence in the real world, it doesn't mean having more violent/aggressive thoughts or personality. That aggressive people felt more aggressive after watching violent scenes doesn't mean they were more likely to go out afterwards and commit violent crimes. The study didn't even comment on how long the effect lasted (which is a pretty crucial point in determining any possible lingering or long-term behavioral effect). You don't think it makes sense that naturally aggresssive people who commit "real world violence" were to some degree influenced by movies, music and video games growing up? "What makes sense" to any individual is limited by their subjective and limited perspective and biases. The entire point of science is to get past faulty human intuitions as to "what makes sense" and figure out "what actually is." This is why you need studies that are able to correlate different elements and control for variables as much as possible. It makes just as much sense that naturally aggressive people who commit real world violence were drawn to violent media because they were already violent. The causal arrow--whether it's violent media -> violent person/actions or violent person -> violent media--is very much up for debate, as is exactly how much influence violent media could have in the grand scheme. Personally, I see no reason to think that violent media would make humans any more violent than they already are. Did Romans watching gladiators fight to do death turn them violent, or did they like watching gladiators fight to the death because they were already drawn to violence? It's even possible that watching such things (or enacting them in a fantasy environment like video games) provides something of an "outlet" for an aggressive personality, so an individual might be less likely to do violence in reality if they have such an outlet. Of course, that's just a hypothesis, and, again, rigorous studies with solid methodology would be required to support it (or any other hypotheses). |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jun 18, 2017 8:00:03 GMT
I actually watched the entire video. There's not a single section of it that isn't wrong about something, if not wrong about everything. To start, the entire notion that love and truth are opposing political values as opposed to shared human values is utterly absurd. Truth and love aren't even mutually exclusive; that's just an old myth perpetuated by people who don't understand how reason works or what it applies to (and doesn't apply to). A brief article that clearly articulates this and utterly destroys that notion is here: lesswrong.com/lw/hp/feeling_rational/ Besides the fact that love and truth aren't necessarily in conflict, there's the simple fact that the truth/conservative VS love/liberal association is flat-out false. In fact, if we generalize it to logic-based VS emotion-based reasoning, the best current science on the matter says that conservatives are the more emotion-based party when it comes to decision-making: braindecoder.com/post/politics-neuroscience-1282982492 Particularly: "In another study, researchers investigated the emotional differences between the two groups and found that when faced with risky decision-making, the amygdalae of Republicans fire at a greater rate than those of Democrats. This suggests that Republicans might be relatively more influenced by emotions in their decision-making process. What's more, a study found that conservatives were aroused to a greater extent than liberals when shown disturbing images, such as those depicting infested wounds. Simply put, it appears that the conservative brain is more sensitive to stimuli that carry emotional weight." So not only is that video wrong in presenting love/truth as conflicting political values, it's also wrong about trying to ascribe "truth" to the party that is, according the current science, more emotion-based in its decision-making. EDIT: Found a longer, more thorough article on the subject here: blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/Wait until you find out that scientists consider black people conservative and we'll see how you really feel about truth versus love. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jun 18, 2017 8:03:01 GMT
You questioned the accuracy of the term in the OP. How about you give us your understanding? Okay. A liberal is a political stance characterised by a desire for liberty and equality. Liberals vary widely in their views according to how they interpret these values, but typically support freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation. I'd add to that support for a welfare state. By that definition I am a liberal, and I don't see why anybody wouldn't be. A communist is a political stance characterized by a desire for a worker's paradise. You can't see why everyone isn't a communist. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 18, 2017 8:07:12 GMT
Save for the actual examples of its results, I guess.  You need to up your game, man. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 18, 2017 10:07:13 GMT
Okay. A liberal is a political stance characterised by a desire for liberty and equality. Liberals vary widely in their views according to how they interpret these values, but typically support freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation. I'd add to that support for a welfare state. By that definition I am a liberal, and I don't see why anybody wouldn't be. A communist is a political stance characterized by a desire for a worker's paradise. You can't see why everyone isn't a communist. No Communism is characterised by Marx's famous phrase "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2017 10:47:48 GMT
Okay. A liberal is a political stance characterised by a desire for liberty and equality. Liberals vary widely in their views according to how they interpret these values, but typically support freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation. I'd add to that support for a welfare state. By that definition I am a liberal, and I don't see why anybody wouldn't be. A communist is a political stance characterized by a desire for a worker's paradise. You can't see why everyone isn't a communist. Indeed. Trouble is that communism is impractical. Much like libertarianism. Not really sure what that has to do with the discussion though. You do tend to insert the oddest non sequiturs into conversations. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 18, 2017 11:15:16 GMT
I actually watched the entire video. There's not a single section of it that isn't wrong about something, if not wrong about everything. To start, the entire notion that love and truth are opposing political values as opposed to shared human values is utterly absurd. Truth and love aren't even mutually exclusive; that's just an old myth perpetuated by people who don't understand how reason works or what it applies to (and doesn't apply to). A brief article that clearly articulates this and utterly destroys that notion is here: lesswrong.com/lw/hp/feeling_rational/ Besides the fact that love and truth aren't necessarily in conflict, there's the simple fact that the truth/conservative VS love/liberal association is flat-out false. In fact, if we generalize it to logic-based VS emotion-based reasoning, the best current science on the matter says that conservatives are the more emotion-based party when it comes to decision-making: braindecoder.com/post/politics-neuroscience-1282982492 Particularly: "In another study, researchers investigated the emotional differences between the two groups and found that when faced with risky decision-making, the amygdalae of Republicans fire at a greater rate than those of Democrats. This suggests that Republicans might be relatively more influenced by emotions in their decision-making process. What's more, a study found that conservatives were aroused to a greater extent than liberals when shown disturbing images, such as those depicting infested wounds. Simply put, it appears that the conservative brain is more sensitive to stimuli that carry emotional weight." So not only is that video wrong in presenting love/truth as conflicting political values, it's also wrong about trying to ascribe "truth" to the party that is, according the current science, more emotion-based in its decision-making. EDIT: Found a longer, more thorough article on the subject here: blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/Wait until you find out that scientists consider black people conservative and we'll see how you really feel about truth versus love. I'm failing to see how this statement has anything to do with what I said in my post. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 19, 2017 19:13:22 GMT
Any source I provide gets dismissed as just "Opinion pieces from agenda driven websites" by Superdude if it contradicts his argument. Which is why I corrected him. Facts don't know what side they're on. Are you going to respond to my posts addressing the content of the OP video? There is not one research study, not one, that isn't bought and paid for by human beings who want to believe something. There is no objectivity.
An idiot is someone who thinks movies don't influence the people who watch them. There's different levels, sure, but there's a word called "propaganda" that wouldn't even exist if the researchers who want to believe hate films don't create hate, if they were correct.
It's the subtle bits in movies that truly influence people. Otherwise how could something as destructive and useless as cigarettes be so popular? Not surprising that extras in old war movies, and new ones, knew they could survive to the next scene if they acted as if they were smoking cigarettes, since the tobacco industry is the biggest censor in History. And that's just one of the "not subtle" influences of propaganda. The Nazi propaganda machine has so many morons in denial that it boggles the mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 19, 2017 23:18:35 GMT
Which is why I corrected him. Facts don't know what side they're on. Are you going to respond to my posts addressing the content of the OP video? There is not one research study, not one, that isn't bought and paid for by human beings who want to believe something. There is no objectivity. My, my, there's a great way to dismiss all studies; just claim they're all paid-for and biased and lack objectivity. Making the claim required zero effort on your part and now you're free to ignore them, especially when they say anything you dislike. Well-done! I'm sure your parents would be proud. Meanwhile, there's the pesky question of how, if all studies are biased, we're supposed to know anything about anything and how we've made any progress with things like medicine and technology. I'm sure studies had nothing whatsoever to do with that. "Influence" is such a weak, broad word that you could make it so literally anything we encounter in life is an influence. The food I ate this morning is an influence on my mood right now, eg. Saying movies influence people means little to nothing if you aren't going to specify how and to what extent they influence people, and for that you'd need those "paid-for, biased, and unobjective" studies... unless you think you can just guess the correct answer. |
|
