Skip to comments.Dave Grossman: First-Person Shooter Videogames Should be Banned
Posted on 01/04/2013 5:43:51 PM PST by Katechon
The first juvenile mass-murder happened for the FIRST TIME in recorded human history in the late 1970s, in California. In 500 years of gun-powder combat, not once had a juvenile committed multiple homicide. We had a couple in the 1980s, and now it's out of control. So what happened?
It's Pavlog Dog, said Lt. Col. Lt. Col. Grossman: our youth is being conditioned from childhood by videogames to be "First-Person Shooters, (FPS) and to associate killing, human death and suffering with reward and pleasure.
Videogames are not "games"; they are mass-murder simulators, Grossman says.
Our kids are being wired from childhood by hyper-violent and realistic video games to be brainless killers, precognitively loaded to be potential murderers. And if videogames are training them to be killers, the movies and many TV shows are the propaganda machines of the gang-bangers.
In videogames, kids are being rewarded to kill, but without any of the benefits coming from the disciplinary training of the Army. And this rewarding response to killing another (virtual) human being deactivates our innate resistance to murdering.
Everyone is born with a deep resistance to killing any member of ones own species; and this resistance is a key factor in combat.
Most participants in close combat are frightened out of their wits, says Grossman. But proper operant conditioning reliably influences the midbrain processing of a frightened human being.
Fire drills condition terrified school children to respond properly during a fire. Conditioning in flight simulators enables frightened pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations.
Once the bullets start flying, combattants stop thinking with the forebrain (cerebrum) and start thinking with the primitive midbrain. The limbic system and the hypotalamus are in action while killing; whilst the rational brain is deactivated. But even the midbrain processing powerfully resists to the killing of ones own species; it's a survival mechanism preventing a species from destroying itself.
To overcome this innate resistance to killing other human beings, the military and law enforcement communities have developped operantly conditioned devices using killing simulators in training. Turning killing into a conditionned response.
By the middle of the XXth century, the Human Resources Research Office (HumRRO) of the US Army pioneered a revolution in combat training. This paradigmatic shift would lead warriors firing at bullseye targets to warriors firing at man-shaped pop-up targets that fall when hit.
Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall observed that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. When left to their own devices, 80 percent of the combatants appear to have been unable or unwilling to kill.
But murder simulators produced a dramatic increase in participation in killing. More effective tactical and mechanical mechanisms were developped to enable or force combatants to overcome their resistance to killing.
The application and perfection of conditioning techniques increased the rate of fire to approximately 55 percent in Korea and around 95 percent in Vietnam, says Grossman.
The militarys marksmanship training program, with its pop-up targets, constitutes an highly effective operant conditioning.
Military behaviorists found out how to overcome our innate resistance to murder; they brought way up the percentage of killers among the platoons by incorporating reactive training with humanoid pop-up silhouettes.
Now the video industry has kids playing video games for hours at a time, blasting away at humanoid targets which explode in blood and gore when you shoot them.
In First-Person Shooter videogames, you pull the trigger and the human explodes in high-def blood and gore in front of you. And you do it again and again and again, while eating chips, drinking pop and smelling your girlfriend's perfume. This reconditions the kids to be ready to pull any actual trigger on any living human. Those videogames should be BANNED, restricted to military and law enforcement training.
Its not about THINKING about killing. Calm down and re-read the head-thread: its about BEHAVIORAL CONDITIONNING:
Ok........would not KILLING be "Behavioral Conditioning" for.....gee, I don't know MORE KILLING?
So, can you now answer my question posed twice in previous posts?
If not, just say it is about "feeling good." ie there has to be a cause for the affect. Something/someone has to take the blame for the deaths of 20 school children; so it is evil guns, medication, FPS games....what have you. The real culprit, the killer committed suicide and therefore is not around for the public to vent its wrath at.
But, it "feels good" to find a scapegoat and make it the "cause" therefore we can easily work to eliminate this cause and the innocent bystanders' rights be damned.
If it isn't about feeling good....then respond - it is about control. Situations like Columbine and Sandy Hook make you and others like you feel powerless and without control. By "doing something" and taking "decisive action" to "fix" the problem it puts you back in "control" and rebuilds your ego. We identified the problem as video games, assault rifles, and high capacity socket wrenches and are taking control of the situation and the problem is solved.
Any which way, don't sit here and try to pawn off some BS about a video game made me do it and we NEED to ban them. Because in the end sick people will still do sick things.
Further, don't insult everyone by trying to say you are a conservative and not the enemy when you are trying to infringe upon everyone else for the actions of one individual.........NeWs FlAsH - that is NOT a conservative response.
Yup. Reality is a bitch when it goes against the theory.
Yes, I remember indeed. It was about the
Michael Corneal shot 8 times and hit 8 times. Five of them head shots. Yet the boy had never shot a real firearm in his life (except, IIRC, a few hours of training).
But he was a master at video game. He shot only once at each target. Which, he says, is highly weird from a debutant.
In the FPS videogame he was playing, players were rewarded for headshots.
Grossman ain’t a pacifist; he’s a warrior, a ‘sheepdog.’ And he certaintly does not want Americans to be disarmed. Far from it.
The good thing about this discussion is the practice for when they start the ban calls on everything rapid fire.
As to your questions...Heh...fat chance of an answer. but then you already know that ;)
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. I didn't know that The LORD equaled satan in Genesis Chapter 4.
Please stop posting nonsense on FR.
He advocates an unproven theory. Sheepdog is right. He can’t see a damn thing.
How many? Over what time period?
Define it. Then we can compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
I'm less worried about someone else usurping the word 'shooting' than I am about you, here on FR, trying to usurp the word massacre.
Because you linked that with individual shootings of gang bangers in communist controlled cities in America, like Chicago.
>>Animals have been killing other animals over resources and for recreation since before they emerged from the primordial soup.
And humans were pretty darn good at it long before FPS videogames and auto-loading rifles with box magazines. Just ask the adversaries of Ghengis Khan or Julius Caesar, for some good historical examples.
Did the theory involve the movie “Toys” by any chance? Or the Last Starfighter? And then extrapolate to ridiculous extremes?
“I’m stating in 100% truthfulness and honesty I have killed people.....without the assistance of a video game. Where do I fit into your equation? If something like a First Person Shooter GAME will “make” someone kill, wouldn’t First Person Shooting REALITY make them all the more worse?”
That’s a fascinating question. I think Grossman would ask “in which context”? Military? Then you received the discipline; you know why you did it; and you are being recompensed for it: parades, medales, honour.
Or was it police duty? Or self-defense? Or as a civilian militant during a civil war?
The basic difference with FPS videogames is that one associates killing with reward and pleasure, without any disciplinary and larger context.
Is that so in the military and the police? I don’t think so. It’s about protecting the ‘sheep’ from the ‘wolves’ — much more than raking points, while smelling your girlfriend perfume and drinking soda pop with your buddies.
I don't expect to receive a logical answer....just more nonsense. But like you say, it is good practice to see what nonsensical approaches they will take.
Also, did his video game experience include a recoil simulator? Or a built in Adrenaline pump?
Because actually killing someone with a gun involves both. And it’s hard to train realistically without a big dose of both.
Funny that when confronted with facts from a man that knows what he’s talking about from real life experience, our friend just can’t seem to theorize his way around it huh?
Glad you spoke up on this. Because he can’t easily explain you away.
Again, the point here is about the killing perpetrated by an individual, not as part of a larger war machine. That’s why he gave the example of the lone rifleman. When many are required to manage a piece of artillery, they WILL aim to kill. Not so the rifleman, said Grossman prior to the conditionning of the pop-up humanoid silhouettes.
the response is of reward and pleasure. And the act if repeated thousands of times, several hours per weeks, for years.
I’ve said many rabbis hold Cain to be the son of satan; I did not say it was written in the Bible. What is wrong with you?
That's not generally how that works here in the US. Sure, where you are, it's all a great big group thing.
Here in the States, where I've gone days without seeing another human, and living 16 kilometers from the nearest neighbor, things are different.
Most mass killers (I'll define as over 3 shot or killed, on the same killing field, within one engagement) are considered 'loners', without girlfriends or buddies.
Your values are not my values. Your situation is not my situation. Your environment is not my environment.
To attempt to dictate to me that I give up my rights, as affirmed by the Constitution, is laughable.
Grossman's science isn't science.
He's drawn a conclusion without data that can be verified.
You compound that error by cultural mis-application of your experiences to a nation you know nothing about.
So how does he target a physical gun weighing 10 pounds while experiencing a full blown adreneline rush that makes you shake violently?
Certainly a first time killer with no serious experience in real firearms cannot credit his physical control of a physical thing that weighs pounds, under an adreneline rush and a mobile scenario, to the sedentary activity of sitting on a couch pushing buttons .
Because that is what your saying. A virtual mental experience can PHYSICALLY condition a person. I want to know how such is medically possible.
Tin and yarn are of little recompense for human life. Killing for the sake of being "honored" in the name of parades, medals, and "honour" would be no different than killing in the name of "high score" on a video game. Do not seek reward amongst men.
Is that so in the military and the police? I dont think so. So you don't think there is "reward and pleasure" in avenging the death of a comrade?
The basic difference with FPS videogames is that one associates killing with reward and pleasure, without any disciplinary and larger context
How do you know? What about the college student that uses video games as stress release to give his mind something unimportant to focus on for a set period of time so he can get back studying. Would this not be "discipline?" What about FPS games/scenarios used by the military that show cause/effect on actions in different scenarios?
Where do I fit into your equation? If something like a First Person Shooter GAME will make someone kill, wouldnt First Person Shooting REALITY make them all the more worse?
Thats a fascinating question.
And one that appears to have not been asked prior to Grossman's [and your acceptance] determination that video games should be banned. So how far down the rabbit hole shall we go? How many must lose their liberties before those questions are asked? If you can ban the video game because of what it may do, then certainly you could ban me for what I've already shown I can and will do? Why does it matter the circumstances of military, police, self-defense?
It didn't matter for the gamer that had done nothing more than play a video game. Your logic should hold true for the actual killer. If a video game corrupts one to kill, then it isn't that hard to believe killing will corrupt one to kill more. So, who is going to be responsible for making the determination of what/who should be banned next?
Beyond that is determining who the unfortunate soul that will be sent to "ban" me.......after all, I've already proven myself capability of killing for real.