Pure Parents

Question:

> Just because your suggestions (that are good sense) didn’t make it you > realized it was a religion?  I’m curious here.  I have many many > agnostic and plain non religious friends who share the views of these > studies, that too much tv is plain not good for kids, especially the > violent kind. > I don’t see the connection to religion.

Not to a specific organized religion, but to the practice of religion in a general sense.  I’m no theologian and I hate to generalize about all of humanity, but I’m referring to the way everyone has some set of beliefs, which get combined with their set of ethical standards, which then get reflected in the way they choose to behave when they are being their best self. I’m not talking about tenants of the Lutheran faith or what you have to believe to be a Congregationalist.  We may say, shorthanded, "I’m an Episcopalian" but I doubt most people’s beliefs align perfectly with canon.  It’s just shorthand to identify the group of people who you happen to worship with. To my knowledge, there is no shorthand name for people who have beliefs about the effects of television, who have ethics that are disturbed by some programming (I particularly hate to watch rape for entertainment purposes) and who then behave in ways concurrent with those beliefs and ethics. But I realize now that it is religious behavior.  And I can’t impose onto my children’s school system my religious beliefs, my ethics, and the way I choose to express those in practice. I teach Sunday school to 6 and 7th graders.  I really love helping them come to terms with their own personal belief system.  We talk about what "Commandments" they would live by to be true to their own version of their values.  You’d be surprised how often most (but not all) of Moses’ set show up on the list.  But to that list they have things like, "Don’t smoke."  "Work out."  "Don’t have unsafe sex." "Don’t buy drugs because it fuels the drug wars." "Have fun each day."  I love their rules to live by!  Those are part of their PERSONAL religion, which happens to line up pretty well with the one their parent’s are hoping they’ll pick up. Wendy

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Just because your suggestions (that are good sense) didn’t make it you > realized it was a religion?  I’m curious here.  I have many many > agnostic and plain non religious friends who share the views of these > studies, that too much tv is plain not good for kids, especially the > violent kind. > I don’t see the connection to religion. >Not to a specific organized religion, but to the practice of religion >in a general sense.  I’m no theologian and I hate to generalize about >all of humanity, but I’m referring to the way everyone has some set of >beliefs, which get combined with their set of ethical standards, which >then get reflected in the way they choose to behave when they are >being their best self. >I’m not talking about tenants

It’s tenets!!!! Tenants trash apartments! (tenet= (Latin) "he holds". >of the Lutheran faith or what you have >to believe to be a Congregationalist.  We may say, shorthanded, "I’m >an Episcopalian" but I doubt most people’s beliefs align perfectly >with canon.  It’s just shorthand to identify the group of people who >you happen to worship with. >To my knowledge, there is no shorthand name for people who have >beliefs about the effects of television, who have ethics that are >disturbed by some programming (I particularly hate to watch rape for >entertainment purposes) and who then behave in ways concurrent with >those beliefs and ethics.

Sure there is, it’s all political, fundy Xtian and Muslim bigots are down on media and TV because it robs them of their captive audience and their opportunity for brainwashing! TV is secular, and takes them toward commonly held non-religious truth, and away from parental oppression. >But I realize now that it is religious behavior.  And I can’t impose >onto my children’s school system my religious beliefs, my ethics, and >the way I choose to express those in practice. >I teach Sunday school to 6 and 7th graders.  I really love helping >them come to terms with their own personal belief system.  We talk >about what "Commandments" they would live by to be true to their own >version of their values.  You’d be surprised how often most (but not >all) of Moses’ set show up on the list.  But to that list they have >things like, "Don’t smoke."  "Work out."  "Don’t have unsafe sex." >"Don’t buy drugs because it fuels the drug wars." "Have fun each day." > I love their rules to live by!  Those are part of their PERSONAL >religion, which happens to line up pretty well with the one their >parent’s are hoping they’ll pick up. >Wendy

Not usually. Steve

Response:

> >I’m not talking about tenants > It’s tenets!!!! Tenants trash apartments! (tenet= (Latin) "he holds".

Yes, thank you Dick-Steve.  I noticed that when I read over my own post after it was posted and I winced.  I thought of following myself up, but I figured someone would gleefully pounce on it and I wouldn’t have to.  There’s also an apostrophe error in the same post.  :-) My premise is fairly unusual, so I’m surprised that this is the extent of the argument with it.  I guess that’s a compliment. Wendy

Response:

>> COMMENTS? > "Children who grow up watching more TV violence are at increased risk > for aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood," Huesmann said. >I posted elsewhere saying that I thought my family’s attitude towards >television approached religious behavior.  We have beliefs and >practices (including taboos) that most families don’t seem to share. >At the base of it is our ethical standards and our regard for the >state of our children’s psyches.

In other words you wish to smother their humanity and turn them into anoxic little potatoes just so their ability to discern is never taxed in the least little bit! >My guess is, though, that having data backing up a religious stance is >not going to bring converts to this religion.  It is more of a matter >of your own standards and beliefs than what you read in a newspaper.

Drama, fiction, and imagination are the inheritance of our species, and what makes us and our lives better than, say, hogs. If you want your children to become hogs we should kill you to stop such stupid abuse on your part!! >The elementary school that my children attend recently came up with a >"parent cocmpact" that all parents were supposed to read and agree to >strive toward.  I lobbied hard for "monitor movie choices, >particularly PG-13 movies" (recall that the oldest child in this >school is 11) and also "limit TV watching to no more than an hour a >day" (which my pediatrician told me years ago.)  Neither standard made >it into the parental standards they set forth in any form.

That was because most people knew better than your garbage!! Your little "pet bigots" woud be like the insipid Flanders children on the Simpsons, incapable of discernment and totally fatuous because their ability to understand anything was never execised. If it weren’t caused by your abuse I would encourage MY children to use and deceive and cheat such babes in the woods as yours as much as possible, just to discourage that trait in our species!! >That’s when I realized I was practicing a religion, not objective good >parenting. >Wendy, whose kids won’t watch tv April 22 – 28 (TV-Free-Week).

Steve, whose kids watched everything, know everything, and enjoy everything because they are their own authorities. Steve

Response:

Wendy;         Just because your suggestions that are good sense didn’t make it you realized it was a religion?  I’m curious here.  I have many many agnostic and plain non religious friends who share the views of these studies, that too much tv is plain not good for kids, especially the violent kind. I don’t see the connection to religion. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> COMMENTS? > "Children who grow up watching more TV violence are at increased risk > for aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood," Huesmann said. > I posted elsewhere saying that I thought my family’s attitude towards > television approached religious behavior.  We have beliefs and > practices (including taboos) that most families don’t seem to share. > At the base of it is our ethical standards and our regard for the > state of our children’s psyches. > My guess is, though, that having data backing up a religious stance is > not going to bring converts to this religion.  It is more of a matter > of your own standards and beliefs than what you read in a newspaper. > The elementary school that my children attend recently came up with a > "parent cocmpact" that all parents were supposed to read and agree to > strive toward.  I lobbied hard for "monitor movie choices, > particularly PG-13 movies" (recall that the oldest child in this > school is 11) and also "limit TV watching to no more than an hour a > day" (which my pediatrician told me years ago.)  Neither standard made > it into the parental standards they set forth in any form. > That’s when I realized I was practicing a religion, not objective good > parenting. > Wendy, whose kids won’t watch tv April 22 – 28 (TV-Free-Week).

Response:

> COMMENTS? > "Children who grow up watching more TV violence are at increased risk > for aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood," Huesmann said.

I posted elsewhere saying that I thought my family’s attitude towards television approached religious behavior.  We have beliefs and practices (including taboos) that most families don’t seem to share. At the base of it is our ethical standards and our regard for the state of our children’s psyches. My guess is, though, that having data backing up a religious stance is not going to bring converts to this religion.  It is more of a matter of your own standards and beliefs than what you read in a newspaper. The elementary school that my children attend recently came up with a "parent cocmpact" that all parents were supposed to read and agree to strive toward.  I lobbied hard for "monitor movie choices, particularly PG-13 movies" (recall that the oldest child in this school is 11) and also "limit TV watching to no more than an hour a day" (which my pediatrician told me years ago.)  Neither standard made it into the parental standards they set forth in any form. That’s when I realized I was practicing a religion, not objective good parenting. Wendy, whose kids won’t watch tv April 22 – 28 (TV-Free-Week).

Response:

>And by the way, Steve, don’t think I agree with the Supreme Court >decision that was handed down, you’d be surprised to find I do not.  I >find it horrendous in the extreme that innocent people are turned out of >their homes for this.  I find it horrendous that pot users fill up >prisons.  I think it should be legalized, and let those who wish to kill >themselves with whatever drugs do so.  At least there would be more >money to help those who wish it.  

At some point people will have to give up on efforts to control what cannot be controlled by opposition. It will happen when they are made to see that their own efforts cause more damage than the other result. But usually they have to be smashed in the face with a rock to see that! That’s true of parenting, and true of religious "sins". They will finally see that the only way to oppose people’s self-destruction is by friendship, and paying them what you owe them, and that the only way to stop people’s abuse of others is by total abject terror applied without mercy upon those who still from those who are too weak to fight back! These are truths they don’t want to face. Instead they want to be able to pretend that people should not be asked to leave the other guy the fuck alone if he isn’t victimizing someone, but that people should be punished for having too good of a time if your sick religious delusion says so. At some point it will be obvious that the world is to be divided fairly among all the people who are born on it, and that people claiming to own their house and someone else’s house too are simply lying to obtain their services by servitude. It will be obvious that everyone deserves a safe publically protected place to lie down and call home, cradle to grave, even if that’s all they ever do. Someday, failing to educate a child to an "A+" level of competence will be a criminal charge. Someday trying to get rich without working will be a crime against all humanity! it won’t be called profit, or gambling, or the stock market, or speculating, it will be called what it is, fraud, embezzlement, and conspiracy to commit criminal corruption.  And it will be punished by immediate death! >It is just that you always INSIST that this is this way and this is that >way, even to the laws, when people have shown you otherwise –

No I don’t. Example. You’ll be shown to be wrong about what you think I defend. >I hope they do overturn it. >greccogirl >p.s.  Do I want though a stoned or drunk, say pilot on my plane fling >it?  Nope.

You have the right not to let the guy fly you if he’s stoned, stupid, or undertrained. You have the right to have him tested beforehand and to have the results public if he wants the privilege of flying others around. Steve

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Why do you always discount everything that disagrees with you?  The > > journal is a "hack" the methods "unreliable".  How do YOU know what > > factors were in there? > > Just thought I’d post it – it shows that not all experts agree with you, > > but then, we ALL know that you know everything. > > greccogirl > Looking over your initial post, I find that conclusions cannot be upheld. > There are many factors which are not mentioned, and may not have been > considered. These include: the type of shows watched (there is a great level > of difference in watching soaps, cartoon, highly violent films, biography > channel, science shows on the discovery channel, etc) the level of parental > involvement (where there things that the kids saw that they had questions > about regarding violent actions but there was no one to discuss this with), > the income level of the families, what other activities these individuals > did for the rest of their days, etc.  To say that simply because individual > A watches more TV than another individual B, individual A being more violent > is due to the increased level of TV viewing, without looking at other > factors, is correlational at best, and is not scientific proof.  In other > words this *is* unreliable. >That depends.  I haven’t seen the entire study.  The fact remains that >more and more evidence mounts all the time that viewing violence breeds >violence in children.

That’s not true, the only truth is that the bigots keep trying more and more disingenuously to demonstrate that, and that they fail more and more seriously each time. The efforts expand in number as they fail more and more seriously. They are trying to generate a pop notion by deluge tactic, rather than proving a truth, and that never works. >Apparently it was considered worthy enough to be "news" – and I >basically posted it because of the people who claim THEIR science is the >only right science, when everyone knows the opinions of science change >all the time.

There has always been bad "science" and good Science, and the people who were honest have always known which were which. The former is always refuted and fails, and the latter is always perfected and becomes products that work and principles that improve society. Steve

Response:

>> >Why do you always discount everything that disagrees with you?  The > >journal is a "hack" the methods "unreliable".  How do YOU know what > >factors were in there? > The whole truth about human existence is obvious to the person who admits > what they known deep inside. >Steve that is only because you are convinced that you are right about >everything and will not be swayed no matter what the evidence.

No, that’s an attendant coincidence, it’s because of what I have admitted to myself that I know inside and that I can defend it without being refuted. > Everybody KNOWS the difference between fiction and reality. Seeeing > violence doesn’t make you violent, it often makes you ill! Seeing fiction > is different, and you know it, and you know it’s fiction. People don’t kill > each other coming out of movies, so just stop acting stupid and shut up! >Nah, don’t think I will.

That doesn’t matter, you’ll still be wrong. > >Just thought I’d post it – it shows that not all experts agree with you, > >but then, we ALL know that you know everything. > >greccogirl > >BTW, did you notice the Supreme Court ruling on getting turned out of > >your home if someone that lives with you is caught with drugs? > >Amazing!!  They don’t do that, do they? > It’s a peculiarly contradictory principle, contrary to all other principles > of law. You will now see several other cases in which they totally reverse > themselves, just like they did with school segregation in the 1940’s & 50’s. > Their decision is internally flawed, and variations on that theme will > prove it to them. >We’ll see.

It’s inevitable. People can’t be held responsible for things out of their control, the court will sooner or later get cases where a victim of a hostage situation is being held responsible and then they will change, or else everyone will turn on the court. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >In fact I believe they said it didn’t matter that they didn’t even KNOW, > >they had a responsibility to do so.  Believe me this will get worse. > They will be confronted with a miscarriage of justice so terrible that > they will be forced to backtrack. Just wait. > >Let’s also not forget the 80 people arrested recently for having child > >porn on their computers. > It’s no more than the number who were caught in any other given year, they > just wanted the media coverage for the upcoming elections. The rules on > child porn that the USA tried to force onto the EU were just rejected as > being irrational. Now in the NL and several other places, teens under 18 > are gaining the right to do porn as a minor and to copyright porn they make > and to sell it. Prostitution by teens is already legal. >This isn’t Europe.

The USA is always paralleling the social advances of Europe only 30 years behind it. Wait and see. While you’re waiting review the change in the USA since 1955. Start with TV. Is it getting more European? > >I’m afraid your "brave new world" is getting further away by the day. > Dying animals make the most noise. But they still die. > Steve >Just trying my best to keep you in some reality of today!  ;-)

If that needed doing I’m sure you’d suffice. Steve

Response:

> >Why do you always discount everything that disagrees with you?  The >journal is a "hack" the methods "unreliable".  How do YOU know what >factors were in there? > The whole truth about human existence is obvious to the person who admits > what they known deep inside.

Steve that is only because you are convinced that you are right about everything and will not be swayed no matter what the evidence. > Everybody KNOWS the difference between fiction and reality. Seeeing > violence doesn’t make you violent, it often makes you ill! Seeing fiction > is different, and you know it, and you know it’s fiction. People don’t kill > each other coming out of movies, so just stop acting stupid and shut up!

Nah, don’t think I will. >Just thought I’d post it – it shows that not all experts agree with you, >but then, we ALL know that you know everything. >greccogirl >BTW, did you notice the Supreme Court ruling on getting turned out of >your home if someone that lives with you is caught with drugs? >Amazing!!  They don’t do that, do they? > It’s a peculiarly contradictory principle, contrary to all other principles > of law. You will now see several other cases in which they totally reverse > themselves, just like they did with school segregation in the 1940’s & 50’s. > Their decision is internally flawed, and variations on that theme will > prove it to them.

We’ll see. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->In fact I believe they said it didn’t matter that they didn’t even KNOW, >they had a responsibility to do so.  Believe me this will get worse. > They will be confronted with a miscarriage of justice so terrible that > they will be forced to backtrack. Just wait. >Let’s also not forget the 80 people arrested recently for having child >porn on their computers. > It’s no more than the number who were caught in any other given year, they > just wanted the media coverage for the upcoming elections. The rules on > child porn that the USA tried to force onto the EU were just rejected as > being irrational. Now in the NL and several other places, teens under 18 > are gaining the right to do porn as a minor and to copyright porn they make > and to sell it. Prostitution by teens is already legal.

This isn’t Europe. >I’m afraid your "brave new world" is getting further away by the day. > Dying animals make the most noise. But they still die. > Steve

Just trying my best to keep you in some reality of today!  ;-)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Why do you always discount everything that disagrees with you?  The > journal is a "hack" the methods "unreliable".  How do YOU know what > factors were in there? > Just thought I’d post it – it shows that not all experts agree with you, > but then, we ALL know that you know everything. > greccogirl > Looking over your initial post, I find that conclusions cannot be upheld. > There are many factors which are not mentioned, and may not have been > considered. These include: the type of shows watched (there is a great level > of difference in watching soaps, cartoon, highly violent films, biography > channel, science shows on the discovery channel, etc) the level of parental > involvement (where there things that the kids saw that they had questions > about regarding violent actions but there was no one to discuss this with), > the income level of the families, what other activities these individuals > did for the rest of their days, etc.  To say that simply because individual > A watches more TV than another individual B, individual A being more violent > is due to the increased level of TV viewing, without looking at other > factors, is correlational at best, and is not scientific proof.  In other > words this *is* unreliable.

That depends.  I haven’t seen the entire study.  The fact remains that more and more evidence mounts all the time that viewing violence breeds violence in children. Apparently it was considered worthy enough to be "news" – and I basically posted it because of the people who claim THEIR science is the only right science, when everyone knows the opinions of science change all the time.

Response:

And by the way, Steve, don’t think I agree with the Supreme Court decision that was handed down, you’d be surprised to find I do not.  I find it horrendous in the extreme that innocent people are turned out of their homes for this.  I find it horrendous that pot users fill up prisons.  I think it should be legalized, and let those who wish to kill themselves with whatever drugs do so.  At least there would be more money to help those who wish it.   It is just that you always INSIST that this is this way and this is that way, even to the laws, when people have shown you otherwise – I hope they do overturn it. greccogirl p.s.  Do I want though a stoned or drunk, say pilot on my plane fling it?  Nope.

Response:

> Why do you always discount everything that disagrees with you?  The > journal is a "hack" the methods "unreliable".  How do YOU know what > factors were in there? > Just thought I’d post it – it shows that not all experts agree with you, > but then, we ALL know that you know everything. > greccogirl

Looking over your initial post, I find that conclusions cannot be upheld. There are many factors which are not mentioned, and may not have been considered. These include: the type of shows watched (there is a great level of difference in watching soaps, cartoon, highly violent films, biography channel, science shows on the discovery channel, etc) the level of parental involvement (where there things that the kids saw that they had questions about regarding violent actions but there was no one to discuss this with), the income level of the families, what other activities these individuals did for the rest of their days, etc.  To say that simply because individual A watches more TV than another individual B, individual A being more violent is due to the increased level of TV viewing, without looking at other factors, is correlational at best, and is not scientific proof.  In other words this *is* unreliable.

Response:

>Why do you always discount everything that disagrees with you?  The >journal is a "hack" the methods "unreliable".  How do YOU know what >factors were in there?

The whole truth about human existence is obvious to the person who admits what they known deep inside. Everybody KNOWS the difference between fiction and reality. Seeeing violence doesn’t make you violent, it often makes you ill! Seeing fiction is different, and you know it, and you know it’s fiction. People don’t kill each other coming out of movies, so just stop acting stupid and shut up! Pretending that people are governed by things they don’t understand is merely being insulting to others, trying to invalidate their self-knowledge so that you can try to convince them that you know what’s good for them and that they don’t! If such a thing was even TRUE then YOU wouldn’t know what the fuck you were talking about EITHER any more than they do!! Religious bastards and people who have a sick controlling agenda toward others always try shit like that. People know WHY they do things, they’ve simply been convinced that the best thing to tell others about it is to lie or call it by other names. And the very few psychopaths about which this isn’t true are irrelevant dangerous machines anyway, not humans. The defects of such alleged "studies" are so glaring to anyone educated in science that they make you think these people are truly ignorant and too stupid to even be embarrassed! Self-reporting, as found in that study, and a complete failure to double-blind, condemns their study to the idiot class of attempted frauds on science! >Just thought I’d post it – it shows that not all experts agree with you, >but then, we ALL know that you know everything. >greccogirl >BTW, did you notice the Supreme Court ruling on getting turned out of >your home if someone that lives with you is caught with drugs? >Amazing!!  They don’t do that, do they?

It’s a peculiarly contradictory principle, contrary to all other principles of law. You will now see several other cases in which they totally reverse themselves, just like they did with school segregation in the 1940’s & 50’s. Their decision is internally flawed, and variations on that theme will prove it to them. >In fact I believe they said it didn’t matter that they didn’t even KNOW, >they had a responsibility to do so.  Believe me this will get worse.

They will be confronted with a miscarriage of justice so terrible that they will be forced to backtrack. Just wait. >Let’s also not forget the 80 people arrested recently for having child >porn on their computers.

It’s no more than the number who were caught in any other given year, they just wanted the media coverage for the upcoming elections. The rules on child porn that the USA tried to force onto the EU were just rejected as being irrational. Now in the NL and several other places, teens under 18 are gaining the right to do porn as a minor and to copyright porn they make and to sell it. Prostitution by teens is already legal. >I’m afraid your "brave new world" is getting further away by the day.

Dying animals make the most noise. But they still die. Steve – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >COMMENTS? > >By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID > >A new study linking increased aggressive behavior to adolescent > >television watching is adding weight > >to recommendations that parents strictly limit how much time young > >people spend in front of the tube. > >"The evidence has gotten to the point where it’s overwhelming," said > >Jeffrey G. Johnson of Columbia University, lead author of a study that > >found watching more than one hour of TV daily is followed by increases > >in the rate of assaults, fights, robberies and other aggressive acts in > >later years. > This man is a known hack for the religious Right who has been lambasted for > crappy methodology so much that there is a file on him with Bay Area > Skeptics!! A trumph of TENURE! He’s been trying to prove his pet theory, > rather than just doing the science, for well over a decade. > >L. Rowell Huesmann of the University of Michigan said he was impressed > >by Johnson’s findings, which expand on earlier studies. > >"Children who grow up watching more TV violence are at increased risk > >for aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood," Huesmann said. > >Johnson’s research team studied more than 700 people for 17 years. > >The increase in aggressive behavior with more TV watched held true both > >for people who had previous violent incidents and for those who had > >not                   had shown earlier aggression. That means the > >findings are not merely the > >result of people already prone to violence being more avid viewers. > > "Our findings suggest that, at least during early adolescence, > >responsible > >parents should avoid permitting their > >children to watch more than one hour of television a day," said Johnson, > >who is also affiliated with the New York State Psychiatric Institute. > >While other studies have linked watching violent television to later > >aggressive behavior, Johnson saidthis is the first to investigate the > >total amount of time individuals spent watching and to follow those > >people over many years. > Kids who are watching as much TV as his study range goes to are being > neglected, but he NEVER mentions this as a confounding variable!! > VERY sloppy work! > >"I was surprised to see a five-fold increase in aggressive behavior from > >less than one hour to three or more hours," Johnson said in a telephone > >interview. "I found that quite remarkable." > >The study is appearing in Friday’s issue of the journal Science. > The now FRINGE journal "Science". > >Among youths who watched less than an hour of television daily at age > >14, just 5.7 percent were involved in aggressive acts by the ages of 16 > >to 22, the study found. > >But for those who watched between one and three hours the aggression > >rate jumped to 22.5 percent, and the rate was 28.8 percent for those who > >watched three hours or more, the study found. > >The effect was most pronounced for boys, with rates of 8.9 percent > >committing aggressive acts for those who watched less than an hour of TV > >at age 14, 32.5 percent for one to three hours and 45.2 percent for > >those watching more than three hours of television. For girls the rates > >were 2.3 percent, 11.8 percent and 12.7 percent. > >Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of > >Broadcasters, said Wednesday he has not seen the study but found the > >results surprising. He cited recent research that suggests violence on > >TV has fallen over the past two years. > >Mark I. Singer of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland welcomed > >the report, calling it "an important study" that covers a significant > >period of time and takes into account potential outside influences. > >Singer was not connected with this study, but is the author of a 1998 > >analysis that found increased violent behavior in youths who watched > >more than six hours of television daily. > And he was this asshole’s partner on that study. > >He said part of the importance of the new report is the indication that > >there is a relationship in both sexes between television viewing and > >aggressive behavior. > >Huesmann added that a unique contribution Johnson study is that it > >related the simple amount of TV viewing to later aggressive and violent > >behavior, while previous studies have concentrated on violent > >programming. > >The study also looked at young adults, measuring television time at age > >22 and the odds of a violent or aggressive acts by age 30. > >Overall, just 7.2 percent of 22-year-olds who watched less than an hour > >of TV daily were later involved in aggressive acts. For those watching > >one to three hours the rate rises to 9.0 percent and at more than three > >hours it’s 17.8 percent. > >The rates for males were 14.6 percent, 14.0 percent, a slight drop, and > >18.8 percent. For women the rates were 0 percent, 3.9 percent and 16.8 > >percent. > >More than 1,000 families started the study, ending with reports on 707 > >after people moved or dropped out for some other reason. The subjects > >were in Albany and Saratoga counties in upstate New York, both urban and > >rural areas. They were 91 percent white and 51 percent male. > >Television viewing was studied through interviews in 1975, 1983, 1985-86 > >and 1991-93. The later aggressive acts were determined both through > >interviews and from local, state and federal police reports with a last > >check in 2000. > >grecogirl > There has been NO reputable, peer-reviewable correlation in all past > study. There isn’t this time either, because they didn’t control for > violence in the home. It’s all coming from that, and the TV watching > is merely a confounding variable.  Their metholodology was totally > amateurish crap too, including self-reporting and bullshit like that!! > If someone even knows what you’re measuring in a double blind experiment > it totals it!! > Steve

Response:

Why do you always discount everything that disagrees with you?  The journal is a "hack" the methods "unreliable".  How do YOU know what factors were in there? Just thought I’d post it – it shows that not all experts agree with you, but then, we ALL know that you know everything. greccogirl BTW, did you notice the Supreme Court ruling on getting turned out of your home if someone that lives with you is caught with drugs? Amazing!!  They don’t do that, do they? In fact I believe they said it didn’t matter that they didn’t even KNOW, they had a responsibility to do so.  Believe me this will get worse. Let’s also not forget the 80 people arrested recently for having child porn on their computers. I’m afraid your "brave new world" is getting further away by the day. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->COMMENTS? >By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID >A new study linking increased aggressive behavior to adolescent >television watching is adding weight >to recommendations that parents strictly limit how much time young >people spend in front of the tube. >"The evidence has gotten to the point where it’s overwhelming," said >Jeffrey G. Johnson of Columbia University, lead author of a study that >found watching more than one hour of TV daily is followed by increases >in the rate of assaults, fights, robberies and other aggressive acts in >later years. > This man is a known hack for the religious Right who has been lambasted for > crappy methodology so much that there is a file on him with Bay Area > Skeptics!! A trumph of TENURE! He’s been trying to prove his pet theory, > rather than just doing the science, for well over a decade. >L. Rowell Huesmann of the University of Michigan said he was impressed >by Johnson’s findings, which expand on earlier studies. >"Children who grow up watching more TV violence are at increased risk >for aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood," Huesmann said. >Johnson’s research team studied more than 700 people for 17 years. >The increase in aggressive behavior with more TV watched held true both >for people who had previous violent incidents and for those who had >not                   had shown earlier aggression. That means the >findings are not merely the >result of people already prone to violence being more avid viewers. > "Our findings suggest that, at least during early adolescence, >responsible >parents should avoid permitting their >children to watch more than one hour of television a day," said Johnson, >who is also affiliated with the New York State Psychiatric Institute. >While other studies have linked watching violent television to later >aggressive behavior, Johnson saidthis is the first to investigate the >total amount of time individuals spent watching and to follow those >people over many years. > Kids who are watching as much TV as his study range goes to are being > neglected, but he NEVER mentions this as a confounding variable!! > VERY sloppy work! >"I was surprised to see a five-fold increase in aggressive behavior from >less than one hour to three or more hours," Johnson said in a telephone >interview. "I found that quite remarkable." >The study is appearing in Friday’s issue of the journal Science. > The now FRINGE journal "Science". >Among youths who watched less than an hour of television daily at age >14, just 5.7 percent were involved in aggressive acts by the ages of 16 >to 22, the study found. >But for those who watched between one and three hours the aggression >rate jumped to 22.5 percent, and the rate was 28.8 percent for those who >watched three hours or more, the study found. >The effect was most pronounced for boys, with rates of 8.9 percent >committing aggressive acts for those who watched less than an hour of TV >at age 14, 32.5 percent for one to three hours and 45.2 percent for >those watching more than three hours of television. For girls the rates >were 2.3 percent, 11.8 percent and 12.7 percent. >Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of >Broadcasters, said Wednesday he has not seen the study but found the >results surprising. He cited recent research that suggests violence on >TV has fallen over the past two years. >Mark I. Singer of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland welcomed >the report, calling it "an important study" that covers a significant >period of time and takes into account potential outside influences. >Singer was not connected with this study, but is the author of a 1998 >analysis that found increased violent behavior in youths who watched >more than six hours of television daily. > And he was this asshole’s partner on that study. >He said part of the importance of the new report is the indication that >there is a relationship in both sexes between television viewing and >aggressive behavior. >Huesmann added that a unique contribution Johnson study is that it >related the simple amount of TV viewing to later aggressive and violent >behavior, while previous studies have concentrated on violent >programming. >The study also looked at young adults, measuring television time at age >22 and the odds of a violent or aggressive acts by age 30. >Overall, just 7.2 percent of 22-year-olds who watched less than an hour >of TV daily were later involved in aggressive acts. For those watching >one to three hours the rate rises to 9.0 percent and at more than three >hours it’s 17.8 percent. >The rates for males were 14.6 percent, 14.0 percent, a slight drop, and >18.8 percent. For women the rates were 0 percent, 3.9 percent and 16.8 >percent. >More than 1,000 families started the study, ending with reports on 707 >after people moved or dropped out for some other reason. The subjects >were in Albany and Saratoga counties in upstate New York, both urban and >rural areas. They were 91 percent white and 51 percent male. >Television viewing was studied through interviews in 1975, 1983, 1985-86 >and 1991-93. The later aggressive acts were determined both through >interviews and from local, state and federal police reports with a last >check in 2000. >grecogirl > There has been NO reputable, peer-reviewable correlation in all past > study. There isn’t this time either, because they didn’t control for > violence in the home. It’s all coming from that, and the TV watching > is merely a confounding variable.  Their metholodology was totally > amateurish crap too, including self-reporting and bullshit like that!! > If someone even knows what you’re measuring in a double blind experiment > it totals it!! > Steve

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >COMMENTS? >By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID >A new study linking increased aggressive behavior to adolescent >television watching is adding weight >to recommendations that parents strictly limit how much time young >people spend in front of the tube. >"The evidence has gotten to the point where it’s overwhelming," said >Jeffrey G. Johnson of Columbia University, lead author of a study that >found watching more than one hour of TV daily is followed by increases >in the rate of assaults, fights, robberies and other aggressive acts in >later years.

This man is a known hack for the religious Right who has been lambasted for crappy methodology so much that there is a file on him with Bay Area Skeptics!! A trumph of TENURE! He’s been trying to prove his pet theory, rather than just doing the science, for well over a decade. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->L. Rowell Huesmann of the University of Michigan said he was impressed >by Johnson’s findings, which expand on earlier studies. >"Children who grow up watching more TV violence are at increased risk >for aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood," Huesmann said. >Johnson’s research team studied more than 700 people for 17 years. >The increase in aggressive behavior with more TV watched held true both >for people who had previous violent incidents and for those who had >not                   had shown earlier aggression. That means the >findings are not merely the >result of people already prone to violence being more avid viewers. > "Our findings suggest that, at least during early adolescence, >responsible >parents should avoid permitting their >children to watch more than one hour of television a day," said Johnson, >who is also affiliated with the New York State Psychiatric Institute. >While other studies have linked watching violent television to later >aggressive behavior, Johnson saidthis is the first to investigate the >total amount of time individuals spent watching and to follow those >people over many years.

Kids who are watching as much TV as his study range goes to are being neglected, but he NEVER mentions this as a confounding variable!! VERY sloppy work! >"I was surprised to see a five-fold increase in aggressive behavior from >less than one hour to three or more hours," Johnson said in a telephone >interview. "I found that quite remarkable." >The study is appearing in Friday’s issue of the journal Science.

The now FRINGE journal "Science". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Among youths who watched less than an hour of television daily at age >14, just 5.7 percent were involved in aggressive acts by the ages of 16 >to 22, the study found. >But for those who watched between one and three hours the aggression >rate jumped to 22.5 percent, and the rate was 28.8 percent for those who >watched three hours or more, the study found. >The effect was most pronounced for boys, with rates of 8.9 percent >committing aggressive acts for those who watched less than an hour of TV >at age 14, 32.5 percent for one to three hours and 45.2 percent for >those watching more than three hours of television. For girls the rates >were 2.3 percent, 11.8 percent and 12.7 percent. >Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of >Broadcasters, said Wednesday he has not seen the study but found the >results surprising. He cited recent research that suggests violence on >TV has fallen over the past two years. >Mark I. Singer of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland welcomed >the report, calling it "an important study" that covers a significant >period of time and takes into account potential outside influences. >Singer was not connected with this study, but is the author of a 1998 >analysis that found increased violent behavior in youths who watched >more than six hours of television daily.

And he was this asshole’s partner on that study. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->He said part of the importance of the new report is the indication that >there is a relationship in both sexes between television viewing and >aggressive behavior. >Huesmann added that a unique contribution Johnson study is that it >related the simple amount of TV viewing to later aggressive and violent >behavior, while previous studies have concentrated on violent >programming. >The study also looked at young adults, measuring television time at age >22 and the odds of a violent or aggressive acts by age 30. >Overall, just 7.2 percent of 22-year-olds who watched less than an hour >of TV daily were later involved in aggressive acts. For those watching >one to three hours the rate rises to 9.0 percent and at more than three >hours it’s 17.8 percent. >The rates for males were 14.6 percent, 14.0 percent, a slight drop, and >18.8 percent. For women the rates were 0 percent, 3.9 percent and 16.8 >percent. >More than 1,000 families started the study, ending with reports on 707 >after people moved or dropped out for some other reason. The subjects >were in Albany and Saratoga counties in upstate New York, both urban and >rural areas. They were 91 percent white and 51 percent male. >Television viewing was studied through interviews in 1975, 1983, 1985-86 >and 1991-93. The later aggressive acts were determined both through >interviews and from local, state and federal police reports with a last >check in 2000. >grecogirl

There has been NO reputable, peer-reviewable correlation in all past study. There isn’t this time either, because they didn’t control for violence in the home. It’s all coming from that, and the TV watching is merely a confounding variable.  Their metholodology was totally amateurish crap too, including self-reporting and bullshit like that!! If someone even knows what you’re measuring in a double blind experiment it totals it!! Steve

Response:

COMMENTS? By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID A new study linking increased aggressive behavior to adolescent television watching is adding weight to recommendations that parents strictly limit how much time young people spend in front of the tube. "The evidence has gotten to the point where it’s overwhelming," said Jeffrey G. Johnson of Columbia University, lead author of a study that found watching more than one hour of TV daily is followed by increases in the rate of assaults, fights, robberies and other aggressive acts in later years. L. Rowell Huesmann of the University of Michigan said he was impressed by Johnson’s findings, which expand on earlier studies. "Children who grow up watching more TV violence are at increased risk for aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood," Huesmann said. Johnson’s research team studied more than 700 people for 17 years. The increase in aggressive behavior with more TV watched held true both for people who had previous violent incidents and for those who had not                   had shown earlier aggression. That means the findings are not merely the result of people already prone to violence being more avid viewers.  "Our findings suggest that, at least during early adolescence, responsible parents should avoid permitting their children to watch more than one hour of television a day," said Johnson, who is also affiliated with the New York State Psychiatric Institute. While other studies have linked watching violent television to later aggressive behavior, Johnson saidthis is the first to investigate the total amount of time individuals spent watching and to follow those people over many years. "I was surprised to see a five-fold increase in aggressive behavior from less than one hour to three or more hours," Johnson said in a telephone interview. "I found that quite remarkable." The study is appearing in Friday’s issue of the journal Science. Among youths who watched less than an hour of television daily at age 14, just 5.7 percent were involved in aggressive acts by the ages of 16 to 22, the study found. But for those who watched between one and three hours the aggression rate jumped to 22.5 percent, and the rate was 28.8 percent for those who watched three hours or more, the study found. The effect was most pronounced for boys, with rates of 8.9 percent committing aggressive acts for those who watched less than an hour of TV at age 14, 32.5 percent for one to three hours and 45.2 percent for those watching more than three hours of television. For girls the rates were 2.3 percent, 11.8 percent and 12.7 percent. Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, said Wednesday he has not seen the study but found the results surprising. He cited recent research that suggests violence on TV has fallen over the past two years. Mark I. Singer of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland welcomed the report, calling it "an important study" that covers a significant period of time and takes into account potential outside influences. Singer was not connected with this study, but is the author of a 1998 analysis that found increased violent behavior in youths who watched more than six hours of television daily. He said part of the importance of the new report is the indication that there is a relationship in both sexes between television viewing and aggressive behavior. Huesmann added that a unique contribution Johnson study is that it related the simple amount of TV viewing to later aggressive and violent behavior, while previous studies have concentrated on violent programming. The study also looked at young adults, measuring television time at age 22 and the odds of a violent or aggressive acts by age 30. Overall, just 7.2 percent of 22-year-olds who watched less than an hour of TV daily were later involved in aggressive acts. For those watching one to three hours the rate rises to 9.0 percent and at more than three hours it’s 17.8 percent. The rates for males were 14.6 percent, 14.0 percent, a slight drop, and 18.8 percent. For women the rates were 0 percent, 3.9 percent and 16.8 percent. More than 1,000 families started the study, ending with reports on 707 after people moved or dropped out for some other reason. The subjects were in Albany and Saratoga counties in upstate New York, both urban and rural areas. They were 91 percent white and 51 percent male. Television viewing was studied through interviews in 1975, 1983, 1985-86 and 1991-93. The later aggressive acts were determined both through interviews and from local, state and federal police reports with a last check in 2000. grecogirl

Response: