Violence as a contagious disease?

I can't believe we're having the videogames perpetuate violence conversation. Such an obvious scapegoat.

I've played violent horror themed videogames as long as I can remember, and haven't yet mutilated or killed anyone.

In fact, I'd argue that it's because of the outlet I have in videogames that I'm not a violent person.

Books incite violence... movies do the same... and those women are witches! Hold them underwater until they confess!

Videogames have a calming effect on me, and they're good for my health...

CNN reports that people who play videogames have better dexterity, faster reflexes, sharper eyesight, increased mental processing and planning abilities, and make good surgeons.

If anything's contagious when it comes to videogames, it's fun. I hear fun is extremely contagious.

I'd like to add that as NPC's in violent video games become more adept at emulating realistic personalities they'll carry more weight in how we interact with them. For example, an eerily vivid scene of a terrified hostage at gunpoint could induce a sense of morality. Does this hostage deserve to die, you think to yourself. He keeps crying out that he just wants to hold his daughter one last time. If a video game can immerse the player in a real enough environment brimming with emotional intensity, the player may be able to empathize with ai characters. Much in the same way that we empathize with real people and don't go shooting up stores because we understand their lives hold significance, that they are indeed real frickin people. My sociopathic killing sprees in GTA San Andreas, (or any other violent game), bear little relevance to real life violence because I recognize the NPC's as useless pixels that are no more than lines of code.

Vusuki wrote: Ren- To avoid a huge thing, I've only quoted your last reply rather than the entire convo..

"Disease is by definition an abnormal state,

"a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury"

A 'disorder' certainly. Abnormal state? The words don't sound quite right to my ears.. Isn't disease (or illness) rather common (and therefore 'normal')? Our health fluxuates, and we may catch a disease at some point and then either recover (with or without the help of medication) or die.. Even if we are only 'diseased' for a short amount of time in comparison with being healthy, I'm not convinced that makes the 'diseased' period abnormal. It's just what happens; the way of life (as with our attempts to not to die) no? I'm starting to feel slightly ignorant with my comprehension of words here and that we're starting to deal in semantics and at cross-purposes, Eh, carrying on anyway..

Wikipedia: "A disease is an abnormal condition that affects the body of an organism."
abnormal condition that affects the body of an organism = abnormal state

"no. This is an example situation where there is one manipulator and one victim. That victim decides to fight back, but not by manipulating, by punching the manipulator in the face.
If we agree that psychological abuse is a worse thing to do to a man than physical abuse, it's not an eye for an eye, is it?"

So an eye for a tooth? Heh, that made me chuckle.. But thanks for clearing that up.

The point is that it represents a decrease in violence.

"Yet it seems to me that violence is nothing *like* a disease. Even the contagion theory would have to be proven to be a major source of violence."

I'm learning something new here, contagion theory... *reads about Crowd Psychology on wikipedia after google-searching "Has the Contagion theory been proved"*... It does sorta make sense to me than the contagion theory/ crowd pyschology would have an effect (or cause) on/for violence indeed.

"major source of violence".

Of your first reply you wrote at the end,

"To call violence a disease seems misguided."

Later on you wrote at the end of the next reply,

"Yet it seems to me that violence is nothing *like* a disease."

It seems to me as if by replying and talking more and more about it reinforced your opinion... Are we just debating for the sake of debating? And the more we go on, the more set on our opinion we get? It's still interesting whether that's yes or no! I believe I understand most of your reasoning Ren.. Perhaps it's just I don't like being told I'm wrong in my opinion when I'm thinking that violence *is* something like disease!

They both mean the same thing to me. If violence does not seem to be like a disease at all, then it seems misguided to call it such.


I dont know if there is much to talk about. I remain unconvinced violence is like a disease, Or even that it is contagious. Does it mostly spontaneously appear or is it transmitted? When it does spontaneously appear, did it really just do it spontaneously? Or was it always there, in all of us? And If it was there to begin with, we can't really catch violence, can we?

I'd like to point out the work Gabor Mate and his associates which concludes the majority of people who are violent were themselves victims of violence. So in the sense of treating violence like a disease, you might say that 20% of violence victims will be affected and 3% will die(just making those numbers up for examples). Then you could come up with a treatment that would try to reduce that risk down to a negligible number.

Then you could apply this treatment to everyone who is exposed to some violence. Anyway, I think this is what they mean they say they can treat violence like a disease, which means using the same tools and tactics at the disposal of the CDC to find patient 0, locate infected people, etc.

"no. This is an example situation where there is one manipulator and one victim. That victim decides to fight back, but not by manipulating, by punching the manipulator in the face.
If we agree that psychological abuse is a worse thing to do to a man than physical abuse, it's not an eye for an eye, is it?"

So an eye for a tooth? Heh, that made me chuckle.. But thanks for clearing that up.

The point is that it represents a decrease in violence."

Your point that it represents a decrease in violence doesn't make sense to me- A manipulates B. B decides to hit A. That is the situation so far as I see it yes? Future possibilities- 1) A decides to fight/manipulate against B again but with greater intent to hurt in retaliation (Revenge and increase in violence). OR 2) A dies from the hit or decides to stop manipulating/fighting B.
I see for the future potential in a "decrease in violence" in the second scenario above but don't see the potential for "decrease in violence" in the first scenario. The first scenario seems more likely to me that the second in this day and age. Even if you started something (being 'A') and 'deserved' getting hit in the face, you won't generally see it that way and probably will want not to get hit, possibly 'self-defend' and hit them back no? The violence seems much more like a spiral outwards and as a "increase in violence" and each party batters the other whether with psychological or physical violence..

They both mean the same thing to me. If violence does not seem to be like a disease at all, then it seems misguided to call it such.

One of those sentences you used is much 'softer' in tone and expression than the other but I understand your point there.

"I dont know if there is much to talk about. I remain unconvinced violence is like a disease, Or even that it is contagious."

There is evidence to suggest that people who are violent to several others have suffered from violence themselves (Said in both the video and in Whyte Horse's comment). Let's make a direct comparison to disease. People who are diseased can pass it on to several others who then suffer from that disease themselves. Where is the error in stating there is a similarity here? Or is there a problem with one of these sentences?

Trying to make it clearer still- As a very simple idea, let's say 1 person is angry/violent and hurts two other people. Each of those two hurt people hurt 2 other people each. and the next 4 people hurt 8. 8 to 16 etc. And we have this expansion. This rings familiar with disease. 1 Person is ill, and spreads it unwittingly to 2 people, (And in a complicated version- it gets more complex because 1 of these two falls ill straight away and the other carries the illness but without severe symptoms but spreads it unwittingly) and these two people spread it further and it keeps expanding out. A little like violence where some people are severly affected by it and others only briefly but either way, often violence breeds more violence and people don't always react towards their aggressor but rather different people they meet...

And focusing on the method of dealing with disease- Interrupt transmission ("Interrupt and find first cases."), Prevent Future Spread, ("find who else has been exposed"), Change group norms, ("Group immunity"). This sounds like a good idea in Reducing Both disease and Violence? Find the person who is troubled and hurting others. Find who he's hurt. Change over time the entire group's attitudes to what they might have done otherwise.

I Hate to ask- but have you actually watched and focused on the video from TED? Because I feel I'm now just repeating what he's saying and whilst I can argue for him, I don't want to write out the entire 14 minutes of speech.. If you have watched it- watch it again and quote a time where you think he goes astray in his thinking in saying violence is like a disease. Follow his reasoning if not mine because it seems you don't understand my reasoning which is a bit de-motivating, I'm not a great writer or persuader... But anyway- If you haven't watched it, please do.

Does it mostly spontaneously appear or is it transmitted? When it does spontaneously appear, did it really just do it spontaneously? Or was it always there, in all of us? And If it was there to begin with, we can't really catch violence, can we?"

Truth to be told, I don't know for sure to these questions. What are your own answers to those questions? I think there is definitely some sort of chain reaction going on with emotions and actions; I'm violent to you when you were a kid, and so later on, you're violent to your kids and they to theirs until something decides to interrupt the transmission and provide support and care for those affected.. But perhaps it's both spontaneous and transmitted. We only exist *now* and therefore violence and emotion are spontaneous HOWEVER our concept of time allows us to trace back one action to another where we might be able to say it was transmitted (like a disease). I think yes there was some violence always there in us, although we can either cultivate it and practise using it (for good or bad (or neither if you don't believe in morality)). Let's imagine it WAS there to begin with, and that you're right that we can't really catch violence, but I think it's important to note that while we cannot *Catch* it we can definetely *Reduce* violence to make a 'better' happier world. Maybe I'm being just optimistic.. Do you believe we (mankind) can *reduce* violence towards one another and hell- why not the plants and animals and the earth? It starts with analysis, interrupting transmission, and then caring for each thing affected and then by doing all of this, you start changing the entire 'normality' of what was but not what is. Am I answering your questions well enough here?

But what do you think? It's interesting because your opinion seems quite diverse to my own,

Brenna, (heya, how are you atm? )-

My concern with calling violence a disease, is that like anything given the "disease" or "disorder" label, it gives it the perception that its beyond our control, and therefore beyond our responsibility.

Diseases can be contained and cured however. There is an element of control there. Chaos within order and order within chaos, heh. But yes I understand and agree with your point about feeling (perceiving) that it's beyond control and therefore beyond responsibility, But changes start small, and maybe a movement will grow that encourages everyone to realize and become responsible for ourselves and the world at large.

Sidvilki, Arcade and ChillBroBaggins- Agreed..

Whyte Horse- Thanks for your input,

We used to say "he is hyperactive", or, "he is a touch slow" to reflect the subtle differences...

We we labeled ADD and ADHD as diseases, and offered a chemical treatment, people think thatvthe treatment "normalized" the one who succeed...

When you diagnose me, it'll be said, "he has 'Jestors Syndrome' or JS"...

Having a particular condition doesn't mean I have a disease...

It means I am different, and those differences need to be taken into account when dealing with me...

Don't want to? That's cool, don't get to know me... Cause there is probably some stuff about me you won't like...

Maybe im fat, and smell like cookies... Maybe im arrogant about the best kind of cookies...Maybe I am violent about my cookies...

But don't label me with a disease or syndrome, Im me... With all the quirks that go with it...

Yes diseases, syndromes and the like, switch off the responsibility of the lazy.. They are not responsible, its the diseases fault...

Just my ramblings...

Jestor- I've heard about the problem with drugs to children to 'normalize' them. This is primarily also a problem with the education system I would have thought..

Having a particular condition doesn't mean I have a disease...
It means I am different, and those differences need to be taken into account when dealing with me...

Yes all of that makes sense... But as for violence as a disease I don't understand your point sorry, could you elaborate further? Are you suggesting that by trying to deal with people with a generalized formula, (such as the attempt to reduce violence via a similar formula to the attempt to reduce and stop disease?), it's not so great because each case needs to be looked at differently?

"Maybe im fat, and smell like cookies... Maybe im arrogant about the best kind of cookies...Maybe I am violent about my cookies...

But don't label me with a disease or syndrome, Im me... With all the quirks that go with it..."

I agree. You're you, beyond names and comparisons.. But is labeling such a bad thing? Isn't it how we make a rough sense of the world and communication with one another? And f I thought about your tendency to be violent about your cookies (for example), could I not say it seems *like* an addiction? Is this thread coming off course somewhat?

"Yes diseases, syndromes and the like, switch off the responsibility of the lazy.. They are not responsible, its the diseases fault..."

Sad but seems true to me. But... then again.. we don't have to tell the people (who would be lazy if we told them they had a problem) we're trying to help them or how we're doing it by slowly awaking their sense of responsibility, :evil: Heh, I don't know how really..

Thanks Jestor for your ramblings, Ramblings take us places we'd not go otherwise!
Ty

lol wooooo hooo

i have mareeka syndrome

enter singing voice
backdrop the yellow brick road

violence, contagions, and disease . . . . .
oh me
violence, contagions, and disease . . . . .
oh my


purpose, cause, and will
oh me
purpose, cause and will
oh my

backdrop munchkin land . .still singing
we are the lollipop kids

My pointo was merely that the "causes" many times seem to relieve many from their behavior...

Is violence a disease? Well, im no expert, but it might as well be...

Lets drug them!!

Lol...

Just being silly...

It is a condition if the "disease of mental illness", a result...

As is depression, anxiety, nervousness...

All the drugs do is alleviate the symptoms... Which is good enough for most...

Im not happy with this area of most peoples lives...

Sorry, I should just be quiet!! (Yea, like that will happen)