Feel absolutely free to.Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Feel absolutely free to.
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."
Sorry, I disagree with that premise on both points.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.
It appears to me that what Jody was saying is something completely separate from what I am saying..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 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.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:
Cool. We can certainly see things differently.So again, I fail to see the original problem you had with my position that:
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
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.
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/2010/09/09/wh...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.
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.
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-enforce...back-20-years/
"It was the fuck aroundest of times, it was the find outest of times."- 45dotACP
In addition, here’s a good AAR of S.L.A. Marshall’s work.
https://www.historynet.com/long-dead...ds-historians/
Anything written by Grossman goes on the shelf alongside my copies of Handgun Stopping Power and Chariots of the Gods.
We may lose and we may win, but we will never be here again.......
Subtlety-I like it!😁
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
Last edited by UNM1136; 11-19-2022 at 06:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
