New Book Cuts Through Violent Video Game Myths 213
Terry Bosky suggests a recent interview from Game Couch with one of the authors of an upcoming book which fights the "myths and hysteria" surrounding violent video games. Dr. Cheryl K. Olson explains how many of the studies linking aggression with video games were flawed or misguided, and she discusses some of her own findings. Quoting:
"Until now, the most-publicized studies came from a small group of experimental psychologists, studying college students playing nonviolent or violent games for 15 minutes. It's debatable whether those studies are relevant to real children, playing self-selected games for their own reasons (not for cash or extra credit!), in social settings, over many years. But media reports and political rhetoric often ignore that distinction. Also, the most-published researchers have built their careers around media violence. Their studies were designed under the assumption that violent video games are harmful, which dictated the questions they asked and how they framed their results. Media violence is just a small part of what we do, so we could look at the issue with fresh eyes and no agenda."
Maybe I read that wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe I read that wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe I read that wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe I read that wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
So more trustworthy for you to consider.
It's one of the things you really want to look for when folks start flinging studies around: who do they work for? Would you trust as accurate a study funded my Microsoft that says that 5 of 6 dentists prefer to use Windows, or would you be more likely to trust as accurate a study funded by some independent group?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe I read that wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Maybe I read that wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy tiger, you'll find /. a prettier place when smiling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable rational neutral people in the "center" don't exist, those people are guilty of opposite-wing bias.
When [unbiased reasonable rational source] says negative things about my wingnut buddies and my wignut sources of information, I ignore it because it just proves [unbiased reasonable rational s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And then compare it to just one of our major cities...
It's freaking obvious to anyone who has paid any attention over the last 50 years... social darwinism. Launch the greediest of your society to the top (yay US!). That's just how the rules work in this country. Fuck your neighbor, and if anyone touches my useless shit I'll kill all y
Re:Maybe I read that wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't have an agenda
Are you sure? Because when I googled for "Cheryl K. Olson," the first hit I got [pmusa.com] showed that she is on the payroll of Big Tobacco [pmusa.com]. She has also been a "strategic communications consultant" for Big Pharmaceutical and Big Media. I haven't found anything (yet) to indicate that she's on the gaming industry's payroll, but her history reads like that of a professional shill, not a dispassionate scientist.
Re:Maybe I read that wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
He got various questionnaires from the various political parties.
This is the same question on both parties questionnaires, but notice the difference in how its worded -
* Do you believe in the killing of unborn children?
* Do you believe you have the right to tell a women whos been raped that she has to carry to term the resulting fetus?
You don't think that the questions they ask about violence in video games might be just a little skewed?
Re:Maybe I read that wrong (Score:4, Funny)
Unless, that is, some people reach puberty while still in the womb. I know slashdot has a lot of people still living in their parents' basements, but that's a bit much. If you're 18 and still living in the womb, then yes, I support killing you.
Re: (Score:2)
Most awesome thing anyone's ever said, ever. Thank you.
Those are NOT the same questions! (Score:5, Insightful)
* Do you believe you have the right to tell a women whos been raped that she has to carry to term the resulting fetus?
There are lots of unborn children who are not being carried by rape victims.
The whole problem with the 'abortion debate' is that the extreme participants argue under the assumption that if you are not universally pro-life, you must be pro-abortion, and if you are not universally pro-choice, you must be pro-government-control of bodies.
That's not the way reasonable people think.
I think abortion is bad *AND* I think the government telling a woman what to do with her body is bad.
On top of that, I realize that not all abortions are equally bad - aborting a one-cell fetus is not even in the same realm of bad as aborting a 38-week-old fetus. And telling a woman who is pregnant as a result of sex she agreed to have that she can't have an abortion is not as bad as telling a woman who never consented to the sex that led to pregnancy that she can't have an abortion.
Now, there is going to be a lot of variance in where most reasonable people decide the 'badness' of allowing women to choose to abort their pregnancies is less bad than forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Most reasonable people are going to agree that the death of non-differentiated fetuses is a very small amount of bad. And most reasonable people are going to agree that the death of a fetus that is, but for a few inches of position, about to be a live birth as extremely bad. So most REASONABLE people support *BOTH* abortion *AND* limits on choice.
6 weeks pregnant because you were raped? Abort if you want.
38 weeks pregnant because you were raped? Sorry, too late.
A debate about whether abortion is OK or not is stupid. A debate about government intervention in a woman's choice is stupid. There is no debate - both are bad. The debate needs to be about at what point a woman's control of her body is outweighed by the interests of the fetus.
So back to your original questions:
#1) Sometimes.
#2) Sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
to ever get hired for a political push polling outfit.
-
Re: (Score:2)
like this article is not just unbiased, but also fairly unimportant as it's target audience doesn't even care what they are saying.
Good thing the article is about a Doctor who wrote a book, which will be discussed and read by a much different, and by your metric, important audience, eh?
Well, I guess you got some nice mod point out of that, but next time, RTFS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. Another way to read it is "I'm an impartial observer and don't have a vested interest" which is someone I'm much more likely to pay attention to.
"Humans are inherently violent." (Score:2)
I'm not going to touch the rest of your comment, but I felt I had to reply to this. If you mean that humans kill things in order to survive, that's true. Then again, so does every other animal on earth. If you mean that humans are programmed to enjoy killing other humans, you're wrong. Take a look at how most people will fight (without weapons) unless they've taken a lot of martial arts training. The instinctual fighting method most humans use is very rarely fatal,
aaargh. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"DON'T LISTEN TO THESE PSYCHOLOGISTS! THEY ARE GAMERS THEMSELVES!!!" or something.
~Jarik
Re: (Score:2)
I feel exactly the same way.
i need to go down to my local ammunation, get strapped, and start taking them fools out.
Well I'm gonna go find a jam-packed server, get strapped with heavy artillery and tons of ammo and blast everyone to flying giblets instead.
-
WHAT?!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously, folks, it's about damn time someone stepped up to the 'personal responsibility' plate and didn't get hit in the head by the ball (man, I pwn'd that metaphor). I grew up in the age of violent video games, as did most people here... come on, this website's name involves SLASHING people. My favorite movies growing up were Beverly Hills Cop and Aliens (I was all of six years old for those), and not once did I feel the urge to be more violent, or to shoot anyone. I thought "Wow, those movies are an awesome escape from boring reality. I'm gonna go read some Calvin & Hobbes now, maybe eat a cookie."
Yes, this is anecdotal, but if ten million people have (and apparently do) have similar anecdotal stories, that adds up, and this book is just the long-overdue sober second look at a popular, convenient myth.
PS: Jack Thompson needs to be clubbed with this book.
Re:WHAT?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
That populist sentiment misses a lot of the point of that kind of research. It may not have much to do with "banning" anything at all, but, for example, giving parents information that will help them decide if and when to bring videogame consoles into the home, or whether someone who is having trouble with violent behavior should be advised to stay away from videogames. That research is worthwhile even if there isn't a direct public policy connection.
I'm all in favor of the more nuanced view of the topic of media effects on behavior, and I think the authors of this book are right on. But the old canard of "what about personal responsibility?" strikes me as anti-intellectual crankiness.
Re:WHAT?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
But how come it's only ever the "unpopular things" that are questionned as to whether they affect behaviour - fictional violence, video games, rock music, Marilyn Manson, porn?
No one questions the violence in religious texts when it turns out a murderer was obsessed with the Bible or killed someone because "God says so". Unless they're a pagan or satanist, in which case, it's back to the "unpopular things" which must be banned again.
I've nothing against providing parents with information, but note that people do use these claims to ban things, even for adults. I think "personal responsibility" is a valid response when the claim put forward is that media alone can turn people into violent criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the difference? (Score:2)
You seem to criticize the "personal responsibility" mantra, but in doing that you ignore the reality that studies of this sort by
Re: (Score:2)
Except that I doubt if the research in question does any
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My son's favorite driving game is Carmageddon. Do I think he'll be a bad driver? No.
Re: (Score:2)
Since this 'age' you speak of only started like 15 years ago (if that), I would say you haven't grown up at all.
For some reason the violent video games of my youth didn't count as violent video games. Perhaps they were too pixelated to count as violence. Perhaps people just weren't that concerned about violence against space invaders, ghosts, or goombas. But most likely the people who came to blame video games for all of societies woes were just so busy blaming Dungeons and Dragons for all of societies woes that video games were flying under their radar. (which change when Mortal Kombat got so much negative publici
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When I got dumped several times, I didn't lash out.
When I got fired because someone ELSE was stealing money, I didn't even raise my voice.
When I got hit by a car, I didn't get angry.
Tell me again what my 'emotional brain' is learning?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An accurate sampling? (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not versed in acceptable survey sampling standards, but given the 100's of 1000's (if not millions) of gamer-kids all across the country, this seems small to me. Just an uneducated observation....
Re:An accurate sampling? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:An accurate sampling? (Score:5, Informative)
You're being to simplistic -- the sample size needed for good predictions isn't directly related to the total number of gamers. The size of the sample needed is related to error introduced by the measures used and the phenomenon measured. If you have a robust methodology, you may need only a few subjects. If there are huge errors introduced by your methodology (political polling is a good example of this), you may need thousands of subjects.
I didn't read the article (this is slashdot, after all...), but any good psychologist would include statistics indicating the probability that the results were caused by error or random chance, usually this number should be very low, 5% or lower. See the wikipedia article on P-values [wikipedia.org] for more on this.
But to answer your question: many psychological experiments are done with a much smaller number of subjects (50 or so), and get very low P-values. The effect being tested here may be harder to reliably measure, but the sample size is also pretty large. So there's no reason to think that 1,200 is too low, unless the stats say otherwise.
-Esme
"Methodology" is fine (Score:2)
"Methodology" in the GP's sense is perfectly acceptable. From the OED:
Originally: the branch of knowledge that deals with method generally or with the methods of a particular discipline or field of study... (more generally) a method or body of methods used in a particular field of study or activity.
The word has followed a pattern that many words of the form "x"ology follow. "Psychology," for example, originally meant (and still does mean) the study of the "psyche" (spirit or mind). But in later usage, the word describing the study of the object often comes to stand for the object itself, e.g., in uses like "reverse psychology." Basically, "x"ology does not always mean "the study of x."
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't ludicrous -- it's the foundation of science. We don't have to drop every pair of things in the universe to see if they fall at the same rate. Galileo dropped a few things 500 years ago, and people have replicated his findings, and now the question's settled. Every aspect of modern science, engineering and technology depend on this.
In fact, I'd agree with another poster who said that 1,200 was a suspiciously large sample, since a sample of that size often indicates re-using several existing dat
Re:An accurate sampling? (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAS (I Am Not A Statistician), but this is the situation as I understand it.
Suppose I have a room with a hundred people in it. Some of them are mathematicians, whose noses I've blackened with a magic marker. Everybody is wearing red rubber clown noses. Your job is to snap enough noses that you have a reasonable estimate of what proportion of them are mathematicians. Let's say you check five people, and two have smudgy noses. That gives you an estimate of 40%, but it's not very reliable, so you continue checking until you have snapped 50 rubber noses, and found twenty mathematicians. Now you're pretty confident the ration is about 40%, right?
Now suppose there were a thousand people in the room. You're a bit less confident in your 40% effort, but you're still almost as confident. But look: increasing the sample by a factor of ten made you a LOT more confident; increasing the population by a factor of 10 makes almost no difference (at least with these numbers; a 1 in 50 result would be a different kettle of fish).
Samples over a certain range get rapidly better -- much faster than linearly, and then they kind of run out of steam because they can't really get much better or they'd be perfect. The upshot is that for many experimental designs you aren't much better off having 500 subjects over having 50, whether the population you are sampling is 10,000 or 100,000,000. In fact you might be worse off it the population size is, say, 500 -- at least if you are interested in gaining any insights about your null hypothesis.
It's a good thing too. If you think about it, if you do something like a drug trial with a hundred or so subjects in it are supposed to stand in for all of the 6.7 billion people on the planet.
In any case, I'm always a bit skeptical when I see studies with sample sizes in the thousands. It's not financially efficient to conduct real studies this size, so they tend to be hashing together data from sources collected for other purposes. Such studies have their place, of course. They also have their limitations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a problem for the peer review process; you have to disclose how you got the data and people take turns sneering at you for being too stupid to count those fellows smudgy nosed guys running out the door. You of course have to disclose that you lost some, because they know you did, and probably have a pretty go
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the results you want (Score:2)
I depends on what exactly the study is aimed for. You can take 2400 randomly selected registered Democrats, nationwide, and say with a 2% margin of error that 47% percent want candidate A,
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, you are not versed in "acceptable survey sampling standards" or even the basic theory underlying sampling. The size of the population being sampled is not a factor in the size of the sample needed to draw conclusions to any degree of confidence. see Required sample sizes for hypothesis tests [wikipedia.org].
correlation and causation (Score:2)
The sample size isn't the issue (it's a pretty good sample size, as surveys go). Rather, it's that the researcher is proposing to throw out a large body of research [psychologicalscience.org] including randomized experiments and longitudinal followups, in favor of her own one-time survey study.
It's almost as though "you can't show cause-and-effect with a one-time survey." Wait a minute, where did I get that quote? From Dr. Cheryl K. Olson, quoted directly from TFA. It's almost unbelievable that she's apparently saying it with a stra
I am a researcher in this field (Score:2, Informative)
Now, before you naysayers get your panties in a bunch, keep in mind, we are professionals. No one in my group had any agenda apart from doing good research.
Re:I am a researcher in this field (Score:5, Insightful)
"Sure," says I, "When I get bacon delivered through my second-story window fresh off the flying pig."
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it obvious? Clearly he just got done playing a violent video game.
Re: (Score:2)
I see this sort of thing all the time.
I'm sure our AC would be glad to give us some referenes to published studies, if you promi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And your control group included kids running around outside playing Cowboys & Indians and Cops & Robbers, too... right?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not surprised at all, and I don't doubt you.
The thing is, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth like, "VIDEOGAMES MAKE KILLERS," but what level of increased violence are we talking? There's no doubt I'm more likely to punch my friend in the shoulder when we play Tekken, and maybe I'm even more likely to shoot someone, but if the chance that I'm going to get stabby is 0.01% and a game brings it up to 0.0101% who cares?
Waking up at 6AM gets me pissed off too, but I do it every day. Should we out
Re: (Score:2)
I would be interested in how that's measured. Do you induce a stressful situation after and see if the response is violent or non-violent? When selecting these violent videogames, what was the violence scale? Was bowling violent because all the aggression towards the pins? Did you measure heart rate during the game and see if more stressful gam
Re: (Score:2)
What the real question is, does it have any latest effect on developement, specifically on attitudes toward violence. Judging by the sheer number of people who play and the fact that domestic violence, murder, and the like are not exactly shooting through the roof, I'd have to say, no. But I"m not researching it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's pretty easy to understand. Playing intense games leads to a heightened state of arousal which leads to more violent behavior. But how relevant is that to crime? I mean we all have sympathetic nervous systems and we
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends on what you defined as 'violent behaviour' and it should be compared to kids who play sports for fairness, if we're going to study win/lose situations (like games) then sports is fair game.
I'd say sports is far more prone to people being violent then games, when was the last gaming riot that caused an uproar? I can't remember either.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you look for other correlations such as competitive games versus constructive games? (racing versus sim city for instance)
Do i believe anonymous coward ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of the studies I've read, and I've read all of the ones that I've heard about, use the term "aggression" rather than "violent behavior."
The problem with this is that none of the studies I've read have defined "aggression." Craig Anderson is the main "aggression" guy and nearly all of these studies cite him but I've never read him define "aggression." In fact, in one study that he co-authored there is a table that lists a couple examples of "aggression" and one of them is raising yo
What about the programmers? (Score:2, Insightful)
People are always concerned about what the effects of playing violent video games might be, but nobody seems to question whether there are any undesirable effects of programming these games. I imagine that a programmer, stressing out to meet the game's shipping deadline in the face of a show-stopping heisenbug somewhere in the code, might be more inclined to do something violent during a particularly frustrating midnight debugging session, such as take the computer up to the roof of his company's 12-story o
Re: (Score:2)
And eat him.
It is very hard to gague cause and effect (Score:2, Insightful)
If people who watch R-rated games tend to be more violent than those who don't, are the movies making them more violent than they otherwise would have been? Maybe, but determining a "yes" or "no" answer is far from easy and far from certain.
It's correlation masquearding as causation. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not impossible, or even overly difficult, for egghead researchers to answer this question...but it IS more work. Besides, a mere correlation seems to be all that is required for making voter-friendly knee-jerk policy, so very few people or institutions ever request or fund the extra work required.
Playing violent games (or watching violent films or
Re: (Score:2)
That might just be the stupidest thing I ever read on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its just something (Score:2, Insightful)
That gives lazy politicians something to do! Lets save our children from the violent video games! Instead of, oh, I dunno, managing tax reform, social problems, basically stuff you were elected to do.
Violent media has been around since the dawn of time, in the form of TV, books, sports etc etc etc. Its not going anywhere, kids, so don't worry about it. Wherever there is a market, the product will get served.
But... but... but... (Score:2)
Won't somebody think of Jack??????????
Alright, I admit it! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
-
A word about studies and bias (Score:4, Insightful)
That's OK. that's why studies are done open, done many times, and looked at.
Certainly who sponsored the study is something to look at, but it doesn't automatically mean the study is flawed. It's especially important when a study goes against previous studies.
So stop with the 'study is biased ' crap. Of course it is. Look at the result and see if it skewed the data, or id the study used bad techniques.
For the topic at hand, It is clear that violent games have a short term effect.
Adrenalin, acting out violent behaviors are all common to some degree.
It will go on for as long as the adrenalin is their system, and/or until it stops being funny.
I think there can be a point where the game can cause problems. We're not there it technologically, but it doesn't mean we won't cross the threshold.
If someone had a holodeck, could playing war games cause someone to be shell shock? desensitize someone to violence? I don't know and i hope not. That doesn't mean we shouldn't study it.
Nobody cares... (Score:2)
Religious organizations pretend they're "fighting" X to solicit donations so
AND NO AGENDA (Score:3)
It is in the summary, we need to look at the issue with NO AGENDA.
Be honest, how many of us does that rule out?
If have undergo military training in the past, and looking back, I know that through carefull management of my emotions I was being trained to be a killer. I really didn't notice it at the time, but training like that is designed to make you feel part of a group and you want to protect and fight for that team and kill those who are not in the same colors.
So I KNOW you can be manipulated.
Are claims that violent games decensitize you to violence then really that odd?
I noticed something, the same people who scream that goverments are training killers are the same who say that violent games have no influence on people. The two don't add up.
Any normal person can be influenced by media. A simple experiment, play the theme from love story and the theme from jaws over the same scene, wanna bet you look at each clip with a different heart rate?
But it doesn't really matter if the influence is there or not, first we got to accept that scaremongering politicans and selfish players are NEITHER suited to give an unbiased opinion on this subject. What next, we ask smokers about the danger of smoking or the tobacco industry? No, we ask doctors who are supposed to start each study with an open mind.
It is sad to see so clearly that this hasn't happened when it comes to games BUT this by no means proof that games are harmless. We really need independent study in this area AND then IF games are shown to have an influence, ask ourselves wether the influence is worth basic freedoms. For instance, we know drinking is bad for you, but we still allow it.
Re: (Score:2)
For the kabillionth time (Score:2)
Think of it this way - there is a stereotype that coders drink a lot of coffee. This does not mean that drinking coffee is going to make you into a coder.
Bad headline (Score:2)
New Book Cuts Through Violent Video Game Myths
Meh. I would've written it as "New Book Rips, Tears, and Slashes Violent Video Game Myths Then Spatters Their Guts All Over The Place While The Other Myths Look On In Horror, Paralyzed With Fear"
risk of desensitization? (Score:4, Insightful)
Today, video games look pretty much like video games. You can tell you are not watching something real, though single-player COD is getting pretty photo-realistic. Flying bodies, spurting blood. But it's still cartoonish. Cartoonish enough that you know it's a game.
What happens when the game becomes indistinguishable from reality? When it becomes photo-realistic? We know that people can become desensitized to stimuli by constant exposure.
If we had games that simulated warfare like, say, a "holodeck", would there be any debate as to the harmful effects it would have on the psyche of the players? Would we not see traumatic stress issues?
If you agree that we would see such problems with hyper-realistic games, then I think it is reasonable to debate and discuss what happens as we approach that level of realism. At what point does the game become realistic enough to start being harmful?
Re: (Score:2)
I participated in one of those studies! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ohh... the horror of it all. He didn't just kill them He was like a Rever from Firefly/Serenity. He Rasped, Killed and Ate them. In no particular order. The people and dogs really had it bad, but the Goldfish... I'm... sorry. I'm crying again just remembering what he did to that poor goldfish.
I have to stop here. My therepist has been on speed dial since the post video game masacre of last week and now his phone is just ringing. Is he in the bathroo
Re:who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Between space invaders and today's 3d there has been the time where blood could be drawn but mostly wasn't. Designers weren't using random color as soon as xevious, around '82. Drawing blood was technically possible and in topic in commando or green beret. And it would have impressed people, because we were impressed by VG graphics. We were impressed by marble madness fake 3d, or pole position fast sprites. Also, Video games were politically incorrect at least with leisure suit larry. It's not a matter of "we would have done it if we could".
Do VG mirror society or influence it? I guess it's kind of a feedback loop.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm glad you were. I was too busy losing all the time. I still can't finish the last level, and getting through Silly (I think that was the name of it; the reversed gravity level) is still a bitch...
Space invaders (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting that you mentioned space invaders. From wikipedia:
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
On Killing (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe ten years ago, I read On Killing [amazon.com], written by a psych professor at Westpoint, the U.S. Army Academy. The book was not about video games: it was a study of how the U.S. Army had successfully changed its effective fire ratio from 10% in WWII to over 90% in the Vietnam war, and how those 80% who got psychologically "tricked" into killing people they weren't prepared to kill were the ones who got extremely ill after the war. These people were trained to easily go past the non-violence barrier that most people have.
There is, however, a short chapter near the end of the book where he warns that the elements FPS games are functionally equivalent to the training methods the Army used,teaching players to go across that barrier, too.
Whether you agree or disagree, he still knew a lot about war and psychology.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's David Grossman, a first-rate demogogue of the post-Columbine era. Essentially all of Grossman's points are refuted by simply looking at a graph of violent crime rates plotted against the release of major "violent" (sic) video games. My favorite illustration is this one [photobucket.com] (89 KB
Re:On Killing (Score:5, Insightful)
The psychology of war has little to do with the physionomics of war. FPS games nurture the mental aspect attached to the physionomics of warfare - that's it. And while being an aspect of combat, it is far from the core basis of combat.
Psychology deals with the understanding of actions taken during war by the entities who participate. It addresses the mental state of participants pre, and post, participation in wartime activities.
Physionomics investigates how FPS games influence the mental awareness, and possibly the acuity, of recognizing multiple threat targets - and driving engagement until all threats have been negotiated.
The concept of how someone feels about killing another is distinctly removed from how someone recognizes an element they need to kill. Look at the psychology of serial killers.
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw this with the UK Government in its plans to criminali [slashdot.org]