It just so happens (synchronicity?) that there is an article by Louis Menand about Wertham in the upcoming issue of the New Yorker. Turns out that Wertham (whatever you might think of his psychological claims) didn't want to ban comic books. He just wanted sex & violence warning labels. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2008/03/31/080331crbo_books_menand
-- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ phone: 416-736-2100 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 Don Allen wrote: > > > It's this kind of junk science that really gets my goat. It is highly > reminiscent of Frederick Wertham's "Seduction of the Innocent" which > set off a frenzy for banning comic books because they were corrupting > our children. For those of you who are too young to remember this era > you can find a good discussion of it here: > > http://art-bin.com/art/awertham.html > > I have reviewed the literature that purports to show a causal link > between media violence and violent behaviour in children and I remain > highly unimpressed. Most of the studies are correlational and even > there the correlations are weak (.20 to .30). The studies that > actually attempt to manipulate exposure to violent media are all badly > flawed. They merely compare children who watched a violent video (or > played a violent video game) with children who watched a non-violent > version. What's wrong with that? Well, for one thing the violent media > were also action-packed while the non-violent comparitors were dull as > dishwater. Since violence and action are confounded in these studies > you need a third group (high action-no violence) to determine which > component produces the effect. So far, I have been unable to find a > properly controlled replicated studies that clearly establishes a > causal link. Until I see one I'll remain in the skeptics corner. > > -Don. > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
