Video Games

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I never claimed I wanted to control any consumer's choice, I merely pointed out how despicable (in my opinion) some adverising can be.

I believe the point of this thread was 'video games', but more importantly, can external stimuli influence individual behaviour.

It is not people like me that create gas chambers, it is those who lust after power, and seek the control and direction of the aforementioned 'external stimuli'.

[Hugo]

I never claimed I wanted to control any consumer's choice, I merely pointed out how despicable (in my opinion) some adverising can be.

So, to clarify: you are complaining about something, but you have no ideas on how and no intention to improve the situation.

I ask what your point was in bringing that up, then.

It is not people like me that create gas chambers, it is those who lust after power, and seek the control and direction of the aforementioned 'external stimuli'.

Paternalists lust after power. Those who seek to replace co-operation with coercion lust after power. Those who seek to control advertising (which, without violence, cannot be described as anything more than "persuasion") have a lust for power. Some of them probably believe that that power will never be abused. They are the more stupid ones.

I believe the point of this thread was 'video games', but more importantly, can external stimuli influence individual behaviour.

Sure! How could it not? Rain and snow are external stimuli for me to build a house. It is completely impossible to isolate an individual from external stimuli, and the virtually infinite combinations of stimuli combined with the variety of individuals themselves makes it impossible to predict the effects with anything approaching accuracy, on any more than an individual basis.

Since these judgements are best made at the individual level, I say that 'regulation' of the media, such as it occurs, is best done at that level. That means by family and parents, not by the state, which is fumbling in the dark in these matters.

[PocketRocket]

There used to be a radio phone in show; "The Lowell Green Show" every weekday morning.

I don't know if Lowell is still on the air, but we don't get him where I live any more.

On one of his shows, the topic was about how Ozzy Osbourne's song "Suicide Solution" was responsible for some kid taking his own life.

The frightening thing was how many people were calling in agreeing with that sentiment.

So, I phoned in. I explained that I have no liking at all for Ozzy, but that I disagreed with the general concensus of the program so far.

I got blasted by Lowell.

When he finished, I explained that, in my opinion, if someone listens to a song, or watches a tv program, or reads a story, or whatever, and then goes out and kills themself or someone else, then that person had BIG mental problems to start with.

Got blasted for that, too.

He went on a tirade about how various crap in the media has caused kids to go a shooting sprees in schools.

So I asked him what he thought caused Hitler to ravage Europe, and suggested that perhaps Adolph was listening to too much Tommy Dorsey and his Orchestra.

Lowell called me an idiot and hung up on me, then went on to call me a few more names after I was off the line.

I got a good chuckle from the whole thing.

He didn't. I think I peed in his Corn Flakes.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo.

So, to clarify: you are complaining about something, but you have no ideas on how and no intention to improve the situation.

I ask what your point was in bringing that up, then.

It was merely a response to your statement

Actually, countless studies have shown that advertising is primarily informative

which I believe to be inaccurate.

[Hugo]

It was merely a response to your statement... which I believe to be inaccurate.

But all you have brought up is some anecdotal evidence from your personal life. Where is the scientific evidence that advertising makes fundamental shifts in the want-needs of the audience? I just do not think it is the case.

And as I have also said, it just does not make sense. Conforming the opinions of the masses requires a massive propaganda machine, such as that of the Third Reich, where all media and all social interaction are tightly controlled. Even then, not all people will be swayed by the messages.

Advertisers do not have anything like that level of control. The odds are very much against their being able to construct an advertising campaign that dupes people into changing their want-needs, especially as their competitors will all be following suit. It is far, far easier to find out what the want-needs of the populace are, and then make something that meets those want-needs. That enterprise has a much greater chance of success.

Ask yourself this: how much advertising would it have taken to stop consumers adopting automobiles, or electric light, or indoor flush toilets? How much advertising would I need to sell a square wheel, or a waterproof sponge, or a fire-proof match? How can I persuade people to buy my screen-doors for submarines, my radios for the deaf, and my cameras for the blind?

According to you, all these things should be possible. It's just a question of marketing. Anything else means that advertising is largely informative rather than persuasive!

[Hugo]

I got a good chuckle from the whole thing.

He didn't. I think I peed in his Corn Flakes.

It sounds like you got to him. Good story.

Anyway, to touch on what you've said, I think this reaction stems from the fact that there are hard and easy answers to questions about bad things. We live in a world where Bad Things happen, or where we believe that Bad Things happen (although it is subjective). Most of the time, people are responsible for the Bad Things that happen to them, but they don't want to hear it.

For instance, if you lose your job, it's much easier to hear that evil, greedy capitalists are keeping you down, or it's the fault of illegal immigrants, or cheap foreign labour, whatever - not your fault. It's hard to hear that you are lazy, underskilled, have a bad attitude, etc. That means it was your fault, and it also means that you have to do something about it rather than just whining about what has been done to you.

This is why socialism is so popular. It's an easy sell. Capitalism tells us that if we want better, we have to go out and get it and if we fail, it's our own fault. Socialism tells us that we deserve better, and someone else better give it to us, and if we don't get it, it was somebody else's fault.

Same thing with violence in the media. The parents of violent kids don't want to be told that it is their fault because they teach them violence in the home, neglect them, or let them see things that are wholly age-inappropriate (and I don't believe for a minute that the parents of young children cannot control what they see - I saw a toy gun for the first time in my life at age 10 and I thought it was an electric drill because I had never seen a gun before).

It's a lot easier to tell these parents that it's the evil media - somebody else's fault. This lets them carry on living their inadequate yet easy lifestyle (which they like, or else they wouldn't do it) while blaming somebody else, rather than forcing them to admit their mistakes and make some changes for the sake of their kids.

[Michael Hardner]

For instance, if you lose your job, it's much easier to hear that evil, greedy capitalists are keeping you down, or it's the fault of illegal immigrants, or cheap foreign labour, whatever - not your fault. It's hard to hear that you are lazy, underskilled, have a bad attitude, etc. That means it was your fault, and it also means that you have to do something about it rather than just whining about what has been done to you.

Hugo:

The real world lies somewhere between the one that you describe (we are all completely independent and absolutely responsible for our actions and in control of factors that govern our lives) and the one you scorn (no responsibility, factors out of our control).

Like the wave and particle theory of light, you need a "masses" and "individual" theory of people.

[Hugo]

You are constructing a strawman argument. I never said that individuals were the sole acting agents for everything that transpired in their lives. I said that most of the time, people are responsible for their own misfortunes.

Some things are definitely outside individual control - tsunamis, for instance, or a technological development that makes some jobs obsolete. However, there is an alarming tendency for people to blame everything on external factors when the actual fact is that a lot of their problems are self-inflicted.

Videogames are like this. It is true that externalities - the manufacturers - are making and marketing these games, but it is also true that parents have the power to control what their children see. Those who claim otherwise are simply not applying themselves to the problem. I find it hard to believe that parents can be outwitted by 10-year-olds and I also find it hard to believe that distant corporations can be more powerful than parents in their own homes.

To blame everything on external factors and demand that somebody else solve a problem is also to throw away that uniquely human of gifts: adaptability. Tsunamis may happen, jobs become obsolete, but humans rebuild and retrain. This is why humanity, unlike any animal, lives from the poles to the Sahara, and why humanity continues to prosper, develop and grow more numerous despite volcanoes, earthquakes, droughts, wars, you name it.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You are constructing a strawman argument. I never said that individuals were the sole acting agents for everything that transpired in their lives. I said that most of the time, people are responsible for their own misfortunes.

And you were disputed on that, not on a strawman.

Some things are definitely outside individual control - tsunamis, for instance, or a technological development that makes some jobs obsolete.

... childhood poverty, malice or incompetence of one's fellow man, whether you're good-looking, whether there's oil under your ass, whether you meet the CEO in the washroom the morning you have a good idea, ...

However, there is an alarming tendency for people to blame everything on external factors when the actual fact is that a lot of their problems are self-inflicted.

That's merely to flip the straw-man onto his head. Do people blame 'everything', or do they blame those things they don't control?

Videogames are like this. It is true that externalities - the manufacturers -

You know I hate to quibble, Hugo, but calling the product manufacturers 'externalities' is rather an confusing use of that term, given its already existing meaning in economics.

Not, mind you that I disagree with you main point about videogames. Parents who don't want their minor children to play them have the same authority and remedies as parents who don't want their minor children playing with knives or propane torches.

[Hugo]

And you were disputed on that, not on a strawman.

Michael was stating that my view of the world only allowed for personal responsibility - "The real world lies somewhere between the one that you describe (we are all completely independent and absolutely responsible for our actions and in control of factors that govern our lives." That is not the case.

That's merely to flip the straw-man onto his head. Do people blame 'everything', or do they blame those things they don't control?

I said there was a tendency. I think it is well-known that a lot of people - probably most - will blame things other than themselves for their misfortunes. It's easy to do, far easier than confronting ones own failings. We all probably know someone who has been unemployed for a year not because he can't find work, but because he considers the work he finds beneath him. We all know of black people who complain that "whitey" is keeping them down, despite the fact that he isn't keeping Bill Cosby or Colin Powell down, and despite the fact that these complainers refuse to get an education or hold down a job.

We all also know Digby, who in this thread has blamed videogame manufacturers for something - his son playing violent games - that is entirely within his control.

You know I hate to quibble, Hugo, but calling the product manufacturers 'externalities' is rather an confusing use of that term, given its already existing meaning in economics.

Yes, I realised at the time that it might cause some confusion, but I think what I meant was clear - the "externalities" I am talking about are individuals or phenomena beyond the control of the individual who has cause to complain about the circumstances he finds himself in. But I admit that the word wasn't the best to use - it was the best I could think of at the time.

Not, mind you that I disagree with you main point about videogames. Parents who don't want their minor children to play them have the same authority and remedies as parents who don't want their minor children playing with knives or propane torches.

Exactly. Moreover, I think it is becoming easier for parents to control these things. Digital cable boxes and Tivos increasingly come with passcodes, parental controls and V-chips as standard. Firewalls and software like NetNanny can be programmed to block out adult content on the web.

And, of course, there's that new-fangled idea of being involved in what your children do. A person who effectively uses computers or television to raise their children does not have reasonable grounds for complaint when these influences cause problems.

[PocketRocket]

Hi HUGO:

 

I got a good chuckle from the whole thing.

He didn't. I think I peed in his Corn Flakes. 

It sounds like you got to him. Good story.

Thanks. It was definitely fun.

  Most of the time, people are responsible for the Bad Things that happen to them, but they don't want to hear it. 

I'm not sure if I'd say "most" of the time, but absolutely a lot of the time, yes.

  For instance, if you lose your job, it's much easier to hear that evil, greedy capitalists are keeping you down, or it's the fault of illegal immigrants, or cheap foreign labour, whatever - not your fault. 

If an individual loses his/her job, then it's probably his/her own fault.

If a huge facility employing thousands of people simply closes up, then I would have to disagree.

  Same thing with violence in the media. The parents of violent kids don't want to be told that it is their fault because they teach them violence in the home, neglect them, or let them see things that are wholly age-inappropriate (and I don't believe for a minute that the parents of young children cannot control what they see - I saw a toy gun for the first time in my life at age 10 and I thought it was an electric drill because I had never seen a gun before).

A couple points here. Regarding the toy gun, I was brought up in a hoouse FULL of toy guns. I played soldier. I played "war". I played Cowboys and Indians. Just about every game I played as a kid revolved around shooting people with a toy gun, with the exception of games like "Tag" and a few other childhood favorites.

But my dad was a hunter. He gave all of us some very sombre talks on firearm safety. I knew the correct way to carry a rifle, the proper way to climb over a fence with a rifle, just about everything they teach you about firearms safety, before I was 8 years old.

And by 8 years old, I was a better shot with a rifle than many experienced shooters are today.

We were taught respect for the firearm, and respect for the lives of those around us. We were taught to NEVER point a weapon at someone, even in fun, even if we were ABSOLUTELY SURE it wasn't loaded.

IOW, we were TAUGHT.

Now, the parents of "violent" kids may or may not have taught their kids at all. Sometimes a kid is just plain ornery and refuses to learn.

I was a borderline ornery, and hyperactive, kid. A lot of times I heard what I wanted to hear, and ignored the rest. My dad, and after he passed away too young, my mom, knew how to get my attention.

A smack behind the ear usually did the trick. Or a swat on the rear with a yardstick, or a green tree switch, or a piece of extension cord, or a belt, or whatever was close at hand.

No question about "child abuse" in those days. You were allowed to spank a child.

Some kids do not need to be spanked, they listen when spoken to, and obey what they are told.

I was not such a kid. If I was being brought up today, under the "no spank" laws which we now have, I probably would have turned into a public menace (moreso than I am now, LOL).

Hell, they sometimes needed to whack me just to get my attention, sometimes as punishment when I had stepped too far over the line.

The whacks taught me 2 important things, firstly, to listen. Second, that every action has it's consequences.

Nowadays, a hyperactive kid either just goes on trashing the house while the parent stands patiently saying "Don't do that, that's not good".

Or else they put the kid on ridilin.

Yeah, putting a kid on a behaviour modifying drug will teach them how to cope with life later on.

Basically, we have a whole generation of people teaching their kids that if you do something wrong, you have to take a "time out" for ten minutes, or that you get to go to your room and play video games.

We are teaching them that if life is running a bit too fast, that you can take a pill that'll help you play nice with your friends and teachers.

We are certainly NOT teaching them about coping with life.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually Hugo I said that you []I]described[/i] that scenario not that you believed it. I believe in fighting straw with straw.

We're discussing where society should draw the lines of personal accountability, so that people will remain strong and independent, and take responsibility for their actions yet have assistance when bad fortune falls upon them.

Sweal has pointed out how these external forces can work for you as well as against you. It seems kharmic somehow that the lucky should help the unlucky, but you would disagree I"m sure.

[Hugo]

If an individual loses his/her job, then it's probably his/her own fault.

If a huge facility employing thousands of people simply closes up, then I would have to disagree.

In that case no, however, if that individual is still unemployed six months later it probably has less to do with external factors and more to do with the individual.

Basically, we have a whole generation of people teaching their kids that if you do something wrong, you have to take a "time out" for ten minutes, or that you get to go to your room and play video games.

Actually, the time-out works very well. You don't let your kid play videogames, you put them in a quiet, boring environment. I have used time-out with all of my children with great effect, and I don't spank any of them. The time-out is very effective because it removes the child from the environment that is causing the disruption and creates distance for them, whereas spanking does not remove them from the environment but merely adds confrontation and humiliation to it.

Actually Hugo I said that you []I]described[/i] that scenario not that you believed it. I believe in fighting straw with straw.

In the case of videogames I do believe that the situation is entirely within the control of individual parents. I don't think there are any external factors that a parent cannot override.

We're discussing where society should draw the lines of personal accountability, so that people will remain strong and independent, and take responsibility for their actions yet have assistance when bad fortune falls upon them.

That rather depends on the method of assistance, doesn't it?

It seems kharmic somehow that the lucky should help the unlucky, but you would disagree I"m sure.

I don't disagree a bit. Had you said "the lucky should be forced to help the unlucky" I would have disagreed with you. But the existence of so many successful charities is sufficient evidence that the lucky are often motivated to help the unlucky through nothing more than simple, human compassion.

[PocketRocket]

The time-out is very effective because it removes the child from the environment that is causing the disruption and creates distance for them, whereas spanking does not remove them from the environment but merely adds confrontation and humiliation to it.

I agree that for some kids, perhaps even most kids, it works. In my case, it would have been a waste of time. As a kid, I would NOT have spent the timeout ruminating on what I had done, but rather daydreaming, or simply resenting how I was hard-done-by.

SOME kids, not all, require a heavier hand, just as some adults do.

I do not advocate wholesale beatings of children. Far from it. But if a sane and well-reasoned parent feels a slap on the hand is necessary, they should not be subject to legal punishment. Currently, even a slap on the hand is considered assault.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear PocketRocket,

I have to completely agree with your above post, that for some children, spanking is a neccesary evil.

I was also deemed 'a hyperactive' child, and I am old enough to remember 'the strap' in school. (I only got it once, and I 'smartened up' enough to not get it again).

Currently, even a slap on the hand is considered assault.

However, I do believe the gov't recently upheld the 'spanking law'. I believe society has gone a bit downhill with the absence of 'mild, corrective' corporal punishment.

Nowadays, kids like me are given excuses and drugs for 'bad behaviour', where I was given a spanking and told exactly why what I did was wrong. They have names like ADD, or 'aggressive/defiant syndrome, but when I was a kid, it was called 'being a little bastard' and you got your ass whooped, rather than an excuse made for you.

As Hugo points out, different methods may work for some parents, as he believes a 'time out' is enough of a consequence to get the message across. Good for him, as he may have generally good kids to begin with, and has not had to deal with 'severe' problems that might require a whoopin'.

When I was a kid, my best friend and I (I was about 10) were in his basement right after halloween. He lit a match and set a bowlful of candy wrappers of fire and then we tried to play catch with the flaming bowl. We burnt the carpet a bit, but his mom caught us trying to clean it up, and she called my mom, and guess what...I got a wooden spoon across the ass a few times when I got home. Looking back, we could have died and or killed someone, but the spanking taught me to abandon by pyro-maniac ways. It might have been fun at the time, but the punishment wasn't worth it, and I did not have the 'intelligence' to look back at the possible consequences as I do now.

[Hugo]

I have to completely agree with your above post, that for some children, spanking is a neccesary evil.

I don't agree at all. Spanking is a last resort and one that does not work. The only circumstance in which I could even understand spanking would be with a child who is placing themselves in imminent danger and is too young to understand words and warnings.

Many child psychologists and pediatricians, including the widely published Dr. Christopher Green, have written that even children whose behavioural problems are so severe that they would physically attack parents and strangers with instruments such as golf clubs and baseball bats can be far more successfully dealt with using non-corporal methods such as time-out rather than corporal punishment. Indeed, violence in children is often a direct response to violence from parents.

As Hugo points out, different methods may work for some parents, as he believes a 'time out' is enough of a consequence to get the message across. Good for him, as he may have generally good kids to begin with, and has not had to deal with 'severe' problems that might require a whoopin'.

I believe that children only "require a whoopin'" because the parents have not applied good discipline from an early age. It is noteable that problem children generally occur as a whole rather than individuals within well-behaved families. Parents either have good children (I have three very good children) or they have bad children. "Black sheep" behaviour doesn't begin to set in until the mid-to-late teens, at which point it is far too late for "time-out". Up until that time, children are primarily followers.

Most of parental failure in this regard can be chalked up to lack of consistency, failure to support each other and act as a united front, displays of fear towards children, and so forth. Spanking does not solve any of these problems. It merely teaches children that violence is an acceptable solution to a problem. My household has consistent rules and discipline that do not change, my wife and I do not allow the children to play us off against each other, and our children know that blackmail with e.g. threats of tantrums never works for them. As a result, my children never need to be spanked. I have far more effective punishments if they should transgress the long-established and well-known rules (e.g. keep your hands to yourself, bedtime is 9pm, dessert is only given to those who eat dinner etc.) Children crave rules, routine and discipline. The parents of unruly children never apply any.

As a kid, I would NOT have spent the timeout ruminating on what I had done, but rather daydreaming, or simply resenting how I was hard-done-by.

Since you have never experienced it, this is pure speculation and nothing more. For all you know, time-out would have worked wonders for you.

They have names like ADD, or 'aggressive/defiant syndrome, but when I was a kid, it was called 'being a little bastard'

This is highly disingenuous. Some children do genuinely have physiological problems such as chemical imbalances, overactive thyroids and so forth. To label them "little bastards" and hit them is on the same level as labelling schizophrenics "lunatics", locking them up in asylums without medical or even humane treatment and having members of the general public come laugh at them on weekends.

I'm curious to know if you two actually have any children, or if you are basing your arguments solely on remembered experiences from your own childhoods?

[cybercoma]

Sorry I didn't read through this entire thread....but I just had a thought.

If we blame videogames for violence in children....can we blame the governmetn for kids stealing money?

Just wondering...