PeakOil is You
Virus of Violence
by BlisteredWhippet » Wed 16 Mar 2005, 16:06:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'F')irst of all, Grossman cites a number of studies which were published in peer-reviewed journals, and which anyone here can look up if they choose.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')
It still smells of pop psychology, in which the emphasis is on creating a compelling message, not on giving a balanced view of the research or getting at the truth.
It's easy to cherrypick studies which seem to support one's thesis. This is a big problem in the social sciences which are inherently fuzzy and ambiguous, and in which people want quick answers without thinking too much. We all want the one Big Cause; we don't want to hear about multiple interacting causes and side-effects.
I'm not saying Grossman is wrong. Instead, I'd regard his essay as a starting place for learning more about the subject.
Call me lazy, but I think that is unnecessary.
We can look past Grossman's obvious faults as a writer and a propaganist because its clear to me that his heart is in the right place. The subject and his thesis is important enough not to toss out altogether, and should be intuitively obvious. I've taken a lot of classes in the social sciences and they are first and foremost theoretical in nature. His examples support his thesis, his logic is cogent and he plainly displays his own biases.
You're damn skippy violent video games lead to violent little kids, and thus, violent amoral adults. This conclusion is gaining in popularity because there is a lot of real research and facts to back it up. The contrary theory- that conditioning kids with violence and consumerism vis-a-vis TV and media doesn't cause a degradation of social values is quickly heading the way of the Flat Earth theory.
You could argue that there are also other causes of this effect. Grossman makes a moral argument primarily, not a scientific argument as your objections suggest. Take another look at it and raise issue with his facts, if thats the function of your analysis. His political and social, even religious philosophy, should not discredit his overall argument of "why things are the way they are" in terms of this violence-media interaction.
Do we agree with Grossman in his indictment of TV, education, and our cultural ethics and values as amoral?
To me, there's two possibilities. Either you think that companies should be deploying deceptive and seductive arguments-blatantly emotionally coercive arguments- to children of an impressionable age or you don't.
His solution- regulated censure- is to me overblown, but better than nothing- I'll painfully admit against my bias toward full and open freedom of expression.
The best solution I can think is if blatant deceptive and agreesive marketing was eventually seen as amoral- against conventional morality, "enforced" by a system of social distaste. Only when just about everyone of us is so sick of mass advertising that we decide to turn our backs to anyone and everyone on any suggestion or example of it, making it a taboo is powerful as the one we currently have for say, touching feces, will the "problem" ever be "solved". The limits of social science end with our responsibilities.
My favorite line from the article was
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]"The networks will stick their lenses anywhere and courageously expose anything. Like flies on open wounds, they find nothing too private or shameful for their probing lenses--except themselves..."
Last edited by BlisteredWhippet on Wed 16 Mar 2005, 17:31:37, edited 1 time in total.
-
BlisteredWhippet - Tar Sands
- Posts: 848
- Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
