According to this (http://www.jahonline.org/article/PIIS1054139X07003916/fulltext) journal article the relative effect of media violence on aggression is worse than that of passive smoke and lung cancer at work (but better than smoking and lung cancer in general).

In summary, exposure to electronic media violence increases the risk of both children and adults behaving aggressively in the short-run and of children behaving aggressively in the long-run. It increases the risk significantly, and it increases it as much as many other factors that are considered public health threats. As with many other public health threats, not every child who is exposed to this threat will acquire the affliction of violent behavior, and many will acquire the affliction who are not exposed to the threat. However that does not diminish the need to address the threat.

So should we start banning media violence like we do smoking at work? :)

Unlike media violence that affects only certain individuals, anyone exposed to passive smoke is damaging their health.

I don't think that media violence is a laughable concept, but I think that its "dangers" are vastly overblown.

First of all I just want freedom lovers to stop pretending the effect doesn't exist.

That's a load of bloody pish is that.

Someone with violent tendencies will have them, whatever. I admit media violence can act as a trigger for these people, but so can loads of stuff. You can't remove all catalysts from these peoples lives, so we should be concentrating on trying to find ways to chill them out, rather than going on about violent games and films all the time.

Nobody is 'exposed' to passive smoking unless they choose to be, just like violent media. But for me, you can't reasonably compare the two.

Chev, what do you mean by that? Who do you classify as freedom lovers?

It would appear to me that seeing violence anywhere is going to subconsciously increase your chance of acting aggressively. It seems that this is just stating the obvious... I mean, if you expose something to anyone for a long enough time will make them subconsciously accept it.

You can't remove all catalysts from these peoples lives
That's one thing. What I fail to understand is why the catalysts have to be removed from everyone's life.

It would appear to me that seeing violence anywhere is going to subconsciously increase your chance of acting aggressively.
Of course media violence is going to increase the likelihood that a violent person will commit a violent act. That does not prove in any way that media violence makes otherwise non-violent people commit violent acts.

The reason I mentioned the media violence along with the passive smoking is that they can both be seen as affecting others: Smoking at work exposes non-smokers to passive smoke and the concomitant increase in lung cancer risk, media violence increases aggression which increases the risk of exposure to violence even to the non-violent. And also the fact of the disparate relative effects :)

Could the violence in the media be increasing the violence around us? I know when I was younger I didn't hear about parents of athletes getting violent at games. Is that just because more is at stake today, or more violence in the media, or both of those things and more?

Not that I want less violence in the media; I like it :)

Chev, what do you mean by that? Who do you classify as freedom lovers?

Those who will pretend the ill effects of something doesn't exist just because they think, or rather feel, the thing itself should be legal, acceptable, free to do etc. In other words, freedom to act, at the cost of the truth about the consequences. An example would be protecting the sale of 18+ material to minors under freedom of speech - something which insults a lawyer's intelligence.

Could the violence in the media be increasing the violence around us? I know when I was younger I didn't hear about parents of athletes getting violent at games. Is that just because more is at stake today, or more violence in the media, or both of those things and more?

Not that I want less violence in the media; I like it :)

Depends. I firmly believe that violence in some aggressive kids' behaviour is amplified by the violent cartoons they watch. That's not as much the access to banned materials, as the invasion of violence into what's actually meant for children. The same goes for sex. I remember toons for teens (lower teens) with nudity and blood and it's not like it has improved since when I was younger.

The problem with violence and exposure to it is that those kids who are exposed to lavish amounts of violence, they will see it as less real or as more acceptable, more a part of daily life. They won't believe the colleague whom they hit will not perhaps stand up - characters always do. They won't see what's wrong with it - in their world everyone does that.

Nobody is 'exposed' to passive smoking unless they choose to be, just like violent media. But for me, you can't reasonably compare the two.

Oh, right.

Employees worldwide choose to enter buildings where people can smoke inside. They could always avoid buildings altogether! Plenty of outdoor jobs!

Students worldwide choose to study in buildings where people can smoke on the corridors. They could just avoid corridors altogether!

Kids worldwide choose to live with their smoking parents who don't bother to go outside for a smoke. Silly brats should just go out for a few hours every time their parents smoke up the place. When they come back, they'll hardly smell the stuff any more! What? They'll be smoking again by then? Put up a tent outside then, stupid!

Not to mention smoking in cars or buses - anyone who doesn't want to be exposed could always run after the vehicle! Great for your health!

Gotta love some smokers. :rolleyes:

Oh, right.

Employees worldwide choose to enter buildings where people can smoke inside. They could always avoid buildings altogether! Plenty of outdoor jobs!

Students worldwide choose to study in buildings where people can smoke on the corridors. They could just avoid corridors altogether!

Kids worldwide choose to live with their smoking parents who don't bother to go outside for a smoke. Silly brats should just go out for a few hours every time their parents smoke up the place. When they come back, they'll hardly smell the stuff any more!

Not to mention smoking in cars or buses - anyone who doesn't want to be exposed could always run after the vehicle!

Gotta love some smokers. :rolleyes:

Smoking in my country is allowed only in outside areas, and well away from building entrances/exits. We've gone to those lengths to 'protect' non-smokers from the effect of secondary smoke, and still people find cause to moan. I honestly can't find a single reason for people to be against smoking in the UK.

I think that it's obvious from my post that given the total lack of that context in your post that I've replied to, I didn't think that you were making a comment about the specific state of things in the UK, but passive smoking in general.

But even so, I think I've illustrated well enough that even with a ban in place, kids still have no choice but to be exposed to passive smoking if they have parents, relatives or any other adults inconsiderate enough to smoke indoors. And I know from personal experience that up until recently, this was the overwhelming majority of smokers who didn't really give a damn about how anyone else felt having to breathe in their smoke. Many couldn't care less even today. So writing something like Nobody is 'exposed' to passive smoking unless they choose to be, just like violent media. is quite obviously untrue, and given the amount of information about this available today, I honestly have to wonder how anyone could seriously write something like that.

I personally don't know a single person with a problem with cigarette smoke. So from that, it's pretty understandable I'd make a comment like that really.

Obviously you've had a horrid and tormented past of people holding you down by the balls, breathing smoke through a cylinder directly into your nose. I feel for you for that kidda.

No need to fly off at a comment anyway, but it's obviously something you feel strongly about I guess. Sorry about the comment, next time I'll provide a full and thorough explanation of my background and give a full detail of the context on which the post is meant.

Death. That's a pretty good reason for me. I watched my grandfather die of lung cancer -- he smoked until the day he died (literally).

Medical costs. That's another good reason. I would think it would even be a better reason in nations with socialized medicine -- treating ailments related to smoking is the single largest drain on US medical insurance companies and Medicare. Spending so much to treat smokers, of course, leaves less money other government funded projects.

I did not have a choice about being around my step-father when he smoked. I sat there and inhaled his smoke. Any complaint had rather severe retribution -- it would be foolish to believe such parental actions have stopped.

However, back on topic. I've been on record about this subject on SP for quite a while. I agree with the article -- violence in various entertainment media has a profound effect on a small, but significant, portion of the population. I personally don't believe violent games, shows, sports, etc. provide enough value to society to overcome the problems caused by those prone to act out the violence they see.

Well, having edited my first post (and then having it properly deleted by Tal :D)...

Unlike media violence that affects only certain individuals, anyone exposed to passive smoke is damaging their health.

I don't think that media violence is a laughable concept, but I think that its "dangers" are vastly overblown.

Agreed, but I don't think younger children (say, under 12) should be exposed to media violence. And more extreme violence should be restricted to even older children (and to an extent it already is).

I personally don't know a single person with a problem with cigarette smoke. So from that, it's pretty understandable I'd make a comment like that really.

Obviously you've had a horrid and tormented past of people holding you down by the balls, breathing smoke through a cylinder directly into your nose. I feel for you for that kidda.

No need to fly off at a comment anyway, but it's obviously something you feel strongly about I guess. Sorry about the comment, next time I'll provide a full and thorough explanation of my background and give a full detail of the context on which the post is meant.

Right. People in general enjoy inhaling second-hand smoke. Well known fact. The fact that most civilized countries are putting more or less severe bans on public smoking is just a coincidence that has nothing to do with non-smokers not enjoying their regular dose of digested smoke.

Just FYI, most people who say that they don't have a problem with your smoke say it because it'd be considered impolite to do otherwise in a "relaxed" environment. This might come as a shocker to you, but it's true. I've been guilty of doing it myself in the past countless of times.

You've made posts like that in the past that I've responded to, and this one now isn't really any different. I feel for you, I have to say - you're a typical selfish smoker like dozens that I know. I didn't respond to you strongly because of that, but because of the BS that you've posted, and that I still sometimes hear in 2007 from smokers. I just make it a point not to leave it uncontested.

And yes, I'm somewhat off-topic.

Please define 'violence'. IMO boxing is violent, kick boxing is certainly violent. Football USA style is violent. Violence of some sort is a natural part of humans, especially the male of the specie. Dates back to needing to protect the clan from predators and the need to get food for the clan.

Oblivion is a violent game. Kill or be killed. It is at best an amoral game but I enjoy playing it. I enjoyed playing cowboys and Indians or knights in shinning armor as a child. We had violent people then. I lived in the country had my own pony or horse and rode unsupervised from as young as 10 or 11. I knew there were certain places I shouldn't go and most of the neighbors knew me. So what has changed? (Rhetorical question)

The media. In the last 50 years the world has grown much smaller and much more interrelated. We now can see real life violence as it actual happens. I have played online games with people from Hong Kong, Israel, Britain, Australia, Europe. I go to FAI and 'talk' to people in England, Scotland, Wisconsin, Greece, Finland....

Family life has changed, at least here in the USA. Some of the changes I like and some I don't like. Parents are and should be responsible for the children they bring into this world. To feed them, clothe, house, love and train them. The state should only take charge in extreme instances and the parents should be punished if their dependent children need to be punished.

We are all exposed to a great deal more violence via movies, TV and computers then when I was a child. We see both real life violence and fiction violence and it reaches many more people.

We do need rules and regulations as to what a 6, 10, 15 yr old may see and do but ultimately the problem falls on the parents. No way can the State supply the manpower to oversee each and every child and what he or she is watching or playing.

However repressing the tendency towards violence is not the answer. When I was much younger someone told me that I was the type of person who worried them the most because I was quiet, not expressive. I do have a berserk temper when it gets loose and it took me 5 years of therapy to learn how to control it and properly express it. Little me can still scare the (censored) out of a 6+ foot, muscular man but at least now I know what I am doing and have control of it. Both men and women need appropriate, acceptable ways to express their feelings and instincts. Sports is one way. Computer games are another way. But there should be limits and we should be aware of what affect it can have on certain people.

I do not think a well balanced, loved and cared for individual would suddenly go on a killing spree just because he played Diablo or WoW for 400 hrs. Unless it was 400 hrs with little sleep, food or attention from others.

I've played Oblivion for more than 400 hrs and I still think the wolves should be protected. The big momma spiders I don't mind.

So there's my :2c: worth.

As to the second hand smoke. There may be a vague correlation there but personally I just don't see them as in any way equal. The smoking thing is primarily an adult thing. The violence thing starts way back in childhood and may not even be obvious until it suddenly errupts. Trust me I know a bit about that.

Speaking to the notion that the only people who are exposed to secondhand smoke are those that choose to be:

California, Arkansas, and Louisiana have all passed laws recently banning smoking in cars. Why? Because a child in a car has no option but to breathe that smoke (without the benefit of a filter that the parent has, might I add). It is unfortunate that law makers need to step in at times like this and legislate what a parent should have the decency, common sense, and love to do on their own and not expose their child to the adverse effects of their habit. Parenting is all about sacrifice and giving up a smoke while around your children should be one of them. If not, your priorities are way out of whack.

Speaking to the notion that exposure to electronic media violence increases the risk of both children and adults behaving aggressively in the short-run and of children behaving aggressively in the long-run (to make my post on topic):

I think violence in electronic media can glorify violence, gore, and killing. The Columbine guys talked about how what they were going to do was going to be like "Doom", did they not? Now, I think those guys were messed up, with or without Doom, but the graphic and violent nature of the game was like pouring white gas on their smoldering teen angst. There are a lot of people out there that think that violence and aggression and being able to bring those things upon another person (or at least appear to be able to do so) are the keys to respect. I see them all around me. They usually have their names tattooed somewhere on their bodies (what? so they don't forget it??) These people did not get this way because of video game violence, but violent video games are an avenue for them to have their stupid and twisted view of the world become a reality. In some games, you can shoot whoever you want and there are no permanent consequences. You can always reload your game. You can get away from the cops. How many crimes have been committed because someone's grasp on reality slipped and they did something stupid, thinking that there would be no real life consequences, like in a game (drugs and alcohol help with this)? Just some food for thought.

So, the article is claiming that violence in the media has a stronger effect for aggression both in the short and long term than secondhand smoke in the workplace does for lung cancer.

So, given that society has in general thought it a good idea to get rid of secondhand smoke in the workplace should society also take it upon itself to get rid of violence in the media? Or is lung cancer relatively more of a scourge to society than aggression is, so we should allow the concomitant increases in aggression because we like our entertainment violent?

I don't think that the two are really comparable in any sensible way.

Well, not really comparable other than having a negative effect on society. What that negative effect is, I agree is quite different, and that's part of this topic.

Is increased risk of lung cancer worse for a society than increased risk of violence due to increased aggression?

Or are the other annoyances of second hand smoke more important than the increased risk of lung cancer even?

I'm just trying to see what people think about these disparate things and why they think the way they do. :)

The problem is, negative effects of second-hand smoke are easily measurable and have been soundly scientifically proven.

Anything regarding aggression, however, is nebulous at best in my opinion. Any measured increased aggression could have been caused by any number of other factors than aggressive media or video games. This is something that can't be said for smoking consequences.

That's why I think that it's really impossible to make a claim such as "the relative effect of media violence on aggression is worse than that of passive smoke and lung cancer at work".

Hmmm. Well, that statement perhaps needs clarification. What it was intedended to convey was that the effect media violence has on aggression is higher than the effect passive smoke in the workplace has on lung cancer.

Which is based on empirical studies and experimental evidence as reported in the article.

It's not making a statement about which is worse for society; that's why I'm asking :)

first we need a study of the kids playing without watching anything & seeing who is violent. than a second study of all the kids watching violent content & seeing who was violent. than a third study of all the kids watching nonviolent content & seeing who was violent.
how much do you want to bet that the vast majority of the violent ones will always be violent?
as nakia posted, the shows we watched as kids were always about killing somebody(cowboys and indians, GIs and nazis) yet we didnt turn into raving serial killers.
as far as violent cartoons go, look at the japanese. you dont see them going totally b@tsh!t crazy like kids in some other countries & those are some of the most violent cartoons anywhere.

I'm probably missing something, but I think it still boils down to the same thing: you can't compare two things which are (IMO) inherently incomparable.

I have a problem with your initial question too: "So should we start banning media violence like we do smoking at work?"

Did you mean to ask whether we should ban media violence at work like we do smoking at work? Because that would be comparable... banning media violence altogether wouldn't really be. Because what we do in private is still up to us, since blanket bans in western societies normally only apply to public places...

OK, fair enough if you don't think a comparision as stated is meaningful. I was merely trying to point out that there existed one thing that has been completely banned, yet it has a statistically weaker effect on it's negative consequence than this other thing that currently has a much weaker restriction on it.

My initial question was more facetious than serious, but I was thinking more about bans in the public media (public airwaves and such) where (at least in the US) bans already exist for "indecent" words and depictions. Obviously, US society thinks indecency is worth putting on restrictions such that you cannot view or hear such things over the public airwaves even if you wanted to in the privacy of your own home. Given what the article says, is it worth trying to put more restrictions on violent depictions on the public airwaves? Some politicians in the US think so, and this article merely reinforces their thinking.

I don't think so because I tend to agree that the effect is not so strong, and as I mentioned, I like violence in my media :) But given that the effect is apparently stronger than something for which banning was deemed necessary, perhaps I'm wrong. Or perhaps violence in society is not as bad a thing as lung cancer...

I think we're losing focus here. The article BTA cited compared the harmful effects of smoking on society vs. the harmful effects of media violence. But I think we’re getting too hung up on smoking, rather than focusing on media violence. The smoking angle is IMO just trying to give a new (and IMO somewhat irrelevant) twist to the argument. The two really aren’t comparable – producers of media violence are, almost by default, interested on the impact that their work has on other people, whereas proponents of smokers’ “rights” don't care. In the end, though, both are harmful - the question of which is more harmful is almost irrelevant.

Personally I think we are comparing Blackberries and Cranberries. This is one time I think statistics would be useful. can't believe I said that First the violence would need to be clearly and scientifically linked to the game play. I just had a friend my age die from lung cancer. How many people have died because someone played a violent game? Isn't there another thread somewhere about a researcher who questioned the link between violent games and violent behavior? And if we are talking about extremely gruesome and horrendous violence in games how many people play them? Wouldn't a person who enjoyed or fantasied violence choose that type of game because that is what they like?

Further more I ask again what constitutes violence? I enjoyed the Roller-coaster Tycoon games but even that at crashes and people getting killed in it. Some one who enjoyed violence could create a park where the everything crashed and thousands where killed. In CoTN I got annoyed at one of my cities and just smashed the whole thing. Hokay no one got killed they just became vagrants. Adult humans have choices and responsibilities. My favorite BGII/ToB was RPing a self-center neutral evil character. Does that make me evil? Self-centered I'll agree to but evil? Nakia is a good rogue. She only steals from evil rich folks to give to good poor folks. :D

There are statistics mentioned in the linked article both for direct experiments and meta-analyses of research, and it has a bibliography if you want to check the research yourself. Most of the papers were not linked online, so they are probably not available online.

Increased aggression was scientifically linked to violent films, videos and games (according to the article). It didn't mention deaths as far as I recall.

Of course media violence is going to increase the likelihood that a violent person will commit a violent act. That does not prove in any way that media violence makes otherwise non-violent people commit violent acts

No, it does not prove it, but if you are submitted to anything enough, you will start to accept it, even if it is on a subconscious level. That is the reason why many women in the U.S. are so concerned with how much they weigh and how big their breasts are - from an early age, society and media is showering them with images of 'beautiful' women who are waist size 2 and a C cup and telling them they have to be that way. It is the same reason why men think they have to be sex-driven muscle machines - media portrays male role models to be emotionless, built men who deserve to be sexually satisfied. If society and media drown you with something enough, you begin to believe it. So yes, I do think increasing violence in media can cause people to be more aggressive.

With the recent birth of my son, my wife and I have discussed this issue as it concerns him. We have decided that we'd like to place some limits on what our son sees and does regarding TV, internet, games, etc. I think it is entirely up to individual parents to do this for their children - we don't need any type of ban on violent media.

I agree with Tal that attempting to form any link with second hand smoke and media violence is futile. It is possible to ban smoking in public areas, but still allow it in private homes. If we were to place a ban on violent media it would necessarily also have to be banned in private homes to have an effect. After all, the media is a PUBLIC resource. Anyone with a TV can see violent programs, anyone with a radio can pick up violent speech or music, and anyone with a computer or game system can use it to play violent games. So there's really no way to ban in publicly, but keep it available privately, like smoking.

To put it another way, it's easier to avoid second hand smoke than it is to avoid media violence. In that sense, I also agree with Barmy that most people can avoid breathing in second hand smoke. The only instance where it's unavoidable is if you happen to be a kid who has parents that smoke in the house. Once you're an adult, you can avoid second hand smoke in your house by not allowing visitors to smoke in your house. You can avoid second hand smoke in your car by not allowing visitors to smoke in your car. Since I'm not aware of any place of employment that allows people to smoke inside the building, you shouldn't have to deal with it there, either. Heck, even most restaurants and bars are now smoke-free so you shouldn't have to deal with it when you go to any public place at all. All of this, of course, is a fairly recent development. As recently as 20 years ago, you could smoke in most public areas. This kind of proves the point - you can ban people from smoking publicly but allow them to do it privately. Again, I don't see how this would work with violent media.

Up until this past summer, I smoked. I don't smoke now, but I personally cannot understand how vehemently some people react to smokers. I agree that parents should not smoke in the house if they have children. I smoked for 15 years, but I never smoked in my own house, nor did I smoke in anyone else's house. The only places I smoked were outside, or in my car with a window down. If I was driving my car with a passenger who didn't like the smell of smoke, I was considerate enough to not smoke while they were in the car. Most places of employment have a designated area outside (away from the entrance of the building) where you can go and have a cigarette. There's absolutely no reason to go to that area other than to have a cigarette, so non-smokers are not affected. Second hand smoke is avoidable, and can easily be accomplished without banning smoking, but I can't see how this can be accomplished with violent media.

violence in various entertainment media has a profound effect on a small, but significant, portion of the population.

Any nut job that brings that into the real world usually becomes significant. Of the millions that played Doom, how much attention was on them as opposed to the two kids that shot up the school. The bottom line is that it's a few bad apples could lead some overreactionaries to throw out the whole basket...

I personally don't believe violent games, shows, sports, etc. provide enough value to society to overcome the problems caused by those prone to act out the violence they see.

Do the words Danger to Self and Others mean anything in this debate? A few with obvious problems mean that the rest of us can't enjoy what we want? Are you advocating a society dumbed down to the lowest common denominator?

I think I'm what chev would call a 'freedom-lover', so I guess I'll stick my head in (not that we haven't had this conversation before or anything...).

I am convinced that there is worthwhile evidence to support the whole violent media leads to more aggressive behaviour. I'm not going to say that this is necessarily true, or necessarily the whole story, but sure, I can accept that there are credible studies which point to that conclusion.

I still stand by my position though. I don't need to distort the facts to hold my beliefs on freedom. It is, in my opinion, absurd that a fourteen year old (or whoever) should be restricted from watching MA15+ movies based merely on their age. Not only is it absurd, but it's unenforcable and farcical. Sure, I couldn't go to the movies to see Underworld, but I rented it out a month later. If I had a decent internet connection like the majority of people, I could have downloaded it. The government's attempts to restrict media from certain groups is a silly, worthless, insulting endeavour.

And don't get me started on things that are banned outright. That's just bull****, even by their own standards. There is a logic behind trying to stop children from watching violent or pornographic movies, but trying to stop *everyone* from doing it? That's bull****. People - especially adults - are quite capable of making informed decisions about what they want to watch.

Of course, given that this thread is comparing violent media to smoking, I suppose it could be argued that they aren't and even if they are, the effect it has on people around them is negative enough to warrent banning violent media. Beyond my kneejerk 'get ****ed' reaction (quite valid in its own right :P ), the comparision is pretty silly. But yeah, others have already attacked that one, so it doesn't really need repeating.

Hey chev (or anyone, really) - I'm not really up with the cartoons that children watch these days. What are they, and what's so violent about them?
The violent TV shows of my childhood that come to mind were Power Rangers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and perhaps Captain Planet (was there actually any violence there?). They certainly shaped our games and probably our thinking too. The amount of times that 'playing power rangers' was banned for its supposed 'violence' was, well, quite large. It was all pretend, of course, but the teachers weren't very good at differentiating.

So what I was actually asking was - are modern children's shows any more violent than this? What's the ratio of violent children's TV to non-violent children's TV anyway? Is there really a problem here, or is it just a load of overstated waffle? 'Cause y'know, I really don't think that the Power Rangers have affected me negatively, and I'm a little doubtful that children's shows are overrun with violence.

Ahh, psychology. The false science.

How exactly did these researchers quantify 'aggression'? Balloon popping? Blasts of white noise? What reliable measures!

Ghaldring, be fair, now. You may not agree with the results, but they most assuredly used scientifically viable means to come to their conclusions. Psychology is not a false science. It is, however, a soft science. That doesn't invalidate it, though. It just means that their conclusions aren't as, well, conclusive as what you may find in, say, geology.

What everyone is really forgetting, here, is that a single study doesn't really prove or disprove anything. It takes hundreds of studies to form a consensus, and the bulk of the research on violence in the media and it's effects on violence within our society have mostly proven inconclusive, thus far. The results of this particular bit of research are interesting and, if these results can be consistently reproduced, it may well mean that we need to re-examine the overall level of violence in our media. Even without such a consensus, studies like this do at least vindicate the folks who shamed the video game industry into instituting a rating system. Kids, at least, shouldn't really be playing violent games, watching violent films, or listening to Eminem.

SNIP
Could the violence in the media be increasing the violence around us? I know when I was younger I didn't hear about parents of athletes getting violent at games. Is that just because more is at stake today, or more violence in the media, or both of those things and more?


Unfortunately, I don't think the example you cite above is isolated. I think that it belongs in the same category as what Chevalier rails against so often, the prevalence of casual sex in society. Both are indicative of a relaxing of the standards of acceptable behavior - what used to be extreme conduct that would cause the doer great embarassment is now no big deal. If we can find out why people no longer care about propriety (at a level appropriate for the times, I'm not advocating a return to Victorian manners or anything), we may be able to figure out something that can be done to turn the tide.

I think a large part of this change in standards comes from the globalization of society. When you lived and worked with the same small group of people day in and day out, everything you did would be seen and used as a measure of your character. Now, it's much easier to hide the dirty laundry because we don't see our friends constantly, and the people we do see regularly aren't necessarily our friends. Would you scream obscenities at the driver in the car ahead of you if s/he could hear you, and was the person who was going to fund your next month's rent by buying your crop? Not likely.

Our livelihoods are much less dependent on the good will of those around us, which devalues that good will and frees us to behave in selfish, inconsiderate ways.

... what used to be extreme conduct that would cause the doer great embarassment is now no big deal. If we can find out why people no longer care about propriety (at a level appropriate for the times, I'm not advocating a return to Victorian manners or anything), we may be able to figure out something that can be done to turn the tide.


Well, I don’t disagree with your sentiments, Rally, but I think this is a bit of a :geezer: comment. Isn't it possible that the lack of propriety is already at a level appropriate for the times, given its prevalence? Yes, some people complain about it (myself included), but you could point to anything and you'd be able to find someone who will have something negative to say.

Well, I don’t disagree with your sentiments, Rally, but I think this is a bit of a :geezer: comment. Isn't it possible that the lack of propriety is already at a level appropriate for the times, given its prevalence? Yes, some people complain about it (myself included), but you could point to anything and you'd be able to find someone who will have something negative to say.

I knew I was putting myself at risk of being labeled a frump, but I never expected it to come from YOU, Dearie! :lol: :roll:

You make a vaild point, but I don't think consideration for others EVER goes out of fashion. What changes is how that consideration is implemented, based on the media available. The age of IM is going to be be a lot different from the age of handwritten letters, but the basic premise of not wanting to embarass yourself is still there - or SHOULD be there.

I knew I was putting myself at risk of being labeled a frump, but I never expected it to come from YOU, Dearie! :lol: :roll:

It takes a :geezer: to know a :geezer:
:D :p

You make a vaild point, but I don't think consideration for others EVER goes out of fashion. What changes is how that consideration is implemented, based on the media available. The age of IM is going to be be a lot different from the age of handwritten letters, but the basic premise of not wanting to embarass yourself is still there - or SHOULD be there.

You sound like Emily Post. :p Again, I don't disagree with you, but things are what they are, and I wouldn't be surprised if they got worse. Which isn't to say that we should just stand by and let it happen without putting up a fight. :)

Drew:

Ghaldring, be fair, now. You may not agree with the results, but they most assuredly used scientifically viable means to come to their conclusions.


No, just no. Simply because their article appeared in a 'scientific' journal does not mean that the methodology cannot be called into question. That you feel that such articles are above criticism hints at your naivety.

To be quite frank, I fail to see how white noise blasts and balloon popping (two common methods of measuring 'aggression' in such experiments, although I'm not sure what method was used in the experiment being discussed. Source anyone?) is a viable method of quantifying aggression. Merely because 'they say so' does not 'make it so'.

Popping a balloon does not necessarily translate into popping a sapient being's head. IMHO, measures of aggression via such techniques are about as reliable as the reading of entrails.


Psychology is not a false science. It is, however, a soft science.


Now you're engaging in semantics. But I'm not going to bother taking you to task over it, since you admit that inferences draw in the field of psychology are not as reliable as the fields of science which don't involve pulling stuff out of your rear end.

Note that even in the 'hard' sciences, articles published in journals often have their methodology critiqued.

Ghaldring, what are your credentials that you think we should give your summary dismissal of the article more credibility than the article itself?

...What everyone is really forgetting, here, is that a single study doesn't really prove or disprove anything. It takes hundreds of studies to form a consensus, and the bulk of the research on violence in the media and it's effects on violence within our society have mostly proven inconclusive, thus far...

...To be quite frank, I fail to see how white noise blasts and balloon popping (two common methods of measuring 'aggression' in such experiments, although I'm not sure what method was used in the experiment being discussed. Source anyone?) is a viable method of quantifying aggression...

Perhaps you should read the journal article I linked in the OP.

First, it wasn't based on a single study, it was based on many experiments as well as meta-analyses of prior research.

Second, aggression in several of the experiments measured physical attacks:
For example Josephson [22] randomly assigned 396 boys, 7–9 years old, to watch either a violent or a nonviolent film before they played a game of floor hockey in school. Observers who did not know what movie any boy had seen recorded the number of times each boy physically attacked another boy during the game. Physical attack was defined to include hitting, elbowing, or shoving another player to the floor, as well as tripping, kneeing, and other assaultive behaviors that would be penalized in hockey...

Parallel results have been found in randomized experiments for preschoolers who physically attack each other more often after watching violent videos [21] and for older delinquent adolescents who get into more fights on days that they see more violent films [23]...

In a randomized experiment with violent video games, Irwin and Gross [24] assessed physical aggression (e.g., hitting, shoving, pinching, kicking) between boys who had just played either a violent or a nonviolent video game...

Other randomized experiments have measured college students’ propensity to be physically aggressive after they had played (or not played) a violent video game. For example Bartholow and Anderson [25] found that male and female college students who had played a violent game subsequently delivered more than two and a half times as many high-intensity punishments to a peer as those who played a nonviolent video game.

Surprise, I agree with Rallymama. Courtesy is the oil that makes the wheels of society turn quietly and gently. Without consideration for others we are less than the animals. That does not mean I advocate a blanket ban on violence in various media but it does need to be controlled and should be rated. Parents need to be aware of what their children are watching and playing and take responsibility for guiding their children. Constant exposure to violence is bound to lead to an acceptance of it as 'normal'.
:geezer: :hippy:

I think that it belongs in the same category as what Chevalier rails against so often, the prevalence of casual sex in society. Both are indicative of a relaxing of the standards of acceptable behavior - what used to be extreme conduct that would cause the doer great embarassment is now no big deal.

Beware this may be a bit :yot:

It depends. These standards have relaxed and tightened over the centuries. What can by some be considered perfectly natural -- sex for pleasure -- has become a battlegorund because the Church, and other established institutions, wish to control when people can have sex and for what reasons. For sure, with whom we have sex is a different issue, because there is still always the matter of reproduction to consider at some point - historically - and the creation of another human being is a large part of the mix, as are the responsibilities that come with it. That means you better be damn sure of your partner. So, there's a lot to be said for single-partner relationships - in most cases. With that aside, there is nothing more basic for the authoritarians to control than sex.

The real thing is, the sexual revolution changed sexual pleasure because of the technology of birth control. With the chances of reproduction minimized, it meant that the concern could now be focused more on the pleasurable aspects of sex, leaving the morality of the conduct itself upon the individual. Authoritarians despise this sort of activity because it tends to marginalize their power, and sex is a huge source of power. One can consider just how motivational sex can be for most individuals. I would recommend Foucualt's notions, in his essays, "The Care of the Self," on how the control of sex is a source of political, religious and societal power wielded by the established institutions. Sorry to digress. Carry on. :)

d@mn chandos, there is something we agree on!!!! i couldn't agree more. who, when, how & how many you want to have sex with (as long as of legal age) isn't anybody elses business. well, unless you invite them to watch ;)

Unfortunately, I don't think the example you cite above is isolated. I think that it belongs in the same category as what Chevalier rails against so often, the prevalence of casual sex in society. Both are indicative of a relaxing of the standards of acceptable behavior - what used to be extreme conduct that would cause the doer great embarassment is now no big deal. If we can find out why people no longer care about propriety (at a level appropriate for the times, I'm not advocating a return to Victorian manners or anything), we may be able to figure out something that can be done to turn the tide.

Yes and don't forget the attitude of "me first", no sacrifice, no external rules, no authorities. Any form of compromise looks like a hard-negociated cease-fire verified by a team of international lawyers an economic think tank in order to make sure the signatory doesn't lose a fraction of what he could grab by sheer power within any remotely reasonable predictability. At the same time, those same people submit without question to rules laid down by the employers and most certainly, what they wouldn't do for a political or a religious leader, they will do for a boss. People will feel no compunction getting promoted over dead bodies, but they will experience strong sensations of wrongdoing even thinking of asking the boss whose name will be signed on a project they submit through him to his superiors or clients.

This is all tragicomical to me. I would laugh if it weren't making me squirm. Because people behave like sheep, some control needs to be exerted when it comes to the most vulnerable - the children and especially the teenagers who are at such an impressionable age.

Our livelihoods are much less dependent on the good will of those around us, which devalues that good will and frees us to behave in selfish, inconsiderate ways.

Or that.

Beware this may be a bit :yot:

It depends. These standards have relaxed and tightened over the centuries. What can by some be considered perfectly natural -- sex for pleasure -- has become a battlegorund because the Church, and other established institutions, wish to control when people can have sex and for what reasons.

That needs some grounds, so let's interrupt here and listen where you draw that statement from, if you please.

The real thing is, the sexual revolution changed sexual pleasure because of the technology of birth control. With the chances of reproduction minimized, it meant that the concern could now be focused more on the pleasurable aspects of sex, leaving the morality of the conduct itself upon the individual.

Or in short removing the problem - "leave it up to the individual," is a short step from, "make it all good."

Authoritarians despise this sort of activity because it tends to marginalize their power, and sex is a huge source of power.

:rolleyes:

That needs some grounds, so let's interrupt here and listen where you draw that statement from, if you please.


I have no intentions of high-jacking this thread. I referred interested parties to Foucualt. His ideas are similar to mine on the topic of controling sex as a source of institutional power. But there will always be those who are dependent upon those institutions to be told what to do and when to do it - they are the real "sheep," IMO. We can debate this further on another thread if you wish. Your ideas are most always interesting on the topic. But I am certain that thus far you have misunderstood mine. I am not suggesting that Foucualt is 100 percent correct; I do have some differences with him. And Foucualt did, ironically, die from Aids.