Originally posted by MildPossessionI've learnt quite differently, unless you already have psychological issues, there is not enough concrete evidence that watching such things in film and television increases or influences.
I'm entering my 3rd year working on my doctorate in Psychology. I'm quite sure what I stated was accurate. I could post the link to the studies if you'd like.
Here are a couple of nuggets:
Watching TV violence at age eight would predict how much criminal activity the boys would engage in by age thirty. Men who had liked watching a lot of voilent TV at age eight engaged in substantially more serious criminal activity by age thirty than men who had not liked watching violent TV at age eight. Those with high preference committed more than twice the amount of crimes compared to those with low preference (Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, & Eron, 2003).
Participants that watched an aggressive film were more likely to shock a confrontational confederate than those in the study who watched a neutral film (Berkowitz, 1993).
Male college students behaved more aggressively toward a female when they were angered after watching an aggressive film versus a control film (Donnerstein, 1980).
Just saw an advanced screening of Inglourious Basterds last night was very good. Both brutal and funny not Tarantino's best but certainly up there just after Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.
The one thing I would say is the chapter titles do take you out of the experience instead of drawing you into the film.
^ Jealousssssssssssss.
I still believe what I was taught, there is no 100% proof of people with 'no psychological problems already there' being influenced by films/tv programmes to be violent.
I find every case I've seen where films are put in the spotlight, there are always other background factors already there when it comes to the person who has commited the act.
Well so far the early reviews have been very good for the film. Rotten Tomatoes have at it 80% so it could be certified fresh by the end of the week. Then again these are only early reviews.
Quite frankly, I just want to see it already. World could burn to ashes for all I care....just let it be AFTER I see this movie.
GO TARANTINO!
Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
Well so far the early reviews have been very good for the film. Rotten Tomatoes have at it 80% so it could be certified fresh by the end of the week. Then again these are only early reviews.Quite frankly, I just want to see it already. World could burn to ashes for all I care....just let it be AFTER I see this movie.
GO TARANTINO!
👆 I know, I want to see it NOW.
It has an 82% right now by the way, so hopefully it'll keep rising!
One more day for me! 😄
The only bad reviews I've seen so far are from The Hollywood Reporter and The New York Times. Since these two are known to be negative reviewers just for the sake of shock and to make themselves look profesional (plus they're known to eat shit as well)...we can pretty assume it's safe to think this movie it's good.
Originally posted by Myth
Here are a couple of nuggets:Men who had liked watching a lot of voilent TV at age eight engaged in substantially more serious criminal activity by age thirty than men who had not liked watching violent TV at age eight. Those with high preference committed more than twice the amount of crimes compared to those with low preference (Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, & Eron, 2003).
this kind of debunks your whole point.
if youre trying to say that simply watching violent television increases your lust for real world violence this contradicts it because the only ones who showed an increased violent nature are those who already preferred to watch the violence anyway, so their disposition was already violent and thus its in no way the fault of the content being watched.
a better point in your favor would be if the people who didnt prefer to watch violent TV but watched it anyway became more violent. the sheer fact that the only people who became more violent are the ones who already preferred the violent TV proves that you have to already have a certain psychological disposition in order for it to have any effect on you.
So no exposure to violence only affects those who are already messed up in the head... not normal people.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
this kind of debunks your whole point.if youre trying to say that simply watching violent television increases your lust for real world violence this contradicts it because the only ones who showed an increased violent nature are those who already preferred to watch the violence anyway, so their disposition was already violent and thus its in no way the fault of the content being watched.
a better point in your favor would be if the people who didnt prefer to watch violent TV but watched it anyway became more violent. the sheer fact that the only people who became more violent are the ones who already preferred the violent TV proves that you have to already have a certain psychological disposition in order for it to have any effect on you.
So no exposure to violence only affects those who are already messed up in the head... not normal people.
Did you read the ones after the part you quoted? Those ones were people who were randomly selected to watch videos with aggression and then were more aggressive. It appears you are only looking at the info that supports your hypothesis and ignoring the others.