Anyone here who knows a bit about cognitive psychology? I'm wondering this, mainly: if it *looks* like killing a real person and *feels* like killing a real person (talking about tactile experiences here, not emotions) and *sounds* like killing a real person, is the brain still able to make as clear-cut a distinction between what is real and what is virtual?
Yes.
In genocides, plenty of murderers walk away feeling they've done nothing wrong because they didn't kill any REAL people. If we can make a distinction when there isn't one, we can sure make a distinction when there is, no matter how faint.
That doesn't make any sense, at least to me.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
I do not care to get into an argument about whether games are art or what not, but I would like to say if elephant poo on a canvas is considered "art" why the hell can't ICO or hell even Manhunt be art? I guess art is really just in the eye of the beholder.
When it comes to these hypothetical ultra realistic games, I think the most pressing concern for society is at what point do they stop being virtual characters, but instead become sentient beings? I am thinking about the Doctor from Star Trek. Like Thirith sort of hit on, if it walks like a duck, talks likes a duck, and look likes a duck, wouldn't it be a duck?
Man, this thread is deep. :P
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Anyone here who knows a bit about cognitive psychology? I'm wondering this, mainly: if it *looks* like killing a real person and *feels* like killing a real person (talking about tactile experiences here, not emotions) and *sounds* like killing a real person, is the brain still able to make as clear-cut a distinction between what is real and what is virtual?
Yes.
In genocides, plenty of murderers walk away feeling they've done nothing wrong because they didn't kill any REAL people. If we can make a distinction when there isn't one, we can sure make a distinction when there is, no matter how faint.
That doesn't make any sense, at least to me.
The human behavior or my argument based on it? I think the conclusion I draw is pretty sound. Explaining the behavior? Good luck.
ZackSchilling on
0
Options
RoshinMy backlog can be seen from spaceSwedenRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
What surprises me is that these threads always end up being about Manhunt.
Anyone here who knows a bit about cognitive psychology? I'm wondering this, mainly: if it *looks* like killing a real person and *feels* like killing a real person (talking about tactile experiences here, not emotions) and *sounds* like killing a real person, is the brain still able to make as clear-cut a distinction between what is real and what is virtual?
Yes.
In genocides, plenty of murderers walk away feeling they've done nothing wrong because they didn't kill any REAL people. If we can make a distinction when there isn't one, we can sure make a distinction when there is, no matter how faint.
That doesn't make any sense, at least to me.
The human behavior or my argument based on it? I think the conclusion I draw is pretty sound. Explaining the behavior? Good luck.
Your argument doesn't make any sense. You say that genocidal murderers for instance can come to see real people as unreal. This doesn't say anything about their ability to accurately distinguish between real and not - as a matter of fact, it suggests that for whatever reason they fail to make an accurate distinction in the case of the people they've killed. If some people can come to see real people as unreal, then the opposite may also be true (although this is not a given) - but it definitely doesn't allow for the conclusion you're drawing, at least not according to any logic that I understand.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Anyone here who knows a bit about cognitive psychology? I'm wondering this, mainly: if it *looks* like killing a real person and *feels* like killing a real person (talking about tactile experiences here, not emotions) and *sounds* like killing a real person, is the brain still able to make as clear-cut a distinction between what is real and what is virtual?
Yes.
In genocides, plenty of murderers walk away feeling they've done nothing wrong because they didn't kill any REAL people. If we can make a distinction when there isn't one, we can sure make a distinction when there is, no matter how faint.
That doesn't make any sense, at least to me.
The human behavior or my argument based on it? I think the conclusion I draw is pretty sound. Explaining the behavior? Good luck.
Your argument doesn't make any sense. You say that genocidal murderers for instance can come to see real people as unreal. This doesn't say anything about their ability to accurately distinguish between real and not - as a matter of fact, it suggests that for whatever reason they fail to make an accurate distinction in the case of the people they've killed. If some people can come to see real people as unreal, then the opposite may also be true (although this is not a given) - but it definitely doesn't allow for the conclusion you're drawing, at least not according to any logic that I understand.
In order to draw a line between killing a hyper-realistic simulation of a person and killing a real person, you need to be capable of dehumanizing something that looks like a person, feels like a person, and sounds like a person.
Since historically, otherwise normal people have dehumanized actual humans, then killed them without remorse, it doesn't seem so far fetched that they'd be able to do the same thing to a simulation. The capability to wall off hyper-realistic simulation experiences seems like it should be related to walling off actual experiences.
In the same sense that, when you are having a vivid hallucination you think that the walls are melting, and then afterwards you go "oh, the walls are in fact solid." Disconfirming evidence (not being arrested for murder, not actually living in the Crimean War period, not have 6 laser-arms in real life) would surface pretty quickly after a game finished. "Your brain" is more than an elaborate sensory suite.
Okay, I see your point now - but that's not what I was saying (so I was probably not making myself clear). I can easily accept that people would play these hyperrealistic games and accept them as *not real*, but would this perhaps make it easier for them in the long run to look at real people and perceive them as *not real*? At the moment we're still miles away from games that simulate reality convincingly. We may get nice visuals and sounds, but there's still a huge disconnect between what we do and how this translates into in-game actions. No one in their right mind would currently mistake a real person for a virtual one. If representation becomes so life-like that we are not constantly reminded of the 'virtualness' of the game and that we're no longer removed by a 2D screen, what kind of an effect would this have on our perception of what is real?
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Plus, unlike dreams and hallucinations, playing the game wouldn't click off the memory-storage/fact-checking portion of your brain, a side-effect that so commonly accompanies such experiences. When the walls are melting in a hallucination or you step from one room into outer space in a dream, there's no alarm that goes off to let you know the world has stopped making sense. In a game, you'd look around and think "what the hell is this?"
I think that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. had a decent AI for this kind of thing, even if they didn't intend it. You might have some guy fight along side you one day, just because you were in the same place at the wrong time. The next day, you might find him getting gnawed on by a pack of dogs or dragged into a fire. It was also emotional when you saw someone on the ground and you prepared to end their life, but just before you did, you hear a whispered cry of "Mama..."
Justify why you need to kill another man who is scared and crying for his mother. Even if it is a computer generated one.
Yeah, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was surprisingly good for this. Despite most NPCs being generic, the oppressive atmosphere somehow made them more human. The assassination missions got to me a lot, because most of the time the target wasn't actually hostile towards you.
I remember following one guy, he was with a bunch of other Stalkers, and waiting for him to set up a campfire. Then I shot him in the head and ran from his comrades. But I actually felt pretty bad killing a character who had done nothing to me and was just trying to get by.
We have only to watch young dogs to see that all the essentials of human play are present in their merry gambols. They invite one another to play by a certain ceremoniousness of attitude and gesture. They keep to the rule that you shall not bite, or not bite hard, your brother's ear. They pretend to get terribly angry. And -- what is most important -- in all these doings they plainly experience tremendous fun and enjoyment. Such rompings of young dogs are only one of the simpler forms of animal play. There are other, much more highly developed forms: regular contests and beautiful performances before an admiring public.
Symbolic play is not just fundamental to human psychology. It is fundamental to life. People who have trouble understanding that a playful representation of something is different from the real thing -- that heroic shooting rampages with bulletproof protagonists don't happen in real life -- are broken people.
Although I agree with what you're trying to say, this is a pretty terrible example to use. Why are the dogs playing? They play in order to practice at life skills, such as fighting and hunting. I am not one to think that animals have no personality or thought to their actions - quite the opposite - but I have to acknowledge that playing is essentially the pantomiming of much more serious actions that the dogs will eventually need to do, and do well to live (at least, in their "natural" environment). So, by this example, playing Manhunt is essentially training :P Of course this is exactly the wrong message and one that comes up far too often in the media, but I feel like your comparison reinforces this rather than differentiating, as intended.
METAzraeL on
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
I ran into this sometimes in Bully, believe it or not. Although most of the time the violence was just kind of goofy and cartoonish, sometimes you'd run into somebody who would start crying or sob, "Please, stop..." while you were being mean to them. It was always kind of disturbing when that happened.
I can't watch stuff like Turistas or Hostile or Saw. At that point, the images being shown look so realistic, and the reactions of the people being harmed are so true to life, that I might as well just be watching an actual person get butchered; something I never want to see. I think the term Gorn is very appropriate.
Once video games can approach that level of detail, then it'll be too much for me. When Chris Redfield getting his head chopped off looks every bit as real as a real decapitation, then I won't play it.
Until they create an enemy AI that wants to just throw down his gun and surrender to you, then I will continue to shoot them in the face and not think much of it. Even though they might have a realistic model and good voice acting - they aren't acting human.
We've had that. For a long, long time now. Metal Gear Solid, get playing.
Interestingly enough, when guards were held up (or willingly surrendered in MGS4) I found it almost impossible to kill them. Especially when they begged for their life in MGS2.
Until they create an enemy AI that wants to just throw down his gun and surrender to you, then I will continue to shoot them in the face and not think much of it. Even though they might have a realistic model and good voice acting - they aren't acting human.
We've had that. For a long, long time now. Metal Gear Solid, get playing.
Interestingly enough, when guards were held up (or willingly surrendered in MGS4) I found it almost impossible to kill them. Especially when they begged for their life in MGS2.
Lucky there's a tranq gun, huh. I'd feel better if more games had non-lethal weapons like the tranq gun or Deus Ex's mini-crossbow.
I think we already have some pretty realistic killing simulators, in the form of sound stages, theater stages, and other opportunities for actors to dress up as killers, wield realistic simulations of lethal weapons, and put themselves -- for play -- in the mindset of a killer.
I think there is some grain of truth to the idea of a "murder simulator" -- but some of the ways people incorrectly apply that grain of truth, and draw incorrect conclusions, make me worry.
When I'm playing Forza 2 with my MS Force Feedback wheel and racing around a track, I know I am playing a game and I know within the context of the game it is OK for me to disregard important safety rules. I can blindly assume that all of the other cars on the track will be traveling in my direction, that there will be no intersections with other roads and no contact with traffic not participating in the race. I never have to mentally prepare myself for what I would do if I turn a blind corner and find a child crossing the road at the worst possible moment.
Yet I know that some of what I experience in the game can be applied to real life. Some of the things you learn about race driving can also be applied to safe driving in icy conditions, for example.
If I were to play a game which accurately simulated the act of stalking and killing another human -- and I'm imagining a perfect simulation, something to make proud any of the sci-fi authors of the past two decades -- the act of playing this game would certainly teach me about which ways to kill are more or less effective than others. I could file that knowledge away under "things I will only need to know when playing this game" or perhaps "things to remember if I must save myself from someone trying to kill me, like in the movies". If I was really sick in the head I would file them under "things to remember when I eventually act out my revenge fantasy." (I am not sick in the head and have no such fantasies, of course.)
As a person who self-identifies with good morals and ethics and who has never considered killing someone, I believe there are many things I would need to change in myself before I would be capable of killing. It's disturbing to try to come up with this list, but: I have a hard time getting angry, and I think someone needs to be extremely angry to deliberately kill; I have no experience using lethal weapons -- except for firing a few rounds from a .22 rifle as a cub scout, over 20 years ago. I try to always be aware that my understanding of events may be inaccurate, and I would avoid killing others because I would want others to avoid killing me due to a misunderstanding. I don't like to harm others, especially in ways where that harm can never be undone. There can be severe legal penalties for killing, depending on the circumstances. There can be negative social consequences for killing, depending on the circumstances. Finally and perhaps least significantly, my religion prohibits killing humans.
If I had experience with a sort of sci-fi-wet-dream killing simulator, that would remove only one of the above elements which I anticipate would stop me from killing: lack of experience with lethal weapons. I believe the other elements wouldn't change.
This discussion does have a "reduction to absurdity" point, where one could argue about the existance of a killing game where someone could be tricked into believing they were still playing the game, could act as if they were killing in the game, but instead kill in real life without realizing they weren't playing a game at the time.
Do remember, though, that these simulation systems are designed by humans, and good designers will work to make it difficult for humans to make extremely serious mistakes, especially when lethal weapons are involved.
Not all designers are good designers. What keeps these lethal systems from being created to be confusingly similar to games?
Instead of spelling out my opinions on the matter, I'll raise some questions. What sort of development effort, with what vague sense of budget size, would be required to build games with interaction designs extremely similar to existing weapon systems? What sort of effort, with what vague sense of budget size, would be required to build weapon systems with interaction designs extremely similar to existing games?
Would it be the weapon systems that "cross the line" toward creepy similarity first? Who funds these weapon systems? Who makes them? What standards are these interaction designers held to? Does anyone think for a second that systems will be designed and implemented and funded for significant fractions of / multiples of a billion dollars, but will lack design steps that make it easy for a user to briefly forget they aren't playing a video game and accidentally kill someone?
I think the closest thing we have today to a weapon system that's confusingly similar to a video game would be the workstation used by a stateside UAV pilot, remotely controlling a UAV in the middle east. Aren't there articles about these systems and the people who use them? Those systems aren't really confusingly similar at all, are they? Their users aren't able to use deadly force against an on-screen target without getting permission from a third party first, are they?
I think the debate about video-game-killing crossing over into real-life killing belongs exclusively in the domain of "things that happen to people with existing psychological problems." This idea of a system which makes reasonable, rational people kill real-life people while believing they are killing video-game people seems absurd, because (1) these systems would be technologically sophisticated, (2) it takes a large community of people to build the technology or assemble the systems required, (3) human society already has an "immune system" that would use debate, discussion, and eventually call for action and legislation, to limit or modify such systems so they cannot trick humans into killing by mistake.
With that "reduction to absurdity" discussion resolved -- right? I don't mean to be pushy, and there may be something I've missed -- we are left with existing discussions about ethics and about people with a damaged ability to discern game actions with real actions.
mspencer on
MEMBER OF THE PARANOIA GM GUILD
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
I can't stand violence where a lot of pain is involved, e.g. manhunt. I hate movies like Hostel. I also don't like killing people in games who haven't really harmed me: like those guards you teach moves to in FFVII (I know, I'm lame).
Head explosions in FO3 are so over the top, however, that they didn't really bother me.
Of couse, justification in games is a funny thing: I shot the dick off any asshole in Fable 2 who kicked my dog.
Funny you mention that. I felt sorrier for the guards in the submarine that the group hijacks. They're forced to ride in the sub with you, and the whole time they're basically freaking out and even praising the group through the whole experience. It's like they're silently begging Cloud's group not to execute them once they were done with the mission.
I can't watch stuff like Turistas or Hostile or Saw. At that point, the images being shown look so realistic, and the reactions of the people being harmed are so true to life, that I might as well just be watching an actual person get butchered; something I never want to see. I think the term Gorn is very appropriate.
Once video games can approach that level of detail, then it'll be too much for me. When Chris Redfield getting his head chopped off looks every bit as real as a real decapitation, then I won't play it.
Since Hostel is being brought up a lot, I'll comment on it.
Mostly I can watch these movies without being truly revolted. But Hostel, I believe, crossed the line involving one particular scene.
The asian girl who had her eyeball severed
To this day, I still haven't completely recovered from seeing that. The thing is, that scene isn't scary, or bone chilling. It's just cruel. It's like watching somebody stomp a puppy. The victim did absolutely nothing to deserve it (most horror movies, the main cast is unlikeable in some way that you don't feel completely saddened when their time comes, and usually the truly innocent character is the one that gets away), yet the filmmakers went to great details to make that person suffer horribly just for the sake of it. There wasn't any emotional payoff, unless you truly were some depraved psycho in the audience who proclaimed "Yes!" when it was over.
I was semi hooked to the movie up until that point. Eli Roth went too far with that bit, and I think it's poetic justice that his sequel bombed.
I saw some episode of Law and Order: SVU today that dealt with violence in gaming. Some guy apparently had trouble distinguishing between fiction and reality, shouting for the game to stop telling him to kill people whilst moving his hands like he was using a controller.
...Seriously? Ow, my brain.
I hate Law and Order; they're so preachy and bias that sometimes they rival 7th Heaven.
This idea that everyone says "I just don't have it in me to be a killer" is complete bull.
Because almost *everyone* says this, yet I think the history of the human race has shown that there is almost no one for whom this is actually true.
The fact is, just about everyone is capable of killing, you don't have to be psychological disturbed. You just need a good enough reason.
As for video game violence. What concerns me about it isn't that people who are exposed to a lot of realistic violence in movies and games are more likely to commit violence, but I think people who are constantly exposed to fictional violence that is portrayed in painstakingly detailed realism, are likely to be less sickened and disturbed when they see actual violence.
This is potentially problematic because one of the strong factors that motivates society to set up rules and systems to prevent and punish violent behavior, beyond the simple fear of having violence done to themselves, is the revulsion most people have when they see or hear about violence done to their fellow human beings. If constant exposure to violence make people less bothered by it, they will care less about stopping it, and in turn the society will become more violent.
This is potentially problematic because one of the strong factors that motivates society to set up rules and systems to prevent and punish violent behavior, beyond the simple fear of having violence done to themselves, is the revulsion most people have when they see or hear about violence done to their fellow human beings. If constant exposure to violence make people less bothered by it, they will care less about stopping it, and in turn the society will become more violent.
Jack Bauer, and torture.
I swear, the number of times I've heard the "Jack Bauer" defence for using torture...
My mom plays the Sims games. She enjoys them, and has Sims 2 along with several expansions.
When she talks about them to other people, she talks about them as basically hi-tech dolls, fun toys she plays with to kill time and such.
She doesn't really like violent video games, or fast, reflex-based games. The Sims takes something she enjoyed as a little girl (playing with dolls in an elaborate dollhouse) and gives her a new way to enjoy it.
The one time, my brother was on her computer dorking around with the game. He wasn't on her saved game, he had made a new game. He had used cheat codes in order to make stuff happen and screw with the Sims. Light them on fire, remove all the toilets so they pee their pants, etc.
He was having fun and chuckling about it, in the sort of absently sadistic way that little boys burn bugs with a magnifying glass.
My mom got really upset about it, and gave him shit for it.
And in listening to her give him crap for what he was doing, she made an interesting viewpoint:
The way she saw them, the Sims were not people. Of course they weren't people. She didn't compare them to people.
She did, however, compare them to animals. She compared them, in a way, to pets. She pointed out that Sims have hopes, desires, fears, and things that upset them. That they can, in a way, feel pain and suffer and they will try to avoid things they do not like.
My brother tried to counter-point that the only reason that Sims feel these things is because programmers programmed them to feel them, and that made those feelings not real. That Sims weren't self-aware, didn't understand why they felt the things they felt, they just did what they were programmed.
My mother questioned how that makes them different than say, a goldfish or a dog, and my brother didn't have a good answer that.
More importantly, she raised an interesting question: If you have an artificial intelligence that is pretty close if not equivalent to an animal, and that intelligence is designed in such a way that it is capable of suffering, if you choose to make that intelligence suffer to amuse yourself, is that not cruel?
Doesn't it speak poorly of the person? I mean, when we see people torment and torture animals for their own amusement, most folk are repulsed. Not just because they feel sorry for the animal, but because the enjoyment the person is deriving from making these things says something really bad about the person.
As artificial intelligence technology advances, before we ever get even close to creating truly sapient AI on par with humans, we're going to create "in-between" steps of AI that might appear human, but are probably closer to the intellectual capacity of a dog or ape.
If we design that AI to be capable of suffering, and in turn we deliberately provoke that suffering, does that say something really bad about us? Isn't that comparable to animal cruelty?
This is potentially problematic because one of the strong factors that motivates society to set up rules and systems to prevent and punish violent behavior, beyond the simple fear of having violence done to themselves, is the revulsion most people have when they see or hear about violence done to their fellow human beings. If constant exposure to violence make people less bothered by it, they will care less about stopping it, and in turn the society will become more violent.
The oh dear affect has already done that. People generally don't give a shit unless the violence is occuring in their own backyard, and even then only if it might affect them. I mean how moved were you when you heard about black diamond bay?
The great thing about gaming is that there are so many types of games. If you prefer not to play a violent game, you have many other choices. People have different tastes and get enjoyment from different things. You can't say that what is fun, enjoyable, distasteful, etc., applies to everyone equally. There is no right or wrong answer here.
As for me, there isn't a game out there that I find distasteful. Blood and guts are even more enjoyable during MP play. I can't explain the kinda satisfaction I receive after seeing your head in-game blow up and rain blood.
This idea that everyone says "I just don't have it in me to be a killer" is complete bull.
Because almost *everyone* says this, yet I think the history of the human race has shown that there is almost no one for whom this is actually true.
I think you're missing, oh, I don't know, the huge amount of people that won't kill in war. In WWII, it would appear that only 50% of soldiers would even fire a gun at all.
Even with the more advanced training of today, 1 in 50 soldiers will refuse to fire when placed in actual combat, and nothing can be done to switch that part of the brain off after, which suggest there is a huge mental barrier being removed.
It's difficult to plot previous conflicts to that, and society changes incredibly in very short time spans, but at no point was the majority of the human race murderous.
I think quite possibly you could convince people with clear immediate benefit, but that's not usually present in war.
Rainbow Six: Vegas always makes me feel weird. The ragdolls are exceedingly believable; people crumple to the floor when shot, they don't go flying around in funny poses (except from explosives, I suppose). And a lot of times they jerk around a lot and make choking noises, as if they're bleeding to death from a gunshot wound. Sure, the AI isn't too good, but their deaths are believable enough to bother me a bit.
GTA4 has a similar effect, seeing people jerk back or stumble believably when hit. And they also tend to fall into believable poses. And when they crawl away wounded too, man. Still shoot them cause it's my job but it's kinda weird.
Yes, I wish all games that involves shooting people have a surrender mechanic in the game, where the combatant that knows they are out gunned will just lay down their weapon with their hands up and you have the option of letting them go.
Perfect Dark did this to some extent a decade ago.
Madworld was too much for me. Nothing other than brutally murdering people as badly as possible. It didn't appeal.
psyck0 on
Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
Man, gore is nothing to me. Even sad scenes like say seeing your fellow soldier die slowly would not make me stop playing a game. Because the emotional aspect to a game is not something that is inherently bad.
But there are game types I'd never play. Anything sadistic, like playing as a murderer or rapist, would be right out with me. I mean, I can take being a drug dealing asshole who kills the occasional cop like in Saint's Row, but a game that was purely about enjoying torture or murder would never work for me.
Then again there are exceptions even to that.
Hell most of the reason I loved Carmageddon 2 so much was running over pedestrians and getting points for it.
Until they create an enemy AI that wants to just throw down his gun and surrender to you, then I will continue to shoot them in the face and not think much of it. Even though they might have a realistic model and good voice acting - they aren't acting human.
We've had that. For a long, long time now. Metal Gear Solid, get playing.
Interestingly enough, when guards were held up (or willingly surrendered in MGS4) I found it almost impossible to kill them. Especially when they begged for their life in MGS2.
If the guards wake up, they instantly set off the alarm.
Also wanted to briefly mention Dead Space. The game is without a doubt one of the goriest experiences I've ever played, but it's downplayed somewhat by the fact that the mutated humans are already dead at the point they take such horrific shapes.
Even so, the enemy zombaliens (yes, I'm still calling them that) that are attatched to walls while carrying an engorged sack that spits out baby zombaliens is quite disturbing. The way they scream their heads off while endlessly giving birth to little fetus creatures is just nasty, and it's even worse when their screams increase while you're blasting away at them. They take a lot of shots to bring down too, so it's basically an exercise in mental patience as you're trying to put this disgusting mutation out of its misery.
Bottom line, dead or alive, I hate it when they scream and writhe around while you're just trying to kill them off and advance to the next area.
This idea that everyone says "I just don't have it in me to be a killer" is complete bull.
Because almost *everyone* says this, yet I think the history of the human race has shown that there is almost no one for whom this is actually true.
I think you're missing, oh, I don't know, the huge amount of people that won't kill in war. In WWII, it would appear that only 50% of soldiers would even fire a gun at all.
Even with the more advanced training of today, 1 in 50 soldiers will refuse to fire when placed in actual combat, and nothing can be done to switch that part of the brain off after, which suggest there is a huge mental barrier being removed.
It's difficult to plot previous conflicts to that, and society changes incredibly in very short time spans, but at no point was the majority of the human race murderous.
I think quite possibly you could convince people with clear immediate benefit, but that's not usually present in war.
I certainly can't speak for all soldiers, but for me went shit went down two things happened to me. First I got pissed that some mother fucker was trying to kill me or my buddies. Of course I understand the irony in this. Second, about the only thought going through my head was, "Oh shit, oh shit, oh shit!". My body just went through the motions really. Chalk that up to training I guess.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
This idea that everyone says "I just don't have it in me to be a killer" is complete bull.
Because almost *everyone* says this, yet I think the history of the human race has shown that there is almost no one for whom this is actually true.
I think you're missing, oh, I don't know, the huge amount of people that won't kill in war. In WWII, it would appear that only 50% of soldiers would even fire a gun at all.
Even with the more advanced training of today, 1 in 50 soldiers will refuse to fire when placed in actual combat, and nothing can be done to switch that part of the brain off after, which suggest there is a huge mental barrier being removed.
It's difficult to plot previous conflicts to that, and society changes incredibly in very short time spans, but at no point was the majority of the human race murderous.
I think quite possibly you could convince people with clear immediate benefit, but that's not usually present in war.
First of all, I don't believe the 50% stat, I want some citations for that one.
I'd also like to see the 1 in 50 stat, and get some working definition of what "place in actual combat" means.
I never said a majority of the human race are murderous, only that a majority of human race are capable of killing under the right conditions. It doesn't mean they have a desire to kill, or that they would do it under normal circumstances.
People all the time do things that before hand they could never see themselves doing, and afterwards are incredulous about what they've done. That's why the "I could never be a killer" line is meaningless.
This idea that everyone says "I just don't have it in me to be a killer" is complete bull.
Because almost *everyone* says this, yet I think the history of the human race has shown that there is almost no one for whom this is actually true.
I think you're missing, oh, I don't know, the huge amount of people that won't kill in war. In WWII, it would appear that only 50% of soldiers would even fire a gun at all.
Even with the more advanced training of today, 1 in 50 soldiers will refuse to fire when placed in actual combat, and nothing can be done to switch that part of the brain off after, which suggest there is a huge mental barrier being removed.
It's difficult to plot previous conflicts to that, and society changes incredibly in very short time spans, but at no point was the majority of the human race murderous.
I think quite possibly you could convince people with clear immediate benefit, but that's not usually present in war.
First of all, I don't believe the 50% stat, I want some citations for that one.
I'd also like to see the 1 in 50 stat, and get some working definition of what "place in actual combat" means.
I never said a majority of the human race are murderous, only that a majority of human race are capable of killing under the right conditions. It doesn't mean they have a desire to kill, or that they would do it under normal circumstances.
People all the time do things that before hand they could never see themselves doing, and afterwards are incredulous about what they've done. That's why the "I could never be a killer" line is meaningless.
I'm at work, so I can't really look into backing that ip right now,I'm not exactly sure where the figures are from, and if you can cite figures that contradict go right ahead, but I want to answer the other things.
Also remember that 1 in 50 means that the training has a 98% success rate. You don't think there are soldiers that when they are on the battlefield, refuse to kill? What I meant by actual combat was both sides shooting to kill.
@Axen, yeah, that's what I mean, the training means that you shoot back, I'd imagine to kill, or at least know there's a chance of you killing. But I'm pretty sure you're not a conscript, you went into the army looking to be in that situation?
Soldiers are also likely to represent those most likely to be willing to kill, so one can assume successful training renders a larger proportion of those capable of the act than it would of the general populace. It's an evolutionary thing, that you probably for the most part don't want the urge to kill your own kind. Though you do want to be able to harm other tribes if they threaten your set of genes.
But your point was you don't have to be psychologically disturbed to kill. Now without being trained to kill, I would say that the point at which an average person would have to be pushed to to kill is past the point where they might be considered psychologically disturbed. I can't think of many points where a standing army was the majority of the population, but feel free to correct me on that if you can.
(At all the soldiers here, I'm not casting aspersion on your state of mind, but there is probably a difference in your mind to a pacifist's)
I think nailing down specific numbers is a bit too far removed from the discussion on the positive versus negative effects of violence in video games, and what ethical burdens should be placed upon people who create games.
Or to put it another way, I don't think the discussion changes significantly in either direction. I may be wrong though.
My sense of it is: there are a large number of logical and/or emotional barriers people can have which prevents them from killing. These barriers are present in different combinations in different people, and can be effective to various degrees. When not enough of these barriers exist, people can be "broken" in one way, and commit murder. When these barriers are too effective, people (like myself) can be "broken" in another way, and be incapable of using deadly force when it is called for.
Violence in games doesn't affect ALL of these barriers -- it only affects some of them, perhaps none of them. So there's a social tradeoff, positive versus negative. Positive effects would be the artistic benefits of making people think about violence when they are otherwise not exposed to it. Negative effects would be the rare cases where the ONLY thing stopping a broken person from killing was the experience gained from a violent video game.
Which is more valuable to our society: free artistic expression, or saving the unknown numbers (zero or more) of lives of people killed by people pushed over the edge by violent video games? Does the answer change if your value system is that of an American constitutional scholar? Or that of a Chinese bureucrat? Or that of any of the other value systems on our planet?
mspencer on
MEMBER OF THE PARANOIA GM GUILD
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
I think that people close enough to the edge to be pushed over it by violent video games as they currently are are over the edge enough to be pushed over the edge by almost any artistic form of input. These people are tragic, but I don't think that any media should suffer for it because almost never is it signficantly to do with the media in question.
However, the fact that we recognise the fact that is murder represented on screen is interesting, and raises a couple of interesting questions about how abstraction works in our minds. However, as we aren't really doing any physical action the effect tends to be minimal on us, I would feel.
SilkyNumNuts on
0
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
This idea that everyone says "I just don't have it in me to be a killer" is complete bull.
Because almost *everyone* says this, yet I think the history of the human race has shown that there is almost no one for whom this is actually true.
I think you're missing, oh, I don't know, the huge amount of people that won't kill in war. In WWII, it would appear that only 50% of soldiers would even fire a gun at all.
Even with the more advanced training of today, 1 in 50 soldiers will refuse to fire when placed in actual combat, and nothing can be done to switch that part of the brain off after, which suggest there is a huge mental barrier being removed.
It's difficult to plot previous conflicts to that, and society changes incredibly in very short time spans, but at no point was the majority of the human race murderous.
I think quite possibly you could convince people with clear immediate benefit, but that's not usually present in war.
First of all, I don't believe the 50% stat, I want some citations for that one.
I'd also like to see the 1 in 50 stat, and get some working definition of what "place in actual combat" means.
I never said a majority of the human race are murderous, only that a majority of human race are capable of killing under the right conditions. It doesn't mean they have a desire to kill, or that they would do it under normal circumstances.
People all the time do things that before hand they could never see themselves doing, and afterwards are incredulous about what they've done. That's why the "I could never be a killer" line is meaningless.
I'm at work, so I can't really look into backing that ip right now,I'm not exactly sure where the figures are from, and if you can cite figures that contradict go right ahead, but I want to answer the other things.
Also remember that 1 in 50 means that the training has a 98% success rate. You don't think there are soldiers that when they are on the battlefield, refuse to kill? What I meant by actual combat was both sides shooting to kill.
@Axen, yeah, that's what I mean, the training means that you shoot back, I'd imagine to kill, or at least know there's a chance of you killing. But I'm pretty sure you're not a conscript, you went into the army looking to be in that situation?
Soldiers are also likely to represent those most likely to be willing to kill, so one can assume successful training renders a larger proportion of those capable of the act than it would of the general populace. It's an evolutionary thing, that you probably for the most part don't want the urge to kill your own kind. Though you do want to be able to harm other tribes if they threaten your set of genes.
But your point was you don't have to be psychologically disturbed to kill. Now without being trained to kill, I would say that the point at which an average person would have to be pushed to to kill is past the point where they might be considered psychologically disturbed. I can't think of many points where a standing army was the majority of the population, but feel free to correct me on that if you can.
(At all the soldiers here, I'm not casting aspersion on your state of mind, but there is probably a difference in your mind to a pacifist's)
Bold'd part got me thinking. I agree with what you say, but I now wonder what it is that makes the people such. Despite what the media may think, we actually get people from all walks of life in the military. Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, rich, poor, college educated, high school dropouts with GEDs, nerds, jocks, Christians, satanists, people from all religions, even Buddhists! Well you get the picture.
Is it simply the way people are born? Or do most people have a weak enough "block" that military training breaks it down?
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Yeah, I'm aware that it does attract a disparate selction, but I couldn't really hazard a guess as to what attracts people to it, and why it's so disparate.
You raise an interesting point, though. But there must be an initial urge to be a person that could kill, I would think, before they'd join an organisation that is for killing, and thus before that training, so there must be a uniting factor, or several.
SilkyNumNuts on
0
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
Well I will say one thing. At least while I was in Iraq in 04/05 we were not allowed to shoot at enemies unless they were shooting at us first. I think that makes a big difference with most people.
Plus, and I am just going to pull a number out of my ass here, I would say that 90% of the jobs in the army would never involve a person actually being in combat. Unless I am forgetting one, which I may, I think only Infantry, Combat Engineers, and Military Police would actually find themselves in combat. Aside from tank crews and the like, which isn't quite as personal.
edit- This is in response to the comment made a couple pages back about the monotone voice in COD4 as you are blowing bad guys away in the airplane. I think anyone who has been in the military would agree with this, but basically everyone who talks on the radio sounds like that, almost no matter the situation. Its the weirdest thing.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Well I will say one thing. At least while I was in Iraq in 04/05 we were not allowed to shoot at enemies unless they were shooting at us first. I think that makes a big difference with most people.
Plus, and I am just going to pull a number out of my ass here, I would say that 90% of the jobs in the army would never involve a person actually being in combat. Unless I am forgetting one, which I may, I think only Infantry, Combat Engineers, and Military Police would actually find themselves in combat. Aside from tank crews and the like, which isn't quite as personal.
Yeah, I would think the fact you're being fired upon would make it feel a lot more justified.
I was also wondering about that, but I don't know the details of the jobs. THose people who want to help their country but not kill for it I guess, plus I'd imagine more than a few see it as a relatively easy to get job with fairly high job security( again, not casting aspersions)
Also there's fairly aggressive recruitment in poorer areas, in the US, and it's a viable reasonably well paid job in a place where those are rare, no?
Posts
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
When it comes to these hypothetical ultra realistic games, I think the most pressing concern for society is at what point do they stop being virtual characters, but instead become sentient beings? I am thinking about the Doctor from Star Trek.
Man, this thread is deep. :P
The human behavior or my argument based on it? I think the conclusion I draw is pretty sound. Explaining the behavior? Good luck.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
In order to draw a line between killing a hyper-realistic simulation of a person and killing a real person, you need to be capable of dehumanizing something that looks like a person, feels like a person, and sounds like a person.
Since historically, otherwise normal people have dehumanized actual humans, then killed them without remorse, it doesn't seem so far fetched that they'd be able to do the same thing to a simulation. The capability to wall off hyper-realistic simulation experiences seems like it should be related to walling off actual experiences.
In the same sense that, when you are having a vivid hallucination you think that the walls are melting, and then afterwards you go "oh, the walls are in fact solid." Disconfirming evidence (not being arrested for murder, not actually living in the Crimean War period, not have 6 laser-arms in real life) would surface pretty quickly after a game finished. "Your brain" is more than an elaborate sensory suite.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
A game where you don't get arrested for killing people in the Crimean War period with your six laser-arms would be awesome.
Yeah, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was surprisingly good for this. Despite most NPCs being generic, the oppressive atmosphere somehow made them more human. The assassination missions got to me a lot, because most of the time the target wasn't actually hostile towards you.
I remember following one guy, he was with a bunch of other Stalkers, and waiting for him to set up a campfire. Then I shot him in the head and ran from his comrades. But I actually felt pretty bad killing a character who had done nothing to me and was just trying to get by.
Sorry buddy, I need the money to survive.
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
Once video games can approach that level of detail, then it'll be too much for me. When Chris Redfield getting his head chopped off looks every bit as real as a real decapitation, then I won't play it.
We've had that. For a long, long time now. Metal Gear Solid, get playing.
Interestingly enough, when guards were held up (or willingly surrendered in MGS4) I found it almost impossible to kill them. Especially when they begged for their life in MGS2.
Lucky there's a tranq gun, huh. I'd feel better if more games had non-lethal weapons like the tranq gun or Deus Ex's mini-crossbow.
I think there is some grain of truth to the idea of a "murder simulator" -- but some of the ways people incorrectly apply that grain of truth, and draw incorrect conclusions, make me worry.
When I'm playing Forza 2 with my MS Force Feedback wheel and racing around a track, I know I am playing a game and I know within the context of the game it is OK for me to disregard important safety rules. I can blindly assume that all of the other cars on the track will be traveling in my direction, that there will be no intersections with other roads and no contact with traffic not participating in the race. I never have to mentally prepare myself for what I would do if I turn a blind corner and find a child crossing the road at the worst possible moment.
Yet I know that some of what I experience in the game can be applied to real life. Some of the things you learn about race driving can also be applied to safe driving in icy conditions, for example.
If I were to play a game which accurately simulated the act of stalking and killing another human -- and I'm imagining a perfect simulation, something to make proud any of the sci-fi authors of the past two decades -- the act of playing this game would certainly teach me about which ways to kill are more or less effective than others. I could file that knowledge away under "things I will only need to know when playing this game" or perhaps "things to remember if I must save myself from someone trying to kill me, like in the movies". If I was really sick in the head I would file them under "things to remember when I eventually act out my revenge fantasy." (I am not sick in the head and have no such fantasies, of course.)
As a person who self-identifies with good morals and ethics and who has never considered killing someone, I believe there are many things I would need to change in myself before I would be capable of killing. It's disturbing to try to come up with this list, but: I have a hard time getting angry, and I think someone needs to be extremely angry to deliberately kill; I have no experience using lethal weapons -- except for firing a few rounds from a .22 rifle as a cub scout, over 20 years ago. I try to always be aware that my understanding of events may be inaccurate, and I would avoid killing others because I would want others to avoid killing me due to a misunderstanding. I don't like to harm others, especially in ways where that harm can never be undone. There can be severe legal penalties for killing, depending on the circumstances. There can be negative social consequences for killing, depending on the circumstances. Finally and perhaps least significantly, my religion prohibits killing humans.
If I had experience with a sort of sci-fi-wet-dream killing simulator, that would remove only one of the above elements which I anticipate would stop me from killing: lack of experience with lethal weapons. I believe the other elements wouldn't change.
This discussion does have a "reduction to absurdity" point, where one could argue about the existance of a killing game where someone could be tricked into believing they were still playing the game, could act as if they were killing in the game, but instead kill in real life without realizing they weren't playing a game at the time.
Do remember, though, that these simulation systems are designed by humans, and good designers will work to make it difficult for humans to make extremely serious mistakes, especially when lethal weapons are involved.
Not all designers are good designers. What keeps these lethal systems from being created to be confusingly similar to games?
Instead of spelling out my opinions on the matter, I'll raise some questions. What sort of development effort, with what vague sense of budget size, would be required to build games with interaction designs extremely similar to existing weapon systems? What sort of effort, with what vague sense of budget size, would be required to build weapon systems with interaction designs extremely similar to existing games?
Would it be the weapon systems that "cross the line" toward creepy similarity first? Who funds these weapon systems? Who makes them? What standards are these interaction designers held to? Does anyone think for a second that systems will be designed and implemented and funded for significant fractions of / multiples of a billion dollars, but will lack design steps that make it easy for a user to briefly forget they aren't playing a video game and accidentally kill someone?
I think the closest thing we have today to a weapon system that's confusingly similar to a video game would be the workstation used by a stateside UAV pilot, remotely controlling a UAV in the middle east. Aren't there articles about these systems and the people who use them? Those systems aren't really confusingly similar at all, are they? Their users aren't able to use deadly force against an on-screen target without getting permission from a third party first, are they?
I think the debate about video-game-killing crossing over into real-life killing belongs exclusively in the domain of "things that happen to people with existing psychological problems." This idea of a system which makes reasonable, rational people kill real-life people while believing they are killing video-game people seems absurd, because (1) these systems would be technologically sophisticated, (2) it takes a large community of people to build the technology or assemble the systems required, (3) human society already has an "immune system" that would use debate, discussion, and eventually call for action and legislation, to limit or modify such systems so they cannot trick humans into killing by mistake.
With that "reduction to absurdity" discussion resolved -- right? I don't mean to be pushy, and there may be something I've missed -- we are left with existing discussions about ethics and about people with a damaged ability to discern game actions with real actions.
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
Funny you mention that. I felt sorrier for the guards in the submarine that the group hijacks. They're forced to ride in the sub with you, and the whole time they're basically freaking out and even praising the group through the whole experience. It's like they're silently begging Cloud's group not to execute them once they were done with the mission.
Since Hostel is being brought up a lot, I'll comment on it.
Mostly I can watch these movies without being truly revolted. But Hostel, I believe, crossed the line involving one particular scene.
To this day, I still haven't completely recovered from seeing that. The thing is, that scene isn't scary, or bone chilling. It's just cruel. It's like watching somebody stomp a puppy. The victim did absolutely nothing to deserve it (most horror movies, the main cast is unlikeable in some way that you don't feel completely saddened when their time comes, and usually the truly innocent character is the one that gets away), yet the filmmakers went to great details to make that person suffer horribly just for the sake of it. There wasn't any emotional payoff, unless you truly were some depraved psycho in the audience who proclaimed "Yes!" when it was over.
I was semi hooked to the movie up until that point. Eli Roth went too far with that bit, and I think it's poetic justice that his sequel bombed.
Blog||Tumblr|Steam|Twitter|FFXIV|Twitch|YouTube|Podcast|PSN|XBL|DarkZero
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Because almost *everyone* says this, yet I think the history of the human race has shown that there is almost no one for whom this is actually true.
The fact is, just about everyone is capable of killing, you don't have to be psychological disturbed. You just need a good enough reason.
As for video game violence. What concerns me about it isn't that people who are exposed to a lot of realistic violence in movies and games are more likely to commit violence, but I think people who are constantly exposed to fictional violence that is portrayed in painstakingly detailed realism, are likely to be less sickened and disturbed when they see actual violence.
This is potentially problematic because one of the strong factors that motivates society to set up rules and systems to prevent and punish violent behavior, beyond the simple fear of having violence done to themselves, is the revulsion most people have when they see or hear about violence done to their fellow human beings. If constant exposure to violence make people less bothered by it, they will care less about stopping it, and in turn the society will become more violent.
Jack Bauer, and torture.
I swear, the number of times I've heard the "Jack Bauer" defence for using torture...
When she talks about them to other people, she talks about them as basically hi-tech dolls, fun toys she plays with to kill time and such.
She doesn't really like violent video games, or fast, reflex-based games. The Sims takes something she enjoyed as a little girl (playing with dolls in an elaborate dollhouse) and gives her a new way to enjoy it.
The one time, my brother was on her computer dorking around with the game. He wasn't on her saved game, he had made a new game. He had used cheat codes in order to make stuff happen and screw with the Sims. Light them on fire, remove all the toilets so they pee their pants, etc.
He was having fun and chuckling about it, in the sort of absently sadistic way that little boys burn bugs with a magnifying glass.
My mom got really upset about it, and gave him shit for it.
And in listening to her give him crap for what he was doing, she made an interesting viewpoint:
The way she saw them, the Sims were not people. Of course they weren't people. She didn't compare them to people.
She did, however, compare them to animals. She compared them, in a way, to pets. She pointed out that Sims have hopes, desires, fears, and things that upset them. That they can, in a way, feel pain and suffer and they will try to avoid things they do not like.
My brother tried to counter-point that the only reason that Sims feel these things is because programmers programmed them to feel them, and that made those feelings not real. That Sims weren't self-aware, didn't understand why they felt the things they felt, they just did what they were programmed.
My mother questioned how that makes them different than say, a goldfish or a dog, and my brother didn't have a good answer that.
More importantly, she raised an interesting question: If you have an artificial intelligence that is pretty close if not equivalent to an animal, and that intelligence is designed in such a way that it is capable of suffering, if you choose to make that intelligence suffer to amuse yourself, is that not cruel?
Doesn't it speak poorly of the person? I mean, when we see people torment and torture animals for their own amusement, most folk are repulsed. Not just because they feel sorry for the animal, but because the enjoyment the person is deriving from making these things says something really bad about the person.
As artificial intelligence technology advances, before we ever get even close to creating truly sapient AI on par with humans, we're going to create "in-between" steps of AI that might appear human, but are probably closer to the intellectual capacity of a dog or ape.
If we design that AI to be capable of suffering, and in turn we deliberately provoke that suffering, does that say something really bad about us? Isn't that comparable to animal cruelty?
The oh dear affect has already done that. People generally don't give a shit unless the violence is occuring in their own backyard, and even then only if it might affect them. I mean how moved were you when you heard about black diamond bay?
As for me, there isn't a game out there that I find distasteful. Blood and guts are even more enjoyable during MP play. I can't explain the kinda satisfaction I receive after seeing your head in-game blow up and rain blood.
I think you're missing, oh, I don't know, the huge amount of people that won't kill in war. In WWII, it would appear that only 50% of soldiers would even fire a gun at all.
Even with the more advanced training of today, 1 in 50 soldiers will refuse to fire when placed in actual combat, and nothing can be done to switch that part of the brain off after, which suggest there is a huge mental barrier being removed.
It's difficult to plot previous conflicts to that, and society changes incredibly in very short time spans, but at no point was the majority of the human race murderous.
I think quite possibly you could convince people with clear immediate benefit, but that's not usually present in war.
GTA4 has a similar effect, seeing people jerk back or stumble believably when hit. And they also tend to fall into believable poses. And when they crawl away wounded too, man. Still shoot them cause it's my job but it's kinda weird.
Perfect Dark did this to some extent a decade ago.
Madworld was too much for me. Nothing other than brutally murdering people as badly as possible. It didn't appeal.
But there are game types I'd never play. Anything sadistic, like playing as a murderer or rapist, would be right out with me. I mean, I can take being a drug dealing asshole who kills the occasional cop like in Saint's Row, but a game that was purely about enjoying torture or murder would never work for me.
Then again there are exceptions even to that.
Hell most of the reason I loved Carmageddon 2 so much was running over pedestrians and getting points for it.
But they weren't very realistic looking either.
If the guards wake up, they instantly set off the alarm.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Even so, the enemy zombaliens (yes, I'm still calling them that) that are attatched to walls while carrying an engorged sack that spits out baby zombaliens is quite disturbing. The way they scream their heads off while endlessly giving birth to little fetus creatures is just nasty, and it's even worse when their screams increase while you're blasting away at them. They take a lot of shots to bring down too, so it's basically an exercise in mental patience as you're trying to put this disgusting mutation out of its misery.
Bottom line, dead or alive, I hate it when they scream and writhe around while you're just trying to kill them off and advance to the next area.
Blog||Tumblr|Steam|Twitter|FFXIV|Twitch|YouTube|Podcast|PSN|XBL|DarkZero
I certainly can't speak for all soldiers, but for me went shit went down two things happened to me. First I got pissed that some mother fucker was trying to kill me or my buddies. Of course I understand the irony in this. Second, about the only thought going through my head was, "Oh shit, oh shit, oh shit!". My body just went through the motions really. Chalk that up to training I guess.
First of all, I don't believe the 50% stat, I want some citations for that one.
I'd also like to see the 1 in 50 stat, and get some working definition of what "place in actual combat" means.
I never said a majority of the human race are murderous, only that a majority of human race are capable of killing under the right conditions. It doesn't mean they have a desire to kill, or that they would do it under normal circumstances.
People all the time do things that before hand they could never see themselves doing, and afterwards are incredulous about what they've done. That's why the "I could never be a killer" line is meaningless.
I'm at work, so I can't really look into backing that ip right now,I'm not exactly sure where the figures are from, and if you can cite figures that contradict go right ahead, but I want to answer the other things.
Also remember that 1 in 50 means that the training has a 98% success rate. You don't think there are soldiers that when they are on the battlefield, refuse to kill? What I meant by actual combat was both sides shooting to kill.
@Axen, yeah, that's what I mean, the training means that you shoot back, I'd imagine to kill, or at least know there's a chance of you killing. But I'm pretty sure you're not a conscript, you went into the army looking to be in that situation?
Soldiers are also likely to represent those most likely to be willing to kill, so one can assume successful training renders a larger proportion of those capable of the act than it would of the general populace. It's an evolutionary thing, that you probably for the most part don't want the urge to kill your own kind. Though you do want to be able to harm other tribes if they threaten your set of genes.
But your point was you don't have to be psychologically disturbed to kill. Now without being trained to kill, I would say that the point at which an average person would have to be pushed to to kill is past the point where they might be considered psychologically disturbed. I can't think of many points where a standing army was the majority of the population, but feel free to correct me on that if you can.
(At all the soldiers here, I'm not casting aspersion on your state of mind, but there is probably a difference in your mind to a pacifist's)
Or to put it another way, I don't think the discussion changes significantly in either direction. I may be wrong though.
My sense of it is: there are a large number of logical and/or emotional barriers people can have which prevents them from killing. These barriers are present in different combinations in different people, and can be effective to various degrees. When not enough of these barriers exist, people can be "broken" in one way, and commit murder. When these barriers are too effective, people (like myself) can be "broken" in another way, and be incapable of using deadly force when it is called for.
Violence in games doesn't affect ALL of these barriers -- it only affects some of them, perhaps none of them. So there's a social tradeoff, positive versus negative. Positive effects would be the artistic benefits of making people think about violence when they are otherwise not exposed to it. Negative effects would be the rare cases where the ONLY thing stopping a broken person from killing was the experience gained from a violent video game.
Which is more valuable to our society: free artistic expression, or saving the unknown numbers (zero or more) of lives of people killed by people pushed over the edge by violent video games? Does the answer change if your value system is that of an American constitutional scholar? Or that of a Chinese bureucrat? Or that of any of the other value systems on our planet?
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
However, the fact that we recognise the fact that is murder represented on screen is interesting, and raises a couple of interesting questions about how abstraction works in our minds. However, as we aren't really doing any physical action the effect tends to be minimal on us, I would feel.
Bold'd part got me thinking. I agree with what you say, but I now wonder what it is that makes the people such. Despite what the media may think, we actually get people from all walks of life in the military. Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, rich, poor, college educated, high school dropouts with GEDs, nerds, jocks, Christians, satanists, people from all religions, even Buddhists! Well you get the picture.
Is it simply the way people are born? Or do most people have a weak enough "block" that military training breaks it down?
You raise an interesting point, though. But there must be an initial urge to be a person that could kill, I would think, before they'd join an organisation that is for killing, and thus before that training, so there must be a uniting factor, or several.
Plus, and I am just going to pull a number out of my ass here, I would say that 90% of the jobs in the army would never involve a person actually being in combat. Unless I am forgetting one, which I may, I think only Infantry, Combat Engineers, and Military Police would actually find themselves in combat. Aside from tank crews and the like, which isn't quite as personal.
edit- This is in response to the comment made a couple pages back about the monotone voice in COD4 as you are blowing bad guys away in the airplane. I think anyone who has been in the military would agree with this, but basically everyone who talks on the radio sounds like that, almost no matter the situation. Its the weirdest thing.
Yeah, I would think the fact you're being fired upon would make it feel a lot more justified.
I was also wondering about that, but I don't know the details of the jobs. THose people who want to help their country but not kill for it I guess, plus I'd imagine more than a few see it as a relatively easy to get job with fairly high job security( again, not casting aspersions)
Also there's fairly aggressive recruitment in poorer areas, in the US, and it's a viable reasonably well paid job in a place where those are rare, no?