Dave Grossman would have you believe that playing "Medal of Honor" will somehow turn you into an "Elite Team Fighter" or some such nonsense. The easiest way to show you that this isn't true is to observe the "XBox Generation" as they go through Basic Training. Elite fighters they ain't....
The observation that violence in the media is causing violence in our streets is nothing new. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, and their equivalents in many other nations have all made unequivocal statements about the link between media violence and violence in our society. The APA, in their 1992 report Big World, Small Screen, concluded that the "scientific debate is over." And in 1993 the APA's commission on violence and youth concluded that "there is absolutely no doubt that higher levels of viewing violence on television are correlated with increased acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behavior." The evidence is, quite simply, overwhelming.From Killology.com, Dave Grossman’s website
Unfortunately the current data set does not support the “debate is ended” statement. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting statistics violent crime is on a descending trend. While The APA and AMA have made “unequivocal statements” 17 years ago the data set gathered since then has shown that the debate is far from over as a causal relationship and mechanism of action cannot be positively identified.
There are many psychological and sociological processes through which media violence turns into violent crime. From a developmental standpoint we know that around the age of 18 months a child is able to discern what is on television and movies, but the part of their mind that permits them to organize where information came from does not fully develop until they are between ages five and seven. Thus, when a young child sees someone shot, stabbed, beaten, degraded, abused, or murdered on the screen, for them it is as though it were actually happening. They are not capable of discerning the difference, and the effect is as though they were children of a war zone, seeing death and destruction all around them, and accepting violence as a way of life.From killology.com
The work of Dr. James Fallon, a neuropsychologist at USC, shows that psychotic violent individuals require three things. First a genetic predisposition followed by a pattern of severe childhood abuse, followed by exposure to extreme violence (not fantasy violence such as video games or television). Dr. Fallon’s research is directly in opposition to the “debate is settled” proclamation by the APA. Dr. Fallon has done fascinating research into generational violence in the Middle East (specifically Palestinians) and has come to several well thought out conclusions about the genetic component of violence as a survival trait for a violent world. Also the three requirements for someone to become a killer (genetic, severe childhood abuse, and exposure to extreme violence) discounts any single source cause such as video games or television quite directly.
The biggest problem for Grossman is that media violence rates are not correlated with violent crime rates. Ultimately the biggest problem for this body of literature is that for his theory to be true, media violence would be well correlated with violent crime (which has been cycling up and down throughout human history). By discussing only the data from the 1950s through the 1990s, media violence researchers create the illusion that there is a correlation, when in fact there is not. Large spikes in violent crime in the United States occurred without associated media violence spikes during the 1880s (when records were first kept) and 1930s. The homicide rate in the United States has never been higher than during the 1930s (reference historical UCR data freely available from the FBI).
Violent crime rates (including among juveniles) dramatically fell in the mid 1990s and have continued to decline (through 2009, the most current data set available), during a time when media violence has continued to increase, and saw the addition of violent video games (Grand Theft Auto in a whole bunch of versions). Media violence researchers can not explain why many countries with media violence rates similar to or equal to the U.S. (such as Norway, Canada, Japan, etc.) have much lower violent crime rates (or why the UK has a rising violent crime rate despite increases in police spending, nanny cams, and a near total weapons ban). Huesmann & Eron's own cross-national study (which is often cited in support of media violence effects) failed to find a link between television violence and aggressive behavior in most of the countries included in the analysis (including America, and even in studies on American boys), which directly contradicts Grossman's assertion that murder rates will always double 15 years after television is introduced to a society.
Several scholars (e.g. Freedman, 2002; Olson, 2004; Savage, 2004) have pointed out that as media content has increased in violence in the past few decades, violent crimes among youth have declined rapidly. Although most scholars caution that this decline cannot be attributed to a causal effect, they conclude that this observation argues against causal harmful effects for media violence. A recent long-term outcome study of youth found no long-term relationship between playing violent video games or watching violent television and youth violence or bullying (reference "Video Games and Youth Violence: A Prospective Analysis in Adolescents", Christopher J. Ferguson, Journal of Youth and Adolescence)
Dave Grossman also discounts murder rates.
When we talk about violent crime, the first thing you have to realize is, you must ignore the murder rate. Because medical technology saves ever more lives, every year. A wound that, nine out of ten times would have killed you in World War II, in Vietnam you would have survived that same wound, nine out of ten times. This last year, I've written three encyclopedia entries, in the entry to the Oxford Companion to American Military History, and we've laid the scholarly foundation to say this: If we had 1930s-level technology in America--think of the 1930s now: no penicillin, no cars, no telephones, for all practical purposes, in most places--if we had 1930s technology, the murder rate could easily be ten times what it is. You've got to look at the aggravated assault rate, the rate at which people are trying to kill one another off. With that as our measure of crime--we're allowing for population growth--violent crime, per capita, has gone up sevenfold since 1957 to the middle of this decade. It's gone down just a tiny bit, recently, mostly because of a fivefold increase in the incarceration rate, and a good economy, but we're still six times greater per capita in the rate at which we're trying to kill one another off, than we were in 1957. From an interview conducted http://american_almanac.tripod.com/grossint.htm
However when we look at violent crime in general it does not discount the murder rate as the murder rate is closely correlated with the overall violent crime rate. Violent Crime last peaked in the US in 1992. The obvious implication is that violent crime is down from 1992 with a population of July 1, 1992, 254,994,517 to 2009 with a population of 305,529,237: U.S. population estimate for Jan. 1, 2009. An increase of 10 million citizens corresponding to a decrease from 1,932,274 to 1,318,398 in the violent crime rate demonstrates a negative correlation between both population density and prevalence of violent video games with violent crime.
So if Grossman's conclusions don't fit the data, what does?
The data begins to Peak around 1992, which is 19 years after Roe V. Wade (1973). Since 1992 crime statistics have fallen. Alternate hypothesis, people who would have been violent criminals were aborted as fetuses instead and this is the casual link between falling crime rates despite an ever increasing number of “violent video games” in the US. As an alternate hypothesis a diminishing pool of potential violent criminals due to legalized abortion supports the available data better than blaming media violence (remember, when we throw away what cannot be true, what is left is most likely true).
As an alternate we could take a look at the rates of childhood vaccinations and prescriptive medication for those under 25 for the same time period and see a correlative relationship. As medication rates rise crime lowers, as vaccination rates rise crime lowers... The problem with this is that the correlation cannot go further to a mechanism of action as with the abortion hypothesis.
If you want to see where I got my numbers, go to http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/
12 comments:
Currently published crime rates reflecting violent crime for the last 20 years do not reflect Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama executive orders and DOJ policies that suppress actual violent crime rates - with the resulting undereporting of homicides, rape, and assault celebrated as "improvements" by the lamestream media. Finish the research - don't take the numbers at face value.
OBTW - I'm a retired LTC. If Grossman's fans do not welcome your scrutiny, they're at best intellectually lazy, at worst not intellectually honest.
Stay with the work - your own conclusions will be your reward.
You'd think the argument would have been settled back when they were declaring war on violence on movie serials and comic books...
I had the opportunity to listen to Grossman on three occasions. Personally, I consider him a fucking whack job.
That he has built a testosterone driven niche and following for himself among like minded souls is ok.
I got up and left his last dissertation. It was a critical account of every thing that the Columbine cops did that was wrong that day. The world according to Grossman. I always hated arm chair quarterbacks, esp dudes like this- this dude has the biggest ego I have ever seen. Ever.
My opinion and observation. Glad to see someone else independently question this self proclaimed genius.
Vox Day calls an expert "someone you can count on to be reliably right when it doesn't matter, and reliably wrong when it does".
Evaluate all statements by gun-grabbing/non-violence/pervert protecting/effeminizing/weakness-advocating/man-hating cat collector leftist "experts" accordingly!
The short answer is that video games facilitate the shooting of very well rendered human forms.
DOD uses much the same method. Starting at a simple ring target for form, moving on to a silhouette for placement (center mass and fatal T), and finishing up with lifelike targets (high quality images and/or mannequins).
None of this will lead to a Delta Boot Camp commando. What you do end up with is a person who is desensitized to shooting human forms. You get kids that are intimately familiar with small unit tactics. You get kids that already know the mechanics of sweeping.
I do not see how Grossman's postulations equate gun-grabbing.
Levitt and Dubner (Freakonomics) raise the explanation that abortion explains the decrease in violent crime rates since 1992. While I can't refute it, I find taking benefit from abortion akin to using medical advances obtained by the Nazi death camps.
What I haven't seen is anyone checking the rates against other effects. For example, the national concealed carry movement got traction in the late 80's (I think 1987 was the start) and the decrease in violent crime rates could be due to more crimes being aborted than children.
Obviously the direct correlation between ONLY media violence and violence in society cannot be obtained and that is not what Grossman is arguing. If this were the case, you would see an increase in violent acts by any individual who plays violent video games. My high school class could even point that out.
There are obviously other factors at play here, whether they are biological or environmental. What the data from the APA and AMA does show is that media violence CONTRIBUTES SIGNIFICANTLY to the problem and needs to be addressed.
Watch your own rationalizations. Just because you don't have the courage to give up your favorite Hollywood flicks or BlackOps on PS3, doesn't mean that part of the truth isn't sitting right in front of your face.
Relogio,
Appeal to authority is the weakest argument. I'm telling you that your argument is weak.
The fact remains that as media violence has increased, violent crime has decreased. A good useful idiot throws out the facts when the facts are opposite their pet theory. Don't be a useful idiot.
I don't care how many letters of concern are signed by the AMA, APA, or other "panel of experts" if their letters fly in the face of facts as documented by the FBI UCR. Dave Grossman wrote what he wrote, and at the time he wrote it the data supported his position. Twenty years have passed, and his position has been disproved by history.
What caused people to be violent before "media violence"? Why were the middle ages before the advent of the firearm worse for murder stats in England than after the proliferation of firearms?
I'm asking pointed questions to direct you to gain some insight into a very complex subject, one that predates mass media, video games, or even the written word.
AM,
If you look at the statistics which you cling to so dearly (which someone already mentioned can be easily misrepresented -- all it takes is for a cop to give a warning to the perp instead of pushing the victim to press charges and you have one less aggravated assault charge) you can still see an increase in violence overall from 1970 to the present day. Draw a line from 1970's point to 2010. True you can see a dip after the 1995-96 years, so something is counteracting the factors that have been causing it to rise for decades, but my case was never to make a DIRECT ONE-to-ONE causal relationship between the two. Read my post again. Obviously there are other factors, ones you have mentioned included, but the increase in media violence is an important factor. Again, NO ONE (not even Grossman) is saying that media violence is the direct link to violence in general. No one is dumb enough to make that case. Like you said, the existence of violence before media disproves it easily. But to discount something simply because you can't prove it to be the ONLY factor is negligence in thinking.
I was wrong to simply name drop the APA and AMA. What I was referring to were the many, MANY studies done by groups such as the APA and AMA correlating media violence to aggression in children AND adults. Again, correlational, not causal. It's the best we can do without gluing kids eyelids open in front of a PS3 and mitigating any other factors like personal history, genetics, and education by parents. Factors I've already ceded as relevant.
You are not taking into consideration the advancement of medical and transportation technology with respect to murder rates. The only reason the murder rates have not skyrocketed is because we are getting that much better at transporting people to a doctor and saving their lives with paramedic care. You seem to disregard some of Grossman's best points and only attack the weak link in statistics. Statistics about complex issues rarely coincide with absolute facts. Not in today's world of manipulation and politics anyway.
Munecalover,
I see what you did there, telling me that I cling to statistics so dearly when I'm using the same statistics that Dave Grossman used to make his argument. Sounds like you just need to add "bitter" in there to make me a bitter clinger. By the way, "attacking the messenger" is also a logical fallacy.
Taking into account increases in medical technology is fine, and easily accomplished. Start looking at the overall violent crime rate instead of murder rate. Now those victims who would have been murdered are merely the victims of assault.
What does the UCR tell us? In 2012 the decline in vioent crime continued, despite the ever increasing "media violence." You didn't even bother looking up the total violent crime rate before you responded, did you?
So once again, there is no statistically relevant correlation between the UCR violent crime stats and video games or violent movies. And yes, I will cling to facts and try to twist my ideas to fit the facts, instead of twisting facts to fit a pet theory.
Just because you want a link to be there doesn't mean that one exists. No matter how you try to make the theory true, facts keep getting in the way.
As far as AMA and APA studies, please go to pubmed and look them up for yourself to see how relevant the conclusion are in terms of confident intervals, and the exact definitions of behaviors exhibited by study participants. The last time I checked "media violence" was associated with a short term uptick in "violent behavior" in terms of hours, not a longer time span.
Also I will assign you some homework, buy a copy of "Studying a Study and Testing a Test" to help you in your research at pubmed. If you find an article at pubmed where you don't have access, you should go to your local library (if they don't have an institutional subscription to the journal that owns the article they can usually point you to a library that does).
Now go do some research.
Just to clarify again: Statistics (Grossman's, yours, APA's, AMA's) do not equal facts/truths. Numerical data can be considered "facts" in the sense that they represent observations, but that does not make them true in essence because of the way statistics can be manipulated. You repeatedly ignore this idea from your first commenter and from me. I'm attacking you and Grossman's love for statistics when as I've mentioned now for the 4th time, statistics can be manipulated. The NY times did a decent article you can find here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/nyregion/new-york-police-department-manipulates-crime-reports-study-finds.html?_r=0
Apply the same techniques to violent crime rates and you have a President who looks tough on violence.
I also mentioned the dip in violent crime after 1995 and conceded that something else must be contributing. Perhaps because there are less child abuse cases since then. Again, I've already stated that it is a multifaceted problem. You like to ignore that as well.
So to see a drop in violent crime even though media violence is still increasing or at the same level is not to prove that media violence has no effect IF WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT EFFECT VIOLENCE (not yelling, but there's no italics option).
Now I would love it if the signs pointed the other way and violence in the media was great and we could watch as much as we wanted with no side effects, especially our children. But enough studies (none of them longitudinal btw which is a shame) say that even short term effects can be seen, why would you argue that it has no effect whatsoever? The only reason I can see is that you want it not to be true so much that you are willing to ignore any evidence showing it is a factor.
Lastly, look at the motivation behind all parties. Who has the motivation to skew the facts and lead us away from thinking violent media is a factor? Politicians and the billion dollar industry of producing the violent media. If you think that has no bearing as well, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Munecalover,
First you say I'm wrong, then you say Grossman is wrong (which was the whole point of my post to begin with). At this point you are arguing to argue, but that isn't a problem because I have the time this week to help you out.
If you have a problem with the data set, by all means say so, and then suggest an alternate data set if you want to be taken seriously. What you will see is that as you go across the 56 major metropolitan areas of the United States that violent crime is largely a product of urban areas, and that the downward trend is widespread with pockets of resistance.
Considering that you don't have a viable alternative to the data set I use (FBI UCR data) it tells me that you have no clue about statistical analysis (not your fault really, I blame the education system). Scientists argue data, how data is gathered, and whether the data gathered is meaningful to the analysis being conducted. I'm not using the Hadley Crut data to show that decreasing polar ice caps during the summer minimum is correlated with a decrease in violent crime across America (yes the data correlates, but there is no causal relationship).
The NY Times article you linked is one I have read before, but having a faulty sensor in an array of sensors doesn't negate the complete data set.
And here is the rub, something you don't seem to grasp: I don't care what is really going on. Grossman claimed a causal relationship. I used a respected data set to show that his causal relationship does not exist. I care that the link between violence in the media and violent crime observed by Grossman two decades ago has been disproven by the intervening history from then until now.
That is it. We can take a look at murder rates pre/post firearms in England, we can take a look at the impact of Roe V. Wade (as was done in Freakonomics) or we can take a look at the liberalization of state "shall issue" concealed carry laws as they progressed through the 1980s and 90s.
But in the end, either Grossman is right that playing "Call of Duty" will turn you into a deadly elite team fighter, or he is wrong and playing violent video games will have no measurable impact on violent crime.
If you want to really know what is going on, you'll have to go do your own research, you'll have to come up with your own hypothesis, design an experiment to test your hypothesis (make sure you include a null hypothesis) and then see if your ideas hold water or not.
Until then you are trying to argue that because I can't explain the whole range of human violence that my point that violent video games have not had a measurable impact on violent crime in the United States in the last twenty years. If Grossman were right, violent crime would have spike as the AWB sunsetted, as states passed "shall issue laws" and as more and more violent video games with ever more realistic graphics flooded the market.
Post a Comment