Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA16546 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:14:34 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [209.240.222.132] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: RE: media violence report in Science Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:08:30 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F157I5BFDL18rCENp230001829f@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2002 01:08:30.0493 (UTC) FILETIME=[38CFB4D0:01C1E4E3] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: RE: media violence report in Science
>Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:27:50 -0400
>
>
>
>
>
>>From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
>>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>>To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>>Subject: RE: media violence report in Science
>>Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:59:55 +0100
>>
>> Sorry to butt in. Still playing catch-up.
>>
>> <Up until quite recently societies have been quite violent on a day
>>to day
>> > basis. In the late 19C and 20C the advent of law and order has
>>generally
>> > made living a lot safer, and people are not exposed to violence. With
>>the
>> > advent of the visual image you could be introducing children to a
>> > predisposed propensity to violence that ocurs in the presence of
>>certain
>> > stimuli.>
>> >
>> You could, but since one can't even predict whether exposure to
>>real/actualy violence will lead individuals to commit violence, how could
>>mediated violence do so? Besides the point about pre-media societies
>>being
>>violent, indeed more violent than contemporary society is an argument
>>against media causing violence- indeed, it's an argument for the
>>diametrically opposite view, the catharsis view that media violence sates
>>human's desire for violence and thus stops us doing it. (I don't really
>>buy
>>that either, as it still suffers from a simple behavioural effects model,
>>but there you go).
>>
>> <Remember that in films, shoot 'em up games etc the victims and
>>protagonists
>> > turn up again. Either the game gets replayed or the actors make another
>> > film.>
>> >
>> But studies of children show that kids, even quite young kids are
>>able to recognise this (e.g. the work of David Buckingham).
>>
>> <Also, the military is quite good at conditioning people to do
>>amazingly
>> > dangerous things. If soldiers can be conditioned why are children
>>immune?>
>> >
>> Because soldiers (and kids in classrooms, say) have their
>>environments physically manipulated by other human beings. A recruit
>>can't
>>turn the drill instructor off, but a kid (or adult) can turn the TV off,
>>or
>>walk away. Also teachers and drill instructors are persistently and
>>deliberately trying to impart particular ideas and behaviour into their
>>respective audiences, audience who are at least supposed to be motivated
>>(by
>>other social pressures, like family etc.) to pay attention and do what
>>they're told. None of that is true for the media- advertising is
>>increasingly a competition for attention the teacher should have the
>>child's
>>undivided attention. Conditioning via the TV, or other media source, just
>>doesn't wash.
>>
>>
>Thoe who eneter the military, especially those who subsequently attempt to
>become members of special forces, are kinda pre-disposed to that sort of
>mindset, so "conditioning" is more like "singing to the choir". If the
>recruit or special forces candidate weren't prediposed to that ort of
>training they would likely wash out. I just watched a program(me) on the US
>Army Rangers gruelling training regimen and can't quite think that some
>greenhorn without a genereal idea of what they were geting themselves into
>would even attempt that sort of thing. Of those predisposed and "gung ho"
>enough to try, not so many succeed.
>
>In elite combat units like Rangers, Navy Seals or British S.A.S. (?), if
>you
>aren't cut out for that sort of thing to begin with, you probably won't
>make
>the grade. And if you decide to go that route, you best learn all you can,
>however brutal, lest you get caught in a serious bind during a real combat
>mission. That's where the "conditioning" will *hopefully* pay off.
>
>
I used "special forces" in a loose and very sloppy way. The US Army Special
Forces are the so-called "Green Berets". Dang I'm rusty on this stuff.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 16 2002 - 02:25:39 BST