153: The Anatomy of Violence
- Thread starter Robert B. Marks
- Start date
I agree that there are a lot of complex variables, warfare has evolved a lot since WWII. There hadn't been a great deal of change from the American Civil War and Napoleonic era until WWI with the advent of tanks and aircraft. Grossman's books explain how the training regime encouraged more soldiers to fire, this involved more than just the shape of the targets as you say. Without wanting to talk cross purposes here his books also differentiate between those that fire and miss intentionally and those that fire and aim to hit. I do agree that there's no real fair comparison due to the evolution of warfare.
In respect of videogames teaching people to be shooters I disagree, short of the common sense understanding that when you point a gun at someone and squeeze the trigger there's a likelihood they'll fall over dead. There's been very little in the way of games that have dealt with the scientific aspects of shooting, wind speeds, air density/humidity, visibility, background noise etc. If modern armies took your average Counterstrike/COD/Halo player into a combat situation it would be a scary prospect. Lots of people running at each other firing with gay abandon, jumping from side to side, marksmen standing on the highest object for all to see etc. FPS titles are to me nothing more than an evolution of childhood games of soldiers. Seemingly paintballing or airsoft are the socially acceptable alternatives.
In respect of videogames teaching people to be shooters I disagree, short of the common sense understanding that when you point a gun at someone and squeeze the trigger there's a likelihood they'll fall over dead. There's been very little in the way of games that have dealt with the scientific aspects of shooting, wind speeds, air density/humidity, visibility, background noise etc. If modern armies took your average Counterstrike/COD/Halo player into a combat situation it would be a scary prospect. Lots of people running at each other firing with gay abandon, jumping from side to side, marksmen standing on the highest object for all to see etc. FPS titles are to me nothing more than an evolution of childhood games of soldiers. Seemingly paintballing or airsoft are the socially acceptable alternatives.
So if the FPS override the middle part of the brain and makes you more liable to kill if the correct situation comes around, the what about the rest, what about the non violent games, what do they do to you, and i play FPS and i like to play the real time strategy, would a real time strategy game have the same effect..? or would a RTS make you some sort of tactical genius..? i like to play these games, and i was in the army cadets, where i shot a rifle every other week, so does that constitute as training enough to have a little discipline to know how to kill someone..? Also some people say its down to the music that a person listens to.. and its the rock genre that gets slated for that, not all rock music enrages people and makes them commit heinous acts. take me for example then, i like rock music and a lot of FPS's so does that make me more likely to go out and randomly kill someone...?
Great article, and long overdue. If gamers expect our opinions to be taken seriously in this debate it's time for us to start taking an objective, realistic look at what videogames actually do rather than flatly denying every accusation leveled at them.
On the other hand I have a large amount of contempt for the tendency to blame videogames when someone actually does go on one of these senseless rampages that have occurred lately. That's just scapegoating and it's distracting people from examining the MUCH more important underlying causes of such violent and depraved behavior.
On the other hand I have a large amount of contempt for the tendency to blame videogames when someone actually does go on one of these senseless rampages that have occurred lately. That's just scapegoating and it's distracting people from examining the MUCH more important underlying causes of such violent and depraved behavior.
It doesn't make you more likely to kill someone. It makes you more able, to put it simply. What is being said is that violent games train the human to be ABLE to commit them. It doesn't mean that they will. There still usually needs to be some catalyst that makes them WANT to commit crimes. Be able to, and wanting to are two very different things. If being able to kill meant that the person would automatically start killing, then every cop, martial artist, and military person would be a murderer, killing indiscriminately on the street.nicknacks666 said:
Its about finding that boundary between being able to do something, and wanting to do it. That's why the so-called polarization of the debate is such a problem. One says claims its all videogames' fault, one side claims videogames aren't at fault at all. When the truth is, neither one is at fault. Videogames, helped make the person ABLE to murder (i say "helped", not "caused"), and then some societal catalyst made them WANT to murder. So when it comes to playing the blame game, the only person who can really be blamed is the one who did the crime...wait...isn't that how the justice system was supposed to work anyway.
Trying to persecute developers for these events is pointless anyway because its all in the past. Sure we throw the killer in jail or execute him (whatever your preference) for his crimes, but what good does trying to blame the developer do. You've already punished the killer, and persecuting the developer won't undo it. These events, though tragic, are so seemingly rare that i don't see how you could blame video games solely anyway. How many years were there between Columbine and Virgina Tech? How many kids played violent video games in that time? And how many of those kids made the moral choice to NOT act on seeing those violent images?
ok well i was only using myself as an example, but that still doesn't answer the other questions that i have mentioned, what about the non - violent games, they must have some effect. and the RTS i read that playing RTS games makes a person think more tactically.
I don't think those types of games would have much of an effect because those games are never personal. FPSs are just that, First Person. So the player is going to get that feeling that they are the one doing the killing. Since all those other games are basically third-person, it doesn't have as much of a psychological impact.
Unfortunately, S.L.A. Marshall's conclusions and methods have been brought into strong doubt of late. Evidence has been put forth that seems to indicate that Marshall did not actually do any systematic research into the subject of fire ratios, and that he was just stating an opinion and presenting it as research instead. A bit of basic searching on the web will show that his conclusions are being strongly disputed today.
To bring a bit of personal information to the subject, my grandfather served in the European theater as part of a recon company. His unit was not part of the Normandy landing, they arrived about a month later. They saw very heavy combat in the push to Berlin, however, and his people were no strangers to the sound of gunfire and the hammer of artillery. His opinion of Marshall's writings would be summed up with the word "Bullshit!". If Marshall was correct and the number of soldiers who actually fired was 15% or so, then there were at least 4-6 companies of men who never fired a shot, because according to my grandfather, every man in his unit shot themselves dry on a couple of occasions, a statement borne out by the unit's official history. Frankly, I have a hard time believing that WWII could have been won with so few guns firing on the lines. The death tolls in some of the battles were a little high for a bunch of guys shooting to miss.
It's interesting that the author makes no mention of the controversy that currently surrounds Marshall's and therefore Grossman's works. It would be one thing if it was mentioned and then argued against, but here it isn't even mentioned. Almost as if he knows the current discussion would weaken his position, and that he can't successfully argue against it. Not the most convincing article I've read.
To bring a bit of personal information to the subject, my grandfather served in the European theater as part of a recon company. His unit was not part of the Normandy landing, they arrived about a month later. They saw very heavy combat in the push to Berlin, however, and his people were no strangers to the sound of gunfire and the hammer of artillery. His opinion of Marshall's writings would be summed up with the word "Bullshit!". If Marshall was correct and the number of soldiers who actually fired was 15% or so, then there were at least 4-6 companies of men who never fired a shot, because according to my grandfather, every man in his unit shot themselves dry on a couple of occasions, a statement borne out by the unit's official history. Frankly, I have a hard time believing that WWII could have been won with so few guns firing on the lines. The death tolls in some of the battles were a little high for a bunch of guys shooting to miss.
It's interesting that the author makes no mention of the controversy that currently surrounds Marshall's and therefore Grossman's works. It would be one thing if it was mentioned and then argued against, but here it isn't even mentioned. Almost as if he knows the current discussion would weaken his position, and that he can't successfully argue against it. Not the most convincing article I've read.
Ironometer... pegging... she canna take much more, cap'n...jackthompson said:
I'm not entirely sold on the premise that video games act as desensitising agents do, though I can see how some such stimuli could act that way. I'd want better research on the issue before deciding either way in any case, as the current studies really are inconclusive.
-- Steve
Without knowing which genres you're referring to by saying "non-violent", it is hard to comment? If you're talking about Solitaire, I think we'd all generally agree that it is irrelevant. Katamari Damacy? Also probably irrelevant.nicknacks666 said:
Your average RTS may very well encourage the tactical tendencies of your brain, and if under duress, when the middle brain took over, you might be more tactical because of that.
And finally, to get at what I'm guessing you're alluding to with "non-violent" despite your vagueness, the author does point out that games which punish the player for harming NPCs can have the opposite effect. I would extrapolate from there to say that a game where you were never encouraged to shoot human-ish creatures (despite having the ability to do so, and encouragement to shoot non-human/homonid creatures), you would be unlikely to condition your middle brain to be okay with shooting people.
Very good writing. Bravo.
It's so rare that actual science is brought into the video games violence equation. And it isn't that people aren't trying; a lot of it is just conflicting reports. Just as Royas says his grandfather's company shot themselves empty, I can say my grandfather went through World War 2 without firing a shot. And he was infantry, a sargent maybe, but infantry nonetheless. So who is right?
My belief is not so much that games desensitize; that argument is outdated and there is plenty of other media that is equal to the level of violence in games. It's that games reward, points, experience, items, money, for commiting acts of violence. It teaches kids that violence is an acceptable means to resolve a problem instead of working through it logically and keeping emotions in check instead of just exploding. In games, you can just shoot the person who is frustrating you and they go away, and there is no consequense for it, and in fact, you are generally rewarded for it. That is my beef with game violence.
And it's true that first-person games suck people in and make them feel involved, but I've yet to find or be pointed to any meaningful scientific conclusions regarding it.
It's so rare that actual science is brought into the video games violence equation. And it isn't that people aren't trying; a lot of it is just conflicting reports. Just as Royas says his grandfather's company shot themselves empty, I can say my grandfather went through World War 2 without firing a shot. And he was infantry, a sargent maybe, but infantry nonetheless. So who is right?
My belief is not so much that games desensitize; that argument is outdated and there is plenty of other media that is equal to the level of violence in games. It's that games reward, points, experience, items, money, for commiting acts of violence. It teaches kids that violence is an acceptable means to resolve a problem instead of working through it logically and keeping emotions in check instead of just exploding. In games, you can just shoot the person who is frustrating you and they go away, and there is no consequense for it, and in fact, you are generally rewarded for it. That is my beef with game violence.
And it's true that first-person games suck people in and make them feel involved, but I've yet to find or be pointed to any meaningful scientific conclusions regarding it.
Excellent article.
I remember watching a documentary on S.L.A. Marshall and his findings that on the WW2 battlefield only a small percentage of soldiers were "gun-ho". His report lead the U.S. Army to institute new methods of mentally conditioning soldiers to basically become emotionless killing machines that acted out orders without pause. These methods were just about perfected come the Vietnam war hence why so many Vietnam vets are so fucked up upon returning home.
Considering how much time gamers spend running around shooting people in video games you have to wonder what the accumulative effect of such is on their minds and emotional disposition. Especially if they are not getting out and experiencing the world, other points of view and other points of reference. To say playing hours and hours of violent video games over the course of weeks, months, years, has no effect whatsoever on a person's mentality is ludicrous. People have been killed over words read in books, so it's not outlandish to think that someone's mental state may deteriorate by playing an interactive game that has them going on a murderous rampage for hours on end.
Not to mention the propaganda that can be found in video games. Pro military-industrial-complex, pro American war on terror, pro post apocalyptic world. The fact that many gamers see nothing wrong with video game violence in any extreme and will defend their "right" to play the most violent and nihilistic video games possible already proves that the brainwash is in full effect.
I remember watching a documentary on S.L.A. Marshall and his findings that on the WW2 battlefield only a small percentage of soldiers were "gun-ho". His report lead the U.S. Army to institute new methods of mentally conditioning soldiers to basically become emotionless killing machines that acted out orders without pause. These methods were just about perfected come the Vietnam war hence why so many Vietnam vets are so fucked up upon returning home.
Considering how much time gamers spend running around shooting people in video games you have to wonder what the accumulative effect of such is on their minds and emotional disposition. Especially if they are not getting out and experiencing the world, other points of view and other points of reference. To say playing hours and hours of violent video games over the course of weeks, months, years, has no effect whatsoever on a person's mentality is ludicrous. People have been killed over words read in books, so it's not outlandish to think that someone's mental state may deteriorate by playing an interactive game that has them going on a murderous rampage for hours on end.
Not to mention the propaganda that can be found in video games. Pro military-industrial-complex, pro American war on terror, pro post apocalyptic world. The fact that many gamers see nothing wrong with video game violence in any extreme and will defend their "right" to play the most violent and nihilistic video games possible already proves that the brainwash is in full effect.
One relevant thought, one I keep forgetting to mention in debates on videogames and violence; can we measure a difference in aggressive tendencies after playing video games and after other, more traditional forms of entertainment? We need to find out whether games are more, or less, or equally as rousing as watching football, playing cowboys-and-indians (pow pow pow!), or running a race.
-- Steve
-- Steve
Well no. He did say in the article that the condition for the capacity to kill is there. Just not the training to. It is just similar conditioning that soldiers go through. A soldier does not know how to use a gun until he is taught.L.B. Jeffries said:
Also one thing i believe not mentioned in the article (probably because of room to write). Is that soldiers who go through this conditioning and kill. Alot more of them end up with psychological disorders, due to the afore mentioned mammillian switch not liking being turned off. The brain cannot deal with the stress of killing another human.
Now give a child this psycho conditioning, teach him/her how to use a gun, then give them aggression training. That would be disastrous. As it is, games on their own are not enough to cause psychosis and an inherent need to kill.
No, false, bad science, must I link to this again:
Grossman-ism:
Media Violence and
Mad Social Science
Grossman-ism:
Media Violence and
Mad Social Science
For a long while I gave up playing FPS' because of my aggression and mood swings. I've already mentioned I have health problems and I realised that my frayed temper wasn't pleasant for those close to me and I was taking the games too seriously in respect that it stopped being fun and I felt I had to win or maintain a k/d ratio for the perceived respect of my peers. I fail to see how individuals without problems worse than my own could not separate an on-screen representation from real life. My upbringing, code of ethics and common sense tells me that if I were to do what I do in a video game in reality is wrong. Yet I still find issue with in-game behaviour, I can't tolerate players shooting the on-screen corpse of a downed opponent and the tea-bagging joke's worn very thin now. This is more to do with my views on good sportsmanship.Anton P. Nym said:
Are the same concerns leveled at those that drive around the circuit in the wrong direction deliberately causing crashes in racing games? Are these people a potential threat to society? No more than any other person behind a steering wheel is my guess.
Jack Thompson likes to quote frequently from Jesus for Dummies. Certain individuals have taken the content of their bible and twisted it's meanings to suit their needs causing atrocities along the way, the Davidian ranch and Jonestown for example. Middle America doesn't seem to have the same concern about people reading that 'dangerous' book. Personally I'd like to see it banned.
I agree completely. It's for this reason I disassociated myself with any religion. I still believe in God and occasionally pray, but I refuse to be associated with an organization so narrow minded as to say, "If you don't believe what I believe, you will go to hell." That's not something I like, nor would it be something I'd want my children exposed to. The Bible is the world's most misunderstood (whether accidentally or on purpose) book in the world. Accidentally, people sometimes just misinterpret. Intentionally, people (Jack Thompson among others) purposely twist the words to mean what they want in order to serve their own agenda. Organized religion, and its so called Holy Books, are not some divine thing passed from the heavens. They were written by man. Even those books that were first hand accounts have been edited and translated back and forth so many times that who knows what was originally said, much less what was MEANT.Doomspoon said:
Was a very interesting read. You mention at the end the idea that the implications of having a nation in which all (or a majority) of citizens have the ability to use lethal force.
To consider this idea alongside countries that have mandatory draft would probably require more research.
Speaking as a person that has practiced martial arts and has learned about firearms from family I can say that (as stated in the article) the whim for fatal violence VS the ability is pretty important. I know that those in a blind rage may WANT to kill, but their knowledge and ability make a pretty good stumbling block. Even despite my limited experience I know if I lost my cool in a fight I'd meet the floor pretty soon.
When a person is killed due to the shift in beliefs of the book reading murderer that murderer has made a conscious decision to do the deed, not through a psychologically degenerative process. Whereas a person that becomes more prepared for a combative situation though playing (violent) video games must still make a conscious decision in order to do the deed. In order for a subject to confuse a game with reality (through deterioration, or lack of mental faculties) there are many things that need to happen such as:
1 The game and the reality are similar in appearance
2 The situation within reality must relatively similar to the game (getting shot at, threatened, etc)
3 The subject must have objectives or a distinct lack of objectives that coincide with reality/game
The funny thing about propaganda is that it doesn't work as well on individuals that already disagree with the idea being pushed. As for individuals that are originally neutral they end up either staying neutral, or shifting to the side of the propaganda (but can be persuaded back if they are spoken with).
I don't understand how any of the propaganda topics you mentioned are in games as propaganda. Games tend to not take sides since the desire is to get a larger market share.
Pro m-i-c: Umm what? There's been very few games that even cover this issue, and more often than not something like this is portrayed negatively since the player will generally be charged with toppling the baddy (ex: Oddworld series).
Pro War on Terror: Which games explicitly say that it is a utterly noble endeavor? The closest thing that comes to mind is Call of Duty 4, and it has been pointed out by many that none of the characters are not the sort of poster-childs that Bush would want to hold up, without some spin.
Pro Post-Apocalyptic World: In what game is the there a good consequence to living in such an environment? The Fallout series shows that the world is a wasteland that can barely be inhabited. STALKER requires you to always be on your guard, even in town. The point of a post-apocalyptic world setting is that it is a DYSTOPIA.
If you want to look at statistics in violence check this out: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm
Violent crime has been on a decline for a long time. If you were to correlate this information with games it would mean that violent games have been reducing crime since violent games became more prevalent from the early 90s and onward. In reality I don't claim that this meaningful correlation exists since there are many (more important) factors that acted on people (economy, culture, government, etc).
To consider this idea alongside countries that have mandatory draft would probably require more research.
Speaking as a person that has practiced martial arts and has learned about firearms from family I can say that (as stated in the article) the whim for fatal violence VS the ability is pretty important. I know that those in a blind rage may WANT to kill, but their knowledge and ability make a pretty good stumbling block. Even despite my limited experience I know if I lost my cool in a fight I'd meet the floor pretty soon.
My understanding is that anyone who goes off to war and comes back with PTSD has problems. This doesn't have anything to do with their training, and has existed for longer than Vietnam Vets. WW1/2 soldiers would come back with similar problems. There are other differences as well, but all of them have to do with the mission environment rather than the training.MorkFromOrk said:
When a person is killed due to the shift in beliefs of the book reading murderer that murderer has made a conscious decision to do the deed, not through a psychologically degenerative process. Whereas a person that becomes more prepared for a combative situation though playing (violent) video games must still make a conscious decision in order to do the deed. In order for a subject to confuse a game with reality (through deterioration, or lack of mental faculties) there are many things that need to happen such as:
1 The game and the reality are similar in appearance
2 The situation within reality must relatively similar to the game (getting shot at, threatened, etc)
3 The subject must have objectives or a distinct lack of objectives that coincide with reality/game
The funny thing about propaganda is that it doesn't work as well on individuals that already disagree with the idea being pushed. As for individuals that are originally neutral they end up either staying neutral, or shifting to the side of the propaganda (but can be persuaded back if they are spoken with).
I don't understand how any of the propaganda topics you mentioned are in games as propaganda. Games tend to not take sides since the desire is to get a larger market share.
Pro m-i-c: Umm what? There's been very few games that even cover this issue, and more often than not something like this is portrayed negatively since the player will generally be charged with toppling the baddy (ex: Oddworld series).
Pro War on Terror: Which games explicitly say that it is a utterly noble endeavor? The closest thing that comes to mind is Call of Duty 4, and it has been pointed out by many that none of the characters are not the sort of poster-childs that Bush would want to hold up, without some spin.
Pro Post-Apocalyptic World: In what game is the there a good consequence to living in such an environment? The Fallout series shows that the world is a wasteland that can barely be inhabited. STALKER requires you to always be on your guard, even in town. The point of a post-apocalyptic world setting is that it is a DYSTOPIA.
If you want to look at statistics in violence check this out: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm
Violent crime has been on a decline for a long time. If you were to correlate this information with games it would mean that violent games have been reducing crime since violent games became more prevalent from the early 90s and onward. In reality I don't claim that this meaningful correlation exists since there are many (more important) factors that acted on people (economy, culture, government, etc).
First off, Vortexgods: thanks for the link. It was quite fascinating reading. I don't think Grossman can really be completely written off, though, even if Marshall was wrong. Much of what I found in On Combat about how the human body, and brain, reacts under stress made a lot of sense, and did scan with what I understand about psychology. That being said, I am writer and grad student in history, not a psychologist. However, I do find it very difficult to believe that violent media don't have SOME impact. We human beings do not live in a vacuum, and while you'll never find me saying that a video game made somebody kill, I think that there is merit to the theory that some psychological conditioning takes place.
(As somebody with a degree in Medieval Studies, though, I really have to disagree with the anti-Grossman article when it comes to the longbow. The longbow disappears mainly because of the training requirements when compared to the musket. And, Grossman's statement about bigger bangs does hold some water, although there are obvious exceptions (such as Shaka Zulu). But that is a side issue.)
Second, Royas: Actually, this is the first I've read in detail about the issues regarding Marshall. I came across Grossman while I was trying to reconstruct my great grandfather's Great War experience, and it was in reading On Combat, which has a great deal about how the human body responds to combat stress, that I found out about Marshall and firing rates. So, this was something I came across while researching something else, and that then generated this article.
That said, if I had read about the issues around Marshall and his research, I would have found a way to put them into the article somehow. The big point of this piece was to de-polarize the debate, and that is certainly part of the debate, and something worthy of note - if we accept that conditioning is attempted with army training, to what degree does it actually work?
(And, are there any military people here who can answer that question?)
Best to all,
Robert B. Marks
(As somebody with a degree in Medieval Studies, though, I really have to disagree with the anti-Grossman article when it comes to the longbow. The longbow disappears mainly because of the training requirements when compared to the musket. And, Grossman's statement about bigger bangs does hold some water, although there are obvious exceptions (such as Shaka Zulu). But that is a side issue.)
Second, Royas: Actually, this is the first I've read in detail about the issues regarding Marshall. I came across Grossman while I was trying to reconstruct my great grandfather's Great War experience, and it was in reading On Combat, which has a great deal about how the human body responds to combat stress, that I found out about Marshall and firing rates. So, this was something I came across while researching something else, and that then generated this article.
That said, if I had read about the issues around Marshall and his research, I would have found a way to put them into the article somehow. The big point of this piece was to de-polarize the debate, and that is certainly part of the debate, and something worthy of note - if we accept that conditioning is attempted with army training, to what degree does it actually work?
(And, are there any military people here who can answer that question?)
Best to all,
Robert B. Marks