Reddit reviews Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill : A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence

Sort of a partner in crime, back in the day. Thompson would wave a copy of Grossman's magnum opus around on various talk shows.

(Not actually my opinion).

Playing violent video games consistently for a prolonged period of time does cause aggressive behavior (in children aged 10 - 16).

In Grand Theft Childhood, Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olsen, the authors, found that middle school children who had played at least one game rated 'Mature' were over one and a half times more likely to have hit or beat up a classmate than those who did not. Several studies in both the United States and Japan have shown that, controlling for prior aggression, children who played more violent video games during the beginning of the school year showed more aggression than their peers later in the school year. A 2005 FBI report includes playing violent video games in a list of behaviors associated with school shootings.

How many more of these links will have to be made before we realize the impact of what we teach our children - whose minds are moldable and have such great potential...for both good and evil. It is our responsibility, not only as concerned citizens of this great nation, but also as neighbors, and teachers, and friends to take a stand.

The negative effects of video games are generally caused by a multitude of nuanced factors at work when younger teens play violent games. I will approach two of these from a psychological lens b.c. lazy and time.

(1) Operant conditioning

Operant conditioning, sometimes referred to as instrumental learning, is a method of learning that occurs through rewards and punishments for behavior. It encourages the subject to associate pleasure (positive) or displeasure (negative) with the type of behavior.


Several studies have shown that violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others.


In fact, video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors. Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished.

Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts. A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway.

This is especially potent for the age group we are discussing as children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games.

Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. This immersion only cements the negative effects of operant conditioning that have always been present.

(2) Desensitization

Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. This is generally because it is common for victims in video games to disappear off screen when they are killed or for players to have multiple lives. This reinforces in the players, in a subconscious sense, the low worth of human life.

Violent video games further teach youth that violence is an acceptable conflict-solving strategy and an appropriate way to achieve one's goals. A 2009 study found that youth who play violent video games have lower belief in the use of nonviolent strategies and are less forgiving than players of nonviolent video games.

In a 2005 study, violent video game exposure was linked to the reduction of P300 amplitudes in the brain. The P300 (P3) wave is related to the process of decision making. It is considered to be an endogenous potential, as its occurrence links not to the physical attributes of a stimulus, but to a person's reaction to it. More specifically, the P300 is thought to reflect processes involved in stimulus evaluation or categorization. Source. These are crucial for teenage decision making processes and lessening of them can have disastrous effects.

Finally, exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy in players. In a 2004 study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Professor Jeanne Funk, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings, plays an important role in the process of moral evaluation and is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior.

This article was incredibly poorly researched. Having read all of Grossman's books, and having heard him speak a few times I think the article is seriously missing the point.
Firstly, Grossman didn't have anything to do with making soldiers better at killing people, in On Killing he cites the work of S.L.A. Marshall who was quite succesfull in changing Military training to be more effective with respect to soldiers pulling actually shooting to kill. Not the work Grossman himself has done.
Grossman has a severe issue with how these techniques have bled into our society at large and much of On Killing covers these concerns, along with another entire book called "Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie & Video Game Violence" http://www.amazon.ca/Stop-Teaching-Our-Kids-Kill/dp/0609606131

So, it would be the polar opposite of this book?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stop-Teaching-Our-Kids-Kill/dp/0609606131 - It does have poor reviews, however. Some of the Authors/Psychologists books are 5 star.

I mean it's not a resource as such but merely an observation, in games like TF2 or most FPS you violate peoples preferences when you kill them. And this could be considered bad. Most of the time we don't care because people just shrug it off "i died oh well". But the issue is with hedonistic ethical theory if it hurts people you want to win at a game by making them angry/frustrated/

• sad/disappointed it could well be considered bad to thwart peoples progress on online games.
  
  I mean people have rejected this argument but a metaphor is that people play videos games as retraction/distraction/escapism just like people go to the beach to relax and sunbathe, and if you started riding a buggy around you would ruin it for them same as killing people in games. There are several objections such as, well each party should go where is appropriate like a quiet beach and a beach for buggys. However what if there is only one beach?. Which is the case for lobbied games in such as call of duty, where there is no choice of server, so you can't choose similar skilled opponents?
  
  Video games are odd in this respect. Because pretty much every who plays them wants to win, but they are doomed to fail.