Hacker News Reader

Comment by e12e | Hacker News Reader

My first thought seeing the headline was of this quote:

"What came first – the music or the misery? Did I listen to the music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to the music? Do all those records turn you into a melancholy person?"

- Nick Hornby, High Fidelity

Also relevant from the book:

"People worry about kids playing with guns, and teenagers watching violent videos; we are scared that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands - literally thousands - of songs about broken hearts and rejection and pain and misery and loss."

View on HN

This is a tangent, but if you haven't listened to Lonely Avenue, the album that Ben Folds and Nick Hornby did together ... Do that.

Ever since I heard it, I can't see his name without the lyrics popping into my head: "Some guy on the net thinks I suck, and he should know: he's got his own blog"

Maybe I’m wrong but broken heart sad seems a lot more transient than older generations of sad music like, say, Pink Floyd’s The Wall and The Final Cut. I would wager it’s really not a problem.

Floyd have their own broken heart sad songs (Wish you where here, nobody home, and lotsa others). Though the Final Cut was a flop, and barely listened to/mentioned today, so kind of transient itself.

But of course tons of 70s and 60s era music are "broken heart sad" as well -- it's not like some unique today phenomenon. Broken heart sad takes a good 50% of all songs since time immemorial...

If anything, today it's not "broken heart sad" anymore, but some hip-hop/pop version of "how cool/rich I am" or "how badass I am", looking at the charts.

Wish you were here is not a broken heart sad song. It's about disillusionment.

Not broken heart from a lover, but broken heart about a friend. Still a broken heart.

Syd Barrett supposedly

On the other hand, I'd be tempted to say The Final Cut was a flop precisely because it was so relentlessly bleak. It's not even sad so much as hopeless, like The Wall with all the angry and optimistic parts distilled away. Two Suns in the Sunset is so desolate that it's tough to follow with any other music at all. The mood where that's relatable is way out past sad, which does it no favors selling copies or landing on playlists

I agree that it's not really a generational thing, though. Timbuk3 landed one big hit (The Future's So Bright), and it was a sarcastic song about nuclear war that landed unironic play on graduation playlists. Their other, overtly depressing stuff got no traction at all. Rap, punk, and most any other genre has similarly hopeless, unromantic sad songs - they're just not approachable enough to top charts or endure in people's memories.

Yeah, there's definitely a difference between "I'm sad because my baby ran around town" (say, Runaround Sue [1]) and "I'm sad because my romantic relationship broke down and that's just an example of the fundamental existential horror of being a living human that none can ever escape from and nothing will ever improve because we're fundamentally and irrevocably trapped" (The Wall).

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NQLmUOgT5M

I think that sort of sad is still around, although I agree that Floyd was a rather special case of a popular chart-topping band putting it out. There's definitely a difference between broken heart sad and what I'd maybe call depression sad or ennui sad.

Lyrics tend to not be understood by the DJs and publishers. Can you imagine Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds being broadcast while the DJ and publishers understood the lyrics?

For a more ontopic subject, think of heroin usage (Red Hot Chili Peppers) or songs describing automutilation (quite common in goth music). Examples like these make the term depression less abstract.

Lucy in the Sky isn't about drug use.

If you consider the era, type of music, and the title (Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is the correct title) I'd say the evidence points in that direction.

Although Lennon denied this, he admitted he was inspired by LSD. However he has a good reason to deny this: to avoid the radio ban.

Perhaps we will never know for sure. We do know for sure it was perceived as such.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_in_the_Sky_with_Diamond...

Lennon denied it on the Dick Cavett show in '71, years after it was released and would have been near radio. Maybe there was another reason to deny but I don't think radio is it.

Exactly what I thought when I saw the title as well.

Worrying about kids listening to sad music is equally as absurd as worrying about kids watching violent movies/tv or playing violent video games and thinking that "some sort of culture of violence will take them over"

edit: here's evidence

>Journalists and policy makers do their constituencies a disservice in cases where they link acts of real-world violence with the perpetrators’ exposure to violent video games or other violent media. There’s little scientific evidence to support the connection, and it may distract us from addressing those issues that we know contribute to real-world violence.

https://div46amplifier.com/2017/06/12/news-media-public-educ...

>Unexpectedly, many of the results were suggestive of a decrease in violent crime in response to violent video games. Possible explanations for these unforeseen findings are discussed and researchers are cautioned about generalizing the results from laboratory and correlational studies to severe forms of violent behavior.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fppm0000030

>Results indicated that studies of VVGs and aggression appear to be particularly prone to false positive results. Studies of VVGs and prosocial behavior, by contrast are heterogeneous and did not demonstrate any indication of false positive results.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...

>Researchers in Germany used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) on long-term players of violent video games and found that they had the same neural response to emotionally provocative images as non-gamers. This finding suggests that empathy is not blunted by playing such games long-term.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170308081057.h...

>Results indicated that publication bias does exist for experimental studies of aggressive behavior, as well as for non-experimental studies of aggressive behavior and aggressive thoughts. Research in other areas, including prosocial behavior and experimental studies of aggressive thoughts were less susceptible to publication bias.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135917890...

>During the video game epoch, youth violence in the United States and elsewhere has plummeted to 40-year lows, not risen as would have been expected if the 2005 APA resolution were accurate. Although we do not assert video games are responsible for this decline (such would be an ecological fallacy), this decline in societal violence is in conflict with claims that violent video games and interactive media are important public health concerns. The statistical data are simply not bearing out this concern and should not be ignored.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/223284732/Scholar-s-Open-Letter-t...

It's not entirely absurd though to worry a little bit about your kid watching raw violence or porn or something. I'm not like that. I'm the kind of parent who never says no. But most parents aren't at all like me.

Or equally valid. People learn about life and norms from what they watch and what they play and so on.

This doesn't mean all or most kids playing violent games and watch violent tv will be killers.

But it could very well mean that kids playing violent games and watch violent tv will have more propensity to be less sensitive to violence (and even produce more killers, even if still a small percentage) than kids that don't.

The naive way people formulate the problem ("if violent movies caused violence, then all/most kids watching them would be murderers or violent persons beating other people") is indeed absurd (and trivially empirically false).

But if one formulates it as "Does an increase in exposure to violence and violent norms in movies/tv causes an increase in tolerance for violence and normalized violent behavior more than if people didn't watch violent movies/tv?" seems very likely.

In fact, this not only is not "absurd", but is part of active studies. E.g.:

“Fifty years of research on the effect of TV violence on children leads to the inescapable conclusion that viewing media violence is related to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behaviors” (Murray, 2008, p. 1212).

Despite the fact that controversy still exists about the impact of media violence, the research results reveal a dominant and consistent pattern in favor of the notion that exposure to violent media images does increase the risk of aggressive behavior. (Sparks & Sparks, 2002, p. 273)

And the counter-argument that "kinds in 1914s didn't have violent movies/tv, but they had a whole World War and tons of murders anyway" -- forgets that wars start by other causes than social violence (e.g. territorial disputes, profit, etc), and that part of the problem those days was that the population did have quite a big exposure to violent/nationalistic/etc narratives (even if it wasn't in the form of movies -- Hitler was very popular in getting people pumped up over radio with images of national glory and beating the scum and so on).

I disagree, as does the majority of the modern evidence and professional opinions that I have found. It's funny how just like with reddit, people downvote what they disagree with regardless of evidence to the contrary

https://div46amplifier.com/2017/06/12/news-media-public-educ...

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fppm0000030

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170308081057.h...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135917890...

https://www.scribd.com/doc/223284732/Scholar-s-Open-Letter-t...

The very first link you've posted says

"The views here are those of Division 46 (Society for Media Psychology and Technology) of the American Psychological Association and do not represent an official position of APA".

It also links to the official position of APA, which is:

  Scientists have investigated the effects of violent video   
  game use for more than two decades. Multiple meta-analyses 
  of the research have been conducted. Quantitative reviews 
  since APA's 2005 Resolution that have focused on the 
  effects of violent video game use have found a direct 
  association between violent video game use and aggressive 
  outcomes (Anderson et al. 2010, Ferguson 2007a, Ferguson 
  2007b, Ferguson & Kilburn 2009). Although the effect sizes 
  reported are all similar (0.19, 0.15, 0.08, and 0.16, 
  respectively), the interpretations of these effects have 
  varied dramatically, contributing to the public debate 
  about the effects of violent video games.

  The link between violent video game exposure and 
  aggressive behavior is one of the most studied and best 
  established.

  Similarly, the research conducted since the 2005 APA 
  Resolution using aggressive cognitions and aggressive 
  affect as outcomes also shows a direct effect of violent 
  video game use (e. g., Hasan, Begue, Scharkow & Bushman, 
  2013; Shafer, 2012). Researchers have also continued to 
  find that violent video game use is associated with 
  decreases in socially desirable behavior such as prosocial 
  behavior, empathy, and moral engagement (e.g., Arriaga, M 
  onteiro & Esteves, 2011; Happ, Melzer & Steffgen, 2013).

So, the established position agrees with the point I was making.

How much weight should be placed on the individual papers you've linked compared to the official position?

I don't know. But my larger point wasn't even that the causation is true: it was that it's not "absurd" to consider it, as the parent claimed. Which I why a posted a few studies that do consider it (to show it's not just "worried parents" and the like).

And not only is not absurd to consider that it might be true, but that it is true (and "well established") also happens to be the official position of the APA.

Yes, and if you read all the links you would see

https://www.scribd.com/doc/223284732/Scholar-s-Open-Letter-t...

>a large group of researchers including academics from Harvard, Yale and Columbia universities—took issue with the APA, the task force and its research methodology. In an open letter, the group called the APA's policy statements on violent video games "misleading and alarmist" and said they "delineated several strong conclusions on the basis of inconsistent or weak evidence."

as well as other studies demonstrating that "Results indicated that studies of VVGs and aggression appear to be particularly prone to false positive results" and "Results indicated that publication bias does exist for experimental studies of aggressive behavior, as well as for non-experimental studies of aggressive behavior and aggressive thoughts. Research in other areas, including prosocial behavior and experimental studies of aggressive thoughts were less susceptible to publication bias."

Still, official position is what it is -- and there is counter arguments by a large group, but not the larger body (APA) or the group dedicated to it.

In any case, nothing that shows that considering the case being "absurd" -- which is what I answered too. At worse, an open question.

If you have evidence debunking the number of studies and expert opinions I've posted I'd love to see it. The evidence supporting your opinion has been debunked and called out in other studies and by experts in the field as I've demonstrated. Feel free to stick by what you believe, but you know what they say about opinions... Interestingly the studies that support your opinion came to false and misleading conclusions due to bias as well as weak and inconsistent data, much like the comments supporting your opinion

>If you have evidence debunking the number of studies and expert opinions I've posted I'd love to see it.

First of all, how is the burden on proof on me? The causal link is the official APA position, the "number of studies and expert opinions" you've posted is not it.

>The evidence supporting your opinion has been debunked and called out in other studies and by experts in the field as I've demonstrated.

Oh the irony. Do you just pick the experts you agree with over the official body's position? A number of experts also objects for climate change being man-made -- in fact you can find a number of experts objecting to almost everything established.

Second of all, my point was not that the causal link is true (which would made the argumentation relevant) but that considering it is not at all "absurd" -- as the parent commenter (you?) insisted, and in fact it's seriously studied.

I started out in the "it's just a bunch of prudes!" group and have, years later, come around to "maybe the old fogies had a point about trash entertainment and being careful about what you expose yourself to".

Aside from the usual shock-memes that used to be common on even the less-seedy parts of the Internet, I'd un-watch certain mainstream media if I could. Number one, with a bullet, would be all of South Park. That show has a way of putting really stupid stuff in my head such that it intrudes on my consciousness daily, even though I haven't watched it in years. The laughs it delivered in return weren't even close to worth it.

>I'd un-watch certain mainstream media if I could. Number one, with a bullet, would be all of South Park. That show has a way of putting really stupid stuff in my head such that it intrudes on my consciousness daily, even though I haven't watched it in years. The laughs it delivered in return weren't even close to worth it.

That's interesting, although certainly not anything I've experienced or heard anyone else express. That almost sounds like you may be experiencing some kind of other underlying problem or disorder (I don't mean any offense by this, I was recently diagnosed with a personality disorder), because I don't think constant daily intrusions on your consciousness from a cartoon you haven't watched in years is normal or healthy. However, I also don't believe that is evidence against my statement

Eh, it's just like having a song from an old NES game start playing in my head while I'm cleaning the dishes. Except dumber and more annoying. It's not like it's constant or anything. Usually it's one of their songs ("Blame Canada", that Game of Thrones intro song where all the notes are the word "weiner") or some line or gag that was repeated a whole bunch of times in an episode. Like the worst and most persistent friggin' ear-worms imaginable. But not a day goes by when I don't have one or two things from South Park pass through my head at some point. Just a small annoyance that was made worse by my recognizing it. It's probably true, or nearly so, of many other things too (see: NES music) but those don't bother me.

I think media does shape your view of the world, especially seminal shows whose lines stay with you for decades. I can watch episodes of MASH or Star Trek and recite entire exchanges of dialogue. That shows how immersed I was and how much I've integrated those high points (or low points) into my perspectives on life, even 30-50 years later.

In the 1950s, literate people used to quote literature. Today we quote television. Does that make us illiterate?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com