TC Tim's blog

To start things off here, I have gone through some links sent to me by a generous commentator on my blog entry Desensitization and Media Violence as of This Time.  Unfortunately, I couldn't access one of them due to some membership that requires you to pay even just to look at it.  So, I would like to thank the commentator known only as Anonymous for the links.

When I printed the links and read through them, the content caused me to scratch my head.  It's mostly stuff about research claiming that violence in TV, movies, and video games not only increases aggression, but it also creates long-lasting psychological trauma, desensitizes viewers to real-life violence, and makes them less sympathetic to victims of crimes like murder, torture, rape, etc.

First of all, there was a study conducted two years ago claiming that violent video games are nothing more that desensitizing agents.  It involved 257 students playing two video games (Duke Nukem and Mortal Kombat) for 20 minutes and then watching a 10-minute clip of real violent acts.  Their heart rates and skins' reaction were measured before, during, and after both sessions, testing physiological reactivity.  How can anyone be desensitized to real-world violence after playing Duke Nukem or Mortal Kombat for only 20 minutes?   How about 1 hour, 4 hours, 6 hours, or 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?  What about playing the other games that exist out there like Final Fantasy, Halo, and Metal Gear Solid?  Or even non-violent franchises like Super Mario Brothers, Sonic the Hedgehog, and Crash Bandicoot?

The other thing I found odd while going through the papers is that according to a few studies, cartoons like Woody Woodpecker could increase boys' endorsement of aggressive solutions to problems and others like Alice in Wonderland or Beauty and the Beast create long-time fears of animals such as dogs, cats, or insects.  Personally, I find those types of claims to be just ridiculous.  They are only cartoons.  There exist good cartoons, like Looney Toons and Batman: The Animated Series, and there are also bad ones, such as Double Dragon and Darkstalkers (both based on known video game franchises).

Another thing I find to be more outlandish is that there was a study in 1999 which involved college students.  After viewing a violent film, according to the study, they became willing to hinder at other people's chances of getting a job.  How can watching a violent movie make people want to destroy someone else's hopes of future employment?  It's just mind-boggling.

But some of the studies that I looked at are the most appalling.  These studies claim that when exposed repeatedly to films that portray violence against women (pornography or not),  men not only become less sympathetic to rape victims, but also less able to empathize with those victims in general.  The studies also said that these men, who were a part of the studies in the first place, rated the victim as being less severely injured.  Even more revolting, I read a blog entry (also sent to me by Anonymous) which said that men who have seen violent pornographic films were given the story of a rape and asked what the sex offender's punishment should be.  These men much easier on the sex offender (who commit the crime in the first place) and 'responded that he should be punished significantly more lightly'.  These are the most absurd claims that I have ever read about in my life, in both methodological and ethical terms.

In conclusion, the studies which claim that all forms of electronic media are desensitizing agents make no logical sense and the alleged "scientific evidence" has no basis whatsoever.  If there is anyone who would like to share your thoughts with me on this, please feel free to comment.   You can also check out the links below (sent to me by Anonymous):

http://www.joannecantor.com/montrealpap_fin.htm  http://medialiteracy.suite101.com/article.cfm/theories_of_violence_in_the_media  http://www.bookrags.com/research/desensitization-and-media-effects-eci-01/  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5244/is_199712/ai_n21004340  http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~ker/scholarly_research.htm  http://instructors.cwrl.utexas.edu/jesson/?q=node/122  http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3152445

Be sure to tell me what you think after reading them.

I have been wanting to write down this blog for some time. But I kept getting sidetracked by routine habits I have at home (i.e., playing video games, walking around, self-talk, surfing the Internet, etc.). Well, here it is and I'm sorry for the delay.

If you have ever taken a class on U.S. History and our government, then you should know the First Amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, the government cannot establish an official religion and require U.S. citizens to abide by it. The First Amendment also allows everyone to practice their own faith, as long as it is not used by any state--including a state university, college, or school districts--to make converstions and denigrate other faiths. That is the point that Matthew LaClair has been making while he was still a high school student in Kearny, N.J.

It wasn't easy for him, as most of his home town turned against him as soon as it was revealed that he had secretly recorded his history teacher, David Paszkiewicz (pronounced pass-KEV-ich), promoting his personal religious and creationist beliefs during class.

For more information on this latest event in the history of the church/state seperation debate, check out the links below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion/18kearny.html

This article was one of the first of many that made the controversy in Keany, NJ public. This link also features the recordings made by LaClair during Paszkiewicz's class, which prove that the U.S. history teacher has been proselytizing during class. (Note: It may be hard for you to hear them due to some background noise.)

http://www.telegram.com/article/20080713/NEWS/807130407/1116

In this article, Worcester humanists hear of LaClair's experience with trying to get the local school board to take action against Paszkiewicz and how his hometown ended up supporting Paszkiewicz due to his popularity.

http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/aclusupportsstudentchallen.htm#

This link shows that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supports LaClair's challenge to the preaching teacher.

http://www.aclu.org/students/34399res20080314.html

This is a scholarship essay for the ACLU written by LaClair which discusses his experience in defending civil liberties during his high school years.

LaClair also made headlines earlier this year by pointing out flaws in a textbook on the U.S. Government. For more information, be sure to read the blog I have written on the topic, which is titled How to Spot Errors and Bias in a Textbook by a High School Student.

Since this country has civil liberties, how many people actually care about them? Is it because they are backing away from situations where they can stand up for those liberties? How strong is our concern for the very liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? Is it our fate to forget that they even exist?

If we want to keep our civil liberties, I say we follow Matthew LaClair's example. As an American, I am proud to have those rights. In order to stand up for our civil liberties, we must not let fear hold us back. If we continue to be afraid to defend those very rights, we might end up losing them. That is the price we could all end up paying for not showing more concern for the liberties that have been guaranteed by our country for more than two centuries.

The following is a follow-up of the last blog entry Understanding Autism, The Final Voice.  I thought that I could no longer continue my blog when my internship ended.  But since my writing is considered so good, I learned that I still have access to the blog.  In other words, I can write a new blog entry any time I want to, just not on an everyday basis.

There were a couple of things that I should have mentioned in my last entry.  You may have a basic understanding of autism.  You probably even have witnessed an autistic child in school displaying its effects.  But did you know that there are autistic adults out there who are now leading successful lives?  One autistic man runs an auto repair shop specializing in restoring fine European cars.  Another woman with autism has a Ph.D in animal research and an interesting perspective in animal behavior.       

Some of these people have written books detailing their experiences of growing up with autism.  A few examples include Look Me in the Eye: My Life with Asperger’s by John Elder Robinson and Thinking In Pictures: and Other Reports from My Life with Autism by Temple Grandin.  I read the former but I haven’t looked at the latter.

I am planning to read a book co-written by Temple Grandin and Sean Barron called Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships: Decoding Social Mysteries Through the Unique Perspectives of Autism.  In that book, they present “their life stories to explain the unwritten rules and patterns of social relationships” and guidelines for interacting with other people in any type of environment.

Who knows?  Maybe I’ll learn something from these types of autistic fellows.  I know that I might be as successful as they are in the future.

The following is the last blog that I have done, for this is the last day of my internship here at WCCA TV13.  I am really proud to have written this blog.

The number of people with autism is growing.  I am one of them.  And with that number comes a number of attempts to explain the behavior of autistic people, a number of research programs that attempt to understand autism, and a number of programs intended to help autistic people.

As a man who is affected by autism, I would like to provide you links which may help increase your understanding of autism, including the facts, the myths, and the latest research findings.  Here are the links below:

http://www.arccm.org/aboutautism.html

This is the website for the local autism resource center.

http://autism.about.com/od/whatisautism/tp/topmyths.htm

This link deals with the most basic myths of autistic people.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-06-20.html

This well-written article covers the myth of vaccines as the cause of autism.

If you have been reading this blog, then you already know what I can do.  As my internship ends, I am going to continue to pursue my career goal to become a film maker.  It has been a real excitment to write this blog.  So, I hope you have enjoyed my blog.  Wish me luck in my career goal!

Tim Heard

Do you believe that science is the cause of all things evil, including Nazism?  That is what is being claimed by a film called Exposed: No Intelligence Allowed, a 'documentary' film by Ben Stein.  Basically, the thesis of the film is that people are being fired for endorsing Intelligent Design, that Darwinism leads to evils including Nazism, and that scientists are the main cause of it.

I haven't seen the movie, but I did read an in-depth review done by the Skeptics Society.  The only thing I can say about the movie is this: it is the most dishonest and unreasonable documentary film I have read about.  The only things I have to prove my point are the links below:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-23.html

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/expellingallreason.html

I wouldn't even consider showing this film in any kind classroom of any elementary school, high school, or college.  If that were to happen, I can imagine what students would think of science and reason in general after viewing it. 

The times are changing fast, and technology is changing even faster.  So what benefits does it provide for teens?  Easy communication?  Deep and satisfying social relationships?  Safety?  Improvement of health?  Reduction of crime?  And what are the negatives of new technologies that can affect teens?  Loss of focus and attention?  Laziness?  Invasion of privacy?  Isolation?  Hunting grounds for predators and child abusers? 

The answers are not really clear?  This is esspecially true when it comes to the issue of recent advances in technology and its effects and impact on teens.  For me, the answer depends on how teens use the technology, how their parents view it, and the goals and actions of the technology developers.  If this issue catches your attention, you can check out the links below that discuss it:

http://www.24dash.com/news/communities/2008-05-15-Technology-experts-to-design-out-crime-against-teenagers

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/mobiles-can-help-improve-teens-health-study/2008/04/04/1207249411834.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/09/gentech/main1698246.shtml

New technology is great, as long as it is affordable.  But it can be at its greatest if it is used wisely.

Global Warming is a rather complicated debate in political, economic, and scientific grounds.  An increasing number of scientists agree that the recent climate change is being caused by human activity, mainly releasing gases like carbon dioxide, nitros oxide, and methane into the atmosphere.  Other people who are skeptical of global warming question the scientific validity of climate change.  Meanwhile, most business interests see the global warming issue as a threat to the economy.

If you consider global warming an issue that needs to be addressed, check out these websites below (these are just examples):

http://www.realclimate.org/

This website is a blog maintained by climate scientists, which deals with the science of global warming and the skeptics as they appear in popular and academic literature.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets

This website is run by Greenpeace, an environmental activist group.  It is the most interactive website I have ever encountered.  It maps the links between global warming skeptics and funding from the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.skepticalscience.com

This website addresses the arguments made by skeptics and what the science actually says about such arguments.

Based on my own investigations, I will have to make the following conclusions: global warming is a serious issue, something must be done about it, and it must be understood in the most reasonable and scientific manner possible.

What kind of behavior would you consider an illness?  Sadness?  Shyness?  Insomnia?  These are the kinds of questions that are being asked regarding the pharmacutical industry, medications, and psychiatry in recent years.  Some people say that shyness, sadness, and pain are good for you.  Others say that overmedication is an anxiety-raising myth. 

If this sparks your interest, you can check out the following links here:

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/overselling-overmedication/

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/11/shyness_or_social_anxiety/

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653643,00.html?fromrss=1

You can also read books on this topic like Shyness: How Normal Behavior Bacame a Sickness by Christopher Lane and The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow into Depressive Disorder by Allan Horwitz and Jerome Wakefield.

After you did all that, you can draw your own conclusions on what is normal behavior and what is an illness.

The issue of media violence and desensitization has puzzled me.  I have tried to find the latest research that asks how exposure to media violence desensitizes people to real-life violence, why people watch them, and how media violence is related to violence in the real world.  But the studies I find on the internet which correlate desensitization to media violence have been conducted about 12 years ago.

If you happen to be aware of the issue and have some knowledge of any recent research, I would like to know.  But the research must have:

1. Specific statistics

2. Understandable methodological grounds

3. Exact definitions and parameters of words that are used in a particular study such as "violence", "aggressive behavior", "links", etc.

4. Training, education, and social environment included into meaningful contexts

5. Describe how subjects of a specific experiment respond emotionally to media violence and real-life violence

Since this is a concern that must be addressed, it must be done in the most open-minded and reasonable manner possible.

When you are familiar with science, have you ever given yourself time to evaluate claims such as "consciousness creates reality" or "you are the only one who affects the reality you see"?  That is not the case with most people.  Esspecially those who have viewed films such as What the #$*! Do We Know!? and The Secret,  a couple of "documentaries" that misrepresent sciences such as neuroscience and quantum physics to support New Age claims such as "Objective Reality" and "the Law of Attraction".

As a man of science, I find these films to be manipulative in terms of both science and religion and exploitative in marketing terms.  In order to prove what I am saying, I would like you to look at the links below that disected both films in an objective, scientific manner:  

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-10-01.html

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-03-07.html

These articles explain the films better than I can.  Please let me know your thoughts after you read them.  We must preserve the line that seperates constructive scientific facts from distorted fantasy in the guise of treatment for unhappiness.