Man decapitates 5-year-old sister in front of officer

[Peikko 1,575]

There are lots of things that come into play with what influences behaviour. Ads do have some influence, but as with peer pressure, once you recognize the influence it has less power. A lot of the time people act as a pure response as apposed to putting thought into the decision to act.

Advertising does work to an extent. If you decide to buy a car - that decision is not prompted by the advertising per se, but your choice of which car you buy may very well be.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes. But a person's decisions are influenced to some degree by what's going on around them. Again, I'm not talking slavish obedience or some sort of mass hypnosis/brainwashing.

Advertising works that way by creating a need for a product that fits the either the practical needs or lifestyle aspirations of targetted individuals. You see that a lot in advertising for alcoholic drinks - the sort of advertising that your average beer drinker might respond to is not the same as someone who drinks refined spirits (or wine) - and a lot of those ads for those products are about creating a sense of exclusivity. Specifically, that the people who drink those things have a refined taste that doesn't apply to the sort of person who drinks a six-pack of Heineken on a friday night.

There's a hidden meaning within that sentence. By fitting into the needs or lifestyle of targeted individuals means that this advertisement works by providing the people who already are hooked new product, etc...

Oh, I also like to take a step into reality. There's a question floating around that has been bugging me for all this time. Why isn't anybody acting like in the commercials? Or, better yet movies?

Taking a step back into human nature, we have people who are jealous of others and will do any means to get rid of them. There are those who like to feel power based on their eagerness to become the leader. For example, a small scrawny person will fear the bulky muscular person, esp. if he has a negative attitude. Imagine having to live with this dude and tolerate his intimidation day in and day out. One day he offers you a full bottle of liquor, will you drink it? He didn't show any type of bad behavior when he asked you, but you sense you have a need to agree to this offer. If you refused, he'll probably comdemn you. If not, then he will like you. Since fifty percent of that offer will mean a brutal beating that may mean some permament damage, you will agree to that drink.

Human peer influences have presence through human society. These ads are nothing. Peer pressure are the influences. They are stronger than toleration in some cases.

No that's not what I meant - I meant that advertisers look specifically for what very specifically targetted groups of individuals desire or aspire to be, and advertise their products to fill those desires and aspirations. Basically they identify their market and the sorts of people who buy their products - and address them directly.

Again though not to confuse the issue - the effectiveness (or not) of advertising has little to do with the debate about the effect of violence in the media.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Scientists are currently looking into the fact people are living longer lives now and all this new technology keeping us occupied is creating a sort of delayed adolescents for some so yes it does have something to do with people development and mental capacity.

"Clearly I remember picking on the boy. He seemed a harmless lil **. Ewe but we unleashed the lion."

[Heracles 417]

Weren't Pike and Constellation agreeing with each other 2 pages back. I was moved to see two such sworn enemies find a common ground through a set of good wel made points from each side. Then in one fell swoop it tuned into another two pages of tripe. What happened? Was it a case of oh no we agree, better call him a name?

There weren't any well-made points in this thread - its the same old guff rehashed a thousand times. We shouldn't even go off on these silly tangents in the first place - and wouldn't if BY weren't constantly trying to find meaning (and someone to blame) in senseless acts, based on nothing more than a 3rd person commentary of the events.

Well if there is no link to violence then there must be lots of research backing your assumption.

Apparently even though a 20 second commercial can influence someone yet amazingly constant exposure to graphic horror and violence in film after film has no effect.

I don't need to conduct any research to now that a child raised up on 'It's a Wonderful World' type film will have a different outcome (personality) to a child raised watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre type films. That is a no-brainer. I have seen it first hand amongst my friends from similar families.

Not only does research back my point but there is also growing research showing how kids / teens lack empathy, are self-centered, egotistical and almost narcissistic in nature. Obviously something happened between the time my brother, father or grandfather grew up to now.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Constellation

[Heracles 417]

Private Pikey, where I have got you is that for years you have been beating on about minorities basically committing crime because of other non-hereditary or personality based reasons. Therefore other external / environmental forces / influences and reasons are to blame. Yet when it comes to exposure to violence you find no correlation between external influences to it.

when considering this case alone it is not hard to see that this person was mentally unstable. Nonetheless, he would have had to have seen this somewhere to carry it out. No one is born with the idea of beheading people. Let alone his younger siblings.

So which is it mate?

Humans can be manipulated, brainwashed and influenced by almost anything. Same way Millions of Jews were sentenced to death by thousands of people who didn't even blink an eye.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Constellation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Weren't Pike and Constellation agreeing with each other 2 pages back. I was moved to see two such sworn enemies find a common ground through a set of good wel made points from each side. Then in one fell swoop it tuned into another two pages of tripe. What happened? Was it a case of oh no we agree, better call him a name?

There weren't any well-made points in this thread - its the same old guff rehashed a thousand times. We shouldn't even go off on these silly tangents in the first place - and wouldn't if BY weren't constantly trying to find meaning (and someone to blame) in senseless acts, based on nothing more than a 3rd person commentary of the events.

Well if there is no link to violence then there must be lots of research backing your assumption.

Apparently even though a 20 second commercial can influence someone yet amazingly constant exposure to graphic horror and violence in film after film has no effect.

I don't need to conduct any research to now that a child raised up 'It's a Wonderful World' type film will have a different outcome to a child raised watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre type films. That is a no-brainer. I have seen it first hand amongst my friends from similar families.

Not only does research back my point but there is also growing research showing how kids / teens lack empathy, are self-centered, egotistical and almost narcissistic in nature. Obviously something happened between the time my brother, father or grandfather grew up to now.

That's contradictory - first you say "you don't need to conduct research" to make these conclusions, then you say "Research backs up your point".

Commercials do influence people's behaviour, yes, because they appeal to a subconcious need to buy products that satisfy their ego in various ways. That's not the same sort of influence that would lead an otherwise ordinary person to commit a murder because he's seen it on TV.

The point - as others have made, is that people who claim to be influenced by external things (the guy who shot John Lennon was obsessed with Catcher in the Rye, for example) have pre-existing damaged psychology. If that weren't the case - surely everyone (or a lot of people) who read that book would go out and commit some sort of violent act.

Similarly I suspect a good few of us here watched violent movies growing up, yourself included. I don't know about you - but I didn't go out and get into fights or try to kill people because I'd just seen someone do it in a movie. I rather doubt anyone here has either.

So while its nice to blame external factors for the state of society, there is much less evidence supporting that than you might think.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Private Pikey, where I have got you is that for years you have been beating on about minorities basically committing crime because of other non-hereditary or personality based reasons. Therefore other external / environmental forces / influences and reasons are to blame. Yet when it comes to exposure to violence you find no correlation between external influences to it.

when considering this case alone it is not hard to see that this person was mentally unstable. Nonetheless, he would have had to have seen this somewhere to carry it out. No one is born with the idea of beheading people. Let alone his younger siblings.

So which is it mate?

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say here BY.

There is no evidence to indicate why the guy did what he did, nor do we have access to some sort of detailed psychological workup, or his personal and family history.

All you're doing is speculating (wildly) based on what you personally want to believe about this man and why he committed his crime.

The only honest thing that can be said here is "I don't know". *I* don't know, do you?

Edited April 3, 2009 by Private Pike

[Heracles 417]

That's contradictory - first you say "you don't need to conduct research" to make these conclusions, then you say "Research backs up your point".

Commercials do influence people's behaviour, yes, because they appeal to a subconcious need to buy products that satisfy their ego in various ways. That's not the same sort of influence that would lead an otherwise ordinary person to commit a murder because he's seen it on TV.

The point - as others have made, is that people who claim to be influenced by external things (the guy who shot John Lennon was obsessed with Catcher in the Rye, for example) have pre-existing damaged psychology. If that weren't the case - surely everyone (or a lot of people) who read that book would go out and commit some sort of violent act.

Similarly I suspect a good few of us here watched violent movies growing up, yourself included. I don't know about you - but I didn't go out and get into fights or try to kill people because I'd just seen someone do it in a movie. I rather doubt anyone here has either.

So while its nice to blame external factors for the state of society, there is much less evidence supporting that than you might think.

Well your the one who in every second thread demands research and evidence. About time you deliver the goods you demand from others yourself for once. Hold yourself up to the same standards you demand from everyone else who has opposing views to that of your own.

As I myself have said with regards to guns, I have three guns but don't go around shooting up neighborhoods or mauling down people. Therefore, does that mean I should own a gun. Obviously not. For the sake of society no one should own a gun. You clearly agreed with that in another thread. Yet when it comes to exposure to violence you cannot make the same connection. In your mind well I am not psycho so all is good. Which as I sad, also applies to gun ownership.

For obvious reasons most modern and developed societies are restricting this sort of #######. Raising and exposing kids to junk like violence and horror does nothing for society or humanity. To the contrary it is a good reason for the personality attributes (points mentioned earlier) so evident in kids today.

So while its nice to blame external factors for the state of society, there is much less evidence supporting that than you might think.

So when it comes to minorities and violence, external forces are to blame. Which you have said many times. When it comes to kids and external forces, no deal there. Therefore, if it's not related to external influences it has to be something else which you should be able to identify. Or are you going to pull the 'its the media's fault' card? Yeah it's the media's fault this kid behead his 5 year old sister and stabbed the other to death.

Such incidents are much more common now than 20 years ago and that has absolutely nothing to do with the media.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Constellation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well your the one who in every second thread demands research and evidence. About time you deliver the goods you demand from others yourself for once. Hold yourself up to the same standards you demand from everyone else who has opposing views to that of your own.

You brought up the research angle in this thread - suggesting there was ample research to prove your point. If that's true (and you're not just saying it just to add weight to what you're saying) you must have something in mind.

Common sense suggests that it isn't true - if it were the case that watching violent movies turned people psychotic the crime rate would be through the roof and wouldn't be restricted solely to the "certain demographics" that you like to bang on about. As that isn't the case it stands to reason that there are other (social) factors which are more influential in a child's psychological development - like their home life and relationship with their parents and their immediate environment.

For obvious reasons most modern and developed society are restricting both. Raising and exposing kids to junk like violence and horror does nothing for society or humanity. To the contrary it is a good reason for the personality attributes (points mentioned earlier) so evident in kids today.

Different countries do have different laws pertaining to the ownership of guns (with varying degrees of restriction), but again I'm wondering exactly what "modern and developed societies" you are talking about which have these supposed major restrictions on the availability movies and videogames with violent/horrific content.

Pretty much every movie and videogame you can think of that can be bought in this country, is available in every other - with the exception of Nazi-related material in Germany. There are also censorship issues in China and the Far East, but those have more to do with restricting access to material with subversive political subtexts.

Some clarity please.

So while its nice to blame external factors for the state of society, there is much less evidence supporting that than you might think.

So when it comes to minorities and violence, external forces are to blame. Which you have said many times. When it comes to kids and external forces, no deal there. Therefore, if it's not related to external influences it has to be something else which you should be able to identify. Or are you going to pull the 'its the media's fault' card?

Yeah it's the media's fault this kid behead his 5 year old sister and stabbed the other to death.

I have never said "external factors" are to blame. Individuals are to blame. Obviously.

And no I am not blaming the media for this crime. Once again - there is no evidence in the article that indicates what the guy's issues were or why he did what he did.

Again - you are using this story for political reasons to justify preconceived beliefs you have about why people commit crime. That's as clear as day.

Such incidents are much more common now than 20 years ago and that has absolutely nothing to do with the media.

How do you know?

[fozzie 41]

I have to say that exposure to violence on tv DOES have an effect. It is not the only thing that determines who we become and what our future actions will be but it does play a part. Clearly a stable home environment with loving, attentive and responsible parents has more of an influence but media definitely play ist part. Its a societal issue that combines many elements.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's no disputing it can have an influence, just not necessarily "the" influence.

Pretty much all of the cases of people who committed violent crimes and a specific movie, book or videogame was referenced as an influence had pre-existing psych issues that had little to do with their exposure to that kind of material:

The guy who dressed up like Rambo and went on the rampage in Hungerford in the 80s, the Columbine Killers, Robert Thompson and John Venables and Mark Chapman all had a history of disturbed behaviour years before the crimes they committed.

Serial killers too - like Fred and Rose West, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy etc all had deep seated issues, they didn't suddenly snap from exposure to violent or sexually explicit material.

[fozzie 41]

There's no disputing it can have an influence, just not necessarily "the" influence.

Pretty much all of the cases of people who committed violent crimes and a specific movie, book or videogame was referenced as an influence had pre-existing psych issues that had little to do with their exposure to that kind of material:

The guy who dressed up like Rambo and went on the rampage in Hungerford in the 80s, the Columbine Killers, Robert Thompson and John Venables and Mark Chapman all had a history of disturbed behaviour years before the crimes they committed.

Serial killers too - like Fred and Rose West, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy etc all had deep seated issues, they didn't suddenly snap from exposure to violent or sexually explicit material.

It's not necessarilyu that a specific media violence triggered the events, more that a sustain exposure over many years CAN desensatize. However there is the whole Art imitating life imitating art debate too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's no disputing it can have an influence, just not necessarily "the" influence.

Pretty much all of the cases of people who committed violent crimes and a specific movie, book or videogame was referenced as an influence had pre-existing psych issues that had little to do with their exposure to that kind of material:

The guy who dressed up like Rambo and went on the rampage in Hungerford in the 80s, the Columbine Killers, Robert Thompson and John Venables and Mark Chapman all had a history of disturbed behaviour years before the crimes they committed.

Serial killers too - like Fred and Rose West, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy etc all had deep seated issues, they didn't suddenly snap from exposure to violent or sexually explicit material.

It's not necessarilyu that a specific media violence triggered the events, more that a sustain exposure over many years CAN desensatize. However there is the whole Art imitating life imitating art debate too.

I never really bought that argument about desensitization - because it basically deals with exposure to violence within a controlled and very specific context. Seeing someone getting their head blown off in a movie or video game might not faze someone, but I rather doubt that would be the case if they saw it in real life.

But not to downplay the emotional connection between a film and a person watching it - because there certainly are films that feature graphic scenes of violence which are very shocking.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Private Pike

[fozzie 41]

There's no disputing it can have an influence, just not necessarily "the" influence.

Pretty much all of the cases of people who committed violent crimes and a specific movie, book or videogame was referenced as an influence had pre-existing psych issues that had little to do with their exposure to that kind of material:

The guy who dressed up like Rambo and went on the rampage in Hungerford in the 80s, the Columbine Killers, Robert Thompson and John Venables and Mark Chapman all had a history of disturbed behaviour years before the crimes they committed.

Serial killers too - like Fred and Rose West, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy etc all had deep seated issues, they didn't suddenly snap from exposure to violent or sexually explicit material.

It's not necessarilyu that a specific media violence triggered the events, more that a sustain exposure over many years CAN desensatize. However there is the whole Art imitating life imitating art debate too.

I never really bought that argument about desensitization - because it basically deals with exposure to violence within a controlled and very specific context. Seeing someone getting their head blown off in a movie or video game might not faze someone, but I rather doubt that would be the case if they saw it in real life.

But not to downplay the emotional connection between a film and a person watching it - because there certainly are films that feature graphic scenes of violence which are very shocking.

I hear you. However its all about degrees. For someone who never watched graphic violence in games and movies any violence may seem shocking, yet to someone who has watched many violent movies or taken somene out with a rusty pipe in a video game they may not be as disgusted by it. Again we are all generalizing because its true for the majority, but I played manhunt and got satisfaction out of being creative with the way I killed people. Doesn't mean I am gonna act out though. Maybe the stable home environment, lack of violence and aggressive behaviours from my parents and peers helped me turn out ok.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's no disputing it can have an influence, just not necessarily "the" influence.

Pretty much all of the cases of people who committed violent crimes and a specific movie, book or videogame was referenced as an influence had pre-existing psych issues that had little to do with their exposure to that kind of material:

The guy who dressed up like Rambo and went on the rampage in Hungerford in the 80s, the Columbine Killers, Robert Thompson and John Venables and Mark Chapman all had a history of disturbed behaviour years before the crimes they committed.

Serial killers too - like Fred and Rose West, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy etc all had deep seated issues, they didn't suddenly snap from exposure to violent or sexually explicit material.

It's not necessarilyu that a specific media violence triggered the events, more that a sustain exposure over many years CAN desensatize. However there is the whole Art imitating life imitating art debate too.

I never really bought that argument about desensitization - because it basically deals with exposure to violence within a controlled and very specific context. Seeing someone getting their head blown off in a movie or video game might not faze someone, but I rather doubt that would be the case if they saw it in real life.

But not to downplay the emotional connection between a film and a person watching it - because there certainly are films that feature graphic scenes of violence which are very shocking.

I hear you. However its all about degrees. For someone who never watched graphic violence in games and movies any violence may seem shocking, yet to someone who has watched many violent movies or taken somene out with a rusty pipe in a video game they may not be as disgusted by it. Again we are all generalizing because its true for the majority, but I played manhunt and got satisfaction out of being creative with the way I killed people. Doesn't mean I am gonna act out though. Maybe the stable home environment, lack of violence and aggressive behaviours from my parents and peers helped me turn out ok.

Slightly O/T but there was a story recently about how kids who are "addicted" to videogames are not addicted in the traditional (biochemical) sense - as with alcoholics or smokers, but rather that their problems are social in nature (i.e. that they obsess over games because thats all they have in their lives) and would benefit from therapy that encourages them to be more socially outgoing.