RE: media violence report in Science

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Tue Apr 16 2002 - 02:08:30 BST

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

    Received: by id CAA16546 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:14:34 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: RE: media violence report in Science
    Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:08:30 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2002 01:08:30.0493 (UTC) FILETIME=[38CFB4D0:01C1E4E3]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: "Scott Chase" <>
    >Subject: RE: media violence report in Science
    >Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:27:50 -0400
    >>From: Vincent Campbell <>
    >>To: "''" <>
    >>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
    >> > made living a lot safer, and people are not exposed to violence. With
    >> > advent of the visual image you could be introducing children to a
    >> > predisposed propensity to violence that ocurs in the presence of
    >> > 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
    >>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
    >>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
    >> > 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
    >> > dangerous things. If soldiers can be conditioned why are children
    >> >
    >> Because soldiers (and kids in classrooms, say) have their
    >>environments physically manipulated by other human beings. A recruit
    >>turn the drill instructor off, but a kid (or adult) can turn the TV off,
    >>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
    >>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
    >>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
    >aren't cut out for that sort of thing to begin with, you probably won't
    >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:

    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 : Tue Apr 16 2002 - 02:25:39 BST