RE: media violence

From: Vincent Campbell (
Date: Wed Apr 17 2002 - 14:12:47 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: media violence"

    Received: by id OAA19880 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:19:17 +0100
    Message-ID: <>
    From: Vincent Campbell <>
    To: "''" <>
    Subject: RE: media violence
    Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:12:47 +0100
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
    X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1]
    X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
    Precedence: bulk

            <The Star Trek example was a case of something forming such an
    impression on
    > some people, they took the idea and expanded it. If it can happen with
    > something harmless it can happen with something nasty. Don't you agree?>
            Yep- but then where's the cause (and thus implicitly the blame)?
    Will taking away media violence take away social violence?

            <The claim that a people go out and murder etc after watching
    videos etc for
    > long periods is difficult to sustain and prove. I concede that quite
    > readily. To deny that what our senses take in doesn't affect us to greater
    > or lesser degrees, and then subdivide into "induce laughter is true,
    > induce
    > violence false is hogwash".>
            True, but inducing laughter and inducing violence are different
    things. One is a behavioural/emotional response to a particular kind of
    stimuli, e.g. see/hear joke=laugh; the other is also a behavioural/emotional
    response, but one which involves some kind of recognitition of an
    instruction (implicit or explicit) or compulsion to copy, so see dirty harry
    blow someone away=blow someone away. (hence the reason why this might be of
    memetic interest to some I guess).

            Yet these two things don't routinely occur to the same extent-
    people laugh at jokes all the time, people do not copy dirty harry all the
    time. Yet, pro-violece researchers are arguing exactly that see violence on
    TV=commit violence. Martin Barker used the example of a horror film, where
    the violence researcher logic, if applied literally, would mean see horror
    film= become horrifying. (I think that's from his 1984 book on the 'video
    nasty' era of the UK, but he has written loads on this topic).

            <Violence in the media is part of the whole thing not the simple

    > I thought the idea was that if we view an action it has some effect on us,
    > even if for many that is indifference.>
            Yeah, but they're arguing for simple behavioural effects, not
    complex ones like psychological responses like caring or indifference.


    The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
    charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA.  Privileged/Confidential Information may
    be contained in this message.  If you are not the addressee indicated
    in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
    person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
    and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
    prohibited and may be unlawful.  In such case, you should destroy this
    message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.  Please advise
    immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
    for messages of this kind.  Opinions, conclusions and other
    information in this message that do not relate to the official
    business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.

    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 17 2002 - 14:53:14 BST