((( go here and bid on my painting please kthx )))
begin journal entry here:
let me sum up this current week as being all completely a steaming pile of shit.
i'll then correct my broad sweeping generalization with the fact that there have been moments where i didn't crave extra holes in my head.
take a look at this article summary i had to write for my girlfriend, i think this says it best:
This article was a summary of an experiment on aggressive tendencies in small children and how those tendencies were influenced by the childrens observation of the actions of models. The experiment detailed in the article was a follow-up to at least two other similar experiments performed by the authors.
The objective of these proceedings was to determine the extent to which film-mediated aggressive models may serve as an important source of imitative behavior. In other words, this study sought to find out how much the subjects were influenced to react aggressively when they viewed aggressive models through the media of film.
The subjects were a total of 96 children with a mean age of 52 months, and a range of 35 to 69 months. There were an equal number of boys and girls involved. The subjects were divided into four groups; one that observed models being aggressive in real life, one that watched the models on video, one that saw a video of a cartoon character being aggressive, and a fourth control group. The non-control groups were subdivided into male and female groups. Half of these gender groups observed models of the same sex as them, while half observed a model of the opposite sex. The control group was not exposed to models.
The authors concluded by means of observation in specific time limits and of specific actions that the male subjects were generally more aggressive than the female subjects. They also found that the male subjects imitated the more violent aggressive actions with more regularity than the females, while the females tended to imitate the more passive actions. For example, the males engaged in more actions with mallets and gun play than the females did.
In their discussion, the authors concluded that the viewing of models engaged in aggressive behavior had a significant impact on the actions of the subjects, eliciting almost twice as much violence than was exhibited in the control group. It was also decided that the gender of the model was an important factor, with models of the same gender as the subject being generally more influential. The authors ended the article with the statement that filmed media definitely plays an important part in childrens social development.
i'll let you make your own judgement on the merits of the experiment, but i think it was probably the dumbest thing i've ever had to read, and i've recently been losing my faith in the intellect of humanity as a whole.
you know, we never DID make it out of the Victorian mindset. this recent election proves that much, at least.
begin journal entry here:
let me sum up this current week as being all completely a steaming pile of shit.
i'll then correct my broad sweeping generalization with the fact that there have been moments where i didn't crave extra holes in my head.
take a look at this article summary i had to write for my girlfriend, i think this says it best:
This article was a summary of an experiment on aggressive tendencies in small children and how those tendencies were influenced by the childrens observation of the actions of models. The experiment detailed in the article was a follow-up to at least two other similar experiments performed by the authors.
The objective of these proceedings was to determine the extent to which film-mediated aggressive models may serve as an important source of imitative behavior. In other words, this study sought to find out how much the subjects were influenced to react aggressively when they viewed aggressive models through the media of film.
The subjects were a total of 96 children with a mean age of 52 months, and a range of 35 to 69 months. There were an equal number of boys and girls involved. The subjects were divided into four groups; one that observed models being aggressive in real life, one that watched the models on video, one that saw a video of a cartoon character being aggressive, and a fourth control group. The non-control groups were subdivided into male and female groups. Half of these gender groups observed models of the same sex as them, while half observed a model of the opposite sex. The control group was not exposed to models.
The authors concluded by means of observation in specific time limits and of specific actions that the male subjects were generally more aggressive than the female subjects. They also found that the male subjects imitated the more violent aggressive actions with more regularity than the females, while the females tended to imitate the more passive actions. For example, the males engaged in more actions with mallets and gun play than the females did.
In their discussion, the authors concluded that the viewing of models engaged in aggressive behavior had a significant impact on the actions of the subjects, eliciting almost twice as much violence than was exhibited in the control group. It was also decided that the gender of the model was an important factor, with models of the same gender as the subject being generally more influential. The authors ended the article with the statement that filmed media definitely plays an important part in childrens social development.
i'll let you make your own judgement on the merits of the experiment, but i think it was probably the dumbest thing i've ever had to read, and i've recently been losing my faith in the intellect of humanity as a whole.
you know, we never DID make it out of the Victorian mindset. this recent election proves that much, at least.
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
Edit: And it is partially because they were hot, and partially because "don't hit girls" is pretty much ingrained in every boys brain. Even though my feminist ideals say I should be able to kick some female ass.
[Edited on Nov 04, 2004 7:04PM]
Thanks.