Re: media violence report in Science

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Mon Apr 15 2002 - 15:39:58 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Thoughts and Perceptions"

    Received: by id PAA15438 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:37:23 +0100
    Message-ID: <006b01c1e48b$9a06ab80$23a0eb3e@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <> <>
    Subject: Re: media violence report in Science
    Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:39:58 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Ray Recchia <>
    > Regardless, I don't know any studies refuting the evidence that violence
    > the media promotes violence in the public. It seems like a number of
    > studies have all come to the same conclusion. In fact as was stated in the
    > introduction to this article, six major professional societies agree that
    > the evidence points overwhelmingly to a causal connection.

    Hi Ray, all,

    I don 't know. My guess is that violence in the media does not promote
    violence in the public ! In a similar way, sex would than promote rape
    and sex- related crimes, there is no proof of such an increase.
    Neither there is proof that programs about new dieits effects the number
    of people suffering from anexoria.

    Maybe we are looking at this from the wrong way, maybe the continue
    stream of rapports that violence in the media leads to violence in the
    public is the cause and not the violence itself !
    See what happens in cases of suicide, it is not the suicide as such that
    triggers other people to do the same, but the rapports in the media.
    We take the rapports/ the findings of scientists for granted, not the
    violence as such, and THAT worries me !

    In a sense, what I mean is this_ most list- members will have formed a
    clear preference for one side or the other. The evidence for and by
    each is IMO slim and insufficient, and in anything else boils down to
    the fact if either a nature or a nurture emphasis must be applied here.
    There is a real ( violent) world out there to observe, but what we make
    of it is not ONLY that real world, but also the world we carry around
    in our head_ that is our memetic concepts given by language, impressions,
    interpretations, dispostions, and whatever are playing their role.

    The way, we except that violence promotes violence, is shaped by what
    others have told us about it and like Wade said before, our observations
    are stained, and in this case, like Scott mentioned, stained by what vio-
    lence could do to children.

    IMO, nothing, if we don 't feel the necessity to point it out to them,...
    and to point it out to other parents.
    See nothing, know nothing ! But that doesn 't mean investigations are not
    necessary ! In a way, we must be responsible for the consequenties of
    writing down the rapport, and IMO, nothing is done, has been done to
    study this... I think.



    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 15 2002 - 15:48:32 BST