Originally posted by Myth
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.
nothing you wrote that comes after that says that, specifically.
Originally posted by Myth
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.
Then, the burden of proof is on you to prove that watching those videos actually caused real violence.
Since that type of study is unethical, you CAN'T prove it, as fact.
I just had this same discussion with inimalist, who IS a research psychologist who actually does studies like this. (Not necessarily violence studies, but pyschological studies.)
What inimalist told me is that studies like the one you bourght up prove "little if anything" OUTSIDE of the lab environment.
And, Ms. Marvel is correct. There's a growing body of evidence for causality confusion.
Video gamers who do violent or aggressive things after playing violent video games were already violent and aggressive to begin with: the game just excited them and enhanced those behaviors.
Anabolic Steroid users who get roid rage already were a**holes to begin with and the effect of those steroids on the psychology of the individual is very questionable. (Meaning, Anabolic Steroids have very little if any psychoactive properties.) Just a**holes who go on steroids become bigger a**holes. Basically, it's in their head and not the juice. Those who report enhanced agression do not seem more agressive to friends and family, for the most part...they just feel more agressive.
And, finally, we come full circle to your point. Individuals who do violent things and commit crimes have also been found to watch violent things as younger children. As Ms. Marvel put it, you're putting the chicken before the egg or the egg before the chicken. It is very likely, but still not definitively proven, that the individual had a disposition towards violence to begin with. This has theory roots in both genetics and environment as cause FOR that action (watching and doing violent things.)
Anecdote: My mother told me that I used to fight my older brother and sister, physically, at the drop of a hat. I got into many fights in middle and high school. However, my parents would not allow me to watch rated R movie or play maturish games until I was 13. 😐 I was on a road to violence. I still have to deal with it. I have a criminal mind, but never commit crime. For all intents and purposes, I should be a bad person. I'm not. Guess why? It's all the the damn individual and the choices they make. 😐 None of thise "ohhhh, he watched Rambo when he was a kid, that's why he shot up the bank tellers." B.S.
To relate this on topic: A child of 8 should not see this movie. 😐
Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
Not watching violence makes you a pansy hippie.GIVE ME ALL THE GORE!
http://mirror.servut.us/kuvat/motivation/manwich.jpg
let the testorone fill ur bloodstream!!!!
Originally posted by dadudemon
Then, the burden of proof is on you to prove that watching those videos actually caused real violence.Since that type of study is unethical, you CAN'T prove it, as fact.
Its late, so I'll read the rest of your post later, but you obviously don't know how the scientific method works since you are asking for "proof" and science isn't used to prove anything outright. It can provide evidence or support for things, or disprove things, but it is not used to "prove" stuff.
Saw a midnight showing of this movie, after seeing District 9 (which was brilliant).
Quintin does it again with his latest opus, a must see. Deciding to see it was really an impulse, I started to lose my faith in Tarantino after Deathproof. But this movie really redeemed all that , and helped me remember why ive always enjoyed his work. So yes , thumbs up for The Basterds ( and district 9 if you havnt seen it)
Not to turn this into a QT masturbation fest and take away from Inglorious Basterds which I'm excited to say I'll be watching tonight, but Jackie Brown had a 'trying to hard' feeling for me.
I think Pulp Fiction is his best, it delivered exactly as it's name implied. Four Rooms is another enjoyable one for me. To be fair though, I watched Jackie Brown when it came out in the theatres in 97'; I had different taste in movies back then, so I should give it a second viewing now that my taste has 'matured', for lack of a better word.
Saw it last night and thought it was pretty good, nothing spectacular though. The movie could easily be 20 minutes shorter but I'll get over it
Surprisingly it wasn't the most dramatic movie ever made, in fact according to about 1/2 of the people in my theater it was a comedy. For instance, the first time a nazi dies a horrifying brutal death the audience burst out laughing and clapping
