On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (1995)

It was interesting until he described video games as murder simulators, maybe about 10 pages into the book. I checked out after that, and really couldn't find the willpower to push myself much further. I skimmed a bit, but wasn't very impressed overall with what I'd read. Some of it felt like he was rehashing what he said in the previous paragraph(s).
It's really odd - I usually LOVE nonfiction. This one, I'm just not a fan. ( )

I don't agree with some of what Grossman says--he seems for example not to have read the literature on suicide bombers, but his book convincingly describes the psychology of lethal violence: the innate abhorrence almost all humans have for killing one another, the methods used to train soldiers to kill and the causes of post-traumatic stress disorder. Grossman also offers in this context a persuasive critique of violence in film, television and video games. This is an essential book, one that is required reading at West Point and one I would make required reading for anyone who, like me, is working to create nonviolent alternatives. ( )

The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society is a great subject with books far and few between. Perhaps it is because of the subject's rarity that this particular book falls short. Lacking in much evidence and reference, this seems to be an extremely biased book. Aside from the word "killology", Grossman does not contribute much new thought or experimentation. While the majority of what Grossman says may be true, it is difficult to stand behind without sited evidence or experiment. ( )

This seems to be the definitive book on why soldiers do and don't kill in battle. My overall impression is that this is a weak book, and perhaps it's been generally accepted due to a lack of competition.

The author has a few points to make, and lays out his stall in the introduction where he asserts a causal link between media violence and violence in society and neatly poisons the well for anyone who claims otherwise:

"There are also people who claim that media violence does not cause violence in society, and we know which side of their bread is buttered"

The author only seems to think of the explanations that fit his own theory. So the fact that most new infantry recruits in WW2 didn't fire their weapon must be because of an inbuilt resistance to killing. Yes, maybe, but why not also consider:

a) They were too scared or confused to shoot;
b) They had been too much emphasis on ammunition conservation "don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes";
c) They had only been trained to shoot static bullseye targets at known distances.

A lot of the author's evidence comes from the study done by S.L.A. Marshall. But this study is now controversial, and it's said that Marshall made up a lot of his evidence.

Could do better. ( )

Interesting read. The author explains why soldiers kill, and more importantly, why don't they kill. ( )