Ooooh! Somebody wants (scientific) studies! I'll bite!
Twin studies are very useful here, by the way...although I cannot remember offhand the results of studies done on violence, I will need to refer to a very good book on violence written by a primatologist, who used his skills on primates on studying human behavior.
You want the most accurate way to determine if a child will become violent? Here it is: Sex. A male child is far more likely to be violent (in childhood and in adulthood) than a female child. This may seem obvious to everyone, but a study had to be done just to prove social-constructionist theories wrong. Female children are exposed to the same "violent" TV programming as male children, and play on the same playgrounds at the mixed-sex schools.
This leads into the next finding: Boys and girls are
different. Girls don't play with dolls and boys play with toy trucks because society told them to...they do so because it is instinctive. The evidence is very strong that a combination of genetics (X vs Y chromosome) and the environment in the womb (hormones that spur development of the gonads and the brain) determine how a child reacts to a toy. The debate between scientists is now focused on how much is genetics, and how much is from the womb environment (not television or teachers or parental upbringing).
Another finding: Homosexuality is not determined by upbringning, either. Twin studies show that, if one twin is a homosexual, there is a 50% chance that the other will be homosexual too (raised apart or together). Compare this to 10% for fraternal twins or siblings born at different times. This strongly implies a strong genetic component, and a strong environmental component that is
not social in nature. Note that if the chance was 100% for twins, than we can be sure it is genetic, but the fact that it isn't still leaves room for the environment.
Judging from the controversy raised upon presentation of these findings, one can also conclude: People suck at statistics. People are more apt to believe in anecdotal evidence, and also have selective memories. They see a violent kid acting out scenes from a cartoon, and instantly assume television was at fault. Why can't it be the child acting on his violent impulses by imitating the television? Remember, kids played cowboys and indians and tortured animals
before television was invented!
Correlation is not equal to causation! Conversely, they see a well-behaved child who is an absolute angel. This kid watches the same violent cartoons as everyone else...yet people forget this and assume that it is upbringing alone (but don't forget, for most of human history people assumed they were born this way...it is only in the last century did people believe only upbringing had anything to do with it).
With all that said, I have to congratulate Holadem for being kind and courteous to his fellow movie-goers. You rock.
