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 one’s 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 one’s 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 military’s 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.
I cannot suppose Grossman is correct for the sake of argument because from first hand knowledge I KNOW him to be wrong (by the scientific method that would be my hypothesis)......as in after four combat tours, beyond doubt I KNOW him to be wrong. Until he has first hand accounts of his own (or if he has them, conveys them) to refute my hypothesis, he could not be right. Beyond that, there is almost no way to "control" within the study because all of us come from different backgrounds and experiences and respond to stimuli differently. So, all we would be doing is arbitrarily banning something based on someone's belief. What if I believe wearing bluejeans makes a person violent?
Even if we were able to find some corollary where we could find common ground......"doing something about this" would still be the anti-thesis to liberty and punishing the whole because of the one. 'It is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man suffer.'
By that logic that "something must be done," we could rationalize that according to crime statistics a certain race makes up 13% of the population yet commits 65% of the violent crime. It is integrated culturally "hard-wired" if you will, through music, television, and customs passed through generations
ergo - "doing something" would mean we would be justified in detaining or exterminating an entire segment of the population because of the actions of a few.
I think you and I could agree that this would be a gross infringement of liberty and justice. However, under Grossman's theory we would be justified and correct.
Even without taking it to the extreme of rounding up people, when would it be time to look at how television, murder mysteries, hell even playing "Risk," or "Clue" affects people?
Who would be responsible for deciding this? Would society vote on it? Would a judge decide? What would the penalties be for violating it? If Person A made a bootleg video game and Person B played it and then coincidentally murdered someone, would Person A be an accessory to murder?
When you justify one thought crime, you can justify them all. All that matters is who deems what to be a thought crime at any given time.
Are you against restricting porn movies to children?
Grossman is for the same thing as per FPS games. No kids should be allowed, no more than they should be allowed to watch porn or some ultra-violent movies.
Are you against age-restrictions in movie theaters?
What about porn? Is restricting porn to our children a restriction to liberties? Of course it is. But we do it, and we enforce it, because of the nefarious effects porn would have on them kids.
I am Pro parental responsibility.
I personally think age restrictions should be left to parents. And if a parent is so screwed up as to let their kids view outright pornography, then that is an entirely different issue. But that is not this issue. Nor is it remotely related to this one.
This issue demands that your theory be backed up with actual evidence, IE dead bodies numbering in the millions.
Again. This theory is easy to document and verify. Where is that documentation? Where are the dead bodies? Where are the lillions of gamers in prison cells charged with murder?
If Videogames train kids to murder they are damn ineffective.
Most of the time, the conditioning, the learning, stays only as potential; it does actualize only very, very rarely.
But juveniles committing multiple murders are very new in the history of the world. It began in the last decades only, according to Grossman.
Obviously, Grossman expects this tendency to explode, more massacres (multiple homicide) perpetrated by juveniles to come. And a general culture where murdering becomes almost as normal as sodomy and adultery.
The title of this thread refutes you. Your own thread title. It isn't should be banned for children. It is "Should be banned".
You are dishonest. Once again, you lose face.
After so much failure, perhaps you should seek some local guidance. Perhaps some old guy with a cane.
/johnny
Children are not of the age of majority, and there is demonstrable proof of its harmful to children. So, it is not a restriction of liberties to prevent the exploitation of minor children. Secondly pornography is not sold to children it is age restricted, as are violent movies, alcohol, firearms, tobacco, the lottery, and yes even video games.
Certain things society has deemed under no circumstances can a minor be exposed to certain thing - such as pornography because it has demonstrable negative impacts on children. Others, with parental consent - such as video games and movies children can be exposed to it. As the other poster mentioned, where are the statistics demonstrating FPS games = mass murder to the extent they need to be banned?
Porn, the lottery, tobacco, firearms, etc are not outright banned. While you or I may find many of these things detestable, it is not for me to ban others from them. Now, when my perceived "right" or liberty to do something infringes on the rights of someone else, I know longer have that right........it's why the Supreme Court has routinely held "fighting words" are not "Free Speech."
Children are not of the age of majority, and there is demonstrable proof of its harmful to children. So, it is not a restriction of liberties to prevent the exploitation of minor children. Secondly pornography is not sold to children it is age restricted, as are violent movies, alcohol, firearms, tobacco, the lottery, and yes even video games.
Certain things society has deemed under no circumstances can a minor be exposed to certain thing - such as pornography because it has demonstrable negative impacts on children. Others, with parental consent - such as video games and movies children can be exposed to it. As the other poster mentioned, where are the statistics demonstrating FPS games = mass murder to the extent they need to be banned?
Porn, the lottery, tobacco, firearms, etc are not outright banned. While you or I may find many of these things detestable, it is not for me to ban others from them. Now, when my perceived "right" or liberty to do something infringes on the rights of someone else, I no longer have that right........it's why the Supreme Court has routinely held "fighting words" are not "Free Speech."
“Who would be responsible for deciding this? Would society vote on it? Would a judge decide? What would the penalties be for violating it? If Person A made a bootleg video game and Person B played it and then coincidentally murdered someone, would Person A be an accessory to murder?”
Those are excellent question and I can’t answer them all. All I can say is: Grossman wants to ban access to children.
How did porn become banned?
If by banned, you mean to children?
I am not a lawyer, but I believe it falls under endangering the welfare of a minor, lewd and indecent conduct etc. and certain legal thresholds have to be met. Again, not being a lawyer, your child walks in on you in the bathroom will probably not get you sent up the river (although the zero tolerance nazis would probably love to) but sitting down to an after dinner sex video would.
And I don't know why this is the next next topic.....because porn is not outright banned. Grossman is calling for FPS games to be outright banned at least that's what I am getting from his remarks.
“........it’s why the Supreme Court has routinely held “fighting words” are not “Free Speech.” “
The spirit behind ‘fighting words’ is indeed to ban words aiming at mobilizing a crowd into a lynching mob!
I don’t think he wants a total ban; he wants very severe restrictions, and to ban kids from accessing them.
And obviously based on 30 years of it not exploding, his theory fails experimental scrutiny.
What other scientific social or other theory that has repeatedly failed experimental scrutiny for 30 years is considered legitimate?
Exactly none.
Each day is a lab. Each day passes with a failure of the experiment. Over 30 years of experimental failure.
He would have better results championing global warming. Because we can measure the planet heating and cooling daily. We cannot measure the game related deaths as there has never been ‘daily’ killings based on usage of video games. The experimental proof does not exist.
I can say I believe that video games reduce violent crime and another poster has shown you the stats that not only prove a reduction in violent crime and murder correlating to the timeframe, but are in fact verifiable through their existence.
No such proof to the contrary exists. And the state to the contrary further show the incorectness of the ‘games cause murder, active or latent, theory.
Now, in light of actual facts disproving his theory, how can you logically, scientifically, emotionally or rationally support it?
For example, I cannot walk up to a random person on the street and follow him down the sidewalk and tell him all the ways 'I am going to rape, torture, and burn his entire family, and then after I get my #ss kicked say 'well I was just strolling along there with my hands in my pocket enjoying the sun shiny day and exercising my Free Speech.' More than likely I would be charged with breaching the peace and told I deserved to get the #ss beating.
That's entirely different than the original discussion. Aside from that there already are age restrictions on FPS game purchases.
Beyond that there is no way to fully ban children from accessing them. And I do not support locking up parents for letting their children play video games. How is it any different than playing Cowboys and Indians with cap guns in the backyard? There is no evidence to support such draconian measures.
As an example of zero tolerance stupidity....and I'll even use the example of porn - teenage boys and girls are getting charged with child porn crimes and a laundry list of others for sending naked pictures of each other via text message; basically the digital version of "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours." Kids are having to register as sex offenders for life over stupid kid decisions.
We don't need more laws.
I am not supporting it; I am discussing it; I am thinking about it with you guys; I am however trying to play Grossman’s advocate (quite poorly, I have to admit!).
“How is it any different than playing Cowboys and Indians with cap guns in the backyard? “
In the video, he explained that the difference is that when someone is hurt, the game stops — whereas with FPS shooting, you are rewarded to make head explode, blood flowing and eviscerate the others.
It’s very different.
Do you agree with him? Based on what documentable evidence?
I am all for devils advocate thought exercises. Love’em. But not when the premise is ludicrous on its face and unsupportable by the facts. Then its not a thought exercise. It’s ridiculous.
It’s not a matter of you supporting his theory poorly. Because HE can’t support it himself. So how could anyone else?
I gotta call it a night.
Grossman says that FPS videogame makers are addicting kids to video games for hours at a time, blasting away at humanoid targets that explode in very realistic blood and gore when you shoot them.
That does not happen when they play Indians and Cowboys.
In vidgames, when you pull the trigger, another virtual human explodes in hi-def blood and gore right in front of you. Grossman says that this rewires the cerebrum to be ready to pull the actual-trigger on actual living humans in a way that playing Indians and Cowboys never, ever did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.