Is our Culture making killers?

I always liked James Cameron's response in an old Aliens interview about the subject of movie violence and how it affects audiences. To paraphrase he said something along the lines that the cathartic value of fantasy violence in film is probably just as powerful and the inspirational value if not more. I know that I use violence in movies as a release of my own anxiety's and frustrations. I'm sure that for some people seeing the same thing does act as an example of how to deal with a problem.

Fight Club comes to mind. The movie's ultimate message is one of compromise. You shouldn't let your baser instincts control you no matter how righteous they feel. Some people forget the ending and fall in love with the movies initial thrust of self empowerment and exploring violence and chaos as a mode of expression and problem solving. Lots of people started real fight clubs after that movie came out and considered Tyler Durden a hero despite the greater theme of the narrative.

Tricky subject but an interesting one.

Nick

Kerr Avon said:

---

If a dog bites someone, and isn't disciplined, and it develops an aggressive personality, then isn't the owner to blame?

Do I really have to explain that people are not dogs?

Amish Trooper said:

---

Dr. Jean Twenge, author of Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled and More Miserable Than Ever. Dr. Twenge of San Diego State University studied more than 16,400 students who took the Narcissistic Personality Inventory between 1982 and 2006. In 1982, only a third of the students scored above average on the test. Today that number is over 65%.

Ok, and this statistic is supposed to be significant in what way with relation to your point about parenting?

jlee562 said:

---

Ok, and this statistic is supposed to be significant in what way with relation to your point about parenting?

I gave place to start and shouldn't have to do it for you.

jlee562 said:

---

Do I really have to explain that people are not dogs?

No, but we're both animals, not vegetable or mineral, which means we have a lot of the same basic responses, including to discipline and going feral.

Amish Trooper said:

---

I gave place to start and shouldn't have to do it for you.

It's not my job to make your argument for you.

If you can't back up your argument with evidence, you haven't made an argument at all really.

Kerr Avon said:

---

No, but we're both animals, not vegetable or mineral, which means we have a lot of the same basic responses, including to discipline and going feral.

The differences between a human brain and a dog's brain when it comes to higher levels of thinking are simply far too different to make your analogy useful, in spite of how much you wish it to be.

To take another angle, we have long known about the correlation between physical abuse of animals and physical abuse of people. That is, those who commit acts of cruelty against animals are more likely to commit acts of cruelty against humans. Likewise, those who were mentally or physically abused as children are more likely to mentally or physically abuse their own children.

These are two long established empirical observations.

With this in mind, let us re-examine your analogy. You can discipline your dog and teach him not to bite. But you can also traumatize your dog with too much discipline (or the wrong kind of discipline) which would make him more aggressive and more likely to bite.

No?

DuneMuadDib said:

---

More major networks, more cable news networks, more internet social media sources.

I don't give a **** about parent companies. Did MSNBC, FOX News, Current TV, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Digg, Reddit, and whatever the hell else news is broadcast in this country exist 20 years ago? Could anyone pull out their phone and instantly get the news of a violent crime before the evening news broadcast it?

Honestly, tell me right now that 20 years ago the word of the DKR shooting would have spread so far and wide so fast as it did in this day and age.

No, they didn't exist 20 years ago. But there were a lot more radio stations, there were a lot more newspapers.

My point has nothing to do with the speed at which news spreads. I agree and have already acknowledged that technology changes the pace at which news spreads. But the idea that the population didn't hear about mass shootings because of a lack of media coverage 20 years ago - which was your original assertion - that's just silly.

Do you really think that the west coast didn't hear about the St. Valentine's day massacre or the haymarket riots? Do you think the east coast didn't hear about the gunfight at the OK corral? It may have taken longer, but the public knew of these events. It's not as if they were only reported regionally.

If I was I interested in doing the work for you I would but I see no point. You are the one who asked for something to support my statement. I gave you the tool to be able to provide yourself with what you want. It's not my duty to I inform you nor do your work for you.

jlee562 said:

---

With this in mind, let us re-examine your analogy. You can discipline your dog and teach him not to bite. But you can also traumatize your dog with too much discipline (or the wrong kind of discipline) which would make him more aggressive and more likely to bite.

No?

And the exact opposite is true, where you stare at the dog and talk in a baby voice, "Now little Johnny you aren't going to bite anyone else anymore right? You're just going to be a good little doggy, right?" No, you smack it's snout hard in the very least. You apply corporal punishment. You don't treat it like someone or something you can have a rational discussion with.

And by the way, the only real difference is intelligence level between dogs and humans. Both species respond the same to the same kind of stimulus. Don't think we're so elevated from animals, because we aren't.

Amish Trooper said:

---

If I was I interested in doing the work for you I would but I see no point. You are the one who asked for something to support my statement. I gave you the tool to be able to provide yourself with what you want. It's not my duty to I inform you nor do your work for you.

.....the single statistic you cited has no clear relation to your point about "taking powers away from parents."

I'm asking for the connection between these two points which you made. I'm not asking you to recite the thesis of the book.

The fact that there is a greater proportion of kids scoring on some personality test demonstrates NOTHING about parenting in and of itself. It is simply a number. The number could have gone up for any number of reasons that may or may not have anything to do with parenting. For example, is the test the exact same test for the entire duration of the study? A cursory check of wikipedia, reveals that this is NOT the case in reality.

Narcissistic Personality Inventory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) is the most widely used measure of narcissism in social psychological research. Although several versions of the NPI have been proposed in the literature, a forty-item forced-choice version (Raskin & Terry, 1988) is the one most commonly employed in current research.

Since the most common model was only introduced in 1988, it is not entirely appropriate to compare those results against a different test.

That's just one way in which your argument is flawed. The singular statistic you posted tells us nothing about the effects of "taking away powers from parents" which was your original assertion.

Kerr Avon said:

---

And the exact opposite is true, where you stare at the dog and talk in a baby voice, "Now little Johnny you aren't going to bite anyone else anymore right? You're just going to be a good little doggy, right?" No, you smack it's snout hard in the very least. You apply corporal punishment. You don't treat it like someone or something you can have a rational discussion with.

And by the way, the only real difference is intelligence level between dogs and humans. Both species respond the same to the same kind of stimulus. Don't think we're so elevated from animals, because we aren't.

I can see you're also not up on developments in dog training either.

The fact of the matter is, although it is by no means "settled science" SEVERAL studies have outlined a correlation between corporal punishment (and yes, they make the distinction between "corporal punishment" and "physical abuse") and BOTH aggression later in life and criminal and anti-social behaviors.

Here's one meta-analytical take published in Psychological Bulletin, vol. 128, no. 4, 2002.

Moral Internalization
Although immediate compliance may be a salient goal when parents initiate discipline, promoting the development of children's internal controls is more important to long-term socialization than immediate compliance ( Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997; Hoffman, 1983; Kohlberg, 1969; Lepper, 1983; Piaget, 1932/1965). Moral internalization is defined by Grusec and Goodnow (1994) as “taking over the values and attitudes of society as one's own so that socially acceptable behavior is motivated not by anticipation of external consequences but by intrinsic or internal factors” (p. 4), and it is thought to underlie the development of children's social and emotional competence ( Kochanska & Thompson, 1997). Children's internalization of morals is thought to be enhanced by parental discipline strategies that use minimal parental power, promote choice and autonomy, and provide explanations for desirable behaviors ( Kuczynski & Hildebrandt, 1997). Attribution theorists emphasize that power-assertive methods such as corporal punishment promote children's external attributions for their behavior and minimize their attributions to internal motivations ( Dix & Grusec, 1983; Hoffman, 1983; Lepper, 1983). Additionally, corporal punishment may not facilitate moral internalization because it does not teach children the reasons for behaving correctly, does not involve communication of the effects of children's behaviors on others, and may teach children the desirability of not getting caught ( Hoffman, 1983; Grusec, 1983; Smetana, 1997).



Aggression
The association between corporal punishment and children's aggression is one of the most studied and debated findings in the child-rearing literature ( Coie & Dodge, 1998; Steinmetz, 1979). Over the years, several reviews of the literature have concluded that corporal punishment is associated with increases in children's aggressive behaviors ( Becker, 1964; Patterson, 1982; Radke-Yarrow, Campbell, & Burton, 1968; Steinmetz, 1979). Corporal punishment has been hypothesized to predict increases in children's aggression because it models aggression (e.g., Aronfreed, 1969; Bandura & Walters, 1959; Eron, Walder, & Lefkowitz, 1971; Walters & Grusec, 1977); promotes hostile attributions, which predict violent behavior ( Dodge, Pettit, McClaskey, & Brown, 1986); and initiates coercive cycles of aversive behaviors between parent and child ( Dishion & Patterson, 1999; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Early experiences with corporal punishment may model and legitimize many types of violence throughout an individual's life ( White & Straus, 1981), particularly violence in romantic relationships ( Simons, Lin, & Gordon, 1998). Indeed, in one longitudinal study, parents' use of corporal punishment in childhood was the strongest predictor of adolescents' aggression 8 years later, whereas permissive parenting was not a significant predictor ( P. Cohen, Brook, Cohen, Velez, & Garcia, 1990). It was my expectation that corporal punishment would be associated in the meta-analyses with aggression in childhood as well as in adulthood.
Although aggression is often combined with antisocial behavior to constitute what are typically referred to as externalizing behavior problems ( Achenbach, 1991), antisocial behaviors such as stealing are nonviolent and may be related to corporal punishment in different ways than aggression ( Huesmann, 1997). In the present meta-analyses, the extent to which children engage in delinquent or illegal behaviors are separated from the extent of their aggressive behaviors.
Delinquent, Criminal, and Antisocial Behavior
Across decades of research, corporal punishment has been implicated in the etiology of criminal and antisocial behaviors by both children and adults (e.g., Burt, 1925; Glueck & Glueck, 1964; Hetherington, Stouwie, & Ridberg, 1971; W. McCord & McCord, 1959; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; West & Farrington, 1973; Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985). Attribution theory posits that associations between corporal punishment and child delinquent or antisocial behavior result from an inability of corporal punishment to facilitate children's internalization of morals and values ( Hoffman, 1983; Lepper, 1983). Social control theory suggests that parental corporal punishment erodes the parent-child relationship and in turn decreases children's motivation to internalize parents' values and those of the society, which in turn results in low self-control ( Hirschi, 1969). These same processes may explain the relation between corporal punishment and adult criminality. In Glueck and Glueck's (1950) longitudinal study of delinquency, whether boys experienced a harsh parental disciplinary style predicted their arrest rates at ages 17 through 45 (see also Laub & Sampson, 1995). J. McCord (1979) also found in her longitudinal study that the extent to which parents were aggressively punitive predicted their children's criminal behavior as adults. The connection between criminal and antisocial behavior in childhood and adulthood is examined here in separate meta- analyses.

It's also interesting point out at this point, the conflict between two ideas in this thread.


Amish Trooper and yourself seem to have taken up the mantle for the argument that a decrease in discipline and what you would label as effective parenting has been a driver here. Putting aside the fact that this is inherently a position which contradicts what everyone said on the first page about personal responsibility, it doesn't follow logically from your own arguments.


Let us presume that everything in the book Amish Trooper mentioned is true. That lax parenting has precipitated these violent outbursts. The book looks at the rise of "generation me" starting with the 70's through the 90's (this, I think is HIGHLY problematic, but let us just accept the book for what it is).


Why then, has there been an overall drop in violent crime in the US?



If the rise of lax parenting was a monocausal factor in increased likelihood of violent outbursts such as the Aurora shooting then doesn't it stand to reason that violent crime rates would go up? Instead what we see is the opposite.

Kerr Avon said:

---

Many places are making it illegal to spank your children, classifying it as child abuse. How is that anything but "taking powers away from parents"?

Do you think things like this happen when children are properly disciplined?
Six teens attacked man because 'they were just bored,' police say | Cincinnati.com | cincinnati.com

Can you point to any state that has outlawed spanking?

Google turned up this as the first hit which seems to indicate that no state has outlawed spanking:
State by State Spanking Laws - Kidjacked

Here's one meta-analytical take published in Psychological Bulletin, vol. 128, no. 4, 2002.

And the psychologists have been at the forefront of insisting on talking to little Johnny like he's an adult, rather than treating him like a child. They are the ones that have testified and helped force these laws stripping away the rights of parents to properly discipline and raise their child because that discipline was so 'harmful' to their poor little developing minds and egos.

jlee562 said:

---

Can you point to any state that has outlawed spanking?

Google turned up this as the first hit which seems to indicate that no state has outlawed spanking:
State by State Spanking Laws - Kidjacked

Gee, try reading the very first section of the page where the courts act like it's illegal anyway.

"Warning: The existence of these laws should not be considered to be a defense for actually spanking a child in any state in the United States. Family courts have been known to ignore the law. Exercising your rights may be costly and time consuming and you could still lose your case, even though you are in the right."

I was going to post that site earlier but didn't get around to it, but I'm glad we can both agree that people are being cowed into not punishing their own children because they will face child abuse charges. Thanks for helping my argument!!!

Kerr Avon said:

---

And the psychologists have been at the forefront of insisting on talking to little Johnny like he's an adult, rather than treating him like a child. They are the ones that have testified and helped force these laws stripping away the rights of parents to properly discipline and raise their child because that discipline was so 'harmful' to their poor little developing minds and egos.

Right, because the EVIDENCE shows that the HARM IS REAL.

If you would like the refute the evidence, please, be my guest. I am always willing to read contrary evidence and methodological critiques.

I provided a litany of studies which demonstrates the link between corporal punishment and negative outcomes.

Fine, don't want to listen to a psychologist? How about a pediatrician?

Spanking Linked to Kids' Later Aggression

April 12, 2010 -- Moms who spank their 3-year-olds may be increasing their children's risk of aggressive behavior, such as bullying, by the time they turn 5, a study shows.
The study, published in the May issue of Pediatrics, adds to evidence suggesting that spanking and other types of corporal punishment set kids up for aggressive behaviors later in life.
"Children need guidance and discipline; however, parents should focus on positive, non-physical forms of discipline and avoid the use of spanking," study researcher Catherine A. Taylor, PhD, an assistant professor of community health sciences at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine in New Orleans, tells WebMD in an email. "This message is consistent with that of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which 'strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.'"
Taylor and colleagues asked about 2,500 mothers how often they had spanked their 3-year-old child in the past month. Nearly half of the moms said they had not spanked their child during the previous month, 27.9% said they spanked their 3-year-old once or twice within the last month, and 26.5% percent said they spanked their child more than twice in the past month.
The researchers also asked moms questions about their child's aggressive behavior, such as whether they were bullies, cruel, mean, destructive, and/or prone to getting into fights with others at age 3 and again at age 5.
Although other studies have shown a link between spanking and aggressive behavior, the new study solidifies the connection because the researchers controlled for other maternal risk factors that might have explained the link, such as neglect, maternal use of drugs and alcohol, maternal stress and depression, and the physical or psychological maltreatment of the child.

"This study reinforces that any kind of violence or physical aggression in the home is another risk factor for kids being more aggressive in the future," says Patricia Hametz, MD, director of the Injury and Violence Prevention Center and assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at Columbia University and director of the general pediatrics inpatient service at New York-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital in New York City.

And again, if this kind of parenting is so bad, why has violent crime dropped?

Kerr Avon said:

---

Gee, try reading the very first section of the page where the courts act like it's illegal anyway.

"Warning: The existence of these laws should not be considered to be a defense for actually spanking a child in any state in the United States. Family courts have been known to ignore the law. Exercising your rights may be costly and time consuming and you could still lose your case, even though you are in the right."

I was going to post that site earlier but didn't get around to it, but I'm glad we can both agree that people are being cowed into not punishing their own children because they will face child abuse charges. Thanks for helping my argument!!!

You made the claim that laws were being passed outlawing spanking. This is not true, and that link does not help your case.

As an aside: In Sweden, a generation of kids who've never been spanked - CNN.com

Sweden outlawed spanking in 1979.

If your argument was true, and spanking was the lynchpin between order and disorder, than Sweden should have gone up in flames.

That didn't happen.

Which makes room for the argument of culture.

jlee562 said:

---

But look, something else is going on here. Of the developed world, the US has the highest rate of gun violence.

Those statistics don't really show that it's out of the norm for the rest of the world. The U.S. has more private gun ownership than any other country so of course we will have more gun related crimes. That would be like saying Australia has the highest rate of Kangaroo attacks in the world. I grew up with guns in the house, shooting those guns, playing with toy guns, playing with military toys, video games, etc. and I've never gone nuts and killed anyone.


I think for the average person movies, music, literature, and video game violence has no effect. If you have someone who has a mental illness or is just a sick person then yes it would have an effect on them. Let's take Hitler for example, he probably never saw many violent movies, he was just a sick SOB!

Sluis Van Shipyards said:

---

Those statistics don't really show that it's out of the norm for the rest of the world.

Relative to developed nations, yes, it does.

jlee562 said:

---

You made the claim that laws were being passed outlawing spanking. This is not true, and that link does not help your case.

Semantics. As the link you posted points out, people are still being arrested and charged with child abuse by states for simply spanking their children. That's no different than laws being passed!

Spanking your child is the wrong form of discipline. Sorry, I see no pro-argument against spanking being valid. Spanking is a defeat of the parents from dealing with the situation without resorting to violence.

Standing firm and not giving in to your screaming child will eventually teach it that screaming about something doesn't work. However... many parents just cave in because it's easier and it gives them peace... until next time. And that teaches children to behave like little selfish monsters.

But there's still a long way from being selfish monsters to being killers.

A child that meets violence learns violence. A child that meets respect learns to respect. Seriously, just explainig why we have rules goes a long way.

jlee562 said:

---

No, they didn't exist 20 years ago. But there were a lot more radio stations, there were a lot more newspapers.

My point has nothing to do with the speed at which news spreads. I agree and have already acknowledged that technology changes the pace at which news spreads. But the idea that the population didn't hear about mass shootings because of a lack of media coverage 20 years ago - which was your original assertion - that's just silly.

Do you really think that the west coast didn't hear about the St. Valentine's day massacre or the haymarket riots? Do you think the east coast didn't hear about the gunfight at the OK corral? It may have taken longer, but the public knew of these events. It's not as if they were only reported regionally.

It's baffling how you continue to miss my point. I'm not saying no one learned about it, I'm saying that it's possible that it didn't spread AS FAST or was part of the new cycle AS LONG.

Let me state this again, in the vain hope it will be understood. I am suggesting the possibility that given the current media environment a perception of increased violence may exist that is contrary to proven data. That with more IMMEDIATE sources for news and the increased sensationalism of negative news stories that more reporting on statistically fewer killings could lead people to erroneously believe that there is an increase in crime. I'm not claiming this possibility to be a fact, I'm making a supposition. It's conjecture.

Take it or leave it, but don't put words in my mouth.

To quote Scream. "Movies don't create psychos... movies make psychos more creative!!"