QFT!!!!!

and this is why we have twats like jack thompson it's the games companies fault that PARENTS buy the games for the kids, parents DON'T look at the rating of the game.

Would he be going after Steven Speilberg if he had an R rated movie and the parents walked the kids into the theater and left?

Probably

I like the blurb you did Critias. Especially the 'vampire cult' example because the media likes to look away that human beings the way they are, some have acted crazy before and will always will. For the cult, insert the Manson family back in the errr... 70's, definitely before the Vampire rpg.

If the media is sensationalizing about there being more incidences, I do wonder since we do have a larger population now that the percentages would increase just because well, there's a higher proportion of folks that can crack. Especially if people are lamenting how there's more pressure in society these days also.

Oh man, the earlier post about the statue irks me. Growing up in Massachusetts we have a minuteman statue in the town square and he had a rifle on hand. I shudder to think if those same parents in Colorado, were they to live in my old town would try and get a petition to remove that statue (probably not, but who knows).

Oh, I know, I know. There's always a lot more going into it, and plenty of things that lead up to someone gaining crazy ass status (often even, as you mentioned, things besides a batch of bad genes and a chemical imbalance). But for the purposes of my post, it was easier to just say "crazy ass" and move on to the next example of some aspect of popular (or geek) culture being blamed for a crime rather than the criminal.

Go ahead and do it. I'm no longer there.

You did see that I said "self-consistent", right?

Even better would be moving away from blame-assignment, but we're wired to make it feel good and in a number of cases it's a useful enough heuristic. C'est la vie.

~J

Why attack Canada? Aren't they the 52nd state, right after puerto rico...

I kid, I kid

Historically soldiers have always had trouble actually killing the enemy. In the War of Northern Aggression, for example, many rifles on both sides were found to be loaded with multiple bullets because the soldiers carrying them couldn't bring themselves to shoot and just went through the motions so that they would not look like cowards. This is actually very common and is why most modern militaries use training which is designed to desensitize soldiers to enemy death.
The most common and simplest method used is shooting practice with metal humanoid targets when fall when they are hit, so that the solider learns to associate a falling humanoid form with success. For some time, the Pentagon was also studying the effectiveness of video games in desensitization and there are currently some video game style combat simulators.

The problem with video games, however, is immersion, particularly physical immersion. Pressing a button on a control pad while your character stabs his enemies with a giant sword is very different then stabbing someone yourself, or shooting someone. Likewise, sitting on the couch all day is not conducive to the physical condition required for sustained combat and a video game would not produce the same chemical responses that a schoolyard brawl would.
Light Gun games probably provide the best physical immersion possible for a video game, and with it the best desensitization to shooting people. But even that doesn't provide the same level of basic combat experience that a playground fist-fight does. Video games can't provide the slightest bit of desensitization to personal physical hardship or personal injury, and therein lies a problem. Even if you have a generation that sees other people the same way they see imps and cyberdemons, they still won't be able to take a hit. When they are put into a situation of personal hardship, particularly a total control environment or a war zone, they are likely to put up little resistance and will, in general, crack or fold very easily.

Of course, there is a huge psychological disconnect between actual people and video game characters. The latter can be restored to life by the miracle of the reset button. The former cannot be resurrected at all. Most people know that intellectually. Sacrificing a unit in an RTS is little different from sacrificing a piece in chess.

I agree absolutely with the idea that no external influence made anyone do anything. I disagree with the idea that no external influence can shape attitudes. After all, parents are also external influences.

How much time have videogames spent raising us? The strongest external influences tend to be those which have the largest time ratios in the person's life. As we grow older, we are more able to choose our personal environments.

But to simply say this or that made someone do a thing (and then discredit this) is to discount influence altogether ... even parental influence!

On what basis, out of interest?

~J

Your latter statement is almost certainly wrong, or at least almost certainly right in only the most technical fashion. Our understanding of the brain is incredibly incomplete, but already we can reliably generate out-of-body experiences in human test subjects (see Olaf Blanke's research)—our ability to cause people to think, feel, and choose as desired is only limited by our ability to manipulate the physical (including chemical) state of the brain and our understanding of what states produce what responses.

Similarly, there is no reason to believe that the human brain is nondeterministic, which is where the technicality comes in—one may argue that we are unable to make choices for others because we cannot choose to do it ourselves.

Even setting that aside, though, can you honestly tell me that you have been completely capable of choosing any action possible for you, even throughout the past five years? The past year? I say any action possible because I don't see an argument that would allow you to restrict some choices that wouldn't apply to restricting all choices but one, but if you can provide such an argument that'd also work as an answer.

~J

I think that's an unusual playing style.

Last time I was playing Dune 2, which was actually really recently due to DOSBox, I remembered reflecting on how the vast majority of Light Infantry units I create have no chance to survive until the end of the engagement. With those guys, it's a true World War II style "let's throw men at a building until it's overwhelmed while taking as a given the fact that only the last one or two guys who actually capture the building will the the ones who didn't get gunned down or blown up on the way." It's like that with all the units, truthfully, but it's so much so with the infantry that it makes it a little sad when you send them on their suicide charge and the voice recording responds with a confident, "Infantry out!".

If by "technical" you mean "practical" and "practiced", you would be right. Most people only come to the realisation though when it's literally a matter of life and death.

You'll remember I was the one to introduce the concept of neuromarketing to this thread -- and still I say this.

Which would throw that whole concept of "free will" -- upon which our laws, our society, our beliefs utterly depend -- out the window. If you really and firmly believe in this kind of nondeterminism: are you also saying we live by society's rules because we literally don't have a choice? If yes: then why is there anyone in prison?

I have been heavily influenced by this force and by that, in the past as today. I think I've specifically acknowledged this. But I came to a point of understanding that I did have a choice: and suddenly the world of choice really opened up, in a way that had never been true before. (Not within the past five years, but almost exactly seven years ago to the day -- well, next month. It's a very clear memory.) I really hope no one else ever has to come to the same kind of point.

It's a fair point. In fact, the essence of Christianity is based on exactly such a conundrum: humanity is given free will solely for the purpose of making the Right choice -- which in turn dictates other choices. A moral code is a powerful influence.

You miss the obvious answer: because we put them there. Why did we put them there? Because we did (ok, because the state of the universe immediately before we put them in jail had them in jail as its transition state). This line of thinking makes that question the same as "why did the apple fall down instead of floating away into the sky?" It did, obviously, and you can find a reason, but that's totally different from the kind of "why" you're talking about here.

For one of two obvious reasons, although I am increasingly convinced that this is the case, I don't base any of my decisions on it.

On the other hand, this does illustrate some things that are useful to keep in mind even in daily life. If you take someone's hand and place it on a glowing-hot stove, do you call it their choice to jerk away? If you inject someone with powerful stimulants, do you call it their choice to become alert and have difficulty sleeping? If you tap someone on the knee, do you call it their choice to jerk their leg?

If no, why is it so difficult to imagine some more complex stimulus producing a more complex response that cannot be meaningfully be called a choice?

~J

And I ask: what makes "us" different from "them"? What makes this apple fall -- but that other apple stay on the tree?

Instincts can be overridden. It may or may not be in our best interest to do so. Per the example of the hot stove, the instinct to pain is to jerk away, and a child will do just that. But what if you are hanging onto a cliff edge and a bee stings you?

Our bodies have biological responses, and some of them are strong (pain and procreation are right up there) -- but we can choose how to react to those responses. If we couldn't: well, there's a throw-away-the-rape-statutes waiting to happen.

So the answer to your scenario is not blindly no but yes: feeling the sensation may or may not be controllable, but reaction to biological stimuli definitely is a choice.

Choice is one of the great gifts of sapience. We can always choose not to make use of it, however.

The one apple's stem weakens due to myriad complex but deterministic forces, the other one's doesn't.

Demonstrate to me (for purposes of this test I nominate you my agent in observation) your ability to not jerk your leg when tapped in the correct location under the correct circumstances.

Why would it be? I mean, if we assume that the penal system exists for retribution rather than rehabilitation, which granted it currently does, it certainly provides a strong argument against it. However, unless we assume that there are no factors that influence the degree to which a person may be influenced, there's no reason to not address those who have demonstrated susceptibility to influence.

Many biological stimuli don't even hit the brain, and some amount of the human sexual response (much larger portions of the human pain response) is resolved in the peripheral nervous system.

I'll put it another way. Do you deny that the ability to learn is required to possess the ability to choose? If not, what is the mechanism of learning?

Please propose a definition for "sapience". The ones I'm familiar with involve possession of choice (judgement), making your statement circular. Being green is one of the great gifts of being green, too.

~J

Or you could use an illustrative example most people agree to be sapient: Homo sapiens. Determinism undermines our understanding of what it means to be human.

You happened to choose a discipline I've been practicing. I've had some small success. For much, much better examples, I refer you to such examples as fire-walking and yogic disciplines. Ganglia can be otherwise trained, just as muscle memory can be trained. (If, in a combat, you're waiting each time for nerve responses to reach the brain and return: you will probably lose.)

Two assumptions in the same paragraph. The first is not universally true, and in fact is a subject of ongoing debate -- somewhat outside the scope of this topic.

The second asks if such factors exist, why not separate out such persons from the rest of society? but also assumes differences in human psychology at the level of susceptability to influence -- without actually considering how such susceptability might have arisen. If biological, we're looking at a eugenics argument. If a result of environment, once again we're looking at the acceptability and indeed potency of some forms of influence over others: or perhaps only primacy of whichever influence is encountered at key points of development. Either way, to accept this argument would be to accept a priori that the action is somehow outside the control of the person (by way of increased susceptability to influence --> it "made" me do it).

And considering that is the very thing you are trying to prove, that becomes circular.

Good question. I don't know. I think the ability to learn may be necessary, but I can't prove it's necessary, except insofar as to make what we might consider to be better choices. It's why I liked Shaun of the Dead: what is the essential difference between the way most of us lead our lives and the basic motivations that drive a zombie? Though I'd suggest that the zombie acts on instinct because it can't do differently: while we could ... if we wanted to.

Right, but that's not any kind of counterargument. The universe is under no obligation to maintain personal responsibility, even though we may really prefer that it exists.

~J

True, but it does tie back to the original question in this thread: do videogames make you RP sociopaths by default? Does anything make someone do or become something? Determinism says yes, and that no individual factor matters: which in turn negates personal responsibility -- so something like videogames (even if not videogames specifically) could make you become a different kind of person. (Dice are non-sapient operators: and sapience is a relevant part of the equation.)

(And that's literally all I have time for, just now.)

Pretty much, though here we get into issues of perspective (any system with a state and input can also be represented as a larger system consisting of the state, the state of the thing that used to be generating input, and any input into the thing that used to be generating input--likewise, you can shrink the system down to a smaller set of states and fill the role the other states used to play via input).

Then the question might be easy to answer--if we take "you" as meaning "people in general", we just need to find someone who has had input {videogames} and who does not {play sociopaths by default}, and the answer is clearly no. If we never find such a person, we don't get an answer.

If we take "you" as meaning each individual reader, the analysis above will hold for each of them, but it obviously won't result in any insight into others by itself.

~J

You are missing the point. Assuming absolute determinism, humans are complex open systems that come together to form even larger systems. This discussion (and others like it) is a set of actions by which human systems exchange information between each other, altering each other in the process, and forming an even more complex system.
There are no irreverent human interactions. All human actions contribute to the greater system which is human society, and to the system which is the universe and all humans are altered by their interactions with each other.