Doubtful of the influence of TV or Games

[jwillx]

In "THE UNTHINKABLE: CHILDREN WHO KILL", there are many
statements which make no sense to me.

For example, the whole discussion of TV violence assumes
that suddenly, the communities cited, which experienced
increased crime correlated with access to television,
changed in no way other than TV-watching. However,
local TV broadcasting (and ownership) requires an increase
in local prosperity. One might as well blame an increase in
family wages for the increase in violence. So, ban money, and
all will be well in the family? Only pay salaries in $1 bills
to reduce violence, presumably like controlling
access to guns or reducing violence on TV?

Then again, on p. 7, "Kids who kill to solve their problems
solve nothing". Actually, when Kemper finally got around to
murdering his mother, his problem was solved, and he became
docile and law-abiding (in prison). The issue is not
how a kid should solve a problem but rather that solving a
problem by murder does too much harm to others, especially to
the victim! We don't care about a kid's problem, when the
kid is going around injuring or killing people, so we assume
that the solution is not one.

On the same page, "Through programming [on TV or computer
games], we're teaching kids to kill with accuracy and to
think of killing as an appropriate means to an end."
This isn't true or even reasonable; it just begs the
question of cause and effect, and that the cause
"appropriate" in the author's beliefs is the only one worth
addressing.

Serial killers in general become LESS violent shortly after
a killing than before it. Common profiling suggests that
serial killers usually experience a gradually growing need
for killing as the memory of the last death becomes less vivid.
This would suggest that a violence-prone child watching a violent
show or game would be LESS violent immediately afterward than
later. The fake violence in part fulfills the need for real
violence (just as playing with trophies substitutes in a serial
killer for a new kill).

The author rightly points out that bad parenting can create
asocial behavior and that antisocial behavior MIGHT
replace it; however, I am sure that neither the author nor I
can make a correct general statement of how, or how
likely, asocial becomes antisocial in any specific child.

Worst, many of the children described in the article were not
obviously asocial before committing their crimes. Witness
that the author started off with this set of child-killer
categories:

1. Inner city/gang killers.
2. Killing within a family.
3. Cult killings.
4. Pathology [psychosis].
5. School killers.
6. Killing committed during another crime.
7. Sexual killings.
8. Hate crimes.
9. Kids who kill themselves.
10.Kids who kill their babies.

Now, how does "gang killing" or "cult killing" fit the idea of
asocial causality? These killers bond very well with their
comrades.

The author is confused, I think. The author creates a category of
"antisocial behavior", equates it with "criminal behavior" and
then tries to fit "criminal behavior" into a developmental
mold of "asocial" childhood. The author's analysis is wrong
and I think biased toward a very unoriginal solution in
which fake violence in games or on TV is confused with real
violence.

Maybe the problem of children who kill is a problem of
confusing fakery with reality, not with the content of the
fakery or with the ability of a child to form "real" (read,
"good") relationships?

Maybe the solution is for Mommy to be sure to teach the
child, "Don't worry, baby, it's just a show".

[Vanillaangel]

When I read or speak with people that discount the chance of media influencing children to violence, I think about Luther Vandros CD's.

A romantic dinner, candles, setting the mood and Luther on the stereo. The music sets the mood, communicates the romance of the evening.
Boxing. I'm a big fan of the sport and I watch Boxers, trained to beat opponents nearly to death in sport, enter into the arena to music that pumps the adrenalin, sets the tenor for the audience and communicates anything in the music and/or lyrics but peace and tranquility. Because it simply would not fit the atmosphere of a Boxing arena.

Give children an XBox game that allows them to engage as first person shooter, wherein violent murderous hand eye coordination is rewarded and the subconscious desensitizes, as that violent behavior is engaged again and again. The adrenaline pumps, the endorphins kick up, the child is excited to be violent and is challenged in their prowess to be excellent at it so as to score big.

I remember a police officer in an interview some years ago talking about school violence. When I was a child I was bullied. My dad had guns all over the house, out in the open. And I knew what they could do because he would take me outside to our woods and show me what they could do. I was not a stupid kid, I knew guns destroyed things when someone squeezed the trigger. This was before gun locks, before the programmed fear that guns themselves kill people. And in all those years of bullying it never crossed my mind to bring a gun to school and even the score. Never!

Now, there they are. Kids killing kids. And this officer in this one interview said that the hand eye coordination of children that play first person shooter video games, when tested with military combat simulation software games, score off the charts.
Is it any wonder kids come to school to kill their abusers and succeed in all that panic around them, in hitting their target!?

They've now moved from the TV or the monitor to real life. Because it's so easy since watching simulated blood and guts explode in graphics that are so life like in a video game that it's scary, to take it to the next level with real people. And the shock and repulsion we'd think should be there is missing, because for hours upon hours at a time, those children are engaging their senses into destroying "people" with firearms and all other manner of weapons as a means of self gratification for the reward of points and highest score.

We'd be foolish as a highly technical society, when game software companies are striving every single day to make a better graphic program, to think it doesn't effect our children's psyche.

Think about those children raised in abusive households. Spousal abuse, the doctors say, transfers to the children who witness it because they see the behavior and adopt the behavior because they're cue's , from those parental role models, is that's normal. And thus they grow up to be abusive themselves.

If we say we need to watch our mouths around our children because they're mimics, if it's never ok to hit a child because a child will grow up violent because of it. If bad parenting skills like spousal abuse makes children grow into violent teens and adults, how can we say their personal emotional and physical investment in manipulating and being engaged by video games, or hours upon hours of television, has no effect on them what so ever?!

It's just not possible. Parenting is a responsibility, but so to is recognizing the very real fact that if you are what you eat, you are certainly what you are programmed to become.
Violent video games, television and movies illicit emotional responses, imprint on the subconscious and effect impressionable minds.
It's a fact. What's untrue is when the media spin machine tries to say it's not and then release Grand Theft Auto 10 just in time for Christmas one day!

Media!
Why do you think they call it, "PROGRAMMING!"

[susie31023]

That's where the parent's are supposed to parent. My kids were not allowed violent games and were not allowed to watch violent movies or tv show's. As a Society unfortunately some parent's have become so self absobed that the tv babysit's their children. Or the Mall or any number of thing's. Anything but making Parent's be Parent's. It seems to be all about material things now and our children pay for those luxuries with their lives. At least some of them do. All children should be taught to respect weapons and the damage they an do. But there is such a phobia about guns now that no one takes the time to actually show children the harm and damage that happens when you use one. The media only does what we allow it to do. If there were more of a strong force against the thing's you mention then there would be more control. But Society demands that each and every year they come up with more and more "realistic" items for kids. The parents aren't going to spend their money on something unless they think it is the latest and best "toy". No one is monitoring the media any more so what can we expect? Look at tv, we demand "reality" shows where people put their lives out there for everyone to see. If there's enough money you'll find an adult somewhere who will do anything. JMO

[jwillx]

Children are, I think, "programmed" to learn language, which is something that distinguishes ALL humans from animals. They do this in part by imitating, but also by adding their own special needs. Imitating words, however, is not the same as imitating actions (any mammal can imitate actions -- monkeys and apes do it best).

Keeping children away from movies or other shows with vulgar language WILL keep them from picking up vulgar language. But, exposing them to fake violence on TV or in movies will not cause them to act violently in real life, towards others.

I am happy that someone has blocked fake violent experiences from their growing children and then has found their children not to be violence-prone; but, individual cases don't really address the problem, because violence-prone children are not very common, anyway, no matter what their experience.

I don't know what makes a serial killer or even a simple murderer, but I do know that after exposing several MILLION children and adolescents to violent movies, TV, and games, there are NOT a million murderers running around in the past 10 years. The recent murder rate in the US has not even increased by a factor of two since "Grand Theft Auto" became popular. In fact, the murder rate seems more linked to the economy than anything else.

So, I think that if the reason for blocking children from fake violence is to keep them from becoming violent in reality, it is a false reason. The "World is a but a Stage"? Maybe for a fiction writer or actor, but not for anyone else!

Don't give excessive credit to fiction. It is fun, but not much else.

[susie31023]

I think some children are more prone to violence than others. Mine were not exposed to those things because I thought they might become violent but because I felt they would have nightmares. I realize that most kids can watch those kinds of movies and games and not try to act them out. But I still feel that parents should know what their children are watching and what they are doing.

unfortunately some parents choose to be more interested in material things themselves thereby leaving their kids to do as they like. Or they fall for the "but so and so has/did/gets this or that". We have become a nation of not looking out for children. We send them out to school at three or four years old and expect them to be responsible. These are kids for goodness sakes. Let them be small for the short time they can and try and prepare them for what life is and has to offer, when the time comes.. They will be adults for a very long time and I say let them enjoy being kids.

Unfortunately most people will see some sort of violence in their lives whether it's from themselves or someone else. To make a choice to protect a young child from unnecessary violence in my opinion is just being a responsible parent. But it's just my opinion. Heck I couldn't even tell my kids the flower's they brought me had died, I told them they just went to sleep, LOL...They still remind me I told them that,LOL.

[Angeline]

Hello to all! I am new here, and I am a French woman, so sometimes our points of view may differ..I don't know! wait and see...

We do have kids who kill, here, too, as anywhere else, although there never happened (yet) anything like Columbine.

I do not believe either that TV and video games can be responsible for violence : a child must have it in him/her from the start due to bad genes, or more probably, due to a disastrous up-bringing, with no moral rules. This goes for almost all killers. I read Aphrodite Jones's book aout the teenage killers of Shanda Sharer, and the leaders, Melinda and Laurie, lived in very dysfunctional homes, so how could they know right from wrong? Melinda had a violent father, who was a thief, a pervert, a child abuser, and she adored him. Not a very good start in life!

To my opinion, anyone can watch violent movies, provided he/she has the right age, is able to make the difference between right and wrong, fiction and reality,is able to feel empathy.

Personally, as soon as I came of age, I became a great fan of horror movies, I still am, and yet I haven't as much as slapped anyone's face!

i read on a psychiatry book (for dummies!) that a proper test to know if a child is OK, is to read him/her "little red riding hood"; The vast majority of kids identify with the little girl. But if one identifies with the wolf, then he/she must be cured immediatly!

Blaming things on the media is an easy way out for irresponsible parents, and for society who doens't want to accept the fact it creates monsters. I'm thinkingof the British girl Mary Bell, who murdered 2 babies in the 60's, she lived in slum area, her mother was a prostitute, her father didn't care about her : it is all too easy to say "it's TV's fault". Nobody shoudl be allowed to live such awful lives.

This thing about media isn't new either : have you ever read about Jesse Pomeroy? He tortured little kids when he was barely 12 to 14, and that happened at the turn of the 20th century. Some good souls blamed Pomeroy's rampage on "dime novels" about cowboys and Indians.

i wonder what they blamed it on, in the earlier centuries, the Devil, probably?