Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

[sir_pudding]

It still doesn't matter because the riflemen only have to shoot horses.

[Þorkell]

Reading this exchange about Grossman and SLAM and real science (tm) reminded me of a quote I came across.

"In science, when human behavior enters the equation, things go nonlinear. That's why Physics is easy and Sociology is hard."

Source

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

Reading this exchange about Grossman and SLAM and real science (tm) reminded me of a quote I came across.

"In science, when human behavior enters the equation, things go nonlinear. That's why Physics is easy and Sociology is hard."

Source

Or oversimplification is unfair to both sciences, there aren't easy subjects and hard subjects. But it's a fun tweet aimed at a specific audience i.e those who consider non physics "stamp collecting", so as an ex-biologist yeah ;-)!

However he's certainly right Sociology is hard*, and in this case Psychology is also hard, but that's why we tend to look for compelling proof for grandiose claims regarding human behaviour. Which is why people knocked SLAM's theory here, for his lack of proof not the fact he was a historian.



*Seriously I'm the son of a Sociologist, the idea that you just do some interviews and pull a theory out your ass without a serious amount of follow up work to not only confirm what you think you have observed in your initial interviews but then support your theory regarding those observations really isn't how social science works. All without worrying about which field of research is "realer" or "harder" than another.

So basically Marshall had a theory,

he made some observations (and there were serious questions about his methodology in even that)

and then well that's basically it.

and well Grossman has had his moments as well. Leaving aside Killology his one man branch of science. Remember this is the chap who thinks violent video games are breeding a generation of killers, again without much evidence apart from appeals to negative proof and claims that our ER's and A and E's are unwittingly hiding this theoretical killer in our entertainment systems (never mind that violent crime rates have actually generally been dropping during the same period violent computer games have been gaining in popularity, so he doesn't even have correlation let alone causation!)

All theory, very little fact.


tl;dr: bad methodology and poorly supported theories are just that, no need to cite an academic kulturkampf, which while I know exists in some cases generally speaking most academics I've ever dealt with are reasonable people who happily respect work outside their own spheres! (Well maybe not when fighting for funding and resources weather inter or intramural ;-0)

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

So basically Marshall had a theory,

Isn't hypothesis the correct term for what he had?

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

Isn't hypothesis the correct term for what he had?

Well yeah, but I doubt he'd have called it that ;-)!

Also I guess part of the definition of hypothesis is being based on known facts, which he didn't really have (well unless we go really broad with our known facts like "not all bullets carried let alone fired in WW2 hit an enemy solider" and the like).

Either way theory or hypothesis the point being it was unsupported

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

and well Grossman has had his moments as well. Leaving aside Killology his one man branch of science.

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

Remember this is the chap who thinks violent video games are breeding a generation of killers, again without much evidence

There's overwhelming evidence to suggest that media increases aggression.
https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/...nce-media.html
"Studies demonstrating an association between exposure to violence in the media and real-life aggression and violence began appearing in the 1950s. Since then, various government agencies and organizations have examined the relationship. These include a 1972 Surgeon General’s report,8 a 1982 National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) review,9 and a 2000 Congressional summit which issued a joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on children.10 In 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released a report noting that media violence is a risk factor in shootings in school.11 A 2003 NIMH report noted media violence to be a significant causal factor in aggression and violence.12 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a 2007 report on violent programming on television, and noted that there is “strong evidence” that exposure to violence through the media can increase aggressive behavior in children.13
These reports and others are based on a body of literature that includes more than 2,000 scientific papers, studies, and reviews demonstrating the various effects that exposure to media violence can have on children and adolescents. These include increases in aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, bullying, fear, depression, nightmares and sleep disturbances.14,15,16
--->>>Nearly all American teens – one survey documenting 97 percent – play video games. Studies have shown the average time spent playing to be around 13 hours per week.26 Many games have violent content and studies have shown a significant association between violent content with increases in aggression, desensitization to violence, decrease in positive social behaviors, and increases in delinquent behaviors.27,28,29 Video games offer players the opportunity to be “virtual perpetrators,” by assuming the roles of aggressors and soldiers. These interactive games also reward players for successful violent behavior. Studies have shown that the general effects of violence may be more profound when children play these interactive games than when they watch violence in a more passive manner, such as when watching television.30,31"

All theory, very little fact.

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."

The link between violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior is one of the most studied and best established. Since the earlier meta-analyses, this link continues to be a reliable finding and shows good multi-method consistency across various representations of both violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior (e.g., Moller & Krahe, 2009; Saleem, Anderson, & Gentile, 2012). Aggressive behavior examined in this research included experimental proxy paradigms, such as the administration of a noise blast to a confederate, and self-report questionnaires, peer nominations and teacher ratings of aggressiveness focused on behaviors including insults, threats, hitting, pushing, hair pulling, biting and other forms of verbal and physical aggression. The findings have also been seen over a range of samples, including those with older children, adolescent, and young adult participants. There is also consistency over time, in that the new findings are similar in effect size to those from past meta-analyses.

http://www.apa.org/about/policy/viol...deo-games.aspx
Similarly, the research conducted since the 2005 APA Resolution using aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect as outcomes also shows a direct effect of violent video game use (e. g., Hasan, Begue, Scharkow & Bushman, 2013; Shafer, 2012). Researchers have also continued to find that violent video game use is associated with decreases in socially desirable behavior such as prosocial behavior, empathy, and moral engagement (e.g., Arriaga, Monteiro & Esteves, 2011; Happ, Melzer & Steffgen, 2013).

As you can see, Grossman's claim is not false. The APA has passed a resolution on it. It's backed by good science. Grossman's claim was over-the-top and sensationalized, but it started a conversation that has been supported by excellent research. Whether you agree or not, you shouldn't misrepresent his body of work.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by safisher

"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."

Their definition of aggressive behavior is stuff like giving someone more hotsauce or pressing a "noise" button for longer, immediately after playing violent games. Aggressive cognition was stuff like being given a partial story and then being asked to fill in a blank, again, immediately after playing the games. I suspect you'd get similar results from any competitive activity, such as most sports.

But I haven't seen any that attempt to study a correlation between playing violent video games and actual violence (Much less outright murder). I'm not aware of any that have done long-term studies of lasting effects. Due to that, the entire study basically amounts to saying "Yes, people get excited while playing video games". BFD. Technically true, and thoroughly unimpressive.

And just as importantly, concluding that violent video games are breeding a generation of killers is not supported by those studies, any more than a study showing that jumping increases your altitude supports the conclusion that you can jump to the moon.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

And just as importantly, concluding that violent video games are breeding a generation of killers is not supported by those studies, any more than a study showing that jumping increases your altitude supports the conclusion that you can jump to the moon.

It's wrong to say there is no proof that violent media is bad -- there's plenty of proof, even to the "scientific medical" standard mentioned up-thread. Grossman's over-the-top hyperbolic statements gain attention, and it's resulted in research that largely concurs with his assertions that we should be wary about media violence, just not to the point he claimed (at the least, we haven't got there yet). 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.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by safisher

Well, surprise, the pro violent media people say there's _nothing_ to worry about, and that's also not true.

And the anti-video-game people say video games increase violence (And even leads to murders), which is not what those studies claim. A temporary increase in 'cognitive aggression' immediately after playing video games (Or any other exciting activity) does not mean an increased rate of violence in general. It is one step along the way, but it does not follow that subsequent steps are necessarily true; again, consider my example of jumping to the moon.

A quick google search even turns up long-term studies that find no link between playing violent video games and a lasting increase in violence, aggression, or lack of empathy.

So one batch of studies does not support his claim, while the other batch of studies directly contradicts it. Again: the claim that violent video games are breeding a generation of killers is not supported by the evidence. In fact, many of the studies directly contradict that assertion.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

A quick google search even turns up long-term studies that find no link between playing violent video games and a lasting increase in violence, aggression, or lack of empathy.

Just to point out, you're arguing with the APA's position, not mine. The "scientists" in this thread seemed to think that was the superior position (whatever the APA said). I'm more into qualitative analysis than data crunching, but whatever.

So one batch of studies does not support his claim

Actually, they just say "well yes, we can see some indications of violence and media, etc." Grossman says "let's extrapolate from this conclusion, and all these other issues over here, and surmise that the current problem is violent media." Those are really different but related arguments. Is he _certainly_ wrong? That's going to take a good while to suss out. Is he right? No, he's just making an argument to get people talking. It's better, IMO, to think of him as a thought leader than a researcher. You can dismiss his conclusions, fine, but don't misunderstand his position -- he's positing theories, full stop. And those theories are based on some data. Part of the limitation is simply ethical research and lack of longevity studies. But where there's smoke there's fire.

But keep in mind, if you want "scientific medical standard" the violence and media thing is as open and shut as anything you are going to find in the social sciences. It's overwhelming evidence in favor of it being a bad influence, and not even close to equal in terms that it's not a problem.