violence in the media

[kuju]

I was thinking.. (strange, I know) that so many parents keep their children from violent movies and from watching the news and such. (yes, these people exist!) I mean, I've been watching violent movies ever since I can remember. Hell, I was watching sex in movies, only, I didn't understand it back then. But these same parents don't seem to mind that their kids are busting up crooks in video games.

I think it should be the other way around really.. the news is real (most of it.. :)) and helps educate about the way the world is. Movies, though they can be more explicitly violent, are still o.k. in my mind, since it's a passive experience. The child watches the movie. he knows that it's a movie.

video games, on the other hand, make me wonder. Yes, the child knows that he's playing a video game, but it's the actual active experience of PLAYING it that bothers me. You're not watching Rambo shoot some guys... you're MAKING Rambo shoot some guys. the child himself controls the violent actions and I think that that could have deeper implications than simply watching it on the big screen.

any thoughts?

[Lone_Raider]

Well my parents never censored movies from me or anything. If a movie became really sexually explicit they would stop it obviously and that was the one exception, but other then that I was watching Rambo, Terminator, Friday the 13th etc. as far back as I have memory which is 3 or 4 years old.

It never made me feel like attacking or killing anyone ever, I always remember my mom saying it was just a movie and wasn't real, but I actually understood that concept on my own even at a very young age. The video games when I was really little weren't that violent. When I got Nintendo I was already 7 and the most violent game I had was duck hunt lol. Regardless even games like Metal Gear were so cartoonish it was like playing a cartoon, not reality.

However, I can't be certain that playing a modern ultra realistic game is leading to violence in children. I always say no because I think of playing old nintendo, or even Mortal Kombat on Sega when I was 10 or 11 and never feeling like I wanted to hurt anyone. Then again by the time ultra realistic games became available I was already in my late teens with a life's experience behind me and having watched games develop from pixel squares to human form over time. Little kids now don't have that experience and may just feel like the realistic looking violent game they play is the way things work in real life. But as I said in a previous discussion, a video game world and reality should be easily distinguishable to someone who is sane, and I tend to think those who murder or harm others because they saw it in a game have a disorder like schizophrenia and cannot distinguish between reality and fiction regardless of the media form.

[sunfrost]

my believes, keep kids away from television and computers as long as possible... let them play outside... there they can be violent but then they know it comes with consequences, like breaking something... = they learn from it...

[kuju]

well, in order to play devil's advocate with myself, I do not really believe that violent video games cause children to become mass murderers. I do believe, however, that they can be a factor when dealing with a child who, for example, has a genetic predisposition to violence, or grew up in a violent setting, etc.

but then again, sometimes kids who come from the best of families turn out to be nuts... so...

[The Original Taco]

I say video games and movies only affect children as much as their parents let them. Parents who don't instruct or raise their kids properly can expect to have their children possibly getting in trouble, doing drugs, hurting others, etc...Parents who raise their kids correctly can let their children watch as much violence in movies and sex on TV, and the kids can turn out fine. I feel parents blame the media for their own mishaps in child-raising. While the media may not help, I don't feel it puts violence into children.

I feel that violence is more learned through first-hand accounts...If your father is/was a drunk and beat you your whole life, you may be more violent than someone who had very docile and loving parents. If your parents fought everyday, swearing, and screaming, you'll probably be more violent than someone who grew up in a quiet and more passive family.

And kuju, there's no such thing as a functional family, all families are dysfunctional in some way, so saying kids come from the best families and "turn out to be" horrible people is ludicrous. Also I don't agree with your little theory on genetic predisposition. While higher testosterone levels in males make us tend to be more violent or hot-headed, humans are peaceful creatures (although I know many would beg to differ). Babies aren't born violent. Babies are born innocent beings, easily compared to soft clay. Throughout their childhood they're formed and sculpted hopefully into a masterpiece, but sometimes they get mistreated, mishandled, or neglected which leads many on to a different and less loving lifestyle.

[Palmer of the Turks]

There is genetic predisposition to violence, and a number of documented forms.

XXY Male syndrome is one that gets attention in criminology studies.
Various genetic mental disorders, such as sociopathy, are also noted.

I don't believe in Nature vs Nurture. It's both.

But some people do show a measurable predisposition to violence at a young age, before they can properly learn it.

[Jebus]

I argee with sunfrost, why not just get them away from the tv all together? Get them outside and interacting with other kids. Furthermore, get them physically active so they don't become overweight slobs. Important social skills are learned when a child is young, the last thing he/she should be doing is starring at a tv.

I say no tv all together, the more they don't have it the less they'll want it in the future.

[The Original Taco]

Originally posted by Palmer of the Turks@Aug 24 2004, 10:15 PM
There is genetic predisposition to violence, and a number of documented forms.

XXY Male syndrome is one that gets attention in criminology studies.
Various genetic mental disorders, such as sociopathy, are also noted.
That's the only case of it I've ever heard of, and I was banking on she wasn't refering to that. By how she said it, she made it sound as if violence is like skin color and passed to offspring.

[Barefoot Matt]

Kuju, you've been listening to CBC, haven't you? :P

The Current (I think - I had the radio on all day, so it might have been another show) did a piece today on violent video games and the lack of regulation in Canada. One thing they mentioned is that when the ESRB rates a game for content, they do it based on a video provided by the publisher, which can differ greatly from the actual content.

Personally, I think ratings should be more carefully given, and then as long as they are accurate, they should be enforced. Kids shouldn't be watching R-rated movies (18A in canada), and they shouldn't be playing M-rated games.

Having said that, I played violent games when I was a teen, with no apparent effects, but I did it in moderation, and not until a relatively late age. Couple that with the fact that I was not allowed to watch violent movies until my age matched the rating, and I'd say the small exposure to video games I received is not an indication of the possible effect they can have. It's very difficult to say "this game is unsuitable for children under 18... but it's okay if you let them play this one but no others, and only occasionally," which is why I believe in complete regulation.

Btw, although violent movies were strictly off-limits, the rules for sexual content were significantly less formal. After all, sex is natural. Violence is not.

[kuju]

actually no... I thought this up ALL by my little self. check the dates dude. I get one channel, and it's CTV. nor do I listen to the radio.

as for genetic predisposition... of COURSE it's not as common as skin colour. that would just be stupid. But I believe it does exist, and not just in the rare XXY form. such a child, with a little nurturing, can become very violent. I also believe in both Nature and Nurture... but Nature is most certainly a part of it..

[Barefoot Matt]

I did check the dates! August 24, that's yesterday, the day I wrote my reply.

Anyway, I agree with you, so that's all that matters.

[The Original Taco]

Originally posted by kuju@Aug 25 2004, 10:05 AM
But I believe it does exist, and not just in the rare XXY form.
XXY is Klinefelter's syndrome, a disorder where a man tends to appear more feminine. He is sometimes less smart, has breasts, smaller testes, sparse facial hair and is sterile.

XYY is what Palmer and I are talking about, it's another disorder in which boys tend to grow taller and be more aggressive. The extra Y chromosome makes them more masculine, while in Klinefelter's patients, the extra X chromosome makes them more feminine.

[IGemini]

Too many factors exist for violence in movies and games to be singled out as the determining factor. As far as the violent-pacifist continuum is concerned, I think almost everything in life is a factor. Genetic predisposition, availability and exposure to weapons and the concept of violence, parental upbringing, peer interaction, and your own psychological reaction are all the most direct factors. The psychological reaction is the reason why one single major life event can turn a person into either a cold-blooded killer or one of the warmest people to walk the face of the earth (obviously, those are the extreme examples). People like thinking there is one major reason to why things happen, but because this involves psychology and the fact that the brain is so largely unknown, that there are things we don't know completely, and I believe that several factors go into something like this, rather than arguing between nature and nurture, I think it varies by case.

[kuju]

sorry, My typo... of course, it's also Palmer's typo and in a sense, yours, since you commented on palmer's "XXY" post without correcting him....