MCab Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 When I wargame, I try to make decisions as if it were in real life. In other words, although I could brashly sacrifice a tank crew that just ditched its tank so I could recon/draw fire/whatever , but I'd rather keep them retreating and let them hide out somewhere. About wargaming and violence, I think problems are in the person, and usually not in the game. The problems I notice is when there's too much emotional attachment and there's an inability to separate fantasy from reality (these two problems are probably one and the same). How many of us know of a sore loser/winner in our local wargaming circles that show this problem? Peace, MCab 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medlinke Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 Originally posted by Brian Rock: I don't think being boring is a virtue, but I did sometimes wish I didn't need to put so much effort into being entertaining. Engaged learning is something that is hard for the teacher to attain. Sustaining a class of engaged learners is nearly impossible through lecture alone without some sort of intrinsic motivational factor. For instance, I think a 3 hour lecture on the history of Dragons Teeth and their influence in tactical combat would be interesting to some degree because I have the intrinsic motivation to learn it. While someone else may not have that. Extrinsic motivation, such as tests, etc. aren't enough always, especially in lectures to create engaged learning. Bottom line: entertainment value goes a long way to getting and sustaining engaged learning. At Michigan State there is a Communications Prof named Dr. Donahue who has the COM100 lectures which are held in the biggest auditorium on campus during dinner time. There is no attendence and all he does is lecture, but you know what? It is packed every time because he is such a great lecturer. The entertainment value alone was enough to create, and sustain engaged learning to the point where students who have every reason and ability not to attend...do. Off topic I know...but as a future teacher (next year) I thought I'd add my 2 cents... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted February 20, 2001 Author Share Posted February 20, 2001 Well I have been suprised by the response to this topic. Since so many of you have concerns and opinions I felt like it would be agood idea to share this discussion with the student that really started it all. Her response has been very positive and quite informed. I had made the mistake of putting her in a pigeon hole that really she does not fit. She understands that trained warriors are those who have the greatest aversion to real killing b/c they are the ones who must do the killing. She sees more clearly that games like Tac Ops provide a bloodless means to test a theory and create a smarter warrior. She still holds fast to the notion that if we eliminate violent games (including simulations) that we will become less aggressive and the world would be more peaceful. She was pleased that her own opinions could generate the response of the group. She admitted to stereotyping Wargamers into a knuckledragging blood thirsty lot. I have surprised her b/c as a Marine I have not lived up to some expectations that she got from popular (mistaken) media. She has really grown and learned from this. As a teacher I appreciate anything that helps me teach my kids so thanks to all of you who contributed!!! ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 From another forum ... >interview with LTC Grossman, the leading advocate >of the theory that violent games nudge kids towards violence. > http://www.joystick101.org/?op=displaystory&sid=2001/1/29/195129/413 A good article well worth reading and thinking about. I have not yet resolved how much of his point of view that I agree with. I tend to think that violent games and media could contribute to pushing an already dysfunctial or predisposed kid over the edge toward unjustified violence. It will be a lot harder to convince me that such games can unbalance a "normal" kid. I do have a problem with the attitude of many medical, educational, and child rearing "authorities" that all aggressive behavior is bad behavior and that all violence is bad behavior. It troubles me that these folks seldom bother to link "unjustified" to their use of the words "agressive" and "violence". ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com [This message has been edited by MajorH (edited 02-20-2001).] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCab Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 Minmax, I have a story for her that is about gaming and society. When I went to the Jewish Heritage Museum in New York City, one of the things in display was a boardgame in Nazi Germany where the object was to kick out all of the jews in the town. The counters used to depict the jews where these cone-shapes that had these ugly characatures drawn on them. It's both shocking and disturbing to know what some people tolerate and even find palatable. Peace, Mark 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 Originally posted by MajorH: I have not yet resolved how much of his point of view that I agree with. I tend to think that violent games and media could contribute to pushing an already dysfunctial or predisposed kid over the edge toward unjustified violence. It will be a lot harder to convince me that such games can unbalance a "normal" kid. That is basically the point of view Grossman puts forward in "On Killing". As I recall it he argues that it tends to shift the bell curve a bit, which means a handful of people down at the margin may be more inclined to become more violent. This seems a credible argument to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Radford Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 It took me until the second page before I found any real discussion of responsibility of the person or company who creates a war game, movie or novel for the forseeable impact on those who experience it. As was mentioned, constant exposure to violence, for instance, can desensitize some people from a more normal perception of the ethical issues. Playing, as well, can divert people into concentration on means rather than ends. I don't think it is merely unbalanced people who are influenced. Work with neural networks indicates that all learning is cumulative and that current opinions are a blend of all that has gone on before. This means that we all have to be conscious of our effect on others. In a war game, particularly one that does not emphasize the violent aspects, it may be possible to justify the effect by pointing to the benefits in training officers to avoid some of their more costly mistakes and in informing the public so that they can evaluate military information. There is considerably less justification for violent movies or novels as edification is a minor factor and the benefits go mainly to the producer. Sometimes, there is an attempt to justify the work by reference to art but I find that "art" is mainly in the mind of the person who benefits financially and in the minds of a mindless claque which seeks spurious second hand reputation from the activities of others rather like sports fans which judge themselves by the success of the team they support. [This message has been edited by Robert Radford (edited 02-21-2001).] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted February 22, 2001 Author Share Posted February 22, 2001 Originally posted by MCab: Minmax, I have a story for her that is about gaming and society. When I went to the Jewish Heritage Museum in New York City, one of the things in display was a boardgame in Nazi Germany where the object was to kick out all of the jews in the town. The counters used to depict the jews where these cone-shapes that had these ugly characatures drawn on them. I don't think that is a wargame so much as it was a teaching tool for Anti-semetism. In Tac Ops for instance the enemy is only identified as OPFOR. So there are no ethnic, racial, or even gender references. They are just a faceless foe. Now some may say they use Soviet equipment. Fine, since there is not such thing as a Soviet anymore I say hammer em. It's both shocking and disturbing to know what some people tolerate and even find palatable. 250 AD Bread and Circuses, 1000 AD Crusades to slaughter the 'infidel'. 1300 AD Inquisition. 1800 AD Slavery 1900 AD War to end all wars. 2000 AD Jerry Springer. I think we are following a well established pattern. Trick is do we learn from it. ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuckaguck Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 All of your thoughts are very interesting. I am not a soldier, nor was one, but I have studdied history as well as specificaly all things military for a long time on my own. It is only a couple of days ago that I finnished the Gal scenario in the Tac ops demo. I have to admit, that at times my interest in war causes me to slip slightly to the point where I am in favor of war. However, One of the biggest impressions I receaved from the demo was how terribly horrible war was. I beat the scenario but the cost was horrendous. At the end of the battle I had my Artillery, SAM squad, and a single immobilized M1A2. Opfor had 3 BMPs, a few artilery pieces, a lot of infantry stranded out in the open, and that is it. In the end, 3 120mm mortar units managed to make it accross. Admitedly, not every battle would be like that one, but the death tole horrified me. -Walter- ------------------ -Walter- 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCab Posted February 23, 2001 Share Posted February 23, 2001 Minmax, I know the game was not a wargame, but only a piece of propaganda. My point was just to show how the debate of gaming and society isn't all that new. Peace, MCab 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted February 25, 2001 Author Share Posted February 25, 2001 No problem. I just thought that you might be equating Tac Ops with that Nazi game. Actually, Hitler was very much against games that made German youth thinkers. He wanted a proletariat that accepted orders and a belief system that forwarded National Socialist ideals. I played a scenario one time as conservatively as possible avoiding engagements that would sacrifice troops without a clear cut advantage. The result was still horrendous casualities and I lost the scenario. Maybe the Major could add that to the features a Death Toll. It is a sobering experience. I would not want a job above that of a Platoon Leader. I honestly don't think I could make decisions to send hundreds or thousands of my countrymen to their deaths. In a platoon I know my people and can face death with them to justify my job. I worked at an FSCC (Fire Support Coordination Center) one time during a CAX (Combined Arms Exercise) it made me sick to see the G-2 and G-3 (Intel and Operations) make light of removing markers that represented hundreds of brother and sister Marines. As a matter of fact the box they went into was called the forgive my french "the Sh*t Sandwich box". I was glad when a battalion Chaplain pointed out to the Majors, Captains, Lieutenants, Sergeants, and Troops making jokes that, "So which funerals do you plan to attend? Which set of Mothers, Wives, and Daugthers will you be assigned to visit? Not to get on a moral high horse but you must train like you fight which includes an understanding of the cost in human lives of decision that while they may be mission neccesary they will still fill body bags. Okay sermon over. I am just amazed at the responses this topic has generated. I have certainly gained a deeper understanding of the warrior's mind and spirit. "It ain't over till a grunt puts a flag on it." ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elementalwarre Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 hmm. any suggestions on how to talk to people who won't even -think- about violence? i mean that literally, as in they won't even talk about self-defense or first aid idealism doesn't mean avoiding reality. i believe that wholeheartedly but heck if i know how to get some people to, well, deal with life as it is, not only as they want it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elementalwarre Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 re Lt Grossman's interview: hmm. so unless you're supervised you'll be vulnerable to desensitization from violent TV/games/etc. well, if you're an adult it's ok yeah right IMHO it depends on your existing real-life experiences/beliefs/personality when vicariously experiencing violence, -no matter what your age is-. i don't see how someone who's past a certain age is somehow necessarily more mature, but that's the legal definition our society follows sorry, i don't know what definition to use instead. i don't know a coming of age ritual that's useful in current western society, but i'm pretty sure reaching a certain age isn't enough 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted February 28, 2001 Author Share Posted February 28, 2001 In terms of talking to people about violence. I figure if they don't want to hear about it fine. Violence is not going to avoid them even if they desperately avoid it. Some people are just happier denying the world out there. That's okay, as long as the military can do its job without interference then those kind of people will not have to worry about violence. I have real reservations about all this research that says people get desensitized. Maybe if they see it but when they experience it that is the real measure of a person's tolerance and attitude. I think any extreme is not good. If we eliminate all violence then we trounce the first amendment. If we don't try to limit violence then we invite children and adults to undertake violence b/c they see so much of it on popular media. I say we balance the Constitution with public good. As far as morality I do think it is difficult to determine societal standards since all of us have individual morals. Ain't over till a grunt puts a flag on it. ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 B'Elanna Torres: You killed him ?!!! Seven of Nine: He wasn't responding to diplomacy. - Startrek Voyager #81, Message In A Bottle. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DS CavScout Posted March 1, 2001 Share Posted March 1, 2001 NOOOOOO!!!! The Major's a trekkie geek!?!? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted March 1, 2001 Share Posted March 1, 2001 Can't help it. As a kid, I watched the original Star Trek series - not as reruns - but the first time around . ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Robel Posted March 2, 2001 Share Posted March 2, 2001 Me too. I decided I like Capt Kirks style better, when confronted with Hostiles: Capt Kirk: Open Fire Capt Picard: Senior Officers to the Ready Room Capt Sisko: Hmm, I don't know what he does. Capt Janeway: Get out of my way or I'll open fire. Actually, I kind of like Janeway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoffel Posted March 3, 2001 Share Posted March 3, 2001 It is not quite the same issue but it is important to notice. A research by one of the local newspapers on some schools here in my province about what students know about the second world war brought up scarey results. A history class watched Shindlers list and asked questions after the movie,off the 30 students 10 never heard of Adolf Hitler,one of them even asked where he was and what he did now.16 of them did not know when the second world war took place.one of them thought it was around 1800,the rest knew some facts but did not believe the shoa actually happened. I don't know how history lessons are tought in other countries but these serious flaws in knowledge off important facts can lead to the kind of questions your student came up with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuckaguck Posted March 8, 2001 Share Posted March 8, 2001 I can personally attest to the lack of good History in high school. I am in favor of greater funding of education because I believe it is good for the Military, ultimately, no matter what combat system you think up, a human will have to design it and a human will command/use it. One of the big reasons Israel continuously won every war they fought in, was because they had a well educated army that was capable of thinking for its self. If our schools get better, the quality of recruits will increase, leading to improvements in every part of military life. call me a neo-liberal I dare you -Yuckaguck- 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted March 10, 2001 Author Share Posted March 10, 2001 What constitutes 'good history' I teach the full spectrum and from what I see at my school we do a pretty good job. We have good test scores, lots of national merit scholars, and kids that go on to good colleges. Be careful basing your opinion of education on your experiences as a student. You are not seeing the whole picture. Teachers good and bad in public schools have their backs against the wall. It reminds me of being in the Corps. Impossible jobs, low pay, crappy or non-existant equipment, disgruntled subordinates, and superiors who would not know their butt from a hole in the ground. Wanna fix education? Start at the touchy-feely feel good elementary level. Trust me by the time you get that bunch in High School they would not know responsibility or consequences if it bit them on the butt. I think its immoral to raise kids in a society that seems hell bent on ignoring history and demanding political correctness. Ask a European or and African about such luxuriant concepts. They will laugh. Americans have the innate advantage of diverse intelligences, backgrounds, creeds, and yes our share of kooks. We stifle this however, when we demand that American school children get all of their education at school. Morality, Social Norms, on top of academics. Not all parents are dropping the ball but enough are, which compounds the problems of our society. I say lets teach the basics and leave the life lessons where the should be taught at home. Okay sermon over. "It ain't over till a grunt puts a flag on it!" ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG [This message has been edited by minmax (edited 03-09-2001).] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 In response to LTC Grossman's point of view, here is a link to a paper on the subject of video games and "moral panics" The abstract is as follows: "Moral panics occur when media and society link youth culture to juvenile delinquency, as video games were to the 1999 Columbine shootings. In all moral panics, patterns emerge of how the media chooses to portray what society finds threatening, and what the panics mean in a larger societal context. This paper analyzes video games as a modern moral panic by examining rock 'n roll, comic books, and Dungeons and Dragons as historical moral panics. " http://www.gamebits.net/other/mqp.html By Kenneth A. Gagne 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted May 5, 2001 Share Posted May 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>hmm. any suggestions on how to talk to people who won't even -think- about violence? i mean that literally, as in they won't even talk about self-defense or first aid idealism doesn't mean avoiding reality. i believe that wholeheartedly but heck if i know how to get some people to, well, deal with life as it is, not only as they want it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Many readers of this thread will not agree with me, but i believe there is no way to solve that situation by talking, please let me explain: As a former Marine, and I am sure most former Marines can attest to this, I had the social stereotype placed on me as a knucle-dragging baby eater/killer, warmonger, etc, by the more "enlightened & educated" portion of society (Mostly professionals and college educated people, this attitude does not seem to be shared by the blue-collar sector of society) and I found myself in many a pointless argument about the validity of the Military and armed intervention with people who would not or did not want to think about the military in a positive light. I was really taken aback by this when I started attending college (I was enlisted) and my social circles had changed considerably, and after a time I avoided the topic of anything military, especially my time in the Marines and tried to state my case and keep my emotions in check. After a while as people got to know me better and when conversations about the US's foreign role came up I started voicing my opinions again and many people were surprised that I had even been in the Corps, many time was the comment heard "Wow, you don't act like a Marine" or something to that effect (This despite the fact the most of them had never met a Marine before). To make a point of all this rambling, I believe that the best way to convert the skeptics of the world is not to sit and converse with them, but just let your actions bring them to your camp. Corny as it sounds, it's what I think is the truth. The military should not depend on or even expect praise or understanding from the people it protects, it is better off focusing it's energy on doing it's duites as well and honorably as it can. They'll come around. Gyrene 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimrod2001 Posted May 9, 2001 Share Posted May 9, 2001 I have always considered myself to be a moral person. I have fairly strong views on war; its impact on the innocent, the young and old alike. However I am also a long-term strategy war game player and my specific interest and enjoyment comes in 3 parts <UL TYPE=SQUARE>1. That the representation of something so intense an event, married with serious strategic decision making and only one decisive outcome, can not be equaled in other forms of strategy based games. <UL TYPE=SQUARE>2. Quite simply, the whole logistical planning, people management and motivation, as well as clear and immediate decision making required in an aggressive modern business, is so often honed by these games. <UL TYPE=SQUARE>3. I’m a big kid at heart, and there is nothing like sitting back after a major victory and in my mind promoting myself to a 4 star general. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted May 9, 2001 Author Share Posted May 9, 2001 Gyrene, I agree with the stereotype people have of Marines in particular and the military in general. I came to the realization that the 'protected' may abhor violence but they will holler for a military when the poop hits the fan. I made good grades in college and had some very intellectual discussions with people who did not neccesarily support the idea of a military. I gave them the poem that talks about things in terms of that veterans garuntee things like freedom of speech, press, religion, and protest. They understood that their luxury of opposition to the military is assured by the military. People are funny they don't like those who garuntee their most basic rights. In a sense I believe it is guilt. I have always stated that all Americans should give up two years of their lives at a minimum to give back to a nation that gives them so much. Not neccesarily a draft but something like Roosevelt's NRA with CCC camps and public service. I think working for the benefit of others you may never know is a common theme for a voluntary military and something most younger Americans don't get in their education or jobs. Well, that is about my two cents and a few dollars. Keep the faith... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.