Re: media violence report in Science

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Thu Apr 18 2002 - 10:14:49 BST

  • Next message: Joachim Maier: "Re: Thoughts and Perceptions"

    Received: by id KAA22741 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:11:57 +0100
    Message-ID: <003b01c1e6b9$a78a9520$72a6eb3e@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: media violence report in Science
    Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:14:49 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    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: Grant Callaghan <>
    > Claiming there is a correlation between the amount of violence on TV and
    the amount of violence in society is not a claim of a direct cause and
    > I don't believe they are saying that anyone seeing violence will commit
    > violence. What they are saying, IMO, is that an increase in one leads to
    > increase in the other. That could be for a large number of reasons: with
    > more violence going on, the need to report and talk about it increases;
    > when children see people using violence to solve problems without negative
    > consequences they see no reason not to do it themselves; kids normally are
    > more violent in their younger years when they are learning to cope with
    > others in society (I know mine were) but doing studies of it is relatively
    > new; etc., etc. None of these things "prove" anything about the
    > relationship of one to the other in terms of cause and effect. They just
    > show that there is a relationship between the two.

    Hi Grant,

    Yes, these are just the reasons where upon they bias their assumptions.
    There is no correlation found between rapporting violence and the alleged
    increase of violence as such within society.
    The same claim/ token is being made when one student dies ( or commits
    suicide) in an accident_ the school is being psychological attented to.

    I am not saying that such things don 't work, but than again, it is
    and personaly I have serious doubts about the necessity.
    Yesterday, reading the paper this morning, a 16 year boy died in an acci-
    dent with his motorcycle. His school ( more than a thousand kids) has a
    special scenario to cope with such things. Understandable.
    What I have problems with is the next.
    The management takes a whole day off to give to the boy 's classmates
    a chance, in all freedom as they call it, to cope with their loss.
    Who says that they lost, or anyone lost something !?

    Another school has special writing- blocs avaible wherein kids can write
    down their grief. It allegedly helpfull by the process of coping with such
    matters. Again, IMO, this is overkill.

    Another example how such things work,
    Foodallergy overestimated,

    " One out three thinks to have one or some foodallergy, but only in 2%
    that is really the case. That is the conclusion of some British scientists.
    According to them, to many people diagnose themselves and even when
    those go to the doctor, is it very difficult to pin point which kind of food
    is the cause ( or which medicin used they add).

    Foodallergy is allegedly confused with foodintolerance. By an allergy
    there is an abnormal reaction within the immunesystem, which can be
    in some cases lifethreatened. By foodintolerance some symptoms like
    astma, eczema and migraine can occur. "

    Just to say, Grant, that not only the alleged increase of violence within
    the society should be treated with some scrunity.



    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 : Thu Apr 18 2002 - 10:23:23 BST