PDA

View Full Version : Book: On Killing by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman



KentF
03-24-2011, 09:22 PM
Has anyone read this book? Supposedly, it's required reading by the FBI and DEA Academies.

I've just started reading it on my Kindle.

JDM
03-24-2011, 10:03 PM
Has anyone read this book? Supposedly, it's required reading by the FBI and DEA Academies.

I've just started reading it on my Kindle.

Aside from the violent video game dribble, it's quite good.

JodyH
03-24-2011, 10:56 PM
I disagree with many of his theories.
But it's a decent read (I actually listened to it on CD).

Ed L
03-24-2011, 11:01 PM
I am not a fan of Grossman.

His historical interpretations are way off. Much of what Grossman attributes to not wanting to hurt another human being can also be explained by the fear of getting hurt.

Take a look at a fight with people swinging at each other from out of range. Is it because they don't want to hurt the other person or because they are afraid of getting close enough to get hit?

Grossman also bases many of his assertions on SLA Marshall's claims which were later found to be false.

Marshall cooked his fire ratios that asserted only 25% of soldiers fired their weapons in combat. In fact newer versions of his book have a disclaimer in the front to this effect: http://hnn.us/articles/1356.html and: http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1989/2/1989_2_36.shtml

--One old K Company sergeant said of Marshall’s theory, “Did the SOB think we clubbed the Germans to death?”

There is a lot to be disagreed with Grossman and his conclusions.

http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/Main-R.htm
http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/SLA_Marshall/Main.htm

Grossman has actually made statements in favor of gun control on his website, though now he seems to be backpeddling and has removed the comments in favor of gun control.

Kyle Reese
03-25-2011, 01:21 AM
I read it years ago while in the .MIL, and was kind of turned off by the preachy gun control / violent video game schtick.

David
03-25-2011, 03:00 AM
I went into Barnes & Noble a few days before Christmas and tried to find it, I found "On War" but I wanted "On Killing" so the girl asked if she could help me find something. I said yes I am looking for a book called "On Killing", she didn't look so pleased but then I said "it's a Christmas gift for my grandmother. I figure if she's going to do it she should learn to do it right." I'm not sure she could tell I was joking. She found it though and I bought it.

I read the first few chapters and thought "I want my money back". I took it back the next day and when they asked what was wrong with it, I said it wasn't violent enough. I got my money back and I plan on buying a photo book of basset hounds now. Or maybe pygmy goats, it's a toss-up really.

Jay Cunningham
03-25-2011, 05:14 AM
David,

This is the Mindset & Tactics forum, not the Romper Room. Let us know what you thought of the book and why.

KentF
03-25-2011, 08:29 AM
Thanks for the responses. I was also surprised by the anti-violent video game tone at the beginning.

Occam's Razor
03-25-2011, 08:49 AM
I actually read the whole thing, needed something to read before bed. It certainly helped me fall asleep. It wasn't analytical as much as emotional. Cited sources were re-hashed far too much and as previously stated they were later proven inaccurate. Seemed more of a justification for his views than a treatise on the actual costs involved in the action of taking a life. I've had my share of bad dreams from past ordeals but don't consider that PTSD, I think more of that came from my ex-wives. So I guess according to Grossman I'm a sociopath. So be it.

JDM
03-25-2011, 08:50 AM
Thanks for the responses. I was also surprised by the anti-violent video game tone at the beginning.

Much like anything else we use to educate ourselves, We have to absorb the useful bits and disregard the nonsense. No one source of information is the end all be all of learning.

WobblyPossum
03-25-2011, 09:39 AM
I read it about two years ago. I found the premise fascinating until I learned that the study it was based on involved a lot of fudged statistics. I was also very put off by the anti-videogame ranting. Still, there were definitely some interesting chapters. Personally, I thought "On Combat" was a more interesting book because it dealt with a lot of the physiological issues involved and so far I haven't heard anything to debunk his claims in that one.

Prdator
03-25-2011, 10:10 AM
Ive read both, on killing and on combat, On killing has some good info on it.
I think that on Combat is a good read, it at least gives you some insight into what Might happen to you if your involved in combat.

David
03-25-2011, 01:52 PM
David,

This is the Mindset & Tactics forum, not the Romper Room. Let us know what you thought of the book and why.

Ahh, well I use the "What's New" feature so I never actually notice the forum the topic is posted within. To me, It was like reading the script-pitch for a Faces of Death video. The last Ted Bundy interview he gave in 1989 before he was executed has more information to offer and it comes direct from the source.

Chipster
03-25-2011, 05:13 PM
I have a signed copy that I will send to the first person who PM's me. Kind of a Karma thing.

SLG
03-25-2011, 05:43 PM
I read it about two years ago. I found the premise fascinating until I learned that the study it was based on involved a lot of fudged statistics. I was also very put off by the anti-videogame ranting. Still, there were definitely some interesting chapters. Personally, I thought "On Combat" was a more interesting book because it dealt with a lot of the physiological issues involved and so far I haven't heard anything to debunk his claims in that one.


On Combat is a much better book, IMO. He's also a pretty motivational speaker, but reading On Combat is practically as good.

Andrew E
03-26-2011, 12:22 AM
On Killing and On Combat were suggested reading for my Police Academy class, and I think worth it.
I take some of his opinions on violent media with a grain of salt, not to mention the theories relying on SLA Marshall's research, but I think there are still valid points to be found.
Too, when I was in college, the Sports Shooting Club advisor strongly recommended reading it, so the club members would be a little better able to recognize what to be on guard for in other members.

On Combat is a much easier read, and more readily applicable to habitually-armed people (whether by profession or choice, doesn't matter), but I thought both were worth a read.

SteveK
03-26-2011, 02:03 PM
I think the violent videogame content does have some merit. I've watched other's kids (2-5 years old range) play these games and observed their reactions. At these ages children are developing morals and reasoning skills that they will carry with them all of their lives and I see that translated into the teenagers I work around on a dialy basis. I think to some extent Col. Grossman is correct, we are letting are kids develop asocial behavior.

JodyH
03-26-2011, 04:33 PM
I think the violent videogame content does have some merit. I've watched other's kids (2-5 years old range) play these games and observed their reactions. At these ages children are developing morals and reasoning skills that they will carry with them all of their lives and I see that translated into the teenagers I work around on a dialy basis. I think to some extent Col. Grossman is correct, we are letting are kids develop asocial behavior.
Bullshit.
Boy's have had violent imaginations since the dawn of time.
Adults have bitched about the moral decay of our teens since the dawn of time.
There have always been sociopaths among us since the dawn of time.

The problem is we fail to isolate and remove our sociopaths from modern society.
There are fewer consequences for bad behavior which leads to more blatant bad behavior.
Lax parenting and an amoral societal structure are doing far more harm than video games.
I blame lawyers.
:cool:

Joe in PNG
03-26-2011, 04:42 PM
I once saw an old PSA advertisement warning about the dangers posed to the youth by: Violent Radio Programs.

Truth is, anti-Gamers have about as much personal familiarity with video games as the Brady bunch has with the shooting community.

David
03-26-2011, 05:02 PM
Bull.
Boy's have had violent imaginations since the dawn of time.
Adults have complained about the moral decay of our teens since the dawn of time.
There have always been sociopaths among us since the dawn of time.

The problem is we fail to isolate and remove our sociopaths from modern society.
There are fewer consequences for bad behavior which leads to more blatant bad behavior.
Lax parenting and an amoral societal structure are doing far more harm than video games.
I blame lawyers.
:cool:

Purely out of curiosity, Would you let your child view a video of a conscious human being beheaded? Would you permit them to view XXX porn? If no please explain why not.

JodyH
03-26-2011, 05:52 PM
Purely out of curiosity, Would you let your child view a video of a conscious human being beheaded? Would you permit them to view XXX porn? If no please explain why not.
Are you making the assertion that a video game is the same as graphic video of real humans?
Believe it or not, most people (including young children) understand the difference between reality and fiction.
The people who don't understand the difference are the sociopaths.

jslaker
03-26-2011, 06:14 PM
The people who don't care about the difference are the sociopaths.
FTFY. Sociopaths understand the distinction intellectually, it just doesn't matter to them. It's sort of a loaded term, at any rate.

JDM
03-26-2011, 06:17 PM
Believe it or not, most people (including young children) understand the difference between reality and fiction.
The people who don't understand the difference are the sociopaths.

This.

My daughter (5) understands very clearly the difference between the violence in a batman cartoon, and violence in real life. Very clearly.

David
03-26-2011, 06:50 PM
Are you making the assertion that a video game is the same as graphic video of real humans?
Believe it or not, most people (including young children) understand the difference between reality and fiction.
The people who don't understand the difference are the sociopaths.

I made no assertion, I asked a question. I would argue that children are not always able to understand a difference between reality and fiction. In-fact many sane adults are unable to distinguish the two. Graphic violence is not defined by reality or fictitiousness, it is defined by an act, be it real or fake.

Just as a real beheading would be improper for a child to view so would a simulated one. Both would be equally disturbing to the child, a disturbing episode is processed differently in children than adults. You would play practical jokes on adults which you would not play on a child.

You can make a child believe with all their heart in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If it were not possible to convince a child of the reality of Santa then why do so many adults waste their time trying? Why do those who lie to their child about Santa get upset if someone finally explains to them it's a lie?

smells like feet
03-26-2011, 07:34 PM
On Combat and On Killing are mandatory reading for anyone involved in firearms training as a trainer or serious student. Regardless if you ultimately agree with, or reject some or all of his ideas the process of studying his ideas will lead to insight.

Some of the things I took away from "On Killing".

The fight, flight, posture, submit graph is great as a way to explain peoples response to a threat.

The stuff about people being reluctant to kill is interesting...it certainly makes a strong case as to why people, in defiance of everything that seems like common sense freeze up in crisis situations.

I think it's very well worth reading.

JodyH
03-26-2011, 07:43 PM
Just as a real beheading would be improper for a child to view so would a simulated one. Both would be equally disturbing to the child
Incorrect.

Joe in PNG
03-26-2011, 07:58 PM
Question: would the "graphic violence" of a, say, classic Bugs Bunny or Tom and Jerry cartoon also be inapproprate?

David
03-26-2011, 08:08 PM
Would you leave your child alone in a room with a loaded gun within their reach? If they are able to distinguish real from play then surely you would have no issue in doing just that.

David
03-26-2011, 08:10 PM
Incorrect.

Well you certainly showed me. :rolleyes:

JDM
03-26-2011, 08:17 PM
Question: would the "graphic violence" of a, say, classic Bugs Bunny or Tom and Jerry cartoon also be inapproprate?

No I don't believe it is. Violence carried out in a comedic fashion, by animated characters is easily distinguished from real life violent encounters, even by small children...at least in my experience.

Surely my daughter knows the difference between Elmer Fudd emptying his side by side at Donald Duck, and the shoot out in "Heat".

ETA: I also believe there to be differing levels of violence appropriate for different age groups. I wouldn't sit and watch Heat with my daughter. I would sit and watch Bugs Bunny. This brings up another point- parental involvement has a huge impact, IMHO, how violence is perceived and processed by a child. If I'm there to explain to the child what she is seeing is make believe, just a movie, etc., that's going to make a difference.

Joe in PNG
03-26-2011, 08:17 PM
I think we may need to define our terms. “Video games” is a bit like “Movies”- it encompasses a whole heck of a lot of genres and titles. For movies, you could be talking about “Big Bird’s Big Adventure”, or “A Clockwork Orange”. So, by talking about video games we can be discussing an age appropriate title for children, or Japanese hentai “dating” sims.

So, with that, a good parent should exercise the same amount of discernment over what their child plays as much as what the child watches.

The next term to define is “child”. A child of 4 is not capable of watching or doing the same things as a child of 14. I would not trust a 4 year old with a loaded gun, but, if a 14 year old child has been trained in safe gun usage, and has proven themselves a responsible gun user, then yes, I would trust them with a loaded gun.

David
03-26-2011, 08:30 PM
So, with that, a good parent should exercise the same amount of discernment over what their child plays as much as what the child watches.


I agree. To think you can buy any game and just dump it in the lap of your child is foolish. Not many sane adults try to jump off of an object in an attempt to fly, many sane children do though.

Joe in PNG
03-26-2011, 08:46 PM
...Not many sane adults try to jump off of an object in an attempt to fly...

Unless the famous phrase of "HEY YA'LL, WATCH THIS" is uttered.


But back to the point. Could it be that the cause of the sociopathic behavior seen in some is not due to the games the kid plays, or the shows they watch, but that the kids have parents that don’t give a flying rip about what their kids are watching or playing?

But saying games cause violence is on the same level as saying that gun ownership causes violence. The arguments of the anti-gamers and the anti-gunners tend to be almost exactly the same, often using the same faulty logic, “gee-whiz” facts, and demonization.

I could, for example, ask yoy about which exact game title is causing this bad behavior. I could also ask if you have actually played the game in question, or are you depending on a report you once saw about that game. Recall then all of the times you have seen a report on gun ownership, and how much they have gotten wrong then.

Joe in PNG
03-26-2011, 09:22 PM
I started a new thread on the topic here (http://http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?558-Are-Video-games-harmful&p=8288#post8288).

Odin Bravo One
03-26-2011, 09:48 PM
In an attempt to keep this thread on the orignal topic......

I am not terribly impressed with either of his books or his opinions. I have heard his presentations on a couple of different topics, but unfortunately they were mandatory, and took place after having read his books which resulted in a little bit of a closed mind going into them.

His presentations are decent, and he is a eloqunet speaker, I'll give him that, but after having had to wade through so much bullshit in his books, it is tough to know if he is exaggerating the examples he uses in his lectures or if he actually verified the information before incorporating it into his program.

I personally believe that books relating to such topics should be included on the reading list for people who arm themselves, but I would not say that either of Dr. Grossman's books are "mandatory". When there is so much mis-information, and personal political agenda injected into a publication that is purported to be based on scientific study, the information intended to be distributed to the target audience is skewed, and leaves the reader who has not experienced the realities of killing or combat no more prepared for the event than before they read the book.

All of that said, "On Combat" is a book I recommend to people who are in that line of work, but with group interaction, where a chapter or two are read, then discussed with feedback and interactive dialogue from members of the group with various experiences, and experience levels. Using the book as a catalyst for the topic of conversation initiates discussion with more useful information, especially is it pertains to the demographic of the group, than a book by itself.

Slavex
03-27-2011, 10:20 AM
Read both books, attended a two day lecture by him and Bruce Siddle. Grossman is certainly an engaging speaker, I would guess that probably half of the room would've jumped off the roof if he'd told them it would be a good idea. A few people vocally disagreed with some of his comments, and a number of people didn't return after each of the breaks.
While I found myself nodding in agreement to a number of things in both his books and lecture, I also found myself strongly disagreeing with many things too. The video games issue being one.
Still both books are a good read, and the lecture I think was worth attending.

SteveK
03-27-2011, 10:51 AM
The most disturbing notion is the number of grown men defending playing video games.:rolleyes:

jetfire
03-27-2011, 02:54 PM
The most disturbing notion is the number of grown men defending playing video games.:rolleyes:

What exactly is disturbing about that? I played video games when I was a kid, and I still occasionally play as an adult. The only reason I don't play more is because I'd rather get better at USPSA than Call of Duty.

MTechnik
03-27-2011, 03:03 PM
What exactly is disturbing about that? I played video games when I was a kid, and I still occasionally play as an adult. The only reason I don't play more is because I'd rather get better at USPSA than Call of Duty.

I know, this dry fire stuff has resulted in a reduction in the hours spend on CoD.

Joe in PNG
03-27-2011, 03:15 PM
BTW, Freecell, Spider, and Minesweeper are also video games.

JodyH
03-27-2011, 05:15 PM
The most disturbing notion is the number of grown men defending playing video games.:rolleyes:
Don't be a hater just because we gamers have superior dexterity and hand/eye coordination.

SLG
03-27-2011, 06:25 PM
Don't be a hater just because we gamers have superior dexterity and hand/eye coordination.

I've yet to see that, but if it makes you feel better about playing games traditionally reserved for adolescents, more power to you.:p

KeeFus
02-27-2014, 02:59 AM
Necropost. Listened to this tonight. Pretty interesting and, for the most part, spot on.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX4k96Z4U5E

dbateman
02-27-2014, 07:05 AM
Good find thanks for sharing it.

cclaxton
02-27-2014, 08:22 AM
I liked the parts about the emotional and physical reactions that people go through. To me the core part of what he said is having the "Warrior Mindset" that allows us to have the courage to act when we need to and learn to control our breathing and our bodies during stressful encounters. The prophesies and video game and Biblical stuff I overlooked. I do think that Video Games can encourage individuals who have a predisposition for felonious acts. Or, video games can push someone who is mentally and/or emotionally ill/unstable into bad behavior. Games that encourage the player to engage in violent criminal behavior, in particular, could trigger an individual who is already on the edge. I am not saying any of them should be banned or restricted. But, people who have mental or emotional illnesses should probably not play them.
Cody

David Armstrong
02-27-2014, 11:02 AM
Are you making the assertion that a video game is the same as graphic video of real humans?
Believe it or not, most people (including young children) understand the difference between reality and fiction.
The people who don't understand the difference are the sociopaths.
In spite of statements like this, pretty much every bit of research on the topic that I have seen does indicate that the more people (of all ages) are exposed to fictional violence the more accepting of violence they become and the more likely they are to use violence.

David Armstrong
02-27-2014, 11:05 AM
On Combat and On Killing are mandatory reading for anyone involved in firearms training as a trainer or serious student. Regardless if you ultimately agree with, or reject some or all of his ideas the process of studying his ideas will lead to insight.
This. Like Grossman or not he opened a conversation that is ongoing and important, and it helps if one is aware of the basic issues, IMO.

Byron
02-27-2014, 11:47 AM
In spite of statements like this, pretty much every bit of research on the topic that I have seen does indicate that the more people (of all ages) are exposed to fictional violence the more accepting of violence they become and the more likely they are to use violence.
In my own reading, I haven't seen the clear consensus that you seem to be implying.

Here are two studies that claim that violent video games increase aggressive behavior:


A longitudinal study of the association between violent video game play and aggression among adolescents.
(http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/48/4/1044/)Willoughby, Teena; Adachi, Paul J. C.; Good, Marie
Developmental Psychology, Vol 48(4), Jul 2012, 1044-1057. doi: 10.1037/a0026046

Sustained violent video game play was significantly related to steeper increases in adolescents' trajectory of aggressive behavior over time. Moreover, greater violent video game play predicted higher levels of aggression over time, after controlling for previous levels of aggression...

The more you play, the more aggressive you become: A long-term experimental study of cumulative violent video game effects on hostile expectations and aggressive behavior (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103112002259)
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 49, Issue 2, March 2013, Pages 224–227

As expected, aggressive behavior and hostile expectations increased over days for violent game players, but not for nonviolent video game players, and the increase in aggressive behavior was partially due to hostile expectations.

Here's a study that says violent video games don't have any significant impact:


A longitudinal test of video game violence influences on dating and aggression: a 3-year longitudinal study of adolescents. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099867)
J Psychiatr Res. 2012 Feb;46(2):141-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2011.10.014. Epub 2011 Nov 17.

Results indicated that exposure to video game violence was not related to any of the negative outcomes. Depression, antisocial personality traits, exposure to family violence and peer influences were the best predictors of aggression-related outcomes.

Here's a study that says that the context of the violence is important:

Virtually justifiable homicide: The effects of prosocial contexts on the link between violent video games, aggression, and prosocial and hostile cognition (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21487/abstract)
Aggressive Behavior, Volume 39, Issue 5, pages 346–354, September-October 2013

Participants who played a violent game in which the violence had an explicitly prosocial motive (i.e., protecting a friend and furthering his nonviolent goals) were found to show lower short-term aggression (Study 1) and show higher levels of prosocial cognition (Study 2) than individuals who played a violent game in which the violence was motivated by more morally ambiguous motives.

And here's some back and forth argument over meta-analysis (all links direct to PDFs):


Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review (http://lilt.ilstu.edu/mjreese/psy453/Anderson%20et%20al,%202010.pdf)
Psychological Bulletin, 2010, Vol. 136, No. 2, 151–173

Much Ado About Nothing: The Misestimation and Overinterpretation of Violent Video Game Effects in Eastern and Western Nations: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010) (http://www.igea.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Ferguson-Kilburn-2010.pdf)
Psychological Bulletin, 2010, Vol. 136, No. 2, 174 –178

Much Ado About Something: Violent Video Game Effects and a School of Red Herring: Reply to Ferguson and Kilburn (2010) (http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/10BRA.pdf)



Or to sum it up, a quote from the second PDF link:

The issue of violent video game influences on youth violence and aggression remains intensely debated in the scholarly literature and among the general public.

Tamara
02-27-2014, 12:47 PM
I'm not clear, here; are video games better or worse than actually shooting your friends with BB guns?

Even if you only had a "three pump" rule?

John Ralston
02-27-2014, 12:58 PM
I'm not clear, here; are video games better or worse than actually shooting your friends with BB guns?

Even if you only had a "three pump" rule?

Did you "Think" they were the enemy when you shot them? It all boils down to your state of mind at the time of the alleged combative engagement.

Tamara
02-27-2014, 01:36 PM
Did you "Think" they were the enemy when you shot them?

Semi-Joking response: Depends on how closely they were following the "three pump" rule.

Serious response: Not really, but I don't think the little blobs on my computer screen are, either.

LittleLebowski
02-27-2014, 04:49 PM
I can't read anything from the guy that invented the "sheepdog" concept. I've tried but the face palms hurt after a while.

Sadmin
02-27-2014, 05:17 PM
I bought this crap on Audible and tried to listen to it. He lost me around the part where he says loaded muskets in the Civil War indicated they "pretended" to fire but couldn't cope with pulling the trigger. Poop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

elsquid
02-28-2014, 03:55 AM
http://www.killology.org/article_teachkid.htm


Michael Carneal, the 14-year-old killer in the Paducah, Kentucky school shootings, had never fired a real pistol in his life. He stole a .22 pistol, fired a few practice shots, and took it to school. He fired eight shots at a high school prayer group, hitting eight kids, five of them head shots and the other three upper torso (Grossman & DeGaetana, 1999).

I train numerous elite military and law enforcement organizations around the world. When I tell them of this achievement they are stunned. Nowhere in the annals of military or law enforcement history can we find an equivalent "achievement."

Where does a 14-year-old boy who never fired a gun before get the skill and the will to kill? Video games and media violence.

So there it is: clicking a mouse/using a controller apparently directly translates to pistol marksmanship.

-- Michael

Biggus
02-28-2014, 11:41 AM
http://www.killology.org/article_teachkid.htm


Michael Carneal, the 14-year-old killer in the Paducah, Kentucky school shootings, had never fired a real pistol in his life. He stole a .22 pistol, fired a few practice shots, and took it to school. He fired eight shots at a high school prayer group, hitting eight kids, five of them head shots and the other three upper torso (Grossman & DeGaetana, 1999).

I train numerous elite military and law enforcement organizations around the world. When I tell them of this achievement they are stunned. Nowhere in the annals of military or law enforcement history can we find an equivalent "achievement."

Where does a 14-year-old boy who never fired a gun before get the skill and the will to kill? Video games and media violence.

So there it is: clicking a mouse/using a controller apparently directly translates to pistol marksmanship.

-- Michael

While I don't know that a video game would provide a 14 year old with the skill to make head shots on people, I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that games also provide the will to murder people. People who are broken that way existed long before the advent of the Atari 2600.

KevinB
02-28-2014, 12:14 PM
While I don't know that a video game would provide a 14 year old with the skill to make head shots on people, I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that games also provide the will to murder people. People who are broken that way existed long before the advent of the Atari 2600.

Agree partially -- however depending on checks in place - those can desensitize people to violence - and in the case of someone who does not have a support structure to provide guidance (mind, parents, family, friends) it can do strange things.

Biggus
02-28-2014, 09:16 PM
Agree partially -- however depending on checks in place - those can desensitize people to violence - and in the case of someone who does not have a support structure to provide guidance (mind, parents, family, friends) it can do strange things.

This is true. It was also true when the common childhood game was to have pretend sword fights with sticks, though. Failure of a support structure to guide a child or teenager is what we should be focusing on. Passing the blame to guns or games is a lazy non-solution in my opinion.

Odin Bravo One
02-28-2014, 09:50 PM
those can desensitize people to violence - and in the case of someone who does not have a support structure to provide guidance (mind, parents, family, friends) it can do strange things.

So can war. And no one has a dialogue open about outlawing, limiting, or otherwise implementing mechanisms to prevent it.

And the more combat I have participated in, the more I realize Grossman is completely full of shit.

Tamara
02-28-2014, 10:35 PM
Failure of a support structure to guide a child or teenager is what we should be focusing on. Passing the blame to guns or games is a lazy non-solution in my opinion.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t243/nightreaper005/Testify.gif

David Armstrong
03-01-2014, 04:35 PM
In my own reading, I haven't seen the clear consensus that you seem to be implying.
That might be the result of reading different things. It seems your sources are focused on video games in particular. I have looked at fictional violence in a broader sense, not just the video game issue. Things like exposure to television, reading choices, play patterns, etc.

from elsquid:
So there it is: clicking a mouse/using a controller apparently directly translates to pistol marksmanship.
Not directly, but it can certainly teach one the basics of things like sight alignment. I took my 8 year old nephew out last summer for his first shooting experience with anything other than a water pistol. Went through the safety issues, loading and so on. Started talking about sight he informed me that he had that down and did a credible job of explaining how to use notch and post or peep sights. Set him on the bench at 10 yards with a Chipmunk rifle and he promptly put 5 rounds into a pattern of about one inch, then did the same with a Ruger 22/45 except the pattern grew to about 3 inches. "Where did you learn to shoot so good?" I ask. Answer: "this is nothing, you should see some of the shots I have to make on my video games."

Byron
03-01-2014, 05:07 PM
That might be the result of reading different things. It seems your sources are focused on video games in particular. I have looked at fictional violence in a broader sense, not just the video game issue. Things like exposure to television, reading choices, play patterns, etc.
OK. Can you please direct me to sources, so that I can catch up on the material you're referencing?

On an aggregate level, it seems difficult to make that argument. Actual violence is at historical lows, while fictionalized violence, at least in the number of ways in which we all now have access to it, is at historical highs. But perhaps I'm looking at it from too high of an altitude, and the research you're referencing is focused on smaller scales. I'm definitely curious to read up.

KevinB
03-01-2014, 06:55 PM
So can war. And no one has a dialogue open about outlawing, limiting, or otherwise implementing mechanisms to prevent it.

And the more combat I have participated in, the more full of shit I realize Grossman is.


Party pooper.

Actually I think if you look at a larger populations sample (outside of SOF) Grossman is more accurate. With more experience, training, and dealing with the world many the issues Grossman bring up simply fade into the mist.

I think On Combat was a better book than On Killing, but I wish they had been around in the early 90's/late 80's rather than me working things out for myself prior to Grossman.

Tamara
03-01-2014, 07:48 PM
On an aggregate level, it seems difficult to make that argument. Actual violence is at historical lows, while fictionalized violence, at least in the number of ways in which we all now have access to it, is at historical highs.

Don't you be coming at me with your... your... facts! Kids these days! Get offa my lawn! When I was your age, it was a golden era!

TV and the 24-hour news cycle sure do make the world seem more violent than it usedta be, don't they? ;)

Byron
03-01-2014, 11:02 PM
TV and the 24-hour news cycle sure do make the world seem more violent than it usedta be, don't they? ;)
The availability heuristic is a harsh mistress.

Odin Bravo One
03-02-2014, 12:44 AM
Party pooper.

Actually I think if you look at a larger populations sample (outside of SOF) Grossman is more accurate.



I know right?! I always seem to come in party pooping. Crazy talk, I know. And certainly certain communities flat out do not fit the mold Grossman created in his work "On Killing". Rumor has it, he even acknowledged later in life that there were particular demographics that he, at the time, did not recognize as being outside of his hypothesis, but came to understand there were some who simply didn't fit in his equations. But it is simply rumor, as I have A) Never cared enough to research it for fact, and B) have better things to do with my time.

----------------------------

But I will also throw out another curve ball........especially as it pertains to "larger populations", violent video games, violent media, etc.

I've spent a couple of days, here and there, in some wonderfully advanced countries like the ones shamelessly plugged on the late night guilt trip commercials with the bulging belly, malnutrition babies blinking with a fly on their eyeball, crying, and screaming in an agonizing pain that only a starving child could know...........

No Hollywood bang, bang, shoot em ups.......

No "Grand Theft Auto", or "Call of Duty".....

No water. No electricity. Barely any food for the bulk of the population.

Yet, somehow, without all of those evil violence inducing, "glorifying killing/dulling the reailty" influences, they manage to knock each other off wholesale. Not a movie theater, or school of kids. But full on killing like it is the national pastime. And not satisfied with just the killing, they torture, and maim, and sexually abuse people to death. Literally, gang raping people until their victim dies.

How can that be? If these external sources are how people have become immune, or dulled the reality of life and death.......how, exactly, is it possible that the 3rd World is responsible for the bulk of Genocidal events throughout the modern world? Those "influences" don't exist in their world.

I was just a kid......ripe old age of 19, and 20 respectively, during Operations: Restore Hope, & Distant Runner, but both left a lasting impression. Violence on a scale America has not seen since the mid-1800's (and even then, the bulk of the population did not bear witness to the horrors of it all). Tens of thousands of men, women, and yes.....children; dead in a matter of days. Over 500,000 (with estimates as high as 1,000,000.....yeah, six zero's) killed in 100 days in Rwanda and Burundi alone.

I hate to be the insensitive prick, but Columbine, Newtown, Aurora, and every other crazy shooter rampage (including the nut across the pond who lost his shit on the kiddie campground, and the knife ninjas in China) combined ain't got shit on what people in other countries, without the supposed "catalysts" or "influences" do to each other on a daily basis.

elsquid
03-02-2014, 01:58 AM
"Where did you learn to shoot so good?" I ask. Answer: "this is nothing, you should see some of the shots I have to make on my video games."

I feel cheated then: all that time playing Doom/Quake and I still had to learn how to shoot a handgun the old fashioned way. ;)

But seriously, I imagine that today's average twenty something male has thousands of hours playing violent video games. According to Grossman, they should all be fantastic shots by now...

-- Michael

Tamara
03-02-2014, 02:12 AM
According to Grossman, they should all be fantastic shots by now...

...although the scores at Camp Perry prove Grossman's full of cow exhaust, it somehow doesn't cut into his speaking fees!

Kids these days! Vidjo games! When I was your age! Uphill both ways in the snow! :rolleyes:

jon volk
03-02-2014, 06:39 AM
...although the scores at Camp Perry prove Grossman's full of cow exhaust, it somehow doesn't cut into his speaking fees!

Kids these days! Vidjo games! When I was your age! Uphill both ways in the snow! :rolleyes:

I at least had to blow on my video games to get them to work. These kid don't even have wires coming out of their controllers. Nothing like convenience to soften up these kids playing violent games.

KevinB
03-02-2014, 12:45 PM
TO me, Grossman is a good primer for a non SOF Western Soldier.
I went to Jason Falla's Combat Mindset Lecture, and found to be much more practical based.

The fact remains there is a "2%" segment of the population that can deal death in a focused and deliberate manner, without the complications that come with it.
My belief is that the "2%" is partially born and partially trained.

Life is much more valuable in Western Societies, or at least outside of inner city slums.

In the shittier places in the world, life is cheap, families have lot of kids simply because a lot of them die before adulthood. The fact of the matter is many of the "kids" there have grown up in a world of tough choices and death -- something that we in the West has no understand of in general.

* I give Grossman some credit, as I had some PTSD issues from 1993 that I worked thru using some of his stuff, and also more focused training etc.

Odin Bravo One
03-02-2014, 08:42 PM
In the shittier places in the world, life is cheap, families have lot of kids simply because a lot of them die before adulthood. The fact of the matter is many of the "kids" there have grown up in a world of tough choices and death -- something that we in the West has no understand of in general.

* I give Grossman some credit, as I had some PTSD issues from 1993 that I worked thru using some of his stuff, and also more focused training etc.

I'll address the more important issue first........

I know his works have helped thousands of guys, and for that, I respect the impact he has had for those who were a "just a little....off", those who were one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel, and everyone in between.

However, his entire presentation, in "On Killing" is not based solely on the western mindset. His hypothesis of man's natural aversion to killing his fellow man include examples throughout history, across cultures, geography, and time.

John Hearne
03-03-2014, 12:47 AM
Grossman's central premise, that all animals, including human beings, have an INNATE hesitation to kill is simply wrong. If this were true words like siblicide would not exist. There are plenty of examples in the animal world, especially with mammals, of critters killing members of their own species.

The best written counterpoint to Grossman is "The Dark Side of Man" by Michael Ghiglieri. He is a primatologist and has spent his entire adult life studying our closest living relatives - chimpanzees. After years of dedicated study of our nearest relatives, Ghiglieri decided to get a CCW and carry a pistol.

David Armstrong
03-03-2014, 11:40 AM
OK. Can you please direct me to sources, so that I can catch up on the material you're referencing?
Sort of difficult, as I've been looking at this for about 30 years now and really don't have the time right now to try to remember what/where specific bits of information are located. Without going into specific articles, I'd recommend http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=32&articleid=58&sectionid=270 as a good place to start as it provides a very good literature review.

On an aggregate level, it seems difficult to make that argument. Actual violence is at historical lows, while fictionalized violence, at least in the number of ways in which we all now have access to it, is at historical highs. But perhaps I'm looking at it from too high of an altitude, and the research you're referencing is focused on smaller scales. I'm definitely curious to read up.[/QUOTE]
Actual violence is not at historical lows. You may be confusing violence with criminal violence, which is a very different thing. Measuring violence by looking at crime rates is rather deceptive, particularly when looking at low-level violence. And keep in mind that a big part of the issue is not engaging in actual violence but learnign to accept violence as a normal and rational response to various situations.

KevinB
03-03-2014, 03:36 PM
However, his entire presentation, in "On Killing" is not based solely on the western mindset. His hypothesis of man's natural aversion to killing his fellow man include examples throughout history, across cultures, geography, and time.

I think he's missed a lot in his works, and is looking via a Western microscope at certain periods of time, and not realizing all he is seeing.

The Human I would argue has no natural aversion in killing its fellows other than what has been societal bred into it, which in many areas is zilch.

The Value of human life is different to everyone.

Lomshek
03-09-2014, 02:28 PM
http://www.killology.org/article_teachkid.htm


Michael Carneal, the 14-year-old killer in the Paducah, Kentucky school shootings, had never fired a real pistol in his life. He stole a .22 pistol, fired a few practice shots, and took it to school. He fired eight shots at a high school prayer group, hitting eight kids, five of them head shots and the other three upper torso (Grossman & DeGaetana, 1999).

I train numerous elite military and law enforcement organizations around the world. When I tell them of this achievement they are stunned. Nowhere in the annals of military or law enforcement history can we find an equivalent "achievement."

Where does a 14-year-old boy who never fired a gun before get the skill and the will to kill? Video games and media violence.


No one addressed this point so I'll take a stab at it.

Shooting a superbly accurate handgun with a light trigger and no recoil at stationary (possibly seated or prone) targets grouped tightly together at (most likely) very close range is not exactly a difficult skill. As so many of these killers simply walk up to their victims huddling under desks or tables the whole "OMG headshots!!!" point is ridiculous and panders to the hand wringers.

jetfire
03-10-2014, 08:49 AM
That might be the result of reading different things. It seems your sources are focused on video games in particular. I have looked at fictional violence in a broader sense, not just the video game issue. Things like exposure to television, reading choices, play patterns, etc.

Not directly, but it can certainly teach one the basics of things like sight alignment. I took my 8 year old nephew out last summer for his first shooting experience with anything other than a water pistol. Went through the safety issues, loading and so on. Started talking about sight he informed me that he had that down and did a credible job of explaining how to use notch and post or peep sights. Set him on the bench at 10 yards with a Chipmunk rifle and he promptly put 5 rounds into a pattern of about one inch, then did the same with a Ruger 22/45 except the pattern grew to about 3 inches. "Where did you learn to shoot so good?" I ask. Answer: "this is nothing, you should see some of the shots I have to make on my video games."

Oh no! Video games teach improved hand-eye coordination that can translate to other skills? Better ban that nonsense quick.

Tamara
03-10-2014, 09:16 AM
Not to discount anyone's expertise on video games that was carefully gleaned by entire minutes spent talking to an eight-year-old, but as one who has actually played some of these new-fangled nickelodeon entertainments I would like to point out two things:


No video game requires actually aligning the three elements of rear sight, front sight, and target. Even the games that mime the use of iron sights simply require you to put a simulacrum of a pre-aligned sight picture on a pixel blob and mash "A" or the left mouse button or whatever.
Further, even if you consider this an accurate reflection of operating an optical sight, where no sight alignment is involved, the fact that the video game rewards the practice of "There's the target the reticule's on it MASH THE BUTTON NOW!" one could say it was antithetical to best practices with a real firearm.


So, while it's good that nephews still like to impress their uncles with their bright-eyed sharpness, it pretty much has squat-all to do with running a gun.

jetfire
03-10-2014, 09:30 AM
Not to discount anyone's expertise on video games that was carefully gleaned by entire minutes spent talking to an eight-year-old, but as one who has actually played some of these new-fangled nickelodeon entertainments I would like to point out two things:


No video game requires actually aligning the three elements of rear sight, front sight, and target. Even the games that mime the use of iron sights simply require you to put a simulacrum of a pre-aligned sight picture on a pixel blob and mash "A" or the left mouse button or whatever.
Further, even if you consider this an accurate reflection of operating an optical sight, where no sight alignment is involved, the fact that the video game rewards the practice of "There's the target the reticule's on it MASH THE BUTTON NOW!" one could say it was antithetical to best practices with a real firearm.


So, while it's good that nephews still like to impress their uncles with their bright-eyed sharpness, it pretty much has squat-all to do with running a gun.

Tam, everyone knows that putting a red dot on a dude and then slapping right trigger (on Xbox) a bunch while simultaneously throwing frag grenades and jumping is totally exactly just like real war and makes me a hardened serial killer in training because I have a decent KD ratio on BF4.

KevinB
03-10-2014, 11:41 AM
Not to discount anyone's expertise on video games that was carefully gleaned by entire minutes spent talking to an eight-year-old, but as one who has actually played some of these new-fangled nickelodeon entertainments I would like to point out two things:


No video game requires actually aligning the three elements of rear sight, front sight, and target. Even the games that mime the use of iron sights simply require you to put a simulacrum of a pre-aligned sight picture on a pixel blob and mash "A" or the left mouse button or whatever.
Further, even if you consider this an accurate reflection of operating an optical sight, where no sight alignment is involved, the fact that the video game rewards the practice of "There's the target the reticule's on it MASH THE BUTTON NOW!" one could say it was antithetical to best practices with a real firearm.


So, while it's good that nephews still like to impress their uncles with their bright-eyed sharpness, it pretty much has squat-all to do with running a gun.

No but...

The same reason that you should shoot photo (or ideally 3D) realistic targets for qualifications/training is that it gets you used to the idea of shooting someone.

I think the video game relationship is weak as best - but it does have you drop the hammer on "real" people (or aliens etc).

That said, I generally do not play video games - but after playing GTA5 on a buddies Xbox thingy I managed to restrain myself from going out on doing in on the roads.
I also found it extremely entertaining for a few hours (but I already knew I really enjoyed driving over OMG folks on their bikes)

Tamara
03-10-2014, 03:36 PM
I'm at least willing to consider the desensitization angle; it's the mechanics one I find risible.

When Grossman makes his "Boom! Headshot!" argument for the skills somehow being transferable, all it does is expose his ignorance of both firearms and video games. (Think how much money we could save by replacing all those big, EPA-unfriendly rifle ranges with X-Boxes! :D )

feudist
03-10-2014, 06:08 PM
It not like humans ain't been slaughtering each other on the micro, macro and every other scale since we've been human.

It's kind of our claim to fame.

And, of course, the chimps are right behind us. So, we were probably doing it even further back as Hominids.

The video game "connection" is pop science malarkey.

Stephen
03-10-2014, 06:27 PM
No video game requires actually aligning the three elements of rear sight, front sight, and target. Even the games that mime the use of iron sights simply require you to put a simulacrum of a pre-aligned sight picture on a pixel blob and mash "A" or the left mouse button or whatever.


How could you forget this classic?
http://spgamer.com/img/nes/d/duck-hunt/duck-hunt-03.png

Rosco Benson
03-11-2014, 12:37 PM
Not a Grossman fan. His basic premise is pretty thin soup to start with and he tries to stretch it even farther.

I think Rory Miller has a much better understanding of aggressive human behavior and is better at sharing it in a written format.

Rosco

Tamara
03-11-2014, 12:54 PM
Tam, everyone knows that putting a red dot on a dude and then slapping right trigger (on Xbox) a bunch while simultaneously throwing frag grenades and jumping is totally exactly just like real war and makes me a hardened serial killer in training because I have a decent KD ratio on BF4.
I can't let this pass without noting the disdain that the PC gaming Chosen People feel for console gaming untermenschen. ;)

jetfire
03-11-2014, 01:01 PM
I can't let this pass without noting the disdain that the PC gaming Chosen People feel for console gaming untermenschen. ;)

Having to wait 2 years for games to get ported over would make me irritable to.

AtomicToaster
03-11-2014, 01:02 PM
+1; meeses > sticks.

On a related note, I did notice my target (zombie) transitions in Left 4 Dead improve after practicing target transitions with a pistol in real life. Go figure.

Tamara
03-11-2014, 01:33 PM
True Fact:

So, a couple guys travel to Nashville to teach Oleg Volk and his then-g/f the rudiments of two-person house clearing at her apartment 'way back sometime in '01. I drove over from Knoxville to be the volunteer Bad Person in a game of blue gun hide-and-go-seek.

The instructor is having a hard time getting his students to grasp the concept of slicing the pie at first, at which point I involuntarily blurt out "Good gawd, have y'all never played Rogue Spear?"

TCinVA
03-11-2014, 01:48 PM
True Fact:

So, a couple guys travel to Nashville to teach Oleg Volk and his then-g/f the rudiments of two-person house clearing at her apartment 'way back sometime in '01. I drove over from Knoxville to be the volunteer Bad Person in a game of blue gun hide-and-go-seek.

The instructor is having a hard time getting his students to grasp the concept of slicing the pie at first, at which point I involuntarily blurt out "Good gawd, have y'all never played Rogue Spear?"

Two bucks on Steam a couple of weeks ago.

Al T.
03-11-2014, 08:06 PM
The instructor is having a hard time getting his students to grasp the concept of slicing the pie

Old guys chime in: Star Wars, Death Star approaching some random mud sphere. :D

1slow
03-12-2014, 03:48 PM
John Hearne did a stellar presentation on related subjects at Tom Given's Tactical Conference 2014, Hope he expands and publishes it.

David Armstrong
03-13-2014, 05:24 PM
Not to discount anyone's expertise on video games that was carefully gleaned by entire minutes spent talking to an eight-year-old, but as one who has actually played some of these new-fangled nickelodeon entertainments I would like to point out two things:


No video game requires actually aligning the three elements of rear sight, front sight, and target. Even the games that mime the use of iron sights simply require you to put a simulacrum of a pre-aligned sight picture on a pixel blob and mash "A" or the left mouse button or whatever.
Further, even if you consider this an accurate reflection of operating an optical sight, where no sight alignment is involved, the fact that the video game rewards the practice of "There's the target the reticule's on it MASH THE BUTTON NOW!" one could say it was antithetical to best practices with a real firearm.


So, while it's good that nephews still like to impress their uncles with their bright-eyed sharpness, it pretty much has squat-all to do with running a gun.
I would certainly disagree. Learning things like sight alignment, when to press the trigger, and so on are certainly transferable across mediums in my experience. I've seen too many folks who have never shot a gun before that could and would do pretty good on their first experience and credited it to development of similar skills in other environments.

Tamara
03-13-2014, 06:33 PM
I would certainly disagree.

Hey, you're certainly free to. On this topic, I think you're wrong as... well, a very wrong thing, but it's still (mostly) a free country. :)

Odin Bravo One
03-13-2014, 07:05 PM
I would certainly disagree. Learning things like sight alignment, when to press the trigger, and so on are certainly transferable across mediums in my experience. I've seen too many folks who have never shot a gun before that could and would do pretty good on their first experience and credited it to development of similar skills in other environments.

And there are no shortage of people with formal firearms training, who have learned through that method of instruction, and have shot thousands of rounds through firearms who can't hit a B-27 at 7 yards. If ever in doubt, go to a public access range with a bag of popcorn.

KevinB
03-13-2014, 09:07 PM
And there are no shortage of people with formal firearms training, who have learned through that method of instruction, and have shot thousands of rounds through firearms who can't hit a B-27 at 7 yards. If ever in doubt, go to a public access range with a bag of popcorn.

Agreed

I don't think Video games (and FATS simulators) do a good job in this respect at all.

Tamara
03-14-2014, 07:24 AM
And there are no shortage of people with formal firearms training, who have learned through that method of instruction, and have shot thousands of rounds through firearms who can't hit a B-27 at 7 yards. If ever in doubt, go to a public access range with a bag of popcorn.

The "Range Milky Way": A scattering of holes that is at its densest along a band running from the bull to the lower left corner of the target.

I see people doing it who I know for a fact have hundreds, if not thousands, of hours playing Battlefield Duty 5: Modern Wankfare. By some theories I've seen advanced, they should be shooting like cyborgs.

David S.
03-14-2014, 01:15 PM
In my flight instructing days I saw some evidence that simulators, like first person shooter video games, helped. During the first couple of lessons, the a student had played with Microsoft Flight Sim had a marginally but noticeably better handle of what was going on than those who didn't play the video games. Without fail though, that initial advantage evaporated by the third or fourth lesson and they were indistinguishable from the non-Flight Simming students well before it was time to solo. The gamers were quick out of the gate, but ultimately had no real advantage over those who did not play the video games.

I would guess that something similar holds true with first person shooters and basic firearms training. A few minutes playing Call of Duty will expose you to basic marksmanship concepts such as proper sight alignment, aiming, holdover, reloading, recoil movement, muzzle blast, etc in a fun, fast paced and safe environment. The average gamer also picks up his/her first gun with more interest and less inhibitions than the average non-gamer too. The instructor should be aware of negative learning that the gamer has picked up, but I suspect that there is some real initial advantage that occurs. I would suspect that those teaching entry level coursework would see this benefit. I would also suspect that by the end of an 8 or 16 hour course, that advantage is gone.

tremiles
03-14-2014, 02:24 PM
I would guess that something similar holds true with first person shooters and basic firearms training. A few minutes playing Call of Duty will expose you to basic marksmanship concepts such as proper sight alignment, aiming, holdover, reloading, recoil movement, muzzle blast, etc in a fun, fast paced and safe environment. The average gamer also picks up his/her first gun with more interest and less inhibitions than the average non-gamer too. The instructor should be aware of negative learning that the gamer has picked up, but I suspect that there is some real initial advantage that occurs. I would suspect that those teaching entry level coursework would see this benefit. I would also suspect that by the end of an 8 or 16 hour course, that advantage is gone.

In my experience as a PC gamer there is little to no fundamentals of basic marksmanship involved in gaming. Sure, you do have to press R when the onscreen ammo counter drops to 0, and early on I picked up doing tac reloads during a lull in the action (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?2745-Non-emergency-reloads), but after 20 years of practice my admin loads, tac loads, RWR, and speed loads haven't shown any improvement no matter how hard I hit R.

Tamara
03-14-2014, 02:41 PM
In my flight instructing days I saw some evidence that simulators, like first person shooter video games, helped. During the first couple of lessons, the a student had played with Microsoft Flight Sim had a marginally but noticeably better handle of what was going on than those who didn't play the video games.

There's a lot more similarity between using a joystick or yoke (with optional rudder pedals!) on a PC and using a joystick or yoke (with mandatory rudder pedals!) on a 172 than there is between moving a cursor with a mouse or thumbstick and actually aligning a sight picture and performing a proper trigger press.

David S.
03-14-2014, 03:36 PM
Agreed. But in my experience, for an entry level pilot and shooter it translated about the same. That is, it gave some active exposure to basic, fundamental concepts and applied them to his* imagination. Active exposure that, say Dr. Oz and HGTV, (or whatever the non-gamer does), doesn't provide. Granted, he is moving a controller /mouse and not aligning actual sights on a real target, managing recoil, considering 4 safety rules, or any of the other stuff that actually happens on a firing line. But he is getting something.

And that something translates what guys like David Armstrong are seeing when they take gamers out for the first time. My question for Mr Armstrong (I seem to recall that you are an firearms instructor) is, how long does the benefit last? I'm not surprised a strong start from the gamers, but I would be surprised if you could tell the difference by end of a good quality, 16 hour, thousand round course.

I'm not at all suggesting that gaming is an effective use of time for the new or aspiring shooter, just like I would not suggest Microsoft Flight Sim as a training aid for a brand new pilot.

Heck of a thread drift we got here.

Cheers,
David

*he/she. Chicks game too.

Tamara
03-14-2014, 05:00 PM
Agreed. But in my experience, for an entry level pilot and shooter it translated about the same.

Wait. Here you say "in my experience, for an entry level pilot and shooter" but in your previous post, you wrote "I would guess* that something similar holds true with first person shooters and basic firearms training."

Which is it? Your experience? Or your guess?


*Emphasis in the original.

David S.
03-14-2014, 06:26 PM
Which is it? Your experience? Or your guess?

Yes. A guess (an observation or a correlation maybe?) based on my experience as an instructor that has trained, but certainly not studied, a relatively small number of students and having discussed the effect with other instructor colleagues, who witnessed the same.

I have no data or studies. I have no idea whether my experience in flight training, as you say, even has any similarity to firearms training. I guess* that it may have some.

Does the video gamer learn how to execute a press-out? Does a video gamer learn how to press a trigger while maintaining sight alignment? Does the video gamer learn to manage recoil, gripping the gun in such a way that the sights rise and fall naturally back into alignment, while simultaneously resetting the trigger so it's ready to go in a quarter second? No, no and no.

But I'd guess (there I said it again) modern video games do engage the player's imagination in some ways as previously mentioned. Things you don't get watching HGTV.

You see video game exposure having no effect at any point in training. I see some marginal initial head start for the gamer that is quickly balanced out by the motivated non-gamer. Over the long haul, indeed by the end of Combative Pistol 1, the video gamer has lost any advantage.

Tamara
03-14-2014, 07:40 PM
Does the video gamer learn how to execute a press-out? Does a video gamer learn how to press a trigger while maintaining sight alignment? Does the video gamer learn to manage recoil, gripping the gun in such a way that the sights rise and fall naturally back into alignment, while simultaneously resetting the trigger so it's ready to go in a quarter second? No, no and no.

But I'd guess (there I said it again) modern video games do engage the player's imagination in some ways as previously mentioned. Things you don't get watching HGTV.

Well, to the last sentence there, sure! Whether the video game is Tic-Tac-Toe, Minesweeper, Solitaire, or Jeopardy!, it evinces a desire to interact with the world in a way that passively consuming TV shows does not.

It is a long stretch, though, from that, to assuming that the simplified control movements allowed by a yoke- or joystick-operated flight simulator are analogous to the move-cursor-with-mouse of an FPS.

Odin Bravo One
03-14-2014, 09:16 PM
I would guess that something similar holds true with first person shooters and basic firearms training. A few minutes playing Call of Duty will expose you to basic marksmanship concepts such as proper sight alignment, aiming, holdover, reloading, recoil movement, muzzle blast, etc in a fun, fast paced and safe environment. The average gamer also picks up his/her first gun with more interest and less inhibitions than the average non-gamer too. The instructor should be aware of negative learning that the gamer has picked up, but I suspect that there is some real initial advantage that occurs. I would suspect that those teaching entry level coursework would see this benefit. I would also suspect that by the end of an 8 or 16 hour course, that advantage is gone.

Without getting in the middle of the other exchanges going on from the above, and subsequent responses..........the hypothesis of improved physical performance with firearms due to video games is not geared toward the Instructor/Student relationship.......that theory as discussed previously in the thread, and in Grossman's book, are that they somehow increase proficiency, therefore creating a more efficient psychopathic killer. Therefore, video games with graphic violence, and call for the gamer to assume a first person shooter role, are why the mass shooting events we have witnessed in modern history have taken place, and there have been so many victims.

Has nothing to do with the perpetrator being shit house rat crazy, and selecting his target locations as the softest available for the assault to continue uninterrupted for as long as possible.

........yup.........it's gotta be the video games.......

jetfire
03-14-2014, 09:19 PM
In Battlefield 4 I can with regularity make head shots on running targets at over 100 yards.
In real life, I can with regularity miss running coyotes completely at 80 yards.

But video games totally trained me to be a better shooter.

PPGMD
03-14-2014, 09:32 PM
How could you forget this classic?
http://spgamer.com/img/nes/d/duck-hunt/duck-hunt-03.png

Just aim the gun at your lamp and you will always get a 100% hit rate.

Jay Cunningham
03-14-2014, 09:32 PM
Can video games desensitize one to pulling a trigger?

Tamara
03-14-2014, 10:19 PM
Can video games desensitize one to pulling a trigger?

Perhaps. In combination with other factors.

I would say that the predilection needs to be there already.

BLR
03-15-2014, 06:10 AM
psychology needs to have the -ology removed from it.

I'd challenge someone to find a psychology study/paper published that didn't have the the exact opposite results reported elsewhere.

Too many variables to model, and way-way-way too many unknowns and uncontrolled/ignored variables.

Tamara
03-15-2014, 06:53 AM
psychology needs to have the -ology removed from it.

Astrology and phrenology haven't.

BLR
03-15-2014, 07:03 AM
All three are of the same ilk.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

Odin Bravo One
03-15-2014, 07:59 PM
Can video games desensitize one to pulling a trigger?

Maybe......

But I'll go back to the Rwanda Genocide experience..........no video games to desensitize anyone there.

What desensitizes the rest of the world?

LOKNLOD
03-15-2014, 11:12 PM
What desensitizes the rest of the world?

Actual violence? Getting birthed into a 3rd world kittenhole?

Odin Bravo One
03-16-2014, 01:12 AM
Actual violence and death is good for desensitizing people to violence and death. Killing does a good job of desensitizing people to killing.

I'm simply trying to sort out the video game theory......if video games are evil and the cause of desensitizing our society to death and killing, and those don't exist in the rest of the world......yet, they bludgeon and stab and rape people to death at rates and in numbers incomprehensible to the western world...........how can it be the video games? How can one honestly believe that this mythical aversion for man killing fellow man actually exists?

That aversion expired with Cain and Able.

And some people are just crazy.

Slavex
03-16-2014, 08:47 AM
Bbbbut it's written in a book, it must be true!

I had a discussion with Grossman about this after his lecture up here a few years ago. He got a wild eyed when I told him I disagreed with him. I mentioned things like what we see overseas. His answer to me was "Have you been there, do you understand that our fascination with violence has spread around the world? We are breeding killers right now, and letting them get their training in for free in front of the family TV", that's not word for word, but damn close.

Tamara
03-16-2014, 11:14 AM
He got a wild eyed when I told him I disagreed with him.

Dude has built his whole life around this stuff now. It's as central to his identity as Catholicism is to the Pope's.

On a side note, the guy selling morale patches at the 1500 had an appalling amount of "sheepdog" themed ones.

(Also, someone needs to contact Milspec Monkey and let them know it's spelled "Deus Vult" and not "Dues Vult".)

Glenn E. Meyer
03-16-2014, 11:57 AM
The video game as a direct cause of violence is not really supported and there is a big debate in the journals about it. There are failures to replicate and indications that the effects are short lived. The dependent measures of induced aggression may lack ecological validity.

What probably happens is that for individuals with underlying serious mental pathologies, violent media, games, studying rampages like Columbine or VT aid in channeling their actions. Such folks study past rampages. Also, media coverage of rampages serve as vicarious reinforcement as they image the damage they will cause. This is important as many rampage folks do plan to commit suicide so they won't see the damage but they get off on the fantasy before hand.

So a general increase in societal violence because of games, media, etc. or pushing a normal person over the edge who engages or watches such stimuli isn't happening. They do channel the small number of extremely pathological individuals.

The idea of desensitization is that we have a natural inhibition for face to face direct violence. It has to be overcome to engage in such. Military or fighting training in part is to do such. In my limited experience as psychologist-FOG in classes, I've seen a self-proclaimed martial artist freeze solid in a scenario and get knocked on his keister. I also saw two women intersect, one froze and the other opened fire. Grossman claims the video game aids in removing the inhibition BUT to go on a rampage you need the twisted mentality first. The game or video isn't causal.

The skills implied in the games - most rampages are close up shots and there's a study somewhere indicating the untrained are reasonable accurate close up and then there is a drastic fall off as distance increases. Might have it at work. I don't think you need the games to have the skill in the average work place or classroom. Shooting little kids hiding in the rest room is not long range shooting.

That's my take on the rampage/media/game literature. The area is confounded with ideological positions and studies that try to make a political point. However, counter arguments are out there.

For your interest, there is a study showing how Biblical passages the invoke the Lord to justify killing induce more aggressive priming than simple prose discussing the same violent action. Of course, the dependent measure is some lab measure and not real violence. But banning religious prose might be suggested along with banning guns, games and media. That study was in the vein of why religious folks who proclaim peace and love happily kill those who believe in a different version of supernatural entity.

LOKNLOD
03-16-2014, 01:11 PM
That aversion expired with Cain and Able.


I was going to reference that but didn't have time to write a more detailed reply last night. First set of brothers ever, and one killed the other one. Humans are not adverse to violence. Or any other form of depravity, really. They are inherently pretty vile. We only perceive it as an aversion because we living in a long-standing well-developed society of where our cultural norms inoculate those aversions into people from the beginning. And there are still plenty of folks who find their way outside of those norms...

I think the entire concept of "desensitization" to violence is a mistake based on viewing the history through the lens of our experiences in modern western civilization. What is being observed and incorrectly attributed to individuals being desensitized, is really that the vast majority of our society has been so hyper-sensitized to violence by a general lack thereof and relative safety. Humans have been positively monstrous in killing the ever-livin' kitten out of each other since the earliest annals of recorded history. We are so spoiled by a living in what is probably easily the the safest, securest, softest, most prosperous environment in the history of the world, it is very easy for a large chunk of society to never be exposed to much real violence in any form other than what they see in various media.

That's not natural. And by bucking that natural order, we contribute to the problems. And the problems are many...

KevinB
03-16-2014, 02:46 PM
It's all a Malthusian check.

Tamara
03-16-2014, 02:52 PM
The parts of the world we refer to as "The West" from the latter half of the 20th Century on are practically unique in the history of the human race in that for the first time, most people living there will never see a dead human outside of a clinical or funerary setting.

Extrapolating the behaviors of people living in such a highly artificial environment and supposing them to be the norm is like assuming that a lab chimp's day is just like the day of a chimp in the Congo.

John Hearne
03-16-2014, 03:25 PM
In my research, I was amazed at how adaptable the human animal is to its environment. It is wired to survive - period. We now know that children raised in a "resource constrained" environment will act differently for the rest of their lives - especially in terms of risk taking and impulsiveness.

The really interesting area, but without a lot of data yet, is the importance of what happens when a person is a fetus. There is some evidence that you can tweak someone's character and personality based on what they get as they develop in the womb.

I don't doubt that you may have to train some Westerners raised in the poshest environment in human history to kill fellow humans - with that said, it is not the natural state of man. Think - nasty, short, and brutish.

Odin Bravo One
03-16-2014, 05:46 PM
Bbbbut it's written in a book, it must be true!

I had a discussion with Grossman about this after his lecture up here a few years ago. He got a wild eyed when I told him I disagreed with him. I mentioned things like what we see overseas. His answer to me was "Have you been there, do you understand that our fascination with violence has spread around the world? We are breeding killers right now, and letting them get their training in for free in front of the family TV", that's not word for word, but damn close.

This is the premium example of over-educated, and under-experienced.

Well, that........and his entire book.

Failure2Stop
03-16-2014, 07:53 PM
This is the premium example of over-educated, and under-experienced.

Well, that........and his entire book.

Eeee-yup.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Lomshek
03-17-2014, 09:29 PM
That aversion expired with Cain and Able.

And some people are just crazy.

Well said.

TCinVA
03-18-2014, 07:28 AM
Bbbbut it's written in a book, it must be true!

I had a discussion with Grossman about this after his lecture up here a few years ago. He got a wild eyed when I told him I disagreed with him. I mentioned things like what we see overseas. His answer to me was "Have you been there, do you understand that our fascination with violence has spread around the world? We are breeding killers right now, and letting them get their training in for free in front of the family TV", that's not word for word, but damn close.

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that nobody in Reserve Police Battalion 101 played Castle Wolfenstein. I don't think any of the 13 year olds shooting at our troops in Somalia back in '93 had been playing a lot of Doom beforehand.

Of course, once something becomes an article of faith...particularly one that gets the person espousing it a nice living giving lectures and going on TV...attacking it with logic rarely works out.

Tamara
03-18-2014, 07:34 AM
I think I can say without fear of contradiction that nobody in Reserve Police Battalion 101 played Castle Wolfenstein.

...excepting in a sort of LARPing sense. :o

Kyle Reese
03-18-2014, 07:58 AM
What sort of video games did the NKVD personnel play prior to being dispatched to Katyn?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

Tamara
03-18-2014, 08:07 AM
What sort of video games did the NKVD personnel play prior to being dispatched to Katyn?

Whatever they were, Grossman and LaPierre would probably support banning them.

Dagga Boy
03-18-2014, 09:18 AM
I think "some" of Grossman's stuff has merit. I think that much of the "violence" desensitization thing essentially is only applicable to "western Judeo-Christian" cultures that have spent hundreds of years applying rules, morals, cultural sophistication, etc...that they believe removes us as far as possible from our roots. Current technology growth is providing a means to simulate things that our societies have decreed as "bad" for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. So yea, technology has made "sex and violence" very "available", especially the "taboo extremes" of both. Some folks can handle this.......some can't.

Now, many of the places in the rest of the world have simply been doing it "live" for a long time. When the whole town comes out for stoning some girl to death, driving trucks over little kids hands for stealing bread, hangings, beheadings, etc.....well they get desensitized the old fashioned way. Other cultures are still doing stuff that the Western world "outgrew" a long time ago (raping captives as normal, pillaging, massacres, etc.) Of course, some of our very modern cultures have had no problem "reverting" for the right enemy or bogeyman.

TCinVA
03-18-2014, 11:25 AM
http://youtu.be/gmNvLbeOr04

A couple of dudes here in good ol' civilized America getting violent over some trivial bull-smurf, and one of them getting perilously close to lethal just because he's pissed off and has the opportunity.

Tell me again how we're reluctant to kill or maim others...

Glenn E. Meyer
03-18-2014, 11:50 AM
The NRA's jumping on the bandwagon of video games was a deliberate ploy to divert from gun bans. It was ill conceived from a research point of view. The argument was that video games prime aggressive ideation. Thus, the gun itself was an innocent tool with no causal drive to make killers act violently.

Unfortunately - if one reads the experimental literature (which I explain previously is subject to debate), indicates that with laboratory measures of aggression (again of debated ecological validity), video games, media violence portrayal, passages from the Bible AND exposure to pictures of weapons or handling weapons (real or training replicas) all produce some aggressive responses.

Thus, it was not a useful ploy if you knew the area. Similarly, the move to blame the mentally ill is a diversionary ploy to avoid weapons bans. Unfortunately, the prediction of violence is very difficult if not impossible due to false positives. This is intensively discussed. It makes street sense to keep guns from nuts - but how to do it?

We get atrocities like the NY SAFE act with tremendous overreach and negative consequences. Also calls for stricter mass mental health screening (of doubtful validity) is a way to institute general gun control and discourage gun ownership. It has the down side of discouraging folks who need mental health treatment from seeking it as it would lead to taking away gun rights or impacting jobs that require gun involvement.

That is not to say that more legit harder looks at troubled individuals aren't useful as some subsets of disorders may be predictive. It is clear the ball was dropped on Cho at VT. But mass screening and reporting isn't useful - unless you want to have mass disqualifications.

Thus, the NRA's reflexive diversionary ploys of video games wasn't useful but might appeal to the uninformed. Blanket mental health provisions - similar analysis.

This is from a psychologist - a field next to necromancy and astrology. :p

David Armstrong
03-18-2014, 12:00 PM
Hey, you're certainly free to. On this topic, I think you're wrong as... well, a very wrong thing, but it's still (mostly) a free country. :)
So true, and the feeling is mutual. I guess my problem is that I tend to rely on known data and observeable facts as I know them rather than what I would like to be true, which often does set me apart from so many internet folks.

David Armstrong
03-18-2014, 12:04 PM
In my flight instructing days I saw some evidence that simulators, like first person shooter video games, helped. During the first couple of lessons, the a student had played with Microsoft Flight Sim had a marginally but noticeably better handle of what was going on than those who didn't play the video games. Without fail though, that initial advantage evaporated by the third or fourth lesson and they were indistinguishable from the non-Flight Simming students well before it was time to solo. The gamers were quick out of the gate, but ultimately had no real advantage over those who did not play the video games.

I would guess that something similar holds true with first person shooters and basic firearms training. A few minutes playing Call of Duty will expose you to basic marksmanship concepts such as proper sight alignment, aiming, holdover, reloading, recoil movement, muzzle blast, etc in a fun, fast paced and safe environment. The average gamer also picks up his/her first gun with more interest and less inhibitions than the average non-gamer too. The instructor should be aware of negative learning that the gamer has picked up, but I suspect that there is some real initial advantage that occurs. I would suspect that those teaching entry level coursework would see this benefit. I would also suspect that by the end of an 8 or 16 hour course, that advantage is gone.
Exactly, and your observations seem to reflect what has been found by many others. Let's face it, what do we do when we start to teach someoen to shoot, after the safety suff...we start with how to hold the gun, how to align the sights , how to press the trigger. If you already have one or two of those out of the way you are just that much ahead of the game. As others learn the skill that difference is reduced or eliminated.

And that something translates what guys like David Armstrong are seeing when they take gamers out for the first time. My question for Mr Armstrong (I seem to recall that you are an firearms instructor) is, how long does the benefit last? I'm not surprised a strong start from the gamers, but I would be surprised if you could tell the difference by end of a good quality, 16 hour, thousand round course.
I haven't ever measured it, but I doubt it would last long. For me the issue is as you have put it...some experiences in one medium translate to other mediums and give one a head start over others with no experience. To move away from video games and use another example, I've regularly been amazed at the number of archers who have no firearms experience but have been able to pick up a gun and use it rather well right off the bat. Talking with them they have explained it as they take some of the skills they have learned with the bow and apply it to the gun...steady hold, controlled release, maintaining a sight picture, etc.

LOKNLOD
03-18-2014, 01:00 PM
I haven't ever measured it, but I doubt it would last long. For me the issue is as you have put it...some experiences in one medium translate to other mediums and give one a head start over others with no experience. To move away from video games and use another example, I've regularly been amazed at the number of archers who have no firearms experience but have been able to pick up a gun and use it rather well right off the bat. Talking with them they have explained it as they take some of the skills they have learned with the bow and apply it to the gun...steady hold, controlled release, maintaining a sight picture, etc.

I wonder if any observed advantage may be attributable to just some raw hand-eye coordination being more well-developed?

It would be interesting to see a sizable group first time performance of FPS-gamers compared to non-FPS gamers compares to non-gamers.

We should get a grant to put that study together or something.

peterb
03-19-2014, 08:27 AM
For me the issue is as you have put it...some experiences in one medium translate to other mediums and give one a head start over others with no experience.

I think some of it just may be seeing something familiar that makes sense, as opposed to a lot of brand-new visual input.

When I made my first skydiving jump, I had been hang-gliding for several years. No experience falling at 80mph(thankfully!), but being prone in midair several thousand feet high was "normal" and made visual sense. During free fall I was spotting landmarks and enjoying the view. Other first-timers with no relevant experience reported just seeing a big screaming rush of images that they had a hard time processing.

Tamara
03-19-2014, 08:51 AM
I guess my problem is that I tend to rely on known data and observeable facts as I know them rather than what I would like to be true, which often does set me apart from so many internet folks.

None of which you have provided, merely anecdata about 8-year-old nephews.

I'd like some cites. You know, "Professor A. Anecdote, PhD, Facts I Found In My Butt, pp. 33-35"


...we start with how to hold the gun, how to align the sights , how to press the trigger. If you already have one or two of those out of the way...

How do we have "those out of the way"? How does holding this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Xbox-360-white-wireless-controller.jpg) translate in any way to holding this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg)?


EDITED TO ADD: Oh, jeez, look what page we're on. Shame on me. :rolleyes:

TCinVA
03-19-2014, 09:17 AM
I've regularly been amazed at the number of archers who have no firearms experience but have been able to pick up a gun and use it rather well right off the bat.


I've done some basic firearms instruction for a couple of collegiate archers on a reasonably competitive team. They picked up the marksmanship skills I was teaching very quickly indeed.

Archery as a skill has a number of overlaps with firearms marksmanship and the last time I picked up a bow (after not having really touched one for at least 15 years) I was able to shoot far better than I ever remembered being able to shoot when I was actually bowhunting.

It bore precisely zero resemblance to using a bow in Skyrim, though.

Real life archery requires developing a kinesthetic skillset that has some overlap with shooting a firearm. Video games do not have that benefit. I've done instruction for young people who have played lots of video games and instruction for young people who never really messed with FPS's and the like. I've never noticed any difference in demonstrated ability that could be assigned to video games to a .05 level of significance.

Byron
03-19-2014, 09:35 AM
I'd like some cites. You know, "Professor A. Anecdote, PhD, Facts I Found In My Butt, pp. 33-35"
Don't hold your breath (though I know you're smart enough not to). The closest we've come in all these pages has been a single link to a general website:

Sort of difficult, as I've been looking at this for about 30 years now and really don't have the time right now to try to remember what/where specific bits of information are located. Without going into specific articles, I'd recommend http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=32&articleid=58§ionid=270 as a good place to start as it provides a very good literature review.

The very same post also claims:

Actual violence is not at historical lows. You may be confusing violence with criminal violence, which is a very different thing. Measuring violence by looking at crime rates is rather deceptive, particularly when looking at low-level violence. And keep in mind that a big part of the issue is not engaging in actual violence but learnign to accept violence as a normal and rational response to various situations.
Which is demonstrably wrong: it's not just criminal violence that is at historic lows. Or are most societies still torturing animals and people in town squares and I just missed it? I must have also missed how 40-60% of males in today's world die in warfare, as was the case with the Jivaro and the Yanomami.

But I'm sure that today's youth, with their video games, are more accepting of violence as a normal and rational response than youth of the past, who giggled at the sight of cats burned alive for entertainment, and witnessed neighbors tortured for minor crimes.

But since this flowchart (http://www.jamespegram.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/discussion-flow-chart.jpg) has already been crapped all over, I gave up at that point.

I respect that you're still trying to engage in this debate, but it's just beating your head against a wall. When facts like "60% > 3.1%" can be waved away as easily as, 'you must be confused', what productive end can ever be reached?

Byron
03-19-2014, 10:27 AM
The video game as a direct cause of violence is not really supported and there is a big debate in the journals about it. There are failures to replicate and indications that the effects are short lived. The dependent measures of induced aggression may lack ecological validity.
Thanks for your posts in this thread, Glenn. I appreciate your point that the duration of these effects must be considered.

Maple Syrup Actual
03-19-2014, 11:30 AM
Don't hold your breath (though I know you're smart enough not to). The closest we've come in all these pages has been a single link to a general website:


The very same post also claims:

Which is demonstrably wrong: it's not just criminal violence that is at historic lows. Or are most societies still torturing animals and people in town squares and I just missed it? I must have also missed how 40-60% of males in today's world die in warfare, as was the case with the Jivaro and the Yanomami.

But I'm sure that today's youth, with their video games, are more accepting of violence as a normal and rational response than youth of the past, who giggled at the sight of cats burned alive for entertainment, and witnessed neighbors tortured for minor crimes.

But since this flowchart (http://www.jamespegram.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/discussion-flow-chart.jpg) has already been crapped all over, I gave up at that point.

I respect that you're still trying to engage in this debate, but it's just beating your head against a wall. When facts like "60% > 3.1%" can be waved away as easily as, 'you must be confused', what productive end can ever be reached?

While in general I agree with you, I think it's possibly worthwhile to point out that the jivaro and Yanomami are themselves outliers. That doesn't mean that tribal societies aren't significantly more violent than us, but using the jivaro as a sample group is like using Olympic sprinters. Potentially valid, but not exactly representative of a statistical average.

Byron
03-19-2014, 12:25 PM
While in general I agree with you, I think it's possibly worthwhile to point out that the jivaro and Yanomami are themselves outliers. That doesn't mean that tribal societies aren't significantly more violent than us, but using the jivaro as a sample group is like using Olympic sprinters. Potentially valid, but not exactly representative of a statistical average.
You're right: they are indeed extreme examples. To anyone who sees that as a weakness in my position, I'm happy to completely drop any mention of them.

Glenn E. Meyer
03-19-2014, 03:43 PM
For those of a scholarly bent and who like citations - here is a recent article indicating that the violent video game link is not as originally postulated.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0068382

You can follow various options to get the entire article. The same authors just gave a presentation confirming their original results but I don't have a draft of that yet. Thus, the strong Grossman claims and the NRA strategy is not supported.

It is politically correct to proclaim the linkage in the social sciences, however with all things - if it isn't true - that will come out. I point you the widely praised book by Bellesiles denouncing early US gun ownership. Won prizes and was the cover of the rights scholarly places. It was destroyed by progun scholars and plain old scholars with no dogs in the gun debate but knew the techniques that were supposedly used. They were fraudently applied and the author was disgraced. The priming literature is at risk.

Now as far as the utility of video games improving shooting performance, I recall some stuff checking that out in scholarly journals like Tamara's suggestion but I'd have to dig around but I have to work for a living a bit.

Tamara
03-19-2014, 04:20 PM
Glenn, all teasing aside, people like you who science in the land of the squishy have my utmost respect.

Trooper224
03-19-2014, 05:32 PM
I won't touch on the video game topic as I find the whole concept of them to be rather inane and largely a waste of time. Hell, I found them to be uninteresting when I was a teenager back in the days of Pong and Atari. I do find they have some value in LE and military settings when used as training tools though. However, I find the value to lie in their ability to develop decision making and critical thinking skills, rather than physical manipulation of hardware. Ooops, I just touched on the subject anyway didn't I?

To return to Lt. Col. Grossmans work: Like many studies I think Grossman set out to prove an hypothesis, not to conduct a search for truth in the matter. As such he willingly uses data that seems to support his position, regardless of how specious it may be, and freely disregards that which doesn't. He's pretty much the Stephen Ambrose of the topic. I think the concepts he discusses are interesting and worth the time and effort to study. However, like many he's made a second career out of standing on his particular soap box and won't risk admitting to any past inaccuracies due to ego and the need to collect a paycheck. His seminars are very popular in law enforcement circles and I've attended a couple of them. Much of what he says makes me roll my eyes and doesn't jive with my personal experience, but the masses tend to love him because he plays to their "warrior" egos and presents in in a slick animated package. Personally, I find the whole "sheepdog" reference to be somewhat silly and rather cliché at this point in time. Well, actually it irritates the living hell out of me.

Odin Bravo One
03-19-2014, 07:41 PM
Other first-timers with no relevant experience reported just seeing a big screaming rush of images that they had a hard time processing.

First jump, a night water jump............cause they close their eyes and piss their pants........

Hatchetman
03-19-2014, 11:16 PM
Careful y'all, when you start parsing David's words, point out his many rhetorical failings, guffaw when he hyperextends his elbow patting his own back as he extolls his internet virtues et al, he rolls out the "personal attack" straw man.

Minds me of the Emerson quote: "The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

David Armstrong
03-20-2014, 10:43 AM
None of which you have provided, merely anecdata about 8-year-old nephews.

I'd like some cites. You know, "Professor A. Anecdote, PhD, Facts I Found In My Butt, pp. 33-35"
Sigh. Tell you what, Tam, if you want to hold this forum up to the standards of a scientific journal feel free, You start providing appropriate citations for all these little things you say then I'll play along. However, given that the conversation started around a rather well-known and well-cited book, I think such a stilted process of presentation is rather redundant. In other words, cites and data have already been offered, to which you have responded with your usual opinion. So unless and until this place becomes "The Journal of Scientific Gunhandling" let's at least pretend each of us is sincere and honest in what they present. BTW, it is not just 8-year old nephews. As I said I've seen the process repeatedly with other folks. I'm sorry if your experience is more limited.


How do we have "those out of the way"? How does holding this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Xbox-360-white-wireless-controller.jpg) translate in any way to holding this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg)?
As we regukarly see here and other places, what seems rather clear to mee seems rather unclear to you. Nothing new there.

David Armstrong
03-20-2014, 10:53 AM
Don't hold your breath (though I know you're smart enough not to). The closest we've come in all these pages has been a single link to a general website:
Which provides a rather good literature review of the topic. Which is far more than others have provided insupport of their position, I might add. I find it humorous for folks to comment on something not being done tha tthey themselves seem unwilling to do.


Which is demonstrably wrong: it's not just criminal violence that is at historic lows. Or are most societies still torturing animals and people in town squares and I just missed it? I must have also missed how 40-60% of males in today's world die in warfare, as was the case with the Jivaro and the Yanomami.
Yawn. I think the discussion was rather clear that we were looking at violence in the U.S.

David Armstrong
03-20-2014, 11:01 AM
Now as far as the utility of video games improving shooting performance, I recall some stuff checking that out in scholarly journals like Tamara's suggestion but I'd have to dig around but I have to work for a living a bit.
Yep. Some folks seem to think that others should drop everything they are doing and provide some alternative support and/or scholarly validation for soemthing read and remembered long ago. If they realized how time consuming that can be they might be a little slower to jump that direction. It is sort of like me asking someone to give me a citation for something they might have read or been exposed to years ago. Doesn't make the info any less reliable if you don't want to go back and sift through 5 years worth of New Yorker Magazine to find one particular paragraph, for example, it just means it really isn't worth the time and effort in this scenario. When one reads massive amounts of research for a living one picks up a few things. That one doesn't want to invest hours or days going back and digging through that research again doesn't change the the material.

David Armstrong
03-20-2014, 11:04 AM
Careful y'all, when you start parsing David's words, point out his many rhetorical failings, guffaw when he hyperextends his elbow patting his own back as he extolls his internet virtues et al, he rolls out the "personal attack" straw man.

Minds me of the Emerson quote: "The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
Minds me of the old saying when you can't counter the evidence try attacking the person instead.

Glenn E. Meyer
03-20-2014, 03:21 PM
Science in the land of the squishy! I like that - can I use it?

Glenn

Byron
03-20-2014, 05:29 PM
Which provides a rather good literature review of the topic. Which is far more than others have provided insupport of their position, I might add. I find it humorous for folks to comment on something not being done tha tthey themselves seem unwilling to do.
You assertion, which I originally quoted as my first post to this thread, said:


In spite of statements like this, pretty much every bit of research on the topic that I have seen does indicate that the more people (of all ages) are exposed to fictional violence the more accepting of violence they become and the more likely they are to use violence.
In response to your claim of a consensus in the social sciences, I provided numerous conflicting references. I wasn't trying to poop in your hat: just point out that the social sciences are still arguing about this.

You've dug in your heels, and rather than just acknowledging that there is still a healthy debate among academics, have changed the goal posts a few times.


Yawn. I think the discussion was rather clear that we were looking at violence in the U.S.
No, I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think the opposite is clear. Back in 2011, well before either you or I participated in this thread, people like Jody were saying things like:

Boy's have had violent imaginations since the dawn of time.
Adults have bitched about the moral decay of our teens since the dawn of time.
There have always been sociopaths among us since the dawn of time.
...
Lax parenting and an amoral societal structure are doing far more harm than video games.

Since the United States of America have not existed "since the dawn of time," I'd say it was pretty clearly established, well before you and I arrived, that worldwide violence throughout history was a fair topic in this discussion. Since other posters went on to talk about Africa, Germany, Russia, and numerous other locations, I believe this further reinforces that point.

I'd also point out that if you really want to limit the conversation that artificially, you would have to provide a new link, as your previous one is not just limited to research from the U.S.

The goalposts have been moved around so much now that I really don't feel like keeping up any more.

But it is worth mentioning that Dr. Meyer, a published researcher and professor, who I believe is the only thread participant with a Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology (apologies if I am overlooking anyone else's qualifications) had this to say:

The video game as a direct cause of violence is not really supported and there is a big debate in the journals about it. There are failures to replicate and indications that the effects are short lived. The dependent measures of induced aggression may lack ecological validity.
...
So a general increase in societal violence because of games, media, etc. or pushing a normal person over the edge who engages or watches such stimuli isn't happening.

So again, I fail to see the original problem you had with my position that:

In my own reading, I haven't seen the clear consensus that you seem to be implying.
...
Or to sum it up, a quote from the second PDF link:
The issue of violent video game influences on youth violence and aggression remains intensely debated in the scholarly literature and among the general public.

Tamara
03-20-2014, 05:39 PM
Science in the land of the squishy! I like that - can I use it?

Glenn

Feel absolutely free to. :)

David Armstrong
03-21-2014, 01:50 PM
You assertion, which I originally quoted as my first post to this thread, said:


In response to your claim of a consensus in the social sciences, I provided numerous conflicting references. I wasn't trying to poop in your hat: just point out that the social sciences are still arguing about this.
Yes, just as some science is still arguing about global warming and such. To quote Grossman, "when you have 217 studies that tend to show the same correlations it seems hard to ignore that."


You've dug in your heels, and rather than just acknowledging that there is still a healthy debate among academics, have changed the goal posts a few times.
Sorry, I disagree with that premise on both points.


No, I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think the opposite is clear. Back in 2011, well before either you or I participated in this thread, people like Jody were saying things like:
It appears to me that what Jody was saying is something completely separate from what I am saying..


But it is worth mentioning that Dr. Meyer, a published researcher and professor, who I believe is the only thread participant with a Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology (apologies if I am overlooking anyone else's qualifications) had this to say:
It is also worth mentioning that nothing I have said disagrees with what Glen has said, notr do I disagree with it. I suggest that they are two different issues.

So again, I fail to see the original problem you had with my position that:
Cool. We can certainly see things differently.

Glenn E. Meyer
03-28-2014, 03:20 PM
Did a little researching about some of the issues.

1. Do video games aid in performance in a shooting task. I could only find one clear study. There is a lot of work on how simulations, FOF, etc. aid in performance but not that much on classic video games. The one I did find Ravindra S. Goonetilleke et al, -Applied Ergonomics 40 (2009) 500–508 found that subjects with gas pistol experience (airsoft) perform better than folks with just video games (arcade games) and those with no experiences. It was demonstrated by tighter groups with airsoft guns (or so I read it). With a half a second exposure time, the practiced group had an average target error of 3 cm as compared to the untrained group at around 5.5 cm. The video group was in the middle with 4 cm average target error. The differences held but diminished in value by 3 sec. of target exposure. The rationale is that the trained group was more efficient at aligning with the target at .5 Sec, the video group a little less so. With the longer durations, target alignment was equate but postural sway was better for the trained and video groups but the differences were much smaller.

So there is a touch of evidence of being a better shooter with some video exposure but the direct correlation with rampage shooters is tenuous. I noted before (and can't find) that even novices can shoot well in a meter or two range. Hard to support that video games produce expert markspeople.

2. The other video game effect is supposedly that the games reduce the inhibition against interpersonal violence. There is debate about the Marshall data and then other reports from Grossman's summary. A good summary of the issue comes from a book by Collins - Violence, Princeton University Press. He summarizes later data indicating that Marshall might have been an overestimate of actual war performance. Maybe you can find 25% not firing in later studies but it can be even less. What may influence it is distance of opponent. Collins views the issue as follows:

Aggressing is actually a very hard thing to do.

Aggressor has to overcome a pairing of tension and fear to act

People reluctant to act aggressively unless the right conditions are met.

Seen in military, 25 % firing (post Marshall) – training to overcome this

Police interaction – sometimes firearms are not used – when attacked

Complex matrix of emotional dominance necessary for aggressive action.

Tension/fear complex must be overcome for firing to take place.

Military guns that act at distance more easily fired than close range gun firing
Gang and street violence, characteristic of gun makes anonymous and fast drive-by shootings easier to avoid the face-to-face physical violence.

Forward Panic! Once overcome, you get forward panic – when more aggress – might be related to contagious or sympathetic shooting

--- Thus, one might argue that the games reduce the inhibition as we do train to get folks to act in a critical incident with some automaticity.

But whether the games train sociopaths to overcome such inhibitions is a stretch. I like the analyses that say that the shooter is flawed and media, games , etc. just enable the folks to model behavior to act. They don't give the impulse.

benEzra
05-14-2014, 08:21 AM
I think the most glaring indictment of the "video games contribute to youth violence" meme is the fact that aggregate hours spent video gaming over the years have a huge *inverse* correlation with *all* measures of youth violence, which is now at its lowest level in decades.

http://neoacademic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/vidsales_youthviolence.gif
http://neoacademic.com/2010/09/09/what-does-video-game-research-really-say-part-1-10/

Grossman's hypothesis---that video games reduce inhibitions against committing actual violence---is a plausible one. So is the opposite---that violent video games allow kids to act out aggressive impulses in a nondestructive way, thereby *reducing* youth violence by turning some percentage of real-life mayhem into merely virtual.

hufnagel
05-15-2014, 01:59 PM
Boy am I late to the party.

I started reading this book about a month ago after a recommendation. With regards to the book I've found some statements and conclusions intriguing, some provocative, some down right bizarre. I will continue to contemplate them and as I do with everything else choose one of 3 paths to take with them... accept, reject, modify.

Having read all 16 pages (so far) of arguments and discussion on here, I've come away with the following...
* there are many thought provoking statements, observations and assertions made here. Thank you all for that.
* like anything else, doing something in excess (ex: violent content) can be bad for you
* i'll continue to do that Responsible Parent Thing that I'm supposed to do, monitor what my kid does, steer him in the right direction, and hope for the best.
* if I see any signs of him maybe being a bit "off" I'll deal with it accordingly.
* I think someone who is already damaged/touched/pre-disposed-to-doing-violence/just-plain-nucking-futs may find "motivation" in violent content. that becomes an identification and treatment problem though, not a violent content problem.
* I find the concept that we've in the "western" world have traded the actual physical violence of the 3rd world for virtual violence an interesting one.

I may have more to say later, but to steal and turn a phrase from Tam, I'm having a case of the Dumbs, so I can't Brain well at the moment. :)

Joe S
11-18-2022, 11:14 AM
Necropost, I know. I thought we talked about this much more recently, but couldn't find the thread with a quick search. Ellifritz linked to this in-depth article on Havok Journal about Grossman and his work: https://havokjournal.com/law-enforcement/on-grossman-how-a-pseudoscientist-pushed-our-understanding-of-killing-back-20-years/

PNWTO
11-18-2022, 11:57 AM
Necropost, I know. I thought we talked about this much more recently, but couldn't find the thread with a quick search. Ellifritz linked to this in-depth article on Havok Journal about Grossman and his work: https://havokjournal.com/law-enforcement/on-grossman-how-a-pseudoscientist-pushed-our-understanding-of-killing-back-20-years/

In addition, here’s a good AAR of S.L.A. Marshall’s work.

https://www.historynet.com/long-dead-hand-s-l-marshall-misleads-historians/

Trooper224
11-18-2022, 12:21 PM
Anything written by Grossman goes on the shelf alongside my copies of Handgun Stopping Power and Chariots of the Gods.

Oldherkpilot
11-18-2022, 06:32 PM
Anything written by Grossman goes on the shelf alongside my copies of Handgun Stopping Power and Chariots of the Gods.

Subtlety-I like it!😁

UNM1136
11-19-2022, 06:10 AM
I read most of the article. Until the Sheepdog stuff was related to wolves of color. I did Bullefproof Mind in 2013-2014, and found a lot of useful information. Admittedly, I use some of it in my training of schools and churches for active shooter. One of my clients uses my training for insurance requirements... I found no racist remarks...maybe I missed them. There was good information to be had, and I ran with it.

After reviews of people I respect, I am not much of a fan of the person...but solid ideas are solid ideas...

There seems to be much fluff....

pat

Hambo
11-19-2022, 08:58 AM
I read most of the article. Until the Sheepdog stuff was related to wolves of color. I did Bullefproof Mind in 2013-2014, and found a lot of useful information. Admittedly, I use some of it in my training of schools and churches for active shooter. One of my clients uses my training for insurance requirements... I found no racist remarks...maybe I missed them. There was good information to be had, and I ran with it.

After reviews of people I respect, I am not much of a fan of the person...but solid ideas are solid ideas...

There seems to be much fluff....

pat

Regarding soldiers and war, I think diaries are a better source for what soldiers did or did not do, than are Grossman or Marshall.

UNM1136
11-19-2022, 12:33 PM
Regarding soldiers and war, I think diaries are a better source for what soldiers did or did not do, than are Grossman or Marshall.

You are probably right...

Find a market, sell your product, right?

pat

Joe S
11-19-2022, 12:48 PM
I read most of the article. Until the Sheepdog stuff was related to wolves of color. I did Bullefproof Mind in 2013-2014, and found a lot of useful information. Admittedly, I use some of it in my training of schools and churches for active shooter. One of my clients uses my training for insurance requirements... I found no racist remarks...maybe I missed them. There was good information to be had, and I ran with it.



I don't know that the author is saying that Grossman is explicitly racist; he is contending that criminals are "wolves" or "super-predators" has a history of being aligned with racist views or biases that are not helpful in community policing. At least, that's how I read it.

Guerrero
11-19-2022, 12:56 PM
Greg Ellifritz linked to this lengthy and interesting blog post looking at Grossman's stuff:

https://www.hosannafukuzawa.com/on-grossman-how-a-pseudoscientist-pushed-our-understanding-of-killing-back-20-years/

FNFAN
11-19-2022, 03:28 PM
I would certainly disagree. Learning things like sight alignment, when to press the trigger, and so on are certainly transferable across mediums in my experience. I've seen too many folks who have never shot a gun before that could and would do pretty good on their first experience and credited it to development of similar skills in other environments.

My kid has credited introducing him to video games and associated multi-tasking skills as helpful during his time flying for the Army. I did mostly keep the games we purchased in the realm of city building or quest type games vs. shoot'm-ups. He played the typical shooter games with his friends. I don't think gaming made him particularly sociopathic as he's retired and hung up his monocle and gone from raining fire down 18lbs or 30mm at a time to neo-natal critical care nursing.

Coyotesfan97
11-19-2022, 03:50 PM
Weird usually Caliber Press gets all the blame for the Warrior Cop. <<shrugs>>

One thing I did pick up from Grossman is don’t forget to say baaaaaa if you forget to carry. I get a laugh out of it if I do. Pretty infrequent but it happens. If I’m close to home I baaa and turn around to get the piece. :)

FNFAN
11-19-2022, 09:14 PM
Weird usually Caliber Press gets all the blame for the Warrior Cop. <<shrugs>>

One thing I did pick up from Grossman is don’t forget to say baaaaaa if you forget to carry. I get a laugh out of it if I do. Pretty infrequent but it happens. If I’m close to home I baaa and turn around to get the piece. :)

Technology is a fine thing. Every time I'm leaving the house and set the alarm it reminds me. "Armed. Away." Yup!

jnc36rcpd
11-20-2022, 02:57 AM
Weird usually Caliber Press gets all the blame for the Warrior Cop. <<shrugs>>

One thing I did pick up from Grossman is don’t forget to say baaaaaa if you forget to carry. I get a laugh out of it if I do. Pretty infrequent but it happens. If I’m close to home I baaa and turn around to get the piece. :)

I attended a Grossman seminar some years ago. It was a pretty decent motivational class. I didn't catch anything objectionable or inaccurate as I recall, but time has moved on. I will note that I was concerned the warrior thing would bite us in the handcuff case sooner or later. I understand the concept from both our side and the Washington Post's side.

To preface this, I am not critical of the majority of officers who responded to Uvalde from multiple agencies with no real command structure or operational awareness. That said, whenever I hear this concern about "warrior cops", my reaction is that the police response to Uvalde was a Guardian response and certainly no that of Warriors.

FNFAN
11-20-2022, 02:30 PM
I attended a Grossman seminar some years ago. It was a pretty decent motivational class. I didn't catch anything objectionable or inaccurate as I recall, but time has moved on. I will note that I was concerned the warrior thing would bite us in the handcuff case sooner or later. I understand the concept from both our side and the Washington Post's side.

To preface this, I am not critical of the majority of officers who responded to Uvalde from multiple agencies with no real command structure or operational awareness. That said, whenever I hear this concern about "warrior cops", my reaction is that the police response to Uvalde was a Guardian response and certainly no that of Warriors.

It's a tool bag. You reach into it and pull out Coach, Mediator, Technologist, Customer Service Rep, Athlete, Warrior -as needed. The problem comes when you don't train your other tools and get stuck or try to hit the Easy Button. The Warrior thing is easy and gets reinforcement all the time.

feudist
11-20-2022, 06:04 PM
Regarding soldiers and war, I think diaries are a better source for what soldiers did or did not do, than are Grossman or Marshall.

Agreed. See The Deadly Brotherhood, When the Odds Were Even, If You Survive and a host of others.
Beyond Marshall's flat out lying, there are the routinely documented friendly fire incidents where jumpy sentries light up anything moving. There were issues with new recruits, trained by safety nazis in the "One shot, one kill, don't waste those precious .30 caliber lifesavers the supply sergeant had you sign for" who had to be taught to use suppressive fire, but that was a range culture/ NCO problem, not a fundamental of human nature.

Hambo
11-20-2022, 06:12 PM
Agreed. See The Deadly Brotherhood, When the Odds Were Even, If You Survive and a host of others.
Beyond Marshall's flat out lying, there are the routinely documented friendly fire incidents where jumpy sentries light up anything moving. There were issues with new recruits, trained by safety nazis in the "One shot, one kill, don't waste those precious .30 caliber lifesavers the supply sergeant had you sign for" who had to be taught to use suppressive fire, but that was a range culture/ NCO problem, not a fundamental of human nature.

I recall hearing a WW2 Ranger who fought in the ETO say just that.