Violence in Media

Let us stop portraying the media consumed by a murderers as the cause for their crimes.

I was sitting in my family room with my Dad, discussing the Newtown mass shooting. I brought up the rampant scapegoating being condoned by the mainstream media with my father and he agreed, while adding "except that one game... what's it called?"

I guessed "Grand Theft Auto". That and Mortal Kombat are the two games that have been getting panned by the media for years for allegedly creating psychotic killers despite the fact that millions of people play them and they are just fine.

He said "Yes. That's the one where you shoot cops and rape prostitutes, right?" My Dad has never played the game, and based on what the media has communicated to him about the game, that's literally what he believes the game is about.

To set the record straight, the Grand Theft Auto series consists of loosely connected open-world games set against a sprawling story in the criminal underworld, more easily compared to Goodfellas than "raping prostitutes". You are given the ability to explore the game's world, always a parody of a major American city, at your leisure. If you want, yes, you can shoot a police officer with a bazooka. But where the media seems to stem away from the truth is that you are not rewarded by this or given "points" (I heard that once). Rockstar, the game's developer and publisher, spends millions of dollars making the best story they can tell in these games, all of which are critically lauded for their intricacy, plot, and humor. But my Dad, because of the media, believed it was about "shooting cops and raping prostitutes".

Likewise, since the culprit of the 2011 Norway mass shooting, Anders Brevik, mentioned that he prepared by playing Call of Duty, the media exploded, condemning its existence and essentially identifying it as a motivation in the cases of other murders.

The Call of Duty franchise is one of the highest sold video game properties of all time, with millions upon millions playing. Out of all of those people, literally a handful of people end up being mass murderers. I believe that you could find a different commonality between the murderers that actually identifies with a smaller demographic that could prove as an even better scapegoat. Maybe they all belong to yacht clubs, and only 6 million U.S. citizens belong to yacht clubs. YACHT CLUBS CAUSE MURDER!

It comes down to personal responsibility. If there is a violent game, it may desensitize your child a bit. I admit that I am somewhat desensitized to violence. But my parents did not neglect me growing up, and took the time to explain to me, I don't know, morality.

Django!

Quentin Tarantino is truly a bold filmmaker. If you couldn’t tell he really, loves spaghetti westerns. But for his version of a spaghetti western, he doesn’t just explode the conventions of the genre; he uniquely and creatively molds all aspects of the genre into a sincerely fun experience. 

Django Unchained stars Jamie Foxx as a slave who is purchased by a roving dentist/bounty hunter named Dr. King Schulz (Christoph Waltz), who agrees to free him and help him find his wife (Kerry Washington) if in return he will help track down a trio of killers called The Brittle Brothers. What proceeds is the growth of an unusual friendship and a whole lot of violence and excitement. 

This film is beautifully constructed in which, Django goes from being a slave to being not only a free man, but also a professional bounty hunter, trained by Schulz and becomes his partner. There are encounters with an amusing predecessor of the KKK (played by Don Johnson), a small town sheriff who is not what he seems and, the very proper southern plantation owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), along with his right hand man, house slave Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), who is absolutely hilarious in every one of his scenes. 

Frequently, Tarantino gets us to laugh at the most outrageous situations and then we stop for a second feeling uncomfortable, just before going ahead and laughing at the next shocking situation. But there is not that is exactly the reaction he wants. 

He also wants the audience on the edge of their seats in tense moments and very emotionally touched in others, and it’s his use of completely inappropriate humor in such a deliberate manner, and to such a brilliant effect, that makes his films what they are. His ability to do this is just one of the things that separates him from his imitators. 

Another one of his great qualities is his ability to fold quotes from other films (and even his previous work) into his movies. In this film there’s one particularly moment that comes directly from Kill Bill. The moment takes barely a second, but it’s a moment of great violence and beauty.Tarantino also uses music from his favorite other films and recreates them in clever ways to enhance his unique way of directing even more. The soundtrack for Django Unchained makes use of music from a number of westerns in a mix with a few original songs and splendid mash-ups but everything seems to flow together genuinely. 

Django Unchained is kind of a typical Tarantino film in that it’s a lot of violent, bloody fun, BUT also in that it deals with a very serious topic in a mocking manner. Nevertheless I advise everyone to go see this film whether you like Tarantino or not!

Too critical?

I have always been a fan of Disney movies.  Always.  I still go to see Disney and Pixar movies in theaters, and still feel the same amount of joy I did when I was a little girl.  I contribute this feeling to two things - 1) me being such a child at heart and 2) because Disney is doing something right.  I came across a blog that brought up a lot of points that I didn't necessarily agree with, but at the same time sort of understood.

"I want my children to be able to experience the same movies, however, as an informed adult I am not sure I want to support a company that produces racism, sexism, violence and many other politically incorrect issues."

*Sigh* Alright... first of all, we need to consider the time that most of these movies were created.  Most classic Disney movies came out decades ago, where these issues of racism, sexism, and violence were relevant to the time.  Not to mention, the "offensive" characters are usually the villains.  A huge controversy began over the line "Where they cut off your ears if they don't like your face" from Aladdin.  I have seen Aladdin many times on VHS (aka BEFORE the line was changed to "where it's flat and immense and the heat is intense") and never did I find that line offensive until I actually read about it and became and informed adult.  Five year old Courtney didn't even notice this line, she was more concerned on the music and the color and the animation.  

"Perhaps the most offensive and ignorant part of any movie is simply the size and body image of Ariel in "The Little Mermaid". Her figure is completely unrealistic and the it also gives the message that if a girl is beautiful, skinny, and has large breasts and long flowing hair she can date any man no matter what her personality may be."

Sure, Disney favors the attractive.  I have never watched a Disney film with an ugly princess or where the prince wasn't chiseled to perfection.  But let's open our eyes- that's media.  Media favors the "attractive".  The focus in these films is never about how the characters look, but what they achieve.  It's their attitude and their perseverance that takes them far, not their good looks. 

"Even though I loved Disney movies as a child and would not give up watching them even because of all the politically incorrect and inappropriate messages I still think they are valuable to children's imagination and fantasies. I will have to grapple with the idea of showing them to my children, and it will be a difficult decision"

Alright.  Take a deep breath.  They're not that bad.  Most children don't comprehend the more "adult" based content in these movies.  I know I didn't.  None of my opinons on races, politics, or sex stem from Disney films.  Not to mention, Disney is improving their variety.  Example: "The Princess and the Frog" features an African American princess... see?  They're making strides.

Media is media.  It's always going to be skewed.  

How Are Movie Ratings Determined??

This is a documentary about the process of how movies are rated. It features producers, directors, and actors, that have been part in making movies that most of us have never heard of. Why? Because they received an NC-17 rating and got little to no funding for advertising.

This documentary tries to uncover the mysteries of why some of these movies got that NC-17 rating, and just how the process works in general. As of the time this was filmed (2006) the whole process was 100% secret, and nobody knew the identities of those who rated films. This documentary hires a private investigator to find these identities, and also interviews producers, directors, and actors as mentioned above. It compares side-by-side scenes from movies that received an R, and those that received an NC-17; which are extremely similar in terms of content, camera angles, etc. It raises an obvious question as to why, and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is very vague and confusing when they attempt to give answers.

The documentary also reveals that in the USA, violence is basically unlimited, while sexual situations are highly censored. However, in European countries, they are nearly the complete opposite, by being very liberal when it comes to sex, and very suppressive on violence. Again, why? The documentary answers the questions as best as it can, but in the end, the MPAA is still very secretive, confusing, and vague. But what it does a great job of is showing the major inconsistencies in the rating system and puts the right questions out there to hopefully change the system for the better. It is a tough topic though, since it does flirt with the boundaries of the First Amendment and censorship, as well as give a general indication of the content in the movies being rated so that parents can choose what they let their children watch. The latter was the original purpose for movie ratings, but does the MPAA do a good job at it? This documentary would say "no," and they do give convincing evidence of why.

This Film is not yet Rated is an award-winning documentary, that I feel is very valuable to Park students who aspire to be in the film industry later on in their careers. It even ends with quite a big f**k you to the MPAA, which I found quite hilarious, and definitely worth watching (you can find it on Netflix). However, I will end by saying that it does show the full uncensored scenes from the NC-17 movies as examples, but we're all adults and professionals here, right?

Halo 4

My schedule this semester is tough to describe, but on Monday through Wednesday I have about an hour to myself until 10PM. So in that hour there’s a forty percent chance that I’m playing Halo 3 on Xbox live. I’m hoping I can stop anytime I want, but I think it’s getting me hooked again. The last time I played this game would have been junior year of high school. After two years of not playing, as one can imagine, I was quite rusty. Was I specifically bad? No, but compared to how good I was one could say there was a lot of room for improvement.

I used to be amazing, the record on my old account was winning 881 out of 1009 games. Online you play against people that have the same "skill rank" on a scale from 1-50, 50 being the highest. The way you rank up is by continuously and consecutively winning games. Consequently if you lose, you rank down. To become a 50 you need to win roughly sixty games in a row. I would play with my best friend from home and I had a 50 in Team Doubles. In other playlists I had 48, 46, 42, 38 and 20 in a playlist I did not play much. So I enjoyed being able to not do homework in high school and constantly win games a majority of the time I played.  

So now the year is 2012, the year the world is supposedly going to end. And even though Halo 4 is coming out I feel as though the Halo franchise is officially over. A gameplay trailer of Halo 4 came out and it is no longer Halo. It lost many aspects of it that made Halo, well Halo. Throughout all of its life there was no ability to sprint in Halo, but they added it to this edition. On top of that they added gravity to sniper shots, to make it more realistic, but the thing about Halo was that there was nothing realistic about it in the first place. The main character is a six/seven foot tall man that can jump at least ten feet in the air. There are aliens, lasers, flying ships, you can get shot over fourteen times and still live, regenerate health quickly and you can flip tanks over with your bare hands.

On the release of Halo 3 they grossed over $300 million and millions of people played on Xbox live in the first few days. It had a lot to live up to the Legends of Halo, and Halo 2’s Xbox live experience, but they did deliver. My concern is if Halo 4 will be able to live up to the greatness of its predecessors. This is the first “Halo” game being made by a company other than Bungie. This will be made by 343 Industries. I hope that this franchise will continue to be great, but I am quite skeptical of if they have it in them to deliver a solid product.

Icebreaker

This is a film my friend Jeff Newell. I met him over the summer at the film festival in Auburn Ny. When I saw this film. I knew his unique artistic ability and knew I would certainly enjoy it. This little film only lasts about 3 minutes but establishes so much. The deep interaction between two so-called friends and how well they both know each other. Not only do they have the same taste in girls but they knew each others next move. In the beginning it reads out a vast list of explicit warnings. I wondered how on earth did they establish that in such a short amount of time. It certainly amazed me! The surprise ending is certainly disturbing and isn't meant for a weak stomach. The sound is also very disturbing. What I appreciate the most is that if you go to watch it again, you begin to understand the short lines that mean so much more than what they would in a normal everyday conversion. Completely, unnoticeable until you realize the end.  Also, the acting was done wonderfully! Not much was required of it but simplicity is beauty and can also imply complexity. I love it when films really reach out and grab you by the mind and heart. That is why I live!

Ichi The Killer

Last night a friend and I watched (or tried to watch) a Japanese film called Ichi the Killer directed by Takashi Miike. It was based on a manga series also called Ichi the Killer. We didn't finish the movie mainly due to the fact that it has no plot. The film starts off with a man named Kakihara looking for his "boss" (they are members of a crime syndicate) and a mysterious figure named Ichi lurking around the city (presumably Tokyo). When you finally get acquainted with all the characters and their roles in the story (more than thirty minutes into the film) you find out the boss is dead. From their is no apparent impetus for the rest of the action. You have this vague notion that Kakihara is looking for Ichi (who killed "the boss"), but that is not really clear. The bulk of what we watched is made up of torture or sexual fantasy scenes (frequently a combination of the two) that contribute nothing to story other than to show you how messed up these people are. I'm not against violence in movies, but like every other aspect of film, it has to be relevant to the whole story. Not just some exposé of how many gory things something can think of and fit into a ninety minute movie.

It's not a forgettable movie, it just has no point. If you must watch it, let it be for no other reason than to say that you have seen it.

The Power of Drill Baby, Drill!

If games and virtual environments were not critically influential in "educating" people by drilling into their brain and responsive system whatever message we wish to convey, then we would not spend so much money, time, research etc. in such medium. But the fact is that...

"Manhunt 2" is a video game in which characters kill
and torture using items such as a fuse box and a toilet.

Photo Credit:

Rockstar Games Via Associated Press
Related Article:
Study Links Violent Video Games, Hostility

Violence and Learning

I've still got some strong and some ambivelant feelings on violence and games and learning. For those of you that didn't get a chance to get to it last Tuesday, here is Grosman's Killology website:

http://www.killology.com/

In contrast to that is Jenkins article that says we need all the games we can get, in order to engage students in 21st century learning, and not deskill and bore them when they get to school. He briefly mentions the digital divide, saying that poor kids with no access are being left behind.

http://www.projectnml.org/node/306/

Then I found this article on Jacoby's new book that seems to say that partly due to the information explosion and partly due to American culture, hardly anyone thinks knowledge is important anymore, just opinions matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/books/14dumb.html

I now thinking everyone needs survival skills in today's world. News media coverage tells me that self defense skills are part of what is needed in this violent world, and some of that could be practiced in a computer environment. The other piece is that research and information evaluation skills will be critical, because you don't need to remember everything when you can easily look it up!

Doug

Clarifications...

I wanted to clarify some of what I said today. The more I thought about my comments on spanking the more worried I became about offending others in the class, particularly the other parents. I have a very different view of parenting than most. My style is related to Attachment Parenting first described by Dr. Sears. This method focuses on fostering a bond with your children early with the ultimate goal of creating an independent adult. The way we APers take to get there has recieved much flack from traditional parenting philosophies. I can't count on my fingers and toes the number of times I've been told I am ruining my son, usually by very good parents in my opinion. I did not allow my son to cry-it-out (meaning they are left to cry alone in thier crib until they learn not to cry at night) to teach him to self soothe and sleep through the night. He did learn to do so, just not at 4-6 months, but at 18-20 months. I held him nearly constantly (don't worry, he's pretty independent and doesn't require coddling). I also discipline by a different method, one that does not use traditional time-outs, or spanking, smacking, or any physical pain. My method of discipline is not easy and takes much effort and time. It also is tailored to my son and what he needs at the time. A lot of focus is given to the root cause of a problem. If my son is acting up, I look for a medical reason (hunger, illness, thirst, discomfort) before assuming behavior. This usually takes about thirty seconds to determine (though occassionally I've missed illness at the start of a cold). If the reason is different from medical, then I move into looking at boredom, opportunity, etc as a potential cause for the behavior. If he is simply bored, then I encourage him to find an activity he can do with the confines of our situation which might be entertaining for him. 90% of the time, this solves all our behavior problems. If the root cause is simply him being defiant, I understand his need at 2 to try and assert his independence. This need occurs in children at toddlerhood and later as a teenager. The difference between the two is that in the teen years, the independence needs to be encouraged as they are nearing adulthood. At 2, my son's independence efforts lead back to the knowledge that he is still dependent upon me and his Dad.

The articles I was referring to are varied in thier purpose. Many dealt with "paddling" in schools by school officials. Several dealt with spanking in a home or research setting. The results of these studies determined that in most cases, spanking brought about immediate results, but the lesson was not taught. This usually was the result of being spanked without explaination (or explaining to the child while they were too distraught to understand what was being said to them), and the later life problems were typically associated with a lack of re-bonding with the child. Also remember the spanking situations I spoke about varied from daily to weekly. Many cases, the spanking was done with an object (deemed abuse by today's standards, but at the time participants in the long-term studies were spanked, it was considered appropriate to use a switch or wooden spoon, or even a belt). The spankings were also used more frequently and for less severe offenses as the child progressed in age.

I do not believe in spanking my child. I do not feel that I have the right to tell other parents how to raise thier own children. I do not want to be forced to spank mine, so why should I take away that right from others? I typically come on pretty strongly about this issue because I am so often called a "permissive" or "lazy" parent by those that have not met my child, and assume this simply by virtue of the fact that I do not spank him. I am often asked by family members what I use to spank him, a switch or wooden spoon.

Research exists on nearly ever topic and with nearly every result as the outcome. There is certainly as much evidence to support the use of spanking as to discourage it. My research has focused on the effects seen of spanking, not on the possitive aspects of that disciplinary style. I do not feel parents that spank are abusive and I do not feel that they are in anyway less "parental" than I am. The whole point of me bringing that topic up was to suggest that parents will usually continue to do what they believe is right, regardless of what information they are provided. This is just as true in my household where I continue to allow my son to have bottles at night despite the fact that it may disrupt his tooth position. I am concerned about it, however, have decided that 20 minutes of a bottle of water is not the worst thing in the long run. The reason he still has a bottle instead of losing it at 1 year is medical and was a decision based on health problems he had at the time.

So anyway, another long post, but I did want to clarify what I was intending. The ultimate comment, which I think got lost due to my strong opinion, was that typically telling parents that a violent media source can cause violent behavior in children may be acknowledged, but may have little effect in the household activities. Part of this I feel is related to guilt (if I did this for so long already, I cannot accept that I've done damage so I will continue and disregard the information). Lots of people that practice Attachment Parenting like I do refuse to vaccinate thier children, fearing the medical problems which can result. They know that thier children will be at risk of contracting potentially fatal illness without those vaccinations, however, they feel that the risk (roughly.01% or so of children have severe reactions to vaccinations which can cause permanant damage or be fatal) to the children is too much in comparrision with the potential of contracting a disease. They believe this strongly and disregard what they are told concerning vaccinations in part because they do not want to be told how to parent. I on the other hand, vaccinated my child as reccomended (though a reaction forced a delay in the vaccination schedule for a time).

I hope I haven't offended anyone as that was not my intention. I also hope my point is more clear now. Thanks for listening. If you ahve been offended by my snap comments today, please accept my sincerest appologies for doing so.

Getting a little ticked...

Our reading this week struck a cord with some of the other reading I've been doing for our group. We're looking at personality, obviously, so a simple search on avatar personality led me to a book written by David Bell. Bell talks about embodiement, or lack thereof, and of some of the history of the "gender rights movement" for lack of a better term. He mentioned that in the late 90s, a movement developed to keep female gamers out of these online worlds. Women responded by creating groups of girl gamers that used terms like geekgrrls and others. They fought back much like we saw in Ada's story.

Bell also talks about the "cross dressing" aspects as well. He mentions some specific cases of female lesbians being seduced by homosexual men believing the female avatar is actually a man. He then speaks of the sterotypes of maleness and femaleness. The idea is that you must exagerate the sterotypes in order to be a believable avatar.

Up until this point in my reading, Bell had only ticked me off to a mild extent. Then he pushed me right over the edge. He began discussing race and computing. He classed individuals into 3 groups, the Information Users, the Information Used, and those that lack information. By information, he of course meant lack of access. His whole thesis apparently revolved around this point. Apparently minorities and women LACK the needed skills to effectively use the internet and VWs, and it is another ploy by those in the upper tier to keep us all in our proper places. His book was published in 2000.

I growled a few times, skimmed the rest of the work and chalked it up to the hairbrained schemes of the moronic, until I found he's actually published several works on this subject. That really made me angry. While I can see his viewpoint about access, I do not accept his idea that some people (mainly women in his opinion) lack the skills to participate flly in the digital age. To me it is akin to an article in a gaming magazine from several years ago in which the author suggested to his male readers that they should introduce thier girlfriends to gaming through things such as Spiro, or other cuddly, easy games. The author was inundated with enough letters from angry female readers that even he had to admit that perhaps he was wrong. In the year 2000, when Bell was published, I was teaching 7th grade life science at an at-risk in Virginia, where my students were far more technologically savy that I was. Even in 2000, most families had a computer in the home. Though Bell does admit that he graduated from grad school when computer took up several rooms.

I believe he is right that in some cases gender is over exagerrated to be believable, however, I found that usually this is a case of when someone is attempting to project an avatar they are uncomfortable with (ie man project female or vice versa). We won't even get into his thoughts on "furries" as he calls them, and those that would chose them.

Now let me move abruptly to my next topic of frustration for the week. Obviously, since Thursday, much ahs been discussed about violence in the media, ie violent games, movies, tv shows. Everytime some horrible tragedy occurs it's back to the theory of desensitation that causes the young (and not so young) to "lose it" and harm others. I've spent much time in conversation about this lately, and this is not my first post on the subject. But as I watch the things occuring in our world and the increase in technology being blamed for it I feel outraged. I have yet to find a single long term study that links violent media to violent behavior in the young. What I have found are studies that indicate that the "me" attitude of parenting has caused the young to feel isolated and powerless. Obviously there are many good parents in the world, many realize the committment required to parent. Others do not. When the incident at Columbine was blamed on video games and music I (as young as I was) asked why his parents weren't monitoring what they were doing? I find myself now wondering why, even at the age of 27, no one noticed that this young man had gone off his medication, or that something was wrong.

Some discussion in our class has revolved around whether meeting online is truly meeting, whether it is social. Forming friendships online can be just as vital as forming them in RL. No man is an island, why didn't anyone notice? I think again it leads back to the "me" attitude. Well, he stopped showing up to work at the prison, so he's fired, end of story. Why didn't someone go to his home and check on him? It would seem to me if the playing of violent video games is "making" children react violently, then why are parents allowing the games to be played by thier children? While it's not easy to monitor every aspect of what your children's lives, there is quite a bit that can be monitored. I knew most of what was going on in my classroom when I was teaching. I knew who thought they might be pregnant, who was taking drugs, who was living with someone other than thier guardian, who was reading what, and what games they played. I knew which girls braided hair for extra money, and I knew who was "dating" who. I was thier teacher and saw them roughly an hour a day. How can we live in a world where it is SO easy to stay connected, and yet no one knew this young man was about to snap, just like no one knew the young man at Virginia Tech was about to snap. How can no one know?

I think we're living in a time where everyone can be connected. I don't feel that there are classes. While my mother typically uses the internet for shoping, she also knows how to log onto a library system, retrieve materials, and do what she needs to do. She taught herself. Some of the greatest computer users I've met are women and minorities. These are the people that not only can do anything online, but when thier computer is broken, they know how to take it apart and repair it. Not because they had opporunity to learn as children, but because unlike those that have the resources (According to Bell), they cannot replace thier system when it breaks, they fix it. I once epoxied a telephone jack onto my computer when my modem port had broken. It worked that way for years. I've also helped one of my friends reduce her computer to parts in order to find that broken card and replace it. Remember, we are the people that Bell insists have no ability.

I know that this blog has been rambling, but of course during the course of writing it I've had three seperate conversations with my son, taken water to my husband that is recovering from Strep, and I've taken a second to feed my aged cat canned food. But hey, maybe it should be all about me? Come on folks, especially the ladies and minorities, please prove Bell wrong. And remember to take care of each other. Those of us in Grad school know what its like to be far from home, with no one to look in on you. I remember thinking that when I arrived here, 12 hours away from my family and my fiance that the only people that would miss me would be GRU and maybe Cox. Ironically, I quickly made close friends of several cohorts, and we have always taken care of each other. It's not hard. When someone is strapped for cash, take them leftovers from dinner, or invite them over. I can't count the number of meals I've taken to my friends, and how many I've gotten in return. When someone you care about is down, take them out for coffee, watch a movie together, it's just a couple of hours, and can mean the world. The night I called a friend and told her that I was miserable, she picked me up and we drove for three hours talking. Several weeks later, when her sister had an ear infection that sent her to the hospital int he middle of the night, I drove. It's not the things we watch as adults, or the games we play, it's the fact that no person is an island and we all need each other. SL gives us a chance to make connections to people, to keep in touch, and to take care of those, even when they are hours away.

Violence in SL

I was reading a story entitled, “Humans Crave Violence Just Like Sex” at http://www.livescience.com/health/080117-violent-cravings.html. A short while later in SL, I teleported onto an island where I was greeted by three avatars. Comments were made about the tag over my head stating “Gator Fan”. I guess one of the avatars is a UT fan as we momentarily slipped into RL. I was quickly brought back to SL when another avatar came down on my back and I saw the chat dialogue stating, “SLAP, SLAP”. Was I being attacked from behind? I wondered if the article was correct about the human attraction to violence and whether SL was another venue to explore violent tendencies.

I turned to confront my attacker only to learn he had already moved away from me. I realized he was part of a very active mob that had congregated. I was close enough that the chat dialogue continued on my screen and included several more SLAPS. Do CAPS signify the intensity of the slapping? From what I could tell, the frenzied group was beating up on one avatar. Even an avatar of Snoopy with Woodstock on his shoulder joined the melee. Did Charles Schultz ever imagine that his lovable beagle would turn rabid and become a griefer (at least, I’m guessing that’s who they were delivering the beating)?

The title of the article was slightly misleading in that scientists studied the reward pathway in the brains of mice. Based on findings of the study, the suggestion is put forth that the brain of a mouse is analogous to human brains. Of course, the rise in popularity of extreme mixed martial arts fighting, girl fights on YouTube, and violent video games may substantiate the mouse study. Yet, I had to wonder to what extent do people engage in behaviors outside of RL social norms in SL. I realize I asked a similar question in a previous post but it's a question that I find fascinating.