We had violence before video games, before TV, before hard rock music, humans can be inherently violent. There is no way to explain a psychopath other than a hate in their heart.
Difference is how easy violent content is available and the quantity it's being consumed. Also as it talks above about the quality. Games visual quality is so real its hard to tell the difference between a video clip of someone getting shot in real life and in a game. Are we sure we know the impact this is having on youth. As experts have conducted studies that show media consumption may have a bigger impact on youth then we thought.
Earlier generations have committed larger more vile acts of violence than this current generation. Don't blame new age technology on this issue.
It's the earlier generations who reap what they've sown.
I can kind of understand your thoughts, but the last thing I can do is agree with them.
It's the everyday people who do all the reaping and it's powerful politicians and dictators who do all the sowing. It always has been and always will be.
It's the young who pay the biggest price, it's the young who are sent to fight and die through no decision or fault of their own. Think of 10's of thousands dying in a single battle. Think of over a 100,000 dying in a single night in a single city.
These earlier generation weren't the perpetrators, they were the victims.
Violence in the media only reminds me how savage the human race is and the fact people suffer from mental instability.
Were a society of very little morals.
We have moral but our ingrained instincts are going to be hard to overcome for a long while.
@SEANMCAD you will never get a definitive answer on how violence affects you as the is completely based on the person you are subjecting the experience to. If you are raised in a closed off society and never experience violence then watch a movie where people are getting their head blown off then chances are they will be shaken and perhaps disturbed. That is only a general statement though because even if you take the same community and subject them to the same material they are all going to react differently.
I dont think that is really true.
why?
because Marketing has a predictable affect of which and entire extreemly large industry is based on Violence is not an exception by default we have to find some reason why we think violence would not fall into the same rules as marketing
having said that I think we can study how marketing affects people and translate it to how violence could be affecting us
As I've said many times, marketing is about providing you with information.
and I am telling you many many times that its NOT
there are countless books and documentries that explain in detail how advertising is NOT about 'providing information' its about psychological manipulation please read this and please understand it I have already gone over it in detail about 3 times now
advertising uses psychological manipulation by using sex and even violence to sell, they put it in adds, they put it in movies and they even hide it in places you are not aware of unless you are educated on this.
its very well known that advertising affects people and its done with images and verbal suggestions and its very well known that its very effective thus there is zero reason to think that they only thing that is immune to this media suggestion is violence. adds ARE NOT "INFORMATIONAL"
I've spent some time studying psychology, part of which included marketing, but not ever come across what you're talking about.
Perhaps you can provide me with an example, seeing as your expertise seems to run contrary to all the scientific studies I've read. I've read about using information / images etc to provoke emotions, but those emotions and responses were already there to begin with, its just that the advert forced the viewer to think about it.
For example, could you explain how an advert could make someone who doesn't like marmite want to buy marmite? Or how you psychologically manipulate someone who hates greenpeace into donating money?
I need some concrete examples from you into how advertising changes the core needs and behaviours of people without providing them with information. I've never seen or heard of such a thing.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I've spent some time studying psychology, part of which included marketing, but not ever come across what you're talking about.
Perhaps you can provide me with an example, seeing as your expertise seems to run contrary to all the scientific studies I've read. I've read about using information / images etc to provoke emotions, but those emotions and responses were already there to begin with, its just that the advert forced the viewer to think about it.
For example, could you explain how an advert could make someone who doesn't like marmite want to buy marmite? Or how you psychologically manipulate someone who hates greenpeace into donating money?
I need some concrete examples from you into how advertising changes the core needs and behaviours of people without providing them with information. I've never seen or heard of such a thing.
so you have no knowledge of the entire contravsory over joe camel? No education in psychology on 'product identity'? ok well get ready for a flood of links but this might take me awhile
'– This paper seeks to examine whether violence embedded in stories in ads can contribute to advertising effectiveness along the same lines as well‐researched ad elements such as the celebrity endorser and the physically attractive ad model. More specifically, the paper aims to assess whether violent content in an ad story adds to excitement perceptions and to overall evaluations such as the attitude toward the ad and the attitude toward the advertised product'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I've spent some time studying psychology, part of which included marketing, but not ever come across what you're talking about.
Perhaps you can provide me with an example, seeing as your expertise seems to run contrary to all the scientific studies I've read. I've read about using information / images etc to provoke emotions, but those emotions and responses were already there to begin with, its just that the advert forced the viewer to think about it.
For example, could you explain how an advert could make someone who doesn't like marmite want to buy marmite? Or how you psychologically manipulate someone who hates greenpeace into donating money?
I need some concrete examples from you into how advertising changes the core needs and behaviours of people without providing them with information. I've never seen or heard of such a thing.
so you have no knowledge of the entire contravsory over joe camel? No education in psychology on 'product identity'? ok well get ready for a flood of links but this might take me awhile
'– This paper seeks to examine whether violence embedded in stories in ads can contribute to advertising effectiveness along the same lines as well‐researched ad elements such as the celebrity endorser and the physically attractive ad model. More specifically, the paper aims to assess whether violent content in an ad story adds to excitement perceptions and to overall evaluations such as the attitude toward the ad and the attitude toward the advertised product'
Ok, so read the first three links and they all back up what I was saying.
The ads present the viewer with information. The information is about the product in the main, but also the more subtle information in the background, e.g. Jennifer Aniston uses this product.
Its pure information.
It works, as the study says, because viewers already want to be like Jennifer Aniston and so by buying the product, they can be more like her. Its using pre-existing needs and behaviour / personality to alter buying habits.
If the viewer doesn't already have those needs / desires, the advertising doesn't work.
Now, you've got a case for whether that is ethical or not (providing viewers with false information, e.g. does Jennifer Aniston actually use the products she advertises?) but its not altering the viewers underlying needs / behaviour / personality.
Same applies to violence. If films / media are associating violence with unrelated good things that average viewers associate with themselves then that is unethical. For example, a film might claim that the world is overpopulated (misinformation) which the viewer agrees with and so might show the main character killing lots of old people (associating pre-held belief in overpopulation with new information on how to reduce population size), but the viewer still has to process that information based on pre-existing beliefs and behaviour to decide whether to start killing old people themselves.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Ok, so read the first three links and they all back up what I was saying.
The ads present the viewer with information. The information is about the product in the main, but also the more subtle information in the background, e.g. Jennifer Aniston uses this product.
Its pure information.
It works, as the study says, because viewers already want to be like Jennifer Aniston and so by buying the product, they can be more like her. Its using pre-existing needs and behaviour / personality to alter buying habits.
If the viewer doesn't already have those needs / desires, the advertising doesn't work.
Now, you've got a case for whether that is ethical or not (providing viewers with false information, e.g. does Jennifer Aniston actually use the products she advertises?) but its not altering the viewers underlying needs / behaviour / personality.
Same applies to violence. If films / media are associating violence with unrelated good things that average viewers associate with themselves then that is unethical. For example, a film might claim that the world is overpopulated (misinformation) which the viewer agrees with and so might show the main character killing lots of old people (associating pre-held belief in overpopulation with new information on how to reduce population size), but the viewer still has to process that information based on pre-existing beliefs and behaviour to decide whether to start killing old people themselves.
'– This paper seeks to examine whether violence embedded in stories in ads can contribute to advertising effectiveness along the same lines as well‐researched ad elements such as the celebrity endorser and the physically attractive ad model. More specifically, the paper aims to assess whether violent content in an ad story adds to excitement perceptions and to overall evaluations such as the attitude toward the ad and the attitude toward the advertised product'
I will say although I strongly disagree I can at least live with the consistent view point between advertising and violence. So that gives me an out. That said, for those who think advertisings does affect you on a subconcious, emotional level by using images and suggestions then I encourage you to ask yourself why violence is immune to that. That aside, I am outta here!
Post edited by SEANMCAD on
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
It's the everyday people who do all the reaping and it's powerful politicians and dictators who do all the sowing. It always has been and always will be.
It's the young who pay the biggest price, it's the young who are sent to fight and die through no decision or fault of their own. Think of 10's of thousands dying in a single battle. Think of over a 100,000 dying in a single night in a single city.
These earlier generation weren't the perpetrators, they were the victims.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Perhaps you can provide me with an example, seeing as your expertise seems to run contrary to all the scientific studies I've read. I've read about using information / images etc to provoke emotions, but those emotions and responses were already there to begin with, its just that the advert forced the viewer to think about it.
For example, could you explain how an advert could make someone who doesn't like marmite want to buy marmite? Or how you psychologically manipulate someone who hates greenpeace into donating money?
I need some concrete examples from you into how advertising changes the core needs and behaviours of people without providing them with information. I've never seen or heard of such a thing.
http://naturalsociety.com/unplug-yourself-how-advertising-entertainment-shapes-subconscious/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3857882?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201008/what-does-advertising-do
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03090561011079891
'– This paper seeks to examine whether violence embedded in stories in ads can contribute to advertising effectiveness along the same lines as well‐researched ad elements such as the celebrity endorser and the physically attractive ad model. More specifically, the paper aims to assess whether violent content in an ad story adds to excitement perceptions and to overall evaluations such as the attitude toward the ad and the attitude toward the advertised product'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The ads present the viewer with information. The information is about the product in the main, but also the more subtle information in the background, e.g. Jennifer Aniston uses this product.
Its pure information.
It works, as the study says, because viewers already want to be like Jennifer Aniston and so by buying the product, they can be more like her. Its using pre-existing needs and behaviour / personality to alter buying habits.
If the viewer doesn't already have those needs / desires, the advertising doesn't work.
Now, you've got a case for whether that is ethical or not (providing viewers with false information, e.g. does Jennifer Aniston actually use the products she advertises?) but its not altering the viewers underlying needs / behaviour / personality.
Same applies to violence. If films / media are associating violence with unrelated good things that average viewers associate with themselves then that is unethical. For example, a film might claim that the world is overpopulated (misinformation) which the viewer agrees with and so might show the main character killing lots of old people (associating pre-held belief in overpopulation with new information on how to reduce population size), but the viewer still has to process that information based on pre-existing beliefs and behaviour to decide whether to start killing old people themselves.
I am done talking about that with you I am sorry.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03090561011079891
'– This paper seeks to examine whether violence embedded in stories in ads can contribute to advertising effectiveness along the same lines as well‐researched ad elements such as the celebrity endorser and the physically attractive ad model. More specifically, the paper aims to assess whether violent content in an ad story adds to excitement perceptions and to overall evaluations such as the attitude toward the ad and the attitude toward the advertised product'
I will say although I strongly disagree I can at least live with the consistent view point between advertising and violence. So that gives me an out. That said, for those who think advertisings does affect you on a subconcious, emotional level by using images and suggestions then I encourage you to ask yourself why violence is immune to that. That aside, I am outta here!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me