RE: Young Men and Mass Violence

RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/3/2013 6:39:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer It seems pretty clear to me that, for the majority of men - of people - aggressive instincts can and have been channelled into a variety of socially beneficial pursuits... Do you think that such young men as the Boston bombers could never fit into that world - that, instead, they might better fit into being trained as warriors, with some higher code of honour, behaviour etc incorporated in such training? I think it a mistake to view the warrior codes as pertaining only to warriors. For warriors, the codes are critical to maintaining their self-respect and the respect of those they serve. But it seems difficult to imagine a society that neglected the values they embody being a place anyone would prefer to live. K.

Aswad -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/3/2013 12:31:47 PM)
As an addendum to what I said, we do have a related term here, but it doesn't translate well. The dictionary sense is violent, but more like violent colors, a violent orgasm or a violent storm. I would tend to use expressions like grand, intense, very much, magnificent or the like to convey the underlying sense of a thought that would use that word in my own language. What it expresses is a preverbal concept, in my opinion. For a dictionary translation, I think I would suggest "forceful" is closer than "violent". IWYW, — Aswad.

Rule -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/3/2013 1:01:53 PM)
Furious?

vincentML -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/3/2013 1:30:58 PM)
quote: A common failing in the history of many theories is trying to account for everything with one model at once. To create one perfect model that accounts for all the observables isn't impossible, but it's a huge work, and were I in that field, I wouldn't be confident enough to set out to make one of those. No, I find that several models have merit, because they describe something, not everything, and their creation is manageable. Then, later, when certain constellations of models appear, we can refactor them, synthesize a supermodel that encompasses all the incremental advances, because the leap is still there yet far shorter. I don't mean to speak for Tweakabelle but only to convey my understanding of her position. As I get it she rejects classifications of any kind when it comes to human behaviour and intent. This quote from the Wiki article on Deleuze: "If philosophy has a positive and direct relation to things, it is only insofar as philosophy claims to grasp the thing itself, according to what it is, in its difference from everything it is not, in other words, in its internal difference." We are each so different [my reading] from each other that we defy categorizations and models. Add on to this that each of us is creating and becoming who we can be, or at least many of us are trying to. So, point #1: I fail to see how her philosophy of extreme individual 'being' [my words, not hers] can be reconciled with your looking for several models. If I am misreading you, apologies. Point#2: I can't see any healing utility in a philosophy that eschews commonalities in human behaviours, except with for an individual undergoing existential psychotherapy. Deleuze seems to offer a philosophy of anarchy to me. Point #3: How can we say anything at all about the motives or psychology of the Marathon bombers, or any 'terrorists' for that matter, if each is different in his/her core? I welcome clarification from both of you.

Aswad -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/3/2013 4:13:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML As I get it she rejects classifications of any kind when it comes to human behaviour and intent. That is essentially rejecting understanding, so I'm going to assume you're misinterpreting her. quote: We are each so different [my reading] from each other that we defy categorizations and models. That would be plain wrong. quote: Add on to this that each of us is creating and becoming who we can be, or at least many of us are trying to. I've yet to see "many" substantiated, unless you and I have very different ideas of what it means to create and become who we can be. quote: So, point #1: I fail to see how her philosophy of extreme individual 'being' [my words, not hers] can be reconciled with your looking for several models. If I am misreading you, apologies. I think it's her you're misreading. quote: Point#2: I can't see any healing utility in a philosophy that eschews commonalities in human behaviours, except with for an individual undergoing existential psychotherapy. Deleuze seems to offer a philosophy of anarchy to me. I didn't bring Deluze to the table. Organizing information is useful. Commonality and difference are part of organizing. quote: Point #3: How can we say anything at all about the motives or psychology of the Marathon bombers, or any 'terrorists' for that matter, if each is different in his/her core? By analysis of the data collected. I'm not sure how to explain analysis on a general basis and still make it useful without writing a publishable work, though, so it may be best to look to an introductory book on engineering or statistics or the like for an overview of that. IWYW, — Aswad.

Rule -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/3/2013 4:42:14 PM)
[sm=goodpost.gif]

tweakabelle -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/3/2013 9:35:32 PM)
quote: I don't mean to speak for Tweakabelle but only to convey my understanding of her position. As I get it she rejects classifications of any kind when it comes to human behaviour and intent This is not my position. I don't believe that any classifications of human behaviour are 100% accurate. As far as I know, this is a position shared by every one in the field - I have never heard any one claim that accurate classifications of human behaviour are possible. I do insist on radical implications of this far beyond most others in this field. Ultimately, a feature of all classifications systems is that they are arbitrary. Classifications of human behaviour are no exception to this rule. That doesn't mean they are useless, it means that we should be aware of that aspect when we try to understand human behaviour and that we should not confuse our current understandings or models of human behaviour with the Truth.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 4:05:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Ultimately, a feature of all classifications systems is that they are arbitrary. Classifications of human behaviour are no exception to this rule. That doesn't mean they are useless, it means that we should be aware of that aspect when we try to understand human behaviour and that we should not confuse our current understandings or models of human behaviour with the Truth. so ya thunk being arbitrary that classification aint based on reason r collective observation?

Rule -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 4:34:03 AM)
Quantum physics and population genetics are all about the percentages. So what else is not new?

vincentML -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 6:32:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: I don't mean to speak for Tweakabelle but only to convey my understanding of her position. As I get it she rejects classifications of any kind when it comes to human behaviour and intent This is not my position. I don't believe that any classifications of human behaviour are 100% accurate. As far as I know, this is a position shared by every one in the field - I have never heard any one claim that accurate classifications of human behaviour are possible. I do insist on radical implications of this far beyond most others in this field. Ultimately, a feature of all classifications systems is that they are arbitrary. Classifications of human behaviour are no exception to this rule. That doesn't mean they are useless, it means that we should be aware of that aspect when we try to understand human behaviour and that we should not confuse our current understandings or models of human behaviour with the Truth. Thank you for helping me understand your position. Previous postings of yours left me with the idea that you rejected classifications. I refer particularly to our discusion of gender differences. Now, I have your position more clearly understood, I think [:D] Given all that then, do I understand correctly your model [I use the term only for convenience, understanding it implies fixed dimensions] of violent or aberrant behaviour has no allowance for the chemistry difference in males but is attributed soley to learned and modeled behaviours from their culture? Please clarify that for me. As you know and I will fully admit it is my position that culture alone does not create the monsters we have known. I appreciate your patience.

vincentML -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 6:50:41 AM)
quote: I've yet to see "many" substantiated, unless you and I have very different ideas of what it means to create and become who we can be. I used 'many' in an attempt at caution. Would 'few' have been a better choice? quote: I didn't bring Deluze to the table. Organizing information is useful. Commonality and difference are part of organizing. Tweakabelle opened the door for him. I have not read his works obviously but rely on what I find written about his philosophy; second hand is always dangerous, I know. However, this remark from Wiki left me the impression that Deleuze was rather dodgy on classifications and is what lead me to ask Tweakabelle for clarification: "Difference, in other words, goes all the way down. To confront reality honestly, Deleuze argues, we must grasp beings exactly as they are, and concepts of identity (forms, categories, resemblances, unities of apperception, predicates, etc.) fail to attain what he calls "difference in itself." "If philosophy has a positive and direct relation to things, it is only insofar as philosophy claims to grasp the thing itself, according to what it is, in its difference from everything it is not, in other words, in its internal difference."[15] quote: By analysis of the data collected. I'm not sure how to explain analysis on a general basis and still make it useful without writing a publishable work, though, so it may be best to look to an introductory book on engineering or statistics or the like for an overview of that. Thank you. I have had some introduction to analysis and statistics. There doesn't seem to be a significant amount of data collected on terrorists, or do you disagree?

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 9:24:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Thank you for helping me understand your position. Previous postings of yours left me with the idea that you rejected classifications. I refer particularly to our discusion of gender differences. Now, I have your position more clearly understood, I think [:D] vin has anyone refuted tha big ole theory that gender difference is bout some folks having outies & other folks (folkettes?) having innies & that outta politeness we call folks wit outies male & folks wit innies female? [8\|]

vincentML -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 9:34:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Thank you for helping me understand your position. Previous postings of yours left me with the idea that you rejected classifications. I refer particularly to our discusion of gender differences. Now, I have your position more clearly understood, I think [:D] vin has anyone refuted tha big ole theory that gender difference is bout some folks having outies & other folks (folkettes?) having innies & that outta politeness we call folks wit outies male & folks wit innies female? [8\|] Smilesss. . . Wants, Gender Studies is Tweake's field. When she speaks on the topic I give her an attentive listen. The issue becomes complicated when you take account of transgendered folk. [:)]

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 9:41:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Thank you for helping me understand your position. Previous postings of yours left me with the idea that you rejected classifications. I refer particularly to our discusion of gender differences. Now, I have your position more clearly understood, I think [:D] vin has anyone refuted tha big ole theory that gender difference is bout some folks having outies & other folks (folkettes?) having innies & that outta politeness we call folks wit outies male & folks wit innies female? [8\|] Wants, Gender Studies is Tweake's field. When she speaks on the topic I give her an attentive listen. The issue becomes complicated when you take account of transgendered folk. [:)] thought they could choose to be innies r outies too? [:)]

Aswad -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 10:11:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I used 'many' in an attempt at caution. Would 'few' have been a better choice? Yes. quote: Tweakabelle opened the door for him. I have not read his works obviously but rely on what I find written about his philosophy; second hand is always dangerous, I know. However, this remark from Wiki left me the impression that Deleuze was rather dodgy on classifications and is what lead me to ask Tweakabelle for clarification: What Deluze is dealing with in regard to what you mention is old news. Humans perceive by contrast, by differentiation, and secondarily by integrating observations, and tertiarily by making derivations. Mathematicians, cryptanalysts and some engineers have been dealing with the black box problem and other related issues for a very long time. Science has been dealing for ages with the idea that all models are ultimately approximations whose utility is predicated on their ability to make accurate predictions. I submit that if you've done any of those things, you should find most of what he said about this to be obvious and superficial. quote: Thank you. I have had some introduction to analysis and statistics. There doesn't seem to be a significant amount of data collected on terrorists, or do you disagree? There is limited data on terrorists. But not so limited that we can't make a lot of educated guesses. More data just allows us to refine the models, so we can make better educated guesses in the future. Really, I'm not sure why predictions aren't more accurate already. I mean, I guessed the source of the Oslo attacks at five possibilities (four of them "credible"), narrowed to three then two when the Utøya thing started unfolding, and the two I was left with turned out to both fit the attacker. I also guessed his motives, which were a mystery to the supposed experts, whereas I found it more of a mystery why his motives weren't obvious to everyone. Those were educated guesses based on security work, and based on observing Norwegian society, and paying attention while things were unfolding. I wasn't the only one making the correct guesses on record, so not just a fluke, either. IWYW, — Aswad.

Kirata -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 10:23:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Gender Studies is Tweake's field. When she speaks on the topic I give her an attentive listen. Be that as it may, there seems to remain a problem here. It is embodied in the following statement by Tweak from her post to Aswad: One thing that does emerge clearly is that we have very different understandings of what humans are. You are relaxed attributing various aspects of human behaviour to 'human nature', as though there is some kind of essence-given-in-Nature (eg behavioural genetic inheritance, biological predisposition) that we all share. I don't share that perspective at all, either in your main argument or in the example offered (sexuality). The fact of the matter, of course, is that there is indeed an "essence-given-in-Nature" both with regard to human beings in general and also with regard to male and female human beings. Male and female brains are unlike in size, structure, and wiring. These are not differences without consequences. Deeper than this, our sense of fairness has been described as "innate." From earliest infancy we react negatively to being treated unfairly. And as our frontal lobes mature, mirror neurons develop which endow us with empathy, rendering us naturally compassionate toward those with whom we empathize. These are built-ins. They are part of the "essence-given-in-Nature" of a human being. Dismissing them from our "perspective" turns us down a non-reality based path to a predictable result. Garbage in, garbage out. K.

vincentML -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 11:35:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Thank you for helping me understand your position. Previous postings of yours left me with the idea that you rejected classifications. I refer particularly to our discusion of gender differences. Now, I have your position more clearly understood, I think [:D] vin has anyone refuted tha big ole theory that gender difference is bout some folks having outies & other folks (folkettes?) having innies & that outta politeness we call folks wit outies male & folks wit innies female? [8\|] Wants, Gender Studies is Tweake's field. When she speaks on the topic I give her an attentive listen. The issue becomes complicated when you take account of transgendered folk. [:)] thought they could choose to be innies r outies too? [:)] Somehow the choice of identity is made for them. It is the accoutrements that are often faulty or mismatched. [:)]

vincentML -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 11:49:50 AM)
quote: What Deluze is dealing with in regard to what you mention is old news. Humans perceive by contrast, by differentiation, and secondarily by integrating observations, and tertiarily by making derivations. Mathematicians, cryptanalysts and some engineers have been dealing with the black box problem and other related issues for a very long time. Science has been dealing for ages with the idea that all models are ultimately approximations whose utility is predicated on their ability to make accurate predictions. I submit that if you've done any of those things, you should find most of what he said about this to be obvious and superficial. I have no brief with your pov. I am foremost a science oriented person. But, Deleuze posits that philosophy and art are alternate methods and epistemologies of knowing. I find that interesting. There is something to be said for experience and intuition, although I do not hold them equal to presenting a falsifiable hypothesis to be tested. But then, maybe it depends on the knowledge being pursued. quote: I also guessed his motives, which were a mystery to the supposed experts, whereas I found it more of a mystery why his motives weren't obvious to everyone. Those were educated guesses based on security work, and based on observing Norwegian society, and paying attention while things were unfolding. Not to dismiss your acumen by any means but my interest would be in seeking out 'tells' before the violent act. What are the commonalities? How can we predict the probabilities, etc.? Maybe, given the complexity of human behaviours that is asking too much.

vincentML -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 12:18:47 PM)
quote: The fact of the matter, of course, is that there is indeed an "essence-given-in-Nature" both with regard to human beings in general and also with regard to male and female human beings. Male and female brains are unlike in size, structure, and wiring. These are not differences without consequences. I agree there is an essential primative animalness that lies beneath the thin surface of our learning and motives. We are born gasping for breath and we die and decompose just like all other animals. In between we carry some animal nature that is modified by tribal interaction just as the nature of individuals is modified in every other pack or herd. However, I am unable to find any social mechanism that can explain the behaviour of the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world. The question fascinates me. Where do our monsters come from? I buy that there is a spectrum of fetish and deviant behaviour that might be the result of early eroticism. But Dahmer's fetish is so far out on the tails of distribution, it has me baffled. I found this article (caveat: it involves the promotion of a book) that seems to lend some support to Aswad's notion of risk takers, in addition to other biological commonalities: "First, what do we know more generally about the biology of violence more generally? Something as simple as a low resting heart rate is a surprisingly well-replicated characteristic of aggressive and violent behavior and reflects a lack of fear. Bomb disposal experts have lower resting heart rates than soldier controls. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, had a low resting heart rate at 54 beats per minute. Some offenders are literally coldblooded, heartless killers." But also: In this causal context, it’s a toxic mix of both biological and social processes that in combination explain violence–a “biosocial” interaction. The upbringing of the two suspects with a disrupted home environment, the stress of immigration and acculturation, and social alienation likely conspired with biological predisposing factors, set against a wider backdrop of social disenchantment and political ideology. Biology alone will never explain mass killings and terrorism. But in the final analysis we may need to look beyond the usual social suspects to gain a more complete understanding of what makes violent offenders tick. The article is an interesting read, I think. What Made the Boston Bombers Do It

Aswad -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 5:46:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML There is something to be said for experience and intuition, although I do not hold them equal to presenting a falsifiable hypothesis to be tested. Nature has a tendency to arrive at nearly optimal solutions over time. Our brains are probably close to optimal for what they do, which is to say they are probably close to optimal for the tasks we encounter in our lives. As such, I think you shouldn't hold rigorous science as a sort of holy grail, but rather as a valuable complement, another tool in the toolbox. quote: But then, maybe it depends on the knowledge being pursued. In most fields, a mix of intuition, experience and rational method (e.g. science) is the best route to getting somewhere. quote: Not to dismiss your acumen by any means but my interest would be in seeking out 'tells' before the violent act. The "tells" of individual perps? Or the societal signs that an attack is likely to happen soon? I hope you're not suggesting we arrest people before they start to commit a crime? quote: Maybe, given the complexity of human behaviours that is asking too much. I don't think so. The main problem is that it's often tacit knowledge. If you want to ponder it, try starting out by thinking about how you would go about it yourself. Put yourself in the shoes of a terrorist. Figure out what cause you would choose if you had to choose one, the one that would come closest to being justifiable (either in your mind, or to some minority), or the one which moves you the most in a negative direction (or does so for a minority). Figure out what target you would hit, and how. Repeat this exercise for several different sources of terrorism, several different goals and targets, and you'll get a feeling for what is what. Repeat it again for the same ones a bit later, when the experience of the first exercise has sunk in. Factor in what competency you perceive to be present in plausible sources of terrorism. I could walk you through how that would work out for Norway, prior to 2011-07-22? IWYW, — Aswad.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625