The first problem with criticizing the obsession du jour is how do you tell people to ignore the Obsession du jour without drawing attention to it. This wouldn’t be a problem if we had a good media that was trying to keep the publics attention on important subjects but we don’t. 

Joanne Scaglione, James Garbarino and Ellen deLara are doing research on how to prevent bullying which leads to an enormous amount of violence including school violence. If the public was aware of this they could make a lot of improvements based on decisions made with accurate research. But instead of reporting on this the media is focusing on the obsession du jour.

Dorothy Otnow Lewis and Lonnie Athens have been doing research into what turns people into dysfunctional serial killers. This confirms the work done by other researchers and they have found that most if not all mass murderers have been badly abused as children and often they have also been subject to bullying and other unreasonable treatment before they became violent mass murderers. This indicates that by reducing child abuse and bullying crime can be dramatically be reduced. But instead of reporting on this the media is focusing on the obsession du jour.

Jimmy Briggs and Peter W. Singer are investigating child soldiers and how to stop armies from forcing children into fighting wars. They are also investigating how to rehabilitate these children. But instead of reporting on this the media is focusing on the obsession du jour.

Richard Gabriel and others have been trying to develop more improved ethics for war to minimize the damage done by it although they recognize the only true way to implement true ethics is to minimize or eliminate war. The Peace Corp, Seeds of peace, Habitat for Humanity and other organizations have been looking for more peaceful ways to settle differences. But instead of reporting on this the media is focusing on the obsession du jour.

Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton discovered the laws of planetary motion and the basics of physics. There are still an enormous amount of science fiction stories and alleged science fact stories that contradict this but instead of reminding the public of this the media is focusing on the obsession du jour.

There has been a long history of floods and other natural disasters that have been followed up by research into how to minimize the damage of these disasters. Some of these researchers have worked on better ways to build secure dams when necessary that can hold up to disasters. Some of these researchers have pointed out the simple fact that if you don’t build in a flood zone you are much less likely to be flooded out. Some researchers have found ways to build earthquake proof buildings but instead of reporting on this the media is focusing on the obsession du jour.

There have been plenty of studies indicating how much pollution contributes to diseases including lung cancer and many other cancers. There have been efforts to discover alternative ways of obtaining electricity and other necessities. Many of these efforts don’t involve much if any more cost than existing methods. In most case if you figure in the unacknowledged costs the existing methods are already much more expensive than the alternatives. There have been some stories about these in the media but not many mostly the media is focusing on the obsession du jour.

There have been plenty of studies on the damage caused by gambling. Some people have simply looked at the fact that in order for gambling industries to make a profit they must first cover expenses then profits before returning the remainder to the winner. In stead of pointing out the obvious fact that all gambling industries are fixed the media is focusing on the obsession du jour.

Joy Behar says “Out with the old brainwashing demagogues delivering the obsession du jour in with the new kinder gentler demagogues delivering the obsession du jour.”  Or something like that; those are the words I heard even if they aren’t the ones she used.

The media is keeping the naïve and intellectually lazy members if the public distracted. They are using this method to evade any rational accountability for themselves as well as the government and other institutions. They don’t completely control what people think but they do have a major influence on what subject they are thinking about at least. For many members of the public they also have a major influence on how they portray any particular subject.

This will continue to happen as long as the public allows them to get away with it. Most of the public is to naïve to pull themselves away from the influence of the Mass Media. There are some that have the independence to look for information on their own. The rest need some help at least until they develop a stringer will of their own. They may receive help from some of their friends if they are so inclined to point them in the right direction. This isn’t a guarantee since many of peoples “friends” are just as misguided as them. We need a better set of checks and balances where people listen to different points of view and a media that is at least trying to focus on the most important issues of the day and the basic principle of a large number of different subjects that are being ignored. The Mass Media is being controlled by to small a group of people and they are more concerned about manipulating the public for their own purposes than educating them.

Until the public can take the initiative to educate themselves we will never have a truly free press.

For the full HTML version of this blog with table of context see:

https://zakherys.tripod.com/nonviolence.htm

Posted by zakherys at 12:29 PM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 14 October 2010 12:17 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Violence is often regarded more as entertainment more than it is as something that is horrible and avoided in the most effective way possible. This is often done in more subtle ways by many people that arte shocked by violence and truly want to prevent it. The use of violence for entertainment purposes is promoted largely by the mass media but this isn’t something new. Before the mass media was established in its current state violence has been used as entertainment in mythology for thousands of years. What is relatively new is the way new technology is drilling it into our culture on a massive scale that reaches a much larger audience.

The Mass Media is using violence as entertainment not only in movies and sitcoms but in the news and shows that are presented as objective even if that pretense is extremely weak. Some of these shows claim to be advocating victim rights but they are clearly more concerned about raising ratings and stirring up people’s emotions. This isn’t limited to entertainment it is also used for political reasons. By stirring up emotions they are using the way violence is portrayed to encourage even more violence and in many cases as war propaganda. Adolph Hitler wrote about how violence can be used as war propaganda and many people learned to recognize how he did it but there are still very many more subtle ways and other not so subtle ways that continue to be overlooked.

The Mass Media is using violence for profit. Not only do they sell a lot of videos but they also use it as a great advertising draw. They are making a steadily growing amount of profit without doing much if anything to explain to the public how to avoid violence. They could use their position to help get the messages from qualified researchers like Garbarino, Lewis etc but instead they give much more attention to demagogues who manipulate the public. Robert W. McChesney explained in his book “The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the twenty-first century” 2004 how the Mass Media is dominated by a few large players and they may have increased their rights to copyrights to stories about true life cases of violence so that certain player can buy the rights to sell the story of high profile crimes. When Pamela Smart went on trial there were several bad movies that rushed to the TV screens to take advantage of the high interest in the subject. Since then there has been some media reform but not to help get messages across from researchers that are sincerely interested in teaching the public how to avoid violence but to protect copyrights. The goal of this legislation seems to be to protect the rights to earn profit regardless of what information is or isn’t provided about avoiding violence.

The use of violence as entertainment is often presented as informative or educational material. This raises the question of how can you tell informative or educational material apart from entertainment material or if they can serve both purposes. If they serve both purposes I don’t see much problem although it may not seem quite right but if it serves only for entertainment it shouldn’t be passed of as educational. The most important way of recognizing the difference is to determine whether it helps the public understand the issue and how to prevent violence in the most effective way possible or at least the most effective way the producer of the material knows how to do. If the producer of the material is doing the best he knows how to but it isn’t very good then it is important to recognize that and either give those that do a better job a chance or educate the producer of insufficient material. Educational material that is designed to inform the public in the most effective way possible needs to be organized in the most effective way possible and it needs to be designed to find out what the cause of violence is and how to prevent it.

Organizing information in the most effective way starts by making sure there is always an index in books. Any other organization advantages including source notes etc. will also be helpful. Books like Ann Rules don’t have them and they read more like a novel. This seems to be designed more for entertainment purposes and possibly propaganda purposes. They often tend to exaggerate the indifference of the perpetrator and downplay the abuse the perpetrator may have received as a child. Anything that is designed to distort perception to present a strong bias isn’t educational. There is a very strong tendency amongst many people perhaps a large majority to exaggerate the crimes of those perceived as monsters or perverts. This is usually unnecessary since the crimes that they committed are usually bad enough to make the point without exaggeration. There is also a tendency to downplay anything that could be considered mitigating. These tendencies are both counterproductive when it comes to preventing violence since the most effective way to prevent violence requires an accurate perception of reality. This is true regardless of how much punishment the guilty should receive since prevention should be designed primarily those that haven’t committed crimes at all mainly children. The concern about punishment routinely distorts perception and impairs to understand and prevent violence.

Many people look at violence more as a hobby where they try to figure out who done it. This creates a culture where many people trade ideas to solve crimes but more often than not there is no more than a token of discussion about the events that lead up to the crime itself. When previous events are discussed it is usually the events immediately preceding the event and rarely abusive upbringing that is among the most important contributive causes to crime. When abusive upbringing is discussed it is usually as a mitigating circumstance and not as a cause that can be recognized and prevented in the future. A modest amount of education might change the direction of these discussions and lead to much more productive ideas about preventing crime. If this happens violence as entertainment or who done it hobbies can be turned into productive prevention ideas.

For the full HTML version of this blog with table of context see:

https://zakherys.tripod.com/nonviolence.htm

Posted by zakherys at 12:22 PM EDT

Updated: Friday, 23 October 2009 12:31 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

When a child is abused they may become very insecure and they may be more inclined to latch onto any kind of hope in many cases it may be a false hope. This leads to beliefs in quick fix solutions like religions, the lottery and get rich quick schemes. People who become insecure are much more likely to follow the crowd and become independent on others for support. In the moist extreme cases they may suffer from black outs. What is much more common is people who are easily distracted by trivial things like the “Balloon boy” that just made the media obsession list.

More common behavior tends to include the lottery and religious beliefs that doesn’t include much if any scrutiny. Wishful thinking and lack of determination encourages shallow behavior that is often counterproductive. It also leads people to follow the crowd and believe what they are told without scrutiny. People like this often accept stories they are told about without scrutiny and make little or no effort to sort out the truth from fiction in a story put out by the leaders of society that they are predisposed to listen to. Some facts are very easy to figure out like the fact that the lottery has to be fixed in favor of the house in order to survive and prosper they must first cover expenses then cover profit before giving back winnings to the public. The existence of this massive industry is evidence of an enormous amount of shallow behavior and wishful thinking. There is also a big problem with people that accept political arguments without thorough scrutiny. An example would be the Health care reform proposals that have been presented to the public without addressing many of the basics. I addressed this in the previous entry about violent town hall meetings. By providing package proposals without organizing them in a reasonable way whether it is health care on any other issue it makes it tougher for the public to sort out the details. It is much easier to shut it out and trust the “experts”. The problem is if the experts were so credible they would have done a better job presenting their work so the public could understand it and they wouldn’t need to rely solely on the experts.

Child abuse and sexual abuse is often denied and the memories suppressed because it isn’t socially acceptable to bring them out into the open in many cultures. These abuses are much more common than people realize. In many cases when they are brought out into the open it may seem like it is getting much worse when what is actually happening is that abuse that has been happening all along is just being brought out into the open. When this happens there is a tendency by many people to blame those that bring it out into the open but this only prevents people from acknowledging the problem and fixing it. In the most extreme cases this may be brought out in criminal trials by defense lawyers to argue mitigating circumstances and this is often met with the claim that the abuse abuses are made up to justify their crimes. Many researchers including Dorothy Otnow Lewis and James Garbarino have found that this isn’t true. Defendents are usually very reluctant to use it as a defense and often deny it happens at all. In many cases they only find out about the abuse as a result of determined investigators that search for independent evidence. There is also a great deal of denial when holding leaders accountable including parents and religious leaders. The Catholic priest scandal is a classic example that continues to face efforts to deny or downplay the events. There is a great deal of reluctance to hold parents accountable for the actions of their kids because they can’t see a direct cause and effect. It is rarely ever so obvious that a direct cause and effect can be detected and proved. What is much more common is an environment of abuse and neglect that teaches abusive behavior.

Another common example of denial is the constant demand for justice focusing primarily on punishment and very little on extensive research. The people calling for justice are often as angry as the perpetrators of violence. These people don’t realize that in many cases the perpetrators  started out calling for justice then when they didn’t obtain what they thought was fair they took matters into their own hands. There are of course many other cases where they gave up and stopped caring so the violence they committed is clearly unjustifiable; however that doesn’t mean it is unexplainable.

In more extreme cases it leads to black outs and suppressed memories about abuse and in the most extreme cases it may lead to psychological conditions like schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder. Cornelia Wilbur and Dorothy Otnow Lewis have both done research into this and concluded that it is real and the result of serious child abuse. There are some critics that claim that multiple personality disorder is not a real disorder in some cases they say it is being faked for the benefit of criminal defense.  This may be true in some cases but there is evidence of some kind of disorder that precedes the need for this claim as a defense. Even some of the critics claim that the child abuse still leads to psychological problems and if they are faking it to an extreme degree that would be somewhat insane itself. So this would indicate the alternative is something with the appearance of multiple personality disorder.

The most effective way of dealing with this is to address child rearing in a consistent and rational manner from the beginning. This involves teaching them to sort through details from an early age without excessive pressure. This means taking the time to help them along and in some cases allowing them to sort out their own mistakes within reason.

For the full HTML version of this blog with table of context see:

https://zakherys.tripod.com/nonviolence.htm

Posted by zakherys at 1:41 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 19 October 2009 11:53 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The Mass Media isn’t even trying to do a good job. They are controlled by a very small percentage of the population. Some of the problems with the Media have been clearly defined in a book by Robert W. McChesney “The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the twenty-first century” 2004. He describes how only five media companies control the vast majority of media outlets. They are forbidden from collusion officially but unofficially they meet with each other at board meetings for other companies supposedly unrelated to the media on a regular basis. They don’t pay for the use of the airwaves nor are they required to give most members of the public a chance to have air time. Some of the few ways to influence the Mass Media is to boycott it or write congressmen. They can and do routinely ignore these methods. They have an enormous influence over the vast majority of the public. A lot of this influence is a result of right wing talk radio which receives preferential treatment by the Mass Media. Bernard Goldberg claims to expose this media Bias in his book “Bias: a CBS insider exposes how the media distorts the news.” He is actually even more biased than the Mass Media and after he was ignored for a while he has been promoted by Fox as an expert at exposing the Mass Media. This should raise major alarm bells. If a Nazi was claiming to expose Hitler would you trust him? If Fox was truly as concerned about reforming media they would start by changing their own practices not claiming every one else is worse. The success of democracy is supposed to be based on the free press. This issue was originally raised when the governments controlled the media. Now there are a small number of companies controlling the media and the vast majority of the public doesn’t fully understand how biased the Mass Media is or how much it influences the public. We need serious Media reform so that there is input from the public and preferential treatment should be given to those that do accurate research and do a good job showing the work. This doesn’t mean that the rest of the people shouldn’t have a say in how the media is run but if I want to know about a particular subject I want to hear from people who have done research not just talking heads who are constantly changing positions and not keeping track of the work behind it or trying to correct contradictions.

This is especially bad when it comes to dealing with violence. Violence is routinely used to manipulate people’s emotions and accomplish goals for special interests. The Mass Media spends little if any time telling the public what the true causes for violence is. They spend much more time using demagogues like Nancy Grace to manipulate the public.

We may not be able to get Media reform right away but in the mean time we can do a better job setting a better example for the Mass Media. This could start with creating alternative Media outlets and drawing more attention to them. With the internet some of this has already happened but it isn’t nearly enough. One of the biggest alternative media outlets available is Wikipedia which is edited by the public. This gives the public an opportunity to set a better example but in order for them to do this they will first have to learn how to do a better job themselves. Wikipedia is currently discussing ways to reform what they are doing. This is a good idea and it is a good opportunity to improve the direction of wikipedia and recruit new users. They are doing a lot of good work but they still have some problems to work out. One problem is how to weed out political objectives that are contrary to the best interest of the majority. In order to improve this it will require more participation from the majority of the public. The public will also have to learn to understand how the media works better and how special interests manipulate the media. They need to spend more time checking sources. In some cases they do this very well but in other cases where there are people on Wikipedia with political agendas it doesn’t work quite so well. One example of this is school violence. Wikipedia has many articles about school violence but very little about prevention. I tried to improve this myself but was unable to accomplish much because of disputes with others in some cases it seems as if the issue of gun control may be part of the problem. There is more about the discussion on gun control in wikipedia than there is about research done by people with the appropriate educational background. There are plugs for politicians and a comment from Ted Nugent about how we need more armed people but when I attempted to provide sourced material from people I considered qualified researchers they were referred to as advocacy and un-encyclopedic. I may not be the best writer on wikipedia but I believe that much more can be done to improve the way this subject is addressed. The assumption that preventing violence based on academic sources should be banned from wikipedia but political speech should go unchallenged seems unreasonable to me. I’m not opposed to presenting alternative view but when Ted Nugent receives as much attention if not more than scholars who research the subject that seems biased to me. I believe that an encyclopedia should provide more priority for academic sources than political sources. This is supposed to be about academic work so that politicians can use the information to make their decisions not the other way around. When politicians or commentators decide what is true then the researchers search for evidence to prove they are right this strikes me as highly unscientific.

The media could do a better job by providing more information from academic researchers about the circumstances that lead up to violent acts which usually involve other less serious violent acts and child abuse. They could give them much more air time than they do instead of the demagogues. In the mean time wikipedia and independent blogs and news outlets can set a better example. Wikipedia as well as other outlets can provide more information from credible sources like James Garbarino, Joanne Scaglione and many others. In addition to the ones I have cited here and elsewhere I’m sure there are many more that I haven’t checked. It is just a matter of looking for them. The problem is that many people have already made their decisions based on information that they have received from demagogues. There needs to be a better effort to teach people about how demagogues manipulate the public as well.

There doesn’t appear to be many people at wikipedia who are interested in providing more information about prevention. There is plenty of academic work to provide good information about prevention and the rules of wikipedia usually gives preferential treatment to academic work. The exception seems to be when there is political opposition. When this happens it can be countered with political support. The benefit in the long term could be very large if it helps to advance public understanding of the problem and how to solve it. The invitation for discussion by Jimmy Wales and Michael Snow is welcome and I hope it leads to improvements in wikipedia. Wikipedia has a lot of potential but it can’t be any better than its contributors and that is the general public. This virtually guarantees’ that there will be a significant amount of disagreement. The public is in my opinion not as educated as they could or should be and this can’t be fixed quickly. It will surely be long effort to correct superstitions. This requires a long term education project which many educational institutions may have to help with. Wikipedia can be one of them.

To read the invitation for discussion by Jimmy Wales and Michael Snow see:

http://volunteer.wikimedia.org/

For my recommended article see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zacherystaylor/preventing_school_violence

For a proposal submitted about setting a better example see:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Set_better_example_for_Mass_Media

For more about how Wikipedia can be reformed check Wikipedia out for yourself or read the following: 

https://zakherys.tripod.com/wikipedia_censorship.htm

For the full HTML version of this blog with table of context see:

https://zakherys.tripod.com/nonviolence.htm  

Posted by zakherys at 12:56 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 6 November 2010 10:58 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

 The following sites have been recommended by various authors of violence prevention book. If you would like to sugest a site to add please do so in the comments section.

* http://www.prepareinc.com
* http://www.yellodyno.com
* http://www.al-anon.alateen.org
* http://www.civitas.org
* http://www.ncvc.org
* http://www.parentpacks.com
* http://www.missingkids.com
* http://www.ncmec.org
* http://www.ymca.net
* http://www.soccer.org
* http://www.littleague.org
* http://www.autism-society.org
* http://www.fullpower.org
* http://www.paxusa.org
* http://www.gdbinc.org

* http://www.aclu-sc.org/school.html
* http://www.ncpc.orgeduleo5.htm
* http://www.cfchildren.org
* http://www.nea.org/issues/safescho.
* http://www.character.org
* http://www.edweek.org
* http://www.edletter.org
* http://www.nssc1.org
* http://www.ncsu.edu/cpsu
* http://www.safechild.org/bullies.htm
* http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/violence/index.htm
* http://www.dropoutprevention.org
* http://www.nassp.org
* http://umn.edu/~serve
* http://www.search-institute.org
* http://www.safeschools.org
* http://www.aauw.org
* http://www.edc.org/HHD/hatecrime/id1_homepage.htm
* http://www.ed.gov/pubs/HateCrime/start.html
* http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Harassment
* http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Harassment/climate1.html
* http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/02-1994/parent.html
* http://www.tolerance.org
* http://www.dontlaugh.org
* http://www.pflag.org
* http://www.apa.org
* http://www.naswdc.org
* http://www.glsen.org/templates/index.html
* http://www.cwla.org
* http://www.learningpt.org/
* http://npin.org/index.html
* http://www.trauma-pages.com/
* http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/uslgbt

* http://www.naeyc.org
* http://www.childabuse.org
* http://www.patnc.org
* http://www.crimeprevention.org
* http://www.misterrogers.org
* http://www.teenchallenge.com
* http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/0904/sprj.sch.bullying.prevention.ap
* http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050420091955.htm
* http://www.fightingcrime.org
* http://www.isafe.org
* http://www.josephoninstitute.org/Survey2000/violence2000-commentary.htm
* http://www.talkingwithkids.org/nickelodeon/pr-3-8-01.htm
* http://parentingteens.about.com/cs/bullying/a/bullying.htm
* http://www.safeyouth.org
* http://www.bullybeware.com/index.html
* http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050411100940.htm
* http://schoolshooting.org/

Posted by zakherys at 2:54 PM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 8 October 2009 3:01 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

There have been experts expressing the idea that child abuse is a major contributing cause of adult violence for hundreds if not thousands of years. The problem is the message isn't getting through to the majority of the public. Some of the best organized research is the newest including work done by James Garbarino and Joanne Scaglione but others have done research much earlier. Alice Miller has done some of her most important work at least 20 years ago. Vincent Bugliosi has cited some research in the seventies that indicated that child abuse was a contributing cause of violence, there is even some work in the Warren report from 1964 that supports this concept. They described how rough upbringing made both Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby problem adults, even if the rest of the report proves to be flawed this part has been proven to be accurate. Sigmund Freud has done a lot of research on this subject over 80 years ago. A lot of the details of his work have been challenged but the fact that child abuse and bullying leads to latter abuse has only been reinforced. There is even work written by novelists up to at least 2 hundred years old supporting some of these solutions. Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe and Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens both support some of the conclusions on this page. These weren't written by psychologists but the novelists clearly knew more about human behavior than most people.

The problem is that the message that is getting through to the public is being controlled by people who cater to emotions and political beliefs more than to research. There are plenty of research papers that are being presented to the public but they are often contradictory and they are rarely explained in detail so that the public understands the work behind them. The beliefs the public seem most likely to adopt tend to be those that are repeated over and over again in a forceful way. These beliefs are rarely ever held up to appropriate scrutiny. What we need are more scholars that are communicating with the public in a better manner. There needs to be a better effort to explain to the public how these scholars come to their conclusions and the public needs top be taught to think things through instead of rushing to conclusions. As long as the information the public receives from the highest profile leaders and orators is designed to manipulate emotions without checking facts then efforts to prevent violence will be severely limited by ignorance.

Both Lonnie Athens and Dorothy Otnow Lewis wrote about some of the political obstacles the encountered when trying to investigate the causes of violent behavior. They both wrote about how in the 70s and early 80s there was little or no grant money available for this kind of research. Dorothy Otnow Lewis helped finance her work by taking legal fees for testifying in criminal trials. She often testified for the defense about mitigating circumstances. She was criticized for trying to earn money getting criminals off at times. This doesn’t seem to be a reasonable allegation since most of these criminal defendants had little money and some of the money she earned went to researching violence. There appears to have been more financial incentive for those who attempted to maintain the status quo which involves blaming the defendant and declining to look much farther for possible mitigating circumstances or for the true causes of violence and how to prevent them. Fortunately there seems to be some indication that this may be beginning to change. Some of the more recent books coming out seem to indicate that there may be more research going on into the subject.

One of the reasons that may have helped to spur the more recent research into the subject was the school shooting outbreak that began in the late nineties. This could be the only possible silver lining to these school shootings, as far as I can tell is that the only possible benefit that we could receive from them is to learn from our mistakes. Unfortunately the research still isn’t getting through to the majority of the public. There are more research books on the library shelves for those that care to look for them but the majority of the public doesn’t generally do this. The majority of the public still relies on the Mass Media for a lot of their information and the Mass Media isn’t trying to get this message across to the public. What we need is a better effort to get the message across to the public.

For the full HTML version of this blog with table of context see:

https://zakherys.tripod.com/nonviolence.htm

Posted by zakherys at 2:19 PM EDT

Updated: Friday, 2 October 2009 12:11 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The organization of information is underestimated by the majority of the public. This includes simple things that many of us take for granted. This isn't just limited to this blog and the subject of preventing violence. One of the most important things is simple indexes which a surprising number of books don't even have. Summations with hard facts that can be confirmed are also helpful. Organized source notes are helpful but they are often not done in reader friendly way. Sometimes many books include notes that should be in the text in addition to sources so you have to go back and forth which makes it harder for the reader. Chronologies, Acronyms, bibliographies and casts of characters are also helpful. If the publishers wanted to educate the public in the most efficient way possible they should already know this and they should already be doing a much better job. Yet they aren't either because they aren't trying enough or something else. Wikipedia and some independent web pages actually do a better job organizing information than the professional scholars in many cases.

This blog is organized in two different ways so that the reader can find information easier. The first is chronologically as most blogs are the second is according to subject matter with a table of context so that the reader can look at the overall context in a more organized manner. Most of the entries were made so they can be read as an individual blog entry so there is a lot of redundancy. Some of this redundancy may be weeded out of the html version at some point but the blog entries will remain intact since some people may read single entries. To read new entries check the blog version.

Researching the subject of violence prevention takes organization just like anything else. One of the ways to do this is to make a list of violent events and look in to the causes leading up to the events. This could include lists of mass murderers and school shootings and other violent events. Then a look into the upbringing of the perpetrators could help understand how they became violent. This is what some researchers like James Garbarino, Dorothy Otnow Lewis and many other academics have done. This research has also been done by some people like John Douglas and Vincent Bugliosi who are much harder line when it comes to punishment but they still agree that abusive childhoods helped lead people into criminal behavior and therefore improved childcare will help solve the problem. Improved statistics will help understand the subject and there are many ways that the researchers and publishers can improve the education of the public about how to prevent violence.

Good organization of information comes in handy when there is a dispute with people who disagree about the cause of violence. This is especially important when dealing with demagogues who cater to peoples emotions. Demagogues often ignore inconvenient facts and present multiple contradictory versions of the truth. They are more likely to get away with it when there are few records of the contradictions and people move on before anyone notices the contradictions. In order for the organizational skills to help it is important for people to take the time to sort through the facts.

For the full HTML version of this blog with table of context see:

https://zakherys.tripod.com/nonviolence.htm

Posted by zakherys at 10:45 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 1 October 2009 11:06 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The blame for something is most likely to be misplaced when someone jumps to conclusions without thinking things through. This is more likely to happen if someone never learns to think things through in the first place. People are not born knowing how to think things through they have to lean it based on what they are taught from their parents or whoever raises them. If their parents never learn how to think things through they can’t teach it to their children.

The blame for problems is often misplaced if the proper place for blame is those with more political power.  There is a long history of this because if you blame those in political power they may punish you. An old example of this is when the Romans persecuted the early Christians and they needed someone to blame so the blame shifted to the Jews. This was done because it was safer. In Jesus’ time supposedly he was a Jew and so were his followers so it doesn’t make sense that they were responsible for his death and the history says that it was the Romans that finally crucified him, however if they openly blamed the Romans they knew they would also be persecuted.

This is also common when a parent abuses a child, for example if a father abuses a son and is constantly complaining about blacks or Jews or some other group that he may dislike the some may learn early on that if he wants to receive positive feedback from his father he  should also blame the same group. If this works to obtain positive feedback and it is repeated often enough then the boy will believe it. In this case the boy’s prejudices will be developed as a way to obtain positive feedback instead of as a result of rational thought. If this starts early it may develop into a pattern. This is often the way many prejudices start. Once someone starts thinking this way they often react more to emotions and less to reason and they become much more difficult to deal with for other people. If you look closely I think you may find that many of the most widely spread prejudices are the result of indoctrination and abuse that people receive as a child. When Hitler was abused as a child he couldn’t strike out at his father who he learned to respect but was often told that the Jews were to blame. He didn’t become an anti Semite until he was older but  as a child the abuse made him very angry and he looked for someone to blame and he also developed a desire to avoid the abuse by becoming the one with the power. Many violent people start this way. They get the impression that the world is full of abusers and victims and they try to avoid being the victim by holding power over others and become the abusers.

It is very common for leaders to use misplaced blame to manipulate the public and divide them amongst themselves. One common example is the conflict among workers that often sets some workers against others. This is a very old tactic, when the dominate belief was that blacks were inferior the business leaders often claimed the blacks were the ones taking away jobs now they often blame it on illegal immigrants. The irony is that a close look will indicate that illegal aliens are guilty mostly of being born in the wrong country. The discussion about free trade is being dominated by the corporations in the press. What they rarely if ever mention is that they are in favor of equal trade but opposed to equal rights to a safe environment or worker rights. This results in a lot of misplaced blame.

Demagogues often use emotions to exaggerate prejudices and redirect the blame for any problems that may be occurring at any given time. They use this method to keep the crowd under their control. The biggest threat from demagogues isn’t the one you recognize from people like Hitler and Manson but the threat the people don’t recognize from those they admire and respect. This is why the public needs to do a better job keeping their leaders accountable. In order to catch misplaced blame it may be important to rethink some of the basics that may have been put above reproach. If these basics were accurate in the first place then they will hold up to thorough accurate scrutiny.

For the full HTML version of this blog with table of context see:

https://zakherys.tripod.com/nonviolence.htm

Posted by zakherys at 12:08 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 12 March 2011 12:30 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink