Violence in Movies

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Okay, so let me try to figure out what you're saying here...

You say before nothing causes you to act in a violent way, yet here you say that genes make you act in a violent way.

Also, please clarify...if you believe that the environment DOESN'T play a role in causing violent behaviour and that only genetics does, well then your study doesn't support your case because it says the expression of the 'violence gene' only came out IF it was paired with a bad environment.

I don't know, not sure what you actually believe in because things you keep saying are contradictory. You say something isn't caused, then you say it is. You say the environment doesn't affect behaviour, then you say it does (in the study you mention).

The study had a link to what I said about serotonin...that levels of neurotransmitters can really affect violence. It said the gene affects levels of neurotransmitters, even further supporting what I said before lol (have a closer read).

 

[dkwrtw]

Okay, so let me try to figure out what you're saying here...

You say before nothing causes you to act in a violent way, yet here you say that genes make you act in a violent way.

Also, please clarify...if you believe that the environment DOESN'T play a role in causing violent behaviour and that only genetics does, well then your study doesn't support your case because it says the expression of the 'violence gene' only came out IF it was paired with a bad environment.

I don't know, not sure what you actually believe in because things you keep saying are contradictory. You say something isn't caused, then you say it is. You say the environment doesn't affect behaviour, then you say it does (in the study you mention).

The study had a link to what I said about serotonin...that levels of neurotransmitters can really affect violence. It said the gene affects levels of neurotransmitters, even further supporting what I said before lol (have a closer read).

I'm saying the same thing I said back on the 1st page, ALL of these studies are worthless, for every study you can find "proving" that environment influences behavior I can find a study that "proves" the exact opposite, the people conducting these "studies" have made up their mind on the matter before hand and their "study" will inevitably prove them right, don't be taken in by it Kimmy, 100% of them are misleading.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Your second link also further provides support for what I said about damage to brain structures. In a few paragraphs in it already mentions:

First, the researchers asked whether the low expression variant of MAOA, known to be associated with increased risk of violent behaviour, would predict differences in the size of limbic structures such as the amygdala. Indeed, what they found was that the low expression MAOA predicted limbic reductions, as can be shown from the figure article

What it's saying is the size of the limbic system thing being reduced will affect how violent the person is, same outcome if you gave a lesion to that area (cut it). Maybe this MAOA gene does cause some violence, but contrary to your beliefs, it's not the ONLY factor that contributes to the process of making a person violent.

 

[dkwrtw]

Kimmy like I said in my last post, I can find a "study" out there that proves absolutely anything I want it to, they are all garbage.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I'm saying the same thing I said back on the 1st page, ALL of these studies are worthless, for every study you can find "proving" that environment influences behavior I can find a study that "proves" the exact opposite, the people conducting these "studies" have made up their mind on the matter before hand and their "study" will inevitably prove them right, don't be taken in by it Kimmy, 100% of them are misleading.

You know, it's okay to be a little critical and skeptical of science, but it's not 100% flawed. Science, in a very broad sense, aims to improve the quality of life for people in all sorts of areas...medicine, law, education, etc. You never know, one day this type of research could be helping people to lessen their violent ways, which could have a reasonable impact on society itself.

Yes you can't trust science 100%, because science isn't the number one reliable and trustworthy way of knowing, there never will be ANY number one reliable way of knowing. But it's better to go off something than nothing. You can't just simply say something without backing it up somehow. Denying science doesn't prove anything either you know.

And there are ways to determine the crap studies from the good ones. Most studies can admit methodology flaws or misinterpretations of data, or sometimes, even conceptual/theoretical problems.
And it's not ALWAYS the case that people's hypotheses are always 'proven right'. Nothing's ever proven, just supported. Maybe they just observed and explained something so well that it allowed them to make an accurate prediction. That's the first three steps of scientific inquiry really - observe behaviour, explain behaviour, predict behaviour, then control behaviour. If you can explain something precisely enough, then usually you can predict something from it. When something is pseudoscientific however, usually this explanation will be broad and not detailed enough, and therefore not really testable.

 

[dkwrtw]

I have no faith in science Kimmy, it's a bunch of arrogant Know-nothing-know-it-alls claiming things they really have no Idea about to be fact, when in reality their most of their explanations make about as much sense as those of Religious fanatics.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

By the way, if anybody is interested, here are these two studies I found about violence:

Gunter, B. (2008). Media violence: Is there a case for causality? American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 1061-1122. doi:10.1177/0002764207312007

Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Lalumiere, M. (2001). Criminal violence: The roles of psychopathy, neurodevelopmental insults, and antisocial parenting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 402-426. doi: 10.1177/009385480102800402

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I have no faith in science Kimmy, it's a bunch of arrogant Know-nothing-know-it-alls claiming things they really have no Idea about to be fact, when in reality their most of their explanations make about as much sense as those of Religious fanatics.

They know more than the average human being, I'm just sayin'. They would know much more than you. I don't see how you can think you're right when you can't prove anything. All you're doing is disagreeing with everything. Disagreeing isn't debating I'm afraid...

 

[dkwrtw]

I just found two studies on whether or not the death penalty deters crime and shockingly they both "prove" the exact opposite to be true

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/06/...s-prove-that-captial-punishment-deters-crime/

http://www.nodeathpenaltywi.org/PDF/Deterrence Fact Sheet 9 20 06.pdf

 

[dkwrtw]

They know more than the average human being, I'm just sayin'. They would know much more than you. I don't see how you can think you're right when you can't prove anything. All you're doing is disagreeing with everything. Disagreeing isn't debating I'm afraid...

I'm not disagreeing with "everything" I am disagreeing that peoples actions are influenced by their environment. If a person is somewhat intelligent and sounds like they know what they're talking about they can convince people of just about anything, don't believe everything somebody tells you just because they work in a lab coat Kimmy.

 

[dkwrtw]

Now, It's almost 4 in the morning, I'm gonna go to bed, we can continue this later, or not, it really doesn't matter :dunno

 

[edgray]

This debate is very cool.

The whole nature vs nuture is such a fascinating debate, you're both putting up great arguments.

well then perhaps it's me that has a problem, because I cannot recall a singe instance of actually losing control of myself, I too have trained martial arts, specifically boxing and wrestling, and when the timer goes off I freeze in mid punch, I've never accidentally struck a person after the timer, it's the same when I grapple I'm constantly thinking and aware of what's going on around me, I'm on the ground with a 250 guy on top of me and I hear my coach say to one of my training partners "He could go for a kneebar right now", so I do, I don't get it but It gets me out of the position I'm in, I'm always thinking clearly even in a situation like that, and I expect others to be able to do the same :dunno

Have you ever thought about teaching self control or something like that?

there's a lot of people in this world that could benefit from that. Myself included....

So, the question to you, dkwrtw. do you think your skills is genetic, conditioned, consciously learned or a combination of all three?

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I'm not disagreeing with "everything" I am disagreeing that peoples actions are influenced by their environment. If a person is somewhat intelligent and sounds like they know what they're talking about they can convince people of just about anything, don't believe everything somebody tells you just because they work in a lab coat Kimmy.

It's the method that provides evidence. Observing, researching or experimenting. It's how someone interprets those things that affects its 'validity' as such.

It's possible that you're only looking for studies that keep supporting the hypotheses. Have you tried looking for any at all that don't? Some studies don't have a hypothesis, or, they can have a null hypothesis.
It's easy to just look for evidence that confirms what we want to believe, which could be what you're doing, it's possible (not saying you are, but just to be wary of that...). I'm going to have a look anyway.

And I think I have a bit of education as to help me distinguish what's rubbish and what is not. Calling the WHOLE of the field of science rubbish is ridiculous. I think what you mean to say is pseudoscience is rubbish...
Science has brought you a lot of things in life, along with technology too. You just don't realise this unfortunately...

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Now, It's almost 4 in the morning, I'm gonna go to bed, we can continue this later, or not, it really doesn't matter :dunno

Well that is up to you, I'm finding it interesting

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I just found two studies on whether or not the death penalty deters crime and shockingly they both "prove" the exact opposite to be true

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/06/...s-prove-that-captial-punishment-deters-crime/

http://www.nodeathpenaltywi.org/PDF/Deterrence Fact Sheet 9 20 06.pdf

On this also (sorry, I'm triple posting)...

The first one isn't in depth enough. The site is actually a blog site. If they gave the link to the actual article that might help. I don't know, this website is pretty hard to navigate and almost useless...

The second one is also not a scientific paper. It's just 'facts' and quotes from supposed authority figures. The thing with this one is, if the death penalty appears to be deterring people just by looking at crime rates, well that doesn't actually say anything. Crime and its fluctuation/and reportings of can be affected by multiple factors. Different states have different regulations and different things in place or whatever. You'd really have to look at all the original sources cited by this 'fact sheet' and determine if those sources were originally viable in the first place.

So really, these aren't scientific things at all. Science, or something of the like, is this... (yes it's from my own institution but you get the idea...)
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:64431:8/component/escidoc:69896/Tyler_tcJASA09.pdf

 

[retro]

Here's a similar issue in terms of personal responsility

States are wanting to ban the caffeinated alcoholic drink Four Loko. Why? Because college students are being idiots with alcohol (gee, I never would have guessed), but they apparently need a scapegoat.

Here's the best part of the article though

The nine Central Washington University freshmen hospitalized after the Oct. 8 party had blood alcohol levels ranging from .123 to .35, with a concentration of .30 or more considered potentially fatal, officials said. All had consumed Four Loko, some in combination with other alcoholic beverages.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-blackout-in-a-can-20101027,0,5150927.story

Why do we blame the beverage rather than the people that drink it? I swear, this country is going to drive me freaking insane eventually.Where is personal responsibility? Why is it that we have a need to blame everything but the people involved? Oh, it wasn't the idiot college freshmen's fault that they drank too much. No, it's the fault of the alcoholic beverage itself, and the company that makes it. It states clearly on the can that it has 12% APV, why does it comes as a shock that people can get really wasted off of it? Hell, I can mix passion fruit rum with some orange pineapple juice and not even taste the damn alcohol. Rum has a far higher percentage of APV, and can be mixed so you don't taste it at all, so theoretically you could get far drunker on it than you could on Four Loko.

We live in an age where we have to have something or someone to blame for people being idiots or having mental instabilities. A psychopath shoots up a school, and rather than blame the psychopath themselves, we have to blame the music they listened to, the movies they watched, the video games they played, the books they read, their upbringing, and the list goes on. Why don't we simply write these people off as being completely mentally unstable and they lost it. Chances are they would have lost it whether they listened to Marilyn Manson or Yanni, watched Shoot 'Em Up or The Back-up Plan, played GTA IV or Myst. But we just have to have something to blame. That's why I think these studies are biased and not really all that accurate. They're coming from the viewpoint that violence in movies and other areas begets violence that people act out on, so of course they're going to find data that supports their theories. On the flip side we have studies that come at the problem from the viewpoint that violence in those same areas does not beget violence that is acted out, so they have data that supports their theories.

It really all comes down to personal responsibility. When someone shoots up a college campus, is it the fault of the gun company, the movie studio, or the video game creator? No. It's the fault of the person that shot up the college campus, plain and simple.

 

[itsmeJonB]

Four Loko's are gross though

 

[dkwrtw]

It's the method that provides evidence. Observing, researching or experimenting. It's how someone interprets those things that affects its 'validity' as such.

It's possible that you're only looking for studies that keep supporting the hypotheses. Have you tried looking for any at all that don't? Some studies don't have a hypothesis, or, they can have a null hypothesis.
It's easy to just look for evidence that confirms what we want to believe, which could be what you're doing, it's possible (not saying you are, but just to be wary of that...). I'm going to have a look anyway.

And I think I have a bit of education as to help me distinguish what's rubbish and what is not. Calling the WHOLE of the field of science rubbish is ridiculous. I think what you mean to say is pseudoscience is rubbish...
Science has brought you a lot of things in life, along with technology too. You just don't realise this unfortunately...

Kimmy I'm basing my beliefs on this matter off of my own experience in life, I know your upbringing doesn't determine your behavior because I behave nothing like the people who have brought me up, I know that your environment does not have to influence your behavior because I behave nothing like the people I grew up around, I know ones friends don't determine their behavior because I behave nothing like any of my friends, I know that Violent films don't cause violent reactions in people because I have watched violent films almost every day since I was a small child, now nothing any scientists tells me will convince me that my own personal experience in life is wrong, I know a person doesn't have to be a "product of their environment" because I am living proof of this.

 

[dkwrtw]

This debate is very cool.

The whole nature vs nuture is such a fascinating debate, you're both putting up great arguments.



Have you ever thought about teaching self control or something like that?

there's a lot of people in this world that could benefit from that. Myself included....

So, the question to you, dkwrtw. do you think your skills is genetic, conditioned, consciously learned or a combination of all three?

Now that is a good question, I believe it to be a combination of being Genetics and being Consciously learned.

 

[itsmeJonB]

You are either bad or evil.
And only the evil can take over if its there, it cannot be created