U.S. Politics; Who Watches the Watchers?

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I think the 'watching TV' metric in the age of the internet (especially for Japanese consumers) is pretty out of date. Does watching Netflix count here? How about YouTube? How do video games work into this, especially given that Japan and Korea are far bigger consumers per capita of video games than US citizens? 

And sorry, the Fist of the North Star suffered zero consequences when exploding heads. (the heads suffered a bit). Goku ended up with all the dragonballs for his quest of neverending violence. Cloud ended up with bitching hair. Japanese media is typically characterized by extreme embarassment and ultraviolence; there's very little consequence to a lot of it save winning cash and prizes. 

I don't see how one accesses TV programs would affect the difference between the USA and Japan in total viewing because the reason Japanese children and teens don't watch as much TV (or indulge as much in many other pastimes) as American schoolkids is because they have longer school days and much more homework. They don't have as much free time to be influenced by media, whether it's delivered as conventional TV, YouTube, Netflix, or video games, as American kids do.

And of course the question of whether or not violent media affects behavior really should not be mostly decided by looking at differences between average rates of violence between two different cultures. There are a great many other differences between Japanese and American culture that go into this -- one of the most important ones being the different attitudes and laws about guns, of course.  What is really relevant to the question of whether media violence has an effect is the fact that within BOTH the USA and Japan (and other countries) those who watch more violent media are more likely to commit violence.

https://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2017/04/11/mediaviolence

For me the most important paragraph in the above is:

Quote

The findings strongly suggest that media violence is similar to other known risk factors for aggression,” said Douglas Gentile, an ISU professor of psychology and one of the co-authors. “That’s not to say media violence deserves special attention, but that it should be considered as seriously as other risk factors such as coming from a broken home. What matters most, however, is not any single risk factor, but how they can combine to increase the risk of aggression.”

 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

Absolutely. The idea that individualism in American culture is a recent right-wing phenomenon is hogwash.

Hey sure, I was being diplomatic. Of course, you don't get something like the conservative revolution out of the blue. There's lots of ways to see it as continuing the American tradition(s). Freud was with Tocqueville on this one.
On the other hand, to be fair, there *is* something in the recent ideological and political evolutions on the American right that's distinctinvely modern, especially if you're talking about guns. And the reason for this is that tons of money have been poured in right-wing think tanks and organizations to develop a version of right-wing ideology that's adapted to the times - one that's particularly nefarious imho.
But if you want to say that the current events and phenomenons can be traced to the 18th century, by all means, be my guest.

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

The difference in "realism" is not in terms of goriness but in terms of long term consequences for survivors and perpetrators -- and the main difference would still be that Japanese teenagers watch a lot less TV than Americans, so the total number of acts of violence they are exposed to is less, even if the level of violence on the TV series is the same. 

In Bleach I watched Ichigo get cut through his side straight to his spine. He was fine like an hour later.

Literally every character in DBZ has died at some point.

Tons of characters in Naruto died and then were brought back to life.

Character in One Piece, especially Zoro, suffer injuries that should permanently cripple, often this doesn't even stop them from fighting.

Violence in Japanese media ignores consequences plenty. And as bad as Japan is dealing with mental health issues they sure as hell aren't going to bring up things like PTSD.

[Mexal]

 

[Martell Spy]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Hey sure, I was being diplomatic. Of course, you don't get something like the conservative revolution out of the blue. There's lots of ways to see it as continuing the American tradition(s). Freud was with Tocqueville on this one.
On the other hand, to be fair, there *is* something in the recent ideological and political evolutions on the American right that's distinctinvely modern, especially if you're talking about guns. And the reason for this is that tons of money have been poured in right-wing think tanks and organizations to develop a version of right-wing ideology that's adapted to the times - one that's particularly nefarious imho.
But if you want to say that the current events and phenomenons can be traced to the 18th century, by all means, be my guest.

The American Right has an underdog complex. They always think they are losing, even when they control all of government, and they always think their political elites are currently betraying them.

And you have more and more cash pouring into elections, and many wealthy donors who believe they are the ones that are constantly being betrayed, even as everyone else thinks they have purchased our democracy.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Of course, you don't get something like the conservative revolution out of the blue. There's lots of ways to see it as continuing the American tradition(s).

Yes, that's the point.  There has always been at least one party that caters to exacerbating the poor's racial resentment, often in the guise of "individualism."  And in the process, capitalizes on the economic implications of "individualism" and perpetuates inequality.

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

In Bleach I watched Ichigo get cut through his side straight to his spine. He was fine like an hour later.

Literally every character in DBZ has died at some point.

Tons of characters in Naruto died and then were brought back to life.

Character in One Piece, especially Zoro, suffer injuries that should permanently cripple, often this doesn't even stop them from fighting.

Violence in Japanese media ignores consequences plenty. And as bad as Japan is dealing with mental health issues they sure as hell aren't going to bring up things like PTSD.

Again, this is just irrelevant to the main argument. The most important point is that, in both the USA and Japan, those who view more violent media are more aggressive on average themselves. 

[Martell Spy]

Never mind, already posted.

[felice]

47 minutes ago, Ormond said:

The most important point is that, in both the USA and Japan, those who view more violent media are more aggressive on average themselves. 

But is that cause or effect?

[The Anti-Targ]

7 hours ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

My husband's workplace is discussing unionizing and it's not going well.  But then, it is is fairly rural PA (Hanover). I was pretty surprised to hear him repeating all the "bad" things about unions.  The bosses are letting it be known that they don't approve. (no threats or anything, but their displeasure has been made known)

It is a British owned company, and up until this past year or so, it has been great with the benefits. (I would have thought they would be ok with unions)

Even in the most union-friendly countries most businesses are very anti-union. The main negative of unions IMO is when they stop becoming worker collective bargaining agents and start becoming political agents. If it's possible to join (or start) an apolitical union who's sole purpose is to undertake collective bargaining for employment contracts for its members I don't really see a downside.

There are some legit grounds for unions to become political agents. After all it's in the interests of unions to influence legislative processes to create a system which facilitates collective bargaining, and protects worker rights. So opposing union-busting legislation and opposing legislation that creates an abusive / exploitative environment for workers is a legitimate political purpose. But smaller unions can let the bigger unions do that sort of stuff, and perhaps only go so far as to donate a bit of money towards legislative defence by bigger unions that are philosophically aligned (eg. the degree of militancy of the unions) rather than get directly politically active.

[The Anti-Targ]

7 hours ago, Ormond said:

I don't see how one accesses TV programs would affect the difference between the USA and Japan in total viewing because the reason Japanese children and teens don't watch as much TV (or indulge as much in many other pastimes) as American schoolkids is because they have longer school days and much more homework. They don't have as much free time to be influenced by media, whether it's delivered as conventional TV, YouTube, Netflix, or video games, as American kids do.

And of course the question of whether or not violent media affects behavior really should not be mostly decided by looking at differences between average rates of violence between two different cultures. There are a great many other differences between Japanese and American culture that go into this -- one of the most important ones being the different attitudes and laws about guns, of course.  What is really relevant to the question of whether media violence has an effect is the fact that within BOTH the USA and Japan (and other countries) those who watch more violent media are more likely to commit violence.

https://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2017/04/11/mediaviolence

For me the most important paragraph in the above is:

 

Is it really relevant though? Association =/= causation. Surely what is more likely to be more relevant is those who experience real life violence in their own lives, especially when growing up, are more likely to be violent in their own lives. The abused, become abusers, the bullied become bullies.

4 hours ago, felice said:

But is that cause or effect?

Are they both effects of a common cause or several causes? I would have thought the entertainment we choose to consume is strongly influenced by what we experience in the real world. We are victims of violence, in some way, we therefore enjoy playing video games where we get to exact righteous violent retribution on those who would do us harm (in the game), because we have no course for redress or justice in our own lives. We also see those weaker than ourselves in other social settings and act out with verbal or physical violence as displacement behavior, because the one we want to lash out at is more powerful and has control over us.

So is it more likely to be that those who consume violence as entertainment AND who commit real world violence are likely to be victims of violence or abuse (can be mental or physical in both cases). So the root cause goes unaddressed because people just want to censor violent entertainment imagining that this is a solution.

But I also think 5-year olds who get a kick out of pulling wings of insects, or who like making the cat cry by pulling on its tail should be steered away from exposure to any kind of violence in the form of entertainment. Because you potentially have an underlying pathology, that will be fueled and validated through violent entertainment. So I think violent entertainment can be an exacerbater or a pre-existing violent psyco-pathology.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

13 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Dude, Japan has Dragonball, Hentai and guys who carry around swords with guns built into them. They had a cartoon series that had people's heads exploding in gory bloody bits from a punch 30 years ago. If violent media and 'realism' was a predictor, we should have seen Japan turn into Fury Road already. 

Well, not to stray into a discussion about that but Japan does also appear to have serious issues with sexual harassment and similar behavior, although I guess the cause and effect of that and certain kinds of Hentai can't really be determined. 

Anyway, having lived in both Europe and the USA I definitely felt like there was a lot less social cohesion in the latter. It's kind of hard to put my finger on what it was exactly, but the general atmosphere certainly felt a lot less trusting and more individualistic... it is kind of hard to explain the difference unless you have experienced it yourself, I think. 

Admittedly this was in the South, so other parts of America may be well be different. 

[Yukle]

21 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’ve seen this cited in a few different places:

Even if the numbers aren’t exact, it falls in line with statistics I’ve heard over the years. How exactly can you expect more Americans to talk about important Supreme Court decisions when they can’t even name what branch of government it is?

Hmmm... firstly, would this be any different in other countries?

Also, how strictly is this applied? If I said, "Courts, congress, cabinet," that'd be correct in the essentials while wrong in the labels.

[Yukle]

Further proof that Trump's supporters will forgive anything comes in two pieces of proof.

Firstly, Trump uses an insecure mobile phone. But he can't be bothered getting a new one. Which is what he railed against Clinton for doing with her email server. I absolutely detest the hypocrisy. As usual, I expect no response from any of his sheep explaining why this is okay.

Secondly, current polling no longer has the Democrats with enough of a lead to flip congress in either house, and likely lose ground in the Senate. Then again, the Republicans have won only one Presidential election since Clinton first took office and have still had three presidential terms.

Why do Americans tolerate this?! You should be rioting over this!

It is entirely likely that the Democrats will - as so often happens - win an election but that have it count for nothing!

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

[DMC]

44 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Why do Americans tolerate this?! You should be rioting over this!

It is entirely likely that the Democrats will - as so often happens - win an election but that have it count for nothing!

Well, for one thing, the election hasn't happened yet.  Congressionally it doesn't "so often" happen - the party that's won a plurality has also controlled the House all but two times since 1952:  1996 - in which the Dems won by 60,000 votes but only took 207 seats - and 2012, when the Dems won by a more substantial 1.2 percent but only took 201 seats.  The individual races still look good, gonna wait for the results before I grab my pickaxe - no matter how hot and bothered Nate Silver's sexily weighted numbers get me.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Yukle said:

Hmmm... firstly, would this be any different in other countries?

Also, how strictly is this applied? If I said, "Courts, congress, cabinet," that'd be correct in the essentials while wrong in the labels.

Idk, I just Googled several different generic phrases and the only thing that came up were polls about Americans. Then I searched by specific countries and just got articles about how their respective governments work, not how much the citizens knew. So I really can’t say.

As far as the strictness of application goes, you’re the teacher here, so what would you do? Looking at your examples, and assuming each was worth one point on a test, maybe I’d give the response 1 ½ points……if I was throwing a pity party.  

[Maithanet]

3 hours ago, Yukle said:

Hmmm... firstly, would this be any different in other countries?

Also, how strictly is this applied? If I said, "Courts, congress, cabinet," that'd be correct in the essentials while wrong in the labels.

I feel like these sorts of questions are definitely looking for the "OMG Americans are so uninformed!", so I can't help but wonder if they are judging strictly.  An answer like "the President, the Senate, the Supreme Court" is either mostly correct or 100% wrong, depending on how you look at it.  But anyone who gave an answer like that obviously knows something about the federal government. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I feel like these sorts of questions are definitely looking for the "OMG Americans are so uninformed!", so I can't help but wonder if they are judging strictly.

This reminds me of a judicial politics seminar a few years back.  We were scrutinizing a study that found a certain (very high) percentage of respondents could not identify who the head of the Supreme Court was.  I don't recall exactly the details, but the researcher(s) had imposed a very stringent standard - as in, the answer "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court" was not correct because the official title has been "Chief Justice of the United States" since Salmon Chase in 1866.  That's ridiculous - none of us in the seminar knew that beforehand, expecting one's subjects to is clear manipulation of responses.

So, anyway, the point of that seminar and this post is yes, irresponsible or otherwise-motivated pollsters can often generate what they're looking for if they act in bad faith.  That's why academic researchers prefer survey items that at least give the respondent cues, or aren't open ended.  Best way to do that is multiple choice, i.e.:

"Who is the current Chief Justice of the United States?"

1. Anthony Kennedy
2. Paul Ryan
3. John Roberts
4. Stephen Breyer

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

This reminds me of a judicial politics seminar a few years back.  We were scrutinizing a study that found a certain (very high) percentage of respondents could not identify who the head of the Supreme Court was.  I don't recall exactly the details, but the researcher(s) had imposed a very stringent standard - as in, the answer "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court" was not correct because the official title has been "Chief Justice of the United States" since Salmon Chase in 1866.  That's ridiculous - none of us in the seminar knew that beforehand, expecting one's subjects to is clear manipulation of responses.

 

That's ridiculous. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I looked at the methodology, and the questions are open ended. There were two interesting takeaways though. First, the number of people who could name all three branches dropped by 12% between 2011 and 2017 (from 38% to 26%), and second, Americans consistently over report how much they think they know, which isn’t really surprising.