PDA

View Full Version : Does Television Increase Violence?



endlesst0m
03-23-2006, 09:59 AM
According to my Psychology teacher, this is the most debated question in the world of psychology right now.

What do you think?

TheUnholyNightbringer
03-23-2006, 10:03 AM
I think you should shut the fuck up before I come over there and smash your fucking face in.

belen1979
03-23-2006, 10:03 AM
All I know is that when I was young I watched The Fraggles and Oliver & Benji, and now the children watch things like Pokemon, whose whole life consists in getting stronger by wining the fights with another pokemons...

Maybe the problem is that the concept of cartoons for young children has changed... They seem to be able to watch violent programs earlier in their lifes. I call Pokemon violent because in relation with the ages they see it. For us it's stupid, but for a children of 3 or 4 years old... They should be watching another kind of things. They'll have enough time to learn how cruel people can be...

JohnnyNemesis
03-23-2006, 10:05 AM
Ha! Well played!

And it's a pretty stupid question if you ask me. The answer is YES, it does increase violence, and there aint no denying it. Questions of responsibility, however, are much different.

endlesst0m
03-23-2006, 10:05 AM
I think you should shut the fuck up before I come over there and smash your fucking face in.

You can try, but I'll just use the lastest wrestling move I saw on tv on you.

endlesst0m
03-23-2006, 10:08 AM
And it's a pretty stupid question if you ask me. The answer is YES, it does increase violence, and there aint no denying it.

Do you think it can help create people with violent personalities, or do you think just causes people to try to repeat certain individual violent acts they saw on tv?

JoY
03-23-2006, 10:10 AM
Dave -lolz!

it's the most debated question in the world of psychology in 1995.

no one can say if it does. longitude pedagogic experimenting (with children growing up observed over time) to find out is pretty unethical. I guess it depends on the 'vulnerability' of the person - how much he/she sucks in influences from the media - & on the upbringing of a human being - if the morals, laws, ethics have been taught well - which influences the development of the brain.

JohnnyNemesis
03-23-2006, 10:10 AM
That's a good question. I'd go with the former, because it's simply more likely. Most people can decide for themselves whether they'd re-enact a violent scene they saw on television, and that "one-time" deal doesn't really happen as much to anyone who is even slightly strong-willed. Yes, it happens, and happens often, but not in the same way as the other.

Years and years of violence that goes unquestioned DEFINITELY creates violent personalities. There's just no way it can't, because of how subtle it all operates.

wheelchairman
03-23-2006, 10:14 AM
Does it increase violence. I do not know. Is this a justification for censorship, under no circumstances ever.

I just don't believe that television increases violence. I'm inclined to just say that is outright ridiculous. But I have not done a terrible amount of research on the subject.

And fuck, the tv shows for children of yestergeneration were fucking violent. I mean have you ever watched bugs bunny? This argument is so fucking retarded that I think people only use it to sound old.

JoY
03-23-2006, 10:16 AM
Do you think it can help create people with violent personalities, or do you think just causes people to try to repeat certain individual violent acts they saw on tv?
I guess it influences their view on violence. like it's more okay, because the A-team does it, etc. people get used to the image of someone pulling a trigger, or handing out a punch. it used to be used to shock the viewer, but it seems we're getting more & more blind for it. like our receptors are overstimulated & won't receive the message; "omg, blood, bullets, fists, dead people, scary, wrong, noez!" maybe it's just the realization it's only just television, but I'm guessing there's a certain element of us just getting used to violence in our media. bringing it into practice is something else, though.

endlesst0m
03-23-2006, 10:25 AM
I'm not sure if I think the answer is yes or no. It could be that it's a little bit of both.

But if the number one way people learn is by imitation, and people are known to idolize characters they see on tv, then I guess that might make me lean more towards "yes".

However, I think a lot of it depends on WHO is watching the show. If tv really makes us violent, then why do some people turn out violent and others not? Also, the world is more civilized now then before tv even existed.

JoY
03-23-2006, 10:37 AM
the term 'civilised' was.. very much out of place.

if children idolise their parents, then it shouldn't be much of a problem, unless they bash each other's head in with the toaster & throw kitchenknives at each other.

Mota Boy
03-23-2006, 10:40 AM
Television might be a factor... but there has always been violence in human society and there always will be, and there are several factors that are much, much more important than television or video games (such as poverty, drugs and a solid family structure), to the point where attempting to assess their impact is just a waste of time.

TheUnholyNightbringer
03-23-2006, 10:42 AM
And it's a pretty stupid question if you ask me. The answer is YES, it does increase violence, and there aint no denying it. Questions of responsibility, however, are much different.

Agreed. It's like the old question of "do video games cause violence?". Yes, of course they do, but only in people either unbalanced already, or in people too young or mature to understand the fictional quality of the game. Yknow, it's always 12 or 13 year olds going on shooting rampages or killing their friends after playing Manhunt or GTA - both 18+ games. Why are the guardians allowing their kids to play these games in the first place? Same with TV.

Rocky-girl
03-23-2006, 10:46 AM
It depends on what TV shows.

Sunny
03-23-2006, 11:11 AM
I don't think it increases it, but it does reflect AND perpetuate a culture of violence. Personally, I see it as stupid to blame TV for an increase in crime, because people need to look at many other cultural factors first... but there is no denying that prolonged exposure to violent or sexual material desensitizes people to it, and therefore makes it seem more ok or like it's not a big deal.

killer_queen
03-23-2006, 11:25 AM
Of course TV increase the violence. But not especially so. Books, video games, friends, street fights and a lot of things might cause the violence. Anyone who watches American Psycho can get over it easily. I can't say the same thing for the book.

It depends on the people's weaknesses actually. It's so stupid to accuse TV programmes for today's children's strange behaviours. Accuse the stupid parents who let their kid to watch, play, read everything he wants.

the_GoDdEsS
03-23-2006, 11:25 AM
You could say it's a trigger for some.

Preocupado
03-23-2006, 11:29 AM
It doesn't. There are several different shows directed to kids on tv at the same time, so why does the kid pick the violent one? It may be the tv's idea that this is the best decision, but all ideas must be filtered by a father's law and a mother's symbolization, internalized in the children.

Sunny
03-23-2006, 11:32 AM
but all ideas must be filtered by a father's law and a mother's symbolization, internalized in the children.


i just llllloved that little patriarchal touch! brilliant.

TheUnholyNightbringer
03-23-2006, 11:33 AM
a father's law

That reminded me so much of Clan of the Cave Bear.

..

*tumbleweed*

Sunny
03-23-2006, 11:34 AM
*falls over laughing*

JohnnyNemesis
03-23-2006, 11:35 AM
i just llllloved that little patriarchal touch! brilliant.

Really? I fucking hated it.*



*And I know you're on my side, and that you were being unserious :D

JoY
03-23-2006, 11:39 AM
patriarchal touches are awesome (urr, ew). they prove once again that nothing of us females is expected as future mothers, except symbolising motherhood, care & unconditional love. with every sock we pick up, with every attempt at teaching discipline & raising our children, we'll amaze the entire family!

Preocupado
03-23-2006, 11:43 AM
Maybe the term is known with another name in there, i don't know. Anyways, i translated father's law literally from lei paterna. It's a freudian term, and it's not patriarchal related, although it sujests the same if you think about it in common sense. The lei paterna it's an important component of the subjective structuration of a person and it can be performed either by a woman or by a man.

Rag Doll
03-23-2006, 11:44 AM
Oh god, don't even get me started on Freud.

T-6005
03-23-2006, 11:46 AM
I have a penis. Freud is my friend.

Preocupado
03-23-2006, 11:46 AM
Misinterpretations and feminist touches are orbiting all over the freudian theory.

JoY
03-23-2006, 11:48 AM
anything Freud says should be fully ignored & erased from memory.

except of course his theories on sexual frustration! *bites nails*

..
(I hate it that my tone can't betray that was total utter [poorly used] sarcasm)

JohnnyNemesis
03-23-2006, 11:52 AM
Maybe the term is known with another name in there, i don't know. Anyways, i translated father's law literally from lei paterna. It's a freudian term, and it's not patriarchal related, although it sujests the same if you think about it in common sense. The lei paterna it's an important component of the subjective structuration of a person and it can be performed either by a woman or by a man.

Just because the term "patriarchy" wasn't as significant during his time or because he didn't assign the term to his line of thought doesn't mean that it's not patriarchy.

JoY
03-23-2006, 11:54 AM
...because it extremely obviously is. in fact, Freud was full of it.

Preocupado
03-23-2006, 11:57 AM
I treat Freud's theory with a alot of respect. Even knowing that psychoanalysis won't be my path after i graduate, the theory can bring the thoughest of a person to the surface and leave that person with very few choices, just by facing her unconscious matters. It's pretty cool.

Preocupado
03-23-2006, 12:01 PM
Just because the term "patriarchy" wasn't as significant during his time or because he didn't assign the term to his line of thought doesn't mean that it's not patriarchy.

Then you're talking from that past age because nowadays only people who don't know wack about his theory can get so worked up about the term that they won't be able to filter the scientific value behind it. But it's a choice, nobody is pushing it down your throat.

JoY
03-23-2006, 12:06 PM
excuse me? it's entire based on uncertaincies, which he carefully names the "subconscious". he tries to explain every fucking aspect of human behavior by either sexual frustrations, or a messed up childhood. yeah, when I was two & developed my first tic, I was totally sexually frustrated & had had a miserable childhood of a magnificent two years. it's really quite pathetic. he blames everything on what's locked in someone's subconscious memory. I agree a war for instance can severely mess someone up, but losing your favorite toy WON'T leave a scar that'll be noticable on the outside in fifty years. he doesn't accept that even the brain is just another physiological working organ with just a whole bunch of nerve ends & vital activity.

Kerr
03-23-2006, 12:07 PM
And fuck, the tv shows for children of yestergeneration were fucking violent. I mean have you ever watched bugs bunny? This argument is so fucking retarded that I think people only use it to sound old.
Exactly, and the same goes for Tom and Jerry.

I think television and most media certainly plays a part. However, those who might have it in their personality to be violent are more likely to be violent as a result of television (i.e. it's a trigger of that personality trait). If you're talking about 3-year-olds, it might well teach them violence, but some people are more responsible than others - as Ric says, responsibility plays a part.

JoY
03-23-2006, 12:09 PM
Then you're talking from that past age because nowadays only people who don't know wack about his theory can get so worked up about the term that they won't be able to filter the scientific value behind it. But it's a choice, nobody is pushing it down your throat.
..since you seem to know & have read oh so much on Freud, just take the second to update your latest definition of 'patriarchic'.

Preocupado
03-23-2006, 12:19 PM
excuse me? it's entire based on uncertaincies, which he carefully names the "subconscious". he tries to explain every fucking aspect of human behavior by either sexual frustrations, or a messed up childhood. yeah, when I was two & developed my first tic, I was totally sexually frustrated & had had a miserable childhood of a magnificent two years. it's really quite pathetic. he blames everything on what's locked in someone's subconscious memory. I agree a war for instance can severely mess someone up, but losing your favorite toy WON'T leave a scar that'll be noticable on the outside in fifty years. he doesn't accept that even the brain is just another physiological working organ with just a whole bunch of nerve ends & vital activity.

JoY, i was explaining one by one of your points there according to my interpretation of the theory, but all of the things you wrote about it are really too sexually charged to be discussed scientifically.

Preocupado
03-23-2006, 12:22 PM
..since you seem to know & have read oh so much on Freud, just take the second to update your latest definition of 'patriarchic'.

There are new theories that did all of the term changing in Freud already, and they call themselves neofreudians.

JohnnyNemesis
03-23-2006, 12:28 PM
JoY, i was explaining one by one of your points there according to my interpretation of the theory, but all of the things you wrote about it are really too sexually charged to be discussed scientifically.

Well, all the things she wrote about are actually real and active in today's age. If you can't discuss something that's current, then discussion can only go so far.

JoY
03-23-2006, 12:39 PM
JoY, i was explaining one by one of your points there according to my interpretation of the theory, but all of the things you wrote about it are really too sexually charged to be discussed scientifically.
his theories are outdated & have scientifically been proved wrong multiple times. but essentially your point was how you raise your child. whether you call it a father's law & a mother's symbolisation, it essentially has to do with the upbringing of a child & essentially I agree that a child with a less structured, strict, supervised, loving, violentfree upbringing is more sensitive to becoming violent.

Preocupado
03-23-2006, 01:03 PM
Well, all the things she wrote about are actually real and active in today's age. If you can't discuss something that's current, then discussion can only go so far.

Read your post again and pretend you're reading somebody else's post. There's absolutely nothing to discuss with you. Ever.

Preocupado
03-23-2006, 01:08 PM
his theories are outdated & have scientifically been proved wrong multiple times. but essentially your point was how you raise your child. whether you call it a father's law & a mother's symbolisation, it essentially has to do with the upbringing of a child & essentially I agree that a child with a less structured, strict, supervised, loving, violentfree upbringing is more sensitive to becoming violent.

Yes, that's my point in that first post, but when you say that his theories are outdated and scientifically proved wrong multiple times, i disagree. That can be true in the developmental sciences, wich i don't know much about, but not at the social sciences.

JoY
03-23-2006, 01:10 PM
since a discussion from an outdated viewpoint can only go so far, as he says, I doubt he's willing to engage in a discussion on the subject with you. Freud shows & advertises a certain tunnelview, that might have been revolutionary in his days, but that presently can't back up any arguments. (I'm not 'siding' with anyone, though if I would, I'd so go for Ricky, even if it's just because he's total sex)

Preocupado
03-23-2006, 01:18 PM
I'm not thinking about siding. I disagree with everything he posted in this thread and pretty much everywhere everytime.

And back to Freud. I've never seen him being mentioned for something remarkable at the developmental sciences, so i believe he really must have been fully outdated in that area, by now. But when you talk about subjective structure, he's not outdatet at all. The psychoanalysis with the unconscious theory is still one of the strongest lines in action nowadays and there are really no indicators that it'll die. Freud, being the father of the theory, will always be present whenever you mention the unconscious system.

JoY
03-23-2006, 01:26 PM
Yes, that's my point in that first post, but when you say that his theories are outdated and scientifically proved wrong multiple times, i disagree. That can be true in the developmental sciences, wich i don't know much about, but not at the social sciences.
of course Freud wasn't a 100% wrong, or else he never could've stand a chance to become as popular as he was. he pretty much was 99% wrong, though. his theory that upbringing can strongly influence a child & thus a child's future & behavior aren't questioned. we know too much of how the human brain works not to reject his theories on psychological & psychiatric problems & the influence of the subconscience & 'trauma'.

Mota Boy
03-23-2006, 01:32 PM
I have a penis. Freud is my friend.
Awwww, you gave it a name.

coke_a_holic
03-23-2006, 01:43 PM
of course Freud wasn't a 100% wrong, or else he never could've stand a chance to become as popular as he was. he pretty much was 99% wrong, though. his theory that upbringing can strongly influence a child & thus a child's future & behavior aren't questioned. we know too much of how the human brain works not to reject his theories on psychological & psychiatric problems & the influence of the subconscience & 'trauma'.
You're just jealous because we have penises.

endlesst0m
03-23-2006, 02:29 PM
Television might be a factor... but there has always been violence in human society and there always will be, and there are several factors that are much, much more important than television or video games (such as poverty, drugs and a solid family structure), to the point where attempting to assess their impact is just a waste of time.

If people learn through imitation, then whats the difference between a kid watching people solve problems with violence in thier household, and a kid watching people solve problems with violence on tv?

Basically, why do you feel television is the less important factor of the reasons you mentioned?

Sinister
03-23-2006, 02:30 PM
I think violence from the media increases violence in society, which in turns increases violence in the media, and it ends up being a vicious circle. Kind of like that "what came first, the hen or the egg ?" sort of circle.

wheelchairman
03-23-2006, 02:33 PM
I think violence from the media increases violence in society, which in turns increases violence in the media, and it ends up being a vicious circle. Kind of like that "what came first, the hen or the egg ?" sort of circle.
No it doesn't. Violence in society has ebbed and wane throughout history. If it is a high in some parts of world than in others than it is a different variable than tv.

JohnnyNemesis
03-23-2006, 02:56 PM
Read your post again and pretend you're reading somebody else's post. There's absolutely nothing to discuss with you. Ever.

Yeah, I would hate it if I were wrong all the time too.

endlesst0m
03-23-2006, 03:24 PM
It's not tv that increases violence, it's televised violence that does.

I dunno about that...ever have a tv fall on your foot?

Dmarques
03-23-2006, 03:30 PM
According to my Psychology teacher, this is the most debated question in the world of psychology right now.

What do you think?

Yeah...my psicology teacher also say that. But she sucks.
The kids are very influenced by tv and if they watch movies like Terminator, etc, they will follow that example.
Definitely: The Kids aren't alright

wheelchairman
03-23-2006, 03:33 PM
That's fucking retarded.

Tv is irrelevant to the waxing and waning of social violence. The most irrelevant factor of it in fact.

Preocupado
03-23-2006, 03:36 PM
Yeah, I would hate it if I were wrong all the time too.

Nice going. Another post full of bullshit for your collection.

Dmarques
03-23-2006, 03:39 PM
That's fucking retarded.

Tv is irrelevant to the waxing and waning of social violence. The most irrelevant factor of it in fact.

No no... tv is maybe the biggest mass media in the world. Movie stars, heros, etc are an example for many people, especially for the kids, not for you.
Kids want to be the super man, the terminator, Jack the tripper.lool

wheelchairman
03-23-2006, 03:43 PM
No no... tv is maybe the biggest mass media in the world. Movie stars, heros, etc are an example for many people, especially for the kids, not for you.
Kids want to be the super man, the terminator, Jack the tripper.lool
Irrelevant. Before that was books, the dawn of books was not the dawn of heightened violence. Violence has waxed and waned due to the conditions of the time. Not the media.

Dusky, I would agree that insofar tv is part of the environment it has an effect. But of all the elements that consummate an environment, you could easily remove it as a variable and the measure of violence would be the same.

JoY
03-23-2006, 04:36 PM
If people learn through imitation, then whats the difference between a kid watching people solve problems with violence in thier household, and a kid watching people solve problems with violence on tv?

Basically, why do you feel television is the less important factor of the reasons you mentioned?
because BEING beaten is quite something else than watching it happen on television. I don't know if anyone's popped the news to you, but television isn't real. it's images from a box with a flat screen in 2D.

JoY
03-23-2006, 04:38 PM
I think violence from the media increases violence in society, which in turns increases violence in the media, and it ends up being a vicious circle. Kind of like that "what came first, the hen or the egg ?" sort of circle.
violence obviously came first. then they made television to show violence & to entertain people who are too lazy to get off their butts & be violent.

T-6005
03-23-2006, 04:38 PM
because BEING beaten is quite something else than watching it happen on television. I don't know if anyone's popped the news to you, but television isn't real. it's images from a box with a flat screen in 2D.
Realism is also a completely different concept in these situations. There's quite a difference between seeing someone get thrown through a wall on television and seeing someone hit in the face in real life.

JoY
03-23-2006, 04:41 PM
Nice going. Another post full of bullshit for your collection.
stop throwing shit at him & hopelessly missing. it only shows he aimed a lot better in your direction.

JoY
03-23-2006, 04:43 PM
No no... tv is maybe the biggest mass media in the world. Movie stars, heros, etc are an example for many people, especially for the kids, not for you.
Kids want to be the super man, the terminator, Jack the tripper.lool
kids want their mommy & daddy. they can live without superstars, they can't live without their parents. & they DO realise that. most children reply, when asked what they want to become, "like my mom/dad".

like I said before & Thi said aswell; realism plays a major role. television is not real. you don't see the things that happen on television happening around you in real life. you know your superheros are all actors & no matter how awesome kids might find them in the movies, somewhere in the back of their heads they do realise they're only just acting. that shows in that many children reply to the previous question that they want to become an actor. they never say "I want to become Arnold fucking Schwarzenegger".

upbringing is most important in the way a child's brain develops. then comes environment & education. television can't take that place, because it's not a part of your environment. if it DOES take that place, then your baby's got a VERY poor sense of realism & the thing should've been aborted in the first place.

nieh
03-23-2006, 04:44 PM
I'm being forced to watch an episode of American Idol in the not too distant future. That's one instance where television can increase violence.

JoY
03-23-2006, 04:51 PM
I'm being forced to watch an episode of American Idol in the not too distant future. That's one instance where television can increase violence.
no, that's just your own frustration knowing you'll never become America's next Idol, but will only be the Idol of computer-addicted nerds on a message board with a poor taste in music.

nieh
03-23-2006, 04:57 PM
no, that's just your own frustration knowing you'll never become America's next Idol, but will only be the Idol of computer-addicted nerds on a message board with a poor taste in music.

I do not have poor taste in music! =,0(

JoY
03-23-2006, 04:58 PM
I almost forgot; everything, except the Offspring. the Offspring is awesome!

nieh
03-23-2006, 05:06 PM
Offpsirng is the best band evar! Tey make my pants happy.

Vera
03-23-2006, 05:08 PM
I almost forgot; everything, except the Offspring. the Offspring is awesome!
She finally submits to the power that be Dex's manboobs.

OffspringisYOURreligion.

JoY
03-23-2006, 05:09 PM
what a coincedence, mine too! when I grow up, I want to become just like the Offspring & nieh.


urr, when I was thinking during the typing-process of this post, I thought "board-idol", which was directly followed by "boardbabe". slightly disturbing.

JoY
03-23-2006, 05:10 PM
She finally submits to the power that be Dex's manboobs.

OffspringisYOURreligion.
I lit a candle in church the other day to cure Dex from his rasta & it worked!

T-6005
03-23-2006, 05:11 PM
The Offspring's Next Board Idol.

I almost made a joke about how I'd tune in to watch that, before realizing that I wouldn't and that I wasn't funny.

nieh
03-23-2006, 05:17 PM
[QUOTE=JoY]what a coincedence, mine too! when I grow up, I want to become just like the Offspring & nieh.QUOTE]

you8 don't wont 2 b idol 2 da computer-addicted nerds like me. It's a big responsabillitti.

JoY
03-23-2006, 05:18 PM
amazing, you even got the "you fail at quoting"-thing right.

nieh
03-23-2006, 05:29 PM
u dun lyke my quoting? u think ur bettar dan me becuz u no teh english language/

JoY
03-23-2006, 05:33 PM
I wholeheartly adore your quoting, as I do you.


..I'm having the feeling my English is either getting funny (late at night & stuff), or that this is the worst order to place words in a sentence ever.

nieh
03-23-2006, 05:40 PM
You adore my quoting as you do me? Is there anything specific I should quote to keep the mood going?

Rag Doll
03-23-2006, 07:16 PM
I'm being forced to watch an episode of American Idol in the not too distant future. That's one instance where television can increase violence.

you *are* an abuser. and now everyone knows it!

nieh
03-23-2006, 07:23 PM
They all know I was only kidding (you're gonna get such a beating! :mad: )

Dmarques
03-24-2006, 07:24 AM
kids want their mommy & daddy. they can live without superstars, they can't live without their parents. & they DO realise that. most children reply, when asked what they want to become, "like my mom/dad".

like I said before & Thi said aswell; realism plays a major role. television is not real. you don't see the things that happen on television happening around you in real life. you know your superheros are all actors & no matter how awesome kids might find them in the movies, somewhere in the back of their heads they do realise they're only just acting. that shows in that many children reply to the previous question that they want to become an actor. they never say "I want to become Arnold fucking Schwarzenegger".

upbringing is most important in the way a child's brain develops. then comes environment & education. television can't take that place, because it's not a part of your environment. if it DOES take that place, then you're baby's got a VERY poor sense of realism & the thing should've been aborted in the first place.


But i didn't talk about babies. i was talking about kids with from 5 to 10 years old. These kids haven't any opinion about the live, sometimes they don't know what correct or wrong. If they're watching smack down for example and if their dad's are smiling and "vibrating" with these shows they think that this is a good example...they want to be wrestlers and tomorrow they' ll MAYBE fight at school and try make a toobstone...lol. Remember of that words: "don't try this at home"!

JoY
03-24-2006, 08:07 AM
I'm not talking about babies, either. (very obviously) babies don't know where their butt is, they can't possibly come to the conclusion that they can't live without their parents. I don't know how it's even possible you thought I was talking about babies. maybe because I said "then your baby's got a VERY poor sense of realism", but let's just state actual babies hardly have a sense of realism, which is perfectly normal. when I said "your baby" I obviously meant your child.

I'm talking about children with their brain still developing. a crucial stage to learn language is from 1-6, a crucial stage to learn morals is from 5-15 & the finishing touch is puberty, where they get a chance to learn how to bring all they've learned into practice.

kids DO know what's right from what's wrong if their PARENTS make it clear to them. especially kids the age you were talking about, from the age of 5-10, will sooner idolise their parents than some wrestling show on tv. believe me. if daddy watches porn & wrestling all day & doesn't take the time to raise them & teach his children morals, rules & priorities, then the kids lack parenting. you don't blame that on television, you blame that on louzy parents.

*Edit: I made some incredibly retarded spelling mistakes last night.

mrconeman
03-24-2006, 08:43 AM
I'm studying this exact subject in Psychology , Media Studies and somewhat in Sociology too at the minute.
Joy's making all the good points here.
Its generally accepted throughout Psychology that it will depend on what kind of audiance group a child falls into (active or passive*) and then of course there is always individual differences for different people, how media savvy people are at young ages ect.

I always loved a bit of violent TV and wrestling when I was a kid, but I never went out killing anyone, the main factor in it, is their upbringing, how their parents brought them up to understand and accept morals and teach them right from wrong, and again how media savvy they are.
Some of the tests that conclusions have been drawn for this issue are fucktarded.

One test, they took a bunch of kids set them in a room with a tv and forced them to watch a video of this doll being violently beaten (way to fuck up a kids head) when the video ended they gave the children the doll and watched what happened. Now obviously they are going to hit it, apposed to what we may think children arent stupid. They know that its not everyday they get put in a room watching a show about a doll getting beat, then they get given the doll, they basically knew they had to beat it. Highly un-ethical, and highly retarded.

Now thats not to say TV isnt an issue in causing violence, it surely is to a very minor extent, its blown way way way out of preportion as to its true effects.

* I suppose I should explain active and passive audiance. The jist of it basically is, a passive viewer will watch TV and take it all in, wont question anything beleive the media, wont form their own opinion wont accept that the TV can be wrong. Passive is the opposite, will form their own opinions on matters, questions the media, not likely to become violent due to TV

Dmarques
03-24-2006, 01:45 PM
I'm studying this exact subject in Psychology , Media Studies and somewhat in Sociology too at the minute.
Joy's making all the good points here.
Its generally accepted throughout Psychology that it will depend on what kind of audiance group a child falls into (active or passive*) and then of course there is always individual differences for different people, how media savvy people are at young ages ect.

I always loved a bit of violent TV and wrestling when I was a kid, but I never went out killing anyone, the main factor in it, is their upbringing, how their parents brought them up to understand and accept morals and teach them right from wrong, and again how media savvy they are.
Some of the tests that conclusions have been drawn for this issue are fucktarded.

One test, they took a bunch of kids set them in a room with a tv and forced them to watch a video of this doll being violently beaten (way to fuck up a kids head) when the video ended they gave the children the doll and watched what happened. Now obviously they are going to hit it, apposed to what we may think children arent stupid. They know that its not everyday they get put in a room watching a show about a doll getting beat, then they get given the doll, they basically knew they had to beat it. Highly un-ethical, and highly retarded.

Now thats not to say TV isnt an issue in causing violence, it surely is to a very minor extent, its blown way way way out of preportion as to its true effects.

* I suppose I should explain active and passive audiance. The jist of it basically is, a passive viewer will watch TV and take it all in, wont question anything beleive the media, wont form their own opinion wont accept that the TV can be wrong. Passive is the opposite, will form their own opinions on matters, questions the media, not likely to become violent due to TV

Yeah...i'm studying this subject too...but it's easier to explain in portuguese.
If your father is alcoolic you probably will have agressive acts, but this depends of anyone. your mentality...