Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

From the APA report: "Although additional outcomes such as criminal violence, delinquency, and physiological and neurological changes appear in this literature, we did not find enough evidence of sufficient utility to evaluate whether these outcomes are affected by violent video game use."

Grossman makes very specific claims about video games which the APA report takes time to point out it does not have a conclusion on. Providing counter-examples is not cherry-picking, it's citing your argument. Nor is providing new studies that weren't even published at the time of the APA report.

Not sure if you've seen this one from 2017 in Germany, it raises some questions abut GAM and short term vs. long term

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by safisher

...That's my point. And this is typically how these things go: Side A makes a claim, Side B makes a counterclaim. Well, surprise, the pro violent media people say there's _nothing_ to worry about, and that's also not true.

No again this is not how things go, this isn't about sides, this isn't about getting counter claimed hard enough by "the pro-otherside". It's about proving claims.

A makes a claim, and tries to prove it, it A does not provide enough evidence to do that then A's claim has not been proved.

We don't need a counter claim if A's claim was not proved in the first place, because there is nothing to counter claim against.

To try and turn this into two sides political games, is to miss the single underlying point if you haven't proven your assertion than your assertion is unproven weather others have any strong opinions about that or not*. Even when you dress it up with competing interests with competing research, you still end up looking who proved their claims. When the tobacco Lobby spent a lot of money getting research out there saying their products didn't have link to cancers etc, they failed to prove there was no link. But the important thing was the "other side" proved their claim that there was.


This is why the APA while obviously keeping an open mind and agreeing that what we interact with weather it be it violent video games or pretty much anything else does go into our overall make up in some way even if it's to demonstrate a short livef heightened tendency to sound a loud noise for a little bit longer, they also say that doesn't mean the claim in question (which is Grossman's claim) is shown.


And equivocations like oh Grossman's just got a bit excited and over enthusiastic, or should get points for bringing concerns to our attention does not change the fact that he has also been unable to support his claim.




*now if you want to make some point about but it matters in the court of public opinion than yeah ok, but well as an academic I'm sure you are well aware that research reporting in the media is a can of worms, and still doesn't change the underlying point.

Also yes a decent methodology should include questioning your method, data and assumptions, and any review prior to publication of it almost certainly should.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by safisher

This is not entirely true. As I mentioned before, there are many others working in response to Grossman's questions: Azar Gat, Matt Carmill, Michael Ghiglieri, Joshua Bilmes, and Steven Pinker. Not to mention a large number of police and military trainers. Ah, and don't forget the "warrior gene" controversy, too. His assertion has created counter-assertions, and now we have a proper academic conversation. None of this was being talked about until Grossman popularized it. There's much more here.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/publicat...yofkilling.pdf

1). It was being talked about before Grossman (you own link shows this, if nothing else we've been talking about Marshall as well after all), Now Grossman might like to advertise that he single handedly dragged this into the light of research but well...


2). yeah OK his success may well have stimulated debate on a wider topic of the battle psychology fair enough, and wider debate on the topic is a good thing. It's a bit of an orthogonal good result of making some pretty poorly supported claims and boosting your lecture circuit ratings with Killology (which apparently can not only help you with your "sheep" & "wolves" issue, but also fat kids and poor grades)

Originally Posted by safisher

...


http://www.apa.org/news/press/releas...deo-games.aspx
"The research demonstrates a consistent relation between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect, and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy and sensitivity to aggression,” says the report of the APA Task Force on Violent Media."....

Only the very first summery line under the heading of the link given is:

"Finds insufficient research to link violent video game play to criminal violence"

and this isn't some article editorialising the APA's review, your link is actually from the APA's website, that is the line the APA themselves led with!

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

The problem here is with this kind of research into very complex topics with huge amounts of variables is it is exceptionally hard to narrow down and isolate cause and effect so doing so you need to have some pretty amazing proof of it. But if you don't do that than sorry you have not proved your theory (see earlier point about Sociology and Psychology being pretty damn hard). Just being really, really sure there's a link and pointing to any related effect no matter how tangential is not the same as doing this.

The big test of any scientific model is if observations match predictions, and since violent crime is decreasing all over the developed world, and is especially low in the countries who have the highest level of participation in video game culture, I would think that this means that Grossman's model failed to make accurate predictions.

What this has to do with the topic of the thread, is beyond me though.

There are really two possibilities in GURPS.
a) Reluctant Killer is common enough in a society that it doesn't count against the disadvantage limit.
b) It isn't.

Either way:
a) There's no reason why the riflemen would have it, they are post-apocalyptic warriors, and probably have some cultural resocialization.
b) Even if they do have it for some reason (vault-dwellers?) they only have to shoot horses to defeat a cavalry charge. Horses aren't people.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The big test of any scientific model is if observations match predictions, and since violent crime is decreasing all over the developed world, and is especially low in the countries who have the highest level of participation in video game culture, I would think that this means that Grossman's model failed to make accurate predictions.

Yep

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

What this has to do with the topic of the thread, is beyond me though.

Yeah true enough, and I've done more than my fair share of grabbing the wheel and driving towards the cliff edge!

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

There are really two possibilities in GURPS.
a) Reluctant Killer is common enough in a society that it doesn't count against the disadvantage limit.
b) It isn't.

I thought the rationale was it is common in general, but not for PC types (for whom having it is a bit of limitation for the more usual PC activities)

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Either way:
a) There's no reason why the riflemen would have it, they are post-apocalyptic warriors, and probably have some cultural resocialization.

Certainly reasonable

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

b) Even if they do have it for some reason (vault-dwellers?) they only have to shoot horses to defeat a cavalry charge. Horses aren't people.

True horses aren't people, but to be honest this one might be a tangent too far (even for me!)

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

True horses aren't people, but to be honest this one might be a tangent too far (even for me!)

Less of a tangent than fMRIs and publication citations.

Reluctant Killer says it applies to deliberate attacks on people. Anthony's post about the riflemen has them shooting horses. Ergo, it is actually irrelevant whether Grossman is correct in this setting or not.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

No again this is not how things go

The APA does not say there is _no_ evidence, in fact they say the opposite --
they say there is "a strong association." They recommend in 2015 very specific policy actions because there is such an association. The 2017 version of their report says: "we found that _violent video game exposure was associated with_: 1) an increased composite aggression score; 2) increased aggressive behavior; 3) increased aggressive cognitions; 4) increased aggressive affect, 5) increased desensitization, 6) and decreased empathy; and 7) increased physiological arousal." That is, there is EVIDENCE of violent video games having a negative effect on humans.

They say "Our task force concluded that violent video game use is a risk factor for adverse outcomes," and then they say "but found insufficient studies to examine any potential link between violent video game use and delinquency or criminal behavior." Which is to say, IT IS A RISK. We don't know how this works yet because there aren't enough studies. Which is to say, in due time we're confident we'll find out more.

Now, let me be clear here for you because this seems to be hard for you to understand, but a strong association is very strong language in such a study. A position paper from a mental health association -- at all -- is a strong statement in their confidence in their conclusions. That is not dismissable simply because they don't yet have _enough studies_ to link directly to criminal behavior. All they are saying is there is "a strong association with" them and we are advising you to take this as a warning.

In due time, because this is a new area of study, one can suspect one of two things. They might, based on their body of work, find the direct link -- maybe tomorrow, maybe next month, maybe next year, or a decade from now. And they might not ever find a direct link. But even if they don't, it might be for a number of reasons, including ethical constraints of research and the difficulty of the subject methodology. One could say right now "Ah! that means they are wrong, wrong, wrong" about violent video games, but you'd be ignoring their direct policy warnings and you'd be ignoring the very explicit association of these games with all the 7 indicators above. So a fair reading of this can't really come down the side of there's nothing here to worry about. If it were lead paint or vaccinations, people would be a lot more concerned.

Frankly, I'm not even interested in these warnings or the fact that these video games might make some portion of society a bunch of raving psychopaths. I just can't stand by and let someone so blatantly misrepresent the truth. I'm not even sure it's intentional, . . . I just think you have a hard time being fair-minded.

[sir_pudding]

If I don't play games, I personally get moody, depressed, and ultimately nonfunctional (and I start spending too much time here). So I don't think that I am healthier if I don't.

All work and no play is also apparently bad for you, and I can find plenty of research that backs that up too.

Besides, you haven't really addressed the big problem, where are these roving gangs of sociopaths? Why don't the crime statistics show an increase in violent crime where you see an increase in video game culture? Why do we, in fact, see the opposite? I think that it should be quite clear that Grossman's prediction of groups of sociopathic gamers hasn't manifested at all.

Where is this going anyway? I suppose that if we are to take On Killing at face value, and apply it to the OP, and get back on topic, the answer is "No weapon, because you shouldn't be playing violent games."

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

b) Even if they do have it for some reason (vault-dwellers?) they only have to shoot horses to defeat a cavalry charge. Horses aren't people.

Incidentally, is there an attack penalty for shooting people on horseback? Can they be 'crouched' or 'sitting'?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Incidentally, is there an attack penalty for shooting people on horseback? Can they be 'crouched' or 'sitting'?

You can use the horse for cover (at a penalty to your attacks which mounted shooting can reduce).