Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
You seem to be stating that violence is something inherent in masculinity.
No, I'm saying it's something inherent in humanity, and that men are historically and crossculturally better at it. A recent piece even indicated that the reason we have hands that can handle tools (and thus originating a world that can have less violence in it) is because our hands have adapted to punch better. Heck, I would go so far as to say that it's inherent in all life, as a quick glance at any nature show will tell you (or a quick round to the doctor: penicillin is how P. notatum etc. do violence to bacteria).
quote:
To my knowledge, no one has ever demonstrated a causal relationship between maleness and violence, despite innumerable attempts to do so.
I contend that a causal relationship has been supported, but not proven, between maleness and high risk tolerance, which appears to be a major determinant of actual violence. I contend that a strong correlation between testosterone and (for the males) physical violence or (for the females) emotional violence has been established. I also contend that a correlation is very well established for the 18 to 24 age group, though I further contend that this is tied to risk, not aggression.
quote:
IOW, this approach rests on wholly unproven foundations.
The approach rests in a few millenia of adaptation.
No other species has maladapted and survived without intervention by humans to the extent that you seem to be suggesting that humans themselves have. I'll refer you to the point that, as a rule, carnivorous species are more intelligent than herbivores, largely because the arms race requires adaptations which, it turns out, have secondary utility in other areas (e.g. empathy; crafting and use of tools; visual-spatial proficiency). This has even been touched on by Dr. Michio Kaku, that predators need to be more intelligent.
Essentially, violence is intrinsic to our condition as the only species on this planet to be capable of substantially altering our own environment and adapting ourselves on subgenerational timescales, and in order to have been successful, we've needed to adapt, to develop a culture that is compatible with our own natures. A trend, I might add, we've only recently began to substantially change.
quote:
Another major problem is having to account for the behaviour of most males, who are not violent, despite the suggestion that they are "honed for violence' by "nature". The reason for this is that violence isn't inherent in masculinity, they aren't violent by nature.
You seem to be confusing violence with "being violent".
How do we account for the behavior of outliers? Do we propose that they are genuine exceptions? Or that they are what happens if you input certain variables into the same formula that runs everything else? Simplicity dictates that most men have the potential for violence (seems to be well supported in military studies and criminology; this is part of the foundation of the socioeconomic theories of crime, which you've supported elsewhere), and that it can be harnessed in very different ways (e.g. compare Norwegian and US military behavior in Afghanistan), depending on training (e.g. rearing) and environment (e.g. freedom and socioeconomic factors).
Ishtar commented that «Feminization has only made the violence more random, explosive and less goal focused.» and it's something to think about in the context of this. A back of envelope review: global net violence decreasing; American net violence decreasing; gun crime decreasing; mass murder unchanged; random mass murder increasing. Correcting for the socioeconomic developments and freedom of choice, then you get a global zero residual, with mass murder increasing residual and random mass murder accelerating residual. That's precisely the sort of excursion she was suggesting will follow, but if you have some other time matched factor that will account for it, I'm all ears, because mental illness is insufficient from what I can see (and a strong correlate of socioeconomic factors in the first place).
The reason I mention it, is because it's an observation that matches what I've seen in growing up at a time when there was a substantial change in this regard, with rearing styles between my peers representing a sort of diachronic sample, which continues to match with what I see in the local media, what I hear talking to people, what I see observing people, and so forth. The ones with the most solid grip on the stick seem to be the ones least inclined to swing it.
quote:
So it's unlikely we'll ever see eye to eye on that issue.
I'm interested in models that match with the observables. If your model does, it's likely we will see eye to eye.
quote:
In all fields of human endeavour and behaviour, humans performance will exhibit a diversity of results. So even the best training program that any one may be able to devise will produce a range of outcomes. We can predict those outcomes across a broad group but it's far more difficult to predict outcomes in an individual.
Which is where feedback is useful. Call it evolution if you like. Or quality assurance. Gives a positive trend over time.
And, yes, as you say, some people are indeed better than others.
quote:
In your scheme of things, adherence to code acts as a defence against undesired outcomes.
Defense isn't what I have in mind at all. I don't work in negatives. Nobody should, beyond very early childhood. I work in positives. This is a crucial difference. You want to reduce violence. I don't. To use a medical analogy: you're trying to advocate a reduction in drug use and/or surgeries, while I'm advocating correct and prompt treatment with less mistakes. And, to illustrate the difference, let's consider DUI. Alcohol takes away inhibitions. Yet, some people you can leave the car keys with, even if they're drunk. This is because it's not inhibitions that "scare them away". It's their sense of self worth and respect for themselves and others that leaves them without the impulse that needs inhibiting.
Don't try to curb violence. Try to make sure it's correctly applied.
In a healthy society, violence is rarely called for, so the rest sorts itself out nicely.
quote:
Adherence to a code can be taught, but in the end, it's up to the individual to voluntarily observe that code.
Of course. Always. And part of that is teaching a code properly. Not as a collection of black and white rules, but as a set of values and ideals that interact, with priorities, on an additive basis. The key isn't to take away all the problems with a human in order to be left with a flawless one. The key is to add a better human to the blank slate we're born with, and to keep refining that human throughout life. I've talked about this at length elsewhere, in the context of the Nietzschean divide between "ignoble" and "noble", which correlates well with this.
Homo sapiens is an animal. You can leash it, sure. Or you can turn it into a human being, a person.
Being a person is voluntary. Having had a taste of it, would you choose not to be? Ever?
quote:
Just one or two everyday examples - the prisons contain large numbers of individuals who were police officers - people trained to uphold the law - who chose a less honest path, who broke the code.
They broke the law. Don't confuse laws with codes.
quote:
Or priests and pedophilia
That's what you get when you try to curb something, instead of building better humans.
quote:
The most effective terrorists tend to be those who previously received military training.
Hardly. Breivik, for instance, was rejected at "session" (the interview process that occurs as part of conscription here in Norway; incidentally, we'll get more data now, since women will be conscripted the same as men from 2015). Most of the people I know that could be terrorists (under the right circumstances, such as the Nazi occupation; I don't maintain relationships with people that could be another Breivik) are pretty decent people. The most dangerous ones among them were never in the military. Several could bring this country to its knees without assistance. Let's hope I'm right, since those also have the kind of values I advocate. Many of them work to keep this country safe.
quote:
What's to say that training people in controlled violence won't end up training more effective more dangerous criminals and terrorists?
Stop thinking in terms of leashing violence, and start thinking in terms of putting violence in an appropriate context, as the natural extension of- and final step in- enforcing boundaries. That's what it's ultimately about. "You shall not pass", or, "This shall not stand". In its natural context, violence is rarely necessary in the absence of an external aggressor, and properly understood, is not reached for.
As I've said in the past, Ghandi was an expert in violence, in setting and enforcing boundaries. He drew a line in the sand for the British. As it should usually be, the British were left with the choice as to whether or not violence was effectuated. As is usually the case when people have a grasp of it, they chose not to cross the line. If they had, they would have been torn limb from limb. Ghandi knew that. The British knew that. Violence is the best form of non-violence.
quote:
And if violence is inherent as you claim, then it would seem impossible to prevent such perverse outcomes.
Only if you see violence as a beast that must be leashed, rather than just another facet of humanity.
We've lived with humanity for millenia, and been tried and tested again and again.
A constant has been this: denying ourselves leads to perversion.
quote:
People tend to like the things they are good at. The prospect of training a small number of unhinged individuals to be 'good' at violence is a scary one.
Unhinged individuals cannot be good at violence. They can be violent, and they can be good at harming, injuring and killing people, but they cannot be good at violence. I'm supposedly fairly good at violence. I don't like it. Not the part you call violence. I like setting and enforcing my own boundaries, and have a clear idea of where they are. Most of the time, people don't violate those boundaries. And enforcing them starts with conversation, as a rule. When that fails, it's time to escalate. But what you call violence is the final link in that chain, not the first. And the presence of that link is usually a key determinant in whether a predator will respect the boundaries you set, something more women could stand to learn.
I don't find the idea of people good at violence scary at all. I find the idea of people clueless about violence to be what you'd call scary, though. Those are generally the ones that'll get you killed, maimed, injured, raped or otherwise violated. Usually needlessly. Oftentimes randomly.
So, yeah, I'm quite comfortable with my cave-dwelling kin.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Young Men and Mass Violence - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread